Talk:American School (economics)

message: Please keep in mind the section of the original research policy that says:
:Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.
I have gone through the article removing lengthy sections that appear to fit this description. The section on Lincoln was a particular example where the sources merely showed the existence of various laws or policies, but made no mention of the American System.
I hope there can be some agreement on the following:
*American political leaders used the term "American System" from 1824 to roughly the Civil War to refer to the three-point program.
*This program was derived from Hamilton's program, although he didn't use the term.
*Various comparisons to later US policies have been made, but these are the views of the various commentators and should not be presented as definitive.
Gazpacho 21:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. Those points look correct to me.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've restored the Lincoln material as this article deals with the American/Philadephia/National School Michael Lind, among others in their works talk about. The three points are true, the one about original research is not - as A and B concur, and there is no C as A and B are the same. There is no taking A (which is one thing) and B (which is another) and developing C (a new synthesis) - A (speaks of the American School) and B (speaks of the American School) all derived from Hamilton as the sources indicate. That said, GAZPACHO - I am willing to work with you to improve this article and to make any changes necessary. I am unwilling to work with WillBeback who once again resorted to namecalling on your talk page once again linking me with the LaRouche crowd, once again the 'guilt by association' technique of McCarthyism - which is why peoples political views should NEVER matter or be censored - only their editing pattern. But I was raised in America, so I take that for granted. --Northmeister 00:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lengthy Michael Lind quotation appears to go beyond fair use. Can't we just summarize his statement? Also, the link to it is no longer active.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd ask you reconsider. My concerns stated, I do think your editing skills and lack of being a part of previous 'editing' would be helpful. I'd like to give you time to offer your contributions to the article and am only concerned with accuracy and readability. The edits you made previously in the wording of the opening paragraph were excellent. Thanks for the try thus far and I welcome you back anytime as I can work with anyone honestly trying to edit. --Northmeister 12:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good start might be restoring the edits that Gazpacho made.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: Curious...what's extremist about this link: Excerpt from The Harmony of Interests? --Northmeister 02:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't include that in the edit summary. I deleted that because we already have a link to the entire "Harmony of Interests". Is there a reason to have both in the "further reading" section?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 03:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your definition of extremism? Are you calling Alan Tonelson an extemist and if so why? --Northmeister 13:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sierratimes.com is the website I was calling "extremist".  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deadlink

