Talk:Laissez-faire

Inaccuracies?

"Adam Smith played a large role in popularizing laissez-faire economic theories in English-speaking countries".

I have a hard time accepting this statement as fact, unless someone can back it up with sources, I think it should go.

Having read the The Wealth of Nations, I would have to consider Adam Smith a very strong advocate for laissez-faire.

"Thomas Jefferson was one of the first to use the laissez-faire philosophy, as it can easily be interpreted through his inaugural speech."

Please, then provide the source, so the reader can interpret for themself. I could not find any reference to laissez-faire in Thomas Jeffersons inaugural speeches. Without a source it is just unfounded speculation.

Pronunciation

Could someone please add a pronunciation guide (or audio recording) of the full phrase "laissez faire, laissez passer" to the article? Thanks.

How are Laissez-Faire policies applied in the 20th century versus how they are correctly applied?

Laissez-faire vs. laisser faire

Hi,

In this article, there is a particular distinction made between laissez-faire and laisser faire. I've searched the web and can't find confirmation of this, and I'd like to know if it's a commonly accepted difference. Sources would be especially welcome.

Phil C.

"More Accurately"?

a French phrase meaning idiomatically "leave to do, leave to pass" or more accurately "let things alone, let them pass".

Isn't that less accurately as it is not a direct French translation?

Hah, nevermind, I re-read it and now it makes sense. Ignore this --Kevin McManus 21:13, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

"Laisser faire" is sometimes used by collectivists to cast doubt on the basic premise of laissez-faire, namely that "all men are created equal, endowed by certain unalienable rights, among them being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The reason is that "laisser faire" implies the existence of "quelqu'un qui laisse faire".. someone (i.e., the state or "society") that permits people to do what they want to do. The origin of the term is from the opposite, Jeffersonian tradition, and was in fact a rallying cry... "Laissez-nous faire, laissez-nous passer"---let us do, let us pass! ("Leave us the hell alone", we might say today.) --Mika Nystrom

Relevance of the success of SU?

The sentence "Note that the government of the Soviet Union never achieved "communism" as it saw it, that is, the perfect socialist state." is a non-sequitur. The historical success of the Soviet Union in achieving communism is entirely irrelevant to the claim by some critics that capitalism is unachievable. It is possible to mention a criticism of capitalism without bringing up a similar criticism of communism ;) Slinky Puppet 11:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources

There are far too many unsourced claims being made. For example:

• Thomas Jefferson was one of the first to use the laissez-faire philosophy, as it can easily be interpreted through his inaugural speech. The fact that he made comments in his inaugural speech [needs link] does not support that he was the first to adopt the philosophy. Who has made this claim.

• The government of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom believed that lessening the power of the state in the economy would improve things. After a period of intense pain to many, this was found to be the case. Was it specifically the promotion of [i]Laissez-faire[/i] that helped or did other factors also contribute? I'm not an economist so I don't know but there needs to be a link to an expert that makes this specific claim and provides evidence.

• However, much less intervention occurs than did before Thatcher and Reagan's changes were made. Everywhere? This needs a source

Slinky Puppet 11:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

---

"The government of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom believed that lessening the power of the state in the economy would improve things. After a period of intense pain to many, this was found to be the case."

What’s the evidence for this claim? Because right now it seems as if some one has made a value judgment which is not a NPOV.

Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849)

The Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849) stands out as the classic example of lasseiz-faire's failures —the failures of the English government to act on behalf of its Irish subjects (excluding deliberate malfeasance, and other finger-pointing) is directly tied to the lasseiz-faire economic policies of the English government, wherin a climate of malfeasance and injustice could dominate. After the horrors of the famine became widely known, English economic policy, as well as the political balance in Parliament shifted from Conservative to Liberal, and did not much change until the World War II period. Because the Great Famine can (ironically) also be traced to protectionist policy (in the Corn Laws) critics point to this type of schism in the real world (between idealised freedom and protectionism) as typical of lasseiz-faire. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I vote for deletion!! Intangible 08:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! This is self-contradictory nonsense. Lassez-faire is blamed for the Irish Famine (with no concrete evidence) AND protectionism is blamed. I guess using the word "ironically" in parentheses is supposed to make up for it. NONSENSE. DELETE.Joey1898 16:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

