Talk:Steady-state economy

-->

}}

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 15 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Krao01. Peer reviewers: TheAlexRodriguez, Npatel23.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments

I don't see why there's a distinct between steady-state economy and steady state economy, based on the hyphen.

Why does the change in depreciation have to be "instant"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.182.172.229 (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

A steady-state economy is different from a steady state economy; the latter is a state economy which is stable, the former is an economy in a steady state. Two meanings of state.--122.57.248.60 (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

i think there is a steady stste economy section which controls all section of the society — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.215.17.29 (talk) 04:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a stub

It's very clearly not a stub, and yet is still rated as such. I don't know how to change that. But it should be changed.--122.57.248.60 (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Myths & Reality table

I've barely skimmed the article, so I don't know if the table reflects the overall tone or not, but the table was completely framed as an argument for a "steady state economy", so I pulled it. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "Criticisms" section

I think it might be more accurate to give this section a new title. It seems like it introduces two objections to a steady-state economy in the first, tiny intro paragraph, and then the rest of the section is devoted to debunking these two criticisms. Perhaps the "Benefits" and "Criticisms" sections can be merged into one section, like a kind of pros and cons section--Witan (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

John Stuart Mill quote

I can't find this quote "The end of growth leads to a stationary state," attributed to John Stuart Mill in the cited source, or in other copies of Mill's Principles. A Google search for the phrase only turns up what appear to be direct quotes or plagiarisms of this entry. 137.112.226.45 (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Dixon's comment on this article

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

This is a well written page. It is written from the perspective of ecological or environmental economics. As such, it is very good. However, it does not deal with other uses of the term steady-state in economics. In particular, the notion of a steady-state equilibrium in macroeconomics. The meaning here is much simpler: the macroeconomic variables satisfy the equilibrium conditrions and remain unchanged. I would just add a paragraph with references to a well know macro text book (e.g. Gali, Walsh).

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

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

• Reference : Dixon, Huw David & Luintel, Kul B & Tian, Kun, 2014. "The impact of the 2008 crisis on UK prices: what we can learn from the CPI microdata," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2014/7, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Preliminary response by User: Gaeanautes: I can attend to dr. Dixon's request. Please wait a week or two for my full response. Thank you. Gaeanautes (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Full response by User:Gaeanautes: I have now added a hatnote at the top of the present article, directing readers to the article on Neutrality of money. In that article, I have added the following paragraph in the lead section, referencing the textbook by Carl E. Walsh:

“ When neutrality of money coincides with zero population growth, the economy is said to rest in steady-state equilibrium. ”

Regarding Huw Dixon's own article on Impact...: I think his article is of little relevance to WP, as it merely presents a specific empirical study that has no general encyclopaedic ('wikipedic') bearing on the concept of steady-state economy. Yes, the term 'steady-state' does appear as one of the search keywords of the article; but the term is mentioned neither in the abstract, in the summary nor in the conclusion of the article, rendering the overall relevance very weak. Other editors are hereby invited to read the article and validate my judgement.

I hope this full response of mine will be satisfactory for Dixon. If not, he is welcome to make a new request. However, if he is looking for a more comprehensive WP exposition of the concept of steady-state equilibrium, I think his request should be directed to the talk page of the 'Neutrality of money' article, and not to the present talk page once again. Regards, Gaeanautes (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

References

• I have now changed the hatnote to a link to a disambiguation page. On the disambiguation page in question, the link to an explanation of the concept of 'steady-state equilibrium' in the Neutrality of money article appears on the list of disambiguations. Gaeanautes (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of Smith's concept of the stationary state

On 5 June 2017, User Inkathi has made several major edits of the section text on Smith. In one of the edit summaries, Inkathi objects that "while Smith theorised on the stationary state, he did not 'conjectur[e] that any national economy in the world would sooner or later settle in a final state of stationarity'." In the new section text, added by Inkathi, readers are told instead that "Yet, while thus giving some importance to natural limits to growth, the decisive factor for economic growth, according to Smith, were human institutions." The general conclusion of the section, according to Inkathi, should be that "It is thus unclear whether Smith believed in a final stationary state, beyond which no growth was possible because of natural limits, or whether stationary states were temporary and/or induced by the wrong economic policies alone."

I think User Inkathi's perspective on Smith is completely mistaken. A careful exegesis of the Wealth of Nations, Chapter Nine in Book One, "Of the Profits of Stock", reveals that Smith is examining the long-term trend in the rate of profit in any economy of the world. One of the opening statements runs: "The increase of stock, which raises wages, tends to lower profit." Smith's view is that the trend in the rate of profit can be roughly inferred from movements in the market rate of interest. He finds that the rate of interest has been falling for centuries and seems everywhere inversely related to the degree of economic development in a country. Generally, wages rise and profits fall in the process of capital accumulation. The only exception to this rule is provided by the colonies (North America), where Smith observes that "High wages of labour and high profits of stock ... scarce ever go together, except in the peculiar circumstances of new colonies." But even in the colonies, this situation will sooner or later wear off: "As the colony increases, the profits of stock gradually diminish. When the most fertile and best situated lands have been all occupied, less profit can be made by the cultivation of what is inferior..." Further on in the chapter, Smith spends two full paragraphs describing how the future stationary state — or, the 'full complement of riches' — may come to look like in any country of the world. The first paragraph, at p. 78, was already quoted in the previous version of the section text — and, fortunately, left untouched by Inkathi; the second paragraph, at p. 79, reads as follows:

