Talk:Growth in a Time of Debt

Sexism?
Isn't it interesting that both Paul Ryan and George Osborne refer to the paper with Rogoff first and Reinhart second, in spite of the fact that the Economics community refers to it as Reinhart Rogoff? 68.0.212.251 (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Quote or a misquote?
There is a significant difference between:


 * "[P]olicymakers (&hellip;) made use of economic analysis (&hellip;) the way a drunkard uses a lamppost: for support, not illumination. Papers and economists who told the elite what it wanted to hear were celebrated, despite plenty of evidence that they were wrong; critics were ignored, no matter how often they got it right."

and what is actually in the article:


 * "To the extent that policymakers and elite opinion in general have made use of economic analysis at all, they have, as the saying goes, done so the way a drunkard uses a lamppost: for support, not illumination. Papers and economists who told the elite what it wanted to hear were celebrated, despite plenty of evidence that they were wrong; critics were ignored, no matter how often they got it right."

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "As the saying goes" is an unnecessary dependent clause; the rest of the elided material affects the meaning significantly. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Difference between quote and misquote
According to a sourced definition, the difference between quote and misquote is:
 * "[q]uite simply (&hellip;) [that original material is presented by a misquote] in a way that twists the author’s meaning."

Any Wikipedia editor can see the actual nature of changes made - see the table below. And since no step involves twisting the author's meaning, the alleged misquote is not a misquote, but a quote. It is made succinct, for sure, but it is still a valid quote at each step.

Thank you. — DancingPhilosopher ( talk ) 14:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Even B is questionable in terms of intent of the writer, and C is a significant twist, although favorable to the subjects.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality
I think this article is focused only on the methodological errors and says absolutely nothing on the paper itself, nor does it truly elaborate on Reinhart and Rogoff's response (an equally important point). Although important, the only thing I see here is the political upheaval the paper caused and the criticism it got from its detractors. The fact that this paper got so much attention from right wing politicians does not make it any less important, nor was its conclusion completely debunked by the mistakes that were found in it (the first thing that should be changed in the introduction...).--186.121.248.193 (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

please undo my edit
My last edit to the article got garbled by encoding problems in the browser -- which also keep me from undoing them myself. Please undo it (or at least undo the markup breakage). I’m sorry for causing unnecessary work :( 46.223.181.235 (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The gist of my edit was: Growth paper shows a sudden cutoff of growth: going to zero. The new research shows 30% reduced growth in high debt episodes (all over 90% aggregated) compared to low debt episodes (all aggregated). In numbers: 2.3% growth compared to 3.5% growth. This is far from supporting the Growth paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.223.181.235 (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi IP user 46.223.181.235 I had a go at fixing this in my sandbox so you might want to take another look that all is okay.I took out all the markup and put close ref tags in. I did a cut and paste from the bit beginning "Economics professor... from earlier version.Hope this helps.:) CV9933 (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Growth in a Time of Debt. 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/20130418125357/http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/working_papers_301-350/WP322.pdf to http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/working_papers_301-350/WP322.pdf

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) 18:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Statistical jargon
".. was unable to reject the null hypothesis" is statistical jargon and should be either reworded or explained. How about "could not find a relationship between GDP and debt that was beyond what chance alone could have caused"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.16.193.186 (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)