Talk:Economic growth/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

the wrong map of russia

the wrong map of russia

where is crimea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolltheblunt (talk • contribs) 11:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Is the opening paragraph correct?

I question the correctness of the opening paragraph. It claims that economic growth is measured by the change in real GDP. Would it be more correct to say that it is measured by the change in real per capita GDP? Is an increase in population really counted as part of economic growth? A country with high immigration or a high birth rate could increase its real GDP while real per capita GDP stays flat or declines. --JHP (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The very basic definition is just the one on the paragraph, where it is defined as real GDP growth regardless of population. So, you can define growth as a function of labor and capital, Y=F(L,K) . The next thing is that you assume constant returns and divide each input by L to get a function of growth per unit labor (thought of as growth per capita) y=f(k). So, yes, technically the paragraph is correct, but it would not hurt to clarify later on in the article that a more significant figure is growth per capita. Brusegadi (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been addressed by stressing the importance of real per capita GDP in the lede.Phmoreno (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Economic growth is possible without any increase in quantity of goods and services produced

One of the first paragraphs says the following: Economic growth refers only to the quantity of goods and services produced.

This statement is completely faulty. Quantity of produced goods and services is not the only variable in case of growth accounting. The average value of these goods and services is also important. In theory, it is entirely possible to achieve continuous economic growth without any increase in the volume of production. In fact, real changes in output per capita are determined by changes in the quantity of production, average value of goods and services produced and the growth or decline of total population.

The economy is in a continuous state of development since the dawn of civilisation. Imagine that just about 300 years ago most of the labour force were employed in the agrictultural sector and produced low value added agricultural products by using inefficient techniques. As technology and human knowledge accumulates, the structure of the economy is moving towards specific sectors with higher value added (e.g. nanotechnology or software development). The efficiency of natural resource usage also increases and this process induces further 'growth'.

The issue described above is the reason why the Club of Rome's predictions in the 1970's (I mean Limits to Growth) were proven wrong. The authors failed to recognize the importance of technological progress and human knowledge accumulation, which inevitably leads to an increase in the average value of goods and services produced.

Another common misconception about economic growth is the hypothesis of energy scarcity. The very strong relationship between GDP perc capita and energy usage per capita was pointed out correctly by thousands of articles. Therefore, if energy proves to be scarce it can halt economic development in the future. In fact, energy is not scarce. Fossil fuels and the total amount of energy which can be produced by combustion of these materials are. Technological progress can solve this issue in the future by developming new, more efficient and sustainable methods of energy production.

A Hungarian Economist--188.36.157.176 (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Economic growth is suffering from diminishing marginal productivity of technology. This is part of the Useful work growth theory.Phmoreno (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Limits to Growth was never rightfully proven wrong. After it was written natural resource product prices declined in real terms for three decades. Then suddenly the prices of iron ore, metallurgical coal, oil, gas copper and potash rose by a factor of from two to four or five, and have held on to a lot of those price gains. Two things happened:

1. Natural resource quality has been declining, as noted as far back as Ricardo. Declining natural resource quality means that higher inputs are required per unit of output- lower grade ores, less oil and gas produced per foot of wells drilled, less accessible locations with hostile working conditions, smaller ore bodies and oil or gas fields, etc. The rising energy cost of extracting oil, gas and coal is resulting in constantly lower net energy See: Energy returned on energy invested.

2. Economic development in Asia, particularly China, added so much to demand that prices surged.

While it is true that technology can alleviate shortages, such as wind energy, coal gassification, electric vehicles, etc., how much energy substitution is possible is still unknown. Also, for the sake of economic growth costs cannot rise.

The economic transition to a so called post industrial economy is a decline in the industrial sector share relative to services, which has been going on for a long time in developed countries. The only problem is that the service sector is not a high productivity growth sector, so real prices do not fall like they did decades ago.Phmoreno (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Cost of oil extraction

@Bobrayner: what statement(s) in particular do you think were unsupported in this deletion? EllenCT (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@Bobrayner: You still haven't answered EllenCT question here.Phmoreno (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Divergence

There's not much in this article about how and why Western nations broke out of the Malthusian stagnation and surpassed the old civilizations like China, whose technology was over 1000 years ahead of Western Europe until about the 16th century. (See Great Divergence). In the introduction to The Unbound Prometheus Landes discusses many of the causes that have been proposed. Joseph Needham discusses China's technology and a follow up book to a PBS special goes into details about government monopolies and about trade restrictions. I may be able to add a little of this, but it's not my area of expertise, and I'm not sure what section it should be in. Any suggestions?Phmoreno (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Try Printing press#Circulation of information and ideas. EllenCT (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Planetary boundaries and space colonization

@Bobrayner: regarding your question at [1], what reasons do you have to believe that the passage might not be about economic growth? EllenCT (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Since I reverted this as well, for starters it's WP:OR, and frankly not even synthesis. It's your invention from nothing. You used two articles as references that do not refer to economic growth but either comment on the risk of nuclear warfare, or speculated about interplanetary travel. Then there's editorial issues that it's out of scope. Speculation about a future where interplanetary being will be the only witnesses to our archeological history is not at all encyclopedic or on topic. I can only guess that you did a quick Google search after your first effort was removed to find sources.... and failed miserably.Mattnad (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

What, in your opinion, is the economic activity which is described as growing in this article? Commercial trade or something else? EllenCT (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Broadly, per the article lede, it's the increase in the market value of the goods and services produced by an economy over time. Space aliens visiting us in the future do not figure into the scope IMHO.Mattnad (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@EllenCT:, your edit here, claiming it was done without discussion, is untrue. You have not tried to justify your edits after @Bobrayner: and others deleted the content, and there was discussion here that you have not materially participated in. Three separate editors have removed this content, but you have persisted in reinserting it. Clearly you are in a minority (of one) that thinks it's appropriate.Mattnad (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Components of growth

(Note: Bjork's table is labeled "Growth Rates of Per Capita GDP and its Determinants. Perhaps if I had used his title it would have avoided some confusion.)

Despite comments about not giving "mainstream contemporary overview of the structure and propagation of economic growth", the article should first list the constituents of economic growth and briefly discuss each. That is what I was trying to do with the section grouped the way it originally was. I think some simple additions and clarifications to the original should make it much more understandable. I have an excellent reference this and it is more current, but it is only an explanation of the long used methodology. However, I am reluctant to get any more involved with this article because of POV and other issues.

Any meaningful discussion of the "structure and propagation of economic growth" will depend on addressing the actual components of growth.Phmoreno (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

What is the reference you propose to use? How does it define or characterize the "constituents of growth?" Do you agree with me that "constituents" is not the same as "causes" in this context? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The proper characterization is "constituent". My original choice of wording and organization had to do with avoiding copyright infringements, which I hope you will understand. The source is Bjork (1999) and it is the only comprehensive explanation of economic growth I've read that is not written specifically to the specialist, although it is technical.Phmoreno (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

OK Bjork. Could you also please respond to the other two questions so that I understand your proposal? How does it define or characterize the "constituents of growth?" Do you agree with me that "constituents" is not the same as "causes" in this context? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