“ In a country which had acquired its full complement of riches, where in every particular branch of business there was the greatest quantity of stock that could be employed in it, as the ordinary rate of clear profit would be very small, so the usual market rate of interest which could be afforded out of it would be so low as to render it impossible for any but the very wealthiest people to live upon the interest of their money. All people of small or middling fortunes would be obliged to superintend themselves the employment of their own stocks. It would be necessary that almost every man should be a man of business, or engage in some sort of trade. The province of Holland seems to be approaching near to this state. It is there unfashionable not to be a man of business. Necessity makes it usual for almost every man to be so, and custom everywhere regulates fashion. As it is ridiculous not to dress, so is it, in some measure, not to be employed, like other people. As a man of a civil profession seems awkward in a camp or a garrison, and is even in some danger of being despised there, so does an idle man among men of business. ”

This adds up to two full paragraphs on the future stationary state, expounded in very general terms. We may nowadays question Smith's predictive powers; but the fact remains that he definitely attempted to make a prediction on the subject matter.

Inkathi is stirring up much fuss about Smith's account of China's backward laws and institutions, and quotes Smith in full on this; but even this paragraph in the chapter fails to substantiate Inkathi's general perspective on Smith. Consider more carefully the first and most important part of the quote:

“ ... China seems to have been long stationary, and had probably long ago acquired that full complement of riches which is consistent with the nature of its laws and institutions. But this complement may be much inferior to what, with other laws and institutions, the nature of its soil, climate, and situation might admit of. A country which neglects or despises foreign commerce, and which admits the vessels of foreign nations into one or two of its ports only, cannot transact ... [etc.] [emphasis added] ”

So, even in the case of China, the full (potential) complement of riches is something that the nature of its soil, climate, and situation 'might admit of', Smith argues, eh...? Or, put in other words, natural limits are ever present in China, like anywhere else, regardless of the prevailing laws and institutions in the country. I believe Inkathi is losing the argument right here.

Taken together, it is completely wrong to assert that "It is thus unclear whether Smith believed in a final stationary state... [etc.]", as Inkathi does. The correct conclusion is that Smith fully believed in a final stationary state, brought about by the combination of a falling rate of profit and scarcity of natural resources (soil, climate, and situation, specifically) everywhere in the world.

Among Inkathi's deletions is the commentary placed immediately before the lengthy quote on Smith's concept of the stationary state, saying that "In an 18th-century anticipation of The Limits to Growth, Smith described the state as follows: ..." According to Inkathi's edit summary, the deletion of this commentary forms part of his effort to create "... a more complete and balanced picture." I could hardly disagree more on this point. There are plenty of contemporary secondary sources available where Smith's concept of the stationary state is referred to in general discussions of the present 'limits to growth' predicament. In effect, this particular commentary finely live up to the WP due weight criteria, I say.

As a consequence of all of the above, I have deleted Inkathi's mistakes, and restored the previous version of the section text instead (which happens to be the very version already written by yours truly). However, I do want to accommodate Inkathi's concerns as much as the available space and the subject matter allow. Hence, I have added one sentence to the previous version at the proper place, stating that "Smith believed the laws and institutions of China prevented this country from achieving the potential wealth its soil, climate and situation might have admitted of." That should suffice for the present purposes.

In case User Inkathi or any other editor want to raise objections to this post, please leave another post below before reversing my edit (or restoring Inkathi's edits, either partly or completely); but first, do consider reading Smith's chapter 'Of the Profits of Stock', it is only a bit more than eight pages long and very readable; even more, it is available online. Thank you.

References

End of post. Gaeanautes (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Article is a total mess

It conflates, equivocates and synthesizes several different concepts which come under the heading "steady-state economy". There's Daly's use of the term, which is given an insane amount of attention in this article. Then there's the use of the term by the classical economists (which, no, did not deal with ecological issue). Then there's the way the term is used in neoclassical economics, which means an economy where stuff grows at constant rates (not levels). As a result the article has serious issue with undue weight, POV and original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

There are 2 main definition of steady state economy and this article is talking about one of them - about the economy without economic growth. There is also the definition as economy with stable growth and the page did not talk about it, it's true. But I think it is normal because they are completely different, in some points even opposite, theories. I think another page should be created that talks about the other definition - for example Steady growth economy or Stable growth economy or Steady state economy (with steady growth) and in the new page the other concept should be explained. When you search in Google "steady state economy" most of the references is about the ecological version, so, I think this page should reste with the present name.

--אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The definition of steady state economy as "economy with no growth" is from the 18th century, back when economies didn't grow. That can be noted in a "Background" or "History" section but it is not the definition that is used in modern sources and it isn't the one which we should use in this article. And they're not really "completely different theories" - one is a special case of the other, since 0 (growth) is a constant. "Steady state economy" IS the concept used in all economic research and writing today to describe an economy with constant growth rates (of capital and output). This goes back to the 1930's or even earlier.

If you do want a new article that focuses on Daly's use of the term then you can create that. But that is a single person's view which is not representative of the larger literature. Volunteer Marek 18:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree with removing the definition from Herman Daly in the introduction. Either you include all the different viewpoints in the introduction, or you make a new page (like indeed Steady growth economy or Stable growth economy or Steady state economy (with steady growth) ). But not the situation where you would only define a steady state economy as an economy which is still growing.

