Talk:Economic democracy/Archives/2013

Complete rewrite needed

It looks like the original article solely described the marginal work of J. W. Smith, which I've now sectioned off. I have created a stub entry for that person, and suggest possibly moving the information there. The remaining text does not seem to begin to cover the range of usage of the term "economic democracy" that I've found. I really don't know how closely linked all of them are, but there seems to be one concentration around early 20th century socialist and marxist usage, which would probably form the basis for the heart of a "history" section for this article. Hopefully someone can be found who knows a fair bit about the history of the term and can create some good overview paragraphs - I've put in a request on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Business_and_Economics page (and added an {Expert} tag here), and if anyone else knows where appropriate writers might be found please try and recruit them.

In the meantime, I'm putting together some notes for a possible disambiguation page at User:Oberst/Economic democracy (disambiguation). - David Oberst 04:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Also, there is a separate page Economic Democracy, on specific writings of David Schweickart. These might be moved here, if this becomes a page with a number of small independent sections, or elsewhere if this becomes a full-fledged article (see Talk), but two separate articles with the same name differentiated only by capitalization is probably not a good thing. - David Oberst 05:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I rerouted Economic Democracy to point here, since this is the main idea, and one person's writings cannot compete. In any case, there is a mention of him in the references on the bottom of this article. Maurog 13:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I made a typo correction. The original author spelled "democracy" wrong at one point. I corrected it. While this article needs a lot more work, the general idea is good -- the importance of "people over capital", as it were. This is the general thrust behind "Economic Democracy". People are not "commodities", as capitalism suggests, and unfortunately imposes. As it turns out, state-controlled Communism imposes a similar problem. Economic Democracy seeks to provide a distinction between the two. "We The People" should be thinking, active, democratic paricipants in our own destinies, rather than commodified "machines" that function purely for the sake of state or corporate "profit".

As I mention below, there are a number of "voices" that need to be represented in this discussion. Edward Kellogg and C.H. Douglas are two of the voices from the past that should be included in this discussion. Douglass actually wrote a book (in the 1920s) entitled, "Economic Democracy", and yet his name and theories are not mentioned in this Wikipedia article at all. Meanwhile, I'm working on revisions and/or a "complete rewrite" of this article -- if that's okay with you. I haven't yet posted anything other than my correction of the typo, because a "complete rewrite" of this concept is indeed a long-haul. But I am working on it.

Meanwhile, I would emphasize again that a large picture of Karl Marx on the page only serves to bias the entire article. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with anything that Marx had to say. In fact, if we placed his words into the mouth of just about any popular "American", they would quite possibly generate the proletariate "revolution" that Marx suggested. But as the saying goes, "a picture is worth a thousand words" -- and a picture of Karl Marx tends to equal "Communism" and/or "Soviet Communism" and/or FAILED "Soviet Communism" in the minds of a great majority of readers. In fact, the picture of Marx dominating this article powerfully represents something that Marx himself probably never intended. Therefore, I would like to remove it -- for now -- if you don't mind.

Okay. I've removed the picture. And once again, I hope you don't mind. I don't see many comments here other than my own. So I hope I'm not overstepping my boundaries as an "editor". As they say in some circles, "more will be revealed". I'm still working on it. In my view, the first section of the article is the weakest, as it seems to focus on the "powerlessness" of workers and the problems with "Economic Democracy". And then, of course, you scroll down the page to a large picture of Karl Marx (which I've now deleted). It's almost as if an opponent of "Economic Democracy" wrote the initial article. I applaud the pertinent summaries of the ideals of Karl Marx and Karl Polanyi, and I think they should remain, albeit abbreviated somewhat to leave room for ideas from other philosophers. In any case, the picture of Marx had to go -- for now. I hope you don't mind.

Meanwhile, I propose a new leading paragraph that goes like this:

ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY is a philosophy that suggests a transfer of socio-economic decision-making from a small minority of corporate shareholders to the much larger majority of public stakeholders. Workers manage production democratically, and distribute the surplus generated by labor more equitably. While there are a variety of approaches to this end, all real-world and suggested models for Economic Democracy tend to share a core set of fundamental assumptions:

... and then we present a list of ideals that Economic Democratists hold in common. Some of those would be:

ROOT CAUSES OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMBALANCE

THE MYTH OF SCARCITY(versus unlimited abundance)

INSEPARABILITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS

REDISTRIBUTION VERSUS PREDISTRIBUTION

STAKEHOLDER THEORY (value?) VERSUS SHAREHOLDER VALUE

THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT AND LAW

REAL-WORLD EXAMPLES OF ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY

OBSTACLES FOR ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY

CATALYSTS FOR ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY

ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY AS A SOLUTION

I don't necessarily suggest the above ideals all have their own separate headings, though that is how I am in the process of organizing my thinking in the matter. They could, instead, be discussed generally in two or three paragraphs... followed by a variety of models suggested by a number of different philosophers and writers (contemporary and not -- including of course, Karl Marx).

While the existing sections on "Co-operatives", "Closely held businesses", "Local and slow food production", and "Local currencies" seem very applicable, the proponents of "Economic Democracy" tend to differ in their thinking along all these lines, and those differences should be outlined along with a number of other differences.

Once again, thanks for reading (if you are). David Kendall 22:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the Marx bit, condensing it to one shorter paragraph (for now). Karl Marx wrote three volumes (over 900 pages) of text called "Capital", and as such he might deserve more than a paragraph here (maybe even a picture, who knows? But probably not a statue). However, the original writer of this article was quite redundant. So I have tried to distill that writing, possibly to provide additional space for more on Marx, but certainly to provide space for additional ideas. For instance, any discussion of "Economic Democracy" seems empty without Marx's "Labor Theory of Value" and his "Circuit of Capital". So we maybe should include that at some point. For now, I'm merely abbreviating what's here -- if you don't mind, of course. Please let me know if you do. David Kendall 03:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Just getting rid of the most objectionable points for now. The points deleted here (bottom of the leading section) seem to have been written by someone who really isn't interested in the subject matter, and it shows. There are some valid points, but it mostly looks like someone is trying to fill space. There are more applicable points to be made (listed). David Kendall 03:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I edited the Polanyi bit, and I stuck him on top of Marx. For the record, I'll probably stick Edward Kellogg on top of Polanyi because he quotes Marx even better than Marx does.

Kellogg's in.David Kendall 13:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the introduction section, and I think it looks much better. At least it's not a "tirrade" anymore, as someone has called it. In fact, I think it's almost "meaningful" now. I kept the best stuff (here on Wikipedia), and I kept the worst stuff (here on my computer in Notepad). David Kendall 13:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Edited Marx a bit, placing references, etc. Also placed the beginnings of the discussion on "The Myth of Scarcity". For now, just building a frame-work of brief notes on as many concepts as possible. Details to come, once the skeleton is in place. David Kendall 13:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding Hilaire Belloc to the mix as a prelude to J.W. Smith's theories regarding "Monopoly". Sorry if this seems like just a bunch of quotes all lined up together. I can't write the thing all at once, because I have to work for a living, too. Ya know? Just doing the best I can with the time I have. More contemporary writers are up next, followed by a large revision of the whole section, once all the pieces are in place. Just want to make sure we have all the links and references in place so we don't end up going on another "tirrade". David Kendall 05:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Added JW Smith. Will continue with comments by William H. Kotke in the Foreword of Smith's book, and then follow with additional statistics from Jack Rasmus. David Kendall 07:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding "the commons". Didn't make it to Rasmus tonight. Will add "Tragedy of the Commons" tomorrow. THEN Rasmus, and the rest.David Kendall 08:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the mess of comments here. In case anyone is still following along, I plan to re-summarize the introduction section, and categorize (bullet) the "fundamental assumptions" section, and integrate the previously written "localization" sections with other material. As such, I soon plan to temporarily delete the latter mentioned sections. While the issues of food and currency localization are neither marginal or superfluous, they are not as pivotal or urgent as other issues with regard to "Economic Democracy". I mean no disrespect or disregard for the original author of this article. Those efforts are both admirable and have been useful in the continued editing of the article. But, as "Wikipedia" has observed, some "expansion" is needed. I'm doing the best I can (as time allows) in this regard, and I appreciate everyone's patience with my small daily edits. I do have a "big" picture in mind. But there are a lot of sources, opinions, and facts to sort through. I'm doing the best I can with the resources I have. Thanks again for your patience. David Kendall 08:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Since including the large statement from Harry S. Truman here, I have considered minimizing it. The statement from one man should not dominate an entire ideology, unless his statement generally outlines the issue at hand.

