Loading AI tools
If you have not read this, "Where's my Model?" by George Selgin, you might want to do so. JRSpriggs (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've read it before. It reminds me of a statistic about programming. Only 10% of programmers can successfully write a program without flow-charting it first. 90% of programmers believe that they are part of the 10%.
- It's perfectly well and good if you are so clear headed that you can achieve rigor in your economic arguments without mathematics. However, almost everyone who claims to be able to do so is wrong, and rather make head-pounding simple mistakes that a quick model would make obvious. As Segin himself essentially says in the article, the way to make sure that you are being rigorous in your arguments is to check with a math model.
- LK (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Complexity in the 'real world' exists whether or not a person uses math. One should ask, 'does eschewing the use of math enable one to think about and understand more complex systems, or is the opposite true?' I think the answer from the history of science is obvious. By not using math, a person is handicapping him/herself, and is actually less able to handle complex problems. Economic arguments made in words tend to be simplistic and rather less sophisticated than arguments illustrated by graphs and supported by an underlying mathematical structure. LK (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Even so, economic models lack the (relative) exactness of physical theories. So it is important not to deceive the users into believing that they are more accurate than they really are. You did not answer my question. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not so, simple economic models have the same level of exactness as physics models, and are about as accurate (Simple physics not being an amazingly accurate description of anything in the 'real world' except the motion of cannon balls).
- To directly answer your question: If you suspect that a model has over-simplified, i.e. left out too much detail, you make a more complex model including the detail and see if the behaviour in question changes. Ditto if you suspect that a model has included the wrong things. BTW, you are using the word 'variability' incorrectly, I guess you mean that there are multiple models that one could use?
- But your question misses the point. The world is complex, the job of economists is to distil out the details relevant to the phenomenon they want to study and create a simple understandable model that retains the most important characteristics of the phenomenon they want to study. Everyone simplifies and uses models, even those who eschew math; the difference being whether or not they use math to describe their model.
- A good model is simple and yet captures all relevant details, but just as important it is unambiguous, consistent, and non-self-contradictory. By using math, one can assure oneself and others of the latter property. Selgin makes a claim that he can do rigourous models (unambiguous, consistent, and non-self-contradictory) without math, well good for him. Very few others can.
- Here is a paper about the advantages of using math models in behavioural psychology.
- Of course, one should never overstate the confidence that one gets from simple models. All the more reason to be careful of modern Austrian school 'economists' who essentially only have one model ("A and B trade only if they both benefit, therefore preventing trade hurts both"), who then use that one model to draw conclusions about everything.
- LK (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Even so, economic models lack the (relative) exactness of physical theories. So it is important not to deceive the users into believing that they are more accurate than they really are. You did not answer my question. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should have used the word "variation". In any case, I meant something similar to the "other forces" term in
- Economies are composed of people and their property. People are living and intelligent beings. As such, they learn and modify their patterns of behavior in an attempt to achieve their purposes. This does not lend itself to simple mathematical models (unless you know something about it which I do not).
- Even mathematically defined systems can be ambiguous or inconsistent. That is one reason why I prefer to use equations of motion derived from a Lagrangian which almost guarantees consistency.
- The libertarian position on trade is not based on the ridiculous assumption that people are perfectly rational. It is more subtle than that. (1) It is better for people to be allowed to make mistakes and learn from them than to always exert external force on them to ensure that they do the right thing. The value of people largely lies in their ability to act autonomously and learn from experience which is only possible if they are free to make mistakes. (2) Just as individuals and firms in the private sector are capable of making mistakes, so the central planning agency of the state and its various regulatory agencies are also liable to make mistakes. However, the processes for correcting the errors of the state are less direct and effective than those which correct private entities. Thus private entities are likely to be less irrational than the state itself. So it makes no sense for the blind man (the state) to be leading the one-eyed man (a private firm). JRSpriggs (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- 1. We call that the 'error term' in econometrics. All models have them. They are the part not explained by the model.
- 2. Austrian School economists wax lyrical about how 'people are unpredictable', but then they go ahead anyway and make all sorts of bold statements using simplistic models. Models don't have to be mathematical to be simplistic. If one were truly consistent, one would not try to reason at all about human behaviour. I don't see Austrian School economists being so reserved.
- 3. Surely you are not arguing that verbal arguments tend to be less ambiguous and inconsistent than math models?