While we wait for Phmoreno's response, I suggest we consider as an alternative source: An excellent choice is the widely-used contemporary text on the subject by Barro and Sala-i-Martin, see here: [2]. This book provides an articulate overview of current mainstream thinking on the subject and is a good starting point for a WP article on this vast and complex subject. There are many free pages on the Google page cited. I suggest reading from the beginning to get a sense of the reference. The following page contains a brief podcast of Prof. Barro discussing Growth: [3] SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional high quality mainstream references: Growth and income distribution, by Pasinetti and Economic Development, the Family, and Income Distribution, by Nobel laureate Simon Kuznets SPECIFICO talk 15:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The components or factors are that go into the calculation of the growth rate of per capita GDP are: productivity, intensity, participation and demography, and there needs to be some discussion of their relative contributions and how they have varied over time. Reasons for their variation I suppose are what you would refer to as causes, which obviously belong in a different section. I try to avoid theoretical economics, preferring to stay with my area of expertise, which is technology and productivity. However I did order Barro and Sala-i-Martin to see if they discuss logistic models, which are the realistic way to approach modeling economics. International The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis was using such models decades ago.Phmoreno (talk)

Hello. I think we have a disconnect here. To calculate the growth rate we need to know the level of per capita GDP in the beginning and ending years, the number of years, and (if real GDP) the price index values for those years. Those are the factors for the calculation and the calculation is to take the number of years, N and compute the Nth root of the ratio of the beginning and ending years' values of GDP, in each case deflated by the associated year price index. The calculation of the growth rate says nothing about economic processes, causes, or other measures such as you list (productivity, intensity, participation, demography.) Various theories might view those factors as being among the causes of growth. Other theories might not. It's then yet a second order of remove to to discuss variation in any of those factors over time, as opposed to the effect of the levels of those factors on the variation of real GDP.

More to the point, however, I will state categorically that it's impossible to "avoid theoretical economics" in any discussion of economic growth. Your frank admission that you do not involve yourself with economics is consistent with your focus on technology and productivity, which economists do not view as the sole, sufficient, or explanatory factors in generating GDP growth. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

You described the simplistic calculation. The beauty of Bjork's book is that he shows the decomposition, which is the way the agencies that calculate growth actually analyze it. You could call it second order to discuss the magnitudes of the variations, but pointing out some specific examples is tremendously helpful in understanding how the variation has affected growth, especially in periods of change. I agree that is impossible to avoid theoretical concepts in discussing economic growth, because economics is theory. However, the part I am discussing here is growth accounting. Moving forward, there needs to be an outline of how to separate the theoretical from the growth accounting, and how to further subdivide the theoretical.Phmoreno (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It's clear to me that you lack a definition of the term "economic growth" and that you are confusing the calculation of a growth rate with the attribution of causal factors. Overall, your view that economic growth can be viewed or explained in purely physical terms (productivity) is not supported by mainstream contemporary reliable sources. SPECIFICO talk 21:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right about the calculation. I reread Bjork and that was his analysis by decomposition of the growth rate according to the factors I listed, which slightly influences the importance of productivity. However, that does not negate that fact that according to his decomposition (simple math) U. S. productivity was the most important factor of the productivity, intensity, participation and demography factors for the all but one decade from 1920-1990. Bjork's cite is good enough for a reference to include this information. Now, as for your claim that productivity is not the major source of growth, I have numerous references, including macroecomomics lessons, saying otherwise. Two sources I've already listed, and I have another that looks at recent decades in various European countries. Since you claim so many mainstream views that productivity is not important, I'd love to see a few.Phmoreno (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

A statistical imputation or regression analysis of "growth" vs. this and that variables does not explain what causes growth. You have a technical background, so I presume you know that. It's like taking 15 fat men and saying that gout is the cause of their double chins. Please don't attribute statements to me unless I have actually written them on this page. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I still want to know what your mainstream sources are calling the most important factor behind economic growth. Also, since its supposedly mainstream and contemporary, you should have no problems providing sources.Phmoreno (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I gave you two mainstream sources. Read the Barro. But if, as you say, you are not interested in the economist's tools and approach, then I don't see how you will be able to understand economic growth or to edit this article in a manner consistent with WP policy. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I ordered the book today and will read it as soon as it gets here. But as for your claim that the importance of productivity is not supported by mainstream economics, I have numerous references saying it it of primary importance. All kinds of references-macro-economics texts, lecture notes, The Economist, NBER, and distinguished growth economists. No shortage. It will take me a while to read all of the details in some of them, but the shorter ones can be posted immediately. However, I can't wait to actually see what your reference says.Phmoreno (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Please digest the Barro book before any further editing. It will save time and needless discussion among the editors here. It may take you several weeks to study the book and please feel free to come here if there are parts you don't understand -- it is a graduate-level text, I believe. Nothing will be lost if you take a while to digest the book before more edits. SPECIFICO talk 00:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to read the book, but you still need to: 1)clarify your case against productivity not being as important as Kendrick, NBER, macro-economics texts, government agencies, etc. claim it is, and 2) cite some chapters and or page numbers in Barro.Phmoreno (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Need suggestions

We need suggestions for topics that should be included in this article. Please be specific and add some recommended references if you can.Phmoreno (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There is something in the Suits index article about confidence intervals. EllenCT (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

A surge in Moore's law advancement caused US productivity growth to spike in 1996–2004, accompanied by a jump in economic growth. The Moore's law wikipedia article shows the pace of progress with respect to quality-adjusted semiconductor prices is not steady. Economist Richard G. Anderson notes, “Numerous studies have traced the cause of the productivity acceleration to technological innovations in the production of semiconductors that sharply reduced the prices of such components and of the products that contain them (as well as expanding the capabilities of such products).”>
71.128.35.13 (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight of Energy theory

This is the only theory that has a whole department of government with a multi-billion dollar budget (United States Department of Energy) devoted to it, so it deserves adequate coverage. Also, the other abbreviated sections have more available wikilinks.Phmoreno (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps there has been some confusion, again. The "Department of Energy" is not the basis of energy theories of economic growth. Nor are energy drinks, Energy Rekords, or Energy, Illinois. bobrayner (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

What Bob said. What should determine the weight in the article is the weight in the scholarly literature.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Your statements are 1) nonsense and 2) misleading, respectively. There is a large amount of scholarly literature on energy theory. I recommend you acquaint yourself with William Stanley Jevons for a start. Then there are the National Academy of Engineering and a consortium of professional engineering societies who highlight the importance of energy to economic growth. The Academies voted electrification as the greatest technological achievement of the twentieth century. (This alone should negate any claims of "undue weight".) David Landes at the very beginning of his celebrated economic history The Unbound Prometheus talks about the change over to fossil fuels and goes into the development of the steam engine, the importance of hot blast, electrification and a number of other energy themes.

More importantly is that some of the mathematical models of energy and GDP have much better correlations than neoclassical models. This article therefore waste lot of coverage on theories that either don't work or can't be substantiated. Phmoreno (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Other points worth considering:

• Energy efficiency accounted for a significant part of total factor productivity.
• Recognizing the above the System of National Accounting uses KLEMS as a refinement of inputs instead of just capital and labor.Phmoreno (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Our articles should be based on scholarly sources, not incoherent rhetoric. bobrayner

(talk) 21:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Enough of your nonsense about "scholarly sources". There are plenty of scholars who support energy theory. As I remember, Jevons was a neo-classical economist. More importantly, the energy theory supporters are right and many of the other so called "scholars" out in theory land are just plain clueless.Phmoreno (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, what "incoherent rhetoric" are you referring to? If you don't understand what I said then you don't have enough background to be discussing this.Phmoreno (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The solution to "undue weight" isn't "put it all back in the article". bobrayner (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You're claiming a solution for something you have no evidence of as a problem.Phmoreno (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any references to support your claim? I've listed numerous ones from all types of energy agencies, engineering societies, scientists and economists to support the importance of energy use and efficiency to economic growth, most of which you have deleted. I just want to see some decent sources that support your claims, not just your opinion.Phmoreno (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is not a shortage of citations, as we saw on the Ayres-Warr article which similarly fell well below wikipedia standards despite having lots and lots of ref tags. The problem is undue weight. Both Volunteer Marek and I agree that. bobrayner (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I don't agree so I have opened a case regarding it.Phmoreno (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

