User talk:Rick Norwood

Welcome!

Hello, Rick Norwood, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 15:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Rick Norwood/Archive 1

Capitalism

Hi Rick, the paragraph starting with "In practice, all early 21st century developed economies devote 40–60% of their GDP to taxes and the public sector" is wrong. I want to change it, but its Author doesn't want to and other wikipedia uses want to block me. I provided a reliable verifiable reference, the other guy doesn't even have a reference (the book by Joseph Schumpeter is 1950s something so obviously doesn't cover 21st century democracies). I can find many more examples of countries contradicting that statement.

I am eager to provide correct material so users of wikipedia can get access to the right facts (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)).

- My home country, Australia, is another example. Our current liberal government believes in cutting taxes, increasing private participation in the economy, and minimising government. Taxes and government services constitute 32.3% of GDP.

- Israel is also a developed country, and a democracy, with taxes are 26.4% of GDP. If they didn't have to spend so much on military (7.4% of GDP) taxes would be much lower.

- South Korea is also another example, if you own the Samsung Galaxy Smartphone you would know they are a high technology society, taxes contribute to 23.9% of GDP.

- Hong Kong is a very wealthy state, and I think you can treat it as a separate country because of its history (independent British colony until 1997, YES this happened 16 years ago, don't believe me check CIA Fact book, now owned by China but given total independence until 2047). If not for China would be a democracy, taxes are 22.1% of GDP.

- Japan is a developed nation with taxes 33.5% of GDP.

- List goes on, for more work it out from CIA World Factbook.

I can't see how you can write off Singapore just because it is a dictatorship, it may only have one city but it is still an independent country with its own laws. Has a whopping 5.5 million people which is a quarter of my countries population, despite us having a billion times bigger landmass (Australia ~same size of USA land).

US Military expenditure is 4.6% of GDP. I am not American, but I had believed that you guys (you said we) had very low taxes because the country believes in liberty and the free market. You provide for your poor and people with disabilities with free healthcare, which is humane and compassionate. After that everyone can afford healthcare, food and housing, and people exercise individual responsibility and follow their American Dream. People choose not to have health care, it is their choice, America anti nanny state. Also, low taxes is also a good wealth creator, since private companies are efficient so it is logical for the US to have low taxes so it can be more productive and encourages people to be more innovative through competition. I thought that "All men are created equal", is an extremely important aspect of this liberty, that everyone has a fair go in life.

There are so many examples, I think the pressure is on you to find examples of high taxing (>40%) developed nations that ARE NOT EUROPEAN. I suspect the Europeans have been swamped by communist ideology from their close proximity to former USSR, and their history with the two horrible World Wars, and half occupied by communist USSR until ~1989. Either way, Europe is the exception, please find me some counter examples(Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 05:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)).

Hi Rick, I wouldn't call my self a libertarian, I am not that extreme. But I am drawn to many of the ideals of the American Dream, and in my home country I want to work towards a smaller government and greater personal and financial freedom. In my home country, I am called a liberal. This is not the same as the American liberal, it is the equivalent of the Republican party, I want to see Australia become more American. It is true that there is greater inequality with more capitalism, I think this is the greatest argument against capitalism. I guess I am not that concerned by inequality, I am more concerned by myself than some billionaire or millionaire (I am not either of them, but I don't care about them, I don't feel the need to take their money). I like a competitive society, one where everyone is given equal opportunity and the best rise to the top, like in sport and baseball. I still believe that we need to care for the less fortunate, the unemployed, disabled people, single mothers, people that go without food and homeless. I believe America does that, but I am not American so yeah correct me if I am wrong. Also I believe somethings need to be regulated, but I prefer to minimise regulations, I don't want over regulation.

Also I believe security is the responsibility of the government. Yes, that would be stupid if we all lived in fear in walled compounds, where is the liberty in that?

I read lots of Murdoch papers, he is Australian, yes he is biased but I like it hahahahha. But yes, I don't care if people amass lots of wealth, I don't feel it concerns me. We can all enjoy our lives and live happily as long as you have the basic necessities of life, in my opinion, at least in theory.

What do you call yourself? I guess your preferences votes go to democrats ... but would you call yourself a democrat or a liberal (the American liberal), or go so far as to say your a socialist or even a communist? (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 05:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

Great, always good to speak to like minded people :-)

I agree, I want school to be a level playing field in primary and high school. Australia has similar problems, it might not be as bad, but rich kids have an advantage over poor kids. And I think that is wrong/not ideal. In Australia all kids have the same textbooks, same curriculum, and all sit the same ATAR examination to get into Uni. But some public schools are full of bad kids that misbehave and cause chaos, so kids that want to learn can't. Also, rich kids can have access to lots of tuition, which gives them an advantage over a kid just as smart and hard working but from a poor background.

Some of it doesn't even have anything to do with money, just good vs. bad parenting. I don't necessarily want more money in Australia to be spent on education, but I do want to see discipline restored to classrooms, and sack bad teachers (bad teachers can't be sacked because of the union). There also needs to be greater emphasis on competition, with more cash prizes for good students in all levels.

It needs to be somehow be a level playing field in honour of "All men are created equal", I am trying to figure out a way to do that without destroying the system. This issue is really important to me. What are your ideas?

And that includes all women are created equal too

What are your thoughts on higher education? In Australia the government pays through an interest free student loan (yes no interest!) for college degrees. The result is a highly politicised funding model and students can't chose how much money they want to spend on their degree -- I like the American model, where you can go to the bank, get out a loan and never touch taxpayers money. The only thing different that I might propose is that perhaps the government could make it compulsory that a student applies and qualifies for a loan in order to attend college? --> thats just qualify, don't need to physically borrow the money

You can't stop parents paying for a kids uni education, but maybe this will stop rich kids getting in at the expense of poorer kids. Example --> two bright hardworking students achieved the same score for their college entrance exams. One rich one poor, neither of them qualified for a loan. But the rich kid got into uni because his/her parent paid. Make it compulsory to qualify for a loan and this will not happen, level playing field? Could that work?

I know there are federal loans by the way, which I think is better than our loans because government makes money on them so it is easier to invest in University education and other higher learning centres. US spends more on higher education than Australia does

hahahahah I can understand your frustration. I find these religious debates really difficult, even though I myself am not religious. So difficult I want to shove it under the carpet and forget about it. Although while I am not against religious schools, I am dead against not teaching evolution. Australia isn't nearly quite as religious as America, so I don't think I have been exposed to quite the same religious debate as you might have been.

Also we have really rich people too, including the richest woman in the world Gina Rinehart. Over $30bn in assets, and the Australian economy is a fifteenth of the size of yours and we have the richest woman in the world. I guess I want her to have a better voice because we are so left winged so I don't mind her. All she wants to do is dig holes and mine dirt, apparently thats really profitable, all fine by me. These guys actually do some amazing stuff with the mines they build, the technology is so advanced, she is building a $10 billion mine in the middle of nowhere, ships so much iron ore to China. It is 227 km from the nearest port, need to build a whole new rail network just for this mine

I guess that's it, our rich people don't talk about religion. It is only about lower taxes and liberal government and IR Reform, which I am happy with so I really don't mind them. I guess it is different in America (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)).

It is no longer there, although most developed countries spend in that range - see Government spending#percentage of GDP. The U.S. government actually spends more per capita on health care and more on education than Canada, Australia and several other OECD countries.

Most of the exceptions mentioned are unique. In some cases pre-capitalist institutions such as the extended family or church provide support. Some of the examples are "off-shore" states, which externalize their welfare costs. People who are unable to support themselves, particulary foreign workers, emigrate. The high number of foreign workers and tax exiles, who are ineligible for social programs, distorts the per capita spending while their high incomes distort the GDP per capita.

The best comparisons for the U.S. are with Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which have comparable or lower government spending as a percentage of GDP. So if Australia became more like the U.S. expect higher taxes for anyone earning less than 200K, paying 10% of your income for health insurance, lower unemployment and retirement benefits, poorer schools and a violent crime rate 5 times higher.

TFD (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

US Government spends 35% of GDP??????? That must be wrong? The CIA World factbook puts the figure at 22.3%, CIA World Factbook is a government run website.

I don't propose cuts to police spending, so I hope that will keep the criminals in check maybe? I consider highschool education important so that will remain unchanged, but there will be cuts to other programs dramatically reducing Australian government expenditure. That includes backing out of higher education, saving tens of billions (which is a lot for Australia), moving to a private bank funded model. We can cut lots of taxes, Labor (the unions) wasted all our money. I wouldn't be raising anyones taxes, just reducing them, our progressive tax system is similar to yours but just higher tax for everyone including the poor and rich. We all pay for health insurance through taxes so get some back through tax cuts, maybe some people will be worse off but I would ensure that it is accessible to all. We have superannuation so people save tax free money on stock market which pays for their retirement, so you can quit a company after five years and still get health insurance when you retire --> thats no capital gains tax for retirement savings, I really like it. There are many things that I want to see Australia do to become more like America, to have the American Dream. There are a few things I would do slightly differently. (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

Also, Australia needs to greatly reduce red tape and stop being such a nanny state. We are safety mad here, you can't do anything with out doing lots of paper work or get sued. Cut red tape just like America, and we need productivity reform. It is so hard to sack people over here, we need a more flexible workforce like America so we don't end up like Europe (in a hole). Easier sacking is not bad, because it means it is easier to hire. Easier hiring means lower unemployment and better jobs for more people, but the unions hate it cause all they care about are themselves (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)).

The CIA factbook says that the U.S. federal government collects 22% of GDP in taxes, that does not include state or local taxes, and of course the U.S. government deficit is 6.9% of GDP, causing a total spending of 38.9% of GDP, compared with 34.3% in Australia. It actually costs more to provide poor services. And of course there is lower social mobility, only the UK beats the US among OECD countries. TFD (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

In that case I do not want Australia to become more like America. What on earth do they spend all that money on? Instead (hopefully) we will follow Singapore's example and embrace liberalism with a genuine small government. We will eradicate the union party (Labor) powered debt and have a budget surplus and zero debt like we did when the Liberals last ran the country, Liberals back in power a few weeks ago so lots of hope for the future (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)).

So Australia really has a smaller and leaner government than the United States? This goes against everything I have known -- can you please provide a reference TFD (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)).

I'll just mention that I'm enjoying the conversation. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. SHL, You can look at the 2013 Index of Economic Freedom, which is provided by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal.[1] The Wikipedia article used 2011 numbers. Government spending in the U.S. is now 41.7% of GDP, putting it in the 40-60% range. Australia is at 35.2%. I think it is the only OECD country below 40% on the list. Singapore of course is low but it neglects a lot of activity. For example there is a 36% payroll tax for pensions and much of the economy is state-owned industry, which under a planned economy cooperates with private enterprise and unions - not a liberal model. TFD (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Damn.

CIA Fact book is so misleading, it clearly says that US Government taxes account for 22% of GDP which is just wrong. I know that fully now, I can see your reference and information is all over the net. CIA says Australia spends 3% GDP on military which is incorrect, there is a whole political debate and they are trying to increase it to 2%, that is increasing spending. What is the CIA trying to do to us?

-- That implies that all those countries I listed with small taxes are probably incorrect.

If Australia charged for its healthcare services, or privatised it, even if we still had universal healthcare spending would be 25.8% of GDP. Privatising higher education funding would shave another 1.2%, leaving 24.6% of GDP spending which is 17.1% less than US Spending. What does the US spend it on? (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC))

Australia is top three in economic freedom in the world ???????? Oh my. Gina Rinehart told us that we were heading into a hole and will end up like Greece. BUT that was under Labor who were doing some really bad things (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 10:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC))

I have always heard good things about the CIA fact book. Could it be different sources are using different definitions? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. But I am confused. I have always heard good things too (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC))

Evidently they are only talking about federal spending, and excluding certain taxes. But I am still a bit confused. It has so much of the essential economic data that I'd ever need on other countries and has always been my first stop for the type of information it provides (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC))

All the CIA military numbers seem high, so they must be calculating it differently. They may be including for example costs included in other categories, such as interest on money borrowed to finance the military. I prefer the World Bank website, because it provides sources.

Government in the U.S. spends more on health care and the same or more on education. Military spending and justice policy adds to that while lower welfare spending saves about 4%. Normally the U.S. and Australia would therefore have roughly the same spending, but the recession accounts for the U.S. now spending more.

TFD (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)).

The commentary the 2013 Index of Economic Freedom presents does not seem supportive of Obama at all (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)).

"Registering a loss of economic freedom for the fifth consecutive year, the U.S. has recorded its lowest Index score since 2000. Dynamic entrepreneurial growth is stifled by ever-more-bloated government and a trend toward cronyism that erodes the rule of law"

"More than three years after the end of recession in June 2009, the U.S. continues to suffer from policy choices that have led to the slowest recovery in 70 years"

" However, over 100 new major federal regulations have been imposed on business operations since early 2009 with annual costs of more than $46 billion. Although core inflation remains muted, the failure to adhere to a rules-based monetary policy has introduced price distortions and long-term inflation risks."

"Although detailed regulations have been emerging only gradually, the financial reforms adopted in 2010 are likely to increase costs and uncertainty, complicating the banking sector’s recovery." (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC))

Capitalism, Part Two

I'm starting a subthread, so we can more easily post. One would not expect the Index of Economic Freedom to say anything good about Obama, because they are avowedly conservative. The essential question of our time is does an unregulated economy produce prosperity, or does government regulation produce prosperity. It is not a question that can be decided the way scientific and mathematical questions are decided, because there is too much disagreement among the experts. But when we look at historical data, we find that an unregulated economy produces a concentration of wealth, while during the era of government regulation America became the richest and most powerful nation in the world. So, has Obama done anything to slow the economic growth? Or have the conservatives, by fillibustering to prevent job programs that would build roads, dams, and bridges, slowed economic growth? History suggests countries prosper when the government provides employment for those the private sector will not employ, and falter when they cut back on scientific research, infrastructure, and education in the interest of cutting taxes. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting. That is certainly the question of our time, I believe it has to be a balance. Efficient regulations are needed to reduce risks, but no sane person calls for eradication of regulations. Only the libertarians, which as you said is an argument that can be dismissed with simple "reducto ad absurdum". What the Index of Economic Freedom said about Obama is very similar what Labor did in Australia very recently, and they copped a lot of flack for it. There cannot be a doubling up of state and federal regulations, it costs money, and Labor killed many mining projects with that philosophy costing many jobs. If Obama regulations are similar to the direction Labor took Australia I would be worried, there is too much paper work and it takes too much time, you must put trust in the individual to provide an environment of entrepreneurship and innovation. There was also a lot of government spending on bloated bureaucracy with no clear direct benefit and government waste and debt and deficits.

