Talk:Market fundamentalism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The modification mentioning anarcho-capitalists[edit]

I just added the modification mentioning anarcho-capitalists. I am wondering one, if you think that's appropriate to the article. Personally I do because it links to a philosophy that agrees with market fundamentalism and explains the thinking behind it. Two, I am wondering if you think it would be appropriate to explain and provide links to philosophies that are similar to market fundamentalism, and to which the slur is often applied, and reasons for that. Three, I would like to add an article titled "qualitative inflation" (as distinguised from "quantitative inflation", referring to decreasing quality of products as opposed to increasing price), and then link it to this article, as an example of market forces not working as expected. However, the idea of "quantitative inflation" is my own, and while many people agree that there is such an effect, I wonder if it would be appropriate to post an article about it when it is not commonly referred to by that name, or any name for that matter.

Wikipedia's policy on "original research" suggests that it would probably not be a good idea to start a Wikipedia article for a term that is your private expression for a phenomenon. Sorry. — FOo 14:08, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This is no "original research" at all; see below. 200.153.161.91 15:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No original research[edit]

This is not original research. The term is already widely used in technical articles, by award wining journalists, such as P. Sainath's Poverty, Market Fundamentalism and the Media, 2001 and many others, such as Ruth Rosen's Note to Nancy Pelosi: Challenge Market Fundamentalism. (Ruth Rosen is a journalist and historian. She is a senior fellow at the Longview Institute in Berkeley and a professor emerita of history at the University of California, Davis. She is currently a visiting professor of public policy and history at U.C. Berkeley.) 200.153.161.91 14:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Kelsey wrote a book on the subject [1] which was influential in the New Zealand policy debate as far back as 1995. The term has been popularized by Soros' book, but already existed before in some economic circles. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.153.162.150 (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Specially after the publication of Soro's book (1998) the expression market fundamentalism has been widely adopted, and is now frequently used, in most academic circles; see references in the main article 200.153.161.119 18:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a ridiculous article[edit]

Religious fundamentalism may be justified. But, fundamentalism of political theory is plain ridiculous. No matter how many people use this term, it does not deserve an article. There are no articles for conservative fundamentalism, communist fundamentalism ,socialist fundamentalism ad infinitum. Madhava 1947 (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. Seeing though how it's here I tried to at least NPOV it and make it more coherent. I didn't finish the task because it just got to annoying half way through. radek 18:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I tried reforming it but there is very little after the Soros/Stiglitz citations that is remotely encyclopediac. I propose stubbing the article back to the lede, Soros and Stiglitz and then rewriting the remainder based on the reliable sources in the Relevant publications section. Thougths?Skomorokh incite 18:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no articles for "conservative fundamentalism, communist fundamentalism ,socialist fundamentalism," etc. because those terms aren't in use. "Market Fundamentalism" is a term used by a considerable number of reputable economists to describe a specific phenomenon. Whether you think its ridiculous from some philosophical standpoint isn't the way to decide if a wikipedia article ought to exist or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.126.90 (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Equilibrium[edit]

The article states that a belief in the natural equilibrium of markets is essential to being a market fundamentalist. But one of the groups to which that term is usually applied, the Austrian School, holds explicitly that markets are always in disequilibrium. Should that be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.56.12.231 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don' think so. The article clearly says: "Fundamentalists" state that markets tend towards a natural equilibrium, not that markets are in equilibirium.
What is questioned on the fundamentalit's views is exactly that they tend towards a natural equilibrium. New research and new theorems - specially by Greenwald-Stiglitz - having proved that in most cases this "tendence" towards an equilibrium is not true, the opposite is.
The effect of Stiglitz's influence is to make economics even more presumptively interventionist than Samuelson preferred. Samuelson treated market failure as the exception to the general rule of efficient markets. But the Greenwald-Stiglitz theorem posits market failure as the norm, establishing "that government could potentially almost always improve upon the market's resource allocation." And the Sappington-Stiglitz theorem "establishes that an ideal government could do better running an enterprise itself than it could through privatization" SAPPINGTON, David E. M. e STIGLITZ, Joseph E. Privatization, Information and Incentives. Columbia University; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) June 1988; NBER Working Paper No. W2196 (Stiglitz 1994, 179). BOETTKE, Peter J. What Went Wrong with Economics?, Critical Review Vol. 11, No. 1, P. 35. p. 58
201.0.202.118 (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this sentence should be changed. Many libertarians support the market for ethical reasons and reject equilibrium analysis altogether. --Jayson Virissimo (talk) 08:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sources[edit]