More importantly, you keep on reverting the problematic content back into the article. It's WP:BRD, not WP:BRRRRRRRwhateverIwantD. bobrayner (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is under development and consequently there are many missing parts. As mentioned in previous discussions here and elsewhere, the little that is written here about energy and energy theory can hardly be considered "undue weight". If it were 25% of the article, perhaps. There is not even enough space to adequately describe energy and economic growth relationships, which are mentioned here only in the briefest summary. If I had deleted them that would be another matter. There is no way an article like economic growth can be developed in a balanced manner. Every contributor hopefully will contribute according to his area of expertise. So instead of attacking my contributions here, why don't you concentrate on recruiting some people to write the areas you see lacking. Start here by making a list.Phmoreno (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

As a final word, I have contributed substantially to the clean up of other sections of the article including adding some important points. So why you complain about the only one who is contributing something here. Simple ingratitude is preferable.Phmoreno (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

This article has no room for more models, because adding many more would unduly weight the new models. I propose gathering the heterodox views (often science imports) under a single heading, while excluding fringe ideas that don't belong in Wikipedia anyway. Some economics articles in wikipedia already use this framework. This would distinguish the mainstream theories and allow space for more ideas. If there is no consensus on which theories belong in the mainstream, then undue weight shouldn't be a problem and the field becomes wide open to new entrants. Controversial factors (causes/effects?) could be treated differently by various theories, like income inequality, and discussed separately in several places. One theory may downplay or ignore a factor; another theory may discuss it at length. Of course, this proposal would tend to fragment the overall discussion of economic growth. An outline follows, not judged or sorted:

2. Factors affecting growth: Minimize or eliminate discussion of controversial factors (causes/effects?) here and discuss instead in sections 3.1.1, 3.2.1, etc.

3. Theories and models
Introduce why mainstream theories have more acceptance/importance, what mainstream economists broadly agree upon, and which are the issues of contention.
3.1 Classical growth theory
3.1.1 Income inequality as a cause/effect
3.1.2 Other factors (demographic changes, productivity?)
3.2 The neoclassical model
3.2.1 Income inequality
3.2.2 Another factor
3.3 Another mainstream theory
3.4 Another mainstream theory

3.5 Heterodox views
Brief introduction: these views differ from mainstream.
3.5.1 The big push
3.5.2 Another heterodox view
3.5.3 Another heterodox view
71.128.35.13 (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight-Income inequality

No matter how politically controversial income inequality may be, it is a demand issue and not related to productivity, the primary driver of economic growth. People looking to place blame need to look at the productivity numbers. Phmoreno (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

According to Berg and Ostry (2011), income distribution has the greatest influence on the duration of economic growth.

What is your source for your suggestion that there are any known factors which increase the duration of economic growth more than income equality? The reason that section has an "Evidence" subsection is to show that it is not undue weight because of empirical evidence, so I removed your section tag and replaced the discussion in the factors instead of theory. There is a lot of strange duplication in the sections which needs to be merged into shared topics. Also, did you add that US productivity slowed in the 1970s? Please have a look at the dark blue line on the graph at this link. (File:Productivity and Real Median Family Income Growth 1947-2009.png) EllenCT (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The graph in the link you posted (not the graph to the right) shows income and productivity, not GDP and productivity.Phmoreno (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Besides the actual productivity statistics, there is a large volume of literature on the productivity slowdown.

As for the source you cited:

1) Constant increase, or nearly so as in the referenced graph, is a declining rate because the denominator is getting larger while the numerator increases at a constant rate. 2) The graph misses the peak productivity period, which happens when people cite data to try prove their point rather than to be truthful and objective. 3) Hedonic adjustments to GDP show a higher GDP than by the old method. So according to the new methodology, even though the long term trend in median income is flat, consumers are getting better quality for their money.Phmoreno (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Do you have a graph of US productivity from a reliable source which you believe agrees with your statements? EllenCT (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The data is in table form in one of the references you deleted.Phmoreno (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Which one? I was not aware I had deleted any references. EllenCT (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Phmoreno: I too would like to know what source you cite for "it is a demand issue and not related to productivity, the primary driver of economic growth." Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

If that's not obvious to you, you don't need to be editing this article. Phmoreno (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

What is your source for the assertion that productivity is the primary driver of economic growth? It concentrates wealth, which tends to reduce aggregate demand. Are you confusing productivity with growth to begin with? EllenCT (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The listed source is Kendrick (1961) but this is basic economics. Anyone with any knowledge of economics should know this. There'e even a famous quote:

"Productivity isn’t everything, but in the long run it is almost everything. A country’s ability to improve its standard of living over time depends almost entirely on its ability to raise its output per worker." Paul Krugman, The Age of Diminishing Expectations

If you are going to edit here you should at least have read a comprehensive variety of literature on the subject and be familiar with the basic concepts. Phmoreno (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from comments about other editors and "comment on content not contributors." The Krugman quote is about growth of aggregate income, not changes in the distribution of income. Do you have a source for the statement you made above? If not, we cannot include it in any WP article. SPECIFICO talk 01:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Kendrick, John W. (1961). Productivity Trends in the United States. Princeton University Press for NBER. p. 3. Decreases in input per output (productivity) was responsible for three-quarters of economic growth. (The remaining quarter was from increased use of inputs required for expanded output.) Phmoreno (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts: Although productivity growth has slowed, there are important differences with today's productivity than in the past. Today's productivity does not save costs of the magnitude of the great innovations, so prices do not fall by anywhere near as much as in the century leading up to the 1970s. Also, today's technologies do not have the potential to save as much energy, or to increase economies of scale, such as the railroads and electrification did. They have more of a tendency to displace labor. So the way I, and some others see it, is that rising inequality is a symptom, but not necessarily a cause, of reduced productivity growth, or at least the nature of today's productivity growth. Phmoreno (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

What statistics are you talking about? Where in this time series data do you think productivity slowed the most? 1974 and 1982? Please see e.g. [4] or [5]. EllenCT (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

There was a study that debunked the myth that income inequality in the U.S. was any worse than some decades ago. One of the reasons was the way that privately owned businesses were treated in the calculations was changed. How come we never hear this side of the story. Phmoreno (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

To which study are you referring? I have found near universal agreement that income inequality has profoundly increased in the US over recent decades. EllenCT (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Money by Malcomb Forbes and Elizabeth Ames blames the worldwide debasement of currency for today's economic problems. The Georgist point out that land prices have risen exponentially, which many non Georgists see as people using land as an inflation hedge. Phmoreno (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Your view is not supported by p.3 of Kendrick's book. If you have source text you'd like to cite which you believe supports your statement please quote it here. The burden is on you to demonstrate that article text is verifiable. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I will check my notes. Phmoreno (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Page 3, which is the first page of Chap. 1 of Productivity Trends in the United States, Third printing in 1966:

"Of the four-fold increase in real net national product per capita between 1889 and 1957, productivity advance accounted for about three-fourths."

What does it say where you are reading? Phmoreno (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

That is not a statement as to causation. It is a statement of statistical imputation. You have asserted that productivity is the "driver" i.e. the originating factor in the growth of income. You'll need a much more reasoned discussion than what's in this source. SPECIFICO talk 02:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Summarizing your claims:

1.) Need source. --- even though the source was not just listed, but actually written out in the article.

