Talk:Economic growth/Archive 1

Misapprehension of the forecasts of the "Limits to Growth"

The article states that the forecasts made in the Limits to Growth have not materialised. This is in fact an error. The forecasts made in the Limits to Growth predicted problems for the mid 21st Century, and so the time period of the forecasts have not eventuated yet. In fact they predicted economic growth up until the period after 2010, with increasing problems thereafter, and a demographic collapse after 2050. This needs to be corrected. What there model predicted was that to achieve economic sustainability, changes would be needed to limit both population increase and the growth in aggregate demand on resources from the mid 1970s onwards. We failed to make these changes. Subsequent research has shown we are now beyond the limits, and we have an ecological footprint of about 1.3 planets, with a resultant collapse now more likely. Please amend the article so it does not repeat misapprehensions. John D. Croft (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! There have been a number of peer-reviewed reassessments of the Limits to Growth and all of them have found the original projections to disconcertingly accurate. Here are some of the most recent papers, which also each reference to a number of earlier reassessments:

Turner, G. M. (2012). On the cusp of global collapse? Updated comparison of The Limits to Growth with historical data. GAiA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 21(2), 116-124.

Eastin, J., Grundmann, R., Prakash, A., 2011. The two limits debates: “Limits to growth” and climate change. Futures 43 (1), 16–26.

Randers, J., 2012. The real message of the limits to growth: a plea for forward-looking global policy. GAIA 21 (2), 102–105.

--EcoChap (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I just attempted to edit this myself, but mangled it and undid my edit. I can provide provide sources and qualified advice, should anyone else wish to correct the entry. The misapprehension under discussion contradicts the current consensus, The Limits to Growth (1972) is now widely celebrated and its early critics are being cast by history in an increasingly unflattering light... --EcoChap (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not entirely true. The model used in the first edition of Limits to Growth predicted serious problems in the 1990s, and was used by environmentalists to so predict. I'm not sure if the book, itself, made such predictions, but the difference between those statements is not relevant to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Was the information regarding the Limits to Growth removed??? Or has it yet to materialize? I do think that the subject deserves its own section. It needs to be more clearly noted on this page that economic growth is an increasingly disputed metric. It needs to be made clear that many scientists (especially ecologists) assert that infinite growth is an impossibility, not just a mere "negative" outcome. These issues aren't a theoretical down-side of growth, they are well-documented consequences of uninhibited growth in consumption (and whether it's possible to have economic growth without growth in consumption is highly contested). I'm new to wikipedia and don't know if I am up to writing it myself, but I think there should be a Limits to Economic Growth section that should include subsections on Resource Constraints, Energy Constraints (energy is currently in its own dangling section), and Biocapacity (which includes climate change). I think there should also be at least some mention of steady-state economics as an alternative theory to growth-based theory. RadEconomics (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Are there any mainstream economics sources which discuss "steady-state economics as an alternative theory to growth-based theory"? bobrayner (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The more appropriate question is whether there are credible sources. They need not be "mainstream" economics sources. And yes, there are quite a few. I suppose I could take a shot at adding this information if nobody else is up to the task. Apologies in advance if my formatting is incorrect - this is all new to me.

Daly, Herman. 1991. Steady-State Economics, 2nd edition. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Daly, Herman and Joshua Farley. 2003. Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications. Island Press, Washington, DC (now with a second edition).

Common, Michael and Sigrid Stagl. 2005. Ecological Economics: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

Czech, Brian. 2013. Supply Shock: Economic Growth at the Crossroads and the Steady State Solution. New Society, Gabriola Island, Canada.

Jackson, Tim. 2009. Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet. Earthscan, London, U.K.

Dietz, Rob and Dan O’Neill. 2013. Enough Is Enough: Building a Sustainable Economy in a World of Finite Resources. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, California.

Lewis, Michael and Pat Conaty. 2012. The Resilience Imperative: Cooperative Transitions to a Steady-State Economy. New Society, Gabriola Island, Canada.

RadEconomics (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I revised lead of article

I revised the lead of the article above the section on "Historical growth." I kept almost all the existing content, but split it into different sections. I included clarifications and more detail and also added examples.

My revisions responded to the comment on the Talk Page that economic growth can occur by improvements in quality in addition to increase in number of goods. This is described in the Wikipedia article on "gross domestic product," which I linked to.

I also clarified that the definition of "economic growth" includes both an increase in total amounts of production as well as per capita increases. This is made clear by the definition of "economic growth" that appears in the World Bank's glossary: http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/beyond/global/glossary.html

I also added a note that an increase in economic growth doesn't necessarily create an increase in the standard of living. I referenced the work of Malthus and the discussion of this issue in the Wikipedia article on the Green Revolution.

In the section on the "Power of annual growth," I changed the example of an 8% growth rate from the 4 Asian Tigers to China because I couldn't find documentation for that growth rate in the 4 Asian Tigers linked-to article (maybe the article was modified?). The China article includes info on this growth rate however.

I added examples because in my experience (as a reader myself and also as a writer and teacher), examples are extremely important to the understanding of the reader. Alexhopkins (talk) 04:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)== Why is Vietnam not on the chart of gdp growth at the top?== Vietnam has had the 2nd highest growth rates for the last 20 years straight, after China. Seeing as it has one of the highest populations in the world, and such a brilliant economic performance, and the IMF statistics almost certainly exist for it also, it is painfully obvious that it should be included on the chart. -(76.176.127.182 (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC))

