![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The fourth reference is to Lucas (1976) p. 21. I'm however quite unsure if this actually is the relevant page to reference? Further, it does not seem that Lucas make direct references to microfoundations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.96.248 (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
There is a link on this page to 'microfoundations', but it actually goes to the article on microeconomics. Shouldn't there be an article specifically on microfoundations (the word microfoundations is not mentioned on the microeconomics page).
Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The following two paragraphs were inserted on Feb. 17, 2011. I deleted both, because they don't really seem valid or relevant, as stated. Also, they were not based on verifiable citations. Nonetheless, they seem like potentially interesting points, so I copy them here in case someone can provide the citations or improvements. Rinconsoleao (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
While both arguments seem weak, if we can find some published sources that make related points, that could be a useful addition to this page.
Dr. Smith has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
This is a perfectly adequate short introduction to the Lucas critique itself. However, it does not discuss the empirical relevance of the critique, though there are some references to the empirical literature. Given that the empirical literature on the Lucas critique is large and controversial, this is not surprising. Similarly, it rather takes for granted the importance of establishing micro-foundations, rather than trying to confront the difficulties of aggregation.
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Smith has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)