Talk:Classical liberalism

Bias - Joeedh (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This article violates the neutral point of view in a number of ways, some of which I list here.

American 19th buisiness depressions

This quote makes a clear judgement:

Despite the common recurrence of depressions, classical liberalism remained the orthodox belief among American businessmen until the Great Depression.

The causes of the 19th century American business depressions are disputed by historians, but are usually blamed on a fragmented financial system and the lack of a central bank, not economic ideology.

My impression is that the lack of a central bank was due to economic ideology.Rick Norwood (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Your impression? So, I suppose it had nothing to do with 19th century populism and Andrew Jackson's distrust of money power? If classical liberal theory was as anti-central-banking as you claim, why didn't any of the other classical liberal powers (like Britain) abolish there central banks? Joeedh (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson's administration, which was the first to adopt classical liberal economic theory, abolished the central bank and encouraged fragmentation. But the text does not say that classical liberalism was the cause of recesssions. Modern liberalism differed from classical liberalism in its response to recession. To varying degrees welfare programs help those hardest hit, while spending is aimed to stimulate the economy.TFD (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No, modern liberalism uses central banks to smooth out the business cycle. Paul Krugman himself calls our current mess "highly unusual" and that vulgar Keynesian solutions "work now, but not in normal times." By no means does modern liberalism embrace discretionary countercyclical fiscal policy. The global neoliberal movement wasn't significantly damaged by the Great Recession, despite the high hopes of leftists for a return to traditional social democracy. Joeedh (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand your comments. Following classical liberal policies, Jackson abolished the central bank. Whether or not that was a good thing is not commented on in this article. TFD (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

4D's argument is supported explictly by Susan Hoffmann (2001). Politics and Banking: Ideas, Public Policy, and the Creation of Financial Institutions. JHU Press. p. 16. Rjensen (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Irish Potato Famine

A rigid belief in laissez-faire also guided government response in 1846–1849 to the Great Famine in Ireland, during which an estimated 1.5 million people died

Ethnic prejudice, not laissez-faire, blocked government assistance during the Irish Potato Famine. A prime minister early into the crisis did start public works projects, but was ousted from power and replaced by a prime minister who hated Irishmen. The political rhetoric were couched in terms of laissez-faire, but ethnic prejudice was the larger factor.

From Wikipedia's own article:

Sir Charles Trevelyan, who was in charge of the administration of Government relief to the victims of the Irish Famine, limited the Government's actual relief because he thought "the judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson".

(By the way, you can see the source cited for this sentence here).

Motives are very hard to sort out, and in most cases we have to go with statements because that is all we have. Some people who praise laissez-faire invoke God to explain poverty and wealth, but their reason for wanting laissez-faire economics is, like all human motives, complicated. I do note that the section on the Irish has been rewritten recently. Is it improved? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The famine article also says that "Sir James Graham, who had served as Home Secretary in Sir Robert Peel's late government, wrote to Peel that, in his opinion, "the real extent and magnitude of the Irish difficulty are underestimated by the Government, and cannot be met by measures within the strict rule of economical science."" Bigotry and prejudice probably played a role too, but then that could be said about any policy on welfare. And Trevelyan was not in charge of setting the policy but, as a civil servant, responsible for carrying it out. TFD (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You're rationalizing. How can you possibly deny that ethnic prejudice was the dominant faction, after this: "the judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson." Political will matters a great deal, and if the people in charge of administering aid oppose it, and are simply going through the motions, that aid will be ineffective. That's as true today as it was then, by the way. Joeedh (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The same thing is said about neoliberals today. They cut welfare payments because they do not wish to encourage dependency. Welfare is a hand-up not a hand-out. Are they trying to help the poor or to hurt them? Are they racist because most poor people are minorities? TFD (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That's offensive. Most of my relatives are white trash who've abused welfare programs at one point or another (my parents are "chain-breakers" who escaped that culture). There are plenty of places in America (and the world) where welfare recipients are the same race as the local majority. I don't understand this attitude that bad parts of town or poor people are always black. Joeedh (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This edit appears add a view of the famine which is not supported by the sources used.[2][3] The first source (On fairness, p. 344) is used to support the statement, "After Great Famine struck Ireland in 1845, the Corn Laws were finally repealed in 1846...." This implies repeal of the Corn Laws was intended to relieve the famine, while the source says Peel was concerned about the famine extending into England. The next sentence says, "repeal of the Corn Laws came too late to stop the Irish famine, partly because it was done in stages over three years." The source says, "Although repeal was achieved in the summer of 1846, it was too little and too late to have any impact on food shortages in Ireland" (A Death- Dealing famine, p. 59). While repeal of the Corn Laws may or may not have alleviated the famine, it was "too little". The source says on p. 58, "By the spring of 1846, it was becoming increasingly evident in Peel's speeches that the repeal of the Corn Laws was unlikely to benefit the economy of Ireland either in the short or long term". TFD (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