2.) That's not what is said on the cited page. --- Yes it is, I'm looking right at it from an old hard copy.

3.) That's not what Kendrick is saying. ---Yes that's clearly what he's saying. Are we using the same language?

You can try to discredit sources all you want, but the relationship is clearly understood in economics and economic history. Wikipedia policy is that such things do not need to be defended. The burden is on you to prove some non conventional interpretation. Phmoreno (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

All controversial claims need to be supported with reliable sources, and ideally well-cited WP:SECONDARY peer reviewed sources from academic journals, and of those preferably ones between two and ten years old, if I remember right. "non conventional interpretation" is incompatible with WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE, for example. EllenCT (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with the literature on the subject of this article would not make such an uninformed comment regarding this reference. They would be familiar with the author and know that the book was sponsored by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Even if not familiar, you should be capable of looking it up and understanding it's significance.

Furthermore, I find this an amusing statement coming from a person who's edit to economic growth was about space colonization. Any more of your nonsense is going to get you reported to a notice board for problem editors.Phmoreno (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

An NBER publication from 50+ years ago doesn't give a mainstream contemporary overview of the structure and propagation of economic growth. The NBER, in general is respected for institutionalist statistical compilations but much less for theoretical or explanatory texts. Also, please stop the personal remarks and confine your words here to article content and sourcing. SPECIFICO talk 13:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Income inequality is not the cause of the economic stagnation; it is a result. The causes are the slowdown of productivity growth and lack of significant innovations with the same impact as those in the past. All of this is widely known in the economics community and volumes have been written about it. Doing away with income inequality destroys the incentive system, a fundamental principle of free enterprise. I see income inequality, while being politically popular, as a fringe theory in economics. It still doesn't differentiate cause from effect.Phmoreno (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't use the article or talk pages to present our personal views. Do you have recent, mainstream, RS citations to references which state that view? Please cite and quote them. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I have read any number of books and papers on economic growth by respected economists and do not recall ever seeing inequality discussed. It only became a topic recently, so there are probably some revisionists who want to rewrite ceonomics, but I call "fringe". So you need to post some credible (that is, from economists) mainstream sources to support whatever point you are trying to make.Phmoreno (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not proposing text be added to the article. I am not stating my view on the matter. I am asking you to justify your edits per WP policy, and if you are unable or unwilling to do so, I suggest you drop the argument and move on. SPECIFICO talk 15:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems clear that there is a solid RS ref and quote. It is compliant with Wikipedia policy. Your suggestion that it is not "recent" enough doesn't seem to be related to any policy. If you have problems with the RS (NBER) I suggest taking it to RS/N. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The source does not make the statements which are being attributed to it. The source does not discuss causation. As to the date... if the content is to present current mainstream economic theory and research, there should be abundant recent references available which would explicitly verify the assertions contained in the text. SPECIFICO talk 16:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I've had enough of your abuse of Wikipedia policies and am in the process of filing complaints with the administrators.Phmoreno (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Kindly post on this page a link to the thread with your complaint, when it is opened. SPECIFICO talk 18:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I replaced the dispute tag on the Productivity section, and moved the US-specific historical paragraph back to the historical sub-section, in chronological order. I hope that my several questions above will be answered so that the discussion can move forward. I am concerned that "See also: neo-classical growth models such as the Solow-Swan model, which treat output as a function of inputs, that is, they are productivity based growth models widely cited in modern literature," was used as a reference for the statement "Increases in productivity have historically been the most important source of real per capita economic growth," which itself is contradicted by the many sources which point out that productivity increases can lower aggregate demand by concentrating wealth. I'm guessing WP:RS is probably the right suggestion, but not entirely sure. EllenCT (talk) 01:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I feel that the Solow-Swan reference is being held up to support statements which are not in the cited source. The text is OR, pointing along the way to a well-known model which does not address the point of the article text here. SPECIFICO talk 01:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Myths about income inequality references specific to U.S. and certain other developed countries: Jeffery Dorfman (June 2014). "Dispelling Myths About Income Inequality". Forbes. </ref>

Nothing in this section supports the idea that the longstanding text in the section gives undue weight to what the IMF considers the largest determinant of economic growth, or that the section is unbalanced. Accordingly, I have removed the dispute tags. EllenCT (talk) 03:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of what the IMf says, you need to cite something in classical economics or neo-classical economics, or an analysis that ranks all of the causes of economic growth that supports including income inequality as a major factor related to economic growth. Otherwise I call Wikipedia:Fringe theories.Phmoreno (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Income per capita was NOT flat before the industrial revolution.

Income sometimes goes up, and sometimes goes down.

Also, I removed the discussion on Malthus because it fails to discuss what his actual theories were, and how they compared or contrasted with the other "classical" economic theories concerning economic growth.

Sorry if deleting a paragraph offended anyone. Andyohio (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Flat as in over the very long run. Basically no change between 2000 BC and 1700 AD. But of course there was short term movements due to technological or demographic shocks - but then Malthus always pushed it back to where it was before.radek (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Europe, especially England, had escaped the Malthusian trap. Per capita GDP was something like four times subsistence level in England, which was twice that in France, but for actual numbers estimated in currency units see reference.

“…Europe on the eve of the Industrial Revolution was a society that had already advanced economically beyond the level of minimal subsistence.”

Phmoreno (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You can be above minimal subsistence - indeed, most economies were - and still be stuck in a Malthusian trap. You're misunderstanding the concept. Volunteer Marek  04:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

New findings on US income inequality- it's not what you've been told

A lot of incorrect information has been published about increases in income inequality in the US. I don't have time to incorporate this into the article, but here is the other side of the story:http://d21uq3hx4esec9.cloudfront.net/uploads/pdf/OTB_Nov_13_2014.pdf (See section: How to Distort Income Inequality); http://journal.southerneconomic.org/doi/pdf/10.4284/0038-4038-2013.175Phmoreno (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That first source isn't reliable, or really, relevant. The second source is probably more useful for a different article than this one. Volunteer Marek  03:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The title of the section "How to Distort Income Inequality" in the first reference is the same as the Wall Street Journal article on which I assume it is based. I am not a WSJ subscriber, but I will try to locate that article at my local library and confirm the summary in the first article.Phmoreno (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Income inequality unbalanced

This is s totally one sided section. It has often been pointed out that attempts to equalize income remove incentives to work hard and take risks.

“It would be hard to motivate most people if everyone had the same earnings, status, prestige, and other rewards.” Gary Becker, Nobel prize economics

“The rapid economic advance that we have come to expect seems to be in large measure a result of this inequality and to be impossible without it. Progress at such a fast rate cannot take place on a uniform front but must take place in an echelon fashion, with some far in front of the rest.” Friedrich Hayek, Nobel prize economics

“So long as the [income] gap is smaller, they would rather have the poor poorer.” Margaret Thatcher

Phmoreno (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Less income inequality isn't the same as income equalization or wealth equalization. Taken to its logical extreme, economic inequality leads to almost everyone not being able to buy anything. If incomes or wealth were actually equalized, that would be far preferable because the vast majority would still be able to trade. EllenCT (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, that section has problems but I'm not sure UNDUE is one of them. There are probably more UNDUEish sections in the article. As to the problems, basically it does not reflect scholarly consensus. Probably because there isn't much of it out there. It just cherry picks papers from one side but there are also models and studies which show/document the opposite relationship. Honestly, there just isn't any clear cut link in the data. Volunteer Marek  07:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you think are the best examples from the other side? I've kept all the passages which discuss differing views. But the Berg & Ostry paper explains why pre-2011 results were screwed up. That and Bannerjee and Duflo which should probably be added. EllenCT (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Economic growth is the result of new processes, which lower cost, and new products and services, which create demand. So are there any references that say that this is related to income inequality? One could argue that if incomes were more equal there might be a one time gain in growth, but then what maintains growth?Phmoreno (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bannerjee and Duflo paper is one of the ones I was thinking off. Note couple things about it - they say the relationship between growth and inequality is non-monotonic (U-shaped). They're also careful not to assign causality to the relationship (a bit not careful enough IMO). Inequality could be an impediment to growth. Or it could foster it. Growth could produce inequality. Or it could reduce it. It could run both ways. I do think this paper should be added. I'll have another look at Berg & Ostry.