I didn't think regulations reduce inequality, regulations are all about risk management? I feel that efficient regulations that place emphasis on individual responsibility are important.

I agree Infrastructure spending is essential. Lack of it will kill the economy, in the short term and long term. This can either be done with public money or joint government and private cooperation. Australia traditionally spends money on roads and railway using taxpayer money, but even federal labor wanted to attract more private sector investment to reduce pressure on the budget and federal liberals are putting the idea on steroids. You need a central planner for roads and railways, and because this role is a monopoly it is only natural that it is a government responsibility, but roads can be built using private money. This provides opportunities for the common people to invest their money into roads through shares, and making money through road tolls. I don't know the circumstances under which the republicans block infrastructure spending, but it has to be smart money no white elephants?

How much can the private sector take up research funding? Certainly research projects like climate change will go under the radar, and that could theoretically cost the economy in 100 years time. But the private sector has delivered a lot of high technology, in Australia and the US. Car research, iPhone, drugs, all come from private sector. Universities could be private and will also offer general research into things that do not make direct money but educate people. Tax cuts to R&D I think is important, and a bit of public research funding is essential for things which do not offer short term benefits?

The question of concentrated wealth is a tough one, because the business 'experts' all have a conflict of interest in presenting their view. In Australia the free market has delivered huge wealth for common Australians since the 1980's, we get cheap Chinese goods and are richer than ever despite certain individuals amassing great wealth. I will tell you the way I see it, but I am no expert and I read a Murdoch paper. People only get that rich by investing and competing for the peoples labor by providing services and employment. Rich people are greedy for money so you can always trust them to reinvest it. Steve Jobs got rich by not only inventing the iPod, but improving it and using the money to help develop the iPhone and iPad later. Google provides services to all people with internet and all they ask is to advertise to you, they provide a service to the people making the people richer. My view might be biased because I read the Murdoch paper, but I believe that all hard working people get richer through the free market even though there inequality.

Furthermore, there is the rise of the share market. Ironically, this is what Karl Marx predicted but I highly doubt that it will lead to communism. But increasingly your average Joe is buying shares and investing his own money into the countries future. Australian superannuation funds are expected to be worth $3 trillion by 2020. With all hard working Australians setting aside at least 9% of their money each year to invest in financial instruments, mining projects, roads, and the economy for profit we are increasingly dependent on pro business policies which generate wealth for the business man. Do you believe in encouraging the people to invest their money into shares and other financial instruments? (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)).

I agree with most of what you say. I am all for private sector research, and applaud Obama for turning to the private sector for the next space vehicle. But the private sector could not have put a man on the moon. We need a mix. Similarly with regulations. California is overregulated, especially the regulations that hurt truck drivers. My daughter drives a truck, and often the law says both that she must stop (because she has driven too many hours) and that she may not stop (because truck parking is not allows within a hundred miles). On the other hand, mine safety regulations are necessary, as are regulations to limit greenhouse gases.

You are wrong about one thing. You write "Rich people are greedy for money so you can always trust them to reinvest it." Certainly that seems to make sense, but in the US the super-rich have, collectively, more than a trillion dollars they have not invested. That is because the richest one or two percent have sixty percent of the total wealth, so they are reluctant to risk their sixty percent in an effort to get the remaining forty percent. It makes more sense for them to take their money out of the economy. This increases unemployment, which allows them to pay lower wages and demand longer hours in the businesses they already own. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Certainly putting a man on the moon was one thing the private industry could not do in the 20th century, and it furthered the cause of humanity. I too welcomed the decision to have greater private cooperation with NASA since I follow this fairly closely because I have an interest, I believe that in the long term space exploration has to be taken up by the private sector to be sustainable (more money earned, more research). To boldly go where no man has gone before! (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 13:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC))

This government spending still has to be minimal though in my opinion, very minimal (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC))

I'm also a big fan of Star Trek. On what do you base your view that government spending should be minimal? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the amount the US spends right now is just right on NASA. NASA is doing some great stuff like landing Curiosity on mars, and it is not a substantial cost to the tax payer. (only $18.4 billion for both space and aeronautical research, and quieter planes). NASA also does a brilliant job at education. They are probably the best research institution at communicating to the public, and I like how they work closely with many high schools to inspire people. There are certainly many benefits NASA offers America. There does need to be a bit of general government research into everything I think, to help find out things the private sector might have missed like aliens, climate change, medical research, especially for mental illnesses and disability because those people do not have money to pay big Pharma. Some of it is finding out who we are and where we came from, from the big bang to archeology and dinosaurs. History, I suspect much of the basic knowledge we take for granted we might never have had because there is no money in it. I still think spending decisions should be carefully thought out and planned. Where do you think the line should be drawn?

Newspaper reading and ideology, I follow Australian politics really closely. I think the private sector is more efficient, and greater government spending means they control what we spend our money on which I do not like. The economic benefits of small government that I hear about mainly come from business people, whom I respect since they seem to know what they are talking about. It seems to make sense because competition brings the best out of people, and in theory at least anyone can make it to the top presenting a challenge to any hierarchal structure (through social mobility and good high school education). One third of your billionaires will lose most of their money in five years and half in 10, you must fight to stay on top.

Also, I hope it helps to ensure spending decisions are not too politicised and populist. Where do you draw the line between government and the free market?

Star Trek is the best, I liked both the Kirk and Picard series as well as the new movies that just came out. What do you make of the new movies?

Oh yeah -- Australian truck drivers are also, in theory, highly regulated. But it is not well enforced so they all disobey anyway. I can understand your frustrations.

Did you know that in the 1960's Kennedy considered a proposal to build a space ship which could take us to Mars at a fraction of the cost to go to the moon? It could travel 10% of the speed of light, but Kennedy was worried it would upset the Russians, called Orion Project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strength, honor, and liberty (talk • contribs) 09:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to an article, "25 Years of Neo-liberalism in Australia." It seems Australia has followed the same policies as other English-speaking OECD countries with the same results - poor economic growth and increasing inequality. Of course I do not know whether another set of policies might have achieved better results. It could be that the results were exactly what the authors intended, that poor economic performance was a trade-off for achieving greater inequality. TFD (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the free market should be free to do everything it does well, prevented from doing things it does badly (hostile takeovers that loot the pension fund and sell off the assets), and supplemented by government projects to do what the free market chooses not to do (in the US, the Interstate Highway System is a great example). I'm familiar with Project Orion. I love the old Star Trek, repsect the Next Generation, and enjoy the new Star Trek. 19:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, definitely the free market should be free to do everything it does well (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC))

How can that article say our economic growth is poor? It has been since the GFC under Labor, but Australian growth is still much better than in America. If you compare us to China, I do not think thats fair cause that is high risk growth and they come from a lower base, we have to be smart to get ahead while they just have lots of cheap labor. It is an interesting article you sent me, well worth a read, not enough to sway my opinions but still offers good insight. I am not sure if complaints about elusive retirement is entirely fair, because we are living longer, this is a sign of success and wealth due to medical advances despite being a very real challenge. You can always die young at 70 if you want to like everyone used to.

I thought house prices are rising because of population growth, and people in the city who own houses lobby councils to stop house building. Older people do not want their view blocked and shadows over their large block so new people have to build houses far away at the edge of the city causing urban sprawl and congestion problems. Basically supply and demand, lots of demand but no supply. Especially in my home town Perth, because we have a mining boom. In theory, allowing house prices to inflate like that should cause more houses to be built ensuring everyone has affordable home. But we simply do not build new houses close to the city because they are ugly.

I like how we can have a high turn over in jobs. You have to remember the Australian mentality is different to America, in America you have to stick with your job for 25 years or you do not get health insurance. Fortunately, we don't get forced to stick to a job. Many people just get bored and want to move on.

Also, it is much easier to get a job with a flexible labor market which increases job security. If you get sacked, easier to get a new job to pay for the house. It also means you can't be lazy.

Cars are getting cheaper than ever. A new 4WD only costs $24000, 2WD $11000. And cars are better than ever, I can plug my iPhone in and listen to music and not radio ads, and they don't break down.

In the past 25 years, Australians have become wealthier than ever relative to other countries. This is important, because we were slipping down the rankings prior to Hawk and Keating reforms. This means that we get all the latest technology from America, all the cheap Chinese goods, and all the latest medical advancements. Science and technology is getting better at breathtaking speed, regardless of GDP growth. How can the assumption be made that we stuffed up? (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC))

Australians are the second wealthiest in the world. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wealth/why-aussies-are-worlds-wealthiest/story-e6frgac6-1226735720342

And the wealth is spread more evenly than other rich countries. Which country are you from The Four Deuces? (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC))

Australia has never had a recession for 21 years. And we grow 4 times as fast as OECD (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC))

Our GDP grew 3.1% in 2012 (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 03:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC))

That article basically said that the 1970s was a terrible period with high unemployment and high inflation. We had bad terms of trade too. But everyone in the nation are so rich now after the reforms. We have low unemployment, and we are now so wealthy people get sick at the thought of the disparity between the poor countries and Australia. Things are only getting better in spite of Europe, and we have freedom and liberty unlike the Soviets (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC))

I'm glad to hear Australia is doing so well. The US just had a narrow escape. I wonder how the Murdoch media in Australia reported it. I'm tempted to move to Australia, or at least visit so I can see the Great Barrier Reef before global warming destroys it. Have you ever read Arthur C. Clarke's Dolphin Island? Rick Norwood (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Me too. I think my argument can roughly be applied to America too, before the GFC especially you guys were doing very well. The main reason why Australia is doing relatively well after the GFC is because our banks were very resilient, our banks didn't take as many risks, and really all we had to do was to stick to our neoliberal philosophy and enjoy. Australia and America have certainly been very successful embracing many neoliberal ideas, and now the debt crisis is over your economy should continue picking up. Especially if you vote the Republicans back in and reclaim your spot next to Australia on the economic freedom index and liberalism.

A deregulated labor market can help solve unemployment problems.

hahaha Murdoch media constantly tells us we are doing terribly. I think this is justified, just because we are doing better than most doesn't been we can get lazy, we can do better. Things aren't growing as fast as they were before 2007, and I believe that with the right neoliberal policies we can do much better under the Liberals. Basically everyone tells us we are doing very badly except for foreigners, this resulted in Labor being despised and incredible unpopularity fuelled continuous infighting within labor ranks. Our PM was backstabbed, replaced by a woman who was backstabbed by the same man that she backstabbed three years earlier, only to lose the election by a landslide. Political stability has been restored by the Liberals.

Australia is certainly a great place to visit, I have never seen the Great Barrier Reef but heard great things about it, you should definitely go. There are still many places where you can go to escape the tourists too. It is a great place to live too, what tempts you to move to Australia? I haven't read Dolphin Island, I really need to read Clarke's books. I watched Stanley Kubrick 2001 A Space Odyssey, Arthur C. Clarke is a genius. Also watched 2010. I really need to read 2001 and 2010, 2061, and 3001. Have you? What is Dolphin Island like? (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC))

What do you think the future of space exploration holds? (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC))

That is not entirely accurate. The neoliberal reforms were introduced under Labor, not the Liberals. The banks did not fail because they were excluded from the reforms. Things are not going as well as before 2008 because of the world economy and China's demand for resources is now the driving force behind economic growth. And Australia has relatively high poverty and inequality rates. TFD (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The sequels to 2001 A Space Odyssey are not among Clarke's best. You should try Dolphin Island, Island in the Sky, and Childhood's End. I did love the movie version of 2010. My comment about moving to Australia was because of my discouragement with congressional gridlock in the US. In my home state, Tennessee, two thirds of the congresscritters don't have a college degree. Is it like that in Australia? Rick Norwood (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Woah. The whole world is scared about the US gridlock. I can understand your frustration, given the world has been 1 minute away from apocalypse in the recent past.

Fortunately a similar event cannot happen in Australia, it is one of the best things the British did to Australia that America may have lost in the revolution. The Queens representative, the governor General, intervenes in situations like this. It is called a Double Disillusionment, the Governor General dissolves parliament and calls and election. The entire senate and house of representatives goes to election and life goes on. Since the entire government is voted on there is a limited probability of a renewed gridlock between senate and house of reps. Double disillusionment is triggered by three blocks of legislation by the Senate, it doesn't even have to be super critical legislation for this to happen. If the USA had an election, your entire Senate would be replaced by one party, and there should be agreement between the houses. If for some reason this does not work, GG has more power to save you.

It has happened before, in 1975 Malcolm Fraser and the liberal party blocked the supply bills for the budget. Geoff Whitlam was trying to push through the biggest budget ever and liberals believed he had to be stopped, complete gridlock and disaster loomed. The Governor General steps in and calls and election, and the entire senate and house of representatives is revoted. Liberals win, life goes on. GG has power, most controversial was making Fraser Prime Minister before the election (caretaker government).

Most if not all MP's have University degrees. Most of them are lawyers, liberals tend to be business owners and labor are from unions. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10655

I think it is sensible they are lawyers given that they deal with and create the law 24/7. I can't find a source confirming exactly how many have uni degrees or if they all have them, but a lot, especially those selected for cabinet. They are all payed very well, so they better be all highly qualified or I will be disappointed. Our Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, is a Rhode Scholar.

