Talk:Political economy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

True Political Economy

Read if you wish

The Political Economy is the area of philosophy whose aim is to explain the role of man in nature, in society, as well as in the new nature created by its actions on the planet. Many philosophers throughout history attempted to understand and explain the man and his relationship with his actions in nature and society, and the consequences of the work on the evolution of man, nature and society, i.e., the development of culture and civilization on Earth. In the chaos of cause and effect relationships that created the appearance of man on the planet, formed a very complex system -human society on the principle of self-organization without the man's knowledge of why and how. Cognition of man's mind that he can cognize the laws as "old nature" and therefore "new nature" created by man, put it in front of the man task to know why and how. Serious pursuit, towards that goal, starting many philosophers, most notably David Hume, Thomas Hobbes, Immanuel Kant, Karl Marx, Friedrich Hayek, Norbert Wiener, Karl Popper. The time we live show that in spite produced piles of thick books which are a man tries to explain their role in nature and how to reasonably use its most important resource - human being, this process has not yet given results; mankind daily testifies to misfortune, injustice, violence, genocide and culturocide around the planet. "The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it." The basic prerequisite for change in the world (society) is that our world (society) at least the majority of philosophers and, therefore, people interpret the like, i.e., true. (Where is the truth?) HUMAN BEING is the manufacturer of PRODUCTS. EACH product is a combination of GENERIC products: SERVICE, SOFTWARE, HARDWARE, MATERIALS, TRUTH AND LIES. The product is a result of the PROCESS. The PRODUCTION PROCESS is the creation of NEW products with the help of a man and EXISTING products. Man's role in the production process is called WORK. The production process preceding the process of COGNITION. The GOAL of cognition is a TRUTH or a LIE. Comprehended the lie becomes the truth. Before of the product exist NEED. After a need, follows SATISFACTION. People LIVE from satisfying their and other people need. The basic human need is TO BE HAPPY and FIND THE TRUTH. The truth is the essential ingredient of happiness. Other people's happiness provokes ENVY and MALICE. UNSATISFIED and envious and malicious people are UNHAPPY. People EXPLOIT others' and their hurt and unhappiness. The possibility of exploiting hurt and unhappiness encourages GREED in people. Envious, malicious and greedy people produce LIES. Control of human envy, malice and greed is called MORALITY. All that satisfies people we call COMMODITY. Commodity can be: ENVIRONMENT, HUMAN BEING, ABILITY, KNOWLEDGE, STATUS, ORGANIZATION, PRODUCT, WEAPON, TOOL, MONEY, OWNERSHIP. The ability of commodity to satisfy some need we call QUALITY. The quality of commodity is proportional to the quality of RAW MATERIALS and MANUFACTURERS. The quality of the INDIVIDUAL increases LEARNING. The quality of the COMMUNITY increases POSITIVE SELECTION of people. Parents raise their children for social SUITABILITY. Suitability is actually NEGATIVE SELECTION. People are mostly RESISTING positive selection because MAJORITY of people are BAD. Positive selection therefore must be IMPOSED to the people. An individual's ability to respond to COERCION we call FREEDOM. Free being coercion: AVOIDS, ELIMINATES, DIMINISHES or ACCEPT. A free human is not a commodity. UPBRINGING restricts the freedom of human being. UPBRINGING and EDUCATION transform human into a commodity. Capable, moral and educated person is commodity of the highest quality. SCHOOL gives BASIC KNOWLEDGE and performs PRIMARY SELECTION of people. Commodity are ACQUIRED, USED and SPEND by people. Knowing the possibilities to satisfy some needs creates a DESIRE for commodities. The desire for commodities is encouraged by ADVERTISING. The desire for commodities initiates the process of ACQUISITION. The