Talk:Economic growth/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Need to put back cognitive theory of growth

I still don't understand why this section was removed. It is a vital part of the explanation of why come economies grow rapidly, others slowly, and some decline. This view is accurate but not politically correct, so we pretend it doesn't exist or has never been investigated. Nineteen Eighty-Four was an accurate prediction.Phmoreno (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I am fine with replacing [3]. Volunteer Marek deleted it as "fringe", but I am pretty sure that it does not meet WP:FRINGE at all, even using early IQ measures. I would love to see it updated with emotional intelligence, which has recently been shown to be far more predictive of economic success than the traditional Stanford-Binet IQ measure of mathematical, spatial, and linguistic reasoning alone.[4][5] EllenCT (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It most certainly is fringe and is often associated with the so-called "scientific racism" movement. Show me a textbook on economic growth or a review volume which takes it seriously or even treats it at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing about race or ethnicity in the deleted section at all. The source is well and affirmatively cited, very few of the citing articles even mention race or ethnicity. The overview here doesn't seem to have anything to do with racism, does it? EllenCT (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Most of the article in that search are based on Lynn and Vanhanen's really crappy book, which yes, does have to do with race and all that. In particular Lynn is closely associated with the Pioneer Fund (IIRC he might run it), a group widely perceived as racist and involved in funding "scientific racism" (racism dressed up in scientific lingo).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh great. Just great. What a cluster.... How do you feel about emotional intelligence? As far as I know, it's not mired in racist creeps, and it correlates much more strongly with economic outcomes than Stanford-Binet IQ, per the meta-analysis PDF I linked above. EllenCT (talk) 05:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know much about it, or at least not about how it relates to economic growth.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

How about this secondary source? It's not as quantitative as the meta-analysis, but it surveys far more primaries. EllenCT (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I would be hesitant about extrapolating (i.e. doing original research) from sources which deal with individual income (microeconomics) conclusions about economic growth (macroeconomics). While the two are obviously related they are not the same (example: higher education might enable you to extract more rents from others in the form of bribes, increasing your personal income but lowering average income in society - this is actually not uncommon in developing countries which is why sometimes education for these shows up as negatively correlated with growth). You got to beware the fallacy of composition.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The first source draws explicit conclusions about macroeconomic growth. How about, "Personal capital, including IQ and emotional intelligence, is a source of economic growth. Management of emotions, ability to self-motivate, and social skills are in most cases a more important determinant than IQ, intellectual preparation, or task training," citing p. 467 of that first Tomer (2003) source? EllenCT (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't really. And even if it did, that's just one source out of the thousands of scholarly articles on the topic that are published every year. In this topic area, for a given variable X, where X can be anything, there exists at least one paper which claims that X is related to economic growth. That's sort of been the plague of the whole Economic Growth literature where people just do lots of data-mining to find a "significant" correlation with growth and then try to get it published (usually in some lower tier journal). Apparently, EVERYTHING is crucially important for growth. So unless this is a widely addressed question in the literature as a whole, this is WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It repeatedly refers to explaining previously unexplained changes in economic growth, and you earlier said that high GDP allows greater education which causes growth, plus it's a secondary review of hundreds of primary studies. I don't think a couple sentences is undue at all, and it allows us to sidestep the larger body of primary studies corrupted by racism. EllenCT (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I was just reading Dension's Accounting for United States Economic Growth 1929-1969, which stresses the importance of human capital. I am going to mention human capital following the section on physical capital that I'm adding. Phmoreno (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

And anyone who brings up "1984" in an internet argument most likely hasn't read the work.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There are some well known books and papers on the subject that I would classify as serious research by people with good credentials but the data sets used have been questioned. Race Differences in Intelligence is one that was recommended to me, but I have not read it. Perhaps there exists some research that satisfies the criteria of sound data and analysis. I may sort through these, but its not a serious interest of mine. My main point in bringing this up is that if someone is going to ramble on about the effects of income inequality on economic growth, this topic needs to be part of the discussion. Maybe this approach will shed some light on why that the bottom tier of economies aren't even capable of reporting economic statistics. 1984: Required reading at my high school and I recently re-read it. Some of the things Orwell mentioned have come to pass, like being monitored by the telecreen, watching who you call, tracking your cell phone GPS and collecting data on your calls. Also the disinformation put out by the mainstream media. Big Brother really is watching you, and your banking transactions.Phmoreno (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The obvious answer to the question of why "bottom tier of economies aren't even capable of reporting economic statistics" is that the poor countries cannot report accurate statistics is not because people living in those countries are stupid, but because they're... poor. Collecting economic (or any other kind) of national statistics takes a lot of resources, time, money and trained educated individuals. Poor countries don't have these. Or even if they got some, they got more pressing needs to address first, before going out there and doing favors for academics. There's really no mystery here.

And that sort of addresses the whole question of "IQ" and "cognitive theories of growth" and such. All those stats demonstrate is that poor countries happen to be... poor. With little education, inadequate childhood nutrition, environmental hazards etc. etc. etc. James Heckman pretty much killed most of this "a person is born with a fixed IQ" junk something like two decades ago. The causality runs the other way, from growth and income to these "cognitive outcomes".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I believe the issue is much more complicated than your poverty cycle simplification or perhaps that there is no such thing as "fixed IQ"; however, neither of these are enough to refute the work that has been published. Populations everywhere were poor until just before the early modern era, however, some were civilized (and had high income inequality, and slavery in some places). There has to be a reason why some peoples lived with stone age technology and never developed writing despite thousands of years of contact with civilization. I'd still like to know what the best work on the subject is. Some recent books on the subject include IQ and the wealth of nations and IQ and Global Inequality.Phmoreno (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, IQ and the Wealth of Nations is the Lynn and Vanhanen book I mention above. Lynn heads the Pioneer Fund, a racist think tank.

And this is going off into original research territory, but the answer to "why didn't some people didn't develop writing" is the same one as to almost every other question in economics. No incentive to do so. Do you really think that knowing how to write improves the productivity of a farmer engaged in subsistence traditional agriculture in the pre-industrial world? As long as societies have low population densities, hence only need a moderate level of complexity, things like "education", "writing", etc. are really just luxury consumption goods, not investment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

There is one memoir I think everyone should read: La relación of Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, which tells the story of a failed Spanish expedition to N. America in 1526 of which there were four survivors out of 600. Cabeza de Vaca lived with the Native Americans for six years. His account vividly describes what life was like in the stone age. I recently gave a lecture on technology in ancient China. They had state sponsored programs on agricultural research 2000 years ago that developed intensive agriculture, hence the high population density. Intensive agriculture required iron tools, so they had 47 state owned regional foundries in the first century BC making not just agricultural implements but iron pots, which were common in ordinary households. These items did not add much to income, but they greatly reduced the amount of toil in daily life, that is, they increased productivity. If you read the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea you will find that the villages along the African coast of the Indian Ocean (ca. 50 AD+/- 10 years) traded with the Middle East and India, so they were exposed to writing and various goods, but somehow never managed to either try to write or make the things they traded for.Phmoreno (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the key phrase in the above paragraph there is "these items did not add much to income". Why adopt a technology if its' not going to improve your standard of living, especially if it's uncertain? Unless you're a state which wishes to have more subjects in order to wage wars that is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

