Talk:Economic interventionism

message: Economic planning refers to activity undertaken by a state (or any other institution) that attempts to direct economic activity towards specific goals, either social / societal or economic in nature. Economic planning would consist of planned production or the directing of economic development and production.
Economic interventionism assumes that the economy is to be separated from the state, or from any form of directing, and therefore any activity taken to influence the market is seen as an intervention. Economic intervention would consist of influencing the market to attain different outcomes, without utilizing economic planning. 
Because of these differences, I think both these concepts should have their own separate articles.--Battlecry (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect you are right, Less von Miseserables notwithstanding. 'Tarians have been adding their spin so much, it would appear they were advertising themselves as the perfect breeding ground for giving rise to the new faction of simplistic socioeconomic (pathic?) know-it alls —destined for Beer Hall putsches and Dolchstosslegendes.-Ste|vertigo 14:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read Mises' papers on interventionism (e.g. the eminent book "Interventionism") to indulge in such an ad hominem bashing and lack of logic?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.88.88.232 (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic planning vs economic intervention 

message: "Economic interventionism" is the same as "economic intervention," "economic planning," and "central planning." All the government interventioned mentioned in this article are examples of central planning. Correct me if I'm wrong. Note that economic planning directs here.  Billy Ego 18:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synonyms 

message: Somebody fix this please, and don't forget to cite a source. 124.82.13.154 11:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EI is NOT ubiquitous to Central Planning 

message: :Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg

message: the point of the constantly edited text is that the policy is sometimes used by right-wing governments.  the fact that it is used by left wing governments is just above that sentence.  please leave it as "right-wing."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burningbend (talk • contribs) 17:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last few left/right edits 

message: Citing phrases [emphasis mine] "Many on the political left are inclined to support this agenda, ..." and "A minority of Marxists and those on the far left, ...." Might this language benefit from a bit more precision? Specifically, I refer to the contast between  Friedrich Hayek's use of the terms "left" and "right" to distinguish  interventionist/ statist (left, including Nazis) from interventionist-resistant (right, including supporters of free markets) and  Murray Rothbard, who used the terms in the 1970s to distinguish between those like him who were "anti-establishment" (left, including libertarians) and those who supported the government (and its interventionism) who were "establishment" (right, including Russian Communists).   SteveT (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Absent any contrary comments here, changes made 02:23, 17 November 2012.   SteveT (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Left" - More precision needed? 

message: "Government officials tend to be naturally disposed to seek more power and authority, and the money that usually goes with those things, and this quest often takes the form of economic interventionism which they then seek to justify." Much as it pains me to say it (because I wholeheartedly agree with the statement!), this seems to be someone's opinion and markedly slanted against government officials who certainly must feel that they are guided by more positive motivations. Isn't the quoted statement inconsistent with WP:NPOV?   SteveT (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects 

message: In an edit made 15 August, contributor Kingdelrosario has added a cite to an article entitled "Abenomics and the Generic Threat" authored by del Rosario, King. The URL to the article fails for me with a "server can't be found" error right now, so it is hard to tell for sure but this situation would seem to suggest that there may be a violation of Wikipedia's policy against using "Self-published sources". I would think that absent an acceptable explanation here by Kingdelrosario, the edit should be reversed. What do others here think? SteveT (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent mods by contributor Kingdelrosario 

message: I just moved this material here from the "Price carbon" page because it has almost nothing to do with that page and there was no reference to the material in the rest of that page. I don't think the material is very coherent. So I would actually recommend deleting it, but thought it should be looked at from this perspective first. Steven Stoft (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Government Intervention 

message: I think we should more-concisely rewrite the lead of the introduction: "Economic interventionism is the economic policy of government correction of market failures in the public interest". Lacking enough relevant expertise, I request learned comment.
Duxwing (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wordy Lead of Introduction 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move   Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Economic interventionism →  – Properly speaking arguably the maximum scope that the article covers. Thus WP:PRECISION. PPEMES (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article insists in its lead section that it is also about "state interventionism". What's problematic about the name "economic interventionism" is that it doesn't indicate who does the interventionalism and in what way. "State interventionism" arguably better fulfils those criterias? PPEMES (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: PPEMES can you cite some sources/results that how the page will benefit from your proposed move? Capitals00 (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Scope issue, simply. We don't have a separate state interventionism. If we had, we could have both a state interventionism and an economic interventionism. Until, I suppose presenting the contents under the more inclusive scoped article name would be the proper way to go about? PPEMES (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 25 May 2020 

message: National budget  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.116.54.232 (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ems 

message: Government control over the planned economy county is full because it has no control over the market economy of the country 41.114.179.123 (talk) 16:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government control over the planned economy county 

message: #This article is unclear as to whether it's about an an ideological/normative position or a positive description of a phenomena. Two of the first five sources are from Ludwig von Mises, who's work is rhetorically against intervention, while the other three appear to come from a post-keynesian and a revisionist Marxist. The rest of the sources appear to be equally polemic. On face value this is okay, but it leaves a significant disconnect from mainstream economic discourse.
#These sources largely do not discuss the market failure, welfare maximisation paradigm described in the header.
#Nearly half of this article is dedicated to a hodgepodge United States specific topics without any particular order.
#There is evidently already extensive confusion about WP:OVERLAP with regard to central planning, a merger into market intervention would clarify how they differ.
#Merging with market intervention will allow a clean slate to deeply rework and improve the article.
Jokojis (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: According to your point 5, if the article is merged, will you personally plan to rewrite it? 日期20220626 (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have both the capacity and intention to significantly contribute to it, but ultimately Wikipedia is a community driven effort and that's going to take more than one editor. Jokojis (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal with [[market intervention]]