acquisition can be: APPROPRIATION, BEGGING, ADOPTION, EXCHANGE and PRODUCTION. Method of acquisition divides people to: ROBBERS, BEGGARS, STUDENTS, TRADERS and MANUFACTURERS. Satisfaction finish by process of the USE and CONSUMPTION. All people are CONSUMERS, and additionally may be USERS and PRODUCERS and VERMIN. Commodity creates SATISFACTION among holders and users and the DESIRE among consumers. A FOOL is a man who puts personal interest ahead of the common interest. People are mostly fools (every man is more or less a fool). Therefore, the exchange of goods is done by CHEATING. Size desire for goods is proportional to the FRAUD which people tolerate when exchange. The process of legal cheating we call TRADE. The exchange of goods is constant WAR with comodities among the people. DISCOVERING new commodity initially gives man an advantage over other people. New commodity are therefore always first used as a WEAPON against other people. People who are the object of cheating we call MARKET. CONTROL of the market is called AUTHORITY By successful cheating people gain PROFIT. Profit is APPROPRIATED commodity and work. Profit out of circulation we call TREASURE. Commodity that someone puts into circulation we call CAPITAL. INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL of the market we call CULTURE. PRODUCTION CAPITAL of a market we call the MEANS OF PRODUCTION. WORKING CAPITAL (labour value) of a market we call MONEY. The ability of commodity to be exchanged and appropriates we call PRICE. Price of commodity is expressed by money. Money is a commodity that carries its own price. Money is a commodity, created by human labor (money = work). Through the exchange of goods, people actually exchanging SOMEONE'S WORK. Capital is TICKET and JUSTIFICATION for the legal process of cheating and appropriation. Profit is the MAIN MOTIVE for the PRODUCTION of goods and services and people ASSOCIATION. Profit stimulates the production and services in activities from which it was obtained. Profit stimulates the production of DAMAGE in activities that lead fools. Profit allows people to STEAL each other's capital. Existing capital is stealing in the name of future profits. Stealing in the name of future profits is called GAMBLING. Legal stealing of capital takes place in CASINOS and on the FINANCIAL MARKETS. Bankers have the privilege to cheat at the same time and their debtors and creditors. Bankers marketed its debt in the form of FAKE MONEY called CREDIT. Bankers continually EXTRACT profit from the market, although they are not the owners of capital. The REAL OWNERS of banks are their debtors and creditors. When profits on the financial market exceeds the profit the rest of the market, occurs RECESSION. Withdrawal profit CHOKING total production and exchange of commodity. Appropriating commodity man acquires PROPERTY. Appropriating authority people acquire MARKET. In human society people are divided according to the OWNERSHIP of a commodity. Owners appropriating AUTHORITIES and so protect their property and FREEDOM OF APPROPRIATION. Ownership and authority give people a PRIVILEGED position on the market. Authority is appropriated by DECEIVING, INTIMIDATING and CORRUPTING people. LOVE, LIES, BLACKMAIL and BRIBE are the methods by which people: bind, deceive, intimidate and corrupt. The AUTHORITY produces, maintains and applies: MONEY, LAW, POWER, OBSTACLES and PRIVILEGE. Law, power, obstacles and privileges are used IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE, against the people. Authority is divided into executive, judicial, legislative and monetary. The EXECUTIVE power ensures the rule of law and ENFORCE the law (in theory). The JUDICIAL power prevent and PUNISH violations of law (in theory). The LEGISLATIVE power reveals immorality and PROHIBITS it by law (in theory). The MONETARY authority PRESERVES THE VALUES of the market; money, life and property (in theory). Authority carried out BUREAUCRATS. Trading with permissions and privileges is called CORRUPTION. BUREAUCRACY are people who live on corruption. Bureaucracy and bureaucrats deceiving market in the name of the