message: This anonymous user went through the article and completely took out whole sections - under the assumption of "Larouchities" or whatever.  This editors deletions are random vandalism by the hysteric few at Wikipedia who like to witch-hunt - their rhetoric and wording is always the same. Their mandate seems the same as the 'I had an aliens baby' types. Gaspacho began editing thereafter and not from the original article before mutilation of data (or vandalism) by the "Larouche-is-bad" conspiracy people, in which everything evolves around the non-entity Larouche for them. Bah humbuger! --Northmeister 13:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another possibility is that User 24* was Gazpacho editing while logged-out.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We could start with the material that was removed, then restored. That would be the long, now-unsourced, Lind quotation, the lengthy section on platforms (which may be original research), and the long section on other economic beliefs.   ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 16:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually - this article is a result of the work of WAS a highly honorable and congenial editor who attempted to work out a solution between our past dispute. I have not worked on it for a year doing and moving on to other things. The article needs extensive work and belongs with American System frankly. Although "American School" is interchangeable for the over-all philosophical view of the Hamilton-Clay-Carey-Lincoln-GOP (which lead to German Historic School in Germany etc.) the more common term is "American System" to describe not Clay's program (which it is he who popularized the term) but America's economic system prior to the modern era. Simply, Progressivism and then the New Deal side by side with the emergence of Keynesianism and the re-emergence of Classical Economonists in form of Friedman etc. eventually replaced the American System with a new system of competing left/right views. The historic usage of the term American System is well defined and should be covered. The historic links between Clay and Lincoln, between the Whigs and the early Republican Party are also well defined by numerous authors - all provided on this articles page in further reading or in direct sources. Your main concern from everything I gather, is the term being used by Lyndon LaRouche and his organization. To be frank, when I started on Wikipedia I had no idea of this man or his works. You've educated me with all this debate. I concur (so long as the Arbcom concurs anyway) that any usage of material to promote this group or man etc. should be excluded from ideas associated with him or his organization or however that goes. That however does not get to the basic point all along - that credible reliable sources indicate the terms use well beyond Clay and in America's economic system being described as such throughout the nineteenth century. The very policies became known as not only the American System - but the National System - the Protective System etc. and were followed (and debated) throughout American History til the modern era. Carey in particular was active as late as the 1870's in publishing material in defense of the American System as descriptive opposed to the British System which was Free Trade (which they had followed starting with the repeal of the Corn Laws etc.) - All this belongs in the American System article or under American System (economic philosophy) - Clay's part thereof - American System (economic program) fitting in that context. Again, both American School and System are interchangeable by modern authors and old. I moved a year ago towards the present solution for harmony - since that has been violated - I must insist we return this material to its proper place or work on your hangups with the material then return it where it belongs as proposed above. We need to move in this direction. --Northmeister 01:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The article titled the "American System" should be limited to the American System, a three point plan made famous by Henry Clay. Any information we have on that topic is fine to include. But individual elements of that plan, such as higher tariffs or internal improvements, are not the American System. That's the same argument that caused us to split the articles and nothing has changed since then.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Individual elements? Caused the split? Where have you been? No one ever argued that tariffs alone, internal improvements alone, or a national bank alone are the American System - elements yes, but not the entire system. Never has it been suggested that unsourced material be placed insinuating this - never has it been done. You are objecting to every author provided - numerous editors who concur etc. because you have not read the material. This caused the break. Your failure to even understand that "American System" was not only used by Clay, but by Stewart, by Carey, and in rhetoric to refer to America's economic system under the GOP in the nineteenth century during Clevelands campaign. All as you know, cited and well sourced. So again - a Wikipedia article entitled American System either includes all accepted definition with reliable sources or your here clearly to harass and abuse your privileges. Numerous times I've asked for clear convincing reasons from reputable authors that indicate your point of view and you continue to offer nothing. I will include the material back in the American System article where it belongs without evidence that the authors and citations I provide are not reliable or agreed. --Northmeister 04:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't undo the compromise that's lasted a year without a consensus to do so. I'm away this weekend, we can talk more next week.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Enjoy your weekend. I'm in no hurry. When you return please make a detailed listing of your hangups with this article so they can be addressed individually. Second - consider thoughtfully the move to place the material in one article with subsections involving the usage of the term American System and its adherents and if your opposed a clear and convinving reason why your opposed. Thanks. --Northmeister 13:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A longstanding problem with this article, which I've repeated from last year and that obviously bothered 24ip and user:Gazpacho too, is the long Lind quote that is no longer verifiable. How can we summarize that and reduce the actual quotation to a reasonable length? (something under 100 word). Can we find a current source for it?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 24 was simply a vandal form my perspective. Gazpacho made some good points and am open to working with him. Yes and Yes - per your questions. Now - my second question which remains unanswered. --Northmeister 14:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's fix the Lind quotation then we can address other problems. That quote has been a sticking point for a long time and has yet to be addressed.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's first address the sources you have indicating that the American School and System are not the same. What are they? This has been an issued for a long time. --Northmeister 14:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're pushing for a merger, there's no way we're going to merge this bloated article anywhere until we get it cleaned up. Unless a more constructive solution is presented, I think we should simply delete the Lind quotation. I believe the material is mostly covered elsewhere in the article.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having heard no constructive suggestions, and since this has been a pending issue for over a year, I'm going to delete the quotation.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: User 24*

