Talk:American School (economics)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]


Original research[edit]

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

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

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

I hope there can be some agreement on the following:

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

Gazpacho 21:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Those points look correct to me. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the Lincoln material as this article deals with the American/Philadephia/National School Michael Lind, among others in their works talk about. The three points are true, the one about original research is not - as A and B concur, and there is no C as A and B are the same. There is no taking A (which is one thing) and B (which is another) and developing C (a new synthesis) - A (speaks of the American School) and B (speaks of the American School) all derived from Hamilton as the sources indicate. That said, GAZPACHO - I am willing to work with you to improve this article and to make any changes necessary. I am unwilling to work with WillBeback who once again resorted to namecalling on your talk page once again linking me with the LaRouche crowd, once again the 'guilt by association' technique of McCarthyism - which is why peoples political views should NEVER matter or be censored - only their editing pattern. But I was raised in America, so I take that for granted. --Northmeister 00:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lengthy Michael Lind quotation appears to go beyond fair use. Can't we just summarize his statement? Also, the link to it is no longer active.[1] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'd ask you reconsider. My concerns stated, I do think your editing skills and lack of being a part of previous 'editing' would be helpful. I'd like to give you time to offer your contributions to the article and am only concerned with accuracy and readability. The edits you made previously in the wording of the opening paragraph were excellent. Thanks for the try thus far and I welcome you back anytime as I can work with anyone honestly trying to edit. --Northmeister 12:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A good start might be restoring the edits that Gazpacho made. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deadlink[edit]

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

Sorry, I didn't include that in the edit summary. I deleted that because we already have a link to the entire "Harmony of Interests". Is there a reason to have both in the "further reading" section? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is your definition of extremism? Are you calling Alan Tonelson an extemist and if so why? --Northmeister 13:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sierratimes.com is the website I was calling "extremist". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User 24*[edit]

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

Another possibility is that User 24* was Gazpacho editing while logged-out. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

We could start with the material that was removed, then restored. That would be the long, now-unsourced, Lind quotation, the lengthy section on platforms (which may be original research), and the long section on other economic beliefs. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually - this article is a result of the work of WAS a highly honorable and congenial editor who attempted to work out a solution between our past dispute. I have not worked on it for a year doing and moving on to other things. The article needs extensive work and belongs with American System frankly. Although "American School" is interchangeable for the over-all philosophical view of the Hamilton-Clay-Carey-Lincoln-GOP (which lead to German Historic School in Germany etc.) the more common term is "American System" to describe not Clay's program (which it is he who popularized the term) but America's economic system prior to the modern era. Simply, Progressivism and then the New Deal side by side with the emergence of Keynesianism and the re-emergence of Classical Economonists in form of Friedman etc. eventually replaced the American System with a new system of competing left/right views. The historic usage of the term American System is well defined and should be covered. The historic links between Clay and Lincoln, between the Whigs and the early Republican Party are also well defined by numerous authors - all provided on this articles page in further reading or in direct sources. Your main concern from everything I gather, is the term being used by Lyndon LaRouche and his organization. To be frank, when I started on Wikipedia I had no idea of this man or his works. You've educated me with all this debate. I concur (so long as the Arbcom concurs anyway) that any usage of material to promote this group or man etc. should be excluded from ideas associated with him or his organization or however that goes. That however does not get to the basic point all along - that credible reliable sources indicate the terms use well beyond Clay and in America's economic system being described as such throughout the nineteenth century. The very policies became known as not only the American System - but the National System - the Protective System etc. and were followed (and debated) throughout American History til the modern era. Carey in particular was active as late as the 1870's in publishing material in defense of the American System as descriptive opposed to the British System which was Free Trade (which they had followed starting with the repeal of the Corn Laws etc.) - All this belongs in the American System article or under American System (economic philosophy) - Clay's part thereof - American System (economic program) fitting in that context. Again, both American School and System are interchangeable by modern authors and old. I moved a year ago towards the present solution for harmony - since that has been violated - I must insist we return this material to its proper place or work on your hangups with the material then return it where it belongs as proposed above. We need to move in this direction. --Northmeister 01:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article titled the "American System" should be limited to the American System, a three point plan made famous by Henry Clay. Any information we have on that topic is fine to include. But individual elements of that plan, such as higher tariffs or internal improvements, are not the American System. That's the same argument that caused us to split the articles and nothing has changed since then. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Individual elements? Caused the split? Where have you been? No one ever argued that tariffs alone, internal improvements alone, or a national bank alone are the American System - elements yes, but not the entire system. Never has it been suggested that unsourced material be placed insinuating this - never has it been done. You are objecting to every author provided - numerous editors who concur etc. because you have not read the material. This caused the break. Your failure to even understand that "American System" was not only used by Clay, but by Stewart, by Carey, and in rhetoric to refer to America's economic system under the GOP in the nineteenth century during Clevelands campaign. All as you know, cited and well sourced. So again - a Wikipedia article entitled American System either includes all accepted definition with reliable sources or your here clearly to harass and abuse your privileges. Numerous times I've asked for clear convincing reasons from reputable authors that indicate your point of view and you continue to offer nothing. I will include the material back in the American System article where it belongs without evidence that the authors and citations I provide are not reliable or agreed. --Northmeister 04:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't undo the compromise that's lasted a year without a consensus to do so. I'm away this weekend, we can talk more next week. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy your weekend. I'm in no hurry. When you return please make a detailed listing of your hangups with this article so they can be addressed individually. Second - consider thoughtfully the move to place the material in one article with subsections involving the usage of the term American System and its adherents and if your opposed a clear and convinving reason why your opposed. Thanks. --Northmeister 13:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A longstanding problem with this article, which I've repeated from last year and that obviously bothered 24ip and user:Gazpacho too, is the long Lind quote that is no longer verifiable. How can we summarize that and reduce the actual quotation to a reasonable length? (something under 100 word). Can we find a current source for it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24 was simply a vandal form my perspective. Gazpacho made some good points and am open to working with him. Yes and Yes - per your questions. Now - my second question which remains unanswered. --Northmeister 14:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's fix the Lind quotation then we can address other problems. That quote has been a sticking point for a long time and has yet to be addressed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's first address the sources you have indicating that the American School and System are not the same. What are they? This has been an issued for a long time. --Northmeister 14:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're pushing for a merger, there's no way we're going to merge this bloated article anywhere until we get it cleaned up. Unless a more constructive solution is presented, I think we should simply delete the Lind quotation. I believe the material is mostly covered elsewhere in the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having heard no constructive suggestions, and since this has been a pending issue for over a year, I'm going to delete the quotation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask me Once[edit]

