User talk:Dark Charles

License tagging for File:CharlesRambo.JPG
Thanks for uploading relativity. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Federal Reserve System
Thank you for your recent edits. Please note that the public being given the "choice" of selecting 7 of the board members (from a pre approved list not drawn up by the public) is not the same as having ownership and control as stockholders. I appreciate that the sources provided aren't clear, but there must be a middle ground - could we keep most of the substance of User:Mrpoisson's edits? Beganlocal (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Being an owner is irrelevant because they can't vote. Furthermore, the information is in the history section which I believe is an inappropriate place.  If you would like to add the information about how the board of governors is selected then it should be in the Structure section.  In the mean time, I'll erase the public having more control phrase because that shouldn't be discussed there either. --Dark Charles (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Please be sure to follow wikipedia guidelines WP:POV when making edits and use the relevant discussion page especially when removing well cited material.Yourmanstan (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See the Federal Reserve talk page. I discussed the issue there. I believe you are the one in violation.--Dark Charles (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Fiat Baby-sitting scrip
Hi Dark Charles,

Thanks for your tireless work on Capitol Hill Babysitting Co-op!

I notice that you’ve integrated my edits into the body of the article; while the changes are generally fine, the removal of “fiat” as in “the scrip is fiat money” is incorrect – the scrip emphatically is fiat money, which is the whole point of Neo-Chartalism. Fiat money means that the government can issue it at will, without it being backed by gold or any other commodity. I understand the confusion given Wikipedia’s vague definition (“not convertible into anything”) – what this system is is a “fiat money system with price controls”. Concretely, the money cannot be redeemed (with the government) for gold or other goods – nor can you force someone to redeem your scrip – you can only offer it (a market economy), which is different from going to Fort Knox, waving a wad of bills and demanding your gold.

Of course, since the standard at Wikipedia is not truth but verifiability, (Mitchell 2009) writes:
 * “So you should be able to see this as a simple model of a fiat currency system.”

I have accordingly restored the statement that it is a fiat money system.

I’d be happy to elaborate or discuss or collaborate further on this article – thanks for all your hard work.


 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 09:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I believe you're mistaken. Here's Wikipedia's source for the fixed price part of the fiat definition (emphasis added):
 * John Maynard Keynes (1965) [1930]. "1. The Classification of Money". A Treatise on Money. 1. Macmillan & Co Ltd. pp. 7. "Fiat Money is Representative (or token) Money (i.e something the intrinsic value of the material substance of which is divorced from its monetary face value) - now generally made of paper except in the case of small denominations - which is created and issued by the State, but is not convertible by law into anything other than itself, and has no fixed value in terms of an objective standard."

