Talk:Ordoliberalism/Archive 1

Untitled
As a german (knowing ordoliberalism quite good) i see a need to improve this article. The problem: My english is too bad to do the job by myselfe. A (try of a) remark with a few words:

Ordoliberalism is an ecomical concept that calls itself "third way" between socialism and capitalism. There are three central points in the ordoliberal concept: 1) creating an "ordo" which helps against market failures 2)organizing the economy with competitive, good working markets 3) a strong "ordo" should assure economical and social fairness in the social market economy.

Please note the german wikipedia-site about "ordoliberalismus"!

Please forgive me my bad english!

TomTom66 11.08.2005

This sentence doesn't seem right
The Ordoliberals thus separated themselves from other traditional liberals, the "paleoliberals," like Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek.

That does not read well to me. Is it supposed to be "...from other traditional liberals and 'paleoliberals' like Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek." ?

Either way, maybe it could be made a little clearer.

Ian Lewis 12:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, traditional means liberalism in classical sense here. Intangible 16:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Applications
How is Ordoliberalism different from the economic policies of most modern, developed, Western countries? I see little difference, but either way, this article needs some perspective on where and how this philosophy has been applied. --Xyzzyva 09:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I can tell you right now - IT ISN'T! It's just yet another example of a totally meaningless redundant wikipedia article. its howdy doody time !!! (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ordoliberalism views the state as a “necessary evil” in some cases, while the typical western state, on the other hand, views the market as a “necessary evil” in some cases. Both views result in a somewhat mixed economy, but an ordoliberal would want far less state bureaucracy than prevails in the West. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 12:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hayek
An involved discussion of whether or not Friedrich Hayek was an ordoliberal, or whether he considered ordoliberals his friends or intellectual neighbors is beyond the scope of a section on the development of this theory. I have thus edited the development section to be more on-topic. Such information, if useful, would be much more relevant in that author's biography entry.--Bennyfactor (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hayek developed the Austrian business cycle theory which is Austrian School not Ordoliberalism. You find academic minority position for anything but Hayek being Austrian School is pretty obvious. --Pass3456 (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Hayek is frequently classified as an ordoliberal" and as an "Austrian". So what? --Mr. Mustard (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no "and". --Pass3456 (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * When I initially edited this article, I was perplexed as to why so much of the text was devoted to whether or not Hayek was an ordoliberal rather than information about ordoliberalism itself. By condensing 3.7kb of argumentation in the article to a sentence or two, I never thought I'd spawn an even greater amount on the talk page. Wikipedia is really something else. --Bennyfactor (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Pass3456 explained this toward the end of the long discussion below, which I presume you have wisely not read.  When there's an academic debate like this in the literature, I think it's just not easy for Wikipedians to do the right thing; hence the long discussion.    I agree with you that there shouldn't be a lot of text about Hayek in the article.  Abhayakara (talk) 11:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Regard the history, specially . --Mr. Mustard (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, so you have some sources that say he was an ordoliberal, and some that say he wasn't.  And you have User:Pass3456 above doing WP:OR by saying that he can't have been both.   I'm not going to definitively claim that you can't mention the dispute as to whether he was an ordoliberal, but it seems like a matter of opinion, and if your sources support one position (I can't find them on Google Books, unfortunately), sources support the other position as well.   So at best it's going to be a very equivocal bit, and certainly shouldn't be presented in the same sentence with other "economists who espoused ordoliberalism."   If you want it to read true, I think you ought to look for a source that says "at one time, Hayek was an ordoliberal, but then he gravitated toward the Austrian school," or something like that.   Then you could at least claim him as a one-time ordoliberal without equivocating. Abhayakara (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is no contradiction to classify Hayek as Austrian AND ordoliberal, as this source state . --Mr. Mustard (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If the sources that say he was Austrian school do not deny that he was ordoliberal, then you are correct.  But the very source you linked to, to which I referred in my original 3O response, denies that he was ordoliberal.  It is not that he was Austrian school that says he was not ordoliberal—it is the source that says this.   If he was both, and not one or the other, then it's still a bit misleading to say he was an ordoliberal.   I would like to see a source that says he was both, rather than citations of different sources saying different things.   Just to be clear here, I am not disagreeing with the position you have taken on Hayek—I don't know that much about him, to be honest, and I find your position perfectly plausible based on what I do know.   I am focusing on what the sources say.   I think you stray into WP:OR if you try to interpret two independent sources saying two independent things as if, taken as a whole, they support your position. Abhayakara (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize—I read too quickly.  The source you have provided does seem to support your position, when it says Hayek disagreed with Mises.   My German isn't good enough to form a clear opinion based on the source you have provided, but based on what you have said, I think you can use it. Abhayakara (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * With a little help from Google Translate I was able to understand precisely what the book says, and indeed it says what you say it says.  So I think you can say that Hayek espoused ordoliberalism, although in the interests of full disclosure I think you ought also to say that he subscribed to the Austrian school.   Sorry for being so long-winded about this. Abhayakara (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, this source state that Hayek made a major contribution to the Austrian School, the Freiburg school, the London School of Economics and the Chicago school of economics . So what would you recommend how to illustrate this matter in the article? --Mr. Mustard (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think what the source had to say about what Hayek said was interesting, so I would just include something about that in the article, rather than simply listing Hayek as supporting ordoliberalism. Then there's really nothing to dispute. Abhayakara (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you think about this source ? --Mr. Mustard (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a good read, and clearly describes Hayek's thinking in a way that I find quite interesting, but it doesn't seem to mention Ordoliberalism.  