This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Contents
- 1 I don't think this sentence makes sense:
- 2 Physical constraints to growth- reason to keep
- 3 New IMF Staff Discussion Note
- 4 Income inequality still not correctly portrayed
- 5 Order of importance
- 6 Income inequality Undue weight
- 7 Inequality myths
- 8 What to do about the IMF paper?
- 9 Does Capitalism Cause Poverty?
- 10 Dr. Cecchetti's comment on this article
- 11 Kuznets and Piketty
- 12 Evisceration of secondary literature in favor of primary sources
- 13 Removal of dispute tag in an edit summary making accusations of waring
I don't think this sentence makes sense:
"The notion of growth as increased stocks of capital goods was codified as the Solow-Swan Growth Model". The notion of growth as increased stocks of capital goods is not the notion of growth of Solow-Swan. The notion of growth in Solow-Swan is still increases in per capita income, as in all other theories of growth.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Physical constraints to growth- reason to keep
Physical constraints were part of classical economics and were mentioned by Ricardo and others who were concerned about the negative effects of depletion by extractive industries. One source I have for this is: [1] I have another one somewhere in my notes. A main theme of economic thought is substitution of other resources for depletable ones,(many sources in addition to previous cite) but in many cases, such as phosphorus there are no substitutes. Use of powered machinery initially raised productivity of extractive industries, but now resource quality has continued to decline for many minerals and productivity is in decline. Copper is a poster child because of the continued decline in ore grades. Oil and gas are other examples. My sources on this subject are out of date, but this information is easy to find on the internet. Peak minerals has several references, Geodestenies (1998) is a good but dated ref. Euan Means has also written about thisPhmoreno (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
References
New IMF Staff Discussion Note
"if the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth. The poor and the middle class matter the most for growth via a number of interrelated economic, social, and political channels."[1] should be included. EllenCT (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Income inequality still not correctly portrayed
This section still is written to misrepresent the facts. In economics inequality is the result of the distribution of income. If wages are raised at the low end, the result is the substitution of more capital for labor. Unintended consequences, like rising prices, also result from redistribution of income. Also, the inverted U curve of inequality versus per capita GDP is not adequately represented, so we don't have inequality in perspective between developing and developed countries. All of these issues need to be discussed in the first paragraph of the section.Phmoreno (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- What is your source for the statement that "If wages are raised at the low end, the result is the substitution of more capital for labor"? And what do you mean by that? If wages are raised at the low end, aggregate demand increases and a greater number of people are able to express their preferences in the marketplace. EllenCT (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- There are numerous sources for the statement that if wages rise then there is more incentive to substitute capital for labor. It's basic economics, but if you want a source see A history of Economic Thought that is cited in the article. Any increase in aggregate demand has to be net of jobs lost due to substitution of labor for capital. If you want a wonderful example read The Box about container shipping.Phmoreno (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- That is a wonderful book! Excellent! Worth re-reading. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Again, what is the specific source and page number for that statement? How does it square with [2]? EllenCT (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Order of importance
The fundamental factors and the components of national income accounting go before the secondary variables. Some of these, like income inequality, don't even belong here and are going to get significantly downsized to clear up some of the inequality myths that are being perpetuated here. References will of course be provided when that edit happens.Phmoreno (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have any sources in support of your opinions? The IMF graph clearly indicates that income equality is the most determinate factor in the duration of growth spells. After several months, you have been unable to cite a single peer-reviewed source which agrees with your increasingly persistent opinion that income equality is unimportant, let alone any source of the quality and reliability of the several secondary sources which are already in the article. Do you expect editors to take your opinion on faith? EllenCT (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Let's see your sources, then. The last time you complained about me on WP:ANI, you initiated a WP:BOOMERANG which almost got someone else topic banned.[3] Do you think you have support from anyone other than those who don't like the consensus of the peer reviewed secondary sources for no other reason than their personal political preferences? EllenCT (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
-
I think the organization of this article should follow the standard presentation that is found in textbooks. And yes, that means that the effect of income inequality is somewhere towards the end, as that is not one of the main factors which are usually discussed in this context. There might be one or two studies out there which argue that income inequality is THE most important determinant of growth but then there's one or two studies out there which argue that "factor X" is the most important determinant of growth. Basically you'd have to show that these one or two studies are representative of the literature as a whole (they aren't).Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm going to make a slight change by grouping together "determinants of growth" per Bjork (1999). This is from his quantitative record chapter on GDP. This change will addresses comments made by others in a previous Talk discussion.Phmoreno (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Income inequality Undue weight
The only quantitative information that can be found in the citations regarding the relationship between income inequality and growth says "Although statistically significant, the magnitude of the relationship between inequality and growth is relatively small." See blockquote in section for reference. Phmoreno (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
A quote from the Temple paper:
Yet macroeconomists have traditionally shown little interest in the gulf between rich and poor. The study of growth at the aggregate level has often been something of a backwater, relegated to a brief last chapter in mainstream textbooks, and rarely taken on by anyone outside development economics.
