User talk:Gregalton/Archive 2

RRSP taxation
Nice job! I spent all last night working on the RRSP article...and the section you added was the last section I felt was missing. You saved me the trouble! Dross82 14:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Canada-article lead
I'm having another go at a one-thing-at-a-time approach to editing the lead, beginning with whether or not the first paragraph should be exclusively geographic. Please look over how I've shown the views given so far, at the talkpage and ensure that yours is accurately shown by my treatment. Thanks. The goal, of course, is a definite result to build upon. -- Lonewolf BC 20:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wind power
The Wind power article received heavy editing today by unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 07:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Debt-based money
(1) Thanks for your comment on this subject on my talk page. Notice how the self-styled monetary expert himself deleted his entire page and left in a huff. Perhaps he will be back later to stuff it back in when others have departed. What I was asking for was not just a criticism of the current monetary regimes, blaming them for everything under the sun (tyranny, ultimately, apparently, but also, Rowbotham claimed in a talk I went to, the alleged fact that you can't get real tomatoes anymore), but also some basic explanation of why these regimes are favoured by rational and fair minded individuals as they apparently are.

The core idea of the free money guys' critique seems to be that it is akin to tyranny if, when a person wants to enjoy the product of a huge capital investment right now, he must over time pay more for that enjoyment than he would have to pay if he could afford to buy that product right away. But this seems to just make simple common sense, and provides a natural incentive structure for the effective and productive introduction of additional money into the system as it is required.

But to the free money guys it is some big scandal: "the banks create money out of nothing, out of thin air". Yeah, and so what? If they do not create that money in an effective manner, to aid productivity, they are going to go under (or should, if the system is set up correctly. There is room for criticism, there, no doubt, and as well, quite likely of a possible excessive profit they are allowed to make for performing this crucial and non-trivial service) 32F 08:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(2) Thanks for your second note. I agree with the analysis of cranks (and added a interesting excerpt in the original talk page about one of this guy's gurus Rowbotham). I wonder if you have any ideas on this: the pages on money/monetary theory are really hard to get a nice simple common sense motivated theoretical model out of them. Considerations are lacking, and others spread all over. Is there some room for a more abstract analysis where the economic categories (debt, money) arise out of an analysis of basic folk psychology applied in a methodological individuals mode to entail macrophenomena from micro phenomena of individual knowledge and interests. The ideal structure of institutions could then be deduced in a smple model from first principles, but room for criticism would then exist based on failures of the idealizing assumptions. (This sort of thing is ultimately necessary to evaluate the Rational Expectations models of Lucas, for example, about the ineffectiveness of monetary policy). This sort of discussion would be much more enlightening to the average reader of these articles. Unfortunately an attempt to do this might constitute original research. (btw is there a way to put reply notes so that a person will see them, given it to be unlikely he is watching all pages he has commented on, where the comments might be more naturally placed after his own? I don't know yet all the details of procedure) 32F 09:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(3) God how I hated Rational Expectations Analysis and Lucas's equations. I had to wade through that crap in my Honours Degree in Economics just to get the grades, whilst studying Austrian Economics "on the sly" at night (I was told to stop reading von Mises and Rothbard on threat of death - my Professors were math-obsessed neo-classical rational expectation idiots). And does anyone remember the Black-Scholes equations? Hilarious after LTCM imploded. Why we have to re-learn history every time "financial innovation" blows up, I will never understand. Watch the "Black-Box" math-wiz geeks fall out the windows of Wall Street over the next few months. That will be the final vindication of the long-scorned and ignored and derided Austrian Economists (R.I.P. von Mises and Rothbard - you were truly great men). It will be soooooo sweet...--Karmaisking (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(4) Oh, now I know why you haven't read the references in debt-based monetary system. You're too busy making deletions on fractional reserve banking. What a busy boy you must be deleting anything to do with fractional reserve banking that offends you sensitive sensibilities. It must be like trying to plug holes in a dyke. Good luck, my Canadian (cricket-loving?) friend...--Karmaisking (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I haven't deleted anything from there. I put citation flags, and noted in the talk page that at least some of the tables seem to misunderstand how balance sheets work.--Gregalton (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Could you please find out what happened to the damn graph on frb that was there and is now deleted. The version from about a week ago was the clearest explanation of frb.  Why has it been deleted???  Could you please put the graph back on the site???  I assume you are the WP God on these matters, hence my request.  I will not touch it, in case you automatically delete simply as a Pavlovian response from debt-based monetary system.--Karmaisking (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I don't know where that is. Don't think it was me.--Gregalton (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I just threw it back in. Let's see how long it lasts...--Karmaisking (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not very long at all apparently...instead of sending me youtube stuff on Paul Krugman (which was nice of you, but Paul I'm afraid to say is not my favorite economist) I'd really appreciate it if you could watch over fractional reserve banking with the same vigor you deleted stuff on debt-based monetary system. The neat, easy-to-understand explanation of frb has been wiped.  With the cute diagram.  Why???  Everyone seems to have a delete button around here and no one seems to have a re-do button.  Should I do it?  Or would that be a "bad idea"?


