Talk:Economic growth

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Economic growth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140809065612/http://faculty-web.at.northwestern.edu/economics/Gordon/SAN-to-NBER%20Baily-Sharpe%20as%20published_130327.pdf to http://faculty-web.at.northwestern.edu/economics/Gordon/SAN-to-NBER%20Baily-Sharpe%20as%20published_130327.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111026075949/http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whaples.work.hours.us to http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whaples.work.hours.us
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151018161250/http://www.fadep.org/documentosfadep_archivos/D-65_THE_NEW_GROWTH_EVIDENCE.pdf to http://www.fadep.org/documentosfadep_archivos/D-65_THE_NEW_GROWTH_EVIDENCE.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101128151523/http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf to http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071127032512/http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/04-05/essay.cfm to https://www.minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/04-05/essay.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Economic growth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715173535/http://pingwang.wustl.edu/Econ472/Growth%20Development-V.pdf to http://pingwang.wustl.edu/Econ472/Growth%20Development-V.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.signallake.com/innovation/CreativeDestructionModelMarch1992.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090824091508/http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/iser/people/colt/econ337_f03/acemoglu_institutions_aer2001.pdf to http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/iser/people/colt/econ337_f03/acemoglu_institutions_aer2001.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101218063522/http://www.oswego.edu/~edunne/200ch17.html to http://www.oswego.edu/~edunne/200ch17.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090418014446/http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.21588/pub_detail.asp to http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.21588/pub_detail.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070611214820/http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/research/faculty/news_releases/Romer.Paul/London_Speech.html to http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/research/faculty/news_releases/Romer.Paul/London_Speech.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is chock full of OR, UNDUE, and SYNTH that does little to convey mainstream thinking about this topic.  We should begin by paring all the off-center theories and viewpoints stated in WP's voice.  SPECIFICO talk 21:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drain the swamp 

message: Theories belong after causes, which is the section Other factors affecting growth.  The models use these or they are considered exogenous.  Causes are well covered in the literature.  I know people were awarded Nobel prizes for models, but that does not make them particularly useful at explaining or predicting anything, in part because of the exogenous factors.  One critic said for models to be useful they have to incorporate a minimum number of factors, but that makes them less accurate. Also, most factors are not quantifiable, such as capitalism, national intelligence and new products.  There are several criticisms of mathematizing economics as taking a wrong turn.Phmoreno (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Theories going in Section 4 is acceptable.  I only moved them because the were moved to the middle of the article flow.Phmoreno (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position of theories in article 

message: Doesn't innovation cause increases in productivity, and not the other way around? I don't see why this article puts productivity on a pedestal and only mentions innovation in passing when productivity is strictly dependent on its causes. Nobody ever invents productivity increases, they invent goods, services, and methods which cause productivity to increase. It's like if an article on health explained that increased health is because of lengthening lifespans. 73.222.1.26 (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Innovation is about change, usually about new methods of making things, improving products or introducing new products and services.  Improving productivity is about lowering labor or capital used in production, although some measures also include using less energy and materials.  If new or improved products do not reduce labor and capital they do not boost productivity unless they somehow add to output.  Usually the effect of new products is indirect in that because of increases in productivity total output would have contracted if it were not for new products.Phmoreno (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Are the changes in productivity you are talking about not legitimately innovations? 73.222.1.26 (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: All increases in productivity are the result of innovations, but not all innovations improve productivity.Phmoreno (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Innovation vs. productivity 

message: Wiki Friends, new comer is here.  I would appreciate your advices.
  
I recently read this article about Economic growth.  Main part of the article is about the growth models provided by the fore-running great economists which I really enjoyed reading.  Before the elaboration of the models, the article provides brief history of the worldwide economic development.  I was amazed about the statement that the “Four Tigers” are Japan, China, Singapore and South Korea.  And a few days later it was revised to China, Singapore, South Korea and Indian subcontinent, and then, the current edition as excerpted in following paragraph.  
Economic growth in the United States slowed down after 1973.[33] In contrast growth in Asia has been strong since then, starting with Japan and spreading to Four Asian Tigers, China, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent and Asia Pacific.[34][35] In 1957 South Korea had a lower per capita GDP than Ghana,[36] and by 2008 it was 17 times as high as Ghana's.[37] The Japanese economic growth has slackened considerably since the late 1980s.
It is well known that the “Four Tigers” are Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea.  This is not a strict academic issue, rather a loosely used term to describe the history of the economic development. Back to 1970’s, Singapore and Hong Kong were successful in changing themselves as regional financial and management centers and Taiwan and S. Korea were developing “manufacturing” to grow the export to earn and build foreign exchange.  The article makes a lot of sense to describe the history of the worldwide economic growth track.  It is not that I don’t admire China’s great achievement in rapid economic growth in recent 20 years, but back to 1973, the strides have not yet begun. 
Also the reference number 33 & 34 are totally irrelevant.  I am unable to trace what is the original and suggest putting in the reference of Olivier Blanchard’s Macroeconomics, page 236, 6th edition, which states what Four Tigers are.  Blanchard has been teaching in Harvard and MIT and worked for government and organizations, including World Bank, IMF and OCED.
I would appreciate any input.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond TM Lee (talk • contribs) 08:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe your comments are better targeted at the talk page for the Four Asian Tigers page. Or make the changes yourself. Sanpitch (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is widely recognised that Four Tigers are Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea. 

message: Are the numbers in this article PPP or just nominal adjusted for inflation without adjusting for cost of living?  
I read, "Real GDP is measured in 2008 dollars" in [6]:
* 
Am I to assume it's PPP?  I also cannot find the source in that source:  It says, "World Development Report 2010, Table 1", but I cannot find that reference.  I found something that claimed to be that, but I could not find the numbers in that report that appear in this table.  
Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)? 

message: The impact of berg wind on human, economy and environment 41.114.96.196 (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography 

message: You reverted my recent insertion pertaining to the effect of inequality on growth and recovery time in the US. Why do you believe it is WP:UNDUE? I note that you did not reply to my statement two weeks ago at Talk:Economics that I intended to add it here. Dan Ratan (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't (yet, if ever) have an opinion about the content, but I almost reverted it just because it was stuck randomly under a top subheading in a section with more than one sub-sub-subsection.   Besides content, if it comes back, please work to place it smoothly with the rest of the presentation. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects of income inequality in the US 

message: History of economic thought 203.215.174.90 (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New weave of economic growth and welfare  

message: Production Possibility Curve(PPC)
Production Possibility Curve or transformation Curve is the presentation in a graphical form of all possible combinations of two commodities which a society can produce by employing full and efficient resources at a given state of technology. 105.112.17.254 (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economics