message: Speaking of cleaning up the Lind quote, footnotes 34 a and b and 35 a and  b, refer to two different books by Lind, yet neither contains a page number.  Since I have both books, I would like to fact check the sources, and page numbers should be included -- as it stands the footnotes are close to useless. Tom (North Shoreman) 18:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pages 9-15 "What Lincoln Believed" for starters - and look to the Index - it is very well done with FDR and Lincoln. As far as "Hamilton's Republic" - look to the introduction as as a whole or specifically xiv-xv. You might want to read the last article therein by Walter Russell Mead. --Northmeister 19:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the effort, but I only went as far as the two footnotes related to "What Lincoln Believed."  I can find nothing in pages 9-15 pertinent  to the paragraphs associated with these footnotes.  I am only casual observer at this point, but if documentation is an issue, the article may have problems. I obviously don't have a problem with Lind per se since I've actually bought two of his books. Tom (North Shoreman) 01:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting. "Franklin Roosevelt himself help orchestrate the campaign to associate himself with his presidency with Lincoln's." pg. 11. "When Lincoln, first as Republican candidate and then as the first Republican president, was asked about his views, he repeatedly identified himself as a Henry Clay Whig." I- Then we have "The prototype of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)...-infrastructure projects intended to serve as the nucleus of the modernization of the poorest parts of the upland south...was the North-South railroad envisioned by Henry Carey and proposed to Congress by Abraham Lincoln" - What is the page number for this quote?  There are numerous others. Hamilton's Republic contains several authors on the subject and Lind is editor thereof. Could you give me an acceptable quote from therein? Footnotes? Could you explain the two? You like Lind because you bought his books, very well - What is Hamilton's Republic's main theme ? May I have the pg. number and a quote from within "Hamilton's Republic"? I can provide numerous citations (many of which are provided in talk and on the page in question already)? I am just curious, since you seemed to miss the quotes above and those already provided for in the article - including the long quote by Lind himself explaining what you had questions about. If you need the source for that - let me know. --Northmeister 02:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An immediate attack on my integrity because YOU (or whoever added the footnotes) failed to follow basic footnoting procedures and include page numbers. As Will has shown, I didn't miss anything.  The quotes you just provided have nothing to do with the paragraphs that the footnotes attach to, do they?  I'm not sure why you even use the book about Lincoln to establish factual matters about the presidencies of Roosevelt through Carter.  Why didn't you include the page numbers in the first place?  Why don't you put them in now {after eliminating the Lincoln book as a source)? On my talk page you ask, "I have provided some quotes you seemed to have missed when looking at Linds works. What do you say of page 24 of "Lincoln's"? Provide what on that page you consider, NOT, indicating the source is correct. I do not see it."  It seems you have misread the few sentences I had written -- I don't question Lind's accuracy at all, do I?
Tom (North Shoreman) 10:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting again, you never answered my questions. "Thanks for the effort, but I only went as far as the two footnotes related to "What Lincoln Believed."  I can find nothing in pages 9-15 pertinent to the paragraphs associated with these footnotes." This statement is not true. And is the "immediate" attack you speak of. "I am only casual observer at this point, but if documentation is an issue, the article may have problems." Being a causual observer you've immediatly questioned my "integrity" let alone "honor" by insinuating that the sources in this article are not correct. Since you've done this, I want to establish your authenticity. I've asked about the two books and you've failed to answer my basic questions.  "I obviously don't have a problem with Lind per se since I've actually bought two of his books." Really? Why can't you answer a simple question on "Hamilton's Republic" or "What Lincoln Believed"? I've asked for verification and you've provided nothing here. "Why didn't you include the page numbers in the first place?  Why don't you put them in now {after eliminating the Lincoln book as a source)?" I was not the editor who reconstructed the article. So ask that editor. Second, "eliminating" the Lincoln book is rubbish, you don't seem to "own" either as you can't give me anything from either and don't understand either. Provide the words on the third and fourth paragraph of page 229 of Lincoln, and a quote from "Hamilton's Republic" say pg. 229 as well. You lack even basic knowledge of Lind or you would not question the sourcing, prove me wrong. Answer my questions, to establish discussion.  You've been hostile since posting here. You fail to answer questions. Discussion requires two here. --Northmeister 13:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ask me Once