Agreed. PHC also forecasts Hanoi, a city in Vietnam, to be the fastest growing city (in terms of GDP) from 2008-2025. Onixz100 (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of assumptions built into Solow (and other models) about technology, and these are achoed in this discussion. It is not necessarily true that technology will continue to provide the input needed for exponential growth of mature economies; in fact, given that we progressively exhaust low hanging fruit, it is dubious. New technology has become progressively more expensive, and we are less and less willing to invest in it. Much of the 'innovation' in the the last twenty five years has been built on work done in the formerly great corporate labs (e.g., Bardeen et al in Bell labs enabled the electronics and computer revolutions), university labs and government labs. Corporations don't do this anymore, and we are less willig to invest in basic university and government research. I note that while the GWP has increased at a fairly steady 4-5% for the last 50 years, the growth rate of the US has progressively declined during this period. After postwar redevelopment, the same is true in Europe. World growth appears to be driven by the development of under-developed producers and markets. I think statements such as 'However, modern economic research shows that the baseline version of the neoclassical model of economic growth is not supported by the evidence.' would greatly benefit from including examples of the evidence, including citations. The huge effects of dislocations such as wars, famines and plagues introduce quite a bit of noise into the data; look at a plot of US GDP vs time since 1940. Then imagine the results for countries with much larger dislocations. Many statements in the article are untrue or unsupported. For example: 'By contrast, the standard neo-Classical growth model, based on Robert Solow (1956), (and also Swan, 1956) projects diminishing marginal returns into the long run – without explanation – assuming that each point on the function represents a different fully adjusted capital structure. It also fails to provide a role for prices in adjusting output to changes in demand ' In fact, diminishing marginal returns are the result of solutions to differential equations that describe the model. The model's assumptions can be right or wrong, but to characterize this as an a priori assumption is untrue. 'In particular, specialists in economic history and the economics of technology have argued that technological progress comes in the form of new products, new techniques, and new markets, which do not spring directly from the scientific laboratory but come from discoveries made by private profit-seeking business enterprises. For example, the transistor, which underlies so much recent technological progress, was discovered by scientists working for AT&T on the practical problem of how to improve the performance of switch boxes that were using vacuum tubes’’ . [37]' This is transparent nonsense. Great corporate labs that made such advances existed for a relatively short period between the age of tinkering and the large scale abandonment of research by corporations decades ago. Even in the example cited, the work of people like Bardeen, Brattain and Shockley wasn't done in a vacuum and could not have been accomplished without the development of quantum mechanics and the early development in condensed matter physics. Shockley's doctoral thesis at MIT was 'Electronic Bands in Sodium Chloride' , and if you don't think that this work influenced his entire subsequent career you don't understand the relationship between technology and science. 98.242.81.119 (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

To be improved!

In general, this article needs a lot of work. Some sections are very long and cumbersome, and sometimes they digress into different fields such as free trade and the history thereof. The sections about the "origins" and the "theories" could be shortened and merged. A reader coming to economic growth probably wants to quickly understand the meaning of the word and understand the hot issues related to it, e.g. for understanding a newspaper article: this is really missing here. The article resembles a collage of abstract (but probably academically correct) inputs, whith no connections between them and no plan. By reading it, one feels that it is impossible to understand economic growth without going to university and reading enormous books.... that its understanding is a mistery reserved for specialists!

Also, several points in this discussion are still open and could be addressed. J Brassington (see section below on "Made more sense of it") felt that the article missed the pros and cons of the "economic growth ideology" and tried to contribute himself. This part had to be reworked (as the whole article has) but it actually has been removed by Brusegadi. Brusegadi's points and my reply to him are to be found in the section on "Disadvantages of Economic growth removed", later in this talk page. To find J Brassington's points again, go in the article's history and look for Revision as of 22:38, 6 October 2006 by Rfalcon27. J Brassington's points can be useful hints for writing a section on "implications and ethics of growth". These points may be controversial, but then it is even more interesting to find a formulation which can satisfy different contributors.

The connection of economic growth with climate was previously addressed in a completeley unacceptable way; see discussion below about "Ridiculous comparison serves only white self-adoration". This has been changed by myself, as history (not climate) is the driving factor: I hope this modification is appreciated, :-). However, a connection between GDP and climate still exists on a global scale, and more and more people get convinced that economic growth is the principal driver of climate change (see e.g. the publications by the IPCC). This should be (very shortly) mentioned when adding the section about the implications and ethics of growth.