 * I didn't actually think he would be your favourite economist. But still an interesting talk.
 * I am looking at FRB. I have no strong opinion on that particular contribution of yours, but didn't find it particularly useful (assuming you mean the graph and tables). It appears some have stronger feelings about it.
 * But of course, I basically disagree that fractional reserve banking is somehow fundamentally problematic, and find the commentary on the geometric progression (in some quarters) to be overwrought and oversimplified. But that's me.--Gregalton (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are becoming more and more strident in your old age. You state that you object to the view that "fractional reserve banking is somehow fundamentally problematic, and find the commentary on the geometric progression (in some quarters) to be overwrought and oversimplified. But that's me."  Well, it appears that it's no longer just a "that's me" issue.  You are actively deleting Libertarian viewpoints and basically slaughtering the frb page on a regular (almost compulsive) basis.  And the simple explanation of frb with diagram (which you had no objection to, as clearly stated above) is STILL deleted - and you haven't made the slightest effort to re-insert it.  Should I help you try to "clean up" the page?  Or have you taken possession of ULTIMATE TRUTH on frb all for yourself?  If so, please provide your God-like qualifications, as I am still waiting for these Illuminati-like powers to be confirmed.--Karmaisking (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me be clear, as you seem to have misinterpreted my comments on "Christmases past" (ie on previous occasions): I propose to re-insert the explanatory section on frb that existed a few weeks ago (with the diagram and the numbers).  The explanation was factual.  It was clear.  There should be nothing wrong with re-inserting it.  Do you have any objection to its re-insertion??--Karmaisking (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not delete, apparently someone else did. That's what the talk page on the article is there for. So it's not just me, but also someone named David. I happen to agree with him.--Gregalton (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And as for deleting Libertarian viewpoints, the section did not correspond to the way other pages on economics issues are written. Should we have a section on democratic, socialist, anarchist or other viewpoints (particularly those connected with political parties)? It would be an appropriate section (perhaps) for an article on libertarianism.--Gregalton (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I apparently missed your question about reinsertion: yes, I object and have reverted. Two editors have objected to the inclusion, and you seem to want to reinsert rather than making your case. Make the case first, get support, then reinsert. I repeat: it's simplistic, not informative, and misinterprets the issue. In addition, it's not encyclopedic.--Gregalton (talk) 09:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please define "encyclopedic". It's a catch-all phrase dangerously close to "I don't like this stuff."  I recall one judge stating that he couldn't define "pornography" but he knew it when he saw it.  I am amazed that you use this argument on WP when Homer Simpson, group sex, anal sex, Wile E Coyote and Wii all have proud entries on WP.  Do you think these are also worthy topics for inclusion in WP?  What PRECISELY is FACTUALLY incorrect in this section?  Two "idiots" sitting around agreeing with each other does not reality make.  Not that I'm calling anyone an idiot...--Karmaisking (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Credit Crunch
Do you have a stutter? If so, why are you editing other people's work before it's cured? I'm not happy, but then you make me unhappy in so many ways...--Karmaisking (talk) 03:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, go away and push fringe theories elsewhere.--Gregalton (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Watch the "fringe" Austrian theories go mainstream in 6 months, neo-Keynesian Canadian-British Establishment-type.--Karmaisking (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: Canada
Thank you -- your note has been read. Quizimodo (talk) 10:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi there -- this is just to let you know (and you've probably gathered as much) that certain editorial opinions are not necessarily ones I share, though I think there is validity to some of the arguments put forth regarding the country's name. Anyhow, I will respond to your comments in the next several days -- I am swamped with work!  Until then ... Quizimodo 12:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'm probably not doing this correctly by note here. Editorial opinions (by some) and the way they are structured are not at all a surprise. I appreciate your note at any rate.--Gregalton 13:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Canadian government employee
Are you an employee of the Canadian government? --Foggy Morning (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Why?--Gregalton 05:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a question, which you've answered. Thank you! You've been adding a lot of content to Wikipedia without indicating the source of the content you add. Please don't forget to include the source of your Wikipedia edits. :) --Foggy Morning (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Name of Canada
Your welcome, and good luck. RobHar (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

note
just wanted to write briefly to say, I like your overall input and approach, and understand your concerns. thanks. hope to be in touch further on various concepts. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Canada page
A user you gave a final warning has just vandalized the Canada article. I don't know how to take the next steps for blocking.--Gregalton (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * He's already been blocked. For future reference, though, report them to WP:AIV. Gscshoyru (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

PHEVs
Thanks! Your help is much appreciated. Fbagatelleblack (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Debt-based monetary system
POV pushing trolls are not a part of consensus, so we should completely ignore Karmaisking's behavior. So, please stop trying to improve the article and help me get it redirected or deleted, which both should've been done months ago instead of bothering with Karma.

It also appears that Karmaisking has a number of sockpuppets:

His edits constitute vandalism. As such, we should have the article redirected or deleted. If Karma tries an edit war, we go to WP:ANI, as I already have. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Grateful you initiate. If you believe these are sockpuppets (and it seems to me they are the same user, I'm less well acquainted with the nuances of sockpuppetry), you should put a note on the pages.--Gregalton (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Greg, if you could do me a favor: Could you WP:RFCU on the sockpuppets above? I'm not registered, so I can't start the page. The code would be C and the supporting evidence is pretty much all of those users' contribs. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My ANI post was ignored. I sent in the WP:RFCU for Karmaisking, but I haven't received a response yet. However, on the bright side, it does seem that Karmaisking has attracted the attention of some of Wikipedia's admins, as he was blocked earlier due to some of his edits. See his talk page. He was then unblocked because one of the admins misread a diff, regarding the block. However, my version of debt-based monetary system remained up throughout the day. Hopefully, we're done with him for now. Also, in case you're interested, one of the easiest ways to find economics articles that have been vandalized is to do a search for links to Mises.org on Wikipedia. Per WP:FRINGE, I removed a substantial amount of such citations earlier. Not all, of course, since they're sometimes relevant. There's only about 1200. If you'd like to improve other economics articles in the same way, that's a good place to start. Zenwhat (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm actually mostly offline for a few days, so my lack of activity is not an indication of anything more than busy-ness. Appreciate your efforts on this.--Gregalton (talk) 05:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You could show your appreciation with a barnstar. Zenwhat (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Gregalton, I've posted on the talk page for debt-based monetary system. Gantlord (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that much of the criticism of the "debt-based monetary system" is thinly-veiled anit-semitic conspiracy theory. For example, I came across mention of the "mandrake method". Searching for it online led me here: http://goldismoney.info/forums/archive/index.php/t-39303.html. Mandrake method is mentioned with zionism and the NWO, and jewish control of central banks. Do you happen to know of any rational, unbiased criticism of fractional reserve banking that isn't pure unhinged conspiracy theory? Gantlord (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I appreciate your taking the "Brit" heat ;). I'm laughing but the bizarre continued references to my Brit-hood came across as ... unhinged, as you put it (aptly). I must say that yes, I am aware of some criticism of fractional-reserve banking in the Austrian school that does not appear to be unhinged conspiracy theory, but is frankly a very limited and esoteric group, that (as far as I can tell) did not get much support even among them. For some reason it appeals to the conspiracy-minded, and much of the subsequent writing seems to have blown a technical/philosophic argument out of all proportion.--Gregalton (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This whole episode is making me think that there should be a peer-review of wikipedia editors, so that your account carries with it a reputation. The community would decide if you are making beneficial or detrimental contributions to it. The amount of time and energy being expended here is incredible.


