Talk:Binary economics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Economics (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Contents

Ownership Again[edit]

"The situation with the previous article was beyond belief. People who obviously knew nothing about the subject thought they were free to alter, delete and add..."

Well, since it's Wikipedia, they were (and are) free to alter, add, delete...

Some advocates of Binary Economics believe they own this page and it is a good place to advertise their new universal solution to man's difficulties.

GeneCallahan 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"...they were (and are) free to alter, add, delete..." Without knowing what they are doing? Are you serious? Self-styled editors seem to abound on Wikpeda and are acting more like gatekeepers for dominant views than guardians of encyclopedic style---in which, by the way, not all contributors are trained. Or are they to keep out of wikipedia unless willing to acquire that training?
"...believe... (wikipedia) is a good place to advertise their new universal solution to man's difficulties." Such "catty" remarks betray a fair lack of NPOV. --Janosabel (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

POV Again[edit]

This article, despite all the discussion about POV, still reads like a pamphlet advocating Binary Economics, and not at all like an encyclopedia article. It is clear that some people are using this article as a way to proselytize. And that intention to proselytize is stated rather boldly: "and feeling a need to try to repress attention finally being pervasively paid to this important subject; precisely the kind of global attention that the Wikipedia venue potentially affords."

GeneCallahan 13:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As further evidence, I found what is clearly an advocacy page (http://www.binaryeconomics.net/) that is nearly the same as this Wikipedia page!

GeneCallahan 15:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree but it is really hard to "negotiate" with the owners. An Rfc may be needed. Brusegadi 16:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Abuse, invented quotation and inaccurate statement[edit]

Genecallan, Your generalised abuse is not helpful. You are inventing rules; you appear to have invented a quotation, and (in your main alteration to the text)made an inaccurate statement. 1. Generalised abuse. Kindly be specific as to what you take objection to. 2. Invention of rules. The content of another another NON-Wikipedia website is not a ground for Wikipedia objection. Are you one of the official Wikipedia administrators or just somebody inventing new rules which happen to suit his patrticular prejudice? 3. Invented quotation-- (and feeling a need to try to repress attention finally being pervasively paid to this important subject; precisely the kind of global attention that the Wikipedia venue potentially affords.) Where does this quotation come from? Where is it written? Who wrote it? Did you invent it yourself? 4. Inaccurate statement. The whole purpose of the loans is to spread productive capacity. Plenty of opportunity will exist for conventional investment. Do you think I should add a paragraph explaining this? 5. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you but (in your previous comment) are you upholding a general Wikipeida right for you (or anybody else) to indulge in generalised abuse, invent rules, invent quotations and make inaccurate statements? Have you ever actually read any of the main binary books or documents?

Brusegardi. You and I amicably agreed the alternative technology paragraph -- and I thanked you. Did you not notice I thanked you? So what are you now complaining about? If you have anything specific to take objection to, kindly do so and do not indulge in generalised sniping. What is an Rfc? Is it usual to impose such a thing without any evidence or warning of what is alleged to be wrong? Making a threat without giving any reason why would normally be considered to be bullying.

Rodney Shakespeare 4th October, 2007.

Brusegardi, are you really a Wikipedia administrator of some sort? I ask because you think that a non-Wikipedia page has something to do with a Wikipedia page. Perhaps you would explain your thinking on this -- and also confirm that you are not a Wiki administrator.

Rodney Shakespeare., 4th October, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.178.181 (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Gene Callahan, Somebody has just told me that you are one of those selfish libertarian Austrians (is that right?)and are hardly in a position to lecture anybody about a neutral point of view let alone make alterations to an article about something which you hate. I would also point out that one of your colleagues (Terrell) has already made a fool of himself by getting things completely wrong (see the last section of the article) and you are doing the same by not knowing that "expropriation" is confiscation or the taking of property as when a government nationalises an industry particularly without compensation. Rodney Shakespeare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.178.181 (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Rodney, the other user was saying that the wiki article reading too much like the external article is problematic due to WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. This article is about a minority view. Since it is the article about that view, we are allowed to give the topic much weight and room to explain everything. Yet, we are also bounded to show the mainstream criticism of this view. I feel that this article does a poor job at doing that. Concerning the Rfc, it is simply a request for comment from other editors. Go here WP:RFC to know more about it. I hope this is useful. PS I am not an administrator. Even if I were, you have nothing to worry about since no one has done nothing that merits sanctions of any form. The RfC is simply an attempt to find third unbiased opinions. Brusegadi 23:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Course of Action[edit]

