Talk:Mixed economy

New stuff at bottom of page, PLEASE.

Freedoms as well as restrictions

Yes

This article is really skewed toward the socialism/central-planning side in listing the characteristics of mixed economies. The other side of the mix needs to be listed as well. RJII 16:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Implemented. (Could use a few added words in freedoms section, tho) 4.250.33.39 19:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Definition

From the respected NPOV source Bartleby "A mixed economy is "An economy that combines elements of capitalism and socialism, mixing some individual ownership and regulation. Some capitalist countries, France, for example, employ what is often called state capitalism. In this form of a mixed economy, the state becomes a major shareholder in private enterprises. An alternative, employed in Great Britain (more in the past than now), is for the state to own some industries while leaving others in private hands."

Please don't change the existing "capitalism and socialism" definition. It is standard. Feel free to add ANOTHER definition backed up by a STANDARD NPOV SOURCE. 4.250.33.39 19:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure that's standard? Here are various definitions of mixed economy: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:mixed+economy

(user name missing)

That provides the following definitions of "mixed economy" with their source (link):

1. An economic system that combines private and state enterprises

2. An economy that allocates resources through a mixture of public (governmental) and private decision making

3. An economy in which ownership of some key elements in the financial and industrial sectors resides in the state and other key elements are in private hands

4. A mixed economy is one with some public influence over the workings of free markets. There may also be some public ownership mixed in with private property.

5. An economy that allocates resources through a mixture of public (governmental) and private decision making

6. A market economy in which the government plays a very large role

7. One with both private and public sectors.

8. A mixed economy is one with some public influence over the workings of free markets. There may also be some public ownership mixed in with private property. A market-based economic system under which government plays an important role, including the regulation of markets, where most economic decision are made.

9. An economic system that combines elements of a market economy (capitalism) with elements of a command economy (socialism).

10. An economy that combines elements of the traditional, market, and command economic models.

11. The who, what, and how questions are answered through a mixture of traditional, command, and market economies

12. An economy that uses both market signals and government directives to allocate goods and resources.

Do you see one or more you feel belong in the article? If so, put it there with the reference (source, link). They all strike me as valid, but not necessarily useful additions. But then that's just me. 4.250.33.39 20:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to put my name on that. I'm not dead set against the definition as it stands, but I see some problem with the use of the word "socialism" because not all socialist ideologies involve a government. One of the definitions above refers to a "command economy" That might be better. "Statism" would be the best in my opinion. RJII 20:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a clue to what you mean when you say "not all socialist ideologies involve a government", but adding "command economy" is an excellent suggestion and I have done so. Maybe I don't WANT to have a clue. Please don't tell me you want to sell the never-never land utopia of anarchism on the "mixed economy" article. Really. DON'T TELL ME. 4.250.168.62 03:36, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Communism, a type of socialism, can theoretically exist without a state. Of course there are practical problems. I'm not trying to sell any such thing. I'd just like the article to be clear that what we're talking about is the difference between a free market situation (capitalism) and a situation where there is a central authority overriding what would otherwise be free market decisions. RJII 14:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Castles in the air have fewer "practical problems" than a society of humans without ANYBODY using force. Luckily, that's not an issue for THIS article! 4.250.132.149 03:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

clarity vs. redundancy

"allows personal autonomy over spending and investments, though not absolute, due to the existence of transfer payments and other cash benefits such as" is true but redundant.

Keep in mind the sentence is

"The elements of a mixed economy typically include a variety of freedoms (examples)

with tax-funded or subsidized services and infrastructure (examples)

and providing autonomy over personal finances as well as transfer payments and other cash benefits such as:(examples)

but restricted by various laws, regulations (examples)

and taxes and fees written or enforced with manipulation of the economy in mind."

So any change should not be redundant given the WHOLE context. That said, clarity without reading EVERYTHING is also important. Perhaps a paragraph or a seperate section or a sentence added to the beginning would let you emphasis something I see as already duly noted in the article.4.250.33.39 19:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. I'm starting to think this article needs some writing instead of merely this listing stuff. RJII 19:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Give it a try. How about ADDING a section after "relationship", copy the run on sentence containing listed examples and EXPERIMENT transformating it into sentences in paragraphs? Maybe it becomes something in ADDITION to the lists. Maybe it becomes something TO REPLACE the lists. We'll never know until it exists. Process is the key. Cheers and good luck.4.250.33.39 19:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Relationship to government

Wow, you COMPLETELY changed the "relationship" sentence. That is not what I said or meant. That probably indicates I was way way too succint. Expanding that section rather than changing my sentence might be the way to go here.4.250.33.39 19:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"While any form of government can choose to begin a process to implement a mixed economy, many believe that it can not be long sustained without causing that government to also implement more and more of the elements of governance typically found in "governments commonly considered "democratic"" <-- can you explain what is meant here? I don't understand. RJII 19:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll certainly TRY to say what I meant. In the process, we will undoubtedly discover a far better content for the relationship section. I had in mind, above all CHINA. Secondarily, I had in mind the progress toward democracy in the western world over the last 300 years, perhaps due in no small measure to the forces of capitalism (not the socialism parts .. I can smell the improvements already !!) Perhaps we are comunicating now? Care to try another stab at improving this article (that is, if we seem to agree and don't need to talk more to avoid a revert war)? 4.250.33.39 19:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I actually assumed you had China in mind. RJII 19:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out what you're saying here. Let my isolate what I don't understand: "implement more and more of the elements of governance typically found in "governments commonly considered "democratic".." RJII 14:05, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First of all, really great addition to the intro part. Bravo. Second "implement more and more of the elements of governance typically found in governments commonly considered democratic". I can't guess what you aren't getting here. I KNOW you're knowledgeable, so it is not the dictionary definitions of the words you are not getting. And we both know we're talking about China here. So the "elements" would be the democratic elements found in western states like the US but missing in China. Spelling out which those are is outside the scope of this article (as is the EXACT definition of any ism mixed in a mixed economy ... let THAT battle be elsewhere). I don't know what else to say on this regard. 4.250.132.149 03:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"democratic" as in being able to vote? or democratic as in government that represents the will of the people? or are you thinking along the lines of expanding individual rights? RJII 06:34, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just expanded this section in accord with my above comments. As indicated in the article and above, defining democracy or identifying which elements apply are beyond the scope of an article on economy, not governance. The point of this section is that the freedoms neccesary for the economic miracle of capitalism blend seamlessly into the freedoms that put together are typically called "democracy". As illustrated PERHAPS by the last 300 years or so of the Western democracies and PERHAPS by the future of China.4.250.198.221 15:48, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It looks like I'm having a problem with the use of the word "democracy." Countries that have democratic elections can be very unfree. Democracy has little to do with freedom per se. I guess that's why I couldn't understand the statement...I don't readily associate democracy with individual freedom beyond anything than the freedom to vote or have the voice of the majority represented in government. I think that at least, it's imprecise language. Maybe "liberalized" is a better word? RJII 15:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. You inspired me to go to democracy to see what I could do to be more exact. Turns out liberal democracy is a more exact identification of my intended meaning. Whether you like this better or it merely puts into sharper focus our differences, I can not say. So, what do you think? 4.250.198.254 17:21, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, much more descriptive term. I like it. RJII 19:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I find the change you just made equally satisfactory to what I wrote. Both are more vague than I would would be if I didn't have to be NPOV (e.g. if I was documenting MY beliefs rather than the defendable objective evidence). I write 1+2, you write 2+1. Same difference to me. 4.250.198.254 22:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Photo

It would be nice if we could get a photo that depicts a mixed economy. For example, a photo that showed both state owned industry and private such as one of the U.S. Post office with a Burger King next door. RJII 20:27, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Such a photo ADDED to the existing photo would be PERFECT. A dam, an electric plant, a highway, hell... most any building in Washington,DC... and a farm, a K-mart, how about the bull outside the New York stock Exchange??? 4.250.132.149 02:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy

A few MINOR quibbles, if I may:

1. The use of the word "title" seems a tad off to describe a choice of nomenclature rather than a heirarchal designation (eg Captain) or a unique identifier of a work of art (eg book title). I'm sure a better word will occur to you sooner or later. You use the verb "label". Maybe the noun "label"?
2. Use of "ideal" contrasts perfectly with "mixed", but introduction of "model" contrasts not at all since a "mixed economy" is every bit a model as much as an ideal model is a model. I suggest not using "model", or a least let the modeling aspect/concept be a seperate paragraph.
3. " No two economies contain equal mixes" Says who? Why not? What say you to a devil's advocate that says many economies are more fairly labeled as equal in both than labeled as "skewed"? Indeed, if there exists an economy whose experts some claim a skew in one direction and other experts claim that self-same economy is skewed in the other dirrection, is this not evidence that balanced between the two rather than skewed is a more fair label? Isn't denying the existance of middle ground NOT NPOV by definition? 4.250.198.221 17:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Having a little fun with the middle does not exist

There is no such thing as a piece of wood one half inch in width. It is always either closer to zero inches in width or one inch in width. Measure close enough and you'll see for yourself. It's always the tinyest bit more than half an inch or less. Hence, no piece of wood is best described as half an inch in width.