The reason for the distinction is that, in some sense, you can argue that the currency (in our case scrip) is actually backed by a good or service (in our case babysitting). It's just that the convertibility is at times suspended. If you let the price of babysitting, in terms of scrip, float, then it would be fiat, though.--Dark Charles (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Dark Charles,
 * I agree that by the “no fixed value” standard, fiat money is incompatible with price controls.
 * However, I do not believe that this is the intention of the definition, nor the distinction that is generally drawn, and that this wording is misleading.
 * Specifically, I have always heard “fiat money” contrasted with “commodity-backed” money (or “scrip” with “specie”), and have never heard anyone say that price controls make fiat money less so.
 * The defining character of fiat money is that it is created by government fiat, and can be created at will, without needing any reserves.
 * Krugman writes (Macro, p. 385):
 * Money whose value derives entirely from its official status as a means of exchange is known as fiat money because it exists by government fiat,
 * He further writes (p. 411):
 * There are three types of money: commodity money, commodity-backed money, and fiat money.
 * He is drawing exactly the distinction that I am making, that fiat is opposed to commodity-backed money.
 * Notably, scrip (even with price controls) cannot be redeemed – in the past you could take dollar bills to Fort Knox and force the government to give you gold.
 * You cannot take your scrip to another baby sitter – you may offer it, and hope they accept it, but you cannot compel anyone to exchange it.
 * In your terminology – the scrip is not convertible into baby sitting time, because the government does not have a reservoir of labor to provide to the citizens.
 * It would be convertible (and backed by labor, which admittedly does not occur historically) if you could go to the government, present scrip, and the government would then invariably give you a babysitter – I agree that in these circumstances it would be “hard” currency.
 * So to summarize: the distinction is between commodity/commodity-backed currency and between fiat currency (how currency is created); free price system vs. fixed price system is a separate issue, and is about how prices are set.
 * Does this seem reasonable?
 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the definition is clear (at least to me). You're arguing that it's wrong.  I guess definitions are arbitrary, so I won't revert your edit again because Krugman is a good source after all.  It looks like, using Wikipedia's convention, the scrip functions as "credit money," which I had actually never heard of. Anyway, I'll put a note next to fiat money and we'll be dandy.--Dark Charles (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Glad we’re in substantial agreement, and thanks for your clarification/elaboration.
 * Yeah, characterization of different monetary systems is often very contentious, which spills over into Wikipedia.
 * You might characterize fiat money as a form of credit (as I did in an earlier note – the co-op board is sorta “lending 30 to get back 20”, with negative interest), and the Austrian School does so, or rather attacks the “fiat+fractional-reserve banking” system as a “Debt-based monetary system”, and tend to advocate both the gold standard and full-reserve banking instead, and many ’pedia editors come from an Austrian background, so you’ll see this a lot.
 * Chartalism tends to instead distinguish “vertical” creation (fiat money, public-to-private, generating net assets) from “horizontal” creation (credit money, private-to-private), which I find to be a useful way of framing matters.
 * In any case, good to meet you! Some of our interests clearly overlap, and look forward to working together in future!
 * May I invite you to join WikiProject Economics? (As per Category:WikiProject Economics participants) You’re clearly interested in monetary economics, so perhaps you’d like to join the community!
 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah!--Dark Charles (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome!
 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics census
Hello there. Sorry to bother you, but you are (titularly at least) a member of WP:WikiProject Economics, as defined by this category. If you don't know me, I'm a Wikipedia administrator, but an unqualified economist. I enjoy writing about economics, but I'm not very good at it, which is why I would like to support in any way I can the strong body of economists here on Wikipedia. I'm only bothering you because you are probably one of them. Together, I'd like us to establish the future direction of WikiProject Economics, but first, we need to know who we've got to help.

Whatever your area of expertise or level of qualification, if you're interested in helping with the WikiProject (even if only as part of a larger commitment to this wonderful online encyclopedia of ours), would you mind adding your signature to this page? It only takes a second. Thank you.

Message delivered on behalf of User:Jarry1250 by LivingBot.
 * Firstly, thank you for signing the census, and an apology to those who dislike posts such as this one for messaging you again in this way. I've now got myself organised and you can opt-out of any future communication at WP:WikiProject Economics/Newsletter. Just remove your name and you wonn't be bothered again.


 * Secondly, and most importantly, I would like to invite your comments on the census talk page about the project as a whole. I've given my own personal opinion on a range of topics, but my babbling is essentially worthless without your thoughts - I can't believe for one moment that everyone agrees with me in the slightest! :)


 * All your comments are welcomed. Thanks, - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 17:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
20:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Federal Reserve System
Be careful of Ravensfire ( talk ) 21:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well this won't be fun. He's already announced his intention to continue to edit war.  *sigh*.  I'll keep an eye on it tomorrow.  Probably should just put the report up on WP:AN3.  Contrary to his belief, he's at 4 reverts in 24 hours.  And announcing his plan to continue to revert does not go over well on that board.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 23:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. By my count I'm at 3 reverts. I'll have two back late tonight and the third early tomorrow morning. I normally just revert once or twice, but Yourmanstan's recent edits are particularly obnoxious since we already addressed the situation.
 * I don't think he'll accept any compromise that doesn't involve a violation of WP:WEIGHT, so WP:AN3 sounds like a good idea.-- Dark Charles 01:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Austrian School
Please see the talk page about Schiff, and please try to understand the meaning of economic predictions. It is not about getting the date right, its about getting the trend right. The USD made record lows throughout 2009 and is continuing to do so to this day, with new all time lows against gold. These are facts and they prove Schiff right. Misessus (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The rule says: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists.[1] That includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources."

Thomas Woods is a Harvard and Columbia trained, NYT best selling historian. The talk cited is a lecture delivered at a Mises event. How is that OR? Even Samuelson in his false prediction said that the USSR would overtake the US probably by 1990, but at the latest 2015. A 25 year time span, not what you would call very precise, is it? That is the nature of economic predictions, explained by Woods.

Regarding the other sources, it was CNN for heaven's sake!!! How is WSJ article written by people who basically are Schiff's competitors more reliable than CNN? The other source shows a chart of the price of gold. Are you seriously claiming that the price of gold in terms of USD has -not- gone up, i.e. that the USD has dropped significantly?

