User talk:BernardL

Socialist economics
Please note your repeated, unexplained reversions are blatant violation of WP:NPOV, and can only amount to disgraceful POV-pushing. Insertion of criticisms is an important part of the lead, as exemplified by the articles Monetarism and Wal-Mart.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Users like this Teeninvestor and Introman are really unbelievable in their incorrigible obtuseness. Apparently you have a POV issue if you delete the criticisms of Socialist Economics that appear in the lead, but getting an acknowledgment that a debate exists about the definition of capitalism in the lead is instantly deleted. Really, get some objectivity and save the “disgraceful” criticisms for yourselves. The mono-perspective these users represent is destroying Wikipedia. BernardL, let me know if you need any help dealing with these boys. I’ve got a graduate level economics library at hand and have access to any academic journal you can find using “google scholar”.  You seem to have a worldly view and I'm an American but I’ve studied in Europe and realize there is more to economic theory than the neo-con perspective.MoralMoney (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I do agree with you that obtuseness is perhaps best single word to describe the behaviour of the likes of Teeninvestor and Introman. Their type seems to think being knowledgable about an economic subject merely requires reading the literature of the libertarian creed. The gospel of Hayek, Friedman, Mises et al is presumed to be infallible in every respect. Although they dress themselves up in scientific pretensions there is no real scientific approach or curiousity among these acolytes; there is no attempt to compare, no attempt to make a serious reading of opposing views without having one's preconceptions dominate the ability to understand and there is no attempt "to hold theories and principles in solution, awaiting confirmation" which John Dewey identified as essential to a scientific attitude. The libertarian cult of America has in fact already destroyed the objectivity of wikipedia quite some time ago. I may take you up on your offer for scholarly assistance at some point. cheers. BernardL (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Capitalism
I know you hae done wome work on the article - please do not let Introman distract you. I have valued your comments on the talk page, that only make me with you would contribute more to the article. I wish we had a good section on Braudel, Wallerstein, and other historical studies of capitalism for example... Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the encouragement. Doing some more work on the article is certainly on my agenda. I just have a few other tasks to get over with first. I too think we could use a kind of Braudel/Wallerstein/ Arrighi/ Frank section of historical sociology, perhaps with the role of world trade networks and the division of labour in a global context getting some emphasis. There are many fascinating issues raised in their work. I also would not mind having a go at improving the section on industrialization and also to suggest some refinements to the marxism section. I am not very good at working alone so I am hoping to work some good things out with you and the other knowledgeable editors. cheers. BernardL (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Capitalism
An editor is questioning the lack of sources in the lead for Capitalism. If you would like to discuss this please reply on the talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)