Talk:Market economy

message: "I added this section because wikipedia does not currently have a page with information regarding the Non-Monetary Economy. I plan to include more details at a later date to create this as a stub page. Citations will also be added. The purpose of this is for course requirements." --Bryteyes01 (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see why this material should be included on a page for describing market economies. -Battlecry 23:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Monetary Economy 

message: "The theoretical model of a large-scale free market economy does not occur legally, however the underground economy may be seen as an actualized free market economy." 
"May be seen as" is pretty weaselly. A windmill may be seen as a giant waving its arms. Can we cite someone as claiming this? I have my doubts: "free market" presumably means "free from coercion" not just "free from taxes". In my experience, black markets are seldom free from coercion. - Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Underground economy and black market don't have the same connotations. Underground economy is a market where trade simply takes place without government taking a cut. Hiring a worker without filing out government forms and paying him in cash, garage sales, selling stuff on Ebay, etc. RJII 16:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again: do you have a citation for "may be seen"? - Jmabel | Talk 22:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Underground economy 

message: Do I understand correctly, Gibby, that in the article about each of the other types of economy and economics you have added an Austrian school / Chicago school market-based critique of that type of economy or economics, and here (instead of a balancing critique of market economies) you have added… an Austrian school / Chicago school market-based critique of all other types of economy or economics? And this is supposed to be neutral? - Jmabel | Talk 06:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: I am deleting the "Criticism of alternatives" section. It is very POV and the topic is covered better under article like Criticisms of socialism. I will move the text below (in text form). 72.139.119.165 22:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the pasted text: there's just too much to keep here. If anyone wants to debate it here, you can find it in the diff and bring the desired sections back here. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove section 

message: I have a few things to point out in the market economy in communist countries section of the article. It says, for one, that the PRC "runs" some of the world's freest economies. In all practicality, however, Hong Kong's economy has never been "ran" by the Beijing government. It is barely correct to assert that a special economic zone like Shenzhen is ran by the Beijing government. There needs to be modification here. 
Secondly, if I'm not mistaken, Wal-Mart is not only in special economic zones, but in Beijing as well. Colipon+(T) 00:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. Also, the whole point of a market economy is that the government doens't "run" the economy. RJII 00:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market economy and China 

message: User:CosmopolitanCapitalist recently took it upon himself to completely comment out the "criticisms" section for being POV and lacking citations. Were it not for WP:POINT I'd be inclined to do the same to pretty much every other section of the article. Everything here is undercited; much of it has POV issues. Cosmo, I suggest that you consider whether you did this because there were particular problems with the section, or because you personally disagreed with the criticisms raised. 
That said, it's hard to understand what was objectionable about some of what was commented out. For example:
Sunken costs and inefficiencies of re-allocation may result in behavior that is rational at the individual level, but disastrous in the aggregate (as modeled in the game theorists' "prisoner's dilemma", and prohibitions on co-ordination (or simple failure to co-ordinate) may be disastrous for a particular sector. For example, an oversupply of a good for which the demand is relatively inelastic may result in frantic price-cutting, as each seller hopes to recover something for their inventory; the sellers collectively would be much better off if they could coordinate and only accept small losses. Organizations such as Food First argue that this is the dynamic driving down agricultural prices in recent decades, which has been disastrous for farmers generally, but especially in poorer countries.
The non-specific citation to Food First doesn't seem any worse than the non-specific citations in other sections of the article, and is certainly accurate. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:CosmopolitanCapitalist, since we had not crossed paths before, I decided to look randomly at a few of your edits to see if you were simply evenhandedly removing undercited material. Imagine my surprise when I encountered this edit: an introduction of material considerably more POV than what you removed here (it is basically nothing but your own interpretation of the intent of the Founding Fathers), and also completely lacking in citation. I suggest that if you want to invoke NPOV and undercitation to remove basically solid material that you do not find amenable, you should apply at least the same standard to your own work. - Jmabel | Talk 01:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't look at anything in the Progressive tax article except the material you added. If the material around it was equally bad, I can't honestly say I'm surprised; I was merely comparing what you added there to what you removed here. - Jmabel | Talk 16:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms? What criticisms? 