While a repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act would not resolve the many socio-economic problems it has generated, Truman's evaluation of the Bill seems extremely prophetic -- particulary with regard to "conflict with important principles of democratic society" and, more importantly, "totally managed economy" -- otherwise known as "corporate imperialism" or "totalitarianism".

Truman hit the nail on the head in terms of "defining the problem". So, while I hate for anyone's statement to dominate the article, it is difficult to omit ANY of Truman's very important statement in this section, which intends to outline the "fundamental assumptions" of -- "the problem".

I hope Truman's statement doesn't seem too intrusive, as supporting information will follow. After careful consideration, I've decided to leave it for now. David Kendall 06:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Complete Rewrite

Since this is a "talk page", I hope this is a place to informally discuss ideas that may or may not be complete, hopefully with the aim of bringing all thoughts to higher levels of completion. I'm a "newbie" here, so I hope you'll forgive my awkwardness. Rather than getting my head slapped for voluntarily making some major revisions to this article, I would like to first present them infomally here.

A reasonable theory exists that all socio-economic systems are a mix of capital (profit) and social (people) aims. The balance or skew of this mix seems to depend on what percentage of society controls the means of production. As this percentage diminishes, socio-economic imbalance and distortion tends to increase. In response, "Economic Democracy" suggests the transfer of economic decision-making from the few to the many.

While some might consider Karl Marx the "father" of such thought, it doesn't seem appropriate for his picture to practically dominate an article on "Economic Democracy" -- a term I doubt he ever mentioned. If Marx actually did use the term "Economic Democracy" in any of his writings, as this article claims, could someone please cite the reference, including the page number and paragraph? If not, could we please remove the picture? Or at least shrink his picture considerably and include pictures of other writers/philosophers as well?

On this "talk page", I see at least one individual who considers Economic Democracy "just a new marketing term" for Communism, (pankkake 20:27, 6 April 2006). And the question (see above) is an important one: What IS the difference between "Economic Democracy" and Communism?" Isn't it the job of an encyclopedia to provide well-researched answer(s) for such questions?

How exactly does "Economic Democracy" differ from Communism? How does it differ from Capitalism? These are questions that the authors appearing at the bottom of this article are all wrestling with. How are their proposed models similar? How do they differ? Moreover, this contemporary discussion seems at least as pertinent to the issue as Marx's theory of alienation.

The first place I ever encountered the term "Economic Democracy" was in a PDF file regarding "Democratic Socialism": "'If we are to achieve a real equality,' King wrote from the Selma, Alabama jail in 1965, 'the U.S. will have to adopt a modified form of socialism. King knew that political democracy is hollow without economic democracy'".

So I searched through all of Dr. Martin Luther King's public speeches (that I know of), but I didn't find the term "economic democracy" anywhere. So, in some sense, it seems someone is putting words in his mouth. Meanwhile, Dr. King did say on at least one public occassion that "Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the Kingdom of Brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of Communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both". This "higher synthesis" seems central to David Schweickart's theories of "Economic Democracy", as outlined in the Wikipedia article on him.

Meanwhile, Richard C. Cook presents a considerably different model of "Economic Democracy". He suggests a "National Dividend" (and a number of other ideas) based on "Social Credit", as he observes "economic scarcity" is imposed artificially in a world of "unlimited abundance".

Other contributors to the idea of "Economic Democracy" include JW Smith and Peter Barnes. I haven't read any of Smith's work -- yet. But he's written so many books on the subject, it seems like he ought to get more than just "honorable mention" in this Wikipedia article. Barnes recently wrote a book called "Capitalism 3.0" that promotes the idea of "reclaiming the commons". While his angle springs from environmental issues and lands on a different platform than any of the authors mentioned above, his suggested means seem grounded in "economic democracy", though I need to double-check his usage of that terminology.

To conclude, I don't want to suggest that Marx be deleted from the page. Far from it. But in the interest of "nutrality", there are many other voices at the table in this discussion. Their views are far from identical, and they are not merely "communists" with a new marketing gag. For this to become anything close to a "featured" Wikipedia article, these arguments (and others)should be compared and contrasted; summarized and fairly represented. Perhaps the main introductory section of this article would outline the common aims of all speakers involved, while some of the differing approaches to "Economic Democracy" could be summarized in separate section.

Thanks for reading. Let me know if I can help, and what restrictions should be observed in the process of this "complete rewrite".

David Kendall 08:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

PS: How do I get rid of the extra space at the end of my external links? Thanks.

Schweickart

I just read a paper on Economic Democracy (by David Schweickart) and part of that paper seemed so familiar, like I've read it before. I swear parts of this article have been ripped from that paper. (PH) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.118.192.139 (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Schweickart sent the entire digital manuscript of his book, "After Capitalism" to me, and granted permission for his work to be utilized in this article. Rather than "ripped", I believe all of Schweickart's work has been appropriately cited here, in careful adherence to Wikipedia standards. If there are any exceptions, please note them specifically on this discussion page, so they can be corrected. David Kendall (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Advertising

The following text was posted at the top of this article today:

"The answer to all problems and short-comings related to management of inter-Nation related dysfunction and domestic economies and welfare of people(the common good) may be found by visiting http://www.trafford.com/07-2440 The link is provided above.Or run a search, "THOMAS W ADAMS THE UNIVERSAL ECONOMY". Or email: i2i@aussieb.com.au to receive a free copy of the doc. full file ."

While the information provided in the above referenced book may or may not be applicable to the discussion of "Economic Democracy", the "References" section of the article seems a more appropriate placement than the top of the page. For now, it seems best to remove it altogether, pending further review. David Kendall (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "Contributors" Section

For a number of reasons, I would like to suggest removal of the "Modern Contributors to Economic Democracy" section from this article.

This section has existed since long before I initially encountered the article, and I have actually added to it. However, the infinite list of "contributors" to Economic Democracy cannot possibly be listed here. In fact, the names here undoubtedly represent a much larger list of countless teachers, books, and other references that cannot possibly be listed comprehensively. Further, a formal listing of certain names and the omission of others presents an appearance of ideological bias that Wikipedia aims to avoid. Exhaulting the named "contributions" of a slim few over the unnamed contributions of countless others also seems conspicuously undemocratic, potentially discouraging meaningful future contributions to Economic Democracy, either on this article or in the real-world.

Moreover, there is no established criteria for whether or not someone's name should appear on this list -- other than the personal bias and/or arbitrary discretion of readers/authors of this article. While it is necessary for all relevant "contributions" to be clearly cited throughout the article itself, the finite list of names at the end of this article seems both unnecessary and potentially counterproductive.

I will leave this suggestion here for about a week before I proceed to remove the section. Any comments are much appreciated. David Kendall (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly concur, particularly because many of these names are chosen arbitrarily, and several are from a bizarre cult that likes to inflate its own appearance of importance by putting itself alongside famous names. Best to leave this section out entirely, if nothing else because it currently allows said cult to do so. Countermereology (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. To avoid problems in the future, I'd be interested to know what particular "cult" you are referring to. Meanwhle, consider the section deleted. David Kendall (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing Uncited Anonymous Remarks

A number of incendiary labels have been applied to this article that may or may not apply. These labels include: "left-wing", "new socialism", "new communism", along with the application of a "Socialism" sidebar.

The editor who applied these labels remains unidentified, aside from a dynamic IP address. There are no notations in the "Edit Summary" to indicate the purpose of the edits, and there is no discussion on this "talk" page regarding them. Moreover, no citation is provided to verify the claim: "The movement has often been described as a 'new socialism'; indeed David Schweickart even suggests that the system is a 'New Communism'".

