Talk:Summers memo

Economic argument
"Several economists have noted that although the "memo" as a whole may be morally deplorable, the economic argument in itself makes some sense." -I think that's the point of the criticism of it -it's a criticism of economic thinking. - Matthew238 04:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But who claims this? I am not aware of an economist who explicitly said this. Maybe some have, but I think "some economists" implies that at least one real economist can be named who says something like this.--Catquas 19:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a PhD economist, and I teach the Summers memo in one of my classes as an example of excellent economic thinking that looks bad to the public-- and so is an example of how useful knowing some economics can be compared to ignorance. Summers claimed it was satire later just to be politic. Then I tell students that to talk about policy to the uneducated, they need to watch their wording very carefully and not use technical language. editeur24 (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Quotation typos
The page reads "shorn of [it's] context and the intended irony." The [it's] should be [its]. I am changing it, but if there is a good reason to keep it as is, I suggest that [sic] be added somewhere. SammyBoy (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Rationale for economics template and importance rating
I believe that the rationale for inclusion in the economics category is self-evident. I believe that its level of importance is justified because it (unintentionally, at least) describes actual policy. --NBahn (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Question re Content of the Memo
I can't tell whether this paragraph/sentence:

"The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization."

is part of the memo or part of the wiki article. Anyone know?

Also, shouldn't it also be tagged as being in some sort of Swiftian category? Ileanadu (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm
Jrtayloriv has twice deleted the phrase "sarcastically" from the opening sentence from this article. Given the inflammatory nature of the section highlighted by the memo, I think it's misleading and unfair to Mr. Summers not to mention that the section was intended as sarcasm. Binarybits (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's unfair at all. Summers claimed that it was sarcastic after controversy arose. He would never have publically admitted to this, unless there was no possible way for him to perform damage control -- he would not have remained politically viable. The two ways to perform damage control in this situation were to pretend like he (a) didn't say it, or (b) didn't mean it -- he was able to do both, and he did. So his claim that it was sarcastic holds very little weight, due to the circumstances. Yet, his response is still located just following the opening sentence, which I don't agree with, but understand the need for. What I don't think is fair is to make a statement, written as if it were a fact, that says that the memo was sarcastic, just because he said so after he started having his political career threatened. I think that in order to be objective, we should say what the memo said -- which is the only factual evidence we have about the contents of the memo. And then write about the controversy afterwards. I'm not deleting Summers' claim that it was sarcastic -- indeed, he has the entire second paragraph, starting with the third sentence of this article. I am just trying to keep this objective, and claiming that Summers' view alone is fact, especially considering the circumstances, is not objective.Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that it was a private memo that was leaked without his consent, it's hardly a surprise that he only claimed it was sarcastic after the controversy arose. Does anyone seriously dispute that it was a sarcastic statement? And more to the point, does anyone do so in a reliable source? If other people claim he was serious, we can certainly report that, but otherwise it's POV for us to speculate that Summers is lying when there's no evidence of that. He said it was sarcastic, and so that's what we should say unless we have evidence to the contrary. Binarybits (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Does anyone seriously dispute that it was a sarcastic statement?" What about Daniel Hausman and Michael McPherson? Is the Cambridge University Press not enough of a "reliable source" for you? 71.131.12.219 (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't read their book. Do they argue that Summers was serious? Binarybits (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They discuss the moral and economic implications of the statement, starting on the assumption that, apart from publicly-claimed motivations, since the statement makes "economic sense" and came from the Chief Economist of the World Bank it is therefore reasonable to conclude it reflected something of Summers' actual ideology.

Also, if the memo was satirical or if it wasn't it would've been in Summers' best interest to say it was (either to tell the truth or to minimize the controversy), so the fact that he claimed it was satirical really says nothing substantive.71.131.12.219 (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer my question. Do Hausman and McPherson specifically say that it was non-satirical? It doesn't matter what you or I think. The question is whether we can find reliable sources who say it wasn't. If we can't, then regardless of our personal opinions it's POV to dispute Summers and Pritchett's statements that it was. Binarybits (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The question is not whether anyone explicitly stated "this memo is serious" but whether it was generally intrepreted as being serious or not. That could be determined by analyzing the nature of the replies the memo received. Time wrote "As chief economist at the World Bank, [Summers] penned a memo explaining the 'impeccable' economic logic of dumping toxic waste in developing countries, igniting a firestorm despite his protests that he was being sarcastic".

Do you doubt that a "firestorm" of criticism would imply the memo was taken to be serious?

"After the memo became public in February 1992, Brazil's then-Secretary of the Environment Jose Lutzenburger wrote back to Summers: "Your reasoning is perfectly logical but totally insane... Your thoughts [provide] a concrete example of the unbelievable alienation, reductionist thinking, social ruthlessness and the arrogant ignorance of many conventional 'economists' concerning the nature of the world we live in... If the World Bank keeps you as vice president it will lose all credibility. To me it would confirm what I often said... the best thing that could happen would be for the Bank to disappear."

Brazil's Sec. of Environment took it to be serious. So did Hausman and McPherson. Their response to the memo tacitly implied it was taken seriously by them. Furthermore, an entire movement (the anti-globalization movement) took it to be serious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.12.219 (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously some people acted as though it was serious. That doesn't necessarily mean they actually thought he was being serious. There are lots of examples of people grandstanding about politicians' statements when those statements were obviously meant to be taken in jest (see: Obama's comments about bowling and the Special Olympics.) Anyway, it seems to me we're drifting away from the point, which is whether we should make it clear that Summers intended the article as sarcasm. That's how Summers says he meant it, so that's how we should report it unless you have explicit citations in reliable sources (not just your own interpretation of reliable sources) that say otherwise. The mere fact that some people were offended by the statement doesn't qualify as reliable evidence that the memo was serious. Binarybits (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd contend a sustained, 15-year international "firestorm" of criticism directed towards a statement that runs counter to the World Bank's compassionate mission statement is not in the same league as Obama's gaffe that has no policy implications and was covered for 3-4 days, but my posts were regarding your original question, "Does anyone seriously dispute that it was a sarcastic statement", which I believe is amply answered by Lutzenburger's letter alone. Now you're stating your point as being to "make it clear that Summers intended the article as sarcasm", though this was already made clear in the article, unless I "have explicit citations in reliable sources (not just your own interpretation of reliable sources) that say otherwise" although what explicit sources could even exist that prove a subjective mind state remains unclear. I barely ever edit Wikipedia but I question the wisdom of letting a person surrounding a controversy have their stated motivation listed as fact (instead of simply listing the person's response), but it seems we've made our points so I'll leave it at that for regular editors to decide. 71.131.12.219 (talk) 23:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Authorship
Both Pritchett and Summers say the memo was written by Pritchett. AFAICT, none of the sources we cite say otherwise. So the recent edits suggesting they might be lying are blatantly POV. Unless we have a cite to someone alleging that Pritchett and Summers are lying, we need to take their claims at face value. Binarybits (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just documenting another round of POV editing without discussion. If there's disagreement about authorship, we should be discussing it here rather than edit warring over it. Binarybits (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the knowledge to pick sides, but I [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Summers_memo&diff=759911695&oldid=759844521 reverted] this [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Summers_memo&diff=759844521&oldid=747242422 anonymous contribution] since it seemed to contradict the earlier consensus. I suspect if there are doubters on Wikipedia, there are surely some doubters in other media we should be citing, though. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)