So if economists don't bother discussing income inequality, why does it deserve so much attention here?
The literature on growth discusses numerous problems with income inequality studies such as poor data, time lags, the Kuznets hypothesis and other political and social factors that make it extremely difficult to understand the true relationship between inequality and growth. At most, this section should summarize a few points and leave the rest to Economic inequality.Phmoreno (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Temple (1999) was complaining that economists in general did not give sufficient attention to the income distribution among the determinants of economic growth, and his primary conclusion is directly contrary to your contention that it should be ignored. Your use of the term "only" indicates that you have missed at least five other references in that section. Please re-read it and let us know if you can find them. EllenCT (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Inequality myths
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/inequality-myths
http://fortune.com/2015/03/02/economic-inequality-myth-1-percent-wealth/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/05/08/dispelling-myths-about-income-inequality/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2014/01/02/the-five-biggest-myths-about-income-inequality/
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101367332
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/02/24/Incessant-Myth-Growing-Wealth-Gap
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/09/inequality
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/01/06-income-gains-and-inequality-burtless
- These primary source op-eds and advocacy sites are poor quality sources. Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes. EllenCT (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
-
- The Economist is a poor quality source? The Economist? Capitalismojo (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- The Economist is a primary news source which frequently runs unsigned op-eds. It is neither WP:SECONDARY nor peer reviewed. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's reliable source criteria. EllenCT (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- The Economist is not a primary source and it is reliable. However in this case this the economist blog not the magazine itself. That makes it more questionable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am entirely familiar with WP:RS. Other editors clearly are not. The Economist is absolutely not a primary source. The Economist website falls under WP:NEWSBLOG and is not at all questionable. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- The Economist is not a primary source and it is reliable. However in this case this the economist blog not the magazine itself. That makes it more questionable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- The Economist is a primary news source which frequently runs unsigned op-eds. It is neither WP:SECONDARY nor peer reviewed. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's reliable source criteria. EllenCT (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- The Economist is a poor quality source? The Economist? Capitalismojo (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Added a paper by the Brookings Institute that backs up some of these claims.
What to do about the IMF paper?
I thought this was a lousy paper.
"despite the attention given to an International Monetary Fund paper purporting to find that countries with more inequality experience weaker recoveries from recessions, the academic literature comes to no consensus. Studies are as likely to find that more inequality corresponds with higher growth, as they are to find a negative relationship. The IMF study was primarily focused on developing countries, while including only a few industrialized nations in Asia. The liberal Center for American Progress has published no fewer than three studies concluding that, among the studies which directly examine the question, there is little evidence that higher inequality harms growth."<ref>"Income Inequality in America: Fact and Fiction" (PDF). Manhattan Institute. May 2014. Retrieved April 29, 2015.</ref>
Phmoreno (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- Which IMF paper? The Manhattan Institute, the Center for American Progress, CATO, Hoover, and Brookings are all advocacy organizations. None of them subject their publications to peer review, and none of them (nor The Economist) publish literature reviews frequently like the Journal of Economic Literature and law reviews covering the economic results of legislation do. The IMF papers in the article have uniformly been supported by the peer reviewed literature reviews and meta-analyses for decades. Paid shills at think tanks can't do a thing about that. EllenCT (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- How do you feel about this OECD book? EllenCT (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
-
Does Capitalism Cause Poverty?