Also. All eggs ae best described as spherical or cubical. Minimization of shell material theory says eggs should be spherical. But Prevention of rolling down a slight incline theory says eggs should be cubical. So all eggs are skewed either towards minimization of shell or towards incline-rolling-prevetion. Actually balancing conflicting requirements in the design of a real world item or system is not an ideal type and disallowed from the models allowed to be discussed at this neutral point of view site.

OK, I'm done having fun. You get the point. 4.250.198.221 17:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well done

Well done, Sir. With a minor change here and there you have taken care of all the points I made. 4.250.198.221 21:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keeping the article on topic

I removed two things from the definition and list of things in the article, which referred to political/civil rights and liberties (freedom of expression for example). These, while of course are a part of a liberal democracy, which are generally some form of a mixed economy, have nothing to do with the definition of a mixed economy. There could quite conceivably be (perhaps have been, though I don't know for sure) an undemocratic, mixed economy.-Curufinwe, March 15th, 2005

I know what you mean. It's important to keep the article on topic. However the ability of people to peacefully get the government to make and alter laws and the ability of the people to communicate are ESSENTIAL to the capitalist AND socilist elements in a mixed economy. Unfortunatly, this is not spelled out in any satisfactory way; and although I've been meaning to do just that, this IS volubteer effort, and I never got around to it. I guess its time to adequately spell out their relevance or leave them deleted. 4.250.168.238 12:30, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

governance implications

I'm having a problem with determining what exactly the sentences about "governance implications" are saying. "ranging from those with no governance to those with very substanstial governance implications (whose details are beyond the scope of this article). Those economic freedoms that have governance implications are themselves important defining elements of a liberal democracy." What does this mean? RJII 20:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll deal with this the best I can. First, I just praised your additions but deleted two words. I hope and believe you won't have a problem with this. Second "Freedom to buy, sell, and profit limited by significant regulations, taxes, and fees." No kidding that they are "significant". That's the POINT of them in the first place, they exist to cause a DIFFERERCE.

Well, there can still be minimal taxes and regulations and it can still properly be capitalism. It's when these interventions by government are really significant that calling the economy "capitalism" becomes questionable. Maybe there's a more descriptive word than significant. RJII

It isn't a mixed economy if the regulations are minimal. Further, I don't believe it would be capitalism either, but luckily for that disagreement this isn't an article on capitalism. 4.250.132.86 17:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK. Now to the actual question. I don't know what you don't get. Let me assume I'm not communicating successfully (Duhhh !!!).

Ranging .. a range ... a spectrum ... from 1 percent to 100 percent ... from a to b ... from minimum to maximum ...

Governance ... behavior by the entity entrusted with, assigned with, or actually enforcing sovereignty ...

It means that China can't have the benefits of capitalism (communism with Chinese characteristics) without also creating the conditions that will allow it's people to challenge AND ALTER the form of government in China. No one knowns if this will result in a reversal of capitalism or a civil war or democracy in China. I'm hoping for the best. I have a lot of faith in the wisdom of the Chinese, but "predict what or when not both". I'm hopeful. Worse case is a nuclear war with Taiwan and/or India. South Korea, Japan and the US are also at risk if things REALLY get out of hand. I can't believe things will get THAT crazy. The point is the stakes are high, this is real, and wikipedia can play a part in helping sanity win by being clear and truthful. (a minor part tis true, but why stiffle motivation?) 4.250.132.149 03:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the word "implications" was confusing me. I took that word out, and hopefully it still makes sense to you like that. I changed some wording in the paragraph, and hopefully it is consistent with your points. RJII 12:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is PERFECTLY consistant with what I was trying to say, except the "in regard to" part is a partial list (and probably is best as a partial list) so to indicate that I added (for example). It a bit of an awkward sentence at this point, maybe you could help that. Maybe the sentence needs to be a 3 sentence paragraph? 4.250.132.86 17:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

deleted contents

"While the future of China is anyone's guess, many think China can not long follow the economic path the western democracies took without also, perhaps in spite of itself, implementing - over time, incrementally - the elements of liberal democracy. "When China's leaders 'look around them in Asia, they will see that freedom works,' (Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice) said (March 19, 2005) in Tokyo. 'They will see that freedom of religion and respect for human rights are part of the foundation of decent and successful societies' ". [1]" was deleted from the Relation to form of government section. WAS 4.250 00:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

DefinitionS (plural)

I actually think there should be a separate series for Captalism vs. Socialism vs. Free Market vs. Command Economy vs. Planned Economy vs. Decentralized Economies vs. Mixed Economies, as their definitions are somewhat intertwined.

I got out my econ notes from a while back, I'm basically checking my definitions before going going from there:

There are two different ways to catergorize an economy into two.

Little Regulation Heavy Regulation

and

Low Government Expenditure High Government Expenditure

Heavy regulation AND high government expenditure are command economies, heavily regulated economies are planned (price wages enforced by the Nazis for example (although I didn't mean the example to be so extreme)), little regulation is decentralized, low government expenditure is capitalist, high government expenditure is socialist, and free market is both low government expenditure and little regulation.

Note that these are very subjective, and are not as simple as saying "Above 50% government expenditure as a portion of the GDP is socialist," because France has above 50% government expenditure as a portion of GDP and some people refer to it as Capitalist and some as Socialist. Similarly the argument goes for little and heavy regulation, some may say that the U.S. is decentralized while others are extreme enough to say it's a planned economy, the difference in opinion comes from the subjectivity of the two terms (I, for example, say that the U.S. is a planned economy because I'm pissed off and opposed to the regulations on power companies; but that's my opinion). China considers itself Socialist, while many other consider it Capitalist. Some consider the Soviet Union Capitalist because of it's Black Market activities. And so on.

In other words:

Little Regulation AND low government expenditure=Free Market Economy

Little Regulation=Decentralized Heavy Regulation=Planned

and

Low Government Expenditure=Capitalist High Government Expenditure=Socialist

High government Expenditure AND heavy Regulation=Command Economy

Oh! And a mixed economy is any economy that is thought of as a mix between socialist and Capitalist, technically this is all countries, but it is also a subjective factor (Subjective in that the percentiles aren't really placed, it's not like below 10% government expenditure is Capitlist, from 10-90 is mixed, and Socialist is >90). Fephisto 18:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

And how do you categorize this society/economy? WAS 4.250 16:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a link to the Code of Hammurabi..... Fephisto 18:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I know. Being crypticly terse is one of my many faults. My point was that I believe your categoization scheme is fundamentally flawed in not taking into account the enormous varieties of governances and economies that have occured over huumanities existance. See Political spectrum and Economic spectrum. WAS 4.250 19:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The actual scheme is not mine, it is from my Economics professor, although that really doesn't mean much, I was hoping to give his expertise to the Planned Economy article that said it needed it. Either way, my point is to define Free Market, Socialism, Capitalism, Decentralization, Planned Economies, and Command Economies better so as to give editers an easier time. It isn't to create a catergorizational system. Besides, as per Economic spectrum, socialism-capitalism follow the definitions of each of the two there, also, I'm focusing on economical aspect, so I'm not sure as to what your going at with linking me over to political spectrum. As for where the Sumerians and their civilizations fit, I'm not interested in that, as I already said, I'm just trying to get better than dictionary.com definitions for the above terms. Although when it comes to your criticism, you won't get much from me, I think all such spectrums are vague and severly flawed, especially the political Liberal/Conservative spectrum. Fephisto 19:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

all such spectrums are vague and severly flawed Amen, brother, you're preaching to the choir. A "problem" with wikipedia is "no original research" so no matter how good your idea for anything is, we only report on what reputable sources say. You probably already know this, but I thought I'd mention it. "Giving a better definition" is usually prelude to redefining according to a point of view. I think this article handles its definition well. The anarchy articles on the other hand are problematic. In any case, I want to be clear that I am sure you mean only the best. Cheers. WAS 4.250 23:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Hi, I don't particularly want to get involved here, but within the {{Socialism}} infobox I don't see any mention of a Mixed economy or anything like that. If you want to include the box could you make your reasons clear here. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 06:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious why that box would be in the article? A mixed economy is a mix of capitalism and socialism. If you only have the liberalism box, that just one side of the mix. For the other side, you would have to have the socialism box. RJII 06:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe you are making a simplification. Liberalism encompasses the mixed economy. If there were a capitalism infobox then yes, a socialism infobox would be necessary. Liberalism is necessarily a mix of parts of capitalism and parts of socialism. Think about this for a while, look through the contents of the two infoboxes, peruse the articles in question. I really don't think that it belongs here. I won't edit war over this but I really think you should consider it carefully. Perhaps we should get some outside opinion? :) - FrancisTyers 06:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Liberalism is laissez-faire. Merriam-Webster: "a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard" A mixed economy is a mix of liberalism (capitalism) and socialism. RJII 06:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you're making a mistake of equating liberalism with capitalism.

Oxford English: The holding of liberal opinions in politics or theology; the political tenets characteristic of a Liberal.