In view of all the above, it seems reasonable to remove these recent edits as invalid. As similar edits applied by this particular editor have previously been noted on this "Talk" page (see directly above), any future modifications by this editor will be considered vandalism, and treated accordingly. David Kendall (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Common Good Bank

Moved from article:

---

====Common Good Finance==== In this regard, common good banks™ are a new kind of community savings bank, dedicated to the common good. According to their business plan, an integration of ideas from over a hundred contributors, "common good" means "peace and justice, a healthy planet and the well-being of every individual person, empowering those most in need". Contrasting conventional finance, common good banks™ implement a decentralized democratic economy that generates funds to benefit the community (near and far), while providing exceptional banking services. Member depositors will use a system of direct democracy, based on the wisdom of crowds, to guide the bank's socially responsible spending and lending priorities and contributions to the common good. The first common good bank™ is scheduled to open in 2009 in Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts.

Organized as a stock savings bank, common good banks™ are owned primarily by member depositors. The bank's overarching mission is to advance the common good of member depositors, the wider community, and the world, especially by empowering those most in need. Common good banks™ provide no unearned income. Financial return to investors is limited to no more than the true inflation rate of the dollar (currently calculated as prime minus 2%), plus one half percent. No employee, director, or contractor of the bank or its organizers is paid more than reasonable compensation for work related to the bank, nor is any such individual paid at more than ten times the hourly rate of the lowest paid employee of the bank.

Net profits of common good banks™ go to the wide community. Half of the money that goes to the community is distributed outside the bank's primary service area, and half of that disbursement goes outside the United States. Merchants have the option to offer a rebate on sales to member depositors; half the rebate goes to the customer, half to the community. Members have the option to participate in a non-inflationary local currency credit system that saves them money and benefits local nonprofit organizations. Transparency is another key policy of common good banks™. All the bank's operations are reported openly and are subject to productive public comment, except as required by law or where necessary to protect personal information. Moreover, all decisions in common good banks™ are arrived at through participatory democracy. Member depositors (individuals only) guide the bank's lending policies and community contributions using liquid democracy (direct vote with default transitive proxies).

---

I've pulled this section from the article because it seems like a very specific project, rather than a broad agenda or approach to economic democracy. No Common Good Bank exists at this time (though a small one is apparently trying to gather funding). The only references that discuss the term appear to be from the Common Good Bank website. The insistence on the use of ™ marks throughout the text and the heavily promotional flavour are also troubling.

I recommend holding off on reintroducing the Common Good Bank notion to the article until a Common Good Bank actually exists, or the concept receives wide coverage in reliable sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Moved from article:

---

Common Good Finance seeks to begin the transition to social control of investments by creating community-owned banks, which place bank profits into a community fund that is distributed as democratically decided by the community. It also seeks to gradually create a capital assets tax by partnering with community-conscious businesses and getting a percentage rebate for community bank members, half of which will go to the community fund. This rebate will eventually become a capital assets tax, as businesses begin to adjust pricing. This tax would be passed down to the consumer, but would be paid proportionally to consumption.

---

I've removed additional text (directly above) regarding the Common Good Bank. While Common Good Finance might seem a significant proposal regarding "Social Control of Investment" and/or "Economic Democracy", it does not provide any real-world example at this time. Advertising does not comply with Wikipedia guidelines. David Kendall (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The removal looks reasonable. The problems previously identified – primarily that the CGB still isn't operating, and it hasn't received major third-party coverage – remain. While the CGB's current FAQ reports that the CGB's first branch should open in 2009, I take that date with a grain of salt. This essay published in July 2006 set the opening date as October 2007, and I'm concerned that this project – noble though it may be – may be suffering from perpetually slipping deadlines.

---

Any project of the common good bank's magnitude will suffer slipping deadlines, but that's pointless. It should be included simply because people want to know which economic democracy related projects are moving forward. That the project is alive and progressing is the crucial information. It's the most real-world undertaking I am aware of - if there are others, they should also be included in the page. I came on to wikipedia for the specific purpose of finding what's happening now and saw the cgb in the article, however that personally crucial information has since been removed. I'll rewrite it eliminate any advertisement tone, although that was certainly not my purpose. Metacometa (talk) 02:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)metacometa

Your comments and posting are both useful and valid, Metacometa. Key representatives of Common Good Bank are aware of this article's development. But, to comply with Wikipedia guidelines, they also agree it is best to let the CGB move into operation before presenting it here. David Kendall (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

David, will you kindly point me to the location of the key representatives' agreement. The project has received notice on socialfunds.com. I believe we should make an exception for the degree of notoriety outlined in wikipedia guidelines given the absurdly direct applicability to the subject matter. Metacometa (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC) metacometa

I've removed the links to Common Good Bank. In one place their homepage was used as a citation to support a statement not found on the linked page. I've removed them from the list of external links because the project itself seems to be moribund. The ever-slipping starting date has been removed from their FAQ page entirely now, which – to my mind – pushes that particular project back towards being a purely academic curiosity, rather than a going concern. There exist better references for the general discussion of democratic banking principles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not the case, the project is not moribund. The project is getting about 2 sign ups per day, giving a presentation every few days around the Massachusetts area. The blog shows the progress. Several organizations have signed on as partners. Ever-slipping start dates should be expected from an innovative project like this. I heard about this project on wikipedia, and was incredibly happy to have done so. I'm sure others feel the same way. To my knowledge no other project is doing anything like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metacometa (talk • contribs) 03:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite please!

• too bloated/not condensed enough - maybe better headings, subheadings Chendy (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional perspectives needed

This article has some interesting stuff in it, and the person/s who wrote it have done well. But I think that it's wrong to have an article about "economic democracy" that essentially advertises the work of David Schweickart. I am sure he's a great chap, but he's not exactly prominent or saying much that's new. The same goes for this person from Ohio called J W Smith. I think that if there was an article before that summarised his book then the majority of this article should be put there. You don't need more than a section on his work.

The term "economic democracy" can throw up quite a few ideas, and Schweickart's view of worker owned enterprises, prices determined by the market and investment through publicly controlled banks is not really very new. I haven't read his work, and I bet he has a few chapters on "why my ideas are not what Lenin did", but they are not terribly far off from things that have been talked about since Plato. In particular, where is the discussion of:

• Sir Thomas More
• Robert Owen
• Karl Marx
• Beatrice and Sidney Webb (yes I know they were using the term "industrial democracy")
• the systems of workplace involvement across Europe, where employees are elected to company boards (in Germany it's called Mitbestimmung)
• more recently there's a guy called Dr Robin Archer, who has written a book actually entitled "Economic democracy"

In pages like this, as it rightly says at the start of the article, there's going to be debate about what the terminology is actually meant to mean. In fact "economic democracy" can mean anything you want it to mean. So the page shouldn't be saying "here's economic democracy, and here are some variant voices on the matter" but it should - and would be of the greatest use as an encyclopedia article - just going through summarising what each individual says, and what they take it to mean. Of course, then you can have main articles linking to each subsection.

Another more technical point, is that the referencing here is useless. You can't be footnoting other Wikipedia pages - and when a book is cited, there are no page numbers, just the title of 3 books over ten times!Wikidea 15:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The function of this article is to define "Economic Democracy". As suggested above, "the term "economic democracy" can throw up quite a few ideas". David Schweickart and J.W. Smith have written numerous publications with specific regard to "Economic Democracy". C.H. Douglas also wrote a book called "Economic Democracy" and numerous other documents in this regard. His work is included here, supported by contemporary comment from Richard C. Cook, who also writes and lectures with specific regard to "Economic Democracy".

Conspicuously missing from the article thus far, are the views of Dada Maheshvarananda, Noam Chomsky, Frei Betto, Johan Galtung, Leonardo Boff, Sohail Inayatullah, Ravi Batra, Mark Friedman and Marcos Arruda and many others -- who have also written and consulted extensively with specific regard to "Economic Democracy". Further, if Sir Thomas More, Robert Owen, Karl Marx, Beatrice and Sidney Webb, and Dr Robin Archer, have published works specifically regarding "Economic democracy", then these works should also be included.

Page numbers are thoroughly referenced, though templates might not have been properly utilized. Please adjust syntax as needed to correct the problem. If reference to other Wikipedia articles violates Wikipedia guidelines, then please cite the violations and then remove the references. David Kendall (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This page needs diverse points of view than just a collectivist/socialist one. Economic democracy has different meanings and has been used in the past by economically liberal capitalists to describe a democracy of the market where consumers vote with their dollars. This page needs to include a laissez-faire capitalist (not coproratist or state capitalist, or socialist) as an alternative along with the proper competing explanation. --Trueliberal (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the selection of perspectives here is a little warped: any article on discussing labour and capital power relations that references Martin Luther King more often than Marx has issues with sourcing and selection. I quite like the inclusion MLK's pithy quotation on "Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social..." but he was neither an authority on economics nor, to my knowledge, identified as an "economic democrat" per se during his anti-poverty campaigns*. I agree that Marx's Dictatorship of the Proleteriat isn't either "economic democracy" or a plausible prelude to it but he manifestly is a leading contributor to relevant economic literature.

