Talk:Dirigisme

message: Jersey Devil, why did you revert without discussion here?  I added the links and asked for discussion so we can work together on this.  Why did you revert the links?  Explain your reasoning? --Northmeister 00:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jersey Devil Reverting

message: To avoid some sort of edit war over See Also in this article let's consider the Edit that Jersey Devil keeps deleting through reversion (thrice).
"State intervenes, private ownership of production:
* American System
* Mercantilism
* Mixed economy
State control of the means of production:
* Communism
* Socialism
Corporations dictate policy, private ownership of production:
* Laissez Faire
* Corporatization"
The intention is to offer links for the reader to further their studies of similiar and different economic systems.  Dirigisme does not exist outside other systems...it's links are the same as the mixed economy/American System/German post-war Economy/Japanese Miracle economy going back to the original policies of Cameralism of Germany, Colbertism of France, and Mercantilism of England (Cromwell to Corn Law repeals).  The emphasis is on government intervention such as the American System's Pacific Railway Acts, Cumberland Road, National Banking Act etc. in he economy to stimulate production and growth as opposed to the opposite school of thought whose roots start with Smith, Physiocrat's of France known as Laizee Faire, or hands off from government.  The ideas of Marx form a third line of economics, that produced socialism, democratic socialism, communism, that called for government owenership of the means of production in a mild (democratic socialism) or excessive (communism in USSR) form.  To deprive the reader of these alternatives and the associative roots of Dirigistic thought is wrong. What do others think.  I will hear all sides on this.  Let's work this out and come to consensus on this stuff rather than conduct constant reverts that make no sense. --Northmeister 04:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of these links are available through the category system, which exists just so that related articles of this type can be found by interested readers. -Will Beback 05:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see them there.  If you wish to add them to the category links, go ahead. Thanks. Also consider, 'See also' is meant to direct the reader to relevant articles here at wikipedia and is included in many articles across wikipedia. The ones above I think are relevant.  --Northmeister 06:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Added philosophic roots, similiar economic systems, and opposing systems for the reader to carry on their study of economics and related articles. --Northmeister 03:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course it goes without saying that we have no sources fot these designations but are simply adding them based on our own original research. -Will Beback 05:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not for us to say that Communism is opposed to Dirigisme. If you have a source which puts them in that category please provide it. -Will Beback 17:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not certain that the "See also" section needs links to opposing systems. But on the issue of similar systems, Northmeister is completely correct. You don't need a source to direct the reader's attention to a related article. You just need common sense. Please avoid contention for the sake of contention. --HK 21:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Common sense = Original research. Please stop promoting LaRouche's American System. The ArbCom has asked the editors not edit war to place LaRouche theories in articles unrelated to him. -Will Beback 21:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although you have hinted at it elsewhere, this is the first time that you have openly espoused the belief that LaRouche invented the American System. Now, that is a clear example of original research, because I know of no reputable source that credits LaRouche with the capability of influencing American history more than a century before he was born. Did you actually intend to write what you just wrote? --HK 23:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the problem here.  The American System is America's historic economic philosophy that helped create the great American Way of Life with a large Middle Class Society.  Just because LaRouche embraces this system and comments on it, does not make it HIS system.  That would be like IBM embracing Microsoft DOS and supporting this system over Apple's system, and then someone saying that IBM owns the system not Microsoft.  Then and therefore due to this, since IBM had a remarkable comraderie (team spirit) with their own team song they are a cult (must be right) and since they are a small slice of American enterprise and very pro-active about IBM, their employee's may not participate here at Wikipedia, nor can Microsoft DOS be written about or put in any article about Computer's unless it comes from non-IBM sources.  To enforce this act, Apple employee's will block and ban any IBM employee's when they engage in these acts, even though Apple represents an even smaller slice of the pie of American enterprise.  That's the mentality.  Pure and simple, this system is not LaRouches.  I learned about it in college...my major is Political Science and History, with particular concentration on American History, German History, and Russian History and America's political history. --Northmeister 00:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That is wrong and you know it is wrong, which must make it a right?  Your bringing discussion from one page onto another, highly discouraged here at Wikipedia.  I'm beginning to think you don't understand American history or society at all. --Northmeister 03:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Study this, learn this. --Northmeister 03:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion came here because the link came here. We can move it back to talk:American System (economics) if you like. Which source is your source-based research based upon? Who is it that calls Communism a system that is opposed to the American System? -Will Beback 03:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link came here because it is relevant like Communism and Socialism and Mercantilism are relevant, they are economic systems with different and similiar philosophies to Dirigisme.  Are you seriously going to make an argument that Communism and America from 1861-1929 were the same?  That is essentially the argument you are making above.  --Northmeister 03:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: May I suggest if Will Beback wishes to delete relevant material, that he state the reasons for doing so on the talk page, without accusations which are inherently false, personal attacks, assumptions on bad faith (calling an idea LaRouche or what not), and that he do so in regards to civility and respect of other editors.  This editor continues to assert the above without Assuming Good Faith of other editors, launches into diatribes often referring to LaRouche when a point can not be made, wants citations for the SEE ALSO and RELATED links, when no such policy exists here at Wikipedia except for the body of a document and has been generally unreasonable.  Consensus and verifiability are rules of engagement here at Wiki, not only is the information highly verifiable by readers, but consensus holds for inclusion of the Related and See Also section.  Honest discussion does not resort to name calling or loose linking individuals or ideas. This user has consistently interrupted Wikipedia with allegations which are false and when proven false he continues to assert them.  He often uses Original Research when Wikipedia clearly defines what this is and states that Source-Based Resource is highly regarded.  Don't tell that to him however.  Such a continued level of stalking and trolling, with no help to Wikipedia or its standards is not sufficient to even warrant responding any longer to his unreasonable requests.  This user has been involved in several arbcom cases, where he was admonished for his tactics, and most recently in a complaint involving his troll like activity against other users.  If Will BeBack has something useful to contribute do so.  It seems he does not. He is a disruptor, which is being kind. This is to advise anyone else who may come across this for future reference. Look at his contribsfor indication of his disruption and stalking activities. --Northmeister 14:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've stated my reasons several times: there is no source which asserts that the American System is related to Dirigisme. "See also" sections are a part of the article, and original research is not welcome there any more than in other parts of the article. Please do not keep adding this link to articles. -Will Beback 23:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: See Also