message: I think it is important to know who invented the term “market economy”. May be this word was invented to avoid the term capitalism? If yes, market economy is not only the phenomenon but also the perception of this phenomenon by economists (or people in general). Ulf-S. 11:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was the term market economy invented by a single person or organization or is is based on collective research over time and multiple academic institutions?--MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who invented the term? 

message: I say no: Free market should be about the theoretical construct and market economy about actually existing market economies and market elements of economies that are note primarily market economies. - Jmabel | Talk 06:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: Recent edits strike me as heading in an utterly wrong direction.
* Starting off with the issue of freely permeable borders? This is not even an essential feature of a market economy. This is not the article about ideal free markets: this is the article about market economies. One could clearly have a market economy even in a country that had no international trade at all.
*Why plunge early on into stating that the Hong Kong SAR (misidentified here as a "country") has freer markets than the U.S.? Definitions first, comparisons later.
*Then "Free markets are also conflated with anarchy as many people believe that free market implies an absence of government." This is a fringe view. And insofar as it is relevant, it is relevant to free market, not market economy, which ought to be an article about the currently dominant form of national and international economy, contrasted to gift economy, barter economy, etc. 
Not that it wasn't enough of a mess before this. This article reads like a libertarian or two have run amok. I find it a bit of an embarrassment to an encyclopedia. - Jmabel | Talk 07:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: The theoretical model of a large-scale free market economy does not occur legally, however the underground economy may be seen as an actualized free market economy.
* Uncited
* "May be seen as" is utterly weasel-worded
* Underground economies almost always involve extortion that is at least comparable in its deforming effects to taxation.
* It is questionable whether any large-scale underground economy even vaguely approximates ideal free market conditions, because the requirement for concealment from authorities prevents transparency; also, the impossibility of recourse to the courts to enforce contracts results in them being enforced primarily by private force or the threat thereof, which we would hardly consider part of the market model.
In short, just go trying to sell illegal drugs on someone else's turf, and if you survive the experience you will have learned a lesson in cartelism. - Jmabel | Talk 22:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut from article 

message: On 2008-01-08T11:39:42 User:Lordmetroid removed my addition (where I confused Naomi Wolf with Naomi Klein) to the Market economy#Freedom section:
These claims are criticized by Naomi Wolf in her 2007 book The Shock Doctrine,
in which she claims that free-market economics usually require
exploitation of natural or artificial disasters by dictators or authoritarian governments.
with the edit summary: "Naomi can't sperate a free market from government intervention. Critisism invalid".
This removal is in contradiction to WP:NPOV#Balance,
where it is written "let competing approaches exist on the same page"
and, in WP:NPOV#Fairness of tone, "We should present all significant, competing views impartially.".
The only question is whether her contribution to the debate is significant,
which is supported by the reviews mentioned in The Shock Doctrine#Reviews
and her standing, as documented in Naomi Klein.
I am therefore re-instating my contribution, amended to:
 Many on the left reject these claims. For example, the Canadian journalist Naomi Klein criticizes them in her 2007 book The Shock Doctrine, in which she claims that Friedmanesque free-market economics usually require exploitation of natural or artificial disasters by dictators or authoritarian governments. 
PJTraill (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If Klein isn't using the same meaning for the same words compared to the meaning neither Freidman nor the article uses. Furthermore Klein is dishonest about what Freidman says when she talks about what he says as demonstrated though the documentarical vlog Milton Friedman Debates Naomi Klein. How then can you say Naomi is actually critising the subject of the article? Don't reinstate without a proper discussion on it and we have found a solution that is fitting, otherwise it will cause an edit war. I would welcome you to add a criticism section but then it must be relevant criticism from a command economic standpoint(the opposite of a market economy). Naomi is criticizing capitalism and her criticism should therefore if anywhere be on the article about Capitalism. Lord Metroid (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for reacting here - I had no intention of starting a war, just a discussion. I am unlikely to get back to this before next weekend, but perhaps someone else has something useful to add in the meantime. PJTraill (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market and personal freedom - criticism of Hayek and Friedman 

