Talk:Mark Weisbrot

Request for comment on works and publications
Should the "Works and publications" section be Option 1 or Option 2?

18:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Option 3

 * This option was added by DenizenGene at 04:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Selected articles


 * Books



Discussion below

 * Option 2, per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a webhost, a repository of links, or a means of promotion. Mr. Weisbrot's publications can be hosted on his own company's website, listing his books here. An RFC is needed to resolve this because this issue has persisted here for at least eight years, and has involved meatpuppetry.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A pared Option 3 has been proposed. Reiterating support for Option 2 and further pruning.  Weisbrot's company, Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), has a page which links to Weisbrot's writing; Wikipedia need not host an extensive list.  Looking at Option 3, the "How not to attack ... " article is already listed as a source in the article.  Scorecard on Development has CEPR co-authorship and should be covered at the CEPR article.  Ditto for "Logic of contested exchange".  What is the inclusion criteria for this list?  Why are CEPR publications included in Weisbrot article when CEPR has an article?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What is the criteria for choosing what to list? Of the six you list above, one is already used as a source in the article, several of them are not very important papers judging by how often google scholar reports they are cited by others, and those that are cited more often are CEPR papers that can be listed on the CEPR page. Could you please define how you are choosing what to list, so we won't have to keep re-visiting this topic, and explain why they should be listed here and not at CEPR? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Artists often have their discographies on their own sites and academics' university sites often host their bibliographies. As pages of these variety often have bibliographies/discographies, I think it is reasonable to apply the same model here. A selected bibliography should provide a reader an introduction and overview of an author's work, so I think that should be the aim/criteria. In order to do this, I think there would need to be the addition of a few of Weisbrot's papers about country specific economies. He seems to have done a few of these about European countries and some Latin America countries, but that part of his academic work is not represented here.
 * I agree that the Scorecard series of papers should be covered here and on the CEPR page as it seems to be both one of Weisbrot's more significant publications (with its multiple publications by the United Nations) and an important publication for the Center as it has involved several of their staff over the past decade. I think it would be best to avoid using citations and citations reported by a search engine as a criteria because a) a majority of academic papers are never officially cited b) Google scholar in my experience isn't the most reliable source especially for academic work published outside major journals c) Weisbrot's academic work seems to be cited more typically by media sources (e.g. papers and magazines) rather than academic journals. Since Weisbrot founded the CEPR, it would make sense that the organization would publish much of his work. I don't think there's a need to create a strong dichotomy between the organization and the person when it comes to work published. For example, the leader singer of a rock band's article would likely include songs she sung and albums she recorded with that band. Those songs and albums would also appear on the band's page. -DenizenGene (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Per WP:OSE Option 1. Articles of American Economists uniformly have selected bibliographies. They are essential to the article if it is to provide an accurate, reliable picture of subject. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tobin, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz -DenizenGene (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Option 2 or pare the "selected" pubs down from 23 to about 3. Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think paring is a good idea, Dick. I removed all news citations, leaving only selected published academic work. What do you think of the look of the new list? Thanks for the idea. -DenizenGene (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not alter talk page posts by other editors, and please avoid changing an in-progress RFC. I have added an Option 3 with your new suggested list. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I wasn't sure of the protocol for updating options. Thanks for adding Option 3. -DenizenGene (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Option 1 article lists are normally included for academics in the same way that discographys are permitted for musicians/singers, and 23 entries is not particularly long, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Option 2 - Option 1 is blatant self promotion - Just because he's a Columnist doesn't mean we should include every piece he's wrote - I could perhaps agree that a few would be fine but even then it could be seen as favouritism in some respects, Better off having just the books as that way there's arguement with what piece should and shouldn't be there. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Option 2 - summoned by bot. I don't think it's a good idea to publish links of articles.  It sets a bad precedent, and is unsustainable.  There are LA Times and NY Times columnists that produce two articles a week - it could get unwieldy. Instead, put a link in the external links section (which I just did) to find his articles. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  04:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Option 2 - A summary of most notable works is sufficient (could include books and articles). If all the articles and works are notable enough a separate bibliography article could be created. For an example see Noam Chomsky bibliography and filmography. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Option 2: no need to list each and every article; books are sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Option 2 I came here after a bot request. I thought there was a guideline about this somewhere but I do not see information about counts in Manual of Style/Lists of works or elsewhere. This issue has come up 1000s of times and I know it resolves to be a short list. The longer term wiki solution to this will be that anyone can upload a full publication history, including books, academic papers, news articles, and anything else, to Wikidata. Some guidance for this is at d:Wikidata:WikiProject Source MetaData. Once there are enough citations in Wikidata then probably Wikipedia articles will contain links to lists of publications as entered in Wikidata.   Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Option 1 It is rather interesting to read the rationale being provided for Option Dos. It would appear, on the surface, that some of these editors would prefer a minimalist approach which is rather curious considering that the purpose of the Mighty Wik is to retain and spread knowledge about the subject at hand. That being the case, why would we not want to provide access to the subject's writings and opinions?  Perhaps because some of Whitebread's writings on current events have been borne to be, well, not as accurate as he may have prophesized? Hammersbach (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hyperinflation
Has Weisbrot given any other comments regarding the current economic crisis of Venezuela or its hyperinflation, since he saw it as an unlikely scenario? --Jamez42 (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Over-reliance on self-sourcing
I have removed yet another example of what this article already has too much of: an over-reliance on self-sourcing and too much text lacking in independent, third-party sourcing, containing original research or puffery cited to the subject himself. "For the past 20 years, Weisbrot has written and commented on the US economy, starting with his 1999 book,  Social Security:  The Phony Crisis (see Works & Publications, here below).  He has also written extensively on the state of the US labor market, and other topics relating to the US welfare state, and addressed domestic issues on programs such as C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” and American Public Media’s 'Marketplace'." The book is already covered elsewhere in the article. ORIGINAL RESEARCH and puffery cited to self: "for the past 20 years", "extensively". Not a single third-party, independent discussion of his positions on these self-cited views.