You should probably take this up with the Liberalism infobox people as their infobox has capitalism as a part of Liberalism. - FrancisTyers 06:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth I think the article is better without the {{Socialism}} infobox. WAS 4.250 07:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's baised without the socialism box. Mixed economy is defined as a mix of capitalism (economic liberalism) and socialism. RJII 21:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It isn't biased without the infobox. The article has the Liberalism infobox. I suggest you read the Liberalism articles. - FrancisTyers 23:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Two boxes is, frankly, ugly. Especially at lower resolutions, when it makes the text unreadable. If we can't agree on a single box, there's always the no box solution. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 02:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Mixed economy is not in the {{Socialism}} infobox, even if you want to put it there. - FrancisTyers 02:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. RJII 02:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war with you. - FrancisTyers 02:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Good move. Because you'll lose. A mixed economy is defined as a mix of capitalism and socialism. RJII 02:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Which is precisely why it doesn't belong in the socialism infobox, any more than it would belong in the {{Libertarianism}} infobox. A mixed economy is defined as a mix of the economic systems supported by socialists (socialism) and libertarians (capitalism). So why does it belong in the liberalism infobox? Because there are liberals (e.g. social liberals) who support a mixed economy. You might want to argue that social liberals are not "true" liberals (and I would tend to agree with you), but that would constitute POV. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 18:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It does belong in the socialism info box. There is a section called "influences" in that box. Certainly, socialism has influenced state ownership or control of the means of production. For example, healthcare is run by the goverment in many mixed economies. RJII 18:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a similar "influences" section in the libertarianism infobox, and I have added mixed economy to it - based on the same argument, that economic libertarianism (capitalism) has been a major influence on mixed economies. Personally, I believe mixed economy should not be present in either of the two templates. And I look forward to the many arguments that libertarian users will give to explain why mixed economy should be removed from their infobox, because those same arguments can be used to remove it from the socialism box. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 18:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. You beat me to it. RJII 18:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Post van caption

The current caption repeats itself, instead of just changing it (as we have been doing all day) I thought I would bring it to the talk page for discussion.

A mail truck. Restrictions are sometimes placed on private mail systems by governments. For example, in the U.S., the USPS enjoys a government monopoly on normal delivery of 1st and 3rd class letters. Competition in that arena is foribidden by law as described in the Private Express Statutes. Competition in is prohibited by law.

Could this be altered to something like:

A USPS mail truck. Restrictions are sometimes placed on private mail systems by governments. In the U.S., the USPS enjoys a government monopoly on normal delivery of 1st and 3rd class letters. Competition is against the law as described in the Private Express Statutes.

Or perhaps:

A USPS mail truck. Restrictions are sometimes placed on private mail systems by governments. In the U.S., the USPS enjoys a government monopoly on normal delivery of 1st and 3rd class letters. Competition is limited, as described by the Private Express Statutes.

7 This way it doesn't repeat itself and makes clear what the mail truck stands for. - FrancisTyers 21:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Step one is accuracy. After reading Private Express Statutes, I concluded it wasn't true. Once we can agree on the facts, we can worry over the exact phrase to use. WAS 4.250 22:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Okey doke. - FrancisTyers 22:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"The Postal Service, the largest civilian government agency, has a monopoly on the delivery of first- and third-class mail and the use of mailboxes." [2]

"A few years ago, a Rochester, New York, teenager offered his neighbors same-day bicycle delivery at 10 each for Christmas cards in his subdivision. Soon Postal Inspectors -- who seem to be the only fastmoving part of the "service" -- arrived at his house and threatened to arrest and jail him unless he stopped. Somehow, even from just a common-sense viewpoint, this doesn't look like something that should be illegal. But indeed he was violating two parts of the postal laws. He was delivering first class mail -- which is a federal monopoly -- and he was leaving his mail in mailboxes." [3]

10 what each? - FrancisTyers 01:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably 10 dollars. RJII 01:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Third class mail no longer exists [4]. And non-USPS first class mail service IS allowed for MORE reasons than just "urgent". Read Private Express Statutes. WAS 4.250 14:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say that? RJII 14:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I provided a link!!!!! You know , after the first sentence??? WAS 4.250 14:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

American System

• Mixed economy is an economic system that allows for the simultaneous operation of publicly and privately owned enterprises.
• The American System called for a high tariff, support for internal improvements such as road-building and railroads, and a national banking system.

The two concepts do not seem to overlap. According to waht source is the American System (economics) of Henry Clay a historical example of a mixed economy? Which industries were state-owned under Lincoln? -Will Beback 02:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"An economic system which is a combination of Market and Command economic systems where market forces control most consumer goods, but government directs industry in need areas." -Mixed Economy has many definition but it's primary factor is that it is neither a laizze faire economy nor socialist economy, but rather in-between these. Look at the Elements...private ownership of the means of production being one, together with protectionism being another, and government subsidy to industry and infrastructure. The American System together with original Mercantilism fit this bill before Socialism was even considered a dominant theory. Dirigisme and Social Market, were later developments that all share the key indicator of Mixed Economy...Government intervention to stimulate, protect, expand, enhance, or do whatever they think is proper to benefit the economy and make it grow. That is what the American System was all about overall, that is what Dirigisme is all about, that is what Social Market is all about, that is what MITI under the Japanese System is all about; that is what investing in infrastructure (internal improvements), national banking to promote production (public credit), and tariffs (protection and promotion of manufacturing within for growth) are all about. --Northmeister 02:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see there being any connection and I dont see you offering any outside references to support a conneciton. Please stop adding links to American System (economics) to so many unrelated articles. -Will Beback 04:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Your accusation is false above. Therefore your conclusions based on the accusations are also false. I never add anything unless I feel it is relevant. You've shown over and over again you don't even understand rudimentary American history. I've seen your interests through your contributions which are never contributions but constant disruption and trolling. They do not indicate any sort of knowledge or off hand interest in American historic or economic subjects until you happen upon my edits. The fact you continue to troll around and stalk my edits, questioning everything I contribute beyond the standard of decency and respect, without AGF indicates you have a personal vendetta intent on harassing this editor. I've asked you to stop in the past. Your official pronouncement of opposition is not good enough because of your conduct and violation of civility and decency numerous times. When a consensus indicates what I add is wrong, then I will listen until then, look it's a robin...spring's comin'. Cheers...old chapper. --Northmeister 05:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus popping up to support you, and you are ignoring reasonable requests for sources. -Will Beback 05:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Your requests are not reasonable which is the inherent problem here. --Northmeister 06:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

+

as long as there are public schools, and military(...) it's a mixed system!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.233.39 (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Mention India

India should be mentioned in this article as it is a historic example of a mixed economy since its independence,whereas it is debatable wether USA is a mixed economy or a capitalist one.

No it isn't. All economies are mixed economies. India is an interesting case though, they have Five Year Plans. - FrancisTyers 08:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with that. Hong Kong is a glaring example of a capitalist economy --an extremely prosperous one at that. It has the most economically laissez-faire government in the world. No one would say it's a mixed economy. RJII 18:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The USA was a mixed economy under the American System from 1861-1913; and then especially from 1933-modern times and on and off from 1789-1850's. America today is dominated by neo-conservative whole sale selling of our national assets to the highest bidder - such as the Dubai Port deal, the Chinese port deal in Los Angeles, privatization etc. My country is lead by a bunch of idiots right now who are selling their children's future away. I am unfamiliar with the Indian system at the moment. --Northmeister 01:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, because in laissez faire economies the government interferes with the markets supply of housing. Having said that, I will slightly adjust my original statement, I am prepared to accept that there are possibly one or two "micro states" which are wholly "laissez faire", thinking along the lines of Monaco. But I highly doubt it. I'm afraid you are wrong by the way, there are a number of people who say Hong Kong is a mixed economy. Notice I am not talking about a quantitative judgement here, Hong Kong is definately a freer economy than most — however it is also definately mixed. - FrancisTyers 08:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I take that back with regard to Monaco, their government holds a monopoly on tobacco and the postal system. I'll have to find a better example. - FrancisTyers 08:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If all economies are mixed economies,why give examples of mixed economies in the article?And since such examples are given,shouldn't India be included?It is true that India has 5 year plans but it also has a flourishing private sector alongside its public sector...