 * At the risk of going OT, I read a paper that made me think differently about this whole issue of money supply. It was from a journal of economic history, about Soviet money supply in the pre-WWII period. They tried to restrict the supply of money, but it always ended up being greater than they wanted. The excess demand for money led to the creation of proxy currencies, like IOUs and vouchers for food and transport that resulted in a de facto increase in the money supply. At least that was my non-expert interpretation of it :-) Gantlord (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Karma's sockpuppetry
Please see the discussion at Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Karmaisking. Zenwhat (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

An idea on how to deal with monetary crankery
I looked at the fractional reserve banking article recently and saw how it was so horribly vandalized. It made me realize that we're going around in circles. We improve the articles to the point that they look great. Then they get screwed up again. So, I had an idea: Would you be interested in helping me write an essay on "Monetary Crankery"? It could help people who AREN'T educated in economics realize exactly why the recent edits to Fractional-reserve banking violate WP:FRINGE. There are plenty of mainstream sources on monetary policy on the internet. Here's an excellent one. I also have a good economics textbook I can cite.

The idea is for it to be straightforward, with references, but polemic and satirical of monetary crankery. We can also cite specific contentious diffs. Zenwhat (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

An arbitration decision involving you.
A request for arbitration involving you has been proposed. See Requests_for_arbitration Zenwhat (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Monetary Policy
Your welcome. I have been quite please with your editing as well. I wish I could spend more time editing this and other articles, but alas time is an expensive commodity. Don't burn yourself out with the monetary cranks. If they start to really bother you, take a break and work on something else. The Electronic Calves will continue to crawl out of their watering holes for several months due to constant streaming news about current events in global finance. Good Luck and "Happy" Editing --EGeek (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good advice - I'll try to follow it!--Gregalton (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wind power
All of those came on line in 2006, which is why they were chosen. The fifth wind farm, Ripley, came online in December of 2007, so no annual data is available yet, calendar or year to year. It looks like there are three new wind farms planned and expansions to two others. That still leaves them two short from the "any ten wind farms can provide 33 to 47% of baseload". There is a comparison of solar and wind already, is that what you are working on?

There is online data available from ERCOT. I used it to compare with the output of the solar panels at the Winston School in Dallas, and found that over a two year period the solar panels would have to be scaled up to 2.55 times average consumption, and that 4 1/3 days storage was needed to meet the entire electricity needs of the state of Texas. In other words the solar farm would be able to export 60% of its generation each year. Wind farms have less impact on land use than solar farms because while solar panels can be used for roofs, wind farms are sort of like lots of tall street lights - they don't really take up any real estate. I was intrigued to see the economics available to small farmers - their yield per acre from farming is about $40 to $140/acre, but they can go on with their normal farming just for the fun of it and rent out the farmland for a wind farm and earn $3,000/acre. I know there is a hog farmer in Germany who has installed solar panels and earns more from the solar panels than he does for the hogs, which are raised under the panels. 199.125.109.64 (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see now why they limited the capacity figures to 2006. I'm interested in a number of things, including "baseload" (quotes because everyone means something different) and the amount of fossil fuel diverted by using. I'm sort of in the camp that significant amounts of wind in e.g. Ontario is largely manageable with upcoming changes in network (particularly link to Quebec with its massive hydro / massive capacity to maneuver supply, but would like to see better studies (which current small penetrations don't really allow). Also interested to what degree various fossil fuel usage is diverted by having more wind online - which I think is obvious. Put differently, greenhouse gas issue is related to total energy from fossil fuel, not peak - and media discussion tends to focus on capacity, an ambiguous and nebulous term.--Gregalton (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you meant 2007. Supposedly any ten windfarms can supply 33 to 47% of baseload. I am currently researching what happens to your availability to supply baseload if you combine ten solar farms with ten wind farms. I am certain that pumped hydrostorage backup will still be needed because there is never any solar at night, when demands are lower, fortunately. If you look at the over 700 websites provided by Fat Spaniel, you will see that many of them indicate the amount of CO2 and Nox saved from the atmosphere. Most of those are solar but there are a few that are wind. You can also divide pounds of CO2 by 19 to find gallons of gasoline saved. It is a simple fact that we will be on the planet for a billion years (although thankfully not confined to it) and that fossil fuels at current consumption rates run out in the blink of an eye compared to that time scale. So my focus is on assuming that coal will only be used to create carbon fiber and petroleum will only be used for petrochemicals and not burned, and that burning coal or petroleum is criminal. Projections from the book Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free ISBN 9781571431738 show that we can eliminate fossil fuel and nuclear by 2050 with little to no economic impact. 199.125.109.49 (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Inflation and deflation
Dear Greg-- I noticed you reverted the obsolete/nonstandard definition of inflation for the standard contemporary definition. Would you mind watching deflation too, where the same battle of usages keeps recurring? Thanks in advance! --Rinconsoleao (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Know you're busy, but if you need some monetary policy of the USA action....
...There's some absurd stuff masquerading as reliable sources. This is really outrageous. Not karmaisking outrageous, but still.--Gregalton (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Because of some pretty idiotic stuff I've dealt with on policy pages, I mostly focus on reforming policy, WP:RSN, and WP:FTN. If you know of any specific articles, though, yeah, point them out and I'll take a look.

If you ever get frustrated and feel like blowing up over it, I suggest doing the same thing. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I posted a thread about it on WP:FTN. That's a good place to post this stuff, since it seems like intelligent users tend to cluster there. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've issued a posting on User:BigK HeX on WP:ANI. Please take a look. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration on Dominion issue
I've made an arbitration case on the nagging Dominion issue on Canada and related pages. There might be a need for you to comment. Thanks. --Soulscanner (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Good job!!!
Wow, man. I'm amazed! I had took my eyes off of Criticisms of fractional-reserve banking for about a week or so, maybe a little more, and it's been substantially improved!

Good job, man! I know I already gave you a barnstar for stuff on Monetary theory, but the fact that you were able to accomplish something on that article was incredible, so you deserve another. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And praise from me too for finding some good (non-biased)references for that other article. Now I think about it, I think The Times (London) had to mention the phrase with an explanation in the article about the Giuliani controversy. I wish I had thought of that before.--Tom (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Gosh! I just saw who has been editing Criticisms of fractional-reserve banking and I see you have been battling the same dark forces.  May the Force be with You! Keep up the good work.--Tom (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Quizimodo
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Requests for comment/Quizimodo. -- soulscanner (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I nominated Money as Debt for deletion.
Take a look:

Articles for deletion/Money as Debt

Thanks. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Money as Debt "with salt"?!? You're letting your true colours shine through.  There's no need to be vindictive. It's so...ungentlemanly of you.  I don't doubt that it will be deleted by the way.  I just don't like the way it's done.  At least delete with dignity.--KarmasBlackSwan (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Empirical data on ABCT?
About the Austrian soapboxing over the ABCT here:

Fractional-reserve banking.

A while back, an economist I knew (in a debate over the internet, again, with one of these teenage-aged pseudo-economists) cited empirical data that the ABCT was false.

