Talk:Economic stagnation

Untitled

Recession means production will be their in the economy at the same time demand will not be their it is not means that economy is not having purhasing power but economy is not willing to buy. For example it is cycle producer-consumer-man power(prodcr/consmr) because of inflation prices will rise it is going to effect consumer, so consumers needs more money so they demands more wage,and it once again makes more proction cost and producer will be in presure to rise his products cost. It is also one of the face of recession or part only.

Rename page?

This page is 90% about economic stagnation in the US. it either needs expanding with more detail I think or just relabeled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.12.181 (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that content should probably be split into economic stagnation in the United States. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The Japanese economy has experienced stagnation since 1989-90. Lessons From Japan's Secular StagnationPhmoreno (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If anyone is interested in contributing to a Japanese stagnation section there are a significant number of high quality publications available including several from respected journals and publishers.Phmoreno (talk)

Economic or secular stagnation?

The entire theory section uses the term "secular stagnation" (which redirects here), through this term is not mentioned in the lead. Shouldn't this article be renamed accordingly? Or is secular stagnation different from economic stagnation? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Re this citation request, the quoted phrase in question is from [1] where it is attributed as the opinion of "a band of economists - the most prominent is Larry Summers, the former Treasury secretary - who argue the economy is also suffering from a chronic disease that they call secular stagnation." Summers has a personal vested interest in explanations that the U.S. economy is stagnating because he has been one of the most vocal advocates of anti-growth, supply-side, trickle-down, inequality-causing policies during the past seven years. Therefore he and his cadre are not reliable sources on the topic. "Secular stagnation" is just one theory of economic stagnation which is always expounded after every recession and has never been correct. However, this time may be different.

Therefore this article is not currently based on reliable sources, and is so misleading as to be worthy of deletion unless someone has time to base it on reliable reviews such as [2] ("In all the theories reviewed above, technological progress drives structural change, but it is frequently the demand side that is crucial for determining which industries grow faster than others and which shrink, and it therefore shapes the direction of structural change.") and [3] for international perspectives, and [4] for balance on the reliability of the secular stagnation hypothesis. EllenCT (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a completely erroneous description of Summers' work or beliefs. And even if it was true it would not create a "vested interest", whatever that is. EllenCT, it looks like you're trying to insert your own opinion (incorrect one at that) of Summers here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Where do any of these articles mention stagnation?Phmoreno (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Did you read them? Did you read [5]? EllenCT (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Larry Summers and the "band of economist" are valid sources per Wikipedia policy. Your opinion of their policies or their articles discussing stagnation is not sufficient reason to call this content "worthy of deletion" or for "factual accuracy" and "disputed" tags. If you have reliable sources that say something different then accurately summarize them and add the content along with the references, however; make sure that it addresses the issue of stagnation. Phmoreno (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious? Where in the reliable source criteria do you see any evidence that the opinions of self-interested, involved parties are reliable in any way? Is there an actual peer reviewed literature review that agrees with any of your opinions? All of the references I've provided specifically discuss the observations of, effects of, and causes of stagnation. Please do not remove dispute tags until the dispute is resolved. EllenCT (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I added sections below for you to clarify your reasoning. The wording of various disputed sections is very straight forward and matter of factual. The sources are published and reliable. If you have sources that say something different then you are most welcome to truthfully post statements enlightening the understanding of stagnation.Phmoreno (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you agree with the reliable source criteria that the peer reviewed literature reviews are more reliable than the opinions of interested parties published in editorial format? EllenCT (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Peer reviewed sources are not required by Wikipedia policy, and yes I have several in my files. How many do you have to support your claims?Phmoreno (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

"Secular stagnation" should probably be a separate article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Factual accuracy tag

Be specific as to which sections and statements this applies.Phmoreno (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Your presentation of secular stagnation theory, which has never held true historically, presents a factually inaccurate description of economic stagnation to the readers who would be far better served by the analysis of deficits in aggregate demand associated with economic inequality. EllenCT (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence of one of your above citation reads: Recent studies warn that the U.S. economy may return to a phase of secular stagnation. This is counter to your "never held true" claim. The second part of your statement is original research /synthesis.Phmoreno (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Secular stagnation theory "disputed neutrality"

What is the reason for the "disputed neutrality" tag in this section? It's hard for me to understand how a the explanation theory that originated and was written about in the 1930s by relatively contemporary sources is non neutral. Be specific.Phmoreno (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The literature review at [6] clearly indicates that there is no historical support for secular stagnation theory, and says why. Your attempt to present it as a prominent explanation because you want to avoid the fact that the lack of gross private domestic investment brought about by income inequality is a far greater influence on economic growth than supply-side theories about insufficient new technologies. The skyrocketing cost of education under rampant and sustained income inequality leads to the insufficiency of the application of existing technologies. EllenCT (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

1. that there is no historical support for secular stagnation theory Your own citations refute your claim.Phmoreno (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC) There are more articles and papers on the economic stagnation / secular stagnation of Japan than anyone would ever have time to read.Phmoreno (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

2 The rest of your statement is original research / synthesis.Phmoreno (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