American System

Can anyone provide a source for the American System being a contrast to Laissez-faire? Thanks, -Will Beback 04:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The Great Depression

Milton Friedman actually considers regulation, specificly the Federal Reserve, for turning what would have been a minor recession into the great depression, and his argument is very convincing (to me, at least).

Failure?

The reference to "the failure of laissez-faire to allow the government to manage the economy after WWII" is a rather absurd criticism of a system whose philosophy is specificly to prevent the government from managing the economy. It's rather like the failure of my car to allow me to stay where I am.

add an english phonetic pronunciation

i would like to use this phrase, but im not sure on the exact pronunciation. add a phenetic pronunciation please

The article already has e phonetic pronuciation - "(lɛze fɛr)". For those who find that mysterious, a rough version would be "lay-zay fair". -Will Beback 23:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Criticism

Markets without oversight tend toward collusion as in Archer Daniels Midland

This comment is internally incorrect as well as not relevant to an article on Laissez-faire.

• ADM had oversight and because of this oversight it received both civil and criminal penalties for violations of law.

• The agricultural products market in the United States is both highly regulated and highly subsidized — with ADM through its lobbying connections influencing both regulation and its flow of price subsidies.

• In the context presented in the article collusion is undefined. Collusion might be legal, voluntary agreements among producers, or among consumers, or between producers and consumers; or it might be fraud or anti-trust violations. In context, tend is too vague to give the sentence a plain meaning.

Markets without oversight tend toward fraud as in Enron

This comment is unsupported

• The connection of fraud to Enron is well-established. The connection of laissez-faire to Enron is not. Rather than not being regulated, Enron was regulated and exploiting weaknesses in the complex system of auditing rules, tax laws, confidentiality laws, etc. but only for a while.

• It wasn't a last minute appeal to laissez faire, but a phone call by the former United States Secretary of the Treasury in the Bill Clinton administration, Robert Rubin, to end the Enron investigation. Nothing could be further from that sorry incident than laissez-faire.

There are far better criticisms of laissez-faire than the two cited above, but first, let's clean up these two. patsw 05:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources?

What are our sources for this article? Where does this come from?

• President Reagan called his plan the "New Federalism" calling for a reduction in welfare programs across the board. Despite rhetoric, President Reagan did not follow strict 'Laissez-faire' especially towards trade. Several times during his eight year administration quotas were placed on the importaiton of Japanese cars helping American automobile manufacturers and their workers while tariffs were enacted to protect certain industries such as tool-making (Craftsman tools) or motorcycles (Harley-Davidson).

Are we conflating tariff policy with Laissez-faire economics? I would have thought that Reagan's most notable laissez-faire policies were internal, such as deregulation, corporate and income tax reform, and anti-unionism. We should mention those before mentioning minor tariff issues. -Will Beback 06:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

