Talk:Rubinomics
 | A fact from Rubinomics appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 October 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
1) This page has too much political commentary. It should stick to the facts of the policy.
2) Agreed, and disagreed. It is even-handed enough.
Um, yeah.
[edit]Looks like the only information you can glean about Rubinomics is that it's the opposite of Reaganomics...
What a load of....
[edit]The article said "the economy expanded greatly; unemployment fell" - well, that may be true during the Clinton administration, but that was due to the effects of Raganomics which had preceeded the Clinton administration. What the Clintion Administration did was create the increased unemployment that happened after that administration. The economy is slow to respond. The Clinton Administration cannot take credit for the performance of the economy during its tenure anymore than we can blame George W. for 9/11 just because it happened in the first few weeks of that administrations tenure.
How did such a nasty POV article as this one make it to the front page in the first place! I am beginning to think that those who decide what goes on the front page have POV problems themselves.
Lets be more responsible, people! KeyStroke
I notice that this page is still on the front page and has not been pulled, even though the "disputability" of this article is not contested. Who is watching the store, here? Are the people who put the front page together all asleep at the switch? KeyStroke 18:30, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
"The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit." Instead the economy expanded greatly; unemployment fell, as well as the budget deficit, which turned into a surplus. The U.S. stock market climbed and the economy created the environment that incubated the technology boom."
This could be a causal fallacy. Simply because A occurred, then B, does not mean that one is the cause of the other. Evidence must be given to lend credence that raising taxes resulted in the aforementioned salutatory economics effects. Indeed, what if the economy improved for other reasons, and the tax increases held the economy back from its full potential? Economic entries must draw the line between qualitive and normative. MSTCrow 12:02, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
From the original author
[edit]Hey, I just wanted to define the term based on the views of those economists who believe in it. If you guys question it, you are welcome to revise it yourselves. The goal is a better article that is informative and objective, right???
Uggh. talk radio won't teach real economics.
[edit]This page should just describe Robert Rubin's approach to fiscal policy.
This article should not try to evaluate the merit of Rubinomics. That would require thousands of hours of work by trained professionals.
Most of the text I deleted was clearly written by people that have no real training in economics. Please, leave the text alone if you're just going to repeat what you hear on Fox news. --Waxmop 01:00, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Sir, I must wonder, despite your qualifictions, why you post behind an anonymous IP address, and hold no apparent Wikipedia account. Transparency is the key to credibility. Do not disparage your detractors when you yourself seek to be exempt from scientific scrutiny.
- MSTCrow 23:54, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
My Apologies
[edit]I didn't make an account coz I'm a newbie. I'll make one when I become better in this. I studied wiki's NPOV. There is a distinction between NPOV and objectivity, so my work was flawed all along. I better study the feature articles and learn from them, only then will I register. My apologies....