I discussing this with them, some Austrians acknowledge this, but say empirical data is irrelevant. Other Austrian economists will pull out money-creation statistics mhich aren't adjusted for inflation, so as to argue, "The Fed's been expanding the money supply like crazy!"

What specific data could we use on this, that you think we'd be successful in adding?

i.e., inflation-adjusted comparisons of public debt, the price of treasury bonds, the prime interest rate, nominal GDP growth, and real GDP growth. If the ABCT were true, every purchase of treasury bonds (driving up their price) and the ensuing prime interest rate decline should lead to an increase in nominal GDP (but not real GDP, according to the theory), followed by a sharp fall in real GDP which can only be alleviated by a monetary contraction, through the sale of treasury bonds (drives down their price) and the prime interest rate going back up to the "natural rate."

This is of course totally nonsensical for anyone who understands actual economics. A chart of the above stats would disprove it, but I think it would be disregarded as "original research."

We could also add Milton Friedman's remarks on how the ABCT is nonsense. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd go with actual citations. I had a krugman quote somewhere saying it was the equivalent of greek fire theory (phlogistry?). I'm sure there's better available.--Gregalton (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Nicolaas
Oh, my... that's not at all what I meant. I'll try to talk to him now. Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! ☺  07:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm reluctant to block, though if he continues to disrupt I'll be forced to. And I know what you mean; sometimes some editors just become unreasonable. Hopefully I can get through to him. Anyway, time for bed. Night! Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  07:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Milton Friedman, Fractional reserve banking
Hi Gregalton, I've provided evidence that Milton Friedman did support 100% reserve banking in the discussion page of "criticism of fractional reserve banking". Hope this helps!Jamalloyman (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Please feel free to edit the article directly, with reference. There was a comment there that it was unclear if Friedman was referring to central banking or banking. Needs to be looked into. I think Friedman may have changed his mind on the fractional-reserve banking issue, but will need to find sources.--Gregalton (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton
Thank you for your attempt to settle things at Talk:Alexander Hamilton. I am afraid your response has led the other editor to conclude that "financier" should be reomoved if "political economist" stays because, he contends, they are the same thing. I apologize for troubling you again, but would you care to weigh in on this, as well? Thank you. Shoreranger (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

France and the Commonwealth
This is already referenced at the end of the paragraph, which links to this Guardian article http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/15/france.eu and also this news release from The National Archives David Underdown (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't read this article the same way at all.--Gregalton (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Pied-Noir
Sorry about the move....bummer...we've been working so hard going back and forth between the spelling of the two (look at the history) and trying to get the correct usage.....bummer....anyway, you're correct, it SHOULD have been raised on the talk page. I am moving it back now, per your comment. Btw, thanks for noticing. Could you provide some insight on this? I've been unable to find a straight answer. I'm also putting this on the article's talk page....Lazulilasher (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Inflation
Please take a look at the latest changes to the definition in the Inflation article. --Doopdoop (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Gregalton, I am sick and tired of your insults here on Wikipedia. Signed: Nicolaas Smith.
You knew if you carried on long enough with your insults I will have to leave some or other time.

Well, that time has now come.

This is the article that neither you nor your friend can delete:



You will delete or remove what I write here. That has been your style in the past and you will do that again.

You and no-one else can stop or remove Real Value Accounting from the economic scene.

Real Value Accounting will prevail. It will one day be contributed here on Wikipedia by some-one other than me.

I know and every-one here knows that you will fight them off as much as you can. But, in the end Real Value Accounting will appear on Wikipedia.

704 people have already downloaded the book on their own free will.

I am not ashamed that I developed Real Value Accounting by chance as a result of my experience with hyperinflation.

I am not ashamed that I identified that inflation has a monetary and non-monetary component.

I am not ashamed that I identified that the stable measuring unit assumption destroys real value on a massive scale world wide.

I am not ashamed to be who I am and to sign my real name to what I write here.

Nicolaas Smith (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't believe I've insulted you, nor suggested you should be ashamed. I have stated that Wikipedia may not be the appropriate venue for you to promote your research, and that the way you have done so has not been constructive. It would help to acquaint yourself better with WP policies.--Gregalton (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This sounds like an open and shut case of WP:OR. I've seen Greg's work and know him to have a balanced, thoughtful approach to inclusion of pertinent information. Skyemoor (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Research: diligent and systematic inquiry or investigation into a subject in order to discover or revise facts, theories, applications: Dictionary.com.

Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth: Dictionary.com

Peer reviewed publication in leading accountancy journal:

Extract from peer reviewed article (fact): "The combination of the Historical Cost Accounting model and low inflation is thus indirectly responsible for the destruction of the real value of Retained Income equal to the annual average value of Retained Income times the average annual rate of inflation."

Extract from peer reviewed article (fact): "Everybody suddenly then agrees to destroy hundreds of billions of Dollars in real value in all companies´ Retained Income balances all around the world."

Obviously of little importance to you.

Obviously of great importance for you are the following; why, I do not know and I do not care. Just sad, really. Especially when this is done on Wikipedia:

Lie: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive" : Dictionary.com.

My work is not research any more. What I state are facts as verified by the peer reviewed article. Please, do not lie about my work, that is, make a false statement with the deliberate intent to decieve.

No incivility intended towards you. I am only quoting and stating facts.

You are very uncivil to me. As I have stated repeatedly in the past: Gregalton, I am sick and tired of your insults here on Wikipedia.

Obviously, you do not get banned for continously insulting a good faith editor.

Nicolaas Smith (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You say no incivility is intended while accusing me of lies. That's just nonsense.--Gregalton (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And by the way: I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word research.--Gregalton (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If Mr. Smith's 'research' becomes published in a notable economic journal, then perhaps this can be re-examined at that time. Until then, WP:OR is quite clear.  Thanks again Greg for holding the line on appropriate content.  198.151.13.8 (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My work was published in South Africa´s leading accountancy journal, namely, The South African Institute of Chartered Accountant´s journal Accountancy South Africa in September 2007. Here is the link to the peer reviewed article:

I will now look up on the talk pages where Gregalton congratulated me for being published and post the link over here next.

Nicolaas Smith (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Here it is: "........the situation has evidently changed now that your work has actually been published - congratulations................ "--Gregalton (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This appears in the current Inflation talk page under the Plain English section. 