- 4. I didn't say anything about rationality. I noted the ridiculousness of using one simple model to derive conclusions about all aspects of economic life.
- BTW, not all economic models assume rationality. A minority assume perfect rationality. For some phenomena it doesn't matter whether people are rational or not, nor does it matter if they modify their patterns of behavior in an attempt to achieve their purposes. For example, national accounting models of the circular flow of the economy require neither rationality nor invariance on the part of the people. Yet, one can derive important facts from this simple model which many are ignorant of. LK (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to drop you a line saying that your recent edits to Flying Spaghetti Monster have been nice improvements. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Good call, your addition to the Notability (Music) guidelines is brief, straightforward and make sense. I should probably have added it there myself, rather than simply reverting your earlier edits. Glad we reached agreement without using fists ;) Sionk (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
What fun, KiK has returned to us. Although obvious and self-admitted, I've added a new SPI section for his latest (LK'sPatsy) along with a CU request to see if there are any sleepers. Ravensfire (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Please see Talk:2007–2012_global_financial_crisis#RM_on_hold Smallbones (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:BP. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I would appreciate a little less eagerness on the revert button and a little more actual knowledge of the topic at hand. See talk here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate that reverts are not welcome, and I realise that I should discuss more. But I would note though that i) it was you who first reverted me without discussion, and ii) the addition of block printing is in the final consensus version. LK (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I have a question about your addition of a footnote to the sentence:
- The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film,<ref>This does not include films 'based on' books, or books 'based on' other works.</ref> or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
How can a person's work be the subject of an independent book or film that is a film based on a book, or a book based on another work? I'm not sure what the footnote is intended to clarify, or what potential abuses it is intended to prevent.
Please feel free to copy this to the guideline's Talk page if you'd prefer to respond there. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- What I'm trying to clarify is the difference between a documentary about a work (e.g. Letters to the Wall: A Documentary on the Vietnam Wall Experience), and a movie 'based on' a work (e.g. Waiting to Exhale a movie based on a book of the same name). Just because a movie is made 'based on' a novel or short story, this does not make the author of the novel notable enough to have a stand alone article. For example, the existence of the movie A Tiger's Tale, based on the novel Love and Other Natural Disasters, does not make it's author Allen Hannay notable and deserving of Wikipedia articles. Perhaps I've worded it in a confusing way. Any suggestions for improvement? LK (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello LK. I see that you've been away for several days. If you happen to see this message, please take a look at the recent activity on Fractional Reserve Banking, its talk page, and my own talk page. I would hate to see the article ruined by the actions recently undertaken by what appears to be a single disruptive editor. What is to be done in such a case? Thanks for any help.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. Looks like sockpuppets of User:Karmaisking have been running wild there. LK (talk) 08:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- The IP editors 203.209.200.93 and 124.176.79.201 appear to be two of those but I believe that they are on the "suspected" list rather than the "banned" list. If you are experienced in reporting these and it is not too much trouble could you bring the past few days activity to the Admins' attention so that these edits can be removed? I don't mean to make work for you. If this is too much trouble, I will try to familiarize myself with the procedure and make the report. Among other problems, it doesn't appear that the troll understands money mechanics and banking operations. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 13:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- The investigation page is here [] I don't know how this process works. Regards.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk)
I have listed Flying Spaghetti Monster for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Flying Spaghetti Monster/archive1. any input on how to improve the article would be very much appreciated. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I have listed Flying Spaghetti Monster for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Flying Spaghetti Monster/archive1. any input on how to improve the article would be very much appreciated. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lawrence, I left a question for you about the meaning of your RfC question here. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response, but could you explain exactly how your proposal would affect biographies? That is, how would it change the editing of articles like David Irving and Rupert Sheldrake? There are BLP issues here, so it's important to know what is being proposed. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- As the writer of the RfC, I wouldn't be proper for me to spell out exactly how I think the guideline should be applied. Frankly, that's for the community to decide. I think the question is clear enough. Should the guideline apply to topics narrowly or broadly construed; and should it supplement other policies/guidelines for articles about those topics. LK (talk) 05:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- As the writer of the RfC, you need to explain what you're proposing, especially when someone asks for clarification. The proposal isn't clear because you haven't said what it might mean to "apply the guideline." (I can't imagine what it might mean to apply FRINGE to a bio.) If it isn't clarified it won't be possible to determine consensus, because we won't know what was asked and answered. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- I can't clarify it because I don't understand what the RfC is proposing in relation to bios. That's my question: how would extending FRINGE affect the biographies of writers like David Irving, scientists like Rupert Sheldrake, conspiracy theories like David Icke? What are you proposing we change about the way we handle articles like those? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Proposal for you here. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello LK. There's an editor on Austrian School who's got in a bit of a lather and has repeatedly removed the recent Krugman criticism of Austrian theories of inflation/business cycle. He may not like to see Mises contradicted, but it seems evident to me that inclusion of the Krugman criticism is amply justified based on its specific reference to the Austrian view and the notability of the source. The warring editor appears to be saying that Krugman is wrong therefore his criticism should not be stated. If you have time, could you have a look at the recent talk thread? Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello! You might or might not have seen me around here as I've not been active in Wikipedia the past few months. Before leaving for NS, it was my intention to form a Malaysian user group. I'm still very much interested in forming the group. However, before forming the group, I would love to organize a meet-up between editors of the Malaysian editing community to test the waters and hear what you guys might have to say. To my knowledge, there has not been a Wikipedia meet-up in this country before. I don't mind organizing the meet-up but need to know if anyone is interested in joining the meet-up. So... please reply and let me know if you would be interested in joining a meet-up and your ideas/thoughts about a user group. Thank you.
Looking forward to hearing from you, Bejinhantalks 12:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC) (Message delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC))
 |
The Austria Barnstar of National Merit | |
| Presented to Prof. Lawrence Khoo.
For meritorious service in the improvement of articles relating to Austrian Economics '''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC) |
 |
Holiday Cheer | |
| Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be a newbie, a good friend, someone you have had disagreements with in the past, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Karmaisking
I didn't list the other recent ones you tagged because they seem to have gone dormant.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
LK, WRT the message you left with SPECIFICO, which article were you referring to?--S. Rich (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- I believe that SPECIFICO was referring to the Krugman criticism of the Misean view that 'Inflation is an increase in money supply, and price increases are just an inevitable by-product' that Byelf is adamant is keeping out of the Austrian school article. LK (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the endorsement at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#talk:Paul_Krugman. I was asked to trim my statement, which I did by removing my third bullet point, in which I talked about what could happen in the future to change my opinion. I don't think this will change you view, but I want to give you the opportunity to change your view if necessary.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I would also like to warn you about edit warring as well. It's not just a technicality, but something that happens when one person is unwilling to engage the other in a collaborative way. One cannot collaborate with someone who won't talk with him, won't work with him to find sources more to his liking, and won't respond to a request for discussion on the article talk page, but instead offers a technical "warning."
That's not collaboration, and it's the way edit wars occur.
In this PARTICULAR case, I agree that the White House historical data does not support the Hsing article, because the Hsing article was so poorly done that it cannot be supported by the actual record. But that leaves the current article without any references at all that do reflect the record: highest inflation adjusted per capita revenues occurred at a the Bush rates.
Now, it appears that you believe the Bush rates are wrong, and that's fine. We at Wikipedia are not here to create truth, but rather to report the range of opinion that's out there. If you look at the academic sources currently listed, NONE resemble anything on the Republican side. One would think that there are no articles anywhere that actually agree with Laffer or Moore -- who's flat tax idea falls into the 20% range, which is a flat equivalent to a 35% maximum progressive tax.
Again, you are welcome to believe they are wrong -- but it is not helpful to try to make it appear as if they do not even exist.
Neither is it helpful to have no sources that correspond to ANYTHING resembling the actual record of tax receipts. No one is served by such a lopsided article, are they?
I encourage you to actually work with other editors, and talk to them, rather than ignore them, edit war, and issue techinical threats. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, not a soapbox.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk)
I call to your attention my comments and questions at Talk:Paul Krugman located at, and around, the "18:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)" time stamp. Would you please respond to them in Talk:Paul Krugman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deicas (talk • contribs)
Hello, thank you for participating in WikiProject Malaysia! As per my previous message and the responses made, I'm organizing an informal Skype conference call on February 5th, 20:00 - 21:30 (Malaysian time). I'd love for you to join this chat. If you do not have a Skype but wish to join the chat, let me know and I'll try to work something out. iFurther details can be found at the Meetups page. You can also leave any suggestions or comments on that page. Please RVSP and hope to "meet" you there! Bejinhan talks 14:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Dear Lawrencekhoo,
Just to let you know that I have posted for your attention a message on the talk page of the Monetary Sovereignty article. I would very much welcome your input or suggestions to reach a consensus about the monopolistic characteristic of monetary sovereignty.