First sentence implies that famine in Ireland was one of the main reason why repeal of the Corn Laws was contemplated. Of course there was a concern that famine will also spread to England but that only straightens the sentence that you removed.

In your second argument, you are mixing "famine" and "economy" - two different things. Second sentence that you removed doesn't talk about economy. Also, if you are quoting from the source please quote all relevant material. Sentence that you quoted: "Although repeal was achieved in the summer of 1846, it was too little and too late to have any impact on food shortages in Ireland" is followed by: "Furthermore, the Corn Laws were dismantled in stages over a period of three years." -- Vision Thing -- 19:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

In other words, immediate repeal of the Corn Laws would have had little or no effect on the famine. (Bear in mind that as Ireland was a major exporter of grains to Great Britain during the famine, repeal of the Corn Laws would have led to lower incomes.) was If you want to add your spin to the story please find a source.

Christine Kinealy, the writer whose book you use as a source explains the connection between the famine and the Corn Laws in her article "Peel, Rotten Potatoes and Providence: The repeal of the Corn Laws and the Irish Famine".[4] There is nothing in her article to indicate that repeal of the Corn Laws would have done anything to alleviate the famine and also note that all duties on imports of foreign grains were suspended before the famine reached its zenith.

TFD (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

How have you reached a conclusion that "immediate repeal of the Corn Laws would have had little or no effect on the famine"? No source says that.

Article "Peel, Rotten Potatoes and Providence: The repeal of the Corn Laws and the Irish Famine" starts with sentence: "The repeal of The Corn Laws in 1846 has tended to be linked inextricably with the onset of the potato famine in Ireland in 1845." While she states that relationship is "complex", according to her this is how connection is usually seen.

For example, Stephen J. Lee writes in his "Aspects of British Political History, 1815-1914" that "The timing of the repeal was dictated by the Irish crisis. [...] Peel was convinced that starvation would occur on a massive scale if urgent action were not taken. But relief could not be provided while the Corn Laws kept the price of bread artificial high." [5] -- Vision Thing -- 21:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Please explain, or rewrite, the following sentence: "It was expected that private enterprise and free trade, rather than government intervention, would alleviate the famine." Expected by whom? Were these expectations realistic? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I put in that this was the expectation of the chancellor. The implication in the source, and also in the writing of Kinnealy, who is considered to be an authority on the famine, is that the expectations were unreasonable, but there are no defenders today of the government's approach. TFD (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

VT, Kinealy was talking about popular opinion. She goes on, "the traditional notion that the need for famine relief in Ireland was a trigger for repeal may be seen as a convenient political myth. In reality, the attempt to link repeal to the need for famine relief was an example of political opportunism and administrative pragmatism rather than a practical proposal intended to alleviate suffering in Ireland." There is no source that immediate repeal of the Corn Laws would have had an effect. However my edits did not say it would not have had an effect. I suppose the fact that the price of grain reached its lowest level sinee 1780 in 1847, the year before the peak of the famine, and that subsidized grain was available at a penny a pound, would mean that the immediate repeal of the corn laws would not have resulted in lower prices in the short term. In any case, you have put a spin on the sources which is OR and in fact not supported by any other sources. No one today defends the actions of the British government during the famine. TFD (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not popular opinion, it's consensus opinion. According to Britannica, "The failure of the Irish potato crop in 1845 persuaded Peel to support the repeal of all Corn Laws, which was achieved in 1846." [6] Also, in your reply you completely ignored source that says "the Corn Laws kept the price of bread artificial high." -- Vision Thing -- 08:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The secondary sources you provided both say that Peel was committed to ending the Corn Laws and the famine provided an excuse, although Kinealy says Peel stopped using it because no one believed repeal would relieve the famine. Your new source about bread says, "If expensive bread forced the English into more reliance on potatoes, thought Peel, the situation would be grave."[7] Note that Ireland is not in England, already relied on potatoes, and the main grains used for food were oats and maize. Ironically this source too says (on the same page), "Peel... was gradually persuaded of the sense of these arguments [repeal of the Corn Laws].... Then in 1845 came news that the potato blight... had struck Ireland."

