Jump to content

Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coleacanth (talk | contribs) at 21:48, 7 August 2009 (→‎LaRouche-Riemann Method). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconUnited States: Presidential elections Unassessed Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.
Mediation, arbitration,
requests for clarification, and
other discussions about the
LaRouche movement, 2004-2008
Long term abuse subpage, LaRouche accounts
ArbCom clarification/enforcement,
AN/I, 2005-8
Arbitration 2006
Arbitration 2005
Arbitration 2004
Mediation 2006 and 2007
Mediation 2004
Article talk 2004-2007
Template talk
Categories
This box:


China Youth OnLine

"The Present International Financial System Cannot Be Saved,"


I see that this is being added as a source. How do we know what it really says? Does anyone here read Chinese? Do we know if this is original reporting, or if they simply copied a LaRouche-movement biography?   Will Beback  talk  06:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome input from a Chinese speaker, but Google Translate is sufficiently clear for most of the article. The LaRouche PAC website has some translated sections[1] -- you can compare them to the Google version if you want to claim they are cheating or embellishing. I believe the article to be original reporting, but I find it odd that you raise the question, when so many of the sources that you argued for in the "AIDS" section, such as the Sunday Herald Sun of Melbourne, Australia, were clearly not original reporting, but simply copied from Chip Berlet instead. --Maybellyne (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clear?
  • LaRouche himself has a healthy and civilized reshape the mission of the West to restore since the Renaissance has been distorted beyond the Western civilization, the essence of Plato's philosophy to restore the kind of initiative to explore the humane spirit of the laws of nature, in theory, to the rehabilitation Riemann and other German scientists to create a "physical economics" policy to restore at the time of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal approach, control of financial capital for the industrial rehabilitation of low-interest loans to re-create the spirit of the Americans glow.
Maybe we should just quote that in the article.   Will Beback  talk  08:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment, to us English speakers, this is gibberish. Let's wait and see. If these matters are notable they will have been reported in more accessible languages. The value of such a distant source is questionable. It's like quoting an Indian newspaper about Mark Sanford.   Will Beback  talk  08:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: We can also hold off on cutting the sections where there's a chance this might be relevant.   Will Beback  talk  09:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at WP:RS and could find no criteria for evaluating the "distance" of a source. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should always try to use the best sources available. WP:RS and WP:V both say, "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made". Since we're not sure what the source actually says, we can't use it as a reference. If the only people who feel this way about the topic are in China then we should think about how to attribute their views, once we've found a reliable translation.   Will Beback  talk  18:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers are political. The Chinese press is influenced by the Chinese government, which has apparently made a decision that an open discussion of LaRouche's ideas is in its interest. The American press are controlled by corporations, that apparently have made a decision that an open discussion of LaRouche's ideas will harm their interests. China Youth Daily has a daily circulation of nearly one million, making it bigger than most American papers, and 2 million if its online edition is included, so its importance should not be scoffed at. It is not impossible to decipher the Google translation. For example, I would be confident that "to the rehabilitation Riemann" refers to Riemann's "Habilitation Paper," which LaRouche has cited hundreds of times as a seminal influence on his thinking. It would be better to get a Chinese speaker to translate -- does Wikipedia have any available? --Coleacanth (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "open discussion", but that's not really relevant. The National Enquirer has a large circulation too, but circulation alone does not establish a source as being reliable. Aside from the issue of the translation, I am also concerned that the biographical sketch is probably just provided by LaRouche.   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will, a pattern is beginning to emerge here. When a newspaper article says something negative about LaRouche, you insist upon the sanctity of newspaper sources, but when a newpaper says something positive about LaRouche, you express grave concerns that LaRouche somehow controls the source. I have looked at web resources and it looks to me that the CYD is a highly respected publication. If you think that it is unreliable, you should take it to the noticeboard. And in the case of the material that you deleted from Lyndon LaRouche, even the crappy Google translation is clear enough: July 2007, LaRouche issued a warning to the world once again that unless the United States, China, Russia and India together the four countries to reshape the world financial system,金out of control, otherwise, is sweeping through the world of a serious economic crisis will soon be arrival. At that time, Wall Street was "up the sound," bullish on the occasion, many people scoff at the warning, but after just one year, LaRouche's prediction come true once again. I'm restoring my summary of that, because I don't see any basis for claiming it doesn't mean what my summary said. --Coleacanth (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coleacanth, do you read Chinese? I don't. We don't know what the article really says, or how close it is to LaRouche's own press releases. Maybe we should take this to the RSN and see what others think.   