It is possible to improve living standards without improving income. Improving efficiency can reduce the need for income. Cooking many foods increases the amount of net energy yielded from digestion. Using a pottery oven, heater or an iron stove is several times more efficient than an open fire, reducing the consumption of firewood. A wheel reduces the friction of transport. Using an iron wheel on iron rails reduces energy 95% compared to a wagon on typical 17th century road.Phmoreno (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

But historically improvements in efficiency did not increase income. See also my comment below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This reminds me. This article fails to mention Jared Diamond, Michael Kremer or more recent stuff related to this topic like Ashraf and Galor. I hesitate to add it because this article is about Economic Growth in general, hence primarily about modern economic growth, not historical.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"Needs to be replaced with real per-capita income versus productivity"

@Phmoreno: re [6], how would per-capita (mean) income ever diverge from productivity? They are completely correlated. Median income shows the extent to which the average person is or is not benefiting from increases in productivity. Mean income would stay the same if a factory owner fired all his workers and replaced them with robots. EllenCT (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That was my point, although the correlation is good it is not not exact because of new products and services and other factors. This article is about economic growth, not income distribution.Phmoreno (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

So why do you want to hide the fact that median income in the US, which had historically matched productivity, decoupled from it in 1973? What is the use of showing people the tautological correlation with mean income when the median income has information about what happened to typical wages going flat while productivity continued to increase? What benefit is there in hiding that from the readers? EllenCT (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the section explaining the relationship of productivity to growth because its about distribution. And it is in fact misleading because it doesn't show the rate or the change in productivity or the changes in composition of the family due to the rise in single parent households. Show a graph of two parent households instead.Phmoreno (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that distribution is not directly related to growth due to aggregate demand? Real median individual income in the US has been just as flat as real median household income since the early 1970s, and the change in the number of single parent households in the US pales in comparison to the post-2008 change in household composition caused by individuals moving back in with their parents. And how can you possibly claim that the graph "doesn't show the rate or the change in productivity"? That's exactly half of what it does show. EllenCT (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Its very difficult to explain something to someone who doesn't understand the difference between a rate of change and an index. This is a simple concept. I explained this to you once before and I'm getting tired of wasting my time.Phmoreno (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Is distribution related to growth through aggregate demand or not? Of course I know what a first derivative is. If you meant "rate of the change" instead of "or the change," as you wrote, then explain why the rate of change is more important than the actual amount of productivity. That is completely evident from the slope of the line in the graph, in any case. EllenCT (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Because the rate of change of productivity growth slowed down. You can't take the derivative of the curve shown to get the percentage rate of change.Phmoreno (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

That graph (since removed) is an example of half truths told by statistics, either intentionally or due to ignorance of the author. We can't see the productivity slowdown with the date presented this way. The productivity slowdown is the most important economic problem facing many countries. Alternately, if we are going to show a productivity index and compare that income, the more important story is that real per capita disposable income rose along with the productivity index.Phmoreno (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not, you must use a median measure. If ten people were making a mean disposable income of $40,000 and everyone else died of starvation, the per capita disposable income would still go up. Or, more realistically, if median incomes fell by the same total amount that the top 1% increased, it would stay the same. EllenCT (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, the section that graph was in discusses the relationship between economic growth and productivity. You keep trying to turn it into an income distribution relationship, which is not the topic of this section. One last time- Take those arguments to the article on Economic inequalityPhmoreno (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@EllenCT:, you should be familiar with the effect on single parent households on income distribution from this discussion about material from Economic inequality. Talk:Economic inequality#Recent edits:

There is statistical evidence that shows strong links between single-parent families and lower income. In spite of the statistical evidence about the economic advantages enjoyed by married couples and also by their children, evidence that is at odds with ideological positions of many influential voices, Maranto and Crouch point out that "in the current discussions about increased inequality, few researchers... directly address what seems to be the strongest statistical correlate of inequality in the United States: the rise of single-parent families during the past half century." WSJ article

I don't know who removed the information above, but below it was a promise by you to restore it dated months ago. I copied the relist and did a search for the articles which did not find them.Phmoreno (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Physical capital, human capital

I started this section mainly as a placeholder. It is going to take a little while for me to develop because of my schedule. My notes from Bjork (1999) have some fundamental material, but the subject is somewhat complicated. I have to do some more reading before I can best describe diminishing returns on capital per worker. I also have to discuss depreciation. Then I have to add some information about capital in the neoclassical model. National income accounting (NIA) does not recognize human capital, but Bjork's opinion is that it is as important for growth as physical capital. Denison is of a similar opinion as Bjork on human capital.Phmoreno (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a general level article so most of the details should really go in the specific articles, like Solow model. What's the Bjork source? Not sure what you mean by "NIA does not recognize human capital". NIA measures flows not stocks. Also, the idea that human capital is as important or even more is pretty well established. See for example the classic Mankiw, Romer and Weil paper (whatever its flaws).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bjork reference is:

• Bjork, Gordon J. (1999). The Way It Worked and Why It Won’t: Structural Change and the Slowdown of U.S. Economic Growth. Westport, CT; London: Praeger. pp. 2, 67. ISBN 0-275-96532-5. This book is a good practical introduction to the subject of economic growth for the non-economist, although many professional economists could benefit from the big picture view according to Bjork. Good introduction to government statistics and the accounting behind the numbers. Bjork discusses the structural changes in the U.S. economy through the changing size of the various economic sectors. Lots of other good information applicable to this article.Phmoreno (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this sentence makes sense:

"The notion of growth as increased stocks of capital goods was codified as the Solow-Swan Growth Model". The notion of growth as increased stocks of capital goods is not the notion of growth of Solow-Swan. The notion of growth in Solow-Swan is still increases in per capita income, as in all other theories of growth.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Physical constraints to growth- reason to keep

Physical constraints were part of classical economics and were mentioned by Ricardo and others who were concerned about the negative effects of depletion by extractive industries. One source I have for this is: I have another one somewhere in my notes. A main theme of economic thought is substitution of other resources for depletable ones,(many sources in addition to previous cite) but in many cases, such as phosphorus there are no substitutes. Use of powered machinery initially raised productivity of extractive industries, but now resource quality has continued to decline for many minerals and productivity is in decline. Copper is a poster child because of the continued decline in ore grades. Oil and gas are other examples. My sources on this subject are out of date, but this information is easy to find on the internet. Peak minerals has several references, Geodestenies (1998) is a good but dated ref. Euan Means has also written about thisPhmoreno (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

