| Revision as of 13:50, 28 February 2006 editKDRGibby (talk | contribs)2,454 edits →Alternative reading← 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 |
| (221 intermediate revisions by 81 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) |
|
|
::::You believe it is appropriate to dedicate half the article to the views of one economist, and much of the other half to economists who agree with him? I am not saying we should include prominent discussions of the views of Karl Marx or other opponents of the market economy; I am saying that we should give equal weight to economists who advocate a market economy but see it differently than Friedman (e.g. J.M. Keynes). -- ] 20:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I just don't want to see this article brought down to the level of ] with respect to tone (should be informative and neutral, not persuasive and apologetic/defensive) and prose. I'd try to fix the other article, but I'm not a very good writer. As well read as you may be, neither are you. I'll admit you're right, Keynes deserves to be mentioned and the article is little heavy on Friedman. But only a little too heavy - shouldn't ]'s school of thought figure prominently? Econ 101 textbooks (at least mine anyway) start with him in Chapter 1 and call him the father of modern economics. Why not just move the stuff that belongs in ] and add a few things about Keynes and Ricardo? I don't think your problem with the article justifies a rewrite. ] 22:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Adding things by Keynes is fine by me, but don't delete the Friedman stuff. They sections including information from Friedman and Hayek are merely reporting their thoughts on how the market works. Keynes won't say much different other than you need alittle government spending in contractions. Ricardo won't add much Friedman has already talked about and neither will Adam Smith, though having Smith is great. Niko just wants to delete Friedman because he conflates Friedman with libertarianism rather than understanding that Friedman is an economist who just so happens to scientifically prove that markets work better than any alternatives and that free markets are the best form of market economies. Thats it. He wants to delete this information because he disagrees with it. BUT REMEMBER NIKO...we are only reporting what Friedman says. But seriously, I think your scared people might start to see how rational his thoughts really are and just might start agreeing. (] 13:48, 28 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) |
|
|
:Actually, that was my intention, and I agree with you. As I noted above, the current article presents very little information explaining how a market economy actually ''works''. Much of the ''Criticism of alternatives'' section should be moved to the ] article (which, by the way, does not currently do a good job of explaining what his views are - thus, by moving the text there, we would be killing two birds with one stone). Allow me to quote the opening words of every paragraph in that section: |
|
|
|
|
|
::''There are generalized criticisms of alternatives to market oriented economics...'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::'''''Milton Friedman''' argues...'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:Prices and wages |
|
|
::''Microeconomists and free market scholars such as '''Milton Friedman''' have written extensively...'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::'''''Freidman''' does believe that workers who take risks deserve more pay than workers who do not...'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:Markets and cooperation |
|
|
::'''''Friedman''' also believes...'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::''Profits become the motivator for aligning diverse interests and diverse people for a single goal.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:International cooperation |
|
|
::'''''Friedman''' and Hayek both believe...'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::'''''Friedman''' states, "International free trade fosters harmonious relations among nations that differ in culture and institutions"'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::''Friedrich Hayek discusses the market alternative and its negative effects on cooperation'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:The role of private property |
|
|
::''Free market critics such as '''Friedman''' also argue...'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:Externalities |
|
|
::'''''Milton Friedman''' does not deny that there are market externalities and offers many solutions...'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:"Participatory" capitalism |
|
|
::'''''Milton Friedman''' asserts...'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::'''''He ''' believes...'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:Markets and poverty |
|
|
::''One of the more major complaints of markets and capitalism is a belief that they create exploitation of labor and poverty. '''Milton Friedman''' notes...'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::''Poverty is often conflated with capitalism and with marxist notions of class conflict. Free market economists such as '''Milton Friedman''' and Hernando De Soto make compelling arguments...'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::''Many non-market oriented alternatives to market arrangements, and even social-market proponents criticize market economies for their income inequality. '''Friedman''' and many other microeconomists note...'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:Free market solutions to poverty |
|
|
::''Free market economists argue that...'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::''Many neoliberals attribute poverty to insufficient protection or recognition of property rights.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::''Hernando De Soto argues that...'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::''Economists such as '''Milton Friedman''' argue that...'' |
|
|
|
|
|
::''Others have argued that welfare perpetuates poverty by providing incentives counter to wealth creation. Proponents of the FairTax and economists such as '''Milton Friedman''' favor eliminating welfare programs...'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:Social market solutions to poverty |
|
|
::''Advocates of the third way believe that there is a legimate role the government can play in fighting poverty.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:A better name for this article in its current state would be ]. I think that much is clear. Let us start talking about the ways we could rework it. Nema Fakei brought up a number of useful starting points. -- ] 20:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This is discription of how markets work, who better to report from than two nobel prize winning economists who know market operations better than many others. If you want more on your prefrences, find sources, cite them and add them. Don't bitch about cited Friedman and Hayek material you disagree with. You are starting to irritate me with your lazy deletion censorship-like methods. (] 13:50, 28 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).