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RSN#China Youth On Line.   Will Beback  talk  01:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, Will, it wouldn't hurt for you to take another look at WP:SAUCE.--Leatherstocking (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editors who post on Wikipedia Review like to refer to that page, for some reason, perhaps because it was written by a WRer. IN any case, I am treating all Chinese newspapers equally.   Will Beback  talk  01:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some say that witches, heretics and communists enjoy reading WP:SAUCE, but as to whether they speak the truth, I do not know. As for myself, I do not always read WP:ESSAYS, but when I do, I prefer WP:SAUCE. Stay thirsty, my friends. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche PAC has published an article in which most of the Chinese Youth Daily piece is translated.[2] With crosschecking using the Google translation, I am confident that we establish what it says, and the citations I placed which were deleted by Will Beback can be restored. BTW, Coleacanth was mistaken about a reference to the Habilitation Paper of Riemann, but the actual quote is still usable. --Maybellyne (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can also cross-reference it with the translation at User:Jim101/Sandbox. --Leatherstocking (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the translation by Jim101 be our standard translation, as it's is presumably more netral that the LPAC translation, and ore intelligible than the Google translation.   Will Beback  talk  18:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of material are you proposing adding from the article?   Will Beback  talk  06:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in particular. As you may recall, I put it in various footnotes to satisfy all the banners you put up. --Maybellyne (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes aren't decoratiions. If there is a specific assertion in the CYDOL piece that you want to add to the artilce then we can use it as a source for that. Don't just add footnotes to random sentnces.   Will Beback  talk  18:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, footnote shouldn't be added just for the sake of having another footnote, and everythig from this source needs to be fully attributed. Unless these are removed from their current format I'll rewrite the material based solely on the China Youth Daily material, since that is the only 3rd-party source we've found.   Will Beback  talk  19:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting to note, it's a piece about reforming western culture from Xinhua on 2003. The important part about this piece is that much of the rhetorics and metaphors are identical to the current China Youth Daily piece, which means he has has been an important person for the Chinese propaganda department for a very long time. Jim101 (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This on Dec. 2008, a joint interview between China Central Television and Chinese Biz News (an Chinese American paper run by Tyloon Media Corporation) about the current economic crisis. Jim101 (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to note about Chinese sources is that even if it is an mainstream independent paper, like Chinese newspapers in the States or Hong Kong, they still tend to take some forms of party line (unless they are Falun gong newspapers, but they were never mainstream enough). Anyway, the Chinese news service provided by western media were never interesting enough when compared to Xinhua or CCTV (BBC would never carry entertainment/sports news about China, Hong Kong, or Taiwan), while a lot of Chinese communities want to maintain good relations/loyalty with the "motherland". So even if it is indenpendent, we still have to be mindful of the "party line". Jim101 (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that extra research and background. It's very informative.   Will Beback  talk  17:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I have time, I can help translate the other two pieces. The piece from CCTV is a real interview, very detailed about his bio and his political/economic views plus how much the Communists actually believes in his view. The piece from Xinhua talks about his reformation on cultures and his conspiracy theory about 9-11. I would recommand the CCTV piece over the China Youth Daily piece with regards to his notablity in China, but more resources never hurts. Jim101 (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this article has now appeared in tens of thousands of other publications and websites. [3] It is clearly now a phenomenon that goes beyond the question of the China Youth Daily. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still, he is still fringe when you talk about economics even in China. China's most authoritative finacial magazine, Caijing and Worker's Daily, has almost no reference on his name. So the only thing can be concluded about LaRouche is that he is a media sensation in China with the Communist taking a special interest in his political and geopolitic views. As the title economist that all the Chinese media assigned him to, its better not to take it at face value. Jim101 (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now, this is interest. Economic Daily, a Chinese newspaper runs directly by the Chinese State Council to broadcast economic policies of the Chinese government, wrote a complete bio piece on LaRouche in 2006, and judging the time stamps on all my research, this is actually one of the earliest places where mainstream Chinese publications started to refer him as a "famous economist".
Also, one of the sources I provided, Chinese Biz News, has strong business relationship with Xinhua and personal relationships with Leni Rubinstein. My best guess is that the Communist was intrigued by LaRouche through informal personal connections like this, arranged a few private meetings, and finally decided to publicly endorse LaRouche on the eve of U.S.–China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, to strengthen its own platforms domestically. Jim101 (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf A. F. Witsche