Cheers
Are all wikipedians tea-totlers? Understand your points on the gift economy reverts and MOS, but this page needs a major revision. I thought it important to emphasize the scholarship on the topic. This is a big edit, so please be patient before reverting.
- Another Wikipedian tenet that you should know about is Politeness. Please try to be nice to everyone in your interactions all the time. If you cannot do that, it's better if you don't edit Wikipedia. LK (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining the signature feature - thought bots did that. And no offense was meant - I should have used an emoticon. That was meant to be an ironic comment on the wiki virtual gift economy in tea. And kittens. Schrauwers (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Aw thank you so much for the barnstar!Curb Chain (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, an RfC has begun which proposes rewording WP:NSONG. As you participated in a related discussion, I invite you to join the RfC conversation. Regards, Gong show 04:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jesus Huerta de Soto WP:OR.2FSynth. – S. Rich (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- Since there was no response it has been Listed at WP:ORN. You are mentioned by name in both places. Don't you want to opine? It seems to me that given it's a BLP and there is a split between two long term editors and one long term and a newbie who want the alleged WP:OR in, it should be remove in interest of caution. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 16:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
LK, your edit on Jesús Huerta de Soto was mentioned here: . Indeed, I see that you added Milton to the article. Would you care to opine on what is being said? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey LK, I know you're busy and on minimal participation, but I just wanted to let you know that I'm completely revamping the Global financial system article and have thus far written completely new history sections and more (following my planned structure). You're welcome to have a look and offer any input as to things you think I ought to incorporate that are not mentioned in my structure as of yet. Cheers, John Shandy` • talk 04:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
You just shortened a paragraph by replacing "workers with very low productivity (blah blah blah)" with "low wage workers". That changes the meaning of the sentence, which no longer agrees with the reference. I propose replacing "low wage workers" with "workers with very low productivity". Lou Sander (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
the link does not go to September, rather October and a lower rank now. it is impossible to verify rank two months prior, so the tag is correct. i am confused by your resistance to use the 10 year average ranking which we can link? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Please note that I have proposed a partially reverted version of the caption, with an explanation on Sea's talk page, and request that before you make any further changes to the caption, we agree them on that talk page (not here). With many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
BIS report & citation specifics |
|---|
|
Hi there, I'm sorry to say, I had to remove the BIS report again. The assertion still was not supported by the citation. First - never use a secondary source; the report is from BIS --> go to BIS HERE. The full report is linked top-right as PDF.
... is not directly a part of the report or it's analysis.
If want to use the report you need to word it as concurring with Yellen's assesment or something along those lines but the way its been worded so far is absolutely not supported by or as a conclusion as result of the report (actually a working paper). Prost. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC) |
- Thanks for looking into it in such detail. I agree with your reasoning on this. In fact, you've been doing outstanding work on the article. LK (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Likewise :)
And I see you've picked up on the same premise that I was hoping to eventually get to once the "definition" nuance was exposed & put behind us. It was easy to conflate higher priced mortgage loans (descriptive but general) with "higher priced" mortgage loans (HPMLs - specific class of loan & startng next month - will be formally defined in the CFR if I understand the final rule properly) until we got past accepting that reality. Now it is easier to pick apart the various assertions and/or accounting implicating the CRA's role in the financial crisis without getting caught up on verbiage or semantics. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Likewise :)
I should have just left the article alone, I didn't know what to do. The anon's edit seemed wrong, but I edited it to possibly appease both sides. That particular edit made me remember to alway check histories and re-read some policies, I even asked for an experienced editor's help that dealt with the user before. Bluefist talk 06:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I have opened a formal RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Request for comment on the deprecation of left-aligned images under sub-headings,an issue on which you commented in previous discussion there. DrKiernan (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