Do you feel there needs to be something in the constitution to help resolve congress gridlocks similar to what you are experiencing now? (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 08:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC))

It is very hard to ammend the US constitution. But a lot of the gridlock could be solved just by ammending the rules of the House and Senate, to allow a majority to force a vote on an issue. Most of the gridlock has come from traditions that allow the minority party to stop a bill from being voted on. It's a little like the veto exercised by the tribune of the plebes in ancient Rome, which caused gridlock in the Roman Senate. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Well good luck, I hope you guys get through this, the whole world does (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC))

TFD -- I never disputed that Labor initiated the reforms of the 1980s. Labor sometimes boast about it, and I think it is probably the best thing they ever did. Mining is big but not that big, Australia is a diversified economy with export products such as manufacturing, agriculture, mining, IT, and higher education. In 2007 the Japan was our largest export partner at 19% and China 14%. Boy, things have changed. But it showed that our economy can be flexible in changing global conditions, something I suspect Europe has sorely missed. (Ref: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/5368.0Feature%20Article1Oct%202007?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=5368.0&issue=Oct%202007&num=&view=).

Mining is 9.2% of the economy in 2011. Arguably it has put far more strain on non mining sectors than Europe and the USA has ever been exposed to, except that our banks did not collapse. The high Aussie dollar has put huge stress on large non mining states such as NSW and Victoria and their manufacturing industries, yet we do not have the high unemployment seen in Europe and the USA. China's share of our exports has since risen to 22.6% and Japan has fallen to 16% in 2010 which shows the Australian economy is highly adaptable to change, embracing new markets and ditching the old in just 3 years after GFC (http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/trade/trade-at-a-glance-2011.html). USA exports to China is 7.17%. Mining only employs 1.9% of the workforce and is the same as manufacturing in GDP at 9.2% in 2011 (Ref: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2876728.html). Mining is brilliant don't get me wrong, but there is more to Australia than just mining.

Australian banks are now among the most powerful in the world. The Commonwealth Bank of Australia is a private sector public bank worth more than the entire German banking sector. Worth at well over $100 billion, it is the 7th most valuable bank in the world, up there close to JP Morgan. To put this in perspective, Germany has just under 4 times Australia's population and USA 14 times. All major banks are stock market traded and all banks are private sector with zero government interference, the 2013 economic freedom index said "The financial system has remained stable, and prudent regulations have allowed banks to withstand the global financial turmoil with little disruption". Also most Australians have variable interest rate loans, so benefits in interest rate cuts flowed directly into the economy and gave relief to struggling Aussie home owners and reduced incidences of bad debts (Ref: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/1301.0Chapter27092009–10, reference about CBA available on demand) (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC))

Which country are you from TFD? People in poverty don't have skills, they should go to TAFE, Uni, or get an apprenticeship if they want money.

Inequality is actually much better than other rich countries, http://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2013/oct/14/australia-wealth-top-world . Average wealth is just 1.8 times median wealth, much lower than Britain and USA. I don't know why they criticise the high Aussie dollar as not being true wealth, it is not true, I benefit greatly from it, cheap fuel, cheap foreign goods, Europe is so cheap now (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 07:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC))

Capitalism, Part Three

"People in poverty don't have skills." In the US, many people living in poverty have Ph.D.'s. US companies would rather ship jobs overseas, or import imigrants, than pay the wages a US Ph.D. demands. Another large class of poor people in the US pick crops, and if you don't think that takes skill, try it some time. One of the problems with the concentration of wealth is that a small number of conglomerates are powerful enough to set wages, and they naturally, in their own self-interest, set wages as low as possible. One unintended consequence of the US commitment to feeding the poor is that corporations no longer need to pay their workers enough so they can eat, so the US taxpayer picks up the difference. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Why don't they except lower pay and get a job? In Australia our skilled immigration program is far more extensive than that of the US, and we do not have the same problem.

If they did a Ph.D in drawing then they probably got what they deserved.

Crop picking is hard work but I don't think you can quite call it skilled labor. In New Zealand they get poor pacific islanders to do the dirty work for them, and in Australia it is a popular job for unskilled backpackers and other poor travellers. In a capitalist society wages are set by the market, and because anyone can do an unskilled mans job it is only natural that they get payed by far the least, you need skills to make yourself special to fight your way to the top. Artificially inflating wages through unionism increases the risk of unemployment for people not already in the union which is about as poor as you can get.

Australia is more capitalist, neoliberal and laissez faire than America. We have lower taxes, corporate tax rate is 30% compared to Americas 35%. Personal tax rates are similar, we spend less on welfare. Our labor market is just as deregulated as America if not more deregulated. Despite this, inequality is substantially lower in Australia than in America and Britain and almost all other rich countries. Why?

Could it be because we invest more of our income into wealth creation, at least 9% (soon 12%) of our income goes to wealth creation and capital accumulation every year, which means there is less of a run away affect between rich investors and the average Joe that might blow it all at the Casino? (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC))

I don't know by the way, I am just throwing it out there as a possible theory because I do not think it is compulsory in America to invest money despite 401 (k) plans (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC))

Nobody in the US is required to invest. If we want to, we can stuff our money in a matress.

You seem to be down on unions. If management can combine to fix wages, as they do, why should workers not combine to fix wages? Before the union movement, almost everybody was one paycheck away from starvation, and when they were too old or too sick to work, their only option was the poor house, where they could subsist a few years on bad food and no medical care paid for by charity.

Very few Americans belong to unions any more, because the prosperity of the forties, fifties, and sixties made joining a union less attractive. Unions are making a comeback today, as real wages decline.

Many Ph.D.'s do accept lower pay. My son has a Masters in Computer Science, and works part time for low pay and no benefits. We keep hoping the economic situation will improve. As for your comment that the average Joe might blow his wages at the casino, that was exactly the argument used by the corporations in the Guilded Age, as if blowing your money at the casino were limited to the working class.

As for your 30% corporate taxes being lower than in the US, your corporations probably pay their taxes. The big oil companies, the richest corporations on earth, usually find loopholes to avoid paying any taxes at all.

Rick Norwood (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

As the Murdoch press points out, the Australian economy is driven by exports of raw materials, especially to China, rather than any particular policies.[2] And some of the policies SHL mentions have little to do with neoliberalism. Australian banks kept the same system that sees banks as privately-financed government regulated public utilities. Despite the fact that measured by equity, one of them is in the top ten, none of them are in the top ten measured by assets. That is because they are required to be heavily capitalized, which restricts their growth while protecting depositors. Australia lowered corporate taxes by implimenting a value added tax which every other OECD country except the U.S. has done. Similarly the establishment of a fully funded government pension scheme is standard in all OECD countries except the U.S. But inequality and poverty rates are only impressive among OECD countries when compared with the US and UK, are the same as Canada and NZ, and far worse than non-English speaking countries. It is ironic too that part of the higher living standard is made possible by oppressed labor in communist China. TFD (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Isn't investing a far better way to fight inequality than penalising smart and successful people for doing something that the commoners simply do not have the insight to do?

Australia has proven it works, not only are we the richest people in the world, but our wealth is spread more evenly than any other country in the top 50 economies except for Italy, Belgium and Italy. Isn't this far better than wasteful taxes which only seek to harm people that have done the right thing, what is better, investing your own money becoming a rich business man or punishing the successful and wasting their money on extensive bureaucracy?

It is wonderful, the mining boom only employs 1.9% of our population. Why do we love it so much? Because we own it! You complained frequently about how your rich own everything and keep all the profits, why not own some of it yourself? Aussies love big company profits because they go straight into their bank accounts, we just love CBA profits cause banks have done so wonderfully, cause we own them! Don't complain, own the means of production, screw it just do it!

Then you will learn to dislike unions cause so few people are actually in them, they just hurt your big profits and share price. Unionism has been around since the beginning of industrial revolution, it is associated with wealth increase but I doubt it is the cause. Technology, better farming practises made us wealthy. Before the invention of fertiliser everyone was going to die in famine, then boom! So much food, glorious food, and oil, wonderful oil. Penicillin, how many people died before antibiotics!

Mining is big but not that big, I can't read your article cause I don't subscribe to WSJ. No doubt it has significantly contributed to growth but not all growth, Australia is a diverse economy, we are not Saudi Arabia. VAT or GST only applies to good sold, very few companies pay it. It is effectively a consumer tax, designed to eliminate complicated state taxes and simplify the tax system.

China is an unsophisticated economy, it is alright for unsophisticated economies to be directed by government because the path to wealth is obvious. Build more houses, build roads, build farms, build build build. But modern developed economies are far too complicated, innovation comes from individuals and so much happens at once the gov can't handle it with its bureaucracy. A system must be devised to reward new ideas and ditch the old, that system is the free market.

Only libertarians call for zero regulations, no one here has. I want efficient and minimal regulations. Not even the conservatives, or business men, have ever criticised our banking regulations.

Australian inequality has barely budged since the reforms of the 1980's. Why? I believe/suspect it is because we are a nation of investors. This is how you eliminate gross inequality seen in the US and Britain and the whole world, become a businessman, and own the means of production. Inequality is good, it rewards the best and encourages competition that forces people to innovate and work hard. But there is no need for the gross inequality seen in the US, if the people act like rich people and invest their money to make money, and lots of money. That way the rich do not have any advantage over the common people, because they both employ the same tactics we all get rich, and that is good (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC))

Are you speaking from experience? Do you come from a low income working-class or Aboriginal family and are thankful that you are not from an above average income family from another OECD country? TFD (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The trouble with aboriginals is tough to solve. It has nothing to do with capitalism, it has to do with their history and cycles of alcohol abuse and drugs, problems stemming from the first invasion of Australia by the British. It is really hard, but some progress is being made. Employment by the mining boom, especially Andrew Forrest's FMG, has probably done more for them than wasteful government spending has ever done for them. I am in favour of government helping them, but not all programs have been very successful. Some more than others. Problem isn't just with alcohol, petrol sniffing, parents that can't look after bored teenagers, and dying elders (aka grandparents) --> we don't understand their culture, I suspect that our programs aren't as well suited to their needs because we are ignorant, it simply is not about the massive amounts of money we give them anymore.

I know some single parents, they are nurses. They have to work hard and it is tough for them cause the father gives no money, but their kids will get into uni and should do well. It is compulsory in Australia to give at least 9% of your income to superannuation, most of it goes into super funds which make money so even low income people own substantial amounts of shares and investment. After 40 years of hard work, you should be able to derive an income from your super portfolio roughly equal to what you earned during your life. To sweeten the deal, this money is tax free. So after 40 years of earning $50 000 a year, you should be earning tax free $50 000 from super. The program has only been around for 30 years which is one reason why it some people retire with not ideal amount of super. Estimate based on high growth portfolio which generates an average 7-8% per year on investment -->http://www.news.com.au/business/worklife/m-in-superannuation-not-enough-at-65/story-e6frfm9r-1226725418443

The need to reduce risk when you retire means that my estimate isn't exactly as good as it should be, it gets complicated. That example of the 65 year old could be earning a ton of money if he/she is a maniac that takes too much risk (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)).

The thing is, is that everyone in Australia is highly dependent on the success of companies. Our future is in the hands of corporations that make profits, we all need them to do well, not just to provide employment but to make money (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)).

"Commoners?" "Commoners!" Are you serious?

Your "smart and successful people" are penalized only in the sense that they have to pay taxes. They still get 60% of the entire wealth in the US. And they profit from the healthy, educated, hard-working citizens, the infrastructure, and the military protection that their taxes help pay for. About half of the very rich understand this.

Rick Norwood (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Rick Norwood (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

In Australia our average wealth is 1.8 times our median wealth. In America, that's 6.7 times, a huge difference. How can this be? I am suggesting it could possibly be greater use of investment funds in Australia, and perhaps that could be one way of addressing inequality in America? I don't know.

In Russia it is 12.6 times. Also, I think I better clarify exactly when I thought it was ok for your computer scientists to accept lower wages when competing against foreigners. It depends, in Australia there are some industries where wage pressures are ridiculously high and foreign workers are needed to reduce costs to ensure continued growth. In America, this might not be the case since the economy isn't quite as nice and unemployment is higher, I do not know enough about your immigration program but I do believe it is wrong to allow excessive wage depreciation from competition by foreign workers (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)).

Excessive wages is $230 000 for cooking french fries on an oil rig. Thinking of nabbing the job? Sorry but it is only available to members of the Maritime Union (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)).

The huge income inequality in America is caused almost entirely by politicians doing special favors for rich campaign contributors. Does Australia have limitations on "campaign contributions" (bribes)?

The lower wages in question are $400 a month. It is for part time work, but still is not a living wage.

As it happens, when I was at the University of Southwestern Louisiana, I taught a special class for oil field workers, who work six weeks on and six weeks off. It is dangerous work, and requires being away from your family for six weeks at a time. You blame the union for "excessive" wages. It seems odd to me that wages reached by free-market negotiations are "excessive", but oil company profits are never excessive. My libertarian friends seem to love the free market when it benefits the upper class, but hate the free market when it benefits the working class. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to tell me more about these special favours to me, it sounds like corruption and that is really bad. There are no limits, but party's get government funding so reliance isn't as great. Also, our election campaigns are shorter and therefore cheaper than yours, so the pressure isn't as great and parties can focus on the people. They do have influence, but I do not think it is one fiftieth as bad as in America.

It still does not explain how Australian wealth inequality is less than all other big 50 countries except for 3. This is despite the fact that Europeans deliberately raise taxes and have extensive welfare to try and reduce inequality, but Capitalist Australia has been far more successful. Ironic?