The Disintegration of the World's Financial System by Rolf A. F. Witsche is published by Lulu, a self-publishing company.[4] The book is self-published.   Will Beback  talk  22:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Curve

Amtrak Reform Council

Who is speaking or writing this? What is the context? The Google link is uninformative. It appears to be a submisison from the Executive Intelligence Review.[5] If so, I don't see how it can be viewed as any better a source then what is printed by the EIR directly.   Will Beback  talk  22:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a better source, but it establishes notability, regardless of who provided the testimony. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. What we're looking for are refrencs in reliable 3rd-party sources. EIR is not such a source.   Will Beback  talk  18:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And EIR is not the source -- the Congressional Record is. BTW, please try to be civil in your edit summaries. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have evidence that the Congressional Record edited and revised the EIR statement then they might be considered the source. However it appears that they printed the EIR statement verbatim. So we have proof that the EIR submitted that report, but it is not a 3rd-party statement and it does nothing to establish the notability of the Triple Curve. And there was nothing uncivil in my edit summary.   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The referenec was attached to this sentence:
  • The "Triple Curve", or "typical collapse function", is an economic model developed by LaRouche which purports to illustrate the growth of financial aggregates at the expense of the physical economy and how this leads to an inevitably collapsing bubble economy.
But in the little snippet in Google the source doesn't appear to say anything like that so I've removed it. As I said before, footnotes aren't decorations. They are supposed to lead to references that will verify what we're writing in the article. And on the matter of secondary sources, we still need a significant one for the Triple Curve material.   Will Beback  talk  18:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will, it looks to me like you are trying to write a whole new body of policy to your own specifications. You are the one that insisted that the sections on economics must have secondary sources, as a demonstration of notability, and as editors provide them, you fight like the dickens to disqualify them. The "Amtrak" source is completely adequate to show notability; it was not edited by LaRouche, and the actual editors clearly had discretion as to what to include or not include. The reference to the "triple curve" is unmistakable, and it doesn't have to be a comprehensive explanation in order to show notability.
The primary sources that are already cited provide very adequate explanations of LaRouche's economic theories. LaRouche's main notability is as an author/ideologue, and it is clear from a list of his published books at Lyndon LaRouche that his emphasis is on economics. It is beginning to appear like you have your own personal agenda as to how you would like to have LaRouche depicted in these articles, much like User:Cberlet and his crusade to have the articles dominated by his own esoteric theories. I would suggest that you stop making unreasonable demands on other editors when there is no basis in policy for doing so. --Leatherstocking (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) A written statement by the EIR is not a 3rd-party source. 2) The snippet I could see did not support text that was cited to it. Either quote the text that you are citing, or add the footnote to something that is verifiably in the statement. 3) Please avoid making personal remarks. Civility is a requirement.   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for sources to prove notability. All that is needed to proved notability is a mention of the subject. Maybe we should simply have an introductory sentence that says what the Amtrak book says, although it shouldn't be necessary to be that fussy about it. --Coleacanth (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources should be the basis for all material on Wikipedia. See WP:PSTS. So far we have zero 3rd-party sources for this concept. Just because Larouche says something doesn't make it notable, even if his magazine calls it well-known. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources.   Will Beback  talk  06:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages. LaRouche is notable as an economist; this is an article about his views; it shouldn't be necessary to have a secondary source to validate each individual detail of LaRouche's views on economics. "Common sense" would include mature judgement about which of LaRouche's views on economics receive the most emphasis in his published works. --Coleacanth (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your analysis. However if you want to assert that the Triple Curve is particularly emphasized in his writings then it's up to you to show that. I've seen it mentioned here and there, but I don't see it routinely used and explored in depth. I suggest you compile research in Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouch/Triple Curve to show that it is more notable than any of the dozens of his other theories, pronouncements, and forecasts.   Will Beback  talk  07:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pending that I'm going to attribute this. But if we don't find reliable secondary sourced in 3rd-party publications that discuss this proposal then it should be cut down to a sentence and placed alongside other miscellaneous proposals.   