Here are two more sources that discuss the famine, the Corn Laws and economics.[8][9] The consensus appears to be that the famine was used as a pretext to repeal the Corn Laws, that repeal of the laws would have had little or no effect on suffering, and that the effects of the famine were increased by government's failure to take adequate action. They also say that Malthusian and extreme religious beliefs, which were also elements of classical liberalism, contributed to the inaction, because the famine was seen as either natural or God's will.

TFD (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"Elements of classical liberalism"? I wasn't aware classical liberalism was so organized it had its own religious canon. Do you think Adam Smith would have approved of dead Irishmen as God's very own will? People use religion to justify ideology all the time (political Islamism and the recent "Jesus is a socialist/a free-marketeer" memes come to mind). That doesn't mean a Muslim who, say, believes jihad is an eternal war against one's own foolish pride is necessarily tarred by those who believe jihad is a divine imperative to kill infidels. Joeedh (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe that Smith would have seen the famine as God's will. However, 19th century liberalism combined various elements, including Malthusian pessimism and religious nonconformism. If you can find sources that describe it differently, then please provide them. TFD (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

TFD, I don't know about what you are talking about. Source that you keep deleting, "Aspects of British Political History, 1815-1914", says that "The timing of the repeal was dictated by the Irish crisis. [...] Peel was convinced that starvation would occur on a massive scale if urgent action were not taken. But relief could not be provided while the Corn Laws kept the price of bread artificial high." [10]

As for consensus, Wikipedia policy says that "Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other." That is why I provided Britannica quote, since there are sources that contradict each other Britannica, reliably published tertiary source, shows us what is general consensus. -- Vision Thing -- 11:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Your source says the famine provided a pretext for the repeal, not that it was Peel's motivation for repeal. Even if EB says otherwise, we do not use facts in tertiary sources when they are in conflict with the consensus in secondary sources. That Peel did not think relief could be provided if the corn prices were high is presented as his opinion, not as a fact. Peel intended to buy corn and distribute it to the Irish, hardly a free market solution. But Peel resigned, relief was reduced and tariffs were effectively eliminated. TFD (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

We use tertiary sources to determine what is the consensus in secondary sources. -- Vision Thing -- 11:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

TFD: This edit war is not getting anywhere. Please explain why you find the compromise I suggested unacceptable. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a comparison between my re-written version and the compromise version. The source on bread was speaking about the price of bread in England, not Ireland. There was no expectation that Irish famine victims would start eating bread, which is made using wheat and would require the establishment of bakeries, employment and training of bakers, and distribution systems. The grains consumed in Ireland were oats and maize which would be prepared in individual homes. Also, no source says that repeal of the corn laws would have had any impact on the famine. Tariffs were effectively eliminated by 1847, two years ahead of schedule, and prices dropped to their lowest level since 1780. The source says "too little too late", and does not support the view that immediate repeal would have had any effect. The people affected were subsistence farmers and therefore had little means to buy reduced price grain. What income they had depended on working for landlords who exported grains and meat to England. Lower grain prices would lead to lower wages or termination of employment. if we want to say that elimination of the Corn Laws would have had an effect, then we need a source for that. But even libertarian writers do not say that. TFD (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is the disputed sentence: "The famine was used by the Peel administration as justification for repeal of the protectionist Corn Laws, but had little benefit for Ireland, which exported grains and meat, and provided an argument against government action to alleviate the hunger." Note that it does not say that the repeal of the Corn Laws would help the starving Irish, it says that the Peel administration used that as justification for the repeal. And it says (and you agree) that it had little benefit for Ireland. I'd be happier if the last clause named the group that argued against the repeal.

You clearly know more about this subject than I, but my reading suggests that the Peel administration said, in effect, "Pity the poor Irish, repeal the Corn Laws." and the other side said, "Irish are the scum of the Earth, don't repeal the Corn Laws." That repeal of the Corn Laws had nothing to do with the plight of the Irish is just politics as usual.

