User talk:Gregalton

User:Socppt13

I have blocked. Thanks for the evidence. OhanaUnited^{Talk 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)

Hey, don't give up!

Hey, you still there? I just came back to see what's going on with you and the monetary theory articles. You're insanely diligent in making sure that Wikipedia's information is actually fairly correct. I noticed, though, that you don't edit as much as you used to. I don't either. That's just my personality, though. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! Your efforts on the various economics articles have always been much appreciated. Hopefully, you're just taking a Wikibreak – just finished a three-month one myself – and will come back refreshed and re-energized. Best, Satori Son — 17:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops... I see you've been back already. Don't let the cranks and trolls get to you and keep up the good work! — Satori Son 17:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words from you both. Just been travelling, busy, and maybe just a wee bit burnt out. Don't know if I'd call it a wikibreak, really, maybe a wikinap.--Gregalton (talk) 09:05, 20 June 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)

Invitation (moved)

You are invited to look at my user page, where I am making an attempt to start a new article on Money and the Money Supply. Your advice and suggestions are invited Martycarbone (talk) 16:41, 7 August 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)

Monetization

I rewrite the section you deleted and add “theoretical” explanation. As I'm not a professional economist (and, that is much worse, I don't know English economic terminology), I think it's written quite bad. Could you fix it up?--92.39.161.195 (talk) 12:14, 30 August 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)

Bank of Canada

Gregalton - what will satisfy you regarding Graham Towers' comments on the BoC regarding how it creates money? The document referenced is not available online only extracts. What do I need to do so that you will not delete the facts I am attempting to post. I actually have a copy of the Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce, 1939 - do I need to photocopy or digitally reproduce it and post it online to make you happy? Or is it simply, that you do not want facts placed on wikipedia about the Boc which are not flattering? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.216.123 (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My issue is that the quote doesn't say anything: "Some of the most frank evidence on banking practices was given by Graham F. Towers, Governor of the Central Bank of Canada (from 1934 to 1955), before the Canadian Government's Committee on Banking and Commerce, in 1939. Its proceedings cover 850 pages. (Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence Respecting the Bank of Canada, Ottawa, J.O. Patenaude, I.S.O., Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty, 1939.)" All this tells us about is the source - nothing about what it is claiming or attempting to say. It adds nothing to the article whatsoever. Who cares that there are 850 pages? What does it claim? There's nothing even to comment on. As it stands, it's not flattering or derogatory - it's content free.--Gregalton (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

gregalton - did you read the actual exchanges between Towers and Mcgeer or just the header - the content is that money is created by banks out of thin air. try reading the content before declaring it content free. the facts as presented by mr towers are disturbiing - money as debt, tough to accept, but it is reality and your attempts to hide this FACT does disservice to wikipedia read it, accept it and share it please sir. -Q. But there is no question about it that banks create the medium of exchange? Mr. Towers: That is right. That is what they are for... That is the Banking business, just in the same way that a steel plant makes steel. (p. 287) The manufacturing process consists of making a pen-and-ink or typewriter entry on a card in a book. That is all. (pp. 76 and 238) Each and every time a bank makes a loan (or purchases securities), new bank credit is created — new deposits — brand new money. (pp. 113 and 238) Broadly speaking, all new money comes out of a Bank in the form of loans. As loans are debts, then under the present system all money is debt. (p. 459) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.157.223 (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This is covered in any article on money creation and is, despite what you may read on the internet, not controversial. My point was that the text as inserted only said that there was a frank exchange of banking practices. Perhaps if you wanted to emphasize this point it would be better to insert a wikilink to money creation.--Gregalton (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at inflation. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|This block does not make sense to me: a) the reported 3rr was not established, as per the ANI resolution; b) there was no warning in any case; and c) the stated reason ("Well, he's kept on edit warring this evening...") does not appear to me to be the case. On the article in question, I made a number of substantive edits hours before this came up (as yet uncontested by anyone), asked for a clarification of the reasons for a disputed flag (but left the flag), reverted one bit of vandalism, and reverted one choice of word (inflation "erodes", it does not "destroy" value). Both of these last edits were made by IP addresses and I should think I would get the benefit of the doubt for a vandalism revert and one clearly (to me) mistaken choice of words from IP addresses. If not, I would be grateful what edit warring is being referred to.}}