Hello, I think we need to add the counter views to this article. Since Binary is a small minority alternate view, wikipedia policy strongly suggests that we document the 'mainstream' views and criticisms of binary. I'd like editors to suggest courses of action based on [[1]]. Please express your opinions. Brusegadi 02:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to add the criticism to each theoretical point expressed in the article. To avoid WP:SYN we need to find specific sources criticizing the theory. The article, as it is now, reads like a POV fork. Brusegadi 02:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
            ==Austrians, keep out!==
this is not a helpful contribution. --Janosabel (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

'The Austrian school of economics is laissez-faire, libertarian, socially divisive and possibly the main reason (Greenspan is certainly a Friedman and probably an Austrian, even Ayn Rand, supporter) why the world is approaching a financial and environmental collapse. They are the last people to be neutral about anything and should keep out. And since Brusegardi is apparently supporting two preposterous allegations that binary economics has expropriation and that the content of a non-Wikipedia article is relevant he is probably an Austrian as well. David Soori, 5th October, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.217.36 (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not place me in any category. The point is that binary is NOT mainstream. As such, wikipedia needs to show the reader the mainstream view and criticisms to Binary Econ. Brusegadi 19:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
"...binary is NOT mainstream..." does this mean that wikipedia wants to host articles only about mainstream (dominant) economic models? Janosabel (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

David Soori, Brusegardi does not understand that all the criticsm of binary economics essentially gets down to one thing -- objection to the spreading of productive capital ownership throughout the population. That is why Pravda objected, why Milton Friedman objected and it is why the Austrian Gene Callahan objects.. The article (opening section) refers to Pravda and Friedman but I have now added another sentence (at the end of the article) indicating clearly that opposition to wide ownership is what the criticism is all about. I trust that Brusegardi now understands exactly what is the situation and will not waste any more time trying to get more people to say what is already clearly stated -- i.e. that the objection to binary economcis is because it spreads the ownership of capital. Rodney Shakespeare 5th October, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.50.213 (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Note, Rodney, they (my only edits) have consisted entirely of adding things like "supporters of binary economics BELIEVE that..." That's called NPOV. I did not come in and write, "Rodney Shakespeare is a crank on the order of someone selling a perpetual motion machine," which is what I actually think, because that would not be NPOV. So don't dare smear me with this rubbish that my motivation is selfishness and a desire to keep capital from the poor."

You were using this page as a marketing site, and seemed to have no idea what Wikipedia is for. And whoever wrote "Austrians stay out" also is seemingly under the misapprehension that advocates of binary economics own this page.

GeneCallahan (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate weight and representation of critical views[edit]

The article does a poor job at presenting criticism of its topic, which is a minority view within economics. In my view, it is the equivalent of having an article on flat earth without much talk about spheres... Many editors have expressed concerns of WP:OWN Any help and comments are welcomed. Brusegadi 18:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Conventional economics compared with binary economics - ALL the mainstream criticism is ALREADY there!![edit]

It is beyond belief that anybody should complain that the article does not reflect the criticism of binary economics by conventional mainstream economics. There are reams and REAMS of conventional criticism in the section entitled "Conventional economics compared with binary economics". The section tries to identify ALL THE AREAS OF CRITICISM, CONFLICT, CONTRAST AND COMPLAINT -- normative/positive; productivity versus productiveness; interest or no interest; views on homo economicus; belief/disbelief in validity of free market outcomes etc etc etc and Brusegardi hasn't noticed (presumably because it has been done so comprehensively)!!

Moreover, the major conventional objection to binary economics -- that it spreads the ownership of productive capital-- has now been moved right upfront in the opening section. Does Brusegardi want it in the opening line?