Will Beback  talk  19:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have the following proposals to make: first, that "LaRouche-Riemann model" and "Triple curve" be combined into a section called "Economic forecasting." LaRouche's views on forecasting are clearly notable, because he has been credited by multiple sources for having forecast the 2007 financial collapse. LaRouche never discusses forecasting without mentioning the L-R model and triple curve. Also, Jim101 has provided this translation of a section of the China Youth Daily article: His basic points about the unavoidability of the current US ecocnomic crisis are: the production of real goods is constantly dropping, but the credit supplies is steadily increasing, the real and nominal economies form two curves with one going up, while another one going down, which creates a great contrast. When the nominal economy greatly overstates the real economy, the world will fall into a economic crisis. That needs to be tweaked for English usage, but it applies to the triple curve (even though the author simplifies it into two curves, treating the monetary aggregates and financial aggregates as one thing.) As far as the gold standard is concerned, that should be incorporated into New Bretton Woods, but with care, because there are many different versions of a "gold standard" and LaRouche explicitly rejects some of them. --Coleacanth (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with handling the topics covered in the China Youth Daily piece together in one section, which will simplify things because then we only have to attribute them once. We can include their assertions that he supports American style capitalism, that he's made X number of accurate predictions, etc. We can drop the existing text that only comes from the LaRouche sources. I'm not sure what the best title would be. "Economic policies and forcasts"? We could compile his past and current forecasts. China Youth Daily asserts that some number have come true, so it's a notable topic.   Will Beback  talk  10:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no basis in policy for deleting the material that comes from LaRouche sources, and from the standpoint of common sense, it's a bizarre suggestion. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be based on reliable, 3rd-party sources. That's what I've been saying for weeks now. And despite weeks of looking the best sources we can find for some of these is a Chinese Communist Party youth newspaper. OK, then that's what we'll use.   Will Beback  talk  19:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've been saying this for weeks now, but others don't agree. The policy page you referred me to (WP:PSTS) says that Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages. In an article about the views of a specific individual, it seems rather obvious that published works by that individual are an important source. Your opinion counts, but you shouldn't dictate to others when the policy says otherwise. --Coleacanth (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PSTS says, first and foremost:
  • Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
As for LaRouche's writings on the topic, they seem pretty slim. In fact, the only other source for Triple Curve in the text is a link to this article "Information Society: A Doomed Empire of Evil" which doesn't even mention to topic.   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing how much stuff you can find when you want to find it. Try these: LaRouche Explains How He Developed the `Triple Curve', Hyperinflation! Better Study LaRouche's Triple Curve,Collapse Function Typical Collapse Function --Coleacanth (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of those only mentions the Triple Curve in a footnote, and the other gives only a brief explanation. You wrote above that this is the economic theory of LaRouche's to which he gives the "most emphasis." If this is all he wrote about it then it hardly even deserves a sentence.   Will Beback  talk  21:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Gold standard: The press coverage of even this often-mentioned issue is perfunctory at best. Surely if these economic theories are noteworthy they will have been discussed in economic journals or books. Instead we have a Chinese CP youth newspaper. Anyway, there's the primary sources of the subject's campaign books. One of them I skimmed recently (1984?) discussed his gold standard plan, which I recall stipulated pegging the ratio at $700/oz. It's worth a sentnece or two, along with the Triple Curve and the LaRouche-Riemann model, etc. I think we can shorten the economic material substantially, while still covering more topics.   Will Beback  talk  11:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In "A Program for America," the 1985 campaign book, Larouche says that the first point of his proposed monetary reform plan is to:
  • Restore the U.S. dollar to a gold-reserve basis (estimating the proper fixed price of monetary gold at $750 an ounce). page 281.
He goes into a more detail on subsequent pages (and perhaps elsewhere in the book too). FYI, the price of gold in 1985 was in the $290-$340 range.   Will Beback  talk  22:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of LaRouche's main works on enonomics is presumably his 1995 book, So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics? Several pages of chapter seven are devoted to the issue of the gold-reserve moentary system. I don't see any mention of the Triple Curve though. So that theory must be newer than 1995. Where is LaRouche's fullest explanation or discussion of the Triple Curve?   Will Beback  talk  23:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article text