References

New IMF Staff Discussion Note

"if the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth. The poor and the middle class matter the most for growth via a number of interrelated economic, social, and political channels."[7] should be included. EllenCT (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Income inequality still not correctly portrayed

This section still is written to misrepresent the facts. In economics inequality is the result of the distribution of income. If wages are raised at the low end, the result is the substitution of more capital for labor. Unintended consequences, like rising prices, also result from redistribution of income. Also, the inverted U curve of inequality versus per capita GDP is not adequately represented, so we don't have inequality in perspective between developing and developed countries. All of these issues need to be discussed in the first paragraph of the section.Phmoreno (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

What is your source for the statement that "If wages are raised at the low end, the result is the substitution of more capital for labor"? And what do you mean by that? If wages are raised at the low end, aggregate demand increases and a greater number of people are able to express their preferences in the marketplace. EllenCT (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

There are numerous sources for the statement that if wages rise then there is more incentive to substitute capital for labor. It's basic economics, but if you want a source see A history of Economic Thought that is cited in the article. Any increase in aggregate demand has to be net of jobs lost due to substitution of labor for capital. If you want a wonderful example read The Box about container shipping.Phmoreno (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

That is a wonderful book! Excellent! Worth re-reading. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, what is the specific source and page number for that statement? How does it square with [8]? EllenCT (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The citations with page numbers will appear in the text when I rewrite this mess.Phmoreno (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you plan to discuss what you may reasonably expect to be controversial edits on the talk page before rewriting long sections arrived at through detailed dialectic, or just impose a new version as a surprise? EllenCT (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Income inequality Undue weight

The only quantitative information that can be found in the citations regarding the relationship between income inequality and growth says "Although statistically significant, the magnitude of the relationship between inequality and growth is relatively small." See blockquote in section for reference. Phmoreno (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

A quote from the Temple paper:

Yet macroeconomists have traditionally shown little interest in the gulf between rich and poor. The study of growth at the aggregate level has often been something of a backwater, relegated to a brief last chapter in mainstream textbooks, and rarely taken on by anyone outside development economics.

So if economists don't bother discussing income inequality, why does it deserve so much attention here?

The literature on growth discusses numerous problems with income inequality studies such as poor data, time lags, the Kuznets hypothesis and other political and social factors that make it extremely difficult to understand the true relationship between inequality and growth. At most, this section should summarize a few points and leave the rest to Economic inequality.Phmoreno (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Temple (1999) was complaining that economists in general did not give sufficient attention to the income distribution among the determinants of economic growth, and his primary conclusion is directly contrary to your contention that it should be ignored. Your use of the term "only" indicates that you have missed at least five other references in that section. Please re-read it and let us know if you can find them. EllenCT (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Order of importance

The fundamental factors and the components of national income accounting go before the secondary variables. Some of these, like income inequality, don't even belong here and are going to get significantly downsized to clear up some of the inequality myths that are being perpetuated here. References will of course be provided when that edit happens.Phmoreno (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any sources in support of your opinions? The IMF graph clearly indicates that income equality is the most determinate factor in the duration of growth spells. After several months, you have been unable to cite a single peer-reviewed source which agrees with your increasingly persistent opinion that income equality is unimportant, let alone any source of the quality and reliability of the several secondary sources which are already in the article. Do you expect editors to take your opinion on faith? EllenCT (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Quit telling lies about my lack of sources. You are so extreme that you will use any underhanded, deceptive thing that you can to push your POV. Several editors beside myself have had enough and I have their support.Phmoreno (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's see your sources, then. The last time you complained about me on WP:ANI, you initiated a WP:BOOMERANG which almost got someone else topic banned.[9] Do you think you have support from anyone other than those who don't like the consensus of the peer reviewed secondary sources for no other reason than their personal political preferences? EllenCT (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the organization of this article should follow the standard presentation that is found in textbooks. And yes, that means that the effect of income inequality is somewhere towards the end, as that is not one of the main factors which are usually discussed in this context. There might be one or two studies out there which argue that income inequality is THE most important determinant of growth but then there's one or two studies out there which argue that "factor X" is the most important determinant of growth. Basically you'd have to show that these one or two studies are representative of the literature as a whole (they aren't).Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to make a slight change by grouping together "determinants of growth" per Bjork (1999). This is from his quantitative record chapter on GDP. This change will addresses comments made by others in a previous Talk discussion.Phmoreno (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Inequality myths

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/inequality-myths

http://fortune.com/2015/03/02/economic-inequality-myth-1-percent-wealth/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/05/08/dispelling-myths-about-income-inequality/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2014/01/02/the-five-biggest-myths-about-income-inequality/

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101367332

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/02/24/Incessant-Myth-Growing-Wealth-Gap

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/09/inequality

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/01/06-income-gains-and-inequality-burtless

These primary source op-eds and advocacy sites are poor quality sources. Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes. EllenCT (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Economist is a poor quality source? The Economist? Capitalismojo (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Economist is a primary news source which frequently runs unsigned op-eds. It is neither WP:SECONDARY nor peer reviewed. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's reliable source criteria. EllenCT (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Economist is not a primary source and it is reliable. However in this case this the economist blog not the magazine itself. That makes it more questionable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I am entirely familiar with WP:RS. Other editors clearly are not. The Economist is absolutely not a primary source. The Economist website falls under WP:NEWSBLOG and is not at all questionable. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Added a paper by the Brookings Institute that backs up some of these claims.

What to do about the IMF paper?

I thought this was a lousy paper.

"despite the attention given to an International Monetary Fund paper purporting to find that countries with more inequality experience weaker recoveries from recessions, the academic literature comes to no consensus. Studies are as likely to find that more inequality corresponds with higher growth, as they are to find a negative relationship. The IMF study was primarily focused on developing countries, while including only a few industrialized nations in Asia. The liberal Center for American Progress has published no fewer than three studies concluding that, among the studies which directly examine the question, there is little evidence that higher inequality harms growth."<ref>"Income Inequality in America: Fact and Fiction" (PDF). Manhattan Institute. May 2014. Retrieved April 29, 2015.</ref>

Phmoreno (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Which IMF paper? The Manhattan Institute, the Center for American Progress, CATO, Hoover, and Brookings are all advocacy organizations. None of them subject their publications to peer review, and none of them (nor The Economist) publish literature reviews frequently like the Journal of Economic Literature and law reviews covering the economic results of legislation do. The IMF papers in the article have uniformly been supported by the peer reviewed literature reviews and meta-analyses for decades. Paid shills at think tanks can't do a thing about that. EllenCT (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The IMF paper is not peer reviewed, except for the Manhattan Institute's review above.Phmoreno (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

How do you feel about this OECD book? EllenCT (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Cecchetti's comment on this article

Dr. Cecchetti has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

This is an accurate piece. I would link it to the piece on growth accounting.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Cecchetti has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Stephen G Cecchetti & Enisse Kharroubi, 2015. "Why does financial sector growth crowd out real economic growth?," BIS Working Papers 490, Bank for International Settlements.

