User talk:Gregalton

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. ☯  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)

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. ☯  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. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've issued a posting on User:BigK HeX on WP:ANI. Please take a look. ☯  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)

RFC discussion of User:Quizimodo

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Quizimodo (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuizimodoTemplate:Highrfc-loop]]. -- soulscanner (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I nominated Money as Debt for deletion.

Take a look:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money as Debt

Thanks. ☯  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#Business cycle.

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. ☯  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!

Stubs Monetary authority Purchasing power Hot money Creditor Civil society Friedman rule Marginalism Debtor Government spending Trade barrier Social sciences Forex swap Commodity Open market Foreign direct investment Wholesale price index Credit money Gold gram Primary market

Cleanup Bank for International Settlements Behavioral finance Debt levels and flows Merge Tariff History of money Economic surplus Add Sources Debt-free money Risk-free interest rate Freigeld Wikify Bank of North America Accounting equation Economy of the Federated States of Micronesia Expand Bank regulation Credit score Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

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 [1]. --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:

[2]

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: [3]

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: [4]

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. [5]

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)

Some weasel words

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

The [Austrian] business cycle theory was recognized by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which awards the Nobel Prize in Economics[1], but is not universally accepted...

You agree that this is weasel words? ☯  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. ☯  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 an 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)