The "Triple Curve", or "typical collapse function", is an economic model developed by LaRouche which purports to illustrate the growth of financial aggregates at the expense of the physical economy and how this leads to an inevitably collapsing bubble economy.(graphic)

According to this model, speculative gains in financial markets are sustained by diverting monetary flows out of the real economy, into financial markets. This is sustained, increasingly, by looting the economic basis through large-scale attrition in basic economic infrastructure, and by driving down the net after-inflation prices paid for wages and production of operatives. Thus, the charting economic data should show a "Triple Curve":

  • A hyperbolic curve, upward, of financial aggregates;
  • A slower, but also hyperbolic curve, upward, of monetary aggregate needed to sustain the financial bubble;
  • An accelerating, downward, curve in net per-capita real output. This reflects the accelerated looting of the physical economy's base to sustain the financial bubble.[1][2]

Discussion

The material on the Triple Curve currently has two, unattributed sources.

  • "This curve represents 1966-1971, approximately, the zero point--...since that time, especially since 1971, the characteristic has been that the per-capita real component of US production and consumption has been in a phase of accelerating decline. During the same period, we've had a growth of the total financial aggregates. For example, today, that means that, compared with about $41 trillion-equivalent, in terms of official reports, of world gross domestic product, of all nations combined--$41 trillion --that in short-term alone, the total amount of financial aggregate today, in short-term obligations, is over $400 trillion--in other words, at least 10 times the amount of the total annual product of the world as a whole. And that does not include all debt." (Lyndon LaRouche, excerpted from "Storm over Asia, Take Two", EIR, Sept. 15, 2000) The reality, which many people do not wish to see, is that the world financial system is in the midst of a hyperinflationary spiral, like that of Germany, 1923. (Coming soon-- "pop goes the bubble!") The above version of Lyndon LaRouche's Triple Curve was first presented at a conference in the Autumn of 1995. (Caption: But now, look below: The Collapse Reaches a Critical Point of Instability) This is the same curve as above, but now look at the area of the same curve at a critical point, the point at which the rate of monetary expansion rises more rapidly than the rate of financial expansion. That is the condition into which Germany had entered over the interval March-October 1923. It is the phase at which the rate of hyperinflationary spiral of financial assets, itself fed by wild-eyed monetary expansion, erupts as an accelerating form of hyperinflation of commodity prices. We see this now with oil and natural gas prices, for example.
    • "World Economic Crisis" Schiller Institute, No author, no date, copyright 2001. [6]
  • His basic points about the unavoidability of the current US ecocnomic crisis are: the production of real goods is constantly dropping, but the credit supplies is steadily increasing, the real and nomial economies form two curves with one going up, while another one going down, which creates a great contrast. When the nominal economy greatly overstates the real economy, the world will fall into a economic crisis.

