text:
Talk:Market economy/Archive 1

The definition of a ‘Market Economy’ and a ‘Planned Economy’ is a political one. The steering of the market is done in either system by the same forces and in similar ways. Countries with what we call in the West ‘Planned Economies’ are not being granted full access to Western markets and hence are forced to find their own rules. The tools for Western market access are essentially controlled by IMF, BIS and WTO amongst others. Buyers and sellers have no possibility to freely interact as they wish, since the governments have not enabled a fair interchange of value for goods and services.

Countries which did not subject themselves to the impoverishing rules of IMF have no chance of being accepted by BIS or WTO and hence barred from accessing trade with Western countries. If a country submits themselves to IMF rules they have to deposit large sums of ‘paper tokens from the US’ (which costs them nothing to issue) with BIS and have to open their own markets under WTO rules to world competition. The deposit with BIS as a kind of entrance fee is weakening the already weak and they are unable to resist further impoverishment through the competitive wealth extraction by global players, who get their population dependent on foreign products and services.

this article
Anyone can see that a term like "free market" is a propaganda type phrase. Of course this article should explain what proponents of capitalism mean by market economy, but other things should be discussed as well.

"A market economy is an economy in which most allocations of resources occur as a result of interactions between buyers and sellers of goods and services. It is often contrasted with a planned economy in which most allocations of resources occur as a result of planning by a central agency."

This is ridiculous. The difference in capitalism and "planned economies" are in production decisions, not market decisions. A worker in the USSR walks into a store and buys bread for rubles just like an American worker does with dollars. The marketplace is no different. What is different is how production decisions are made, where that bread came from.

The main thing of importance to me in this article is that it's mentioned that some people regard this phrase as a propaganda type one, just as they consider free market as a propaganda type phrase. Ruy Lopez 04:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * You're free to think (however wrong you are) that free market is a "propaganda phrase," but you're not allowed to push this POV in an encyclopedia. Trey Stone 02:34, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * When it says that "allocation of resources occur as a result between buyers and sellers" instead of "planning by a central agency", it is simply pointing out the difference between using the price system for economic calculation as opposed to bureaucrats. Valid distinction.

 * In market economy, it is the market that decides what is produced, not capitalists as a social class. Market decision = production decision. Besides, in USSR, shops had a scarcity of everything just because the so-called "planning" (really "an anarchy of production") did not "plan" production appropriately. jni 12:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"A market economy is a term used to describe an economy where economic decisions, such as pricing of goods and services, are made in a decentralized manner by the economy's participants and manifested by trade. This can be seen as a 'bottom-up' approach to organizing an economy (self-organization). It is meant to contrast to a planned economy, where economic decisions are made by a central agency, which can be equated to a 'top-down' approach."

This makes little sense. What does an economy's participants mean? Capitalists? Consumers? How does a buyer in a shop in the USSR differ from a buyer in a shop in the US? Yes, there are differences between the USSR bureaucrats and the US corporate executives respectively in charge of production decisions.
 * Buyer in US is not a slave of a totalitarian state. That is the fundamental difference. Any elementary textbook of economics should tell you how markets operate. Your deletion of the paragraph about decentralized decision making/self-organization was totally inappropriate. jni 12:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The real differences between a USSR economy and a US economy lies in production, with either government bureaucrats or corporate executives, not in the market. As I said, how was buying in a shop in the USSR different than buying from a shop in the US? The real differences are in production, not in the market. Ruy Lopez 23:46, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * If it makes little sense to you, you are probably not in a position to make major edits unilaterally. In a "market" economy, the difference is that the market determines pricing (in the general case). So, yes, the difference is in the market, not in the political system.   — Saxifrage | ☎ 00:51, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * "If it makes little sense to you, you are probably not in a position to make major edits unilaterally." - someone using vague instead of precise wording puts them in a bad position, not me. And give me a break with this "major edits unilaterally" nonsense which is just an exercise in sophistic rhetoric to try and make a normal edit sound nefarious.

 * There is nothing vague in the original wording. Even if there were, it would be more appropriate for you to slightly adjust the wording instead of replacing it with paragraphs of propaganda. That you don't understand something is not a valid justification for major unilateral POV edits. jni 12:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I did not claim or intend to claim that the edit was nefarious, just one-sided. It qualified as "major" in that it significantly changed what the paragraphs conveyed; it qualified as "unilateral" as it does not have the support of consensus, and I don't think I need to justify the use of the term "edit".
 * Speaking of rhetoric, accusing me of "sophistry" is to say that my argument is fallacious, and to say that my conditional was "rhetoric" is to say that I appeal to sentiment rather than logic. I believe that neither applies. Now, if you will lay aside the defensive counterattacks, I would welcome your argument as to how you can justify editing a subject of which you claim a lack of understanding, which was the meat of my original assertion, and which you have not yet addressed.   — Saxifrage | ☎ 02:36, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

 * The idea that the market determines pricing in a capitalist economy is POV. Adam Smith, David Ricardo and all of the early economists certainly did NOT believe this to be true.  Phrases like "market economy" and "free market" are obviously POV phrases (if a capitalist system has a "free" market, it implies other markets are somehow not free).  This article must mention that there are people out there who think this phrase is just empty slick marketing. Ruy Lopez 03:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * "Free market economy" is a standard term in economics. Your POV interpretation of it is your own conclusion, and thus not encyclopedic. jni 12:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * "Free" is also a term used in many ways. Open Source software is "free." So is shareware software "free." By a different definition, shareware software is not "free." To say that one thing is free and another is not implies nothing about anything else when the meaning is left ambiguous. However, the meaning of "free" in conjunction with "market" is unambiguous in its established usage, as Jni points out. This specific complaint is thus baseless.   — Saxifrage | ☎ 02:36, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

 * Also, in your revert you say you are reverting me "again". Looking through the history I do not see any reverts by you on this page.  The only people who have reverted me are Trey Stone, and VeryVerily (who is currently banned from Wikipedia).  I see your account is less than three weeks old - are you using multiple accounts? Ruy Lopez 03:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Wasn't this guy up for arbitration the other day?--Jerryseinfeld 05:26, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Which guy? VeryVerily was up for arbitration.  I helped bring a case against him.  He is currently banned from Wikipedia.  Thank you for your positive contribution to the discussion of this topic. Ruy Lopez 07:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * See for yourself: Requests_for_arbitration/Gzornenplatz%2C_Kevin_Baas%2C_Shorne%2C_VeryVerily. Ryu Lopez was banned for one week in the final ruling. jni 12:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This arbitration case has nothing to do with the merits of the article. It fit a bit awkwardly, but some of the changes were quite helpful. They did not call for a blanket reversion. 172 12:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * As for my account being young, I came in via the Slashdot article on Sollog, and have since created an account and started editing.
 * Now, this is where I own up to some mistakes. I did revert hastily, and in doing so I compounded my mistake by conflating this (at that time non-existent) revert duel with the one at Economy of the United States—thus my "again". That said, on reconsideration I regret my blanket reversion and agree with 172's assesment. The text you added points to things worthy of inclusion, but it requires some work to pass NPOV policy. Shall we restart from there, then?
 * On that point, what part of the edit are you defending: the exact wording; or that the ideas presented need to be addressed? I'm much more likely to support the latter.   — Saxifrage | ☎ 02:36, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez' latest edit
In nearly complete disregard for the counterarguments brought up here, Ruy Lopez has gone and reverted to an old version by him that has all the faults already discussed above. I've reverted it. Ruy? If you want to actually address the points that resulted in the same reversion last time, which you have ignored since early January, feel free. However, simply waiting a long time doesn't change the validity of the points made and suddenly make your version acceptable. Come engage in the unresolved arguments from the last time you made this same edit. You may have something to contribute, but changing the meaning of the article whole-cloth isn't going to fly, especially while it contains what the consensus holds are misconceptions on your part. Lets see what you have to offer and get some consensus going this time. — Saxifrage | ☎ 03:48, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

