Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Market economy

2022-04-06T06:26:57Z

2001:8003:A070:7F00:B595:E707:A408:A278: /* Sanctions - do they set the "free" of the free market aside? */ new section

{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}}
{{American English}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Economics|class=c|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism |class=C |importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Socialism|class=c|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy |social=yes |importance=high |class=C}}
{{WikiProject Politics|liberalism=yes|socialism=yes|class=c|importance=high|libertarianism=yes |libertarianism-importance=high}}
}}
{{course assignment|course=Education Program:New College of Florida/Work Organization and Its Alternatives (Spring)|term=2013 Q1}}

== Untitled ==
'''Archives:''' [[/Archive1|1]]

== Non-Monetary Economy ==
"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." --[[User:Bryteyes01|Bryteyes01]] ([[User talk:Bryteyes01|talk]]) 15:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)bryteyes01

:I fail to see why this material should be included on a page for describing market economies. -[[User:Battlecry|Battlecry]] 23:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Monetary and non-monetary economies differ radically.
[[User:Vilhelmo|Vilhelmo]] ([[User talk:Vilhelmo|talk]]) 05:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

== Underground economy ==
"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. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 06:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

: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. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 16:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

::Again: do you have a citation for "may be seen"? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 22:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

A free market economy is not a black market economy. A free market economy is economic freedom under law. You can do as you may in a free market economy as long as you follow the law. A black market economy is an unlawful economy. Example: selling crack is unlawful and part of a black market. Selling hot dogs and following the rules and regulations is part of a free market. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.240.255.227|74.240.255.227]] ([[User talk:74.240.255.227|talk]]) 08:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC) 

== neutrality ==
The neutrality complaint is stupid. The arguement being made is that it presents the "libertarian view point" on markets. I disagree, I think that by reporting what Hayek and Friedman state about the market is accurate. They, afterall, are economists. Discussing how market transactions are voluntary does not mean that social market theorists are any less valid. Likely they would agree (otherwise they'd get rid of the market and be called Socialists!!!!) There is a section that discusses market externalities, a section that discusses market participation and a section about the free market. There is not much to complain about but the factual reporting of market operations. ''(personal attack removed)''
([[User:KDRGibby|Gibby]] 22:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC))

:The neutrality complaint may be valid, but no-one can say whether it is or not because the user has not brought their issues to the Talk page in accordance with established procedure for using that template. I've notified Nikodemos on their Talk page that they need to engage on this Talk page in debate about specific NPOV issues. If they choose not to I will remove the template in a few days. — [[User:Saxifrage|Saxifrage]] [[User talk:Saxifrage|✎]] 01:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Reporting what economists Hayek and Friedman say about market economies is not POV or non neutral. ([[User:KDRGibby|Gibby]] 02:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC))
:The neutrality complaint was strange per se: I've altered it slightly, so that it does not read "gives to much weight to the views of economists, for example...", which implies that giving weight to the views of economists is a shocking thing. That said, I'm assuming you've seen through the grammar. --[[User:Nema Fakei|Nema Fakei]] 02:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

::It was someone elses complaint. They had "free market advocates" which is actually a POV representation of them since Hayek and Friedman are by their job definition, economists. When you state the plain truth "the overwhelming vies of economists, such as Friedman and Hayek" well you just wonder exactly why they are commenting on something so related to economics like markets. The original complaint is bogus. Its made by a non-market believer who really hates anything market especially if it argues free market. ([[User:KDRGibby|Gibby]] 02:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

It is difficult to identify specific problems within the article, because it is biased to such a degree that it requires a complete rework. Half of it is dedicated to "criticism of alternatives" (which seems a convulted way of referring to advocacy of market economics), while the rest of it presents very little information explaining how a market economy actually ''works''. As it stands now, this article only discusses free market capitalism, which makes it redundant with the [[capitalism]] and [[free market]] articles. Furthermore, Milton Friedman is cited 32 times. The only other economists mentioned in the article are F.A. Hayek (five times), Adam Smith (twice) and Hernando De Soto (once). I find it particularly outrageous that neither Ricardo nor Keynes are given so much as a nod. In total, there are 47 paragraphs in this article, and Milton Friedman's views are discussed in 24 of them. That means the article is roughly 50% Friedman and 50% all others (and those others share Friedman's POV to a large extent). -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 04:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose that we start reworking the article from the ground up; much of the information about Friedman's views should be moved to the [[Milton Friedman]] article or [[Chicago school]]. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 04:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
:See [[Criticism_of_communism]] for an example of [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]]'s work. Very well sourced, but reflects his personal biases. To me, that article doesn't read like an objective encyclopedia entry, and I'm worried about what's going to happen to this one. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:69.231.250.214|69.231.250.214]] ([[User talk:69.231.250.214|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/69.231.250.214|contribs]]) 
::I did not know I was so interesting that I have anon users watching me. But, in any case, if your only objection is that you do not like my writing, then you are more than welcome to help edit this article yourself. In fact, I do not look forward to the daunting task of re-writing it, and I could use all the help I can get. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 13:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
:::It was me (I'm logged in now - and didn't know how to sign a comment). I don't think it needs re-writing. I agree with [[User:Nema Fakei|Nema Fakei]]. [[User:StringCheesian|StringCheesian]] 19:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
::::You believe it is appropriate to dedicate half the article to the views of one economist, and much of the other half to economists who agree with him? I am not saying we should include prominent discussions of the views of Karl Marx or other opponents of the market economy; I am saying that we should give equal weight to economists who advocate a market economy but see it differently than Friedman (e.g. J.M. Keynes). -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 20:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
:::::I just don't want to see this article brought down to the level of [[Criticism_of_communism]] with respect to tone (should be informative and neutral, not persuasive and apologetic/defensive) and prose. I'd try to fix the other article, but I'm not a very good writer. As well read as you may be, neither are you. I'll admit you're right, Keynes deserves to be mentioned and the article is little heavy on Friedman. But only a little too heavy - shouldn't [[Adam Smith]]'s school of thought figure prominently? Econ 101 textbooks (at least mine anyway) start with him in Chapter 1 and call him the father of modern economics. Why not just move the stuff that belongs in [[Milton Friedman]] and add a few things about Keynes and Ricardo? I don't think your problem with the article justifies a rewrite. [[User:StringCheesian|StringCheesian]] 22:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Adding things by Keynes is fine by me, but don't delete the Friedman stuff. They sections including information from Friedman and Hayek are merely reporting their thoughts on how the market works. Keynes won't say much different other than you need alittle government spending in contractions. Ricardo won't add much Friedman has already talked about and neither will Adam Smith, though having Smith is great. Niko just wants to delete Friedman because he conflates Friedman with libertarianism rather than understanding that Friedman is an economist who just so happens to scientifically prove that markets work better than any alternatives and that free markets are the best form of market economies. Thats it. He wants to delete this information because he disagrees with it. BUT REMEMBER NIKO...we are only reporting what Friedman says. But seriously, I think your scared people might start to see how rational his thoughts really are and just might start agreeing. ([[User:KDRGibby|Gibby]] 13:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC))
:I don't intend to simply remove Friedman's arguments without a trace; I intend to summarize them. You are perfectly right when you say that you are only reporting what Friedman says. The problem is that the place to do that is the [[Milton Friedman]] article, not this one. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 04:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

=== Alternative reading ===
I would not necessarily say that what Nikodemos is (/should be?) disputing is an issue of neutrality, but a question of relevance. This article should not even be discussing the pros and cons of a market economy (which would belong in a criticism article or, better, articles on variant theories), but rather discussing the definition of a market economy: What does it entail? What can be part of a market? What does and does not count as a market economy? To this end, we should represent the influences of such as Friedman and Hayek (being careful to avoid adopting their POV) more than Marx, just as the latter would be expected to feature heavily in [[Communism]]. However, we should also avoid defining a 'Market Economy' purely by how the theorists want it to work: markets have been around before the theorists, so this article should be describing market economies, not just 'Theories about Market economies' - those belong in their own pages, along with the pros and cons of each.
So no, I disagree with Nikodemos' idea of NPOV by balancing two POVs: we should strive to make this article descriptive instead of prescriptive.--[[User:Nema Fakei|Nema Fakei]] 15:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
:Actually, that was my intention, and I agree with you. As I noted above, the current article presents very little information explaining how a market economy actually ''works''. Much of the ''Criticism of alternatives'' section should be moved to the [[Milton Friedman]] article (which, by the way, does not currently do a good job of explaining what his views are - thus, by moving the text there, we would be killing two birds with one stone). Allow me to quote the opening words of every paragraph in that section:

::''There are generalized criticisms of alternatives to market oriented economics...''

::'''''Milton Friedman''' argues...''

:Prices and wages
::''Microeconomists and free market scholars such as '''Milton Friedman''' have written extensively...''

::'''''Freidman''' does believe that workers who take risks deserve more pay than workers who do not...''

:Markets and cooperation
::'''''Friedman''' also believes...''

::''Profits become the motivator for aligning diverse interests and diverse people for a single goal.''

:International cooperation
::'''''Friedman''' and Hayek both believe...''

::'''''Friedman''' states, "International free trade fosters harmonious relations among nations that differ in culture and institutions"''

::''Friedrich Hayek discusses the market alternative and its negative effects on cooperation''

:The role of private property
::''Free market critics such as '''Friedman''' also argue...'' [strange, I thought Gibby insisted that Friedman is not a free market advocate]

:Externalities
::'''''Milton Friedman''' does not deny that there are market externalities and offers many solutions...''

:"Participatory" capitalism
::'''''Milton Friedman''' asserts...''

::'''''He [Friedman]''' believes...''

:Markets and poverty
::''One of the more major complaints of markets and capitalism is a belief that they create exploitation of labor and poverty. [...] '''Milton Friedman''' notes...''

::''Poverty is often conflated with capitalism and with marxist notions of class conflict. Free market economists such as '''Milton Friedman''' and Hernando De Soto make compelling arguments...''

::''Many non-market oriented alternatives to market arrangements, and even social-market proponents criticize market economies for their income inequality. '''Friedman''' and many other microeconomists note...''

:Free market solutions to poverty
::''Free market economists argue that...''

::''Many neoliberals attribute poverty to insufficient protection or recognition of property rights.''

::''Hernando De Soto argues that...''

::''Economists such as '''Milton Friedman''' argue that...''

