User talk:Gregalton/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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. [1] 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 Wikipedia: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. [2] 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 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Austrian_economics 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,[3] 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.[4] 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)