To Ruy Lopez: I think the into is pretty decent at outlining what sets apart market economies from other types of economies. It's about decentralization of decision making. Why do you insist on clouding the issue by talking about "capitalism" and so obviously inserting your bias against it? If you want to talk about it, talk about in the text of the article instead of confusing the intro. All market economies aren't necessarily "capitalism" you know? A "mixed economy" can also be considered a market economy, as long as the skew is away from centralized planning. Capitalism is certainly a market economy, but what is it that makes a market economy a market economy? That's what the definition in the intro should focus on. Think about it. RJII 01:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez has reverted twice without discussion on this here Talk page. Though he may have something useful to contribute, this behaviour is in violation of Remedy 4 of Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily. — Saxifrage | ☎ 01:56, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

continued
This article continues to be one long POV screed. There is no semblance of balance whatsoever. Ruy Lopez 20:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Your failure to understand a technical term continues, I see. "Market" economy doesn't mean that it contains markets, it means that the distribution of goods in the entire system is managed mostly by an imaginary system-wide "marketplace". This is in opposition to a planned economy or a mixed economy, not as opposed to "socialist economies" (which is not even a technical term). Canada is socialist, but has a market economy.
 * You were originally banned from reverting articles to your own version without discussion on the Talk page, first. What you've done is edited the Talk page without actually engaging in discussion first, which is obvious gaming of the ArbCom ruling. As such, I have reverted your reversion. Please create consensus on this page for your issues before you apply the consensus to the article.
 * (And, addressing your assertion that the article is a "POV screed", perhaps you're right that the technical terms in economics have inherent bias toward capitalist POVs. However, they remain technical terms and, as an encyclopedia that contains established information, the only recourse you have if that is what you believe is to become an economist and to change the technical terms of the entire field. It would be no different if you thought "central processing unit" was a term with inherent anti-distributed-computing POV in computer science: you can't reject it even if you think so, because it is a technical signifier that is widely accepted in the field.) — Saxifrage | ☎ 21:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * I got involved in an edit conflict and posted my version anyway, and have deleted some valid starts in the intro. But what this article needs first and foremost is expansion. It does not include any of the basics. Some of the POV-problems might clear up while the omissions in this article are taken care of.--Fenice 21:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for that—that's much better than my simple reversion. It makes explicit the market economy's connection with capitalism without making the intro paragraph about capitalism. Ruy, does this look closer to something acceptable to you? — Saxifrage | ☎ 21:27, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Your post contains a lot of words but says very little. You talk about the "technical term", the need "to become an economist" to edit this article, "a technical signifier that is widely accepted in the field" and so forth.  As far as I know, political economy is a social science, not a political science.  Thus all of this is more like theology than science.  A physicist trying to build a nuclear reactor in the USSR believes the same things a physicist in the US believes, but an economist in the Cuba is completely at odds with what an economist in the US says.  Which implies being an economist means anything - a biologist probably understands biology more than the layman, but political economy is a social science - saying an economist knows something a layman doesn't is like saying a theologian knows more about God.  Just because Milton Friedman or Hayek or the Heritage Foundation invents a phrase to push their views doesn't mean it becomes unchallengable.  There are counter-institutions to this as well.  Just because the soothsayers in America's king's court all whisper the same line doesn't mean it is true.
 * Out of everything you said, you only really said one thing - "Market" economy doesn't mean that it contains markets, it means that the distribution of goods in the entire system is managed mostly by an imaginary system-wide "marketplace". The distribution of goods in the USSR was done through an imaginary system-wide "marketplace" as well.  Production is what was different.  The market, or the exchange, as well as the consumption or use of commodities was very much the same.  Someone going to the store and buying a bag of potatoes and then boiling and cooking one is a similar action in the US or USSR.  The markets are the same.  It's the production decisions which differ.  By your definition, the USSR is a market economy.  As I said before, this is just a propaganda phrase, invented by some think tank like the Heritage Foundation. Ruy Lopez 01:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

 * saying an economist knows something a layman doesn't is like saying a theologian knows more about God
 * If you truly believe that, then you'll recognise that you are the only layman here that holds the opinion that you do, and all the other laymen oppose your Point Of View. Your assertion that the term is fundamentally a propaganda phrase is in opposition to consensus. As this appears to be the foundation of your argument for changing the article, you haven't a leg to stand on. You can't fight people to remove POV, you have to work with them. The tactics you have chosen to use so far—unilateral edits against consensus—are doomed to failure due to the nature of this project. Perhaps you'll be happier at wikinfo.
 * Look, to make it very plain, I'll level with you on one point—in many ways I agree with socialist and Marxist views on production and inherent value. Check my user page for my declared biases, and you'll note I'm mildly anti-capitalist (along with mildy anti-communist, but that's not for economic reasons). The fundamental problem with your edits is your lack of respect for consensus and bald POV. You violate the spirit of the Wikipedia project so harshly that some who might be your allies on content must oppose your edits. Work with us. — Saxifrage | ☎ 06:06, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

"Prices, for example, are determined by trades that occur as a result of price agreement between buyers and sellers, rather than being ordained by government." I dispute that this is the case. A price is inherent the second that raw material becomes a commodity. at least in my view. In my mind, it's like saying an apple is red - which in a market economy is determined by trades that occur as a result of price agreement between buyers and sellers, rather than being ordained by government. Well, that sentence makes no sense, an apple is red no matter what buyers or sellers or a government for that matter thinks. Ruy Lopez 01:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's like this. If you sell your house you can ASK 2 Million for it. If no one is willing to purchase it for what you're asking there is no sale unless you lower your asking price. You keep adjusting your price downward and others you want your house compete with each other thereby boosting the BID upward. Eventually, the ASK and the BID meet at 1 Million, a market transaction is made and price is determined. You don't determine the final price on your own; the buyers don't determine the final price on their own. The final price is determined by the actual trade that occurs as a result of a market operation. There is no final price until there is a transaction. The TRANSACTION determines the price. RJII 01:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * A house is not a very good example to use - capitalism is based on the production of commodities, and ownership of land, rents, corvees go back to feudalism - even the term landlord goes back to feudalism. Most people produce commodities (or products) be they goods or services.  Instead of using a hosue an example, I'll use a car.  So let's think about GM manufacturing a car.  The first question is: why is GM going to manufacture a car if they don't know that someone is already willing to buy it?  Why not just produce cars to order?  But we'll skip that question.  So GM produces a car.  The moment the car rolls off the assembly line, in my view, the price is known.  The price is how much work went into it - say $10,000 worth of work.  In my view, the owners of GM manage to get $10,000 worth of work on it, although they only pay their workers say $9,500 for the work.  And that's that, the price is known coming off the assembly line, in my view.  But my view was more or less shared by Adam Smith, David Ricardo and so forth, people who saw value as being created by labor, something people like Milton Friedman dispute. Ruy Lopez 02:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with anything? A market economy doesn't mean an economy where no one profits. It means an economy that operates through market mechanisms. RJII 02:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, this article is just laden with POV. It does not have a problem with one or two sentences being POV, the whole article is POV, every sentence. I don't mind that POV being represented, but alternative POV's must be represented as well - and not at the very end of the article. Ruy Lopez 01:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean. There's not much to be POV about. What a market is is pretty basic. RJII 01:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I should mention, I don't mind if certain views are put in the article, but I think other views should be incorporated. And not with the views I am interested in at the bottom and the rest at the top. Ruy Lopez 02:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

entrepreneurship
I don't think the entrepreneurship stuff belongs in the intro. RJII 03:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Untitled
Archives: 1

Non-Monetary Economy
"I added this section because wikipedia does not currently have a page with information regarding the Non-Monetary Economy. I plan to include more details at a later date to create this as a stub page. Citations will also be added. The purpose of this is for course requirements." --Bryteyes01 (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)bryteyes01

 * I fail to see why this material should be included on a page for describing market economies. - Battlecry 23:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Monetary and non-monetary economies differ radically. Vilhelmo (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Underground economy
"The theoretical model of a large-scale free market economy does not occur legally, however the underground economy may be seen as an actualized free market economy."

"May be seen as" is pretty weaselly. A windmill may be seen as a giant waving its arms. Can we cite someone as claiming this? I have my doubts: "free market" presumably means "free from coercion" not just "free from taxes". In my experience, black markets are seldom free from coercion. - Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Underground economy and black market don't have the same connotations. Underground economy is a market where trade simply takes place without government taking a cut. Hiring a worker without filing out government forms and paying him in cash, garage sales, selling stuff on Ebay, etc. RJII 16:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Again: do you have a citation for "may be seen"? - Jmabel | Talk 22:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

A free market economy is not a black market economy. A free market economy is economic freedom under law. You can do as you may in a free market economy as long as you follow the law. A black market economy is an unlawful economy. Example: selling crack is unlawful and part of a black market. Selling hot dogs and following the rules and regulations is part of a free market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.227 (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

neutrality
The neutrality complaint is stupid. The arguement being made is that it presents the "libertarian view point" on markets. I disagree, I think that by reporting what Hayek and Friedman state about the market is accurate. They, afterall, are economists. Discussing how market transactions are voluntary does not mean that social market theorists are any less valid. Likely they would agree (otherwise they'd get rid of the market and be called Socialists!!!!) There is a section that discusses market externalities, a section that discusses market participation and a section about the free market. There is not much to complain about but the factual reporting of market operations. (personal attack removed) (Gibby 22:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC))

 * The neutrality complaint may be valid, but no-one can say whether it is or not because the user has not brought their issues to the Talk page in accordance with established procedure for using that template. I've notified Nikodemos on their Talk page that they need to engage on this Talk page in debate about specific NPOV issues. If they choose not to I will remove the template in a few days. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Reporting what economists Hayek and Friedman say about market economies is not POV or non neutral. (Gibby 02:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC))
 * The neutrality complaint was strange per se: I've altered it slightly, so that it does not read "gives to much weight to the views of economists, for example...", which implies that giving weight to the views of economists is a shocking thing. That said, I'm assuming you've seen through the grammar. --Nema Fakei 02:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