So you could, and probably should, cite it in an article about Hayek, but probably should not cite it here, because it would come across as coatracking—essentially using an article about Ordoliberalism as a platform on which to speak about Hayek. Abhayakara (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Source state that hayek wants to continue the tradition of the Freiburg school . But I think it would be the best solution simply to write, that Hayek, Rüstow, Röpke and Müller-Armack are associated with ordoliberalism . --Mr. Mustard (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It might be best to write that, but you do not appear to have consensus to write that.  I don't think that's the right way to present the issue.   Why do we care that Hayek is associated with ordoliberalism?   Are we collecting endorsements?   The reason we care is because of what Hayek said that related to ordoliberalism, and the German text you cited above is a better source for that, because it says he was referring to ordoliberalism. Abhayakara (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, the version you cited where it says that Hayek is associated with ordoliberalism is very badly cited—there are something like ten cites one after another.  It would be better to move each cite next to the text it justifies, even if it's in the middle of a sentence.   If all of the cites justify the text as a whole, you probably don't need that many. Abhayakara (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding that source : Gertenbach in deed wrote that Hayek is the only one who can be associated with Austrian School, London School, Chicago School and Freiburger Schule. But you have to bare in mind that Lars Gertenbach is sociologist not economist and that he rejects all of the four neoliberal theories (as basically the same "nonsense"). I think that it is google as google can to cite Gertenbach (who did not intend to write about classifying economic schools) instead of citing one of many real authorities on classification. Also Gertenbach himself points to the strict rejection of Hayek theory by Frank Knight and Alexander Rüstow. If we cite Gertenbach then the information should include the also presented Rüstow statement: "[we] have a very different spirit, it would be a completely misguided tactic to join with the reputation of stubbornness, obsolescence and "Abgespieltheit" that stains on them absolutely deservedly. No dog eats out of the hands of these old reactionary, and thats wise. Hayek and his teacher Mises belong inserted in ethyl alcohol and presented in a museum as one of the last surviving examples of an otherwise extinct genus of liberals who have evocated the current disaster [Great Depression]". --Pass3456 (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)--
 * Can you link to citations for these other views?  The Knight article doesn't mention ordoliberalism, and the Rüstow article provides no citation for its assertion that he was involved in laying the foundation for ordoliberalism. Abhayakara (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, as for what the Gertenbach book reports, as I said it's in German and all I have are the Google Books images, so it's hard for me to evaluate it at length—it would take me all day to just read a chapter of it.  I hadn't anticipated needing to do that when I rendered my original third opinion; it may be that you need to ask someone else (if you do, make sure you put the  tag on the article when you add it to the 3OR page.   If do you want my continued help, the best way to get it is to point me at specific passages I can read, rather than waving me in that general direction... Abhayakara (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To further muddy the waters (sorry!), your argument that Gertenbach is not an economist and more authoritative sources who are economists say something different is a good argument in principle, if you can cite them. Abhayakara (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (The Frank Knight and Alexander Rüstow statements are presented here page 67 footnote 175.)
 * A certainly very authoritative source: Hayek Biography by Bruce Caldwell (historian of economic thought) here on page 4: "First there is the simple fact that Hayek´s writings lie within the Austrian tradition. ... However one might choose to characterize the changes, it is clear that the Austrians did not participate in them. More strongly, people like Hayek and Mises actively opposed them." --Pass3456 (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ralph Raico introduction p. XXV and chapter 1.
 * Israel Kirzner page 119 "It is true that ... historians of economic thought have routinely cited Mises and Hayek as being modern representatives of the Austrian School". --Pass3456 (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you read further in the Caldwell introduction, you see that he is making no such definite statement about Hayek.  I think the introduction contradicts your statement that one can't be in both schools—Caldwell suggests that Hayek's views evolved over time, or else were inconsistent; I'm sure I'd have a clearer view of the question if I read the whole book, but from reading a dozen pages of the introduction I definitely came away agreeing more with Mr. Mustard's opinion than yours.   And in any case he never mentions Ordoliberalism, which could be taken either way.   The bit that you referred me to in the Gertenbach book seems to agree with Caldwell, but it may just be my poor German, and not Gertenbach's fault at all.  The Kirzner book I'm unable to read in Google Books, so I can't really evaluate it.
 * Anyway, what you said earlier was that Hayek couldn't possible be both Austrian School and a proponent of ordoliberalism, but your citations don't make that point, and indeed it's counterintuitive.  If Mises was Austrian school (which I think no-one would debate) and Hayek was his student, it's hardly surprising that Hayek would start from the position of his teacher and that his position would then evolve over time.   Caldwell describes his thinking process very well, and it's a highly analytical process, not that of a slavish follower.   So I don't think you can claim on the basis of your citations so far that Hayek did not espouse ordoliberalism.   I think a better argument for you would be that there aren't any particularly good sources that claim he did espouse ordoliberalism, and that the main sources that describe the position of ordoliberalism and list its proponents do not list Hayek.   If you can propose a number of sources that do this, and Mr. Mustard can't show any that say that Hayek was a proponent of ordoliberalism, then that would seem to make your case.   But the line of argument you are taking now isn't convincing, at least to me. Abhayakara (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I don´t whant to bore you out. We can make a break if you whant.
 * Just to discuss Caldwell a bit. Yes Caldwell comes to the conclusion that Hayek began on Austrian School and ended up making a theory of his own (suggesting that Austrian School is no longer alive, in contrast Ralph Raico and Israel Kirzner describe Hayek´s theory as modern Austrian School). Caldwell wrote that Hayek did not participate in those changes mainstream economics have undergone: "First there is the simple fact that Hayek´s writings lie within the Austrian tradition. Now, to be sure, in the 1930s that tradition was part of the thendeveloping mainstream in economics. In the postwar era, however, economics changed. One way to characterize the changes is to say that the discipline moved away from interwar pluralism to postwar neoclassicism. Another is to point out that the mainstream experienced a number of revolutions: the keynsian revolution, the econometrics revolution, the general equilibrium of formalistic revolution, and so on. However one might choose to characterize the changes, it is clear that the Austrians did not participate in them. More strongly, people like Hayek and Mises actively opposed them." According to Caldwell Hayek´s later work is no longer Austrian School and in no way any other school.
