|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Cloward-Piven strategy
This appears at first glance to be a copy/paste of the referenced wop article. --I am eating 
& honeychat 17:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is, by the looks of it. Nothing wrong with that (CreativeCommons and all), but the wp template gets made redundant by that.
gnostic 17:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I will add to this when I have time. --Wet Walnuts (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- No wonder I'm having to fix up all these red links. I think the CCxSA wants us to reference the version we started out by copying, doesn't it? ħuman
01:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- There may not be anything "wrong" with doing that, except that there's no RW in it at all. I'm tempted to go on a deletion spree of all the boring encyclopedic stuff... ħuman 01:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- I beefed up the conspiracy section a little. --Wet Walnuts (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- We should get ListenerX to inject some red-hating. ħuman 06:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- We should get ListenerX to inject some red-hating. ħuman
- I beefed up the conspiracy section a little. --Wet Walnuts (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- There may not be anything "wrong" with doing that, except that there's no RW in it at all. I'm tempted to go on a deletion spree of all the boring encyclopedic stuff... ħuman
- No wonder I'm having to fix up all these red links. I think the CCxSA wants us to reference the version we started out by copying, doesn't it? ħuman
- Don't worry, I will add to this when I have time. --Wet Walnuts (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Up for deletion[edit]
ListenerX has put this article up for deletion. I don't think that's necessary, but you guys can vote on it if you want. --Wet Walnuts (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- We just need to strip out the lame encyclopedic stuff and fill it full of funny lies so we "own" it. ħuman 07:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
"Indiscriminately raising people's incomes has led in the past to wage-price spirals by putting much free money in the hands of people who are on average inclined to spend it more liberally." You're fucking insane, right? ħuman 08:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- PS, thanks for the rewrite. ħuman 08:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- That is pretty much the definition of a wage-price spiral. Raising wages (or, similarly, welfare payments) will cause there to be more money in circulation without any increase in the goods it buys, hence, inflation. That was what caused a lot of the inflationary mess in the 1970s.
ListenerXTalkerX 08:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, far better to keep the wage-earners scared and not share with them the increased efficiency of of their labor. "putting much free money in the hands of people who are on average inclined to spend it more liberally" Wow, so who do you hate? People who get wages and spend them? ħuman 09:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Spare me the Red conspiracy-theories, please; also, I am here making no moral judgments on profligate spending, only noting that it is likely to produce inflation if a greater proportion of the money supply is subjected to it. ListenerXTalkerX 17:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- ListenerX, you have no idea what you're talking about. Just redistributing money doesn't cause inflation; you're baselessly assuming that the only way to raise welfare payments would be using newly created money, which makes no sense. EvanHarper (talk) 08:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is something I remembered from an economics class. I forget the details, but the basic idea is that taking money from people's savings accounts (or, equivalently, preventing it from going in) and paying it out to people who spend it changes in the amount of money in circulation. ListenerXTalkerX 06:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is something I remembered from an economics class. I forget the details, but the basic idea is that taking money from people's savings accounts (or, equivalently, preventing it from going in) and paying it out to people who spend it changes in the amount of money in circulation.
- ListenerX, you have no idea what you're talking about. Just redistributing money doesn't cause inflation; you're baselessly assuming that the only way to raise welfare payments would be using newly created money, which makes no sense. EvanHarper (talk) 08:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Spare me the Red conspiracy-theories, please; also, I am here making no moral judgments on profligate spending, only noting that it is likely to produce inflation if a greater proportion of the money supply is subjected to it.
- Yes, far better to keep the wage-earners scared and not share with them the increased efficiency of of their labor. "putting much free money in the hands of people who are on average inclined to spend it more liberally" Wow, so who do you hate? People who get wages and spend them? ħuman
- That is pretty much the definition of a wage-price spiral. Raising wages (or, similarly, welfare payments) will cause there to be more money in circulation without any increase in the goods it buys, hence, inflation. That was what caused a lot of the inflationary mess in the 1970s.
Revisit and rewrite?[edit]
In light of Glenn Beck's recent attacks on Piven, it might be time to revisit this article. I have to say I'm not very comfortable with the tone as written anyway. EVDebs (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- What part of the article is inaccurate? ListenerXTalkerX 06:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- I actually don't know, as I don't know much about the whole thing. I simply know that the tone of the article seems to assume that they were hands-down wrong and that we should cover the harassment she's been receiving from the right lately. EVDebs (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- There is a section at the end dealing with the loony right-wing reactions, which would benefit from the addition. As to the other problem, perhaps an example could be provided of some successful application of the strategy, thus establishing that it was not "hands-down wrong." ListenerXTalkerX 06:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- There is a section at the end dealing with the loony right-wing reactions, which would benefit from the addition. As to the other problem, perhaps an example could be provided of some successful application of the strategy, thus establishing that it was not "hands-down wrong."
- I actually don't know, as I don't know much about the whole thing. I simply know that the tone of the article seems to assume that they were hands-down wrong and that we should cover the harassment she's been receiving from the right lately. EVDebs (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Financial crisis[edit]
"The fact that most of the bad loans causing the crisis were not in any way mandated by the Community Reinvestment Act is conveniently ignored;" -- the link goes to Wilful ignorance. I may be ignorant but it is not wilful. Some supporting evidence here would be helpful. Similarly the whole "mainstream acceptance" section is unconvincing: I had (rationally, I thought) arrived at some version of a 'moderate "CRA and F&F caused the financial crisis,"' position; the writing style here is not helping me to change my mind. RobFisher (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)