::''Others have argued that welfare perpetuates poverty by providing incentives counter to wealth creation. Proponents of the FairTax and economists such as '''Milton Friedman''' favor eliminating welfare programs...''

:Social market solutions to poverty
::''Advocates of the third way believe that there is a legimate role the government can play in fighting poverty.'' [and they get all of 3 lines in the article]

:A better name for this article in its current state would be [[Milton Friedman's views on the market economy]]. I think that much is clear. Let us start talking about the ways we could rework it. Nema Fakei brought up a number of useful starting points. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 20:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This is discription of how markets work, who better to report from than two nobel prize winning economists who know market operations better than many others. If you want more on your prefrences, find sources, cite them and add them. Don't bitch about cited Friedman and Hayek material you disagree with. You are starting to irritate me with your lazy deletion censorship-like methods. ([[User:KDRGibby|Gibby]] 13:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC))
:At the moment, it's a description of the arguments for markets. It's like having an article on cars that spends most of its time talking about "Volkswagen argues that cars are good because they make travelling easier, while Ford that cars are a statement of freedom; environmentalists question", rather than something like "a car is a motor-driven vehicle, usually powered by petrol". I agree, there's a place for an article (or a subsection) "Criticism of Cars" or something, but what we want is quotes about how markets work, not describing people's judgements about them. At the moment, all we've got is "Why Friedman thinks what he does", which is not the same as market economic theory. Don't misunderstand: I would like to see lots of quotes from Friedman et al if possible: but preferably technical quotes about the mechanics. I hope this helps you understand what I'm saying. --[[User:Nema Fakei|Nema Fakei]] 16:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And it does describe how the market works. I can't help it if you can't put it together. If you are in fact a leftist of some sort, it is very likely you would not understand or want to understand if Friedman himself explained it to you. ([[User:KDRGibby|Gibby]] 13:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

Everything that is in the market economy article is necessary to describe how a market economy opperates. The reason why others may not think so is the reason why they likely don't believe in market economies...ie they don't understand these little tid bits that are reported here from published figures ([[User:KDRGibby|Gibby]] 00:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC))
:"Everything that is in the market economy article is necessary to describe how a market economy opperates."... There's a vast section called "Criticism of alternatives": are you saying one of the driving or enabling forces of a market economy is that alternatives don't work? That "it is very difficult and inefficient for central planners to guess or approximate values and demand for goods and services" is a technical description of the way a market operates? It may just be me, but "[F argues] it is better to let prices float freely by allowing the market to determine them" seems to be advocating, not describing a market. --[[User:Nema Fakei|Nema Fakei]] 03:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, funny story behind the criticism of alternatives. The leftists from several leftwing communist economic pages continued to delete my added cirticism on market alternatives and they all told me to write a Market Economy page and include criticism of their prefrences there. So I did. And not to my surprise they show up and want to delete the whole thing.

Its the circus I refer to on my user page. Its also called BS.

And no, when you say "Friedman argues that it is better to allow prices to float rather than allowing central planners to dictate prices" its not only cited NPOV (it also happens to be a proven fact, but I havnt gone that far and say it...because if i did the leftists would really be upset then...even more so than now. As of now, you all have no ground to stand on) ([[User:KDRGibby|Gibby]] 03:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC))
:Whether you believe it true or not, the statement clearly adds nothing to the definition of a market economy, and is clearly advocating a market economy. I'm not sure what you mean by "cited NPOV": cited statements can be POV just like any other statement, if not more so, as they are expressions of the POV of the speaker. Friedman's studies in economics are well-respected, but that does not mean that anything he's ever said is automatically relevant and useful in this context.
:I don't know what dealings you have had with other editors, but I trust you are taking up any deletions you feel excessively unfair with admins. So let me get this straight: You and these leftists disagreed about what could go into the article - on basically the same subject as this - and so you created this article so you could develop it your way?
:Hm... It does not make sense to me to turn Market Economy into a Criticism of Alternatives to Markets page; you may as well just rename it - or even incorporate it into existing pages like Friedman's. However, I thank you for conceding that this page does include discussions about the pros and cons of economic systems. Now, I'm not necessarily suggesting deleting these, but I am suggesting that we make *much* clearer the distinction between the definition of a market economy, and the reasons we might support a market economy (/criticise alternatives), possibly by splitting the article into sections or even (preferably) two articles, the latter to be added back into somewhere more relevant (e.g. Friedman).--[[User:Nema Fakei|Nema Fakei]] 05:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

:Whoever told you to include an extensive discussion of Friedman's views here was wrong. The place for it is the [[Milton Friedman]] article. I will (eventually) move a lot of information there. And no, it will not continue to be moved around to other articles. In exchange for your cooperation, Gibby, I can personally watch the Friedman article and ensure that the material on his views does not get removed. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 04:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

:I'm going to gently suggests that Gibby should [[Wikipedia:assume good faith|assume good faith]]. It sounds like Nema Fakei and Nikodemos both have the best interests of the article's quality in mind and assuming otherwise only serves to divert attention from the contents of the article to irrelevancies like the editors themselves. — [[User:Saxifrage|Saxifrage]] [[User talk:Saxifrage|✎]] 03:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

== where does this go? ==
- Motivation to manufacture goods at least cost could lead to business firms making production decisions with little regard for safety of workers or the quality of environment.
- Reduction in Quality of products: The quality of products can fall down as the producers have to reduce cost.
- It does not guarantee full employment for workers. As to reduce cost the company can fire off workers anything they want according to their self made rules of temporary employment.
- Growing social and economic inequality (the rich get richer and everyone else gets poorer). Because those with more money also start a disproportional political influence, which they use to make still more money.
- Reduction in social benefits and welfare. As there are no social safety, for jobs etc. People feel unsecured about their future.
- Good are produced in excess as the poor workers are not paid well due to market competition. So they don’t have the power of money to buy commodities in a large number.

I can't tell if its serious or vandalism. At anyrate it looks like a complaint and would need its own section. Anyone want to clean this up, add citations, eliminate the OR and add it back in? ([[User:KDRGibby|Gibby]] 13:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC))
:Looks honest (I'm guessing an inexperienced editor by the format), but I don't think it really belongs in the article any more than advocacy.--[[User:Nema Fakei|Nema Fakei]] 03:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
::Looks like a good place to kick start the criticism section. I'll add it back in as a comment just to make sure it's not lost. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 05:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see advocacy, I see reporting Friedman's views...which happen to be one of the most credible educators on market operations alive today. ([[User:KDRGibby|Gibby]] 03:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC))
:Milton Friedman has no monopoly over the concept of a market economy. And dedicating half of this article to reporting his views is no more NPOV than dedicating half the article on [[race]] to reporting Hitler's views. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 05:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No he does not but he is a credible source on market economies. Hilter was not even a credible source on race. Try again. ([[User:KDRGibby|Gibby]] 00:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

:Nobody is suggesting the removal of his information, only changing the article's focus from ''his views'' onto ''what is a market economy''. Do you oppose this? If so, why? — [[User:Saxifrage|Saxifrage]] [[User talk:Saxifrage|✎]] 04:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe he does explain what a market economy is. I believe it is important to note the voluntary arrangements of market systems the importance of money, property, prices etc. If you or he wants to add other sources fine by me. But deleting the worlds foremost expert. Out of the question. ([[User:KDRGibby|Gibby]] 05:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC))
:Stephen Hawking is a recognised world expert on astrophysics. He does explain what a black hole is. However, the articles on black holes should not contain quotations from Hawking saying "Black holes are really neat". It's a statement that, (I'd think at some point) a renowned expert has made about black holes. But it doesn't explain what they are, and if it came up in the article on black holes, I'd say it needed deleting, because it doesn't explain anything about black holes. There's no reason (obscurity aside) that it shouldn't come under a subsection on [[Stephen Hawking]] or [[Popularity of Black Holes]].
:"I believe it is important to note the voluntary arrangements of market systems the importance of money, property, prices etc". Yes! I'm definitely in favour of turning this into a more economics-based article.--[[User:Nema Fakei|Nema Fakei]] 22:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

::I don't think that is a good example either. There is a major difference between steven hawking telling you a black hole is neat and what a black hole is. Just like there is a difference between Milton Friedman saying Free Markets are best and this is how markets work. That is what the article is saying. ([[User:KDRGibby|Gibby]] 06:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC))
:::"There is a major difference ... how markets work." Precisely my point. Now, we have sentences and even sections that run like "Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman stated that economic freedom is a necessary condition for the creation and sustainability of civil and political freedoms.", which do not explain the workings of a market, but describe views in support of a market economy (i.e. market economies are neat). Statements like "Milton Friedman asserts, as would many other microeconomists, that consumers constantly participate in market-oriented capitalism with every purchase they make", however, help define the market (black holes are created when stars collapse), and are the sorts of statements we do want from MF (although I think the wording is a little opaque).--[[User:Nema Fakei|Nema Fakei]] 13:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
::::no that particular sentence is explaining how markets participate in the generation and protection of civila nd political freedoms, which argues that non market arrangements result in tyranny. Thus it does discuss market funcitons
::::([[User:KDRGibby|Gibby]] 06:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC))
:::::I could just as much say ""Black holes are neat" is explaining how markets participate in the generation and protection of variation and diversity, which argues that a universe without black holes result in dulness. Thus it does discuss black hole functions." What the article (in the first quotation there) is describing is an external effect rather than an internal or inherent property (such as the second quotation). At the very least, the indirect and peripheral consequences - including negative ones for which the market can be criticised - should be subsectioned off and given less prominence than the core internal functions that market economic theory actually deals with.--[[User:Nema Fakei|Nema Fakei]] 14:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

== Criticism ==
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? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 06:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
what?................ — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/99.228.186.125|99.228.186.125]] ([[User talk:99.228.186.125|talk]]) 23:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC) 

== RJII's recent edits ==
RJII's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Market_economy&diff=49019957&oldid=48471237 recent edits] have<s>, again,</s> inserted language that has nothing to do with "market economy" as the term is ''actually used'', instead doing some original research about absolute freedom and inserting weasel words about what "some" people may or may not want. <s>Rather than describing the term ''market economy'' with a meaning that it actually holds or describing (things that are called) market economies as they actually exist, this is veering away into an essay. Since this has been, in the past, part of RJII's project of getting the article farther and farther away from a description and closer to a piece of original research on what markets should or shouldn't be/do/function as, this isn't something that can be improved and added to.</s> So, I've reverted. — [[User:Saxifrage|Saxifrage]] [[User talk:Saxifrage|✎]] 19:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

