Talk:Austan Goolsbee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 14:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody please include Goolsbee recent fiasco with the Canadian officials and NAFTA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.42.88 (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Read the Wikipedia guidelines for biographies of living persons. Pay attention to the section about avoiding bad or wrong information, AND the section about avoiding bad information even if it is right unless there is a clear reason to include it. That is why we will not include this information on Hillary Diane Clinton's page either. If you read your facts, you will know that Hillary Clinton may be guilty and was implicated in this by the Canadian officials. This whole package of mud-slinging by the Canadian government was because Hillary's low-level worker bees supposedly contacted the Canadian government to notify them that Her campaign stand on NAFTA (what she would be telling the Ohio voters) was not her true stand. She wanted to assure Canada that NAFTA would remain as-is and strong, and that her Ohio claims of "revisiting NAFTA", if elected, are just posturing for votes on Her part. She even called the original passage of NAFTA, on Bill Clinton's watch, a great "success". For whatever reason, the Canadian government then contacted Obama's camp. What was said is not known, although there is much speculation. But certain biased television networks then presented the issue as Obama himself calling the Canadian Ambassador. Then they asked Obama if he had called the Canadian Ambassador. Obama said no. Then they called him a liar and "proved" it by saying that a Canadian Consulate staffer had called an Obama staffer. As any intelligent person knows, those are not the same thing. Obama was truthful when he said no. For Hillary, she chose to defend herself by procclaiming that she would give "blanket immunity" (to who or whom?) if Canada would release the name of the person on her staff who told Canada that Her campaign position of being against NAFTA was not her real position. Canada rightly recognized this as 'code' and further political posturing on Hillary's part-- since Hillary has no authority over Canada or any Canadian-- the phrase "blanket immunity" is meaningless. As much as you might crave for Hillary to win the Democratic nomination, you must ask yourself where this mud came from and what is the real purpose. Apparently it was meant to tar BOTH Hillary and Obama. Who would have a stake in a desire to slash the electability of Hillary and Obama? (Republicans) Who would have a stake in ensuring the on-going strength and vitality of NAFTA, ensuring that American jobs KEEP being outsourced to cheaper third-world countries? (Republicans). Who would have a stake in ensuring that the rich get richer and the middle-class worker becomes fully enslaved to the whims of the "haves"? (The Top-Tier Republicans, Halliburton style). And finally, who has actual, official daily communication and an official work-relationship with the government of Canada, and all offices of the Canadian Embassy? ANSWER: The Republican President of the United States, George W. Bush, and his hive of worker bees. Again, as much as you want to shoot down Obama, so Hillary will win the nomination, remember that whomever started this poison was aiming at Hillary too. Since this is a currently on-going event that has not been resolved yet, as of March 13, 2008, it has no place here on a Biography of a Living Person. This is not the place for unproven accusations against a living person. If you want to fight for Hillary by spewing this venom, there are many sites currently on youtube and similar websites to vent your venom. Post your stuff there. This page will not be made better by posting U.S. Presidential campaign mud here. -- Joe Hepperle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.100.23.136 (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is amazing and apalling that the most news worthy event regarding Austan Goolsbee is not referenced here. The facts are not in dispute. He met with Canadian diplomatic officials. Those officials wrote a report afterwars stating that Obama's statements regarding NAFTA were rethoric and needed to be considered in the context of the political campaign. To not mention this on the page reeks of non-NPOV. In it's current form, this article reads like a resume or a brochure. Charles Oppermann (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
November 19th, huh? Still sore that Obama won? Well Charlie, the neat thing about Wikipedia is that if you have facts, not in dispute, you can put 'em in here yourself! A look at your contributions page shows you are very adept at changing many other pages to your liking. Go ahead, put your 'facts' in the article. Make sure they are cited properly according to Wikipedia standards. You'll be happy to know that your 'facts' don't even have to be true (why am I thinking Billow Riley now?). Wikipedia allows all kinds of falsehoods as long as it appears in a REPUTABLE source, and that users are pointed to the source so they can see for themselves.
Three things to keep in mind though: (1)If the 'memo from Canada' is all you know about this, you are WAY behind in this story (short version hint--It's over! Obama won!), and (2)NPOV means your opinion (point of view) can not be a part of the article. It does NOT mean that 50 words of bad stuff has to be written for every 50 words of good stuff, and (3)Biographies of Living Persons (like Goolsbee's page here) have much more stringent requirements for what can be added. Anything that might cast the subject in a BAD light is required to be LEFT OUT, no matter how well it is documented, unless one can show an absolute need for the information. As an example, Al Capone's page details his numerous flagrant violations of the law, including BOOTLEGGING during Prohibition. These are included because the crimes are what made Al Capone 'notable'. But when you flip over to the John F Kennedy page, you find no mention of his father (Joseph Kennedy) having been a bootlegger, because even though it's true, and documented, it is BAD and it has little to do with John Kennedy being who he was.
Finally, to help you get up to speed, I'll get you started. After the Canadian Govt. investigated their side of this issue (including the memo you refer to above), they released a later statement which said, "The Canadian Embassy and our consulates general regularly contact those involved in all of the presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. There was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about Nafta."
Charlie, you can probably start your section with the phrase, "Goolsbee and Obama were falsely accused of..." I'll let you take it from there. Obama is an Arab, so maybe you can fit that in there too. -- Joe Hepperle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.225.99 (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Someone please include that he is a member of SKULL & BONES if this information is correct. Also is he a member of CFR or other subversive cults? Eliot BernsteinEliotbernstein (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he is. Plenty of sources. Hopefully his body language won't be as bad as Kerry's at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwJDs1cg9Eo on Meet the Press,.if he's ever asked about it.
Real question is why this inquiry on the talk page has been ignored for 14 years? Chase2023 (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this source https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2012/02/present-day-skull-and-bones-in-obama-white-house.html can't be ignored. So I added the missing detail. Chase2023 (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia?[edit]