 * It was someone elses complaint. They had "free market advocates" which is actually a POV representation of them since Hayek and Friedman are by their job definition, economists. When you state the plain truth "the overwhelming vies of economists, such as Friedman and Hayek" well you just wonder exactly why they are commenting on something so related to economics like markets.  The original complaint is bogus.  Its made by a non-market believer who really hates anything market especially if it argues free market.  (Gibby 02:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

It is difficult to identify specific problems within the article, because it is biased to such a degree that it requires a complete rework. Half of it is dedicated to "criticism of alternatives" (which seems a convulted way of referring to advocacy of market economics), while the rest of it presents very little information explaining how a market economy actually works. As it stands now, this article only discusses free market capitalism, which makes it redundant with the capitalism and free market articles. Furthermore, Milton Friedman is cited 32 times. The only other economists mentioned in the article are F.A. Hayek (five times), Adam Smith (twice) and Hernando De Soto (once). I find it particularly outrageous that neither Ricardo nor Keynes are given so much as a nod. In total, there are 47 paragraphs in this article, and Milton Friedman's views are discussed in 24 of them. That means the article is roughly 50% Friedman and 50% all others (and those others share Friedman's POV to a large extent). -- Nikodemos 04:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose that we start reworking the article from the ground up; much of the information about Friedman's views should be moved to the Milton Friedman article or Chicago school. -- Nikodemos 04:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See Criticism_of_communism for an example of Nikodemos's work. Very well sourced, but reflects his personal biases. To me, that article doesn't read like an objective encyclopedia entry, and I'm worried about what's going to happen to this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.250.214 (talk • contribs)
 * I did not know I was so interesting that I have anon users watching me. But, in any case, if your only objection is that you do not like my writing, then you are more than welcome to help edit this article yourself. In fact, I do not look forward to the daunting task of re-writing it, and I could use all the help I can get. -- Nikodemos 13:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It was me (I'm logged in now - and didn't know how to sign a comment). I don't think it needs re-writing. I agree with Nema Fakei. StringCheesian 19:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You believe it is appropriate to dedicate half the article to the views of one economist, and much of the other half to economists who agree with him? I am not saying we should include prominent discussions of the views of Karl Marx or other opponents of the market economy; I am saying that we should give equal weight to economists who advocate a market economy but see it differently than Friedman (e.g. J.M. Keynes). -- Nikodemos 20:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I just don't want to see this article brought down to the level of Criticism_of_communism with respect to tone (should be informative and neutral, not persuasive and apologetic/defensive) and prose. I'd try to fix the other article, but I'm not a very good writer. As well read as you may be, neither are you. I'll admit you're right, Keynes deserves to be mentioned and the article is little heavy on Friedman. But only a little too heavy - shouldn't Adam Smith's school of thought figure prominently? Econ 101 textbooks (at least mine anyway) start with him in Chapter 1 and call him the father of modern economics. Why not just move the stuff that belongs in Milton Friedman and add a few things about Keynes and Ricardo? I don't think your problem with the article justifies a rewrite. StringCheesian 22:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Adding things by Keynes is fine by me, but don't delete the Friedman stuff. They sections including information from Friedman and Hayek are merely reporting their thoughts on how the market works. Keynes won't say much different other than you need alittle government spending in contractions. Ricardo won't add much Friedman has already talked about and neither will Adam Smith, though having Smith is great. Niko just wants to delete Friedman because he conflates Friedman with libertarianism rather than understanding that Friedman is an economist who just so happens to scientifically prove that markets work better than any alternatives and that free markets are the best form of market economies. Thats it. He wants to delete this information because he disagrees with it. BUT REMEMBER NIKO...we are only reporting what Friedman says. But seriously, I think your scared people might start to see how rational his thoughts really are and just might start agreeing. (Gibby 13:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC))
 * I don't intend to simply remove Friedman's arguments without a trace; I intend to summarize them. You are perfectly right when you say that you are only reporting what Friedman says. The problem is that the place to do that is the Milton Friedman article, not this one. -- Nikodemos 04:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Alternative reading
I would not necessarily say that what Nikodemos is (/should be?) disputing is an issue of neutrality, but a question of relevance. This article should not even be discussing the pros and cons of a market economy (which would belong in a criticism article or, better, articles on variant theories), but rather discussing the definition of a market economy: What does it entail? What can be part of a market? What does and does not count as a market economy? To this end, we should represent the influences of such as Friedman and Hayek (being careful to avoid adopting their POV) more than Marx, just as the latter would be expected to feature heavily in Communism. However, we should also avoid defining a 'Market Economy' purely by how the theorists want it to work: markets have been around before the theorists, so this article should be describing market economies, not just 'Theories about Market economies' - those belong in their own pages, along with the pros and cons of each. So no, I disagree with Nikodemos' idea of NPOV by balancing two POVs: we should strive to make this article descriptive instead of prescriptive.--Nema Fakei 15:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, that was my intention, and I agree with you. As I noted above, the current article presents very little information explaining how a market economy actually works. Much of the Criticism of alternatives section should be moved to the Milton Friedman article (which, by the way, does not currently do a good job of explaining what his views are - thus, by moving the text there, we would be killing two birds with one stone). Allow me to quote the opening words of every paragraph in that section:

 * There are generalized criticisms of alternatives to market oriented economics...

 * Milton Friedman argues...

 * Prices and wages
 * Microeconomists and free market scholars such as Milton Friedman have written extensively...

 * Freidman does believe that workers who take risks deserve more pay than workers who do not...

 * Markets and cooperation
 * Friedman also believes...

 * Profits become the motivator for aligning diverse interests and diverse people for a single goal.

 * International cooperation
 * Friedman and Hayek both believe...

 * Friedman states, "International free trade fosters harmonious relations among nations that differ in culture and institutions"

 * Friedrich Hayek discusses the market alternative and its negative effects on cooperation

 * The role of private property
 * Free market critics such as Friedman also argue... [strange, I thought Gibby insisted that Friedman is not a free market advocate]

 * Externalities
 * Milton Friedman does not deny that there are market externalities and offers many solutions...

 * "Participatory" capitalism
 * Milton Friedman asserts...

 * He [Friedman] believes...

 * Markets and poverty
 * One of the more major complaints of markets and capitalism is a belief that they create exploitation of labor and poverty. [...] Milton Friedman notes...

 * Poverty is often conflated with capitalism and with marxist notions of class conflict. Free market economists such as Milton Friedman and Hernando De Soto make compelling arguments...

 * Many non-market oriented alternatives to market arrangements, and even social-market proponents criticize market economies for their income inequality. Friedman and many other microeconomists note...

 * Free market solutions to poverty
 * Free market economists argue that...

 * Many neoliberals attribute poverty to insufficient protection or recognition of property rights.

 * Hernando De Soto argues that...

 * Economists such as Milton Friedman argue that...

 * Others have argued that welfare perpetuates poverty by providing incentives counter to wealth creation. Proponents of the FairTax and economists such as Milton Friedman favor eliminating welfare programs...

 * Social market solutions to poverty
 * Advocates of the third way believe that there is a legimate role the government can play in fighting poverty. [and they get all of 3 lines in the article]

 * A better name for this article in its current state would be Milton Friedman's views on the market economy. I think that much is clear. Let us start talking about the ways we could rework it. Nema Fakei brought up a number of useful starting points. -- Nikodemos 20:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This is discription of how markets work, who better to report from than two nobel prize winning economists who know market operations better than many others. If you want more on your prefrences, find sources, cite them and add them. Don't bitch about cited Friedman and Hayek material you disagree with. You are starting to irritate me with your lazy deletion censorship-like methods. (Gibby 13:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC))
 * At the moment, it's a description of the arguments for markets. It's like having an article on cars that spends most of its time talking about "Volkswagen argues that cars are good because they make travelling easier, while Ford that cars are a statement of freedom; environmentalists question", rather than something like "a car is a motor-driven vehicle, usually powered by petrol". I agree, there's a place for an article (or a subsection) "Criticism of Cars" or something, but what we want is quotes about how markets work, not describing people's judgements about them. At the moment, all we've got is "Why Friedman thinks what he does", which is not the same as market economic theory. Don't misunderstand: I would like to see lots of quotes from Friedman et al if possible: but preferably technical quotes about the mechanics. I hope this helps you understand what I'm saying. --Nema Fakei 16:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And it does describe how the market works. I can't help it if you can't put it together. If you are in fact a leftist of some sort, it is very likely you would not understand or want to understand if Friedman himself explained it to you. (Gibby 13:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC))

Everything that is in the market economy article is necessary to describe how a market economy opperates. The reason why others may not think so is the reason why they likely don't believe in market economies...ie they don't understand these little tid bits that are reported here from published figures (Gibby 00:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC))
 * "Everything that is in the market economy article is necessary to describe how a market economy opperates."... There's a vast section called "Criticism of alternatives": are you saying one of the driving or enabling forces of a market economy is that alternatives don't work? That "it is very difficult and inefficient for central planners to guess or approximate values and demand for goods and services" is a technical description of the way a market operates? It may just be me, but "[F argues] it is better to let prices float freely by allowing the market to determine them" seems to be advocating, not describing a market. --Nema Fakei 03:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, funny story behind the criticism of alternatives. The leftists from several leftwing communist economic pages continued to delete my added cirticism on market alternatives and they all told me to write a Market Economy page and include criticism of their prefrences there. So I did. And not to my surprise they show up and want to delete the whole thing.