There is not enough coverage in this article about the role of government policy as a cause of poverty.
Zero Hedge post with a couple of possible source links. Does Capitalism Cause Poverty?
Di Tella & MacullochPhmoreno (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Cecchetti's comment on this article
Dr. Cecchetti has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
This is an accurate piece. I would link it to the piece on growth accounting.
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Cecchetti has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
- Reference : Stephen G Cecchetti & Enisse Kharroubi, 2015. "Why does financial sector growth crowd out real economic growth?," BIS Working Papers 490, Bank for International Settlements.
ExpertIdeas (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- @ExpertIdeas: Dr. Cecchetti would like this article to cite http://www.bis.org/publ/work490.pdf because of its statements about growth accounting? EllenCT (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- Hi EllenCT. I am the administrator of ExpertIdeas. I think Dr. Cecchetti is referring to the Growth_accounting article on Wikipedia. Please feel free to contact me in case of any questions. I.yeckehzaare (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- User:Volunteer Marek did about half of that article. EllenCT (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oh yeah. Wow, that was long time ago.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- As to the BIS paper, that makes me note that this article does not have much on the role of financial sector in economic growth. The basic starting point for that would be Demirgüç-Kunt and Levine (which the BIS paper references, I believe).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- User:Volunteer Marek did about half of that article. EllenCT (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi EllenCT. I am the administrator of ExpertIdeas. I think Dr. Cecchetti is referring to the Growth_accounting article on Wikipedia. Please feel free to contact me in case of any questions. I.yeckehzaare (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Kuznets and Piketty
The Kuznets curve - and Piketty's comment about it - is about the effect of growth on inequality, not vice versa. Hence it does not belong in a section entitled "Factors affecting growth". If there was a section called "The effect of growth on other factors", or something like that, it could go in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Evisceration of secondary literature in favor of primary sources
@Volunteer Marek: it is hard for me to believe that you think your recent version of the inequality section is anywhere near compliance with the reliable source criteria, neutral, easy to understand, or in any way an improvement. You discard and disguise the WP:SECONDARY sources in order to get repeated mentions of the flawed trickle down perspective in the first paragraphs, again elevating the primary research by Li and Zou which so clearly contradicts the literature reviews.
And take this edit for example. Here is an excerpt from the source you deleted:
“ | over the past 30 years particularly, there has been an increase in inequality. In effect, we have been transferring money from the poor to the rich, from people who would spend the money to people who do not need to spend the money, and the result of that is weaker aggregate demand. | ” |
How is that not about growth? Read the other parts about deflation risk from sagging aggregate demand, too. I am replacing the version which we arrived at after several months of discussion. EllenCT (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- EllenCT we've already discussed it. My version is better organized... hell, it actually has SOME organization, the previous version is just a hodge podge pot pourri of randomly assembled quotes and snippets. Cutting out cherry picked sources and giving the discussion of literature a historical context actually improves neutrality (fact you don't like it says more about your biases than anything else). Etc.
