Talk:Market economy/Archive 1

The definition of a ‘Market Economy’ and a ‘Planned Economy’ is a political one. The steering of the market is done in either system by the same forces and in similar ways. Countries with what we call in the West ‘Planned Economies’ are not being granted full access to Western markets and hence are forced to find their own rules. The tools for Western market access are essentially controlled by IMF, BIS and WTO amongst others. Buyers and sellers have no possibility to freely interact as they wish, since the governments have not enabled a fair interchange of value for goods and services.

Countries which did not subject themselves to the impoverishing rules of IMF have no chance of being accepted by BIS or WTO and hence barred from accessing trade with Western countries. If a country submits themselves to IMF rules they have to deposit large sums of ‘paper tokens from the US’ (which costs them nothing to issue) with BIS and have to open their own markets under WTO rules to world competition. The deposit with BIS as a kind of entrance fee is weakening the already weak and they are unable to resist further impoverishment through the competitive wealth extraction by global players, who get their population dependent on foreign products and services.

this article

Anyone can see that a term like "free market" is a propaganda type phrase. Of course this article should explain what proponents of capitalism mean by market economy, but other things should be discussed as well.

"A market economy is an economy in which most allocations of resources occur as a result of interactions between buyers and sellers of goods and services. It is often contrasted with a planned economy in which most allocations of resources occur as a result of planning by a central agency."

This is ridiculous. The difference in capitalism and "planned economies" are in production decisions, not market decisions. A worker in the USSR walks into a store and buys bread for rubles just like an American worker does with dollars. The marketplace is no different. What is different is how production decisions are made, where that bread came from.

The main thing of importance to me in this article is that it's mentioned that some people regard this phrase as a propaganda type one, just as they consider free market as a propaganda type phrase. Ruy Lopez 04:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're free to think (however wrong you are) that free market is a "propaganda phrase," but you're not allowed to push this POV in an encyclopedia. Trey Stone 02:34, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When it says that "allocation of resources occur as a result between buyers and sellers" instead of "planning by a central agency", it is simply pointing out the difference between using the price system for economic calculation as opposed to bureaucrats. Valid distinction.

In market economy, it is the market that decides what is produced, not capitalists as a social class. Market decision = production decision. Besides, in USSR, shops had a scarcity of everything just because the so-called "planning" (really "an anarchy of production") did not "plan" production appropriately. jni 12:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"A market economy is a term used to describe an economy where economic decisions, such as pricing of goods and services, are made in a decentralized manner by the economy's participants and manifested by trade. This can be seen as a 'bottom-up' approach to organizing an economy (self-organization). It is meant to contrast to a planned economy, where economic decisions are made by a central agency, which can be equated to a 'top-down' approach."

This makes little sense. What does an economy's participants mean? Capitalists? Consumers? How does a buyer in a shop in the USSR differ from a buyer in a shop in the US? Yes, there are differences between the USSR bureaucrats and the US corporate executives respectively in charge of production decisions.

Buyer in US is not a slave of a totalitarian state. That is the fundamental difference. Any elementary textbook of economics should tell you how markets operate. Your deletion of the paragraph about decentralized decision making/self-organization was totally inappropriate. jni 12:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The real differences between a USSR economy and a US economy lies in production, with either government bureaucrats or corporate executives, not in the market. As I said, how was buying in a shop in the USSR different than buying from a shop in the US? The real differences are in production, not in the market. Ruy Lopez 23:46, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If it makes little sense to you, you are probably not in a position to make major edits unilaterally. In a "market" economy, the difference is that the market determines pricing (in the general case). So, yes, the difference is in the market, not in the political system. — Saxifrage | ☎ 00:51, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

"If it makes little sense to you, you are probably not in a position to make major edits unilaterally." - someone using vague instead of precise wording puts them in a bad position, not me. And give me a break with this "major edits unilaterally" nonsense which is just an exercise in sophistic rhetoric to try and make a normal edit sound nefarious.

There is nothing vague in the original wording. Even if there were, it would be more appropriate for you to slightly adjust the wording instead of replacing it with paragraphs of propaganda. That you don't understand something is not a valid justification for major unilateral POV edits. jni 12:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did not claim or intend to claim that the edit was nefarious, just one-sided. It qualified as "major" in that it significantly changed what the paragraphs conveyed; it qualified as "unilateral" as it does not have the support of consensus, and I don't think I need to justify the use of the term "edit".

