Talk:Marshall–Lerner condition

Mathematical Derivation

The last step of the derivation, in which the absolute value of the elasticity of imports is taken, is obviously mathematically incorrect. It doesn't follow from the preceding step at all. Can someone more knowledgeable about this than I correct it?

-Anonymouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.18.69 (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It does follow, I think. The previous step subtracts the elasticity of imports, which is negative. Adding the absolute value of the elasticity is equivalent.

---editor3 02:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Devaluation and depreciation

Please, throughout wikipedia, keep using devaluation for the loss of value of a currency, and depreciation for the loss of value of assets in general.

If you think this terminology is incorrect, first discuss and change the relevant articles, devaluation and depreciation, then move on other articles.

Well i would think that the term devaluation is appropriate for exchange rates in a fixed exchange rate regime while the term depreciation would be appropriate in a floating exchange rate regime.

I would like to make some changes to this article, do I need some kind of approval? I'd actually first like to know what you mean by saying that p = international prices.

  Prices at which goods are exchanged in international markets.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klapton (talk • contribs) 12:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC) 

__________________________________________________________________________

About what is above: 'depreciation' is used whenever the exchange rate is flexible (and in general too) while 'devaluation' implies an official decision, ie when the exchange rate is fixed

Other point: the page exists in French, but there is no link "condition de Marshall-Lerner". I don't know how to fix it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.122.120.23 (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Marshall–Lerner Condition → Marshall–Lerner condition — Just a spelling correction. bender235 (talk) 11:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Last step of the 'proof'

I believe that the last part of the derivation of the formula needs to be somehow clarified - the substraction equaling addition of absolute value is, to say the least, misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AP0404 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It does need more explanation. The reason it's done that way, I think, which is the convention, is that the point is that the condition requires the two elasticities to be elastic enough, and it's hard to remember which one is negative and which one is positive. It's easy to get tangled up in what "the elasticity must be big enough" means when the elasticity is a negative number, because we want it to be more negative.

--editor3 02:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Clarify that the initial trade deficit is zero

Marshall-Lerner condition ensures that the balance of payments improves only if the initial trade deficit is zero. Otherwise, the condition is somewhat more complicated, because of the deficit-increasing effect of the depreciation on the initial deficit. This ought to be clarified. The zero-deficit condition plays a vital role in the proof, as is made clear, but it appears out of nowhere.

 --editor3 02:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I tried to clarify the role of initial balance, and changed the derivation to allow for that case.

  --editor3 00:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The article is too confusing

Wikipedia folks, I was trying to find out what the Marshall-Lerner condition is. I am not an economist, so the whole article is VERY confusing.

I understand that creating high quality article via different, unprofessional authors is not trivial, but my recommendation is to re-structure the whole article. I would highly recommend a SIMPLER introduction, clearly defining in one or two semi-short sentences what this condition is, without using too many difficult terms for this. The first sentence right now makes me not want to continue, because it is all way over my head. I may have become dumber over the years, but I also think that this is a problem intrinsic to wikipedia, because other articles on the www often are much simpler to understand (not always of course; it depends on the quality of the article). We should strive to retain simplicity. It is fine to add mathematical details, but only after having thoroughly explained the underlying core ideas. Simplicity for the win. 2A02:8388:1641:8380:F39A:22CA:1D74:811 (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)