What we really need is something more focused on the way Classical Liberalism was viewed at the time. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The Irish through British Eyes: Perceptions of Ireland in the Famine Era,[11] says, "The current consensus of politicial historians is that Peel did in fact primarily use the potato blight as an excuse for repeal of the Corn Laws." The leading opponents of repeal, Disraeli and Bentinck denied the crisis existed. When the repeal was introduced in early 1846 the famine had not yet begun.(pp. 63, 69) [The "Irish are scum" crowd did not oppose repeal of the corn laws".] "The Fall of Peel" in Disraeli's biography says, "even if bread had been made as cheap as it could be by the complete removal of import duties on grain, it would still have been far beyond their purchasing power. [Peel's] principal remedy was to open the ports to duty-free foreign and colonial grain.... The mass of the Irish peasantry lived so far below the bread level that the relatively slight fall in the price, which might be expected to follow, could not have made bread a substitute for potatoes."[12]

i agree here should be something in the article about how classical liberalism was perceived.

TFD (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Your quote certainly seems to confirm the first part of the disputed sentence. But the issue still seems to me to be confused. Did Peel favor Classical Liberal economics, and use the famine as a political club to get what he really wanted, repeal of tariffs? Did Disraeli deny that Irish were starving, or claim that, per Malthus, somebody had to starve, so why not the Irish? The only reason for this subject to be in this article at all is how it relates to Classical Liberalism, therefore we need to know which players advocated Classical Liberal economics and which favored protectionist economics. Did either side favor direct food aid to Ireland, which would be the antithesis of Classical Liberal economics? What role did Christianity play in the debate over Classical Liberalism? We need a good paragraph here, or none at all, and it seems to me that you, TFD, are in the best position to write one, maybe in collaboration with Vision Thing. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

TFD, first of all, "primarily" means just that – primarily. According to your source: "There is no evidence, however, to support the contention that Peel did not believe in the reality of the crisis". From what I can tell from all the sources, Peel believed that repeal of the Corn Laws would be good for Ireland. According to The Routledge Companion To Britain In The Nineteenth Century it was the failure of the Irish potato crop in 1845 and the outbreak of widespread famine in Ireland that persuaded Peel and Parliament of the need to repeal the Corn Laws. [13]

Also, your source says: Protectionists denied Irish distress in the campaign to maintain the status quo. so it is clear that protectionists would do even less for Irish people. -- Vision Thing -- 11:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the two of you, TFD and Vision_Thing, are very close to agreement. You agree that Peel wanted to repeal the Corn Laws. You agree that the repeal didn't do much for the Irish. The big question is, where does Classical Liberalism come into the picture? Neither of TFDs sources use the phrase. Does Routledge?

I am not a historian, but the more I read on this subject, the more interesting it is. Apparently the Conservatives supported protectionist tariffs, because they favored the rich land-owners, while liberals opposed them. Peel broke with his party, and his government fell, because of his support for repeal. Apparently, though he cited the Potato Famine as his reason, his real reason was fear of violent revolution if the Conservatives did not make some concessions (From the Corn Laws to Free Trade, Schonhardt-Bailey). Rick Norwood (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Rick Norwood (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Whether Peel had decided to repeal the corn laws before the famine, which is the consensus of historians, or was persuaded by the famine, which is said in some tertiary sources, is irrelevant to the short mention in the article. (Curiously, Routledge says he was persuaded by the crop damage in 1845, although the famine did not begin until the severe crop failure of 1846.) Rick Norwood's latest source also supports that view. He certainly used it as justification for repeal of the corn laws. The issue is whether this represented an adequate response. All the sources I have seen say it did not. (I agree that the two sources I provided that Peel intended to repeal the Corn Laws before the famine do not mention classical liberalism.) The passage is not about the Corn Laws it is about the famine. Sources say that the only way the famine could have been minimized would have been the extension of government relief. In fact, Peel's Conservative government began to do this, with the support of the "protectionists", but the new Liberal government ended these efforts. Modern governments, even the most free-market ones, do provide assistance to their own citizens during natural disasters, as happened in the U.S. in response to 9/11, Hurricane Katrina and mining disasters.