Much of the information here belongs on the relevant sub pages: the discussion of "food co-operatives" on this page is longer than the dedicated page, and likewise little of the information on Schweickart and Smith's theories are found on their own pages.

• the third MLK quotation in particular appears inappropriate: it's a dubious claim of fact that his "mandate" would not be met considering the "citizen's dividend" discussed above would be neither be pegged to the lowest levels of income nor static as social income growths. Then again I'm not entirely sure what MLK meant by "pegged to the median income"; if he meant every citizen ought to be guaranteed at least the median income then his "mandate" is an impossible pipe dream which underlines why he is seldom regarded as an authority on economics

Dtellett (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Dahl" :
  • {{cite book |last=Dahl |first=Robert |middle=A |title=A Preface to Economic Democracy |publisher=University of California Press |year=1985 |page=92-93 }}
  • {{cite book |last=Dahl |first=Robert |middle=A |title=A Preface to Economic Democracy |publisher=University of California Press |year=1985 |page=50 }}
• "After Capitalism" :
  • {{cite book |last=Schweickart |first=David |title=After Capitalism |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. |ISBN=0-7425-1299-1 |year=2002 |page=135, 136 }}
  • {{cite book |last=Schweickart |first=David |title=After Capitalism |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. |ISBN=0-7425-1299-1 |year=2002 |page=49 }}
  • {{cite book |last=Schweickart |first=David |title=After Capitalism |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. |ISBN=0-7425-1299-1 |year=2002 |page=56 }}
  • {{cite book |last=Schweickart |first=David |title=After Capitalism |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. |ISBN=0-7425-1299-1 |year=2002 |page=63 }}
• "Chaos or Community" :
  • {{cite book |last=King |first=Dr. Martin Luther |title=Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos Or Community? |year= |publisher=Beacon Press |location=New York |isbn=0-8070-0571-1 |page=164 }}
  • {{cite book |last=King |first=Dr. Martin Luther |title=Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos Or Community? |year= |publisher=Beacon Press |location=New York |isbn=0-8070-0571-1 |page=163 }}
• "SmithMoneyBook" :
  • {{cite book |last=Smith |first=J.W. |title=Money: A Mirror Image of the Economy |year=2007 |publisher=the Institute for Economic Democracy Press |page=16 |isbn=1933567120}}
  • {{cite book |last=Smith |first=J.W. |title=Money: A Mirror Image of the Economy |year=2007 |publisher=the Institute for Economic Democracy Press |page=13 |isbn=1933567120}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The rise of corporations

This section refers to the 1886 Supreme Court ruling and then goes on to say that "by the mid-nineteenth century, corporations could live forever…". — Should that be 'twentieth century"? Otherwise, the text order should be unjumbled and the mid-19^th-c. situation be put before the ruling. —Mardhil (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I fixed it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Just want to say thanks for a great wiki. This pulls together many key aspects of left-libertarian economic thought and I haven't seen such a well encompassed summary elsewhere. Nice work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.107.191 (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

What justification is there for capitalizing the E and the D in "economic democracy" outside of the term's appearance in a book title? Unless it's also the title of some other piece of intellectual property (which is entitled to protection under the capitalist system, haha), I say it's affected and should go. AdRock (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Just old-fashioned typography. Switch to normal sentence case. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a standard syntax regarding this in any of the texts I've read. For example, sometimes "Capitalism" is capitalized in the middle of a sentence, and sometimes it's not. The same goes for the economic systems of "Slavery" and "Feudalism". Sometimes they're capitalized, sometimes they're not.

But "Economic Democracy" is two words, not just one. In some texts, both words are capitalized in the middle of a sentence, and sometimes they are both lower case, and sometimes it's abbreviated "ED". The syntax seems to be at the discretion of the author depending on context. As an alternative economic model, "Economic Democracy" is usually capitalized. As a mere reform of Capitalism, "economic democracy" is sometimes lower-case. But I have never seen either "Economic democracy" or "economic Democracy" in the middle of a sentence.

The general outline of this article suggests the possibility of both "model" and "reform". So in terms of consistency, how should the capitalization of any economic term be handled in the middle of a sentence in this article? What is the best way to handle capitalization, overall? David Kendall (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Capitalism 3.0

This is a book by Peter Barnes. I think the book should have a page of its own, as it has on swedish wp. Peter should also have a page of his own. --Mats33 (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Allan Engler

An expired editor by the name of 'Teilolondon' has significantly and inappropriately revised this article without providing any discussion. This article is therefore being reverted to its previous condition on July 14, 2010.

In the positive, Teilolondon (and other editors) shortened the article while retaining much of the original content. But in the negative, there was no discussion about the portions of the article that were arbitrarily discarded.

Teilolondon also appears to be advertising a recent book by Allan Engler, outlining Engler's particular views of 'economic democracy' in the introductory section of this article. Teilolondon has also inappropriately promoted David Schweickart's particular views (which previously appeared in a subordinate section) to the introductory paragraph, implying that Engler and Schweickart might hold the primary views for readers to consider regarding 'economic democracy'.

Moreover, 'economic democracy' is not merely an alternative to capitalism. It can also be considered an alternative to so-called 'communism' or 'socialism', etc., and there is no single definition or approach to 'economic democracy'. There are a wide range of perspectives on this subject, and the introductory section should reflect this variance.

The ideas of Engler should likely be included in this article. This article should probably also be shortened. But this article also needs continued expansion to include many other perspectives. Most importantly, any sort of revision should be implemented with respect for the encyclopedic guidelines of Wikipedia.

Please see Wikipedia guidelines for information regarding advertising, revision, discussion, original research, introductory sections and more.

In the meantime, pending further discussion, this article will revert to its previous condition on July 14, 2010.

David Kendall (talk) 04:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Once again, someone has promoted Allan Engler's ideas to the Lead Section of this article. Engler appears to have written a book called 'Economic Democracy', so his ideas are certainly valid here. However, promoting those ideas along with Engler's book in the Lead Section of the article seems inappropriate according to Wikipedia guidelines. In other words, if Engler's name appears in the Lead Section, then everyone else who has written a book on economic democracy should also appear in the Lead Section, and that's not feasible.

As such, I have moved the Allan Engler information to the section entitled, 'Alternative models': 'Market models'. This seems an appropriate placement for Engler's views in the overall outline of the article, as Engler ideas extend beyond mere reform but do not seem to reject the function of the 'market' within the existing economic system. I've also removed the term 'Social Credit' from the Lead Section of the article in response to a complaint that this article is about economic democracy, not Social Credit.

Even so, Engler's ideas are still not cited properly. The purpose of citation is not merely to verify the source but also to validate information as more than 'original research'. So I have also tagged this section of the article for 'missing citations'.

Someone also keeps removing the section heading 'Deficiency of effective demand'. This inappropriately forces the body text below it into the Lead Section of the article and makes a mess of the article outline. If this section heading is in dispute, then let's discuss alternative headings here on the Talk Page and perhaps change the heading. In the meantime, I've replaced the heading and supplemented it with a recent quotation from notable author, David Harvey.

Another Wikipedia editor has proposed an opposing view of economic democracy in which the power to dispose of the means of production belongs exclusively to entrepreneurs and capitalists, according to someone named Ludwig Mises. This perspective actually provides an interesting contrast, which also lends credence to more equitable views of economic democracy. So I've retained it as an argument for readers to consider. But, like any other author, the name of this person should not be promoted above all others in the Lead Section of the article. The ideas of Mises could possibly be expanded in the body text of the article, but not in the Lead Section.

In summary, the ideas recently proposed for this article are welcome and appreciated. But, based on my understanding of the encyclopedic guidelines of Wikipedia, these ideas were inappropriately introduced. The Lead Section of the article seems to be the main target in this regard. To avoid such problems in the future, please review Wikipedia guidelines regarding lead section, introductory paragraphs, section headings, advertising, original research and citation. Thanks very much for your help.