 * Anyway 1/3 of Caldwell´s book describes the pre Hayek Austrian School in order to make Hayek´s positions understandable. Ordoliberalism isn´t even mentioned in the whole book. If Caldwell would classify Hayek´s work within an existing economic school it would be Austrian School, but he doesn´t classify Hayek as any existing economic school. In my opinion that makes a strong case against classifying Hayek´s work as Ordoliberalism. --Pass3456 (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding sources on ordoliberal scholars: Lawrence H. White,, p. 235: Eucken, Böhm, Grossmann-Doerth, p. 236: Miksch, Röpke, Müller-Armack.
 * A german book for students:, p. 443: Eucken, Böhm, Grossmann-Doerth, Röpke, Rüstow
 * Hans-Rudolf Peters p. 150, 151 (german): Eucken, Röpke, Rüstow, Lutz, Miksch, Böhm. --Pass3456 (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You aren't boring me; my trepidation at being involved in this discussion has to do with my ignorance, about it.  Having said that, I want to circle back and reiterate the point I made earlier, maybe a little more clearly: wikipedia does not determine what the truth is.   Wikipedia reports on what others think the truth is.   So you absolutely have to approach this question from that perspective, if you want to edit a wikipedia article appropriately.   So Mr. Mustard has a source that seems to say that Hayek was an ordoliberal.   This means, from a wikipedia perspective, that he is justified in listing Hayek as an ordoliberal.   Your position is that he was not an ordoliberal.   I don't think you are going to find any sources that specifically say he wasn't an ordoliberal, so your only recourse is to find a preponderance of sources that don't say he was an ordoliberal, but cover him in some detail.   Then you can argue that the assertion that he is an ordoliberal is a minority view, and that representing it as if it were mainstream is WP:UNDUE. Abhayakara (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well yes, there is explicit contradiction:
 * Sibylle Tönnies regards Hayek`s theories as opposed to ordoliberalism in its true sense. (Tönnies, Sibylle (2009) (in German). Nachwort in Alexander Rüstow, Die Religion der Marktwirtschaft. Lit Verlag. p. 172. ISBN 978-3-8258-4848-4.) p. 172 (german)
 * According to Kathrin Meier-Rust the theories of Hayek are incompatible with those of Eucken, Röpke and Rüstow. (Meier-Rust, Kathrin (1993) (in German). Alexander Rüstow – Geschichtsdeutung und liberales Engagement. Stuttgart. p. 69. ISBN 978-3-608-91627-0. (german, unfortunately not online). --Pass3456 (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Walter Oswalt explains that the insurmountable difference between Hayeks "paleoliberal" work and ordoliberalism was first verbalized by Alexander Rüstow in a letter to Wilhelm Röpke stating that there is the "sharpest and most fertile subcontrary difference". In contrast to Hayek's theory of group selection, Eucken believed in a rational and moral setting of rules by government. An example is Eucken's criticism of Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" for not differing between market regulation and laissez-faire. The sharpest contrast to Eucken occurred when Hayek denied the idea of Social justice. (Oswalt, Walter. "Zur Einführung: Walter Eucken (1891–1950)". In Goldschmidt, Nils; Wohlgemuth, Michael (in German). Grundtexte zur Freiburger Tradition der Ordnungsökonomik. p. 128. ISBN 978-3-16-148297-7; german) p. 128, 129. --Pass3456 (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay.  I can't actually access any of those, but if they say what you say they say (and I don't see why you would say that if they didn't!), then the fact that you have three sources saying "no," and one saying "yes," makes the one that says "yes" a minority opinion, barring new information.   If it's a minority opinion, then it's not appropriate to list Hayek on the Ordoliberalism page without a lot of clarifying text. Abhayakara (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I´m not insisting on not mentioning Hayek. Could the version of user:bennyfactor on "Development" be appropriate? --Pass3456 (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if we go by the sources cited in that version, we have five saying he's an ordoliberal, and four saying he's not, and the reader is left to draw some kind of conclusion from the dueling sources.  I think this is the wrong approach—as I said earlier, if you put a debate about whether Hayek was an ordoliberal into the article on ordoliberalism, it seems off-topic—such a debate should be in the article on Hayek.   Is the real point that Hayek was influential in the development of ordoliberalism, even if he wasn't himself clearly a proponent of that view?   If so, that would be a better thing to say. Abhayakara (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge it is undisputable that Hayek had no influence on ordoliberalism. The dispute is rather about wether there was some extend of parrallel thinking or not. Manfred E. Streit and Michael Wohlgemuth wrote that despite his warm words Hayek's work shows no significant reference to the work of ordoliberals (as well as the other way round). (Streit, Manfred E.; Wohlgemuth, Michael (2000). "The Market Economy and the State. Hayekian and Ordoliberal Conceptions". In Koslowski, Peter. The Theory of Capitalism in the German Economic Tradition. Berlin; New York: Springer. p. 227. ISBN 3-540-66674-5.) p. 226 -7. --Pass3456 (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is indisputable that Hayek had no influence on ordoliberalism, then you need to go through the sources that have been cited as saying he did and show that they do not say he did.  It's simple enough: if they do not mention ordoliberalism, they can't be cited as support for the position that Hayek influenced or participated in the development of ordoliberalism. Abhayakara (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there are some (not very academic, authoritative) sources that claim Hayek was not Austrian School but an "extreme wing" Ordoliberal without denying that the work of Hayek and the Ordoliberals like Eucken et. alt. is in no way interconnected. Long after the original Ordoliberals have died, on Freiburg University there are/were Hayek followers (Prof. Hoppmann, Streit and Vanberg) that work on further developing Hayek´s work calling it "Freiburger Lehrstuhltradition". But the Austrian School has a very outdated reputation in Germany so they tried to add some ordoliberal flavor to Hayek´s theory. That is called "Freiburger Lehrstuhltradition" not Ordoliberalism but probably some authors muddled that. --Pass3456 (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you absolutely need to find a more recent source that clearly debunks their claims.  The fact that you believe this to be true can't be a justification for a particular edit to the article—it has to be sourced.   Having said that, I think you've already demonstrated that Hayek shouldn't be listed as a prominent advocate of ordoliberalism—clearly this point is disputed in the literature.   So the best thing to do is to simply take Hayek out of that list.   Putting him in the list is either WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:UNDUE—take your pick. The only way it makes sense for him to be listed there is if his status as an ordoliberal is undisputed, which it is not. Abhayakara (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you!