Phmoreno, that's original research. If you got sources, please present them. Volunteer Marek  17:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources for my statement, honestly, you must be joking. This is typical left wing diversion. New processes that lower cost and new products and services that create demand are mainstream economics according to numerous sources. Income inequality as related to economic growth is Wikipedia:Fringe theoryPhmoreno (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think that asking for sources is a diversion? Have you read WP:V? The IMF says that income equality is the most determinant factor of the duration of economic growth. Do you have any reasons to believe otherwise? How do you explain increasing productivity and declining growth rates in the US over the past 50 years? Do you think the reductio ad absurdum argument of maximum inequality leading to only one person with income and wealth and everyone else unable to trade, and maximum equality leading to everyone with equivalent amounts of income or wealth and the resulting increase in aggregate demand is instructive? EllenCT (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The IMF publishes working papers, but is not peer-reviewed or academic. 193.11.104.41 (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Like it or not we have a policy on verifiability. If its "mainstream economics according to numerous sources" - as it relates to inequality, then you should have no problem providing these sources.

Oh, and if researchers at NBER, including a recipient of the John Bates Clark Medal are writing about it, then no, it (the topic) is not fringe. Also, you might want to check in on your History of Economic Thought. Volunteer Marek  05:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Which NBER publication are you referring to?Phmoreno (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The one by Bannerjee and Duflo. The final paper got published in a journal, but it came out of work they did for NBER [6].  Volunteer Marek  22:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Li and Zou (1998) and Frank (2009)

Regrding [7], I object to the inclusion of Li and Zou (1998) because it is a WP:PRIMARY theoretical analysis with an emperical analysis from datasets which appear to only include those which support the authors' theory (there are many more abundant counterexamples, which the WP:SECONDARY reviews of larger datasets show) and assuming lag times of less than one year, which is now known to be an invalid assumption. That paper only passed peer review only after their caveat that public consumption must be part of the utility function was included, which is nonstandard to say the least. Why should government spending be a good in and of itself?

Similarly, regarding [8], I object to Frank (2009) because it is a WP:PRIMARY study of the US only. Their caveat that "IRS data limitations ... prevented an analysis of bottom-end inequality effects, from which one might expect the opposite effect," is tantamount to an admission that a complete data set would have negated their findings. Furthermore, trying to suggest that the late-1980s through 1999 economic boom which occurred during a period of increasing inequality was due to that inequality more than, for example, the end of the OPEC oil shock, is profoundly misleading, and does not occur in larger datasets examined in the secondary literature reviews. EllenCT (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the WP:PRIMARY holds water here. The definition are "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved" for primary, and "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Both of these papers satisfy the second definition, not the first. There's a ton of sources of this kind in the article already.

Your evaluation of the papers however, is original research. I'm also not clear on how you can know that the paper "only passed peer review only after..." unless you somehow have access to the referee reports (gov consumption captures the provision of public goods, so yes, it often is included in the utility function, depending on the research question being asked). At any rate, both of these are publications in well respected journals and I see no reason to exclude them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

My evaluation is original research?!? Your evaluation of my evaluation is original research! I'm not proposing to include my evaluation. I am stating the obvious fact that claiming studies make some sweeping general conclusion when they include extremely serious caveats fails the WP:V pillar policy and demands removal, and that studies which find a result completely contrary to the latest secondary literature reviews are WP:FRINGE without enough WP:WEIGHT to include, because doing so is WP:CHERRYPICKING, especially when the papers in question are based on such tiny datasets that they have no substantial relation to secondary results from the global, long-term data contrary to their findings. I am familiar with Li and Zou's earlier non-peer reviewed work. Do you have a source for your contention that government spending is usually included in studies which measure long-term influences on growth? What is the point of growing the public sector if the private sector is shrinking? EllenCT (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, your evaluation is original research. The primary source issue is not applicable. Hence, all you have left for exclusion of these articles is that you, personally, find them to be sub par. Neither of these studies is fringe, they are both published in high ranked, respectable journals. There's always controversy and disagreement in research and just because one particular study does not agree with your own favorite study is not a reason for exclusion. The original research you're engaging in involves the conclusions - unsupported by reliable secondary sources - that these studies: "make sweeping general conclusions", that they "include extremely serious caveats", that "their results are completely contrary to the latest secondary literature reviews", that they involve "tiny datasets" and so on. All of these are ideas that you arrived on your own, rather then derived from secondary sources. Hence, original research.

Before you get offended, please keep in mind that just because something is "original research" does not mean it's incorrect. It just means that that is not what is published in an encyclopedia. You could be entirely correct about your criticisms but unless you find secondary sources which specifically address these particular studies to that effect, there is no reason to exclude them.

As for the government spending thing - it's not really relevant for the purposes of this discussion. If peer reviewed journals accepted this assumptions (or suggested it? I'm not clear on what you're saying) then that is not a basis for exclusion. Even if it was a completely novel and non-standard assumption. But anyway, the whole empirical growth literature of the 80's and 90's is a source for my contention that government spending is usually included in studies which measure long-term influences on growth. Your "basic growth regression" almost always included a control for government consumption. But that wasn't even my contention. My contention was that there are plenty of models which include gov consumption. And there are plenty which exclude it. It depends on what research question is being asked (and actually what really matters is not whether one includes gov consumption in utility function or not, but rather whether one assumes the utility function to be separable in government and private consumption. But anyway, we're way off topic now).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not, they are primary studies based on relatively tiny datasets which contradict the WP:SECONDARY literature reviews, and they include serious caveats which were not included. Arguing that pointing out those flaws is original research is entirely absurd. EllenCT (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, they are not primary studies, per the parts of the policy I quoted above. And, again, they are no more "primary" than Banerjee and Duflo or Castells-Quintana and Royuela (now that study maybe should be rejected as being of low quality!) or Berg and Ostry or any other of the academic papers in this article.

And yes, it is original research unless you got secondary sources which point out those flaws in these particular papers.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my objection to primary source studies of tiny datasets cherrypicked to push a POV contrary to the most recent secondary reports on studies of the largest datasets, then I suggest you take it to one of the noticeboards. If you think Li and Zou or Frank aren't primary, then show me their literature review. EllenCT (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, no. At least one other user object to your removals. And whether or not the papers have a section titled "Literature Review" is irrelevant. The parts of the policy I quoted above are:

Are these papers "close to the event"? No.

Are they "accounts written by people directly involved"? No.

On the other hand,

Do they "provide author(s) own thinking based on primary sources"? Yes.

Are they "at least one step removed from the event"? Yes, I guess (that part shows it was some Humanities person who wrote the Wikipedia policy).