Nicolaas Smith (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * One of many points you have missed entirely is that, even if published, that does not make Wikipedia the venue to promote your theories (and being published once does not make it fact, nor worthy of re-writing whole other articles, nor "proof" that the standard definitions of e.g. inflation should be re-written).
 * The ANI was about your behaviour, and you have not responded to those issues nor substantively changed your behaviour despite frequent suggestions from many different parties.
 * You have focussed on me, a single person, as being the problem; you may want to consider what others have noted and consider whether the problem lies elsewhere.--Gregalton (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I see that you are continuing to engage with him on his talk page. I think this may only be prolonging his presence there by giving him somebody to argue with. He seems to be unable to take advice or let anybody else have the last word. He seems to crave attention and thrive off conflict. If we all ignore him, maybe he is more likely to give up. I am sure there must be many economics based blogs and forums he could go and annoy instead. That said, if he does come back with another account, I have no doubt that it will be painfully obvious what is going on and that it will lead to another swift block. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Good advice - I will keep to a minimum.--Gregalton (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Some weasel words
Any idea about what we can do about this in Fractional-reserve banking?

You agree that this is weasel words? &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Take it out. What does it have to do with FRB anyway? You may want to look at the criticism article, too--Gregalton (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is, I tried to remove that sentence a while back, but somebody put it back in, claiming it was sourced. Technically, it is, but it's taken out-of-context. Also, if I removed that, I'd have to figure out how to re-write it. It's virtually impossible to find any credible sources on Austrian economics, because there are none, outside of their own self-published pop economics, which isn't picked up by academic journals. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 05:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks
I've been there, & it takes a certain amount of experience to be bold. However, this shows it's not over. -- llywrch (talk) 06:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No Barbarians Please
I note that we have been having a little tiff on DBMS and am concerned that the repeated reverts are getting out of hand. I now see that you have a record of distressing other contributors as well. Quite badly. Nicolaas Smith seems very cheesed off by your conduct. I would ask you to reflect on your conduct and see that several editors are distressed by your dogmatism and self-righteous approach. Please keep a degree of tolerance to "other" (perhaps radical, perhaps strange) views if they are appropriately expressed and refed. Barbarism has been (rightly in my view) condemned in others. Let's keep things civil on WP.--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you think the case of Mr. Smith is an example of my poor conduct, you appear to be misinformed; Mr. Smith's approach has always been that of one expecting, desiring and provoking his own martyrdom. I see very little evidence of other editors distressed by my approach - save the single-issue obsessives.--Gregalton (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Lagrandebanquesucre is a confirmed sockpuppet of Karmaisking:

Requests for checkuser/Case/Lagrandebanquesucre &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think you and I must have filed the RCUs at almost the same time (there were two). I'd been meaning to do that for a few days.--Gregalton (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the spelling of "pied-noir"
Hi Gregalton, I don't know if you recall, but you and I were in a discussion about the proper capitalization of "pied-noir". Anyway, I finally got ahold of the large, 3 volume "Robert Historique" and thought, "Ahh...I will now know the definitive answer!". So, I opened the book to page 2728 and have learned that Le Robert capitalizes the entire word....so it's PIED-NOIR. I just thought that was mildly amusing and wanted to share it with you. I guess we'll never know... Lazulilasher (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Socppt13
I have blocked. Thanks for the evidence. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Karmaisking checkuser request not showing up on the list
Hello Gregalton. There is no header Karmaisking showing up currently at WP:RFCU. Your request seems to have got tacked onto the end of DavidYork71. There is also a random item in the list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_fractional-reserve_banking which should not be there. I can't fix this myself. Maybe the DavidYork71 item has one header too many, or something. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Karmaisking report was missing some header macros. Please check that it looks correct now! EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the revert on DBMS. Shocked, but pleasantly. On FRB, I still disagree. Banks would still be banks if matching was akin to close to full reserve (after all, there's still a talent and skill in picking "winners" and "payers" rather than the dud loser "defaulters"). Yes, "innovation" would be curtailed, but, in my humble view, unfettered FRB "accelerates" innovation to mad levels and unbalances the equation too heavily in favor of speculators rather than Grandma savers. Banking would still be banking. It would be less speculative, less gamble, less spiv, less "Rock 'n' Roll". Post Basel II and post FAS 157 and post-bubble we will see that the balance was tilted too far in favor of the spiv. Which cruelly burnt savers alive on the pyre of "free market" dogma. And Karma (eventually) runs over Dogma every time.

Oh, and don't be paranoid. I've finished on WP. Too busy on other things. No more contributions so no need to block. It would be fun trying to find the other 6 socks though. Good luck.--Lifeissuffering (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to keep doing this
Delete Money as Debt "rapidly and with salt" (you're piracy background coming through?). Now attacks on monetary reform. Come on, we both know the game. Leave me alone, let me do my little thing on monetary reform, slowly improving the article when I have the time (I've even left the POV tag on to protect innocent women and children). NOTHING on the page is inaccurate. You've just deleted refs. We both know why. "Confidence" is everything in bwanking, ain't it? I know the agenda and I know my place in life (marginal debt slave number 142425635674267) - I've left credit crunch and fractional reserve banking and debt-based monetary system alone in deference to your British ruling class rules. I'm swimming in a very small pool. Let me. - MonetaryCrankster (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Go away, blocked user. You continue to evade a block and then look for sympathy.--Gregalton (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Crass attacks on DBMS talk page
Keep an eye out. It's not me (I'd never be so crass in my attacks on you. I like you.  You complete me). - TruthComesFromAGunBoat (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Inflation
I am concerned by what is going on on the inflation article and I would value your advice. As you may have seen, my attempts to assist in the discussion on the talk page failed dismally and I don't want to get bogged down in arguing with non-constructive editors, so I am giving up on that. On the other hand I am concerned that there may be a decline in the quality of the article resulting from attempts to give the Austrian School parity of coverage with mainstream views. I am not an economist and I don't know much about this Austrian School of economics but I do know that it is not a term I have ever heard used before. Where does it fit in? It is a serious economic school taken seriously by other economists, or is it a fringe group? Do you think that it is relevant to the article and is it being represented accurately?

It seems to me that the "Austrians" are only interested in monetary inflation, which is a completely different thing, and that the pro-"Austrian" editors are not even editing the right article. Leaving aside the agenda of those seeking to promote "Austrianism", monetary inflation is an important and relevant idea and I am disturbed that they removed the link to it. I am going to put that back but leave the rest of the edits.