Best regards, Marenco 18:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

On the changes you made to the climate correlation, to say that it is correlated with history makes no sense. You need to specify the aspect of history. I also think it is important to mention that there is a correlation between climate and income, but that the correlation is not casual and explain why it is not casual. Such an explanation evokes talking about colonization and its aftermath. I will wait for your response to my comments before making any changes, but please do not take too long. Also, I will try to build around the changes you made, but I defenetly think that it is important to mention the climate issue since it is such a common misconception. Brusegadi 19:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Brusegadi, I think the little paragraph in the article is still acceptable, with respect to what it was before. At least it is clearly stated that we are talking about a misconception. I still wonder whether this is really relevant here and whether it fits in the article: personally I have never encountered this climate-growth misconception, on which you strongly put the accent (at least not with such a simplistic discussion). If you intend "correlation" in a purely neutral statistical sense, then you can probably find other variables than temperature: latitude, possession of natural resources, colour of the skin, etc. Moreover, for many agricultural economies even tiny changes in local climate from year to year can have more drastic effects on the economy than the average global temperature trend could suggest. However, for the moment leave it as it is: anyways the whole article needs deep rewriting. I must state however that I am surprised with your arguments and tone in this talk page. You say that the history correlation makes no sense, but you admit it yourself since you have left it with the article; you say that the aspect of history must be specified, but you know that it was well specified (colonization); you say that you wait for my response, but then change the article in a hurry. I have to ask you to be more collaborative, since with this article there is lots of work to be done (the first thing it needs is a plannified structure). Also, don't expect rapid responses from me, since I am a human being and wikipedia is not my principal activity. Marenco 08:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Marenco, before it was also stated that we were talking about a misconseption, but I guess it was not clear enough. You assertion is correct in that the variables you mention do also correlate with income, but the correlations are again not casual (notice that the variables you mention also tend to have a positive correlation with each other.) Now, I do not see why you are talking about climate change. When we talk about economic growth, we are basically attempting to explain the enormous gaps in incomes across countries. Since climate has been roughly constant over the relevant centuries, it is not worth mentioning climate change in the context of the theory. When we talk about correlating climate with income we simply mean that certain climate zones have more income then others. The mission of the economist specializing in growth is to explain why climate may play a role in defining these gaps. Thus, to talk about the adverse effects of climate change (I suppose you are referring to global warming) implies talking about events today and the future and I think that events of today and of the future played no role in defining income differences of today. Climate change belongs in a section by itself where questions concerning the future are adressed. What are possible effects of Global Warming? Given that R&D has diminishing returns to scale, for how long can we expect technological progress to continue at the pace it has had for the last few decades? I think the beginning of the article should include more on the Malthusian model, the solow model, and end with modern theory. I will propose a structure to present the subject in a logical manner and see how it goes from there. Have a good day, Brusegadi 15:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, since there is a confusion between the study of long term growth and growth in the short term we could attempt to disambiguate. At my center of study we create a distinction between economic development and Theory of Economic growth. It may be the case that such a distinction is not defined here and one subject is covered inside the other. Anyways, the page could have a section on growth from the policy perspective and a section on growth in the academic sense (basically, looking at fundamental aspects.) Also, sorry if I sound rude, I have a lot of stuff to do and I got frustrated by the confusion. Take care, Brusegadi 16:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead with the plan and the work on the article; it seems you have clear ideas. We'll meet again on this talk page. Maybe the talk page itself is getting confused, so I suggest that further discussion go in a new section at the top or the bottom of the page. Later, when we have a good article, I will try to explain to you what I meant with the climate change issue and also give references to published work (at this point it seems too early). Yours sincerely, Marenco 14:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that there is a bit of confusion here on what we are dealing with. When I here economic growth I think in terms of the sub-field in economics that studies economic growth. I feel that there is a great difference between that and the economic growth studied in a course in macro-economics... ALso, economic growth is not the principle drive in climate change, it is emissions of green house gases. It may be true that nations with high GDPs have high emissions, but that does not have to be true 50 years from now. So, it is not correct to link growth to emissions. Brusegadi 18:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that if "economic growth" has different meanings, this must be specified. The article should start with a "common sense definition" that allows most people to quickly understand what we are dealing about, i.e. when a politician or journalist tells us that we have to increase growth, what does he mean? This is already attempted in the article as it is now: good! Then we need to go into some details (with no exageration): give the definition recognized by economists (if macro-economics and micro-economics have different definitions, say it in the article; I am eager to learn about this! of course if tens of different definitions exist, this gets rather confusing; then it's better to say: "this one is the mostly accepted definition, but 25 others exist"). Then a section about the history of the concept can be useful, followed by another section on controversial points. Regarding the climate change issue, I am sure we can find a way of addressing this on a neutral point of view. Of course if in 50 years from now we don't have anymore an economy driven by fossil fuels (?), then economic growth and carbon dioxide will get decorrelated (as it was decorrelated in the past, e.g. for economies based on hunting); but we don't have the crystal ball to know this! Most people will be interested in the possible link between growth and climate in our present (fossil fuel based) economy, and not in an abstract principle. Yours sincerely, Marenco 08:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear All, I think it would be helpful and make the article more complete to talk about and mention specific models like the Harrod-Domar model, Solow Growth Model, Rostow's stages of growth, Lewis-Renis-Fei model, etc... Your thoughts? Dwrudy 02:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. We should do that. As it is now the article is just a fight between right and left on short run stuff. Brusegadi (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Tidying...

Page heavily edited and re-written - hopefully it is more cohesive and clearer now (plus inaccurate references (e.g. to wealth when discussing national income removed). I have not touched the Limits to Growth debate as I am not familiar with this field. It also strikes me that different theories of non-convergence should be covered more fully within this article as well as the correlation with climate. (Note: I am very sceptical of this explanation, but have left it in with a qualifying sentance; hopefully it remains NPOV.) Comments welcome. --Geordieandy 11:55, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good job on a much needed fix of this article. It is my opinion that the influence of climate paragraph could be condensed seeing as very few economists accept these ideas today and because the topic is cover much better in economic geography. Agree with you about non-convergence - important topic. Talk to you later. mydogategodshat 03:11, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The climate issue has been replaced with a history issue, which makes more sense. See below the discussion about "Ridiculous comparison". Marenco 18:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

More tidying-up

I did a bit more tidying-up. I think more needs to be written about endogenous growth theory, have pointed to a couple of big issues. Perhaps could summarise non-technical points from the academic literature/research without breaching copyright. It can still read like an ecowarrior school essay in some parts. There are environmental problems/impacts associated with growth but these need to be explained clearly. I think the climate/growth link is a bit controversial and could come later in the article.

Yes and it needs a discussion of total factor productivity. FGerard Adams

Moved the reference to the book Limits to Growth into the narrative - it seemed strange to see it hanging under the see also section when there was a section dealing with the topic - Martinku 12:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that a cross-reference to the article on Limits to growth is still useful in an article about growth. Therefore a refernce in the "See also" section has been included. Marenco 18:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Made more sense of it

As a 17 year old A-level srudent in the UK studying I find wikipedia far too complicated when it somes to economic theories. I also noticed no one had really indicated why economic growth was a good or a bad thing. Therefore I include advantages and disadvantages of it. I've tried to keep what I've wrote as neutral as possible but if anyone feels I've pushed the boundaries don't be afraid to edit it. J Brassington

Unfortunately this section has been removed by Brusegadi (I think it was useful, but had to be rewritten). See below "Disadvantages of economic growth removed". See also "To be improved" on top of this discussion page. Marenco 18:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

National income

The article referred only to GDP but there is also a page on National Income that nicely links to Welfare Economics.

PM. Note that economic growth is the change and not necessarily the increase (since it can be negative). But it doesn't matter much once you allow for negative increases ...

Will add a link to SNI as well and tidy up that paragraph.

Colignatus 20:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Subjectivity

There are a lot of normative statements in the measurement section. What GDP "should" or "should not" include is not a real description of GDP. It seems to go against the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. GDP is what it is. It does include X, Y, and Z. It does not include A, B, and C. Whether it should or should not is not something I expect an encyclopdia to cover.

Ridiculous comparison serves only white self-adoration

"Cold states like Sweden are much more successful economically than warm countries like Nigeria."

1., Sweden was not colonialized and ransacked and the fittest part of its population taken as negro slaves over the ocean for centuries. Thus the comparison is meaningless. Use a tropical country in the example that was not colonialized and ransacked or genetically exploited by whites. (Hard to find any...)

2., You certainly cannot expect steel smeltering at the equator. Sweden is heavy industry, which is impossible in the tropicals with 50 degrees celsius ambient temperature already boiling the brain of people. Thus the comparison is on unequal footing. However, the pre-columbian very-south american cultures that lived under similarly coldish climate, but independently of northern europe, had great architecture (Machu Piccu, etc.) and very organized nations comparable to europe. It was only because of the conquistadors that they fell.