Do they contain "author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas"? Yes.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Under your criteria, would any unreviewed preprint in economics be a secondary source? EllenCT (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No, but these are NOT "unreviewed preprint"s in economics. Where do you get that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Just asking. Do you think that most economists refer to non-literature reviews as secondary literature? EllenCT (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Most papers have literature reviews in them. Some journals prefer shorter papers or they make you integrate your lit review into the body of the paper. Some are now even asking authors to "kill" their lit reviews (which is probably right, since often these are fluff or butt-kissing in the anticipation that someone you cite will referee your paper). To be perfectly honest, the distinction between primary, secondary and tertiary sources works best in the Humanities, especially in History. In Social Science, and much of Science Science, primary sources are papers which describe data and such. Theoretical papers are a whole another kertuffle. What's a "primary source" in theoretical math? The integers? But I think that overall our policy as written and gets it right. What makes the distinction is whether the paper is close to the event and whether or not it offers interpretation. In other words, whether the paper itself is "original research" (we're not suppose to do it, but that's exactly the job of secondary sources).

Whether papers are preprints or unreviewed doesn't have much to do with the primary/secondary distinction, it has to do with the reliable/non-reliable distinction. Some secondary sources are secondary but not reliable. Some primary sources can be reliable. Etc.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC) I have asked for further opinions on these questions at WT:ECON#Economic growth#Income equality and WP:NPOVN#Economic growth#Income equality. EllenCT (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)1

Do Li and Zou (1998) and Frank (2009) have literature reviews in them? Again, do you think that most economists refer to non-literature reviews as secondary literature? EllenCT (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not they have a section in their work called "literature review" is completely irrelevant. Economists would regard both papers as secondary sources. Notice I did remove one of these myself, because it wasn't well integrated with the rest of the section.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you find any support at all for whichever of them that you prefer in subsequent peer reviewed literature reviews? EllenCT (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Barro (1999)

Regarding [9], the discussion of Barro (1999) paper was removed because it is a non-peer reviewed primary source which assumes that the lag time between economic growth and the independent variables influencing it is a year or less. Banerjee and Duflo (2003) not only explained the discrepancy which Barro wrote about, but they laid the foundation for showing that the lag time is closer to 7-12 years. Accordingly, I intend to delete the paragraph again as WP:UNDUE. EllenCT (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, well NBER papers are not peer reviewed when they first appear. There is some peer review by the time they come out in print, which would be the case with a paper from 1999. Regardless, more or less the same paper appeared in Journal of Economic Growth in 2000 [10]. And again, you can't exclude it because you personally don't like the assumptions they make. Do Banerjee and Duflo address this paper specifically? You are engaging in WP:SYNTHESIS. The right thing to do in this case would be to explain the differences between Banerjee and Duflo and results from other studies better. Please don't remove it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I just skimmed through Banerjee and Duflo very quickly and they do address Barro's paper quite a bit. But their findings are not exactly at odds with those of Barro. Barro ran separate estimates for poor countries and for rich countries and found that the relationship sloped one way for one set and another for the other. Banerjee and Duflo take that as suggesting the possibility that the actual relationship is non-linear, which is indeed what they find. Whether the inequality is lagged or not does not affect the results that much (in fact you have to lag not just the inequality but all the other controls to get significant coefficients). Their basic argument is that there is no linear relationship between inequality and growth.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, when you assume lag times of a year or less, there sure isn't. What is your experience with the literature on factors influencing growth? EllenCT (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you're missing their point. It's Banerjee and Duflo who say there is no linear relationship between inequality and growth, not Barro. Another words, it's the paper *you* put forth which says this, not the one you're trying to remove.

My experience with the literature on factors influencing growth is one of sad disappointment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, is there some mistake in the sourcing? You refer to Banerjee and Duflo, but the text is talking about an "IMF study" which I presume is the Berg and Ostry paper.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you read Berg and Ostry's work? They stopped using one year lag times. That is their claim to fame. EllenCT (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes but above you were talking about Banerjee and Duflo, not Berg and Ostry.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you read the discussion of Banerjee and Duflo in [11]? EllenCT (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That is *not* a discussion of Banerjee and Duflo. It is mentioned once. Which makes me wonder if you've read it. It also makes me wonder if you've read Banerjee and Duflo, since above you claim that they found something which they actually didn't. I'm also wondering if you've actually read the Barro paper. Above you say that it, quote, "assumes that the lag time between economic growth and the independent variables influencing it is a year or less". This is completely false. Barro uses ten year periods. Which is standard in this literature. Which... umm.... Barro actually started, so it'd be weird if he used "lag time ... of a year or less".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I meant [12]. And you're right about 10 year periods, too, but that doesn't matter; that is still too short. Have you seen the scatter plots on the last four pages of [13]? Do you really want to include the implication that he had some kind of definitive conclusion from those almost completely uncorrelated relationships? EllenCT (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that, but that doesn't have much of the discussion of these papers either. Banerjee and Duflo is mentioned once ("Banerjee and Duflo (2003) found an even more complex relationship between inequality and growth, in which changes in inequality in either direction lower growth in the subsequent five-year period." although actually IIRC B&D also looked at ten year periods). Barro gets a bit more but not much more. He is mentioned four times: "For these purposes, the long-run growth regressions of Barro (2000) and similar studies would seem the most relevant". Their objection that follows is an argument for using a different methodology, "growth spells" rather than "growth" as the dependent variable. And there's some validity to that but it also makes the studies harder to compare. It is certainly no reason to remove one study based on the other.

As far as the graphs of the "almost completely uncorrelated relationships" - that's exactly the point! The fact that there is no correlation *is* the conclusion.

Anyway, you're trying to exclude a major study, from what is now a top-10 or even top-5 journal (it was a bit lower back in 2000), by a Harvard economist *who started* the empirics of growth, who is the author of *the* textbook on the subject, and who reintroduced the considerations of inequality and growth back into the literature. Whatever the opposite of WP:UNDUE is, that's what you're doing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

So you admit that Barro found no substantial relationship between inequality and growth, but you want to include it to balance out studies of much larger datasets and vastly improved methodologies which do, out of deference to the author and his publishers? And I think you're forgetting Okun's crappy book. EllenCT (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I ever denied it. The text in the article said "According to research by Harvard economist Robert Barro, there is "little overall relation between income inequality and rates of growth and investment". According to Barro, high levels of inequality reduce growth in relatively poor countries but encourage growth in richer countries." (this is also how Banerjee and Duflo characterize the results). The finding that there is no substantial relationship between inequality and growth is itself substantial. And whether other studies are superior or if they use "vastly improved methodologies" (and whether "larger datasets" are always preferred is debatable. Most of the time the "larger" is obtained by including crappier data. There's a trade off there) is exactly original research. The notability of the author (and his publishers) do matter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you think that the article on light bulbs should include Harvard professors writing in prestigious journals prior to Edison's discoveries, saying that nothing will work as a filament? EllenCT (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your rhetorical questions are making less and less sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This isn't rhetorical: Do you think the encyclopedia should report on old inconclusive equivocation based on relatively tiny datasets without including its huge caveats? EllenCT (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It is rhetorical, because the source we're discussing here isn't an "old inconclusive equivocation based on relatively tiny datasets without including its huge caveats". That's just your original research.

Look.

First you said the Barro source should be excluded because it was non-peer reviewed (but a working paper from a very prestigious institution by one of the top scholars in the field)

I pointed out that the paper was published in a top journal.

Then you brought up Banerjee and Duflo as a reason to exclude Barro.

I pointed out that Banerjee and Duflo obtain very similar results to Barro.

You then said the Barro source should be excluded because it assumed the impact had to happen within one year (which was original research anyway).

I pointed out that this is completely false, that Barro uses ten year periods.

You then brought out Berg and Ostry as a reason to exclude Barro.

I pointed out that Berg and Ostry hardly mention Barro.

