Talk:Mercatus Center

Redirect
I've reverted a redirect to George Mason University, not so much because I think this entity deserves a separate article (I'd want to see arguments on that), but because the appropriate action if this entity does not deserve it's own article is to propose merging this article into that one, get feedback, and only then to create a redirect.

I also might not have objected if the contents of this article had been added into the George Mason University article, but that wasn't done. No attempt was made to do so; in fact, the GMU article still had (and has) a wikilink to this article, which thus became a circular link. John Broughton  | ♫ 02:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Material transfered from article
These two lines seem to be taken straight from the New Yorker article, and don't seem to stand alone well without more information/context:


 * In 2008 Mercatus released a report saying that Obama’s stimulus-spending measures had been directed disproportionately toward Democratic districts and was forced to correct it later.


 * According to the Wall Street Journal fourteen of the twenty-three regulations that former President George W. Bush placed on a “hit list” had been suggested first from the staff of Mercatus.

This seems to include some synthesis of ideas from a somewhat biased source.
 * According to at least one critic, the Mercatus Center has helped Koch Industries financially. Thomas McGarity, a law professor at the University of Texas who specializes in environmental issues, has stated Koch Industries “has been constantly in trouble with the EPA, and Mercatus has constantly hammered” on the EPA. In a New Yorker article on the Koch brothers and Koch Industries, journalist Jane Mayer describes the successful challenging by an economist and top official at the Center, (Susan Dudley), of a proposed EPA air pollution rule that would have affected emissions from oil refineries. (Koch industries refineries have a total capacity of 800,000 barrels per day. ) Dudley argued that clearer skies would result in more cases of skin cancer. In 1999, the [United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia|District of Columbia Circuit Court]] agreed with Dudley, ruling that the EPA had overstepped its authority and “explicitly disregarded” the “possible health benefits of ozone.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caduon (talk • contribs) 11:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mercatus Center. 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/20090724161547/http://www.mercatus.org/ContentDetails.aspx?id=13566 to http://www.mercatus.org/ContentDetails.aspx?id=13566

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) 14:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Criticism
To paraphrase MacLean, Mercatus is widely considered a stealth political lobbying front hiding as a tax write off for the Kochs. They produce mostly propaganda and disinformation in an attempt to deliberately undermine democracy in the United States and to promote capitalism in its place. The article lacks a fair assessment of this organization and its absurd and almost impenetrable mission statement: "to generate knowledge and understanding of the institutions that affect the freedom to prosper, and to find sustainable solutions that overcome the barriers preventing individuals from living free, prosperous, and peaceful lives." This organization has never generated a single piece of useful or applicable knowledge nor has it any time proposed a "sustainable solution". In fact, it has produced a body of alternate facts and problematic policies that are completely and totally unsustainable. We are dealing with another right wing whitewashing, as this article fails to properly portray this "think tank" based on our best reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * And these "best reliable sources" are....? Marquardtika (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Nancy MacLean, Jane Mayer, and Ann Nelson, among dozens of others. Please don’t respond with fake criticism from Koch-funded think tank fellows. I’ve been down that road many times, and it’s too predictable. Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Why don't you make some suggested changes or content additions with proposed sourcing rather than posting walls of text with your own opinions. Marquardtika (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I just did. Add criticism and commentary from MacLean, Mayer, Nelson, and others, such as Christopher Leonard.  Now, stop playing games and asking the same question and pretending you didn’t get an answer. I’m being overly kind and altruistic by not littering this page with maintenance tags.  Viriditas (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not your secretary. Good grief. Marquardtika (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I provided the names of four authors who criticize Mercatus. Get to work. You’ve got a lot of reading to do. Viriditas (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)