You still need to be specific as to which citations you are questioning.Phmoreno (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The literature review at [7] clearly indicates that there is no historical support for secular stagnation theory, and says why. Your attempt to present it as a prominent explanation because you want to avoid the fact that the lack of gross private domestic investment brought about by income inequality is a far greater influence on economic growth than supply-side theories about insufficient new technologies. The skyrocketing cost of education under rampant and sustained income inequality leads to the insufficiency of the application of existing technologies. EllenCT (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT can you point out specifically where this source "indicates that there is no historical support for secular stagnation theory" and also explain why that would be relevant? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

In the third through fifth sentences of its abstract! Did you even read it? EllenCT (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes I did read it. And no, that does not say "there is no historical support for secular stagnation theory". In fact the claim you're making doesn't really make sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed tags in lede

Please do not put tags in lede requesting citations for information that is clearly referenced in the article. In the case of the number of recent books and articles on stagnation this kind of tagging is not just offensive but ignorant.Phmoreno (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no guideline or policy which agrees with your opinion. While redundant citations are not always strictly required in article introductions, there is no restriction on asking that unsourced statements be cited anywhere they appear, including in article introductions. If none are forthcoming, the uncited statements may be removed. EllenCT (talk) 16:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Secular stagnation term used for recent economy "non neutrality" tag

That section discusses recent usage of the term and is adequately referenced. I don't see anything in that section that could be considered "non-neutral". Please explain how the recent usage of "stagnation" in the cited articles reflects non-neutrality.Phmoreno (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

See #Secular stagnation theory "disputed neutrality" above. EllenCT (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Secular theory position in article

This section should immediately follow the lede because it explains contains an explanation of the concept and other fundamental information.Phmoreno (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

We have a literature review indicating that it has never held true. Are there any [peer] reviewed literature reviews in support of it? If not, then it should be deleted.

Furthermore, it has never been applied to non-U.S. economies, has it? EllenCT (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Whether true or not it is a matter of historical record and has been addressed by numerous leading economists listed herein. And your statement about per [sic] reviews is total nonsense because of stagnation's discussion in various widely cited books and articles, only a few of which are referenced herein.Phmoreno (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Are there any peer reviewed literature reviews in support of the secular stagnation hypothesis? Has the term ever been applied to economies outside the US? EllenCT (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

1. If you mean "are there any literature reviews that prove secular stagnation?", well, then it wouldn't be a hypothesis would it? The purpose of the article is to explain what the hypothesis is and the debates around it, past and present. Secondary peer reviewed literature is not necessary to establish most or the important points. These can be found in a large number of published and reliable secondary and tertiary sources, acceptable by Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (EllenCT is frequently reminded of this policy. Asking for "secondary peer reviewed sources" is one of her favorite diversionary tactics.)Phmoreno (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

2. Japan has experienced economic stagnation since 1989. [8]Phmoreno (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Notice to EllenCT You changed the order of the article to something irrational without ever providing a sensible explanation!Phmoreno (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I think secular stagnation should have its own article. This article should actually be just a short description of the phenomenon.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Revision in progress

I will be revising Economic stagnation and will include a reference to the an opposing theory related to income inequality. I will be working on this over a period of several days, possibly a couple of weeks. I will do my best to address well thought through concerns, especially ones that show knowledge of the subject matter.

Disruptive edits will be reported to the administrators notification board. Time-wasting comments will be ignored. By time-wasting comments I am referring to: comments that are off topic or are not expressed in a way that they can be construed to relate to the topic, asking questions that are already answered in the article, citing marginally related sources, misrepresenting sources or making an original research / synthesis from sources.Phmoreno (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Your continued attempts to try to push secular stagnation theory requires support in WP:SECONDARY sources. You have had ample time to find such support and clearly are unable to do so. EllenCT (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You've had plenty of time to read your own sources too, and some of them are full of secondary sources to support this article. You might have noticed that some of the references in your citations were already in this article. Furthermore, if you had bothered to thoroughly read your references and take notes you might have been able to make more accurate statements about what they say.Phmoreno (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Phmoreno: what secondary sources do you believe are cited in this article, other than those that I've added? Per WP:PSTS we do not depend on primary sources as reliable merely because some of them cite secondary sources. EllenCT (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@EllenCT:Regarding secondary sources, of which there are many, you still need to be specific as to which citations you are questioning. As for primary sources, Harris (1943) for example is widely cited by secondary sources and by tertiary sources. It's important enough to be made available online from the Federal Reserve Archive can be found cited by the St. Louis Fed. Also, it is quoted, allowing no room for analysis, opinion or interpretation. It is in complete compliance with Wikipedia guidelines for primary sources. (Have you read them? Be sure you do!) That makes it a rock solid citation.Phmoreno (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hansen more frequently referred to “stagnation” than “secular stagnation,” though his theory became associated with the latter term, perhaps because of a famous essay by Harvard economist Alan Sweezy. In Monthly Review the terms were used interchangeably for decades, though usually, as in the stagnation theory of the 1930s–’50s, focusing on “stagnation” alone without the adjective. See: Alvin H. Hansen, Full Recovery or Stagnation(New York: W.W. Norton, 1938); Alan Sweezy, “Secular Stagnation?,” in Seymour Harris, ed.,Postwar Economic Problems(New York: McGraw Hill, 1943), 67–82; Paul M. Sweezy, “Why Stagnation?,”Monthly Review 34, no. 2 (June 1982): 1–10; John Bellamy Foster, “Is Monopoly Capitalism An Illusion?,”Monthly Review 31, no. 4 (September 1981): 36.Phmoreno (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually Harris (1943) is a secondary source of statements related to Alvin Hansen, in Alan Sweezy's "famous" essay on secular stagnation.Phmoreno (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you understand that a WP:SECONDARY reliable source is typically a literature review, not just any source commenting on another? EllenCT (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

A secondary source doesn't have to be a literature review.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Recovery participation rate

How should [9] be characterized in this article? How should [10]? EllenCT (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Internationally

1. Globalization has lead to generally increasing growth rates internationally, although international differences in the rates of growth caused by income inequality have led to economic stagnation among the lower and middle classes in the post-World War II developed world.