However, the article is still inadequate in that it does not deal sufficiently with: a) the effects of the implementation of Say's Theorem (Law) with consequent balancing of supply and demand and hence benefical effects on trade and the economy as a whole b) the detail of how new binary shareholdings become distributed throughout the population (explanation of the basic trust mechanism needs to be developed and an appropriate diagram could be helpful) c) the opportunities for conventional investment d) the counter-inflationary effects (there is friendly dispute over whether the counter-inflationary effect of more wealth and continually lowering prices should be the aim or whether it should be more wealth and a stable level of prices which would allow of some debt-free monetary issuance) e) the psychological effects of secure income for the whole population. Also needed are two photographs -- of Louis Kelso and Patricia Kelso. Rodney Shakespeare 5th October, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.112.239 (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. Here is a quote from the so-called "criticism" of binary economics portrayed in the article:

"However, also central to binary economics is an analysis of physical reality, i.e., of what is. The binary productiveness analysis is claimed to be a superior account of reality and so binary proposals for change are ultimately firmly grounded in everyday life. Conventional economics upholds productivity[16] which is the calculation of a ratio or rate of total output divided by unit of input. In contrast, binary economics has the new concept of productiveness (see below) giving a much fairer and more accurate credit to the physical contributions of both labour and capital to production. Very importantly the productiveness concept goes a long way to answering the fundamental question at the heart of economics - Who or what physically creates the wealth?"

Notice the weasel terms and the POV? Brusegadi 21:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Brusegardi, It's good to see that you recognise that the article section contains reams of material about the differences and conflicts between conventional economics and binary economics. But you now complain about the text of a particular paragraph. OK - we are homing in on something, so please explain exactly what are the weasel terms referred to. I do not see any weasel terms but can see that the paragraph could be made a little clearer and will be pleased to improve things after you have explained the alleged weaselness. To save space here you can of course, should you wish, email me at rodney.shakespeare1@btopenworld.com

Furthermore, to stop wasting everybody's time, will you now kindly list all your specific objections (if any) to the text of the section entitled "Conventional economics compared with binary economics"? Thankyou. Rodney Shakespeare 5th October, 2007 PS. Yes, you are right -- the university link is not there and I commend your for your internet diligence. I have just written again to the university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.112.239 (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the paragraph referred to above and hope that it is now much clearer in explaining that the binary productiveness concept attempts to deal with physical reality while the conventional productivity concept is essentially only a numerical calculation. Rodney Shakespeare 6th October, 20


               The Need to be Positive.....

I know Wikipedia is the major source of references for all things but in a democracy people are allowed to say, and write what they like..within reason! It is a great experiment. However, I think you (ie Rodney Shakespeare, the previous emailer, or poster to use the American word) should not go overboard with the "malicious attacks" as long as the key concepts of Binary Economics,or BE remain.

In a twisted sense, any form of misrepresentation of the philosophy may be helpful in the sense that it gives one a greater understanding of the psychology of the "opponent"...or alternatively it may just be that some writer on Wikipedia is genuinely ignorant!! At least, the correct interpretation(s) can be presented from your angle whether now, or later on. The situation is not hopeless...

Apart from what has been said I think the most important thing to understand here is that if anyone is interested in BE at least there are links, and book/articles references to the subject. These seem to have been unaltered in any way as far as I can see.

Wikipedia does act at least as a sort of an advert for Binary Economics even though some of the info may from time, to time be inaccurate, and in need of some correction. Look at the bright side, and do not get too fussed .....at least it shows someone is actually interested in the subject but not for the right reasons!!!!

Moreover, before the advent of the internet you would have found it more difficult to spread the word on Binary Economics,or indeed,any other subject. As far as I am concerned computer technology is a great blessing to humanity.

Anyway,I have had similiar experiences in my Transfinancial Economics project in which in a number of places people have tried to misrepresent my ideas intentionally,or otherwise. It all goes with the territory I am afraid. It is all a part of lifes rich tapestry.

However, a wikipedia entry for TFE does not exist. This will come after the possible publication of my paper, and my future book The Non-Taxation Revolution; Monetary Reform, and Global Justice...Keep the flag flying....all is definitely not lost!!!


Robert Searle



Article problems[edit]

There appear to be some major issues with this article both in a clear point of view taken and in the use of novel conclusions and original synthesis to do that. Has this concept actually been tried anywhere? From reading the article, one would be led to believe that not only has it been, but that it has worked brilliantly. I see, however, no sourcing to support either one.