If you search in Google Scholar most articles (even if you filter for only the recent articles) are about the concept of Herman Daley. So this definition should be the default (and the first one in the introduction). Furthermore it is not because now economies are growing and they didn't grow so much in the 18th century, that the concept is not relevant for today. A lot of recent authors (see google scholar) also define the steady-state economy as an economy with no growth.

By the way, for me a growing steady state economy is a contradictio in terminis. In all other scientific disciplines where they use the term steady state, it is not about growing systems. The size of the system stays the same, but there is still a constant rate of input and output which flows through the system. For me it is strange that economics would be the only discipline where there is growth in a steady state system. --PJ Geest (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Completely agree with you. --אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

If you search in Google Scholar most articles (even if you filter for only the recent articles) are about the concept of Herman Daley This isn't true. I get more hits for "steady state economy Robert Solow" than I get for "steady state economy Herman Daly", and of course Solow isn't the only nor the first to use the term. "steady state economy Nicholas Kaldor" or "steady state Roy Harrod" will also get you lots of hits. Any macroeconomic textbook which covers growth theory uses the term in the sense I've mentioned, not Daly's sense. Really folks, one one hand you have an entire field (economics) which uses the term in one way vs. one scholar, however prominent he may be, using it differently. The article should reflect contemporary mainstream usage.

for me a growing steady state economy is a contradictio in terminis It's "steady", not "constant". The constancy here is the capital-output ratio, the "steady" is the growth rate. And it may be strange to you, but that's how it is. See WP:OR. Volunteer Marek 15:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

In neoclassical economics, an economy featuring an equi-proportionate increase in capital and labour is said to have a steady-state rate of growth, refer to this article on the Solow–Swan model. To accomodate the concerns of User:Volunteer Marek, I have already added a reference to this article on the relevant DAB page, please inspect this edit of mine. However, it would be irrelevant to add a specific link to the article on the Solow–Swan model in the present article on 'Steady-state economy', as the term 'steady-state' has multiple uses, and not just in the field of economics. There's already a hatnote in place at the top of the present article, directing users to the DAB page. That should suffice.

According to my knowledge, Volunteer Marek (VM) is badly mistaken to disregard the prominence of Herman Daly and his work when considering the general subject of the present article. In a post above, User:PJ Geest has already — correctly — refered to Google Scholar as a relevant online service to visit when Daly's prominence in the field needs confirmation. In addition, there are plenty of sources in the present article reference list who recognize Daly's prominence. I could easily present a sample of quotations here to substantiate this last point if VM deems it necessary. So, one question goes: "Is it really necessary to parade some quotations here for you to read, VM?" Another question goes: "Are you able to present other, alternative sources who contradict mine by either a) Denying the prominence of Daly, or b) Arguing that some other theorist (who?) is more prominent, VM?" I think we need answers to these two questions before proceeding. --Gaeanautes (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not disregarding Daly. I just don't think the entire article should be written just around the way one particular scholar used the term, when a whole field uses it in another. Robert Solow, Nicholas Kaldor, Roy Harrod, Evsey Domar, Wassily Leontief, Leon Walras, John Von Neumann, Daron Acemoglu are all more prominent than Daly. Volunteer Marek 15:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I have a proposition. Considering that we have at least 2 definition of steady state economy we should make a disambigulation page. And from that page make connections with this page and with the second version. --Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@אלכסנדר סעודה: But there's already a DAB page in place. The DAB page is refering to the present article, to neoclassical growth theory, and to various other articles. Please read my post above from 24 September 2019. --Gaeanautes (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

How to express disagreement

I think that someone who did not agree with some idea have a right to to explain why in special section dedicated to it in the page but not to delete content. I probably will criticize the page post scarcity economy by creating such section and explaining my views but not by deleting the content.

--אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@אלכסנדר סעודה: Hello Alexander Sauda (using the Latin alphabet). Your post above requires some comments on my part. Consider the following:

• I agree with you that editors should not delete article content they disagree with on the personal level. User:Volunteer Marek (VM) was wrong to do so, refer to his second mass deletion of material on 14 August. The WP policy concerning dispute resolution is advising editors as follows: "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text." VM violated this policy. VM made his first series of deleting material on 18 July, you can check out the log on this. These repeated deletions on his part amount to nothing but disruptive editing, or perhaps even edit warring. Fortunately, both you and User:PJ Geest were clever enough to revert the second round of VM's deletions, refer to this edit of yours and this edit of PJ Geest's. I have already thanked the both of you for these edits. By the time of writing, we're largely back where VM started — only now, we are braced for his next wave of destruction and nonsense, aren't we...?
• You are plain wrong to believe that editors have a right to explain their personal disagreement with some particular content on the article page itself. Your intention of creating a special subsection in the article on Post-scarcity economy in order to express your own personal criticism of the subject there is a bad idea to pursue. Your post above bespeaks a basic misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, and what it's not. WP is not a publisher of the original thoughts and beliefs of any individual editor. WP is also not a soapbox or means of promoting the opinion pieces of individual editors. Please read this article on what WP is not. Sauda, I think you still need to understand the very basics of WP editing. Please carefully read all of this article on how to contribute to WP before carrying on with your contributions, both here on this particular article, and elsewhere. If you learn well, you will spare yourself and other editors (including me) a lot of time and unnecessary disputes. You have some reading to do now, I would say.

