This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Economic stagnation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Economic stagnation was copied or moved into Secular stagnation theory with this edit on May 25, 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Recession means production will be their in the economy at the same time demand will not be their it is not means that economy is not having purhasing power but economy is not willing to buy. For example it is cycle producer-consumer-man power(prodcr/consmr) because of inflation prices will rise it is going to effect consumer, so consumers needs more money so they demands more wage,and it once again makes more proction cost and producer will be in presure to rise his products cost. It is also one of the face of recession or part only.
This page is 90% about economic stagnation in the US. it either needs expanding with more detail I think or just relabeled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.12.181 ( talk) 21:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The entire theory section uses the term " secular stagnation" (which redirects here), through this term is not mentioned in the lead. Shouldn't this article be renamed accordingly? Or is secular stagnation different from economic stagnation? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
"Secular stagnation" should probably be a separate article. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 03:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Be specific as to which sections and statements this applies. Phmoreno ( talk) 02:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
What is the reason for the "disputed neutrality" tag in this section? It's hard for me to understand how a the explanation theory that originated and was written about in the 1930s by relatively contemporary sources is non neutral. Be specific. Phmoreno ( talk) 12:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
You still need to be specific as to which citations you are questioning. Phmoreno ( talk) 00:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Please do not put tags in lede requesting citations for information that is clearly referenced in the article. In the case of the number of recent books and articles on stagnation this kind of tagging is not just offensive but ignorant. Phmoreno ( talk) 12:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
That section discusses recent usage of the term and is adequately referenced. I don't see anything in that section that could be considered "non-neutral". Please explain how the recent usage of "stagnation" in the cited articles reflects non-neutrality. Phmoreno ( talk) 13:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
This section should immediately follow the lede because it explains contains an explanation of the concept and other fundamental information. Phmoreno ( talk) 16:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Notice to EllenCT You changed the order of the article to something irrational without ever providing a sensible explanation! Phmoreno ( talk) 02:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I think secular stagnation should have its own article. This article should actually be just a short description of the phenomenon. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 03:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I will be revising Economic stagnation and will include a reference to the an opposing theory related to income inequality. I will be working on this over a period of several days, possibly a couple of weeks. I will do my best to address well thought through concerns, especially ones that show knowledge of the subject matter.
Disruptive edits will be reported to the administrators notification board. Time-wasting comments will be ignored. By time-wasting comments I am referring to: comments that are off topic or are not expressed in a way that they can be construed to relate to the topic, asking questions that are already answered in the article, citing marginally related sources, misrepresenting sources or making an original research / synthesis from sources. Phmoreno ( talk) 02:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
How should [9] be characterized in this article? How should [10]? EllenCT ( talk) 05:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
1. Globalization has lead to generally increasing growth rates internationally, although international differences in the rates of growth caused by income inequality have led to economic stagnation among the lower and middle classes in the post-World War II developed world.
2. While improvements in technology can prevent stagnation, more frequently aggregate demand determines which industries grow and shrink.
Bork (1999) and several of the papers look at it more from the point of declining productivity growth as the sector sizes change. Gordon discusses the decline in productivity growth in more detail. I have a financial newsletter that shows the contributions to economic growth in a bar chart and it's striking to see the effect of declining productivity growth and declining population growth on the U.S. economy. The change in income distribution is a drag that Gordon mentions but doesn't estimate, but I've never seen very high estimates for the negative impact of widening income inequality on economic growth because you can't actually create sustainable growth simply by leveling incomes; you have to have productivity growth. Phmoreno ( talk) 23:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Making space for expansion of Japanese stagnation section. Much of the United States information is now available at Economic history of the United States. Phmoreno ( talk) 20:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
It looks like two different theories are being conflated. They're both posited as explanations for stagnation but they are not both "secular stagnation"
One, you've got the Summers/Krugman etc. theory that because of demographic changes, real interest rates are low, monetary policy is ineffective and the "normal" condition of aggregate demand is for it to fall short of potential output.
Two, you've got the Gordon (also Paul Romer says this) theory that as far as technological progress goes, all the low hanging fruit has been picked so we'll have a lower rate of technological progress.
These two theories ought to be separated out. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 03:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I object to this revert because it deletes the section on the general international perspective, which takes a per-capita instead of a per-country approach. EllenCT ( talk) 15:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
None of the arguments above pertain to the deleted text. EllenCT ( talk) 12:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm a wiki rookie, so please forgive any inadvertent gaffes.