Speaking of cleaning up the Lind quote, footnotes 34 a and b and 35 a and b, refer to two different books by Lind, yet neither contains a page number. Since I have both books, I would like to fact check the sources, and page numbers should be included -- as it stands the footnotes are close to useless. Tom (North Shoreman) 18:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pages 9-15 "What Lincoln Believed" for starters - and look to the Index - it is very well done with FDR and Lincoln. As far as "Hamilton's Republic" - look to the introduction as as a whole or specifically xiv-xv. You might want to read the last article therein by Walter Russell Mead. --Northmeister 19:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the effort, but I only went as far as the two footnotes related to "What Lincoln Believed." I can find nothing in pages 9-15 pertinent to the paragraphs associated with these footnotes. I am only casual observer at this point, but if documentation is an issue, the article may have problems. I obviously don't have a problem with Lind per se since I've actually bought two of his books. Tom (North Shoreman) 01:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. "Franklin Roosevelt himself help orchestrate the campaign to associate himself with his presidency with Lincoln's." pg. 11. "When Lincoln, first as Republican candidate and then as the first Republican president, was asked about his views, he repeatedly identified himself as a Henry Clay Whig." I- Then we have "The prototype of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)...-infrastructure projects intended to serve as the nucleus of the modernization of the poorest parts of the upland south...was the North-South railroad envisioned by Henry Carey and proposed to Congress by Abraham Lincoln" - What is the page number for this quote? There are numerous others. Hamilton's Republic contains several authors on the subject and Lind is editor thereof. Could you give me an acceptable quote from therein? Footnotes? Could you explain the two? You like Lind because you bought his books, very well - What is Hamilton's Republic's main theme ? May I have the pg. number and a quote from within "Hamilton's Republic"? I can provide numerous citations (many of which are provided in talk and on the page in question already)? I am just curious, since you seemed to miss the quotes above and those already provided for in the article - including the long quote by Lind himself explaining what you had questions about. If you need the source for that - let me know. --Northmeister 02:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An immediate attack on my integrity because YOU (or whoever added the footnotes) failed to follow basic footnoting procedures and include page numbers. As Will has shown, I didn't miss anything. The quotes you just provided have nothing to do with the paragraphs that the footnotes attach to, do they? I'm not sure why you even use the book about Lincoln to establish factual matters about the presidencies of Roosevelt through Carter. Why didn't you include the page numbers in the first place? Why don't you put them in now {after eliminating the Lincoln book as a source)? On my talk page you ask, "I have provided some quotes you seemed to have missed when looking at Linds works. What do you say of page 24 of "Lincoln's"? Provide what on that page you consider, NOT, indicating the source is correct. I do not see it." It seems you have misread the few sentences I had written -- I don't question Lind's accuracy at all, do I?