There are several main issues here. The article must either include sourcing to back up that implicit assertion of trial and success, or alternatively, make clear that this is an untried, untested theory. There's nothing wrong with writing about untried theories so long as they are notable and verifiable despite their untested status, but there is a major problem with boosterism. This is not the place to say "This is a good thing, we should try it" (or, for that matter, "This is a bad thing, let's never try it"). If it's an untested thing, we make sure the article makes that clear both implicitly and explicitly, and leave it at that. We can certainly say what proponents of the theory or concept say it will make happen, but we must make that clear through proper attribution. (Rather than "Binary economics will create Utopia[1]", it should be "In his 1999 paper on the subject, John Doe, a lifelong proponent of the theory, stated that binary economics will create Utopia.[1]")

Our job here is to present verifiable fact. We can't say that putting the theory into practice will do something, unless it's widely and commonly accepted by experts in the field that such a result is inevitable (which of course appears not to be the case here). If someone else does say that, we can say that they say that, but we must make it clear that this is their opinion and has not been field-proven. We can say that it has done something, if it has, but only if that was the result of an actual test. And we must present due weight to critics. Unfortunately, that means that if the majority of economists and other experts in the area are critical or skeptical of this concept, we must provide majority weight to that view. It is not our place to take a side or decide if they are right or wrong, only to accurately report and weight the reality of the situation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of university[edit]

I removed the university link because it does not mention binary economics. The following Google search results show what I mean. Note that this had been brought up in the past and it was promised that a more current link would be provided. No such link has been provided. Brusegadi 21:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha, ha! The conventional criticism is already in the article![edit]

The article already deals with the mainstream criticism of binary economics - but Brusegardi hasn't noticed! All the areas of complaint and conflict are very clearly set out. I think maybe Brusegardi hasn't noticed because it's been so well done. David Soori.5 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by David soori (talkcontribs) 00:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The article contains adequate criticism of binary economics[edit]

There is no secret that conventional economics (whatever that is; try ghosts in peoples' minds) openly criticizes binary economics. The article adequately covers these disagreements.

Moreover, the fact that binary economics spreads the ownership of productive capital broadly has been moved front and center to the opening section. (All humans play economic roles as either workers, consumers or investors, and deserve to share in the wealth of what's created by those economic actions working in concert. How anyone could disagree with this FACT is beyond my comprehension).

Changing conventional thinking almost requires a new language (it might be easier to stop bad thinking by an ego perspective that's an illusion of the same mind, but I'll leave that alone for now). So, we have to work with what we have, and then try and invent new words or new ways of organizing the words so they can properly express the new reality that's acceptable to objectors' minds.

What is Is. Too bad a lot of humans have to have their thinking squared away in their skulls before they can see what's staring them in the face and accept it. For them, so be it. That doesn't change the reality, though. Capt. Nemo 01:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Reversal of substantial deletion[edit]

There has been a substantial deletion which I have reversed. The long and tortuous history of this Wiki page is the clearest evidence that people have great difficulty in understanding binary economics and the deleted text is a crucial part of the clarification and explanation. Rodney Shakespeare 11th October, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodney Shakespeare (talkcontribs) 18:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide a reliable source for the material which you restored? Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, I could indeed provide reliable sources for the two paragraphs which have been restored (and their position reversed) but, as explained below, there was at some stage complaint of too many footnotes and agreement was made for around forty. Well, today, two more footnotes have been put in to take the total to I think forty four. If you really want sources for those two paragraphs please say so and they will be provided. Rodney Shakespeare, 12th October, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodney Shakespeare (talkcontribs) 10:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"In the introduction it would improve the logic if the position of paragraphs three and four is reversed. The paragraphs must remain for explanatory reasons."David Soori 12 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.85.251 (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Seraphhimblade, This page has a long history and at one stage there was complaint about about too few footnotes and then complaint too many but agreement appeared to be, if I remember correctly, that around forty footnotes is appropriate. I will put in some more references but I hope that you will rise in defence when somebody else complains that there are too many footnotes. You might also like to read the comments in =="=huh?== below where you will see that SecretaryNotSure does not appear to understand much at all but, in complete contrast, you wanted to delete explanatory paragraphs as excessive. I am responding to SecretaryNotSure below. Rodney Shakespeare. 12th October, 2007 David Soori, Yes, the reversal of the positions of the paragrpahs would make things clearer. Rodney Shakespeare. 12th October, 2007.

Well, what we really need, in addition to sourcing (and to be quite honest, a lot of the use of sources looks like cherrypicking or original interpretation, but I'm going to get hold of some of them before I say for sure), is a focus on due weight, clarity, and neutrality. The intro also needs to be concise, generally a paragraph or two, and should indicate clearly that this is a minority/fringe theory without mainstream acceptance. Right now, I see little in the article altogether that indicates that, even though just about all the source material I can find indicates so. But, yes, when I dispute a claim, I do want a source, and one which actually comes to the same conclusion that the article text does, not just that backs up a fact or two. Oh, and quit reverting my cleanups, this article needs a lot of it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

huh?[edit]

I tried to read this article and I still have no idea what "binary economics" is.

