User talk:Don4of4/Archives May 2013

Wrong revert
Hey Don4of4, how come you reverted my edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Instrumenti&diff=cur&oldid=554294835)? It was completely legitimate. --27.6.193.118 (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * At the time it appeared to be vandalism. I am now restoring your version. Thank you for the report!  Don4of4 [Talk] 22:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Gold standard edits
Economics is a field with wildly varying opinions - one economist will say one thing while another will tell you the exact opposite and a third will tell you that the other two are both wrong. A fourth might tell you that depending on the situation all the previous three are right. It's probably one of the most confused field of study out there.

For a neutral point of view all significant sides need to be represented. The Austrian School support of the gold standard is significant and needs to be included, the monetarist view that a slow steady growth in the money supply will give superior results is also a significant opinion. The monetarist position supports the gold standard in that gold money can only increase at the slow steady rate provided by new mine production. The is the exact requirement of the monetarist's ideal money system, because gold money is exactly the type of system that the consider the best. In general, the supply of gold increases at a slow steady rate, barring massive gold finds like the California gold rush, which are few and far between.71.174.140.32 (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure! Just cite a source then.  Your statement seemed to lack a NPOV, so you should back it up.  Don4of4 [Talk] 22:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Pretty much everything I have posted has been a cut and paste or a condensed version of what the source said, with a link to the source article.71.174.140.32 (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The source you cited is not reputable. If you are going to place extreme claims in a Wikipedia article, be sure to back it up with multiple reputable sources.  Don4of4 [Talk] 00:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Which source is not reputable? Forbes magazine, the #1 US and probably world business magazine, Prof. Bordo who was previously cited half a dozen (or more) times, or the Brittanica encyclopedia? Pardon me if I find your objection just a mite objectionable.71.174.140.32 (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The content you have been adding did not cite relevant and reliable sources. If you have a particular complaint, please direct me to the specific edit.   Don4of4 [Talk] 02:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Again what cite are you talking about. I cited Forbes magazine, Prof Bordo and the Britannica encyclopedia. Which of those 3 are your problem? or was it perhaps Mariam Webster dictionary? the #1 English dictionary this side of the Atlantic.71.174.140.32 (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is getting rediculous. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gold_standard&oldid=554296329 .  You literally dumped a definition in the middle of an article.  How is that helpful?   Don4of4 [Talk] 03:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * because many a time people don't even understand the meaning of the word that they are using - although they THINK that they do!71.174.140.32 (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, well I appreciate your trying to help, but I am going to ask you to refrain from making edits before you get community support. Don4of4 [Talk] 03:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

velocity of money
Please advise why you believe that the statement that savings kept outside the banking system "in a mattress" aka a safe deposit box, home safe, yes a mattress, or even a buried tin can, have a low velocity.

By definition - the velocity of money is how often it gets spent.

Also by definition - savings don't get spent.

and as plain as the nose on your face, savings not kept in a bank can't be loaned out by the bank to be spent. Ah! you do have a nose right?

Now don't you feel a bit foolish?71.174.140.32 (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No, not at all. The content you added lacks style and relevency.  Why do you think going into this matress analogy is appropriate in the place in the article you placed it?  Moreover statements like "A recent change in Federal Reserve policy to pay interest on bank reserve deposits..." do not belong in the article.  Don4of4 [Talk] 02:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Frankly you should be feeling foolish. It's good for the soul. Savings kept out of the banking system have zero velocity. By definition savings are what is left over after spending. Savings in the banking system can be lent out and spent by others and have a higher then zero velocity. Notice the difference zero velocity and higher then zero velocity. The less incentive to keep money in the banking system (incentives being interest payments) the less money that will be kept in the banking system. Less incentives means more money with ZERO velocity staying out of the banking system. That zero velocity money drives down the overall velocity of tadah! MONEY! and again you should be feeling foolish.


 * Excess bank reserve are currently 1.8 trillion dollars per the Fed (a link I was in the process of adding when you deleted the material a second time). That money does not get loaned out by the banks, does not get spent by people borrowing it. since it does not get spent it has either a ZERO or some low velocity, again driving down the overall velocity. That 1.8 trillion is up from about ZERO before the Fed started paying .25% interest about 4 years ago. A much better rate then buying short term government paper. BTW the velocity of money peaked - can you guess????


 * probably not! so I'll give you the answer - 4 years ago! 71.174.140.32 (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you don't understand... I spent four years of my life studying economics, I know what you are trying to say, and your not totally inaccurate, but the way you stated yourself in the articles was not of quality nor consistent with Wikipedia policy.   Don4of4 [Talk] 03:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * so change it to be consistent. Is that so hard?71.174.140.32 (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The content was redundant and unnecessary, which is ultimately why I removed it.  Don4of4 [Talk] 03:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * did you know redundant can mean either unnecessary or a duplication? Using redundant and unnecessary together is actually quite redundant.


 * Redundant also implies that the material is already there and a repetition is not needed. The material is not already there. Your use of that word just proves my point above (in the other section), that people THINK that they know what something means but they really don't. Nice timing BTW. Do you practice doing foot in mouth often, because I have to say that while your knowledge of English could use a bit of help, your TIMING is impeccable.71.174.140.32 (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the point where I cease debating this with you. Grow up.  Don4of4 [Talk] 03:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Addition of another's signature
Say, take a look at this edit:. As I see it, the signature of another user was part of the message you posted. I guess this was from a cut & paste. If this is correct, you might post something on SPECIFICO's talk page and explain. – S. Rich (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Pee Wee Russell
I'm puzzled by why you have classified the previous edit (not mine) on the Pee Wee Russell page as vandalism. A 1981 Webster's I have defines 'color-blind' as 'not recognizing differences in race … esp. free from racial prejudice'. The current Concise Oxford Dictionary, possibly the most widely used dictionary in the UK, does not have an equivalent definition for 'colour-blind'. The edit you have objected to seems to me no more than an attempt to avoid ambiguity – unless you are certain that it was Russell's optical status that Coleman Hawkins was referring to. Mind you, I don't think the comment fits very well where it is, and it's a pity there's not a quote and a reference. Radavenport (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to go back and check what he edited. He added the bold portion: "who considered Russell to be color-blind concerning race" This is obvious vandalism.  Don4of4 [Talk] 02:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's a very harsh assessment. As I tried to point out, 'color-blind' may not immediately be taken to refer to race by non-US readers. The edit concerned seemed to me to be a response to that, to avoid ambiguity in the context of a recording which (though it's not stated) featured both black and white musicians. You may think it unnecessary. But vandalism??? Radavenport (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)