Talk:Generational accounting

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Economics Low‑importance This 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I strongly urge somebody with the necessary knowledge and skill to review this article and improve it. Wikipedia is not a platform for self-promotion, yet this article is written in a clearly self-promoting way, pushing Mr. Kotlikoff and his associates into the limelight whenever possible. Such an approach obviously endangers NPV, a fundamental requirement of this encyclopedia. The claim of 66.­31.­139.­214 (supposedly Mr. Kotlikoff himself) that further changes to this article are likely to be neither impartial nor innocent is risible: Who is to believe that a description of a concept by the person who allegedly developed that concept is more likely to be impartial or objective than one given by an informed outsider who has no stake in the matter? --Arbraxan (talk) 12:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is putting the cart before the horse. I originated the article. I knew "Mr. Kotlikoff himself" only thru his writing, in particular, before the term "general accounting" was coined, from his 1987 entry "social security" in

The New Palgrave

. If he had done nothing else, he would entitled to inclusion in this article, b/c of his seminal infuence on the subject discussed there.

I used Google Scholar to compile a reading list for the article. That hardly makes the list biased. Wherever I could find critiques of the subject in economic journals or other scholarly publications, I included them. Of course criticism may be best way of improving the method of the subject.

My guess is that most scholars on subjects they write about would try to edit in Wikipedia to observe the same standards as observed in their profession but also the standards of Wikipedia. Otherwise, why would (most) scholars, of all people, leave themselves open the charge of a non-Wikipedia:Neutral point of view?

May I say, what a wonderful thing it would be if every article were visited by a published scholar on the subject, the better to elaborate on the nature of its subject and on its criticism (why leave it to others when you can do it yourself?).

--Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to take this seriously when it says: "starting with the United States, which has a relatively small debt to GDP ratio". IMF gives the USA as having debt as 106% of GDP. Ireland, Japan, Greece, Portugal and Italy are higher, plus a handful of thirdworld countries ... that's it. Ordinary Person (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]