Tom (North Shoreman) 10:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting again, you never answered my questions. "Thanks for the effort, but I only went as far as the two footnotes related to "What Lincoln Believed." I can find nothing in pages 9-15 pertinent to the paragraphs associated with these footnotes." This statement is not true. And is the "immediate" attack you speak of. "I am only casual observer at this point, but if documentation is an issue, the article may have problems." Being a causual observer you've immediatly questioned my "integrity" let alone "honor" by insinuating that the sources in this article are not correct. Since you've done this, I want to establish your authenticity. I've asked about the two books and you've failed to answer my basic questions. "I obviously don't have a problem with Lind per se since I've actually bought two of his books." Really? Why can't you answer a simple question on "Hamilton's Republic" or "What Lincoln Believed"? I've asked for verification and you've provided nothing here. "Why didn't you include the page numbers in the first place? Why don't you put them in now {after eliminating the Lincoln book as a source)?" I was not the editor who reconstructed the article. So ask that editor. Second, "eliminating" the Lincoln book is rubbish, you don't seem to "own" either as you can't give me anything from either and don't understand either. Provide the words on the third and fourth paragraph of page 229 of Lincoln, and a quote from "Hamilton's Republic" say pg. 229 as well. You lack even basic knowledge of Lind or you would not question the sourcing, prove me wrong. Answer my questions, to establish discussion. You've been hostile since posting here. You fail to answer questions. Discussion requires two here. --Northmeister 13:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask me twice[edit]

If I'm not mistaken, What Lincoln Believed and Hamilton's Republic are used as a reference twice in this article, neither of which mentions Lincoln or one of which barely mentions FDR:

  • Much of Roosevelt's "New Deal" remained in place during the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations. America remained dominant in industrial strength during this era with little competition for her industries and with moderate protection offered through subsidy and revenue tariffs under reciprocity arrangements.
  • The administrations of Ford and Carter continued these policies. Privatization and "contracting out" continued on through Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush together with a continuing march toward free-trade liberalization through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and CAFTA.

Could there be a mistake in the citations? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you questioning? --Northmeister 13:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those two italicized paragraphs are the two paragraphs that have footnotes attributing them to Lind’s “What Lincoln Believed”. THEY ARE THE PARAGRAPHS THAT I REFERENCED AND THAT WILL TOOK THE TIME TO COPY ONTO THIS PAGE. I asked where in this book there is support for those paragraphs. You now claim in the section above that the following quotes from Lind support these paragraphs. Your words:
That's interesting. "Franklin Roosevelt himself help orchestrate the campaign to associate himself with his presidency with Lincoln's." pg. 11. "When Lincoln, first as Republican candidate and then as the first Republican president, was asked about his views, he repeatedly identified himself as a Henry Clay Whig." I- Then we have "The prototype of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)...-infrastructure projects intended to serve as the nucleus of the modernization of the poorest parts of the upland south...was the North-South railroad envisioned by Henry Carey and proposed to Congress by Abraham Lincoln."
Your response is a total non sequitor. Perhaps before you ask others to prove something, you should start responding as if you actually READ the paragraphs in the Wikipedia article that I have questioned and you are trying to support. Tom (North Shoreman) 14:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could start making this two way. I've answered you and I expect answers to my questions. That's how it is suppose to work. So far you've simply attacked the sources without evidence to the contrary. I honestly answered with the snippets above. Which if you have the sources in question you would know contain more. But I am not convinced you even know the sources - rather from what I have observed - your engaging in personal insult rather than polite discussion on sourcing. Answer my questions and we go from there. This is a habit of another editor as well - thus my observations on your talk page which you refuse to answer thus refusing discussion there - another habit of another user here. If your here to help - then quit engaging in contentious rhetoric and start engaging in proper discussion. Your answers to my question then I respond. --Northmeister 15:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You answered me but your answers were wrong. Let's get that issue settled first before you skip onto something else. You are also wrong in claiming, YET AGAIN, that I am attacking the source -- I am not even attacking the article. I am questioning the link between two specific paragraphs and the source. If there is no link, the footnotes should be removed. Tom (North Shoreman) 15:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again no answer to my simple questions. Again, maybe I was not clear enough. Show us how I am wrong and answer my questions. You've proven nothing at all - I can't verify your contention of the source if you don't provide insight into what your reading and why it is wrong. Show me and answer my simple question. My observations remain until that is done. --Northmeister 16:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are these the questions you're referring to?
  • Provide the words on the third and fourth paragraph of page 229 of Lincoln, and a quote from "Hamilton's Republic" say pg. 229 as well.
What's the relevance of these pages? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am referring to those questions. Although I asked other ones with no answer. The editor above has more or less said my sources are not credible - defined them in a light that is odd to me. I wish to know why he has done so - so that we can fix what is wrong or so that I can defend the sources. He has the books - I would like to verify why he contends the sources, due to his statements about the sources themselves. --Northmeister 19:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an unusual request. I've never seen an editor demand that another editor prove he has a reference book in hand by quoting random text. Aside from all of that, are you saying that the citations for the two excerpts from our article I posted above come from pages 9-15 of What Lincoln Believed and from pages xiv-xv of Hamilton's Republic? If we can pin down the specifics then that'll make it easier to clarify this material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My questions are simple enough. I would like an answer, then as discussion goes, I shall respond in kind. I have no clue what he is questioning and would like to know. He has insinuated the entire article is poorly sourced. I would like to know why this is so and what is wrong with the sources. Fair enough question to establish the authenticity of his questions since he states he is making his assumption because he has the sources. --Northmeister 19:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you need to know what's on page 229 of two different books? Are we using those pages as sources for anything? It appears that the citations being discussed were added originally in this edit. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again awaiting answer fron Shoreman who questioned my integrity with sources. Discussion is not one way. Seems to me he has no books, as he doesn't understand Lind or the sources in question and can't provide a quote from those pages for reference to back up his statement. Thus I am confused as to why he said what he said. --Northmeister 21:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have Hamilton's Republic in my hands right now. According to the index, the "American School" isn't mentioned until page 229 (the "American System" is mentioned a little earlier, on page 217). If the material excerpted above isn't about the "American School" then maybe it would belong in another article. Frankly, I'd say most of the "evolution" and "legacy" sections seem to have problems, but le'ts just deal with these two sentences, since North Shoreman brought them up. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it among all the edits I've done, and the users I've worked with - I can't seem to work with you? Why is this page taking too much of my time and why can't we seem to work together for any great length of time? I am going to allow you to have this page as you like. I don't see how we can ever work together. User WAS contributed greatly by keeping us apart here - and I hsd no problem working with him. I've had no or very little problems working with other editors. I am not sure what it is. I am not here to contribute to this article alone. I took sides with HK because of the injustice I thought was being done in that case and I wanted to NPOV and fairness for this article and for that user. That is where we first stumbled upon one another and I haven't been able (with the compromise of one year exception) to get away from this topic. Hence, it helps neither you or myself to continue this - no does it help Wikipedia. I've neglected other projects to deal with this issue and the non-issue at Anchor Baby where we agreed all along but for some reason couldn't agree during the process? I wish you the best of luck with this article. But I am done with it for now. --Northmeister 00:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem with the editing discussion here? It seems pretty straighforward. But suit yourself. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: It would help if you'd take questions about editing less personally. When someone questions a source they are not questioning your '"integrity" let alone "honor"'. It's better not to think of the material or the sources as "yours". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Improvement Drive[edit]