I would support an unblock. This situation is quite complicated, but please see WP:ANI#Sockpuppetry and POV-pushing on Austrian School and related topics. — Satori Son 21:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with the block and support an immediate unblock. The edits that the administrator was referring to were previously uncontested modifications (mostly different sections) to the article and not a continuation of the previous conflict or a start of a new one. Reverts were either due to vandalism or new disagreements that did not proceed any further.

Sockpuppets (which had no play in this incident) and POV aside, the lack of evidence or reasoning beyond the accusation of the administrator from a follow-up review presents a misunderstanding of the type of edits that the administrator observed. -- EGeek (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration and rapid resolution. Not that the block itself was that onerous, but I honestly didn't see the issue.--Gregalton (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that I look at the original notice, two of the reversions had nothing whatsoever to do with 3rr, and one was a clear reversion of vandalism. Just for the record. Thanks once again.--Gregalton (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that the full extent of this problem has come to light, I have asked for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Hopefully, you'll get some help keeping these articles in compliance with policy. — Satori Son 12:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Federal Reserve

Re your message: Not a problem. Normally he just repeats that screed that you reverted, but this time he decided to vandalize another section of the article. As you can see, I've been dealing with him for awhile now. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:45, 9 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'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'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)

Consensus about Austrian economics on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics

Hi Greg,

I thought you would like to know that we are trying to hammer out a consensus about Austrian economics on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics. Please drop by and leave your comments.

thanks, lk (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

rewrite on "criticism of fractional ..."

I've recently re-written the "traditional analysis" section of the said article, and you have reverted it.

The original text did not look like text at all. The paragraphs had no connection to each other. Sometimes, even sentences had no connection with the previous.

One such example is "The link between the currency regime (for example, fiat currency or precious-metal backed currencies) and the banking regime (fractional reserve or full reserve banking) is not seen as fixed, as virtually all banking systems worldwide operate on some form of fractional reserve banking, and full-reserve banking is often considered "hypothetical."[8][9]

Neither is the insight that banks "create money by extending loans" considered new, and the subject is covered in most introductory economics textbooks and many popular reference works."

(the two phrases have no connection in the text. The implication would be "debt based" does not bring new ideas, but this is not said! that was the kind of thing I tried to get right)

Another problem was for users without familiarity with the subject. The section refuted the claims of the "debt based" guys without saying what those were.

In summation, I did not mean to change content, but form. And i think the form had gotten better.

After my rewrite, I added an topic for it on the discussion page. Can you go there explain why you think the article is better like it is ?

regards, Cold Light (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. In my opinion, it will be easier to use the structure of the text (and correct the grammar. Btw, I only found 3 misspelled words in the section with aspell) I wrote rather than try to organize things again fro the beggining.

I divided the text in "points of agreement", analysis differences, recommendation differences and conclusion.

Also, I grouped together affirmations that were repeated many times on the text, and added the claims that were being refuted.

So, I'll revert back, and try to do a bit of a cleanup.

As to deletion, the criticisms may be wrong for various reasons (I really don't know) but that seems to me that this just calls for a well written article that has both the claims, their reasons, and the reasons mainstream disagrees. I, for one, learned on the discussion page that some claims from "money as debt" (the video that got me interested in the subject) were untrue. It would be nice to have a place saying "the claim that a bank can gather 1000 of deposits and lend 9000 straight away is wrong". Cold Light (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It'll be ready soon Cold Light (talk) 19:15, 15 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 yourself 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. 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)