I favor a separate topic on the evidence for and against secular stagnation and the differing theories that seek to explain why economic growth may be markedly less than in the past. It is certainly true that secular stagnation might be discussed under Economic Stagnation in general, but there are many causes of such stagnation that are decidedly not "secular." They may be the result of ineptitude, corruption, events occurring in other economies, or discrete trends. For example, a country largely dependent on oil export revenues will be greatly affected when the global oil price declines. Users of Wikipedia with an interest in understanding and evaluating secular stagnation may not be interested in reading about stagnations of the past that have clear idiosyncratic explanations.
An article on secular stagnation theory should provide a careful and fairly comprehensive development of the recent historical antecedents (beginning with the stagflation of the late 1970s and including Japan's multi-decade struggle, the Asian contagion, the twin bubbles of the stock market in the '90s and real estate in the '00s, and the travails of the US and Europe in the ’10s) that gave rise to current interest in the theory. It should then provide an explication with citations of theories that seek to explain these events. I think I have identified four theories that are in play. 1, the earliest, is the Malthusian critical resource argument, widely popularized in the 70s by The Limits to Growth. Support has waned for this argument to some extent, but it's still around. 2, the neo-Keynesian argument that it has become more difficult to generate adequate aggregate demand to produce growth (Krugman and part of Summers). 3, diminishing returns from technological progress (Gordon, Romer, Paepke, and Cowen and maybe part of Summers). 4, an emerging environmental limitations or exploitation of externalities argument. Several writers involved in the climate change discussion have argued that rapid economic growth in the industrial era has been fostered by an ability to dump the waste products of that growth into air and water, and that the global warming threat means we must resize our economic aspirations to the atmosphere's carrying ability. China's decade of being the largest driver of economic growth while creating dangerously polluted air and water and becoming the largest emitter of CO2 is another data point. Contra Marek, I'm not sure why any one of these has a monopoly on the secular stagnation tag.
Because this is a topic of special interest to me, and I think it has important practical consequences, I am considering writing an article as sketched out above. This would take several months to do properly, as I would need to review older sources and acquaint myself with newer ones. Reading this talk page, I'm concerned that this topic is degenerating into some very agenda-driven arguments, which have no interest for me. Although I have opinions about the strength of the different theories, and even the concept itself, an encyclopedia is no place to indulge those opinions.
I would appreciate it if anyone could offer any recommendations on whether to proceed with such an effort and how to navigate the cross-currents evident on this page. 24.249.186.213 ( talk) 21:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC) Owen Paepke, author, The Evolution of Progress (1993)
I think this is a good taxonomy of the various stagnation theories (I'm not sure that we're disagreeing here). Right now it seems the idea is to put your #2 into a separate article (#1 and #4 are sort of scattered throughout some articles as well) and have this article be an overview. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The New Palgrave, Economic Development, Eatwell, Milgate, Newman eds. Author is Eprime Eshag, the relevant chapter is Fiscal and monetary policies in developing countries. This chapter is relevant to this whole accusation that anyone who disagrees with EllenCT is supporting "supply side economics" (sic). And that supposedly aggregate demand is the main force behind long term growth (which is actually completely backwards). Here is the quote:
"LDCs can be seen as 'supply-determined', in that it is the productive capacity rather than demand that generally limits the level of their activity. This means that the long-run rate of growth in them is determined by the rate at which their productive capacity grows as a result of net investment in the economy. Leaving aside the question of the capital intensity of production, the larger the share of investment in GNP, the greater the rate of growth of productive capacity. An acceleration in the rate of growth of productivie capacity and GNP will require an increase in the share of investment"
I believe this explicitly address the thing that EllenCT and User:Phmoreno were fighting over (basically, Phmoreno was right). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 07:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Phmoreno: do you believe your edit summaries at [19] and [20] are justified? If so, please explain why. EllenCT ( talk) 13:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek: why did you delete the dispute tags without discussion at [21]? Why do you claim that two against one is "consensus" when you are still unable or unwilling to provide any bona fide peer reviewed literature review articles (as opposed to sections in WP:PRIMARY research papers) in opposition to the unanimity of all the WP:SECONDARY sources reaching conclusions on these questions? EllenCT ( talk) 01:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
