| Revision as of 19:44, 27 February 2006 editStringCheesian (talk | contribs)10 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:30, 17 July 2024 edit undoRublamb (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers107,844 edits OneClickArchived "East Asian model" to Talk:Market economy/Archive 1 |
| (225 intermediate revisions by 82 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{expand}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Economics|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Socialism|importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|social=yes |importance=high }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=high|libertarianism=yes |libertarianism-importance=high}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{course assignment|course=Education Program:New College of Florida/Work Organization and Its Alternatives (Spring)|term=2013 Q1}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Incomplete introduction == |
|
{{Bizetasks}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just wanted to bring this to the attention of the article maintainers: In the current state (June 2019), the article has an incomplete sentence in the introduction. The 3rd paragraph of the introduction ends in an unfinished sentence which itself only reads "It is this" |
|
'''Archives:''' ] |
|
|
|
Someone seems to have had plans for further explanations that were not completed or were improperly abandoned. Would be great if someone could investigate. Thx! <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Sanctions - do they set the "free" of the free market aside? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although sanctions (on Russia) have been applied for about 10 years they have recently been applied more and more. Sanctions interfere with free market practices because companies must pick their suppliers and customers from a list of allowed business partners, not select by price. I wonder where the threshold is which disturbs the free market so much that the "free" is set aside. E.G. The "crippling" sanctions are obviously designed to punish the Russian people but in the process they disturb the free market. This should probably be discussed one day. ] (]) 06:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC) |
|
I will continue to expand this page later tommorrow...much more to come. (Gibby 06:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP23 - Sect 201 - Thu== |
|
== Underground economy == |
|
|
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/New_York_University/Research_Process_and_Methodology_-_SP23_-_Sect_201_-_Thu_(Spring_2023) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2023-01-25 | end_date = 2023-05-05 }} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 23:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)</span> |
|
"The theoretical model of a large-scale free market economy does not occur legally, however the ] may be seen as an actualized free market economy." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what is the allocation of resources and price influence in mixed economy ] (]) 18:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
"May be seen as" is pretty weaselly. A windmill may be seen as a giant waving its arms. Can we cite someone as claiming this? I have my doubts: "free market" presumably means "free from coercion" not just "free from taxes". In my experience, black markets are seldom free from coercion. - ] | ] 06:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== No mention of a medium of exchange == |
|
:Underground economy and black market don't have the same connotations. Underground economy is a market where trade simply takes place without government taking a cut. Hiring a worker without filing out government forms and paying him in cash, garage sales, selling stuff on Ebay, etc. ] 16:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no reference to a medium of exchange in this entire article. It seems to me that having a medium (USD, £, gold) is an important part of a market, and of setting prices by supply and demand. Adding information on a medium of exchange will likely effect most paragraphs in this article. Any thoughts? ] (]) 16:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Again: do you have a citation for "may be seen"? - ] | ] 22:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indicate how Resources will be allocated in a market economy? ] (]) 13:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
==neutrality== |
|
|
|
|
|
The neutrality complaint is stupid. The arguement being made is that it presents the "libertarian view point" on markets. I disagree, I think that by reporting what Hayek and Friedman state about the market is accurate. They, afterall, are economists. Discussing how market transactions are voluntary does not mean that social market theorists are any less valid. Likely they would agree (otherwise they'd get rid of the market and be called Socialists!!!!) There is a section that discusses market externalities, a section that discusses market participation and a section about the free market. There is not much to complain about but the factual reporting of market operations. ''(personal attack removed)'' |
|
|
(] 22:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The neutrality complaint may be valid, but no-one can say whether it is or not because the user has not brought their issues to the Talk page in accordance with established procedure for using that template. I've notified Nikodemos on their Talk page that they need to engage on this Talk page in debate about specific NPOV issues. If they choose not to I will remove the template in a few days. — ] ] 01:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Reporting what economists Hayek and Friedman say about market economies is not POV or non neutral. (] 02:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)) |