The citation is not about economic stagnation and does not mention the phrase "economic stagnation". It says"stagnant incomes".

2. While improvements in technology can prevent stagnation, more frequently aggregate demand determines which industries grow and shrink.

This is an attempt to link an unrelated article on changing sizes of economic sectors to stagnation theory. Furthermore, "aggregate demand" in the cited paper refers to economic sector re-balancing, not overall aggregate demand.Phmoreno (talk) 00:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

1. Every transaction counted in GDP is some entity's income. If you remove aggregated individual incomes and rely on GDP alone, then you might as well set up two computers owned by different shell corporations to trade a trillion dollars back and forth every day while the humans starve and die out. The finance sector is well known for trading derivatives such as futures contracts and options with nominal transaction values often far above the value of the real economy goods and services underlying the derivatives. Therefore, stagnation is best characterized by aggregate incomes across a population.[11][12][13][14][15]

2. @Phmoreno: When the real economy shrinks because of declining aggregate demand for goods and services of those sectors but the finance sector expands, is that stagnation in your view or not? Why or why not? EllenCT (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

If you can find a reference that explicitly relates your view of aggregate demand and the financial sector to economic stagnation then use it. However, if you combine ideas or statements from various papers to support the idea that's syntheses / original research. I read a few papers that do make claims about lack of aggregate demand hurting growth, but the same papers rank the magnitude of widening income inequality behind other factors like productivity and population growth. One also has to be careful about measuring income, that is, to look at income after taxes, adjust for benefits like the increased cost of health care insurance and for government transfer payments.Phmoreno (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Information related to your POV is mentioned in the Stagnation and the financial explosion: The 1980s section.Phmoreno (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Bork (1999) and several of the papers look at it more from the point of declining productivity growth as the sector sizes change. Gordon discusses the decline in productivity growth in more detail. I have a financial newsletter that shows the contributions to economic growth in a bar chart and it's striking to see the effect of declining productivity growth and declining population growth on the U.S. economy. The change in income distribution is a drag that Gordon mentions but doesn't estimate, but I've never seen very high estimates for the negative impact of widening income inequality on economic growth because you can't actually create sustainable growth simply by leveling incomes; you have to have productivity growth.Phmoreno (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

De-emphasize United States except for Great Depression and recent period

Making space for expansion of Japanese stagnation section. Much of the United States information is now available at Economic history of the United States.Phmoreno (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Phmoreno: did you notice the first of the two sources on Japan you added describes, in its abstract, "the chronic lack of domestic demand since the mid-1970s caused by the long-run decline in capital formation [and slow] growth due to Japan’s low information and communications technology investment"? And the other one says, "the Japanese case is unusual is [sic] that financial problems (that we describe in detail below) seem disproportionately large relative to the macro stagnation." EllenCT (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I certainly did notice that in one of the articles. According to the articles it's because the Japanese were saving 25% of their income. Furthermore it's because of the life cycle spending. The aging population of Japan (or other societies for that matter) reduce their spending as they get older. The purpose of the needs expansion tag is to elaborate on those and other factors, such as the decline in productivity growth.Phmoreno (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The article describing Japan's financial conditions is dated 2004. The same conditions exist today in the U.S., parts of the EU (Greece, Spain....) and still do following the 2008 financial crisis, but I don't know how much it is discussed in the stagnation literature. It doesn't seem to fit in the original stagnation theory.Phmoreno (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

conflating two theories

It looks like two different theories are being conflated. They're both posited as explanations for stagnation but they are not both "secular stagnation"

One, you've got the Summers/Krugman etc. theory that because of demographic changes, real interest rates are low, monetary policy is ineffective and the "normal" condition of aggregate demand is for it to fall short of potential output.

Two, you've got the Gordon (also Paul Romer says this) theory that as far as technological progress goes, all the low hanging fruit has been picked so we'll have a lower rate of technological progress.