Its the circus I refer to on my user page. Its also called BS.

And no, when you say "Friedman argues that it is better to allow prices to float rather than allowing central planners to dictate prices" its not only cited NPOV (it also happens to be a proven fact, but I havnt gone that far and say it...because if i did the leftists would really be upset then...even more so than now. As of now, you all have no ground to stand on)  (Gibby 03:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC))
 * Whether you believe it true or not, the statement clearly adds nothing to the definition of a market economy, and is clearly advocating a market economy. I'm not sure what you mean by "cited NPOV": cited statements can be POV just like any other statement, if not more so, as they are expressions of the POV of the speaker. Friedman's studies in economics are well-respected, but that does not mean that anything he's ever said is automatically relevant and useful in this context.
 * I don't know what dealings you have had with other editors, but I trust you are taking up any deletions you feel excessively unfair with admins. So let me get this straight: You and these leftists disagreed about what could go into the article - on basically the same subject as this - and so you created this article so you could develop it your way?
 * Hm... It does not make sense to me to turn Market Economy into a Criticism of Alternatives to Markets page; you may as well just rename it - or even incorporate it into existing pages like Friedman's. However, I thank you for conceding that this page does include discussions about the pros and cons of economic systems. Now, I'm not necessarily suggesting deleting these, but I am suggesting that we make *much* clearer the distinction between the definition of a market economy, and the reasons we might support a market economy (/criticise alternatives), possibly by splitting the article into sections or even (preferably) two articles, the latter to be added back into somewhere more relevant (e.g. Friedman).--Nema Fakei 05:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Whoever told you to include an extensive discussion of Friedman's views here was wrong. The place for it is the Milton Friedman article. I will (eventually) move a lot of information there. And no, it will not continue to be moved around to other articles. In exchange for your cooperation, Gibby, I can personally watch the Friedman article and ensure that the material on his views does not get removed. -- Nikodemos 04:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm going to gently suggests that Gibby should assume good faith. It sounds like Nema Fakei and Nikodemos both have the best interests of the article's quality in mind and assuming otherwise only serves to divert attention from the contents of the article to irrelevancies like the editors themselves. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

where does this go?
-	Motivation to manufacture goods at least cost could lead to business firms making production decisions with little regard for safety of workers or the quality of environment. -	Reduction in Quality of products: The quality of products can fall down as the producers have to reduce cost. -	It does not guarantee full employment for workers. As to reduce cost the company can fire off workers anything they want according to their self made rules of temporary employment. -	Growing social and economic inequality (the rich get richer and everyone else gets poorer). Because those with more money also start a disproportional political influence, which they use to make still more money. -	Reduction in social benefits and welfare. As there are no social safety, for jobs etc. People feel unsecured about their future. -	Good are produced in excess as the poor workers are not paid well due to market competition. So they don’t have the power of money to buy commodities in a large number.

I can't tell if its serious or vandalism. At anyrate it looks like a complaint and would need its own section. Anyone want to clean this up, add citations, eliminate the OR and add it back in? (Gibby 13:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC))
 * Looks honest (I'm guessing an inexperienced editor by the format), but I don't think it really belongs in the article any more than advocacy.--Nema Fakei 03:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good place to kick start the criticism section. I'll add it back in as a comment just to make sure it's not lost. -- Nikodemos 05:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see advocacy, I see reporting Friedman's views...which happen to be one of the most credible educators on market operations alive today. (Gibby 03:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC))
 * Milton Friedman has no monopoly over the concept of a market economy. And dedicating half of this article to reporting his views is no more NPOV than dedicating half the article on race to reporting Hitler's views. -- Nikodemos 05:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No he does not but he is a credible source on market economies. Hilter was not even a credible source on race. Try again. (Gibby 00:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

 * Nobody is suggesting the removal of his information, only changing the article's focus from his views onto what is a market economy. Do you oppose this? If so, why? — Saxifrage ✎ 04:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe he does explain what a market economy is. I believe it is important to note the voluntary arrangements of market systems the importance of money, property, prices etc. If you or he wants to add other sources fine by me. But deleting the worlds foremost expert. Out of the question. (Gibby 05:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC))
 * Stephen Hawking is a recognised world expert on astrophysics. He does explain what a black hole is. However, the articles on black holes should not contain quotations from Hawking saying "Black holes are really neat". It's a statement that, (I'd think at some point) a renowned expert has made about black holes. But it doesn't explain what they are, and if it came up in the article on black holes, I'd say it needed deleting, because it doesn't explain anything about black holes. There's no reason (obscurity aside) that it shouldn't come under a subsection on Stephen Hawking or Popularity of Black Holes.
 * "I believe it is important to note the voluntary arrangements of market systems the importance of money, property, prices etc". Yes! I'm definitely in favour of turning this into a more economics-based article.--Nema Fakei 22:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't think that is a good example either. There is a major difference between steven hawking telling you a black hole is neat and what a black hole is. Just like there is a difference between Milton Friedman saying Free Markets are best and this is how markets work.  That is what the article is saying. (Gibby 06:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC))
 * "There is a major difference ... how markets work." Precisely my point. Now, we have sentences and even sections that run like "Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman stated that economic freedom is a necessary condition for the creation and sustainability of civil and political freedoms.", which do not explain the workings of a market, but describe views in support of a market economy (i.e. market economies are neat). Statements like "Milton Friedman asserts, as would many other microeconomists, that consumers constantly participate in market-oriented capitalism with every purchase they make", however, help define the market (black holes are created when stars collapse), and are the sorts of statements we do want from MF (although I think the wording is a little opaque).--Nema Fakei 13:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * no that particular sentence is explaining how markets participate in the generation and protection of civila nd political freedoms, which argues that non market arrangements result in tyranny. Thus it does discuss market funcitons
 * (Gibby 06:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC))
 * I could just as much say ""Black holes are neat" is explaining how markets participate in the generation and protection of variation and diversity, which argues that a universe without black holes result in dulness. Thus it does discuss black hole functions." What the article (in the first quotation there) is describing is an external effect rather than an internal or inherent property (such as the second quotation). At the very least, the indirect and peripheral consequences - including negative ones for which the market can be criticised - should be subsectioned off and given less prominence than the core internal functions that market economic theory actually deals with.--Nema Fakei 14:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