David Kendall (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

macro vs micro

I did the big copyedit of this still really terrible article, and left a lot of questions inline for my successors to hash out, but I have one big issue that merits a section here.

Is ED about the control of individual firms or investment? It's one thing to say that (on moral grounds) employees should control their firms.

It's another to say that (on practical grounds) capitalist economies can't consume what they produce and that therefore we need to change the way investment is managed. In fact, the US always consumes much more than its output, which is why it has a trade deficit. In Henry George's era we did run a trade surplus, but those days are long gone. This part of the article should be removed or at least split into another one where it can get hashed out. I didn't make that change because I don't do wars, and I'm happy to be talked out of what appears to be a pretty simple conclusion, so I hope you'll help me out....

Lfstevens (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "macro vs micro". Economic democracy is probably comprised of both, as is any other economic system. Economic democracy also tends to be a matter of theory and opinion rather than real-world practice.

Meanwhile, the revisions made to this article as of January 19, 2012 altered the intent of at least one cited author: "While balanced mixed economies have existed briefly throughout history, 'Cook' claimed that command economies predominated, citing state capitalism and imperialism as common".

While 'Cook' might have said this, the rewording in this Wikipedia article was significant enough to have warranted in-depth discussion. But no discussion was proposed on the "Talk" page for this article, and I'm afraid additional inaccuracies might have also occured. I am therefore reverting the article to protect the integrity of at least one author and perhaps others.

Your interest in 'economic democracy' is greatly appreciated, Lfstevens, and I agree this article needs plenty of revision. In fact, many of your edits seemed quite appropriate and helpful. Too bad they had to be deleted. But this "terrible article" has also been very carefully researched over a great deal of time. So let's "talk" respectfully before you start plowing through it with your "big copyedits" again. Okay?

David Kendall (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no specific interest in this topic. I came to copyedit (as requested) and nothing more. I certainly had no intent to change an author's meaning. As I did fairly consistently, I merely replaced wp-violating "many", "some", or "most" weasel words with the name of the author immediately referenced. I also:

• consolidated duplicate references, linked notes to consolidated refrences and revealed many references that were hidden by the broken reuse of the same reference name
• turned many sentence fragments into sentences
• corrected incorrect word choice
• requested citations for many many uncited claims
• reorganized sections to be thematically coherent
• removed no supported claims, including ones that were obviously false
• reduced the word count by >15% without eliminating any points

If you had a problem with the edits I was making, which took days, you could have let me know before I had expended so much energy trying to help you out. Only after I finished and asked for help, did you see fit to do so. I can't believe that you think the original was better. Perhaps you didn't like the material in the comments or the many requests? You didn't even respond to the point I did raise on this page, about "deficiency of demand". As I stated above, I don't do wars, so I'll finish by warning any potential readers that this article is an embarrassment to WP and any potential editors that David is in charge and stands ready to frustrate their good intentions without a second thought or discussion. Consider that instead of reverting, you could have pointed out my error and asked me to fix it. If you revert your reversion, I still will. Otherwise, there are names you should be called...Cheers!

Lfstevens (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't live on Wikipedia, and I am typically away from the Internet for long periods of time. But unlike you, Lfstevens, I do have specific interests in this topic. Truth be known, we all do.

I'm not "in charge" of this or anything else on Wikipedia, and I can't prevent you or anyone else from taking a wrecking ball to this whole article. But when I see socialist flags posted, or sweeping modifications like yours, made over a relatively short period of time (a few days), and those changes result in glaring misrepresentations -- my typical response has been to simply revert the article to a more reliable condition, and wait for a response. Normally, I don't get one because the revisions in question were intended as vandalism.

But since you've bothered to respond, here is some further explanation:

"Many" analysts have indeed made comments about mixed economies versus command economies. Richard C. Cook is cited here as an example. There are certainly many others. I doubt this is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines about "weasel words" or anything else. A valid attempt to improve this article might have been for you to cite additional examples, not to arbitrarily cite "Cook" (his last name only) as the one person who has ever made such a claim without any prior introduction of this person in the article.

In your revisions, the reader was suddenly confronted with the name "Cook" without any explanation. This was a misrepresentation of both the idea and the person, and your stated lack of interest in this topic is brutally evident in the arbitrary nature of your editing and in your negative attitude about this "terrible article" here on the talk page.

For example, you seem to be the editor who keeps removing or changing the section heading "Deficiency of effective demand". If you think this needs further explanation, then provide some. But merely removing this heading screws up all of the body copy below it, and trying to dumb it down with something like "Demand gap" is not an encyclopedic solution.

You further suggest removing any mention of Henry George from the article. But J.W. Smith has written several books entitled "Economic Democracy" (with various subtitles) and has based his theories heavily upon the ideas of Henry George. So, whether you or I agree with those ideas or not, they do represent at least one widely published view of economic democracy and are therefore essential to the content of this article.

Where citations are conspicuously absent and needed, I certainly appreciate anyone bringing it to my attention. In fact, I have fairly quickly responded to many such calls by conducting further research into a topic which apparently doesn't interest you. But your plowing through this entire article with a "citation needed" pen on a witch hunt for "weasel words" does not seem like an effort to improve Wikipedia. Instead it seems like a deliberate effort to discredit this particular article and all of its authors as much as you possibly can.

On the surface, some of your revisions actually made sense to me, until I looked deeper to find that the article had been generally compromised. I am particularly in favor of reducing the word count without eliminating any key points, because much more needs to be added in terms real-world economic democracy that has proved quite successful in Mondragon, Cape Breton, Cleveland and elsewhere. Such additions could improve this article significantly by raising it from a discussion of theory and opinion to an article about real-world practice. I truly wish someone would help with this effort.

But that needs to be a collaborative effort, not a combative one, and I don't want to collaborate with someone like you who is not at all interested in this topic and who has no desire to research it.

To conclude, I hope you will avoid this article in your future attempts to 'improve' Wikipedia, Lfstevens. If you simply cannot restrain yourself or respectfully and patiently collaborate, then perhaps some kind of escalation is in order. Let's not go there.

David Kendall (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

[outdenting]"But when I see socialist flags posted, or sweeping modifications like yours, made over a relatively short period of time (a few days), and those changes result in glaring misrepresentations -- my typical response has been to simply revert the article to a more reliable condition, and wait for a response. Normally, I don't get one because the revisions in question were intended as vandalism.

Your typical response is inappropriate, if it involves edits that were themselves made not as vandalism (vandals don't work for days on a single article.) The appropriate response is the talk page, which you didn't do except after the fact. Did you really not notice that I was making changes until right after I finished?

'"Many" analysts' have indeed made comments about mixed economies

I didn't say that they hadn't. But it is a common bad habit on WP to use "some say" as a way of not mentioning anyone who actually did say. This article was rife with such locutions, so I attempted to eliminate them. If you didn't like the way I did it, just say so.

"you seem to be the editor who keeps removing or changing the section heading "Deficiency of effective demand"."

I changed it-once-to a more standard phrasing in economics, and left its content intact. Whether that constitutes a "dumb down" is in the eye of the beholder, but again it's something to discuss.

"You further suggest removing any mention of Henry George from the article."

I suggested that his thesis no longer applied, but I didn't remove such mention. Instead, I put my thought on the talk page. That's how we address controversy in WP, not by acting arbitrarily, as you did.

"Where citations are conspicuously absent and needed, I certainly appreciate anyone bringing it to my attention."

Which I did.

"a deliberate effort to discredit this particular article and all of its authors"

How does asking for improvements discredit anyone? Which ones should I have omitted? Why are you so worried about my motivations? My efforts enthusiastically followed the standard wp approach. You, cavalierly, did not.

"reducing the word count without eliminating any key points

I got 1500 words out of there, and am pretty sure that all key points remained. Given your approach to collaboration, good luck finding others to help...

"To conclude, I hope you will avoid this article in your future attempts to 'improve' Wikipedia, Lfstevens."

It doesn't matter whether I avoid it or not, with you on the job. Thanks for the sarcasm, though. WP tries to encourage well-intentioned contributors, not scare them off. I called this article "terrible" because it is badly done on so many levels: broken sentences; redundancies; poor organization; poorly cited claims; claims that are obviously false. Copyediting is good for the first three and those were the changes I made. I flagged items in the fourth, leaving the claims intact and dealt with the last on the talk page - just like you're supposed to.