:Ok, well I'm reverting back then. Because, what you say is very vague and doesn't really address anything. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 21:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

::Here is a list of the problems I see with your changes:
::*Linking to a Wikipedia article does not count as as citation and does not make it not original research. ("Less market restrictions are found in other countries, such as in [[Hong Kong]], according to the [[Index of Economic Freedom]]")
:::Yes it does make it not original research. It's not original research. The Index of Economic Freedom is the source. Just because I linked it to a Wikipedia article doesn't make it original research. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
::*You write "And, even [[anarcho-capitalists]] believe in the rule of law..." and don't attribute this. Original reseach.
:::This is not original research at all. It's true. It's fundamental to anarcho-capitalism. Read "Society without a State" by Rothbard. There's my source. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
::*[[wikipedia:avoid weasel words|Weasel words]]: "''Many'' states ''which are said'' to have a capitalist system do not have the level of market freedom that ''some'' would prefer." (emphasis mine, highlighting weasel words) What states are these? Who says? Who are these "some" who are doing the preferring? Granted, the second could easily be reworded, but this also qualifies as original research without citation.
:::I don't care about that. I was just trying to reword things to make sense. The wording and meaning were horrible. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
::*Your statement that actually "free markets" are limited to protecting property rights and maintaining the peace is uncited, so original research.
:::That's not original research at all. A free market economy is a laissez-faire economy. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
::*Saying, "There is currently no state where all markets within its borders are absolutely free," and then, "However, the term is not usually used in such an absolutist sense," subtly reflects the POV that "market economy" and "free market" are terms that derive their meaning from the common-English meaning of its component words, rather than technical terms that have a long and established history that gives them their meaning within economics. This would be the same as writing, "Radio plays are not actually live theatrical productions that are broadcast on the radio, however the term is not usually used in such a sense" to subtly reflect a POV that live entertainment is better than pre-recorded broadcast entertainment.
::However, after compiling this list, I can see that the fundamental problems are part of the original passage, though you are merely adding to them. Perhaps we can work together to hammer it into a more useful shape. Let me start by asking, what do you think the section on free markets should be used for? The semantic issue is, I very much believe, a straw man that does not belong in the article. — [[User:Saxifrage|Saxifrage]] [[User talk:Saxifrage|✎]] 20:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
:::Well, there should probably be a discussion delineating a market economy from a free market economy. A market economy can conceivably have price and wage controls, for example, but a free market economy would not. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
:::Finally, I resent your personal attack and impugning my motivations: "Since this has been, in the past, part of RJII's project of getting the article farther and farther away from a description and closer to a piece of original research on what markets should or shouldn't be/do/function as, this isn't something that can be improved and added to." I have had, from the start, no desire other than to make this article more accurate and sourceable. I resent you now, and don't work with you at all on this. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 21:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
::::Yes, I shouldn't have made that attack and I apologise. I've struck it out; will you recognise my retraction of it? My [[wikipedia:Harmonious editing club|harmony]] seems to have been seriously off recently and I'd like to make up for that. — [[User:Saxifrage|Saxifrage]] [[User talk:Saxifrage|✎]] 21:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
:::::Ok, no problem. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 23:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

== Remove section ==
I am deleting the "Criticism of alternatives" section. It is very [[WP:NPOV|POV]] and the topic is covered better under article like [[Criticisms of socialism]]. I will move the text below (in <nowiki><pre>text</pre></nowiki> form). [[User:72.139.119.165|72.139.119.165]] 22:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Market_economy&diff=49657869&oldid=49403932 diff] and bring the desired sections back here. — [[User:Saxifrage|Saxifrage]] [[User talk:Saxifrage|✎]] 00:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

== Market economy and China ==
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. [[User:Colipon|Colipon]]+([[User talk:Colipon|T]]) 00:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

:That makes sense. Also, the whole point of a market economy is that the government doens't "run" the economy. [[User:RJII|RJII]] 00:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

== Criticisms? What criticisms? ==
[[User:CosmopolitanCapitalist]] recently took it upon himself to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Market_economy&diff=69747276&oldid=67636861#Criticism_of_market_economy 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:

<blockquote>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 theory|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.</blockquote>

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. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 01:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

: [[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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Progressive_tax&diff=70035380&oldid=69756795 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. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 01:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually Jmabel, the entire section above my addition is an interpretation of Smith and Jefferson quotes by the wiki authors themselves. Now, at least my interpretation (which is the correct one) is at least better reasoned than the poor criticism offered here. Furthermore, I at least provided you quotes. Clean up the criticism, make it stronger, and for god's sake get some quotes. I am surprised that you completely missed, or maybe ignored (I'm not judging though...but given your accusations here...) the original research of the entire section you decide to quote me on. If anyone needs to hold themselves to a higher standard please point your finger back at yourself. Finally, I did not remove material. On the progressive tax I added information in the same style as provided in the article, in market economy i only hide the poorly reasoned, argued, and woefully lacking in citation criticism section. DO some research and then unhide it. Don't go looking for ideological red herrings then point fingers like a 2 year old.([[User:CosmopolitanCapitalist|CosmopolitanCapitalist]] 04:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC))

: 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. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 16:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies then, the stuff around it is equally..."OR"...though I would not say my addition was bad. ^_^ ([[User:CosmopolitanCapitalist|CosmopolitanCapitalist]] 05:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC))

== Who invented the term? ==
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). [[User:Ulf-S.|Ulf-S.]] 11:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
: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?--[[User:MrNiceGuy1113|MrNiceGuy1113]] ([[User talk:MrNiceGuy1113|talk]]) 20:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

== Merge? ==
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. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 06:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

== Recent edits ==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Market_economy&diff=89419433&oldid=84447592 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 market]]s: 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. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 07:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

== Rewrite ==
Following numerous complaints by other editors, as well as my own observations that the article did not explain what a market economy actually ''is'' or how it functions, I have attempted a rewrite. Please discuss. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 06:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

:I disagree with it. I don't think you should do a unilateral rewrite of an article and just stick in the there. You should do incremental edits. Besides that, there is a lot wrong with it. First, the definition is inadequate. It's not a market economy simply because there are markets. If supply and demand is regulated then it is planned economy, even though production and distribution takes place through markets. This smacks of POV: "Those who control more resources have more choices available to them than those who control fewer resources." What kind of choices? What is that supposed to mean? Going on, you talk about "market socialism" saying it's market economy. I'm sorry but that is not a market economy. In market socialism, price is set by government to adjust shortage and surplus issues in attempt to simulate a market economy. Again, having markets - buying and selling things - alone does not constitute a market economy if the prices of those things are regulated. Going on down, you say something about the "goals of economy" policy being "promote economic growth, to achieve full employment and to maintain price stability." Whose economic policy? The economic policy of those who support markets is to let the market take care of economic growth, employment, and price stability. The policy you're talking about is in opposition to markets. That's just the start. The rest of the article is equally dubious and most of it unsourced. [[User:Anarcho-capitalism|Anarcho-capitalism]] 17:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

::My intent was precisely to invite discussion, which is something that I seem to have successfully achieved. Please note that the article you reverted to was far more unsourced than the one I wrote. The definitions I provided were sourced, and the statement that "those who control more resources have more choices available to them than those who control fewer resources" is a direct quote from an economics textbook. (Lieberman, Marc and Hall, Robert E. "Introduction to economics", Thomson Learning, 2005. pp. 43) The "goals of economic policy" are likewise cited in Lieberman, Marc and Hall, Robert E. "Introduction to economics", Thomson Learning, 2005. pp. 350.

::Now, my main objection to this article as it stands right now is that it appears to be more concerned with arguments for and against free markets than with the question of how a market economy actually ''works''. Milton Friedman is mentioned in almost every single paragraph, which is unacceptable. Finally, some sections are out of place - like "markets and communist states" (which is really about Chinese economic reform). Now, I'm sure Chinese economic reform is an interesting topic, but what is it doing in an article concerned with the general features of market economies?

::However, I agree to follow your advice and do incremental edits. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 08:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

:::What is the context of that quote? What kind of "choices" are they talking about? And your point about "goals of economic policy," that is not the economic policy in market economies but in mixed economies. It doesn't make sense to say thee that an essential characteristic of market economies is that there is central planning. A market economy is defined by the lack of central planning. The U.S. government doesn't intervene to ensure "full employment." Sometimes their is full employment, like now, and some times there is not. And they don't tax and spend to promote economic growth. The U.S. government basically just stands back and let's businesses cycles occur. The U.S. is closer to a market economy than governments that do engage in such intervention. [[User:Anarcho-capitalism|Anarcho-capitalism]] 16:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

::::I will go look for the context of that quote and get back to you on it. Note that there is a difference between "economic policy" and "economic intervention". A government might have a ''policy'' of non-intervention. If economists believe that the goals of economic policy are X, Y and Z, that means they believe that governments should act in such a way as to achieve X, Y and Z. The precise way in which X, Y and Z are best achieved is another question entirely. Some will argue that the best way to achieve them is to leave the market alone; others will argue for intervention. -- [[User:Nikodemos|Nikodemos]] 22:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder: "market economy" is not interchangeable with [[free market]] (which has its own article). The latter is about an economist's abstraction. "Market economy" is in contrast to [[barter economy]], [[gift economy]], and [[planned economy]]. Pretty much every existing "market economy" is, in practice, a somewhat [[mixed economy]]. Certainly, some elements of gift economy can be found in any society (especially within families); and I can't think of a government that does not do at least some planning (if only through targeting its own spending: e.g. allocating resources to poor regions). - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 22:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

== Cut from article ==
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

* 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. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 22:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the "turf" thing is probably rare. I know in my neighborhood there are multiple drug delivery services competing for business. They don't use force to restrain competitors. Someone makes a call to their preferred merchant, a car pulls up, someone goes to the door and delivers drugs, then they leave, just like a pizza delivery. First of all to kill a competitor over minor transactions like this is not worth the risk. Second of all most drug dealers are peaceful people. They're just as uninclined as any one else to commit acts of violence. They're just businessmen.

