Talk:Economic system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] NPOV?

Still looks like we need to replace The division of economic systems section with something that references outside sources. Let's point to at least one outside scholar as the source of whatever categories we present as being "the most basic and general economic systems."

It seems that someone removed the "right wing" and "left wing" category strategy, so many of the comments and criticisms on this page no longer apply. -Chira 09:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This division in right-wing, left-wing and centre is not right. It is expressing a distinctive point of view, while other point of views are possible as well. The American system is regarded as ultra right-wing according to half of Europe and a majority of the people in the 'underdeveloped' countries for instance. I think that these distinctions should be terminated. (See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)--Daanschr 12:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of systems

I think that at some point it should be moved to a separate article (List of economic systems is a redirect ATM). I expanded the current list, but I don't think that the division into left/right/other is the only possible (or the best), so if you want to add new lists of current systems, then please move it to the List... article.

At the moment we have a rather good definition of what economic system is (so we understand that welfare economics or feminist economics are NOT economic systems, right?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:28, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Done. Moved the long list to another article. Please don't expand the list in this article, do it in the List of economic systems, ok? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:10, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since the merge was annulled, I am moving content of Talk:List of economic systems here:

This article will try to:

  • list all possible economic systems by name
  • present all possible lists (cathegorisations) of economic systems

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:09, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rv/latest changes

Removed the others lists. If it is not right or left-wing, it is not to be mentioned in this list - please follow this simple rule. In case there is much confusion, we may have a list of some popular 'other' systems and explanations that they have both right and left wing variants (like coordinatorism and anarchy)

Rv/latest changes in the List by left-wing and right-wing:

  • Anarchism is not left wing, it has both right and left wing variants, therefore they should be listed in their sections
Anarchism, in its original form, was entirely left-wing. "Anarcho-capitalism" did not develop until the 1950's, and it is a branch of classical liberalism, not anarchism (despite the name).
  • brought back Market economy to the right wing system list, it is one of the most important items there.
Market economy is already mentioned in the first classification of systems. And, in any case, a market economy is not necessarily right-wing (think about market socialism, for example).
  • removed Corporatism since it points to the same link as corporate capitalism ATM and the latter is better for the list

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:05, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with that one. I didn't notice the redirect when I first made my changes.

[edit] Problematic systems for the left and right wing list

In the right-left wing list ATM, but can be important later.

  • Feudalism - can it be argued as a right or left wing system at all?
Yes. The original "right-wing" were the supporters of feudalism in the revolutionary French Parliament. Compared to them, our present-day right-wing (the supporters of laissez-faire capitalism) were considered left. Therefore, feudalists would be Far Right by today's standards.
  • Parecon is a planned economy... but left or right wing?
Well... most supporters of Parecon say it is left-wing... and, for the record, it's not a planned economy (at least not in the usual sense).
  • Is Planned economy a left-wing system only? Coordinatorism is a type of a planned economy, and coordinatorism can exist in both righ and left wing variants, so it seems logical that planned economy is not only left-wing.

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:05, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are correct. Planned economy goes beyond left or right. And so does Market economy. They are very broad concepts.
And regarding "eco-capitalism", that's not an economic system in itself. It's not even a branch of capitalism. It is only a term describing the use of capitalist processes to achieve environmental goals (with more or less success).

[edit] To do

Section needing urgent expansion:

a) traditional systems - as in pre-capitalism ones - they are not well defined (as an economic system), and I am not sure if idelogies like mercantilism should be defined as systems? b) post-capitalism systems - various utopian and futurologist systems should be mentioned here c) red links: turbo-capitalism, corporate capitalism, and many others - whether they are synonims or little-known terms, we need to have at least a stub on them --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:28, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Choice of classification system

The division of all economies into market, mixed, planned and traditional seems rather flimsy. Where does this system of classification come from? Who has used this classification system is their work? Are there alternative classifications that might better help the reader understand?