You then brought out a different paper by Berg and Ostry as a reason to exclude Barro.

I pointed out that that paper by Berg and Ostry didn't talk much about Barro either.

You then started with this Edison false analogy.

I don't even know how to respond to that. Edison invented stuff. But that's not the job of an economist. If no relationship exists in the data it is not the task of an economist to "invent" it. It's the task to document that there is no relationship.

The title of this talk page sub section is "Barro (1999)". Are you still even talking about Barro's paper, or just throwing around random thoughts and opinions? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

And look at the graph on page 9 of the IMF note by Berg and Ostry [14]. Does that look like a "non-tiny" dataset to you? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Berg and Ostry measured results from 140 countries spanning most of the post-war period to the recent 21st century. Barro used data from at most 76 countries, from 1960 to 1995. I will agree to include Barro if you agree to include all of the literature reviews in the bibliography below, including what they say about his results. EllenCT (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as how half+ of that bibliography is from sources which predate Barro I somehow doubt that they could have anything to say about his results. Anyway, this isn't horse trading. If a source is reliable and notable, it can go in, so Barro goes in. You don't get to set conditions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

As it turns out, the only source from your list below which mentions Barro is Easterly, and he doesn't really have much to say about him. BTW, that paper does have a really good lit review.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course, because subsequent reviews would never make it through peer review if they tried to summarize his entirely inconclusive and equivocal 1999 paper. [15] cites his 1997 and earlier work, and the literature reviews cite his subsequent work, which is in agreement with the vast majority of sources which say equality causes growth, not inequality. Could there be any stronger proof of WP:CHERRYPICKING on your part? And what does it matter to my offer anyway? I withdraw it. EllenCT (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

EllenCT, a statement such as "because subsequent reviews would never make it through peer review if they tried to summarize his entirely inconclusive and equivocal 1999 paper" is not only the quintessence of original research, it is completely false. Barro's paper is extensively cited. "Vast majority of sources say..." is also your own original research (actually, the literature is inconclusive, which Barro's paper exemplifies). And I am not the one who's "cherrypicking". You are the one who is haphazardly dismissing any and all work which doesn't support your pre-formed conclusions. That is neither good scholarship, nor good Wikipedia editing practice.

I note that over at the Neutral Point of View Board, all outside commentators pretty much have disagreed with you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

If I'm not the one who's cherrypicking, then let's see a literature review citing Barro (1999) for any reason other than to dismiss it as inconclusive. Which, as you have admitted, is "exactly the point! The fact that there is no correlation *is* the conclusion." I've shown several literature reviews saying that there is a correlation. Do you know of any which agree with Barro (1999)? The Barro work is not the subject of the NPOVN discussion, of which your characterization is false anyway. EllenCT (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Uh, you're the one who *is* cherrypicking.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

And one more time, since you seem not to understand it. If there's no correlation then there's no correlation. You don't go and "invent" a correlation which doesn't exist just in order to avoid being "inconclusive" (a strange word to use in this context). And I don't know what literature reviews you're referring to. You've linked to several papers, which don't discuss Barro, but you, for some reason, believed they did, then you linked to different papers, which you claimed discussed Barro but they just essentially cited him, then you started with some strange analogies to Edison, and basically it became impossible to understand what exactly you were talking about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Are there or are there not any subsequent literature reviews agreeing with the Barro (1999) conclusion that there is no correlation between inequality and growth? EllenCT (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Banerjee and Duflo support, but build on Barro's conclusion. There's also a 2012 paper by Barro which uses updated data to establish the same thing. Barro's 2000 paper has been cited almost 2000 times. Most of this work discusses it but also tries to extend it in some direction. Which is how scholarly research occurs. Just type "Barro inequality growth" into Google scholar and look for articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

And I'm the one who included Banerjee and Duflo, and after you failed to do so after saying that it should be included back on 14 September 2014 above! Why would you want to include inferior earlier work when you can have subsequent work with much more favorable treatment in subsequent reviews? EllenCT (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Kaldor

Here's three papers which discuss the "old" theory, by Kaldor (also Kielecki and others) about inequality increasing growth: [16], [17], [18]. These are still fairly old, except Galor's paper. But to cite this particular piece of theory they should be fine.

To be explicit - the purpose here is NOT to endorse this proposition, but rather to document it. Galor's paper in my view also organizes the theories neatly; you have the Classical/Keynesian view that inequality leads to growth via changes in marginal propensity to save at the aggregate level, you got the Neoclassical view, exemplified I think by Barro to some extent, that inequality and growth are independent and then you got the credit constraint and the political economy literature which posits mechanism through which inequality might hurt growth. The section should roughly be organized along those lines.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine. It's in the article. It's documented. So is the equivocal Barro (1999) you like so much because it is so inconclusive. EllenCT (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography of missing WP:SECONDARY literature

These secondary sources' descriptions of the relationship between economic inequality and growth need to be included in the article:

1. Alesina, A., and Rodrik, D. (1994) "Distributive politics and economic growth" Quarterly Journal of Economics 109: 465-490. "Inequality in land and income ownership is negatively correlated with subsequent economic growth."
2. Brescia, R. (2010) "The Cost of Inequality: Social Distance, Predatory Conduct, and the Financial Crisis" NYU Annual Survey of American Law 66. "'An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailments of all republics.' —Plutarch.... Income inequality and racial inequality ... crippled home finances and ultimately spread to all sectors of the economy."
3. Clarke, G. (1995) "More evidence on income distribution and growth" Journal of Development Economics 47: 403-427. "Inequality is negatively, and robustly, correlated with growth. This result is not highly dependent upon assumptions about either the form of the growth regression or the measure of inequality."
4. Easterly, W. (2007) "Inequality does cause underdevelopment: Insights from a new instrument" Journal of Development Economics 84(2): 755-776. "high inequality [is] a large and statistically significant barrier to prosperity, good quality institutions, and high schooling."
5. Persson, T., and Tabellini, G. (1994) "Is Inequality Harmful for Growth? Theory and evidence" American Economic Review 84: 600-621. "Both historical panel data and postwar cross sections indicate a significant and large negative relation between inequality and growth."
6. Perotti, R. (1996) "Growth, income distribution and democracy: what do the data say?" Journal of Economic Growth 1: 149-187. "More equal societies have lower fertility rates and higher rates of investment in education. Both are reflected in higher rates of growth."
7. Rajan, R. (2010) Fault Lines: How hidden fractures still threaten the world economy Princeton University Press. "Growing income inequality ... helped precipitate the ongoing housing catastrophe."
8. Stiglitz, J. (2009) "The global crisis, social protection and jobs" International Labour Review 148(1-2). "For a robust and sustained recovery, we must also address the underlying problem of insufficiency of aggregate demand, caused by global inequality as well as inequality within countries, and the build-up of excessive reserves."
9. Temple, J. (1999) "The New Growth Evidence" Journal of Economic Literature 37(1): 112-156. "High inequality lowers growth, perhaps by raising social and political instability."