With all due respect
The article belongs to be binned. It ought to be merged with Freiburg School. (Two articles don't make sense here at all) Oalexander-En (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No opinion on the merge one way or the other, but I'd say the article needs to be a bit clearer on what exactly are differences between ordoliberals and neoliberals (or even social democrats, for that matter): e.g. subsidies, minimum wages, public spending, health and social security, etc. GregorB (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @Oalexander-En: We could also merge Neoliberalism and Chicago school of economics but i highly doubt, as with a merge of Ordoliberalism and Freiburg School, any benifit for the readers. To the contrary these are for example rather only replaceable terms in a historical context.
 * @GregorB: Ordo (Latin "order, rank, class") already gives a good hint that Ordoliberalism is, in reference to Varieties of Capitalism, well classified as Coordinated market economy and alike Neo (Latin "new") makes it pretty obviouse that Neoliberalism is, like in reference to the above again, simply still an Liberal market economy. Both however have the same intersection "market economy" and so both mainly argue about flexibility - play on the same field so to say - tho ofcourse from opposite bases (Order/Freedom)! Because both "play" the intersecting/same field you can not pin them down on actual policy that easy. Good example is minimum wage, which is strangely implemented in many liberal market economies (USA since 1938 even) but actually still not in Germany, the "home of Ordoliberalism", until it will be now, in 2016. So this makes it very obvious. You simply can not pin down specific economical policy on one of these bases. --Kharon (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Critics
Today i deleted two added opinions that more or less blame ordoliberalism for the Eurocrisis. I did that because there is not an clear connection between the German Gouvernement (christian conservative) and Ordoliberalism. Additionally there are many Economists in Germany, who claim to stand in the tradition of Ordoliberalism, who strongly opposed the EU construction, some even from begin, like de:Joachim Starbatty. Thus just mentioning some cause and effect connection between Ordoliberalism and Eurocrisis is highly missleading and worthless anyway because these opinions are undefined and it would be to complicated to define this. On top this is uncommon POV.