I am initiating a new round on improving the article and allaying the concerns of other editors concerned with material within the article - including format and refereces. My personal object is to prepare this article to meet the criteria of a 'good article' or if editors concur to move the material to the American System page as a part thereof. All bids as it were are open. I'll do some cleanup and revision today - the most recent getting back to Gazpacho's last version to work from there; as I accept the removal of the party planks. --Northmeister 00:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with restoring Gazpacho's edits. However, why did you restore the long quote from Lind? What is our source for it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't so much as restore it as it was there when te ladt edit was made by Gazpacho. I've removed the long quote, although it belongs as a reference or within context as a smaller quote somewhere. Going to address Tom's concerns now; will remove those sentences until prope citation is added - as there was a mix up with the sources when article was originally redone. Are there any other concerns you would like to see addressed considering the sources or areas within the article? --Northmeister 17:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We still haven't sorted out the issues with sourcing raised by North Shoreman. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those concerns have been addressed with these two edits: [[2]] and [[3]]. --Northmeister 23:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. One problem I see is assertions that aren't supported by their references. For exmaple:
The cited reference reads:
  • “H.C. Carey, the only American economist of importance, is a striking proof that civil society in the United States is as yet by no means mature enough to provide a clear and comprehensible picture of the class struggle.” (Marx in Perelman, 1987)
I don't see how we can summarize that reference in that way. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the reference is not good support for the sentence. --Northmeister 00:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first half of this sentence has ten sources:

Are all ten references needed for that first clause, and do all ten support what is written there? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Took out one reference not related. Re-formated to look better. I personally don't prefer these sources, there are better ones supporting this statement. I'll work on that and change it if you challenge the statement and feel it needs a source. --Northmeister 01:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The entire sentence needs to be sourced, including the second half. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merging the sources into one citation does not help fixing the sourcing issues. It's unlikely that we need all these source for those few words. I've unmerged them and let's work through and use what we need, and leave out the rest. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of very old references, some of which are partisan. It'd be better to use more modern sources. Also, I'm not sure what to make of U-S-History.com. The articles are unsourced and unsigned. It appears like a low-quality tertiary source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the 'Analysis' section is unneeded. The article already contains this information; no need to repeat it. Hmains 03:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article needs a complete spell check. Hmains 03:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Hmains observations - thank you - I'll delete the analysis section - Will, will you spell check - that is not my strong suit. --Northmeister 21:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WillBeback on USHistory.com, I think this source is fine. It indicates directly what other sources also say form Lind and Richardson and others provided. On the opening paragraphs - I think a overall revision is needed here. I put all references into one for the look of the article. I don't think we need ten of them, one is sufficient to cover the sentence. Certainly, Lind can be used here as shown by the sources already provided. We'll work on this. --Northmeister 21:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What makes U-S-History.com a good source? Their articles are unsigned and unsourced. WP:PSTS discourages the use of unsigned tertiary sources. If we have to use them, why not use more reputable ones like the Encyclopedia Britannica? And what of these very old sources, some of which appear partisan? They are virtually primary sources. We should be able to find modern secondary sources for most of the material on this topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed in sentiment, lets however address individual sources to make this improvement process more effective. On the U-S-History.com, if E-B is a better source then I recommend you change the quote and source or arrange a new sentence, two, or three - with the new source - and if it is viable I will support that. --Northmeister 23:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC) -Amended: On the fact check of 1932, this sentence from the GOP platform of 1932 "The Republican Party has always been the staunch supporter of the American system of a protective tariff." was more than likely the reason for the source. Reading the sentence, I consider the qualifier statement 'although - 1932' unnecessary and will delete it thus ending the need for the source. --Northmeister 23:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will, you removed the Lind biography link. Don't understand your reasoning. Explain? --Northmeister 18:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link went to a biographical sketch. It was used as a reference for this text:
  • Among those adovocating "fair trade" reform in various forms are:...Political commentators such as: ...Michael Lind,
I saw nothing in the link that asserted Lind's advocacy for "fair trade" reform. Did I miss something? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'll go with that. Let's take out that entire section for now. --Northmeister 23:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with removing the section, but I don't know what is meant by "for now". Are you planning to restore it later? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only if we jointly agree. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't need to be there. 'For now' simpley is my observation that I can't guarantee that others won't want to edit the article to include information relevant to legacy. Further, most programs or ideas have legacies in some form - so I can't guarantee that a future improvement might be to include some sort of legacy albeit in my opinion truncated from the form it existed in. --Northmeister 23:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference US History was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference famous was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cornell.
  4. ^ UShistory.org.
  5. ^ presidency.ucsb.edu
  6. ^ presidency.ucsb.edu.
  7. ^ ourdocuments.gov.
  8. ^ SCU.edu.
  9. ^ ANDREWS, E. Benjamin, Page 180 of Scribner's Magazine Volume 18 #1 (January–June 1896); "A History of the Last Quarter-Century".

US History deletion[edit]

The recent deletion of the US History.com source, has been restored. Why? Use of web sources in the context of the article that includes other sources from accredited published works is acceptable. The quote from US History.com is thorough enough and was used in that light. It was maintained by consensus editing when WAS and myself redid the article and Will Beback agreed to the article completion. His recent removal is more violation of WP:Point, especially in light of no credible objection being made here prior to his deletion. --Northmeister 14:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further here are the other sources I've spoken of backing up the 'convienance link' allowe under the reliable source policy of Wikipedia:

  • Richardson, Heather Cox: "By 1865, the Republicans had developed a series of high tariffs and taxes that reflected the economic theories of Carey and Wayland and were designed to strengthen and benefit all parts of the American economy, raising the standard of living for everyone. As a Republican concluded… "Congress must shape its legislation as to incidentally aid all branches of industry, render the people prosperous, and enable them to pay taxes… for ordinary expenses of Government." — "The Greatest Nation of the Earth" Chapter 4, "Directing the Legislation of the Country to the Improvement of the Country: Tariff and Tax Legislation" pp. 136–37. President and Fellows of Harvard College, USA: 1997. ISBN 0-674-36213-6.
  • Boritt, Gabor S: "Lincoln thus had the pleasure of signing into law much of the program he had worked for through the better part of his political life. And this, as Leornard P. Curry, the historian of the legislation has aptly written, amounted to a "blueprint for modern America." and "The man Lincoln selected for the sensitive position of Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, was an ex-Democrat, but of the moderate cariety on economics, one whom Joseph Dorfman could even describe as 'a good Hamiltonian, and a western progressive of the Lincoln stamp in everything from a tariff to a national bank.'" — "Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream" Chapter 14, "The Whig in the White House" pp. 196–97. Memphis State University Press, USA: 1994. ISBN 0878700439.