message: no support for move. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what you are saying, I tried searching for "market economy" and "free market economy" and the Market economy article came up first. What are you suggesting? Lord Metroid (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He's saying that "free-market economy" is a more popular term than "market economy." If you do a search for "market economy" it's going to count "market economy" as well as "free-market economy" because "market economy" is included in the phrase "free-market economy." So you have to do a search like he has done, by finding "market economy" that doesn't have the word "free" in front of it. "Free-market economy" is the more popular term. If these articles are supposed to be named by the most popular name, then this should be changed to free-market economy. Operation Spooner (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, it could easily  be argued that market economy is a more neutral title, and, per WP:GOOGLE in a nutshell, neutrality trumps popularity. Since the change doesn't really achieve anything, it's not worth the hassle. --Nema Fakei (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How is "free market" is less neutral than "market?" There is a free market article. Should that be changed to "market" to be neutral? What exactly are you saying? Operation Spooner (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Free Market' is a complete semantic unit, referring to a concept as opposed to a 'market', which, unqualified, normally refers to a bazaar. 'Market economy' is a complete semantic unit; 'Free market economy' is an unnecessary qualification of that. --Nema Fakei (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is your definition, then why is the introduction this: "A market economy or free market economy is an economic system in which the production and distribution of goods and services take place through the mechanism of free markets guided by a free price system." and also this: "Market economy is also contrasted with mixed economy where there are market operations though the markets system is not entirely free but under some government control that is not extensive enough to constitute a planned economy. In the real world, there is no nation that has a pure market economy."71.175.31.106 (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think it is appropiate Market economy can be many different kind of economies while free market economy means just that. It is misleading. Lord Metroid (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The term market contains many ambiguities. The term market economy is just a shorthand for free-market economy. The former term does not imply that it is "less free" than the latter term. According to Dictionary.com, the definition for a market economy it is "An economy that operates by voluntary exchange in a free market and is not planned or controlled by a central authority; a capitalistic economy."71.175.31.106 (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I think a market economy is a free market economy by definition. The terms mean the same thing. It's an ideal. There are no pure market economies. Operation Spooner (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Market economy is an abstraction as well. It means the same thing. Operation Spooner (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Do you have any sources? The term "market economy" is simply a shorthand of free-market economy. There are lots of sources including this: 
*"Market economy is also contrasted with mixed economy where there are market operations though the markets system is not entirely free but under some government control that is not extensive enough to constitute a planned economy. In the real world, there is no nation that has a pure market economy." (McKinney, Michael L. Environmental Science: Systems and Solutions. Jones and Bartlett Publishers. 2003. p. 481) 
*"Market economies are also called free economies, free markets, or free enterprise systems."( The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002.) 
*"An economy that operates by voluntary exchange in a free market and is not planned or controlled by a central authority; a capitalistic economy." (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.)
*"An economy in which goods and services are exchanged in a free market, as opposed to a state-controlled or socialist economy; a capitalistic economy." wiktionary
71.175.31.106 (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You could always start a "free-market economy" article. Then those who would oppose it or want it merged would have to admit that "free-market economy" and "market economy" refer to the same thing. Operation Spooner (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

text: That's true, but the consensus of editors is not to move it, so if it does get moved it is likely to be quickly reverted. Note also that there was a proposal to add a separate free-market economy article - which of course could end up being merged.... Note: The move request was made by an IPuser, and the most support for the move was made by the same IPuser, who will have to register a username or make the request for the article at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Have fun you all... 199.125.109.102 (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to free-market economy 