Kind regards, --Gaeanautes (talk) 12:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gaeanautes:

Thank you for you remarks. What I mean to, was creating a sub section in which I can put sources saying why this conception is wrong. Exactly in this way should act someone if he want to explain why he think that the concept of steady state economy is wrong - fairly. I understand well that the rules of wikipedia say that you can write only proven facts.

--אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

No. Look, if there's erroneous text in an article, or if something is being given WP:UNDUE weight, then yes, you delete it and remove it. How else are you suppose to address undue weight except by removing it? Please don't encourage others to edit war ("you were clever enough..." ???) Please don't refer to my edits as "wave of destruction and nonsense". That's a personal attack.

There's a fundamental disagreement here because of our different backgrounds, that much is clear. But this really is an issue about how a term is defined by one scholar vs. how it's defined by an entire academic discipline. Volunteer Marek 15:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I think you're utterly mistaken about everything in your post above. Consider the following:

• You have the nerve to refer to the WP policy on 'undue weight' to somehow substantiate your view that editors are supposed to delete content whenever they find an error or believe something is undue weight in an article text. This is a complete falsehood! That's not what the WP policy says!! The very opposite holds true, as the subsection on 'Achieving neutrality' in the same article clearly states: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone." Likewise, the WP policy on 'dispute resolution' is advising editors as follows: "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text." Your way of misrepresenting a WP policy to suit your own immediate needs in the context looks like manipulative and reckless nonsense to me, I say. Shame on you for posting such nonsense on this talk page, Volunteer Marek.
• No, I have certainly not encouraged other editors to engage in any edit warring. Quite the opposite. I have thanked two co-editors (User PJ Geest and User אלכסנדר סעודה) for reverting your previous edit warring attempt, refer to this infamous edit of yours from 14 August. I already stated this point in my post above from 1 October as part of my reply to User אלכסנדר סעודה. What was it in that post you didn't read, didn't understand, or chose to ignore?
• No, describing your previous edits as a 'wave of destruction and nonsense' does not amount to a personal attack. It's a fair description of your previous edits, taken as a whole — not a description of you as a person.
• You're unreasonable to argue that our present disagreements have got anything to do with our different backgrounds. What backgrounds? What do you know about my background? Do you need to know anything about my background? I don't think so. It's a matter of assessing and discussing relevant sources correctly, that's all.

I suppose your various edits and talk page posts from 22 October make up what I have earlier anticipated as your 'next wave of destruction and nonsense'. So, this is how the wave looks like. I'm a bit relieved about your improved behaviour this time around: You no longer delete paragraphs or entire sections in the article itself, refer to this infamous edit of yours from 14 August; you merely add some inline tags, refer to this little edit of yours from 22 October. That's an obvious improvement. Unfortunately, we still appear to be stuck with your manipulative nonsense on this talk page, as your post above proves beyond doubt. It's pathetic.

Do take note: From now on, I'll find it very hard to keep assuming good faith when interacting with you about the present article, Volunteer Marek. Your track record here keeps mounting up evidence that you're nothing but a disruptive editor who engages in edit warring, misrepresents WP policies, is tendentious, fails to cite relevant sources, and ignores community input from other editors. Terrible behaviour.

That's all for now. --Gaeanautes (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gaeanautes: describing someone's well intentioned edits as "wave of destruction and nonsense" is most certainly a personal attack or at very least WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. You can call it "fair description" all you like, but it's insulting and WP:TENDENTIOUS. Also, please stop referring to my edits as "infamous". Also cut it out with the "terrible behavior" stuff. That kind of hyperbolic rhetoric says more about you than me, and it surely isn't conducive to working out any disagreements. Likewise, encouraging others to revert and thanking them for it is indeed encouraging edit warring. I'm not interested in getting into it with you regarding what WP:UNDUE says - if the article gives overwhelming prominence to a viewpoint which is a minority one in the sources then there's no way to reduce that undueness without cutting some of the fluff out.

Basically, stop talking in exaggerated insulting language per WP:CIVIL. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them a horrible person (especially if they happen to be right on the merits). I'm asking politely at this point, but your language is making my patience wear thin.

My background is in economics. Normal, regular, economics of the kind that is taught across universities in Americas and Europe and Asia and Africa and even Australia. What's yours?

I see that you utterly failed to address the substance of the matter which is that Daly's use of the term is NOT how an entire scholarly field, economics, uses the term. Volunteer Marek 17:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Yeah — you're full of it, bozo. In my previous post from 29 October 2019 above, I've already told you how wrong you are on these issues, and I really don't care to repeat myself. This is the end of the quarrel as far as I'm concerned. --Gaeanautes (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Article on military effectiveness

User:אלכסנדר סעודה Hello, User Alexander Sauda. On 15 May 2019, you have added text arguing that a steady-state economy is not likely to come about anywhere in the world before global peace is achieved, refer to this edit of yours. Although this view may be true per se, the article referenced by you doesn't substantiate the view at all. The article merely argues that military power is primarily determined by economic factors, concluding that "economically developed states are more capable of generating highly skilled military units and producing, maintaining, and modernizing sophisticated military equipment". In WP terms, this is an instance of Failed verification. Even worse, you seem to be pushing your own point of view on the issue, which is an instance of POV statement. Consequently, I think the paragraph (article plus text) should be deleted altogether. Please respond to this post before long...