3., The whole comparison is based on the cold countries' definition of economy, therefore the result of comparison is a pre-arranged trial already decided in favour of the western world. Why compare then?

4., It is a matter of fact that you cannot expect the same amount of effort from people living under hot climate you see in cold climate. When freezing you can always wear more hides or clotches or light a fire, even caveman did that. When your brain boils under the sun, you cannot take off more than your skin, on the equator or in the desert you can only idle if you want to survive. The air conditioner device is so much more complicated technology compared to the simple fireplace that hot climate nations could never jump that "quantum gap" on their own, which would afford them great productivity allowed by mild temparature spaces.

That biased comparison should disappear from the article. 195.70.48.242 12:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that empirically speaking it is true that today we observe those differences, yet, since this is an article in growth, to simply mention them is to go back 200 years and attempt to explain income distributions in terms of culture or merely climate. I think that if we look at fundamental issues we should most defently add in factors that are considered a bit 'fundamental.' For example, corruption is known to have correlation with low income countries. Thus, we can make the historical connection that countries with tropical climates were colonized by Europeans that could not inhabit the colonies. Thus, they set up governments that were design to exploit as much as they could. On the other hand, the colonies with more temperate climates (eg. Australia, US, Canada, Chile, Argentina) were inhabited by the colonizers and the governemnts that were set up were not design to exploit. Thus, we observe incomes that correlate with latitude but the correlation is not directly casual. The next logical question is "Why were some groups able to colonize others?" We can go that far and look at responses such as the one provided by Jared Diamond in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel. I will do some work on this! Brusegadi 03:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the fact is that the important point is history, not climate! I therefore rewrote the paragraph. The economy-climate link is actually a different one, and is more related to global change (see "To be improved" at the top of this page). Marenco 18:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel that it is important, non the less, to mention the misconseption. Yet, we have discussed that above so I will not repeat. Also, the "economy-climate link" that you mention is not relevant as a current determinant of income since historically there has not been much climate change (in the relevant time period, of course, which spans only a few thousand years.) If we look at Mann hockey-stick graph we see that it is until now that temperatures are beginning to change drastically. Global change is a current phenomenah that will have strong effects in the future but it has not played a role in defining income today. Of course that, we may always say that those responsible for climate change may very well be those who have released most of the CO2. Discussing that, thought, would add a certain philosophic twist to the discussion. Brusegadi 16:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Disadvantges of Economic growth removed

I removed this because it is defently conflicts with modern theory. First, inflation does not merit inclution because, under the classical dichotomy, inflation is a short run phenomenah that does not play a role in the long term.

In terms of income inequality, the inequality is not caused by growth, it is caused by a particular system of distribution. Thus, attributing such inequality to economic growth is defently wrong. Finally, in terms of the environmental effects (this is pollution; depletion of resources and space may well be relevant, but require some research before being left in a section by themsleves):

• Take a look at the environmental Kuznet curve for an economy. It basically states that countries pollute more and more as they are developing, eventually at some point in time, they reach a maximum level of pollution, and then they begin to pollute less. The result is a curve that has an inverted U shape with pollution on the vertical axis and time on the horizontal axis.
• Modern growth theory focuses on growth produced by technologies and ideas. Ideas are not material, thus, they are not bound to the phisical constraints that our resource base is bound to. If you want to see what some potential implications of this are see the Simon-Ehrlich wager (bet between Paul Ralph Ehrlich and Julian Lincoln Simon).
• Finally, we can make our measurments of well being so that they consider environmental damage.

For these reasons that section does not merit inclusion. I will expand the article further since this is an important area od research. Brusegadi 05:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on these arguments. I only agree on the fact that the text had to be rewritten in a more rigorous manner, but this 17-year old boy or girl (see "Made more sense of it") had important points. As a matter of fact, economic growth is not just a neutral and measurable parameter, since our economical and political life is often dominated by the desire for more growth. I therefore think that someone trying to understand whether this matches his ideas should find a paragraph discussing pros and cons. More specifically:

• inequality may not be caused by growth in strict sense, but unequal growth rates amplify inequality. Think of 2 neighbours, equally rich at start. One has success and grows by 10% per year, and the second one does a little worse and only grows by 5% per year. This 5% difference may seem small at first sight, but admitting that the growth rate stays constant, after 15 years the first man is four times richer whereas the second one is only twice richer. Therefore a 5% difference in annual growth means a 100% absolute difference after 15 years! Therefore, for common sense continuous growth is more responsible for the inequality between the two men than their different ability in business, and no re-distribution system could stop the gap between the two from growing in time (it can only mitigate it).
• the connection of economic growth with the depletion of resources and changes in the environment are well known and studies exist (see e.g. Limits to Growth); it seems difficult to dismiss such arguments in a too easy way (e.g., how can an oil-based economy grow without reducing the reserves? how can it function without producing CO₂ that accumulates in the atmosphere?). See also the reports by the IPCC. Rise and decline of civilizations (and also species within ecosystems) is actually often dominated by reaching system limits faster than the system can respond, and this high speed is due to continuous acceleration in exponential growth!

In conclusion, I believe that sooner or later wee need include something about implications and ethics of growth.

See also the "To be improved" section above. Marenco 18:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a few notes that I'd like to make. First, the link between inequality and growth goes beyond Merenco's observation. There is quite a bit of literature arguing that high inequality can slow growth by preventing the poor from borrowing due to lack of collateral, and high inequality, usually due to redistribution, can slow growth by severely distorting incentives. I'm not necessarily saying that it should be added to the article, but any discussion of the link between inequality and growth should include this point.

Secondly, growth is correlated to more-or-less everything. Having a section for the correlation between economic growth and climate or environment in general is probably not the most important correlation to mention (many theorists believe geography affects GDP through institutions and usually not directly). Perhaps testing the neoclassical growth model (between average growth rates and initial GDP), endogenous growth models, or even other institutional factors could enrich the article.

Finally, I know it is not part of this post, but the mathematics behind the models should be included in this article much like they are included in other articles.