Here are more examples: 1. NO THIRD PARTY SOURCE, no context, no reason given to the reader for this mention. Weisbrot co-authors with CEPR a series of papers looking at the progress in economic growth and social indicators. In 2017, he presented the most recent report, which emphasized the role of China, with economist Jeffrey Sachs in Washington, DC. 2. SELF-SOURCED, ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Weisbrot has continued to suggest that the founding of other alternative lending and finance institutions that do not include participation by the U.S., such as those being created by the BRICS countries, may have positive implications both for borrowing countries and in terms of weakening the influence of Washington-based institutions like the IMF. 3. Entire paragraph self-cited, no independent, third-party discussion of these views or context as to why this is included. Weisbrot has argued that, from 2003 to 2011, Brazil was successful in reducing poverty and inequality, and increasing GDP growth. Weisbrot attributed these successes in part to policy changes that were an improvement over the neoliberal program Brazil adopted in the 1980s. However, he was critical of austerity and high interest rates after 2010, arguing that these were unnecessary and led to a prolonged recession. Weisbrot argued against the impeachment of former Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff in 2016 and the corruption conviction of former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in 2018, pointing to a lack of precedent and evidence to justify the proceedings. Similar occurs throughout-- these are samples only.

It is appropriate to self-cite a bio with respect to things like where the subject was born and when, where he went to school, etc. It is not appropriate to self-cite for puffery. Please stop adding text based on what Weisbrot and CEPR say about Weisbrot, and seek out what independent, third-party sources say about Weisbrot on each topic. Regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

birth year/age
What's with the and the missing date of birth? That is not not common practice, that is we do give the date of birth (or at least they year) if it is publicly documented/known. So why is is it not the case here? Is there special conflict or administrational decision not to provide it?--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggesting expansion of the article
Hello, I've added a COI tag and would like to suggest improvements to the article. It is currently incomplete in that some sections have not been kept current, and the information presented is true but not an accurate reflection of the subject's subsequent or current positions.

The article is also incomplete because it focuses on policy around Latin America almost exclusively and neglects work on Europe and Asia. The current subheadings under Economics Career are:
 * Globalization
 * Latin America
 * Venezuela
 * South of the Border
 * Columns
 * Books

I would like to suggest the following header structure for new sections that would make the article more encyclopedic and complete.


 * Globalization
 * Latin America
 * Venezuela
 * South of the Border
 * Europe
 * European Economic Crisis
 * Greece
 * Asia
 * Columns
 * Books

Below, I have included proposed text and citations for the new sections. Thank you and I welcome any feedback.

Latin America
Weisbrot has written and co-authored research papers and articles on the economies and politics of Latin America and the Caribbean for the past two decades. The countries covered include Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, and Venezuela. Beginning in 2001, Weisbrot challenged the prevailing consensus on the 1998–2002 Argentine great depression, arguing that IMF-supported austerity was counter-productive and that the country needed to devalue its currency in order to recover. After the Argentine government defaulted on its debt at the end of 2001 and allowed the currency to float against the dollar at the beginning of 2002, Weisbrot continued to argue against what he called harmful attempts by the IMF to influence policy in the post-default period. He later wrote papers arguing that Argentina's policies in the 2002-2011 period, after its default and separation from the IMF, were successful. Weisbrot has argued that, from 2003 to 2011, Brazil was successful in reducing poverty and inequality and increasing GDP growth. Weisbrot attributed these successes in part to policy changes that were an improvement over the neoliberal program Brazil adopted in the 1980s. However, he was critical of austerity and high interest rates after 2010, arguing that these were unnecessary and led to a prolonged recession. Weisbrot argued against the impeachment of former Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff in 2016 and the corruption conviction of former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in 2018, pointing to a lack of precedent and evidence to justify the proceedings. In a 2019 report on the IMF program for Ecuador, Weisbrot found that the program was not likely to prevent continuing recession or reduce unemployment.

