This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The article states that Economic Liberalism is founded on a Free Market ideal. Although this to my knowledge is true, it makes little sense to draw conclusions as to which U.S. party is more in accord with the ideal. This is so for two reasons. First, it does not seem appropriate to mention facts on the English version of Wikipedia that only pertains to US politics. If US parties are mentioned, I belive that (e.g.) Australian-, Brittish-, Canadian- parties ought to be mentioned as well. Secondly, where U.S. parties stand on economic issues may simply depend on their conception of the Free Market ideal. For example, most free market theorists (I dare to say) believe that a free market economy operates at an optimal when there is competition. As a consequence, most theorists would say that monopoly (even oligapoly) arrests the economy. Theorists differ however on the extent they will go to protect the free market. Some claim that all monopoly is bad for the economy whereas others say that only "coercive monopoly" is bad. My point is, an advocate of tougher regulations on corporations may do so precisely in order to optimize the free market. Likewise, free market is based on the idea (I dare to say) that all actors (e.g. corporation) partaking in the market must internalize their (e.g. production-) costs, and not roll them over on others (e.g. consumers). Some theorists accept the use of externalities by corporations as a means to lower production costs, whereas other theorists believe that we ought to eliminate externalities. According to this later view, in order to stay true to the Free Market ideal, externalities must be eliminated, and tougher regulations and taxes on corporations are hence appropriate. PJ 00:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
This page should be moved to economic liberalism, in line with classical liberalism, social liberalism etc. Any objections? William Quill 20:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think these articles should be merged, because based on my understanding of the term, economic liberalism refers to a political and economic ideology that promotes capitalism. Capitalism instead refers to an economic system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.220.30 (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
"In the mid-19th century, Abraham Lincoln followed the Whig tradition of economic liberalism, which included increased state control such as the provision and regulation of railroads."
This comment may be historically true, but the inference is completely wrong. Lincoln was a Mercantilist, which couldn't be more the opposite from a classical liberal, or economic liberalism. This article references both concepts... understand that a modern American liberal has nothing to do with classical liberalism, that term was hijacked. Increasing government control and regulation is an example of economic nationalism, which is in opposition to the subject of the article. Jadon (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
There are currently 2 proposed mergers:
To avoid duplicating arguments, discussion and voting on both mergers should be held here. I have moved material from Talk:Classical liberalism to here to prevent two parallel debates leading to confusion or duplication. Joestynes 14:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The aricles Liberal theory of economics and Neoliberalism deal with the same school of thought, mainly from economic and political perspectives respectively. "Neoliberalism" is a POV label applied almost entirely by its critics and hence inappropriate as the name of the article. Joestynes 19:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Joe, the issues you have with the neoliberalism article are compleatly justified, editors rather than look up the evidence backing the claims (which can be hard to do regarding articles on theory) instead they seem to have used words such as "most believe"... It comes across as very unproffesional. But I am still confused about your plan for merge, as neoliberalism is a distinct academic term, as is the liberal theory. Here is an excerpt I found, It shows a difference between the two articles you wish to merge:--sansvoix 08:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't merge - Neo-liberalism pertains to foreign policy, i.e. international free trade. Liberal Theory of Economics is more general. Hogeye 23:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't merge. But almost all above arguments are completely justified, including Joe's: something should be done with "neoliberalism" which is a straw man. In that article, it should be emphasized that the concept is a straw man. That article should be completely rewritten. IMF etc. are social democratic Keynesian organizations founded for global governance, as opposed to global freedom. True, having hired many economists, their views on the economy have become somewhat rational but inconsistent and sometimes conservative, not liberal, often political, not scientific. (This should not be mixed with American liberalism which is only partially liberal and even less "neoliberal".) 80.186.243.217 10:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't merge Neoliberalism in this article. but 'merge this article in Classical liberalism. Electionworld 22:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge Liberal theory of economics into Classical liberalism The basis for this merge is the fact that economic liberalism is simply the economic half of Classical Liberalism. Until around the 20th century the political and economic aspects of Classical Liberalism were not considered distinct, so they probabaly should be on the same page, especially considering Classical Liberalism is not an exceptionaly long article. --sansvoix 23:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't merge. Both Neoliberalism and Classical Liberalism are political concepts, not economic, so combining them with an economic theory makes no sense. True, many Neoliberal policies base themselves on certain economic theories, but the two developments are separate. Neoliberalism and Classical Liberalism could perhaps be combined, since some of those called Neoliberal call themselves Classical Liberal, but, in reality, their ideas have moved some distance from the original 19th century Liberal thinkers covered in the entry. BritishLib (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Capitalism is basically good without monopoly, oligopoly positions, price deals, etc.