If you want to add critics i would recommend to write for example about one of the earliest Critics of Ordoliberalism, Friedrich August von Hayek. --Kharon (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * the criticism section is not about ordoliberalsm but about the current german governments (alledged) role in the current greek crisis 13:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.172.99.44 (talk)


 * So in a few years the talk page on this subject has gone from a long discourse on whether or not this Hayek should be included as a proponent of Ordoliberalism to suggesting he should be added as a critic of this subject? Wikipedia truly is something else. Bennyfactor (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ordoliberalism and neoliberalism are branches of liberalism, which is ideology and thus there are tons of "belivers" who try to set the lights in a nice way. Hayek shurely played a special role in Neo- and Ordoliberalism because he tried to pull the liberals together in his Mont Pelerin Society, for the bigger goal. To fight the "archenemy" of liberalism; communism. Nevertheless there always where so fundamental differences between Hayek and the ordoliberal school that this distinction between ordo and neo is emphased till today - against Hayek's tireless attempts to unite both branches. Obviously there are still some people who try to fullfill Hayek's dream of an united liberal movement. --Kharon (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

What does this sentence have to do with critics of ordoliberalism? "Indeed, ordoliberal economist Hans-Werner Sinn of the University of Munich argues in his 2014 book The Euro Trap: On Bursting Bubbles, Budgets, and Beliefs that the "European Central Bank has become too accommodating and that its plans to buy sovereign debt are illegal"."

