Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic spectrum

Economic spectrum

This is unsourced and full of original research. Pilatus 00:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The page reminds me of Political Compass, which is probably its source. The page just needs to be improved, not deleted. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 00:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I doubt it. The political compass is different to what this article espouses. Look at the article as the original author created it. This is an opinionated essay that editors have attempted to clean up as best they can. But since the article has no sources, there has been no goal to actually aim for, and what is left after the more overtly opinionated parts were excised is not very coherent. Moreover: The section on the political spectrum is contradicted by our political spectrum article. Uncle G 03:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Not a bad article, could use with a little expansion. YixilTesiphon ^{Say hello} 01:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. -- JJay 02:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep It is not from political compass. The discipline of political science uses these terms(political system, democracy, totalitarian,economic system, market economy, centrally planned economy, ideology, socialist ideology, conservative ideology, liberal ideology, spectrum,left-right rate of change spectrum(i.e., radical, liberal, conservative, reactionary) as a matter of course. What is lacking is proper distinctions between the four separate spectra because of the use of the same word, liberal, for instance, to refer to completely different subject matters. Liberal, in one instance, is refering to the rate of change that is advocated. In another instance the same word is used to refer to a particular ideology comprised of: private ownership of property, individualism, competitive, and limited government per John Locke. The same can be said of the term conservative as a measurement of rate of change and at the same time a description of a particular ideology. For many people(societies) the distinction is not made and political systems are equated with economic systems. Even in Wikipedia this situation exists in some of the discussions. Hence, in the mind of many, democracy=market economy and totalitarian=centrally planned economy. Or, in another way, it is: democracy=capitalism/free market and socialism=totalitarianism. This is an error because in each case a political system is being equated with an economic system. How should all of this be sorted out? Correct definitions and correct applications according to the proper spectrum would help--wouldn't it? Is there a definition used that is incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.18.131 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Solid B work as an Econ 101 paper. But this does not belong in an encyclopedia. Eusebeus 12:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

NOTE The reference to the entry as being contrary to Wikipedia's political spectrum entry is accurate. Here is part of the Wikipedia entry(in the Left-Right heading):

"In modern Western countries, the political spectrum is described along left-right lines. This political spectrum is defined along an axis with conservatism, theocracy and fascism("the Right") on one end, and socialism, communism("the Left") on the other."

There are problems here that confuse rather than clarify.Theocracy describes a particular type of political system. Socialism/communism/fascism describes particular types of economic systems that have particular types of political systems. The reference to conservatism is not clear as to the intent. Is a particular ideology based on inequality and status being determined at birth being refered to(medieval Europe)? Or is this a reference to a preference to maintain the status quo in a society; which is a rate of change measurement? Many people and societies equate a democratic political system with a market economic system(democracy=capitalism.) They also have a tendency to equate a centrally planned economic system with a totalitarian political system(socialism=totalitarianism). This ignores the fact that there are separate political and economic spectra and where a country is located on one does not necessarily dictate where a country will be located on the other. In a democratic country, the people can choose to have any type of economic system they want. If they cannot choose the economic system that they desire--it is not a democracy. Fascism has a market economic system and a totalitarian political system. Socialism(communism is one type) has a centrally planned economic system and a democratic political system. Socialism has never existed in a modern society. The USSR(nor any of the others that claimed to be) was never socialist nor communist for that reason. How does the average citizen, who looks at an encylopedia to try and makes sense of these terms, deal with the fact that there terms that have different meaning depending upon the reference? How is the term liberal being used? As a reference to a society that has an ideology based upon private ownership of property, individualism, competitive, and limited government? Or is it a reference to a measurement of being willing to accept a measure of change? Shouldn't an encylopedia try to sort all of this out?

Delete. "Economic spectrum" is at best a neologism. It does not even qualify as a dictionary definition. It is basically two good words put together (Probably an analogy to "Political spectrum") – which is deceptive. +Economic +spectrum is nothing but two words, each with its own connotation.--Ezeu 14:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong KEEP. I have heard the phrase used numerous times - going back at least ten years. The concept is both notable and verifiable, with over 83,000 Google hits [1]. The article certainly does need a major overhaul and cleanup though! Blackcats 15:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Can you give a link to an article referring to "Economic spectrum" as a notable term – not merely a combination of two words in the same sentence, or a neologism?--Ezeu 16:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources that use the phrase as a notable term (such as this one), but after looking into it more closely, I see that the way that it's used is quite different from the way that it's used in this article. It's generally used to describe the spectrum of social classes from dire poverty to extreem wealth, and not to describe a spectrum of economic systems. So in light of this, I'm changing my vote to redirect to Social class. Perhaps at some point an article can be written specifically about the concept of a spectrum of classes. Blackcats 15:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to social class. (nb - I also removed the spaces at the start of the above quote to prvent the horrible formatting) Proto t c 16:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Just another way of chopping up things, but not in use in this way. You will encounter "on the economic spectrum" in newspapers, for example, but that reference is self-evident. We all know already that some economies have greater, some lesser control by elected and governmental officials, but all are under control of one thing or another. This is just a reiteration of that obvious fact. Nor do I think there is a need for a redirect, except perhaps to Economics, and that, I think, is already implicit in the term and therefore unneeded. Delete for original research. Geogre 16:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Using the reasoning mentioned in the last post would suggest that the term political spectrum be deleted also. It is just two separate words that are used in the newspapers and it has greater or lesser control by elected and government officials.

• Social class? An economic system spectrum is not a measurement of social class.