ExpertIdeas (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@ExpertIdeas: Dr. Cecchetti would like this article to cite http://www.bis.org/publ/work490.pdf because of its statements about growth accounting? EllenCT (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi EllenCT. I am the administrator of ExpertIdeas. I think Dr. Cecchetti is referring to the Growth_accounting article on Wikipedia. Please feel free to contact me in case of any questions. I.yeckehzaare (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek did about half of that article. EllenCT (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Wow, that was long time ago.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

As to the BIS paper, that makes me note that this article does not have much on the role of financial sector in economic growth. The basic starting point for that would be Demirgüç-Kunt and Levine (which the BIS paper references, I believe).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Kuznets and Piketty

The Kuznets curve - and Piketty's comment about it - is about the effect of growth on inequality, not vice versa. Hence it does not belong in a section entitled "Factors affecting growth". If there was a section called "The effect of growth on other factors", or something like that, it could go in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of dispute tag in an edit summary making accusations of waring

Why was the dispute tag removed in this edit? EllenCT (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Because my edits cleaned up the POV problems. But I put it back in since you have problems with the section. However, if you are unable to convince others, or attain consensus that the section is indeed NPOV, I will remove the tag after suitable time has elapsed. Volunteer Marek  18:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

EllenCT: Leave it alone.Phmoreno (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? Are you threatening to boomerang Victor again? By all means, please be my guest. EllenCT (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

EllenCT: The recent revisions to the Inequality section were based on the consensus of lengthy discussions here. You had more than enough time to clean up the section and to cite the sources in a truthful and honest manner as would have been expected of a good editor acting in good faith and respecting the opinions of other editors.Phmoreno (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit. The lengthy quote from the recent literature review article which you personally replaced multiple times after I took it out was also deleted. EllenCT (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Growth, inflation and money creation

How exactly are GDP figures adjusted for inflation? Is this through a measure of prices?

As I understand things, price inflation can happen through supply and demand (either less demand for an item or more items produced) but it can also happen if more money is introduced and is "competing" for the same item.

Would there be any sense in comparing GDP with money creation? If there is an increase of created money from year to year then logic would say it could balloon growth through spending. What do you think? --JamesPoulson (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Does Capitalism Cause Poverty?

There is not enough coverage in this article about the role of government policy as a cause of poverty.

Zero Hedge post with a couple of possible source links. Does Capitalism Cause Poverty?

Di Tella & MacullochPhmoreno (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be interesting to establish what relationship exists between growth and poverty.

Government policy could be considered. For example, the cost of employing someone in Belgium is high and there is some red tape involved so this would discourage employment. However, there are unemployment benefits so poverty would be less apparent.

In this respect it would be interest to find out what ways exist to optimize employment. --JamesPoulson (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Relationship between growth and national debt repayment

Is there any source that discusses the possible effects of national debt repayment? This has an effect in taxes which in turn creates pressure on the private sector.

This brings to mind the Laffer curve. Is there a direct relationship between GDP and government revenue? --JamesPoulson (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Contemporary empirical econometric measurements

This OECD econometric analysis (a popular treatment and more detailed exposition are available) says, "income inequality has a sizeable and statistically significant negative impact on growth, and that redistributive policies achieving greater equality in disposable income has no adverse growth consequences.... focusing exclusively on growth and assuming that its benefits will automatically trickle down to the different segments of the population may undermine growth in the long run inasmuch as inequality actually increases." EllenCT (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

"sizeable and statistically significant negative impact on growth" My calculation using the figures in the report: 4.7% over 20 years= 0.23% annually. (1.047^(1/20)=1.00299)(Phmoreno (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

"redistributive policies achieving greater equality in disposable income has no adverse growth consequences...." History says otherwise.Phmoreno (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Uh, isn't this what you've been calling "primary research source"?  Volunteer Marek  02:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It certainly is, but unlike the primary sources you've been trying to insert under the incorrect premise that their literature review sections are just as good as review articles, this primary source is both based on larger data sets and, far more importantly, is in agreement with the conclusive secondary sources. EllenCT (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

None of these are primary sources. The data they use is the primary source. And the claim that this "agrees with conclusive secondary sources" is just pure OR on your part. The literature is generally inconclusive on this subject. Volunteer Marek  19:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you ask on WP:RSN whether the sources you claim are secondary actually are? Then we can move on to the questions of (1) the ratio of inconclusive secondary sources to those reaching a conclusion on the trickle down question, and (2) whether any of the conclusive secondary sources agree with supply side trickle down. EllenCT (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to ask at RSN, though I don't think that's quite the place for it. As to the other issue, there's nothing about "trickle down" in the article or any of these sources. That's your invention/imagination. Volunteer Marek  06:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there a better place to ask whether peer reviewed academic journal sources are primary or secondary? EllenCT (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the importance of the primary/secondary distinction has become exaggerated here as part of an underlying conflict. Policy like WP:Primary doesn't prohibit primary sources, just requires caution with their interpretation. More is better, and both sides should be free to include notable primary sources provided they are not making impermissible private interpretation of them. Don't worry about the article length - if you get enough length to really really be a problem, splitting out sections will be far easier than arguing about what goes in. Wnt (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Long term growth versus short term growth

@Volunteer Marek: - it looks like in the discussion above you place great emphasis on the difference between "long-term economic growth" and the business cycle, and this is echoed in a very short section in the present text. However, the current article text contains very general assertions like "Economists distinguish between short-run economic changes in production and long-run economic growth" without listing sources, and the target article isn't really very informative about that. That article lists a blunderbuss of different reasons for business cycle, but it doesn't really seem to give the impression that there's much consensus about what causes it, let alone that it is clearly distinct from long-term economic growth. Also, I wouldn't know how to apply it (for example, is Greece's predicted decades-long misery a long business cycle or long-term economic contraction?

I think the blurb summarizing that article here needs expansion, and local sourcing to avoid confusion. Wnt (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Evisceration of secondary literature in favor of primary sources

@Volunteer Marek: it is hard for me to believe that you think your recent version of the inequality section is anywhere near compliance with the reliable source criteria, neutral, easy to understand, or in any way an improvement. You discard and disguise the WP:SECONDARY sources in order to get repeated mentions of the flawed trickle down perspective in the first paragraphs, again elevating the primary research by Li and Zou which so clearly contradicts the literature reviews.

And take this edit for example. Here is an excerpt from the source you deleted:

“ over the past 30 years particularly, there has been an increase in inequality. In effect, we have been transferring money from the poor to the rich, from people who would spend the money to people who do not need to spend the money, and the result of that is weaker aggregate demand. ”

How is that not about growth? Read the other parts about deflation risk from sagging aggregate demand, too. I am replacing the version which we arrived at after several months of discussion. EllenCT (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

EllenCT we've already discussed it. My version is better organized... hell, it actually has SOME organization, the previous version is just a hodge podge pot pourri of randomly assembled quotes and snippets. Cutting out cherry picked sources and giving the discussion of literature a historical context actually improves neutrality (fact you don't like it says more about your biases than anything else). Etc.

