Jump to content

Talk:Economic growth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 105.112.17.254 (talk) at 22:01, 16 October 2023 (→Economics: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2018 and 22 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Edwardv96.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting a deletion by an IP number

IP number 109.97.73.128, not signed in as a regular Wikipedian, just deleted the following two plots from this article:

GDP real growth rates, 1990–1998 and 1990–2006, in selected countries.
Rate of change of Gross domestic product, world and OECD, since 1961.

I'm reverting those deletions, because those plots seem to belong here. I think they are both quite interesting and communicate very effectively information that is relevant to this article.

Anyone who thinks those plots should be deleted should first initiate a discussion here on why those plots should NOT be part of this article. DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At 2016-12-25T21:58:58, IP number 109.97.70.161 made the same deletion as reported above without providing any rationale. I will look for an administrator and request semi-protection for this article. This will force whoever is edit this page to either quit or identify themselves. That should further help in getting them to explain why they are doing this. And I will revert this edit as I did the previous one unless someone else beats me to it. DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Economic growth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Economic growth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drain the swamp

This article is chock full of OR, UNDUE, and SYNTH that does little to convey mainstream thinking about this topic. We should begin by paring all the off-center theories and viewpoints stated in WP's voice. SPECIFICO talk 21:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Position of theories in article

Theories belong after causes, which is the section Other factors affecting growth. The models use these or they are considered exogenous. Causes are well covered in the literature. I know people were awarded Nobel prizes for models, but that does not make them particularly useful at explaining or predicting anything, in part because of the exogenous factors. One critic said for models to be useful they have to incorporate a minimum number of factors, but that makes them less accurate. Also, most factors are not quantifiable, such as capitalism, national intelligence and new products. There are several criticisms of mathematizing economics as taking a wrong turn.Phmoreno (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The long standing arrangement was to have "Growth theories and models" as section #4, but suddenly on December 26 you decided to put them at the end of the page, after someone else had moved the section. If you want to keep them after the cause, it's fine. But then, in order to be consistent, you should bring theories as section #4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VDB 1999 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theories going in Section 4 is acceptable. I only moved them because the were moved to the middle of the article flow.Phmoreno (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Innovation vs. productivity

Doesn't innovation cause increases in productivity, and not the other way around? I don't see why this article puts productivity on a pedestal and only mentions innovation in passing when productivity is strictly dependent on its causes. Nobody ever invents productivity increases, they invent goods, services, and methods which cause productivity to increase. It's like if an article on health explained that increased health is because of lengthening lifespans. 73.222.1.26 (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Innovation is about change, usually about new methods of making things, improving products or introducing new products and services. Improving productivity is about lowering labor or capital used in production, although some measures also include using less energy and materials. If new or improved products do not reduce labor and capital they do not boost productivity unless they somehow add to output. Usually the effect of new products is indirect in that because of increases in productivity total output would have contracted if it were not for new products.Phmoreno (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are the changes in productivity you are talking about not legitimately innovations? 73.222.1.26 (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All increases in productivity are the result of innovations, but not all innovations improve productivity.Phmoreno (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is widely recognised that Four Tigers are Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea.

Wiki Friends, new comer is here. I would appreciate your advices.

I recently read this article about Economic growth. Main part of the article is about the growth models provided by the fore-running great economists which I really enjoyed reading. Before the elaboration of the models, the article provides brief history of the worldwide economic development. I was amazed about the statement that the “Four Tigers” are Japan, China, Singapore and South Korea. And a few days later it was revised to China, Singapore, South Korea and Indian subcontinent, and then, the current edition as excerpted in following paragraph.

Economic growth in the United States slowed down after 1973.[33] In contrast growth in Asia has been strong since then, starting with Japan and spreading to Four Asian Tigers, China, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent and Asia Pacific.[34][35] In 1957 South Korea had a lower per capita GDP than Ghana,[36] and by 2008 it was 17 times as high as Ghana's.[37] The Japanese economic growth has slackened considerably since the late 1980s.

It is well known that the “Four Tigers” are Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea. This is not a strict academic issue, rather a loosely used term to describe the history of the economic development. Back to 1970’s, Singapore and Hong Kong were successful in changing themselves as regional financial and management centers and Taiwan and S. Korea were developing “manufacturing” to grow the export to earn and build foreign exchange. The article makes a lot of sense to describe the history of the worldwide economic growth track. It is not that I don’t admire China’s great achievement in rapid economic growth in recent 20 years, but back to 1973, the strides have not yet begun.

Also the reference number 33 & 34 are totally irrelevant. I am unable to trace what is the original and suggest putting in the reference of Olivier Blanchard’s Macroeconomics, page 236, 6th edition, which states what Four Tigers are. Blanchard has been teaching in Harvard and MIT and worked for government and organizations, including World Bank, IMF and OCED.

I would appreciate any input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond TM Lee (talk • contribs) 08:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe your comments are better targeted at the talk page for the Four Asian Tigers page. Or make the changes yourself. Sanpitch (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)?

Are the numbers in this article PPP or just nominal adjusted for inflation without adjusting for cost of living?

