Talk:Market fundamentalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 May 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

I just added the modification mentioning anarcho-capitalists. I am wondering one, if you think that's appropriate to the article. Personally I do because it links to a philosophy that agrees with market fundamentalism and explains the thinking behind it. Two, I am wondering if you think it would be appropriate to explain and provide links to philosophies that are similar to market fundamentalism, and to which the slur is often applied, and reasons for that. Three, I would like to add an article titled "qualitative inflation" (as distinguised from "quantitative inflation", referring to decreasing quality of products as opposed to increasing price), and then link it to this article, as an example of market forces not working as expected. However, the idea of "quantitative inflation" is my own, and while many people agree that there is such an effect, I wonder if it would be appropriate to post an article about it when it is not commonly referred to by that name, or any name for that matter.

Wikipedia's policy on "original research" suggests that it would probably not be a good idea to start a Wikipedia article for a term that is your private expression for a phenomenon. Sorry. —FOo 14:08, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is no "original research" at all; see below. 200.153.161.91 15:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No original research

This is not original research. The term is already widely used in technical articles, by award wining journalists, such as P. Sainath's Poverty, Market Fundamentalism and the Media, 2001 and many others, such as Ruth Rosen's Note to Nancy Pelosi: Challenge Market Fundamentalism. (Ruth Rosen is a journalist and historian. She is a senior fellow at the Longview Institute in Berkeley and a professor emerita of history at the University of California, Davis. She is currently a visiting professor of public policy and history at U.C. Berkeley.) 200.153.161.91 14:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Jane Kelsey wrote a book on the subject [1] which was influential in the New Zealand policy debate as far back as 1995. The term has been popularized by Soros' book, but already existed before in some economic circles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.153.162.150 (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Specially after the publication of Soro's book (1998) the expression market fundamentalism has been widely adopted, and is now frequently used, in most academic circles; see references in the main article 200.153.161.119 18:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is a ridiculous article

Religious fundamentalism may be justified. But, fundamentalism of political theory is plain ridiculous. No matter how many people use this term, it does not deserve an article. There are no articles for conservative fundamentalism, communist fundamentalism ,socialist fundamentalism ad infinitum. Madhava 1947 (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Seeing though how it's here I tried to at least NPOV it and make it more coherent. I didn't finish the task because it just got to annoying half way through. radek 18:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, I tried reforming it but there is very little after the Soros/Stiglitz citations that is remotely encyclopediac. I propose stubbing the article back to the lede, Soros and Stiglitz and then rewriting the remainder based on the reliable sources in the Relevant publications section. Thougths?Skomorokh ^incite 18:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Equilibrium

The article states that a belief in the natural equilibrium of markets is essential to being a market fundamentalist. But one of the groups to which that term is usually applied, the Austrian School, holds explicitly that markets are always in disequilibrium. Should that be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.56.12.231 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don' think so. The article clearly says: "Fundamentalists" state that markets tend towards a natural equilibrium, not that markets are in equilibirium.

What is questioned on the fundamentalit's views is exactly that they tend towards a natural equilibrium. New research and new theorems - specially by Greenwald-Stiglitz - having proved that in most cases this "tendence" towards an equilibrium is not true, the opposite is.

The effect of Stiglitz's influence is to make economics even more presumptively interventionist than Samuelson preferred. Samuelson treated market failure as the exception to the general rule of efficient markets. But the Greenwald-Stiglitz theorem posits market failure as the norm, establishing "that government could potentially almost always improve upon the market's resource allocation." And the Sappington-Stiglitz theorem "establishes that an ideal government could do better running an enterprise itself than it could through privatization" SAPPINGTON, David E. M. e STIGLITZ, Joseph E. Privatization, Information and Incentives. Columbia University; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) June 1988; NBER Working Paper No. W2196 (Stiglitz 1994, 179). BOETTKE, Peter J. What Went Wrong with Economics?, Critical Review Vol. 11, No. 1, P. 35. p. 58

201.0.202.118 (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)