References

End of post. --Gaeanautes (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I do not think that the paragraph should be deleted. I will write it in terms more connected with what is said in the article in the next days. --Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I changed the paragraph. now I think it correspond to the sources. --Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, אלכסנדר סעודה. Yes, I can see that you have cut down on your own point of view in the text. However, the remaining statement of any substance in the paragraph is still biased: "Without global peace and international cooperation country that will limit its economic growth achieve lower military capability, then a country that will not do it". Now, this is poorly written English, and rather difficult to understand, too. I take the statement to mean that in a hostile world, no country will ever limit its economic growth due to security reasons. This statement may be true all right, but it is still your point of view, Sauda. The necessary verification of the source material is still failing here. Consequently, I still think the paragraph should be deleted altogether. I'll wait a while for your response before I take further action on this; but only a while. --Gaeanautes (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, אלכסנדר סעודה. Further action taken as notified above, paragraph in question deleted. --Gaeanautes (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Read attentionaly the text I have placed: "Economic development determines largely the military capability. A country that will limit its economic growth achieve lower military capability, then a country that will not do it."

This is all the text. It correspond fully to the cited article so verification achieved. You agree?

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The article about China that you deleted also correspond to the paragraph. He told that China fear from losing its military capability can stop it from limit growth. I willwait with reposting but only a while. I changed the name of the paragraph so the content correspond more.

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@אלכסנדר סעודה: I do appreciate that you have omitted the statement about "A country that will limit its economic growth..." etc in your edit from 1 March. This statement remained poorly written English, and unverifiable as well. But now another problem becomes apparent: The whole section on 'Economic growth as a condition of military capability' is irrelevant in the present article on 'Steady-state economy'. Consequently, I have inserted the 'Off topic' cleanup template at the top of the section, please inspect this edit of mine.

You touch on the issue of irrelevance yourself in the edit summary of this edit of yours from 20 February: "Most sources do not mention directly steady state [e]conomy, so I changed the name of the [section]." Now, this summary bespeaks what is wrong with your general editing style around here, Sauda: Most of the sources added by you don't mention the subject of the present WP article themselves — steady-state economy — so you try to make up a connection that really doesn't exist in the first place. In WP, this editing style is known as 'Tendentious editing' and 'Advocacy': Whereas tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint, advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies. Both of these editing styles violate the second WP pillar of neutral point of view, and should therefore be avoided altogether. I think you should carefully read these two articles on the issue: Tendentious editing and Advocacy. Of special interest here is the subsection on 'Identifying advocacy', where the line between 'Advocacy' and 'Stewardship' is drawn. In the present situation, I regard myself as a 'Steward', while you seem to be an 'Advocate'. I hope you're both willing and able to improve...

In my post to you on 1 October 2019, I wrote that WP is not a soapbox or means of promoting the opinion pieces of individual editors, and that you still need to understand the very basics of WP editing (see above). I think you should carefully read that post of mine once again, as well as the articles linked to from the post. Be aware that you are not a reliable source yourself, Sauda; instead, you're a WP editor who should carefully and responsibly document the reliable sources and not make up connections that don't exist in the first place.

China's political declarations about establishing an ecological civilization has got nothing to do whatsoever with steady-state economy. It is you who is trying to make up the connection, not the sources themselves. The same goes for the second paragraph in the section on Jared Diamond's book on Guns, Germs and Steel. Consequently, I think the section as a whole should be deleted altogether. I'll wait a while for your response before I take further action on this; but only a while. Regards, --Gaeanautes (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

You did not read the article about China until the end. After the declarations there is a long explanation about how the aim of building an ecological civilization is objected to the aim of building strong military and industrial potential.

The boock of Jared Diamond mention very clearly that societies with surplus product was less ecological that societies without it. But they was more succesefull in war what leaded to biggest expansion of those societies.

Wikipedia if I understand correctly its target, want to describe reality. It beleive that there is an objective reality and the editors should describe it, providing good and verifiable sources while doing so. For example if you write about tables you should provide maximum of the relevant information about tables. I will read the 2 articles that you mentioned.

The section that we are talking about is dealing about controversy and objections to the theory of a steady state economy. Not all the sources in this section mention the name Steady State Economy. For example in the subsection of pushing to space reference 132 not mention it. I am sure that you can find more references like this. So, following your method they should not be here and the text relying on it should be deleted.

The question is: is there in the sources a statement that it will be difficult to cut growth because in a hostile world it will cut the military capability and this has disastrous ecological consequences? I think the answer is yes. For example in the article about China that you mentioned.

Second question: is there a link between the section and the theme of the article? I think the answer is yes. You know what is a steady state economy. If you do not mention it it will hide a significant part of the real picture.

Maybe you think that reference 132 and other like it are fine because it is from Herman Daly and all know that he is a supporter of a steady state economy? I will put some reference from the site of the center for advancment of steady state economy.

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 08:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@אלכסנדר סעודה: You're plain wrong to argue that it's my 'method' to delete each and every source in the article that doesn't mention the concept of 'steady-state economy' (SSE) directly. There are already plenty of source material present that do not mention the concept at all. I'm the editor who put most of these sources here in the first place, so I should know! However, all of the sections written by me — including the sources referenced throughout the section texts — are relevant to the concept of an SSE, historically, contextually, or otherwise. That's what makes the big difference here.