P.S. I've never edited a page before so if there are some guidelines I should read to do it, could someone let me know? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stankweed111 (talk Stankweed111 01:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• contribs) 23:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Of course that different growth rates can amplify inequalities, does that mean the growth is bad? In terms of inequality, growth can be bad if the new output is not properly distributed. In the example of the neighbors, if they grow different because one of them does not work, then so be it. If they grow at different rates because the government favors one over the other, then it is unjust... Inequality can be good at times. Ancient societies flourished partly because of the rise of a bureaucracy that administered resources towards huge projects and scientific inventions. Today, however, inequality is generally bad, specially among the most developed nations.Brusegadi 21:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

HI my name is John and I am new to editing wikipedia, and I do not know the standards or protocol around it, but since I have been frequently and often referencing the articles in wikipedia, I have noticed some errors, which I found it my duty to correct. I see this as another one. I know at least from my study in mathematics, that growth and decay denote two specific types of mathematical functions (as we know the correlations between mathematics and economics are abundant). It appears to me, that it is only Marenco's opinion that economics is best viewed as a study of long term data. in economics, it should be also emphasized that the discipline itself has a wide and vast field of applications, and also it's theories really serve no relevancy without the mathematical+statistical models that support it. in mathematics, when we talk about growth and decay, we are actually talking about the derivative function, and not the function itself. if you need a brush up on your algebra in reference to this section, see the section titled hyperbolic growth in wikipedia. I do not have time to expalin this right now, but all I want taken into consideration is that the page on negative growth be reinstituted, and explained perhaps linked to the topic of derivatives in mathematics, or let it's own subject be under general mathematics or statistics, and maybe not economics, although I haven't yet read any argument that denotes why negative growth curves won't ever be seen in economics, or even in economic modeling. Thanks for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.73.139 (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Advantages of Economic growth removed

This section focused way too much on the "growth" over the short run. Thus, it does not merit inclusion since economic growth is best viewed as the study of the historical trends. As I expand the article, some of the short run aspects may become important, but not necessarily. I will paste the image that was there here in case it becomes useful in the future. Brusegadi 05:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[[:Image:Economic Growth and the Production Possibility Curve.PNG|thumb| 250 px| Economic growth can be shown by an outward shift of the production possibility curve. Its effect is that it will increase both the amount of capital and consumer goods that a country can potentially produce. This may lead to increase in standard of living]]

See discussion in section "Disadvantages of economic growth removed", above. Marenco 18:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

More statistics

It would be nice to have a list of all countries in the world by recent growth rate. Some articles mention a given country's ranking, like Economy of India, which prompts curiosity about the complete listing. -- Beland 02:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms?

Why is there no discussion of criticisms or alternatives conceptions of growth? Seems like this article does not present an NPOV. -- Autumninjersey 04:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I will add them today or tomorrow when I have the chance. Springbreak04 08:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The criticisms, as worked up now, are poorly structured. I think that to use a universal quantifier, 'all life is bad when growth' occur is too much. Instead, let say 'sometimes.' I will propose a rewording tomorrow and hope to see discussion. Laters,Brusegadi 02:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I will be getting rid of some of the bullet points. I will begin with the one that needs a source. I feel like wether the creation of needs is bad or good is a rather subjective view. Brusegadi 00:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, I first came to this article looking for a information about the pros and cons of economic growth. Perhaps a new article dealing with just that may be a good idea. Maybe economic growth debate or economic growth - benefits vs. consequences Then under criticisms, the arguments could be summarized and a link provide to main article about the debate. I started finding many articles related to the pros and cons of economic growth and it would be nice to see them in one place or at least sumarized in one single article. As it is this article gave me a starting point and so I came back to give an opinion for those of you who seem to be interested. Thanks172.164.67.78 (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that the article heading only mentions the relation between increase in GDP and population as a possibility for that increase not resulting in an improvement of the 'standard of living' of a 'country'. If with the same or even less population, you distribute that increased GDP not equally among population, that country could end up with an decrease of the standard of living for most of its citizens, which is something that happens today in many places, with corrupt goverments and others keeping the extra profit. I believe that this other possibility should be explained along with the relation between growth and population. As anything to do with economics, this is a highly political and subjective topic, and consequences of human actions should be entered into the equation. As it is now, the article seems to suggest that both economic growth and standards of living are given by the environment or indirect human actions, such as war, growth in population, availability of raw materials, etc.

The article should discuss various aspects of government policy, government effectiveness on economic growth, but that is going to be very contentious. We have a lot of historical facts and analysis about the Great Divergence. For example we know that Chinese technology was at least 1000 years more than European, but they had state run monopolies on key industries, regulations that inhibited commerce and general totalitarianism. (A short version of Western divergence is in the introduction to The Unbound Prometheus.

But moving to modern day, there is still considerable disagreement on the role of government spending, for example. There is a lot of talk promoting infrastructure projects but not much talk about diminishing returns. It's one thing to lower transportation cost by 95% going from wagon to railroad, but you can't get that kind of saving from an additional highway.Phmoreno (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Africa and growth

The text states "Supporters argue that global income inequality is in fact diminishing,[8] and that the rapid reduction in global poverty is in large part due to economic growth, according to World Bank.[9] However, decline in poverty has been the slowest where growth performance has been the worst (in Africa). [10]" Why "However"? This is an argument for the importance of economic growth.Ultramarine 01:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as you said, that argument, and its reference, points out the benefit of economic growth, which is the decline in poverty. However--that word again--it also points out that the decline is not equal, and certain countries, such as the ones in Africa, do not experience the benefits of economic growth at the same rate as others, but slower. In fact, that is the notion in the reference from which it came. For example, two cars are going forward, but it does not necessarily mean that both cars are accelerating. Therefore I used, and would still choose the word however, or other synonyms. In my opinion, a link between them is better than two related yet made stand-alone sentences. Springbreak04 01:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The "however" makes the sentances nonsense. I read through the article and when I came to it I immediately said "what?" The second statement clearly reinforces the first. "However" should be changed to "for example". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.18.142 (talk) 03:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The "however" makes total sense to me too: if as Springbreak says, it is an argument for the importance of economic growth, the "however" states that the example of Africa is an argument of the contrary, i.e. some argue that economic growth as defined by traditional economy textbooks does not mean direct decline in poverty, but that it might mean an increase in the gap between some countries and others. I think that it is a very valid point of view, and not including it would suggest that the World Bank is an institution that holds absolute and objective statistics and opinions, and not just another agent of economic theory and politics. Showing both theories is just fair and balanced, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.147.210 (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge

Lets merge them. The new page should be titled Theory of Economic Growth. Brusegadi 05:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I presume you mean to merge 'Growth theory' with this one--I agree with this. But why not keep the title 'Economic growth' (which is much more informative than 'Growth theory' anyway)? Countermereology 16:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I really think that the articles are too similar. The names suggest the same topic. Last time I tried there was only one other editor and I decided to leave the status quo, but maybe we discuss this a little more? Let me place the tag and lets live it for a while to see who comes by...? To facilitate discusiion, lets talk on the other page. So, discuss merge here Brusegadi 06:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As suggested by many, I have merged the pages. There is still some redundance so I will edit further now. Thanks Brusegadi 00:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I moved the merge to the bottom as it just became more resent. Here, it is easier to find. Brusegadi 01:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Graph

I reverted your edit (anon). The page you edited did not simply refer to GDP growth, but also to the rise in the standards of living. Thus, using historical data historians and economist have been able to calculate how well people lived in the past and express it in dollar terms. The graph is common in Growth Theory textbooks so please do not delete it again. Brusegadi 04:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It is fallacious to try do estimate stardard of living in terms of 1990 dollars for time periods. Because it is not possible to compare the subjective standards of value. --201.11.209.111 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has opinions about those things. It so happens to be that most economist and historians take the approach taken in the article. Remember that this is not about how we feel, but about what economists, historians, and academics do. Brusegadi 22:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Many economists do not consider very long term gdp comparisons, like the first picture of the page, to be realistic. It is only useful as an short term index. And only very few economists have studied and estimated gdp figures for long term periods, and these estimates vary greatly.--200.203.3.76 14:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree there. I think most economist studying growth use such comparisons. I recall an article titled "Divergence Big Time" and even an intro book to Growth Theory by David Weil titled 'Economic Growth.' Just think of it as some measure of what people consumed. Brusegadi 00:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say, regardless of the merit of the "World GDP" graph in the context of the specific economist's work (Maddisson, i think), I think it is fairly useless on this page. To be honest, there's not enough data points, the axes are not well-defined, and the "western offshots" thing is just silly. The only reason this image shouldn't be deleted outright (and not just removed from this page), is that I could understand it being relevant to the work of a particular group of economists. IANAE, but as a layman, this image contributes nothing to the article that couldn't be summed up (better) with ten or fifteen words of text. Messiahxi (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this World GDP/capita 1-2004 graph is problematic - the bars are regions yet they are placed on an axis representing time. If one were to reverse the order of the bars - then the most recent period would look like the curve is sloping down not up. There is a fundamental category mistake here. (Msrasnw (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC))

Problems with Malthus

Hey, I disagree with saying proven. This is not math, so the best you could go with is "some claim." Most of the sources shown were either theoretical pages presented in the wrong way (that is, we could talk about theory as theory but to use it to show something is inappropriate since we first would have to discuss the assumptions, which tend to fail in most places) or partisan stuff. I agree that, as is now, the page is not really about Economic growth but a battlefield between POVs. I think we should make it more about theories of growth such as the Solow (the most elaborate version with human capital and source depletion), several of the 1950s ones, and the north-south models (leftists schools if you wish.) But, lets leave the biologists and libertarians outside (the relevant aspects of their views are already incorporated in the mainstream literature.) Brusegadi (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I used sourced material. If you disagree, add your own. I will change the language somewhat. Remember NPOV.Ultramarine (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think those sources are weak (eg, non-academic.) Popular think-tank economics is no good. I have been busy, but will attempt to add something better when time permits. What you have should do for now. Brusegadi (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

convergence

Economics

Conditional convergence is predicted by the Solow model. It predicts, that given certain conditions, all countries should converge to the same level of per capital output.

The conditions for convergence are: same population growth rates, same capital depreciation rate, same levels of education, same investment rates in physical and organizational capital, and the same rates of technological adoption. However, the Solow model fails to explain what accounts for differences in these inputs. Explanations for these differences is theorized to be explained by such causes such as climate, geography, natural endowments, economic institutions, and cultural (sociological) differences.

The Solow model also predicts that countries possessing the same rates of technological adoption will converge to the same rate of output growth per capita. Thus, economic growth in the long run will be independent of the population growth rate, the savings rate, the rate of capital depreciation, and the initial capital-output ratio.

Found the above in an unrelated article. I think it belongs here, so I'll merge it. Brusegadi (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Lucas' Law

There is a page on Lucas' Law and not having heard of it before I had quick look on the web and in other references and have been unable to find anything about Spencer Lucas and his Law and the page is unreferenced and it all seems a bit odd. Does anyone here know anything about this Lucas? (Msrasnw (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Merge proposal

A new merge proposal: Economic development contains a separate section on growth theory. Makes no sense, and that article is under fire already because of its difficult relationship with Development economics. I suggest we split Economic development into

• a general non-theoretical article on economic development
• a small section on economic growth, pointing to Economic growth as its main article
• a small section on regional development, pointing to Regional economics as its main article
• a small section on development economics, pointing to Development economics as its main article.

Classical geographer (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I support this idea though there might be some minor problems with overlap and such. But those can be dealt with as they arise. Basically the two current development articles are a mess partly because no one knows what should go where.radek (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

World GDP Capita 1-2003 A.D.

