Talk:Goldilocks economy

This page was proposed for deletion by Lawrencekhoo (talk · contribs) on 19 August 2010 with the comment:
Not notable neologism
It was contested by Kuyabribri (talk · contribs) on 23 August 2010 with the comment:
an editor has explicitly objected to deletion on the talk page

2007-04-26 Automated pywikipediabot message[edit]

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 07:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copy from page[edit]

Removed this from page. It has no references.

The Goldilocks puzzle led to a new idea that there could be regular changes in the natural rate of unemployment, often called the NAIRU (Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment). Research in the 1990's centered on the so-called time-varying NAIRU, an idea that was entirely an attempt to explain an empirical puzzle with no theoretical content. Explanations relied on specific factual aspects of the economy, including the declining share of teenagers and the rising share of young male population that was in prison. New ideas spawned by these events which included the real business cycle theory, concern over the twin deficits and the suggestion that the natural rate of unemployment varies over time.

Worth discussing? Smells like Original research —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.0.100 (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The recommendation for deletion[edit]

I see someone is recommending that this be deleted because it is a neologism. Well, I work in the sector and I can assure you that it has been around for a number of years years and is in growing usage here in the United Kingdom. It was coined some years ago. So it's hardly a "neologism". Therefore I recommend that this request be ignored and withdrawn forthwith. --Tris2000 (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]