Talk:American School (economics)

Talk:American School/archive1 -Shared Archive with American System (economic plan) prior to split into two articles on June 27th, 2006 per agreement of its editors: Northmeister, Will Beback, and WAS 4.250.

What this article is about

This article is about the American School of economics akin to the Austrian and Chicago Schools and as practiced by the United States as official policy. Any user seeking the article on the American System that is a part of this school should go here: American System (economic plan). --Northmeister 08:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved page per above discussion

I've made all the relevant moves. Though some cleanup is needed - and a delete of American System (economic system) is needed - this WILL can do. I made the American System (economic plan) the article as it existed on Feb. 5th 2006 when I begin editing - we can start from there on dealing with just the Clay plan. I've made this article the result of our work up til now on the overall American System or School - and changes to that effect can hence be made. --Northmeister 07:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

We'll have to settle through with fixing of inbound links and redirects. I suspect that most will go the historical American System, not to this article. Lemme see what I can do with the AS article, that may not be the best starting point. -Will Beback 09:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: Thanks for your efforts in sorting things out. -Will Beback 11:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Going from here

Now that we've split the original article - I've redone some of the rhetoric section in this article and am looking for ideas on how to reformat. That is: should we move history up, combine philosophy with policies etc.? I am unsure at the moment. I might step back from both articles for a temporary break to take a rest from this project and do other things. But any feedback would be welcomed. I want to thank WILL and WAS for the effort they made in making this move happen. --Northmeister 00:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Another item that should be on the task list is summarizing the 784-word excerpt from Lind. I'm not sure why it's in the article, and no explanation was given. If we want to include a section on Lind's views of the American System then we should work on that. If we want to impart the wisdom of Lind to the article then his ideas should be integrated into relevant sections rather then left in a heap at the end. Either way, we shouldn't have such a long quotation. -Will Beback 02:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm done here for now. Thank you both for an interesting experience and thank you both for helping to improve Wikipedia - a gift from all of us editors to all of mankind. See you two 'round the 'pedia! WAS 4.250 16:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

British Empire or United Kingdom?

The article states "During its American System period the United States grew into the largest economy in the world with the highest standard of living, surpassing the British Empire by the 1880s", this is referenced to "Gill, William J. "By 1880 the United States of America had overtaken and surpassed England as industrial leader of the world." — "Trade Wars Against America: A History of United States Trade and Monetary Policy", Chapter 6, "America becomes Number 1" pp. 39–49. Praeger Publishers, USA."

According to Angus Maddison, "The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective. OECD, Paris, 2001". "The World Economy: Historical Statistics. OECD, Paris, 2003", the British Empire's GDP by PPP in 1913 was 570,406,000,000 International dollars compared with the United States' 517,383,000,000 International dollars. This would suggest, as the reference to Gill also does, that the "United States of America had overtaken and surpassed England" rather than the entire British Empire. The United Kingdom's GDP (PPP) in 1913 is reckoned by Maddison to be 224,618,000,000 International dollars, less than half that of the United States, which would certainly confirm that the US had overtaken the UK some years before. Indeed, even in 1870 the United States' GDP (PPP) is reckoned by Maddison to be 98,374,000,000, almost equal to the United Kingdom's 100,179,000,000. Should the article perhaps be amended to say United Kingdom rather than British Empire? Or that the United States was not the largest economy, but the largest "single/national" economy or something like that? I am not disputing the standard of living half of the quote, by the way. For a start, I don't have any evidence to, but from my own knowledge I believe it to be true. Benson85 03:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Original research

Please keep in mind the section of the original research policy that says:

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.

I have gone through the article removing lengthy sections that appear to fit this description. The section on Lincoln was a particular example where the sources merely showed the existence of various laws or policies, but made no mention of the American System.

I hope there can be some agreement on the following:

• American political leaders used the term "American System" from 1824 to roughly the Civil War to refer to the three-point program.
• This program was derived from Hamilton's program, although he didn't use the term.
• Various comparisons to later US policies have been made, but these are the views of the various commentators and should not be presented as definitive.

Gazpacho 21:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work. Those points look correct to me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the Lincoln material as this article deals with the American/Philadephia/National School Michael Lind, among others in their works talk about. The three points are true, the one about original research is not - as A and B concur, and there is no C as A and B are the same. There is no taking A (which is one thing) and B (which is another) and developing C (a new synthesis) - A (speaks of the American School) and B (speaks of the American School) all derived from Hamilton as the sources indicate. That said, GAZPACHO - I am willing to work with you to improve this article and to make any changes necessary. I am unwilling to work with WillBeback who once again resorted to namecalling on your talk page once again linking me with the LaRouche crowd, once again the 'guilt by association' technique of McCarthyism - which is why peoples political views should NEVER matter or be censored - only their editing pattern. But I was raised in America, so I take that for granted. --Northmeister 00:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The lengthy Michael Lind quotation appears to go beyond fair use. Can't we just summarize his statement? Also, the link to it is no longer active.[1] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I see now that there is a history here that I don't really want any part of at this time. Gazpacho 05:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd ask you reconsider. My concerns stated, I do think your editing skills and lack of being a part of previous 'editing' would be helpful. I'd like to give you time to offer your contributions to the article and am only concerned with accuracy and readability. The edits you made previously in the wording of the opening paragraph were excellent. Thanks for the try thus far and I welcome you back anytime as I can work with anyone honestly trying to edit. --Northmeister 12:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Deadlink

Curious...what's extremist about this link: Excerpt from The Harmony of Interests? --Northmeister 02:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't include that in the edit summary. I deleted that because we already have a link to the entire "Harmony of Interests". Is there a reason to have both in the "further reading" section? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What is your definition of extremism? Are you calling Alan Tonelson an extemist and if so why? --Northmeister 13:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User 24*

This anonymous user went through the article and completely took out whole sections - under the assumption of "Larouchities" or whatever. This editors deletions are random vandalism by the hysteric few at Wikipedia who like to witch-hunt - their rhetoric and wording is always the same. Their mandate seems the same as the 'I had an aliens baby' types. Gaspacho began editing thereafter and not from the original article before mutilation of data (or vandalism) by the "Larouche-is-bad" conspiracy people, in which everything evolves around the non-entity Larouche for them. Bah humbuger! --Northmeister 13:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

PS. Starting from the original article, there is an open invitation to offer discussion below as to why (barring the Larouche-is-bad bad I say conspiracy people) any part thereof of the article is wrong, not sourced, or needs changing. We should start with the opening and work our way through. This invitation is open-ended like Wikipedia as an article is never complete! --Northmeister 13:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)