Talk:Peterson Institute for International Economics

Criticism

Can experts please include some critical thinking in this article?

The Board of Directors is a "Who's Who" of banksters and other finance industry crooks. ---Dagme (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The article indicates that Pete Peterson wasn't a founder. Why the name, then? 184.0.94.83 (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Pete Peterson has been the largest single contributor to the Institute (not including donations from corporations, charitable organization, etc.). I currently work at the Institute as a research analyst. Is it against the principals of Wikipedia for me to edit this page? I know you aren't suppose to edit your own page, but I have never found any guidance about your employer. On the one hand, the conflict of interest is obvious; on the other, you know a lot of relevant information about the place you work. Mvieiro (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe if you post your information here on the talk page (with references) another wikipedian could check it and add to the page? Jonpatterns (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

To address a seeming lack insight into (or criticism of) this pro-market, neo-CON outfit, could there be a heading on the Board of Directors titled: A "Who's Who" of Banksters and other Finance Industry Crooks'? 92.24.233.185 (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No. And please do not change section headings to reflect such a point of view. – S. Rich (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

POV

Seems slanted, like ad copy.

Is it actually nonpartisan? In whose opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 04:21, 21 January 2014‎ (UTC)‎

PIIE Denmark policy briefing

We see material on a PIIE Denmark policy briefing that has been injected into the article the times ( [1] & [2] & [3] ) by two IPs in Denmark. This material needs removal for at least two reasons: 1. the IPs who are adding it are including their own un-sourced analysis as to the import of the briefing; and 2. the inclusion of this one briefing, out of the many that PIIE produces, is WP:UNDUE. PIIE a "key institution" according to the 2014 McGann report and is ranked number 1 in the International Economic Policy Think Tanks see Table 23. The IPs are asked to accept this fact and to comply with WP policy regarding original research, verifiability, and reliable sources. If there is material which criticizes the Denmark policy briefing, it needs to be woven into the article in an encyclopedic fashion. – S. Rich (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

1) There is no unsourced material, all material is documented.

2) Even if PIIE is the second coming of Christ, you are a still allowed to state facts, and what ever ranking someone must hold is not a valid argument to suppress facts, suppressing fact is also known as censorship.

Srich keeps writing about No original research, but disregards that every sentence is backed by Wikipedia articles and by the Policy Brief it self, you could argue that Srich haven't read the policy and is expressing his opinion as self-govern.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.180.80.42 (talk • contribs)

You are mistaken. The only documentation is for the policy briefing itself. Your own opinion starts with "The policy briefing totally disregards ...." Adding wikilinks to the statement is not documenting it. (Wikipedia articles are not WP:RS. Also, the policy briefing is an INDUE bit of material. This article is about the PIIE itself and adding a paragraph about one briefing is not good encyclopedia writing. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

NYT column

Here's a column from the New York Times that refers to the Peterson Institute as "the locker room of the Team Globalization and Free Trade cheering squad." This column gives a better idea of what the Peterson Institute is all about than the current entry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/whats-our-duty-to-the-people-globalization-leaves-behind.html
What’s Our Duty to the People Globalization Leaves Behind?
Steven Rattner
The New York Times
JAN. 26, 2016
--Nbauman (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete "The institute's Building"

I propose that we delete the section on "The institute's Building."

For one thing, none of the sources meet WP:RS, since they come from the Peterson Institute's own PR material, and aren't independent third-party sources. In other words, it's WP:OR.

But most of all, it's PR fluff that is useless to anyone who is interested in the Peterson Institute's actual policies and contributions to society, which is what this entry should really be about. --Nbauman (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

While PIIE is the source, the facts asserted can be checked and verified. This overcomes the RS problem. Also, the info is noteworthy, albeit not so much text is needed. (At the moment, though, the piie website is not linking, so additional verification is not possible.) I'd say keep, but trim it down to a summary style presentation. – S. Rich (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not noteworthy under wp:weight unless multiple independent sources have reported it. There are so many more important things to write about the Peterson Institute. Globalization affects everyone. The Peterson Institute's architecture doesn't affect anyone who doesn't work in the Peterson Institute. --Nbauman (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, (1) This section has no WP:RS. The source is a dead link. (2) Even if it were an active link, it is to a primary source, the Peterson Institute itself, and WP:RS requires secondary sources. If architectural magazines had an articles about it, that would justify including it, but it seems to fail the noteworthy test. How do you justify its noteworthiness? --Nbauman (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Criticizing Trump