We should mention all of it. Go ahead and add your information as it is accurate as well. --Northmeister 17:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Also restored deleted material on the United States in the Cold War, links within the sentences provide ample sources therein. Germany, Japan, France, and the United States all followed their unique interventionist paths after WWII until around early 1970's for USA, late 1970's for France, 1960's (limited) for Japan with some economic liberalization. All of it fits for the contrasts in the Cold War and the subsequent slow embrace of laissez-faire by all except Japan and Germany (and some degree France). --Northmeister 17:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Twice the United States information was removed. Why are you removing it? What do you dispute in the information? --Northmeister 17:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I asked you what your sources are but you haven't responded. The U.S. space program has nothing to do with this subject. You are making assertions without sources or attributions. -Will Beback 17:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If you would discuss with me here in talk before outright deletions that would be fine, we could work together and come to agreement. I can see your point on the Space Program but maintain mine. I would have agreed with you about a source needed about that; but instead you delete my material and add comments in the edit summary such as 'American System cruft' which is not assuming good faith and a round about personal attack on my credibility. Why? AGF with other editors. I have reported your violation of 3RR. In the future please be more civil and work with me in good faith. --Northmeister 18:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I started this thread to work with you and other editors. Please don't add unsourced and unerifiable material. -Will Beback 18:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You added after the statements made in edit summary and after deleting my material. You know full well I am willing to provide sources for what I add. You deleted in-spite of this. Deleting other editors work over and over again is violation of 3RR. As I said above I am more than willing to discuss and work edits out; you did not have this in mind and did not assume good faith with my edits. --Northmeister 18:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't know that you will provide sources. You've never filled my requests for sources at American System (economics), and it appears that you are now using the original research in that article as a basis for adding material in other articles. -Will Beback 18:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That is bull and you know it. Anyone will by reading the discussion there actually. --Northmeister 18:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

How about sources for this article? What sources did you use for your re-write? -Will Beback 18:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you challenge specifically? Plus, restore my edits and we will work on them one by one. If I cannot back them up or if after your argument, I agree with you that it is not relevant after reconsideration; then it can be taken out. Work with me not against me, which more often seems to be your crusade in stalking me. --Northmeister 19:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you again, what sources did you use to write this? -Will Beback 19:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Again which edit that I made? And again work with not against other editors and assume good faith by restoring your deletions. By what source have you deleted any of the material you question without placing {fact} first and giving me time to respond or discussing it here with me on the individual edit I made? RJIII may weigh in or any that I have asked to weigh in and if I am wrong for inclusion of material then so be it. But, you simply delete all my edits, question them over and over again...so you must have some relative source that refutes what I add....Well what source refutes my material that you so strongly object too? And what edit are you talking about, since you deleted pretty much everything I included four times, which is a violation of 3RR? --Northmeister 19:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not deleted anything from this article that is sourced. Since you refuse to provide any sources that you used to write this material I am forced to believe that there were no sources, that you wrote it off the top of your head. If you cannot provide the sources you used to write this then we should go back to the prior version. -Will Beback 19:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Again provide a list of questions you have about my edits or those edits and I will respond with citations. By the criteria you use, then it seems to me that every statement is not sourced in this article and should contain a citation after it. Provide which edits of mine you contest and why? --Northmeister 19:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I am asking what sources you used to write this. Stop playing games and show us the sources you used. If you have none then please say so. You either used them or you didn't. As for specifics, the material that I removed needs sources if you want to restore it. Citations are needed for any material marked with {fact} request. -Will Beback 19:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Then mark my edits you dispute with {fact} and give me a reasonable chance to respond to you - rather than deleting my edits outright. That is assuming good faith. I stated over and over again I rather work with editors than be in a form of argument with them over their bad faith and outright deletions. --Northmeister 19:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The first time I added the {fact} requests you simply deleted them.[1]. So, please, can we now have the sources? -Will Beback 19:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That is not entirely true. You deleted my material on the United States with the statement in edit summary "American System cruft" for starters and did not provide a {fact} request along with other deletions in that edit of yours. If you had started with these simple requests rather than deleting my material (I could see if you do not know of my edit history per other articles, but you know full well I provide sources for disputes when requested and that I do not add material to articles unless I feel it is relevant, which doesn't make it necessarily relevant, sometimes I make judgement mistakes...but I am human). Again, restoration of material, putting {fact} after that which you dispute, then engaging with me in talk here about the disputed facts (what do you dispute again since you deleted so much?) would help out here rather than simply disrupting this page to make some sort of 'cruft' point as you stated. --Northmeister 20:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Add your sources, please. -Will Beback 20:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what's going on with this dispute, but I think it's a good idea to not delete the information outright (unless it's obviously bizarre statements), and ask for sources first. Then if Northmeister can't come up with sources in reasonable time, delete or modify it. And, so on. I know that Beback did put up some "citation requested tags" earlier. I don't know how much time he gave him though. RJII 19:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on those wishing to add the material. I've been asking for sources since February (see above) and haven't received any from Northmeister. Rather than providing them he's now claiming I violated the 3RR when applying {fact} requests. Let's see what sources turn up, but it appears to me that the editor simply wrote the material off the top of his head. -Will Beback 20:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You didn't just provide (fact} requests, you deleted material outright without discussion or asking for a {fact} on it. So please be honest here. Second, in February you asked a general question, that other editors chose not to answer themselves because it was so out of sort to begin with. Again, restore, then provide {fact}, then work in good faith rather than violating 3RR over and over here to make a point. --Northmeister 20:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not restoring unsourced information. Find sources for it and restore it when you have. Please provide citations for the items marked {fact}. Also, please stop making false charge of 3RR violations. You apparently have not read our WP:3RR policy. -Will Beback 20:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, contrare! "Reverting, in this context, applies to undoing the actions of another editor in whole or part, not necessarily taking a previous version from history and editing that. It may apply to as little as a few words or, in some cases, just one word that is continually added and deleted. Use common sense; don't edit war. - Rather than exceeding the three-revert limit, please discuss the matter with other editors. If any of them come close to breaching the policy themselves, this may indicate that the page should be protected until disputes are resolved. - This policy does apply to repeatedly moving, renaming, deleting, undeleting, or recreating a page. All of these, if done excessively, are forms of edit warring." -- And, all I wish is for you to provide what you contest so I may respond. Do so my restoring your deletions and adding {fact} or by providing the text below so I may know what you dispute. --Northmeister 20:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If I have violated the 3RR please find an admin to agree with you and block me for 24 hours. Otherwise please stop making the accusation. I have marked some material with the {fact} tag. Please provide citations for them. -Will Beback 21:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have asked Will Beback to provide specific instances where he disputes my edits. He refused to do so, presumably because he does not have any case due to lack of knowledge of this subject area or reading on the subject as I have with my extensive library and studying presently and in the past to obtain my degrees on these subjects relating mostly to history and politics, both American and European (especially German and Russian). That said, I will provide the citations I refer to in the article as where my information came from. There are others of course, but these are the direct references and should be read by Will Beback to gain further knowledge of economic systems and history before outright deletion without discussion in the future. Here is the added references for anyones perusal:

• Batra, Ravi The Myth of Free Trade : The Pooring of America Touchstone, 1996.
• Buchanan, Patrick J. The Great Betrayal : How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed... Little, Brown, 1998.
• Carre, Jean Jacques French Economic Growth (Studies of economic growth in industrialized countries) Stanford University Press, 1975.
• Fingleton, Eamonn Unsustainable: How Economic Dogma is Destroying American Prosperity Nation Books, 2003.
• Gardner, H. Stephen Comparative Economic Systems (The Dryden Press Series in Economics) Dryden Press, 1988.
• Gill, William J. Trade Wars Against America Praeger Publishers, 1990.
• Lawrence, James Rise and Fall of the British Empire Little Brown & Co , 1995.

--Northmeister 07:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Thanks for providing citations. This one in particular caught my eye:

• In addition the United States guided by the changes made during President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "New Deal" continued with massive investments by government in highway building under President Eisenhower and the successful Moon landing and space program of NASA started by President John F. Kennedy during the 1950's and 1960's that coupled with military spending maintained through government intervention and expenditure the largest middle class in the world that had been built up under the prior American System policies of the United States followed from 1861-1929. (Gardner)

The cited book does not include either NASA or the American System in its index. Exactly what does the author say about laissez-faire economics in American in the 1950s and '60s? -Will Beback 07:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Just a note. It's good to ask for direct quotes, just in case someone is misinterpreting something from a source. RJII 17:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