Maybe it is dangerous in America but not in Australia. We are safety mad in mining, it is so safe it is safer to work in a coal mine than to work in construction. Remind me, who gets paid more? Unions only represent 18% of our workforce, yet under labor they demand huge unfair wage increases. Who suffers? Society suffers, society is in effect subsidising these high wages cause not everyone can earn $230 000 a year. Teachers go on strike, they get so many holidays but they still want more money from the government, but there are so many other hard working Australians and Americans that deserve the money more but get paid less. Then the Police union sees their success and then they strike too. This hopefully will stop now, because the liberals will pass legislation so they get punished if they continue to strike and it is illegal.

I do not think big oil profits are excessive. Profits are either reinvested or distributed to shareholders, many of these shareholders are hard working Australians. Most of these "common" Australians then proceed to reinvest this money to make more money, if they are retired then they might take a holiday to Europe. They might also buy American oil companies so we can get a share of your profits too (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)).

Except inequality in Australia is only low when compared with the U.S. and UK, and is higher than most other OECD countries. And saying that poverty among aboriginals has "nothing to do with capitalism" is being selective. TFD (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I provided you with a link that compares inequality to the top 50 biggest economies in the world, and our wealth inequality is the lowest compared to all except for Finland, Italy and Belgium. Many OECD countries are in that list, and many European countries make the top 50 (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)).

Here is the link again Here. Arguably, the top 50 countries can be used as a suitable sample to compare Australia to the whole world. Since it is not a random sample I acknowledge that that statement can be rightfully disputed and I accept that (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)).

Economic equality is measured by income, not wealth. The report points out that the major component is real property due to "high urban real estate prices." It accredits the country's overall wealth to "a large endowment of land and natural resources." It also points out low credit card and student loan debt. That is partly because tuition was free, and partly because the student loan program is not considered debt. I am still waiting to hear which liberal policies the U.S. could adopt that would provide benefit. So far we have cheaper tuition, regulation of the banks, VAT, fully funded pension schemes and most importantly, having more natural resources. OTOH, universal health care and wider welfare assistance do not seem to have driven the country to the wall. TFD (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

True. I don't mind income inequality too much, it was the huge wealth inequality that Rick was talking about that I thought was sickening. This is because the people do not profit when companies profit, so you get a scenario where only a handful of people get richer and the wealth isn't shared. People often vote in shareholder meetings to raise the pay packets of CEO's on the condition that the share price goes up, so often people don't really care about inequality as long as they get richer and benefit as well. Of coarse, we all do care because we are competitive, but I am just saying that there is a mutual benefit to inequality.

Imagine if no one Australian owned shares in the mining industry. The money would all go overseas, we would be ripped off because it provides hardly any employment. That would be a real shame if true, but fortunately even though a lot of money does go overseas Australians do become very rich from it. I take it you are Australian.

The report said 59% was real estate, which is still an important money making asset. But that other 41% must be money making investments into shares and other financial assets and wealth creation I assume, which proves that we are a nation of investors. I propose that the US introduces compulsory super. US citizens should become rich people through investing, that is a very liberal policy consistent with capitalism.

Compulsory super will stop the run away train that is wealth inequality, all US citizens will get really rich like Australians. They will own companies so they profit from rich oil companies and food companies and any rich company. They will become business minded so they will vote for policies that do good for the economy in all aspects, not just jobs.

I think I have now realised that our healthcare is much better than the USA, learnt a lot in this discussion. I don't think I was ever comfortable about it not being universal anyway.

Student debt only affects our wealth when we are young, by the time your 50 you don't care and enjoy the resulting tax cuts so I'd be surprised if it actually did affect our overall rankings (debt shifts money from the young to the old). I think it would be great to implement because it makes it much easier for gov to invest in higher education, I am sure you know Gillard recklessly axed billions from university funding. It is unsustainable given the current budget crisis and certain policy commitments, make the students pay more for it then that will increase the amount of capital available to improve our universities.

I think it sounds like we have far better business and investment friendly policies than the United States (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 06:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC))

It sounds to me like Australia has better government than the US.

Inequality can refer to either income inequality or wealth inequality, so we need to be clear which we are taking about.

I ask again, why is it bad that workers have wages in the hundreds of thousands but ok that bankers have wages in the millions?

I could tell that you, SHL, read Murdoch media when you describe taxes as "punishing the productive". That's a Murdoch slogan he pushes in all his media, even though taxes are designed to raise revenue, not to punish anybody, and the rich are sometimes productive, sometimes destructive. But Murdoch media, in the US represented by Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, always describe the rich as "productive" and the poor as "envious" and taxes as "punishment". And war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ... I forget the third one. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Defiantly we do have to be clear.

When I am talking about taxes punishing the productive, we are talking about different methods of reducing inequality. In this case I was talking about wealth inequality, I believe it is better to reduce wealth inequality by encouraging ordinary people to participate in wealth creation and investment in opposed to excessive taxation of the wealthy to reduce wealth inequality, not only do I think Australia has proven it yields better equality results but we are also far wealthier than the majority of European nations.

I know for sure the poor and common people are productive too, I never want them to suffer, they normally very hard working. Some poor middle and rich are lazy, but I think almost everyone in society works really hard from the poor to the rich, except for brain surgeons that take 6 months holiday every year.

I believe that the rich should pay more tax, we still need to reward them for doing what they do, but I want to keep the current progressive tax system. All I want to do is cut tax, not shift the tax burden from rich to poor.

I believe it is ok to pay a banker millions but not a member of the union because the bankers labor is valuable, we need him/her to carry out very important work that no one else can do that yields important dividends for society. Bankers handle a lot of money and they have to do their job properly. Serving french fries on an oil rig while earning $230 000 a year is a joke, Engineers doesn't even earn that much on an oil rig and they do so much more study and have to be much cleverer at mathematics and most importantly have infinitely much more responsibility. It gets worse.

Unionism worked better 40 years ago when most were all factory workers, everyone had to work together to create wealth and there was no easy money cause you had to compete with other unions. These days, Australian unions in the private sector only represent 13% of the workforce. So pay rises not met by increased productivity are in effect ripping off the other 87%. This cost to the rest of society comes in the form of poorer super superannuation and higher costs of goods and services. And the majority of them are fighting the taxpayer not the rich millionaire investor.

We can never return to the mixed union economies of the 1950's. Society is to individualistic, we have individual skills that force us to compete on a one to one basis.

Basically I support the banker because my knowledge is that there is greater wealth creation for everyone when there is neoliberal inequality, because we reward clever ideas and hard work, and when certain services are in demand the cost goes up encouraging more people to go to that sector (even if it is low skill). It encourages people to get skills to earn money, and competition is great. Competition spurs people to come up with new ideas and ways of doing things. Labor market flexibility is also essential to respond to crisis. And the rules are clear and apply to everyone equally, and it is more efficient wealth creation and progress.

This is also why I believe it is so important for the common people to invest substantial amounts of their money, they miss out on a lot of the wealth if they don't. Then everyone benefits from big company profits, and people do not feel so ripped off, and they understand the system better and how and why it benefits them (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC))

1984! Ignorance is strength! (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC))

"Equality of outcomes" is another meaningless slogan. Nobody I know supports equality of outcomes. The rich can have so many houses they can't remember how many they have, that's fine with me. The question is not equality, but rather whether the working class will live decent lives, or live in grinding poverty, whether there will be enough jobs for everyone to find work, whether everyone will be able to get an education without going into lifelong debt. For me, the important thing is that we live in an economy of plenty, and the laissez faire economists are still thinking in terms of an economy of scarsety. Before technology, there wasn't enough to go around, and for the rich to be rich the poor had to be poor. Now, the rich can be rich and the poor can still have enough food to eat. But that means that, when the rich have 60% of all the wealth in the US, they have to pay taxes, or pay a living wage and provide jobs and health care. Because they don't provide a living wage, jobs, and health care, the government has to step in. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I think the challenges facing our two nations are very different. Eliminating long term unemployment through a strong/good economy should push wages up to an acceptable level according to laissez faire economics (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)).

You need to make it easier for people to invest their money and create employment and to profit. In Australia, it isn't even a case of rich vs poor (maybe more of an old vs young), government policy needs to make it easy as possible for people to invest and to get the economy going and money going around (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)).

As I've mentioned before, the rich in the US have about a trillion dollars in uninvested capital. When you have 60% of the total wealth, to risk the 60% in hopes of getting the other 40% does not sound like a good deal. As for your suggestion that the poor improve their lot by investing, I don't think you understand the hand-to-mouth existance of the poorest 20%, who have no medical care, no car, and work two minimum wage jobs. One illness, and they lose their jobs. Of course, they can get food stamps, but in some cases that is $16 per month, and you cannot eat very well on $16 per month. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I still consider holding money in banks and other low risk assets investing. The money is still benefiting the economy because money in savings accounts is being lent out for new business ventures and house building, for example. It is not really in the nations interests for all the USA's assets to go into high risk infrastructure building projects and other high risk business ventures because it could all be lost, after all, weren't high risk subprime mortgage loans the principle cause of the GFC?

It doesn't matter if you are rich or poor, you need a balanced and diverse portfolio which generates a return from high risk assets that fluctuate in price significantly and low risk assets such as bonds and bank deposits that generate a steady return year on year, that way the risk of losing all your money in the next GFC is very low.

The idea is to significantly reduce company tax and then effectively give everyone a pay rise so American businesses and people aren't hit financially, but the gov has to cut spending. Could that work in the USA? If you like the idea, maybe you hate it, but if you did then maybe it would be better to implement after the US gets is budget back under control? (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)).

I suppose those policies would be helpful, but are counter to what business elites in the U.S. want. The system has served them well, and high unemployment is beneficial to them because it keeps wages low. Forced savings and cutting government spending would reduce purchases, while lower corporate taxes (which as in Australia would be replaced by GST), would improve U.S. manufacturing, leading to higher employment. State and local governments which are not allowed to borrow have been forced to make cuts, including releasing prisoners, firing police and firemen, and reneging on employee pensions. TFD (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

True. I guess the American people will have to fight their rich to get what they want. It is not even like this policy directly takes anything away from the rich, it just makes it easier for ordinary people to compete with them and improves business conditions. I have heard great things about the American manufacturing future, with all that gas, certainly will provide employment.

I'd hope that spending cuts are smart spending cuts, firing police and firemen and releasing prisoners was not exactly what I had in mind but are very real concerns if governments have to cut spending too quickly, I know that happens in Australia especially Queensland is making many regrettable cuts and to a limited extent WA. More efficient government and encouraging greater private participation/delegating government tasks to the private sector such as infrastructure investment is the general way to go I think, I am not in touch with Queensland enough to know if some of their cuts have gone too far in certain sectors but they have a lot of debt. With superannuation privatisation means of the profits would go to the people and provide investment opportunities for the people.

Rick --> there are also significant tax advantages to superannuation such as low capital gains tax and reduction in income tax that helps people to invest, often people put more money than required to save tax and make money but there are limits. (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)).

Capitalism, part 4

The Tea Party, who are the strongest American force for cutting government spending, always somehow cut benefits for the poor, never benefits for the rich (such as farm subsidies). Two of the strongest congressional advocates of cutting benefits from the poor get hundreds of thousands of dollars, personally, in farm subsidies, even though they are not farmers. So, we see cuts in education, firefighting, science, and law enforcement, but never cuts in welfare for the rich.

The problem with the low capital gains tax is that it makes no distinction between capital gains made by investment that increases employment, such as starting a business, and "investment" that hurts employment, such as a hostile takeover, where the new owners fire all the employees, empty out the pension fund, sell off the capital assets, pay themselves millions in bonuses, and then declare bankruptcy. Mitt Romney made a lot of his money this way, and paid a much lower tax rate than I pay, because it was all capital gains.

You say poor people could invest by putting money in the bank. In almost every strip mail in America is a paycheck loan, where poor people borrow money on their next paycheck to pay doctor bills or to buy food. So, far from investing their money, the poor are forced to spend their money before they earn it, and pay interest instead of earning interest.

I don't want you to think I'm down on America. It is still a great country, and the richest and most powerful country in the world. I just think a lot of Americans vote against their own interests, and I think the propaganda of the Murdoch media is responsible for a lot of that.

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Good luck. I've heard many great things about America.

Corporate raids of pension funds????? That's terrible! Why doesn't the US government stop this and change the law? It cannot happen in Australia because businesses do not own the workers retirement savings, the worker controls and owns their own retirement savings, therefore retirement savings are completely safe from corporate raids (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)).

Australia gives almost no farm subsidies and our farmers have to fight against US subsidies, we should be taxing US crops to even the competition/null the effect of farm subsidy but even then we have to compete on the world stage and almost all our profits come from overseas, farmers do it tough (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC))

The U.S. government does not stop this because it is pro-business, labor unions are relatively non-militant and powerless and there is no labor party to advocate for working people. Subsidies to agribusiness and other sectors (banking, automobiles, energy, pharmaceuticals, etc.) have increased in developed nations and decreased in developing nations under neoliberalism. TFD (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not a pro-business policy TFD! This is cronyism! And it is really really bad. Pro-bussiness does not mean favouring your super rich, pro-business means encouraging business. This is an immoral policy that goes against all elements of liberalism, from laissez faire to neoliberalism to social liberalism. Retirement savings belong to the worker, retirement savings are their hard earned cash, these pension funds are the property of the worker and therefore according to economic liberalism property rights must be protected and therefore belong to the worker! Policies like this will cause society to decay as the super rich control everything, this is analogous to feudalism and the wealthy elite of kings and queens and their families. It is the direct opposite of capitalism.

Corporate raids are pretty rare but necessary to keep business management accountable. Corporate raids occur because a company is doing really badly, usually due to bad management. The rubbish CEO's and management that caused this must be punished, and if they aren't the workers will lose their jobs eventually. This is where the corporate raider steps in, for the share price to be less than the value of the companies assets basically means the company has no future and is dying. It is a very unfortunate process and you have to be very cold blooded and immoral and greedy to do it, but it has to be done otherwise bad CEO's will cause economic decay and eventually everyone will either lose their jobs or have bad quality jobs. But this does not mean that the workers do not have any rights, retirement savings are their money and therefore should be protected from a corporate raid or bankruptcy and returned to the innocent and hard working worker.