Speaking of rhetoric, accusing me of "sophistry" is to say that my argument is fallacious, and to say that my conditional was "rhetoric" is to say that I appeal to sentiment rather than logic. I believe that neither applies. Now, if you will lay aside the defensive counterattacks, I would welcome your argument as to how you can justify editing a subject of which you claim a lack of understanding, which was the meat of my original assertion, and which you have not yet addressed. — Saxifrage | ☎ 02:36, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

The idea that the market determines pricing in a capitalist economy is POV. Adam Smith, David Ricardo and all of the early economists certainly did NOT believe this to be true. Phrases like "market economy" and "free market" are obviously POV phrases (if a capitalist system has a "free" market, it implies other markets are somehow not free). This article must mention that there are people out there who think this phrase is just empty slick marketing. Ruy Lopez 03:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Free market economy" is a standard term in economics. Your POV interpretation of it is your own conclusion, and thus not encyclopedic. jni 12:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Free" is also a term used in many ways. Open Source software is "free." So is shareware software "free." By a different definition, shareware software is not "free." To say that one thing is free and another is not implies nothing about anything else when the meaning is left ambiguous. However, the meaning of "free" in conjunction with "market" is unambiguous in its established usage, as Jni points out. This specific complaint is thus baseless. — Saxifrage | ☎ 02:36, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Also, in your revert you say you are reverting me "again". Looking through the history I do not see any reverts by you on this page. The only people who have reverted me are Trey Stone, and VeryVerily (who is currently banned from Wikipedia). I see your account is less than three weeks old - are you using multiple accounts? Ruy Lopez 03:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't this guy up for arbitration the other day?--Jerryseinfeld 05:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Which guy? VeryVerily was up for arbitration. I helped bring a case against him. He is currently banned from Wikipedia. Thank you for your positive contribution to the discussion of this topic. Ruy Lopez 07:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See for yourself: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Gzornenplatz,_Kevin_Baas,_Shorne,_VeryVerily. Ryu Lopez was banned for one week in the final ruling. jni 12:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This arbitration case has nothing to do with the merits of the article. It fit a bit awkwardly, but some of the changes were quite helpful. They did not call for a blanket reversion. 172 12:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As for my account being young, I came in via the Slashdot article on Sollog, and have since created an account and started editing.

Now, this is where I own up to some mistakes. I did revert hastily, and in doing so I compounded my mistake by conflating this (at that time non-existent) revert duel with the one at Economy of the United States—thus my "again". That said, on reconsideration I regret my blanket reversion and agree with 172's assesment. The text you added points to things worthy of inclusion, but it requires some work to pass NPOV policy. Shall we restart from there, then?

On that point, what part of the edit are you defending: the exact wording; or that the ideas presented need to be addressed? I'm much more likely to support the latter. — Saxifrage | ☎ 02:36, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez' latest edit

In nearly complete disregard for the counterarguments brought up here, Ruy Lopez has gone and reverted to an old version by him that has all the faults already discussed above. I've reverted it. Ruy? If you want to actually address the points that resulted in the same reversion last time, which you have ignored since early January, feel free. However, simply waiting a long time doesn't change the validity of the points made and suddenly make your version acceptable. Come engage in the unresolved arguments from the last time you made this same edit. You may have something to contribute, but changing the meaning of the article whole-cloth isn't going to fly, especially while it contains what the consensus holds are misconceptions on your part. Lets see what you have to offer and get some consensus going this time.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 03:48, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

To Ruy Lopez: I think the into is pretty decent at outlining what sets apart market economies from other types of economies. It's about decentralization of decision making. Why do you insist on clouding the issue by talking about "capitalism" and so obviously inserting your bias against it? If you want to talk about it, talk about in the text of the article instead of confusing the intro. All market economies aren't necessarily "capitalism" you know? A "mixed economy" can also be considered a market economy, as long as the skew is away from centralized planning. Capitalism is certainly a market economy, but what is it that makes a market economy a market economy? That's what the definition in the intro should focus on. Think about it. RJII 01:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez has reverted twice without discussion on this here Talk page. Though he may have something useful to contribute, this behaviour is in violation of Remedy 4 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 01:56, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

continued

This article continues to be one long POV screed. There is no semblance of balance whatsoever. Ruy Lopez 20:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Your failure to understand a technical term continues, I see. "Market" economy doesn't mean that it contains markets, it means that the distribution of goods in the entire system is managed mostly by an imaginary system-wide "marketplace". This is in opposition to a planned economy or a mixed economy, not as opposed to "socialist economies" (which is not even a technical term). Canada is socialist, but has a market economy.

You were originally banned from reverting articles to your own version without discussion on the Talk page, first. What you've done is edited the Talk page without actually engaging in discussion first, which is obvious gaming of the ArbCom ruling. As such, I have reverted your reversion. Please create consensus on this page for your issues before you apply the consensus to the article.

(And, addressing your assertion that the article is a "POV screed", perhaps you're right that the technical terms in economics have inherent bias toward capitalist POVs. However, they remain technical terms and, as an encyclopedia that contains established information, the only recourse you have if that is what you believe is to become an economist and to change the technical terms of the entire field. It would be no different if you thought "central processing unit" was a term with inherent anti-distributed-computing POV in computer science: you can't reject it even if you think so, because it is a technical signifier that is widely accepted in the field.)  — Saxifrage | ☎ 21:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I got involved in an edit conflict and posted my version anyway, and have deleted some valid starts in the intro. But what this article needs first and foremost is expansion. It does not include any of the basics. Some of the POV-problems might clear up while the omissions in this article are taken care of.--Fenice 21:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that—that's much better than my simple reversion. It makes explicit the market economy's connection with capitalism without making the intro paragraph about capitalism. Ruy, does this look closer to something acceptable to you?  — Saxifrage | ☎ 21:27, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Your post contains a lot of words but says very little. You talk about the "technical term", the need "to become an economist" to edit this article, "a technical signifier that is widely accepted in the field" and so forth. As far as I know, political economy is a social science, not a political science. Thus all of this is more like theology than science. A physicist trying to build a nuclear reactor in the USSR believes the same things a physicist in the US believes, but an economist in the Cuba is completely at odds with what an economist in the US says. Which implies being an economist means anything - a biologist probably understands biology more than the layman, but political economy is a social science - saying an economist knows something a layman doesn't is like saying a theologian knows more about God. Just because Milton Friedman or Hayek or the Heritage Foundation invents a phrase to push their views doesn't mean it becomes unchallengable. There are counter-institutions to this as well. Just because the soothsayers in America's king's court all whisper the same line doesn't mean it is true.