One idea I have had is that maybe the inflation article could become a disambiguation article linking to articles on Price Inflation (i.e. the current Inflation article) and Monetary Inflation. Does that make sense? It would help to make it clear that there are two different economic concepts called "inflation" rather than one concept with a disputed definition. Having an article explicitly named Price Inflation might also discourage people from getting confused and writing about Monetary Inflation in the wrong article. Does that seem like a sensible approach? --DanielRigal (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What I find so disturbing is that in an on-line, open source encyclopedia, so many "editors" want to censor stuff that legitimately reflects a "fringe" view but which is not mainstream. Why not leave the Austrian stuff in there?  Particularly if you have no background or interest in the Austrian School?  This is nothing but crass, base censorship.  Lenin would be proud.--BuddhaLives (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow. I've just checked out the recent "fight" over inflation on the talk page.  Gregalton, you must really hate Austrians.  Just remember, von Mises actually came from what is now the Ukraine (I believe), so you must hate them too?--BuddhaLives (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yet another sockpuppet, I presume.--Gregalton (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup. But other Austrians are appearing on the horizon just as I am going down, shot to pieces.--BuddhaLives (talk) 05:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The sad irony of this is that lots of people (or at least lots of user accounts) trolling "Austrianism" by illegitimate means, and getting into fights, only creates an environment where all mention of the Austrian School becomes suspect. This makes it very hard for anybody to write about it in good faith and have their good faith recognised. The end result is that there will probably be less and poorer coverage of the Austrian School on Wikipedia than if the trolls backed off and let good faith editors write about it in peace. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point. I have to say that my esteem of the Austrians and Libertarians has fallen considerably, which is probably unfair to those that are not on-line and behaving atrociously on wikipedia, but there it is.--Gregalton (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What I find appalling is the incredible lack of knowledge the both of you (Greg and Daniel) have presented in this matter regarding the Austrian School. Every bit of Austrian text has been sourced with external links, to a much higher degree than any of the main stream texts. The Austrian School is the oldest continual school of economic thought (founded in the 1870s, many decades before anyone had even heard of Keynes) and the only school alive today that recognizes the existance of fundamental economic laws. Additionally, it is the only school of thought that understands and maintains that economics is a social science, making the use of natural science methodology favoured by mainstreamers unsuitable for dealing with economic theory.

Another thing that bothers me is that you sit here and cry amongst yourselves and belittle those who have added the Austrian view to the article, despite the fact that they far outmatch the both of you when it comes to economic scholarship. Am I to assume you find it regrettable when a debate between two people of different views heat up a little, but it is perfectly okay, even admirable, that in the sanctity of your own home, so to speak, speak ill of those who time and time again have challenged you to a debate?

Furthermore, I would really like to know on what grounds you hold yourselves to be more mature debators than me, especially considering your conduct on this talk page and your attempts to play the martyr on the inflation article talk page.

If you have queries and/or criticism of the Austrian School, you are both welcome to present them on my own talk page. I will do my best to answer all your questions. And again, as has been shown in the "Original definiton" paragraph, there can be no doubt as to the origin of the word inflation and what is. The modern definition used by mainstreamers have no theoretical basis whatsoever, but is nothing more than a consequense of the "scientification" of the field of economics. Misessus (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S

I strongly recomend that you read Michael F. Bryan's "On the Origin and Evolution of the Word "Inflation"", footnote number 5.

D.S


 * What I find appalling is the sheer arrogance of someone going around spouting some obscure wp:truth.
 * As for the rest of your gibberish above ("martyrs", speaking ill, etc), I have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be the one that believes you are being persecuted.--Gregalton (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There are such things as things as economic laws, but I doubt you've ever heard of such a thing. As for the other stuff, scroll up your own talk page and read with your own eyes what you yourself have written.

I don't think I'm persecuted, I just know how much mainstreamers and socialists like to sit together in little groups hating people who don't agree with them. The internet is full of forums for that explicit purpose. Looks like you got your own right here.

Misessus (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I really don't know what you're on about, nor why you've decided to begin attacking me.--Gregalton (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not attacking anyone, my dear friend. It started with you flat out deleting my contributions to the article. That's an attack, if anything. When I didn't give up, you started fabricating reasons for deleting my contributions. Now I see you're back to flat out deleting it again. There wouldn't be any problem at all, if you'd just keep to the mainstream text and let me take care of the Austrian text. But for some reason, you simply can't do that, can you? You never could. Tell me, why is that?

As for what I'm about, I'm about letting people know the original meaning of the word inflation, in plain and simple language, instead of hiding this new definition in mathematical models and mishmash of mystery. What are you about?

Misessus (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We apparently have different understandings of what may constitute a personal attack. I don't consider editing to be an attack, but I do consider comments like the one above ("is the incredible lack of knowledge the both of you (Greg and Daniel)" to be rude, and I think accusing someone else of being motivated only by hatred ... ("mainstreamers and socialists like to sit together in little groups hating people who don't agree with them" - ah, good thing you got the Socialist jibe in there)... is pretty clear evidence of an attack.
 * I did not ask what you are about: that is clear, you wish to reestablish the truth about inflation, beginning with the definition. (Which kind of reminds me of Solow's comment on Friedman and the money supply...)
 * I continue to edit the text you are inserting down because I believe it is wp:undue attention to a marginal, semantical point. It would make sense to have that text in articles on Austrian economics and would encourage you to insert there.--Gregalton (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we apparently have very different views on many things. I guess that is rather understandable.

Oh I don’t hate you, quite the reverse. I love debating economic theory, and you have, at times, been a very interesting adversary. I actually kind of like you. However, the truth can never be construed as an attack. Surely you cannot deny that both you and Daniel lack even the most basic knowledge of the Austrian School? I don’t blame you for that, not everyone needds to know all there is about Austrianism. What I do object to is using your own ignorance of the Austrian School as a reason for cencoring it from Wikipedia.

Keyneisians tend to be socialists and act in the very same way. And do you actually consider it to be a personal attack to call someone a socialist, because I sure don’t and I’m pretty sure there are several hundred million people in the world who are quite proud of being socialists. Again, you really are looking with lanterns and torches to find something that simply isn’t there.

Yes, I want to reestablish the truth about the inflation, and the best way to get started on that is to bring people’s attention to the original definition of the word. You know, what the word meant before the mainstreamers arbitrarily redefined it along with a multitude of other terms and concepts. Please tell me, what is so horrible about that?

You can keep referring to all the WP-rules you want. I will be here to make sure that you won’t supress the Austrian School from the Inflation-article. I am perfectly within my rights and the WP-rules. I haven’t even touched the mainstream text, I haven’t even hinted that the Austrian School is superior. I have done nothing more than to add a few paragraphs of text to a seriously lacking and flawed article. You should be grateful for that, but clearly, you are anything but.