The following have been moved here for possible integration as inline citations:

the skomorokh 14:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC) One more:[reply]

  • Avery, C. & Zemsky, P. (1998): Multidimensional Uncertainty and Herd Behavior in Financial Markets, American Economic Review, 88(4), 724–748.

the skomorokh 15:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of the term[edit]

As far as I know the term "market fundamentalism" is used by critics to denote an unjustified and exaggerated belief. Whether laissez-faire capitalism/market fundamentalism is a justified or unjustified belief, is a different question. Erik Warmelink (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's used for beliefs that they consider unjustified or exaggerated, and that is the correct NPOV wording. As written, the first sentence suggests that certain beliefs are objectively unjustified or exaggerated, and that these (while not specified in the sentence itself) are the ones to which the critics apply the term market fundamentalism. --Trovatore (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it isn't used for beliefs which are considered reasonable. And as such it means a "unjustified or exaggerated belief". Perhaps you believe that the fundamentalism is wholly justified, but the profets (misspelling intended) are wanted for fraud nowadays. Erik Warmelink (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is used for beliefs that these critics consider unreasonable, and that is the correct neutral wording. Whether you or I consider the beliefs to be reasonable is beside the point. --Trovatore (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why the article says "an expression used by critics". Erik Warmelink (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but then it says that that's what they use to denote an exaggerated belief. It doesn't say (and it should) that the belief is exaggerated in their opinion. --Trovatore (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A source that only critics use the term is lacking. Perhaps the lead could be rewritten in such a way that it clarifies that some people do not consider it an "unjustified or exaggerated belief". However, English isn't my first (or second) language: my attempts to rephrase failed. Erik Warmelink (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term is a political epithet used solely by opponents of the view thus described. Like other political epithets -- such as "pinko", "wingnut", "teabagger", or most post-WWII uses of "fascist", its use serves primarily as an expression of disapproval towards a particular view, not a description of that view.

These kinds of words are the political equivalent of religious epithets such as "Papist" or "Mohammedan" -- which are not purely descriptive words for "Catholic" or "Muslim", despite the fact that Catholics do revere the Pope and Muslims revere Muhammad. Wikipedia should have articles about epithets, but the article entitled "Market fundamentalism" should be about the epithet itself, not the view thus slurred -- any more than we would put an article about socialism itself under the title Pinko or an article about Catholicism under Papist. --FOo (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your "logic" is hyperbolic and ridiculous. The wikipedia includes articles for neo-colonialism, neo-liberalism and (brace yourself!) fundamentalism. The first two terms are used mainly to critique the things they describe. The last is very often used in this context. All three are descriptive of an indentifiable phenomenon. All three are in widespread use in scholarship, media and popular discourse. "Market fundamentalism" fits all those criteria excepting its widespread use in popular discourse. That being said, the article is sloppy and contains a lot of biased rambling much which needs to just be excised -- "History of the concept" being the most notable example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.196.45 (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specious Criticisms[edit]

The notion that free markets caused the collapse in the markets is flawed. Government interventionist policies are the underlying cause of these bubbles. The progressive agenda of affordable housing, accelerated during the Bush administration, created a situation in which people who could not afford a house where encouraged and subsidized. Trillions of dollars in poor credit quality loans where issued with the implicit, and eventually actual, guarantee of the US gov't, which of course means the tax payers. Compounding the problems and creating an ongoing economic malaise are consequences of additional government interventions such as TARP and foreclosure mitigation programs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.104.109 (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a POV that often comes up, but there is also the matter of inadequate legislation that is often held up as to blame for the bubbles. Maybe both are to blame. Either way, this is not the forum on which to conduct that debate. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a small Criticism subsection to lend a (small) counter-weight to Soros and Stiglitz quotes.
Overall I feel this article is not NPOV. However, given that the article subject itself is meant as a pejorative AND these ideas are ongoing current debates, then I don't expect this article ever will be NPOV. Having said that, I'd appreciate if some small section of counter-points are left in this article.
J_Tom_Moon_79 (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ill-defined[edit]