You keep citing WP-rules with the typical arrogance of a bully, yet you obviously don't know what they mean. And besides, take a look at the talk page. This issue has been discussed before and there is no consensus or even support for including the WSJ article, none whatsoever. Misessus (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I listened to the audio and he didn't specifically even mention the prediction stuff you wrote about, much less did he refer to Schiff, which is necessary because the material is being used to defend Schiff. The CNN article says nothing about Schiff either. You're simply using the information in the CNN article to justify your defense of Schiff. That's WP:OR. Also, this should be on the Austrian Talk page and not here.-- Dark Charles  ( talk ) 23:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

BigK talk
I have copied&pasted the BigK discussion to WT:ECON. If you wish, let's continue the conversation there. --S. Rich (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Krugman
I'm glad that you tend to agree that this edit is fine. I would be interested to know what kind of evidence I need to provide in order to convince you to reinstate it. -- Vision Thing -- 20:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be good to reword the edit a bit because it doesn't read well. Also, please be specific about criticism, words like "some" can often be problematic. See WP:WEASEL. But the reason why I reverted as opposed to simply making those changes myself is because of WP:BURDEN. The person that makes the changes has the responsibility to go to the talk page and get consensus before the edit is put back in the article. As you might have guessed, I'm a little hyper-sensative about my last point right now.
 * I'll go ahead the write a little comment on the talk page.-- Dark Charles  (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay-docky. I've commented.-- Dark Charles  (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate your input. -- Vision Thing -- 20:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN as a edit summary justification?
DC, I think you are misconstruing the application of WP:BURDEN. It says: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it."

In this edit: you removed a text and a reference plus a sentence about what Hayek says which was supported by a quote from Hayek himself. The editor(s) who put that material there met the burden -- that is, the material was supported by WP:RS.

Now if the RS did not support what the text said, then tagging the text/ref as failed verification would be appropriate. (Orif there was no RS then removal would be appropriate as quoted above.

As I view these various edits, it looks like you want to remove the material more because you disagree with the material. (Am I mistaken?) If that is so, then your simple disagreement with the material is not a valid reason for removing it -- WP does not care about "truth". And it has even less tolerance for POV.

Also, your edit summary of BURDEN confuses the issue as to what or why you reverted that particular edit. Are you saying there is a burden regarding the COI issue? E.g., did you revert my edit because I did not meet some burden about showing a lack of COI? (Please note that I reverted an edit which restored the text to the latest version that I had created. In effect I was reverting the changes which restored my own text!)  I reverted because Lawrencekhoo's edit summary cited COI as a problem. But how does COI come in to play? If he is alleging COI, he should specify. If not, then he should WP:AGF.

Again, DC, I have seen you use this BURDEN tag as a justification for various edits -- but this justification, as you apply it, is not well-founded. --S. Rich (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No. That's not true at all. Misessus deleted the second paragraph of the criticism section and I restored it. The Hayek material was in the second paragraph instead of the first.-- Dark Charles  (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Charles, please please please stop. In this edit of yours  you restored material that is word-for-word duplicated in a footnote and in the text.  The following is the result (e.g., the very last paragraph with ref template brackets { and } removed):


 * (footnote portion) ref In response, Austrian School adherent historian Thomas Woods has argued in his book Meltdown that the crashes were caused by various privately-owned banks (with state charters) which issued paper money, supposedly convertible to gold, in amounts greatly exceeding their gold reserves./ref (text portion) In response, Austrian School adherent historian Thomas Woods has argued in his book Meltdown that the crashes were caused by various privately-owned banks (with state charters) which issued paper money, supposedly convertible to gold, in amounts greatly exceeding their gold reserves. ref {cite book |last=Woods |first=Thomas E., Jr. |title=Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse |publisher=Regnery Publishing, Inc. |year=2009 |edition=1st |pages=88–94 |isbn=9781596985872 }/ref


