This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is "Voluntarism" supposed to be volontarisme? -- Beland 00:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Advocates of the American System have been adding links to that article in a number of unreleated articles. The three elements of the AS were high tariffs, infrastructure improvemtns, and a national bank. I see only one of those three elements in this article. Can proponents of the link please provide a noteworthy source who connects them? Thanks, - Will Beback 04:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I also agree with Will Beback, this user has also been trying to spread "Left Gatekeeper" terms in articles of well-known leftists to spread Larouchite POV.-- Jersey Devil 19:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Dirigism was DeGaulle's economic plan to revitalize France. It's emphasis was quite similiar to American System as HK describes above. Are the two exact? No. Are they similiar and warrant SEE ALSO's? Yes. Just as someone reading about Communism would want to read further about the similiar socialism or democratic socialism. It is perfectly legitimate to provide additional links for the reader to understand similiar systems in history. Will Beback, would you not agree that the two systems are similiar enough to warrant linking? Mercantilism which predates both is also similiar in its philosophy, though there are differences. Adding American System to unrelated articles is wrong and was not done. Adding it to articles of similiar substance is right for educational purposes. Jersey Devil, you've been warned about violating the decorum of Wikipedia by bringing up unrelated material and 'opinion' on your part about HK. It is also inappropriate to bring another dispute relating to the Gatekeeper page and vote thereof, here. Please stop. We get nowhere if you post as you've done. Let us be reasonable here. -- Northmeister 19:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Jersey Devil, why did you revert without discussion here? I added the links and asked for discussion so we can work together on this. Why did you revert the links? Explain your reasoning? -- Northmeister 00:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Since Jersey Devil has decided not to discuss his reversion, I consider it an act of vandalism and have reverted his reversion for that reason. All I ask is a discussion on why he does not approve my latest edit and to join us in a civil discourse here. -- Northmeister 01:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Please do not falsely claim vandalism on page history summaries. In Wikipedia we have a very specific definition for the term vandalism ( See Here). Thank you. As to why I reverted it is because it is POV pushing for a term used by Larouche which you and the other user are trying to promote which has nothing to do with French economics.-- Jersey Devil 01:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
What in this is POV? To link to similiar sites is POV? Your arguments don't make any sense. Once again I am asking you to stop linking this historic American term to LaRouche alone. You are stalking ( see here) and vandalising a page as well as harassing me ( see here). Stop the VANDALISM ( see here) do not disrupt this page to make a point and honor the policy of assuming good faith towards me ( see here). Lastly I ask that you do not revert a page until consensus is reached by those editing at any given time as to what should be done. Simply reverting in that manner you have done considering your history is VANDALISM and not helpful to improving this article. -- Northmeister 02:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
To avoid some sort of edit war over See Also in this article let's consider the Edit that Jersey Devil keeps deleting through reversion (thrice).
"State intervenes, private ownership of production:
State control of the means of production:
Corporations dictate policy, private ownership of production:
The intention is to offer links for the reader to further their studies of similiar and different economic systems. Dirigisme does not exist outside other systems...it's links are the same as the mixed economy/American System/German post-war Economy/Japanese Miracle economy going back to the original policies of Cameralism of Germany, Colbertism of France, and Mercantilism of England (Cromwell to Corn Law repeals). The emphasis is on government intervention such as the American System's Pacific Railway Acts, Cumberland Road, National Banking Act etc. in he economy to stimulate production and growth as opposed to the opposite school of thought whose roots start with Smith, Physiocrat's of France known as Laizee Faire, or hands off from government. The ideas of Marx form a third line of economics, that produced socialism, democratic socialism, communism, that called for government owenership of the means of production in a mild (democratic socialism) or excessive (communism in USSR) form. To deprive the reader of these alternatives and the associative roots of Dirigistic thought is wrong. What do others think. I will hear all sides on this. Let's work this out and come to consensus on this stuff rather than conduct constant reverts that make no sense. -- Northmeister 04:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
These are in the See Also, for further study. They are not in the description of the article. They are found here at wikipedia and can be read. Original research? Give me a break! -- Northmeister 07:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I never said LaRouche invented the American System. But he is its sole modern proponent. I've never seen anyone else refer to it outside of 19th-century American history or a few mentions regarding some non-Americans. The idea that there is ongoing interest in the American System is a LaRouche-theme, and much of the material that has been added to that article can only be sourced to LaRouche-related publications. - Will Beback 01:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Now in the edit summaries he is accusing me of "trolling and stalking". Seriously, do I have to put up with this nonsense?-- Jersey Devil 01:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I call them as I see them. It was referring to your better half however and not you. -- Northmeister 01:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The See Also links restored as were. The Japanese Miracle, German System, American System, all were economic systems with similar traits to Dirigisme. Mercantilism and Colbertism are the roots of all of these. These roots are "Government Intervention" rather than "Hands Off" or "Total Control" which sum up the other two philosophical wings of Economics each of which have many branches. The systems are not the same but are similar and warrant inclusion on that merit. We are trying to put together an Encylopedia of fact so that the reader can gather information. Linking to the above mentioned economic systems gives the reader the ability to study similar systems and compare and contrast them. -- Northmeister 06:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Confused of England writes: This is a nice entry, but two points confuse me. Firstly, in the opening who do we explain what it is not before we explain what it is. Uses of Dirigisme that relate to socialistic planned economies seems pretty rare in my reading: I think it should start by saying that it's a style of leadership, and in particular of government leadership, associated with the French elite. Secondly, it seems a little narrow to locate it in economics only. Dirigisme, to me, is rooted deeply in the meritocratic model as much as in any French affection for autarky. It's about ENA-archs and others leaders knowing best, about the confidence in plannification and grand projects, about the one best way... all of this seems tightly bound to me. Any thoughts? -- Duncan 17:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
As to Dirgisme relation to Fascism, the source material is misleading and falsely applied. I see no reference within this source for the additional material comparing Dirgisme with the extensive system of Fascism that was Corporatist in nature and had nothing to do with Dirgisme. But, that is moot and my opinion. Please provide exact quote from that material which I do not find. Thank You. -- Northmeister 04:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
And here we are again. An editor deleted the section again, saying, "i think you're a little confused. all it says is that it has nothing to do with fascism. so it shouldn't really be included". [1] The citation in question goes to a chapter titled "ECONOMIC DIRIGISME IN AUTHORITARIAN-FASCIST REGIMES". Obviously, the author is saying that there was economic dirigisme in fascist regimes (and others). The text is viewable on Amazon.com. [2] Will Beback talk 21:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Fine, then include all those arguments, sources, present it as an important and mainstream view - and see how the article looks. Pilusi3 ( talk) 01:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The following clause asserting that dirigisme is responsible for post-war growth is a possible NPOV violation:
It resulted in an unprecedented economic and demographic growth...
First, this assertion is inconsistent with the more nuanced discussion in the In France section.
Second, the Trente glorieuse period from the rubble following WWII up to the 1973 Oil Crisis is cherry-picked to make a point. A slight adjustment, say 1953-1983, would tell a different story.
Third, growth in some non-dirigisme economies, e.g. Hong Kong, exceeded that of dirigisme economies during the same period.
Finally, causal effect with demographic growth is questionable. Other factors, e.g. moonlit strolls on the Pont Neuf, arguably had a greater effect on the birth rate.
The remedy is to remove or qualify the statement (“Proponents argue that...”). FredLoney ( talk) 12:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is "Voluntarism" supposed to be volontarisme? -- Beland 00:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Advocates of the American System have been adding links to that article in a number of unreleated articles. The three elements of the AS were high tariffs, infrastructure improvemtns, and a national bank. I see only one of those three elements in this article. Can proponents of the link please provide a noteworthy source who connects them? Thanks, - Will Beback 04:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I also agree with Will Beback, this user has also been trying to spread "Left Gatekeeper" terms in articles of well-known leftists to spread Larouchite POV.-- Jersey Devil 19:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Dirigism was DeGaulle's economic plan to revitalize France. It's emphasis was quite similiar to American System as HK describes above. Are the two exact? No. Are they similiar and warrant SEE ALSO's? Yes. Just as someone reading about Communism would want to read further about the similiar socialism or democratic socialism. It is perfectly legitimate to provide additional links for the reader to understand similiar systems in history. Will Beback, would you not agree that the two systems are similiar enough to warrant linking? Mercantilism which predates both is also similiar in its philosophy, though there are differences. Adding American System to unrelated articles is wrong and was not done. Adding it to articles of similiar substance is right for educational purposes. Jersey Devil, you've been warned about violating the decorum of Wikipedia by bringing up unrelated material and 'opinion' on your part about HK. It is also inappropriate to bring another dispute relating to the Gatekeeper page and vote thereof, here. Please stop. We get nowhere if you post as you've done. Let us be reasonable here. -- Northmeister 19:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Jersey Devil, why did you revert without discussion here? I added the links and asked for discussion so we can work together on this. Why did you revert the links? Explain your reasoning? -- Northmeister 00:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Since Jersey Devil has decided not to discuss his reversion, I consider it an act of vandalism and have reverted his reversion for that reason. All I ask is a discussion on why he does not approve my latest edit and to join us in a civil discourse here. -- Northmeister 01:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Please do not falsely claim vandalism on page history summaries. In Wikipedia we have a very specific definition for the term vandalism ( See Here). Thank you. As to why I reverted it is because it is POV pushing for a term used by Larouche which you and the other user are trying to promote which has nothing to do with French economics.-- Jersey Devil 01:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
What in this is POV? To link to similiar sites is POV? Your arguments don't make any sense. Once again I am asking you to stop linking this historic American term to LaRouche alone. You are stalking ( see here) and vandalising a page as well as harassing me ( see here). Stop the VANDALISM ( see here) do not disrupt this page to make a point and honor the policy of assuming good faith towards me ( see here). Lastly I ask that you do not revert a page until consensus is reached by those editing at any given time as to what should be done. Simply reverting in that manner you have done considering your history is VANDALISM and not helpful to improving this article. -- Northmeister 02:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
To avoid some sort of edit war over See Also in this article let's consider the Edit that Jersey Devil keeps deleting through reversion (thrice).
"State intervenes, private ownership of production:
State control of the means of production:
Corporations dictate policy, private ownership of production:
The intention is to offer links for the reader to further their studies of similiar and different economic systems. Dirigisme does not exist outside other systems...it's links are the same as the mixed economy/American System/German post-war Economy/Japanese Miracle economy going back to the original policies of Cameralism of Germany, Colbertism of France, and Mercantilism of England (Cromwell to Corn Law repeals). The emphasis is on government intervention such as the American System's Pacific Railway Acts, Cumberland Road, National Banking Act etc. in he economy to stimulate production and growth as opposed to the opposite school of thought whose roots start with Smith, Physiocrat's of France known as Laizee Faire, or hands off from government. The ideas of Marx form a third line of economics, that produced socialism, democratic socialism, communism, that called for government owenership of the means of production in a mild (democratic socialism) or excessive (communism in USSR) form. To deprive the reader of these alternatives and the associative roots of Dirigistic thought is wrong. What do others think. I will hear all sides on this. Let's work this out and come to consensus on this stuff rather than conduct constant reverts that make no sense. -- Northmeister 04:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
These are in the See Also, for further study. They are not in the description of the article. They are found here at wikipedia and can be read. Original research? Give me a break! -- Northmeister 07:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I never said LaRouche invented the American System. But he is its sole modern proponent. I've never seen anyone else refer to it outside of 19th-century American history or a few mentions regarding some non-Americans. The idea that there is ongoing interest in the American System is a LaRouche-theme, and much of the material that has been added to that article can only be sourced to LaRouche-related publications. - Will Beback 01:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Now in the edit summaries he is accusing me of "trolling and stalking". Seriously, do I have to put up with this nonsense?-- Jersey Devil 01:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I call them as I see them. It was referring to your better half however and not you. -- Northmeister 01:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The See Also links restored as were. The Japanese Miracle, German System, American System, all were economic systems with similar traits to Dirigisme. Mercantilism and Colbertism are the roots of all of these. These roots are "Government Intervention" rather than "Hands Off" or "Total Control" which sum up the other two philosophical wings of Economics each of which have many branches. The systems are not the same but are similar and warrant inclusion on that merit. We are trying to put together an Encylopedia of fact so that the reader can gather information. Linking to the above mentioned economic systems gives the reader the ability to study similar systems and compare and contrast them. -- Northmeister 06:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Confused of England writes: This is a nice entry, but two points confuse me. Firstly, in the opening who do we explain what it is not before we explain what it is. Uses of Dirigisme that relate to socialistic planned economies seems pretty rare in my reading: I think it should start by saying that it's a style of leadership, and in particular of government leadership, associated with the French elite. Secondly, it seems a little narrow to locate it in economics only. Dirigisme, to me, is rooted deeply in the meritocratic model as much as in any French affection for autarky. It's about ENA-archs and others leaders knowing best, about the confidence in plannification and grand projects, about the one best way... all of this seems tightly bound to me. Any thoughts? -- Duncan 17:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
As to Dirgisme relation to Fascism, the source material is misleading and falsely applied. I see no reference within this source for the additional material comparing Dirgisme with the extensive system of Fascism that was Corporatist in nature and had nothing to do with Dirgisme. But, that is moot and my opinion. Please provide exact quote from that material which I do not find. Thank You. -- Northmeister 04:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
And here we are again. An editor deleted the section again, saying, "i think you're a little confused. all it says is that it has nothing to do with fascism. so it shouldn't really be included". [1] The citation in question goes to a chapter titled "ECONOMIC DIRIGISME IN AUTHORITARIAN-FASCIST REGIMES". Obviously, the author is saying that there was economic dirigisme in fascist regimes (and others). The text is viewable on Amazon.com. [2] Will Beback talk 21:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Fine, then include all those arguments, sources, present it as an important and mainstream view - and see how the article looks. Pilusi3 ( talk) 01:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The following clause asserting that dirigisme is responsible for post-war growth is a possible NPOV violation:
It resulted in an unprecedented economic and demographic growth...
First, this assertion is inconsistent with the more nuanced discussion in the In France section.
Second, the Trente glorieuse period from the rubble following WWII up to the 1973 Oil Crisis is cherry-picked to make a point. A slight adjustment, say 1953-1983, would tell a different story.
Third, growth in some non-dirigisme economies, e.g. Hong Kong, exceeded that of dirigisme economies during the same period.
Finally, causal effect with demographic growth is questionable. Other factors, e.g. moonlit strolls on the Pont Neuf, arguably had a greater effect on the birth rate.
The remedy is to remove or qualify the statement (“Proponents argue that...”). FredLoney ( talk) 12:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)