Out of everything you said, you only really said one thing - "Market" economy doesn't mean that it contains markets, it means that the distribution of goods in the entire system is managed mostly by an imaginary system-wide "marketplace". The distribution of goods in the USSR was done through an imaginary system-wide "marketplace" as well. Production is what was different. The market, or the exchange, as well as the consumption or use of commodities was very much the same. Someone going to the store and buying a bag of potatoes and then boiling and cooking one is a similar action in the US or USSR. The markets are the same. It's the production decisions which differ. By your definition, the USSR is a market economy. As I said before, this is just a propaganda phrase, invented by some think tank like the Heritage Foundation. Ruy Lopez 01:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

saying an economist knows something a layman doesn't is like saying a theologian knows more about God

If you truly believe that, then you'll recognise that you are the only layman here that holds the opinion that you do, and all the other laymen oppose your Point Of View. Your assertion that the term is fundamentally a propaganda phrase is in opposition to consensus. As this appears to be the foundation of your argument for changing the article, you haven't a leg to stand on. You can't fight people to remove POV, you have to work with them. The tactics you have chosen to use so far—unilateral edits against consensus—are doomed to failure due to the nature of this project. Perhaps you'll be happier at wikinfo.

Look, to make it very plain, I'll level with you on one point—in many ways I agree with socialist and Marxist views on production and inherent value. Check my user page for my declared biases, and you'll note I'm mildly anti-capitalist (along with mildy anti-communist, but that's not for economic reasons). The fundamental problem with your edits is your lack of respect for consensus and bald POV. You violate the spirit of the Wikipedia project so harshly that some who might be your allies on content must oppose your edits. Work with us.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 06:06, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

"Prices, for example, are determined by trades that occur as a result of price agreement between buyers and sellers, rather than being ordained by government." I dispute that this is the case. A price is inherent the second that raw material becomes a commodity. at least in my view. In my mind, it's like saying an apple is red - which in a market economy is determined by trades that occur as a result of price agreement between buyers and sellers, rather than being ordained by government. Well, that sentence makes no sense, an apple is red no matter what buyers or sellers or a government for that matter thinks. Ruy Lopez 01:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It's like this. If you sell your house you can ASK 2 Million for it. If no one is willing to purchase it for what you're asking there is no sale unless you lower your asking price. You keep adjusting your price downward and others you want your house compete with each other thereby boosting the BID upward. Eventually, the ASK and the BID meet at 1 Million, a market transaction is made and price is determined. You don't determine the final price on your own; the buyers don't determine the final price on their own. The final price is determined by the actual trade that occurs as a result of a market operation. There is no final price until there is a transaction. The TRANSACTION determines the price. RJII 01:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

A house is not a very good example to use - capitalism is based on the production of commodities, and ownership of land, rents, corvees go back to feudalism - even the term landlord goes back to feudalism. Most people produce commodities (or products) be they goods or services. Instead of using a hosue an example, I'll use a car. So let's think about GM manufacturing a car. The first question is: why is GM going to manufacture a car if they don't know that someone is already willing to buy it? Why not just produce cars to order? But we'll skip that question. So GM produces a car. The moment the car rolls off the assembly line, in my view, the price is known. The price is how much work went into it - say $10,000 worth of work. In my view, the owners of GM manage to get $10,000 worth of work on it, although they only pay their workers say $9,500 for the work. And that's that, the price is known coming off the assembly line, in my view. But my view was more or less shared by Adam Smith, David Ricardo and so forth, people who saw value as being created by labor, something people like Milton Friedman dispute. Ruy Lopez 02:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? A market economy doesn't mean an economy where no one profits. It means an economy that operates through market mechanisms. RJII 02:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, this article is just laden with POV. It does not have a problem with one or two sentences being POV, the whole article is POV, every sentence. I don't mind that POV being represented, but alternative POV's must be represented as well - and not at the very end of the article. Ruy Lopez 01:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. There's not much to be POV about. What a market is is pretty basic. RJII 01:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I should mention, I don't mind if certain views are put in the article, but I think other views should be incorporated. And not with the views I am interested in at the bottom and the rest at the top. Ruy Lopez 02:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

entrepreneurship

I don't think the entrepreneurship stuff belongs in the intro. RJII 03:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)