But this Wikipedia article and the general article about "Capitalism" lacks a very important part:
That about how actually 'free press' and 'democracy' are owned, bought, manipulated, infiltrated, etc. by big money, interests, 'high' families, etc. Instead of real democracy (vote for vote, no manipulated leaders) backed up by real free press, to control Capitalism.
USSR was socialist by definition. Sweden is not socialist. Sweden has a capital-based economy with economic rights and competition. In fact, Sweden largest economy sector is multi-national corporations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.91 (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
An editor has inserted the following: " Confusingly, in popular and some academic English-language usage in North America and the British Isles since at least the early twentieth century "economic liberalism" has also referred to progressive economic ideas and policies opposed to laissez-faire capitalism." (Reference: L. T. Hobhouse, Liberalism (1911), pp. 88-109) He did in fact mention "the Liberal view of the State in the sphere of economics"[1] and calls this "economic Liberalism". But that is a primary source and it is original research to use it as a basis for the statement claimed. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The editor has now added an additional source, Views on capitalism. Unfortunately the term "economic liberalism" does not appear anywhere in that book.[2] The Four Deuces (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Conservatism is liberalism for all. Equal Laws, Free markets, etc. Liberalism is liberalism of the "disadvantaged". Social Justice, Welfare Statism, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.91 (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Am looking to clarify and find sources to add to "economic decisions are made by individuals or households and not by collective institutions or organizations". Surely, as is, the page is saying a public company, whose decisions are ultimately made collectively by its shareholders, would not be an institution economic liberalism would support?
This statement would be greatly improved if it said, "economic decisions are made by private parties and not by government". RHB100 (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Why does fiscal liberalism redirect here? That makes no sense.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
All the items discussed in the article are referred to in America and England alike as "conservative" standpoints, Liberalism stresses collectivism and more government interference, Conservatism stresses individual liberty and economic freedom, so this name makes little sense as per WP:COMMONNAME this article is about Conservatism. --42.112.158.223 (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I also find the term of this article confusing. Liberalism (and likely economic liberalism) don't mean now what they once meant. Liberalism including the linked article (classical liberalism) once meant liberty; modern liberalism seems often to want to regulate liberties more, whereas conservatism these days (and I assume always) means more advocating of liberties with less restrictions. I'm really curious more than anything since the term (liberalism) used to mean one thing and doesn't anymore; in regards to the article in question, "economic liberalism"--should it be called "classical economic liberalism"? Economics in a liberal sense I would think would mean more regulated. Don't pound on me please, this is a sincere question. Thanks! 63.248.183.82 (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
I must admit I didn't read the OP as thoroughly as I thought; I like that idea too of "economic conservatism"--either my question of "classical economic liberalism or the OP's proposal are appealing to me; which is why I have asked here what people think. 63.248.183.82 (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Intervention in the economy or state planning is liberal. Otherwise it's arguing private business effectively cancels poverty or crime (thus, need would be "liberal"). The article should be deleted, since it's worthless and just defining an outdated word. 2601:588:8100:E3C0:842B:DEE7:F2C4:C3E1 (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)