message: While Milton Friedman is a perfectly good (if rather extreme) source to cite on the pro-free-market side, Free to Choose is more a polemical work than an academic one. It would seem to me that an encyclopedia should cite his academic work, not his popularizing work. - Jmabel | Talk 22:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: There is a lot of gobbledygook in this article.
It opens:
"A market economy is an economy based on the power of division of labor".
How many economies, other than Subsistence economies, are not based on the division of labor (and even subsistence economies have some type of division of labor)?  It can be mentioned, but makes no sense in the opening.
Then "free price system", another article with junk, is contrasted to the supposed "fixed price system".  Of course, there is no article for fixed price system, the redirect talks about the US during World War II when rationing was necessary.
Also, talking about a planned economy makes no sense, since the planning is in production, not the market.  Once the product is produced, it is obviously going to the market, so the planning is in production, not the market.
Some things have been moved, some POV stuff has been removed.  This I removed - "where the price system is under some government control or heavily regulated" because it is uncited.  As I said, have there been heavy differences in production between countries, some capitalist, some socialist with heavy government control?  Absolutely.  But there is little cited evidence that the price system of rubles for bread in a say Soviet market was much different than a dollars for bread in an American market.
Again, opening with "A market economy is an economy based on the power of division of labor" makes no sense.  There has been a division of labor since men went out to hunt and women gathered berries - prior to the evolution of the species even.  Every economy has a division of labor.
And to repeat again - if this article made sense there would be a fixed price system article with real examples.  And there isn't. Adelson Velsky Landis (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gobbledygook 

message: I was reading an article in the news today and came to this page for more information on what the World Trade Organization definition of a "market economy" is. Specifically, as part of the new BRICS euro-bailout package, China has called on European Nations to recognize it as a "market economy" ahead of the 2016 deadline agreed to in 2001. What does this mean? What are the implications? There's no information on this page or on the WTO page and I suspect a lot of people will be looking for this information in the coming days. -User:Lommer | talk 19:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTO definition 

message: This article claims that the philosophical background of the Social market economy is Liberalism (Ordoliberalism, Neoliberalism), Catholic social teaching and Social democracy. This is really absurd. The cited source (Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon: Eintrag: keyword "social market economy" = Soziale Marktwirtschaft) states that the term is used to associate ideas of Liberalism, Catholic social teaching and Democratic socialism. This is something completely different from "philosophical background". The "philosophical background" of the Social market economy is Neoliberalism or Ordoliberalism . Moreover the social market economy is opposed to social democracy and democratic socialism .--Mr. Mustard (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I make the concession that the philosophical background of the original idea is rather ordoliberalism and catholic social teaching. But it is pointless to refer to pure philosophy. You obviously know (and even your cited sources say that) the Social Market Economy as it was realized in Germany and became political and cultural consensus was embedded liberalism () with an wider philosophical influence. --Pass3456 (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The system which was realized in Germany (after Ludwig Erhard) is not the subject of this article. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

text: This is bang on. The philosophical background of the market economy coincides with the end of feudalism. it was explicitly a classical liberal/right-libertarian populist movement. The significance of Christianity to this aspect of western history was the introduction of individualism and classical liberalism and it's economic corollary laissez faire. See Ralph Raico's lecture on industrial revolution and liberalism. [] [].
A recent edit reads: "Market economies do not logically presuppose the existence of private property in the means of production; a market economy can consist of various types of cooperatives, collectives or autonomous state agencies that buy and sell capital goods with each other in a free price system."
This is political point of view pushing unsupported by the citation. The text is an incomplete copy and past from the source. The original text goes on too say "One may at least theoretically conceive of an economy of market socialism... so long as the socialist production organizations were free to buy and sell their output and and the use of their assigned land or capital assets to each other at freely negotiated price". This is true in the sense that market socialism can exist as a theory. As a technical matter of economic science it has been proven that the socialisation of capital goods removes prices as these goods cease to be "objects of exchange". While people could then theoretically exchange with normal prices this can't take place because the socialisation has already prevented the rational allocation of resources in higher order capital goods, therefore consumer goods can not be coordinated if they are even produced! SEE: socialist calculation debate. Editors shouldn't disguise weekly held concepts that are only proposed as theory not practice on obscure websites. I'll find better sources. 
Another additional edit reads: "David McNally argues that the logic of the market is inherently inequitable and based on unequal exchanges, and that Adam Smith's moral intent and moral philosophy of equal exchange was undermined by the practice of the free markets he championed. The development of the market economy involved coercion, exploitation and violence that Adam Smith's moral philosophy could not countenance. McNally also criticizes market socialists for believing in the possibility of fair markets based on equal exchanges achieved by purging "parasitical" elements, such as private ownership of the means of production, from the equation. McNally argues that market socialism is an oxymoron when socialism implies an end to wage-based labor.<ref>"
This again is demonstrably and unquestionably political point of view pushing. This again is an outdated technical issue of economic science. The labour theory of value has been replaced by subjective value theory. No contemporary economists think that goods embody labour and all exchange is exploitative. It's obvious that exchanges take place voluntarily because of mutual profit. This again is uncontroversial main stream economics. Including the outdated moral philosophy of Adam Smith also unbalances the weight of the article.
If an entire section is going to exist for the disproven social market concept (we should remember socialism isn't economy at all!) [] then there should also be a section on free market anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. If the article isn't improved to include free market anarchism and the citation on social market material isn't improved then I suggest we delete it.
Rothbardanswer (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, the "social market concept" is not socialism. It is the model of capitalism that exists in continental Europe. Secondly, nothing in this article mentions the labor theory of value. The material on market socialism is largely based on neoclassical models of market socialism, although classical models like mutualism are mentioned briefly since they do constitute market economies. David McNally was criticizing Adam Smith's view of markets leading to equality and liberty, not the labor theory of value (of which he subscribes to). While you might not agree with his point, it is a work of contemporary scholarship that criticizes market economies - whether capitalist or socialist. -Battlecry 09:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social market economy 