Richardson refers to "the second [phase of contending liberalisms] over the economic and social implications of liberal values ("classical" versus "social" liberalism")" in the introduction to his article (p. 17), but calls the section "Second Phase: Laissez-faire vs. Social Liberalism" (p. 32). The subsection is called "Political Economy", which is defined as "laissez-faire economic policy"(op. 32). About the famine he says, "In England itself the effect of the ideology was always tempered by politcal crosscurrents.... Ireland experienced the effects of the doctrine in its purest form" (p. 34). This supports inclusion of the comment, "A rigid belief in laissez-faire guided the government response" in the Politcal Economy section of the article.

The other source I used, Russell's biography says, "Tragically, the famine took place at a time when laissez-farie and Malthusian population theories were predominant. The classical economists argued that the government should not intervene in the economy, since it did more harm than good." (p. 158) Again it appears relevant to the article.

TFD (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Both of these quotes are on topic. Maybe the Corn Laws, though superficially they sound like something Classical Liberalism would get involved with, are a red herring. Maybe the Classical Liberal repsonse to the Irish Famine is the real reason to have a paragraph on this subject. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The Corn Laws are already mentioned twice in the article under "History" and "Political Economy". While the famine may have triggered the debate that lead to final repeal, they were effectively suspended for Ireland before the famine began. I believe we should mention the famine because it is often presented as an example of the effects of a doctrinaire approach to a natural disaster. No sources have been provided that present an alternative interpretation. TFD (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Will you write it or shall I? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you write it. TFD (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that if we are going to address issue of Irish famine there should be some discussion why that happened. Main reason why Irish people were suffering is that they were a colony of England. If someone has a slave and lets him to die from hunger, you can't say that is a consequence of his classical liberal ideology or let it be. It seems that prevailing view in England at that time was that Irish were a lower class of people and that there was a strong anti-Catholic bias, so the ideology was at most just a cover for actions of the government.

Richardson is not a historian or expert in liberalism. According to his book description [14], he wrote his book as a polemic, with intention to present "wide-ranging critique of current endeavours to construct a world order based on neoliberal ideology", so it is hardly a neutral source. In my opinion it shouldn't be used at all. -- Vision Thing -- 10:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It is an acadmic book. The author is a professor emeritus in international relations, the book was published by Lynne Rienner Publishers, an independent scholarly and textbook publishing firm that publishes in the fields of international studies and comparative politics in relation to the world. The chapter in the book previously appeared in an earlier academic book by Richardson and was published in the peer-reviewed European Journal of International Relations (1997). A Google Scholar search returns 214 hits[15] and the article has been used as part of university political science courses. The passage is sourced to Anthony Arblaster's Rise and Decline of Western Liberalism (Anthony Arblaster, Wiley-Blackwell, 1987). You are confusing reliability with neutrality. Sources must be reliable, we must be neutral.

Ireland was not a colony of England, but under the Acts of Union 1800 was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Catholics had been granted full civil rights under the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, which is mentioned in the article as one of the successes of classical liberalism. Although Home Rule was not yet an issue, it would be championed by classical liberals.

The other sources presented provide the same conclusions. If they are wrong then you need a source that says so.

TFD (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Classical Liberalism is a belief system. The importance of the famine in Ireland is not what caused it, as far as this article is concerned. Presumably a potato blight caused it. But rather the importance here is how a belief in Classical Liberalism influenced the behavior of politicians at the time. We need examples of politicians who expressed Classical Liberal beliefs and who based their recommendations about the famine on those beliefs.

I'll try writing it up, at TFD's request, but I really think he would be able to do a better job. If Vision_Thing would like to help, that would be appreciated.

Rick Norwood (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I wrote two versions.[16][17] I prefer the first because we already mention that the Economist campaigned for free trade and already discuss the Corn Laws. I would rather you wrote the section. TFD (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, taking parts for both of your versions, and the quotes above, here is a first draft of a suggested paragraph. I'll work on putting the references in order next. You, TFD, will need to fill in the info on Russell's biography. Comments? Suggestions?:

Despite the pragmatism of classical economists, their views were expressed in dogmatic terms by such popular writers as Jane Marcet and Harriet Martineau. The strongest defender of laissez-faire was The Economist founded by James Wilson in 1843. The Economist criticized Ricardo for his lack of support for free trade and expressed hostility to welfare, believing that the lower orders were responsible for their economic circumstances. The Economist took the position that regulation of factory hours was harmful to workers and also strongly opposed state support for education, health, the provision of water, and granting of patents and copyrights. The Economist also campaigned against the Corn Laws that protected landlords in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland against competition from less expensive foreign imports of cereal products.