Venezuela
Articles in The New York Times, USA Today, and The Washington Post described Weisbrot as supportive of some of the policies implemented during Hugo Chávez's presidency. In a 2016 National Review article about Venezuela's deterioration following the Bolivarian Revolution, José Cárdenas described Weisbrot as one of the "leftist admirers of Venezuela" and an "ardent cheerleader" of Chávez's policies. In 2013, Weisbrot praised the Venezuelan government for its gains in poverty, real income, employment, healthcare, and education, and said that the possibility of hyperinflation was "very remote", that economic problems were "not likely" and that "Venezuela has sufficient reserves". A 2019 report by Weisbrot and Jeffrey Sachs said that a 31% rise in the number of deaths between 2017 and 2018 was due to the sanctions imposed on Venezuela in 2017, and that 40,000 people in Venezuela may have died as a result. The report states: "The sanctions are depriving Venezuelans of lifesaving medicines, medical equipment, food, and other essential imports." Weisbrot stated that he "could not prove those excess deaths were the result of sanctions, but said the increase ran parallel to the imposition of the measures and an attendant fall in oil production". A US State Department spokesperson said that, "as the writers themselves concede, the report is based on speculation and conjecture" while Harvard economist Ricardo Hausmann, representative to the Inter-American Development Bank by the US-supported administration of Juan Guaidó, said that the analysis was flawed because it made invalid assumptions about Venezuela based on a different country, Colombia, that the analysis failed to rule out other explanations and that it failed to correctly account for PDVSA finances.

South of the Border
Weisbrot was an advisor, and co-wrote with Tariq Ali the screenplay for the Oliver Stone's 2009 film, South of the Border, which examined the "pink tide" of elected leftist governments in South America. Weisbrot disagreed with Larry Rohter, the former South American bureau chief of The New York Times, over his statements on Venezuela, where Rohter said that in support of the film South of the Border, Weisbrot, Tariq Ali, and Oliver Stone manipulated data to present a positive image of Hugo Chávez. Rohter described Weisbrot as "... an economist, not a historian, and apparently not a very good one", suggesting that he was "Either ... incompetent [or] deliberately manipulating the numbers." Weisbrot contested the claims of inaccuracies, suggesting that they are indicative of sloppy and misleading coverage of Venezuela in the popular press and saying that "the way most Americans get the idea that Venezuela is a dictatorship, for example, is from these editorials".

European Economic Crisis
Weisbrot contends that the Great Recession had more impact on EU countries than it did in the United States and that Europe was hit by a secondary recession when the U.S. was not, due to Europe's lack of a sufficient monetary policy response, insistence on austerity measures, and the use of the crisis to advance a political agenda. Weisbrot claims that the European Central Bank is less accountable to EU citizens than the Federal Reserve in the United States and was unable or unwilling to replicate the Fed's recover measures of quantitative easing and a prolonged 0% interest rate. Additionally, he blames Europe's slow recovery from the crisis on austerity-focused policies that reduced government spending, cut pensions, and weaken labor protections, stating that many countries could have shortened the period of economic decline and recovery be leaving the Eurozone. Weisbrot makes the case that the EU and the European Monetary Union are ideologically different organizations, with the more conservative EMU subjecting low-income member countries to the same policies the IMF has imposed outside of Europe.

Greece
In 2011, Weisbrot was critical of the Troika (European group) and the IMF, claiming that the former had placed constraints on the Greek economy that caused continual loss of GDP and that the IMF's demands for austerity would make recovery difficult. Weisbrot advocated for the restructuring of Greece's debt as a better path forward than imposing austerity measures. He also advocated for the position that the European Central Bank undertake quantitative easing, citing the success of the Federal Reserve's actions in the United States. Weisbrot also predicted that an economic recovery in Greece would be accelerated if Greece abandoned the Euro to avoid punitive measure attached to EU loans, claiming that reducing government spending during recessionary periods is not an effective means of creating the economic growth necessary to end a recession.

Asia
Weisbrot states that although the Asian economic crisis was precipitated by the sudden reversal of international capital flows, Asian economies were made vulnerable to such reversals by economic liberalization that was encouraged by the IMF. Additionally, Weisbrot claims that the crisis was exacerbated by the IMF's failure to act as a lender of last resort. The economist also claims that the IMF's insistence on structural reforms were not directly related to the crisis but contributed to the severity and length of the crisis. SBCornelius (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestions. It will take time to go through the suggested changes. I looked through the first section on Latin America. Afaict the only change is an addition of one sentence at the end, namely:
 * In a 2019 report on the IMF program for Ecuador, Weisbrot found that the program was not likely to prevent continuing recession or reduce unemployment.
 * A few points:
 * Is there a non-blog secondary source for this sentence? While the sugggested addition is not controversial, the two sources you have used are both blogs which some editors may consider inappropriate for a BLP.
 * The report mentioned is by Mark Weisbrot and Andrés Arauz from the CEPR
 * Burrobert (talk) 05:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have incorporated the Venezuela and South of the Border sub-sections into the Latin America section as you suggested. You did not suggest any changes to the wording of either sub-section. Burrobert (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Europe and Asia sections, the sources you have used are all primary sources written by Weisbrot. Are there any secondary sources that discuss his work in these areas? Burrobert (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Burrobert, thanks for the feedback. I'll take some time and dig back into my research and get back to you with alternative citations if possible. Thanks again for the help. SBCornelius (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)