Talk:Post–World–War–II economic expansion

Economics High‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cold War High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Walkman316 (article contribs).

Soviet Union?

Why isn't the Soviet Union mentioned? It had one of the highest growth rates in this period... --TIAYN (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Economic aftermath of war

This section should be removed. It's fringe, unsupported and of questionable relevance.

"Economists employing Marxian economic analysis and Crisis theory argue that the period of prosperity was a temporary phase in capitalist development fueled by a revival of capital stock, large pools of labor and raw materials, and technological innovation emerging from the end of the Second World War and the scale of defeats of the international working class.[11] This era of prosperity helped prop up the perspective that the crises and business cycles inherent to capitalism could be solved through macroeconomic Keynesian policies, when in actuality the fundamental instabilities of capitalism had not been resolved.[12]"122.106.62.194 (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Economic aftermath of war

I'm dubious as to this section's compliance with npov, in part because both sources within come from a site called marxist.org. Could we get a different source making the same argument, perhaps? Additionally, the subsection name seems to summarize the argument, while the following section seems to identify a group of policies. (ie. if the sections shared a naming scheme, the first would perhaps be called "Crisis theory") Perhaps this section could benefit from some rewording and contrast with the section immediately after? The transition between such opposite opinions is currently rather jarring. Serrion (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Folsom and Folsom's book

I don't feel there's anything salvageable in this section, but for now I've trimmed it a bit and rewritten it to make it clear that this is just the opinion of those authors, while slapping an undue weight tag on it. Since Folsom and Folsom aren't economists, they really don't belong here; if it's going to be kept, we need to find other sources. I'll swing back around in a few days and delete it properly if no additional sources have been found. --Aquillion (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I salvaged his main points, which are quite useful and relevant. Burton W. Folsom Jr. is notable enough for his own article. He is a libertarian specialist in US Economic history --that is the topic of this article--it is not about economic theory. He has numerous historical articles in the Journal of Southern History, Pacific Historical Review, Journal of American Studies, Great Plains Quarterly, The American Spectator, and The Wall Street Journal. The cite used here is from a book from Simon & Schuster-- a major publisher of serious nonfiction (it's one of the 5 largest publishers & is part of CBS News). Coauthor Anita Folsom (I assume it's his wife) is not nearly as notable but she has published in the Wall Street Journal, the Detroit News, Continuity, the American Spectator, Human Events, etc. Rjensen (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added text on Postwar shock

@Shfur0306: Thanks for trying to base the article on empirical research. However, some of the text you're putting into the article does not make sense in English. I recommend you work with someone fluent in English to make the language understandable and make it clear what you are trying to say. I'm moving the below text onto the Talk page for you or other editors to work on improving it.

===Postwar Shock, Reconstruction=== According to many empirical research, Postwar boom mostly has to do with Postwar Shock, Reconstruction Effects. Since, Many industries and infrastructures had been destroyed before the World War ended, There needed lots of demand for reconstruction and rebound from depressed potential production.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Vonyó |first=Tamás |title=Post-war reconstruction and the Golden Age of economic growth |url=https://academic.oup.com/ereh/article-abstract/12/2/221/432753 |journal=European Review of Economic History |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=221–241}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Eichengreen |last2=Ritschl |date= |title=Understanding West German economic growth in the 1950s |url=https://rdcu.be/ciSIe |journal=Cliometrica 3 |pages=191–219}}</ref>

MartinPoulter (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious Editing Activity

The edits from Shfur0306 are not only destroying legitimate copy from older versions of the article, he is dropping suspicious links, using URL shorteners. Further edits from that account should be prevented. Michael Martinez (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a vandalism warning on the user's talk page per Wikipedia guidelines. Michael Martinez (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about yourself? I've never done vandalism just reasonable editing as usual and I've cited some empirical research and the paper before i edited was terrible, cause it didn't have any reasonable sources like mine. Books can't be wholly reliable like research from journals. If you don't like it, then bring some empirical ones and refute mine. (To User: Michael Martinez) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shfur0306 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now left 2 vandalism warnings on his account. User and Talk pages. I will escalate the situation to the Vandalism board if this abuse continues. Michael Martinez (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shfur0306: Please take on board the feedback you have been given on this page. You are deleting sourced text for insufficient reason, using URL shorteners for which there is no good reason, and adding text which has to be immediately removed because it is nothing like comprehensible English. Do not delete information that is sourced; if you have better information, please cite it in a transparent way. Thanks User:Michael Martinez for taking action. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user (IP address 62.235.142.209) removed the "West" from "West Germany", making the article historically inaccurate. I suspect a political motivation for the change. It certainly isn't a good one. Michael Martinez (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]