EllenCT: You are not the one to be asking anyone to provide "'bona fide' peer reviewed literature review articles" when you haven't provided any reasonable explanations in any of these discussions. Your whole talk discussions are obscurifications. You never present any meaningful arguments. You never provide logical explanations. You never answer questions and you have a habit of not telling the truth. Phmoreno ( talk) 02:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
`
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Which of these two revisions is better supported by reliable sources? EllenCT ( talk) 17:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Anyway the RfC is not formed well - it looks like it was thrown up just to get an RfC open. There is not enough information in the RfC statement to allow uninvolved editors enough information to give an informed opinion without wading through walls of crap. Jbh Talk 20:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
This RFC is a typical EllenCT Trojan horse. Her only intent is to find some way to make it look like economic stagnation is caused by income inequality and to place that following the lede. "There has never been an instance where secular stagnation has proven correct." This is her attempt to discredit the definition of the topic and economic history so she can take over the article for an income inequality soap box. Her comment about Japan shows her lack of understanding of the definition of secular stagnation and of the literature on the Japanese stagnation. For example, "shrinking population being primary" means she hasn't read Alvin Hansen, who wrote about falling population growth as a cause of the Great Depression stagnation. She also doesn't mention the Japanese productivity slowdown, which is also a major cause. Phmoreno ( talk) 23:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the lead doesn't particularly inform the reader what the article is about. I propose changing it to the following:
This obviously requires sourcing and would imply considerable changes in the rest of the article. At this stage, I'm looking for comments on two questions:
Changes in the distribution income (wage stagnation) are a symptom rather than a cause of economic stagnation. An explanation of the shift in the demand for labor caused by technology is given by Vatter et al (2005). [1] Phmoreno ( talk) 15:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
More or less correct, although I'd omit or reword the part about Macroeconomic policy. That sentence is more about how one can respond to stagnation rather than a definition of stagnation; if we had to have near zero interest rates but that got us to full employment and incomes increased, then that wouldn't be stagnation. What you're getting at is that in certain types of stagnations EVEN near zero interest rate cannot boost the economy. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
“The basic changes going on since the beginning of the century are not only important in explaining the unprecedented severity and persistence of the depression of the thirties but also in appraising the outlook for the future. The reduced rate of growth, with respect to both population and territory, is likely to be permanent. Technological change is still going on, at a rapid rate, and, so far as anyone can see, is likely to continue for a long, long time to come. In the thirties the changes were predominantly of the sort that requires relatively small investment of new capital. This, of course, may change. There may be innovations in the future comparable in their effect on investment to the railroad, the automobile, or electricity. It is highly unlikely, however, that further technical change will be so much ‘’more’’ capital using as to make up for the reduced rate of territorial expansion and population growth. This is the basis on which the stagnation school predicts a long-run deficiency of investing opportunity.” Harris (1943): Chap.IV by Alan Sweezy
I wouldn't include the contrast with "economic miracle"; however, a rapid deceleration in growth from a "miracle" period has been called stagnation, as in Japan's growth slowing in the 1990s. Phmoreno ( talk) 12:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
a workable definition of secular stagnation is that negative real interest rates are needed to equate saving and investment with full employment
I'm struggling with this whole concept.
As pointed out in Secular stagnation theory, the origin of the theory was the concern that stagnation might be secular, and thus (this is where it gets hand-wavy) permanent (sort-of, maybe). But it wasn't.
I see value in an article about secular stagnation theory as a historical article - it was proposed, it was much talked about and therefore deserves coverage. I sort of get that every time we have a mild downturn, some chicken little worries about the possibility of secular stagnation, so there may be value in follow up about subsequent failed predictions. But the main focus ought to be a failed economic theory.
This isn't the place to debate how that article should be written, it is just background for asking - what deserves to be covered in an article about economic stagnation that isn't covered in secular stagnation theory? Is it supposed to be stagnation that isn't secular? If so, it's a special case of the business cycle. If that article were bloated, perhaps something should be carved out for a separate article, but this wouldn't be my first choice.
Is there anything in this article that doesn't belong in either of those two articles? In other words, what is the point of this article? What does it add that isn't or couldn't be covered in those two articles?-- S Philbrick (Talk) 23:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Productivity growth had been slowing, but has recently turned negative. Greenspan's comment on this:
Greenspan then went on to bash the false "recovery" narrative, warning that "the fundamental issue is the fact that productivity growth has ground to a halt."