As to that quote, it's not about growth. Aggregate demand generally affects fluctuations not long term growth. Volunteer Marek  00:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Better organized? Are you kidding? I doubt you could have made it look any more like an attempt to push supply side trickle down if you tried. I waited months for you to comment on the reorganization. And your edit summary here is absurd. Just like you, when asked to provide a WP:SECONDARY literature review in agreement with his position, Jimbo cited two primary sources. He did cite a third source, a bona fide WP:SECONDARY meta-analysis[10] which is clearly in the "inconclusive" category. That still means your attempt to elevate the position against which the conclusive secondary sources are opposed is wrong. EllenCT (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

EllenCT, based on our previous discussions and the nature of your comment above it's pretty clear that you are in no way willing to compromise or work together. I'm pretty sure that other editors have had the same experience when trying to engage you and deal with you. For example, the idea that I'm trying to "push supply side trickle down" is so absurd that I don't even know how to respond. You need to either make a good faith effort at engaging the comments made by myself and others over the course of several months or walk away from this article since your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude is really not helping to improve it. Volunteer Marek  02:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Based on the fact that you refused to comment on the organization for months, you think I'm unwilling to compromise or work together? Just because I care about properly reflecting the secondary sources in the article, you think your attempt to get the discredited trickle down idea that inequality can increase growth in each of the first two paragraphs, and I haven't even counted the rest of them, isn't transparent POV-pushing? EllenCT (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

As we both know you tend to enforce your own way on this article by tiring and wearing out others, by refusing to even consider opposing points of view and by engaging in relentless, although slow-motion, edit worrying. That's why I didn't (refused???) comment for some time. Your failed agitation on Jimbo's talk page reminded me that this still needs to be fixed. So I did just that. Volunteer Marek  18:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

You have already forgotten all the times I replaced a source because you complained it was deleted or similarly made changes to try to satisfy your critiques? Need we re-count those times and compare them to the number of times you have done the same for me? EllenCT (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about and this is getting tedious. Volunteer Marek  15:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

And it's "Jimbo" not "Jumbo", and no secondary sources is exactly what he provided. I'm starting to think you can't tell the difference where you think that "literature review" or "secondary source" means "stuff that agrees with my POV". It doesn't. Volunteer Marek  02:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Typo fixed. You've been saying that you are "starting to think" the same thing for more than a year now, all during which time you have personally produced how many secondary sources? EllenCT (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Several actually. The fact that you are closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears, keep repeating the same false cliche and insist on ignoring them is not really my problem. Volunteer Marek  13:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Which ones? Please find the strength to rise above calling names. EllenCT (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Barro, Alesina and Rodrik (which you removed!), Torsten and Tabellini, Li and Zou, I'm pretty sure I'm also the one who found Galor and Zeira but can't remember for sure, Benabou and probably a few others.

Please find the strength to engage the discussion with an open mind and in good faith. Volunteer Marek  15:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Which of those are you claiming are entirely literature reviews and not mainly primary research, if any? Which of them are you claiming are meta-analyses? EllenCT (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

All of these are secondary sources which contain literature reviews. These are also sources which are discussed in other literature reviews (though sourcing, say, Barro, to a paper by Li and Zou, would be sort of silly). Sources don't have to be "meta-analysis" to be used on Wikipedia. They just have to be reliable, which they are, and secondary, which they also are. Volunteer Marek  18:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between a literature review section in primary research, which is not required to be comprehensive, and an article published as a comprehensive literature review? Do you understand why the former are expected to be less accurate? EllenCT (talk) 10:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Would you please answer that question? EllenCT (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't insult my intelligence. Also, asking rhetorical questions, intended to set up a strawman argument is not acting in good faith nor is it conducive to a productive discussion. I consider your "questions" irrelevant. Wikipedia policy does also. Volunteer Marek  17:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The question is entirely sincere and completely on topic. Do you or do you not understand the difference between a literature review section in primary research, which is not required to be comprehensive, and an article published as a comprehensive literature review? Do you or do you not understand why the former are expected to be less accurate? Why do you insist on behaving as if you believe otherwise? Doing so exhibits both a profound lack of competence and willingness to attempt to use the encyclopedia to advance a fringe view at the expense of improvements. EllenCT (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

"Aggregate demand" is not "growth". Perhaps a quote about "economic growth" should be used in this article on economic growth. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Grain is not bread. EllenCT (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

And neither is sand. So what? It's not about the topic. Volunteer Marek  13:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you claiming that anyone has reason to assume insufficient supply, or that transactions aren't the result of supply and demand per WP:CK? EllenCT (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not, and it would actually be your responsibility since you're the one doing OR. Volunteer Marek  15:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm claiming the source is not really about this topic. I'm also going to claim right here that you're engaged in original research and coming up with your own idiosyncratic interpretation of sources. Volunteer Marek  15:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

What do you think is the correlation between fluctuations in aggregate demand and product? When do you think that fluctuations in resource supplies have been more tightly correlated? EllenCT (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

First, fluctuations are not growth. Second, correlation is not causation. Third, and most relevant, what you are doing is original research. Volunteer Marek  18:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

If you truly believe the relationship between aggregate demand and growth is not WP:CK, I suggest you consult with WP:ORN. EllenCT (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Uh, no. That's you doing original research, not me. Volunteer Marek  17:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

If you are trying to claim anything as absurd as the idea that demand is not directly responsible for trade, you are going to need reliable sources and the ability to convince neutral observers. You are the one making the extraordinary claim that the quote above is not on topic. You are unwilling to try to make your case because you know you can't. EllenCT (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually that article by Shin, which User:Jimbo Wales referred to and which Ellen is dismissing as not-secondary, has a really nice table (Table 1) which neatly summarizes the state of the debate and which could help us organize the relevant section. Volunteer Marek  02:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd appreciate being left out of this debate. Having said that, since I've been mentioned, it is clear that Ellen is misrepresenting the literature whenever she impllies that the issues in this area are as settled in one direction as in the scientific literature on 'homeopathy'. The exact relationship between inequality and growth is clearly a valid topic within economics with a range of views evident in the literature. Her claim that it is completely settled is clearly just plain false..--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Since you have provided an inconclusive secondary source, I no longer believe the issue is as settled as I did prior. I remain convinced that all of the secondary sources which take a conclusive position do so opposed to the supply side trickle down position. I also remain convinced that the sooner you come to realize that fact, the better off we all will be. EllenCT (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing here about "supply side trickle down economics". You are trying to use irrelevant red herrings as a scare-mongering tactic. That's engaging the discussion in bad faith. Volunteer Marek  13:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like you're trying to make the case that income inequality can increase growth. There are certainly situations in which it will and there will be such situations in the future. However, the overall statistical tendency is that when the middle class is poor, they buy more less than the rich will buy when they get the same amount of money. EllenCT (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

