Difference between revisions of "Talk:Macroeconomics"
Roustabout (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
In the meantime, I see that the forest v trees analogy has also been judged pointless, so remarkably enough the entry's even *thinner* now in comparison with unicorns. It hasn't trotted out a crazy aunt in the attic like 'baramin' yet, though. | In the meantime, I see that the forest v trees analogy has also been judged pointless, so remarkably enough the entry's even *thinner* now in comparison with unicorns. It hasn't trotted out a crazy aunt in the attic like 'baramin' yet, though. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == New version == | ||
| + | So as it stands, I have done a fairly lightweight article for a real heavyweight topic, drawing only on my A level Economics knowledge. Perhaps someone with more insight/ qualifications could add to it? --[[User:TJ|Crookles]] 14:23, 3 March 2008 (EST) | ||
Latest revision as of 19:23, March 3, 2008
I didn't revert because I think the original version is good; I'm simply not qualified to comment on or improve the content. If you are, feel free to take a stab at it. Tsumetai 10:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
You're not qualified to recognize that a forest v trees analogy and a statement that the subjects of that analogy are opposites don't make sense taken together? You're far brighter than that.
In the meantime, I see that the forest v trees analogy has also been judged pointless, so remarkably enough the entry's even *thinner* now in comparison with unicorns. It hasn't trotted out a crazy aunt in the attic like 'baramin' yet, though.
New version
So as it stands, I have done a fairly lightweight article for a real heavyweight topic, drawing only on my A level Economics knowledge. Perhaps someone with more insight/ qualifications could add to it? --Crookles 14:23, 3 March 2008 (EST)