"If you simply cannot restrain yourself or respectfully and patiently collaborate, then perhaps some kind of escalation is in order. Let's not go there."

I have restrained myself, and have shown and stated my willingness to collaborate, unlike you. E.g., if you feel that my cite requests made you/the article look bad, it's a matter of moments to remove them.

I can understand why you don't want to make your behavior more widely visible. You need to stop acting like you're in charge.

Lfstevens (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

David Kendall, I am reverting back to Lfstevens' version of the page. It is inappropriate for you to throw out several days' worth of work on the article, which included good edits to the prose and improvements to the citation formatting. It is better for you to work with the article in its new state, and discuss any further revisions here on the talk page. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I have completed some technical fixes to the article, especially the citations. Since there were many instances where the citations had duplicate names, a lot of cites were masked. Only the first instance of a definition is used by the software. So the number of citations has increased from 60 to 112! there were many that were not being displayed. Other problems remain: there are many unsourced statements and many instances where we have a source provided, but no page number is given. A reader should not have to look through a 300-page volume to confirm that the source backs up the statements in the article. If there are any questions about my changes, please let me know on my talk page. -- Dianna (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Since both market (Schweickart, Smith, Cook, etc.) and non-market (Albert, Fotopoulos, Engler, etc.) examples of economic democracy are clearly outlined and cited in the body of this article, why is a "citation needed" tag necessary in the leading statements of this article with regard to these claims?

This is just one of my many complaints with your arbitrary approach to allegedly "improving" this article. In fact, I don't think you intend to 'improve' the article at all. I think you and others want to destroy it as much as possible. So I will sit back quietly for now, and watch as you make that attempt.

David Kendall (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

[outdenting]Mr. Kendall, I don't see how you can be anything but thrilled to see Dianaa revealing dozens of obscured references. Noone is trying to destroy your article. As I have stated repeatedly, please identify any defects that I or the other editor introduced. I will remedy them asap. I stayed away while Dianaa showed us both how this stuff is properly done. I await specifics...

Lfstevens (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed 'improvements'

If you are indeed a Wikipedia editor intending to 'improve' the quality of this article, Lfstevens, your approach seems fairly arrogant and arbitrary to say the least, and your assistance from "Diannaa" doesn't help much. Nevertheless, I will reluctantly attempt to comply with her advice and work this article from its "new state" toward something more functional.

Thanks!

To begin, "Rightsit" isn't an English word. So let's start by correcting that glaring error in your benevolent 'improvements' to this article. This is just another example of the arbitrary approach to 'editing' that you've performed here.

Good catch.

Next, your "Demand gap" section heading is both inaccurate and misleading. The term "demand" is not at all the same as "effective demand". The term "gap" is conspicuously ambiguous as it references two opposing points that are not clearly specified. Google provides no encyclopedic or dictionary definitions for "Demand gap" with regard to economics or any other discipline. Wikipedia actually redirects to THIS article from "Failure of effective demand", and I would accept this as an adequate replacement for "deficiency of effective demand". But "demand gap" is completely unacceptable without further explanation. I am, therefore, reverting that section heading back to "Deficiency of effective demand". If you reject this revision, please also provide a citation and supporting documentation in the article for your claim that "Demand gap" is a generally accepted synonym for "Deficiency of effective demand".

As I said, I don't revert reversions just because I disagree. My objection was about more than the wording. I'm really looking for a response to the point about the US' chronic trade deficit. AFAICT its existence crisply refutes the notion that we have an inherent deficiency of effective demand.

"AFAICT" is original research, as far as I can tell, and therefore inadmissible according to Wikipedia guidelines. So please provide verifiable citation to support your personal opinions in this regard. The term "trade deficit" appears only once in this article, and it is clearly the cited views of Richard C. Cook, a Project Manager for the U.S. Treasury Department. If you can challenge or refute this argument in the article with verifiable citation from a reliable source, then please do so. Otherwise, Cook's commentary should remain as stated. Moreover, the burden is yours, not mine, to explain how the existence of a US' chronic trade deficit "crisply refutes the notion that we have an inherent deficiency of effective demand". I have no desire to debate the issue. After all, you're the editor who raises this question, not me. It might be a good question. But we'll never know unless you actually take an interest in this topic and complete at least a fraction of the research that others have performed. David Kendall (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't add anything on this point to the article. Are you disputing that there is a trade deficit? I'm trying to understand what a valid refutation would look like to you. I can certainly cite US economic statistics on the trade deficit, but that doesn't seem to be what you're asking for. I'm trying to find a way to ask the question in such a way that you could answer "if you can provide a cite for x, then I agree that the claim has been refuted." What is x? I'm not trying to substitute my own wisdom for George's, just trying to understand how we could have such a deficency at the same time that we have a trade deficit. You don't have trade deficits unless you're buying more than you're producing, i.e., that there is an excess of demand, not a deficiency. Lfstevens (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, in addition to "specifics" already discussed, following are some additional considerations:

Introductory paragraphs are intended to summarize each sub-section of the article's body. Some general citations are included here and detailed citations are included in the subsequent sections referenced. But it seems ridiculous to include all citations for every section of the article in the introduction. So I'm deleting your calls for "citations needed" in the introduction. If you want to provide citations in that section, then feel free to duplicate those already provided in the body of the article. This is an 'improvement' that you could easily make without my assistance.

I intended to avoid asking for cites if there were appropriate refs later in the text. You're welcome to remove extraneous ones.

Though Wikipedia guidelines rightly insist upon verifiable citation, they also advise against excessive citation. In most cases, a citation following a complete thought comprised of two or more sentences is adequate. On the other hand, your call for "citation needed" at the end of every sentence seems excessive and redundant. I will remove a few of those now to see how you respond.

If a single cite covers multiple points, that's fine with me.

Specific citations in this article sometimes precede the expression of a general idea. For example, instead of David Harvey's claim followed by "According to proponents of economic democracy", we should perhaps swap it to say, "According to proponents..." supported by Harvey as a cited example. This is an easy revision, which could be made by anyone who actually intends to 'improve' this article for Wikipedia. In fact, I will make this revision now. Whether you honor it or not, this approach is probably acceptable according to Wikipedia guidelines, and there are probably many other occurences which can be handled in the same way.

Go for it. If I disagree with a change, I'll bring it up on this page.

Meanwhile, page numbers simply don't exist in many of the problem cases you have cited. For example, online books (like Smith's "Economic Democracy") and article series (like Cook's on Monetary Reform) do not provide page numbers. But, as you and Dianna have evidently observed, I have made a genuine attempt to provide page numbers as much as possible. Any failure to do so was an honest mistake, not any attempt at dishonesty or deceit.

I appreciate your efforts.

Moreover, my intent was obviously to avoid over-representing any particular author. In this endeavor, it seemed more reasonable for an author's publication to appear once in the "Notes" section with many references ("a, b, c, d", etc.) rather than for the author's name to appear many times with a single reference including page number. Is your increase of citations from 60 to 112 really an 'improvement' to this Wikipedia article or any other? I tend to doubt it, and I think Wikipedia might concur. While I will be happy to eventually scrub the entire article for these kinds of mistakes, I don't have time to do it now. But I do thank you for drawing them to my attention and I thank "Diannaa" (even more) for taking the time to correct most of them. This is obviously much more than you were willing to do in terms of 'improving' the article, Mr Stevens.

The reason the # of refs expanded is that many existing refs (incorrectly) reused a single ref name, while including additional info such as a page #. That info didn't show up in the article or the notes. WP provides multiple ways to include page #'s. E.g., {{rp}}. I prefer harv, but am fine with other approaches.

But this also raises a bigger question. Why can't Wikipedia provide a better way to cite page numbers? I've been frustrated about this for a long time. I would like to do it properly, and I have studied Wikipedia guidelines in an effort to do so. But now you're calling me a liar because I have trouble citing page numbers properly.

I'm not calling you anything. I merely said you should be called names...but that was not one of them. I share your frustration with refs. E.g., WP should have let you know about the incorrect use of named refs. I'll raise you one. I think WP should generate a complete and correct ref automatically from the ISBN or DOI alone. How many errors would that prevent and how much time would it save?