But growth isn't about how much stuff someone *wants* to buy. Growth is about how much stuff the economy can *produce*. And no, I am not making the case that income inequality increases growth. I'm making the case that the relevant literature says that there's no simple one to one relationship between inequality and growth, either empirically or theoretically. You're the one who's trying to (mis)represent the research as coming to some definitive and simple conclusion. Volunteer Marek  19:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Growth is indeed "about" how much the economy can produce, but far more accurately, how much it does produce. You are right you are not making the case that income inequality increases growth, but the fact remains that your prefered version discusses the idea in each of your first two paragraphs and several times below that. EllenCT (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Please make a table like that with secondary sources only. EllenCT (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

No, the table IS a secondary source. Please stop inventing rules nilly-willy. Volunteer Marek  13:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The table is from a literature review in a primary source. I didn't invent the fact that tertiary sources need to be based on secondary sources when the primary sources aren't in agreement. EllenCT (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a secondary source. You can deny it all you want and keep sticking fingers in your ears, but that's what it is and it is a perfectly acceptable source for this article. Feel free to ask for third opinion. Volunteer Marek  15:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you going to propose an edit to summarize the table? EllenCT (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a secondary source. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

A literature review section from a primary source can be construed as a secondary source, but because they are not required to be exhaustive, they are never WP:MEDRS-class like a literature review in a peer reviewed academic journal. The selection proposed by Marek in this case is biased against the comprehensive literature reviews, but not as biased as trying to suggest trickle down is reputable in the first two and several paragraphs. EllenCT (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It is RS and not primary, as you apparently acknowledge. This IDHT and obfuscation is becoming disruptive. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The inability to tell the difference between a literature review section in a primary research article on one hand and a literature review article on the other has more to do with comprehension than obfustication. EllenCT (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The real issue here isn't about sources; it's about Psychopathy. Please give this thought serious consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.90.193.20 (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Even if it were true, (1) leaving it at that doesn't help improve the article, (2) you probably mean sociopathy, not psychopathy, and (3) what good is pointing it out if you don't try to help solve the problems? EllenCT (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see much connection between this argument and the actual edit dispute. @Volunteer Marek: it looks like you're taking 9k of stuff out of this article [11], which doesn't look much better or worse than any other economics stuff to my altogether untrained eye. I don't have a problem with your narrow point that a literature review in a primary source can be secondary, but how do you justify taking out all this stuff? Wnt (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Wnt, read the discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, you say that aggregate demand has nothing to do with economic growth; yet your version still has something like eight mentions of demand. You deleted a paragraph beginning with the sentence "Economist Joseph Stiglitz presented evidence in 2009 that both global inequality and inequality within countries prevent growth by limiting aggregate demand", which to me, sounds like it is fairly solidly related to the topic of this article. I haven't seen an indication that you transferred this material to a more specialized article linked in summary style. Understand that for those of us who wouldn't know Stiglitz from Adam, losing this kind of detail means losing significant avenues for exploration. Joseph Stiglitz, according to his article, is the "5th most influential economist in the world" (which seems like an utterly bizarre level of precision for such a statement, but still, gives an indication he is of some importance), and you didn't add anything you deleted here to his article, nor is it linked in any way from your version, nor is it mentioned in the present version. Understand I would be more than happy to see you pursue and make as best a case for inequality as you can, since I feel all sides of a debate should be represented, but I can't accept this kind of large-scale deletion. I looks like you're just undoing somebody's good work and making the encyclopedia poorer. Wnt (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Lack of aggregate demand is not a primary limiting factor of economic growth. Neither is income inequality. More fundamental factors are political and economic institutions.Phmoreno (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Phmoreno: Well, as I said, I'm not an economist - but I do find that statement hard to accept. I mean, when news stories say that inventories have gone up, or sales have gone down, or even consumer confidence goes down, these are all supposed to be signs of recession, aren't they? But let's split up your objection into parts: a) is the quote "Economist Joseph Stiglitz presented evidence in 2009 that both global inequality and inequality within countries prevent growth by limiting aggregate demand" an accurate representation of its source? b) is its source a standard reliable source, not some fringe document? c) is there any other reason why we would not include it here? Wnt (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying we shouldn't overstate the role of secondary and tertiary effects such as supposed lack of aggregate demand in favor of fundamental factors, such as political institutions that support economic institutions that create growth or whether productivity gains have been exhausted in advanced economies.Phmoreno (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Phmoreno: do you have a source in agreement with your assertion that political institutions or the exhaustion of productivity gains are a larger determinant of growth than aggregate demand or the income distribution? EllenCT (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Phmoreno: Well, the issue here wasn't whether we overstate it but whether we state it at all. When an editor goes out and finds a solid source about a topic, explaining a notable opinion, and it can't be dismissed as a fringe opinion due to the weight of some much larger number of conflicting sources, it belongs in the article. We condense articles by WP:summary style, not by dropping references and data at random (or worse, based on what an editor personally disagrees with). Articles should aspire to be comprehensive. Wnt (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@EllenCT: You're not entirely off the hook on this either, because it looks like you removed all reference to the Kuznets curve in this edit. Regardless of some flaws in that idea mentioned at its article, it apparently had some influence on the perceived role of inequality in economic growth and so I think it needs to be discussed or at least mentioned in this section. Wnt (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not able to recall what I was thinking seven months ago so I don't know if I did that on purpose or not, but the paragraph about the Kuznets curve discussing Thomas Piketty is not the sort of thing I would intentionally delete. However, Kuznets curve#Criticisms suggests that I might have thought it was not mainstream enough to include. I would point out that recent large scale studies are contrary to Phmoreno's claim that political institutions are a greater determinant of growth than the income distribution. EllenCT (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Please supply a cite that says income distribution is a greater determinant of economic growth than political institutions. That's a really bizarre claim since it's actually political institutions that are a major determinant of income distribution.Phmoreno (talk) 01:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Berg and Ostry of the International Monetary Fund found that of the factors affecting the duration of growth spells, income equality is more beneficial than trade openness, sound political institutions, or foreign investment. Berg, Andrew G.; Ostry, Jonathan D. (2011). "Equality and Efficiency". Finance and Development. 48 (3). International Monetary Fund. Retrieved July 13, 2014.