people. Recognized ORGANIZATION for implementing authorities to a territory we call STATE. The state has the TASK of keeping property, money, culture and living standards of the market. SOVEREIGN RESOURCES of the state are: space and natural resources, market and money. Appropriating government owners are appropriated and the obligation to bear the cost of the state: TAX. To avoid paying taxes power holders deceiving market with FOOLERY. Fooleries of a democratic state are: VALUE ADDED, CREDIT, FREE ELECTIONS and DEMOCRACY. Value added is the key evidence for "honesty" in trade? The added value is trader's earnings which is by some spell incorporated in commodities. Credit is a money by which banks on behalf of the state stimulate traffic of commodities? CREDIT is actually a fake money by which USURERS and BUREAUCRACY stealing the market and the state. Free elections are FAIR OF DEMOCRACY and the key evidence for "honesty" in politics? Bureaucrats at the fair are elected by politically illiterate, incompetent and (im)partial monkeys. DEMOCRACY is a utopian idea: government of the majority without detriment to minority? Democratic state therefore tax charged poor majority without detriment to rich minority. Democratic state therefore tax charged cheated without detriment to cheaters. Democratic state is financed through public debt on a large financial market. Democratic state its current and future citizens sold as debt slaves. Democratic state have free elections for only one authority, and the other fills with the faithful. HONEST STATE charge tax from the seller and the buyer at the same time. HONEST STATE charge tax on circulation, possession and use of its sovereign resources. HONEST STATE tax returns to market through provision of a minimum quality of life for all. HONEST STATE elected legitimate representatives of ownership in each pillar of government. HONEST STATE provides simultaneous operation and mutual control of all pillars of power. HONEST STATE has only one bank. Gaining authority and ownership is the CAUSE AND CONSEQUENCES of the WAR between people. Requirement for PROGRESS is the CONTROL OF PROFESSIONS THAT PROSPER ON HUMAN MISFORTUNE. When the government falls under the influence of fools and those who live on human misfortune occurs CRISIS. Crises are preceded by negative selection among the people and the general reduction in the quality of people. The crisis is a period in which in society flourishes UNJUST ENRICHMENT which we call PROFITEERING. To CONCEAL the real cause of the crisis PROFITEERS crisis called ECONOMIC CRISIS. The economic crisis DOES NOT EXIST as there is no mathematical or physical or chemical crisis, especially as there is not a ECONOMICS as a science. ECONOMIC SCIENCE is actually a modern THEOLOGY of profiteering and crisis. Theology is KNOWLEDGE, beyond SCIENCE. Every crisis deepened and maintained PROPHETS, PREACHERS, MESSIAHS and BELIEVERS. The crisis is the result of MORAL crisis, RESPONSIBILITIES crisis and the crisis of PROFESSIONALISM. People often DO NOT CONFESS their immorality, irresponsibility and incompetence. Moral man is one who respects the CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE. Categorical imperative: do not do to others what you do not want done to you. Responsible person is the one who PROFESSIONALLY doing its job. A PRO is one who some work done with a minimum of defects and damage. Overcoming the crisis requires new and better people and a new product: TRUTH. Truth is the main WEAPON for the overthrow of the bad authority. EQUALITY, FRATERNITY and LIBERTY is a negation of all authority. Life of people in the system of cheating, deception and intimidation is called TOTALITARIANISM. Life of people in the system of cheating and deceiving is called DEMOCRACY. Life of people in the system without fear or fraud would be COMMUNISM. Communism is only possible in a society with no fools. Human being must live with a fool in itself and fools around. DISCOVERING THE TRUTH is the only method of combating fools. (Vjekoslav Brkić, Osijek.)--213.202.80.195 (talk) 07:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)--

