User talk:Bgreen29/sandbox

It's not clear what Casino Capitalism or neo-Capitalism is. There already exist a large and well-researched article on Fascism, so I'm not sure what that paragraph adds. There's a Wikipedia page titled, "Neo-capitalism" that is not particularly well done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Capitalism There's not a page on Casino Capitalism which is surprising. I would urge you to either create an article on Casino Capitalism or edit the article on neo-Capitalism. If you intend to stay with the economic ideology plan, then you'll need to really flush out the sections a lot. For instance, what is Casino Capitalism? Where did it come from? Susan Strange was one of the first to use the term. But what does it mean? Do any political economists take issue with the phrase? What's an example of casino capitalism? What are the ways in which it matters for the political and economic systems?

Similar, for neo-capitalism, what is it? Where does the phrase come from? What concepts are similar to the neo-capitalism? What does it capture that capitalism misses? What economic systems would you describe as neo-capitalist?

As for the Fascism section, you might look at the Wiki article on this. Also, I would stay away from citing the textbook and instead cite more primary sources. Mcassell04 (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe that this article is well written, and its provides an very encyclopedic format for the information provided. It is very informative, without being too drawn out or boring. I would say the one critique I have of the article is that there is mention of a great economic crisis following World War II, however there is no source or information to be found to support this claim. This problem only seems to be within the description of "Neo-Capitalism", as there is no sources for any information. Other than that, the article is taking great shape and looking ready for the actual Wikiepdia article. Psmalcer1996 (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Note
It's very interesting reading about these somewhat lesser known economic styles, and the layout of the page seems pretty well constructed. My only suggestion would be to switch up the wording a bit, for example there were a few instances where "since" was used, where I feel that "due to" May have fit better and sounded more formal. But I feel that even that was too nitpicky. Mgates17 (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)