See Collins book for further information involving NASA and JFK, and read the pages I provided on Gardner for general overview of American economic policy at the time. Further follow the outside link on NASA's impact on USA. --Northmeister 08:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Which one says that that "the largest middle class in the world that had been built up under the prior American System policies of the United States followed from 1861-1929."? Which one says that JFK started NASA in the 1950s? -Will Beback 16:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You are reading the sentence wrong. Nobody says JFK started NASA at all, it was started in Eisenhower's administration in the 1950's when he was building the highways which precedes the statement on JFK in the sentence.--Northmeister 23:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please give the quote that links NASA to laissez faire economics? And also the one that about the middle class growing under the American System, and the one that says the U.S. followed that system from 1861 to 1929. . Thanks, -Will Beback 00:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That is not the purpose of the paragraph. Read the what comes before that sentence about Japan, Germany, and France. It tells what was going on during the cold war that lead up to the Laissez-Faire of Thatcher and Reagan. --Northmeister 01:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's omit the non-Laissez faire parts. What about the other question - regarding the U.S. middle class - maybe we'd better omit that too, if it is not about the topic of the article. -Will Beback 02:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It is about the topic, indicating what happened in the world prior to the rise of Thatcher, Reagan etc. who advocated Laissez Faire. Do you have soemthing to improve this article? Or are you nit-picking here after once again following me to an edit? I am all for improvement and collaboration, but you don't contribute and when sources are provided you nit-pick. Check them and tell me what is wrong, I did my part and am obligated no further. Further I deleted the {fact} by accident. That was not written by me, so whomever wrote that section needs to come up with a source, I think it was RJIII. --Northmeister 02:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't me. RJII 02:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Can I get a source for " that coupled with military spending maintained through government intervention and expenditure the largest middle class in the world that had been built up under the prior American System policies of the United States followed from 1861-1929." What is the direct quote that we're summarizing with that line? Who says that the American System built up the middle from 1861 to 1929? -Will Beback 04:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions part deux

