This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade 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.TradeWikipedia:WikiProject TradeTemplate:WikiProject TradeTrade articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism 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.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism articles
Latest comment: 3 months ago5 comments5 people in discussion
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://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Ha-Joon_Chang points out in https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/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)
The Inca Empire was not socialist, but there is academic consensus that it was an Autarky, and it didn't fail. For more info see what I posted on the talk page of Economy of the Inca Empire. I hate it when modern ideas get us to 'denounce' things of the past. Inca society was mainly happy (eh), but the thing is that the Inca socio-economical system was just that, a system used to adapt to the environnement and in the absence of a currency. There was never an 'intent' of generosity. It was institutionalized generosity. The Inca economy is fascinating, and it had success. Thats why its fascinating. However it was born as a way to adapt to a harsh environnement, and out of geographical isolation from outside influence (trade was rare, happened in social hierarchy, and in a state like fashion. By rare I mean that there were only two polities practicing it, the Chincha chiefdom and the people of the northern coast. And it was troc, not money used. Except in Ecuador, where this 'institution of reciprocity' didn't exist, and axe-moniess were used). In other words no, autarky, as an economic model, was never proven to inevitably fail, tho I wouldn't want to live under an autarky today, in europe. Encyclopédisme (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