- As to that quote, it's not about growth. Aggregate demand generally affects fluctuations not long term growth. Volunteer Marek 00:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- Better organized? Are you kidding? I doubt you could have made it look any more like an attempt to push supply side trickle down if you tried. I waited months for you to comment on the reorganization. And your edit summary here is absurd. Just like you, when asked to provide a WP:SECONDARY literature review in agreement with his position, Jimbo cited two primary sources. He did cite a third source, a bona fide WP:SECONDARY meta-analysis[4] which is clearly in the "inconclusive" category. That still means your attempt to elevate the position against which the conclusive secondary sources are opposed is wrong. EllenCT (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- EllenCT, based on our previous discussions and the nature of your comment above it's pretty clear that you are in no way willing to compromise or work together. I'm pretty sure that other editors have had the same experience when trying to engage you and deal with you. For example, the idea that I'm trying to "push supply side trickle down" is so absurd that I don't even know how to respond. You need to either make a good faith effort at engaging the comments made by myself and others over the course of several months or walk away from this article since your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude is really not helping to improve it. Volunteer Marek 02:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- Based on the fact that you refused to comment on the organization for months, you think I'm unwilling to compromise or work together? Just because I care about properly reflecting the secondary sources in the article, you think your attempt to get the discredited trickle down idea that inequality can increase growth in each of the first two paragraphs, and I haven't even counted the rest of them, isn't transparent POV-pushing? EllenCT (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- As we both know you tend to enforce your own way on this article by tiring and wearing out others, by refusing to even consider opposing points of view and by engaging in relentless, although slow-motion, edit worrying. That's why I didn't (refused???) comment for some time. Your failed agitation on Jimbo's talk page reminded me that this still needs to be fixed. So I did just that. Volunteer Marek 18:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- You have already forgotten all the times I replaced a source because you complained it was deleted or similarly made changes to try to satisfy your critiques? Need we re-count those times and compare them to the number of times you have done the same for me? EllenCT (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you're talking about and this is getting tedious. Volunteer Marek 15:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- You have already forgotten all the times I replaced a source because you complained it was deleted or similarly made changes to try to satisfy your critiques? Need we re-count those times and compare them to the number of times you have done the same for me? EllenCT (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- As we both know you tend to enforce your own way on this article by tiring and wearing out others, by refusing to even consider opposing points of view and by engaging in relentless, although slow-motion, edit worrying. That's why I didn't (refused???) comment for some time. Your failed agitation on Jimbo's talk page reminded me that this still needs to be fixed. So I did just that. Volunteer Marek 18:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Based on the fact that you refused to comment on the organization for months, you think I'm unwilling to compromise or work together? Just because I care about properly reflecting the secondary sources in the article, you think your attempt to get the discredited trickle down idea that inequality can increase growth in each of the first two paragraphs, and I haven't even counted the rest of them, isn't transparent POV-pushing? EllenCT (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- And it's "Jimbo" not "Jumbo", and no secondary sources is exactly what he provided. I'm starting to think you can't tell the difference where you think that "literature review" or "secondary source" means "stuff that agrees with my POV". It doesn't. Volunteer Marek 02:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Typo fixed. You've been saying that you are "starting to think" the same thing for more than a year now, all during which time you have personally produced how many secondary sources? EllenCT (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Several actually. The fact that you are closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears, keep repeating the same false cliche and insist on ignoring them is not really my problem. Volunteer Marek 13:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Which ones? Please find the strength to rise above calling names. EllenCT (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Barro, Alesina and Rodrik (which you removed!), Torsten and Tabellini, Li and Zou, I'm pretty sure I'm also the one who found Galor and Zeira but can't remember for sure, Benabou and probably a few others.
- Please find the strength to engage the discussion with an open mind and in good faith. Volunteer Marek 15:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Which of those are you claiming are entirely literature reviews and not mainly primary research, if any? Which of them are you claiming are meta-analyses? EllenCT (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- All of these are secondary sources which contain literature reviews. These are also sources which are discussed in other literature reviews (though sourcing, say, Barro, to a paper by Li and Zou, would be sort of silly). Sources don't have to be "meta-analysis" to be used on Wikipedia. They just have to be reliable, which they are, and secondary, which they also are. Volunteer Marek 18:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Do you understand the difference between a literature review section in primary research, which is not required to be comprehensive, and an article published as a comprehensive literature review? Do you understand why the former are expected to be less accurate? EllenCT (talk) 10:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- All of these are secondary sources which contain literature reviews. These are also sources which are discussed in other literature reviews (though sourcing, say, Barro, to a paper by Li and Zou, would be sort of silly). Sources don't have to be "meta-analysis" to be used on Wikipedia. They just have to be reliable, which they are, and secondary, which they also are. Volunteer Marek 18:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Which of those are you claiming are entirely literature reviews and not mainly primary research, if any? Which of them are you claiming are meta-analyses? EllenCT (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Which ones? Please find the strength to rise above calling names. EllenCT (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Several actually. The fact that you are closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears, keep repeating the same false cliche and insist on ignoring them is not really my problem. Volunteer Marek 13:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Typo fixed. You've been saying that you are "starting to think" the same thing for more than a year now, all during which time you have personally produced how many secondary sources? EllenCT (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- EllenCT, based on our previous discussions and the nature of your comment above it's pretty clear that you are in no way willing to compromise or work together. I'm pretty sure that other editors have had the same experience when trying to engage you and deal with you. For example, the idea that I'm trying to "push supply side trickle down" is so absurd that I don't even know how to respond. You need to either make a good faith effort at engaging the comments made by myself and others over the course of several months or walk away from this article since your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude is really not helping to improve it. Volunteer Marek 02:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- Better organized? Are you kidding? I doubt you could have made it look any more like an attempt to push supply side trickle down if you tried. I waited months for you to comment on the reorganization. And your edit summary here is absurd. Just like you, when asked to provide a WP:SECONDARY literature review in agreement with his position, Jimbo cited two primary sources. He did cite a third source, a bona fide WP:SECONDARY meta-analysis[4] which is clearly in the "inconclusive" category. That still means your attempt to elevate the position against which the conclusive secondary sources are opposed is wrong. EllenCT (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- "Aggregate demand" is not "growth". Perhaps a quote about "economic growth" should be used in this article on economic growth. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Grain is not bread. EllenCT (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- And neither is sand. So what? It's not about the topic. Volunteer Marek 13:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Are you claiming that anyone has reason to assume insufficient supply, or that transactions aren't the result of supply and demand per WP:CK? EllenCT (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's not, and it would actually be your responsibility since you're the one doing OR. Volunteer Marek 15:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm claiming the source is not really about this topic. I'm also going to claim right here that you're engaged in original research and coming up with your own idiosyncratic interpretation of sources. Volunteer Marek 15:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- What do you think is the correlation between fluctuations in aggregate demand and product? When do you think that fluctuations in resource supplies have been more tightly correlated? EllenCT (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- First, fluctuations are not growth. Second, correlation is not causation. Third, and most relevant, what you are doing is original research. Volunteer Marek 18:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- What do you think is the correlation between fluctuations in aggregate demand and product? When do you think that fluctuations in resource supplies have been more tightly correlated? EllenCT (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Are you claiming that anyone has reason to assume insufficient supply, or that transactions aren't the result of supply and demand per WP:CK? EllenCT (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- And neither is sand. So what? It's not about the topic. Volunteer Marek 13:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Grain is not bread. EllenCT (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- "Aggregate demand" is not "growth". Perhaps a quote about "economic growth" should be used in this article on economic growth. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
-
Actually that article by Shin, which User:Jimbo Wales referred to and which Ellen is dismissing as not-secondary, has a really nice table (Table 1) which neatly summarizes the state of the debate and which could help us organize the relevant section. Volunteer Marek 02:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'd appreciate being left out of this debate. Having said that, since I've been mentioned, it is clear that Ellen is misrepresenting the literature whenever she impllies that the issues in this area are as settled in one direction as in the scientific literature on 'homeopathy'. The exact relationship between inequality and growth is clearly a valid topic within economics with a range of views evident in the literature. Her claim that it is completely settled is clearly just plain false..--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Since you have provided an inconclusive secondary source, I no longer believe the issue is as settled as I did prior. I remain convinced that all of the secondary sources which take a conclusive position do so opposed to the supply side trickle down position. I also remain convinced that the sooner you come to realize that fact, the better off we all will be. EllenCT (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- There's absolutely nothing here about "supply side trickle down economics". You are trying to use irrelevant red herrings as a scare-mongering tactic. That's engaging the discussion in bad faith. Volunteer Marek 13:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- It looks like you're trying to make the case that income inequality can increase growth. There are certainly situations in which it will and there will be such situations in the future. However, the overall statistical tendency is that when the middle class is poor, they buy