== Is a free market possible under capitalism? ==
I have a hard time seeing the "free market" as described in introductory economics texts. To me it seems like there are barriers everywhere, and "competition" means two major firms and a few specialty suppliers. In fact, it seems like you '''couldn't''' have a genuine free market in a capitalist economy, because if you had one, then the average profit margin for all suppliers would be equal to the interest rate. But investors expect much higher average returns from the average mutual fund than they see from any money market fund - so if an industry were perfectly competitive, it would receive no investment and ultimately the assets of various competitors would be sold off to make more money on the stock market. And that's not even getting into the political clout of the major market players. Do the economists actually claim that free markets are possible in the real world? [[User:70.15.116.59|70.15.116.59]] 05:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
:You're confusing a "free market" with a "perfect market." A free market isn't necessarily perfectly competitive. A "perfect market" is the theoretical construct that you're referring to. [[User:Solid Rancher|Solid Rancher]] 05:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

::The wikipedia arcticles read: "
::1)[[Capitalism]] refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production are predominantly private[1][2] owned and operated, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy.
::2) 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.
::3) A [[free market]] is a market in which prices of goods and services are arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers.

:: If 1+2+3 is correct, then wikipedia is saying that in capitalism goods and services are arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. This is not always the case, as sometimes people need to buy certain products they need for their own survival (electricity, water, food) without the 'freedom' to choose the supplier. Simular, there are inflexibilities in the markets like the time, place and availability of products preventing the establishement of a 'free' or 'perfect' market. I think that saying 'free market' and capitalsm are the same is dangerous. It might give us a sence of false freedom. The question would be offcourse what you understand under freedom(lol). [[Economic freedom|Freedom]] or [[Freedom_%28philosophy%29|freedom]]?

::I personally dont think a market economy is the same as a free market economy either. For me the current market economy is determined by limitations and non-freedoms (again, time, place, available competitions, regulations,...) rather than [[Freedom_%28philosophy%29|freedom]]. What do you call the 'real' market system if I cant call it 'a market economy'???

::If capitalism has by definition a free market, then our world economy doesnt qualify as capitalism. I think this is where the confusion starts. Textbooks often refer to these theoretical concepts, but neglect to mention the arent reality ^^. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.192.129.67|84.192.129.67]] ([[User talk:84.192.129.67|talk]]) 17:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC) 

:::You're correct. That's why more careful textbooks refer to the economies loosely called "capitalist" or a "market economies" as "mixed economies." There is no economy that is pure to the definition of capitaism or socialism. [[User:Operation Spooner|Operation Spooner]] ([[User talk:Operation Spooner|talk]]) 18:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If property and means of production can be privately owned than they must have the freedom to have private decisions as well or else its only nominal capitalism. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.240.255.227|74.240.255.227]] ([[User talk:74.240.255.227|talk]]) 08:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC) 

== Market and personal freedom - criticism of Hayek and Friedman ==
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:
<blockquote>
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.
</blockquote>
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:
<blockquote> 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. </blockquote>
[[User:PJTraill|PJTraill]] ([[User talk:PJTraill|talk]]) 13:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:: 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 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2kTy7glZ9s&feature=PlayList&p=E0CDBC134A863F04&index=0&playnext=1 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. [[User:Lordmetroid|Lord Metroid]] ([[User talk:Lordmetroid|talk]]) 15:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

:: 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. [[User:PJTraill|PJTraill]] ([[User talk:PJTraill|talk]]) 10:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

== Move to free-market economy ==
{{polltop}} '''no support''' for move. [[Special:Contributions/199.125.109.102|199.125.109.102]] ([[User talk:199.125.109.102|talk]]) 21:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

When you search the term in google [[http://www.google.com/search?q="market economy" -"free market economy" -wikipedia]] is less than [[http://www.google.com/search?q="free market economy" -wikipedia]]. The article [[market anarchism]] has been changed to [[free-market anarchism]], so why not this article?[[Special:Contributions/71.175.31.106|71.175.31.106]] ([[User talk:71.175.31.106|talk]]) 01:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
: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? [[User:Lordmetroid|Lord Metroid]] ([[User talk:Lordmetroid|talk]]) 02:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Operation Spooner|Operation Spooner]] ([[User talk:Operation Spooner|talk]]) 14:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
::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. --[[User:Nema Fakei|Nema Fakei]] ([[User talk:Nema Fakei|talk]]) 20:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
:::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? [[User:Operation Spooner|Operation Spooner]] ([[User talk:Operation Spooner|talk]]) 03:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
::::'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. --[[User:Nema Fakei|Nema Fakei]] ([[User talk:Nema Fakei|talk]]) 01:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::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."[[Special:Contributions/71.175.31.106|71.175.31.106]] ([[User talk:71.175.31.106|talk]]) 21:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Lordmetroid|Lord Metroid]] ([[User talk:Lordmetroid|talk]]) 00:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
::The term '''market''' contains many ambiguities.[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/market] 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."[[Special:Contributions/71.175.31.106|71.175.31.106]] ([[User talk:71.175.31.106|talk]]) 01:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Operation Spooner|Operation Spooner]] ([[User talk:Operation Spooner|talk]]) 00:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' (and probably tag this article as tendentious). We don't name articles after slogans. A ''market economy'' is an economy which ''has'' markets. A strictly free-market economy is at least as much an abstraction as a truly perfect gas. And we don't settle ''any'' naming question by appealing to raw www.google.com results. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] [[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]] 21:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
::Market economy is an abstraction as well. It means the same thing. [[User:Operation Spooner|Operation Spooner]] ([[User talk:Operation Spooner|talk]]) 02:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''A market might not be planned or controlled, but also not "free", other influences might be influencing decisions, prices, products, services, ... beyond the bare supply/ demand/ price that in theory is all there is in a "free market". [[User:OtterSmith|htom]] ([[User talk:OtterSmith|talk]]) 21:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
**I like to see some source of that, unless it is [[WP:OR]]. If there is a source, this article needs it. Otherwise, the decision making section should be removed, as it involves government intervention. This is conflicting with 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."[[Special:Contributions/71.175.31.106|71.175.31.106]] ([[User talk:71.175.31.106|talk]]) 14:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' It is called a market economy in contrast to command economy. [[User:Lordmetroid|Lord Metroid]] ([[User talk:Lordmetroid|talk]]) 14:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
: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 market'''s, 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
[[Special:Contributions/71.175.31.106|71.175.31.106]] ([[User talk:71.175.31.106|talk]]) 21:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Operation Spooner|Operation Spooner]] ([[User talk:Operation Spooner|talk]]) 03:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - the term is market economy. Free market economy is certainly not the most common usage. [[User:Bssc81|Bssc81]] ([[User talk:Bssc81|talk]]) 09:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
{{pollbottom}}

Just a reminder that the above doesn't mean that someone would be doing something in violation of the rules by now moving the article to "free-market economy." That's still permitted, regardless of what the consensus was. Wikipedia policy says: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and will not necessarily be treated as binding." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not [[User:Operation Spooner|Operation Spooner]] ([[User talk:Operation Spooner|talk]]) 17:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
: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... [[Special:Contributions/199.125.109.102|199.125.109.102]] ([[User talk:199.125.109.102|talk]]) 17:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would remind everybody that we have an article [[free market]]. Almost all real-world economies have market aspects (as almost all have barter, gift, and command aspects), and this article seems to me to be the appropriate place to discuss precisely those market aspects. The article [[free market]] is, appropriately, about the economists' abstraction of a free market. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 22:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

== Sources ==
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. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 22:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
happy! thank you! —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/66.168.209.207|66.168.209.207]] ([[User talk:66.168.209.207|talk]]) 18:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 

== Gobbledygook ==
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. [[User:Adelson Velsky Landis|Adelson Velsky Landis]] ([[User talk:Adelson Velsky Landis|talk]]) 07:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

== economic freedom refs ==
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Market_economy&diff=426771244&oldid=426763723 This edit] questions the references used for some of the economic freedom stuff. The [[Index of Economic Freedom]] reports are jointly produced by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, as is evident from their web site or the documents they produce, so the Wall Street Journal should remain there. The other point was about a dead link, I guess? The link that was there goes to kinda the front page for the [http://www.heritage.org/index/ Index of Economic Freedom]. To me, that seems a reasonable place to go, but it could be argued. To get the full report, the web site makes you go through a data-collection form where they want your name and email address before allowing you to download the PDF report, so I'm not sure giving that link would be better. I could go either way. [[User:Cretog8|CRETOG8]]([[User_talk:Cretog8|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cretog8|c]]) 03:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
:The claims attributed to the Wall Street Journal are not properly sourced. Regarding the dead link, the reference cited should be updated to make it clear that the referenced Report is not accessible by clicking on the link. [[User:Somedifferentstuff|Somedifferentstuff]] ([[User talk:Somedifferentstuff|talk]]) 11:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
::I'm not sure of the problem. I guess I'll try the direct link, let me know if that's better? [[User:Cretog8|CRETOG8]]([[User_talk:Cretog8|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cretog8|c]]) 16:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
:::It appears that you fixed the problem of the "dead link". In regards to the Wall Street Journal, the section of the current article states "''...that there is a relationship between economic freedom and political and civil freedoms to the extent claimed by Friedrich von Hayek. They agree with Hayek that those countries which restrict..."''
:::There is nothing currently cited in the article that shows the Wall Street Journal making or supporting these claims. You need to provide a source if you want this in the article. [[User:Somedifferentstuff|Somedifferentstuff]] ([[User talk:Somedifferentstuff|talk]]) 17:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
::::I'm still confused about your objection. The report is a joint publication from the Heritage Institute and the Wall Street Journal. Is the problem that it doesn't specifically reference Hayek? It does, briefly, but maybe it could be rephrased to solve your problem. In any case, there's no reason to pull out the Wall Street Journal from the article. [[User:Cretog8|CRETOG8]]([[User_talk:Cretog8|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Cretog8|c]]) 18:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
We're not talking about the report, we're talking about Hayek and the Wall Street Journal. If you want to add Hayek stuff relating to the Wall Street Journal, then it needs to be properly sourced. [[User:Somedifferentstuff|Somedifferentstuff]] ([[User talk:Somedifferentstuff|talk]]) 18:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

== WTO definition ==
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]] | [[User talk:Lommer|talk]] 19:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