Misessus (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Misessus, you speak simple clear truths. From one Austrian to another - thank you for being there.  Sometimes I feel so alone.  Gregalton will never get the OBVIOUS point that deleting stuff from an article for no reason IS A PERSONAL ATTACK.  It is arrogant.  It is rude.  It is unreasoned.  It is bullying.  It is a power game.  It is stupid, if it is done without good cause.  This is base censorship of the Austrian School, nothing more, nothing less.  It's like he wants to have a heel against your neck, deleting stuff you've carefully written and then when you scream that you can't breathe he calls that a personal attack and doesn't understand how you can be so "rude"?  Don't you LIKE the heel on your neck?  Don't you understand the heel DESERVES to be on your neck to stop "fringe" stuff "contaminating" the page?  Why don't you understand Gregalton's perspective?  He's just trying to ensure the truth (HIS TRUTH) remains on the page.  Fascists never think they're fascists.  They just think they're RIGHT.  There is no "reason".  There is only POWER. - TruthComesFromAGunBoat (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh...and a point for Gregalton. I'm in a very very difficult position on the issue of multiple accounts.  I can see how disruptive, annoying, downright rude and egotistical Nicolaas has become (MainsreamEconomist, Zenwhat..whoever).  He annoys me... and I feel he's taken up my strategy of multiple accounts to evade sockpuppet bans.  I would gladly shoot him, if it was legal.  I know you may think I have been similarly disruptive and deserve a similar fate.  I make two points in defence:  (1) I contend that ALL my edits have been confined to clarifying the Austrian School and other "fringe" positions.  I have NEVER been "disruptive" on a page I knew little about (such as neo-Keynesianism).  (2)  I only reacted after being repeatedly personally attacked and removed from the forum for no good reason, and have continued simply to defend unjustified attacks on the Austrian School.  My scope of operation is extremely narrow (you say obsessive) but at least you know where I'm coming from.
 * Nicolaas/Zenwhat on the other hand is/are playing a different game. He/They attack OTHER Schools (particularly Austrianism) wanting this stuff deleted.  That is censorship, NOT scholarship.   As a Libertarian that is what I hate.  That is what I will not stand for.  If they back off from the Austrian School and stop deleting stuff I will leave WP.  If they keep attacking I will use every tactic to ensure it is not deleted and is reflected accurately.  It is not necessarily "better" than any other school of economic thought (although I happen to think it is).  But it does deserve to live.  If these "editors" keep killing it, I will keep coming back.  I am that "obsessive". So tell them to back off. - TruthComesFromAGunBoat (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Dead or Alive?
I seem to be back on-line using my main ISP, so I assume I'm not banned and will not be attacked unless I go "feral" again. I would suggest the following rules: (1) I'll only use my current moniker so you can check my edits easily (2) warn me on my talk page if I'm getting "dangerously" anti-Establishment before killing me like a 19th century recidivist convict (3) revert my edits if you think they are unreasoned.

I am tempted to put the following very funny comment in the credit crunch ELs, but as a sign of goodwill and to show my new-found self-restraint I'll refrain from adding it in:

"Let Them Mint Paper". That quote is hilarious for so many reasons, don't you think? I can think of at least 5 historical references that make that quote so amusing to me I can barely breathe. Let Them Mint Paper. HAHAHA! - TruthComesFromAGunBoat (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hilarious. No, you're still a sockpuppeteer and indefinitely blocked. If you wish to get unblocked, I suggest you formally request it, using the proper procedures.--Gregalton (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Revised Moniker
I now see that my moniker (TruthComesFromAGunBoat) looks distinctly unfunny when used out of context, so I've decided to change my moniker to LetThemMintPaper. This new one is funny no matter what the context. I'll use this new one from now on. TruthComesFromAGunBoat is from the British/Spanish/neo-con/zealot "intellectual" tradition, and was being used ironically. I myself certainly don't subscribe to this anti-Khunian paradigm of intellectual scientific analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LetThemMintPaper (talk • contribs) 08:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are still just sockpuppeteering for the purpose of evading an indefinite block. If you wish to be reinstated, do so on the basis of a proper request to admins.--Gregalton (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please be so generous as to explain how I formally apply to the appropriate WP guardians to be unblocked. My record in the recent past has been acceptable (I hope).  Although the predictable attacks on ABCT have been unfortunate, I haven't retaliated unduly.  Despite lk's ignorant, pointless tags, I've respectfully left them (and him) alone.  The labyrinthine, Byzantian rules of WP have caught me out many times before (as you yourself well know). I'd appreciate your assistance.  I know how generous you've been with me in the past (you seem like a generous sort of fellow) so how about it, old chap? - $laveryWorldwideInc (talk) 04:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Since you've decided to call another editor ignorant within the text of your request for assistance, no, consider it denied. I'm not going to explain to you how to go about reading the instructions and following them. There is a search function.
 * The problem is not the labyrinthine rules at all; simple rules like no personal attacks are not hard to understand.--Gregalton (talk) 06:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Revert rule
I will revert all undue cencorship by you or anyone else, regardless of your threats of blockade. But thank you for finally showing me and everyone else your true colors. You are actually worse than I first thought.

Misessus (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Since WP is a collective work, you don't wp:own the page, and you may wish to note what others have said about wp:undue. Saying that a particular theory or point of view is not prominent and should not be overstated (particularly when it is well covered on the pages dedicated to that theory) is not censorship.--Gregalton (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Think Carefully From Here On. Please
Neo-Con. "Neo" as in Neo. "Con" as in Con. (My intellect (and my life) has been wasted on Philistines.)

A couple of points. First, I undertake not to make any amendments to any more than 3 "core" pages of interest. You know what they are. And the amendments will only be minor. I know I'm now cornered and I'm being monitored closely and I know when my time is up. Satori Son has closed off his page. Everyone is getting paranoid. No one is having any fun anymore.

I feel I need to try to open your closed mind and I'll give this one more go because (1) This really is it (as Jim Sinclair would say) and (2) I feel you have some (albeit limited) understanding of where we are headed. It scared me years ago. It doesn't scare me anymore because everything that's happening is as I expected. We are coming very close to "drastic measures" as the only solution out of the mess and some very VERY important decisions are about to be made that will affect all of us for generations to come (yes, I'm insane, just go along with me here) so I feel it's important for WP editors to think carefully about the big picture issues before deleting mindlessly.