|
|
:The neutrality complaint was strange per se: I've altered it slightly, so that it does not read "gives to much weight to the views of economists, for example...", which implies that giving weight to the views of economists is a shocking thing. That said, I'm assuming you've seen through the grammar. --] 02:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::It was someone elses complaint. They had "free market advocates" which is actually a POV representation of them since Hayek and Friedman are by their job definition, economists. When you state the plain truth "the overwhelming vies of economists, such as Friedman and Hayek" well you just wonder exactly why they are commenting on something so related to economics like markets. The original complaint is bogus. Its made by a non-market believer who really hates anything market especially if it argues free market. (] 02:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
It is difficult to identify specific problems within the article, because it is biased to such a degree that it requires a complete rework. Half of it is dedicated to "criticism of alternatives" (which seems a convulted way of referring to advocacy of market economics), while the rest of it presents very little information explaining how a market economy actually ''works''. As it stands now, this article only discusses free market capitalism, which makes it redundant with the ] and ] articles. Furthermore, Milton Friedman is cited 32 times. The only other economists mentioned in the article are F.A. Hayek (five times), Adam Smith (twice) and Hernando De Soto (once). I find it particularly outrageous that neither Ricardo nor Keynes are given so much as a nod. In total, there are 47 paragraphs in this article, and Milton Friedman's views are discussed in 24 of them. That means the article is roughly 50% Friedman and 50% all others (and those others share Friedman's POV to a large extent). -- ] 04:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I propose that we start reworking the article from the ground up; much of the information about Friedman's views should be moved to the ] article or ]. -- ] 04:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:See ] for an example of ]'s work. Very well sourced, but reflects his personal biases. To me, that article doesn't read like an objective encyclopedia entry, and I'm worried about what's going to happen to this one. <small>{{unsigned|69.231.250.214}}</small> |
|
|
::I did not know I was so interesting that I have anon users watching me. But, in any case, if your only objection is that you do not like my writing, then you are more than welcome to help edit this article yourself. In fact, I do not look forward to the daunting task of re-writing it, and I could use all the help I can get. -- ] 13:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It was me (I'm logged in now - and didn't know how to sign a comment). I don't think it needs re-writing. I agree with ]. ] 19:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Alternative reading=== |
|
|
I would not necessarily say that what Nikodemos is (/should be?) disputing is an issue of neutrality, but a question of relevance. This article should not even be discussing the pros and cons of a market economy (which would belong in a criticism article or, better, articles on variant theories), but rather discussing the definition of a market economy: What does it entail? What can be part of a market? What does and does not count as a market economy? To this end, we should represent the influences of such as Friedman and Hayek (being careful to avoid adopting their POV) more than Marx, just as the latter would be expected to feature heavily in ]. However, we should also avoid defining a 'Market Economy' purely by how the theorists want it to work: markets have been around before the theorists, so this article should be describing market economies, not just 'Theories about Market economies' - those belong in their own pages, along with the pros and cons of each. |
|
|
So no, I disagree with Nikodemos' idea of NPOV by balancing two POVs: we should strive to make this article descriptive instead of prescriptive.--] 15:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
Just wanted to bring this to the attention of the article maintainers: In the current state (June 2019), the article has an incomplete sentence in the introduction. The 3rd paragraph of the introduction ends in an unfinished sentence which itself only reads "It is this"
Someone seems to have had plans for further explanations that were not completed or were improperly abandoned. Would be great if someone could investigate. Thx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.108.249 (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Although sanctions (on Russia) have been applied for about 10 years they have recently been applied more and more. Sanctions interfere with free market practices because companies must pick their suppliers and customers from a list of allowed business partners, not select by price. I wonder where the threshold is which disturbs the free market so much that the "free" is set aside. E.G. The "crippling" sanctions are obviously designed to punish the Russian people but in the process they disturb the free market. This should probably be discussed one day. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:B595:E707:A408:A278 (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
There is no reference to a medium of exchange in this entire article. It seems to me that having a medium (USD, £, gold) is an important part of a market, and of setting prices by supply and demand. Adding information on a medium of exchange will likely effect most paragraphs in this article. Any thoughts? AbrahamWright (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KristinaAllen (article contribs).