Easy: this one that you've removed multiple times. Do you have any sources to the contrary? EllenCT (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

That's the one source you've been truckin' out throughout this whole discussion, going back a year now or something. But as has been repeatedly pointed out that's just one source, which doesn't actually represent the general consensus in the literature. It's just a source which you really happen to like because it matches with your POV. Yes, this source can be included but it should not be given UNDUE weight.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: what about all the other sources you removed? E.g.:

• A 1999 review in the Journal of Economic Literature states high inequality lowers growth, perhaps because it increases social and political instability. Temple, J (1999). "The New Growth Evidence" (PDF). Journal of Economic Literature. 37 (1): 112–156. doi:10.1257/jel.37.1.112. "...it has become extremely difficult to build a case that inequality is good for growth. This in itself represents a considerable advance. Given the indications that inequality is harmful for growth, attention has moved on to the likely mechanisms.... the literature seems to be moving ... towards an examination of the effects of inequality on fertility rates, investment in education, and political stability."
• A 1992 World Bank report published in the Journal of Development Economics said that 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...Although statistically significant, the magnitude of the relationship between inequality and growth is relatively small." Clarke, G (1995). "More evidence on income distribution and growth" (PDF). Journal of Development Economics. 47: 403–427. doi:10.1016/0304-3878(94)00069-o.
• NYU economist William Baumol found that substantial inequality does not stimulate growth because poverty reduces labor force productivity. Baumol, William J. (2007). "On income distribution and growth" (PDF). Journal of Policy Modeling. 29: 545–548.
• Economists Dierk Herzer and Sebastian Vollmer found that increased income inequality reduces economic growth, but growth itself increases income inequality.Herzer, Dierk; Vollmer, Sebastian (2013). "Rising top incomes do not raise the tide". Journal of Policy Modeling. 35 (4): 504–519. doi:10.1016/j.jpolmod.2013.02.011.

How many do you need? Again, do you have any sources to the contrary? EllenCT (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't remove Temple, it's still in there.

I didn't remove Herzer and Vollmer, it's still in there.

I might have removed Baumol and Clarke but I can't remember. I'm sure I had good reason.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: so there are multiple sources in agreement with which you approve, and you apparently have no sources to the contrary, so how can you say they don't "actually represent the general consensus in the literature"? EllenCT (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I think this entire discussion demonstrates EllenCT, that your assertion is false. You keep repeating the same thing over and over again, but that doesn't make it true. And I - and probably others - am pretty sick and tired of trying to explain it to someone who refuses to listen.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: what specifically demonstrates that my assertion is false? Is there are any reason you are "sick and tired of trying to explain" and claim that I refuse to listen other than that there are no actual literature reviews -- not just review sections of primary sources -- in agreement with your suggestion that inequality doesn't harm growth? Have you provided any such sources? There are several bona fide peer reviewed literature reviews which agree with my position, and one which is inconclusive. There are none which agree with your position. The only reason that you are "sick and tired" is that the answer to the questions I keep asking implies that you have been pushing an unsupported point of view according to the reliable source criteria which instructs considering bona fide fully secondary peer reviewed literature reviews as superior to review sections of primary research. EllenCT (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Section break

@Wnt: do you see any reason to doubt my assertions made to Volunteer Marek here? EllenCT (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

No, you sound like you know what you're talking about. That said, I would feel better if you restored or rewrote something about the Kuznets Curve as a step toward having a more inclusionary article. I'm also inclined to be indulgent toward Marek's primary sources, provided of course that the content he did remove gets restored. Basically, think of this battleground as a gladiatorial contest. As the audience, I will be pleased to see the best champions of the Thracians and the Gauls each armed with their favorite weapons fighting it out to the death in the arena ... but I will not be pleased to hear some functionary come out from the cells and tell me the Thracian champion was knifed in his sleep, so the Gauls win. Wnt (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the Kuznets Curve paragraph should be restored. The diff you were asking about shows my preferred version, although I will try to make further improvements as a compromise proposal soon. As for further debate, I doubt there is much more I can do. At least one editor calls me annoying instead of addressing the central point of the argument because he is unable to feel comfortable relying on the the twisted empty shell of what used to be the reliable source criteria before he modified the definition of a secondary source to include primary source literature review sections in order to prop up his preferred point of view. But I am optimistic that the other editors will come around, because if they were going to find a conclusive bona fide peer reviewed literature review in opposition to all the other many such conclusive reviews, they would have brought it to our attention years ago, not months. All they have is the one inconclusive review Jimbo found, which I agree should be included and cited. EllenCT (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The "economic growth" which is the subject of this article is long run economic growth; the trend in per capita GDP of an economy. The problem with the Stiglitz source is that it is using the term "growth" in a different sense, basically to mean "recovery from a recession". As such, it is not about the subject of this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

A recession is defined as a period of negative economic growth, so the sense is identical. EllenCT (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I pointed out the numerous problems with Berg Ostry (2011) before. First, it discusses the duration of growth not the rate. Also, claiming that inequality is more important than political institutions is not not supported by reputable economists (see the reviews on Why Nations Fail) or leading economic historians like Landes and Mokyr. Berg Ostry (2011) is a terrible paper and dose not meet the criteria for inclusion.Phmoreno (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The duration of growth is a more appropriate measure than the rate because the independent variables take three to five years to influence the dependent variable. That makes the annual growth rate an inappropriate unit for showing the relationship. EllenCT (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, Phmoreno is correct. The current consensus among economists is that it's institutions that matter. Both for growth and the degree of inequality. Here. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Your source suggests that political institutions are subordinate to income distribution, pp. 41-2:

“ Political power is the source of the incomes, rents, and privileges of the elite. If their political power were eroded, their rents would decline. Consequently, the political elite should evaluate every potential economic change not only according to its economic consequences, such as its effects on economic growth and income distribution, but also according to its political consequences. Any economic change that will erode the elites’ political power is likely to reduce their economic rents in the long run.

As an example, imagine a change in economic institutions that will increase economic growth, but in doing so, will also enrich groups that could potentially contest political power in the future. Everything else equal, greater economic growth is good for those holding political power. It will create greater returns on the assets that they possess, and also greater incomes that they can tax or expropriate. However, if their potential enemies are enriched, this also means greater threats against their power in the future. Fearing these potential threats to their political power, the elites may oppose changes in economic institutions that would stimulate economic growth.

”

EllenCT (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The subject of that paper is now a highly regarded book by two of the authors: Why Nations Fail Acemoglu & Robinson (2103) Look at some of the reviews by Nobel laureates in economics, historians and best selling authors: Robert Solow, George Akerlof, Peter Diamond, Kenneth Arrow, Joel Mokyr, Jared Diamond, Niall Ferguson, et. al. Phmoreno (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is continuing with the wrong kind of thinking on both sides. If you have or can put a statement in the article that A is B,^[1] and a statement comes up that A is not B,² the correct way to handle this is to say that "1 has stated that A is B,^[1] but 2 writes that A is not B.^[2]" Contradictions are good. They are what grow an article and make it more than somebody's personal opinion or just-so story. (to be technical about it, they are the engine of Hegelian dialectic or some such thing) Taking out one side should be a rare intervention when one side is, after exhaustive consideration, found to be a fringe theory with no real support among the broader community. This is not supposed to be a "social media" cage match where whoever gets the most upvotes is heard and the other points of view disappear. Wnt (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You are exactly right. I never argued against including the one inconclusive literature review Jimmy Wales found, I just want the article to say that all the conclusive literature reviews reach the same conclusion as the sources Volunteer Marek and Phmoreno have been removing. EllenCT (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Fujii's comment on this article

Dr. Fujii has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

The page is important but too much related information is covered in one page with essential information and minute details mixed together.