First, are you denying that the American System existed, once again? You seem to be bringing an argument from one article to another. We went over this on the American System page with ample citation to indicate what the American System was and how long it lasted, with the only dispute the years 1913 or 1929 being the change..more so 1929 with the Depression and oncoming of the New Deal which repudiated the protective tariff system with reciprocity trade deals and internal subsidy. Second, if the before said system, which again we have also discussed previously as being called the 'protective system' and 'national system' did not build the American Middle Class then what are you asserting did? The very fact you are challenging this must indicate you disagree with the facts. If this is so, then why do you disagree? Are you arguing America did not practice "protective tariffs, internal improvement building, national banking (productive investments/sound currency) during that timeframe - the very definition of American/protective/national System? If you are making that argument then based on what? I have already provide numerous citations to indicate my country's economic system from 1861-1929 (with Cleveland/Wilson exceptions). I also indicated it was predicated by Clay and Hamilton through citation and resouces provided by myself and rjensen on that page. It seems you are again disputing historic fact once again on another page, when this was gone over on that page - you are bringing argument here for no reason other than to disrupt the normal editing process. If you are sincere, then there must be a reason why you dispute this. If you read the sources I provide or any other historic book on the era, you will find that America spent large sums of money on what Eisenhower called the 'military indusrial complex' in a race with the Soviet Union during the 1950's-1990 timeframe in order to protect ourselves and the Western world. This expenditure together with the expenditures on our Interstate Highway system, and through NASA's space program, and the public works projects initiated by FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson etc. continued what was a push to stimulate the economy with government expenditure. Collins in particular speaks of this. By your very questions, you seem to be indicating that this was never done. That America did not make such expenditures, that we never practiced the American System of protective tariffs, internal improvements, and national banking. If this is your assertion, which any observer might reasonably conclude from your statements; then by what sources do you claim this? I would like to read them. You may read mine by going to your local library, or buying them. You may read any legitimate economics book or history book and obtain the information on both the system of economics America practiced until 1929, the system after 1929 until 1980 roughly (very Keynesian etc.). If you going to challenge my edits and sources, then provide exact reasons for doing so...otherwise your simply disrupting this page to make a point, following me here to harass from other pages, bring disputes from another article here (ie. American System already hashed out there with citations online) etc. So what say you? --Northmeister 11:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You told me before you could source the material, now you're arguing for why you don't need to. If you don't have sources for the assertions in the sentence then let's dorp it. It isn't about the subject of the article anyway. -Will Beback 20:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What? The sources are there, they are linked within the page, there is even online sources; the local library holds the others for free...as I have said I have done what is required and done so thoroughly as I always do; as I will never add something without relevance and factual knowledge to back it up. The statement above which is obviously false, indicates to all that either you are being facetious here or you are engaged in stalking and harassment; because those said editors can see my sources for themselves above and on the page. Lastly, you refuse to engage in discussion, but simply accuse and ask question as if this is an inquisition; this is very bad faith on your part. I've asked you questions above, where are your answers? Discussion and TALK is a two-way street. --Northmeister 02:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Which source says that "the largest middle class in the world that had been built up under the prior American System policies of the United States followed from 1861-1929"? Thanks, -Will Beback 02:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, the sources are provided...your answers to my questions above? Talk is two way. --Northmeister 02:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Please give me the direct quote. After you answer this question, which I've been been trying to get an answer to for days, I'll be happy to answer yours. -Will Beback 02:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The article flatly asserts that the economic system of the U.S. from 1861-1929 was the American System and that it was responsible for creating the largest middle class. Which economist or historian makes this claim? -Will Beback 02:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Answer to question one you already know by our discussion you brought here from American System page against wiki-policy and standards, where I provide sources (numerous and online) to indicate this. Question number two in the above statement is predicated on the notion that either the Middle Class did not exist, which is nonsense or two that something else built it during those years. If that is the case, what? I have asked several questions above and wish an answer. Discussion and talk is a two way street. Once you answer my questions, then I will in a talk manner answer yours. I have already answered you thoroughly by providing citations and references according to wiki-standards. It is your turn to answer my questions upon which I will then engage yours. I have done enough, but I am a honest and forthright person who will work with others who work with him. I have nothing to hide, so answer my questions and engage in discussion..it is a two way street. --Northmeister 02:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

To show the spirit of cooperation which I am always inclined to engage in; since wikipedia is a collaborative effort of editors; I have provided an online source to back up the middle class section further. Here is a quote from that, since you would likely challenge any quote I gave that was not directly found by googling; and have thus not accepted my edits on AGF basis and have indirectly or directly challenged my honor by challenging my sources; hence not to engage in this charade by yourself any longer but to give you an online reference to google about:

• "From Abraham Lincoln to Herbert Hoover, American politics was dominated by a bargain between capitalists and workers; high tariffs on imports served the interests of both, by protecting goods from foreign competition. In addition, the dominant industrial labor force successfully lobbied the government to protect it from competition with other groups...child-labor laws removed children from the work force, and "family wage" or "breadwinner" systems—which paid married fathers more than unmarried, childless men—encouraged married women to become homemakers. Today nostalgic conservatives attribute the prosperity of the 1920s to free enterprise. In reality the market was rigged. A product of the early industrial era, the second American middle class was largely limited to the industrial states of the Northeast and the Midwest...Economics goes a long way toward explaining why elite progressives from the North teamed up with southern and western populists in the New Deal coalition that lasted from 1932 until the 1960s. The New Dealers created the third American middle class." - Michael Lind, New America Foundation...see link on main page. This quote backs up material more sufficiently and further adds to what Collins and especially Gardner had to say on the subject. Work with me not against me, and Talk is a TWO WAY street. --Northmeister 05:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that source. I have re-written the text to summarize what the source wrote. -Will Beback 05:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, Talk is two way, and you refuse to engage in civil discourse. You have failed to answer my questions above when I provided you a quote. You wrote: "Please give me the direct quote. After you answer this question, which I've been been trying to get an answer to for days, I'll be happy to answer yours." Well answers? --Northmeister 01:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The article 'in and of itself'

