Talk:Summers memo

Economics B‑class Low‑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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Several economists have noted that although the "memo" as a whole may be morally deplorable, the economic argument in itself makes some sense." -I think that's the point of the criticism of it -it's a criticism of economic thinking. - Matthew238 04:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But who claims this? I am not aware of an economist who explicitly said this. Maybe some have, but I think "some economists" implies that at least one real economist can be named who says something like this.--Catquas 19:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page reads "shorn of [it's] context and the intended irony." The [it's] should be [its]. I am changing it, but if there is a good reason to keep it as is, I suggest that [sic] be added somewhere. SammyBoy (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for economics template and importance rating

I believe that the rationale for inclusion in the economics category is self-evident. I believe that its level of importance is justified because it (unintentionally, at least) describes actual policy.
--NBahn (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question re Content of the Memo

I can't tell whether this paragraph/sentence:

"The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization."

is part of the memo or part of the wiki article. Anyone know?

Also, shouldn't it also be tagged as being in some sort of Swiftian category? Ileanadu (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm

Jrtayloriv has twice deleted the phrase "sarcastically" from the opening sentence from this article. Given the inflammatory nature of the section highlighted by the memo, I think it's misleading and unfair to Mr. Summers not to mention that the section was intended as sarcasm. Binarybits (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's unfair at all. Summers claimed that it was sarcastic after controversy arose. There is no way that he would have publically admitted to this, unless there was no possible way for him to perform damage control -- he would not have remained politically viable. The two ways to perform damage control in this situation were to pretend like he (a) didn't say it, or (b) didn't mean it -- he was able to do both, and he did. So his claim that it was sarcastic holds very little weight, due to the circumstances. Yet, his response is still located just following the opening sentence, which I don't agree with, but understand the need for. What I don't think is fair is to make a statement, written as if it were a fact, that says that the memo was sarcastic, just because he said so after he started having his political career threatened. I think that in order to be objective, we should say what the memo said -- which is the only factual evidence we have about the contents of the memo. And then write about the controversy afterwards. I'm not deleting Summers' claim that it was sarcastic -- indeed, he has the entire second paragraph, starting with the third sentence of this article. I am just trying to keep this objective, and claiming that Summers' view alone is fact, especially considering the circumstances, is not objective.Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]