LK, I'm not sure why you felt in necessary to insinuate I didn't read or have access to the sources. I stated on the talk page the issue. Reducing taxation on the poor could lead to any aspect of spending for their needs. It's not the tax in this case that created education attainment, but the after-tax spending on education (the tax reduced income inequality). So the sentence makes a WP:SYN argument because the sources don't state that progressive taxes increase education attainment. We have a source that said (a) progressive taxes reduce income equality, and another that says (b) increases in income improve education attainment - the article then concludes (c) progressive taxes improve education attainment, without a source making that direct conclusion. It seems like an obvious connection, but depending on the tax schedule, less progressivity could result in economic growth sufficient enough to producing more income for the average poor. Also, increasing progressivity only works to a point for increasing income of the poor, which may be from government assistance, due to their limited tax liability. Alternatively, it's possible the tax structure could lead to things like less scholarships, loans, education credits or subsidies. For example, a U.S. state recently removed credits that benefited education from their tax code, but increased the standard deduction (so the change increased the poor's income, but the likely effect probably decreased education attainment because the credit was specific where their spending wont be). We're making static assumptions about dynamic effects, which is the reason we have the policy that sources bring forward the conclusion. We assume a source that makes that conclusion is weighing the additional factors and various policy effects or at least attribute who is making the argument. It may appear like I'm being an ass, due to the recent problems we've been having, but I'm not working against you here. While it's been a while (perhaps years), we've worked together in the past quite well. No need to bite me - I'm just trying to make sure the material we include is not an issue. Morphh (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm on a tight schedule and didn't have time to read through the talk page, I didn't even check to see who had tagged the statements. However, you have to admit that the references that I used actually do support the statements made. BTW, education economics is my field of expertise, so I am familiar with what the literature says about taxation and education. There has been stuff written about progressive taxation, social programs and educational attainment of the poor, so I'm not making a novel argument here - it's just hard for me to find without a lot of time investment. LK (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
First, thanks for the barnstar. I honestly hadn't looked at my own page in over a year and just noticed it today.
Second, regarding the lead on your personal page, the problem with science vs pseudoscience is that it is an inaccurate dichotomy, blasted to shreds by cultural considerations. For example, acupuncture is accepted as a legitimate topic for WP because of tradition and belief, even though it has no scientific basis. Personally, I consider it an ancient form of knowledge with much "truth" but not verifiable within scientific parameters. So, it's hard for me to accept the official WP arguments (some of which are strident if not moralistic) about avoiding "pseudoscience" -- acupuncture has been identified as such by the famous international org of skeptics (CSICOPS), who are quoted often about other WP topics.
Third, the notion of verifiability is kind of a sleight of hand. I'm not permitted to publish OR in WP, and some people even complain about obvious observations, calling them OR or weasels. For example, if an article on Singapore referred to the ban on littering and I added "However, litter can occasionally be seen on Singapore's main streets" that would probably be called OR even though it's verifiable by anyone with open eyes and sufficient time in Singapore.
The larger issue is this: If I turn my OR into an article that is published somewhere else online or in hardcopy, and one of my friends then cites that media article in WP, voila my idea suddenly is "verifiable" and "third party". This is particularly relevant to WP articles on MSG and similar topics which cite old research done by people who have a vested interest but are either dead or otherwise not contributing to WP (partisan but cited as a "third party").
In sum, I'd devote more time to WP if I felt that the third issue was clearer, but I admit that I'm not sure how to proceed. WP might consider emphasizing academic publications more, as was the intent of Jimmy's original co-founder.Martindo (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I thought you may like to comment on this. Reissgo (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "fractional reserve banking". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I hatted the Progressive tax talk section starting with the "unnecessarily obtuse" remark. It had to be hatted starting with one comment or the other, and that sentence was chosen. I bet you could restart the discussion below the hat and get the discussion moving along without everyone biting at each other. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Why have you asked that taxation exclude sales tax when discussing overall incidence? What purpose does it serve? EllenCT (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't believe I have done that. The tax situation in the US is complicated. There are several taxes and several levels of taxation - there are also the various transfers to households, which I have argued are 'negative taxes' and part of the the same system. I think it's best, when talking about who pays how much in tax, to include everything. But that's really hard. Only the ITEP has a reasonably comprehensive tax model of state and local taxes and transfers, so most people just look at the federal level (which is inaccurate). One simple thing to look at, which is not terribly inaccurate, is to look only at direct taxation of income at the federal level, i.e. federal individual income and payroll taxes, which is the graph that I made.