After reading the article in full, I find it just doesn't handle well. I think in several parts it diverges from the point of explaining 'laissez-faire' and gets to confusing. Further, I don't like the opening paragraph all to well. The opening paragraph should explain the meaning, the history should explain those behind the meaning and movements per say and its comparison to 'free market' which is most often used as a word instead of 'laissez-faire' today. That is not to say that my edits are wrong or others edits; it is just that to much other stuff and not enough on laissez-faire. There is ample room for a contrast section. What do others think? I might work on a sandbox version to straighten this out. I think at the very least we should work paragraph to paragraph on sorting this stuff out to make for a better read; and to cover the necessary components. --Northmeister 13:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Every article in Wikipedia can be improved. We're working on the history section now, in particular the "Cold War" section. Can we please remove the non-laissez faire material, as you suggest? -Will Beback 20:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest nothing of the kind without a full revision which would be better to start from the beginning and work down. We can do a better job at it than it presently exists, that I am certain. RJII what do you think? Let any editor work on the opening, present their version here; and we can collaborate towards a enhanced version that includes each of our visions for the article. I will await your answer. Will Beback you may contribute as well, just give us your opening to consider below. When all our openings are presented, we will compare, contrast, and ensure a worthy article top-down getting to Cold War when we cross that bridge. --Northmeister 01:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Each of our visions? How about we fnish up with sourcing your added material first? -Will Beback 02:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to participate in editing the article and collaborative discussion or are you only going to engage in harassing statements - which is it? --Northmeister 02:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Asking for sources is not harassment. -Will Beback 02:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not! But, when one engages in "Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking);...editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.;...a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely." IS. American System, Laissez-faire, Privatization, Mixed Economy, Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan...the articles I have contributed to you follow and delete my material without discussion or interrupt the discussion to make a point about American System, that was already resolved with numerous citations there to primary and secondary sources backed up by two other editors including an outside editor you initially invited into the discussion who sided with me and provided sources of his own. Just look at what you have done to an overture to improve this article through collaboration! You have again refused to work matters out and consider wikipedia talk pages your own personal court of inquisition. Your not here to improve the article, your here to disrupt - even when faced with sources you can easily obtain; some of which are online. --Northmeister 02:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do a major re-write, with lots of deletions, without discussing it here. Is there a problem with the existing text? -Will Beback 05:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote some of it, rather than deleting. Anything I may have deleted that was out of context or did not flow smoothly, may be added back in by the contributor if they think my edit was wrong. Also I reorganize some of it, so rather than deleted, it is just put in another order. Again, this is about collaboration. As I stated way above as my original purpose for this section of talk...I wanted to work on it top down with each interested editor who wished to contribute to make it a better article. This is only a start. Anything you wish to add to the article to improve it? --Northmeister 06:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

We're working on it. It'd help if you could break your edits down and do it more slowly, so we can discuss your changes individually, as you proposed. Please leave the Carey and the American System out of the article, unless you have a source which links or contrasts them. Cheers, -Will Beback 06:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The American System was real whether you want to accept it or not, in contrast to the British System...study any American history book...it was also called the 'National System' by Friedrich List....Further Carey was a leading economist in America and it would not do to leave him out; that would be censorship. --Northmeister 06:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Adding them, without any source that connects them, is original research. "Any history book" will typiclaly say that the American System was Henry Clay's idea, and will not mention it in the context of the 20th Century, or contrast it to Laissez faire. -Will Beback 11:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No, there is abundant sources to connect them, already gone over at American System page - now you are engaged in a very similar dispute here. You have violated yet another wikipedia tenet of not bringing disputes from one article to another. Since you are aware of the factualness of the American System and the term being used at the turn of the century and later; then your simply engaging in arguments in order to harass me. Harassment is against wikipedia policy. --Northmeister 01:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"Abundant sources". That what you kept saying at that talk page too, but you never provided them. Again, please provide at least one source which backs up your assertion. -Will Beback 02:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You are now obligated on your word to respond to me. That is called talk. Answer my questions above as you said you would. --Northmeister 02:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC) -Provide them I did, any user can see so by how many are there. Answers to my questions above? --Northmeister 02:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I said I'd answer them as soon as you provided a source for your assertion. Why is is so hard to produce one of these "abundant source" you mentioned? -Will Beback 02:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I provided an online source to wit:

• ""From Abraham Lincoln to Herbert Hoover, American politics was dominated by a bargain between capitalists and workers; high tariffs on imports served the interests of both, by protecting goods from foreign competition. In addition, the dominant industrial labor force successfully lobbied the government to protect it from competition with other groups...child-labor laws removed children from the work force, and "family wage" or "breadwinner" systems—which paid married fathers more than unmarried, childless men—encouraged married women to become homemakers. Today nostalgic conservatives attribute the prosperity of the 1920s to free enterprise. In reality the market was rigged. A product of the early industrial era, the second American middle class was largely limited to the industrial states of the Northeast and the Midwest...Economics goes a long way toward explaining why elite progressives from the North teamed up with southern and western populists in the New Deal coalition that lasted from 1932 until the 1960s. The New Dealers created the third American middle class." - Michael Lind, New America Foundation...see link on main page. This quote backs up material more sufficiently and further adds to what Collins and especially Gardner had to say on the subject. Work with me not against me, and Talk is a TWO WAY street. --Northmeister 05:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)" Even though I was under no obligation to do so. Now, your answers to my questions. --Northmeister 03:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Outright Vandalism and Disruption by Reversion

Will Beback, do not revert entire edits and then bring an excuse in edit summary that is and OUTRIGHT LIE, here is what I said earlier I was going to do and welcomed others to help out after my starting process:

"After reading the article in full, I find it just doesn't handle well. I think in several parts it diverges from the point of explaining 'laissez-faire' and gets to confusing. Further, I don't like the opening paragraph all to well. The opening paragraph should explain the meaning, the history should explain those behind the meaning and movements per say and its comparison to 'free market' which is most often used as a word instead of 'laissez-faire' today. That is not to say that my edits are wrong or others edits; it is just that to much other stuff and not enough on laissez-faire. There is ample room for a contrast section. What do others think? I might work on a sandbox version to straighten this out. I think at the very least we should work paragraph to paragraph on sorting this stuff out to make for a better read; and to cover the necessary components" I did it in sandbox as I said I would! YOU REVERTED AFTER I EXPLAINED WHAT I WAS TO DO, and THAT I WELCOMED DISCUSSION and WORK WITH OTHERS! YOUR REVERSIONS ARE UNCALLED FOR and HARASSMENT. I am making a point of protest. --Northmeister 06:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What sandbox? I think that's a good idea. Let's go back to where we were and work on changes in a sandbox. Talk:Laissez-faire/temp. Cheers, -Will Beback 11:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I offered sandbox and you responsed with more argument. So I then re-wrote the article to make it more accurate. If you have problems with paragraph one, let me know now. We will go paragraph by paragraph. Paragraph One, any problems there? --Northmeister 01:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's workk on it in a sandbox, per your suggestion. -Will Beback 02:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's answer my questions as you said you would...and we proceed from there. --Northmeister 02:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Still awaiting your answers

Will Beback wrote: "Please give me the direct quote. After you answer this question, which I've been been trying to get an answer to for days, I'll be happy to answer yours."

I answered thoroughly with an online source so you could check, a source that was even more direct than the original source I used.

Your answers to the my questions? --Northmeister 03:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)