These two theories ought to be separated out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

As one of the articles stated, "stagnation means different things to different people". The term "secular", meaning long term, was added by Alan Sweezy and was not used by Alvin Hansen. (Japan's stagnation is often described as "secular" and unfortunately discussion of Japanese stagnation seems to be left out of the U.S. and European centered debate.) As for separating the current debate into one group who sees demographic changes and insufficient aggregate demand the other focused on the productivity slowdown, they are both part of the explanation of today's slow growth. The other way of looking at stagnation is by separating the great depression era stagnation from today's. A problem with either method of separation is the amount of overlap of contributing factors. A well rounded article should do its best to point out both differences and similarities between time periods and between current views and to integrate the Japanese stagnation story.Phmoreno (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

New Secular stagnation theory article

I object to this revert because it deletes the section on the general international perspective, which takes a per-capita instead of a per-country approach. EllenCT (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Neither of the references in the Internationally section discusses "economic stagnation". This is an attempt at synthesis and moving that section to follow the lede is POV pushing.Phmoreno (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Secular stagnation should stay in this article, as it is a possible cause of economic stagnation. That said, this article needs reorganizing, and some expansion to include the low-income stagnation experienced by some developing countries, the the stagnation experience by the communist countries before the breakup of the USSR. LK (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but [16] this is just misunderstanding the source. I mean, this claim: "international differences in the rates of growth caused by income inequality have led to economic stagnation among the lower and middle classes in the post-World War II developed world" is ridiculous. It says that because... I don't know, Guinea-Bissou grew at a different rate than Germany, the incomes of lower and middle classes in the United States stagnated. This is not in the source. This is EllenCT's own original research and POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Never mind that this is a working paper.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Marek, I'm not seeing what you are referring to in the diff that you posted. As far as I can see, I, and Phmoreno in the edit after mine, was just moving and reorganizing some paragraphs, and didn't introduce anything new. Speaking about the sentence you quote in your comment above, could the person be referring to the stagnation in household incomes below the median income, that occurred in developed countries after the 1980s, because of increasing income inequality? If so, that probably should be in another article and not here. LK (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm referring to the text that EllenCT keeps trying to reinsert into the article, as in here [17]. Yes, that sentence. I have no idea what the person is *trying* to refer to, but I do know that what they actually *say* does not make any sense.

This sentence: While improvements in technology can prevent stagnation, more frequently aggregate demand determines which industries grow and shrink is also nonsense. First, the term "aggregate demand" does not even appear in the source. Second, it makes no sense for aggregate demand to determine the sectoral composition of an economy. I mean, maybe, somehow, in some model but this is more like someone just took one economic concept from one area, and mashed it together with another economic concept from another area - WP:SYNTH - because they *think* this supports their POV. Possibly the writer (which I assume is EllenCT) is confusing relative demand with aggregate demand. Or maybe this is some Engle Curve stuff where as income increases some sectors shrink - but that too would be about technological change not demand. Quite simply, it's hard to *even make out what this is trying to say* because it is completely unrelated to the source and makes no sense. You can't argue with absurd statements except to point out they're absurd.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Well industry growth *is* affected by aggregate demand. But that's like saying the sky is blue. If the effective demand for goods/services increase, the relevant industry sector will usually grow to meet the demand (unless the demand is met from elsewhere first). This may or may not impact on the composition of the industrial sectors as a whole depending on overall growth. But I dont think that source is saying that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Aggregate demand determines the overall level of economic activity, and that only in the short/medium run (in the long run it determines the price level). How that overall level of economic activity is distributed across sectors is determined by either a) the *relative* demand for products or b) the *relative* productivity in each industry. But these are different things.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

None of the arguments above pertain to the deleted text. EllenCT (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes they do. In fact they pertain to the deleted text WITH GREAT SPECIFICITY.

"This is an attempt at synthesis and moving that section to follow the lede is POV pushing" <-- pertains to the deleted text

"[18] this is just misunderstanding the source. " <-- pertains to the deleted text

Just because you can type "they don't pertain to the deleted text" on your computer and hit "Save page" that doesn't actually mean that "they don't pertain to the deleted text". They do. Please engage the conversation in a constructive manner.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: which of these deletions do you claim pertain to the discussion above, and why? EllenCT (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

separate article re secular stagnation

I'm a wiki rookie, so please forgive any inadvertent gaffes.

I favor a separate topic on the evidence for and against secular stagnation and the differing theories that seek to explain why economic growth may be markedly less than in the past. It is certainly true that secular stagnation might be discussed under Economic Stagnation in general, but there are many causes of such stagnation that are decidedly not "secular." They may be the result of ineptitude, corruption, events occurring in other economies, or discrete trends. For example, a country largely dependent on oil export revenues will be greatly affected when the global oil price declines. Users of Wikipedia with an interest in understanding and evaluating secular stagnation may not be interested in reading about stagnations of the past that have clear idiosyncratic explanations.

An article on secular stagnation theory should provide a careful and fairly comprehensive development of the recent historical antecedents (beginning with the stagflation of the late 1970s and including Japan's multi-decade struggle, the Asian contagion, the twin bubbles of the stock market in the '90s and real estate in the '00s, and the travails of the US and Europe in the ’10s) that gave rise to current interest in the theory. It should then provide an explication with citations of theories that seek to explain these events. I think I have identified four theories that are in play. 1, the earliest, is the Malthusian critical resource argument, widely popularized in the 70s by The Limits to Growth. Support has waned for this argument to some extent, but it's still around. 2, the neo-Keynesian argument that it has become more difficult to generate adequate aggregate demand to produce growth (Krugman and part of Summers). 3, diminishing returns from technological progress (Gordon, Romer, Paepke, and Cowen and maybe part of Summers). 4, an emerging environmental limitations or exploitation of externalities argument. Several writers involved in the climate change discussion have argued that rapid economic growth in the industrial era has been fostered by an ability to dump the waste products of that growth into air and water, and that the global warming threat means we must resize our economic aspirations to the atmosphere's carrying ability. China's decade of being the largest driver of economic growth while creating dangerously polluted air and water and becoming the largest emitter of CO2 is another data point. Contra Marek, I'm not sure why any one of these has a monopoly on the secular stagnation tag.