 * You are getting wrapped around the axle in this with Misessus and not considering what you are actually editing.--S. Rich (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sir the majority of the edit was the deletion of the following:
 * A related criticism is applied to Austrian School leaders; these leaders have advocated a rejection of methods which involve directly using empirical data in the development of (falsifiable) theories; application of empirical data is fundamental to the scientific method. Such rejections of empirical evidence in economics by Austrian School leaders have led to the school being dismissed within the mainstream. Ludwig von Mises has been described as the mid-20th century's "archetypal 'unscientific' economist." Mises wrote of his economic methodology that "its statements and propositions are not derived from experience... They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts." Murray Rothbard was also an adherent of Mises's methodology, and though Rothbard assigned a quasi-empirical description to it, he comments that "it should be obvious that this type of 'empiricism' is so out of step with modern empiricism that I may just as well continue to call it a priori for present purposes".  Additionally, the prominent Austrian economist, F. A. Hayek, stated his belief that social science theories can "never be verified or falsified by reference to facts."  Austrians argue that empirical data in and of itself cannot explain anything, which in turn implies that empirical data cannot falsify a theory.
 * Please don't deflect from the issue at hand. If you want to add that material back, that's fine. But it's not my responsibility to comb through edits that are mostly just reverts.-- Dark Charles  (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI about WP:BURDEN. I touched on it before, but it would probably be best to be more explicit. That material Misessus deleted was sourced and it had been there for years. Since Misessus deleted sourced material, the burden is on him.-- Dark Charles  (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Charles, it is your responsibility to comb through edits you make. That is what editors do! My specific example, above, shows how the material edited was a word-for-word duplication and properly deleted. As illustrated by my example, it looks like you hit the "undue" link and changed everything without carefully considering what was actually being undone. So please sit back and WP:COOL.  The issues at hand is not the actual text -- it is the pattern of editing that took place. And the WP:COOLDOWNs are needed because of the pattern and not because one editor is right and the other is wrong.  You have many more contributions yet to be made, but you can't do so unless you are more considerate and cooperative in your efforts.  And thank you for your many valuable contributions. --S. Rich (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:BURDEN applies. The editor that makes the edit is responsible for the edit. I have no idea what you mean by "My specific example, above, shows how the material edited was a word-for-word duplication and properly deleted."-- Dark Charles  (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dark Charles, WP:Edit War doesn't say you can edit war because you think someone has strayed beyond the bounds of WP:BURDEN (or some other editorial policy). Bring worries like that up on the talk page, stick to 1rr (even after two weeks have gone by) and you'll be ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

cite error
Charles, your restoration of the criticism has a cite error. (I don't know if the error was included previously.) Can you fix it? --S. Rich (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. It should be fine now. Alas, I'm a slob. Das ist Leben (as the Austrians would say).-- Dark Charles  (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the first words from the Austrians would be Scheiße! Thanks for the fix. (It pays to do the preview.)--S. Rich (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Krugman Edit
Please Charles, be precise in your edits. Krugman did not use the word "failure" in his piece -- it was used by some of the reader comments to Krugman's blog. But as you know those reader comments are not RS. Nor did Krugman imply anything about out the Austrians not using explicit gobbledy-gook as being "more generally". --S. Rich (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Um? The original version was "more generally, Paul Krugman has noted that the Austrians' failure to use models has left them unaware of holes in their own thinking." I don't see how the use of the word "failure" is OR or whatever, but I don't mind a different phrasing (as you have done). "More generally" was not from the post. The Krugman criticism was more general than Caplan's because Caplan was talking about econometric models in particular.-- Dark Charles  (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Krugman's own words ("leaves the AS guys unaware of the holes in their thinking") are critical enough of the AS. Adding "Failure" is adding editor POV to the statement.  Suppose we wrote "Paul Krugman's opinion is that because Austrians utterly fail to use critical "explicit models" such as econometric analysis, they are blissfully unaware of the chasms in their own fatally flawed thinking."  (Or, "Krugman's opinion is that even though the Austrians have a well thought out rejection of flawed "explicit models" in their analysis, they are unaware of gaps in their own thinking.") Clearly these statements go overboard, but the lesson is that we cannot add in such terminology.  Using "failure" when Krugman does not use the word is not acceptable.  Too much editor opinion is injected if we add the term "failure" because Krugman's opinion (without using the word failure) is adequate.  Regarding "more generally", we have no indication that Krugman is making a comparison or expansion to Caplan's opinion. That is, Krugman may be using the term "explicit model" as a synonym for econometric model. Because Krugman is writing in a newspaper (while Caplan is writing for academic audiences) he's probably using the more generic, less technical term.  For us to say "more generally" is reading too much into Krugman. The "more generally" does not help the reader and Krugman's opinion by itself is perfectly adequate. --S. Rich (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

p-adic number
First, it isn’t. Second, it would not be a valid argument at all: see WP:MOSINTRO. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The first sentence reads "In mathematics the p-adic number system for any prime number p..." The sentence makes the one at the end unnecessary. I also don't see why MOSINTRO is relevant either.-- Dark Charles  (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, but apparently I have a checkered editing history myself, so I'll opt not to vote. -- Dark Charles  (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

 * Thank you! - Dark Charles