Talk:Ramsey–Cass–Koopmans model

This is only a start. I plan on expanding it/organizing it shortly.radek 03:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Solow growth model was created later than Ramsey's, shouldn't it be something like Solow GM is similar to Ramsey GM, not the other way around? AdamSmithee 08:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it should yes... MartinDK 13:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I rephrased it AdamSmithee 13:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Why the consumption elevated to aversion risk coefficient is reduced by one. I have the D.Romer book and it is not reduced by one. I have understood, that the equation is (c^(o-1))/(1-o) o= aversion risk coefficient . What is the use , of letting it by (c^(o-1)-1)/(1-o), why c-1?, c is an absolute variable, not a coefficient. Matias

It doesn't matter since utility is meant to be ordinal. When you take the derivative you get the same thing which is what's important. In general the 1 is included so that when you take the limit o-->infinity you get the log utility function. Without the 1 it doesn't work. So it doesn't matter but I believe with the 1 it's more precise. Romer's being a little bit sloppy.radek 18:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.1.66 (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to 'Ramsey-Cass-Koopmans model'

I propose that this page be renamed to 'Ramsey-Cass-Koopmans' models so that we can talk about both Ramsey's orginal version as well as the later versions with discounting and population growth. Jyotirmoyb (talk) 07:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there's a redirect in place for "Ramsey growth model" and "Ramsey model" I've got no objections. Certainly Cass and Koopmans should be mentioned in this article - I'd do it myself but I don't really have time to dig out the relevant HET literature on the subject at the moment.radek (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to make exactly the same proposal, just to find it now here on the discussion page. Why is the state as it is since now 1.5 years and nothing changed? Who can request the rename of the page? --AMH-DS (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because nobody but me (I'm same as above responder) pays attention to this article, and only then usually when something pops up. Anyone can request a rename and pretty much anyone can do the actual move. Since it appears that there's no objections, I'm going to go ahead and make the move.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I now technically, how it works in a wiki when one is administrator, but haven't researched here how to do it. Maybe I can contribute more in summer, when I should have more time. --AMH-DS (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Actually you don't have to be an administrator to move articles - just click that move tab on top.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's simply the point: I don't have one :) so I guess one needs a special status for that - or do you have another idea? --AMH-DS (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you do have to be autoconfirmed, which usually means at least ten edits, registered and at least ten days old. So you should have it. In some cases though my understanding is that if you're editing from an IP range where somebody caused trouble in the past, autoconfirmation requires 100 edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Percentage change

The use of percentage change in the text and the '%d' notation in the maths looks very odd to me. Is there a problem with just using change and the more recognizable 'd' notation? Just a thought. Robbiemorrison (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC). Also a '*' for multiplication is nonstandard. See ISO 31-11 for good practice. Robbiemorrison (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments: First, I have the impression the k is capital per worker AND per augmenting power A to arrive at given formula. Second, it is confusing to use c as normalized consumption but also as consumption quote. Third, r used in the dynamic equation is a kind of net interest rate ( net of depreciation AND of growth) so under optimazition is is not the same as r in r=R-δ. Rolandmarcel (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incompatibility in Cobb-Douglas function

It is not cleared why Cobb-Douglas function is y = k^a as entry in link says about Y = AL^b*K^a. It should be emphasised that y = Y/L, because Y/L = AL^b*K^a/L = AL^(b-1)*K^a = A/L^(1-b)*K^a = AK^a/L^(1-b) = A(K/L)^a = Ak^a, if b=1-a. Additionally if A=1 then y = k^a. Without such notations, the text is unintelligible. Besides it also unitelligible reason that interest rate is derived from y (product per worker), not Y (product). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.183.166.190 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Context

Is there any possibility of making this article more meaningful to non-economists? The problem is only partly the use of specialist language; you can follow the article as far as it goes and still not have any idea what the model really means. What was the historical prompt to produce it? Has adopting it affected any decisions and how? What are the assumptions of the two equations? Is there any evidence for (or against) the equations, the solution or the method? Is the discount rate meant to be derived empirically from psychology, ethics, or particular economies? Where does it break down, what are the criticisms and alternatives? Without more clarity it reads like differential calculus concerning angels in a pin factory. --Cedders^tk 21:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This would be helpful yes I agree. I am no expert but often these model are only there to describe something qualitatively with no intentions to make predictions from it. The solow model explained why economies grow at different paces but didn't say anything about consumption. This model now has consumption. Both models are simplistic and made for qualitative theoretic research. 141.76.69.115 (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]