Of course the editor/admin in question knew this already due to extensive rewrite and consensus compromise worked out earlier. Maybe such said editor needs a wikibreak from adminship for his behavior in violating Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point - "Gaming the system means using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith, to deliberately thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship." per "Bad Faith wikilawering" and disrupting the "communal editing" agreed through consensus here. --Northmeister 14:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US-History.com does not qualify as a reliable source. We discussed that back in August. It's an anonymous, unsourced tertiary source. We don't need it to support assertions that are already sourced, and we certainly shouldn't give a verbatim quote from it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've provided two good sources on this page - why aren't we using those instead of a poor source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above objection is reasonable without all the wiki-lawyering statements referenced in your summaries or outright deletions before discussion is complete. I find no reason USHistory.com is particularly objectionable. The quote works in the context of the article and is backed up with reliable sources. I could rewrite the entire paragraph without the quote; and have no objection to this. But, I feel it unnecessary to do so as I've stated previously. You're objection is particulary offensive considering our compromise long ago - in which you stamped your approval. These types of objections - that come and stop - come again - wittling away at what was a reasonable (although needing improvement for good status) article with reliable sourcing - little by little each time. Why this behavior? It takes up my time - is particularly annoying as heck - and seems to come off of the dispute we'd had at Anchor Baby - where you also changed your opinion because your opinion agreed with mine (originally) causing needless dispute. I am totally open to revising this article as stated above in the previous section. I want to see it become a good article at least and very stable if possible or to join it with American System or whatever works. But, this can't be done if you dispute that which we've already agreed to - hence any future arrangement would be worthless anyway. Thus WP:Point, agreeing to something then breaking that agreement over time. I don't see how we can work together here if you don't keep to your word. --Northmeister 19:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may find US-history.com acceptable, but I don't and I've asked you to show why you think it would qualify as a reliable source. If it's not reliable we shouldn't quote it. I don't recall ever signing off on any agreement to keep it, but I'd be happy to review any link that says I did. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In May of 2006 Was and I worked on the article and came to consensus agreement that it was good but could be improved. On June 22nd 2006, you made your objections heard; Was disagreed as did I on some of them; but we eventually worked it out. WAS worked with you and we on my suggestion agreed eventually to split the article. After this split you had any chance to dispute the material on any grounds. You did not. For one year and a month - June 2006 until July 2007 you did not dispute the US History link nor other material. After anonymous edits (I suspected on grounds of using the word "American System" and "LaRouche" which you've used in the past as charges) in July of 2007 you started in again. After our recent contentious discussion at Anchor Baby where you agreed to compromise then did not - and after looking over history where I found that my position was supported by yourself in the past (making me suspect your objections now there) - and after we worked out with the help of others some of the problems there - you come here again with a NEW OBJECTION, I consider erroneous because it is a useful link indicated by reliable sources as well and in full agreement with them. If this is not WP:Point, if this is not violation of cordial editing practices, if this is not harassment and bad behavior - then what is? --Northmeister 20:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know which anonymous editor you're referring to since you didn't provide any links. I've never stopped being involved in this article, but it was the edits by user:Gazpacho begining August 11,[4] along with his note on my user page,[5] that initated the current round of edits. The issue here is the suitability of US-history.com as a source, not Anchor baby or any other article. I've explained that my object to it is that it is an unsourced, unsigned tertiary source. We don't need it for information sourced elsewhere, and we shouldn't quote unreliable sources. Rather than discussing my defiencies as an editor, or grudges carried over from other articles, can you please explain why you think that US-history.com is reliable enough to quote here? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've been editing this article not as a cordial contributor but as a disruptive editor. There is no use going over the same stuff - constantly. You broke the consensus agreement and you continue to engage in rhetoric as if your actions are innocent and have no history. Until something official happens here - I am not engaging in discussion any longer. It only encourages your behavior. --Northmeister 21:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to participate or not. However if no one defends US-history.com as a reliable source I'm going to remove it again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I consider that a disruptive threat. --Northmeister 00:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it will be disruptive at all. I'm sure that we can find a reliable source for the Legal Tender Act, and it's just redundant in the other two contexts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then participate here for once besides complaining and offer one you think is more reliable, I'll consider that instead. UsHistory.com is a convienance link backed up by more reliable sources as indicated in the article. I see no reason why it should be removed on grounds of WP:Reliable sources. --Northmeister 00:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with two clauses that US-History.com is used to reference:

Do we need the US-History.org links to source either of those assertions? If so, what aspect of those clauses are left unsourced by their omission? While we're at it, do we need all of those sources for that second clause? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of responding to my olive branch above (for the umpteenth time) you throw rhetorical poison oak. Answer your own questions rather than asking me. If you think they do not, let me know. Why answer my suggestion with rhetorical questions? Why not take my offer and edit the article to improve it? Then we engage some more in improvement. This is not the inquisition where I have to stand here and be bombarded with questions, without any action on your part to participate in proper modes of discussion. --Northmeister 01:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Great, let's take the first citation, "Ideas and Movements: American System" which concludes by saying:
  • Clay first used the term “American System” in 1824, although he had been working for its specifics for many years previously. Portions of the American System were enacted by Congress. The Second Bank of the United States was rechartered in 1816 for 20 years. High tariffs were maintained from the days of Hamilton until 1832. However, the national system of internal improvements was never adequately funded; the failure to do so was due in part to sectional jealousies and constitutional scruples about such expenditures.
I don't see how we can use that text as a source for these assertions:
It seems to say that the American System began in 1824 and essentially ended in 1832. Or is it just being used to source the 1824 date? I bet I can find another source for that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a replacement source for the 1824 date:
  • Most American historians know the American system of the antebellum period as the political program puyt forward by Henry Clay in his 1824 tariff speech before the United States House of Representatives. p.15
  • David A. Hounshell, "From the American System to Mass Production, 1800-1932", Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984, ISBN 080183158X[6]
If there's no objection I'll replace the citations to the US-history.org article "Ideas and Movements: American System" with citations to this book. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok with me and I prefer this style of discussion. Thank you. --Northmeister 02:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a stupid mistake. "Used in political rhetoric from 1824 to the present,..." refers to "American School", not "American System". This must have been left over from the split. Neither of the existing sources, nor the new one I found, mention the "American School" or date its first use to 1824. I recall that Lind says Hamilton used it on occasion, but it was never in widespread use. I propose we omit the clause entirely, and copyedit the remaining sentence (which doesn't seem to have a subject anyway):
  • Present: Used in political rhetoric from 1824 to the present, existing as actual American policy for many decades within that period waxing and waning in actual degrees and details of implementation,[3] and finally, according to Michael Lind, existing as a coherent applied economic philosophy with logical and conceptual relationships with other economic ideas.
  • Proposed: It was the American policy for many decades, waxing and waning in actual degrees and details of implementation. Historian Michael Lind describes it as a coherent applied economic philosophy with logical and conceptual relationships with other economic ideas.
How does that sound? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've proceeded to make the change. If there's a better way of saying the same thing I'm open to it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problems with it. Reads better I think. --Northmeister 01:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truncation and moving to American System[edit]

I feel that the material in this article as it now stands - is best for the American System page. What I propose is to truncate the information down to that which applies to the American System as it was addressed by Clay and Carey. Two persons shown to have used the term.

Including Lincoln's and the early GOP's implementation of such policy is fully within the scope of the "American System" as it was historically as evidenced by Lind, Richardson, and others. However, this has been the source of most of the dispute I think. Reliable sources including primary, secondary, and tertiary indicate as much. Covering this aspect, however is best left I think for now to the history of the United States; rather than under the heading "American System" so as to keep with mainstream published standards on that term.

The term "American School" although accurate to describe the entire history of America's economic thinking prior to the modern era and before the twentieth century in particular, is not a standard used by others except Lind that I can find in sources. If other reliable sources can be found and more material accepted and gathered from such sources indicating the necessity to have an article "American School (economics)" here at Wikipedia I would fully support the resumption of such said article.

Regarding tertiary sources like USHistory.com - this is one area where we can truncate the article and clean up anything not directly related to the historic American System as commonly accepted and defined by historians.

Although there is a fringe view, in politics, of this term "American System"- as applying to the entirety of American economic history - the term is not used by credible historians to define this economic history. Related to this - I think some of the material from Lind, pertaining to the economic history of the USA - could find a place in an article about America's economic history as that would be relevant until Lind is joined directly by others in use of the term.