Because this is a topic of special interest to me, and I think it has important practical consequences, I am considering writing an article as sketched out above. This would take several months to do properly, as I would need to review older sources and acquaint myself with newer ones. Reading this talk page, I'm concerned that this topic is degenerating into some very agenda-driven arguments, which have no interest for me. Although I have opinions about the strength of the different theories, and even the concept itself, an encyclopedia is no place to indulge those opinions.

I would appreciate it if anyone could offer any recommendations on whether to proceed with such an effort and how to navigate the cross-currents evident on this page. 24.249.186.213 (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC) Owen Paepke, author, The Evolution of Progress (1993)

Owen: Thank you for your interest in this article. A rewrite is in order but it should be kept close to the current debates about stagnation and past instances. Pollution, for example, has not been shown to be a major factor in stagnation, but you might find something published linking declining resource quality/high extraction costs (Ricardian concept) and per capita resources (Malthusian) to stagnation.

I recommend you register Wikipedia:Tutorial/Registration so you can have your own user talk pages and follow articles. When you have your own user page I can give you some valuable information related to this article. You should also become familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources . Wikipedia does not allow original research Wikipedia:No original research ; however, your published work is acceptable. Wikipedia also has policies against certain types of synthesis Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not. Do not be discouraged by the editor who does not follow Wikipedia rules. That person will eventually get blocked.Phmoreno (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a good taxonomy of the various stagnation theories (I'm not sure that we're disagreeing here). Right now it seems the idea is to put your #2 into a separate article (#1 and #4 are sort of scattered throughout some articles as well) and have this article be an overview.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

From New Palgrave

The New Palgrave, Economic Development, Eatwell, Milgate, Newman eds. Author is Eprime Eshag, the relevant chapter is Fiscal and monetary policies in developing countries. This chapter is relevant to this whole accusation that anyone who disagrees with EllenCT is supporting "supply side economics" (sic). And that supposedly aggregate demand is the main force behind long term growth (which is actually completely backwards). Here is the quote:

"LDCs can be seen as 'supply-determined', in that it is the productive capacity rather than demand that generally limits the level of their activity. This means that the long-run rate of growth in them is determined by the rate at which their productive capacity grows as a result of net investment in the economy. Leaving aside the question of the capital intensity of production, the larger the share of investment in GNP, the greater the rate of growth of productive capacity. An acceleration in the rate of growth of productivie capacity and GNP will require an increase in the share of investment"

I believe this explicitly address the thing that EllenCT and User:Phmoreno were fighting over (basically, Phmoreno was right).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

That monograph isn't even peer reviewed. What is an LDC? You spelled productive wrong. Are there any peer reviewed sources which agree with your and Phmoreno's opinion? I can't find any. This article is about all countries, not just developing countries. EllenCT (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It's the freaking New Palgrave series! This is like the most respected and established compendium of scholarly views on particular sub-disciplines in economics. Of course it's peer-reviewed. And if you don't know what LDC stands (your last sentence suggests you do, you're just being disingenuous) for and all you can do is criticize minor typos then you're just making it painfully clear that you have no idea of what you're talking about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: "Least Developed Countries"? Again, this article is about all countries, not just developing countries. Why do you pretend that an excerpt about least developed countries is appropriate for this general article? EllenCT (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

So why did you ask if you knew the answer? And are you gonna back off the claim that The New Palgrave is not an unacceptable source? Let's get that straight first before we quibble over typos or scope.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Unsupported removal of dispute tags

@Phmoreno: do you believe your edit summaries at [19] and [20] are justified? If so, please explain why. EllenCT (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

These edits were extensively discussed here and no one on this page agrees with you. You claim secular stagnation doesn't exist; however the term was applied to the U.S. in the 1930s, to Japan since 1991 and it has been a much debated topic in recent years with numerous books and articles, such as the The Great Stagnation. You have no justification for placing the Internationally section following the lede, and in fact it doesn't even belong in this article because neither cited source is about economic stagnation.Phmoreno (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Wnt: do you agree with Phmoreno? I ask because you have pointed out his and Volunteer Marek's abuse of the reliable source criteria to push their POV extensively at Talk:Economic growth, your instructions at which I have followed closely. EllenCT (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with EllenCt that the edit summary is not justified in this edit. There is nothing at {{Citation needed}} requiring the presentation of a rational argument when applying the tag. Common sense should prevail. Some statements are so innocuous they may not require a citation but that doesn't apply here. If the statement is clearly supported by a source than there is no need for such a tag. In this particular case, the tag was added after the word "usually". Presumably the location is because the editor questioned that specific word. In fact, much of the sentence is supported by the source, which does note that warnings have been issued after recessions and also notes that these warnings turned out to be wrong because they underestimated the potential of existing technologies. However, the actual source is infuriatingly imprecise regarding whether that observation applies to all, most, or just some of the warnings. One interpretation is that it applies to all, which frankly would not just support "usually" but something stronger. However it is a bit of a stretch to take the general statement and infer that the researchers specifically intended it to apply to every single instance. In my opinion, we should approach this differently than looking for a citation. The specific subject in the sentence is relatively narrow and it might be hard to find a citation that exactly clarifies whether "usually" is correct or not. I suggest that we consider alternative wordings, such as "in some cases". That is, sadly, bland, but the original article failed to be specific enough, so we can't make up what is there. If someone happens to find a source that clarifies the incidence, that would be great but short of that I think the better approach is wordsmithing rather than citation search.

