Talk:Golden Age of Capitalism

How much growth in 1960s?

Article mentions over 4% growth in 1960s and then 5% in 1960s, obviously 5% is over 4%, so is there any need for mentioning 4% or did growth start of at 4% and then moved onto 5%.

thanks for pointing that out, it should have said 4% in the 1950s, ive corrected it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What is 'the North'?

Article mentions "Journalist Naomi Klein has argued the high growth enjoyed by the North", what exactly is the North here? North America, Canada, North Western Europe, it is ambigious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.154.142 (talk) 10:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks, I've changed it to Europe and America for now, will double check the book when I get the chance. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

POV title

I say the title is POV, since it indicated that both the beginning and the end of this period should be attributed to capitalism. /Yvwv (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

yep I guess it does sound like a POV term, however its by far the most common term used in sources to describe this period, theres some discussion of this at Talk:Long boom. Capitalism was the predominant economic system for the non communis world across the entire 20th century - golden age just refers to the period when it ran at its best. Like for example the golden age of the greeks is often used to describe the period from about Aeschylus's time to Plato's, but the greeks by no means died out after Plato, in terms of worldly power they even went up with Alexander. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge Post-World War II

The articles Golden Age of Capitalism and Post-World War II boom cover, to my eye, the same phenomenon, namely the economic boom 1945/1950 to 1973, so I propose that they be merged.

Less clear is the naming of the merged article – as Yvwv argues above (and puts their edition where their mouth is), “Golden Age of Capitalism” is a less neutral term than “Post-War boom”, though as FeydHuxtable argues and researches at Talk:Long boom#Merge? and Paullb concurs, “Golden Age of Capitalism” is a very widely used term for this specific period.

I haven’t strong feelings on naming – what do y’all think?

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A quick search shows that there's other Golden Ages. I think it's not a POV term, btw, because according to WP:NPOV, we're not advancing a POV, we're reflecting it accurately according to the sources. It also places in context what was happening at the time, according to various sources. I still prefer the Post-WWII boom, though, just because it seems more accurate, and more narrowly defines the scope of the article. Golden Age of capitalism could cause some kind of interpretation that would make this a rather all inclusive article, not restricted to a particular scope. Hires an editor (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, yep there are many other golden ages, but only one Golden Age of capitalism. Golden Age of Capitalism seems to refer to the 1950 - 73 period with 100% consistency - whereas terms like Long Boom and even Post WWII boom very often refer to other periods. With Post WII we're frequently talking about short booms of well under 5 years in particular markets. With Long Boom we're talking about the '90s in America, the asset price boom of 1983- 2007, even periods in the future. As stated golden age seems to be overwhelmingly the most common term in reliable sources, so I dont really think we have much option but to keep it as the title.

As for merging the material from Post WWII boom, there's a lot of good stuff there so while Id likely make a few minor changes Id be happy to have most of the material here. Id personally leave the decision up to Yvwv - they can either merge and redirect , or keep their article as it is. In which case ideally the article could include reference to the other useses of the term so we dont have duplicate scopes. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As per FeydHuxtable, hoping to hear from Yvwv; left a note on their user page at Swedish Wikipedia. Once we hear back, or come mid-Oct regardless, I’ll see if the discussion seems to have an acceptable outcome, and then merge if appropriate.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is still that Golden Age of Capitalism is a less than neutral name, since it insinuates that the cause of the boom, and the end of it, were capitalism. /Yvwv (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no opposition to merging the articles, I’ve merged them;

seeing opposition & POV concerns with “Golden Age of Capitalism”, I’ve put the merged article at Post-World War II economic boom (note the addition of “economic” for clarity).

There is a Wikipedia:Naming conflict between the scholarly term (“Golden Age”) and the general term (“Post-War”). I can see the following resolutions:

Separate article

A meaningfully separate article can be written on “Golden Age”, such as about the scholarly interpretation – though I’m not sure this can be done.

Consensus

We come to consensus on one name or the other – I’ve no strong feelings; if Feyd doesn’t mind “Post-War” too strongly, we can leave status quo – alternatively, if Hires and Yvwv don’t mind “Golden Age”, we can move to that.

Raise discussion

We raise discussion – we can use {{move}} to raise discussion among the article naming crowd.

If anyone would like to pursue the above, please do so, else simply enjoy (and improve!) the article!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(I’ve finished the merging, as best I can tell.)

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

For reference, here’s the merged article, assuming “Post-War” as title; change to “Golden Age” if instead merge to “Golden Age”.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No Concensus for move.

Sorry , but moving this article to a different name just because a few editors think the current name is non neutral is contentious. Neutrality is a central policy here, but its not about enforcing our own opinions on what sounds neutral, its about accurately reflecting sources in proportion to their prominence and prevalence. Per initial analyses of the sources, Golden Age of Capitalism is overwhelmingly the most common name for this period, and is the only phrase that consistently refers to this period. If folk remain determined to move this article, please find sources to support your position. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding was that there was no argument about merging, but some argument about the title – hence I merged the articles (to Post-WWII), but left open further discussion on the title.

To raise this, I’ve listed this merge at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers: Current requests, which’ll hopefully provide needed attention.

By way of history, “Golden Age” was created 2009–01–14, and has since been edited by a number of editors (history).

“Post-WWII” was created 2009–09–09 as a POV fork (Wikipedia:Content forking) by Yvwv and edited almost exclusively by them (history); there was an existing Golden Age article at that time.