Is it a system? Does money exist in this system? Does ownership exist in this system?

How would life be different if we lived in a "binary economics" system?

Presuming binary economics is different than a free market, doesn't that mean someone or some entity has to coerce some parties? If so, who does the controlling?

The introduction talk about how binary economics combines private property with market economics. to produce a more just world. How? What constrains private actors from forming a pure free market?

We have some kind of "central bank" that lends money with no interest. To who? And under what criteria? What stops a private actor from requesting a billion dollar loan for whatever purpose and what if he never pays it back? Where does the central bank get it's funds? Why is the incentive for the central bank to lend out money if they don't make any profit (interest)? Why wouldn't the central bank just keep it's money?

What is "ummah" "zakah" "unicity" and "relatedness?" The "Mondragon region of Spain", the "Emilia-Romagna region of Italy?" "Distributism?" "the assumption. Amartya Sen?" Are these made up words? I'm not going to ask what "self-centred homo economicus" is.

What's a balance between "supply and demand" and "social justice?"

The one sentence I understood seems to say in the binary economy all the labor would be done by robots? Is that what binary economics is about? (Actually, this was one of the first questions I ever pondered in economics, what would happen if all the work on earth was done by robots producing food and goods and toys and cars and everything, what would humans "do" and how would humans use money or earn or spend money if they "did nothing" and what would life in such a world be like? Is that what this article is about?)

The whole article reads like Milton Friedman and Maynard Keynes and Karl Marx got together and dropped acid and this is what the transcriptionist heard them mumbling. I'm not too critical, am I?SecretaryNotSure 01:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

SectetaryNotSure, It is difficult to respond accurately if you do not know that a market economy normally has money and private property particluarly as the article refers to loans and private property. It is even more difficult to respond when you do not understand sentences referring, for example, to widespread property ownership, income, half-price capital inverstment and the rest. Moreover, the statement about no redistribution is that there is no coercion and the article is perfectly clear to whom interest-free loans are made and why. As for non-payment would you please read the words referring to collateral and, at one point, capital credit insurance. It is almost beyond belief that you cannot be bothered to use a web dictionary to look up words like "ummah" and that you have never heard of Amartya Sen. Rodney Shakespeare, 12th October, 2007

Hi, like SecretaryNotSure, I'm no expert on this subject (hopefully my edits relate only to neoclassical comparisons) but the article is helpful. Weight is an issue (the page is quite long) but some points would be clearer if slightly expanded:

  • Does 'interest free' mean zero nominal or a zero Real Interest Rate?
  • The (fully backed) banking system can only lend depositors' money. Can interest be charged on those loans & repaid to depositors?
In the current fractional reserve banking system banks would only charge an appropriate administrative fee (like De La Rue Plc when printing Sterling Notes) since they are "printing" credit-money which has no cost of production.Janosabel (talk) 15:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Does BE favour zero inflation or deflation?

--Wragge 09:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of two fact requests[edit]

The first request referred to robots etc and the book reference is given. The other request was alongside the Wiki reference to Distributism which was made a Wiki reference precisely so that people may click on the reference and read for themselves. Rodney Shakespeare 12th October, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodney Shakespeare (talkcontribs) 10:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Reversal of deletion of Iraq plan text[edit]