== Social market economy ==
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: [http://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/Definition/soziale-marktwirtschaft.html 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]] [http://books.google.de/books?id=br62TG_FlvUC&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=%22decided+on+a+liberal+economic+system%22&source=bl&ots=hnMbkkG89y&sig=pRCTrjztZNcxDTw6U-kJeAHKOBA&hl=de&sa=X&ei=0EhkUJi0LobgtQat8ICIBQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22decided%20on%20a%20liberal%20economic%20system%22&f=false][http://books.google.de/books?id=JiSnS3q0OAMC&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=%22conceived+the+social+market+economy%22&source=bl&ots=LMnwAFsAN0&sig=16iAf4g7bsHOiVVvcM5YNCddErg&hl=de&sa=X&ei=rUtkUPq_J5CPswaByYCQBA&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22conceived%20the%20social%20market%20economy%22&f=false][http://books.google.de/books?id=4FI0I0sbXsgC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=neoliberalism+%22was+responsible%22+%22social+market+economic%22&source=bl&ots=hmosmGsbI-&sig=b2N1kum5pCW1cqhi6S0SZ0ilkOw&hl=de&sa=X&ei=T05kUKD0A4XntQbV1oGgBA&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=neoliberalism%20%22was%20responsible%22%20%22social%20market%20economic%22&f=false][http://books.google.de/books?id=x-lnOd088FQC&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=%22neoliberal+political+movement%22+%22social+market%22&source=bl&ots=75uooesJcY&sig=6gQjVXqsmQQgmbFun0xoZiPYeKM&hl=de&sa=X&ei=XWdkUK3sM4bLswaUtYCIBQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22neoliberal%20political%20movement%22%20%22social%20market%22&f=false]. Moreover the social market economy is opposed to social democracy and democratic socialism [http://books.google.de/books?id=pP-vwHk6c-MC&pg=PA185&lpg=PA185&dq=%22theoretically+unambiguous+rejection+of+social+democracy%22&source=bl&ots=KdJ9paZlN_&sig=81k8g9FRGOmGAqpPa0J5J2ho8jg&hl=de&sa=X&ei=2FVkUOr5LMXbtAbbiYHgBQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22theoretically%20unambiguous%20rejection%20of%20social%20democracy%22&f=false][http://books.google.de/books?id=BAnvfLnoSegC&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=%22social+market+economy%22+%22active+distancing+from%22&source=bl&ots=Wth1TohMo7&sig=RNQO2Rv7WUbv29uDSsFYzdakP4E&hl=de&sa=X&ei=_l5kUOH0MsbxsgaxjIHQBA&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22social%20market%20economy%22%20%22active%20distancing%20from%22&f=false][http://books.google.de/books?id=QdSQX51LVNcC&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq=%22social+market+economy+was%22+%22struggle+against+socialism%22&source=bl&ots=SOgCurioj1&sig=K_pOUouM6-QXLfqZ1zOwZBVFoIc&hl=de&sa=X&ei=Im5kUICdH4f2sgbggIGQBA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22social%20market%20economy%20was%22%20%22struggle%20against%20socialism%22&f=false].--[[User:Mr. Mustard|Mr. Mustard]] ([[User talk:Mr. Mustard|talk]]) 15:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
: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]] ([http://www.google.de/search?q=social+market+economy+embedded+liberalism&btnG=Nach+B%C3%BCchern+suchen&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=de]) with an wider philosophical influence. --[[User:Pass3456|Pass3456]] ([[User talk:Pass3456|talk]]) 22:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

::The system which was realized in Germany (after Ludwig Erhard) is not the subject of this article. --[[User:Mr. Mustard|Mr. Mustard]] ([[User talk:Mr. Mustard|talk]]) 22:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

{|style="border-top:solid thin lightgrey;background:transparent;padding:4px;"
|[[Image:Searchtool-80%.png|15px]] '''Response to [[WP:3O|third opinion request]]''':
|-
|style="padding-left:0.6cm"|The subject of that section of the article should be the same as the subject of [[Social market economy]]. Would you both be happy to accept the lead of that article as the text in this section? Can you use it as a basis for some agreed text? If you have issues with the lead of [[Social market economy]] then I suggest that you start a discussion at [[talk:Social market economy]]. If you do that, you should notify people who may be interested by placing a message on the talk pages of the WikiProjects involved with that page. [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 12:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC) [[User:Yaris678|Yaris678]] ([[User talk:Yaris678|talk]]) 12:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
|}

: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. [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udwzZT0WGKw]] [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXZBmbvaru8]].

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.<ref>{{ cite web | url=http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/market_economy | title=A Glossary of Political Economy Terms, Market economy | author=Paul M. Johnson | date=2005 | work= | publisher=Auburn University | accessdate=28 December 2012}}"

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 (professor)|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 labor|wage-based labor]].<ref>{{cite book |last= McNally|first= David |title= Against the Market: Political economy, market socialism and the Marxist critique |publisher= Verso|year= 1993|month= |isbn= 978-0-86091-606-2|page = }}</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!) [[http://mises.org/daily/3105/The-Decline-and-Fall-of-Gorbachev-and-the-Soviet-State]] 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'''.
[[User:Rothbardanswer|Rothbardanswer]] ([[User talk:Rothbardanswer|talk]]) 12:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

::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. -[[User:Battlecry|Battlecry]] 09:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

== Socialist weight ==
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.
[[User:Rothbardanswer|Rothbardanswer]] ([[User talk:Rothbardanswer|talk]]) 12:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

::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. -[[User:Battlecry|Battlecry]] 09:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

== East Asian model ==
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... --[[User talk:Wüstenfuchs|Wüstenfuchs]] 23:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

: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". -[[User:Battlecry|Battlecry]] 23:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

== Incomplete introduction ==

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 [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/119.224.108.249|119.224.108.249]] ([[User talk:119.224.108.249#top|talk]]) 06:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC) 

== Poop ==

What is poop? Poop is blue and can be eaten by aleins. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2601:285:0:3020:1915:9164:5D3:EDB0|2601:285:0:3020:1915:9164:5D3:EDB0]] ([[User talk:2601:285:0:3020:1915:9164:5D3:EDB0#top|talk]]) 19:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC) 

== Sanctions - do they set the "free" of the free market aside? ==

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. [[Special:Contributions/2001:8003:A070:7F00:B595:E707:A408:A278|2001:8003:A070:7F00:B595:E707:A408:A278]] ([[User talk:2001:8003:A070:7F00:B595:E707:A408:A278|talk]]) 06:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Talk:AUKUS

2022-04-06T06:12:43Z

2001:8003:A070:7F00:B595:E707:A408:A278: /* Request for comment on Background to French Response */ Reply

{{not a forum}}
{{Australian English|date=September 2021}}
{{ITN talk|18 September|2021|oldid=1044979491}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |1=
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C|British-task-force=yes|US-task-force=yes|ANZSP-task-force=yes|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}
{{WikiProject Australia |class=C |importance=Low |military=yes |military-importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject United Kingdom |class=C |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject United States |class=C |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject International relations |class=C |importance=Mid}}
}}
{{annual readership}}
{{Archives|age=45|bot=lowercase sigmabot III}}.
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(45d)
| archive=Talk:AUKUS/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=2
| maxarchivesize=75K
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadsleft=5
| minthreadstoarchive=1
}}
== Request for comment on Background to French Response ==
{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1635973281}}
Is the background to the French response relevant to the article? [[User:AustraliaRodeo|AustraliaRodeo]] ([[User talk:AustraliaRodeo|talk]]) 20:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

::''n.b.'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AUKUS&oldid=1047249274#France This appears to be the text being discussed]. This note was added after start of RfC by : [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 04:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
* '''Yes''': background information about French interests in the region is necessary for an ordinary reader to understand the French response to AUKUS. Per cites in the article, for the French, security in the Indo-Pacific is an internal issue. That's a different context from simply a commercial submarine deal being cancelled. The average reader won't know this unless we include it in the article. [[User:Whizz40|Whizz40]] ([[User talk:Whizz40|talk]]) 21:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
* '''Yes'''. I agree with Whizz. [[User:Morgengave|Morgengave]] ([[User talk:Morgengave|talk]]) 21:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
* '''No''': I agree with the reason for the original reversion of the background section that it's "irrelevant, as this is not aimed at the French, nor has it been suggested is is." The information about France given in the background is not relevant to the response, and can be looked up on the page about France. [[Special:Contributions/178.202.82.89|178.202.82.89]] ([[User talk:178.202.82.89|talk]]) 21:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC) — [[Special:Contributions/178.202.82.89|178.202.82.89]] ([[User talk:178.202.82.89|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. 
* '''No''': I don't think the background information is relevant, it's not part of or relevant to France's response and similar background information is not being written for any of the other countries responses. The article is also about AUKUS and not about France. The background also introduces bias towards France and other European countries [[User:AustraliaRodeo|AustraliaRodeo]] ([[User talk:AustraliaRodeo|talk]]) 21:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC) — [[User:AustraliaRodeo|AustraliaRodeo]] ([[User talk:AustraliaRodeo|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/AustraliaRodeo|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. 
* There is no background given for any of the other countries, which have more citizens than France in the Indo-Pacific region. If this information is going to be part of the France section, then a similiar background should be added to every other country in the region specifying the number of people in the country. New Zealand also has 5 million people which is more than the number of French citizens in the region. [[Special:Contributions/178.202.82.89|178.202.82.89]] ([[User talk:178.202.82.89|talk]]) 21:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
:* Yes, except the average reader would know this, i.e. it's general knowledge so it's unnecessary in the article. There's important knowledge to understand the context of the French response that is not general knowledge and it is therefore of benefit to readers to include a short paragraph and image in this article. [[User:Whizz40|Whizz40]] ([[User talk:Whizz40|talk]]) 21:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
* '''Yes'''. Yes, I have no problem with the position of the other countries being explained in more detail as long as it is not propaganda. I think removing this content is an example of anti-French bias. [[User:Trigenibinion|Trigenibinion]] ([[User talk:Trigenibinion|talk]]) 21:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
{{Inappropriate comment
|action=collapse
|reason=See [[WP:PA]]
|comment=Many of your recent edits appear to not have a NPOV, have anti-Australian bias and introduce bias towards France and European Countries.[[User:AustraliaRodeo|AustraliaRodeo]] ([[User talk:AustraliaRodeo|talk]]) 21:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)}}
{{Inappropriate comment
|action=collapse
|reason=See [[WP:PA]]
|comment=I have no problem with Australians but with them being manipulated by media concentration. I also have a problem with sneaky biased editors. I have added content supporting both views (some of it removed). [[User:Trigenibinion|Trigenibinion]] ([[User talk:Trigenibinion|talk]]) 22:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC) }}
* '''No'''. The background is mostly not relevant, there's no need to list the number of French citizens or troops or the countries. It's enough just to say France also has territories in the indo pacific region without including the other irrelevant details. [[Special:Contributions/46.114.0.129|46.114.0.129]] ([[User talk:46.114.0.129|talk]]) 22:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC) — [[Special:Contributions/46.114.0.129|46.114.0.129]] ([[User talk:46.114.0.129|talk]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. 
:* Just saying France also has territories in the region isn't clear enough for the reader to understand what it means. The UK has overseas territories in the region but they are very limited, and not seen as part of the UK. So an average British reader would not understand the French have much more significant territories in the region and that they are seen as part of France. I doubt the average American reader would either. Therefore a significant portion of readers of this article would benefit from a few facts and a map to understand the circumstances that shape the French response to the pact, and its negotiation without their involvement (regardless of the cancellation of the submarine contract). [[User:Whizz40|Whizz40]] ([[User talk:Whizz40|talk]]) 22:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
*I note that geolocation has been showing several IP addresses as coming from the same area (not necessarily the real origin). [[User:Trigenibinion|Trigenibinion]] ([[User talk:Trigenibinion|talk]]) 22:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
*'''Obviously Yes''' The French response has been the focal point of at least a plurality of coverage of this pact. This SPA and SPIP problem is out of hand. [[User:BSMRD|BSMRD]] ([[User talk:BSMRD|talk]]) 04:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
:* There's too much undue coverage being added for France and Europe so the article doesn't have a NPOV. [[User:AustraliaRodeo|AustraliaRodeo]] ([[User talk:AustraliaRodeo|talk]]) 06:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
* '''No''' As I am unsure what we mean, the full history of French activities in the region, a history of the French nuclear program? We only need to know that they are pissed and why. As this is not aimed at the French we should not give an impression (and I think this content does that it is. After all, do we list all the UK's positions or Australias (or indeed the US)?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 09:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
:* The rationale that AUKUS "is not targeted at the French" in my view is wilfully or naively misunderstanding the context. [[User:Whizz40|Whizz40]] ([[User talk:Whizz40|talk]]) 11:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
:* Slatersteven is not following [[WP:BRD]]. the bold edit was removal of the content, that was reverted and now it should be discussed before removing again. [[User:Whizz40|Whizz40]] ([[User talk:Whizz40|talk]]) 10:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
::*Errr my edit [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AUKUS&diff=1047334693&oldid=1047249274]] removed content, it did not add it. You edit [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AUKUS&diff=prev&oldid=1047249274]] was that one that added it. Note both BRD and [[WP:ONUS]] are clear, when content is removed it should not be added back without [[wp:consensus]].[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
:::*Your edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AUKUS&diff=1047003870&oldid=1047001252&diffmode=source] boldly removed context that a number of editors contributed to the article over time. My edit reverted that at which point it should be discussed but you have now unilaterally removed it again. WP:ONUS does not mean that you can do that. This RfC is a sensible process to establish consensus for it's inclusion or not. The context shouldn't be removed until the RfC is complete as your initial bold edit was reverted. [[User:Whizz40|Whizz40]] ([[User talk:Whizz40|talk]]) 11:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
::::Not true "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.", it is down to those wanting to include to get consensus.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
::::Also note, as the addition was reverted it was a breach of BRD to reinsert. BRD should have been followed after it was first removed.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::That is a blatant misinterpretation of the sequence of events and [[WP:BRD]]. [[User:Whizz40|Whizz40]] ([[User talk:Whizz40|talk]]) 12:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::It was added (bold) it was reverted (revert), Which part of that am I misrepresenting?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::Your edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AUKUS&diff=1047003870&oldid=1047001252&diffmode=source] boldly removed content that a number of editors contributed to the article over time, i.e. which previously had consensus. That's fine, but my edit reverted that citing BRD at which point it should be discussed. This RfC is a sensible process to establish whether the consensus is for its inclusion or not, i.e. to address WP:ONUS. Following the BRD process, the change, i.e. the removal of the content, should not be done unless the RfC concludes that removal is the consensus. [[User:Whizz40|Whizz40]] ([[User talk:Whizz40|talk]]) 12:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::This need to stop now. I removed content it was then down to those who wanted to include to make a case. That is policy, and that is my last word on this.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::::::{{re|Slatersteven}}You have been selective with the article history. You started the BRD cycle with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AUKUS&diff=1047003870&oldid=1047001252 this edit]. Not as you suggested with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AUKUS&diff=prev&oldid=1047249274 this edit]. Your removal of text was then reverted and discussion should have taken place. But instead you edit warred it back to your version -- WP:BRD applies to removal '''or reinstatement''', not just removal. Again you've been selective with that. In summary:
::::::::::*You've been misleading in your presentation of the chain of events.
::::::::::*You've misinterpreted or misquoted WP:BRD
::::::::::*And you've ended with "This need to stop now. I removed content it was then down to those who wanted to include to make a case. That is policy, and that is my last word on this" which is incredibly dismissive, immature, and without any factual basis. [[User:Mark83|Mark83]] ([[User talk:Mark83|talk]]) 18:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::::The material had been removed (and readded) before this, it is at that point BRD kicked in, when it was first removed. I have not misquoted WP:BRD, all quotes are just straight copy and pastes. I have said this needs to stop as we are talking about users not content and going round in circles repeating the same stuff over and over again.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 09:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
*'''Yes''', being led here [[Special:Permalink/1047319994#Does the french background that keeps being added to the AUKUS article have a NPOV?|from NPOVN]], I think this background information seems important to the reader to understand France's reaction. I think it definitely should be included ''if the reliable sources mention it in connection with AUKUS'', as several of them indeed do. Where the sources talk about France's involvement in the region but not in the context of AUKUS, the argument for including the information from those sources seems less strong (the sources from before AUKUS was announced, from 13 April 2021 and 21 October 2020, clearly fall into this latter category). —[[User:2d37|2d37]] ([[User talk:2d37|talk]]) 11:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
*:Do RS make this connection, or is it [[wp:or]]?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
*::"Do RS make this connection, or is it SYNTH?" is, I suppose, a question that should be seen in my comment as well. To expand on my answer {{tq|several of them indeed do}}: specifically, the cited Euronews 2021-09-17, BFMTV.com 2021-09-16, Axios 2021-09-19, and RFI.fr 2021-09-21 sources do seem to consider it worthwhile to bring up France's Indo-Pacific presence in the context of AUKUS. Now, 3/4 of these are French or French-based, but here are some RS from AU, UK, and US finding this background information worth mentioning in connection with AUKUS:
*::* {{Cite news |language=en-AU |title=How can Australia repair its relationship with France after the AUKUS submarine row? |given=Max |surname=Walden |date=23 Sep 2021 |publisher=[[ABC News (Australia)]] |url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-23/how-can-australia-repair-its-relationship-with-france-aukus/100480270 |quote=What's more, the French government says 1.5 million of its citizens are in the Indo-Pacific. At least 500,000 live in New Caledonia and French Polynesia, right on Australia's doorstep. "France is actually very close geographically to Australia," Ms Watson-Lynn said. "The closest countries to Australia are PNG (Papua New Guinea), East Timor, Indonesia, and France, through New Caledonia."}}
*::* {{Cite news |language=en-GB |title=Aukus pact: France and US seek to mend rift |date=2021-09-23 |publisher=[[BBC News]] |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58659627 |quote=France considers the Asia-Pacific region to be of key strategic and economic importance, with 1.65 million French citizens on islands including La Réunion, New Caledonia, Mayotte and French Polynesia.}}
*::* {{Cite news |language=en-US |title=Biden's submarine accord with Australia angers both France and China |given1=Karen |surname1=DeYoung |given2=Michael E. |surname2=Miller |given3=Lily |surname3=Kuo |date=September 17, 2021 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/australia-us-subs-relations/2021/09/16/3db2e820-1699-11ec-a019-cb193b28aa73_story.html |quote=In expressing their outrage, French officials noted that, unlike Britain, France is an Indo-Pacific nation, with more than 2 million citizens in island territories across the two oceans and a robust military presence.}}
*::—[[User:2d37|2d37]] ([[User talk:2d37|talk]]) 12:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
*:::The problem is (as I see it) is that beyond saying "France is a Indo-Pacific nation" do they say that AUKUS impact this? What does this have to do with AUKUS?[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 12:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
*If they do all we need to say is "Another consideration is the protection of Frances overseas possessions", one line is all we need.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
*:::The problem is (as I see it) is that beytong saying "France is a
* '''No''': It's not relevant. I assume "cooperation established with Australia" in regards to "internal security" is referring to the Australian-French military relationship and possibly intelligence sharing. It implies that France will not cooperate with Australia in the future having atrociously cancelled a submarine deal with this irrevocably harming the relationship. Yet, no source says that France will not co-operate with Australia in future military exercises and/or will not share intelligence. I wasn't aware that France had a co-operation issue with "neighbouring countries" or how neighbouring countries are effected by a submarine deal in which Australia will have a more suitable submarine for the rise of Chinese influence in the area.--[[User:Melbguy05|Melbguy05]] ([[User talk:Melbguy05|talk]]) 12:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' - That a major ally of the 3 participants and permanent member of the UN Secuirty Council was excluded from this is relevant, and the context is very relevant for an understanding of the wider geopolitical and economic issues. [[User:Mark83|Mark83]] ([[User talk:Mark83|talk]]) 18:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
*'''Not at this level of detail'''. The anon above is correct: "The background is mostly not relevant, there's no need to list the number of French citizens or troops or the countries. It's enough just to say France also has territories in the indo pacific region without including the other irrelevant details." — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 23:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
*'''No''' - Not in that much detail, it is relevant to have on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure all of it should be included here. Same argument I made in [[Talk:AUKUS#Separate_Page_for_Responses_to_AUKUS]], have the basics covered here, but the main detail under the [[Attack-class submarine|Australian-French submarine deal]] page. This is an article on an alliance, explaining in depth the strategic overlay of a country that was negatively impacted by one aspect of the alliance seems like a step too far away from the article subject — [[user:IVORK|IVORK]] [[User talk:IVORK|Talk]] 23:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
* '''Yes, briefly''' as it is impossible to understand the French response here without some background and France is significant in its response and history in the region. --[[User:Kathy262|Kathy262]] ([[User talk:Kathy262|talk]]) 19:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

