Talk:Autarky

Archives (Index)

2013 2015 2016 2017 2020

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Autarky ???

I've noticed errors on this page several times over the years - fixed them a few times even.

Now the page is more convoluted and nonsense than it was previously. This is not the only page this is happening on - it appears to be a concerted effort to mislead.

Autarky failed in a pre-globalized world, very conclusively and could only do more harm in the world today.

This is not debatable. I will be redoing most of this page.

My apologies if I'm stepping on toes but I find this particular idea dangerous without context.

- Jakksen Notarky (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course you are wlecome to edit; however, please be careful about WP:VNT. You seem to have made some pretty strong claims - that Autarky has "very conclusively" failed - without resorting to any sort of scholarly consensus. I am not saying that such consensus does not exist, I am not well educated on this subject; but you need to bring reliable, non-fringe sources to the table if you're changing a Wikipedia article like this. Uness232 (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you the person who wrote sweeping generalisations such as "Economists are generally supportive of free trade." and cite only a former director of the World Bank to justify that claim? You couldn't find three organisations more dedicated to US hegemony than the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO.

it's a logical fallacy to say "this idea has always failed, therefore the idea is stupid". human powered flight failed for centuries before it became a reality. and who is measuring the failure, and were the causes of the failure endogenous and exogenous to autarky. A country like bhutan is an autarky. Cuba had had autarky forced on it with USA sanctions (and recriminations against other nations that don't mirror these sanctions).

Then we need to examine the phrase "free trade"… the word free is a misnomer and extremely ideologically. As prize winning economist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha-Joon_Chang points out in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Samaritans:_The_Myth_of_Free_Trade_and_the_Secret_History_of_Capitalism all wealthy nations have used trade barriers (and often colonialism) at one time or another to increase their domestic capacity to compete with important. I could go on and on, but your comments are extremely ideological and this page comes across as something published by the IMF or Radio USA propaganda. WideEyedPupil (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not logged in but I'm Jakksen.

I did not write anything regarding economists.

I'm just someone who is annoyed that an economic policy is pitched as a "characteristic" that's how it was changed the last time I freaked on the word quality.

That lie is the first sentence.

There is a concerted effort to change the definition of this word - it's wrong tho and I don't understand how this is contentious at all. 107.77.206.115 (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Autarky-2024-Forward

This page is far from anything resembling quality. Information is convoluted and intentionally skewed to paint autarky as a beneficial economic policy and also remove the most controversial historical implementations of such policy in the modern era - the Axis Powers of WWII. It contradicts itself often and in absolutely no way provides clear understanding of the topic.

I will continue to work on this page - I've added this to an alarm even, I wont forget for another year - almost 39,000 people have been here since I last complained about this content and it has only devolved with time - as any trip thru the past iterations of the page itself and the talks corresponding will show quite clearly.

No discussion of Autarky can exist without Fascism - that must include all the fascist actors that propagated and adopted the policy, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan.

The discussion must include the global effects of the Great Powers autarkic policies that preceded both the Great Depression and WWII.

The discussion must include data that proves the economic benefit or even viability of any claims to positive effects from autarkic policy - much like how I have included the 7% total GDP gains made from 1868-1879 by Imperial Japan AFTER abandoning autarky and adopting a free trade market based system.

I've never seen such conclusive evidence that autarky does anything but prop up otherwise failing national economic structures - that very rarely plays out well financially, I'd love to see the data about all these benefits. Notarky (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)