- On a separate issue, I think it's clear that the 2013 changes in the tax code drastically increased taxes on the top 1%. This has made federal income and payroll taxes progressive. After including all other taxes (state and local, sales tax, corporate tax, etc), my sense is that the tax system will remain progressive throughout. We'll have to wait for an ITEP report using current law to come out to pass judgement on that issue. However, I wouldn't assert strongly (as you have been doing) that the system remains regressive for the top 1%. The truth is, we don't know, and in fact, thanks to Obama, it probably isn't any more. LK (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
You refused to answer the reasonable question I posted here earlier about a specific case of inconsistent editing by you that I documented, simply deleting it after posting a nasty, diversionary reply (baselessly calling me "partisan" isn't an answer). I expect you'll delete this too, and, since I have no intention of posting on this page again, on the slim chance that a third party actually reads this exchange in your history, I'll ask that they take any reply to this by you here with a well earned grain of salt. Your claims were posted and refuted in a fuller conversation on this page, and your refusal to address legitimate concerns over your apparently politically motivated editing inconsistency is documented in a hatted exchange. Of course if you ever decide to address the inconsistent application of your alleged rationale for deleting the TPC graphs (but not any of the CTJ graphs, which have the same corporate tax incidence you gave as your reason for the deletion), you are welcome to post that on my talk page. Have a nice day. VictorD7 (talk) 08:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- You're being a bit ridiculous aren't you? I've already told you that I don't want to talk to you anymore, and that I won't be interacting with you anymore. I can only interpret this intrusion on my talk page (asking me to not do something I already said I won't be doing) as a sign of your desire to further irritate me. As for your complaints, as I have already pointed out, your memory is faulty, and you're just making stuff up. So please go away and troll somewhere else. Consider this a formal notice of an interaction ban between us. LK (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
LK, I followed your links from the suggestion about economic sources. Am I seeing things or is it really true that an online membership with full access to all journals is really just $20-$40 per year? I'm quite astonished, because that just seems way lower than I would have imagined. Are there any caveats to membership that you're aware of? There don't appear to be, and it seems as though non-academics (such as myself) are welcome to become members. This would be an excellent resource for me to find quality sources for Wikipedia articles. John Shandy` • talk 04:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- You are correct, access to the AEA journals are available for $20-$40 per year. I'll let you in on an open secret, if you google the name of the paper, you'll very frequently find a free version posted somewhere online (maybe an earlier version, or in a working paper series). Best, LK (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, you removed a sentence I added to the Money article. It referenced a link to an article recently published by the Bank of England stating that commercial banks create money. I'm happy to move the reference elsewhere in the article but it should surely be there somewhere, don't you think? The link is posted on the Talk page if you want to check it out. Admittedly it undoes some (hitherto) orthodox theories but I would imagine the Bank of England knows what it's talking about.Be-nice:-) (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
It's good to see you active again. You do great work. If you ever need a hand with anything, just holler... bobrayner (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I have unprotected your talk page per WP:PP; user talk pages can only be protected in the short term. If you continue to experience persistent vandalism, you may request a short term protection of your page at WP:RFPP.
I have undone your recent revisions to the page Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). Refactoring other editor's comments is generally a discouraged practice and only deemed appropriate in a very finite number of uses. In cases where you wish to make stylistic choices to a conversation, not based in policy, please be sure to only implement changes that do not affect other user's discussions -- or check in with them first before making the changes. For example, you refactored my comment citing only one bolded header per user. This is not in fact the most common practice and not based in a policy or guideline. Rather the oppose and is commonly practiced at AFD and RFC.
Lastly, this user talk page is nearly triple the recommended length for a talk page and portions should be archived. There are numerous readability and technical issues that arise in keeping the talk page this long. For more details, please see WP:TALK. If you have any questions or concerns, you can ping me here. Mkdwtalk 16:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
: Are you trying to make enemies? I have no beef with you, but if you make a habit of going to people's talk pages to berate them for something done in good faith (which is well within policy and practice, see WP:REFACTOR), and then also criticize the way they manage their talk page, you're just going to irritate people. LK (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't want to get into this... I tried leaving you a message that I thought was a civilized attempt at giving you the courtesy to explain why I reverted the changes you made to my talk page comment: (WP:REFACTOR is not a policy or guideline but an old "how-to" guide that's categorized as an essay; there's no policy or guideline or practice against bolding the lead of comment to identify it; changing people's talk page comments without their permission is always regarded as controversial especially when they're made on the basis of something not clearly defined in a policy or guideline; etc.). You took it as being a berating; I guess that's why you didn't think I deserved an explanation when you changed my comment? I don't even really care about it but you were the second editor being reverted for changing the format of other editor's talk page comments.