I agree that India has a flourishing private sector too. Why don't you suggest what you would like to add? - FrancisTyers 11:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think India is more appopriately labeled a planned economy, than a mixed. RJII 16:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably the most laissez-faire capitalist economy in the world right now is Somalia. If they can just get the violence problem under control while staying laissez-faire they should progress rapidly. They're economy is doing great so far, considering the violence level and the abject poverty they started from. For example: [5] RJII 06:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? --Northmeister 08:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Dead serious. The government was stifling enterpreneurship and trade. Everything is private now. (look at that link above about the telecommunications industry). The airport used to have one airline, now that it's private there are 15 airlines with 60 aircraft. Enterpreneurs supply electricity (here's an interesting picture: [6]). There's a problem with the thugs who set up roadblocks to get money from people claiming they're going to spend it on road maintainence but rarely do. Business is totally unregulated --no licensing fees, charters, taxes. It's really amazing what's happening considering they're starting out from being the poorest (or 2nd poorest) country in the world. If they can get the security issue under control, which may require a government (though they do have some private police in Mogadishu, paid for by businessmen who pool their money, who patrol for petty crime), I think it could be something like another Hong Kong in another 50-75 years. Unfortunately, if they do get a government it will probably be dictatorship that sets up a planned economy and people will slog along with an abysmal standard of living for another 100 years. Here's an interesting article: Why Poor Countries are Poor RJII 12:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe..but I doubt it. It has never happened in history. The most successful nations in history have followed: Mercantilism (Britain), Colbertism (France), American/National System (protective tariffs, internal improvements by government, national banking stimulating production, sound currency)(USA/Germany), Cameralism (Germany), onto Dirigisme(France post WWII), Social Market(Germany post WWII), and Japanese MITI system (Japan post WWII). Somalia is a disgrace and a shame that so many suffer at the hand of thugs...but that happens without justice and a government protecting the interest of innocent people against gangs. --Northmeister 01:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Socialism template addition

RJ, I don't think mixed economy is socialism at all. It is not really liberalism in a sense either. It is more Social Market or Christian Democratic and should contain that template instead. What do you think? --Northmeister 21:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the classic definition of a mixed economy is one with a mix of capitalism and socialism. It seems strange to have a liberalism banner (i assume this is meant in the sense of economic liberalism) without a banner representing the other side of the mix. RJII 21:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, yeah your right there. Not sure what to do then. I though Christian Democracy fits better in some light - but that is off too. Right now the page looks wrong. Is there anyway to fix this so it is not so imposing then? --Northmeister 22:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If it's a mixture of both, then it's neither. It's a mixed economy, and shouldn't use either template. Where in actuality some mixed economies are classified as capitalist and others as socialist, using the the template here suggests that all mixed economies are both socialist and capitalist, which is a minority POV. Sarge Baldy 06:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

classic definition of a mixed economy is one with a mix of capitalism and socialism

No it isn't. That's your preferred definition. The "classic" definition is "An economic system that allows for the simultaneous operation of publicly and privately owned enterprises." — and no private owership/public ownership are not synonyms for capitalism/socialism. - FrancisTyers 09:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Come on. Of course private ownership of the means of production is socialism. If you want a definition that explicity says a mix of capitalism and "socialism" they're very easy to find. RJII 21:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Even the source RJ used previously doesn't say it's an economy that combines socialism and capitalism. It says it's an economy that "combines elements of capitalism and socialism". Sarge Baldy 09:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Elements of capitalism and socialsm --exactly. So, therefore if the liberalism template is there, then the socialism template should be there as well. RJII 21:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course private ownership of the means of production is socialism

Note: I meant to say say "public" there. RJII 15:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused by this... But no matter. I don't want a "definition" that says explicitly "a mix of capitalism and socialism" because that isn't the definition that most people use. As much as you may hate it, "liberalism" is not synonymous with "laissez-faire free market capitalism". It just isn't. "Mixed economy" appears in the Liberalism infobox, if this was the Capitalism infobox then yes, you would probably be right, but it isn't. - FrancisTyers 22:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

RJII apparently had added it to that box himself. Using the socialism infobox is off base, and I don't see why we need to use the liberalism one either. Sarge Baldy 23:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree here with Sarge Baldy and FrancisTyers. I originally went along with RJIII, but after reconsideration I feel the same way as the two before editors. Socialism does not belong. I have mixed (no pun intended) feelings on Liberalism being included. On one hand modern 'liberalism' seems to adhere to mixed economy instead of pure capitalism (at least of the laissez-faire privatization kind) and socialism. Whereas liberalism as it is defined outside of my country (USA) seems to be opposed to mixed economy and favors laissez-faire. In reality, mixed economy belongs to a template that include Dirigisme, American System (or as some call it like Gill in "Trade Wars" American School), Social Market, Japanese MITI system, with roots in Mercantilism, Cameralism, Philadelphia School of economics, Historicism (of Germany) etc. It really is just a definition of a form of Capitalism that was practiced in the United States (and still is but to a lesser degree since privatization, out-sourcing, contracting; took an upswing especially in the 1980-present period), Germany, Japan, France, and originally in Britain (it is how Britain was the original Workshop of the world, Japan has become today). So, philosophically worldwide, it is neither liberalism or socialism; but something else...it should belong to a Progressive series (which believed in using Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends in the USA). Progressivism has always embraced Mixed Economy (in all the previous versions) - That is why Christian Democracy series fits so nicely. Maybe we should put together a template considering the above on Progessivism? --Northmeister 02:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Added Progressivism template

I added the progressivism template as more accurate to Mixed economy. Liberalism as mentioned above is more inclined to Laissez-faire or free-markets historically. Although modern liberalism (as it is called) reflects progressive economics. --Northmeister 05:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Much better. RJII 15:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Source request

According to whom is the American System an example of a mixed economy? I posted a {fact} tag, but someone didn't understand my request and removed it. -Will Beback 01:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I thought you were requesting a source for the claim that some believe that free markets have superior economic results. RJII 01:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you on that. I'm not sure if it would qualify as mixed economy either. I would call that mercantilism. RJII 01:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the tag, it makes more sense to do it that way. -Will Beback 01:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The American System is a mixed economy by the definitions of the two terms. But this is not enough, for it is commonplace for terms to aquire ideosyncratic useage. This clearly shows that it is commonplace for people to refer to it as a mixed system, but still; it may be that experts would beg to differ with common useage (as often happens, the general public gets things wrong all the time). However, economic experts differ on very key elements of describing the economies of nations depending on, among other things, whether they lean left or right. All the experts I could find consider the American System to be a transition from an agriculture based economy to the current mixed economy. For example this article (Corporatism and Socialism in America by Anthony Gregory, Posted February 23, 2005) says our mixed economy's key socialist element is "corporatism" which was promoted by Clay as the American System, meaning it was a key part of the transformation into today's mixed economy. I think we should be content to recognize there are degrees of a thing being something, and the american sytem was important in its contribution to today's mixed economy status. whether it was or was not a "mixed economy" is a natter of point of view. My guess is experts can be found to label it any number of things. I'm sure the original contributor of the paragraph would like to add something to this discussion as well. WAS 4.250 02:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The article "Corporatism and Socialism in America" talk about the American System in a very roundabout way. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to list "corporatism" as the example. Also, I asked the editor who inswerted it, Northmeister, but he just gave me arguments, not sources. -Will Beback 03:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If he can't supply a source, what are all those "reference" books listed about? Should they be deleted?

• Barr, Nicholas (“Economic theory and the welfare state: a survey and interpretation.” Journal of Economic Literature, 30(2): 741-803. 1992, a review essay looking at the economics literature
• Berkowitz, Edward D. (1991) America’s Welfare State: From Roosevelt to Reagan. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Buchanan, James M. (1986) Liberty, Market and State: Political Economy in the 1980s New York University Press.
• Cronin, James E. (1991) The Politics of State Expansion: War, State and Society in Twentieth-Century Britain. New York: Routledge.
• Derthick, Martha and Paul J. Quirk (1985) The Politics of Deregulation. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
• Sanford Ikeda; Dynamics of the Mixed Economy: Toward a Theory of Interventionism London: Routledge 1997 a hostile (Austrian) approach

WAS 4.250 06:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Which one, on which page, contains the assertion in question? -Will Beback 06:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. That's what I want to know. Why are these items listed here in the first place? On what page do they support what proposition? Should they be deleted? WAS 4.250 06:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I still see no source directly calling the Amercian System an example or a contrast with Mixed Economies. We could list every economic system and theory, but I don't see the point. -Will Beback 04:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Others see a point in having American system in see also, so that's good enough. There is no reason to add a hundred other terms to see also just to make a point, but if you want to list a few as contrast or whatever, feel free. Just be helpful rather than nonhelpful, and all is fine. We are building an encyclopedia, and fighting over every minor detail is unproductive. A large, complicated and abstract thing like a nation-state economic system is unique in each real-life example and all attempts to categorize will necessarily be limited and create nonreal abstractions. Further: powerful economic interests are served by emphasizing certain aspects of one or another system, and debate will be funded those interests; and that debate will be represented in wikipedia not only in the form of articles on those debates, but also by individuals who have bought into the one-sided arguments of one or more sides. Let's let other articles be that battleground. Here let's have the reality that stuff gets mixed and economic systems from the US's to Cuba's have been called mixed. WAS 4.250 15:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning. Are you saying that editors here are being paid by "powerful economic interests" to make one-sided arguments? -Will Beback 21:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right, in that you are indeed not following me. I'm saying don't delete something from see also just because we have "no source directly calling the Amercian System an example or a contrast with Mixed Economies." Anything beyond that was stream of conciousness. :) WAS 4.250 23:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

A) what is our criteria for including items in that list? B) please explain your stream of consciousness. It appears to be an attack on editors of this article, and appears to say that some of us are paid shills for shadowy interests. -Will Beback 23:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hearing no response, I'm going to remove the entry again. No one has offered a proper justification for its inclusion, and it was added by an editor who was pushing a pro-American System POV, adding references to the topic to many barely related articles, such as this one. -Will Beback 17:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone object?