The example mentioned by you is a good case in point. You're arguing that the article by Daly on A further critique of growth economics does not mention the concept of an SSE directly. This is true. But this particular source forms part of the section on 'Pushing some of the terrestrial limits into outer space'. In this very section, Daly criticises Gerard O'Neill's plan from the 1970s to build quasi-SSE human colonies in outer space to solve the problems of overpopulation and limits to growth on earth. Since the 1970s, the discussion among space advocates has developed from space stations to asteroid mining, and I've found it worthwhile to document this development for the sake of encyclopedic completeness and relevance. The conclusion here is that although the section may refer to some sources that do not mention the concept of an SSE at all, the section as a whole is contextually relevant to the concept of an SSE. Other examples like this one abound throughout the article.

The section added by you on 'Economic growth as a condition of military capability' presently contains some diverse material about national security issues. The general concern is that in a hostile world, no country will ever limit its economic growth due to national security. This is a political objection. However, many other political objections to limiting economic growth also exist: Labour employment, sound public finances, political prestige, general social stability, unconstitutional encroachment of civil liberties, government popularity, life fulfillment, etc. Consequently, two main editorial predicaments now become apparent:

• If the political concern of national security is included in the article, it would be biased not to include all the other aforementioned political objections also; but if we did include all of those other political objections, the material would soon swell beyond reason.
• General political objections to limiting economic growth do not by themselves constitute a discussion or criticism of an SSE. Sources objecting to limiting economic growth may not even know what an SSE is. This is indeed the case here. Hence, these sources are irrelevant material in the present article. To repeat: It is you who is making the connection here, Sauda, not the sources themselves. This is bad editorial style, bad lexicography, and it's obviously violating WP guidelines.

You seem to be excessively preoccupied with military strategy and national security issues, Sauda. Perhaps this preoccupation (bias) of yours stems from the fact that you're an Israeli citizen...? I suppose you don't even realise your own bias in the present context...

Perhaps it would be reasonable for you to create a new WP article on 'Political objections to limiting economic growth'? If you surf around online a little, you should be able to find plenty of sources objecting to limiting economic growth on various grounds. Hopefully, such a new article could even meet the WP:Notability guideline. Then the current section on 'Economic growth as a condition of military capability' could be moved from here to fit nicely into this new article. Think it over, Sauda...

In any case, I still think the section on 'Economic growth as a condition of military capability' should be deleted altogether. I've already notified you on this in my previous post from 11 March above. By the time of writing, the 'Off topic' cleanup template is still in place at the top of the section. I'll wait a while for your response before I take further action on this; but only a while.

That's all for now.

References

End of post. Regards, --Gaeanautes (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gaeanautes:

I am happy to read that you approve putting here sources that are linked directly to steady state economy even if they do not directly mention the words. I think it is a good position.

You are right to say that in the article about the race of arms as an obstacle to a steady state economy we should write only about this and do not mention other things like possible impacts of SSE on "Labour employment, sound public finances, political prestige, general social stability, unconstitutional encroachment of civil liberties, government popularity, life fulfillment, etc." It should deal only about the topic that it deals about. I am not going to write about the topics that you mention in this pargraph.

Even more, if I will find more sources specifically dealing with the topic of the paragraph, I will not going to put much in it, because it should not cross the size of ordinary wikipedia paragraph. In this case I will create an another page and put it there.

However, I do not think that you can not put a source about red in the page about red only because the source mention also blue. In the sources that I have putted in the paragraph there is information relevant to proof what I have writed. They mention also other things but it is not an objection to put it here. If you want to put a source saying that smoking cause cancer in the relevant page, will you reject it only because it talk also about other impacts of smoking?

In the paragraph there is one source from CASSE that mention directly the link to steady state economy saying: Hostility cause a race of arms, for the race you need economic growth, what is an obstacle to a steady state economy. It is not me who make the connection. (If you want here is one more article with the connection) The other sources simply bring proofs and examples to this thesis. They are not mentioning directly SSE but they are relevant to the context as proofs of the thesis. I am not going to expand it without limit of course and bring a mass of sources without any connection to the theory. If you would not arguing against this paragraph I think I was not returning to it at all or almost at all in the latest months, because I think that what is writed is enough.

Why I am writing about it? Because it is important to me to show that economic growth was not always for improving life quality but many times as a results of wars. This is imortant to show that sometimes decreasing GDP can increase the life level. One of the main statements of the teory is that GDP is not always good indicator of life quality. Also to show that you can not limit growth without peace. Of course I write only what I have sources for it.

So, I am not going to turn the paragraph and the page to something dealing with the political tensions between countries etc. What is important to me is to show the connection between the military competition and exessive economic growth. If there is a source that describe the link from Casse, a source that describe the link between military capability ang economic growth globally and 2 - 3 examples, that is enough to me.

Best regards

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Placing of paragraph on Kerschner's article

Hello again, אלכסנדר סעודה. I'm concerned that on 26 January, you have moved the paragraph on Christian Kerschner's article from the section on 'Declining-state economy' to the section on 'Connection with other ideologies, movements', refer to this edit of yours. According to your edit summary, the section on 'Declining-state economy' is dealing with criticisms of steady-state economy, while the section on 'Connection with other ideologies, movements' is dealing with agreements between steady-state economy and other ideologies, movements, etc. — and hence, the paragraph on Kerschner's article belongs in the latter section, you say.