Agriculture subsidies is not a neoliberal policy. All developed countries EXCEPT Australia and New Zealand have increased farm subsidies. And subsidies is a policy that has yielded awful results. The result? Australian farming is far superior to American and European farming. Some farms in France are so bad you could believe that they were living in a poor developing country. Compared to corporate USA? Against the odds, the Aussies have beaten them.

American farmers enjoy many benefits over their Australian counterparts. Americans have higher and more predictable average rainfall, free government insurance protects them against economic disaster, they have cheaper labor, there is less regulation on Animal welfare and environment including less pubic pressure on these issues, and less burdensome regulation and red tape, and of course lots of government subsidies. Australian agriculture is also more trade exposed, 60% of our produce is exported vs. US 20% and is worth much more to our national economy (2.6% Australian GDP vs 0.8% US GDP). Despite this, Australian farming is more efficient and we have cheaper crops. Why? I suspect it is because government subsidies encourage inefficiencies and bad management.

What are these inefficiencies? I read in this farmers article that there are technologies and better farming practices that Australian farmers pick up faster than the Americans. Australian farmers are innovators. Adoption of minimum till and GPS-controlled cropping systems is much higher in Australia, and we use crop rotations that has doubled Australian production yield in the past 30 years and delivers superior yield to American agricultural practises. Why don't American's use crop rotations? I have do idea. But it is a fallacy that Americans produce the cheapest food, as noted here. I am not deliberately boasting about Australian farmers I am not that kind of person, I am just using my country as an example of why subsidies can be very damaging to industry and why free-market capitalism delivers superior results for the people, and this point probably should be brought up in US politics (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)).

Is there too much big company influence in American politics? (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 06:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC))

Is the bear Catholic? Rick Norwood (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC))

It is Catch-22. Always Catch-22. Worse thing ever (Strength, honor, and liberty (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC))

Conservative Media Bias in the United States

Sir if you are going to revert my removal, then I might suggest that, if you truly believe this ought to be in the article, mayhaps you can place this material in its own section. My reason for the removal of that information from the Conservative bias section is that corporate bias is not exclusive to conservative media outlets. --Krakaet (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Liberal bias

your deletion will be undone. Support has been found that there is too much liberal bias in the media. leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.84.198 (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Nationalism

Just wondering why you restored that "collectivist" paragraph. It is true of some aspects of nationalism but again its not a universal. Otherwise nice to see the article getting sorted and hopefully there will not be the sort of problems that were present on the LIberalism article recently. --Snowded ^TALK 21:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Many forms of nationalism, especially German nationalism under Hitler and Italian nationalism under Mussolini, stress that the state is everything, the individual nothing. The paragraph mentions that some forms of nationalism favor individualism. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but it doesn't make a connection between nationalism and collectivism. --Dekker451 (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Social liberalism

I do not think that your edit to the lede correctly reflects the source. While the wording may have sounded like libertarian jargon, it used the terminology that the new liberal writers had used. If you can find a better source than Richardson, then perhaps it could be used instead. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The lede could be re-written without the terms positive and negative with the terms explained later in the article. Social liberalisn does not seem to have a specific definition but is used to refer to liberal ideas developed in the late 19th century, Liberal Party policy implimented in the early 20th century and later writers and political groups influenced by them. In its original form, it did not include prevention of discrimination, protection the consumer, or prevention of pollution of the environment. The farther you get from the origins the wider and less clear the definition becomes. The people who implimented the welfare state did not necessarily believe in social liberal philosophy. In fact the policies had been implimented earlier in Germany as State Socialism.

I think it is important to state that social liberalism developed from 19th century (classical) liberalism, which had intended to bring about greater political and economic equality. Their advocacy of free education can be seen as a precursor to the welfare state. The new liberals had been classical liberals, and JS Mill can be seen as a link between classical and social liberalism. However free markets had created a new middle class that opposed any further extention of equality or government intervention.

If you do not like Richardson as a source you could look for others. Here is how Guido De Ruggiero described it:

The best formulation of the new English Liberalism of the twentieth century is in our opinion that of Hobhouse. Here we find the teaching of Mill and Green in a modernized form.

Freedom is based upon the idea of growth and development. The individual is what he makes himself; he makes himself by assimilating his environment, and assimilates in proportion as he affirms himself by reacting to it. Liberalism is the belief that Society can be constructed upon this self-directive power of personality; and that in virtue of this power there are no limits to the extension of this construction. Liberty thus becomes not so much an individual right as a social necessity. It rests not upon A's right to be left alone by B, but on B's duty to treat A as a rational being. It is not the right of crime and error to go unmolested; it is the duty of treating the criminal and the erring or ignorant man as beings capable of justice and truth, and raising them up instead of letting them lie. Based upon personality, it demands free scope for the personal development of every member of the community. It is not enough to proclaim in its name equal rights in the eyes of the law; it demands also equality of opportunity, the égalité de chance of the French democrats.

Coercion is the destruction of a growing personality; for personality is shaped not from without but from within, and the function of the external order is not to create it but to provide the best conditions for its development. Progress is not a mechanical process but the liberation of living spiritual energy.

This implies that the function of the Liberal State is not to oppose the freedom of personality, but to realize it in practice. The State does not supply its members with food or other material commodities; it supplies the normal man, healthy in mind and in body, with the opportunity to provide for himself by useful work. The right to work and the right to a living wage are as real as the right to person and property. The labouring man who is unemployed or underpaid owing to bad economic organization is a reproach not to the charity but to the justice of Society.

This, it may be said, is not Liberalism but Socialism. But Socialism is a word with many meanings; and there may be a liberal Socialism, as there certainly is an illiberal.

There is a mechanical form of Socialism, with which Liberalism can have nothing to do. It attributes the phenomena of social life to the sole operation of economic factors, and in politics declares a class warfare based upon a rigid distinction between classes which is wholly non-existent. Modern Society, far from emphasizing and simplifying distinctions, is bringing about an increasingly complex interaction of class interests; a modern revolutionary cannot attack property in the interest of labour without finding that labour has an interest, direct or indirect, in property.

Against any authoritarian tendency in Socialism, against any scheme of life imposed from without, the liberal mind rises in revolt in the interest at once of the individual and of Society. It is determined to do justice to the individual and social factors in production, against the abstract individualism and the abstract Socialism which accentuate this or that element to the exclusion of the other. It conceives the rights of the individual as harmonious with those of the community, and defines the former in terms of a common good and the latter in terms of the well-being of individuals. Thus the growing co-operation between Liberalism and Labour, which has lately replaced the antagonism of the nineties, is not an accident or an expression of political opportunism, but is deeply rooted in the necessities of the new democracy.

The Four Deuces (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I will try to develop a new lead using this source. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I have prepared a re-write of the lede. One of the advantages of using De Ruggiero is that his book was published in 1925, so is very close to social liberalism as it was first stated. It think it is important to restrict the description to the theory as it was then conceived. Regulation for example pre-dates social liberalism, while anti-pollution laws were developed long after. It is important that the new liberals justified their policies in terms of freedom rather than charity or equality, which were respectively conservative and socialist justifications for adopting these policies. And social liberals supported imperialism and were accepting of the "social conservatism" (for want of a better term) of their times.

Social liberalism is a school of thought that considers the right to work and the right to a living wage are as real as the right to person and property and considers unemployment and low wages as a reproach to the justice of society. It holds that the function of the liberal state is to supply individuals with the opportunity to provide for themselves by useful work. It conceives the rights of the individual as harmonious with those of the community, and defines the first in terms of a common good and the second in terms of the well-being of individuals. (De Ruggiero) Social liberal policies include government intervention in the economy to provide full employment, provision of social welfare and protection of human rights. These policies were widely adopted and implemented in much of the capitalist world, particularly following the Second World War. Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left.

The Four Deuces (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I tried another re-arrangement of the description from De Ruggiero:

Social liberalism holds that the function of the liberal state is to supply individuals with the opportunity to provide for themselves by useful work. The right to work and the right to a living wage are considered as real as the right to person and property, while unemployment and low wages are considered to be a reproach to the justice of society. It conceives the rights of the individual as harmonious with those of the community, and defines the first in terms of a common good and the second in terms of the well-being of individuals.

The Four Deuces (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

polynomial

There is now a section in the talk page of polynomial. Actually there is no rule preventing people to do edits without discussion in the talk page. But is you want to participate, there you have the discussion.  franklin  13:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Also, probably without noticing, you reverted some changes correcting multiple uses of weasel words.  franklin  13:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think the best is if you revert your edit, and then change only those specific parts that you don't like.  franklin  14:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Rick Norwood! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 867 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Philip Balsam - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Jon Michael Smith - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Romano Felmang - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. Bill Benulis - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Runawy Feedback

Hi - I was intrigued by your assertion that global warming could become runaway because of positive feedback, and that Stefan-Boltzmann does not help us. I looked at this paper [3] which says "Physically, the Stefan-Boltzmann feedback becomes more negative and the water vapor feedback becomes less positive as the temperature increases. Both effects drive the system towards greater stability." Who is correct? HistorianofScience (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for the message. I have just modelled the whole thing on a spreadsheet and got it to match IPCC figures. First point to note is that estimates for forcing are just that - estimates. One paper estimates 2 W/m^2 per K positive feedback for water vapour. That approximately doubles the effect of CO2. The 'negative feedback' of the fourth power in the Stefan Bolzmann quickly kicks in. If however you assume 10 W/m^2 per K, then the positive feedback is enormous. However I am not sure I have modelled this correctly because I think the forcing itself changes with temperature (I have asked Connolley). But it's kind of intuitive anyway. Positive feedback is like balancing on a tightrope, one slip and you are off. The fact that the climate is remarkably stable within the 'noise' suggests there is no strong positive feedback. Best HistorianofScience (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Venus is an interesting one. Surface temperature is about 460 C, but solar irradiance 2,600 as compared to Earth's 1,380. This would cause the surface temperature to be only 35C higher than Earth. However Venus' atmosphere is almost all CO2, unlike Earth's. Although even that concentration does not explain the high temperature of Venus. HistorianofScience (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment here

From WP:NPA "comment on content, not on the contributor". Linking editors to what the Sunday Times said yesterday was a service aimed at rapid update of articles and resolution of editing issues. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Modern liberalism in the United States

Hello, I've clarified some of the problems with this article on the talk page as you requested. However, I've also reverted your last edit under my radical Wikipedia philosophy that one should not delay in doing the right thing. That section is absolutely pathetic, and that's if I was complementing it.UberCryxic (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

so we don't have an edit war

I removed this from the lede:

The Right is hostile in varying degrees to the left-wing goal of egalitarianism, seeing the imposition of social equality in all, or in certain parts of society, as artificially leveling down normal levels of social stratification in society.

The section on Social stratification and social order basically says the same thing in the first sentence with the same source. I don't think we need it in the lede. Bobisbob2 (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry

I have filed a request for an investigation of "Can I touch it?" which I believe may be a sockpuppet account based on similar editing styles at Classical liberalism. Since you are familiar with the editing styles of the accounts named in the investigation, your comments there would be appreciated.[4] The Four Deuces (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not know about Bobisbob2, but his first edits show that he was not a new editor.[5] He could be User:Bobisbob, but that account was never blocked and has not been used since Bobisbob2 began editing. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism

You misunderstood my edit. I said that he commended (as in, praised) the idea of freedom, not commented. I was looking for a shorter word/term that would get the same point across.UberCryxic (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha no problem.UberCryxic (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I also wanted to mention something else. You probably should be careful in saying something like "Marcus Aurelius was praising liberalism." Liberalism as a concrete ideology is an invention of the last few centuries, as are all other ideologies. One of the defining features of the modern world, in fact, is its ideological nature. Yes, there were many scholars and philosophers that praised liberty here and there, but none of them really believed in it like people do now (ie. ideologically). You can easily determine the veracity of that claim by analyzing the kind of world these people lived in: a world where slavery was viewed as a normal part of human life, a world where women were largely shunned from public and political participation, a world that forced the likes of Socrates to drink hemlock for denying the existence of state deities, and a world where the very same high-minded philosophers that praised liberty called non-Greeks contemptible barbarians -- relegating them to the kind of sub-human status associated with fascism! That's why I've always been skeptical about that second sentence of the article. It wasn't until modern times, really, that people actually incorporated the principle of liberty into the fabric of society. We make that clear by saying liberalism first became powerful in the Age of Enlightenment, but that implies that liberalism existed before that time, which definitely isn't true!UberCryxic (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Marcus Aurelius praised liberty.