Would anyone object if I deleted "references" that have no indication of what they are referecing? WAS 4.250 03:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I removed the unsourced and possibly POV selection of "historical examples" (From some points of view, all economic systems are "mixed", which do we select?) and restored them to the "see also" section (where the controversy can then occur at that article, rather than here)? WAS 4.250 03:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. -Will Beback

See also

Why does the "see also" section have all that text in quotation marks? "See alsos" usually just list the article names. What is the significance of the quotation marks? -Will Beback 23:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I placed a note in the see also section explaining the quotes. Maybe the quote marks should be deleted with the note. I'm happy either way. Most see also section just contain the links, but some say enough about the link that the user don't have to go to the article just to see what the phrase or word means. I think in some cases it's useful. Perhaps you would like to shorten some of them. After all, the point is just to help the user decide whether or not to click on the link and more data than that is really not called for. But don't just delete useful data in order to look like other pages; that's just sad. WAS 4.250 01:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If the useful data is already included in other articles then it isn't really being deleted,we'er just minimizing duplication. -Will Beback 01:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Some duplication is useful. Deleting useful duplication is both reducing duplication and reducing usefulness. WAS 4.250 02:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the criteria for including items in '"See also"?

The criteria for including items in the "See also" section is consensus. WAS 4.250 18:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no consensus to include the American System. -Will Beback 01:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus to exclude the American System. WAS 4.250 11:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Therefore we fall back to the previous versions, which did not contain the material for which there's no consensus. I can provide numerous references in the form of discussions of one which don't mention the other. [7], [8], [9][10]. If you want the material to stay please give a supported, logical reason instead of playing word games. -Will Beback 01:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want the material to stay ... I answered the question you asked. It is not my material. I hesitated to answer at all as I consider asking for criteria for what goes into a "see also" section to be absurd. This whole conversation is absurd. Stop asking me questions. This conversation is pointless. Go do something useful. WAS 4.250 02:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The American System, Dirigisme, and Social Market are well referenced and any material needed I will provide here for restoration of historic examples. I refer to the references I added and will quote from them. Will Beback seems bent on reasoning America somehow had an economic policy that did not contain the elements of tariffs, internal improvements, national banking and provides no sources to indicate this was so. Please provide them for "Your Theory" about America's economic system and history - which American System is simply a description of. WAS 2.250 - I added the original material and was out on sabbatical for a month which Will Beback knew and decided to take the opportunity to remove my material. He does this elsewhere across wikipedia without any source material provided for constructive criticism or debate as to validity of material. I refer to my sources for further reading and can provide any quotes from therin to you on request. --Northmeister 18:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Please give us a quote from one of your sources that calls the American System an example of a mixed economy. One will do. -Will Beback 19:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Do interested parties edit according to their interests?

And no, there are no "powerful economic interests are served by emphasizing certain aspects of one or another system, and debate will be funded those interests; and that debate will be represented in wikipedia not only in the form of articles on those debates, but also by individuals who have bought into the one-sided arguments of one or more sides." If there are please provide a source for this information. -Will Beback 01:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a source supporting your position. WAS 4.250 11:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Please explain what you meant by your statement. -Will Beback 01:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This conversation makes no sense. Have the final word. Go for it. WAS 4.250 02:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"Cheese" -Will Beback 07:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the problem with adding India??

India IS a classic example of a mixed economy. What is the problem with mentioning that,before mentioning the RANGE of mixed economies from USA to Cuba? It is arguable whether the USA is mixed or capitalist, and whether Cuba is mixed or socialist. India, however is an example and should be mentioned. - unsigned

Any country can be added to the list of mixed economy nations provided a GOOD source is provided. Please use the footnote to clarify nature of "mixed" and date or time period in a manner similar to what I did for Cuba and USA. Thanks. WAS 4.250 02:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources for restoration of Historic examples

Here are the direct quotes requested, the page numbers, the books, the references used here for inclusion of the "American System" in the historic examples:

• Gill: "By 1880 the United States of America had overtaken and surpassed England as industrial leader of the world.: (from "Trade Wars Against America: A History of United States Trade and Monetary Policy" Chapter 6 titled "America becomes Number 1" pg. 39-49 - published 1990 by Praeger Publishers in the USA - ISBN: 0-275-93316-4)

• Lind: "Lincoln and his successors in the Republican party of 1865-1932, by presoding over the industrialization of the United State, foreclosed the option that the United States would remain a rural society with an agrarian economy, as so many Jeffersonians had hoped." and "...Hamiltonian side...the Federalists; the National Republicans; the Whigs, the Republicans; the Progressives." (from "Hamilton's Republic" Introduction pg. xiv-xv - published 1997 by Free Press, Simon & Schuster division in the USA - ISBN: 0-684-83160-0)

• Lind: "During the nineteenth century the dominant school of American political economy was the "American School" of developmental economic nationalism...The patron saint of the American School was Alexander Hamilton, whose Report on Manufactures (1791) had called for federal government activism in sponsoring infrastructure development and industrialization behind tariff walls that would keep out British manufactured goods...The American School, elaborated in the nineteenth century by economists like Henry Carey (who advised President Lincoln), inspired the "American System" of Henry Clay and the protectionist import-substitution policies of Lincoln and his successors in the Republican party well into the twentieth century." (from "Hamilton's Republic" Part III "The American School of National Economy" pg. 229-230 published 1997 by Free Press, Simon & Schuster division in the USA - ISBN: 0-684-83160-0)

• Richardson: "By 1865, the Republicans had developed a series of high tariffs and taxes thar reflected the economic theories of Carey and Wayland and were designed to strengthen and benefit all parts of the American economy, raising the standard of living for everyone. As a Republican concluded..."Congress must shape its legislation as to incidentally aid all branches of industry, render the people prosperous, and enable them to pay taxes...for ordinary expenses of Government." (from "The Greatest Nation of the Earth" Chapter 4 titled "Directing the Legislation of the Country to the Improvement of the Country: Tariff and Tax Legislation" pg. 136-137 published 1997 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College in the USA - ISBN: 0-674-36213-6)

• Boritt: "Lincoln thus had the pleasure of signing into law much of the program he had worked for through the better part of his political life. And this, as Leornard P. Curry, the historian of the legislation has aptly written, amounted to a "blueprint for modern America." and "The man Lincoln selected for the sensitive position of Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, was an ex-Democrat, but of the moderate cariety on economics, one whom Joseph Dorfman could even describe as 'a good Hamiltonian, and a western progressive of the Lincoln stamp in everything from a tariff to a national bank.'" (from "Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream" Chapter 14 titled "The Whig in the White House" pg. 196-197 published 1994 by Memphis State University Press in the USA - ISBN: 0-87880-043-9)

I will answer any questions of topic and debate on the above. As you can see they are well established by credible sources in University sponsored publications and very recent. --Northmeister 19:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I have one question - where in these sources are the terms "mixed economy" and "American System"? I'm having trouble finding them. Even if we take "American School" as a reference to American System, the reference in which it appears doesn't mention mixed economies. All we can do here is summarize verifiable sources, in this case one which says the AS is an example of a mixed economy. -Will Beback 21:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Start by reading the definition of Mixed Economy in the article and let me know what in that definition does not fit America's three part economic policy of: Promoting and Protecting Industry through: Tariffs and Subsidy - Internal Improvements through: railbuilding, road building, port building, public works projects, interstate highway system etc. - National Banking through: National Bank System enacted under Lincoln in 1862 and 1863 Acts replaced with Federal Reserve System reformed by F.D.R. in the New Deal? Well? Government intervening to promote and protect industry - is this not mixed according to definition? Government support of infrastructure improvement is not mixed, how so? Government sponsored banking through the original National Banking System or the now Federal Reserve System - this is not mixed? Isn't all this really capitalism as made in the America through the system Hamilton and Clay espoused and Lincoln enacted with reform by Wilson and Roosevelt (FDR) that continued until the 1970's-present dismantling of regulation and control by Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush? Yet, as the article itself states, despite deregulation America remains a mixed economy - why? What made it mixed? Are you arguing we never had any government manipulation of economics through tariffs or subsidy (Part one of the American System)? Are you arguing America never had any government support of infrastructure improvement (part two of the American System)? Are you arguing government did not sponsor the United States Bank (I and II) or the National Banking System or Federal Reserve System by law? What are you arguing and by what source do you insinuate that America is not a mixed economy. By isinuating this, you insinuate that America was the opposite - pure free market economy without government intervention of any kind and that: promoting and protecting industry never mattered, internal improvements never were conducted from 1861-1970's, and that national banking is a fallacy or fantasy...all three are the American System or School of economic thinking...the very foundation of the United States from 1861-1970 when de-regulation, privatization, laissez faire, and other free market practices were begun in earnest to dismantle the work of Hamilton, Clay, Lincoln, McKinley, Roosevelt, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson. What source do you use to indicate all this? What point are you making? America is not a mixed economy? Is that your point? Tell us. --Northmeister 22:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If the American System is an example of a mixed economy then there must be an economic historian who has said so. If there none of he people who have written books and articles on mixed economies have bothered to mention the AS then neither should we. To do otherwise would be original research. -Will Beback 23:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, the American System or School is mentioned by others above...second, it is a definition of America's economic system...Do you prefer another word...America's System or National System as Friedrich List called it in "Outlines of American political Economy", or what? In other words, by negating the American System or School, you negate 2/3rds of American History regarding economic policy from Lincoln to Nixon - and your argument I must assume because you will not provide a source for it or will not engage in discussion on this but only questionering..is that America did not engage in mixed economic practice during those years. Am I wrong? Correct me and let me know your sources. --Northmeister 00:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