This doesn't read much like a wikipedia article. Contralya (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Clown Troop ?[edit]

In the Obama project to cover Obama44 officials, there seems to be no understanding of Obama execs as Goolsbee, (see NAFTA critique above); and place in context their doings as a troop of ? clowns, which pinpoints an extreme Obama failing - he relates to , hand picks, as his most senior advisors, those who can motor mouth a blue streak, but who like Goolsbee and Geitner are truly badly inexperienced to be in their positions and Obama44 has no clue as to that key factor , as he also is the same, badly inexperienced.

(recall Obama key foreign policy advisor during the casmpaign, the lady atty who went to Harvard Law School with Obama44, who had studied genocide, but nothing else in foreign policy, but was his overall key foreign policy advisor; and recall her massive faux paux.

And esp recall that Geitner announced publically that he would NOT give ANY loan to AIG but the next day did loan to AIG, ONLY after the why was explained to him because he did NOT know, that why being that not lending to AIG would collapse global markets, a fact Geitner had no clue about and why he was not going to lend AIG a dime and that clown / Geitner is NOW, even with that pitiful zero recommendation running the USA Treasury)

Yak, Yak, Yak and you will be an Obama44 cabinet member; but have a real thought using in depth understanding and you wouldnt get the time of day from the mity Obuma, esp as he would NOT FOLLOW anything you said.

Optimus Prime, (we are here , we are waiting) aka AO 69.121.221.97 (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/10/court_rules_administration_must_acknowledge_investigation_into_release_of_koch_brothers_tax_returns.html

The Obama administration must acknowledge the existence of an independent investigation into former White House senior economics adviser Austan Goolsbee’s alleged unauthorized access to the Koch brother’s tax returns, a court ruled Tuesday.

A federal judge ruled the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) must disclose to watchdog group Cause of Action whether records of an investigation exist.

Cause of Action filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit after TIGTA refused to confirm or deny the existence of the investigation in what is commonly known as a “Glomar response.”

Former White House Council of Economic Advisers chairman Austan Goolsbee sparked a mini-scandal in 2010 when he told reporters during a background press briefing that Koch Industries—the company of libertarian philanthropists Charles and David Koch—paid no income taxes.