The following sentence is wrong.

By contrast, Total factor productivity (TFP) measures the change in total output relative to the change capital and labor inputs.

Perhaps, it can be rewritten as follows:

By contrast, Total factor productivity (TFP) growth measures the change in total output relative to the change in capital and labor inputs.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Fujii has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Fujii, Tomoki, 2014. "Dynamic Poverty Decomposition Analysis: An Application to the Philippines," ADBI Working Papers 466, Asian Development Bank Institute.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The definition of total factor productivity (TFP) was changed per comments.Phmoreno (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Hanushek's comment on this article

Dr. Hanushek has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

This article picks up major lines of work, and does so quite accurately. What is missing is any overall structure. Each section appears to have been added separately without thought to unifying themes and to the overall organization. It could be improved by a thorough review and editing.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Hanushek has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference 1: Hanushek, Eric A. & Schwerdt, Guido & Wiederhold, Simon & Woessmann, Ludger, 2013. "Returns to Skills around the World: Evidence from PIAAC," IZA Discussion Papers 7850, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

• Reference 2: Hanushek, Eric A. & Woessmann, Ludger, 2009. "Do Better Schools Lead to More Growth? Cognitive Skills, Economic Outcomes, and Causation," IZA Discussion Papers 4575, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I think Dr. Hanushek hit the nail on the head here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, the recent versions have been far from accurate. You have had ample time to find more than one secondary peer reviewed academic journal literature review in partial agreement with your statements. There is no deadline. EllenCT (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Amavilah's comment on this article

Dr. Amavilah has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality: <snip>

• Reference : Amavilah, Voxi Heinrich, 2007. "The effects of technology-as-knowledge on the economic performance of developing countries: An econometric analysis using annual publications data for Botswana, Namibia, and South Africa, 1976-2004," MPRA Paper 3482, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I removed the repasting of the article to the talk page above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

To what extent does gross private domestic investment determine the rate of growth?

The article on gross private domestic investment says it "is an important component of GDP because it provides an indicator of the future productive capacity of the economy." To what extent does GPDI actually determine the rate of growth? EllenCT (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The amount of future growth depends on the stage of economic development. For example, a nation with inadequate transportation, electricity or communications infrastructures would derive a great deal of growth from these investments, not counting the growth directly related to building out these infrastructures. Mature economies do not need as much capital, which is a theme in secular stagnation theory.Phmoreno (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Not only is that nowhere near an answer to the question, I doubt you have seen any evidence for it in the peer reviewed literature reviews. Have you? EllenCT (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't read the literature or you wouldn't either be asking this question or asking for references. I keep trying to help you but you're hopeless.Phmoreno (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I have read the literature, and all of us who have plainly see that you and your cadre are attempting to be deliberately deceptive about the extent to which income equality causes greater aggregate demand and thus growth, and now about how much GPDI determines growth even in advanced developed economies, because it fits your preferred personal political narrative that you attempt to push into Wikipedia articles. Never mind that attempting to misrepresent the consensus of the peer reviewed literature reviews violates the first of the core content policies. Your respect for Wikipedia policies is clear from your willingness to make personal attacks when asked to defend your claims; as is the validity of your argument. EllenCT (talk)

Where is the peer reviewed literature that actually verifies your claims. Most times I find your sources fail to substantiate your claims, and occasionally they completely refute them.Phmoreno (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding [12], on the contrary, you are mistaken. My statements are congruent with the vast majority, far more than 97%, of the secondary peer reviewed academic journal literature reviews on the topic, while yours have been in alignment with nothing better than a few WP:FRINGE schools of economics. EllenCT (talk) 23:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen you provide any secondary peer reviewed literature to support your statement, much less one that supports the statement " vast majority, far more than 97%, of the secondary peer reviewed academic journal literature reviews on the topic".Phmoreno (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes you have, and anyone scrolling up or looking at these talk page archives can see that I have repeatedly provided peer reviewed academic literature reviews in support of my statements, while nearly all of your and Marek's sources have been primary. Wnt has noticed the extent to which there has been reliance on the review sections of primary sources, pretending they are neutrally secondary, and it needs to stop. Your work is far worse, with mostly primary sources cherrypicked to match your political preferences. That needs to stop too. WP:IDHT tactics show poor WP:COMPETENCE. EllenCT (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Re "vast majority, far more than 97%, of the secondary peer reviewed academic journal literature reviews on the topic" - what claim specifically is this referring to and where is the source for this number? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, EllenCT, you really shouldn't presume to speak for "anyone" as pretty much... everyone, who's looked at these discussions has disagreed with you. And for the n-th time, yes the above sources are secondary and no, they are not cherry picked, they're actually representative of the broader literature unlike yours.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: no matter how much you wish you could find actual literature review articles to support your edits, the fact remains that the best you have been able to do is come up with is review sections of primary research papers. You know it, I know it, and User:Wnt has asked you to explain why you can't find actual peer reviewed literature articles. After years now! How long do you think you can draw out this farce? EllenCT (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Ellen, myself as well as others have humored your strange, idiosyncratic, fantastical and unencyclopedic understanding of what a secondary source or a literature review is, long enough. At this point further discussion is a waste of time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

@Volunteer Marek: do you think anyone other than my tag team trickle downers agrees with your blatantly false contentions that review sections in primary research are ever superior to peer reviewed literature reviews? Your oblique attempts at personal attacks are as far as it is possible to get from addressing the central point of which one of us has been complying with the long-established reliable source criteria, and you know it. EllenCT (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT, let me repeat my question: "vast majority, far more than 97%, of the secondary peer reviewed academic journal literature reviews on the topic" - what claim specifically is this referring to and where is the source for this number?

And this is the actual part of your comment where I know that you're just making stuff up: "far more than 97%". Like 98%? Oh wait that's only 1% more. So 99%? 99.99%? 99.9999999%? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Undue use of primary source literature review sections to delete material

I have described a situation pertaining to this article at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Undue use of primary source literature review sections to delete material in Economic growth. EllenCT (talk) 05:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Gomes's comment on this article

Dr. Gomes has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

This article delivers a thorough and detailed account of what economic growth is, how is it measured, what are its main determinants, which are the principal economic theories that explain it, and which are the potential limits to long-run growth. It is, thus, a complete and rigorous article, needing eventually only small corrections. The only thing I would change would be to withdraw the first point in the Theories and models section, titled Supply and demand. The demand and supply apparatus, even in aggregate terms, can hardly be considered a theory or a model of growth.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Gomes has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Gomes, Orlando, 2007. "Socially determined time preference in discrete time," MPRA Paper 3442, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)