We are running out of people. In other words, everyone is very pleased at the fact that the employment rate is rising. Well, statistics tell us that we need more and more people to produce less and less. That is not a prescription for a viable political system. And so what we have at this stage is stagnation. [22]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Economic stagnation. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Economic stagnation. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Economic stagnation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Economic stagnation was copied or moved into Secular stagnation theory with this edit on May 25, 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Recession means production will be their in the economy at the same time demand will not be their it is not means that economy is not having purhasing power but economy is not willing to buy. For example it is cycle producer-consumer-man power(prodcr/consmr) because of inflation prices will rise it is going to effect consumer, so consumers needs more money so they demands more wage,and it once again makes more proction cost and producer will be in presure to rise his products cost. It is also one of the face of recession or part only.
This page is 90% about economic stagnation in the US. it either needs expanding with more detail I think or just relabeled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.12.181 ( talk) 21:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The entire theory section uses the term " secular stagnation" (which redirects here), through this term is not mentioned in the lead. Shouldn't this article be renamed accordingly? Or is secular stagnation different from economic stagnation? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
"Secular stagnation" should probably be a separate article. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 03:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Be specific as to which sections and statements this applies. Phmoreno ( talk) 02:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
What is the reason for the "disputed neutrality" tag in this section? It's hard for me to understand how a the explanation theory that originated and was written about in the 1930s by relatively contemporary sources is non neutral. Be specific. Phmoreno ( talk) 12:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
You still need to be specific as to which citations you are questioning. Phmoreno ( talk) 00:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Please do not put tags in lede requesting citations for information that is clearly referenced in the article. In the case of the number of recent books and articles on stagnation this kind of tagging is not just offensive but ignorant. Phmoreno ( talk) 12:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
That section discusses recent usage of the term and is adequately referenced. I don't see anything in that section that could be considered "non-neutral". Please explain how the recent usage of "stagnation" in the cited articles reflects non-neutrality. Phmoreno ( talk) 13:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
This section should immediately follow the lede because it explains contains an explanation of the concept and other fundamental information. Phmoreno ( talk) 16:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Notice to EllenCT You changed the order of the article to something irrational without ever providing a sensible explanation! Phmoreno ( talk) 02:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I think secular stagnation should have its own article. This article should actually be just a short description of the phenomenon. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 03:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I will be revising Economic stagnation and will include a reference to the an opposing theory related to income inequality. I will be working on this over a period of several days, possibly a couple of weeks. I will do my best to address well thought through concerns, especially ones that show knowledge of the subject matter.
Disruptive edits will be reported to the administrators notification board. Time-wasting comments will be ignored. By time-wasting comments I am referring to: comments that are off topic or are not expressed in a way that they can be construed to relate to the topic, asking questions that are already answered in the article, citing marginally related sources, misrepresenting sources or making an original research / synthesis from sources. Phmoreno ( talk) 02:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
How should [9] be characterized in this article? How should [10]? EllenCT ( talk) 05:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
1. Globalization has lead to generally increasing growth rates internationally, although international differences in the rates of growth caused by income inequality have led to economic stagnation among the lower and middle classes in the post-World War II developed world.
2. While improvements in technology can prevent stagnation, more frequently aggregate demand determines which industries grow and shrink.
Bork (1999) and several of the papers look at it more from the point of declining productivity growth as the sector sizes change. Gordon discusses the decline in productivity growth in more detail. I have a financial newsletter that shows the contributions to economic growth in a bar chart and it's striking to see the effect of declining productivity growth and declining population growth on the U.S. economy. The change in income distribution is a drag that Gordon mentions but doesn't estimate, but I've never seen very high estimates for the negative impact of widening income inequality on economic growth because you can't actually create sustainable growth simply by leveling incomes; you have to have productivity growth. Phmoreno ( talk) 23:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Making space for expansion of Japanese stagnation section. Much of the United States information is now available at Economic history of the United States. Phmoreno ( talk) 20:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
It looks like two different theories are being conflated. They're both posited as explanations for stagnation but they are not both "secular stagnation"
One, you've got the Summers/Krugman etc. theory that because of demographic changes, real interest rates are low, monetary policy is ineffective and the "normal" condition of aggregate demand is for it to fall short of potential output.
Two, you've got the Gordon (also Paul Romer says this) theory that as far as technological progress goes, all the low hanging fruit has been picked so we'll have a lower rate of technological progress.
These two theories ought to be separated out. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 03:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I object to this revert because it deletes the section on the general international perspective, which takes a per-capita instead of a per-country approach. EllenCT ( talk) 15:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
None of the arguments above pertain to the deleted text. EllenCT ( talk) 12:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm a wiki rookie, so please forgive any inadvertent gaffes.