The text does not appear to be a correct summary of those sources. Let's base our writing on the 3rd-party source we have, the CYD, and keep it to about that length or shorter.   Will Beback  talk  21:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to do that. The Chinese source is a reference to the triple curve, not an explication of it. Our objective should be to make the idea understandable in the most concise way possible, and I believe my edit does that just fine. As discussed elsewhere on this page, the use of primary sources is a matter of common sense. For this idea, common sense dictates the use of a primary source, and the Schiller Institute page is quite adequate. --Coleacanth (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Chinese source is our only 3rd party source. One of the jobs of such sources is to show us the relative importance. I'm sure we can do just as good a job as they did to explain the thin in under a hundred words. As for the Schiller page, it doesn't seem to say the things we're saying. If that's the best LaRouche source for the thing then we shouldn't go beyond what it says. And we need to attribute the views of both sources.   Will Beback  talk  22:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where do we get this from?
  • This is sustained, increasingly, by looting the economic basis through large-scale attrition in basic economic infrastructure, and by driving down the net after-inflation prices paid for wages and production of operatives.
I don't see that in either source. Coleacanth added this material calling it "sourced".[7] Where's the source?   Will Beback  talk  22:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Colecanth chose the wrong source. I googled those sentences and found them to be a direct quote from LaRouche. It should of course be attributed as such. I have re-added them with source and attribution. --Maybellyne (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please follow the discussion. You've proposed that the China Youth Daly is a reliable source, so I don't understand why you deleted the material based on its reporting. The text was an accurate summary of their description. Their article is the sole 3rd-party mention we have anywhere for this 14-year old theory. Please restore the text, or participate in the discussion about improving it.   Will Beback  talk  06:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I propose this text.
  • In 1995, LaRouche presented his Triple Curve Collapse Function.[SI] According to China Youth Daily Online, LaRouche's main point is that when the real economy (production) drops while the nominal economy (money and financial instruments) goes up there will be an unavoidable economic crisis. [CYD]
I believe it's accurate, has as good sources as we can find, and gives weight appropriate to its coverage in 3rd-party sources.   Will Beback  talk  22:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add one more detail to show that it is his point since he is not denying it:
  • In 1995, LaRouche presented his Triple Curve Collapse Function.[SI] According to an interview with China Youth Daily Online, LaRouche's main point is that when the real economy (production) drops while the nominal economy (money and financial instruments) goes up there will be an unavoidable economic crisis. [CYD] Jim101 (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. I thought this came from a biographical sketch that preceded the interview. Or is the whole article a summary of the interview?   Will Beback  talk  00:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the latter is the case. Also, I think that there is more of the article that is not showing up on the initial page when we view it with Google Translate. Jim, is there another page of the article? Could you give us a link to it? --Coleacanth (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever after paragraph two is a summarization of the interview, and there is no other pages. Jim101 (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Jim's summary of the CYD article in the appropriate spot. This section is now well-sourced, concise and reasonably complete, and in my opinion the only thing it lacks to achieve perfection would be an image of the curves themselves, which would make the whole thing far easier to follow. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed it down to the CYD summary, plus the over-long LaRouche quote. It's still excess weight, but it's better.   Will Beback  talk  17:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Research

Your "scratchpad" is quite an impressive project. It must have taken a big investment of time to assemble such a collection of malicious rumors and unfounded allegations. I say "malicious" and "unfounded" because there is not one single arrest or conviction, so the whole enterprise is just an exercise in defamation. --Maybellyne (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've split this off because it's not directly related to the above discussion. (And really the matter is better discussed on talk:LaRouche movement.) As for the research, I've only used those sources that I believe qualify as reliable by the usual Wikipedia standards. They are all either mainstream newspaper reports or books issued by reputable publishing houses. Any that aren't certainly won't be used in material added to an article. More research is always better.   Will Beback  talk  05:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you have access to some sort of press clipping service that is unavailable to the rest of it. If you would take a portion of the time that you use hunting for scandalous gossip, and use it instead to satisfy your own demands for secondary sources on LaRouche's views on economics, you could save the rest of us a lot of aggravation. --Maybellyne (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on one project, and when I'm done I'll find another. As for economic material, it's not my focus but what I've seen in passing won't help the existing material much. In fact that's part of my concern. The economic proposal of LaRouche's that I see the most coverage of (and even then it's just passing mentions) is placing the U.S. back on the gold standard. Yet I don't see that anywhere in this article.   Will Beback  talk  18:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hatonn