message: The See Also links restored as were.  The Japanese Miracle, German System, American System, all were economic systems with similar traits to Dirigisme.  Mercantilism and Colbertism are the roots of all of these.  These roots are "Government Intervention" rather than "Hands Off" or "Total Control" which sum up the other two philosophical wings of Economics each of which have many branches.  The systems are not the same but are similar and warrant inclusion on that merit.  We are trying to put together an Encylopedia of fact so that the reader can gather information.  Linking to the above mentioned economic systems gives the reader the ability to study similar systems and compare and contrast them. --Northmeister 06:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Northmeister's edit, and his rationale for it. If other editors disagree, I propose that the next step be a RfC, rather than edit warring. --HK 07:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoration of Links

message: Confused of England writes: This is a nice entry, but two points confuse me. Firstly, in the opening who do we explain what it is not before we explain what it is. Uses of Dirigisme that relate to socialistic planned economies seems pretty rare in my reading: I think it should start by saying that it's a style of leadership, and in particular of government leadership, associated with the French elite. Secondly, it seems a little narrow to locate it in economics only. Dirigisme, to me, is rooted deeply in the meritocratic model as much as in any French affection for autarky. It's about ENA-archs and others leaders knowing best, about the confidence in plannification and grand projects, about the one best way... all of this seems tightly bound to me. Any thoughts? --Duncan 17:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is unclear to me why the article is not called by the English name, Dirigism. Dirigism is most widely used as an economic term, connoting the opposite of another French expression, Laissez-faire. Maybe it is only just that both terms retain their French names. --HK 22:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order: what it is not before what it is. 

message: The following clause asserting that dirigisme is responsible for post-war growth is a possible NPOV violation:
It resulted in an unprecedented economic and demographic growth...
First, this assertion is inconsistent with the more nuanced discussion in the In France section.
Second, the Trente glorieuse period from the rubble following WWII up to the 1973 Oil Crisis is cherry-picked to make a point. A slight adjustment, say 1953-1983, would tell a different story.
Third, growth in some non-dirigisme economies, e.g. Hong Kong,  exceeded that of dirigisme economies during the same period.
Finally, causal effect with demographic growth is questionable. Other factors, e.g. moonlit strolls on the Pont Neuf, arguably had a greater effect on the birth rate.
The remedy is to remove or qualify the statement (“Proponents argue that...”). FredLoney (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious