Talk:American Institute for Economic Research

edit conflict

Greetings. We've had an edit conflict. I had re-written most of the content it seemed to be a copy of a prospectus rather than an encyclopedic article. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

History

Is there any substantiation for any of this? How about this assertion, "Bush's support for Harwood was based on articles that Harwood has published in financial journals in 1928 and 1929 that accurately predicted the impending depression". I looked Harwood up in the LoC and first articles appear around 1935. http://www.loc.gov/fedsearch/metasearch/?cclquery=edward+c.+harwood&search_button=GO#query=(edward%20c.%20harwood)&filter=pz:id=127.0.0.1:9012/lcweb%7C127.0.0.1:9012/ammem%7C127.0.0.1:9012/catalog%7C127.0.0.1:9012/ppoc%7C127.0.0.1:9012/thomas al (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: History

Harwood wrote a number of articles for the Annalist, for example:

EC Harwood, "The Aftermath of Getting Something for Nothing," The Annalist, November 29, 1929

--Ryan

Koch Brothers Funding

I deleted a sentence in the header about Koch Brothers funding, that was added in the last few days solely because of the frenzy around AEIR's sponsoring of the Great Barrington Declaration. It appears that this was added for political reasons as the citation goes to some fringe blog called the "Byline Times," which does not inspire confidence that it meets Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

{{{1}}}

Koch's support is mentioned elsewhere in the text as part of the Atlas Network, which is more in keeping with the attention this fact should receive relative to the weight of the article. Ropedygold (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The $68K donation from Charles Koch is in the IRS database, 2018 Form 990 p.126. Atlas also gave AIER $54,133: 2018 Form 990 p.99 Of course, at the moment, 2018 numbers are generally the last ones available, 2019 ones usually are not yet shown in IRS database, although AIER has posted their 2019 990. I've studied dozens of Koch-related think tanks (although AIER of course long preceded the wave of Koch-sponsored think tanks of the 1980s and 1990s), and AIER's financial structure is quite unusual. If one studies the 2019 990 above, which shows both 2018 and 2019 on 1st page, Total Assets and Liabilities are huge compared to the annual operating budget. Most of the income is from Investment. In 2018, Koch+Atlas ~= $122K, more than 1/8th of the Contributions and Grants. I looked at 990s for most of the usual Koch allies (L&H Bradley, Searle, etc) and the Donors Trust/Capital Fund anonymizers, but didn't see AIER. Of course, industrial funding is invisible, except by accident.

As for climate denial and relationships with other think tanks, like UK's GWPF, search for AIER in FOIA Facts 5 - Finds Friends Of GWPF. Of course, that's not WP:RS, but it has a section that links to specific AIER documents from the 2000s, which are RS about themselves. I haven't looked at post-2013 documents. Like many other Libertarian think tanks, AIER tends to defend tobacco, i.e., arguing for no regulation, misrepresenting vaping, arguing against Tobacco21, etc. Try Google: site:https://www.aier.org tobacco JohnMashey (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Koch-related people at AIER

In 2017, there was a major change of management at AIER, and since then it has become pervaded by Koch-related people. See my long comment at GBD talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnMashey (talk • contribs) 19:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Secondary sources remain shakey

@JzG: The secondary sources you have added are opinion pieces which are generally discouraged on Wikipedia. Greenhalgh, McKee and Kelly-Irving are scientists, not investigative journalists or corporate law experts, they are not SMEs in what organisations a 501(c)(3) is partnering with. While I agree with the Byline Times being a reliable source, the decision could well be reversed and then we would have to remove the claim. Similarly, the Berkshire Edge is not obviously reliable though I have no reason to question it. Is it really such a bad thing to keep the primary references as insurance? ~ El D. (talk to me) 00:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

El komodos drago, regardless, AIER is a very problematic source for anything about itself. As with all think-tanks, its first instinct is to big up its own reputation. If you think the secondary sources are insufficient then feel free to remove the material altogether, but there's no way we should take their word for anything controversial, and with this lot, controversial would include anything beyond their mailing address. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

New President

I had changed it from vacant to Will Ruger. This is a link to the press release announcing it:

https://www.aier.org/article/aier-welcomes-will-ruger/

Would someone please add that link next to his name? I’m not sure how to do that exactly. Thanks. Sovper (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Is this article supposed to inform readers about the non-profit?

This article seems to be extremely biased and appears to be more of a hit piece on this organization than an article providing information about the organization. The see also at the bottom is about covid misinformation and not other libertarian think tanks and the only information in the body is about refuting their proposed solution to Covid-19. It seems likely this needs a substantial rewrite or just outright removal. 2600:1004:B098:A663:FD18:A9F4:4D0:EEFC (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Comment along same line — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommonSenseEconomist (talk • contribs) 20:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC) I think the article is not particularly informative and quite biased at the same time. AIER has been around for 90 years. The article highlights the lockdown controversy and calls it all "misinformation", failing to include the credentials of the people who made the Great Barrington Declaration. While credentials by themselves don't mean much, professors at world-class universities seldom are complete crackpots. If anything is characteristic of AIER, it is championing sound money, including gold. This is not even mentioned.

This is very disappointing material to see in Wikipedia. It besmirches the reputation of Wikipedia. If it is not possible to have a more balanced summary of AIER, it would be better to just delete this and say nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommonSenseEconomist (talk • contribs) 20:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Bias: See WP:YWAB.

AIER has been around for 90 years You are welcome to find sources on that and add what they say to the article.

Credentials: See MOS:CREDENTIAL.

professors at world-class universities seldom are complete crackpots Seldom is different from never. So, there are a few cases when they are, but you seem to believe that we are not allowed to mention that although plenty of reliable sources say that is how it is.

more balanced summary See WP:FALSEBALANCE.

This is not even mentioned You are welcome to find sources on that and add what they say to the article.

We are saying what the reliable sources are saying. That is how Wikipedia works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Description of AIER

The references to climate can be taken back how long? Sometime in the 2000s. Meanwhile AIER has been around for over 90 years. The best short (and honest) 2-sentence description could be:

The American Institute for Economic Research educates Americans on the value of personal freedom, free enterprise, property rights, limited government and sound money. AIER's ongoing scientific research demonstrates the importance of these principles in advancing peace, prosperity and human progress.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/042121305

That's what people who want to know about AIER should see instead of the climate stuff. Sovper (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

COVID-19

The coronavirus section seems to imply that the strategy advocated in the Great Barrington Declaration amounts to or depends upon misinformation. Now, a similar strategy was followed by Sweden, which seems to be doing rather well in retrospective evaluations. The current presentation might have been reasonable at some point, but is it, still? —St.Nerol (talk, contribs) 11:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed on Talk:Great Barrington Declaration, and there are no RS, new or old, that agree with the GBD. Yes, it is still reasonable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Covid

That should be in a controversies section if there is a climate change or medical controversy. It is mainly an economic center Treehugger1492 (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not; controversies sections are deprecated, see WP:CSECTION. I have explained more fully on your own page, Treehugger1492. Bishonen | tålk 10:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC).

Honestly Treehugger1492 we normally wouldn't even have an article on a subject that's only received coverage because of one single thing. As the numerous editors who repeatedly come here say, it results in an article that is or seems excessively focused on that one thing (and this is true whether that thing is positive, negative or neutral). But apparently other people disagree and I don't particularly feel like having another go, since I've got better things to do. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)