Conservative lawmakers and activists said Goolsbee’s statements not only unfairly singled out the president’s political opponents but also used confidential IRS documents to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AZRickD (talk • contribs) 14:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goolsbee's Birthplace[edit]

For the second time in three months, I have changed Goolsbee's birthplace in this article from Abeline, Texas to Waco, Texas, because profiles of Goolsbee on the NNDB and WhoRunsGov websites list his birthplace as Waco, Texas, after my first attempt to do so was reverted without comment. While I realize that some Wikipedians may question the validity of these two websites as reliable sources, I feel that based upon this information a reasonable attempt should be made to verify which city is his correct birthplace. --TommyBoy (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, the article has been updated. --TommyBoy (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting with Canadian officials...[edit]

I'm removing this section (the subject of what appears to be a "slow-motion" edit war) per WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYN. The author of the section has used synthesis to suggest "a media firestorm" (see edit summaries passim), when there is in fact no evidence in reliable sources that this has been the case. Moreover, Goolsbee was only tangentially involved in the incident and, as such, it is not a biographically-significant detail. Anyone wishing to reintroduce any or all of this material into the article must first seek a consensus to do so on this talk page. Edit warring will not be tolerated. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The individuals who have been removing it, are first-time editors whose accounts seem to have been created for the sole purpose of removing this information, so I am not sure I would describe it as an edit war per say. In any event, there was significant media coverage (it was the lead story on the nightly news in Canada for at least three nights and in the US for 2). Here is a Google News search which shows the depth and range of the media coverage. And it would seem be his principal reason for notability: a Google search suggests that 18% of all pages about the fellow are about this incident; a search of "Austan Goolsbee" yields 708,000 results while a more specific search of "'Austan Goolsbee' nafta" yields 130,000. - Pictureprovince (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who you edit-warred with has no bearing on whether or not the action was appropriate. If there is any sort of dispute about material, it must be brought to this talk page and discussed. You must seek a consensus for inclusion of any disputed material, rather than just re-adding it and making comments about how many edits a particular editor has made.
Google is a useful tool for establishing notability of a topic, but the volume of hits has no bearing on the quality of sources. And while it is true that this "faux controversy" was big it Canada, it received only a passing mention here in the US. Goolsbee is a key economic figure in the Obama administration who makes almost daily appearances on television, and it is in this role that he is chiefly notable. In contrast, there has been no coverage of his non-involvement in the NAFTA thing since 2008. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Goolsbee did meet with Canadian officials as a rep of the Obama campaign. Those officials wrote an official diplomatic memo summarizing the discussions and sent it to their headquarters. That memo was leaked to the press and received significant media coverage. These are facts that are not the subject of any dispute by anyone involved.
Your assertion that the incident "received only passing mention" in the United States does not seem accurate. For instance, it was directly the subject of at least three New York Times articles,[1][2][3] and a fourth shows that it was serious enough to the Obama campaign for them to raise it again weeks later with their own memos questioning Hillary Clinton's sincerity on the matter.[4]
While I would agree that he is more notable for other more recent things, the solution is not to blank out factual and notable parts of his biography, it is to expand and build up the other sections.
Finally, I must say that I continue to disagree with your description of this dispute as an edit war. I am not the only one who has reverted the vandalistic removal of this section by others, and I have attempted to resolve the issue by posting my concerns on the talk page of the most recent vandal, and linking to that post in my edit summary. - Pictureprovince (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To describe removal of material as part of a content dispute as "vandalistic" is grossly improper, because it assumes bad faith on the part of those removing the material. Please assume good faith. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, sometimes it is difficult to see the reason when an anonymous or new user deletes material without explanation, however you are right that I should assume good faith. However, you have not addressed my point that this is verifiable, factual information that should be included. If it is taking up too much of a proportion of the article, then it behoves the community to beef up the other sections, not delete notable, factual information. Would you agree or disagree? - Pictureprovince (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that expanding the article is a good idea, but I do not agree that this particular matter is biographically significant enough for inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it seems we can't agree on whether or not this ought to be included, I've listed this for a third option. - Pictureprovince (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea. It is unusual to have only two editors in a situation like this, so Three-Oh is definitely the way to go. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request (Disagreement as to whether or not an event in 2008 should be included in this biographical article.):
Good to see that there has already been a discussion on assuming good faith and that WP:3O is amicably being used for dispute resolution. If Goolsbee's involvement was later unsubstantiated, is this notable for his biography and if so, why? If it does belong, I agree that it needs to be toned down, regardless if other parts of the article need expansion (expansion templates can be used to identify those areas). Not wanting to lose valuable content for Wikipedia, a good question to ask would be "Does this content belong in a different article?" In fact, it is already mentioned in Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008#March Is there any of this content that should be moved/copied to that article? Would a See also to the Democratic Party article section be sufficient for the Goolsbee article?