In other cases regarding page numbers, the statement of a general thesis is supported by nearly every page in the book cited. In particular, this is evident in Henry George's general claim(s) about deficiency of effective demand. There seems little reason to cite a page number in this case, since a whole book was written to support his stated thesis. I'll be happy to cite "page 1" (or any other page) if you wish. But that doesn't seem like a very useful approach. There are probabaly multiple cases like this throughout the article, which don't need a page number for appropriate citation. If Wikipedia doesn't agree, I'm sure they'll send somebody like you to let me know.

See above. It's not about a missing page #.

Meanwhile, there is no need to further "explain the contradiction" between wages as a cost of production and wages a source of effective demand when the preceding paragraph clearly explained that issue prior to your 'improvements' of the article. But if you insist, let's 'improve' the article further by utilizing the information that existed prior to your revisions:

"If those who produce the goods and services of society are paid less than their productive contribution, then as consumers they cannot buy all the goods produced", etc., etc. (see the rest in the revised article.) This is a crystal clear explanation for "deficiency" (or "failure") of "effective demand". It's also yet another revision that you could have easily made without any help from me, if indeed your intent was to actually 'improve' the article. So I'll also make this revision now, and watch carefully to see what you do with it.

I (think I) understand your point, but I think it's factually incorrect, as I've said a few times. Could you explain (here if you like) how we could have such a deficiency and a trade deficit at the same time?

You "think", Mr. Stevens? As stated above, Wikipedia rejects original research, and I strongly suspect the balance of your 'improvements' to this article are rooted in a similar personal agenda. I don't have time to sort through all of your 'improvements' right now. But I eventually will. You could save me a lot of time by coming forward with any statements which you have deleted as "false claims" or "factually incorrect" so I can review them for further discussion. So far, you haven't presented a valid case in this regard, and I seriously doubt there is one. But I'll grant you 30 days to try before I either revert the article back to its original condition or significantly revise it to eradicate your evidently biased influence. Ready? Set? Go! David Kendall (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't intentionally remove any claims, whether or not I agreed with them—as I've said repeatedly on this page. I have also volunteered to restore any valid material that you identify as incorrectly deleted. The reason I bring up the trade deficit is that it shows that US purchasers consistently buy more than they produce (borrowing the money to do so). I.e., we are buying more than all the goods produced. We're buying goods that other countries make, too! Otherwise, we'd have a trade surplus and/or an economy moving in a vicious circle towards 0 production, as unsold goods continued to pile up. That certainly does not describe US economic history since George wrote. Finally, your approach of assigning deadlines is hardly in the spirit of WP. Since I don't think I've deleted any claims, I don't know how to make a list for you. If you have such a list (or even a single example) please let us all know. Lfstevens (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Finally, after sampling more than a few of your revisions to this article and noting your comments, I'm fairly convinced that your intent has little, if anything, to do with 'improvement'. You've accused me of dishonesty by suggesting I've made false claims and have attempted to hide information behind inaccurate citations. I'm not sure what "false claims" you're referring to, and the "Notes" section of this article is a fairly sterling testimony to my honesty with a remarkably few honest mistakes. But rest assured I will eventually recover all of the information you have arbitrarily deleted from this article and will stock it with far more, long after you both have forgotten you ever came here.

Again I haven't accused you of dishonesty. Sorry if that's how it looks. Factual inaccuracies can result from lots of things other than dishonesty.

David Kendall (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

My comments embedded and indented. Lfstevens (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah well, that's your story

Since it will actually require more than 30 days for me to identify everything you have wrecked in this article, you are correct to assume my proposed "deadline" might not be appropriate. I will therefore retract that deadline now, in the interest of facilitating discussion. In the same interest, I will also delete all of your hidden HTML notes from the body of the article, along with my proposed responses there, in hopes that you might post them here on the "Talk" page so can be sorted out in public discussion to actually 'improve' the article.

I suppose that's progress. Now you're only deleting (hidden) snippets, instead of reverting. Thanks for that. I don't really understand why you're deleting them, but that's just a detail.

-- **POOF** no eyebrows, they're gone!

Coming from someone who claims to have no interest in this topic at all, your secretly embedded questions seem perfectly understandable, Lfstevens, though most of them are answered publicly within the body of the article. I hope my commentary here is helpful. However, coming from someone as evidently learned as yourself in the discipline of economics, your hidden questions and commentary seem extremely belligerent and biased against most of the views expressed in this article. Sorry you don't agree, but in order to 'improve' this Wikipedia article, your personal opinions, questions and commentary should be expressed on the "Talk" page, not concealed with HTML code in the body of the article.

I didn't claim to have no interest. I claimed to have no particular interest and to come here because someone else had requested a copyedit. What I found would benefit from a lot more than that, but I tried to stick to my task.

Meanwhile, my personal response to your personal questions about trade deficit versus deficiency of effective demand is fairly simple, based on the public content of the article. Whenever debt plays a significant role in consumer spending, it doesn't matter whether goods and services are produced foreign or domestic; the economic system as a whole inherently tends toward deficiency of effective demand, which typically results in economic crisis.

I'm really trying to understand. You say "whenever debt plays a significant role in consumer spending, it doesn't matter whether goods and services are produced foreign or domestic". Are you saying that demand that comes from debt isn't "effective"?

Correct: "demand that comes from debt isn't effective". Effective demand is derived from aggregate production, not from aggregate debt. High levels of aggregate debt (aka, 'bubbles') indicate chronically insufficient purchasing power (paychecks) for society to consume (buy back) all of the goods and services produced. Richard C. Cook, Thomas Greco, Ellen Brown and many others further conclude that aggregate debt can never be repaid within the constructs of a 'debt-based monetary system' which loans credit into circulation with interest due instead of spending it into the economy interest-free.

In that case, you might like to explain your definition of "effective" and "bubble" in the piece. The dictionary doesn't really go there. Consumer debt has been declining since the crash, and yet the trade deficit increases. How do you explain that?

First of all, it's not my responsibility to "explain" anything in this article. That would be "original research" which is disallowed by Wikipedia. Secondly, the term "bubble" doesn't appear anywhere in this article and therefore needs no explanation. Finally, you haven't provided any citations to support your claims about consumer debt versus trade deficit. If you care to do so here, I might consider your challenge, but not until then. David Kendall (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Lfstevens, evidently has an axe to grind and Wikipedia's "Diannaa" is helping him grind it for some reason. I strongly doubt that Wikipedia policy supports this hidden agenda or their covert approach, and I shouldn't have to wonder why Wikipedia has allowed them to attack this article as significantly as they already have. But somebody will eventually correct the problem, and in large part, that 'somebody' has already been me. If I need to solicit further assistance from Wikipedia to actually 'improve' this article, I eventually will. But I think the history of this article already presents a strong case in my favor.

Nothing wrong with lobbying!

I think there is plenty wrong with 'lobbying' on Wikipedia. But keep pushing it, Lfstevens. Let's see how far you can get with your personal agenda.

As long as the lobbying happens on the talk page, it serves as a way to advance understanding if undertaken honestly. That's what I think I have done. And don't you dare besmirch Dianaa. Her edits were completely in accord with WP standards, and did she did no lobbying.

Yeah, but you didn't undertake your lobbying "honestly". Instead, you buried your commentary (hidden agenda) within the HTML code of the article. Check the history of the article if you doubt me. I also responded to a few of your hidden comments and questions, until it finally dawned on me that your approach was completely inappropriate according to Wikipedia guidelines. That's when I decided to simply delete them all -- **POOF** how's yer eyebrows -- "dude"?

I'm also fairly convinced that "Dianaa's" work had little or nothing to do with your personal agenda, Lfstevens. In fact, the work she did seems to be a genuine "improvement" of the article, while your dragging her into the discussion seems intellectually dishonest. David Kendall (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

As time allows, I am still working through the recommendations Lfstevens and "Diannaa" have made for revision. Once that work is completed, plenty of constructive research should be added to this article, especially regarding the recent advent of Mondragon-style community economic development to create new jobs (and new kinds of jobs) in North America. But the efforts of the Evergreen Cooperatives in Cleveland, Ohio and similar efforts in Georgia, Pennsylvania, California and elsewhere are not widely publicized, and are therefore difficult (if not impossible) to document in an encyclopedia article. Moreover, the objective of Wikipedia is not to 'promote' any idea or ideology, but to report verifiable documentation.