At first glance this book seems as reliable as some others used for the article. The Mother of All Webs Who Gotcha! By Gyeorgos C. Hatonn. It contains primary sources from the ICLC. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  08:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to be self-published. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit confusing because there was an "American West. Publishers" with an excelletn reputation.[8]. But it may have gone out of business. The current publisher of that name prints the "Phoenix Journal".[9] I don't yet see a direct link between Hatonn and the publisher, but that's plausible. It's a bit of a semantic argument, but since he didn't write the ICLC memos it may not quite count as self-publishing.   Will Beback  talk  18:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More complicated than I thought. Apparently Hatonn is a celestial being who transmitted his commentary via shortwave radio to a woman named Doris Ekkers, who did the transcription. The publisher was a third party, George Green.[10] So it would appear that it isn't self published after all.   Will Beback  talk  19:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with this guy. He published a series of conspiracy tabloids including "Contact" and "Phoenix Liberator." I assume that you are making this proposal in jest. --Coleacanth (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The book/journal in question appears to contain a long document or publication from the ICLC, with interleaved commentary from Hatonn. Documents of this type are hard to find, so if this is a true copy then it could be a helpful primary source for one or another article. Lack of primary sources isn't the main problem though.   Will Beback  talk  21:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There have been complaints about relying on Western mainstream press and ignoring the reports from Russia and China. Now it appears that the subject also has a following among celestial beings, according to what may qualify as a reliable source. If so, and I see no source that contradicts it, then it might be worth summarizing some of Hatonn's points.   Will Beback  talk  22:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could find a source that says this is funny? --Maybellyne (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I thought you had a sense of humor. Anway, it's probably as good as some other sources proposed for this article.   Will Beback  talk  10:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LaRouche-Riemann Method

I've trimmed the material on the LaRouche-Riemann Method becasue there are no 3rd-party sources that mention it. (The CYD article just talks about bringing the study of Riemann into culture.) The old text didn't actually explain it any way - it just repeated some of LaRouche's predictions. If we can find reliable 3rd-party sources we can expand this based on those.   Will Beback  talk  17:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit[11], you deleted material with secondary sources, although your edit summary says "no secondary sources." In this edit[12] you removed the date in which LaRouche announced that the collapse had occurred, which is a notable event -- if you need sources that say so, I'll add them. Incidentally, the section title is "economic forecasting." In this edit[13], you introduced a series of grammatical, English usage and typographical errors, calling it a "better summary." I can't see much difference aside from the errors. Perhaps you need to take a deep breath and count to ten before editing, because you are getting very careless. I have restored the previous version, please discuss changes here. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that you had done a "blind revert" of my edit, and you had not done so, so I apologize. The corrections I have made are minor. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the secondary source that supports the information about the LaRouche-Riemann Method? Also, please don't do blind reverts - if you have a problem with particular text then address that - but there's no need to revert other changes as well.   Will Beback  talk  21:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted this statement: LaRouche is said to have applied these ideas to develop an approach to "physical economics." That is in the source, and appropriate to the section. I will go back now and laboriously restore all the material you deleted, piece by piece, and correct the errors you introduced, one by one. Please do not commence edit warring in the middle of this work which you are asking me to do. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the source is CYD? If so it needs to be attributed. It says:
  • LaRouche believes that western culture needs a reform, one that return the culture back to the value of enlightenment, with philosophy that follows Plato's tradition of exploring natural laws and realities, principles based on Riemann's "Physics Economy" and politics based on Franklin Roosevelt's policy.
It doesn't say anything about the "LaRouche-Riemann Method". I would summarize it, so far as Riemann goes, as:
  • According to an interview in CYD, LaRouche believes that western culture should be reformed to include principles derived from Bernhard Riemann'd concepts.
How would you summarize it? It doens't seem ot have anything to do with economic forecasting, so perhaps it should be moved to a more general section. Also, why did you delete the reference to LaRouche being a successful economic forecaster?   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. The context is on western culture reform. Jim101 (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Google translation does not say "physics economy," it says "physical economy," which makes more sense, given that LaRouche professes to be a "physical economist." Also, Riemann did not present any theory of economics, so "Riemann's 'Physics Economy'" makes no sense in context. The LaRouche translation says "to revive the work of the German scientist Riemann as the basis for the study of 'physical economy.'" Jim, could you take a second look at your translation of that passage? --Coleacanth (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
物理 translates as follows:
  • Noun: Physics (the study of)
  • Adj: Physical
Now, in Chinese, it is rather rare for 物理 to be used as an adjective, at least without the particle 的 (of). A more appropriate adjective would be 物质. Given the context, usage and Riemann's profession, I believe 物理经济学 was meant as "Physics Economy (the discipline/study of)" or "Economics based on studies in Physics". I reworded the translation in case there are any more confusions. Jim101 (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis King's book, Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism, mentions this method twice:

