Talk:Harrod–Domar model

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Economics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

short version[edit]

The description given is the short version. In the long version there's also an expected rate of growth. E. -- 02:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Solow growth model[edit]

This is not a Harrod- Domar model. it looks more like a Solow growth model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aksana C (talkcontribs) 15:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. This article relates to the "textbook"-version of the Harrod-Domar model. Here we see a neoclassical relation between investment and saving (Saving determines the investment). However, Harrod and Domar build their arguments on Keynes, talking about the capacity effects of investment. In their approach, Investment can be distinct from Saving, which results in changes in the capacity utilization and the "growth on knife's edge". Steindl (1981) therefore calls the Solow (1956) interpretation of Harrod's and Domar's approaches a "freak". This is layed out comprehensively in Hein, E. (2014): Distribution and Growth after Keynes, A Post-Keynesian Guide, Chapter 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

math notation cleanup[edit]

I found this:


I changed it to this:

Notice (1) the different appearance of the period at the end (this may vary between browsers, but on mine, the problem with the first version is very conspicuous); and (2) the different appearance of "dlog"; that one should be conspicuous on all browsers; the first version is quite incorrect in standard TeX usage.

WP:MOSMATH does exist. Michael Hardy (talk) 10:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed the periods entirely. They are unnecessary and cause confusion when the dot notation is used for derivatives. I can revert the edit if anyone has a problem with this. KropotkinSchmopotkin (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]