Every use of "market fundamentalism" I have heard is a direct insult of the concept of laissez-faire. This article seems to be saying half the time that "market fundamentalism" refers to dogmatism in one's support of the free market, and the other half that it refers to the entire concept of the free market. The link is to a progressive website, but it is not marked as such. Also, the section "Fundamentalism and financial markets" borders on propaganda very explicitly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.16.193 (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV Statement, end of second paragraph[edit]

Ideas ascribed to fundamentalists include the belief that markets tend towards a natural equilibrium, and that the best interests in a given society are achieved by allowing its participants to pursue their own financial self-interest with little or no restraint or regulatory oversight. .. While this might have been true in the middle ages, with world-wide conglomerates, or even merely large companies, the individual has no protection against fraud nor harm caused by products that maximize income by imposing externalities on the individual consumer as well as society.

The statement about the middle ages does little more than suggest to the reader the author's POV that the pure free markets are an outmoded relic. If the best interests of society are not, in fact, achieved by allowing its participants to pursue their own financial interests, then the author should simply say that, and then support the claim, minus the pretended history lesson.

The mere passage of time does not turn fact into falsehood. The author mentions an increase in company sizes since the middle ages, but makes no attempt to demonstrate a causal link between these size increases and the alleged decline of consumer protections.

The author's claim that "the individual has no protection against harm or fraud" is too strong. Many market-based protections are in common use, e.g. credit card protections against fraudulent and disputed charges, private certifications, consumer advocacy groups, insurance requirements, etc. Free-market economist Robert P. Murphy explains these and several other market-based consumer protections in the interview entitled Consumer Protection: A Case for the Free Market, hosted at Mises.org. --autofyrsto (talk) 05:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why "pejorative"?[edit]

First of all, I totally agree this kind of term needs to be treated carefully. I believe the use of this term will either strengthen (show its analytical value) or weaken (show its simply no other than ideological/demonizing function, that is, pejorative) with time... speaking from some science/social science-romanticizing view. But what function does "pejorative" actually have here? It must be the use of "fundamentalism" because of its general use as meaning something like 'strong convictions' or perhaps 'closed minded'? The description "a strong belief in the ability of free market economy...to solve economic and social problem" is more or less neutral, since, in general there would be no reason for people who strongly defends free market economy to argue against that description. I would probably agree that any use of 'fundamentalism' in new ways (vegan-fundamentalist, atheist-fundamentalist) is pejorative - but on the other hand, Isn't most or all uses of "fundamentalism" pejorative today? It is after all a fact that the the term "fundamentalism" has gone from a self-descriptive term of a group of Christians the 1920's to a culturally general term of simply "strong conviction" or similar. My point is simply that the criteria must be arbitrary in deciding when it is pejorative and when it is not? Anyway, maybe "pejorative" does have some purpose here, but I'm a bit skeptical. I suspect that it is used to normalize the phenomena that it refers to.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtmoon (talk • contribs)

That's a good start; nice work! bobrayner (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
C. J. Griffin, why the insistence on cherrypicking wording from this post which is an angry response to an Economist book review, rather than actually being about market fundamentalism? I see the pattern of googling for any possible negative wording about mainstream economics and then adding it into articles with the pretence that it can be "sourced", but that's no way to build neutral content. bobrayner (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you characterize as an "angry" response I would say is a critical response. If you read the article, you'll notice that market fundamentalism is one of the main themes discussed throughout, not just some throwaway comment at the tail end. Moreover, Edward E. Baptist is a prominent historian who focuses on the history of capitalism, so the article definitely qualifies as WP:RS. And as for these "patterns" you supposedly see, well, you couldn't be more wrong. I was actually reading reviews of his new book after adding it to my wishlist, not "seeking" out materials for any specific purpose. And you know, I see some rather interesting patterns myself. So far you're the only editor to have an issue with this material, much like the content on the privatization article you seem obsessed with purging. That would be a fine example of cherry picking indeed.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Market fundamentalism. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An offensive image is hidden in this page and needs to be removed.[edit]

When a link to this article is placed on another Wikipedia page, hovering over that link creates a popup with an image of a housefly feeding on feces. I can't figure out where this image resides or how to remove it. 70.95.145.33 (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Market_fundamentalism&oldid=1212783176"