So which source specifically calls the "american System" a "mixed economy"? Without such a source we're just relying on the deductions of editors. -Will Beback 00:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There are four sources above...Read them, as I already gave them - it is not my deduction but the authors above that America's economic System was mixed by the standards of modern economic terminology...otherwise it was Socialist or pure Free Market. Not so according to the authors above. My deductions are irrelevant - it is the verifiable sources listed that count. By inference you seem to be using a deduction of your own - that America was either socialist or pure Free Market. I see no indication from what I have read, that this was the case. So what source do you have that America was either Socialist or Free Market? --Northmeister 01:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a debating society

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a debating society. So to that end I recommend both sides argue through the addition of relavent sources (including relevant quotes). Let the reader decide. In some ways all economic systems are "mixed". This article is about real actual economic systems, not theories. "Mixed" is the reality. Let us present actual systems and present evidence as to how they are mixed or not mixed. "Mixed" is not a theoretical category to be defined and pie-skied. It is what is all around us. WAS 4.250 01:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Extremest points of view

An editor said on his edit summary: Mises is not an extremist by any stretch of imagination; he is well know economist. Karl Marx is also a well known economist. Both Mises and Marx are extremests (one left one right) (both wrong) Don't include one extreme without the other. Can we agree to leave both extremes out??? WAS 4.250 23:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. - FrancisTyers · 23:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Marx is a respectable source to quote on many topics, as is Ludwig von Mises. The Austrian School, which he mostly founded, is a notable branch of economics. He is widely respected in the Anarcho-capitalism field. If those are considered extremist views then we'll have to do a lot of cutting, as adherents are quoted throughout Wikipedia. Does anyone have a source calling them extreme, or is this just the opinion of editors? -Will Beback 00:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is minority and extreme. The reason adherents of these "schools" are quoted throughout Wikipedia is part of our systemic bias. - FrancisTyers · 00:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If User:Will Beback is of the opinion that we have to do a lot of cutting where Mises is concerned, I'm certainly not opposed; the vast over-representation of his views on Wikipedia is a serious issue as far as systematic bias is concerned. His profile, and the profile of his philosophy as a whole, is not properly high enough to justify quoting his views on any pages that do not directly cover the Austrian School, its adherents, and those it has directly influenced. --Aquillion 01:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I should add: Going by links and google, he is not quite so widely quoted as all that even on Wikipedia. But that list represents an excellent place to start cutting. --Aquillion 01:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Again I ask, according to whom is Mises extreme? -Will Beback 01:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[11] "is strongly polemical and simply written .... Ludwig v. Mises has long been trying to prove that extreme laissez-faire liberalism was the quintessence of economics." One example of many. Italics mine. - FrancisTyers · 01:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[12] "Knight (correctly) characterized Mises as taking an extreme Austrian position on interest by refusing to attribute any explanatory role to the objective" - FrancisTyers · 01:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should actually read something from the Austrian School. It might change you from (A) to better. Intangible 02:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I did and used to be, a few moons ago. - FrancisTyers · 02:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

A theorist may take an extreme approach to a particular topic (such as interest) in a particular piece. That does not make the author an extremist on the topic of mixed economies. Furthermore, even if Mises occasionally promotes extreme ideas, we are not treating him as a secondary source. Rather we are quoting him as a notable commentator. Lastly, I see that Business cycle, for example, gives space to both the Austrian and Marxist viewpoints. Do we propose to cut the entire secitons out, along with any other references to Marx and Marxism from pages on ecomonics? Are only approved, middles-of-the-road viewpoints allowed? How would we fulfill the WP:NPOV requirement to include all viewpoints if we exclude Mises and Marx? -Will Beback 02:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that some of the examples offered so far clearly amount to equivocation. I mean, if you are a leader in any field, that would make you "extreme" in some sense, but I don't see how that is worthy of concern in the sense that say, POV-pushing LaRouche folks might be. Mises is clearly a prominent economist who has been cited by many others, and is not commonly dismissed as a kook, although most economists probably don't agree with him on a majority of things. Mises was F.A. Hayek's mentor, and of course Hayek won the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. We as Wikipedians are to strive to maintain a neutral point of view, of course, and part of that is not placing undue weight on a "tiny minority." I would say that Mises is taken seriously as an economist, and economic programs all over the world cite his work. It is clearly the case that most economists in the world are not of the Austrian School, but the Austrian School is significant enough to be known to virtually anyone who studies economics in a university. As Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles states,

"When characterizing people, events, or actions, assertions should likewise be attributed to an acceptable source. A regular news story from a mainstream media organization is best, but don't rely on the journalist to report the bias of its sources accurately.... In the event that non-centrist points of view are presented, it is desirable to include assertions from multiple perspectives."

Mises, of course, takes a very firm position on mixed economies, and on many other things. To have an article that solely quotes him for an explanation of some turn of events would be a violation of WP:NPOV, and I say that as a someone who really likes Mises. We should present notable points of view on the topics we cover. Mises well-represents the Austrian School perspective, and other economists who notably represent their school of economics should be included as well. The need for additional viewpoints does not mean that those already present should be scrapped. To abandon either Mises' or Marx's opinions would be a foolhardy, unencyclopedic ommission of influential voices in the area being discussed. (Bias warning: I work at the Mises Institute.) Dick Clark 02:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Might I add that Springer has published an academic journal for almost 20 years now, the The Review of Austrian Economics, dedicated to the Austrian School. Intangible 03:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

To conclude this, Austrian School perspective is more than notable enough to be included here or in any other topic about economics. -- Vision Thing -- 20:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Polemics, not economics

"The market economy is the social system of the division of labor under private ownership of the means of production. Everybody acts on his own behalf; but everybody's actions aim at the satisfaction of other people's needs as well as at the satisfaction of his own. Everybody in acting serves his fellow citizens. Everybody, on the other hand, is served by his fellow citizens. Everybody is both a means and an end in himself, an ultimate end for himself and a means to other people in their endeavors to attain their own ends.

This system is steered by the market. The market directs the individual's activities into those channels in which he best serves the wants of his fellow men. There is in the operation of the market no compulsion and coercion. The state, the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, does not interfere with the market and with the citizens' activities directed by the market. It employs its power to beat people into submission solely for the prevention of actions destructive to the preservation and the smooth operation of the market economy. It protects the individual's life, health, and property against violent or fraudulent aggression on the part of domestic gangsters and external foes. Thus the state creates and preserves the environment in which the market economy can safely operate. The Marxian slogan "anarchic production" pertinently characterizes this social structure as an economic system which is not directed by a dictator, a production tsar who assigns to each a task and compels him to obey this command. Each man is free; nobody is subject to a despot. Of his own accord the individual integrates himself into the cooperative system. The market directs him and reveals to him in what way he can best promote his own welfare as well as that of other people. The market is supreme. The market alone puts the whole social system in order and provides it with sense and meaning.

The market is not a place, a thing, or a collective entity. The market is a process, actuated by the interplay of the actions of the various individuals cooperating under the division of labor. The forces determining the --continually changing--state of the market are the [p. 258] value judgments of these individuals and their actions as directed by these value judgments. The state of the market at any instant is the price structure, i.e., the totality of the exchange ratios as established by the interaction of those eager to buy and those eager to sell. There is nothing inhuman or mystical with regard to the market. The market process is entirely a resultant of human actions. Every market phenomenon can be traced back to definite choices of the members of the market society.

The market process is the adjustment of the individual actions of the various members of the market society to the requirements of mutual cooperation. The market prices tell the producers what to produce, how to produce, and in what quantity. The market is the focal point to which the activities of the individuals converge. It is the center from which the activities of the individuals radiate.

The market economy must be strictly differentiated from the second thinkable--although not realizable--system of social cooperation under the division of labor; the system of social or governmental ownership of the means of production. This second system is commonly called socialism, communism, planned economy, or state capitalism. The market economy or capitalism, as it is usually called, and the socialist economy preclude one another. There is no mixture of the two systems possible or thinkable; there is no such thing as a mixed economy., a system that would be in part capitalist and in part socialist. Production is directed by the market or by the decrees of a production tsar or a committee of production tsars.