*'''NO''', Beyond the unprecedented recall of Ambassadors (which is buried in a quote with no accompanying RS analysis), very little is likely to remain encyclopedic material, as right now we are regurgitating sensationalized news and heat of the moment statements. It looks more like seeking sources to match a viewpoint than writing an article. Let's see what scholars say 6 months to a year from now, rather than assuming French foreign relations have forever changed over a cancelled business transaction. [[User:Slywriter|Slywriter]] ([[User talk:Slywriter|talk]]) 03:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
*:The French get a billion $ cancellation fee and will just have to cop it, just like everybody has to cop actions from a much bigger partner. This Australian finds it incredible that everybody thinks the undemocratic way in which AUKUS was created is acceptable. Over 18 months they negotiated behind our backs because the knew the Australian population would reject AUKUS had they known in time. We are funding that with debt, too! Today they announced an extension - salami tactics never go out of fashion. [[Special:Contributions/2001:8003:A070:7F00:B595:E707:A408:A278|2001:8003:A070:7F00:B595:E707:A408:A278]] ([[User talk:2001:8003:A070:7F00:B595:E707:A408:A278|talk]]) 06:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
* '''Yes, broadly''', though I'm not sure that either the proposed text or heading is very good. The subject of the proposed text is mainly France's strategic interests and intentions in the region, it isn't really the background to AUKUS, which - for France - is mainly about broken promises, hurt pride and money. Secondly the text is a bit more pro-French partisan than neutral - one source says over 1.5 million French citizens in the area, WP VOICE is used to say nearly 2 million, which is not what the source says ''(the source has 2 French political figures claiming nearly two million)''. The claim that France is "focused on the security of its citizens in this area", reads as more of a Quai d'Orsay mission statement than a NPOV expressed WP fact. Also, the claim that AUKUS is "an internal security issue for France", may be poor translation, but reads as silly. A far-flung colonial outpost of France may legitimately be extremely important to France, but claiming it to be "an internal security issue" in WP:VOICE reads as being overstated, even if it may technically be partly correct as there is 'French soil' in the area. I believe the text could be re-written to constructively represent that France feels itself to have legitimate strategic concerns in the region beyond its economic and political concerns. [[User:Pincrete|Pincrete]] ([[User talk:Pincrete|talk]]) 05:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

== Request for comment [delisted] on the way to organise the countries in International Responses ==
What's the best way to organise the countries in the International Responses section that has a NPOV and is not biased towards any country?
[[User:AustraliaRodeo|AustraliaRodeo]] ([[User talk:AustraliaRodeo|talk]]) 21:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
:{{u|AustraliaRodeo}}, Not sure what you mean? What's at dispute here? Generally, simply listing the countries alphabetically (or sometimes chronologically by date of feedback) does a fine job. [[User:CaptainEek|'''CaptainEek''']] [[User talk:CaptainEek|''Edits Ho Cap'n!'']][[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 23:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
::{{u|CaptainEek}} That's what we had before but it was reverted, and then people tried putting in all sort of categories and orders including categorising the countries into "Colonial Countries". Which is why I opened the RfC to get comments on the best way to organise it that's not biased and has a NpoV. There's also a few people wanting European countries to have a huge section and ignoring all the other countries responses [[User:AustraliaRodeo|AustraliaRodeo]] ([[User talk:AustraliaRodeo|talk]]) 06:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
*Give prominence to China and France as the "most impacted nations". For other nations, put them in alphabetical order and under the "other" section without headers in the table of contents, though omit responses that provide minimal useful context; an example of this might be Portugal's, which just says that it supports France. Summoned by the bot, but note that I was previously involved in this article and had pre-existing opinions on this questions [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 23:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
*I explained above the logical organization I had developed which {{u|AustraliaRodeo}} immediately reverted alleging vandalism. [[User:Trigenibinion|Trigenibinion]] ([[User talk:Trigenibinion|talk]]) 23:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
*As is, members first, elevate China/France, the rest alphabetical. The other FVEY partners haven't said anything particularly of note to otherwise differentiate them — [[user:IVORK|IVORK]] [[User talk:IVORK|Talk]] 01:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
** Yes that's the best way but now everything has been placed under other countries. [[Special:Contributions/178.202.82.89|178.202.82.89]] ([[User talk:178.202.82.89|talk]]) 07:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
*The Agreement hasn't had any impact on France or any of the other countries apart from a contract with France being cancelled, I wouldn't say there are any countries that have actually been impacted by it at the present. Though that might change in the future. [[User:AustraliaRodeo|AustraliaRodeo]] ([[User talk:AustraliaRodeo|talk]]) 06:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
*Alpahbeticaly. But I am unsure why China is not there. The only nations that ae relevant for their own sections are Oz, the UK the USA and France.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 09:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
*Members>China/France>Other Countries (Alphabetically) is the most rational way to order it. If for some reason another country becomes very impacted by this pact we can add them to the China/France bracket. [[User:BSMRD|BSMRD]] ([[User talk:BSMRD|talk]]) 14:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
*You cannot dissociate France from the EU. France is not fully sovereign and the EU will tend to protect its members. A consequence of the crisis may also be increased EU self-sufficiency. [[User:Trigenibinion|Trigenibinion]] ([[User talk:Trigenibinion|talk]]) 14:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
*You cannot dissociate France from NATO if a consequence of the crisis may be the weakening of NATO. That said, a Five Eyes bond is stronger than a NATO bond. [[User:Trigenibinion|Trigenibinion]] ([[User talk:Trigenibinion|talk]]) 14:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
*I'd be okay with Members>China/France>Other countries (alphabetically). Otherwise, purely alphabetically, or by date of response. There's more than one way to write this section. But it should not be France, France, and more France. — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 23:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
*As it is now seems most logical. The members in their own top-level section. Then Responses: China & France with subheadings, then Others ordered alphabetically. Best reflects the scale of coverage these reactions have received in sources. [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|"?!"]] 17:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

== Remove subsection on US deployment in Australia ==

The AUKUS pact is for sharing information on science, technology and industry. The pact didn't announce that the size and type of US military based in Australia would be increased or that the UK military would be based in Australia. The pact was announced on the 15 September US time.<ref>{{cite press release |author1=Prime Minister of Australia Scott Morrison |author2=Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson |author3=President of the United States of America Joseph R. Biden |title=Joint Leaders Statement on AUKUS |url=https://www.pm.gov.au/media/joint-leaders-statement-aukus |website=Prime Minister of Australia |access-date=25 September 2021 |date=16 September 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author1=Prime Minister of Australia Scott Morrison |author2=Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson |author3=President of the United States of America Joseph R. Biden|title=Remarks by President Biden, Prime Minister Morrison of Australia, and Prime Minister Johnson of the United Kingdom Announcing the Creation of AUKUS |url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/09/15/remarks-by-president-biden-prime-minister-morrison-of-australia-and-prime-minister-johnson-of-the-united-kingdom-announcing-the-creation-of-aukus/ |access-date=2 October 2021 |work=The White House |date=15 September 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite press release |author1=Prime Minister |author2=Minister for Defence |author3=Minister for Foreign Affairs |author4=Minister for Women |title=Australia to pursue Nuclear-powered Submarines through new Trilateral Enhanced Security Partnership |url=https://www.pm.gov.au/media/australia-pursue-nuclear-powered-submarines-through-new-trilateral-enhanced-security |website=Prime Minister of Australia |access-date=25 September 2021 |date=16 September 2021}}</ref> Separately, the annual Joint Statement Australia-U.S. Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN) was held the following day on the 16th in which it was announced the size of the US military based in Australia would be increased. The meeting endorsed recommendations made in May 2021 to increase the size but did not release any details with US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin saying "we will continue to explore" and "which I won’t go into today".<ref>{{cite press release |title=Joint Statement on Australia-U.S. Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN) 2021 |url=https://www.state.gov/joint-statement-on-australia-u-s-ministerial-consultations-ausmin-2021/ |website=U.S. Department of State |access-date=2 October 2021 |date=16 September 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author1=US Secretary of State Antony Blinken |author2=US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin |author3=Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne |author4=Australian Defence Minister Peter Dutton |title=Secretary Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne, and Australian Defence Minister Peter Dutton At a Joint Press Availability |url=https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/2779217/secretary-antony-j-blinken-secretary-of-defense-lloyd-j-austin-iii-australian-f/ |website=U.S. Department of Defense |access-date=2 October 2021 |date=16 September 2021}}</ref> The answer by Austin that AUKUS does not have specific reciprocal requirements such as Australia hosting intermediate range missiles mentioned in the subsection, and cited by ''The Guardian'', is relevant and can be retained elsewhere in the article. AUSMIN endorsed increasing logistics and sustainment capabilities of U.S. subsurface vessels in Australia which is relevant. Increasing the size of the US deployment can be mentioned in the following articles: [[Australia–United States relations]], [[Australian Defence Force]], [[Marine Rotational Force – Darwin]], [[Royal Australian Navy]] and [[Royal Australian Air Force]].--[[User:Melbguy05|Melbguy05]] ([[User talk:Melbguy05|talk]]) 08:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
:Removed subsection keeping intermediate range missiles moved to Long-range guided missiles subsection.--[[User:Melbguy05|Melbguy05]] ([[User talk:Melbguy05|talk]]) 14:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
{{Reflist-talk}}

== Cite error ==
{{edit semi-protected|AUKUS|answered=yes}}

The ref Barrett was deleted, but was in use elsewhere.