Stepping back from all the issues that have evolved here - primarily from personal disputes - that were here or at the American System page prior to my arrival at Wikipedia in Feb. of 2006; I think it best for Wikipedia to remove this article (as fringe until the term is more widely used) and incorporate whatever is relevant from this article in the two ways I propose above. This would resolve in my mind anyway - most of the content disputes arriving here and allow for clean but accurate (backed by reliable sources) NPOV article on American System to exist. Thus allowing both editors who are constantly involved here (and at odds) to bring resolution to the subject and to continue to work on the "American System" as the case arises to maintain Wikipedia policies regarding NPOV/NOR/ and V from different but combined perspectives offered above. If there are no objections I will begin the process and would invite the Will Beback being the other principle editor to do the same. --Northmeister 13:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In detail:
I strongly believe that the article currently titled American System (economics) should remain focused on the historical program called the "American System" that was promoted by Clay between 1824 and 1840 (more or less), and that had three elements. That article is too short, but there isn't much here that would fit there. What it could use, IMO, is more detail on the politics and policies involved in that plan, including the battles to get the Erie Canal and Cumberland Road funded. Lind himself asserts that the American System, whatever its roots and repercussions, was first and foremost the plan to get Clay elected president.
The focus of this article, "American School (economics)", has been the theory of national economic development that is most closely associated with Hamilton, Carey, List, and Lincoln. The chief modern chronicler of this theory appears to be Michael Lind, and much of this article appears rooted in his view of its development and history, which is fine. I think that this is a topic which deserves coverage and is best handled in an article of its own.
"American School" is the term Lind uses most, but he uses other terms too, including National School, "National System" and "Hamiltonian economics" (see: Hamiltonian economic program). Perhaps one of those terms would be less confusing to readers (and writers too-see above). The article might be re-focussed to match a new name, such as the Hamiltonian tradition in American politics.
Another option would be to use some of this material to expand the history section of Protectionism. BTW, there are interesting articles in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica on Protection and Alexander Hamilton, not that I recommend using them as secondary sources.
I think this article is pretty good. As I discovered above, there are some residual sentences from the split that need to be reviewed. And I've previously expressed my concern about the use of primary sources, very old secondary sources, and a poor quality teriary source. That may sound bad but I've seen worse. I don't see a reason to make further wholesale deletions.
I appreciate this suggestion, which appears to be made as a good faith effort to improve editing harmony. However I don't think there is a substantial content dispute here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can go along with maintaining the article under the name "National System" that might be less confusing - as that is the historic name given by List to the overall philosophy derived from Hamilton. We seem to agree on the fundamentals, so it should not be hard to clean the article up, and re-write its basic passages to conform to the new name. The American System article doesn't need all the sources or books it now has as many apply to the "American School" overall rather than Clay's specific "American System". Another name used historically were "Philadelphia School" pertaining to Philadelphia, PA being the center of activity for this 'schools' adherents (like Carey). --Northmeister 12:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Not well defined[edit]

"During its American System period the United States grew into the largest economy in the world with the highest standard of living, surpassing the British Empire by the 1880s" is either false or meaningless. The British Empire had a lower standard of living throughout the 19th century, averaged over all parts, because of the large number of British subjects in places like Africa and India. Contrariwise, if only the leading developed parts are considered, the British Empire stayed ahead until about 1900 because Australia surged ahead in the latter part of the 19th century. So this needs to be made more precise - P.M.Lawrence. 203.220.83.50 (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"More generous towards the working class"[edit]

  • However, despite the "capitalist" label, the American School has been known to be more generous towards the working class than the British school which accommodated debtors' prisons and mass starvation in Ireland.

What's our basis for this assertion? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps (if it were to be included in this article) the Whiskey Tax would not be presented as the Western Americans saw it at the time--a federally-enforced regressive tax targeting the rural working class. Whiskey tax grievances Mang (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need sourcing and verification[edit]

Not sure about the above couple of sentences. The first sentence needs a source and seems more a statement of opinion. The following sentence seems odd and doesn't seem to jive with the article. Could the editor enlighten us about their inclusion. ·:· Northmeister ·:· 04:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also questioned the material in October 2008. See above. It was first tagged as needing a soource back in 2007. Unless an explanation is forthcoming we should delete it shortly. The source doesn't directly support the statement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was my thinking as well. --Northmeister (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff[edit]

The phrase "which some Economists believe to have deepened the Great Depression while others disagree" is highly misleading. "others disagree" without quantifiers seemingly would imply that there is significant controversy among economists over the detrimental effects of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. There is not. The vast majority of the tiny percentage (5-10% at most) of economists who do not believe that the Smoot-Hawley deepened the Great Depression are probably charlatans masquerading as economists. Linking to a book written by a no-where near mainstream economist, such as William Gill, is not sufficient evidence for such strangely qualified language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.201.168.152 (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what is .....[edit]

what is an example for an economic system for the USA

Disambiguation / Mathematical Econ (Macroeconomic Theory)[edit]

OK, help me out here guys. I'm a PhD student in econ and I'm embarrassed to say that after a quick skimming and looking at some other articles on Wiki I'm still unclear as to if there's any relation between this and the Hamiltonian equations that I'm trying to study (one last time, at 3:45am, for a final exam).

These are the economic present-value and current-value Hamiltonians that I'm referring to... you know, like in the context of finite and infinite horizon problems. They show that at any instant in time an agent will consume c(t) and owns a stock of capital k(t), both of which affect utility, u(.), etc, etc.

So... do they relate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.197.213 (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on American School (economics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American School (economics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American School (economics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view[edit]

This article has serious issues of balance lacking a neutral point of view. The article is extremely biased in favor of the American School without addressing criticism of its positions and policies. It makes strong claims in favor of the American School without addressing rebuttals or refutations given by other economic schools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.147.40 (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_School_(economics)&oldid=1204804743"