Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Market fundamentalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and cleanup; mergers subject to editorial consensus as always. Sandstein 08:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Market fundamentalism

Market fundamentalism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Just an attack term. Could be merged into Anti-capitalism Madhava 1947 (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep, it is used even in the Czech Republic :-) - Seriously, it is an attack term, but this is not a deletion reason. The problem would be whether this is still a neologism, but I think that it is already an established term.--Ioannes Pragensis 21:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any proof it is not a neologism? Madhava 1947 (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep It probably is notable and sourceable, considering Soros' reputation. Weak because it isn't clear how important it is in his overall work.DGG 00:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
We can't have seperate articles for every term he comes up with. Madhava 1947 (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Nom Madhava 1947 (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge or redirect both articles to Anti-capitalism per nom. The title of each article is a pejorative term for capitalism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we should not have different articles for different terms which refer to the same concept. (BTW, as a merge was sought, not deletion, this need not have come to AFD.) Pan Dan 17:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Completely disagree ! Market fundamentalism does not address itself to mainstream capitalism but to "radical free-market economics", a very different thing from capitalism; George Soros is a famous icon of capitalism, what he does not agree is with "radical capitalism"; and says why.
Anyhow, if this article was to be merged with something, it should be with Critique of capitalism (which is what the article is about) and never, ever, with anti-capitalism, where a concept devised by the famous and successful capitalist George Soros does not belong at all.
200.153.161.91 17:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Since the article is about a school of criticism of free market economics, how about a merge to Free market#Criticism? Maybe it would be more accurate to say it's a pejorative term for Marketization? How about a merge to there? (BTW, none of the 3 references in the article appears to mention Soros. But even if it were verified that Soros coined this term, that would still not justify a stand-alone article about the term.) Pan Dan 19:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impressiom that the acceptance of Soros use of the term was already consensual. Please read on his book The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998):
"It is claimed that the common interest is best served by allowing everyone to look out for his or her own interests and that attempts to protect the common interest by collective decision making distort the market mechanism. This idea was called laissez faire in the nineteenth century... I have found a better name for it: market fundamentalism" George Soros. 200.153.161.91 20:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Could be a candidate for merge, but the discussion suggests no consensus on where to merge it. Note, also, that the attribution to Soros is incorrect/misleading. "Economic fundamentalism" was widely used for the same general idea well before Soros (18000 hits on Google). See also Economic rationalism. JQ 20:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Used widely by whom, for instance???
As Google would have told you pretty quickly, Jane Kelsey wrote a book on the subject [1] which was influential in the New Zealand policy debate, and I've used it myself.JQ 21:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, OK. Changing to "a term which was made popular in 1998 by George Soros ..." 200.153.161.91 21:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Just as a curiosity: Stigler's conjecture may help you understand why the use of the term is most commonly atributed to George Soros...200.153.161.91 22:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
This idea was called laissez faire in the nineteenth century... I have found a better name for it: market fundamentalism" George Soros, The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998). 200.153.161.91 20:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The Soros quote reinforces the idea that market fundamentalism is not an idea that's distinct from what you call "radical free-market economics," but rather a pejorative term aimed at that philosophy. The actual content of what Soros is saying seems to be just another argument against that philosophy, and as such should be merged into...where? It appears there are lots of overlapping articles in this area, and this AFD isn't going to find the solution--I agree with JQ on that. The best place to discuss this would probably be at Talk:Free market or one of the other related article talk pages. Pan Dan 12:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I also agree that this AFD is not going to find the solution, the case is complex. I suggest we all move this discussion to Talk:Free market and act after some sort of a consensus is reached there. I move that this discussion be transfered to Talk:Free market. 200.153.161.91 17:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Laissez-faire is a pre-capitalistic concept, it was devised at the end of mercantilism, even before capitalism was born, to be opposed to mercantilism; it was "mercantilism derrogatory", if you so wish. "Market fundamentalism", on another hand, is a term that only makes sense after the Reaganism and Thatcherism of the 80's, is a clerly post-keynesian term, and it is far from being just a derogatory term for "laissez faire"; it has another origin, another etymology, and represents a completely different meaning. George Soros, "THE CAPITALIST par excellence", sees in Market fundamentalism an ideology in itself:
"It is market fundamentalism that has rendered the global capitalist system unsound and unsustainable. ... it was only when Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan came to power around 1980 fundamentalism became the dominant ideology. It is market fundamentalism that has put financial capital into the driver's seat." George Soros, The Crisis of Global Capitalism (1998). It becomes clear to anyone that George Soros is not "opposing capitalism" or making "derrogatory remarks" to capitalism: Soros is a capitalist, and one of the best succeded ones. He is not "derrogating" capitalism at all in his book; actually he is trying to save capitalism and do this by opposing himself strongly to "the puting of financial capital into the driver's seat." (or market fundamentalism), which is quite different form being a socialist, a communist or other anti-capitalists "-ists"; which Soros is definetly not.
I stick to my suggestion that no abrupt move should be taken; we still need further discussion. I propose that this "forum" be transferred, (pasted) and continued at Talk:Free market 200.153.161.91 17:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment:
One thing which I think is likely in the coming decades is that the trade regime and the regime that we have for capital flows and other important matters will be less doctrinal, less fundamentalist if I may put it like that, less an example of market fundamentalism and more a result of a variety of bargains and pragmatic adjustments. I think we could get out of this conflict a world which is less tidy, more messy, less pleasing to purists, but actually safer and even, in some respects, more equitable, because of course it is true that there are a large part of the world which have very little effective bargaining power. (Globalisation: where next? London School of Economics, Transcript of lecture Date: Monday 8th October 2001 Speakers: Professors Anthony Giddens, John Gray, Fred Halliday, David Held and Mary Kaldor Chair: Professor Lord Desai)200.153.161.91 02:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to further elaborate your comment, explaining it in words which could be understood by us, the ignoramuses ? 200.153.162.164 14:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP ! - The term is already fully established in academics. 200.153.162.210 16:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a neologism, even if from the august George Soros himself. No evidence the term is used. Eusebeus 23:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
No evidence? And the dozens of books and academic articles by several authors, conferences at London School of Economics by Anthony Giddens mean no evidence for you  ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.153.162.210 (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep Term widely used in academic circles. Unsourced only to the ignorant. 200.153.161.141 12:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The article itself is very much anti-Market fundamentalism. If kept it should be rewritten to give equal weight to the views of the Market fundamentalists themselves. I think this should be normal for WP articles on political theories. Steve Dufour 19:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable term. The article, however, needs extensive sourcing.Bless sins 21:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I do not agree with merging it to either anit-capitalism or laissez faire. This is a different concept. The article itself is very POV as written. I have tagged it as such. This, however, is not a reason to delete an article.—Gaff ταλκ 21:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Market fundamentalism. Sandstein 08:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Market theology

