Talk:Consumption smoothing

This needs to include, or be produced in tandem with, the hypothesis of income-smoothing. Graham and Isaac find more empirical support for income than consumption smoothing: Consumption smoothing usually assumes income is predictable, which isn't clear in this wiki article. It also leaves the enormous capital flow within families ignored.

"Some"

The intro summarizes a source as:

...economist James Choi states that this deviates from the prescriptions of some economists’ normative models. (emphasis mine)

In the article, he never uses the phrase "some economists", instead using phrases such as "Benchmark Academic Advice" and "standard academic theory". So I don't think the usage of "some" is appropriate here. If we were writing in Wikipedia's voice, then the careful usage of the word "some" would be appropriate, but we're paraphrasing Choi and he presents it as a standard view held widely in the field, not as some sort of ongoing controversy.

Now, he may be overstating how "standard" this view is among economists, and if so should present the opposing view and treat it as an ongoing controversy, with sufficient sourcing of course. But for now, we're just concisely rephrasing his paper, and use of the word "some" misrepresents it, possibly implying that it's a minority view, or that it's not a widely held standard academic economic theory. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mr swordfish: Thanks for your comment. I see your point that Choi does not specifically use the term "some", although I think it's obvious that Choi does not speak for all economists. My concern is that we are giving one writer's opinion in speaking for economists excessive WP:WEIGHT, especially for the lead. That being said, for the time being, as long as we are clear that it is Choi making the statement (and not economists in general) I can accept it for now. But a more elegant solution, in my opinion, is simply to restore the lead as it was before any mention of the Choi source. That eliminates any misunderstanding and avoids the WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE issues. The edit summary for the edit that inserted Choi was "tried to simplify this for readers". So we have one editor who adds one economist's opinion about one economic theory. In my opinion it's misleading rather than simplifying. The only reason I didn't make this revert in the first place was to give everyone a chance to see my concern and possibly fix it. But in hindsight, I think I should have simply made the revert rather than adding an "fv" tag. What do you think? Sundayclose (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear: This is a peer-reviewed study published in an American Economic Association journal. Characterizing the source as a writer's opinions does not seem fair. If Choi is making tenuous claims and inaccurately characterizing economic theory and mainstream economic views, then it would likely have been weeded out in the peer review process. After all, that's the crux of the study: defining and contrasting benchmark economic advice and popular finance advice. Thenightaway (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Peer review does not guarantee that every perspective is presented in every article. It is assumed by peer reviewers that the article expresses the perspective of the writer(s). The process of academic peer review typically is that an article is accepted for publication on the assumption that it will be read by experts who can then provide critical responses. This is quite common in all peer-reviewed academic journals. Peer review is a guarantee of meeting minimal quality standards of credible research and writing. It is not a guarantee that every reader will agree with every aspect of the article. It is possible that Choi can be presented as one perspective later in the article, but not in the lead in a way to suggest that it unquestionably represents the opinions of most if not all economists. Sundayclose (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

My take is that there's no reason to present the idea that many popular books written by non-economists present advice that differs from what "real" economists say in the lede. Seems to me that the proper treatment would be a subsection. Ideally, we'd have more than the paper Choi as reliable sources. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mr swordfish: I agree, except I don't think it belongs in the lead. In my opinion, placing it in the lead has problems with WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE, especially in a way that suggests that "real" economists refers to most if not all economists. I think the lead was fine before Choi was added, and that if we add Choi it should be later in the article where other perspectives might be added. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in the lede either. Maybe I wasn't clear about that. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mr swordfish: Thanks, sorry I misunderstood. Unless a consensus develops otherwise, it should be removed from the lead. I'm OK with your wording. I guess the remaining issues are, where should it go, and should we wait until we can find other sources with different perspectives? I don't think Choi merits more than one sentence, so right now there's not enough for a separate section. Sundayclose (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Given that the idea of consumption smoothing is at variance with so many popular books on personal finance I think we need to "treat the controversy". That said, we don't have to give equal weight to pop-culture financial advisors and the work of academic economists. This is not my field of expertise, so I'm not sure how to strike the right balance.

Something like:

===In popular culture===

Many popular books on financial advice recommend against consumption smoothing, instead advocating saving a fixed percentage of ones income regardless of age. For instance Author X makes statement Y, author Z makes statement Q, but these recommendations deviate from standard academic theory according to economist James Choi.

It could be expanded later, but something like that is probably enough for a subsection, at least as a stub. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Unless someone objects, I could post a neutral invitation at WT:WikiProject Economics for comments here. Sundayclose (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

References