more less than the rich will buy when they get the same amount of money. EllenCT (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- But growth isn't about how much stuff someone *wants* to buy. Growth is about how much stuff the economy can *produce*. And no, I am not making the case that income inequality increases growth. I'm making the case that the relevant literature says that there's no simple one to one relationship between inequality and growth, either empirically or theoretically. You're the one who's trying to (mis)represent the research as coming to some definitive and simple conclusion. Volunteer Marek 19:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Growth is indeed "about" how much the economy can produce, but far more accurately, how much it does produce. You are right you are not making the case that income inequality increases growth, but the fact remains that your prefered version discusses the idea in each of your first two paragraphs and several times below that. EllenCT (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- But growth isn't about how much stuff someone *wants* to buy. Growth is about how much stuff the economy can *produce*. And no, I am not making the case that income inequality increases growth. I'm making the case that the relevant literature says that there's no simple one to one relationship between inequality and growth, either empirically or theoretically. You're the one who's trying to (mis)represent the research as coming to some definitive and simple conclusion. Volunteer Marek 19:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- It looks like you're trying to make the case that income inequality can increase growth. There are certainly situations in which it will and there will be such situations in the future. However, the overall statistical tendency is that when the middle class is poor, they buy more less than the rich will buy when they get the same amount of money. EllenCT (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please make a table like that with secondary sources only. EllenCT (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, the table IS a secondary source. Please stop inventing rules nilly-willy. Volunteer Marek 13:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- The table is from a literature review in a primary source. I didn't invent the fact that tertiary sources need to be based on secondary sources when the primary sources aren't in agreement. EllenCT (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's a secondary source. You can deny it all you want and keep sticking fingers in your ears, but that's what it is and it is a perfectly acceptable source for this article. Feel free to ask for third opinion. Volunteer Marek 15:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Are you going to propose an edit to summarize the table? EllenCT (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's a secondary source. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- A literature review section from a primary source can be construed as a secondary source, but because they are not required to be exhaustive, they are never WP:MEDRS-class like a literature review in a peer reviewed academic journal. The selection proposed by Marek in this case is biased against the comprehensive literature reviews, but not as biased as trying to suggest trickle down is reputable in the first two and several paragraphs. EllenCT (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- It is RS and not primary, as you apparently acknowledge. This IDHT and obfuscation is becoming disruptive. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- A literature review section from a primary source can be construed as a secondary source, but because they are not required to be exhaustive, they are never WP:MEDRS-class like a literature review in a peer reviewed academic journal. The selection proposed by Marek in this case is biased against the comprehensive literature reviews, but not as biased as trying to suggest trickle down is reputable in the first two and several paragraphs. EllenCT (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's a secondary source. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Are you going to propose an edit to summarize the table? EllenCT (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's a secondary source. You can deny it all you want and keep sticking fingers in your ears, but that's what it is and it is a perfectly acceptable source for this article. Feel free to ask for third opinion. Volunteer Marek 15:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- The table is from a literature review in a primary source. I didn't invent the fact that tertiary sources need to be based on secondary sources when the primary sources aren't in agreement. EllenCT (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, the table IS a secondary source. Please stop inventing rules nilly-willy. Volunteer Marek 13:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The real issue here isn't about sources; it's about Psychopathy. Please give this thought serious consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.90.193.20 (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Even if it were true, (1) leaving it at that doesn't help improve the article, (2) you probably mean sociopathy, not psychopathy, and (3) what good is pointing it out if you don't try to help solve the problems? EllenCT (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Removal of dispute tag in an edit summary making accusations of waring
Why was the dispute tag removed in this edit? EllenCT (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Because my edits cleaned up the POV problems. But I put it back in since you have problems with the section. However, if you are unable to convince others, or attain consensus that the section is indeed NPOV, I will remove the tag after suitable time has elapsed. Volunteer Marek 18:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
EllenCT: Leave it alone.Phmoreno (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- What do you mean by that? Are you threatening to boomerang Victor again? By all means, please be my guest. EllenCT (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- EllenCT: The recent revisions to the Inequality section were based on the consensus of lengthy discussions here. You had more than enough time to clean up the section and to cite the sources in a truthful and honest manner as would have been expected of a good editor acting in good faith and respecting the opinions of other editors.Phmoreno (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)