I am also nominating the following page because it a similar term and could be useful in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Madhava 1947 (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Market theology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Market theology This article has been around since 2003. It was originally unreferenced and remains unreferenced. It seems to be a neologism that a Wiki editor created. --SueHay 12:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know we have here a consensus to delete "Market Theology". On another hand "Market Theology" has nothing in common with "Market fundamentalism" and no reason to be in this discussion other than having been bundled in the same delete nomination.

200.153.161.91 17:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 14:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Neologism?!!! Dozens of books and academic articles published by several authors (including Nobel Prize winners) having used the term Market fundamentalism, or put it on the title of their books, conferences held at London School of Economics by Anthony Giddens, all this mean "neologism" to you  ? 200.153.162.164 14:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Joseph E. Stiglitz also used the term in his autobiographical essay in acceptance of Nobel Prize to criticize some IMF policies: "More broadly, the IMF was advocating a set of policies which is generally referred to alternatively as the Washington consensus, the neo-liberal doctrines, or market fundamentalism, based on an incorrect understanding of economic theory and (what I viewed) as an inadequate interpretation of the historical data."
Autobiographical essay in acceptance of the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.153.162.164 (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
The Times uses the term with no quotation marks: "That is not free-market fundamentalism; it is egalitarian and socially progressive." OLIVER, Kamm. How Blair can succeed in his university challenge. The Times (London), February 16, 2007200.153.161.177 00:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to explain your positition to the non "finance scholars" ?
200.153.162.210 22:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unsourced--Sefringle 05:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As in the above topic, equal weight should be given to the Market theologists' views as to their critics'. Steve Dufour 19:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.