message: After reviewing the article there is a significant amount of weight given to any number of socialist political passages. When you compare this to the 5 line parragraph on laissez faire this seems ridiculous. The information is also poorly cited. Suggest significant edits made to reflect the market as a technical issue of economic science NOT a political device.
Rothbardanswer (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject of the article is on hypothetical and existing variations of market economies, not on the market as a "technical issue of economic science". The appropriate article for that is market. You are certainly welcome to expand the subsection on Lassiez-faire. The article should give a brief overview of the types of market economies: early market economies, capitalist market economies, and market socialism. While it is in no way complete, there is nothing wrong with providing descriptive material on market socialism. Furthermore, if we remove material on market socialism while retaining material and weight on capitalist ideologies and forms of market economies, then the article would still be a "political device" used to advance pro-capitalist viewpoints. -Battlecry 09:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialist weight 

message: In few books that I have read regarding the market economy, few authors, along with Anglo-Saxon model and (German) social market economy mentioned also East Asian model. Anglo-Saxon was described where economic freedoms are being absolutised as a condition for succesful economy, while social market economy was described as being mixed with social issues (pensions, health care etc.), while the East Asian model was described as market economy strongly influenced by national tradition and customs and model of market economy influenced by state more then the two previous market economy models... --Wüstenfuchs 23:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be a valuable addition to this page under the capitalism section. I have heard of an "East Asian model" of capitalism in certain publications on comparative economic systems characterized basically the same way you described it. It looks like the page State-sponsored capitalism basically describes the "East Asian model". -Battlecry 23:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Asian model 

message: Just wanted to bring this to the attention of the article maintainers: In the current state (June 2019), the article has an incomplete sentence in the introduction. The 3rd paragraph of the introduction ends in an unfinished sentence which itself only reads "It is this"
Someone seems to have had plans for further explanations that were not completed or were improperly abandoned. Would be great if someone could investigate. Thx!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.108.249 (talk) 06:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete introduction 

message: Although sanctions (on Russia) have been applied for about 10 years they have recently been applied more and more. Sanctions interfere with free market practices because companies must pick their suppliers and customers from a list of allowed business partners, not select by price. I wonder where the threshold is which disturbs the free market so much that the "free" is set aside. E.G. The "crippling" sanctions are obviously designed to punish the Russian people but in the process they disturb the free market. This should probably be discussed one day. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:B595:E707:A408:A278 (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanctions - do they set the "free" of the free market aside?  

message: — Assignment last updated by KristinaAllen (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP23 - Sect 201 - Thu

message: There is no reference to a medium of exchange in this entire article. It seems to me that having a medium (USD, £, gold) is an important part of a market, and of setting prices by supply and demand. Adding information on a medium of exchange will likely effect most paragraphs in this article. Any thoughts?  AbrahamWright (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of a medium of exchange