I don't agree that the ancient world lacked idiologies: consider epicurianism, cynicism, and stoicism, to mention just three. But that's beside the point, of course. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Any and all traditions of the old world (pre-French Revolution) could be classified as archaic and conservative. In other words, none really pushed for a fundamental transformation of society. In fact, they often did just the opposite. All were more or less concerned with garbage like virtue or honor, principles that are laughable to modern ideologies (especially to liberalism, where liberty is essentially the only thing that matters). What you've proposed are better classified as a sensibility or a mentality, not an ideology, which is a coherent set of principles that says "the world should look like this, and hell needs to be raised until it does." This last mentality is a product of modernity, hence we call it an ideology, and finds no home in ancient times.UberCryxic (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Assumptions are important in this debate, I suppose, and I'm working under the assumption of historian H. Stuart Hughes: "conservatism is the negation of ideology." So any conservative mentality or sensibility -- cynicism, stoicism, etc -- is inherently anti-ideological in the sense it believes society needs no major or radical repairs. Everything is fine and dandy to the mentality of the old world.UberCryxic (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

But the definition you gave (preference for the status quo) is effectively the same thing as negating ideology, since only with ideology can you change the status quo for reasons other than circumstance. Not only are they the same thing, but the negation of ideology has been the dominant interpretation of conservatism among many famous conservative scholars themselves, especially Chateaubriand (who coined the term 'conservative' and defined it as the opposition to ideological change, like liberalism) and Kirk.UberCryxic (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh I'm with you on the part about the sources. But what greater sources can there be for conservative thought than Chateaubriand (coined the word and the modern idea) and Kirk? Burke is the only other comparable intellectual giant that comes to mind.UberCryxic (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely! Kirk actually borrowed the terminology from Hughes, and that's how that phrase became popularized (in fact, Kirk succeeded in making it popular enough that people wrongly attribute the statement to him and not to Hughes, who was actually somewhat of a liberal). And the idea of conservatism as existing in opposition to ideological change came, of course, from Chateaubriand, who essentially codified and formalized the lingering mentality of a world that preceded the French Revolution.UberCryxic (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Hey Rick, I have an offer that you better not refuse! I want to make the article on liberalism a featured article and eventually place it on the Main Page. Liberalism is the major philosophy of modern times, and this article in particular receives a lot of popular attention given the fact that lots of links point to it (typing 'liberal' or 'liberalism' in Google will bring up this article first). The article more than deserves the honor of being featured. Having written and successfully promoted five already, I have an extensive history with featured articles. This time would be the first, however, that I would be working with someone else. I'm here on your talk page requesting that we form a collaboration, or an alliance, if you will, to improve this article and make it featured! The reason why I want to work with you is because you've been intimately involved with this article over a long period of time. Getting Liberalism to FA status will require major revisions and overhauls, and I don't want to undertake such a massive effort on my own if you're not on board (otherwise we'd have edit conflicts galore). Solo FA efforts usually work only on articles that don't have the same regular editors.

Before you agree to do this, I need to know a few things. This collaboration will be an absolute disaster if we can't trust one another. The last thing we need is perceptions of mutual suspicion or ulterior motives. To that end, I will tell you my philosophical background as it relates to this article. Once you know my biases, you'll be able to parry them better when we start editing. Once I know yours, I'll be able to do the same. I'm a social liberal in the tradition of Green, Keynes, Beveridge, FDR, etc. I'm also a radical feminist (although I'm male). I also think the article should do a better job of presenting a global perspective on liberalism (although it does a good job with that already). Hopefully you're not too far from that. If you're a conservative, let's say, then this collaboration won't work because we'll be endlessly fighting over what content to include and what to omit. But anyway, I need to know where your heart and your ideological orientation lies as it relates to this article. If you don't feel comfortable sharing this information, then it means we already have issues of trust and there's no point going further.

If you do agree to undertake this effort with me, let me know on my talk page. At that point I'll drop further details on the talk page of the article about how we move forward (ie. we'd need to decide on the article's structure, sources, etc). I don't know what prior experience you have in writing featured articles, but I've found they go by quickly if written in short and intensive bursts. In other words, don't worry about time, especially with two regular editors working on it. We should be able to finish within a month just writing on weekends!UberCryxic (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for getting on board. I've left a lengthy note in the talk page about how to move forward.UberCryxic (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Rick, I've explained in the talk page why it's best if we work on this together, but if you really want me to rewrite the article myself, I'm definitely up for the challenge. I just want you to be aware that the two versions will be separated by several light years. The current version is far too inferior to qualify for featured status, and that means it will require massive and fundamental changes outside the lead, which is actually pretty good already.UberCryxic (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I've left you a new message in the talk page explaining where we are.UberCryxic ^(talk) 06:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Grrr I have to annoy the hell out of you with this now or else the reviewers will annoy the hell out of us during the FAC process. Remember to follow my referencing style. So the citation itself should NOT be Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 9780199540594. It should be just Aurelius pp. [page number]. The other information goes in References. I'm sure you know this and maybe you were planning on changing it later, but it goes much faster if you do everything right in real time.

End of rant. Go on with your work haha!UberCryxic ^(talk) 16:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I responded to your inquiries about referencing style in the talk page.UberCryxic ^(talk) 17:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Responded in talk page.UberCryxic ^(talk) 16:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha I'm sorry. I just want us to communicate quickly. You said you'll be going to a conference the second week of March. Do you think you'll have your parts done by then?UberCryxic ^(talk) 16:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by help (haha). If you give me clear instructions on what you want in the Philosophy section (ie. what philosophers to cover, what parts of liberal philosophy to emphasize, etc), then I can finish that entire section this weekend myself. You'll have to let me know soon if you want to follow that path. Look, I know you're much more busy than I am and I realize I just threw you a pretty big task, so I wouldn't feel bad if I had to take over. We'll have plenty of time to review this article before the nomination anyway.UberCryxic ^(talk) 16:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok this is what I plan on doing: I'll work on Philosophy this weekend, integrating some of your material and your sources. It seems like you didn't have a chance to get much done today. I understand why, so don't worry. But like I said before, these FA pushes either culminate in an explosive flurry of activity or they die because of lethargy. I want to finish this article quickly. I know I said no hard deadlines, but I still want to move forward fast. Be sure to let me know exactly what content you want me to include in the Philosophy section. Thank you.UberCryxic ^(talk) 21:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't sweat it dude. I just finished the Philosophy section. Now we need to prepare for the nomination.UberCryxic ^(talk) 06:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, can you do me a quick favor? Newly created articles have a tag that stays on them until someone besides the creator comes along and reviews them, at which point the tag can be removed. Can you please go review the Liberal Revolution of 1895 and determine if you can remove the tag? I created that article over a week ago, but no one has reviewed it yet. Thanks.UberCryxic ^(talk) 06:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Rick, I will make some more changes per our conversation in the talk page. I am planning to nominate either today or tomorrow. You will be a co-nominee, so after I make my introductory remarks, I encourage you to come and say something too (just whatever you want...the article's history, how far it's come, etc). I'll let you know exactly when I nominate.UberCryxic ^(talk) 02:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok I made a few last-minute corrections (particularly the ibids). Give the article one last good look. Make whatever (hopefully minor by this point) changes you feel are necessary and signal the green light on my talk page. When you tell me to go, I'll nominate it.UberCryxic ^(talk) 06:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yay good news! Deuces has announced his support for the FA nomination. It's all up to you now. Bring it home Rick.UberCryxic ^(talk) 06:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at my last change and tell me what you think.UberCryxic ^(talk) 16:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok well, review those minor changes when you have time (I just switched a few words). I plan to go ahead and nominate right now.UberCryxic ^(talk) 16:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated the article. I encourage you to leave some comments.UberCryxic ^(talk) 17:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hang on. Let's give it a few more days. We can still address their concerns at FAC, which can often last weeks. You were totally right on the length of History, and I was completely wrong. I just wanted to mention that now. That's what most of the criticism is about, and I've significantly shortened that section as a result. The article is now 94 kb, down from the 113 with which it entered FAC.UberCryxic ^(talk) 19:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no doubt that things don't look great now, but I've seen a lot worse at FAC (one of my nominations started out disastrously and I thought would certainly fail, but it passed in the end). Today the bubbling "excitement" actually settled down: one of the more experienced editors has agreed to review the article and provide some tips. Let's see how that goes. We can't give up now. We just started the process. Steady under fire. Also remember that you're a co-nominee, and I would definitely appreciate some backup haha!UberCryxic ^(talk) 19:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the nomination. I will now reopen a peer review and start the GA process. Both will last for about two or three weeks, after which we will return to FAC (plan for early April). I have received assurances of assistance from several other editors, so this time the article will receive plenty of attention ahead of the next FA nomination. More details forthcoming.UberCryxic ^(talk) 23:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The peer review is now live.UberCryxic ^(talk) 00:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Conservatism

I wonder if you could comment on this description of Burke's contribution to conservative thought. It was difficult to find contemporary writing about Burke and Conservatism that has not written from a conservative POV, so I used The conservative illusion[6] I still need something on how Burke has influenced modern conservatism.

Edmund Burke was the private secretary to the Marquis of Rockingham and official pamphlateer to the Rockingham branch of the Whig Party. (Edmund Burke: selected writings and speeches, p. 18[7]) Together with the Tories, they were the conservatives in the late 18th century United Kingdom. (The conservative illusion, p. 33) Although Burke accepted liberal ideals of private property and the economics of Adam Smith, he assumed that economics should be kept subordinate to the Conservative social ethic. He insisted on standards of honor derived from the medieval aristocratic tradition, and saw the aristocracy as the nation's natural leaders. (p.37) That meant limits on the powers of the Crown, since he found the institutions of Parliament to be better informed than commissions appointed by the executive. (p. 52) He thought that the government should support the established church although allowing for a degree of religious toleration. (pp. 53-54) Although Burke accepted the American colonists' arguments that they were entitled to the rights of Englishmen, he became an outspoken opponent of the French Revolution because he thought capitalism should be subordinate to the medieval social tradition and that the business class should be subordinate to aristocracy. (p. 40) Burke justified the social order on the basis of tradition. It represented the wisdom of the species and he valued community and social harmony. (p. 41).

The Four Deuces (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

On second thought how Burke influenced modern conservatism is probably best left to later in the article, when modern conservatism was developed. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism

Hey, not much is happening right now except for the GAN process. You can definitely help out there as various concerns and suggestions are publicized. Once that's complete and the article is (hopefully) passed, we'll gage the barometer one last time before starting the FAC nomination again.UBER ^(talk) 21:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Motion to delete 'Mass Killings'

Here ya go.... [8] BigK HeX (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

About this edt

Perhaps the politicians formerly known as conservatives? :) Soxwon (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

When the modern American Conservative movement was launched in the 1950s, they created historical narratives to show that they belonged in the American political tradition, just as the Left had done earlier, e.g., the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. (Of course these histories may be contradictory or contrary to mainstream history.) While we do not have to accept these histories, it is appropriate that when describing any US political group we report the historical narratives that they claim. TFD (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I was actually trying to inject a little humor. Soxwon (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice

Thanks for the advice, and for a great job cleaning up Modern liberalism in the United States. I am new to editing Wikipedia, so I am still getting into the swing of things & learning to properly interpret WP's policies. I am also a grad. student limited on time, and not familiar with popular revert methods - didn't have time to go through and manually correct that user's edits. It seems there are bots & tools to use for repairing vandalism, but I don't know how they work, and it seems that only the latest set of edits can be reverted? Maybe I'm wrong, but Wikipedia threw me an error message when I tried to revert the user's first edit to the article. Anyway, thanks for the clarification. I've been watching your efforts on WP & especially your participation in the Modern liberalism talk page debates ever since I joined Wikipedia a few months ago, and I think you do an excellent & appropriate job on the articles you work on. Cheers, John Shandy` • talk 05:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Patrick Allitt

The article Patrick Allitt has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 08:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism (2)

Dear Rick, about "belief" and liberalism: is liberalism then a religion? --JanDeFietser (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Conservatism refactor?

I tried to refactor the discussion at the Conservatism talk page. Do you think your comment would flow better if you refactored it into two statements -- one for "Judeo-Christian" and one for "Radicalism"? BigK HeX (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Help Request

Hi,

I'm new to Wikipedia, and I have written a few pages on Mathematical topics that I would like to put up. Before doing this though, I would love to have some criticism and feedback from people who have done this before. Would you be so kind as to help me with this? Please have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hh73wiki Choose an article from my personal sandbox that looks intriguing, and let me know what you think! Thanks! Hh73wiki (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The Radical Right

I have started a new article, The Radical Right and wonder if you would like to contribute to it. TFD (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The term was used to describe an American phenomenon, and no similar work was done on the Left. However, Laird Wilcox and John George drew a symmetry in Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe, calling both groups "extremists". Radical left is a disambiguation page, mostly to parties that were historical radicals, and therefore free market liberals. I started an article called The American Left, which would be the left-wing equivalent of The Radical Right. TFD (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Good edit on History of Mathematics

Agreed that mathematics in India is an important topic, but that it is very difficult to establish correct dates for Indian chronology in reliable sources. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Rick Norwood. You have new messages at Point-set topologist's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Warning

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you continue with the behavior on Mass killings under Communist regimes, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision. When you note that an edit war is in progress, please do not join in even if you are in the right. The slow slog of consensus is the only way that article will ever become a high quality stable encyclopedia article. The article is locked from editing for the next month; please discuss proposed changes on the talkpage in the meantime. As always, template:editprotected and requests for unprotection may be used when a firm consensus is reached. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 23:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If this warning is not removed I intend to complain at ANI. TFD (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Patrick Allitt for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Patrick Allitt, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Allitt until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Bejnar (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Philip Ball 2008 (and JIST 2010)

Here it is (p. 2). And if you want to read for free a peer-reviewed and featured article, published in 2010 in Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, it's here. Enjoy ! Thucyd (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Eigenstuff

I could not find the discussion about removing the "Featured Article" classification.

However, I am very surprised that this article has been a Featured Article. A few days ago, when I first edited it, there was no explanation about the method to compute eigenvectors. Only a short explanation about the method to obtain eigenvalues. I am curious to know what happened. Paolo.dL (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Title of "Mass killings under Communist regimes"

Rick, please don't let the tangent with TFD interfere with any response you may have wanted to give. I was serious about wanting to know what you think would be a better title for the article, if you had one in mind. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Global temperature averaging is thirty years not ten years

The standard for climate averaging is thirty years not ten years according the World Meteorological Organization.[9] A linear regression over the last ten years in two of the three major climate studies (including one of the instrumental temperature record) do have a negative trend (although they're not statically significant at α < 0.05). The third isn't negative because the temperature reconstruction doesn't fully extend to 2010. You can see an aggregation of the studies I'm talking about here (scroll down to "Trends"), I can provide the studies themselves if you want. I'm just saying this to let you know, because I believe you need to be more careful here. 174.52.224.148 (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I'll follow up. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

A quick look at the links you offered and at the article Global Warming shows that the first link mentions thirty year averages but also mentions yearly averages. The second link does something a little different from the average in each decade -- it plots the average in each year taken over the previous ten years. Thus, a cooler year following much warmer years will look low, even if the ten year average by decade looks high. The article itself gives some five year averages, some yearly averages together with linear regression, and some ten year averages.