RJII's recent edits
RJII's recent edits have, again, inserted language that has nothing to do with "market economy" as the term is actually used, instead doing some original research about absolute freedom and inserting weasel words about what "some" people may or may not want. Rather than describing the term market economy with a meaning that it actually holds or describing (things that are called) market economies as they actually exist, this is veering away into an essay. Since this has been, in the past, part of RJII's project of getting the article farther and farther away from a description and closer to a piece of original research on what markets should or shouldn't be/do/function as, this isn't something that can be improved and added to. So, I've reverted. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Ok, well I'm reverting back then. Because, what you say is very vague and doesn't really address anything. RJII 21:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Here is a list of the problems I see with your changes:
 * Linking to a Wikipedia article does not count as as citation and does not make it not original research. ("Less market restrictions are found in other countries, such as in Hong Kong, according to the Index of Economic Freedom")
 * Yes it does make it not original research. It's not original research. The Index of Economic Freedom is the source. Just because I linked it to a Wikipedia article doesn't make it original research. RJII 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You write "And, even anarcho-capitalists believe in the rule of law..." and don't attribute this. Original reseach.
 * This is not original research at all. It's true. It's fundamental to anarcho-capitalism. Read "Society without a State" by Rothbard. There's my source. RJII 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weasel words: "Many states which are said to have a capitalist system do not have the level of market freedom that some would prefer." (emphasis mine, highlighting weasel words) What states are these? Who says? Who are these "some" who are doing the preferring? Granted, the second could easily be reworded, but this also qualifies as original research without citation.
 * I don't care about that. I was just trying to reword things to make sense. The wording and meaning were horrible. RJII 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your statement that actually "free markets" are limited to protecting property rights and maintaining the peace is uncited, so original research.
 * That's not original research at all. A free market economy is a laissez-faire economy. RJII 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Saying, "There is currently no state where all markets within its borders are absolutely free," and then, "However, the term is not usually used in such an absolutist sense," subtly reflects the POV that "market economy" and "free market" are terms that derive their meaning from the common-English meaning of its component words, rather than technical terms that have a long and established history that gives them their meaning within economics. This would be the same as writing, "Radio plays are not actually live theatrical productions that are broadcast on the radio, however the term is not usually used in such a sense" to subtly reflect a POV that live entertainment is better than pre-recorded broadcast entertainment.
 * However, after compiling this list, I can see that the fundamental problems are part of the original passage, though you are merely adding to them. Perhaps we can work together to hammer it into a more useful shape. Let me start by asking, what do you think the section on free markets should be used for? The semantic issue is, I very much believe, a straw man that does not belong in the article. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there should probably be a discussion delineating a market economy from a free market economy. A market economy can conceivably have price and wage controls, for example, but a free market economy would not. RJII 21:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Finally, I resent your personal attack and impugning my motivations: "Since this has been, in the past, part of RJII's project of getting the article farther and farther away from a description and closer to a piece of original research on what markets should or shouldn't be/do/function as, this isn't something that can be improved and added to." I have had, from the start, no desire other than to make this article more accurate and sourceable. I resent you now, and don't work with you at all on this. RJII 21:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I shouldn't have made that attack and I apologise. I've struck it out; will you recognise my retraction of it? My harmony seems to have been seriously off recently and I'd like to make up for that. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, no problem. RJII 23:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
Do I understand correctly, Gibby, that in the article about each of the other types of economy and economics you have added an Austrian school / Chicago school market-based critique of that type of economy or economics, and here (instead of a balancing critique of market economies) you have added… an Austrian school / Chicago school market-based critique of all other types of economy or economics? And this is supposed to be neutral? - Jmabel | Talk 06:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC) what?................ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.186.125 (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Remove section
I am deleting the "Criticism of alternatives" section. It is very POV and the topic is covered better under article like Criticisms of socialism. I will move the text below (in text  form). 72.139.119.165 22:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I removed the pasted text: there's just too much to keep here. If anyone wants to debate it here, you can find it in the diff and bring the desired sections back here. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Market economy and China
I have a few things to point out in the market economy in communist countries section of the article. It says, for one, that the PRC "runs" some of the world's freest economies. In all practicality, however, Hong Kong's economy has never been "ran" by the Beijing government. It is barely correct to assert that a special economic zone like Shenzhen is ran by the Beijing government. There needs to be modification here.

Secondly, if I'm not mistaken, Wal-Mart is not only in special economic zones, but in Beijing as well. Colipon+(T) 00:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

 * That makes sense. Also, the whole point of a market economy is that the government doens't "run" the economy. RJII 00:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms? What criticisms?
User:CosmopolitanCapitalist recently took it upon himself to completely comment out the "criticisms" section for being POV and lacking citations. Were it not for WP:POINT I'd be inclined to do the same to pretty much every other section of the article. Everything here is undercited; much of it has POV issues. Cosmo, I suggest that you consider whether you did this because there were particular problems with the section, or because you personally disagreed with the criticisms raised.

That said, it's hard to understand what was objectionable about some of what was commented out. For example:

"Sunken costs and inefficiencies of re-allocation may result in behavior that is rational at the individual level, but disastrous in the aggregate (as modeled in the game theorists' 'prisoner's dilemma', and prohibitions on co-ordination (or simple failure to co-ordinate) may be disastrous for a particular sector. For example, an oversupply of a good for which the demand is relatively inelastic may result in frantic price-cutting, as each seller hopes to recover something for their inventory; the sellers collectively would be much better off if they could coordinate and only accept small losses. Organizations such as Food First argue that this is the dynamic driving down agricultural prices in recent decades, which has been disastrous for farmers generally, but especially in poorer countries."

The non-specific citation to Food First doesn't seem any worse than the non-specific citations in other sections of the article, and is certainly accurate. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

 * User:CosmopolitanCapitalist, since we had not crossed paths before, I decided to look randomly at a few of your edits to see if you were simply evenhandedly removing undercited material. Imagine my surprise when I encountered this edit: an introduction of material considerably more POV than what you removed here (it is basically nothing but your own interpretation of the intent of the Founding Fathers), and also completely lacking in citation. I suggest that if you want to invoke NPOV and undercitation to remove basically solid material that you do not find amenable, you should apply at least the same standard to your own work. - Jmabel | Talk 01:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually Jmabel, the entire section above my addition is an interpretation of Smith and Jefferson quotes by the wiki authors themselves. Now, at least my interpretation (which is the correct one) is at least better reasoned than the poor criticism offered here. Furthermore, I at least provided you quotes. Clean up the criticism, make it stronger, and for god's sake get some quotes. I am surprised that you completely missed, or maybe ignored (I'm not judging though...but given your accusations here...) the original research of the entire section you decide to quote me on. If anyone needs to hold themselves to a higher standard please point your finger back at yourself. Finally, I did not remove material. On the progressive tax I added information in the same style as provided in the article, in market economy i only hide the poorly reasoned, argued, and woefully lacking in citation criticism section. DO some research and then unhide it. Don't go looking for ideological red herrings then point fingers like a 2 year old.(CosmopolitanCapitalist 04:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC))

 * I didn't look at anything in the Progressive tax article except the material you added. If the material around it was equally bad, I can't honestly say I'm surprised; I was merely comparing what you added there to what you removed here. - Jmabel | Talk 16:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies then, the stuff around it is equally..."OR"...though I would not say my addition was bad. ^_^ (CosmopolitanCapitalist 05:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC))

Who invented the term?
I think it is important to know who invented the term “market economy”. May be this word was invented to avoid the term capitalism? If yes, market economy is not only the phenomenon but also the perception of this phenomenon by economists (or people in general). Ulf-S. 11:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Was the term market economy invented by a single person or organization or is is based on collective research over time and multiple academic institutions?--MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge?
I say no: Free market should be about the theoretical construct and market economy about actually existing market economies and market elements of economies that are note primarily market economies. - Jmabel | Talk 06:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits
Recent edits strike me as heading in an utterly wrong direction.

 * Starting off with the issue of freely permeable borders? This is not even an essential feature of a market economy. This is not the article about ideal free markets: this is the article about market economies. One could clearly have a market economy even in a country that had no international trade at all.
 * Why plunge early on into stating that the Hong Kong SAR (misidentified here as a "country") has freer markets than the U.S.? Definitions first, comparisons later.
 * Then "Free markets are also conflated with anarchy as many people believe that free market implies an absence of government." This is a fringe view. And insofar as it is relevant, it is relevant to free market, not market economy, which ought to be an article about the currently dominant form of national and international economy, contrasted to gift economy, barter economy, etc.

Not that it wasn't enough of a mess before this. This article reads like a libertarian or two have run amok. I find it a bit of an embarrassment to an encyclopedia. - Jmabel | Talk 07:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite
Following numerous complaints by other editors, as well as my own observations that the article did not explain what a market economy actually is or how it functions, I have attempted a rewrite. Please discuss. -- Nikodemos 06:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I disagree with it. I don't think you should do a unilateral rewrite of an article and just stick in the there. You should do incremental edits. Besides that, there is a lot wrong with it. First, the definition is inadequate. It's not a market economy simply because there are markets. If supply and demand is regulated then it is planned economy, even though production and distribution takes place through markets. This smacks of POV: "Those who control more resources have more choices available to them than those who control fewer resources." What kind of choices? What is that supposed to mean? Going on, you talk about "market socialism" saying it's market economy. I'm sorry but that is not a market economy. In market socialism, price is set by government to adjust shortage and surplus issues in attempt to simulate a market economy. Again, having markets - buying and selling things - alone does not constitute a market economy if the prices of those things are regulated. Going on down, you say something about the "goals of economy" policy being "promote economic growth, to achieve full employment and to maintain price stability." Whose economic policy? The economic policy of those who support markets is to let the market take care of economic growth, employment, and price stability. The policy you're talking about is in opposition to markets. That's just the start. The rest of the article is equally dubious and most of it unsourced. Anarcho-capitalism 17:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

 * My intent was precisely to invite discussion, which is something that I seem to have successfully achieved. Please note that the article you reverted to was far more unsourced than the one I wrote. The definitions I provided were sourced, and the statement that "those who control more resources have more choices available to them than those who control fewer resources" is a direct quote from an economics textbook. (Lieberman, Marc and Hall, Robert E. "Introduction to economics", Thomson Learning, 2005. pp. 43) The "goals of economic policy" are likewise cited in Lieberman, Marc and Hall, Robert E. "Introduction to economics", Thomson Learning, 2005. pp. 350.