I found an example NPOV article from Palomar College. I like how they conservatively limit their discussion of economic systems to concrete examples.

Perhaps we should find a more conservative, and less theoretical, classification system to outline economics. Categories such as "traditional" don't even begin to describe the diversity of economics in worldwide cultures throughout history, nor does it provide a useful framework to categorise economies.

I'd like to see "left" and "right" removed as well-- these words mean different things in different times and places. --Chira 08:39, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What is this crop about capitalism being "right wing"? RJII 20:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Definition? Redirected?

Where is the definition. I see that economy is redirected to this page....you must separate from expert and the layman view.. che 05:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparing economic systems

I do not believe that there is an article on Wikipedia which focuses on the task of comparing economic systems and the technical difficulties that arise from doing so. If anyone can find one, please point it out. Otherwise, we should seriously consider adding it as a topic in this article, or perhaps creating a separate related article.

I don't think we have an article on that topic. By all means, do register and help us create one.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sincerity of socialist approach

Communists say that their aim is equitable distribution, but in the best-known, large-scale experiments such as USSR, that "stated aim" is so much at odds with the actual results as to lead critics to doubt the planners' sincerity. The well-known system of class privilege (see Nomenklatura) is clearly designed to stratify society into haves and have nots. --Uncle Ed 11:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Stalin dealt with the nomenklatura during the Great Purge, by trying to exterminate all of them. Stalin really hated clientalism. After the Second World War, the Nomenklatura had won and couldn't be overcome anymore by the real communists. So, you are not right.--Daanschr 12:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Œconomic System

Shouldn't this be spelt with a ligature?Cameron Nedland 22:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Economy Model see: Haydar Baş???

I don't see anything new in his work. If no one objects, I will remove this part from the economic systems, and the link to H. Bas, since I can't allow non-English content on English pages. xeryus 16:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No objections? Gonna edit then that part. xeryus 23:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography: disputed deletion of reference

Related references in the article Bibliography were recently deleted as indicated here with the Edit summary: "Tricky link to spam - removed." The only non-deleted reference was:

  • Robert L. Heilbroner and Peter J. Boettke (2007). "Economic Systems". The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, v. 27.

The deletion was of 3 different sources for a virtually identical 1-paragraph entry. The 3 sources were:

  1. "economic system," The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, v. 4 (in the so-called Micropaedia of shorter EB articles)
  2. "economic system," Encyclopaedia Britannica online Concise Encyclopedia link
  3. "economic system," Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia (2000). p. 207.

(2) makes (1) & (3) redundant. Conceivably the 3 references where one would be sufficient might give the false impression of trying to smuggle something untoward in with innocent references. Perhaps that is what the earlier Edit was getting at. I do agree with the earlier Edit on the need to guard against spam as provided in the Wiki guideline against spamming. But the EB link of (2) does not violate WP:SPAM guidelines. (If anyone disagrees, a precise citation of the appropriate section in WP:SPAM would be appreiated.) Accordingly I have restored (2) to References. It is a brief but excellent scholarly reference that that could be helpful to interested readers. --Thomasmeeks 03:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If I click on the link to Britannica online I first get a commercial and a tricky pop up screen, with I can hardly remove. This is what I mean by a tricky link.... if you can hardly remove the pop up's. I expect external links not toplay those tricks with me. Maybe you don't care. Well I do. - Mdd 11:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. I do care, and regularly avoid some linka for the reasonn you indicated. If I had encountered the same thing, I probably would have had a different reaction. My encounter was problem-free, no pop ups, not even no pop-up blocks indicated, and no back-up difficulties. Whether the difference is a function of geography or operating systems is not obvious. --Thomasmeeks 13:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I just checked it again... and I got this link [1], offering me a zeven days free tour in the Encyclopedia (with out pop-up this time). Only if I return to the article and click on the article some more then, the ten lines of the Britannica appear. Now if the link gives such a trouble I prefer to leave it.
If you think the Britannica article has a very valuable content, an other way is to put that content in this article, with a reference, without a hyperlink. I wonder prefer this, very much. - Mdd 14:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Regrettable. I still come up clean for article wiki link http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9363397 . I notice, though material in lower right side indicates blocking, presumably of pop-ups, which I take it is my faithful OS updates at work. I can list "economic system," Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia (2000). p. 207. I don't have immediate access to @007 EB, or I'd list it instead. It is hard to know how prevalent your problem is, but presumably those lacking pop-up blockers stay away from a lot of sites anyhow. The rest may appreciate at least having opportunity to use convenient link. I'll try to do as you said. It would certainly be reasonable to remove that caused problem for some had nothing to offer beyond what was in the content of the current lead. It is a good goal to work toward. --Thomasmeeks 22:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm now on an other computer which runs VISTA and that link of your is a disaster!!!!!! It gave me about twenty popup's on my screen... in Holland. I don't know what the problem is, but you can do this. This is absolutely scary SPAM. - Mdd 23:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New set of further reading and external links