I think you're plain wrong on this: Kerschner's article is indeed critical of steady-state economy. Like Georgescu-Roegen, Rifkin and Latouche, Kerschner believes that a steady-state economy is not far-reaching enough for the future of mankind. According to the paragraph text, paraphrasing Kerschner's position, "... degrowth should be considered a path taken by the rich industrialized countries leading towards a globally equitable steady-state economy". For the rich industrialized countries, a degrowth path is obviously more radical and far-reaching than a steady-state would be, isn't it? So, there's obviously a disagreement at the strategic level in play here. Consequently, the paragraph on Kerschner's article belongs to the section on 'Declining-state economy', I say.

Do you want to move the paragraph back yourself, or should I do it for us? I'll wait a while for your response before I take further action on this; but only a while. Kind regards, --Gaeanautes (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Gaeanautes. Thank you for not reverting my edit immediately. I did not respond immediately - in saturday in Israel we rest so i rest from Internet.

I think that you and many others like Nicolas Georgescu-Roegen miss the point.

If you freeze the consumption, (e.g., create a steady state economy) in current level it may be not sufficient, that is right.

But the final target of all consumption decline theories like degrowth and many others is not to shrink it endlessly untill peole will die from hunger, but to bring it to the best level to health and environment - and than stop it at this level. And what will be an economy with a stable level of consumption? A steady state economy!

1. This is said explicitly in the citation of Kerschner that you putted here and in the abstract of the article. It is said clearly that:

" In recent years the concept of economic de-growth (decroissance) based on the literature of Nicolas Georgescu-Roegen e.g. [1–3] has found a revival in France, Italy, Spain and other countries, in the popular as well as in the academic literature. Therein authors took on board Georgescu-Roegens’ categorical rejection of a steady-state economy (SSE), as proposed by Herman Daly [4]. They argue that economic degrowth is the only viable alternative goal to the growing economy. This position is challenged in this article and it is concluded that the two concepts are in fact complements. Economic de-growth is nota goal in itself, but the rich North’s path towards a globally equitable SSE. "

So, the article is written to challenge the theories of "Nicolas Georgescu-Roegen e.g.", so it can be in the same section. It want to prove the opposite.

2. In some degree the definition of steady state economy as the economy with the best level of consumption can be understood from the citations of Herman Daly in the page:

The first issue remains to stop the momentum of growth and to learn to run a stable economy at historically given initial conditions. ... But we cannot go into reverse without first coming to a stop. Step one is to achieve a steady-state economy at existing or nearby levels. Step two is to decide whether the optimum level is greater or less than present levels. ... My own judgment on these issues lead me to think we have overshot the optimum"

So, Herman Daily think that we should first stop the consumption in current level and after probably decline the level of consumption to the optimum. I think that the article of Kerschner is much closer to the adoption of that statement that do disagreement with it.

The statement that State State economy is the final target of Degrowth is in my opinion necessary for understanding that this is not a theory that lead to poverty but a path to a some optimum level of consumption that is the best to health and environment. And this what the proponent of Steady state economy wants as can be understood in the official site:

"A steady state economy is an economy of stable or mildly fluctuating size. The term typically refers to a national economy, but it can also be applied to a local, regional, or global economy. An economy can reach a steady state after a period of growth or after a period of downsizing or degrowth. To be sustainable, a steady state economy may not exceed ecological limits."

"Finding the Goldilocks scale of the economy, the size that’s not too small and not too large, but just right, is no easy feat. In cases where the benefits of growth outweigh the costs (for example, where people are not consuming enough to meet their needs), growth or redistribution of resources may be required. In cases where the size of the economy has surpassed the carrying capacity of the ecosystems that contain it (a condition known as overshoot), degrowth may be required before establishing a steady state economy that can be maintained over the long term. Adjusting the scale of the economy through accurate measurement of benefits and costs, through trial and error, through regulation of markets, and through political will to achieve sustainability is the great challenge of our times."

I think all this proves that my edit was correct.

And if you want to know my opinion theories like degrowth are just part of the larger theory of steady state economy. They explain how to reach it.

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate usage of captions

I am concerned that the image captions on this page are inappropriate. For instance, all of the following images have captions which are unrelated to what they are describing. On the whole, these captions read more like an essay than an encyclopedia article.

• 
  Unintentionally, the Industrial Revolution has thrown modern man out of equilibrium with the rest of the biosphere
• 
  The inevitable exhaustion of mined resources could be postponed by imposing permanent quantitative restrictions on the economy
• 
  Like any other planet, earth is finite
• 
  Technology is usually dependent on fuel or electricity for its operation
• Could capitalism ever stop growing?
  Could capitalism ever stop growing?
• 
  Astronomically long distances and time scales are ever present in space

All of the preceding images are currently in the article, with these exact captions.

Also, I think that the inclusion of these banners is an attempt to circumvent the image use policy and external links guideline:

Editor's note: Due to copyright restrictions, Wikipedia is currently barred from displaying a suitable image of Herman Daly here. Readers are advised to either use a search engine for the purpose, or to follow this external link.

There are two of these in the page. I'd normally suggest using {{external media}} but in this case it might not be necessary to have a single link for a portrait of someone who isn't even the main subject of the article. epicgenius (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: The images you are concerned with are used for illustrative purposes at various places in the article. That is, the images serve to accompany and graphically highlight the points made in the article text. The image captions are not 'essays' in their own right, but succinct text snippets copied from the article text itself. You'll see how it works if you take time to read the text next to the images. You shouldn't focus on the images and the captions only, but perceive the proper context: The images, the captions and the article text form a coherent and intelligible whole, and it's all supported by the sources referenced. So, it's encyclopedic all right.