No problem with any of that.

In my research so far, I have observed that society in general (the so-called "99-percent") tends to define economic democracy as a hand-out from either the government or from the rich (lumped together, the so-called "1-percent"). Instead of collaborating in a community effort to create new jobs, the disenfranchised 'American middle-class' stands in the the street with picket signs, demanding the wealthiest 1-percent to create jobs and incomes FOR them. In the spirit of 'original research', I honestly find this tendency nauseating, and my efforts to 'improve' this article have been in the interest of facilitating a more democratic approach, that is, a more 'self-managed' economy.

Instead, the very few editors who have contributed to this article tend to insist that jobs (and incomes) must be created by either the rich (in a 'free market economy') or the government (in either a 'planned economy' or a 'Keynesian' approach where the government is 'employer of last resort'). Everyone seems to reject the idea of community economic development, where every citizen of each community is an owner of capital and is therefore a democratic participant in the creation of new jobs -- locally, regionally, nationally and globally -- from the bottom up.

But, as Lfstevens and "Diannaa" will eagerly argue, Wikipedia considers this information 'original research', which is precisely why it has not been included in the Wikipedia article on economic democracy. Even so, this information might facilitate continued research about economic democracy, which is why I have finally decided to report it here on the "Talk" page, instead of burying it in hidden HTML notes.

Finally, my current employment keeps me away from Internet and Wikipedia for at least a week at a time. So I don't have time to respond every time a self-appointed critic discovers a 'weasel word' in the text of this article. But I am becoming increasingly proficient in identifying and eradicating attitudes that negatively influence the 'improvement' of any Wikipedia article. It is unfortunate that most editors come to Wikipedia with an 'attack' or 'critique' agenda, not an intent to 'improve' or 'construct'. While I can't change the attitudes of others, I can do my best to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia standards. (insert dramatic music here...)

Now you're just opining. Thanks for doing it here rather than in the article. Good luck "eradicating attitudes". Lfstevens (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

As stated above, I don't care much about "attitudes", Lfstevens. My deliberate "opining" here was an informal effort to encourage the active participation of others who have discovered real-world connections between economic democracy and community economic development. These kinds of developments will likely be the future 'improvements' of this Wikipedia article and many others, despite any passive 'lobbying' from you.

Dude, I guoted you stating your intent to "eradicate attitudes". How does that match "I don't care much about 'attitudes'"?

My name is David, not "Dude", and your calling me by any other name clearly demonstrates an attitude that is not in the interest of "improving" this Wikipedia article. This has been my point, overall, whether I "care" about your attitude or not. David Kendall (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd love to "opine" further about how Nikola Tesla's study of cost-free wireless energy correlates directly with economic democracy. Tesla's vision can only materialize within the constructs of a steady-state economy, and therefore exists beyond capitalism and its inherently penal growth imperative. So, in the interest of societal transformation, I would encourage others, more knowlegeable than myself, to contribute to this article with verifiable citations from Tesla's research.

That would indeed be interesting, albeit lunatic.

Sometimes "lunatics" turn out to be geniuses, and "losers" turn out to be winners. I think the jury has been out on this one for about a hundred years. But you're right, Lfstevens. It will be very "interesting" to see how it turns out. David Kendall (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

David Kendall (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

David Kendall (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Where to begin

There is a lot of good stuff in this entry, but I don't think 'Deficiency of effective demand' is a good place to start the main body of the article. It's an interesting enough point, but wafflingly made, and the justification for spending so much time on it here is unclear - let alone so near the beginning of the article. --Oolong (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well said, Oolong, and I agree. Thank you so much for your thoughtful observations. I hope you can help me further with improving this Wikipedia article.

Deficiency of effective demand tends to be the main reason for most people to even consider an idea like economic democracy. So until now, I have attempted to organize this article with a problem/solution approach: the 'problem' being deficiency of effective demand and the potential 'solution' being economic democracy in terms of alternative models and/or reform agendas.

I sought out every author/analyst/expert I could find who had ever written anything entitled "economic democracy" or who had at least proposed solutions called "economic democracy". The commonality amongst all these analysts was their pursuit of some way to resolve deficiency of effective demand. Contemporary analysts initially rising to the surface included Richard C. Cook, J.W. Smith, and David Schweickart, who were heavily influenced by C.H. Douglas, Henry George and Karl Marx respectively.

While my research has continued extensively, I've not been very faithful in updating this Wikipedia article with what I've learned -- mainly because I'm not sure how to reorganize the article. For example, Richard D. Wolff, Gar Alperovitz, Greg MacLeod and John Restakis have all made notable contributions to economic democracy and they've all published profound comments on the subject. But the question you raise, Oolong, has always confounded me:

"Where to begin"

I've finally decided that the best place to "begin" is in my own community. After all, there is no other place for economic democracy to "begin". It can't start on a Web site, it can't start in an encyclopedia article, and it can't start from the top of some dysfunctional heirarchy and trickle down to the rest of us. Economic democracy has to start at home and reproduce through reciprocity. So that is the effort which consumes most of my time for now.

I do check back on this article occassionally, and I would strongly encourage others to contribute. But what I've found over time is that the opponents of economic democracy tend to "contribute" the most, while the advocates of economic democracy (if there are any) like to sit back quietly and enjoy the fireworks.

So let's try something new. I agree that 'deficiency of effective demand' should be presented later in the article (and summarized) as supporting documentation, rather than leading the discussion about 'economic democracy'. So let's start by flipping the whole article upside-down, and see if it matters "where to begin"...

David Kendall (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

After flipping the article upside-down, as proposed above, I decided the solution for the problem is not that simple. So I've reverted the article back to it's previous condition. But the question of "where to begin" remains. This is by far the best question anyone has asked about this article because it shows someone (Oolong) is actually thinking about how to IMPROVE this article, instead of merely vandalizing it in some way.

In fact, I agree with Oolong's general evaluation: There is a lot of good stuff here, but it needs to be reorganized. Unfortunately, I'm conspicuously underqualified in that area. I've never written an encyclopedia article, and I'm not an expert in that regard. My effort here has been to dig up and present every reference I could possibly find to 'economic democracy'. There are plenty more to come, as the current economic crisis gives rise to real-world developments in economic democracy along with a number of new books on the subject.

People everywhere are fed up with "deficiency of effective demand", and nearly every analyst I've encountered agrees this is the underlying need for economic democracy -- regardless of differing opinions about the causes or various approaches to solving that problem. But here's the rub: Deficiency of effective demand is what reproduces the capitalist system. Without unemployment and all its related deficiencies, our ruling class of "job creators" would have no leverage to discipline its workforce or to drive wages down in order to maximize profits and reproduce themselves.

So, if I have belabored "deficiency of effective demand", it has been to support this generally accepted 'opinion' with as much 'verifiable citation' as possible, in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines. Regardless of how the article is reorganized in the future, I am convinced this point is essential and it must remain. David Kendall (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your responses, David - I've only just seen them. I think I see where you're coming from, but my feeling is still that as presented now, 'deficiency of effective demand' is really too abstruse as a way of starting to talk about the main ideas here, and the reasons for discussing it are not set out clearly and quickly enough (two principles of encyclopaedic writing - start with the simple stuff, and let people know why they might be interested in digging deeper).

For what it's worth I'd add Roberto Unger, Erik Olin Wright and Peter Tatchell to the list of thinkers contributing to thought on this topic. I get the feeling that there are currently multiple strands of thought carrying on along fundamentally similar lines, but I'm not sure that all of these people are talking to each other as much as they should. Perhaps it would be worth having an email conversation about this page and topic? My email address is on my user page... Cheers! --Oolong (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

[beneficial]

"Beneficial" might seem like a very positive term. But it can also be considered "vandalism", especially when inserted by a Wikpedia editor into a citation from a published work. In this case, a Wikipedia vandal has attempted to significantly alter the meaning of a statement made by David Schweickart in his book, "After Capitalism". See the history page for this article where I have removed the word "beneficial" and expanded the Schweickart citation to include the parenthetical comments which appear in his book. My original intent was to be abbreviate Schweickart by omitting his parenthetical comments. This was obviously a mistake, as it tends to invite vandals to insert their personal opinions into previously published works. I won't make that mistake again. David Kendall (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)