Responding to the original question, though, I think EllenCT's question is a reasonable question to ask even if I think the best approach would be to propose alternative wording rather than simply slap a citation needed tag.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

For reference, the relevant sentence in the article is:

In retrospect, it emerges that pessimistic predictions were wrong neither because they built on erroneous theories or data, nor because they failed to predict new technologies, but because they underestimated the potential of the technologies that already existed.

Note that the reference doesn't clearly state that the explanation for the incorrectness of pessimistic predictions covers all pessimistic predictions. Of additional importance, it doesn't site how often pessimistic predictions turned out to be wrong, it only offers an explanation in some of the cases where the predictions were wrong.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: why did you delete the dispute tags without discussion at [21]? Why do you claim that two against one is "consensus" when you are still unable or unwilling to provide any bona fide peer reviewed literature review articles (as opposed to sections in WP:PRIMARY research papers) in opposition to the unanimity of all the WP:SECONDARY sources reaching conclusions on these questions? EllenCT (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

As you well know I've provided plenty of sources on numerous occasions. In fact I did just that right above. The fact that you choose to reject them in contravention of WP:RS says something about your editing, not mine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, have you ever, after all these years, managed to find a single bona fide peer reviewed literature review in agreement with your opinions? Or do you still expect editors to look the other way while you try to pass off review sections of obscure primary research papers as superior to the unanimity of all the secondary sources reaching a conclusion on the matter? EllenCT (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT: You are not the one to be asking anyone to provide "'bona fide' peer reviewed literature review articles" when you haven't provided any reasonable explanations in any of these discussions. Your whole talk discussions are obscurifications. You never present any meaningful arguments. You never provide logical explanations. You never answer questions and you have a habit of not telling the truth.Phmoreno (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I have every right to demand adherence to the reliable source criteria, and you know it. EllenCT (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Your problem is either that you don't recognize reliable source material when you see it, or more likely, you don't like what the source says.Phmoreno (talk)

`

RFC on international and secular theory sections

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which of these two revisions is better supported by reliable sources? EllenCT (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I think you meant these two versions. And this also won't be very helpful to people who show for the RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I have corrected the diff link. Those who wish to compare the versions are easily able to do so. Please feel free to add whatever commentary you think may be helpful in your comments. EllenCT (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• The difference between the revisions is the sentence: "Globalization has lead to generally increasing growth rates internationally, although international differences in the rates of growth caused by income inequality have led to economic stagnation among the lower and middle classes in the post-World War II developed world" and the "citation needed" tag after the word "usually" in the phrase "but they usually turned out to be wrong".

On the first issue, the relevant source is this. But there's nothing in the source which would support anything but the first part of the sentence. In fact, as written, that sentence is incomprehensible. Where does it say in the sources that "international differences in the rates of growth" were "caused by income inequality". It doesn't. EllenCT just made that up. Where does it say in the source that "international differences in the rates of growth" caused or "led to" "economic stagnation". Yes, it says there was stagnation for lower and middle classes (although NOT in "post-World War II" period, that part is also just made up by EllenCT). But it does NOT say that this stagnation was CAUSED by "international differences in the rates of growth caused by income inequality". And the reason it doesn't say that is quite simply that that would make no sense. Why would the fact that, say, Guinea-Bissau, grew slower than Canada, CAUSE middle class incomes in Australia to stagnate? This is just pure nonsense, it's really hard to even comprehend as to what this sentence is trying to say, and of course it is simply not based on the source.

On the second issue, I think if we just replace the word "usually" with "sometimes" then we're good to go. Sheesh.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The statistics in the source, "Global income inequality in numbers: In history and now." Global policy 4(2):198-208, most certainly do support the included statement, as does this graph the author drew to support his popular treatment, which was also included in the source reference which Marek and Pheremo have continually reverted. The graph more clearly supports the statement which measures growth from a per-capita instead of per-country perspective. There has never been an instance where secular stagnation has proven correct. Even ongoing situations such as Japan's are explained through other factors, the loss of agregate demand in an aging, shrinking population being primary. EllenCT (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

No, no they don't. In fact they have NOTHING TO DO with the claims made in the statement! Show me exactly where. Quote. Statistics. Whatever. That source is simply not saying anything even close to what you are claiming it says. This ridiculous WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT really must stop.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Hey folks... just a suggestion... how about letting other editors express their opinions before rehashing your arguements among yourselves. No one wants to read through a wall of back and forth bickering and accusations these disputes tend to turn into.