Think big picture. Think different cultures. Think history. A good example for what NOT to do in these troubled financial times can be taken from the Opium Wars. Classic case of the British not thinking and the Chinese not doing. The British sold drugs to China to cure a trade deficit. China (perhaps understandably) got cheesed off. Britain NEVER asked the basic question "Is what we are doing (1) sustainable (2) a good idea (3) the only solution to our trade deficit?" They just kept going. Conflict was inevitable. Britain got 100 years of drug profits and a continuation of Empire. But it turned out badly in the end, didn't it?

Was it worth it?

No one asked basic questions. The British (and general European "elitest") mindset is always to be so damn cocksure of their opinions, only to fall on their faces when their own stupidity becomes obvious even to themselves. Then they tend to do something even more violent and stupid when they panic.

The Chinese are equally as crazy, but in other ways which I don't want to bore you with here (I know this will be deleted so there's no point going into too much detail).

To sum up: Often people/cultures/countries do something INHERENTLY EVIL (sell drugs, censor contrary views) FOR A VERY LONG TIME without ever asking "Is this a good idea?"

To get to the point: Censorship is EVIL. It destroys knowledge. It is like Maoist book-burning. It is a kind of sickness. "Controversial" views need to be aired - and laughed at if they are crazy. But never hidden.

FRB is (arguably) EVIL. It is (to some people) embezzlement. Rothbard said as much. That view needs to be aired. It deserves space.

If it is suffocated, bigger problems can arise. Like the US banking system today.

I'm just pleading with you, when dealing with Misessus and others to stop being so damn cocksure of the illegitimacy of OTHER views. Please let them live, even if you don't like them. Put them in their appropriate (marginal) space, but let them live. Which is what I was trying to do in DBMS, rather than to put all that stuff in FRB. Then you even deleted DBMS. That's madness (in my view).

I'm nearly dead. I know it. But you are alive and will continue to be. You and Satori Son and the other "core" editors have huge power and huge responsibility given the influence of WP around the world. Yes, I have been "crazy" sometimes. But behind it all has been a desire to keep the Austrian School alive because I believe it has something very important to say about the destructiveness of FRB.

Please think DEEPLY about what you are doing. Or you (and the whole Anglosphere) will all confidently, arrogantly, purposefully, aggressively, go over a cliff together - if you don't question your fundamental beliefs. And stop being so damn cocksure. We&#39;reFreakingDoomed! (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. I think the fundamental issue is that there are plenty of places available on the internet to write whatever you want. The only issue at question is within wikipedia what fits the projects goals and guidelines. You also seem to think the issue is only me, but it appears to be other editors too. Since you don't seem to be able to make wikipedia do what you would like, I would suggest getting a web-site and writing as much as you want there.--Gregalton (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the constructive suggestion, but I will never start my own blog because I have nothing original to say. And there is never an appropriate time to summarize "anti-FRB scholarship" and consider potential solutions.  It's always: "Why don't you just shut up, you annoying troll.  The Big Boyz will consider this controversial stuff seriously after this current financial crisis is over...no...this one...no...this one...no...this one."  Do you see a pattern anywhere?
 * And one really, really final point. Just to clarify my understanding of "sustainable" and "unsustainable" production: Any activity which "cannibalizes" the next generation or which is (based on current technology and population trends) not sustainable, is not sustainable.  In other words, that which is not sustainable now, will not be sustainable in future. Historical examples: opium trafficking, child prostitution, slavery.  And oil production.  And fractional-reserve banking.  And capital intensive agriculture requiring long-distance transportation to consumers.  I therefore estimate that around 80% of current world production (by $ value) is (by my definition) unsustainable.  Most of it caused by "over-investment" or "mal-investment" through "excessive" cannibalizing FRB.  As an interesting bit of trivia, the Anglosphere has been the primary proponent of all these non-sustainable activities, from 1694 on.  And the greatest "anti-FRB" writer and "economist" in English literature, Shakespeare, was born well before 1694 and no one has come close to equalling him since.  I wonder why. - WhyWe&#39;reFreakingDoomed (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I do see a pattern: if "it's always ... you annoying troll", you may want to consider the possibility that the characterization is accurate.--Gregalton (talk) 06:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Gregalton: You are the worst type of person who could be a Wikipedia editor
Gregalton: You are the worst type of person who could be a Wikipedia editor

Yearscopy (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You should feel ashamed for what you are doing on Wikipedia. Obviously, you do not.

87.103.17.57 (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Nicolaas: another fine constructive contribution.--Gregalton (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I unreservedly apologize
Having seen LK's lack of finesse in attacking me, I now realize my hostility at times was irrational and grating and I unreservedly apologize if I caused any real offense. It was meant to be forceful but not genuinely hurtful. You have maintained good humor and a calm demeanor throughout and engaged in some excellent discussions along the way which no doubt improved the quality of many articles we "contested". I agree with most of your edits (though not all your deletions). I am ashamed of some of my behavior and now realize it was abrasive to the point of barbaric. I will only edit in the most minor way possible, and only when my frustration level peaks to the point where I cannot stand it. This generally only happens when Austrianism is misrepresented or deleted without reason. Yes, it's probably some kind of mental illness (psycho-anti-disestablishmentaustrianism?). Similar to "goldbuggerism". I, unfortunately, am afflicted badly with both. You have a much more refined mind and background than I. - 165.228.245.66 (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You really should stop buggering the gold, it upsets the gnomes. And get out and enjoy other things more.--Gregalton (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I will once you stop your senseless censorship of the Austrian School on WP. Where's your humanity? I'm losing my tan... - MakTheKnife (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the helpful deletion of Landis (yet again) from the Austrian page. While you're on WP madly looking to delete anything informative on the Austrian School, perhaps LK and you can clean up the footnotes.  You two geniuses should at least be able to know how to insert your own footnotes, even if you have no idea what you're talking about on Austrianism.  Check out the two footnotes LK has inserted which are now SCREAMING OUT IN RED "FIX ME DOOFUS".  Again, I repeat that "your" mainstream pages are woeful and deserve to be marked by your intellect and your elegant and breezy writing style.- MakTheKnife (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Then go away and stop wasting everyone's time with personal attacks and other nonsense. I would prefer to spend my time editing rather than dealing with your disruptive behaviour.
 * By the way, good reversal from "unreservedly apologise." You still clearly don't get what it means to contribute constructively. If you can't do so, please stop - full stop.--Gregalton (talk) 07:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, guys, don't stop. I love this page. I came in looking up money supply and ended up here. This page has an unusual, surreal quality to it. I shall check in regularly to see how it's going. Enjoy.

--Steve.Cookson (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)