Removed the graph as it is, I think, unsound. One should not have bars on a time axis in this way. The ordering of the bars within each periods is being used to mislead. (Msrasnw (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

The ordering of the bars in every period is the same, which is the "increasing" order in the last period. There may be other reasons for removing the graph, but I would not count the order of the bars as one of them, unless I missed something. I think that what it tries to represent is the transitions from the Malthusian growth regime to the modern regime, so the fact that 1500 looks like 900 and 0 worries me, 0 and 900 should be as flat as the stuff between them, or there should be variation everywhere or be more clear as to what exactly they are doing. I'll try to find an alternative. Brusegadi (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Ok, so looked closer and empty area just means lack of data. I think the graph is fine. Brusegadi (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If you change the order of the bars - and the order of the bars is not important in a bar chart - then the impression of the rising trend is not so reinforced. In fact the big growth is because of the order for the bars in the last two periods. If you reverse the order of the bars I think the graph would look completely different. BUT the order of the bars shouldn't matter. It really is wrong to do this! It is not legitimate to mix these two kinds of graphs bar chart and time series. Just a time series graph of world gdp would be ok. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

Honestly this graph is really wrong - one shouldn't mix up countries/regions and time in this way. Why not just have total world gdp? (Msrasnw (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

(ec) I wonder why anyone would give any interpretation to the order of the bars within a time period. What you are supposed to take out, I think, is how, over time, a bar of each type changes with respect to other bars of ITS type. Within a time period, we compare bars of different time, but only within a period. So the trend that you speak off really comes from comparing different bar types across time, which you are not supposed to do... Dont forget that this is just a cross section at each point in time... This is a clean way to show that there has been intense economic growth in the last 200 years, and that this growth has happened more in some areas and less in others. On the other hand, this article is supposed to be understandable by all, and if you believe that there will be a lot of people misinterpreting the graph, then maybe we should expose the info with something a little more involved. Brusegadi (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think it is likely to be misleading and it almost forces the casual observer into the error you suggest. How would a line graph for each region look? It would be hard to disentangle though especially in the early period. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

Ok, you are right, the graph was not geared to an audience who is most likely getting a first glimpse at the material. Also, the article is not too concerned about the inequality in income across nations, so having just the world would do. I have a book with the graph, but I doubt we can use it here. Let me know if you can come up with something. I'll look for stuff too and I'll keep you up to date. Just to clarify, I dont think the graph is incorrect, it is just geared to more advanced audiences who, I hope, would not make that mistake. As usual, we did not create the graph, it was created by (http://www.ggdc.net/). Ciao, Brusegadi (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Is 'Resource depletion' really a positive?

I find it odd to find sub-headings titled 'Resource depletion' and 'Environmental impact' in the 'Positive effects of economic growth' section. Is it really being suggested that Resource depletion is a good thing? Equally, is it really being proposed that the 'Environmental impact' is beneficial? Reading the text the argument seems to be more that the negative effects are low or at least bearable. The sub-heading titled 'Income distribution' is also odd. What does that mean? Is it being suggested that a big income distribution is good and that the trickle down effect will sort things out for the rest or that a low one is good? Would a better title be 'poverty reduction' or indeed 'health'. Personally I think that there is a problem with the current structure, in that it doesn't allow both sides of an agreed set of issues to be covered. For example those who say that growth reduces poverty and those who say it beyond a certain point it does the reverse. Possibly each of a number of agreed 'goods' should be covered from each side. PeterEastern (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The sub-headings titled 'Resource depletion' and 'Environmental impact' that now are located in the in the 'Positive effects of economic growth' section should be con arguments in the 'Negative effects of economic growth' section. They certainly don't belong in the 'Positive effects of economic growth' section.--158.39.241.139 (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The relationship between economic growth and the current mass extinction of species

In the section about "Environmental impact" somebody should write about the relationship between economic growth and the current mass extinction of species ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction ).--158.39.240.28 (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Has this comment been addressed?Createangelos (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

'Power' of growth rate and economic growth (if measured equally everywhere and if no one is taking advantage?)

"Thus, a small difference in economic growth rates between countries can result in very different standards of living for their populations if this small difference continues for many years. " Again, this is true only if those populations have equal access to the products of that growth rate. As mentioned in the section China is a very good example of a population paying with their acquisitive power for an artificial devaluation of its country's currency against other nations. Therefore, even if the average population could benefit from the wild growth rate, the goverment and other agents have the capacity to influence how much they will benefit from it, or even if the won't benefit at all. I believe this is again missing from the equation. Traditional economic growth does not mean automatic improvement of the standards of living, unless it is distributed evenly among population and that population does not increase. Even in that case, there are other agents which could decrease the standards of living, like sudden intolerable levels of polution, more restriction to liberties, natural disasters, etc. that is why this is a highly political topic. The article is again supporting the traditional (purely classic and neo-classic) economics view that more inflation-adjusted growth measured in monetary units means better standards of living for every (or most of the) inhabitants in a country. This is an outdated view, even countries like UK are now introducing other measures like questionnaires on "subjective levels of happiness" in order to reflect the concerns of the debate that has been going on in the academia for a number of years now. Namely that economic growth does not mean being 'better off' in a general sense, and that there will not be ever any way of measuring such a subjective statement with numbers. We need to state first and foremost that economic growth is a subjective metric - defined and calculated in different ways in different moments and places (check the systems to calculate inflation that each goverment uses depending on their interests) - that and that is used as any other metric for assesing and justifying different actions in macroeconomic policies, but it is not an absolute measure and it does not mean much on its own. This is from my point of view, missing from the general discussion in the article. I don't feel qualified to write on this topic, specially not in English, which is not my first language, but I would encourage anyone who agrees to give it a try and include this concept here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.147.210 (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

UK GDP figures?

"In 1830, the GDP was 41,373 million pounds. It grew to 1,330,088 million pounds by 2008"

Should the latter figure not be in trillions of £ ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.14.48 (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Limits to economic growth

Is there a name for the phenomenon of diminishing returns and overcapacity limiting growth? I am thinking about overcapacity in many sectors and the continual decline in the work week versus supposed unlimited consumer wants. I can understand that it's related to Keynes cross and diminishing returns. I do not think secular stagnation is the right term and perhaps there is a more comprehensive and modern term or theory.Phmoreno (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ayres-Warr model

As shown in this discussion nobody seems to call the model in Ayres' and Warr's work the "Ayres-Warr model". The section should therefore be renamed. As far as I can figure out by reading the references given, Ayres and Warr in fact has at least two models. Which one is meant? Impossible to know. It also seems to be a variation of the Salter Cycle, so maybe it should be merged into that section? --OpenFuture (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A Google search will instantly turn up Ayres-Warr model, so there is no basis for his directing people the discussion where he does everything possible to discredit the concept. If you do decide to visit the above link, read the criticism of his arguments near the bottom. As far as the Salter cycle and Ayres-Warr, they are somewhat related but distinctly different concepts.Phmoreno (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A google search is not a WP:Reliable source. There are no criticism of my arguments, only feeble insults. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