I recommend discussing content that would be better placed in another article, and proposing a revised toned-down version if any mention is considered worthy of remaining in this article.——Bagumba (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So are you basically suggesting that Pictureprovince's content (or a revised version thereof) belongs in a separate article, with a pointer (or brief summary) in this one? If so, I can support that, because it basically addresses my WP:WEIGHT concerns. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if he Bagumba is suggesting there should be less on this page with a link to the 2008 campaign article, or less on the campaign page with a link to more material to here. Perhaps Bagumba could clarify? - Pictureprovince (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find the incident more relevant to the election article. There could be a reference here to that article subject to consensus, but I would think it should be brief here if at all —Bagumba (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification :) - Pictureprovince (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested restructuring, inclusion of mention of Canadian memo[edit]

Further to the WP:3O above, I have a proposed restructuring of the article which includes a brief paragraph on the Canadian diplomatic memo that received media coverage in March 2008. I have taken the "academic and public service" and "media" sections and adjusted them to "academia" and "public service" sections with each including his relevant media activities during those periods. Here are the changes tracked against the most current version on a subpage of my talk page. What do you think? - Pictureprovince (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that I added some more information to make the article flow better - Pictureprovince (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest something more like this:
During Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, Goolsbee was alleged to have told Canadian consular officials in Chicago that Obama's political position on the North American Free Trade Agreement was "more reflective of political maneuvering than policy."[1][2]
I see no need for the "subject of media interest" language. The rest of your proposed changes seem appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. I'll make the changes to the page proper. - Pictureprovince (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I'm glad that all worked out :) -- Scjessey (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With further research, this statement does not hold up very well on its own. Looking into this matter in more detail, it seems clear that if there is to be any reference to this sentence, it really must add the qualifier that immediately following the public citation, the allegation was refuted by a statement from the Canadian government, the Obama campaign, Goolsbee himself and by later press examinations and that Canadian television ran a follow-up report saying the original story had not been reported accurately. These were referenced in an old paragraph deleted some weeks ago when it was placed in the wrong section of the bio. Given that this was an issue in one primary somewhat early in the campaign and he had an extensive continued role in the campaign for all the months that followed with no mention of any of his statements or activity in this regard, it hardly seems accurate to list this alone. As a compromise, the sentence about the allegation has not been removed but the questions regarding its accuracy are also included as is a summary of the continued role in the campaign after this episode. But if people think the entire canadian reference should be removed, that would also seem appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 235bender (talk • contribs) 01:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this is one of those things that looked at one point like it might be a story, may have had some effect, but was later refuted and alleged not only to have been mischaracterized but quite a changing story over time, yet is hanging in here as if the subsequent wrinkles haven't happened. These subsequent wrinkles in the way the story was initially reported certainly seem relevant to note here if this is an issue relevant to Goolsbee's bio and appropriately weighted given how briefly we are limited to here.
According to a ref in our article, the story was first alleged to have been Hillary Clinton (who ran saying she would renegotiate the pact) whose reps contacted the Canadians to say this. Then it was not hers, but rather Obama's reps who contacted them and wanted to discuss the issue. Then it was the Canadians who contacted Obama's people. The American press seems to attribute the offending characterization to a quote from Goolsbee, while the Canadian source points out that this was an interpretive statement by the Canadian analyst, not a quote. The Canadian apparently denied the characterization. Then there's the assertion that the leak (whether true or not) by the conservative party whose leader was a friend of Bush's was targeted to aid John McCain, who was campaigning with statements supportive of NAFTA.
There was at least one major investigation into this by the Canadian government; has there ever been any leak from the Canadians on that which could help us understand how to present this, if at all? Abrazame (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Luo, Michael (2008-03-04). "Memo Gives Canada's Account of Obama Campaign's Meeting on Nafta," New York Times, accessed April 4, 2011.
  2. ^ Austen, Ian (2008-03-07). "Trade Pact Controversy in Democratic Race Reaches Into Canadian Parliament ," New York Times, accessed April 4, 2011.

Economist[edit]

This article states that the subject is an economist yet gives next to no information on his economic beliefs. I can't even tell from the article whether he is an orthodox or a heterodox economist. He might even be an a Marxist or an Objectivist for all that I can tell. The article certainly isn't giving any clues. Can anyone add something to give us some idea of what sort of an economist he is? -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. ---Dagme (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Austan Goolsbee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Austan_Goolsbee&oldid=1207331358"