I added a new set of further reading and external links, and I wrote the britannica link into the article. I hope your are satisfied. Your are lucky that that commercial Britannica link doesn't mess with your computer. But now we can leave this behind, and focuss on improving this article further. Good luck. - Mdd 13:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Serious addition. You made it look easy, but it sure didn't look that way to me. How much better to be able to remove the references template, b/c it no longer applies than to submerge it (presumably b/c it is an unplesasnt reminder of a deficiency). A happy ending. The main EB article is a gem too, but I have my hands full elsewhere for now. Still, it is a convenient ref for working into the article (with appropriate citations) at some point. At this stage of the article, some idiosyncracy can be charming and useful, but there may come a point where informative descriptive content becomes more appropriate. BW. P.S. I wonldn't touch current Edit, but sect. 1, 2nd para, 2nd line: arra[n]gement. --Thomasmeeks 18:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right. It looks easy but it isn't. I am working in the WikiProject Systems to improve all kinds of systems related articles, and these basic articles are sometimes the hardest. It's often difficult to find good qoutes, but I have had some more exercise lately. I am not quite sure, what you are wanting to tell me about the "reference template"? - Mdd 18:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is national economy model? Prof Dr Haydar Baş? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.249.51.193 (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There is an article called Model (economics) -- Mdd (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using sources

In the overview of this article I used the following text from the New Encyclopædia Britannica (2007) on economic systems.

Set of principles and techniques by which a society decides and organizes the ownership and allocation of economic resources.
At one extreme, usually called a free-enterprise system, all resources are privately owned. This system, following Adam Smith, is based on the belief that the common good is maximized when all members of society are allowed to pursue their rational self-interest. At the other extreme, usually called a pure-communist system, all resources are publicly owned. This system, following Karl Marx and Vladimir Ilich Lenin, is based on the belief that public ownership of the means of production and government control of every aspect of the economy are necessary to minimize inequalities of wealth and achieve other agreed-upon social objectives.

I just made it a little shorter and came up with:

Economic system is a set of principles and techniques by which a society decides and organizes the ownership and allocation of economic resources. At one extreme, following Adam Smith, usually called a free-enterprise system, where all resources are privately owned. At the other extreme, following Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin usually called a pure-communist system, where all resources are publicly owned.[1]

Now the quote is rewritten by Thomasmeeks to:

Economic system is a set of methods and rules by which a society decides and organizes the ownership and allocation of economic resources. At one extreme, production is carried in a private-enterprise system such that all resources are privately owned. It was described by Adam Smith as frequently promoting a social interest, although a only a private interest was intended. At the other extreme, following Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin is what is commonly called a pure-communist system, such that all resources are publicly owned with an intent of minimizing inequalities of wealth among other social objectives.[2]

