# Talk:The Great Stagnation

What does it say about the wind power boom, if anything? Just curious. —Cupco 22:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

In short, nothing. Specific sectors of the economy are generally not discussed. Energy is only mentioned in passing: he states that fossil fuels can no longer be regarded as a cheap input into production. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Great Stagnation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 17:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll review this soon!  MathewTownsend (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

start review
Bob Davis need disambig.
Done. --Ktlynch (talk) 10:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Overall the article seems well written and balanced. The sources check out.
Beginning the review, my first impressions are the following:

Perhaps a brief description of who Cowen is in the intro: (an economics blogger?)
Done--Ktlynch (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Although a few reviewers are chosen for their views, I notice on the internet that there was a vast response to the book. Since the book was published, have views changed from the immediate response?
You are right about the size of the response: there is a lot of material, often by academics, I could not include due to its source e.g. a bloggingheads.tv discussion or academician's personal blog. I would not say that the position has changed much; I will certainly be keeping an eye out for, for instance, peer reviewed papers which specifically reference the work, though to some extent the level of direct debate has trailed off. Though it has definitely had an impact on thinking. --Ktlynch (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
a pamphlet or a book? - it's called both in the article
Done, in one instance. It's been called both; and I am happy to use both terms to: they are not mutually exclusive and both add something. --Ktlynch (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
"in the median, or typical, American wage since 1973" - median is a statistical term and doesn't mean "typical".
Changed--Ktlynch (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
" Whilst not all reviewers agreed entirely with Cowen's thesis and arguments" - did most of them? To me, this statement implies most of them did.
Changed--Ktlynch (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
"the book was almost universally welcomed as timely and skilled in framing" - again, the "almost" is vague.
Changed--Ktlynch (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Synopsis

"Cowen agrees that there have been gains in some areas," - agrees with whom?
Are the figures given in Chapter two validated, or are they Cowen's analysis?
They are figures Cowen gives in the book. They have not been challenged by reviewers. In the bibliography he gives the following citation: "On productivity growth, see Dale W. Jorgenson, Mun S. Ho, and Kevin J. Stiroh, “A Retrospective Look at the U.S. Productivity Growth Resurgence,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2008, 22, No. 1, pp. 3-24; and Mary Daly and Fred Furlong, “Gains in U.S. Productivity: Stopgap Measures or Lasting Change?”
FRBSF Economic Letter 2005-05, March 11, 2005, www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2005/el2005-05.pdf.
--Ktlynch (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Chapter six: "Cowen praises the development of India and China as producers and consumers" - is there any recognition that India and China might be facing increasing problems, or recognition ot the "global slowdown" e.g. Europe is in a worse situation apparently than the US etc. Does he see the "stagnation" as a global problem or only a US one?
Not much mention of China and India's bumps on the road--he means their integration into the world economy and development as western style economies. Generally, he takes a slightly longer term view and is specifically discussing the US experience though many of the points will be relevant to other parts of the developed world. --Ktlynch (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
"He further suggests the social status of scientists be raised, at least as strong a motivating factor as money he says." - are some words missing here?
Changed Sloppy editing on my part—apologies—it looks like I neglected to delete some text during a draft.--Ktlynch (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Publication and reception

"Matthew Yglesias compared the themes of the book to Paul Krugman's from The Age of Diminished Expectations, Third Edition: U.S. Economic Policy in the 1990s (1997)." - what's the importance of this?
Since it was mentioned in Yglesias's article I thought it nice to include it. It gives a wider scholarly context to the article. Unfortunately, Yglesias does not actually make a comparasion himself so there is nothing else to add, though I still feel readers would appreciate having a similar book referenced in the text. --Ktlynch (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
MathewTownsend (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

reply
My main problem is that the article (to me) seems overly positive for what seems a popular book that got a lot of attention at the time, perhaps because of the author's writing style (non academic) and the publisher's marketing, but is it really saying anything particularly original or related to today's view of the problems in the US economy? 

Well, the book was well recieved. It is a "popular" book, albeit one read and reviewed in a relatively specialist press. The book was particularly innovative in its a) form and b) framing of the arguments. No idea in itself was entirely new. That's how many reviewers were able to welcome it whilst still disagreeing with major points. --Ktlynch (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Still object to "Whilst not all reviewers agreed entirely with Cowen's thesis and arguments" as somewhat misleading. Would prefer "While not all reviewers agreed with Cowen's thesis and arguments" as more neutral.
Changed--Ktlynch (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
"the book was welcomed as timely and skilled in framing the debate around the future of the American economy." - would like to see a source for this unless this statement is qualified, e.g. "welcomed by most reviewers" or some such. And does a reviewer say "skilled"?
This is in the lede and as such summarises the rest of the article. It is supported in the last section "Publication and reception". --Ktlynch (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Suggest the following be clearly formatted as a quote, either with a blockquote or a quotebox: "Of course, the personal computer and its cousin, the smartphone, have brought about some big changes. And many goods and services are now more plentiful and of better quality. But compared with what my grandmother witnessed, the basic accoutrements of life have remained broadly the same."
Done--Ktlynch (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Believe that you should attribute the "facts" in Chapter two to Cowen.
They were already in a way: a rhetorical question. I've made it more explicit. Do you dispute the "factual" nature of these statistics?--Ktlynch (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Suggest changing the "Analysis" section to "Reaction", or "Critical reaction".
I don't really like the title "analysis" much either, but it is a pragmatic way to regroup smaller sections which discuss the book's substantive ideas. There is another section called "Publication and reception" which discusses style. I don't really see what a change would add or improve here. --Ktlynch (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
"Matthew Yglesias compared the themes of the book to Paul Krugman's from The Age of Diminished Expectations, Third Edition: U.S. Economic Policy in the 1990s (1997)." - this seems meaningless if there is not an explanation of it's relevance.
Added more detail from the source. --Ktlynch (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
MathewTownsend (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments--they have definitely improved the article. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
reply
Very good! I've made some edits, mostly to change the spelling to US as that is appropriate to subject, and also some spelling errors.[1]
Just one more thing: you mention Paul Krugman and his book in two separate places. In one you mention the book is the Third Edition. Are both mentions the third edition? Is it necessary to mention the title twice? Also, is there some way you could put the details of the book (the edition and the isbn etc.) in a footnote or under references or something, rather that having the details in the text?
Otherwise, the article is fine!  MathewTownsend (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Good job on the spelling, I usually just go directly in UK but it doesn't bother me. All the other faults are my own. Just to clarify the article mentions two different Krugman books: one cited by Cowen in the book, another by a reviewer. I've clarified that with a date and wikilink and added the footnotes for all other books as requested. --Ktlynch (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for  criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

b. complies with  MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, summary style and list incorporation: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout: 

b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary: 

c. no original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
no edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Pass!

Congratulations!  MathewTownsend (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for your insightful review—I look forward to collaborating again sometime soon. Best wishes--Ktlynch (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Should we subject this article to peer review? Lbertolotti (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The start of one paragraph in the article reads: "The concept of a "Great Stagnation" has been contrasted with the idea of the "Great Divergence"". By whom? This does not appear to be an obvious contradiction which has been widely discussed (at least to me of course). There is no reason the two supposed grand "effects" are contradictory. They are arguably symbiotic, not totalizing and competing. 2001:56A:79E2:AD00:BD0B:39E5:DD96:8742 (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)