- As for your talk page, it's going to be noticed by the people who come here attempting to leave you a message. I made one administrative action as your talk page was in violation our page protection policy, and the other was advice to point out the page was considerably over the talk page guideline and could cause technical problems. Mkdwtalk 19:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- OK, you caught me on a grumpy day. But just so you know, there is no policy about how long one's own talkpage should be. WP:REFACTOR is a 'how to guide' (directly referenced by WP:TALK) not an essay, and AFAIK, there is no policy against changing stylistic elements on a talk page to make it clearer, if there is I'ld like to see it. Also, reverting someone else about style disagreements is not "an administrative action". Lastly, voting twice on a RfD is definitely against policy. Having two bulleted bolded first level comments sure looks like voting twice to me. LK (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- You've misinterpreted much of what I have said.
- Re: Your talk page, (literal quote from above): "advice to point out the page was considerably over the talk page guideline". No one ever called it a policy, re: your statement "no policy about how long one's own talkpage should be". Not sure what you're trying to point out; when you say things like "just so you know" you're implying I was wrong about something. I pointed out, it "could cause technical problems" as per the guideline (and I always called it a guideline, so yes, I know).
- The issue was not with stylistic "elements", the issue was with editing other editor's comments for which there is a very large section in the WP:TALK behavioral guideline: "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.". There was no problem until you took offense when I notified you that I opposed your edits to my talk page comments.
- Re: unprotecting your talk page, no one EVER said reverting your edit about a stylistic change was an "an administrative action". In a whole other paragraph, that starts with "As for your talk page" -- we are now talking about your talk page if that wasn't clear, I then said, "I made one administrative action as your talk page -- still talking about your talk page -- "was in violation our page protection policy"; I unprotected your talk page; an administrative action.
- RFC's are created in varying formats. Typically they have Support/Oppose/Threaded Discussion sections, in which editors can both leave a vote in the Support or Oppose section, AND have bulletined points in the threaded discussion. In that RFC it was one pot so it doesn't mean a discussion and only voting can take place nor is it your responsibility to enforce your views on how you want the RFC to be run. You should have created sections and moved comments into their respective sections rather than not doing that but unbolding people's comments and thus seemingly de-legitimizing them. You didn't even remove the bullet so I don't see how you thought that wouldn't make it a "vote" (which they weren't in the first place since they were marked as comment. To me, a bullet point in the discuss would seemingly make it more of a vote than a bold word. But again, the RFC wasn't structured as a vote with vote and discussion sections, it was all one section, and therefore it wasn't a voting only and no discussion RFC.
- I don't think you're fully reading my comments or you're seemingly gathering an entirely different meaning despite making very clear attempts, including formatting, which I thought you'd appreciated, (new paragraphs for different topics, starting sentences with the topic, restating the topic, but you still applied what I said to an entirely different topic). I think I've been very clear so I can't see anything constructive coming out of continuing this conversation. I'm not telling you what to do. Just to respect people's right to comment, run, and participate in RFC's (WP:RFC states they can be run in varying ways) and know that it's controversial to edit other editor's talk page comments and you shouldn't get so worked up when someone disagrees and reverts it. That's all. Mkdwtalk 17:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- You've misinterpreted much of what I have said.
- OK, you caught me on a grumpy day. But just so you know, there is no policy about how long one's own talkpage should be. WP:REFACTOR is a 'how to guide' (directly referenced by WP:TALK) not an essay, and AFAIK, there is no policy against changing stylistic elements on a talk page to make it clearer, if there is I'ld like to see it. Also, reverting someone else about style disagreements is not "an administrative action". Lastly, voting twice on a RfD is definitely against policy. Having two bulleted bolded first level comments sure looks like voting twice to me. LK (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Since you were the person who previously moved the article, you are hereby invited to comment in the discussion I have just initiated at Talk:Fractional reserve banking#Requested move. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
_Anbetung_des_Kindes.jpg)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