In 1845, the Irish potato crop was destroyed by a blight, and there was widespred famine. At first strict laissez-faire principles governed government policy toward Ireland. Malthusian population theories dominated. The Conservatives fought to keep tarriffs and prices high, classical economists refused to consider any form of direct aid. Prejudice against the Irish also played a part.

Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel broke with his party and agreed to the repeal of the Corn Laws, using the famine as an excuse, but in fact the repeal did nothing to help the Irish. Absentee landlords continued to export food from Ireland while the Irish starved, and the little relief Peel offered was scaled back by Lord John Russell... As far as British politics went, the split between protectionist and free-trade factions could not be mended, and the Conservative government fell.

Nobody has commented on this version, and I hesitate to add it to the article without comments, one way or the other. Also, TFD, please provide the reference for your "Russell's biography". Rick Norwood (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Russell biography. Here is a link to an academic paper, "Classical Economics and the Great Irish Famine".

I have trouble with the last two paragraphs of your re-write. Peel actually began relief policies but they were scaled back by Russell. The relief began before the onset of the famine. Also it implies that repeal of the Corn Laws was an attempt to alleviate the famine, and would have been effective and implicitly criticizes the Conservatives for opposing it. I cannot find any source that argues in support of the British government's approach.

TFD (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I've done a rewrite of the last two paragraphs. See if this is closer to the mark. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Emphasis on Anti-Charity Anti-Welfare Faction

I find the emphasis on Social Darwinism (an intellectual disease hardly limited to classical liberalism) also disturbing. The article seems to use it as a bludgeon against libertarians. I agree that modern libertarianism is problematic (to put it mildly), but that isn't relevant to this article.

This is Wikipedia; rewrites are always an option. If you decide to do a major rewrite of this article, I recommend doing a little at a time, and waiting for comments before going on to the next bit. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about libertarianism. TFD (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It should not be, but in my opinion it is. Joeedh (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

In The Making of Modern Economics (M. E. Sharpe, 2009), Mark Skousen, who is a libertarian, says that 19th century liberalism came under the influence of Malthus and Ricardo, whom he believes misinterpreted Adam Smith, and this error was only corrected with the advent of neo-classical liberalism in the 1870s.[18] There is no difference in interpretation between them and the sources used for the article. TFD (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Frederick Bastiat

I question the inclusion of Frederick Bastiat in the lead. He wrote long after classical liberalism had developed and is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. It is probably more accurate to say that he was a major influence on Austrian economics. The source, the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, says "he was the preeminent advocate of [classical] liberal thinking in France during a crucial stage of history."[19] Yet there is nothing in the article about French liberalism. I will remove his name from the lead. If someone wants to add a section on French classical liberalism to the article, then we can mention his significance. TFD (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Bastiat was a minor intellectual figure and a very popular writer best known for witty short essays. Politicians read him, but few economists. As for original ideas, perhaps you could point to his use of counterfactual assumptions ("what would have happened if this subsidy had not existed is XYZ and that is better than what did happen ABC") He seems to take most of his ideas directly from Adam Smith. Béraud and Etner (1993) say he never founded a school and his ideas were rejected by the leading economists of his time. [Revue d'Economie Politique, 1993, Vol. 103 Issue 2, pp 287-304] Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Carlyle's "dismal science" remark

The article says: "The pessimistic nature of these theories led to Carlyle calling economics the dismal science and it provided a basis of criticism of capitalism by its opponents".

This is actually false. The actual reason why Carlyle called economics "the dismal science" is that most economists of his time strongly opposed slavery: http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/LevyPeartdismal.html

I'm assuming that Mills (the reference used for the claim) simply imagined a reason for why Carlyle would have called it "dismal", rather than actually reading Carlyle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upsidown (talk • contribs) 06:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If true, this should be in the article. I always thought economics was called the "dismal science" because econ 101 teachers were boring. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