Intro Sentence

The writer is confused here when he starts the article with the following:

"Political economy was a term used for studying production and trade, and their relations with law, custom, and government, as well as with the distribution of national income and wealth"

Political economy is a term used for studying production, exchange and distribution of the total social product. In other words, production and trade and their relations with law, custom and government, etc. is the same thing as the distribution of the national income and wealth. These are not separate functions as the phrase 'as well as' implies. I think this opening sentence should be rewritten. What I have is better but still lame. Anyone agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.88.181 (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree. I changed it in accordance with WP: TENSE. If it's an issue of past and present definitions, the intro should be reworked entirely. — Californian Treehugger

Gentlemen, we all agree that there is a problem with the definition of "Political economy", but I do not agree with any of the offered definition, because:
Political economy is part of philosophy whose aim is not "to study" but "to explain", and "to provide the answers" to the questions:
What it is: national wealth, man, manufacturing, product, goods, work, money, exchange, market, price, profit, capital, ownership, power, government, bureaucracy, tax, democracy, freedom, coercion, morality, law, crisis, war, a lie or the truth?
How many more wars and crises need to experience humanity, rather than just yourself answer the question: What are we doing on this planet?
How many more people should be killed until we get rid of utopian questions: Where are we going and where we should go? What should we believe?
The real questions are: "How and why" we go where we're going? What is true and what is false? Why do people lie?
Finally, look at who uses the term Political Economy - philosophers, and who misused the term - "economists", and why - that you can read in a previous article, if you want. Cheers! Vjekoslav Brkic, Osijek.213.202.80.195 (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Gawande's comment on this article

Dr. Gawande has reviewed economy&oldid=718821165 this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

This is a complex area, and really should be broken down into political economy (domestic) or PE and political economy (international) or IPE. people reading this will learn nothing about PE or IPE. The article is more like an undergraduate survey paper on the idea of PE. What will be informative is the essential content of major contributions to PE (and IPE separately) over the years and how the field has evolved and what the current state of the art is and what the big unanswered questions are.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Gawande has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Gawande, Kishore, 2005. "The structure of lobbying and protection in U.S. agriculture," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3722, The World Bank.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Roemer's comment on this article

Dr. Roemer has reviewed economy&oldid=721220465 this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

I think this is a fair summary of the main approaches of political economy.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Roemer has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : De Donder, Philippe & Roemer, John E, 2013. "An allegory of the political influence of the top 1%," CEPR Discussion Papers 9745, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Perotti's comment on this article

Dr. Perotti has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

The entry summarizes well some historical background of the theme and offers a good list of reviews on its components in the different disciplines. I added one reference, in general the work referenced is the state of the art (in the economic discipline) on this topic.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Perotti has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

• Reference : Perotti, Enrico C & Schwienbacher, Armin, 2007. "The Political Origin of Pension Funding," CEPR Discussion Papers 6100, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes - Piketty and others

I have reverted these changes again as the added content introduces a number of problems: 1) Two (somewhat duplicate) mentions of Piketty give this single author too much weight (see WP:WEIGHT). Especially the lead should only contain a summary of the most significant facts. 2) A student article, partially based on Google Ngram Viewer results, is not a reliable source. If these conclusions are correct, they need to be directly based on the published research of an acknowledged academic expert. 3) WP:PEACOCK and non-neutral language like "famously" and "embarrassingly" should not be used. 4) Commercial links to book sellers and publishers should be avoided, especially when a ISBN number is available. Please discuss here, if you disagree. GermanJoe (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

—

I do not agree with your decision to revert changes and when considering the below information, I think you will agree that it was done in error.

1) Safe to say that Pikkety's work is sufficiently notable to mention him both in the history summary and in the lower text. 2) Source is more than reliable. PhD students are cited all the time. The publication Policy Options is also reputed and reliable. 3) I undid this language according to the WP:PEAcock guidelines in the version you reverted. 4) I am not great as using wikipedia's formatting for citations yet, so I simply copy-pasted the ref on Capital in the 21st Century page. If this is a commercial link, it is from there. Worth checking out.

I think there is a strong basis for undoing your recent revert. If you don't agree, please discuss before changing others work. Its highly discouraging for SMEs who do this on a volunteer basis. Stapler1930 (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Stapler1930:, I do not agree with most of your points:

1. Piketty was mentioned three times in the text, which is clearly undue weight. Also, no other modern scholar is explicitly mentioned in the lead, so it's not clear why Piketty's work needs extra attention in a summary section. On a sidenote, he and his publication are still mentioned in the article.
2. No, PhD students are not cited all the time. There may be a few occasional cases where such an author can be used for encyclopedic content, but it is certainly not common practise on Wikipedia (see also WP:RS).
3. "famously", "embarrasingly" and similar qualifiers clearly violate WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPOV, I am not sure why you insist on reverting this part. Claims like "Political economy has gained renewed attention" are opinion and need a reliable independent source to be retained.
4. The shop URL is redundant, as an ISBN is provided. Wikipedia guidelines discourage the usage of such links unless they are absolutely needed.