  Anyway the RfC is not formed well - it looks like it was thrown up just to get an RfC open. There is not enough information in the RfC statement to allow uninvolved editors enough information to give an informed opinion without wading through walls of crap. Jbh^Talk 20:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

This RFC is a typical EllenCT Trojan horse. Her only intent is to find some way to make it look like economic stagnation is caused by income inequality and to place that following the lede. "There has never been an instance where secular stagnation has proven correct." This is her attempt to discredit the definition of the topic and economic history so she can take over the article for an income inequality soap box. Her comment about Japan shows her lack of understanding of the definition of secular stagnation and of the literature on the Japanese stagnation. For example, "shrinking population being primary" means she hasn't read Alvin Hansen, who wrote about falling population growth as a cause of the Great Depression stagnation. She also doesn't mention the Japanese productivity slowdown, which is also a major cause.Phmoreno (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Version (secular stagnation) better supported. Just regarding the RFC question as asked, the version 2 (Globalization/income inequality) seems fewer and lesser cites. As a side note, I'm also thinking that the article topic is GDP movement of a national economy, so relevance of globalization or income inequality (within a GDP) is not mainstream the article topic but as subtopics of possible causative factors (e.g. Forbes article). Seems minor -- maybe as one of the other factors in section 2.5 or in a See Also, but not suitable for a major section or one at the article top. Markbassett (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed lead

As far as I can tell, the lead doesn't particularly inform the reader what the article is about. I propose changing it to the following:

Economic stagnation is a prolonged period of slow economic growth, usually accompanied by high unemployment. There is disagreement on how economic stagnation should be defined and, for a given definition, whether it has ever been reached.

Economic growth is usually measured as changes in gross domestic product. Economies frequently operate in cycles of alternate high and low growth. Economic stagnation is a period of low growth beyond the normal economic cycle, reflecting a fundamental change in the economy that inhibts a return to growth. Various explanations are offered for what changes might cause stagnation, including changing rates of technological innovation, changes in economic productivity, movement of activity between the different sectors of the economy, changes in patterns of international trade and increase in skewedness of the income distribution. Stagnation may alternatively be defined in terms of macroeconomic policy, as a period when near-zero official interest rates are required to maintain full employment.

Different definitions of "low" growth are also offered, sometimes meaning negative or near-zero growth (a prolonged recession) but sometimes meaning significantly slower than potential growth, as estimated by macroeconomists. In the latter case, the growth rate may be nominally higher than in other countries not experiencing economic stagnation, merely lower than the economy's potential for growth.

Economic stagnation can be compared to the opposite phenomenon, the economic miracle, where an economy experiences a period of prolonged strong growth, beyond what would be expected in the normal economic cycle.

This obviously requires sourcing and would imply considerable changes in the rest of the article. At this stage, I'm looking for comments on two questions:

• Have I grasped the concept correctly? Or is what I'm describing something more specific?
• Is this an appropriate level of detail for the lead, or should some of this move into the body of the article? GoldenRing (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Changes in the distribution income (wage stagnation) are a symptom rather than a cause of economic stagnation. An explanation of the shift in the demand for labor caused by technology is given by Vatter et al (2005). Phmoreno (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Phmoreno: I'm at least vaguely aware of the problems that have plagued this article recently, but there are authors who advance the view that income inequality creates or exacerbates stagnation, aren't there? I don't have a great grasp on the literature in this area, but I'm seeing authors like Eggertsson and Mehrotra (though aware that's not peer-reviewed), and Summers at least giving it a favourable mention. I'm not saying they're right, just that it belongs in a discussion of the subject. GoldenRing (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Growth is caused by increases in productivity, but can be retarded by income inequality. I have never seen high estimates of the income inequality drag. (A thought experiment: If income were equalized but all other technological and business innovations remained constant, after a one time adjustment, do you think you would pave perpetual growth just because you redistributed income? Or do you think that redistributing income would increase productivity?) The problem in developed countries today is that productivity has slowed down greatly from the "golden age of productivity growth".Phmoreno (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

More or less correct, although I'd omit or reword the part about Macroeconomic policy. That sentence is more about how one can respond to stagnation rather than a definition of stagnation; if we had to have near zero interest rates but that got us to full employment and incomes increased, then that wouldn't be stagnation. What you're getting at is that in certain types of stagnations EVEN near zero interest rate cannot boost the economy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: The point about macroeconomic policy comes out of sources like Teulings and Baldwin 2014 who claim a consensus among economists (or at least the ones who contributed to their book) that requiring negative real interest rates to maintain full employment is the working definition of secular stagnation. Thoughts? GoldenRing (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I see them say that, and I don't like it. They're basically saying "how do we know that we're in a secular stagnation rather than just run of the mill period of slow growth? Because interest rates are at zero and the economy's at full employment". But that means that the zero interest rate thing is a symptom of secular stagnation, or possibly the best possible policy response to the presence of secular stagnation, not the phenomenon itself. If you think of it in medical terms, I see sec stag as "the disease", the zero interest rates as the "medicine" which alleviates the symptoms, and the symptoms themselves as "below full employment and slow growth". The authors are saying "we can diagnose the disease as secular stagnation because if it is secular stagnation then only the medicine of zero interest rates can restore full employment". Ok, but that's all more or less original research, so I wouldn't insist on it. My preference would be simply to downplay the "secular stagnation is zero interest rates" angle or phrase it in a different way. But sources are sources so if you want to have that in there, that's fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I also do not like the definition related to failure of low interest rates. It's less straightforward than the original definition of stagnation being characterized by a lack of good investment opportunities, which is the underlying problem today. The quotation that was removed contained a lot of background information:

“The basic changes going on since the beginning of the century are not only important in explaining the unprecedented severity and persistence of the depression of the thirties but also in appraising the outlook for the future. The reduced rate of growth, with respect to both population and territory, is likely to be permanent. Technological change is still going on, at a rapid rate, and, so far as anyone can see, is likely to continue for a long, long time to come. In the thirties the changes were predominantly of the sort that requires relatively small investment of new capital. This, of course, may change. There may be innovations in the future comparable in their effect on investment to the railroad, the automobile, or electricity. It is highly unlikely, however, that further technical change will be so much ‘’more’’ capital using as to make up for the reduced rate of territorial expansion and population growth. This is the basis on which the stagnation school predicts a long-run deficiency of investing opportunity.” Harris (1943): Chap.IV by Alan Sweezy

Phmoreno (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the feedback. Food for thought. I get the point about disease/symptoms/medicine, but then aren't most economic states defined by symptoms? My initial reaction is that it's a position advanced by a significant number of economists so we should at least include it as part of the discussion. But I think I'll sleep on it. Perhaps it should go in the body of the article somewhere, or could be rephrased in some way. GoldenRing (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Phmoreno: @Volunteer Marek: Isn't lack of good investment opportunities also a symptom rather than an underlying factor? In fact, isn't it extremely closely related to near-zero real interest rates, those being merely another investment opportunity that isn't very good? Still thinking about how this could be reworded. GoldenRing (talk) 10:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: @Volunteer Marek: Lack of investment opportunities is a direct cause. Investing in physical assets to increase productivity create jobs and improves productivity. Many great innovations (canals, roads, railroads, steel, electricity, electronic communications) were compelling investments, offering investors very large returns and dramatically improving productivity.Phmoreno (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't include the contrast with "economic miracle"; however, a rapid deceleration in growth from a "miracle" period has been called stagnation, as in Japan's growth slowing in the 1990s.Phmoreno (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Phmoreno: I'm a bit worried that the point about the economic miracle might be rather OR. The reason I included it was to try to help readers understand in terms they're likely to be more familiar with, as economic stagnation is a prolonged period on the downside of the cycle and the economic miracle is a prolonged period on the upside of the cycle. I don't think trying to discuss how a miracle moves into stagnation is going to help that, at least not in the lead. I wouldn't object strenuously to removing it, but I do think it helps the reader get their head around it. Further thoughts? GoldenRing (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

References

What is the value of this article?

I'm struggling with this whole concept.

As pointed out in Secular stagnation theory, the origin of the theory was the concern that stagnation might be secular, and thus (this is where it gets hand-wavy) permanent (sort-of, maybe). But it wasn't.

I see value in an article about secular stagnation theory as a historical article - it was proposed, it was much talked about and therefore deserves coverage. I sort of get that every time we have a mild downturn, some chicken little worries about the possibility of secular stagnation, so there may be value in follow up about subsequent failed predictions. But the main focus ought to be a failed economic theory.

This isn't the place to debate how that article should be written, it is just background for asking - what deserves to be covered in an article about economic stagnation that isn't covered in secular stagnation theory? Is it supposed to be stagnation that isn't secular? If so, it's a special case of the business cycle. If that article were bloated, perhaps something should be carved out for a separate article, but this wouldn't be my first choice.

Is there anything in this article that doesn't belong in either of those two articles? In other words, what is the point of this article? What does it add that isn't or couldn't be covered in those two articles?--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

"Stagnation" and "secular stagnation" stagnation are the same thing according to sources. These two articles should be merged and perhaps re-titled Stagnation (economics).Phmoreno (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The way I see it is that secular stagnation is just one of the possible stagnations. I believe someone else above outlined all the possible theories of stagnation (Malthusian, secular, low productivity growth etc.) In particular one can think of a number of developing countries which have experienced stagnation which has nothing to do with low interest rates.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Specifically, the comment by the IP in this section. Yes, that needs sources but the comment is pretty aware and points to where to look.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

If Sphilbrick's comment about secular stagnation being a "failed" theory were correct economists wouldn't be having this debate today. Developed countries are in an economic situation that has many parallels to the 1930s. Developed countries productivity and population growth has slowed and there are few investment opportunities today that can have the effect of electrification, household water supply and motorized transportation. But aside from that argument, we don't need separate articles on causes of stagnation. It needs to be covered as a debate.Phmoreno (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Greenspan's recent comments

Productivity growth had been slowing, but has recently turned negative. Greenspan's comment on this:

Greenspan then went on to bash the false "recovery" narrative, warning that "the fundamental issue is the fact that productivity growth has ground to a halt."

We are running out of people. In other words, everyone is very pleased at the fact that the employment rate is rising. Well, statistics tell us that we need more and more people to produce less and less. That is not a prescription for a viable political system. And so what we have at this stage is stagnation.[22]

Phmoreno (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Economic stagnation. 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/20131024041712/http://eh.net:80/encyclopedia/article/white.tractors.history.us to http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/white.tractors.history.us
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310163302/http://www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/echist/eh04/field-041006.pdf to http://www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/echist/eh04/field-041006.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130918164238/http://faculty-web.at.northwestern.edu/economics/gordon/Is%20US%20Economic%20Growth%20Over.pdf to http://faculty-web.at.northwestern.edu/economics/gordon/is%20us%20economic%20growth%20over.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Economic stagnation. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/white.tractors.history.us
• 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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)