 * Now, my main objection to this article as it stands right now is that it appears to be more concerned with arguments for and against free markets than with the question of how a market economy actually works. Milton Friedman is mentioned in almost every single paragraph, which is unacceptable. Finally, some sections are out of place - like "markets and communist states" (which is really about Chinese economic reform). Now, I'm sure Chinese economic reform is an interesting topic, but what is it doing in an article concerned with the general features of market economies?

 * However, I agree to follow your advice and do incremental edits. -- Nikodemos 08:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

 * What is the context of that quote? What kind of "choices" are they talking about? And your point about "goals of economic policy," that is not the economic policy in market economies but in mixed economies. It doesn't make sense to say thee that an essential characteristic of  market economies is that there is central planning. A market economy is defined by the lack of central planning. The U.S. government doesn't intervene to ensure "full employment." Sometimes their is full employment, like now, and some times there is not. And they don't tax and spend to promote economic growth. The U.S. government basically just stands back and let's businesses cycles occur.  The U.S. is closer to a market economy than governments that do engage in such intervention. Anarcho-capitalism 16:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I will go look for the context of that quote and get back to you on it. Note that there is a difference between "economic policy" and "economic intervention". A government might have a policy of non-intervention. If economists believe that the goals of economic policy are X, Y and Z, that means they believe that governments should act in such a way as to achieve X, Y and Z. The precise way in which X, Y and Z are best achieved is another question entirely. Some will argue that the best way to achieve them is to leave the market alone; others will argue for intervention. -- Nikodemos 22:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a reminder: "market economy" is not interchangeable with free market (which has its own article). The latter is about an economist's abstraction. "Market economy" is in contrast to barter economy, gift economy, and planned economy. Pretty much every existing "market economy" is, in practice, a somewhat mixed economy. Certainly, some elements of gift economy can be found in any society (especially within families); and I can't think of a government that does not do at least some planning (if only through targeting its own spending: e.g. allocating resources to poor regions). - Jmabel | Talk 22:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Cut from article
"The theoretical model of a large-scale free market economy does not occur legally, however the underground economy may be seen as an actualized free market economy."

 * Uncited
 * "May be seen as" is utterly weasel-worded
 * Underground economies almost always involve extortion that is at least comparable in its deforming effects to taxation.
 * It is questionable whether any large-scale underground economy even vaguely approximates ideal free market conditions, because the requirement for concealment from authorities prevents transparency; also, the impossibility of recourse to the courts to enforce contracts results in them being enforced primarily by private force or the threat thereof, which we would hardly consider part of the market model.

In short, just go trying to sell illegal drugs on someone else's turf, and if you survive the experience you will have learned a lesson in cartelism. - Jmabel | Talk 22:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the "turf" thing is probably rare. I know in my neighborhood there are multiple drug delivery services competing for business. They don't use force to restrain competitors. Someone makes a call to their preferred merchant, a car pulls up, someone goes to the door and delivers drugs, then they leave, just like a pizza delivery. First of all to kill a competitor over minor transactions like this is not worth the risk. Second of all most drug dealers are peaceful people. They're just as uninclined as any one else to commit acts of violence. They're just businessmen.

Is a free market possible under capitalism?
I have a hard time seeing the "free market" as described in introductory economics texts. To me it seems like there are barriers everywhere, and "competition" means two major firms and a few specialty suppliers. In fact, it seems like you couldn't have a genuine free market in a capitalist economy, because if you had one, then the average profit margin for all suppliers would be equal to the interest rate. But investors expect much higher average returns from the average mutual fund than they see from any money market fund - so if an industry were perfectly competitive, it would receive no investment and ultimately the assets of various competitors would be sold off to make more money on the stock market. And that's not even getting into the political clout of the major market players. Do the economists actually claim that free markets are possible in the real world? 70.15.116.59 05:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're confusing a "free market" with a "perfect market." A free market isn't necessarily perfectly competitive. A "perfect market" is the theoretical construct that you're referring to. Solid Rancher 05:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

 * The wikipedia arcticles read: "
 * 1)Capitalism refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production are predominantly private[1][2] owned and operated, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy.
 * 2) A market economy or free market economy is an economic system in which the production and distribution of goods and services take place through the mechanism of free markets guided by a free price system.
 * 3) A free market is a market in which prices of goods and services are arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers.

 * If 1+2+3 is correct, then wikipedia is saying that in capitalism goods and services are arranged completely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. This is not always the case, as sometimes people need to buy certain products they need for their own survival (electricity, water, food) without the 'freedom' to choose the supplier. Simular, there are inflexibilities in the markets like the time, place and availability of products preventing the establishement of a 'free' or 'perfect' market. I think that saying 'free market' and capitalsm are the same is dangerous. It might give us a sence of false freedom. The question would be offcourse what you understand under freedom(lol). Freedom or freedom?

 * I personally dont think a market economy is the same as a free market economy either. For me the current market economy is determined by limitations and non-freedoms (again, time, place, available competitions, regulations,...) rather than freedom. What do you call the 'real' market system if I cant call it 'a market economy'???

 * If capitalism has by definition a free market, then our world economy doesnt qualify as capitalism. I think this is where the confusion starts. Textbooks often refer to these theoretical concepts, but neglect to mention the arent reality ^^. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.192.129.67 (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

 * You're correct. That's why more careful textbooks refer to the economies loosely called "capitalist" or a "market economies" as "mixed economies." There is no economy that is pure to the definition of capitaism or socialism. Operation Spooner (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If property and means of production can be privately owned than they must have the freedom to have private decisions as well or else its only nominal capitalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.255.227 (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Market and personal freedom - criticism of Hayek and Friedman
On 2008-01-08T11:39:42 User:Lordmetroid removed my addition (where I confused Naomi Wolf with Naomi Klein) to the Market economy section: These claims are criticized by Naomi Wolf in her 2007 book The Shock Doctrine, in which she claims that free-market economics usually require exploitation of natural or artificial disasters by dictators or authoritarian governments. with the edit summary: "Naomi can't sperate a free market from government intervention. Critisism invalid".

This removal is in contradiction to WP:NPOV, where it is written "let competing approaches exist on the same page" and, in WP:NPOV, "We should present all significant, competing views impartially.". The only question is whether her contribution to the debate is significant, which is supported by the reviews mentioned in The Shock Doctrine and her standing, as documented in Naomi Klein.

I am therefore re-instating my contribution, amended to: "Many on the left reject these claims. For example, the Canadian journalist Naomi Klein criticizes them in her 2007 book The Shock Doctrine, in which she claims that Friedmanesque free-market economics usually require exploitation of natural or artificial disasters by dictators or authoritarian governments." PJTraill (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

 * If Klein isn't using the same meaning for the same words compared to the meaning neither Freidman nor the article uses. Furthermore Klein is dishonest about what Freidman says when she talks about what he says as demonstrated though the documentarical vlog Milton Friedman Debates Naomi Klein. How then can you say Naomi is actually critising the subject of the article? Don't reinstate without a proper discussion on it and we have found a solution that is fitting, otherwise it will cause an edit war. I would welcome you to add a criticism section but then it must be relevant criticism from a command economic standpoint(the opposite of a market economy). Naomi is criticizing capitalism and her criticism should therefore if anywhere be on the article about Capitalism. Lord Metroid (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for reacting here - I had no intention of starting a war, just a discussion. I am unlikely to get back to this before next weekend, but perhaps someone else has something useful to add in the meantime. PJTraill (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Move to free-market economy
no support for move. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

When you search the term in google [economy" -"free market economy" -wikipedia] is less than [market economy" -wikipedia]. The article market anarchism has been changed to free-market anarchism, so why not this article?71.175.31.106 (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are saying, I tried searching for "market economy" and "free market economy" and the Market economy article came up first. What are you suggesting? Lord Metroid (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He's saying that "free-market economy" is a more popular term than "market economy." If you do a search for "market economy" it's going to count "market economy" as well as "free-market economy" because "market economy" is included in the phrase "free-market economy." So you have to do a search like he has done, by finding "market economy" that doesn't have the word "free" in front of it. "Free-market economy" is the more popular term. If these articles are supposed to be named by the most popular name, then this should be changed to free-market economy. Operation Spooner (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, it could easily be argued that market economy is a more neutral title, and, per WP:GOOGLE in a nutshell, neutrality trumps popularity. Since the change doesn't really achieve anything, it's not worth the hassle. --Nema Fakei (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How is "free market" is less neutral than "market?" There is a free market article. Should that be changed to "market" to be neutral? What exactly are you saying? Operation Spooner (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Free Market' is a complete semantic unit, referring to a concept as opposed to a 'market', which, unqualified, normally refers to a bazaar. 'Market economy' is a complete semantic unit; 'Free market economy' is an unnecessary qualification of that. --Nema Fakei (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is your definition, then why is the introduction this: "A market economy or free market economy is an economic system in which the production and distribution of goods and services take place through the mechanism of free markets guided by a free price system." and also this: "Market economy is also contrasted with mixed economy where there are market operations though the markets system is not entirely free but under some government control that is not extensive enough to constitute a planned economy. In the real world, there is no nation that has a pure market economy."71.175.31.106 (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is appropiate Market economy can be many different kind of economies while free market economy means just that. It is misleading. Lord Metroid (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The term market contains many ambiguities. The term market economy is just a shorthand for free-market economy. The former term does not imply that it is "less free" than the latter term. According to Dictionary.com, the definition for a market economy it is "An economy that operates by voluntary exchange in a free market and is not planned or controlled by a central authority; a capitalistic economy."71.175.31.106 (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a market economy is a free market economy by definition. The terms mean the same thing. It's an ideal. There are no pure market economies. Operation Spooner (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Oppose (and probably tag this article as tendentious). We don't name articles after slogans. A market economy is an economy which has markets. A strictly free-market economy is at least as much an abstraction as a truly perfect gas. And we don't settle any naming question by appealing to raw www.google.com results.   Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Market economy is an abstraction as well. It means the same thing. Operation Spooner (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