If within a society based on private ownership by the means of production some of these means are publicly owned and operated--that is, owned and operated by the government or one of its agencies--this does not make for a mixed system which would combine socialism and capitalism. The fact that the state or municipalities own and operate some plants does not alter the characteristic features of the market economy. The publicly owned and operated enterprises are subject to the sovereignty of the market. They must fit themselves, as buyers of raw materials, equipment, and labor, and as sellers of goods and services, into the scheme of the market economy. They are subject to the laws of the market and thereby depend on the consumers who may or may not patronize them. They must strive for profits or, at least, to avoid losses. The government may cover losses of its plants or shops by drawing on public funds. But this neither eliminates nor mitigates the supremacy of the market; it merely shifts it to another sector. For the means for covering the losses must be raised by the imposition of taxes. But this taxation has [p. 259] its effects on the market and influences the economic structure according to the laws of the market. It is the operation of the market, and not the government collecting the taxes, that decides upon whom the incidence of the taxes falls and how they affect production and consumption. Thus the market, not the government bureau, determines the working of these publicly operated enterprises.

Nothing that is in any way connected with the operation of a market is in the praxeological or economic sense to be called socialism. The notion of socialism as conceived and defined by all socialists implies the absence of a market for factors of production and of prices of such factors. The "socialization" of individual plants, shops, and farms--that is, their transfer from private into public ownership--is a method of bringing about socialism by successive measures. It is a step on the way toward socialism, but not in itself socialism. (Marx and the orthodox Marxians flatly deny the possibility of such a gradual approach to socialism. According to their doctrine the evolution of capitalism will one day reach a point in which at one stroke capitalism is transformed into socialism.)

Government-operated enterprises and the Russian Soviet economy are, by the mere fact that they buy and sell on markets, connected with the capitalist system. They themselves bear witness to this connection by calculating in terms of money. They thus utilize the intellectual methods of the capitalist system that they fanatically condemn.

For monetary economic calculation is the intellectual basis of the market economy. The tasks set to acting within any system of the division of labor cannot be achieved without economic calculation. The market economy calculates in terms of money prices. That it is capable of such calculation was instrumental in its evolution and conditions its present-day operation. The market economy is real because it can calculate." HUMAN ACTION chapter 15 section 1 by Mises WAS 4.250 04:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mises says The market economy must be strictly differentiated from the second thinkable--although not realizable. not realizable. He is saying that by his definition of market system all actual economic systems are market systems. This is polemics and semantics and not serious economics. WAS 4.250 04:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Read economic calculation debate. Intangible 09:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I read it. Markets are useful tools, as are other social tools. Dividing who does what in a society based on caste, age, sex, parentage, race, wealth, passing tests, declarations of belief or loyalty, and violence have all been employed by human societies. Reducing everything to money is a simplificatiuon that is useful for some purposes and useless for others. In particular it sheds no light on problems like war. WAS 4.250 16:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Money? You mean prices? Prices can exist without moneys, but only money allows for the division of labour. Intangible 17:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Most division of labor is based on things other than money. The division of labor between men and women in all human societies throughout history comes to mind. WAS 4.250 17:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a different concept of division of labour. Man and woman alike need money to step out of any primitive economy. Intangible 14:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Mises says everybody's actions aim at the satisfaction of other people's needs as well as at the satisfaction of his own and The state, the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, does not interfere with the market and with the citizens' activities directed by the market. It employs its power to beat people into submission solely for the prevention of actions destructive to the preservation and the smooth operation of the market economy. What kind of fantasy is this? WAS 4.250 04:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The state does not produce anything. It can only distribute wealth. Intangible 09:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. The state is as capable as any other organization unless you redefine "state". For example, the US government has created dams and roads. The Roman government produced roads and aquaducts using contracts similar to how the US does. A "state" is a corporation with a military branch in the same way that one wag said a language is a dialect with an army. WAS 4.250 15:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Generally attributed to Max Weinreich, see Language-dialect aphorism. :) - FrancisTyers · 16:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

How does the US government create dams and roads? It cannot just produce things out of thin air. Productive members of society were taxed here, with the US government handing out money to special interest groups (which in general are unproductive). Intangible 17:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

How does any organization create anything? It cannot just produce things out of thin air. Productive members of society are appropriately organized, with the organizers benefiting the most. The government is sovereign and land tax is rent. Fees and taxes by governments are no different than charges other service providers legally charge in terms of its effect on the argument that "governments can't create value or products". anyway, this conversation really doesn't belong here so you get the final word. WAS 4.250 17:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you just had it. Intangible 14:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Subject of the article

The subject of the article is "An economic system that allows for the simultaneous operation of publicly and privately owned enterprises" and not just any text that uses the term "mixed economy" - especially texts that redefine the term so that the subject described by that new definition does not even exist. That is a style of rhetoric designed to stop thought and it is not appropriate for this article which is about "An economic system that allows for the simultaneous operation of publicly and privately owned enterprises" which plainly does exist and in fact it can be argued that it is the only nation wide economic system that does exist which as near as i can tell is Mises's point anyway (that any actual economic system must have significant market elements to actually function - which by the way is a good point that you could add to the article as Mises point of view). WAS 4.250 19:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What might be interesting would be a discussion in the artcle about the relationship of both publicly and privately owned enterprises with market mechanisms. A privately owned organization can have monopoly powers that limit market mechanisms (copyright, patent, etc). And publically owned organizations can use market mechanisms (like open bidding on contracts). WAS 4.250 19:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Socialism/Capitalism

Someone deleted the definition I put saying it is a system with elements of socialism and capitalism. That's what I was taught it was in school. There are many sources for this.

[13] "An economy that combines elements of capitalism and socialism, mixing some individual ownership and regulation." -The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy

[14] "A mixed economy is an economy containing the characteristics of both capitalism and socialism. In other words, it is an economy with a combination of both the private and the public ownership of means of production, with some measure of control by the central government."

[15] "Mixed economy: One containing features of both capitalism and socialism. Australia is a mixed economy, with major state-owned enterprises in communications, transport, banking, energy generation and health services, as well as privately owned enterprises in the same areas. In common with capitalist economies such as the UK and New Zealand, Australian governments are reducing these activities by privatising state-operated businesses. Other examples are seen in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, where newly independent states have embraced the principles of private enterprise. China, too, provides a striking illustration of the transition to a mixed economy."

[16] "A mixed economy combines elements of a market economy (capitalism) with elements of a command economy (socialism)."

[17] "mixed economy - an economy in which elements from the free enterprise system are combined with elements of socialism. Most industrial economies, now including those in the post-communist world, are mixed economies."

[18] "When an economy with a substantial state sector allows private enterprises a substantial role as well, it aids clarity, in my view, to call the resulting system a mixed economy—that is, a mixture of socialist and capitalist systems"

[19] "With a hubris peculiar to intellectuals and the politicians who expediently latch onto their scribblings, academic and political elites in the West insisted that "socialism prudently applied," by the likes of themselves mostly, could provide a "third path" between pure socialism and capitalism. On this third path, which became known as a "mixed economy," government would selectively and carefully intervene into the free market to "improve" it"

[20] "The broad liberal objective is a balanced and flexible "mixed economy," thus seeking to occupy that middle ground between capitalism and socialism whose viability has so long been denied by both capitalists and socialists."

[21] "MIXED ECONOMY. Economies which have major elements of both capitalism and socialism (such as many economies of Europe)."

[LowBlow]

We go on reputable sources, such as the Oxford English Dictionary. - FrancisTyers · 20:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Role vs rôle

I want to change "rôle" in the NHS caption to "role". Francis has objected on the grounds that rôle "is a perfectly valid spelling in modern English", and exhorts me to "Check the Oxford English Dictionary." [22]

The OED does indeed recognise "rôle", but does not use it as a headword. It lists it alongside "rowle" and "roll", both thoroughly archaic spellings. It itself prefers "role", "role-playing", "to play a role", "role indicator", "role absorption", "role relation", "role reversal", etc. etc. A similar situation exists with online American dictionaries [23], [24].

Throughout Wikipedia "role", not "rôle", is preferred. For example, Rôle redirects to Role; or compare the Wikipedia search results for role as opposed to rôle. Even within this article there are four uses of the spelling "role", but only one - the caption - of "rôle".

Further, what evidence is there that "rôle" is anything beyond an archaic spelling? A Google search will reveal that "role", not "rôle", is the spelling of choice for governments, newspapers, amateurs, etc., whether the content be from the UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, etc.