I favor a separate topic on the evidence for and against secular stagnation and the differing theories that seek to explain why economic growth may be markedly less than in the past. It is certainly true that secular stagnation might be discussed under Economic Stagnation in general, but there are many causes of such stagnation that are decidedly not "secular." They may be the result of ineptitude, corruption, events occurring in other economies, or discrete trends. For example, a country largely dependent on oil export revenues will be greatly affected when the global oil price declines. Users of Wikipedia with an interest in understanding and evaluating secular stagnation may not be interested in reading about stagnations of the past that have clear idiosyncratic explanations.
An article on secular stagnation theory should provide a careful and fairly comprehensive development of the recent historical antecedents (beginning with the stagflation of the late 1970s and including Japan's multi-decade struggle, the Asian contagion, the twin bubbles of the stock market in the '90s and real estate in the '00s, and the travails of the US and Europe in the ’10s) that gave rise to current interest in the theory. It should then provide an explication with citations of theories that seek to explain these events. I think I have identified four theories that are in play. 1, the earliest, is the Malthusian critical resource argument, widely popularized in the 70s by The Limits to Growth. Support has waned for this argument to some extent, but it's still around. 2, the neo-Keynesian argument that it has become more difficult to generate adequate aggregate demand to produce growth (Krugman and part of Summers). 3, diminishing returns from technological progress (Gordon, Romer, Paepke, and Cowen and maybe part of Summers). 4, an emerging environmental limitations or exploitation of externalities argument. Several writers involved in the climate change discussion have argued that rapid economic growth in the industrial era has been fostered by an ability to dump the waste products of that growth into air and water, and that the global warming threat means we must resize our economic aspirations to the atmosphere's carrying ability. China's decade of being the largest driver of economic growth while creating dangerously polluted air and water and becoming the largest emitter of CO2 is another data point. Contra Marek, I'm not sure why any one of these has a monopoly on the secular stagnation tag.
Because this is a topic of special interest to me, and I think it has important practical consequences, I am considering writing an article as sketched out above. This would take several months to do properly, as I would need to review older sources and acquaint myself with newer ones. Reading this talk page, I'm concerned that this topic is degenerating into some very agenda-driven arguments, which have no interest for me. Although I have opinions about the strength of the different theories, and even the concept itself, an encyclopedia is no place to indulge those opinions.
I would appreciate it if anyone could offer any recommendations on whether to proceed with such an effort and how to navigate the cross-currents evident on this page. 24.249.186.213 ( talk) 21:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC) Owen Paepke, author, The Evolution of Progress (1993)
I think this is a good taxonomy of the various stagnation theories (I'm not sure that we're disagreeing here). Right now it seems the idea is to put your #2 into a separate article (#1 and #4 are sort of scattered throughout some articles as well) and have this article be an overview. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 17:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The New Palgrave, Economic Development, Eatwell, Milgate, Newman eds. Author is Eprime Eshag, the relevant chapter is Fiscal and monetary policies in developing countries. This chapter is relevant to this whole accusation that anyone who disagrees with EllenCT is supporting "supply side economics" (sic). And that supposedly aggregate demand is the main force behind long term growth (which is actually completely backwards). Here is the quote:
"LDCs can be seen as 'supply-determined', in that it is the productive capacity rather than demand that generally limits the level of their activity. This means that the long-run rate of growth in them is determined by the rate at which their productive capacity grows as a result of net investment in the economy. Leaving aside the question of the capital intensity of production, the larger the share of investment in GNP, the greater the rate of growth of productive capacity. An acceleration in the rate of growth of productivie capacity and GNP will require an increase in the share of investment"
I believe this explicitly address the thing that EllenCT and User:Phmoreno were fighting over (basically, Phmoreno was right). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 07:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Phmoreno: do you believe your edit summaries at [19] and [20] are justified? If so, please explain why. EllenCT ( talk) 13:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Volunteer Marek: why did you delete the dispute tags without discussion at [21]? Why do you claim that two against one is "consensus" when you are still unable or unwilling to provide any bona fide peer reviewed literature review articles (as opposed to sections in WP:PRIMARY research papers) in opposition to the unanimity of all the WP:SECONDARY sources reaching conclusions on these questions? EllenCT ( talk) 01:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
EllenCT: You are not the one to be asking anyone to provide "'bona fide' peer reviewed literature review articles" when you haven't provided any reasonable explanations in any of these discussions. Your whole talk discussions are obscurifications. You never present any meaningful arguments. You never provide logical explanations. You never answer questions and you have a habit of not telling the truth. Phmoreno ( talk) 02:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