There are two ways of looking at this data. One is to understand that it is a hard problem, and that reasonable conclusions require years of study, so that I, a mathematician, need to rely on the climatologists. The other is the way taken by people who make up their mind what the right answer is and then cherry pick the data that support their already formed conclusion.

It bothers me that many people, including many people who want to contribute to Wikipedia, seem to think that the second way of dealing with global warming is right, 100% right, with absolute certainty, and that anyone who listens to climatologists is wrong, and lying, and probably part of a conspiracy. Recent studies seem to show that about 55% of Americans fall into the second group. I hope other countries are different, but I haven't seen the data. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep it on your talk. Well, I can assure you that I am not one of those people. My previous post was referring to when you said "a decline in ten year average temperatures [...]".[10] A decline in ten year average temperature isn't the same as saying this is a hottest decade on record. Secondly, it's doesn't remove the the possibility that you are referring to averaging by regression techniques, which is what I assumed.

Thirty years is arbitrary, and I am well aware of what the article does. There isn't a clear border between weather and climate, and if there were, we'd be sitting on it. In averaging we have to consider that temperatures fluctuate. For example solar cycles are eleven years,[11] ENSO three to five,[12] and IPO fifteen to thirty.[13] So a regression over the last thirty years is in my opinion fairly reasonable.

Well, thank you for your reply. If you want to know, I wrote more than two-thirds of the Public opinion on climate change article in my day, and I am well aware what the public thinks. The reason why I am here is just to you know that "a decline in ten year average temperatures" is ambiguous, and that I would appreciate if you would clarify. That's all. 174.52.224.148 (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability of T-integration

I have raised some questions on Talk:T-integration about the notability of this article, which you created. What raised my suspicions was the apparent lack of any references to this algorithm other than in sources by the original author, J. M. Smith (who has also been active in the Wikipedia article). Comments welcome. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of T-integration for deletion

The article T-integration is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T-integration until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

— Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Not clear who your reply was intended for

Hi, Rick. Could you search Talk:Right-wing politics for the comment you posted at 18:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC) and that begins with the following sentence?

"That does not seem to me to be a reasonable requirement."

I'm pretty sure you were addressing Collect, i.e. were objecting to his notion that we need a wp:rs to clarify what kind of liberalism the Oxford political dictionary quotation means when it says that liberalism can be an element of the right-wing. I'm not sure, though, because you aligned your comment flush left, i.e. all the way to the left margin. It thus seems plausible (although not likely, I think) that you were addressing me, with my suggestion that we give the dictionary definition not as "...in the European sense of the word...", but rather as "...[classical] [liberalism] ..." (sic). Parenthetically, my idea was that rendering it so would cause readers who want to understand the term liberalism would first see the eponymous article, with it's very helpful distinction, right in its lead, between classical and social liberalism. If we just linked directly to classical liberalism they'd miss that excellent aid to understanding what the Oxford source means.

Anyway, sorry to go on so long, but I'd like to resolve the ambiguity for subsequent readers. I can't just copy-edit/refactor per WP:INDENT, however, because I already indented below you, with your comment in situ - located at the left margin, I mean. If I were to now indent your comment (to conform to wp:indent) and thereby show that you were replying to Collect, that would throw off all the lower/subsequent replies that are now indented properly relative to mine ... I'm not saying this well, but if we indent your comment to show that it was meant as a reply to Collect and not to me, then we'd have to "ripple" all the subsequent comments that were properly indented, to the right, as well, in order to preserve the information about which comments they're responding to. ( And that would be a lot of comments to indent, with errors likely to be introduced in that copy-editing process. )

So what I'd like to do, if you meant to reply to Collect and not me, is to simply put a small-font annotation just before your post to indicate that it was intended as a reply to him. Otherwise your comment will appear ambiguous. Also ( and excuse me for asking this of so very experienced an editor, please ) would you please try to stick a little more closely to customary thread indentation patterns? I've been pulled up short over a few of your other edits, for this same reason. I'm probably more sensitive to this than most people, btw; I seem to be pretty ADD, and it really does make it too easy for me to lose track of the argument when I have to meta-shift up to the communication protocol level ( or down, depending on one's mental model ) because of unusual or no indentation.

If you're feeling especially charitable, I'd welcome any comment you might have on my reasoning and argument for replacing "in the European sense of the word" with "[classical] liberalism", although if that is to occur on the article talk page, as I'd hope, perhaps it would be best to wait until Manning ( our uninvolved admin Solomon, let's hope ) has completed his review of that page. I don't think there's any danger of the labor being lost. Even if Manning closes the RfC and says the Oxford definition shouldn't be in the lead, my guess is that we'll be nearly sure of seeing it into the body of the article.

I just saw your user page. I saw you're a student of logic. ( No sleight intended; I'd class Russell and Whitehead in just the same way, and myself, too, as students; none of us are masters of logic, imo. ) We could talk for hours, I'm sure. Or perhaps I should say, "I could ask you questions for hours." I've probably spent a 1000+ hours in serious study puzzling over questions arising from a very basic address to logic and set theory, and in trying to understand Russell's (pre-Principia) books, but I'm still very much an amateur. Such a garden of charming complexity! Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Please remember to wp:indent

Hi, Rick. I know it's not required by policy, but would you please review wp:indent and try to remember to conform to it when you post to a thread? I noticed that you just posted at "flush-left" again, after I'd just pointed out, above, how that introduces ambiguity. It also makes it impossible for subsequent posters to use indents to make it clear that they might be replying to a post that was above and preceded yours. I'm sure it was just due to habit, but I'd be very grateful if you'd try hard to break that habit, since it interferes with understanding who is replying to whom in a thread. Btw, I saw your now-self-reverted ref to the OED at Talk:Right-wing politics, and hope you'll restore it once Manning completes his review, assuming the RfC remains open for its normal 30-day interval. It was an enlightening ref, and certainly from as authoritative and unimpeachable a source as one could wish. If you'd like to reply, you can do so below; I've watchlisted this page so as to be sure not to miss any reply you might make here. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I usually indent, but sometimes slip. Thanks for the heads up. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if you watchlist pages you've posted to, or whether you prefer talkbacks, but here's one. And another. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Research about virtual community

My name is Ms Juliana de Melo Bezerra. I am a phd student at ITA (www.ita.br). I am doing a research regarding members’ motivation in virtual communities, and my case study is Wikipedia. I would like your collaboration in my research. If you are interested, I will send you some questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmbbmj (talk • contribs) 11:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to answer questions. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the interest! I would like to send the questions to your email, is it possible? You can send your contact to my email: go to my userpage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jmbbmj) and click on Toolbox > E-mail this user. Jmbbmj (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There are too many bad guys out there to make me confortable sharing my e-mail with strangers. If you ask questions here, I'll answer them. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input

Hi, I wanted to thank you for your input on the media bias page. I had just gotten up the courage to start editing when a family member fell gravely ill, so I won't be able to dedicate the amount of time that I would like. I'll keep working as I can, but wanted to post somewhere less obvious than an article talk page as to why it may take a while for me to respond. ScamperCat ^(meow) 19:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Climatic interests

Hi Rick, looking at your user page I just wondered if your interests extended into '60s SF, and The Drought or perhaps The Drowned World? All seems rather topical these days :–/ . . dave souza, talk 14:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

talk vs. edit warring

If you're interested in improving the article, then by all means do take your concerns to talk. Blanket reverting constructive edits across multiple sections is nothing less than disruptive behavior. aprock (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You are free to discuss any edits that I've made on the talk page. Engaging in blanket reverting without reviewing any of the edits, based on nothing other than they constitute "major edits" in your mind is disruptive editing. aprock (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Your estimation of my edits as POV is incorrect and violates WP:AGF. looking back at my edit summaries, all of them have summaries which describe the issues being addressed. I'm certainly open to discussing different perspectives but removing copy edits, wiki linking, source improvements, section expansion and other constructive edits because two or three edits remove large blocks of undue material is anything but constructive. aprock (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It might help if you could be a bit more specific in your criticism than "some are clearly not". Please do bring specific concerns and issues to the article talk page. aprock (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

notice: I've started an AN/I thread regarding your blanket reverts: [14] aprock (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

notice: You appear to reverting for a third time without discussing the issues on the talk page. Allow me to suggest you discuss first before reverting. aprock (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

1) I didn't revert, I rewrote. 2) I did discuss it first. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Stubs

I always thought a stub was a "few sentences" as defined by WP. I don't regard Comics Revue as a stub. But numerous comic strip articles are being tagged as stubs. See User talk:Fortdj33#Stubs discussion at bottom. Pepso2 (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Unbelievable talk

According to the current Talk:Fraction_(mathematics),  there is no message in the talk page from February 2009 to January 2011.  Below the title "Vulgar_fractions", the last message in 2009 was apparently signed by yourself.  Apparently Clifsportland alias Cliff replied in 2011:  “I am disturbed by the fact that…”.  Actually, Cliff has transfered to "Talk:Fraction_(mathematics)/Archive_1" some messages, because of a bad use of {{Archive box collapsible}}.  What do we have to do, in your opinion, in order to reestablish the reality of the talk page?
— Aughost (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You asked me:  “have you tried just asking Cliff to fix it?”  No, I have sent no message.  Why I contacted you?

• Today, the most recent contribution of Cliff is dated: October 31, 2011.
• You participated in the unbelievable talk.

You are concerned with the mistake in archiving.
— Aughost (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Just thanking you for your efforts on the History of Mathematics wiki-page. I ventured onto the discussion and saw you all over it, trying to keep things on the up and up. Great stuff! And essential... it's scary how often Wikipedia is becoming the source (credited or not) for other websites. Magnabonzo (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Starship

GoldStar

I'm one month away from turning thirteen but though my youth I find Wikipedia interesting compared to my ignorant peers.I had this boiling urge to contribute,so I did.I contributed for the page fractions,which I myself had problems on,under division.When my contribution was first taken out,I was heartbroken.I summed up that other users found my information confusing.So I undid the edit that removed my contribution.I then tweaked it up a bit.Then when you removed my tweaked contribution and said it was confusing,light finally dawned on me.When an athlete runs his first race,it's good he loses so he learns.The same applies in this case.For a reason I can't really explain, thank you. P.S.Sorry for my confusing message DaelStrom (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the supportive comment on Conservatism in the United States, and for encouraging me to edit further. However, for a range of practical reasons, this is a page where I am not likely to be much of a builder, more of someone who sands off an occasional rough edge. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ratio and fraction once more

Hi, Rick. I noticed that you reverted the following wording

Thus the fraction 3/4 is also used to represent the ratio 3:1 (the ratio of 3 parts to 1 part of the whole which has 4 parts)

in favor of the wording

Thus the fraction 3/4 is also used to represent the ratio 3:4 (the ratio of the part to the whole)

saying that this was discussed extensively. You're probably right about it having been discussed extensively, although I can't find much about it on the talk page or in its archives (maybe I missed a lot of it in trying to skim through all of it). My memory is that the discussion was mostly about whether they are even conceptually the same thing, rather than about the specific way that a ratio gets expressed as a fraction.

I think the editor who put in the revised wording above has correctly expressed what happens at least some of the time. For example, if the odds ratio is 3:1 against, then there are 3 chances of something not happening for every chance that it will happen; so the probability of its not happening is 3/4.

Is there a way to incorporate that without re-opening a can of worms? Duoduoduo (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Bogus "Research" does not a "Common Mistake" make

Further information: Circular reasoning

Further information: Recursion

This is a bogus reason to revert something unless it is true...

(rv Research shows that when articles mention that something is a common mistake, many people think the article has said this is something they should do.) (See this link)

What in the world is that all about? Are you saying that it is a common mistake to misunderstand the meaning of "a common mistake"? This is either an irony of ironies, or you have invented some kind of odd reason that Wikipedia articles not mention things which happen in the undocumented, mundane, every day life of "many people," up to and including errors or mistakes in logic! In either case show me proof that your comment or your reversion has merit. Not to mention that reversions should be relatively rare when the content in question adds significantly to the understanding of the article.

I think that if 100 people read the words "a common mistake" and that 5 of those people reading continue to make the common mistake after reading it, and then 2 of those 5 people excuse themselves for their continued error by pointing to the section which describes a "common mistake" and mistakenly (lying like a dog) saying that the Wikipedia gave them the idea for making the common mistake, then such "research" would be suspect. And I doubt any researcher could erect a "many people" argument to stop listing what a "Common Mistake" is.

In my humble opinion, very few people will continue to make a common mistake if there is sufficient comprehension of the topic by a person reading it. If I read that it is a common mistake to inflate tires to 32 psi while warm, and I correctly understood that, then I would be foolish to do so again. If I did it again, I would be another kind of fool to claim that either the advice or the adviser was the cause of my error. We might as well stop telling people they are wrong and give everyone perfect grades for doing things wrong. If we don't, then the student can blame the teacher for improperly lecturing a student to "STOP BEING STUPID and add fractions the way you're supposed to" by explaining the wrong way and the right way to add fraction. Showing the wrong way to approach a problem has merit if the right way is presented along with it. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Undefined (mathematics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Function (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi Rick Norwood, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing!

P.S. I didn't grant rollback, but if you think you could use it, feel free to let me know. Swarm ^X 18:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Conservatism

I reverted the change you made to Conservatism, following the undiscussed removal of the POV tag I had placed there. I object to the changes you made based on weight issues. The main article is substantially different in tone and weight, and associating conservatism with " ... the plantation system and slavery ... " and " ... skeptics toward reason and science ... " lacks any semblance of neutrality in such a small section. Additionally, you made the change to the section with the comment, "Replace a statement that says almost exactly the opposite of what the cited source says with quotations from the cited source". Can you please provide specific page numbers from the source? Barry Clark is a supporter of the "occupy" movement and has strong feelings about the US economy, but such an inflammatory statement still needs specific cites. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Bold, Revert, Discuss

Please do not replace the contested text at Conservatism until the discussion is complete. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Blanket reverts at Conservatism

rv vague assertions that are not focused enough for an encyclopedia article.