According to the Manual of Style on the subject, a good image caption establishes the picture's relevance to the article; provides context for the picture; and draws the reader into the article. All of these criterias are met here, I say. Hence, there are no style issues.

Thank you for drawing my attention to the Template:External media. I didn't even know this template existed until reading about it in your post. I'll look into this template and image use policy issue more closely soon, edit the article accordingly, and then ping you again from this page to ask for your approval... --Gaeanautes (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gaeanautes: Thanks for the reply. I wasn't implying that the captions were unencyclopedic, just that they could be better worded. If the captions are indeed just snippets from the article (which seems to the case here) then this should be more clearly stated, or even use the text (pictured) as needed to ensure the caption is still relevant to the image. After all, that is the major issue - the captions have to be connected to the image in some way. By the way, I appreciate the heads up. epicgenius (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I have now deleted the two message boxes (banners) you were concerned about, please inspect this edit of mine. I think you were right to object that these two message boxes constituted a circumvention of both the image use policy and the external links guideline. I must admit that I've been a little too bold in my earlier editing here...

Regarding the better wording for the image captions, I think the captions are already sufficiently connected to the images — but I would like to accomodate you anyway, if possible. However, I need to understand more accurately what it is you're suggesting. Where exactly is the word '(pictured)' supposed to be inserted? In the captions? In the article text? Or both places? In addition, I would like to know if your suggestion follows a particular MoS guideline. If so, could you please put some links, both to the guideline itself and to some example mainspace articles around WP where this guideline is followed already? That would make it a lot easier for me to understand your suggestion. Thank you.

Regards, --Gaeanautes (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• I think he's running away from Wall Street... (3007506886).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Important adjustment to the definition

I am adding important information to the paragraph Definition and vision. I write that: "The Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE) define steady state economy, not only as an economy with some constant level of consumption, but as an economy with the best possible level of consumption maintained constantly. To define what is this level, it consider not only ecology, but also life level". Last time when I add this with a long citation from the source, Gaeanautes deleted it writing: "CASSE is only a self-published source (website), so quoting CASSE at length at this point in the article is undue weight, I say. There's a general link to CASSE in the 'External links' section near the bottom of the article, that should suffice. You're overdoing it, Sauda. Again.".

I agree that I overcited CASSE in the last time, so this time I do not citing it, I write in my words. Even though Heman Daly also can be regarded as self published source and he is cited much more than CASSE. But the adjustment by itself is important because many disagreements between proponents of degrowth and steady state economy in my opininion are caused by misinformation about the issue.

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 10:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@אלכסנדר סעודה: I have deleted the material on CASSE added by you on 8 April, please inspect this revert edit of mine. I believe this is the second time I revert an edit of yours where you're much too eager to push CASSE's point of view in the article. Consider the following points for discussion:

• You're plain wrong to argue that "Herman Daly also can be regarded as [a] self-published source". Daly has been publishing his work in books and scholarly, peer-reviewed journals for the last fifty years or so. Please take a look at the reference list in the article to verify this fact. (You're correct to argue that Daly is cited much more than CASSE is – but this obvious fact does not substantiate your case here.)
• CASSE, on the other hand, is indeed a self-published source (website), rendering it of much lower quality for present WP purposes. According to the relevant WP guideline, "self-published sources are largely not acceptable". Do take proper note here, Sauda, so we can avoid future quarrels on this.
• The section on 'Definition and vision' presently serves as an introduction to Herman Daly's concept of a steady-state economy (SSE). It's both irrelevant, confusing and misleading for readers to add material from CASSE containing other definitions of core SSE concepts than Daly's in this very section.
• Documenting disagreements between steady-state advocates and degrowthists should be left to a section of its own, I say. Perhaps the present section on 'Degrowth' could be turned into a new section on 'Steady-state economy vs Degrowth'. Think about it. However, I'll leave it to you to continue working on this, since you seem to be much more interested in the issue than I am.

That's all for now. Regards, --Gaeanautes (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think that definition paragraph should talk about definition to the concept of SSE not only to Herman Daly conception.

• In this source there is a citation of Herman Daly partly also about that idea - that steady state economy, is not only as an economy with some constant level of consumption, but as an economy with the best possible level of consumption maintained constantly considering not only ecology, but also life level. You are right, saying that it is very interesting topic for me. So this souce is in some degree a secondary source to what Herman daly say: people review what he is saying and agree with him.

However, until I will succeed in convincing you that it should be in the definition paragraph I added it to already existing source in the "degrowth" paragraph.

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Generation 80 Experience 20190108 12.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced statements

This article insists that a "steady-state economy" differs from economic stagnation, and that a declining-state economy differs from a recession:

"A steady-state economy is not to be confused with economic stagnation: Whereas a steady-state economy is established as the result of deliberate political action, economic stagnation is the unexpected and unwelcome failure of a growth economy."

"A declining-state economy is not to be confused with a recession: Whereas a declining-state economy is established as the result of deliberate political action, a recession is the unexpected and unwelcome failure of a growing or a steady economy."

Where on Earth does it say that economic stagnation or recessions mustn't be deliberate? I have searched through the sources and I cannot find anything to support this wording. This wording seems very dubious; if a steady-state economy maintains a stagnant real GDP or productive output, then it is, by definition, stagnant. If an economy is in such decline, then it is a recession (at a particular level of such decline), by definition. Zilch-nada (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)