In other words, since reputable dictionaries, Wikipedia, the media, and ordinary users of the language all prefer "role", I feel strongly that "rôle" isn't the most appropriate. El T 13:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, go ahead. It seems that rôle is generally used in terms of acting, where role is used for the other meanings. I was just trying to be pretentious :) Regardless, saying that "throughout Wikipedia 'role' and not 'rôle' is preferred" is not a particularly good argument as many people don't know how to write characters with diacritics. We have Constanţa at Constanţa and not Constanta despite the latter being the more common spelling. - FrancisTyers · 13:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to take your word on Constanţa :) El T 13:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Cuba

I'm surprised nobody has figured this out yet, but on the Planned Economy page it lists Cuba as a planned economy. Then on the Mixed Economy page it again lists Cuba as a mixed economy. Contradiction? Inferno 04:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The US is at the free market end of the mixed economy spectrum and Cuba is (currently) at the planned economy end of the mixed economy spectrum. Sort of like a 5 foot normal height guy and a 6 foot normal height guy where anywhere from 5 to 6 foot is called normal height. Before the fall of the USSR, Cuba was a planned economy and not a mixed economy, if you want a contrast. And Somalia is today a free market economy (anarchy) that is not a mixed economy as a contrast in the opposite direction. WAS 4.250 05:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

So on a scale of 1-10 (Market to Centrally Planned) the US is like a 3 and Cuba is like a 7? Inferno 23:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

At first, I was gonna say sure why not. But it looks like a fun game. So let me give this a try:

1. Typical lawless anarchy - Somalia - today - UNPLANNED
2. Wild West in USA - 1870 - UNPLANNED
3. USA - today (planned, but the mechanisms are mostly free market oriented)
4. France - today
5. Sweden - today
6. China - today
7. Cuba - today
8. Cuba - 1980 - (mostly) RIGGED MARKET
9. Typical Family - RIGGED MARKET
10. Typical Prison - RIGGED MARKET

WAS 4.250 23:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You sick Chinese Sickos

USA is not a mixed ecomony, because it doesn't combine socialism with capitalism.

   * "People can own their own businesses, but political leaders make policies concerning these."

Duh, because federal government exists.

   "* The government controls the mail system."

It's more efficent. US Gov controls the stamps too. It's a taxation thing

   * The government controls most of the road networks.

God please, commercial companies would go bankrupted you retards

   * Waste collection and treatment are usually provided as a service by the local government.

Because, americans generate 40% more waste than rest of world, and the whole thing can't be a environmental disaster so government aids

   * The government has a virtual monopoly on the provision of policing.

WTF

   * Intercity passenger rail (Amtrak) is a nationalized industry.

WTF

   * The government tells manufacturers what to make if something is in need during war time.

Because thats how we won WWII, retard.

   * The FDA bans certain drugs.

Because the low quality stuff kills. It's not ethical to have lethal drugs that help ppl.

   * The government has created a minimum wage law.

Yeah, because we're not Asia and Africa with sweat factories, idiots

   * The government provides social welfare payments to some citizens.

Because our fucking medical insurance is worse then Canada and Europe and commerical so government aids

   * A sizable part of pre-college education is government-provided.

The US can't afford to put 100% of children in private schools. Department of Education would go bankrupted.

[user:Renegadeviking|Renegadeviking]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renegadeviking (talk • contribs) 14:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A totally free-market economy doesn't exist: it's a theoretical construct that would work if there weren't any people in it. The list illustrates how the U.S. economy is not such a 'perfect free market economy'. The U.S. does combine socialism with capitalism, most blatantly with agricultural subsidies. Or, point by point:

1. Nothing forces the government to make any decisions about businesses.
2. There are plenty of examples of private mail and transport services.
3. Why couldn't you charge a fee for using a road? Theoretically it's possible, in an ideal free-market economy. If there aren't any people in it.
4. Waste collection can be run as a private corporation.
5. Policing - it's a security service.
6. Amtrak is really interesting: nothing forces the government to run a rail network but in the U.S., it does.
7. Again, there's no war in the ideal model.
8. FDA doesn't have to ban anything. The government could let the free market decide if a product is safe.
9. The minimum wage law is a prime example of American socialism in action.
10. Social welfare is socialistic. The concept of state-provided social security has existed for a very short while, although charity is older.
11. There's nothing in education that says it has to be government-provided.

--Vuo 14:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

A totally free-market economy doesn't exist

Anarcho-Capitalism? Fephisto 13:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The "mixed economy" concept is on the one hand a theoretical construct that lies between one extreme of enFORCEd economic compliance and another extreme of a radical lack of FORCE regarding economic choices; and on the other hand a practical construct that divides actual economies into one extreme or the other or someplace in the middle. WAS 4.250 04:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

public schools, public roads, state military ->mixed system —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.233.39 (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The Third Way

Hi! I was just looking at this page and wondered why there was nothing mentioned of Anthony Giddens? He is a very important author on this subject. In the "The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy", Giddens observes:

Third way politics …advocates a new mixed economy (which) ….looks…for a synergy between public and private sectors, utilizing the dynamism of markets but with the public interest in mind. (2002: 99-100). Giddens also states, “No one…any longer has any alternatives to capitalism-- the arguments that remain concern how far, and in what ways, capitalism should be governed and regulated” (pp. 43-44). Sincere apologies if I am not adding to this Talk page properly - it's my first time joining the Wiki-discussions!! Thesiswriter 17:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Third Way (centrism) and this article are about the same thing so I'm going to merge them. I'm not going to fight or argue about it so if anyone wants to move it back, well, I won't be the one reverting. WAS 4.250 00:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I COMPLETELY disagree with this merge. We had the Australian Labor Party's third ideology as the third way, and it would look absolutely stupid to link it to 'mixed economy'. I will revert if there isn't a mass consensus for this. Timeshift 00:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Timeshift. Although support for the mixed economy was seen at the time as a "Third Way" between capitalism and communism, the demise of communism means that social democratic supporters of the mixed economy are now on the left. The contemporary Third Way typically consists of former social democrats who want to abandon crucial aspects of the mixed economy. Much of the mterial in the Third Way section of this article belongs in Third Way (centrism).JQ 23:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

yall be doin this and people are exsesivley getting on here ( excuse my spelling) and changing everything watch all this will end up on this info page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.117.153 (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Canada in Examples? US as a mixed economy?

I am just wondering why there is no mention of Canada even though Canada is an excellent example of a Mixed economy whilst the United States is classified as a Market economy, and has many features of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinitsu (talk • contribs) 13:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The US and Canada are both good examples of a mixed economy; each is slightly more regulated in some ways and less regulated in other ways. As both are diverse federal systems, even within each, regulation is more in some locations and less in others (New York City versus Montana for example). WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with Sinitsu. i stumbled across this article and was shocked to see that there was no mention of Canada. I think Canada has one of the most successful Mixed Economic system there is. In my opinion, which shouldn't matter much because I'm certainly no expert on the matter, US is more of a capitalistic economy. 189.164.148.48 (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A mixed economy is not an economic system

Dictionary.com, the cited source, suggests that a mixed economy is an "an economy in which there are elements of both public and private enterprise." It does not mention economic system.CounterEconomics (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Googling " "mixed economy" "economic system" " shows many many sources that say it is. You are drawing a distinction that our sources do not make. If you have a high quality source that claims "A mixed economy is not an economic system", that would make a useful addition to the article. We could have a section with your source and others that claim the opposite. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Long quotes tacked on at end

I deleted a set of long quotations that were tacked on to the end of the article, and moved the citations up to further reading.[25] Another editor has reverted that edit. Could someone please explain why that material is there? I don't recall seeing any other article with a similar quote farm. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the inline citations you will see that some of them refer to the books listed after the inline citations. Further, it is common in disputed articles to provide exact quotes to support specific claims in the articles so that readers who do not have the books can verify for themselves that the claims are supported and not taken out of context or otherwise misrepresented. An example of the kind of source rot that you get with "anyone can edit" is found in the fact that someone has added a "fact" tag to a claim that is in fact backed up by one of the quotes you deleted (see if you can spot it). WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

These excerpts don't seem to be linked to any specific text in the article. Can you please fix that? I don't see how link rot applies to published books. I don't object to short excerpts that support specific assertions, but general quotations that don't serve any purpose don't belong in articles. Maybe Wikiquote would be a better place for them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

OK I'll fix it so they are inline cites. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. If after reading the paragraph and then the quotes, you wish to trim them down, feel free. It is a bit overkill. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Yes, it is overkill. One or two good sources should be sufficient for an undisputed assertion. But at least it makes more sense from an article citation point of view. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Third Way section too long

The Third Way section currently copies too much of the material present in the Third Way (centrism) article, such as country-specific information and the criticisms. The "Third Way" is a political ideology or orientation that originated in the 1980s or 1990s - making it far newer than any mixed economy. A mixed economy does not necessarily have to follow Third Way ideas, and it is misleading to give the Third Way such extensive coverage in an article with a topic as broad as the mixed economy. -- Phyrros (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The third way section was created as a merger of two articles. Apparently someone has seen fit to recreate the merged article. "The term itself extends back at least a century, to when Pope Pius XI called for a Third Way between Socialism and Capitalism at the end of the 1800s" but the idea so named is even older. Someone coming up with a new name for an old idea does not make it a new idea. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

True, it does not make it a new idea, but it's not necessarily a bad thing to have a wiki article about a new political term - even if the term does refer to an old idea. All the information currently presented in the Third Way section of this article (and duplicated in the Third Way article) refers to the new use of the term since the 1980s, as opposed to the history of the older idea. "Third Way" is a political slogan; "mixed economy" is not. By putting the two together we give the misleading impression that the particular kinds of mixed economies promoted by Bill Clinton or Tony Blair are THE definitive model of a mixed economy. That is simply not true. They should not be given undue weight just because they use the term "Third Way" more than anyone else. -- Phyrros (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of removing the "Third Way" content. It may be useful to speak of some kind of a third way in this article, but the content talked about a specific centrist political trend originating in the 1980s rather than centrism in general. -- Phyrros (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)