In the Other Countries section under Other

The first instance of: 
'''<nowiki><ref name="Barrett" /></nowiki>''' 

Should be replaced with: 
'''<nowiki><ref name="Barrett">{{cite news |last1=Barrett |first1=Chris |title=Australia's nuclear sub deal 'gravely undermines regional peace' says China |url=https://www.theage.com.au/world/asia/australia-s-nuclear-sub-deal-gravely-undermines-regional-peace-says-china-20210916-p58sbk.html |access-date=16 September 2021 |work=The Age |publisher=Nine Newspapers |date=16 September 2021 |archive-date=16 September 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210916084603/https://www.theage.com.au/world/asia/australia-s-nuclear-sub-deal-gravely-undermines-regional-peace-says-china-20210916-p58sbk.html |url-status=live }}</ref></nowiki>''' 

Thanks [[Special:Contributions/89.241.33.89|89.241.33.89]] ([[User talk:89.241.33.89|talk]]) 19:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

:{{done}} [[User:DigitalChutney|DigitalChutney]] ([[User talk:DigitalChutney|talk]]) 19:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

::Thank you [[Special:Contributions/89.241.33.89|89.241.33.89]] ([[User talk:89.241.33.89|talk]]) 20:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

== Expansion ==

There are citations that reference that other countries are interested in joining AUKUS and AUKUS members particularly the US are open to expanding the AUKUS agreement to include more countries. [[User:ChefBear01|ChefBear01]] ([[User talk:ChefBear01|talk]]) 07:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

New Zealand

New Zealand could join Aukus pact, top diplomat suggests
https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/new-zealand-could-join-aukus-6122260

EU-Australia trade deal on brink: New Zealand open to join AUKUS pact in blow to Macron
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1511553/eu-news-Australia-trade-deal-aukus-defence-new-Zealand-uk-US
[[User:ChefBear01|ChefBear01]] ([[User talk:ChefBear01|talk]]) 22:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The Express isn’t on the list of deprecated sources, but just my two cents that I would avoid using it as a source - many stories are sensationalist, clickbait nonsense. [[User:Mark83|Mark83]] ([[User talk:Mark83|talk]]) 10:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Major non-NATO ally

2022-04-06T05:56:22Z

2001:8003:A070:7F00:B595:E707:A408:A278: /* American and democracy */ Reply

{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject NATO|class=start|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Military history|US=y|French=y|Korean=y|British=y|ANZSP=y|African=y|Middle-Eastern=y|South-American=y|South-Asian=y|Southeast-Asian=y|Cold-War=y|Post-Cold-War=y|class=C|b1=no|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes}}
{{WikiProject International relations|class=start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Cold War}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Afghanistan|class=start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Australia|class=start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Bahrain|class=start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Brazil|class=start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Egypt|class=start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Israel|class=start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Japan|class=start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Jordan|class=start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Kuwait|class=start|Kuwait-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Morocco|class=start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject New Zealand|class=start|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Pakistan|class=start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Tambayan Philippines|class=start|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Qatar}}
{{WikiProject Korea|class=start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Taiwan|class=start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Thailand|class=start|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Tunisia|class=start|importance=Low}}
}}
{{dyktalk|24 January|2006|entry=...that the fourteen nations designated '''[[Major non-NATO ally]]''' are the only countries outside of [[NATO]] to whom the [[United States]] government will consider selling [[depleted uranium]] [[anti-tank]] rounds?}}
{{Annual readership}}

==American and democracy==
India is a democracy and Pakistan is a dictatorship. Which one is a valued allied of the United States? Pakistan of course! [[User:62.31.55.223|62.31.55.223]] 22:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

:Saudi Arabia should refree like an nato ally, —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:213.64.33.190|213.64.33.190]] ([[User talk:213.64.33.190|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/213.64.33.190|contribs]]) 14:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})

::Very good point![[User:QZXA2|QZXA2]] 01:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
:India does not want to be pinned down for one side or the other. That is their right. Pakistan is in flux at the moment. They desperately need economic development, but that cannot come from the West. The task is gigantic and too expensive. The current PM Khan seemed to have looked towards China but that prompted his ousting. [[Special:Contributions/2001:8003:A070:7F00:B595:E707:A408:A278|2001:8003:A070:7F00:B595:E707:A408:A278]] ([[User talk:2001:8003:A070:7F00:B595:E707:A408:A278|talk]]) 05:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

:::They are non-nato allies for strategic reasons, like how they don't want to make new enemies and want dis-counts on black gold. The U.S. only begrudgingly helps dictatorships and such. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:65.27.139.162|65.27.139.162]] ([[User talk:65.27.139.162|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/65.27.139.162|contribs]]) 02:22, 5 August 2007

Let's keep political discussions not relevant to the development of the article to your own personal blog pages, please! –[[User:Sesmith|SESmith]] 22:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

==Saudi Arabia, India and Ethiopia==
Why is {{flag|Saudi Arabia}}, {{flag|India}} and {{flag|Ethiopia}} not a MNNA?
:Why should they be? State your argument rather than asking a surfaceless question, and sign your posts. --[[User:benlisquare|''' 李博杰 ''']] | —[[User talk:benlisquare|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Benlisquare|contribs]] 03:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

: MNNAs have to be designated as such by the President. [[Special:Contributions/98.218.229.58|98.218.229.58]] ([[User talk:98.218.229.58|talk]]) 21:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

==List of MNNAs==
On the titles (Initial MNNAs, Subsequent ,etc) would be nice to have also the US President who name them. --[[User:Jor70|Jor70]] ([[User talk:Jor70|talk]]) 14:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
:Looks good. Nice work! — [[User:Kralizec!|Kralizec!]] ([[User talk:Kralizec!|talk]]) 19:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

== Map update ==

The map needs to be updated to reflect addition of Afghanistan. [[User:Doyna Yar|Doyna Yar]] ([[User talk:Doyna Yar|talk]]) 13:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Addl map update needed: map now needs update to reflect the subtraction of Afghanistan per the collapse of the regime in August 2021 — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.120.54.106|24.120.54.106]] ([[User talk:24.120.54.106#top|talk]]) 06:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC) 

=={{tl|Major non-NATO ally}}==
{{lt|Major non-NATO ally}} has been nominated for deletion -- [[Special:Contributions/76.65.128.222|76.65.128.222]] ([[User talk:76.65.128.222|talk]]) 00:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

== Naming biased toward USA ==

I think the name is not neutral, I propose to change it to MNNA of U.S. --[[User:Ryuch|Cheol]] ([[User talk:Ryuch|talk]]) 08:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
:As per [[WP:COMMONNAME]], it seems that we should name the article after the actual name being used. For example, there are 138,000 Ghits for "Major non-NATO ally" versus 8 Ghits for "MNNA of U.S." Likewise, [[WP:PRECISION]] states that, "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that," and adding "of U.S." to the end of the title would appear to be unnecessary preemptive disambiguation. 19:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on [[Major non-NATO ally]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=699786113 my edit]. If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120424012557/http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers10/paper959.html to http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers10/paper959.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120825180829/http://www.state.gov:80/secretary/rm/2012/08/196675.htm to http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/08/196675.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}

Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|cyberbot II]][[User talk:Cyberbot II|Talk to my owner]]:Online 13:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on [[Major non-NATO ally]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/820195060|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120721221849/http://law2.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t09t12+1329+0++10:cite%20w%2F3%202350a to http://law2.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t09t12+1329+0++10%3Acite%20w%2F3%202350a

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''InternetArchiveBot''']] ([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]]) 15:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

== Other speculated MNNAs ==

This section is just getting silly. According to Wikipedia, 'U.S. Armed Forces troops were stationed in 150 countries'. Where does all this speculation end? [[User:Doyna Yar|Doyna Yar]] ([[User talk:Doyna Yar|talk]]) 13:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
:I see no reason to include it. Speculation has no place on wikipedia. - '''''[[User:Galatz|Galatz גאליץ]][[User_talk:Galatz|שיחה Talk]]''''' 14:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

==India==

India is now a part of the MNNA, the '''map''' must be updated. [[User:Caleb KG|Caleb KG]] ([[User talk:Caleb KG|talk]]) 20:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

==Brazil==
Does DJT saying Brazil should be an MNNA make it so? There is specific legislation for this status - Brazil has not been added to that list, at least not yet. Therefore, the material benefits and political meaning don't exist yet. I would think specify as such, and remove from map.
[[Special:Contributions/128.164.22.78|128.164.22.78]] ([[User talk:128.164.22.78|talk]]) 23:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

==Brazil is a MNNA==
This list (dated January 30, 2020) of MNNAs include Brazil:
https://www.state.gov/major-non-nato-ally-status/

== Brunei, Colombia and Taiwan ==

Brunei and Colombia are not MNNAs per the U.S. Department of State website: state.gov/major-non-nato-ally-status.
The same site addresses Taiwan: "Pub. L. 107-228 provides Taiwan shall be treated as an MNNA without formal designation as such." [[User:Andrew1444|Andrew1444]] ([[User talk:Andrew1444|talk]]) 02:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Can someone put this page as semi-protected? Brunei and Colombia have not been named as NMMAs and the anonymous user who keeps changing it doesn't even provide sources. [[User:Andrew1444|Andrew1444]] ([[User talk:Andrew1444|talk]]) 14:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. MNNA's. [[User:Andrew1444|Andrew1444]] ([[User talk:Andrew1444|talk]]) 14:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Both Brunei Darussalam and Colombia are Major Non-NATO Ally Because they are Friends to the United States Brunei Darussalam is a US Ally Since 1845 via the Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Commerce and Navigation signed by the Two Countries in 1850, also the Brunei Darussalam and the United States of America Have a Defence Relations Because of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Military and Defense Cooperation in 1994 Which the Two Countries resulted in joint exercises, training programs, and other forms of military cooperation between the Two Countries, and Also the Two Countries Have an Economic Relations Because It Is Part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Colombia is Also a US Ally Because It Is the Only Latin American Country That Send Its Armed Forces Into the Korean War. [[User:Laemonly Paul Labrador|Laemonly Paul Labrador]] ([[User talk:Laemonly Paul Labrador|talk]]) 11:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
:Since "major non-NATO ally" is a formal designation by the US government, neither Brunei nor Colombia belong. For that to change, the US government would need to award them that status. --[[User:Darth Occulus|Darth Occulus]] ([[User talk:Darth Occulus|talk]]) 07:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The Government of the United States of America Under President Joe Biden Will Award Brunei Darussalam and Colombia to the Status of a Major Non-NATO Ally.
:[[WP:CRYSTALBALL]]. [[User:CowHouse|CowHouse]] ([[User talk:CowHouse|talk]]) 07:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)