The "indeed" is especially puzzling: usually it is a bridge to the previous section, but here it seems completely unconnected to it. GeneCallahan (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

ordoliberalism vs. "third way" social democracy
I believe the distinction as it is made here is misleading. During the rise of ordoliberalism in Germany, social market reforms distinguished it from laissez faire capitalism, thus having a plus in regulation compared to the latter while third way social democratic movement deregulated compared to the situation given at the time these movements became influential, but those are two very different baselines. The outcome of the deregulation is still far more regulated than they were 50, 60 years ago. --91.67.98.120 (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Who is seperating ordoliberalism and "the third way"? The term third Way was brought up in economic policy by Wilhelm Röpke, who happend to be one leading ordoliberal and one of the intellectual pioneers of the european/german social market economy model.
 * Ofcourse there will always be different opinions over the exact extend of regulations but the baseline for ordoliberals will always be that there have to be "some" regulations to secure fair competition. That is the key distinction between third way/ordoliberalism and Laissez-faire, Libertarism and most other old- new- and neoliberalism, who reject regulation as "a priori" or completely. --Kharon (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Opaque and confrontational edit summaries
Kharon, you wrote this edit summary. It requires clarification. It does not make sense in the context of economic schools of thought, nor in the vocabulary and usage of English language Wikipedia. Also, it is inappropriate behavior to use edit summaries to rebuke other Wikipedia editors, as you did to me:

"'FeralOink's changes partly taken over, 1 new minor source on DELETED?? Corporatism added. Please no more bulk and packet changes without discussion FeralOink! Also first read some more backgrounds on the lemma please.'"


 * What are "bulk and packet" changes?
 * You insist on quoting Michel Foucault at length. He has some bearing on the evolution of neoliberalism, but less on that of ordoliberalism. The article is about German economics, not critical theory or post-modernism.
 * What do you mean by advising me to "read some more backgrounds on the lemma"? Lemma?! What lemma? This is about an economic school of thought, not mathematics.

In a prior edit summary, in which you reverted me, you claimed that my update to the external links was behind a paywall. It is not! The old link to ORDO (the journal of ordoliberalism), redirects to the new one that I provided. Neither are behind paywalls.

Please do not wikilink to "social market economy" repeatedly. According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, once per article is enough. After the first mention of the wikilinked term, just provide it as an unlinked phrase. I can cite the specific guidance from WP MOS if necessary.

Finally, you removed my grammar corrections to the article, e.g. the word "till" refers to cultivation of the soil, in the context of farming. It is NOT an abbreviation for the word, "until". Please stop reverting my English grammar corrections.--FeralOink (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You are wikipedian since 2012 but seem to have not much respect or regard of main authors of an article. I thank you for your grammar corrections. You should have done them in one edit, without cutting whole chapters and passages. You forced me to invest roughly 2h checking all your edits, copying back passages, searching a good source for the part about Corporatism you seem to regard meaningless, misplaced or wrong. I call that a "bulk and packed edit". You should have started asking about the passages on the talk page. There is no rule enforcing that but since you seem to expect a friendly, respectful conduct you should have started your contribution here in a similar way. I was quite unhappy with that.


 * Foucault offers the best scientific approach(es) to political/economical ideology today. Actually i can not remember anyone ever doubting his value in such articles.


 * Regarding Corporatism i guess reading 1-2 pages of the (online)source i added is totally sufficient.


 * So yes, i used the edit summary to state that you did multiple things wrong in my view. Also, if you cant take a little steam, stay away from the kitchen. I have seen the most brutal PAs and Editwars in ideological articles and this Article is one of them. I didn't attack you personally. I am also not a diplomat but i am always open for constructive opinions, critiques and contributions. --Kharon (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)