 * OpposeA market might not be planned or controlled, but also not "free", other influences might be influencing decisions, prices, products, services, ... beyond the bare supply/ demand/ price that in theory is all there is in a "free market". htom (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I like to see some source of that, unless it is WP:OR. If there is a source, this article needs it. Otherwise, the decision making section should be removed, as it involves government intervention. This is conflicting with this: "Market economy is also contrasted with mixed economy where there are market operations though the markets system is not entirely free but under some government control that is not extensive enough to constitute a planned economy. In the real world, there is no nation that has a pure market economy."71.175.31.106 (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is called a market economy in contrast to command economy. Lord Metroid (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources? The term "market economy" is simply a shorthand of free-market economy. There are lots of sources including this:

71.175.31.106 (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Market economy is also contrasted with mixed economy where there are market operations though the markets system is not entirely free but under some government control that is not extensive enough to constitute a planned economy. In the real world, there is no nation that has a pure market economy." (McKinney, Michael L. Environmental Science: Systems and Solutions. Jones and Bartlett Publishers. 2003. p. 481)
 * "Market economies are also called free economies, free markets, or free enterprise systems."( The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002.)
 * "An economy that operates by voluntary exchange in a free market and is not planned or controlled by a central authority; a capitalistic economy." (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.)
 * "An economy in which goods and services are exchanged in a free market, as opposed to a state-controlled or socialist economy; a capitalistic economy." wiktionary
 * You could always start a "free-market economy" article. Then those who would oppose it or want it merged would have to admit that "free-market economy" and "market economy" refer to the same thing. Operation Spooner (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Oppose - the term is market economy. Free market economy is certainly not the most common usage. Bssc81 (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the above doesn't mean that someone would be doing something in violation of the rules by now moving the article to "free-market economy." That's still permitted, regardless of what the consensus was. Wikipedia policy says: "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and will not necessarily be treated as binding." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not Operation Spooner (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true, but the consensus of editors is not to move it, so if it does get moved it is likely to be quickly reverted. Note also that there was a proposal to add a separate free-market economy article - which of course could end up being merged.... Note: The move request was made by an IPuser, and the most support for the move was made by the same IPuser, who will have to register a username or make the request for the article at Articles for creation. Have fun you all... 199.125.109.102 (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would remind everybody that we have an article free market. Almost all real-world economies have market aspects (as almost all have barter, gift, and command aspects), and this article seems to me to be the appropriate place to discuss precisely those market aspects. The article free market is, appropriately, about the economists' abstraction of a free market. - Jmabel | Talk 22:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Gobbledygook
There is a lot of gobbledygook in this article.

It opens:

"A market economy is an economy based on the power of division of labor".

How many economies, other than Subsistence economies, are not based on the division of labor (and even subsistence economies have some type of division of labor)? It can be mentioned, but makes no sense in the opening.

Then "free price system", another article with junk, is contrasted to the supposed "fixed price system". Of course, there is no article for fixed price system, the redirect talks about the US during World War II when rationing was necessary.

Also, talking about a planned economy makes no sense, since the planning is in production, not the market. Once the product is produced, it is obviously going to the market, so the planning is in production, not the market.

Some things have been moved, some POV stuff has been removed. This I removed - "where the price system is under some government control or heavily regulated" because it is uncited. As I said, have there been heavy differences in production between countries, some capitalist, some socialist with heavy government control? Absolutely. But there is little cited evidence that the price system of rubles for bread in a say Soviet market was much different than a dollars for bread in an American market.

Again, opening with "A market economy is an economy based on the power of division of labor" makes no sense. There has been a division of labor since men went out to hunt and women gathered berries - prior to the evolution of the species even. Every economy has a division of labor.

And to repeat again - if this article made sense there would be a fixed price system article with real examples. And there isn't. Adelson Velsky Landis (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

economic freedom refs
This edit questions the references used for some of the economic freedom stuff. The Index of Economic Freedom reports are jointly produced by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, as is evident from their web site or the documents they produce, so the Wall Street Journal should remain there. The other point was about a dead link, I guess? The link that was there goes to kinda the front page for the Index of Economic Freedom. To me, that seems a reasonable place to go, but it could be argued. To get the full report, the web site makes you go through a data-collection form where they want your name and email address before allowing you to download the PDF report, so I'm not sure giving that link would be better. I could go either way. C RETOG 8(t/c) 03:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The claims attributed to the Wall Street Journal are not properly sourced. Regarding the dead link, the reference cited should be updated to make it clear that the referenced Report is not accessible by clicking on the link. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the problem. I guess I'll try the direct link, let me know if that's better? C RETOG 8(t/c) 16:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that you fixed the problem of the "dead link". In regards to the Wall Street Journal, the section of the current article states "...that there is a relationship between economic freedom and political and civil freedoms to the extent claimed by Friedrich von Hayek. They agree with Hayek that those countries which restrict..."
 * There is nothing currently cited in the article that shows the Wall Street Journal making or supporting these claims. You need to provide a source if you want this in the article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused about your objection. The report is a joint publication from the Heritage Institute and the Wall Street Journal. Is the problem that it doesn't specifically reference Hayek? It does, briefly, but maybe it could be rephrased to solve your problem. In any case, there's no reason to pull out the Wall Street Journal from the article. C RETOG 8(t/c) 18:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

We're not talking about the report, we're talking about Hayek and the Wall Street Journal. If you want to add Hayek stuff relating to the Wall Street Journal, then it needs to be properly sourced. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

WTO definition
I was reading an article in the news today and came to this page for more information on what the World Trade Organization definition of a "market economy" is. Specifically, as part of the new BRICS euro-bailout package, China has called on European Nations to recognize it as a "market economy" ahead of the 2016 deadline agreed to in 2001. What does this mean? What are the implications? There's no information on this page or on the WTO page and I suspect a lot of people will be looking for this information in the coming days. -User:Lommer | talk 19:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Social market economy
This article claims that the philosophical background of the Social market economy is Liberalism (Ordoliberalism, Neoliberalism), Catholic social teaching and Social democracy. This is really absurd. The cited source (Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon: Eintrag: keyword "social market economy" = Soziale Marktwirtschaft) states that the term is used to associate ideas of Liberalism, Catholic social teaching and Democratic socialism. This is something completely different from "philosophical background". The "philosophical background" of the Social market economy is Neoliberalism or Ordoliberalism. Moreover the social market economy is opposed to social democracy and democratic socialism .--Mr. Mustard (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I make the concession that the philosophical background of the original idea is rather ordoliberalism and catholic social teaching. But it is pointless to refer to pure philosophy. You obviously know (and even your cited sources say that) the Social Market Economy as it was realized in Germany and became political and cultural consensus was embedded liberalism with an wider philosophical influence. --Pass3456 (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * The system which was realized in Germany (after Ludwig Erhard) is not the subject of this article. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

 * This is bang on. The philosophical background of the market economy coincides with the end of feudalism. it was explicitly a classical liberal/right-libertarian populist movement. The significance of Christianity to this aspect of western history was the introduction of individualism and classical liberalism and it's economic corollary laissez faire. See Ralph Raico's lecture on industrial revolution and liberalism. [] [].

A recent edit reads: "Market economies do not logically presuppose the existence of private property in the means of production; a market economy can consist of various types of cooperatives, collectives or autonomous state agencies that buy and sell capital goods with each other in a free price system. "

This is political point of view pushing unsupported by the citation. The text is an incomplete copy and past from the source. The original text goes on too say "One may at least theoretically conceive of an economy of market socialism... so long as the socialist production organizations were free to buy and sell their output and and the use of their assigned land or capital assets to each other at freely negotiated price". This is true in the sense that market socialism can exist as a theory. As a technical matter of economic science it has been proven that the socialisation of capital goods removes prices as these goods cease to be "objects of exchange". While people could then theoretically exchange with normal prices this can't take place because the socialisation has already prevented the rational allocation of resources in higher order capital goods, therefore consumer goods can not be coordinated if they are even produced! SEE: socialist calculation debate. Editors shouldn't disguise weekly held concepts that are only proposed as theory not practice on obscure websites. I'll find better sources.