As an additional point: of course input and edits from topic experts are greatly appreciated, but all editors here (including myself) are volunteers with the same rights and responsibilities, when it comes to editing article content. Let's continue to work on a consensus here please, before changing the original article version yet again (see also WP:BRD as a suggested voluntary approach to solve such disagreements). If we can't come to a consensus, we could also ask for additional help at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. GermanJoe (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

1. I do not agree that the weight is undue. If you are unwilling to find out more about the subject before passing judgement, notice simply that there is significantly more text and activity on the page Capital in the 21st Century than the page on political economy. This should give you some sense for the weight of his work. Another investigation you can undertake is to compare the citation volume of Capital in the 21st Century to any of the other works on the political economy page. You will find Piketty drastically overshadows all other works on the page.
2. False. PhD students are cited ALL. THE. TIME. You probably have not noticed because you assume academic authors always are PhD holders which is not the case. Most academic publications do not distinguish because between PhD holders and PhD students, they just opt to list the author's name and university. This is because it is a fundamental principal of research that validity and reliability is determined not by who the author is (see Ad hominem), but by the quality of the publication medium and its review process Policy Options. If the publication is reliable, the work is reliable.
3. I don't object to changing the language. Like I wrote in the above post, I fixed this language after your first revert. You then reverted back past my new version which conformed with WP:PEACOCK
4. OK. Again, read the first post more carefully. I am telling you that it was an innocent mistake on my part because I copy-pasted the citation that is on another wikipedia page, Capital in the 21st Century. Once you permit me to revert to a proper version I will strike this out.

Is there maybe something I don't understand about page reverts? I would like to bring back the original version that you took down so that I can move forward and continue to improve the political economy page, including the material I have added. If I write more on the current version, then it will overwrite the changes we are discussing and consign them to the dustbin, no? If you continue to undo my changes on this page, there is frankly no point in me working on it.

Stapler1930 (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

If an edit contains problematic content mixed with uncontroversial improvements, it's usually better to manually check the article history, and to re-add only the "good" phrases instead of the complete edit. Full reverts across several edits will always remove all changes in-between aswell. If you compare the article versions (in the "History" tab on top of the article), you'll see that I didn't revert your whole initial edit from 2 October, but manually retained some information about Pickett in "Current approaches", where he is still mentioned. On the current status: it seems like we agree on point 3 and 4 and this problem is solved with the current version, so there is no point on re-adding older versions of these phrases anyway. But we could use some additional input for points 1 and 2. I'll post about this disagreement at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and ask for other uninvolved editors to chime in. GermanJoe (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Update: I have restored point 2 of the disputed content, see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Disagreement_about_Political_economy for more info. If Piketty's alleged exceptional impact can be verified by an expert source, it could be added to the lead as well. Please note that all extraordinary claims and statements of opinion need a high-quality expert source. GermanJoe (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Political economy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629151809/http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=5086 to http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=5086
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105113916/http://bnp.binghamton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Ostrom-2010-Polycentric-Governance.pdf to http://bnp.binghamton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Ostrom-2010-Polycentric-Governance.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011071925/http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=7698 to http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=7698

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The Introduction

The introduction seems confused to me. It starts off explaining the meaning of the term "political economy" as it was 150 years ago. Only towards the end does it tells the reader what the current meaning is, and then in a half-baked way: 'Today, the term "economics" usually refers to the narrow study of the economy absent other political and social considerations while the term "political economy" represents a distinct and competing approach.' It seems to me it would be much clearer if it simply started with something like this:

Political economy is the study of economics together with political and social considerations.

The rest of the introduction could then be re-arranged to follow suit. Shall I?

Willbown (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MarkiyahR.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)