  • In 1986, LaRouche wrote that his personal contribution to SDI had been to demonstrate that it was affordable. Obviously the United States could pay for a "first-generation" system. The problem lay in the costs of deploying second-, third-, and fourth-generation systems if the Soviets developed countermeasures. LaRouche claimed that he had proven, via his LaRouche-Riemann economic model, that the "spillover" of SDI technologies into the civilian economy would produce profits fully offsetting SDI's cost. He had thus proposed "a 'crash program' . . . as the best way to cause this 'spillover' to occur." In other words, LaRouche had proposed that the Reagan administration adopt one of the key points of his own Grand Design: pay-as-you-go total mobilization. Ch. 9
  • A woman in the organization gained a job in Drexel Burnham's international economics division. While trying to ferret out information about its links to the mythical Dope, Inc. conspiracy, she picked up valuable information on gold trading that was incorporated into NCLC economic intelligence reports. She also acquired a knowledge of Drexel's economic models, which LaRouche and his aides reworked into the so-called LaRouche-Riemann economic model. Ch. 25

I know that LaRouche accounts don't like using King, but it may be the only 3rd-party source that mentions this method.   Will Beback  talk  20:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is "LaRouche accounts" a snide way of referring to editors with whom you disagree? As far as your suggestions go, the first quote is supposedly just a paraphrase of a primary source, while the second one is useless because King has no competence in economics. He is simply using innuendo, as he does throughout his book. I think the economics section is adequate as it is. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to help. Another account asked above for my help in tracking down sources. If there are no 3rd-party sources for this stuff it should be cut way down. See the discussion of "weight" below.   Will Beback  talk  21:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'm sure you are. The China Youth Daily reports on LaRouche incorporating Riemann's ideas. I think that's sufficient. The section on LaRouche-Riemann is very brief. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weight

Given that the sole 3rd-party mention of LaRouche's "LaRouche-Riemann Method" are a few words a long sentence found in a summary of an interview (presumably conducted in English, then translated into Chinese, and now translated back-whew!) I suggest that we should just devote a sentence to the LaRouche-Riemann Method and to Physical Economics. I suggest something like:

  • LaRouche has developed the "LaRouche-Riemann Method" of forecasting and a theory of "Physical Economy" based on the writings of Bernhard Riemann.

It could be a bit longer, but this does not appear to be a notable concept that merits more space than it receives elsewhere.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection on the term "Physical Economy" given the lost-in-translations possibility you pointed out. But if another editor want to challenges the statement, I have no ways of defending it. In another word, don't get to attach to it without a better source. Jim101 (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Collapse Function "The Triple Curve, a Physio-economic singularity", Schiller Institute
  2. ^ Bright Ju, , "The Present International Financial System Cannot Be Saved," China Youth Daily, July 2009. His basic points about the unavoidability of the current US ecocnomic crisis are: the production of real goods is constantly dropping, but the credit supplies are steadily increasing, the real and nominal economies form two curves with one going up, and another one going down, which creates a great contrast. When the nominal economy greatly overreaches the real economy, the world will fall into a economic crisis.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche_and_the_LaRouche_movement&oldid=306678694"