The thing I want to discuss here, is the way of using sources. In the Netherlands it is kind of a rule that if you use a source, you use it in the most original form. So if the Brittanica states that:

  • Economic system is a set of principles and techniques

You are not going to rewritte this quote to:

  • Economic system is a set of methods and rules

You don't start putting such a quote in you own words. There is the whole further article to comment and to give other interpretations. Now maybe in the US or UK this is not common? I would like to know.- Mdd 20:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as indicated in my Edit summary, the above quotation in the WP article quoted the first line from EB & didn't use quotation marks. I believe that quotation marks would have been in order to indicate a direct quotation. Paraphrase is another way (the one I used), as suggested by Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using copyrighted work from others, last para. 2nd sent., which summarizes a suggestion in works like Kate L. Turabian's A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (not on my bookshelf, so I can't give a page #). I had access to the EB text cited. It would have been remiss of me not to made the easy change to remedy what seemed to me a (happily small) problem (referred to in my first sentence). On the practice referred to above, paraphrase does avoid the problem of possble copyright infringement. But fair-use quotation is also certainly acceptable, where I believe that indication of a direct quotation is the less questionable (& more informative) practice. --Thomasmeeks 02:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A third opinion

The longer I look, the more I doubt either of us did a good job!? Maybe we could ask the WikiProject Economics or WikiProject Sociology for a third opinion? - Mdd 23:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Important note

I think that the very first sentence should be changed slightly. Instead of saying that consumer goods are the only goods produced, it is better to make things more thorough by stating that "wealth" is produced. An economic system is a system devoted to the production, distribution and sale of WEALTH.

The reason why this is important is because consumer goods are not the only goods produced in an eocnomic system. CAPITAL goods are produced no less than consumer goods. To ignore capital goods is to ignor the very source that advances an economic system.

I don't want to hear any BS about double counting, because it is NOT double counting. For it is possible for an economy to produce ONLY consumer goods (with people's bare hands), and still have a large GDP to the extent that the system has a currency by which to measure it. It is also possible for this country to have the SAME GDP if it produced more capital goods, and hence more consumer goods, if and only if the money supply remained the same. For whatever is produced, be it consumer goods or capital goods, the totality of goods produced and sold will reflect the quantity of money that exists in that economy.

Hence, by only focusing on consumer goods, we are ignoring what makes an economy "good" and what makes it "bad". Would you call a primitive society that produced everything by people's bare hands, yet sold these goods for money and thus have a positive GDP, would you call this primitive society an "economic system"? A "good" economy is one that produces lots of capital goods. If it produces lots of capital goods, then the amount of consumer goods will be all the higher as well. More capital goods is the foundation for rising prosperity and economic progress in an economic system.

As such, if we are going to define an economic system, we MUST include EVERYTHING that system produces. Economic systems produce capital goods fully as much as it produces consumer goods.

The easiesy way of seeing this truth is by imagining a corner of a city that is heavily industrialized, i.e. factories, plants, mines, etc. This part of the town can be labelled as a "micro" economic system, if you will. It also produces more capital goods than consumer goods. The key here is that would you call this part of the town NOT part of the economic system? It clearly is a part, but it simply produces more capital goods than consumer goods. The similarity of this part of the town with the rest of the country is that BOTH parts of the country produce WEALTH.

This is why WEALTH must be used instead of consumer goods. The fact that consumer goods are the "final" product is irrelevent, because an economic system DEPENDS on capital goods being produced. If no capital goods were produced, economic progress would be almost non-existent, and we would not call this system an "economic" system, for it is not PRODUCING using the division of labor. An economic system is a division of labour society, and capital goods are part of this division of labour, for some companies only manufacture capital goods.

In summary, by ignoring capital goods in this definition, we are ignoring a fundamental aspect of any economy, in fact it is probably the most important aspect! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Private Freedom (talk • contribs) 20:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Laissez-faire

for hands-off there should be a reference to Laissez-faire and probably a link to SubaruSVX (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)