I don’t know what procedure is in this case – merge POV fork to older article (Golden Age) and list “Post-WWII” as a proposed move, to be accepted or rejected?

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. A merge to this title would be good if Yvwv is happy with that. Alternatively the Post WWII boom article could be exspanded so it covers other uses of the term, as per sources which refer to shorter genuine booms in particular markets, rather than the 1950 -73 period. BTW, my personel view is that the boom title is more POV. Boom is a word that folk often associate with unsustainable bubbles and subsequent "busts". As stated earlier I had only seen the golden age refered to as a boom in sources with a free market bias - my impression is they use it to insinuate that the mixed economy polices used during the perido were inevitably going to cause economic trouble. BTW , after further googling ive found some sources where golden age is used for other periods, so its not 100% consistent as Id assumned earlier. But golden age of capitalism still seems to be by far the most common term and less ambiguous than the various "boom" titles. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

PS , I dont know the standard procedure either, though I hope this can be agreeably settled soon. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

How about "Post WWII Economic Expansion" ? That's pretty generic, and factual. Hires an editor (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes that would be a good non POV title. Id prefer we keep with the current title to accord with the bulk of the sources, but wouldnt oppose a merge to your suggestion. We could then start with the merged version NBarth created so his good work wouldnt go to waste. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok – it looks like there are no objections to “Post-World War II economic expansion” (Yvwv hasn’t weighed in, but it addresses his concern by not crediting capitalism) – thanks Hires!

Shall we close the discussion and put the merged article (suitably reworded) at Post-World War II economic expansion? (I’d be happy to do so, otherwise feel free.)

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no objections (for 2 weeks), I’ve done the (reworded) merge – hope this solves matters!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a ref for this?

I don't see a ref calling the 1945-73 period the golden age of capitalism. If anything, there was much higher growth during the late 19th century (Gilded Age or Belle Epoque), as well as much less government intervention, taxation and inflation (which is not exactly captialistic).70.55.28.16 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

Most sources dont say it started in 1945 but a few years later. There are references that specifically use the phrase "Golden age of capitalism" for the period spanning the 1950s & 60s , see the Dating the period section in Post-World War II economic expansion. The term is sometimes used to refer to the late 19th century, but its far more commonly used to refer to the post wwii period. Its true the 19th century period had its advantages, however it wasnt a pleasant time for many of the less economically successful, who for example often had to endure the horrors of the workhouse. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Gilded Age or post WWII period?

We should continue to redirect to the post WWII article, as in the vast majority of contemporary sources, golden age refers to the period that spans approx 1950 - 73. Global growth is estimated to be higher in the post WWII period. (there were no formal records of GDP untill the 20th century so only estimates are available) Admitedly growth in North America is estimated to be higher in the gilded age period, in line with the continent at the time being a richly resourced frontier economy, but its global growth that counts. Other metrics were superior in the post WWII era such as employment and stability (lack of crises). FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I just dropped in from the Golden Age article, and I find this very curious. i agree with you that the mainstream usually refers to the post WWII era as the "Golden Age of Capitalism"(I would disagree with you on the other part, as the Gilded Age saw 3 minor recessions in 40 years and the post world war ii era saw a huge depression and numerous recessions, not to mention after tax income was way higher), but a substantial minority believes that Gilded Age is better (ex. Friedman, Mises, Rothbard). Perhaps mention this on top of the post-world war II economic expansion article?Teeninvestor (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I support the change FeydHextable made. The following sources are a sample of those suggesting FeydHextable is correct:

• From page 45 of Wakeman, Rosemary (2003), Themes in Modern European History since 1945, Routledge, ISBN 9780415219884: "Economists agree that it is impossible to find an historical precedent for the extended period of prosperity enjoyed by Europe during the "golden age" of the 1950s and 1960s. A variety of names have been used to describe these thirty years of spectacular economic expansion: les glorieuses, the golden age of capitalism,and das Wirtschaftswunder."

• From page 216 of Desai, Mehhnad (2004), Marx's Revenge: The Resurgence of Capitalism and the Death of Statist Socialism, Verso, ISBN 9781859844298: "The thirty years following the end of the Second World War were even more startling than the first forty-five years of the twentieth century, which had been already pretty eventful. These thirty years (some would say 25: 1948–73) have been called 'the Golden Age of Capitalism', or the Keynesian quarter-century, the 'Age of Keynes'."

• I think most compelling is the following from pages 297 and 298 of Arrighi, Giovanni (1994), The Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power, and the Origins of Our Times, Part 1, Verso, ISBN 9781859840153 (Arrighi quotes other authors on the matter): "According to McCormick (1989: 99) the 23-year period inaugurated by the Korean War and concluded by the Paris Peace Accords in early 1973, which virtually ended the Vietnam War, was "the most sustained and profitable period of economic growth in the history of world capitalism." This is the same period that Stephen Marglin and Juliet Schor (1991), among others, have called the "Golden Age of Capitalism"."

Whether the "gilded age" should be mentioned in the article on post-Second World War economic expansion is an issue for that talk page, not here. Nev1 (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is to solve it by noting that alternative definitions exist, similar to what happened in the Tang Dynasty article.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I see you added a link, I've also exspanded the terminology section to say that Golden Age of Capitalism can sometimes refer to the earlier period. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)