Another additional edit reads: "David McNally argues that the logic of the market is inherently inequitable and based on unequal exchanges, and that Adam Smith's moral intent and moral philosophy of equal exchange was undermined by the practice of the free markets he championed. The development of the market economy involved coercion, exploitation and violence that Adam Smith's moral philosophy could not countenance. McNally also criticizes market socialists for believing in the possibility of fair markets based on equal exchanges achieved by purging "parasitical" elements, such as private ownership of the means of production, from the equation. McNally argues that market socialism is an oxymoron when socialism implies an end to wage-based labor. "

This again is demonstrably and unquestionably political point of view pushing. This again is an outdated technical issue of economic science. The labour theory of value has been replaced by subjective value theory. No contemporary economists think that goods embody labour and all exchange is exploitative. It's obvious that exchanges take place voluntarily because of mutual profit. This again is uncontroversial main stream economics. Including the outdated moral philosophy of Adam Smith also unbalances the weight of the article.

If an entire section is going to exist for the disproven social market concept (we should remember socialism isn't economy at all!) [] then there should also be a section on free market anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. If the article isn't improved to include free market anarchism and the citation on social market material isn't improved then I suggest we delete it. Rothbardanswer (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

 * First off, the "social market concept" is not socialism. It is the model of capitalism that exists in continental Europe. Secondly, nothing in this article mentions the labor theory of value. The material on market socialism is largely based on neoclassical models of market socialism, although classical models like mutualism are mentioned briefly since they do constitute market economies. David McNally was criticizing Adam Smith's view of markets leading to equality and liberty, not the labor theory of value (of which he subscribes to). While you might not agree with his point, it is a work of contemporary scholarship that criticizes market economies - whether capitalist or socialist. - Battlecry 09:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Socialist weight
After reviewing the article there is a significant amount of weight given to any number of socialist political passages. When you compare this to the 5 line parragraph on laissez faire this seems ridiculous. The information is also poorly cited. Suggest significant edits made to reflect the market as a technical issue of economic science NOT a political device. Rothbardanswer (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

 * The subject of the article is on hypothetical and existing variations of market economies, not on the market as a "technical issue of economic science". The appropriate article for that is market. You are certainly welcome to expand the subsection on Lassiez-faire. The article should give a brief overview of the types of market economies: early market economies, capitalist market economies, and market socialism. While it is in no way complete, there is nothing wrong with providing descriptive material on market socialism. Furthermore, if we remove material on market socialism while retaining material and weight on capitalist ideologies and forms of market economies, then the article would still be a "political device" used to advance pro-capitalist viewpoints. - Battlecry 09:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

East Asian model
In few books that I have read regarding the market economy, few authors, along with Anglo-Saxon model and (German) social market economy mentioned also East Asian model. Anglo-Saxon was described where economic freedoms are being absolutised as a condition for succesful economy, while social market economy was described as being mixed with social issues (pensions, health care etc.), while the East Asian model was described as market economy strongly influenced by national tradition and customs and model of market economy influenced by state more then the two previous market economy models... -- Wüstenfuchs  23:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I think that would be a valuable addition to this page under the capitalism section. I have heard of an "East Asian model" of capitalism in certain publications on comparative economic systems characterized basically the same way you described it. It looks like the page State-sponsored capitalism basically describes the "East Asian model". - Battlecry 23:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Market economy/Archive 1


text:
Singapore cable car crash

At about 6 p.m. on 29 January 1983, the derrick of the Eniwetok, a Panamanian-registered oil rig, passed under the aerial ropeway of the Singapore Cable Car system and struck the cable that stretched over the waterway between the Jardine Steps Station and the Sentosa Station. As a result, two cabins plunged 55 m into the sea, killing seven people. The oil rig was being towed away from Keppel Wharf when it became entangled in the cable and caused it to snap. It also left thirteen people trapped in four other cabins between Mount Faber and Sentosa. The disaster was the first involving death or injury since the cable car system opened in February 1975.

Rescue operations
The Singapore Police Force, the Singapore Fire Service (now Singapore Civil Defence Force) and all three services of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) were involved in the all-night rescue operation. It was headed by Philip Yeo, then Second Permanent Secretary (Defence). The overall operation was directed by Colonel Lee Hsien Loong, later the Prime Minister of Singapore.

There were fears that the oil rig could drift further and cause more damage. The problem was worsened by a combination of strong currents and the rising tide (high tide was at 11 pm). To prevent the rig from moving, four tugs put lines aboard and worked to and fro in the water to keep the rig steady in the water.

The Naval Diving Unit of the Republic of Singapore Navy was assigned to conduct the underwater search for the passengers in the two cabins which had plunged into the sea. It took the unit three hours before they recovered four bodies from the cabins.

On land, the Army established an operations HQ and medical facilities at the wharf-side.

In the air, 120 Squadron of the Republic of Singapore Air Force was tasked to rescue the people who were still trapped in the four cabins, as the cabins could not be moved along the remaining cables. Though an extremely risky measure, it was considered the fastest and safest way as the cabins might have plunged into the sea at any moment.

The first Bell 212 Twin-Huey Search and rescue helicopter from the squadron (call sign Rescue One Zero) was piloted by Lieutenant Kao Yit Chee, fitted with floodlights, approached the first stranded cabin and despite the strong winds and danger, the winch operator – Staff Sergeant Ramasamy Veerappan winched down the winchman – Lance Corporal Phua Kim Hai. He was blown off on the first attempt but on the second attempt, he reached the door of the cabin, unlocked it and went inside. He came out with the first passenger strapped to his body by a harness. The winch operator pulled both of them to safety.

The riskiest rescues were undertaken by Royal Australian Navy Lieutenant Geoff Ledger, who was on loan to RSAF to help train helicopter pilots. Despite the windy condition encountered above the harbour and the strong downwash of the rescue helicopter's main rotors, he managed to pilot the second Bell 212 rescue helicopter close above the cars to allow winchman Lance Corporal Selvanathan Selvarajoo to enter two cabins hanging only by their towline. Overall, the entire rescue mission took three and a half hours in darkness and high wind conditions.

Aftermath
A Commission of Inquiry was appointed by the President on 5 February 1983 into the disaster. The Commission conducted the Inquiry in public for 55 days from 23 May to 12 August 1983 and submitted its report on 30 December 1983. The report blamed the collision on the negligence of several parties, including the master, chief officer, and pilot of the Eniwetok. The Port of Singapore Authority, the shipyard and the oil rig's operators were also cited. The commission made recommendations for appropriate safety measures to be taken to prevent a similar occurrence in the future.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Singapore cable car crash


text:
Lodge School (Malaysia)

Lodge School is a private school located in Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia, established in 1953.

Lodge Group of Schools now operates under four different entities, namely:
 * Lodge Kindergarten (Tadika Lodge T.1006)
 * Lodge International School (Sekolah Antarabangsa Lodge SAS.1013)
 * Lodge Primary School (Sekolah Rendah Lodge SRS.1008)
 * Lodge Secondary School (Sekolah Menengah Lodge SMS.1020)

title: Lodge School (Malaysia)


text:
Talk:Civil Aviation Authority (United Kingdom)

Brexit
Following the UK's departure from the EU institutes, the CAA is no longer a 'local office of EASA' or passes regulation to EASA.

Untitled
Source for Webber data: DfT organisational chart.

Maps
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAA_Bus_Service.pdf to Aviation House, Gatwick
 * http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAA_Map_London.pdf CAA House, London

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Civil Aviation Authority (United Kingdom). 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/20120901204025/http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAA_Bus_Service.pdf to http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAA_Bus_Service.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150723072446/http://www.airsafety.aero:80/about/ to http://www.airsafety.aero/about/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

CAA International (CAAi)
CAA International Limited (CAAi) is a wholly owned subsidiary of the UK CAA and a registered Social Enterprise. Serving as the CAA’s independent technical cooperation arm, CAAi provides advisory services, examination/licensing systems and training internationally, covering all regulatory domains overseen by the CAA. 155.190.33.7 (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


text: Talk:Sela (Star Trek)

title: Talk:Sela (Star Trek)


text:
Teevan

Teevan is a surname. It originated as an Anglicised form of Irish and Scottish Gaelic Ó Teimheáin 'descendant of Teimheáin'.

People with this surname include:

 * Thomas Teevan (attorney general) (1903–1976), Irish barrister and judge
 * Thomas Teevan (Unionist politician) (1927–1954), Ulster Unionist Party politician and lawyer
 * Colin Teevan (born 1968), Irish playwright
 * Craig Teevan (born 1970), Australian rugby league footballer
 * Jaime Teevan (born 1976), American computer scientist

title: Teevan