That is David M. Levy's personal reading of Carlyle, but does not appear to have influenced the mainstream view. Note that the source used was written after Levy's book was published. As Levy acknowledges, "almost everyone knows that it was given this description by Thomas Carlyle, who was inspired to coin the phrase by T. R. Malthus's gloomy prediction...." Can you provide any sources that show that Levy's views have gained any acceptance? TFD (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand this usage of "mainstream view". You mean, "the mainstream view of what Carlyle meant"? Surely there is a fact of the matter about why Carlyle used the phrase, independent of whether many people suppose something else erroneously. Austinecon (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of economists who have read Carlyle's essay have come to the same conclusion. While it may be that they are all wrong and Levy is right, we need to present the mainstream interpretation, per WP:WEIGHT. Here is a link to Carlyle's essay. Carlyle does not say "I call it the dismal science because it opposes slavery" and in any case classical liberals were divided on slavery. He does say that under the principles of classical economics, the West Indies would have to experience famine before pre-emancipation levels of production would return. TFD (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The references cited so far don't seem to be giving evidence of economists reading and giving an interpretation of Carlyle. Even the Mill reference just says, essentially, "19th century economics was depressing, and therefore it really deserves the moniker of 'dismal science,'" which is somewhat different. (You're right, the hypothetical quote you give does not appear in the Carlyle essay. But even setting aside the title, the paragraph where he first uses the phrase "dismal science" does refer to support for Black emancipation but does not refer to the iron law of wages or Malthusian population theory.) Do we have other references that suggest this is how Carlyle is in fact read by the overwhelming majority? If there are, they might be better citations.Austinecon (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

See for example Diane Coyle's The Soulful Science: What Economists Really Do and Why It Matters, Princeton University Press, 2010, p.42. "[Malthus' "Essay on the principle of population"] earned economics the description the "dismal science" from historian Thomas Carlyle."[20] I notice that the source you originally provided was from the Library of Economics and Liberty. Sources like that tend to present an alternative view to the mainstream. While these views may in fact be correct and the mainstream views wrong, Wikipedia policy requires that we assign greater weight to mainstream views. Levy appears to be arguing the libertarian view that slavery was a remnant of feudalism and not part of capitalism. Carlyle is a convenient scapegoat for the system which was supported by Jefferson and Jackson. TFD (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Not my link. (Though much of Econlib seems to be fairly standard stuff. Not that it doesn't sometimes have a POV (though which POV will vary), but I wouldn't call it generically heterodox in the profession.) Do we have a cite that deals with the Carlyle text directly, or (in the interest of being mainstream) doesn't refer to modern economics as "autistic economics" at the same link?Austinecon (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The source(s) provided are adequate to support the text. If you want to persue this further, I suggest you take it to a noticeboard. But it seems a waste of time to promote an unusual and unnoticed reading of Carlyle that contradicts mainstream consensus. Having read Carlyle's article, I am puzzled by Levy's conclusions. TFD (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

If you read Carlyle's article, you will see that it is solely about the foolishness of opposing slavery, and that it does not even mention Say, Ricardo, or Smith, as the Wikipedia article currently and falsely implies. He says that supply and demand don't work in the slavery context, because former slaves are too lazy to work on their own given that pumpkins are so plentiful in the West Indies. (Yes, he really was that racist.) In any event, the fact that "mainstream" people have sugarcoated Carlyle's views does not excuse the incorporation of obvious falsehoods into Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.86.141 (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Policy requires us to use the mainstream interpretation regardless of whether or not it is wrong. If you disagree with that approach, then you need to persuade Wikipedia to change its policies. TFD (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I will open a dispute resolution noticeboard. We are challenging your view that the current interpretation is either correct or "mainstream," meaning it is accepted by most experts. Also, I believe TFD is slightly misrepresenting Wikipedia's policy: just because a lot of people, even most, believe something does not mean it is what should be on Wikipedia if it cannot be sourced as the consensus view of experts. ZG (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The actual source of the quote being referenced is a better cite than someone's opinion about the quote. Really, this whole section looks like someone simply decided to restate one particular book's opinion on the matter, rather then seeking a variety of mainstream views. I suppose that's one of the reasons the article's POV is questioned above.151.151.109.5 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no evidence of a "mainstream interpretation" other than Mills' one-sided critique of economics as a profession. Moreover, the "mainstream" is often wrong -- if the "mainstream" falsely attributes a quotation to Mark Twain (as is often the case), it is a completely stupid rule to say that the "mainstream" and FALSE opinion should be what is represented as the truth on Wikipedia. So please, stop pushing stupidity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.86.141 (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Our article dismal science sucks and needs love. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)