Talk:Iron triangle (US politics)

The page being nuked
An edit by User:Bdb484 on 01 NOV 13 at 13:37 destroyed an informative graphic and nearly 10,000 words, leaving this article a stub. The reasons given were "uncited" and "cleaning up". "Cleaning up" involved removing not only the graphic, but all contextual links to other wikipedia pages which could at the very least have given the concept some meaning.

It is my opinion that a far more amicable solution would have been to simply mark sections in need of citation; I really think this was uncalled for. If there is a reason the Iron Triangle analogy is no longer notable, taught in university political science classes, etc. then I think it should be brought to our attention, otherwise, it is a simple and useful way of modeling a complex interaction between public and private power groups.

I personally believe that Wikipedia is incomplete without this entry. But if User:Bdb484 or anyone else disagrees with me, I would like to ask why there was no petition to simply remove the page instead.

In any event, I consider what was done to be vandalism, and I would like to hear opinions on simply reverting the page. I do agree the page had original research problems and is in dire need of multiple primary sources. I think it might even be worth investing some of my own time in tracking down the term's origins. However, destroying these sections instead of annotating them has made it impossible to fix what would otherwise be easily correctable problems. Iheartdaikaiju (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Untitled
Is there evidence of this term being used outside the US? A lot of it (congress, etc.) doesn't make much sense for the consitutions of other countries. If this is indeed only a US term, then the aticle should say "in the US political system" or something. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:57, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I have not heard this term applied to political systems outside the US; though the possibility certainly exists for a similar phenomenon to occur in other countries with legislative bodies, and so for the phrase to be adopted elsewhere as a result. To my knowledge though, it is currently a feature and phrase unique to the American political landscape. I'll amend the article to reflect this. Thanks for your input. -- Ubernetizen 19:10, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is not a Disambiguation page. That section should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.200.231 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 15 March 2005

I have studied the Iron Triangle in the context of Business Government Relations in Japan. There is - Bureacracy - MITI and MOF - Business - "Zaikai" or peak business associations and zaibatsus such as Mitsubishi, Mitsui, Sanwa, Fuji - The LDP - Liberal Democratic Party Theres heaps of stuff to talk about it..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.100.103 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 15 June 2005

Can the graphic be changed to just say "regulations / special favors"? Low regulation may be one affect; but often times special interest groups LIKE and WANT regulations as it keeps competition out or limited, e.g. peanut farming, appraisal/broker licensing, taxi cab (licenses) tokens, blue laws forcing all car dealers to take sunday off, et cetera. The interest group then can influence regulations as necessary through their legislative and regulatory channels, with public participation out of the lime-light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.176.124.74 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 30 December 2006

TVA
I think that TVA case study is in need of some references. Have there been any actual studies that have shown TVA to be an iron triangle? Or is this all just 'original research'. I see no links. I'm especially interested in the 'poor farmers (especially blacks)' line. Considering that Tennessee (especially East Tennessee) has a lower percentage of blacks then the rest of the south due to the fact that cotton doesn't grown in mountains. Most of the places that people lost land were around rivers that prior to TVA constantly flooded (such as Norris). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.119.116 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 27 May 2007

Yeah, I wandered in from Military industrial complex, looked over the Tennessee_Valley_Authority, and I'm still not quite sure how it has anything to do with an Iron Triangle. I think this has just been added by people unhappy with the TVA, so I'm boldly cutting it. Revert if you've got reason to. 206.196.158.130 (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Regulation (Rent Seeking)
Just stopping by, but I had a comment about the picture. It reads "low regulation", but (assuming this pic was made for the article) "favorable regulation" would be more accurate. Sometimes, the relationship will involve strict deregulation. Other times, in fact, there may be *more* regulation, but in a way to strengthen the interest group and weaken its competitors. It's a nit, I know, but I've got to pick them when I see them.155.33.208.227 (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

In economics, "favorable regulation" is known as rent-seeking. Often we hear accusations of "corporatism" and "crony capitalism." This is often the result of regulations that favor existing market players, not necessarily low regulation. Appropriate levels of regulation are a function of the industry. Generally accepted economic theory states that industries with high fixed costs (i.e. utilities) tend to consolidate towards monopoly, therefore significant regulation may be justified (and low regulation would be favorable to the existing players.) Industries with lower fixed costs tend to be more fragmented and competitive, therefore the market tends to self-regulate (consumers have more choices, therefore more leverage.) In this case, higher regulation creates artificial barriers to entry, keeping competitors out, and therefore is favorable to existing players. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.67.191 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 20 August 2013

NPOV and Few Citations
This article cites only one source and takes a political position.

Duxwing (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iron triangle (US politics). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160422051833/http://www.peterbgemma.com/2016/04/121588-usa-today-oped-iron-triangle-rules-washington/ to http://www.peterbgemma.com/2016/04/121588-usa-today-oped-iron-triangle-rules-washington/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible RS?
[http://www.ushistory.org/gov/8.asp 8. The Bureaucracy: The Real Government] which has a § and similar diagram on ‘The Iron Triangle’ and [http://www.ushistory.org/gov/8a.asp 8a. The Development of the Bureaucracy] which has: The largest growth of the bureaucracy in American history came between 1933 and 1945. Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal meant bigger government, since agencies were needed to administer his many programs. With the American entry into World War II in 1941, the needs of the war elevated the number of federal agencies and employees even more. During those 12 Roosevelt years, the total number of federal employees increased from a little over half a million in 1933 to an all time high of more than 3.5 million in 1945.

After World War II ended in 1945, the total number of federal employees decreased significantly, but still has remained at levels between about 2.5 and 3 million. Contrary to popular opinion, the federal bureaucracy did not grow in numbers significantly during the last half of the 20th century. Federal bureaucrats did, however, greatly increase their influence.

The site is by The Independence Hall Association (IHA). Humanengr (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)