message: "During its American System period the United States grew into the largest economy in the world with the highest standard of living, surpassing the British Empire by the 1880s" is either false or meaningless. The British Empire had a <I>lower</I> standard of living throughout the 19th century, averaged over all parts, because of the large number of British subjects in places like Africa and India. Contrariwise, if only the leading developed parts are considered, the British Empire stayed ahead until about 1900 because Australia surged ahead in the latter part of the 19th century. So this needs to be made more precise - P.M.Lawrence. 203.220.83.50 (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Not well defined

message: * However, despite the "capitalist" label, the American School has been known to be more generous towards the working class than the British school which accommodated debtors' prisons and mass starvation in Ireland.
What's our basis for this assertion?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps (if it were to be included in this article) the Whiskey Tax would not be presented as the Western Americans saw it at the time--a federally-enforced regressive tax targeting the rural working class. Whiskey tax grievances Mang (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "More generous towards the working class" 

message: *The American School was more generous towards the free working class than the British school of political economy which accommodated debtors' prisons and mass starvation in Ireland. Slavery was progressively limited in small political actions prior to its eventual abolition. Congress banned the importation of slaves in 1808 which remained in force despite agrarian South Carolina's political leaders' attempt to reopen the African slave trade in the 1850s.
Not sure about the above couple of sentences. The first sentence needs a source and seems more a statement of opinion. The following sentence seems odd and doesn't seem to jive with the article. Could the editor enlighten us about their inclusion.  ·:· Northmeister  ·:· 04:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also questioned the material in October 2008. See above. It was first tagged as needing a soource back in 2007. Unless an explanation is forthcoming we should delete it shortly. The source doesn't directly support the statement.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my thinking as well. --Northmeister (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need sourcing and verification 

message: The phrase "which some Economists believe to have deepened the Great Depression while others disagree" is highly misleading. "others disagree" without quantifiers seemingly would imply that there is significant controversy among economists over the detrimental effects of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. There is not. The vast majority of the tiny percentage (5-10% at most) of economists who do not believe that the Smoot-Hawley deepened the Great Depression are probably charlatans masquerading as economists. Linking to a book written by a no-where near mainstream economist, such as William Gill, is not sufficient evidence for such strangely qualified language.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.201.168.152 (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Smoot-Hawley Tariff 

message: OK, help me out here guys. I'm a PhD student in econ and I'm embarrassed to say that after a quick skimming and looking at some other articles on Wiki I'm still unclear as to if there's any relation between this and the Hamiltonian equations that I'm trying to study (one last time, at 3:45am, for a final exam). 
These are the economic present-value and current-value Hamiltonians that I'm referring to... you know, like in the context of finite and infinite horizon problems. They show that at any instant in time an agent will consume c(t) and owns a stock of capital k(t), both of which affect utility, u(.), etc, etc. 
So... do they relate?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.197.213 (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation / Mathematical Econ (Macroeconomic Theory) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on American School (economics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=1080
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=1080
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=1080
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201123623/http://www.polisci.berkeley.edu/courses/coursepages/Spring2005/ps137b/PRECIS16.pdf to http://www.polisci.berkeley.edu/courses/coursepages/Spring2005/ps137b/PRECIS16.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on American School (economics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060117032728/http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/soros2.html to http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/soros2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on American School (economics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=R1860
*Added  tag to http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex=R1856
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071204004318/http://itrs.scu.edu/jclass/group6/history.html to http://itrs.scu.edu/jclass/group6/history.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051216223853/http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/text/civ/1791manufactures.html to http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/text/civ/1791manufactures.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article has serious issues of balance lacking a neutral point of view. The article is extremely biased in favor of the American School without addressing criticism of its positions and policies. It makes strong claims in favor of the American School without addressing rebuttals or refutations given by other economic schools.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.147.40 (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral point of view