The Peterson Institute was in the news for publishing a critiqe of Donald Trump's policies against free trade, calculating the number of American jobs that would be lost if Trump's policies were enacted. I don't have time right now to follow this up, but there are stories about this in almost every major news publication that covers U.S. domestic or foreign policy. --Nbauman (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I, and others, await your suggestions for article improvement. – S. Rich (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

My first priority is for this article to comply with the Wikipedia guideline WP:NPOV and include critics of the Peterson Institute. Once that's done, it would be nice to include their Trump policy, since for many readers that would be a favorable stand by the Peterson Institute. I was suggesting that to those who are looking for favorable things to write about the Peterson Institute. But first things first. --Nbauman (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

No, not every single article requires a criticism section. This is a highly respected economics think tank that usually has its research peer-reviewed by third party economists. You can't just add a criticism section and source it to amateurs writing in newspapers. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Here we go again..

The encyclopedia is supposed to represent mainstream views on economics, not fringe or populist commentary in newspapers. We know where economists stand on free trade because we have surveys and polls indicating near-unanimous support[4]. Thus criticism is completely unwarranted here.

And no Ross Perot wasn't right about free trade. Trade liberalisation, as a general rule, has almost no effect on employment levels in the economy: trade adds jobs to the export sector, subtracts some jobs in import-competing industries, but does not have any significant effect on normal job churn. In nearly 30 years, NAFTA-related job loss has been calculated on the order of 4 million: to put that into context, the US economy experiences more (involuntary) job separations in one business quarter, in an abnormally stable business cycle[5].

And the belief that, without NAFTA or China's ascent into the WTO, dinosaur industries like steel or aluminum manufacturing would've kept all their jobs in the US is patent nonsense.

I'll be opening up an NPOV talk section soon, as I am not expecting any serious feedback here. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to inclusion of criticism of the group, but Rattner's op-ed appears to be massively overweighted here. I say "appears" because maybe the piece is widely discussed in reliable sources and I'm just unaware. As it is, the overlong paragraph coupled with the Free Beacon-sourced lines make for a poor section. I favor removal while we discuss a better way to include criticism. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The main issue with Rattner (other than the fact that he's not a reliable source for economics and has ties to the auto industry) is that the statement quoted in this section is a straw-man argument. No reputable economist, either in academia or at the Peterson Institute, advocates for trade liberalisation without any assistance for workers affected by these policies. Read some of the comments in the survey I linked: an economist from Northwestern, for example, writes that, "This needs more nuance: most people win [from trade], and the winners gain a lot. But there are losers from trade who have not in fact been compensated."

The PIIE has never advocated for trade without any assistance. Here's Adam Posen, head of the institute, writing about this in Foreign Affairs[6]. Here Posen is not only arguing for a more liberalised trade policy, but he's also calling on the federal government to spend a half a point of GDP on social welfare.

But here is the thing (and this is crucial): Posen is not simply saying that only workers who lose their jobs to trade (a relatively miniscule number of people) should be compensated. He's saying that there is no social safety net in the country, and that any American who loses a job, for whatever reason, should have basic financial security.

This is a perfectly reasonable position and one that's consistent with the views of most economists.

If there is legitimate criticism of the PIIE published by reputable sources, of course I do not object to that. But as it stands right now, the criticism section isn't actually criticising the PIIE, but is attacking the PIIE's position on international trade. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

This isn't the place to present arguments for or against a certain policy stance. Your opinions on NAFTA and the like don't affect the article. With that said, you are correct regarding NPOV. Putting content in an article specifically to criticize it should be done sparingly, if ever. I would support removing the content under the criticism section; Steven Rattner's opinions (and the opinions of editors that agree with him) shouldn't affect the article either. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I did not post a personal opinion about NAFTA. The poll again[7]. Second question:

"On average, citizens of the U.S. have been better off with the North American Free Trade Agreement than they would have been if the trade rules for the U.S., Canada and Mexico prior to NAFTA had remained in place."

85% agreement with this statement. Ignoring the 10% who didn't answer, it's closer to 95% agreement that NAFTA generally had a positive effect on the US economy.

This is a clear and straightforward consensus. The only one posting personal opinions about NAFTA is the editor (or editors) who cited Rattner. Jonathan f1 (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)