EllenCT (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Those are good sources (mostly). But how in the world can you argue for including Alesina and Rodrik but demand that Li and Zou be excluded? Li and Zou *extend* the dataset used by Alesina and Rodrik. Li and Zou *generalize* the model used by Alesina and Rodrik. You can't have your cake and eat it too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Because they had to assume that government growth while the private sector shrinks is beneficial to obtain their tortured results. How about just the literature reviews? EllenCT (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not your job to question their assumptions and no, that is not what they assumed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

What does the fact that removing public spending from their utility function negates their results mean to you? EllenCT (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not your job to question their assumptions and no, it does not negate their results (you don't understand the paper).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you think patronizing is a valid form of argument? Anyone can read what they wrote about the necessary assumption for their conclusion to hold. If there was any evidence that the idea inequality causes growth was more than a tiny WP:FRINGE or that there's no relation between them, you have had ample time, for example, to provide a literature review in a reputable journal in support of it. Can you? EllenCT (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not your job to question their assumptions. That's the job of the peer reviewed journal editor and referees which chose to publish their paper. You're doing original research here. Let me say that again - a peer reviewed journal, so stop trying to fake it and pretend that it's "fringe". You are simply not listening and obfuscating.

And yes, you don't understand the paper. It's not a necessary assumption. It's a generalization. Their model is *less restrictive* than Alesina and Rodrik. It's Alesina and Rodrik who make stronger assumptions (by ignoring the possibility of government spending). If the assumption was wrong, the data would reject their model. It doesn't.

And I don't have to provide anything. You've invented a requirement which is neither supported by Wikipedia policy (show me a Wikipedia policy which says that a reliable secondary source needs to be discussed in some "literature review" for it to be used), nor by your own actions. How many papers have you added which are not discussed in any literature review that you've provided?

I'm running out of patience here. I've tried to discuss this with you in good faith. It's proven impossible.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider seeking dispute resolution. I am not obligated to discuss your attempts to delete every whit of text with which you disagree, and your wholesale undiscussed section blanking, when you are unable to find even a single literature review which hints at support for your position. Yes, you are obligated to find sources in agreement with the position you support. EllenCT (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, you posted this dispute to NPOV noticeboard. Nobody agreed with you. That's part of dispute resolution and a pretty clear indication that your edits do not have WP:CONSENSUS. Now it's up to you to convince others - myself included - that certain things should be added or kept out. So far you haven't bothered to do that.

I didn't do a "wholesale undiscussed section blanking". The edits were not "wholesale". The edits have been extensively discussed. And no section was blanked. You're behaving disruptively by engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

There already are reliable sources in the article. Which you're trying to remove. My only "position" here is that the literature should be accurately summarized. The fact that you think this is about arguing and defending some "positions" sort of shows that it's you who has a certain unyielding position and that you have a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude about the subject (as it happens I actually think inequality does probably hurt growth, which position is same as yours, but this effect is by no means strongly established and that's what the literature says. Evidence is mixed tending toward negative).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I posted the Li and Zou (1998) and Frank (2009) dispute to WP:NPOVN, long before you started reducing a long-standing eight paragraph section based on recent literature reviews to four tiny paragraphs which favor only your positions. And nobody agreed with you, there, either.

So, first, you tried to include positions exclusively suggesting that inequality causes growth, and when that didn't hold water, now you're trying to claim that there's no correlation, even though Banerjee explains why those results are meaningless, Berg and Ostry explain that equality clearly promotes growth -- more than any other factor! -- when run lengths instead of short periods are considered, and the peer reviewed literature reviews all confirm that position. You have been unable to cite a single peer reviewed literature review in agreement with either of your positions. I am glad that "as it happens" you are coming around to agreement with those literature reviews, and urge you to continue reading them, but in the mean time I suggest you cease your personal attacks and seek dispute resolution if you find the urge to continue casting aspersions. EllenCT (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you posted it to WP:NPOVN after the dispute came up here. Once again, I have no idea what it is you're talking about or how you arrived at an obviously false conclusion.

"And nobody agreed with you, there, either." I beg to differ. As anyone who looks at the discussion can easily see for themselves, two users (User:Alexbrn and User:bobrayner) agree with me. The former explicitly says that your definition of what a secondary source is is "quirky", which is a nice way of putting it (you then started badgering them). User:Markbassett brings up the weight issue and suggests rewriting the section to cover main theories rather than just listing findings from individual papers. This is a position I agree with (as noted) and it is what I've been trying to do, and it is what you've been trying to prevent. User:The Four Deuces also makes a helpful suggestion, but one which cannot be implemented as long as you keep edit warring to remove relevant important papers (such as Barro), keep adding obscure and idiosyncratic papers and off topic quotes.

I have made no personal attacks. I have been critical of your edits but that's because they deserve criticism. Yelling "personal attack! personal attack!" when no such attack has been made is usually what people do when they're out of arguments and find that the WP:CONSENSUS is against them and they get called on their disruptive behavior. And yes, your behavior on this article has become disruptive at this point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The NPOVN discussion started as a question about Li and Zou (1998) and Frank (2009), days before you started deleting 80% of the section. Alexbrn says he is not arguing for inclusion of Li and Zou (1998) and Frank (2009). All bobrayner says is, "Volunteer Marek is wise," an assertion for which I see no evidence. Markbassett doesn't agree with either of us and makes recommendations for edits to other sections. TFD wants less primary research, and more explanation of literature review findings. Who are you saying agrees with you about the question originally asked at NPOVN? TFD is clearly arguing the same point I am. Your accusations of "not hearing" your incorrect personal opinions and disruptive behavior are personal attacks, and I ask that you strike them. EllenCT (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to argue about this. People can read that section for themselves. Your interpretation of what Alex says is plain ... weird.

And if you want more lit review discussion, why are you putting primary research such as Berg and Ostry and Castells-Quintana and Royuela into the article? Oh wait, they agree with your preconceptions. You're also misrepresenting Banerjee and Duflo. Galor and Zaira is also "primary research", by your definition.

Either all of these are "primary sources" (not really) or they're secondary sources in which case Li and Zou and Frank are too. You can't have your cake and eat it too. That's exactly the quintessence of POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Clearly you aren't going to argue, because your accusation that my interpretation is weird is so obviously false. Berg and Ostry were repeatedly published by the IMF, which is far more exclusive than the NBER, by the way, and along with Castells-Quintana and Royuela include extensive literature reviews in their work agreeing with their conclusions. Li and Zou and Frank have no literature reviews, and their bibliographies are tiny in comparison. EllenCT (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Alexbrn says: "that seems like a quirky definition of what a primary source is" in reference to how you've chosen to define what a "primary source" is. When you start harassing them, they just say "I'm just responding to your question". I presume he doesn't know the two papers so he is not explicitly commenting on them, but just on your strange interpretation of what a primary source is.

And. One. More. Time. It. Doesn't. Matter. If. Castells-Quintana and Royuele. Include. Extensive. Or Not. Literature Reviews.

You. Are. Not. Using. Their. Literature Reviews.

You. Are. Using. Their. Primary findings.

Not all papers have a section entitled "literature review". Please show me the Wikipedia policy which states that for a source to be considered secondary it must contain a section called "literature review". No such policy. You pulled that out thin air. For POV, and IDONTLIKEIT reasons, to remove papers you don't agree with. Now I come along and I say, ok, if that's how we're gonna interpret what a secondary source is, then we should also remove these other papers. But you like these other papers, because they agree with you, so you've invented a new standard. Apparently a paper must have a section entitled "Literature review" in it to be considered secondary even if we don't actually use any material from the lit review but focus on its original findings. That and we are to judge the Secondariness of sources by the size of their bibilography.

This is complete bullshit.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but if you define WP:SECONDARY sources the way you have, then a well-cited secondary peer-reviewed source with a literature review is equivalent in authority to a WP:MEDRS review, assuming it isn't half a century old. Alex was asked, "Are you arguing for inclusion of Li and Zou (1998) and Frank (2009)?" and he answered no. That's not weird. What's weird is you seem to think that those literature reviews you say I'm not using don't completely agree with all the other literature reviews since 1955. EllenCT (talk) 06:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)