`
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Which of these two revisions is better supported by reliable sources? EllenCT ( talk) 17:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Anyway the RfC is not formed well - it looks like it was thrown up just to get an RfC open. There is not enough information in the RfC statement to allow uninvolved editors enough information to give an informed opinion without wading through walls of crap. Jbh Talk 20:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
This RFC is a typical EllenCT Trojan horse. Her only intent is to find some way to make it look like economic stagnation is caused by income inequality and to place that following the lede. "There has never been an instance where secular stagnation has proven correct." This is her attempt to discredit the definition of the topic and economic history so she can take over the article for an income inequality soap box. Her comment about Japan shows her lack of understanding of the definition of secular stagnation and of the literature on the Japanese stagnation. For example, "shrinking population being primary" means she hasn't read Alvin Hansen, who wrote about falling population growth as a cause of the Great Depression stagnation. She also doesn't mention the Japanese productivity slowdown, which is also a major cause. Phmoreno ( talk) 23:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the lead doesn't particularly inform the reader what the article is about. I propose changing it to the following:
This obviously requires sourcing and would imply considerable changes in the rest of the article. At this stage, I'm looking for comments on two questions:
Changes in the distribution income (wage stagnation) are a symptom rather than a cause of economic stagnation. An explanation of the shift in the demand for labor caused by technology is given by Vatter et al (2005). [1] Phmoreno ( talk) 15:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
More or less correct, although I'd omit or reword the part about Macroeconomic policy. That sentence is more about how one can respond to stagnation rather than a definition of stagnation; if we had to have near zero interest rates but that got us to full employment and incomes increased, then that wouldn't be stagnation. What you're getting at is that in certain types of stagnations EVEN near zero interest rate cannot boost the economy. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
“The basic changes going on since the beginning of the century are not only important in explaining the unprecedented severity and persistence of the depression of the thirties but also in appraising the outlook for the future. The reduced rate of growth, with respect to both population and territory, is likely to be permanent. Technological change is still going on, at a rapid rate, and, so far as anyone can see, is likely to continue for a long, long time to come. In the thirties the changes were predominantly of the sort that requires relatively small investment of new capital. This, of course, may change. There may be innovations in the future comparable in their effect on investment to the railroad, the automobile, or electricity. It is highly unlikely, however, that further technical change will be so much ‘’more’’ capital using as to make up for the reduced rate of territorial expansion and population growth. This is the basis on which the stagnation school predicts a long-run deficiency of investing opportunity.” Harris (1943): Chap.IV by Alan Sweezy
I wouldn't include the contrast with "economic miracle"; however, a rapid deceleration in growth from a "miracle" period has been called stagnation, as in Japan's growth slowing in the 1990s. Phmoreno ( talk) 12:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
a workable definition of secular stagnation is that negative real interest rates are needed to equate saving and investment with full employment
I'm struggling with this whole concept.
As pointed out in Secular stagnation theory, the origin of the theory was the concern that stagnation might be secular, and thus (this is where it gets hand-wavy) permanent (sort-of, maybe). But it wasn't.
I see value in an article about secular stagnation theory as a historical article - it was proposed, it was much talked about and therefore deserves coverage. I sort of get that every time we have a mild downturn, some chicken little worries about the possibility of secular stagnation, so there may be value in follow up about subsequent failed predictions. But the main focus ought to be a failed economic theory.
This isn't the place to debate how that article should be written, it is just background for asking - what deserves to be covered in an article about economic stagnation that isn't covered in secular stagnation theory? Is it supposed to be stagnation that isn't secular? If so, it's a special case of the business cycle. If that article were bloated, perhaps something should be carved out for a separate article, but this wouldn't be my first choice.
Is there anything in this article that doesn't belong in either of those two articles? In other words, what is the point of this article? What does it add that isn't or couldn't be covered in those two articles?-- S Philbrick (Talk) 23:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Productivity growth had been slowing, but has recently turned negative. Greenspan's comment on this:
Greenspan then went on to bash the false "recovery" narrative, warning that "the fundamental issue is the fact that productivity growth has ground to a halt."
We are running out of people. In other words, everyone is very pleased at the fact that the employment rate is rising. Well, statistics tell us that we need more and more people to produce less and less. That is not a prescription for a viable political system. And so what we have at this stage is stagnation. [22]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Economic stagnation. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Economic stagnation. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)