Your edit summary does not address the three separate edits you reverted. Please get in the habit of using the talk page; see also WP:LEAD and WP:REDIR, and the result of the proposed move at Talk:Biology_and_political_orientation#Proposed_move. I've also opened a new thread at Talk:Conservatism#Lead_section_and_redirects. Please contribute to that discussion. Viriditas (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING is being investigated for poor behaviour, you may too if you get into further nasty confrontations with Falconclaw

I am giving you a warning about your editing at Right-wing politics. You have gotten into confrontations with Falconclaw that became uncivil. ERIDU-DREAMING is currently being investigated for Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, failure to adhere to Wikipedia:Consensus, etc. There has been too many confrontations and sophistry at the right-wing politics talk page, I am advising you to desist from confrontational behaviour with Falconclaw, or you will be investigated for distruptive editing.--R-41 (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I warned you about wasting time with disruptive sophistry

This is sophistry "That is because well-informed people can see that the right-wing media are a bunch of nut jobs". It was in response to the user Falconclaw5000 who clearly seems to be right-of-centre, such a response does nothing but escalate tensions and demonstrate that you have a very strong and aggressive POV that will likely disrupt constructive discussions. This is pushing the limits and on the verge of breaking Wikipedia:Civility and violating Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:NPOV. If you and Falconclaw continue with this aggressive and disruptive sophistry, I will report both of you for violation of Wikipedia:Consensus and deliberate disregard for Wikipedia:NPOV.--R-41 (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The sentence on right-wing libertarianism describes why the libertarian right opposes egalitarian social levelling

The sentence about right-wing libertarians is very pertinent to the issue of right-wing politics because not all right-wing people are reactionary absolutists as the intro seems to indicate without the statement on right-wing libertarians. If the statement on right-wing libertarians is not included, it is just going to give legitimacy to the apparently right-wing libertarian user Falconclaw5000's claim that the intro is biased - and he does have a point - the libertarian right is important to recognize. So including the material on the position of right-wing libertarianism involving the issue of equality, directly addresses this and does not allow Falconclaw to claim "oh this intro is biased it ignores the libertarian right".--R-41 (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. When you recently edited Liberalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

Hi. When you recently edited Mike Roy (comics), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Saint, Crime Does Not Pay and Native Americans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

OR noticeboard question

I was wondering if you made those comments about the Melton quote (of which he only quoted half, and completely ignored Melton's second quote) after reading the 30 other sources (18 different, multiple points for some) I provided, which I linked to on the OR board page? I could be wrong, but I think you may see that the dispute we're having has nothing to do with what Momento is asking (and in fact, no one has claimed the thing that he's saying the Melton quote is being used to support). He is only seeking a "yes" answer for use in the upcoming ArbCom. -- Maelefique^(talk) 14:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Duotrope

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Duotrope requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• I looked for sources and was unable to find any reliable ones that would show notability for this. I did see one or two mentions, but nothing that talked about the website in depth.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Mass Deletion of my additions on Conservatism in the United States

Listen I don't mind you disagreeing with me but before you massively delete all my contributions you should at least discuss it with me I think many of my "large number of questionable additions to the list" belong on the list and are serouis omissions if you have a problem with a certain addition say so don't delete all of my other additions while viewing the talkpage thinking you might have left something about your recent edit I saw the dicussion on Lincoln I think Lincoln belongs on the list but I'll concede it is a divise issue so I will not add Lincoln so we do not have to go through that again. Also my additon of Thomas Jefferson is unquestionable since he fits in the paleoconservative definition exactly also he is very often quoted by conservatives "the goverment that governs best governs least" adding Jefferson is a no-brainer as I viewed many of my other additons. As for my new section celebrities active in conservative politics I thought it belonged most of the celebrities such as John Wayne were incredibly active in conservative politics Wayne was even asked by the Texas Republican party to run for president, Jimmy Stewart who spoke at republican national conventions was asked by his friend president Reagan to run for governor of california, Shirley Temple ran for the U.S. house as a republican and served as ambassador to Ghana under ford and was incredibally active in the California republican party. If you disagree with any of my edits feel free to take the person out again I am bias towards these people because I do like them but many belongin there and my point is still valid I will be reverting your edit but will take lincoln out since you voiced such strong objections to it on the talkpage Cotton Rogers (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Duotrope

Hi again! I looked up the page and found that Duotrope was deleted by User:Mike 7. I don't know if he'd restore the page, but at the very least he could probably put a copy of the page's history into your userspace so you can work on it until you find more sources. You can always go through Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion as well, which is probably where he'd direct you. Again, I can't guarantee that they'd re-add the page into the mainspace, but many times they're willing to either re-add it to the mainspace or to a person's userspace if you show that you're willing to work on the article, which you are. Userspace might be better, though, as it'd keep it from getting deleted again before you're finished looking for sources. It takes a lot to get something deleted from a userspace since that's an area of peoples' accounts that is typically used to store articles that aren't ready for the mainspace for various reasons (not written well enough, not enough sources, etc- I've got a ton of these myself). I'll leave a message on Mike7's page saying that I have absolutely no problem with you working on a copy of this on your userspace, if that helps any.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I posted on his page, although I did ask that it be put in your userspace. The reason behind this is like I said earlier, it's harder to get things deleted from a userspace because that's an area that's pretty much meant for the user to work on articles at their own pace without worrying that someone will go and delete something before they have a chance to finish looking for sources or work on the page. Sometimes you'll have stuff that gets speedied for various reasons, but generally userspace areas are left alone so if it was in your userspace you wouldn't have to worry about it getting deleted before you have a chance to fully flesh it out.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey! Just so you both know, I responded on my talk page and have put up the page at User:Rick Norwood/Duotrope. Best of luck in editing! Michael (talk) 06:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Rick Norwood/Duotrope

Hey Rick, just letting you know that Mike put a copy of the article in your userspace for you to work on! You can find it at User:Rick Norwood/Duotrope. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The order of operations

"The idea that there is a prefernce for left to right is often taught in grade school, but is incorrect." Have you got any proof on you thesis? Can I see it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.183.238 (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

OK Sir, i'm going to sent a letter with this answer to some professors of the mathematics in UK. If all of them have the same opinion as me, we should change this entry... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.183.238 (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, so what is the score from 7-4+3*0+1 because for me is 4 and only 4. But when I ask random people on the Internet the results are 2, 6, 1. And it is because they do not understand that addition is not superior to subtraction it's equal...Could you please clarify in this particular example because I'm going to mad.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.183.238 (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Rick, I undeleted your most recent contribution to Talk:Time.

I hope that's okay. Of course, you own your comments and if you want them off the talk page, it's your decision and if you re-delete them, I'll leave it alone. I just don't want people to think that this "compromise" is as such. It's really unacceptable to me to have Wikipedia editors insist on their own definitions that run differently than the dictionary definitions, especially when there is contention over the lede. Bestest, 70.109.178.39 (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I commented them out, but you probably already know that. Apologies. 70.109.178.39 (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Questia

You might want to apply for Questia, which provides access to many books and articles useful for articles. Here is a link to the application. TFD (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

page numbers in cites

Please use them - I was bored reading through the two dull ones you re-added <g>. Also see WP:Citation overkill for a useful essay on the topic. Cheers - Actually the "religon" section was cleaner than I feared. Collect (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Hello, I'm MeUser42. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Classical_liberalism that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Please avoid making degrading statements as you did on Talk:Classical liberalism ("He appeals mainly to dogmatic Libertarians"). This causes the debate to hit up, get personal, and not reach consensus. This is very disruptive. MeUser42 (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

School of Salamanca

While I appreciate that we should obtain compromise, the sources presented by some editors are far outside mainsteam thought. For example, in the chapter where David Boaz explains that the Spanish were "liberal" in the way they treated aborignals, he ends by saying, "Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist."[15] Even though Locke believed that, it is not a modern liberal view. Some of these writers also claim that there was separation of church and state in the middle ages because the Catholic Church and European monarchies were separate. We need to be cautious about the extent to which these and other fringe views distort articles about liberalism. TFD (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

TeX superscripts

Hello, I was noting recent tweaks you made to superscripts at ring (mathematics). I am a little baffled... why do you consider the TeX superscript carat as "lexing errors"? I could not find any such preference in the MATH:MOS, so I wonder if it was elsewhere... Rschwieb (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Rick Norwood. You have new messages at Rschwieb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

For reference, see help:displaying a formula if not already. Thanks, Maschen (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Decade

If the main meaning of "consevative" in the 60s was pro-segregation, what was its main meaning in the 1980s? Pass a Method talk 08:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sunday comics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terry and the Pirates (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Buzz Sawyer

You do realize that if you want to the importance rating of an article to be changed, you can just go ahead and change it, right? You don't need to ask anyone for permission. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Two things:

1. I think you're putting too much importance on the importance scale. The importance scale has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to Wikipedia as a whole—it's strictly a back-of-the-house, within-the-WikiProject thing, a tool to give the WikiProject focus.
2. Check out WP:COI. Being in a potential conflict of interest situation is not in and of itself a bad thing, as long as you're upfront and clear about it. Throw a simple disclaimer up on your user page, and you're in the clear. If people have a problem with it, you can discuss it on the talk page. If you're actions seem motivated by self-interest, people may call you out on it. If you appear to be editing in good faith, then they won't. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rick Norwood. You have new messages at Talk:Proposition.
Message added 22:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

As the creator the the "statement (logic)" article, I thought you may wish to add to the discussion.

 Jason Quinn (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Laissez Faire

Rick, you have improperly undone my reversion of the Keynes text on Laissez Faire. Please review WP policy WP:BRD. I cited the reasons for my removal of the improperly sourced material and solicited discussion on the talk page so that valid discussion of Keynes may be decided upon for inclusion. The content you re-inserted is not properly sourced or relevant as stated. Please undo your re-insertion, per WP policy, and present your views on the article talk page. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Modern liberalism in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Progressive (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Small government, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tea Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Liberalism in the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Equality

Social liberalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Freedom

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Feel free! :)

To talk to me if you're brave enough. =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.162.14 (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Do a chat room where we could chat?

I would love to. =P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.162.224 (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Or..

Just chat on the talk pages if you want to.174.19.162.224 (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you there?

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.21.226 (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Lets talk

Ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.21.226 (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You haven't said anything yet. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Now I have

=).

???Rick Norwood (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we go to the Wikipedia chat?

Do you know where it is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.21.226 (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not know where it is. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you want to play skyrim? =)

I would like to. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.28.116 (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I've heard good things about Skyrim. I'm playing Skyward Sword now, and I've got Oblivion next on my list, mainly because it is Trey Parker and Matt Stone's favorite game. But, as a gamer, I like solving puzzles more than combat. My favorite game is Portal II. But I'm willing to give Skyrim a try. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok

Talk to me on my page or in the wiki chat room and we will play the game =). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.163.84 (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I sense a disturbance in the force......

There is strange noises on the front page, and some hashtag is this a glitch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.163.84 (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Where are you ive been waiting for a long time what are you doing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.163.84 (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

What am I doing? I'm reading Wikipedia. Then I plan to work on editing my comic book Comics Revue, and then I'll go to brunch at Cafe Lola. This afternoon I'll probably go to a movie, if there is anything good playing, and then after supper I'll play Skyward Sword and watch an episode of Have Gun -- Will Travel. What are you doing? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

OK

I will stay here with you. I like it here. :) Also gas bombs are on the loose, so watch out. And lets talk about something, what do you want to talk about, politics or something? =) 174.19.171.55 (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Your really should consider joining a local club. But, I'm happy to chat, though probably not about politics. Favorite books? Mine are The Lord of the Rings, The Once and Future King, Red Planet, The Big Time, and To Kill a Mockingbird. Yours? Rick Norwood (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Probably Eragon or something. Also you should look up gears of toasters on youtube. Its Mario and luigi must fight bowser with guns, but the king tries to stop them with a railgun but they get past him by blowing up the enclosed instruction book in his face. Its really fun and be sure to look up ytp too. You will like these memes like pingas or mah boi :). And trust me, politics has psychos everywhere in all parties. I used to like ron paul until his supporters thought he was Jesus, God, Wikipedia, the earth, the universe, you, me, bacon, and the best thing in the world to infinity cobined. Lol they were so stupid. But enough about that, the king awaits. =)174.19.171.55 (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about Gears of Toasters. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Good. =) What else do you want to talk about? :)174.19.171.55 (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Pingas!

Lol more memes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.171.55 (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm a seventy-one year old mathematician. I teach college. I married twice, divorced twice. My children are grown. I publish a comic book. I write some science fiction. I'm an editor for Fantagraphics Books. I watch a lot of movies, read a lot of books, play a lot of video games. If you liked Eragon, you should try The Hobbit (the book, not the movie, though the movie is good, too). Tell me about yourself.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

nice to see you

again ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.161.91 (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of To Set It Right

The article To Set It Right has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable episode, no sourcing

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of To Set It Right for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article To Set It Right is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/To Set It Right until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

I love you. :) Nice to see you again after my charity trip Ricky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.167.228 (talk) 06:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Awww

Why did you delete my personal story? I thought you would like it. =/71.35.31.253 (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't. Someone else did. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Onto (mathematics) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Onto (mathematics). Since you had some involvement with the Onto (mathematics) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Paradoctor (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to bother you here. Do you by any chance recall why you created this redirect instead of using the one already existing at onto? BTW, you unlinked the redirect three minutes after creating it. Does that mean you created this one by accident? Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? =/

If it was personal then why did someone just delete it like that? :( Did you read it though? I just wanted to hear what you think. =)71.35.28.65 (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I did read it, but I don't have any comments for you. I don't know who deleted it or why. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

What kind of math do you do?

Aren't you an expert in math? =)71.35.21.119 (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)