I read, "Real GDP is measured in 2008 dollars" in [6]:

  • Mankiw, Gregory (2011). Principles of Macroeconomics (6th ed.). p. 236. ISBN 978-0538453066.

Am I to assume it's PPP? I also cannot find the source in that source: It says, "World Development Report 2010, Table 1", but I cannot find that reference. I found something that claimed to be that, but I could not find the numbers in that report that appear in this table.

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

The impact of berg wind on human, economy and environment 41.114.96.196 (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cite book ... vs. Cite Q

@Trappist the monk: Why do you replace a use of {{Cite Q with a poor incomplete {{Cite book citation?

Are you familiar with Template:Cite Q?

Are you aware that the link to the Wikidata entry for that book includes a link to the Wikipedia article on that book as well as substantial additional information on the book including a link to an electronic copy of it available for check out anywhere in the world from the Internet Archive?

The book is by an economist Robert J. Gordon, who is different from an attorney named Robert J. Gordon, Wikidata Q16224376.

AND any additions or corrections to a citation in Wikidata are instantly available to every reference to that Wikidata item. If, for example, a new edition of that book becomes available, the connection can be made in Wikidata and it will become immediately available to all references to that Wikidata item.

??? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

reference info for Economic growth
unnamed refs 129
named refs 48
self closed 37
cs1 refs 161
cs1 templates 162
cs1-like refs 4
cs1-like templates 4
harv refs 1
harv templates 1
sfn templates 14
rp templates 2
cleanup templates 7
webarchive templates 9
use xxx dates dmy [ly]
cs1|2 dmy dates 5
cs1|2 mdy dates 8
cs1|2 ymd dates 9
cs1|2 dmy access dates 7
cs1|2 mdy access dates 5
cs1|2 ymd access dates 18
cs1|2 dmy archive dates 1
cs1|2 ymd archive dates 15
cs1|2 last/first 149
cs1|2 author 3
List of cs1 templates
  • cite book (45)
  • Cite book (6)
  • Cite journal (30)
  • cite journal (45)
  • cite magazine (1)
  • cite news (7)
  • Cite SSRN (2)
  • Cite web (10)
  • cite web (16)
List of cs1-like templates
  • cite Q (4)
List of sfn templates
  • sfn (14)
List of harv templates
  • harvnb (1)
explanations
Of course I know about {{cite q}}; I wrote the initial version of Module:Cite Q on which the template depends. But, that does not mean that I think that {{cite q}} is ready-for-prime-time. It is not and may never be until en.wiki editors form a consensus that accepts wikidata as a reliable repository and solves some very basic WP:CITEVAR-related issues (author names split into |last<n>= / |first<n>= but {{cite q}} uses |author<n>= for example, because that is how wikidata represents author names). At present, the consensus is against wikidata.
I published my edit at 00:27, 7 April 2022. At 00:53, 7 April 2022, 26 minutes after my edit, you added the Robert J. Gordon author claim to The Rise and Fall of American Growth (Q97627911) with further additions in the minutes following. Because the wikidata were incomplete, of course, the translation that I made from Q97627911 to a readable citation was incomplete. But, at least the citation was readable which, for me is most important. Most editors, myself included, won't bother with wikidata no matter what advantages may exist in using {{cite q}}. And readers, almost certainly, will not follow the wikidata link to see that the book is available at internet archive; if anything they will follow the title link to our article about the book where there is mostly nothing more than would be found on the publisher's website; it would be better to write that citation as a {{cite book}} and include |url=https://archive.org/details/risefallofameric0000gord.
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies. If Gordon's first edition stated something and that something were cited from that edition and then a second edition comes out that doesn't state that same something, someone changing the wikidata to point to the second edition all-of-a-sudden breaks the article-source integrity.
Of the six {{cite q}} templates, two show error messages:
this one is a conference paper so {{cite journal}} is inappropriate
this violates WP:CITEVAR by using {{citation}} instead of {{cite book}}; this one also seems to be a self-published source and the title at wikidata does not match the title at the linked source:
Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer – deanbaker.net
Rigged: How globalization and the rules to the modern economy were structured to make the rich richer – wikidata
this one also violates WP:CITEVAR by using {{citation}} instead of {{cite book}}
so in the end, of the six, this is the only one that is a proper citation:
{{cite q}} is not ready for primetime.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of income inequality in the US

@SPECIFICO: You reverted my recent insertion pertaining to the effect of inequality on growth and recovery time in the US. Why do you believe it is WP:UNDUE? I note that you did not reply to my statement two weeks ago at Talk:Economics that I intended to add it here. Dan Ratan (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't (yet, if ever) have an opinion about the content, but I almost reverted it just because it was stuck randomly under a top subheading in a section with more than one sub-sub-subsection. Besides content, if it comes back, please work to place it smoothly with the rest of the presentation. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New weave of economic growth and welfare

History of economic thought 203.215.174.90 (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Economics

Production Possibility Curve(PPC) Production Possibility Curve or transformation Curve is the presentation in a graphical form of all possible combinations of two commodities which a society can produce by employing full and efficient resources at a given state of technology. 105.112.17.254 (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Economic_growth&oldid=1180478250"