"A google search is not a WP:Reliable source" Neither are you. But at least with a search I can find reliable sources. Phmoreno (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently not. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't going to get involved with this article because I'm working on another one. But seeing you involved here I'm coming to go back to review it, plus what was removed, and if it's still messed up I am going to rewrite the whole thing.Phmoreno (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty hard to WP:AGF with you with that attitude. 'plus what was removed'? By whom? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to blame anybody, but good content was removed. Perhaps it was not in the right place. But as I said, I am not working on this now, but will check on it.Phmoreno (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Learn to indent. 2. And what does this removal have to do with me, and why do you bring it up in conjunction with an implication of me? You know, that *does* sound like you are trying to blame somebody, specifically me. You need to concentrate on the content, and not the editors. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The Ayres-Warr model/work, while published and reliable, receives way too much attention in this article, to a point where it violates WP:UNDUE. Ayres is mentioned/cited 11 times. Warr is mentioned/cited 8 times. On the other hand, important figures in Economic Growth theory, like Kaldor, Lucas. Mankiw, Helpman, Rosenstein-Rodan, even Landes, Barro, Solow, are barely mentioned (the last a little bit more, 4 and 6 times respectively, as opposed to 1 for all others). This very much looks like someone is trying to push their own favorite, though relatively unknown, theory into the article. Put all te Ayres-Warr stuff into one section, cut it down to appropriate size and leave the rest of the article to other sources.Volunteer Marek 23:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

First some history. The Ayres-Warr model had it's own article, but it was deemed by editorial review to be best left on in this article than as a stand alone.Phmoreno (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Now you are contradicting yourself about primary versus secondary and tertiary sources (Wells 1890). In many instances Ayres-Warr and Ayres are citing or quoting others, so pay attention to the passage versus the citation. The Ayres-Warr model is not about the same thing as all the other papers and is different from Ayres book, Turning Point, and his paper on technology and long economic waves. Ayres-Warr and Ayres papers and Turning Point have the advantage of having links so anyone can immediately access them. The Ayres paper about technology and long waves is one of the briefest but most comprehensive papers on the history of technology and thoughts of others about the role of technology and economic growth. If you can find something half as good then cite it here. As for all the others you named, nothing is stopping you from adding them and their views.Phmoreno (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek makes a good point. Useful work growth theory was closed as "delete", but there still seems to be excessive emphasis on Ayres & Warr in other articles, including Productivity improving technologies (historical), another of Phmoreno's pet articles. bobrayner (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

As for Productivity improving technologies (historical) unduly referencing Ayres-Warr, I guess you'd rather me mention the related sentence or two from David Landes (1969) page 1 and a couple of other mentions than people who've written books about the subject? Did I give too much emphasis to McNeil and Smill and a few others? Just what are you saying?Phmoreno (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you ever stop to think that these articles are written by people who typically have expertise in a particular section and some sections are more complete than others. So maybe what you're seeing is that someone else needs to get busy finishing the other sections to give the article balance.Phmoreno (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

On the changed definition in first sentence

I'm not very comfortable with this change. The IP editor says, "changed the definition of economic growth to that found in discovering economics by Greg Perry and Steven Kemp," in their first edit summary. While I assume Perry and Kemp have good reasons for this wording, it is so abstract that it's completely inaccessible for the first sentence of an article defining an important term like this. Can the alternate definition be integrated into another section instead? —Cupco 18:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Malthusian trap

I think this [1] is essentially fine, although it goes into too much detail. The fact that after the Industrial Revolution, productivity growth began to outpace population growth, which then began declining (the Demographic Transition) is an important part of the story. Volunteer Marek 01:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Ayres and warr

It seems that phmoreno is trying to steer this article in the same direction as Useful work growth theory, which was deleted. Let's try to keep it neutral... bobrayner (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The statement you removed about new products being "demand creating" cited by Ayres is referenced from Mensch and has nothing to do with the Ayres-Warr model. Mensch was contrasting new products with new processes, which create supply. Neither does the Malthusian trap have anything to do with Ayres or Ayres-Warr. The Malthusian trap concept is important because China had several technologies such as canals, cast iron, water powered machinery, intensive agriculture and paper and printing more than a millennium before Europe, but did not escape the trap until after the Industrial Revolution.Phmoreno (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Environmental impact

This is a nice section. I note that this section starts

"Some critics argue...collapse of our planet's natural resources,"

and an editor has noted [who?]. The issue is that 'ecnomic growth' is an economic concept, not many economists criticize the notion that economies can and should 'grow.'

There are lots and lots of articles, one comes to mind this moment

"While scientists argue over what factors are to blame,

more than 40 percent of amphibious species are at risk for "imminent extinction."

from http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/03/02/are-frogs-rapidly-facing-extinction

Some articles about amphibian extinction say that the cause is just that the habitat is simply being filled in and developed.

Recently, as we all know, honeybees nearly became extinct.

The point is, there are not arguments where any environmentalist, biologist, scientist or mathematician says "I am critical of economic growth."

Rather, it is already obvious, doesn't need to be pointed out to anyone, that the people who invent, discuss, and in government apply economic theories are not the scholars, biologists, ecologists, naturalists, philosophers of the world.

Having a discussion about 'critics' of economic growth is like having an article about war, saying, war is needed to defend onesself, war can be used to acquire resources. And then to say "Critics of war [who?] say that painful death of innocent people should be avoided where possible."

Maybe I should search for articles by people actually who do critique the obviously defective concept of 'growth' of economies.

It is obviously not growth, except in the sense that cancer is a growth.

Createangelos (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Prominent growth economist list -- removed

I've removed the list. Several reasons: 1. Is there a School of Growth Economists? (I don't think so. At least I don't see an article on that subject.) 2. If they are prominent, they ought to be used as references in the article. (Or in further reading.) 3. If they are not used as references, where is the RS that says they are a "Prominent" growth economist? 4. Three is enough, but if anyone want to add a fourth reason, be my guest. – S. Rich (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)