Talk:Unified growth theory

Removed source
Removed source entry: Slides of a Lecture Series on the subject, Unified Growth Theory, September 2006, by Oded Galor. It was a restricted access or password protected PDF (not behind a pay wall).

--FeralOink (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * the source entrySlides of a Lecture Series on the subject, Unified Growth Theory, September 2006, by Oded Galor already been removed Econkhshen (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Controversy
It is disturbing that so much misinformation is being propagated by the Unified Growth Theory, which is based on hyperbolic illusions reinforced by crude presentation of data. When properly analyzed, the economic growth data are in contradiction with this theory.

The historical GDP/cap data might be difficult to interpret but this is not an excuse for creating incorrect theories. The GDP/cap ratio is the ratio of the GDP and the size of human population. The natural tendency for the GDP and for the size of the population is to increase hyperbolically. In general, therefore, the GDP/cap ratio is represented by a ratio of two hyperbolic distributions. It is a linearly modulated hyperbolic distribution, i.e. the hyperbolic distribution for the GDP modulated linearly by the decreasing linear function representing the reciprocal values of the size of human population.
 * 1) The three regimes of growth, the Malthusian, Post-Malthusian and Modern Growth Regimes, did not exist.
 * 2) The so-called great divergence never happened.
 * 3) There were no takeoffs in the economic growth, let alone the coordinated takeoffs.
 * 4) Industrial Revolution had no effect on the economic growth.
 * 5) There was no escape from Malthusian trap because the trap did not exist.

If hyperbolic distributions might be confusing, the ratio of two hyperbolic distributions is even more perplexing. The linear modulation magnifies hyperbolic illusions of stagnation and takeoff, but these are just illusions.

It is incorrect to assign different mechanisms of growth to different sections of the same mathematical distribution. The economic growth was slow in the past because it was hyperbolic and it was faster in recent years because it was still hyperbolic. Now, the economic growth, both global and regional, is slowing down in the sense that it is being diverted to slower trajectories, away from the historical hyperbolic trajectories.

Rather than explaining the economic growth, Unified Growth Theory is firmly based on phantom features, the apparitions made even more pronounced by crude display of data consisting in selecting often just three or four points and joining them by straight lines. Such presentation of data is the perfect prescription for drawing incorrect conclusions. Hyperbolic distributions have to be analyzed with care.

For additional information see:


 * 1) R. W. (2013). Unified Growth Theory: A puzzling collection of myths based on hyperbolic illusions. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1311/1311.5511.pdf.
 * 2) R. W. (2013). Industrial Revolution had no effect on the economic growth in Western Europe. To be published.

Two other articles will be soon published showing that there was no great divergence and no takeoffs let alone coordinated takeoffs.

It should be also noted that the growth rate for hyperbolic distributions increases also hyperbolically. The growth rate for the GDP/cap creates the same hyperbolic illusions as the GDP/cap. There is no stagnation and no takeoff in the GDP/cap and there is also no stagnation and no takeoff in the growth rate of the GDP/cap. As we cannot apply different mechanisms of growth to the linearly modulated hyperbolic distribution of the GDP/cap so also we cannot apply different mechanisms of growth to the linearly modulated hyperbolic distribution of the growth rate of the GDP/cap.

Other related articles which might be of interest are:


 * 1) Nielsen, R. W.  (2013). Scientifically unacceptable concept of the Epoch of Malthusian Stagnation. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1310/1310.4258.pdf
 * 2) Nielsen, R. W (2013). Malthusian stagnation or Malthusian regeneration? http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1310/1310.5390.pdf
 * 3) Nielsen, R. W. (2013). Impacts of demographic catastrophes. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1311/1311.1850.pdf
 * 4) Nielsen, R. W. (2013). No stagnation in the growth of population. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1311/1311.3997.pdf

Myths and legends might be attractive and exciting but they have no place in science. If demographic and economic growth research is supposed to be scientific, care will be taken to make it scientific and the first step is to abandon numerous concepts based on phantom features created by hyperbolic illusions and reinforced by incorrect interpretation of data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronwnielsen (talk • contribs)

I would like to refute the controversy in your statement above, I don't agree with your hyperbolic illusions point, you can check hyperbolic growth point. The hyperbolic illusion point is based on Ron W Nielsen that thinks Economic growth was slow in the past and fast in recent years because it was hyperbolic.There was no stagnation and no explosion but a steady hyperbolic growth. The continuous hyperbolic growth suggests a simple explanation of the mechanism of growth. The clusion lacks of economy theory and is also difficult to explain human economy development regularity. Further, the unified growth theory has Basic Structure of the Model to illustrate the Malthusian Stagnation to Sustained Growth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Econkhshen (talk • contribs)

Non-neutral editing
I have removed a large chunk of cherry-picked quote farming in undue weight and a large list of redundant book spam (the author's publications are listed in his biographical main article anyway). The extensive usage of enthusiastic blurbs and the lack of any critical (or atleast neutral) fact-oriented assessments of this theory violates WP:NPOV and WP:PROMO. The used quotes did not provide a thorough in-depth analysis, but simplifying personal opinions with little factual substance - expert opinions, but subjective opinions in undue weight nonetheless. And frankly, the almost adulating tone and PoV pushing in these statements should be inappropriate for allegedly academic and unbiased reviews. GermanJoe (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I fully disagree with your last statement. It is extremely rare that scholars use such a enthusiastic tone while reviewing books. For people knowing how serious these academics are, it is very meaningful to read such a tone. It proves how innovative and intellectually challenging the theory is. I can understand why these statements can be in contradiction with Wikipedia policy regarding promotional editing. But I don't think the opinion you express in your last sentence is right or fully based on the reality of the academic world. This tone is completely not inappropriate for unbiased reviews. People in the academy knows how rare it is and, de facto, how meaningful it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaury Dehoux (talk • contribs) 20:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It proves only that these academics are excited about this theory (rightly or wrongly doesn't matter), and failed to provide unbiased reviews. But to be fair: maybe more substantial fact-oriented assessments are presented somewhere else in other parts of these reviews. Then these other parts with factual information and maybe even with critical comments (unless the theory is absolutely flawless) should be used instead of personal statements of opinion. Also, a "review" section should contain positive, neutral and critical views in due weight (unless there is absolutely no neutral or critical feedback of course). Edits here on Wikipedia have to be uninvolved and dispassionate, irregardless of our personal opinion off-Wiki. GermanJoe (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Issues
I have been working on the article, trying to add diverse sources and inline citations. Maybe someone of the staff could consider revise and edit the "issues box" at the top of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaury Dehoux (talk • contribs) 13:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)