Talk:Social market economy

Rhine capitalism was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 20 February 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Social market economy. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Social market economy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 90 days

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.

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Socialism High‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Germany High‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism High‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economic performance

As per my previous edit - much more of a bandaid than an attempt at fixing this, since I'm not a regular editor - I believe this section needs a proper rewrite before it comes close to Wikipedia's standards on quality and neutrality.

First off, the entire current premise of this section is flawed and fails at any sort of neutrality - quite spectacularly. While comparing the USA and the EU as stand-ins for laissez-faire and social market economies respectively makes sense intuitively, a surface-level comparison between an individual country and a supranational political/economic union cannot be mistaken for a fair comparison. That is, unless there is a deliberate effort to disparage the Rhine model. Not all EU countries have embraced the model, some have turned away from it, and some have been forced to. In fact, much of the 2008-2015 chain of recessions, or rather, the failure of the economy to spring back to life as quickly as the US', could be blamed on factors outside the Rhine model, in fact strictly contrary to it - in particular austerity: reduction in public spending. See:

Criticism of the Troika,
this paper[1],
"the turn to belt tightening was badly timed and therefore much more costly in terms of long-term output loss than a more gradual, backloaded consolidation" [2],

Seeing as the economic growth of (the wealthier part of) the EU was consistent with the US' until 2008, I believe the comparative underperformance within the 1996-2020 comes primarily from the 13-year setback, where pre-2009 levels weren't reached until 2021 (2010 for the US, 2011 for Russia); that in turn being largely a 7 year hysteresis effect from reduced government spending during/after the 2008 crisis.

And I am not even touching upon the fact that within this period, the EU has adopted and spread the Euro, gained 13 lower-income member states, lost one high-income member, and experienced multiple energy/fuel crises due to the unpredictability of Russian and middle eastern politics - at the same time the US remained one of the largest oil exporters.

In short, this section in its current state is absolutely indefensible, and potentially written specifically in order to slander welfare states. While a rewrite that would acknowledge the effects of austerity would be an improvement, there is in my opinion need for a complete reset of this section, and a new version that examines the performance of the Rhine model on its own merits rather than comparing it to the unique and hardly comparable circumstances of the US.

tl;dr: this section is bad, austerity exists, i think we should nuke the section 62.194.91.70 (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - this section is atrocious. In addition to your points, the author’s suggestion that GDP per capita is a measure of individual wealth ignores many of the flaws of GDP as a measure - specifically that it deals in aggregates and averages, and it is simply a measure of activity initially designed to assess wartime production capacity. To suggest that it is a measure of individual wealth or income (as the author has done) completely mischaracterises the concept. Noting this, the author’s comparison of consumer prices against GDP per capita to indicate a nominal drop in purchasing power is just absurd.

Your additional paragraph goes some way to introducing nuance, but (as you say) it is a Band-Aid solution. The section is fundamentally flawed and either needs a proper rewrite or should be removed. 220.244.100.88 (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added material about quality of life. Coral matters (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I feel User:Chaotic Enby was unconstructive reverting my edit. I restored it. Coral matters (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely don't remember doing this revert, that must have been a misclick. My apologies, thanks for restoring it. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 18:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did this edit appear on my talk page? Coral matters (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the section is fundamentally flawed in regards to the arguments put forward. As ist stands it's at best flawed, but at worst very misleading. Stokehol (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]