Seraphimblade, You say that the Iraq Plan is a proposal. YES, that's EXACTLY what the text says and you deleted it! For your information there are two such plans being canvassed in the USA -- one for the Iraq government to own and distribute the income to all citizens and the binary one for all the citizens to own and also receive the income. Iraq is one of the nastiest messes in the world and you want to delete any reference to a solution! And, similarly, you are not interested in a solution to Palestine or Kashimir! Are you quite sure you are thinking responsibly? Rodney Shakespeare, 12th October, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodney Shakespeare (talkcontribs) 10:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all interested in a proposed "solution" which has never been put into practice being here, no. Certainly, we do not mention every economic plan based upon mainstream economics that's been proposed but untried in the Economics article. Let's be clear—this is not the place to push your pet theory, even if it is good or right. There are plenty of places to do that, but this is not one of them. As to thinking responsibly, my responsibilities here include ensuring that articles are free from bias and paint a picture of reality as it is, not as someone would like them to be. And the reality is, this is a fringe view lacking in mainstream acceptance. Articles are meant solely to reflect reality, never to change it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, What matters is whether the proposals exist. The Iraq plan (and the other major binary plans) exist. I have also just checked that the Severn Barrage plan exists in Wikipedia. And no doubt, there are hundreds of policies coming from political parties, think tanks and similar. I am sure that your responsibilities do not mean that you will eliminate the Barrage proposal (of huge importance to the UK) nor the policies of the political parties and the various think-tanks (of great diversity). Rodney Shakespeare 12th October, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodney Shakespeare (talkcontribs) 19:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My question here is, are there any "major" proposals based on this? This seems to be in effect an unsubstantiated, untried theory which has gained little mainstream acceptance and as far as I can find, no practical application or testing. That's fine, we can write about it, if we make that clear. Remember, "major" is not in relation to "how major is it in terms of this theory", it's in relation to "how major is it in terms of the world as a whole". The Severn Barrage, from what I can find, has a very real chance of being implemented. I see no such thing for the plans here, they're simply proposals which have little to no real chance of being acted upon in the real world. Again, we can write about them, but only if we make that clear. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

On the Iraq plan, Senator McGovern (USA Presidential candidate in the 1970s) has made a very similar proposal and it is being canvassed in the USA today as a way out of the Iraq morass -- nobody else has any idea of what to do and, since they don't, it is rather important that, somewhere, there is a positive proposal aboutwhat to do. I could add some text on McGovern because there is an important issue involved. The provenance of McGovern and the binary Iraq Plan goes back to what is now the Alaska Permanent Fund (which today gives around $1500 per person per year (it varies) -- the state owns but every citizen gets an income from it. The Iraq plan, both versions, are in a direct line of descent from the Alaska Permanent Fund and the debates etc at the time. The Alaska and McGovern information should be added -- particularly, the Alaska Permanent Fund information.

Also a considerable part of what is proposed has been successfully implemented e.g. in the article please read the public capital section -- previously in Canada and New Zealand (houses, roads, hospitals, bridges etc) and in Malaysia today (Putrajaya, airport rail link to Kuala Lumpur). A most remarkable example is Guernsey which has no national debt because it uses the interest-free loan mechanism for public captital -- this must certainly get a mention together with a reference.

On the Severn Barrage I believe that the government has now decided in principle to build it (this was just a week or two ago). It says a another feasibility is necessary but because of environmental warming it is certain to happen -- but interest-free loans would halve the cost. Rodney Shakespeare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodney Shakespeare (talkcontribs) 13:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's see a source stating that the McGovern plan is an implementation of this theory, and then I'm all for it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, I wrote that the provenance of both the McGovern and the binary Iraq Plans goes back to what is now the Alaska Permanent Fund the principle being that a country's big capital asset must directly benefit ALL citizens INDIVIDUALLY. The Dividend, being a dividend, varies and averages somewhere around one thousand five hundred dollars per individual per year. The binary version differs from the final Fund version but was subsequently authorised by the Federal Act of 1978 (see Louis & Patricia Kelso, Democracy and Economic Power, 1986). I would have said that most educated Americans, since they know of the Alaskan Permanent Fund, would recognise the connection between the Permanent Fund and the two proposals being made today-- both wanting all citizens to benefit indidually -- to try to get Iraq out of the terrible mess it is in. So either you know of the Alaska Permanent Fund (based on the oil pipe line) and its history or you do not and it is ridiculous to expect me to be privy to Senator McGovern's mental processes. Moreover, you have missed something in the text of the present Wiki article -- it says that binary technique is fertile with possibility and an example is the Iraq plan etc. Rodney Shakespeare 15th October, 2007

We should not have the reader recognizing such connections by himself. We have to stick to WP:SYN which says that all synthesis of material must be done outside wikipedia. So, any synthesis is to be supported by a source. Thanks for the links to kelso, it looks like an interesting read. Brusegadi 22:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, the reader can recognize such connections; we can't control what the reader thinks. However, unless we can support the connections with specific sourcing saying "Yes, there is indeed a connection", we shouldn't be writing about them. And hey, I kinda like this theory. It might work. But this is not the place to write boosterism for it, it is the place to write reality. And the reality is, this is an untried, untested theory, which has little mainstream acceptance. The article should make that, and only that, clear, along with a brief overview of the theory's outline. This is never the place to push anything. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Coincidences[edit]

On many of the alleged applications we are presented with a plan that 'applies' binary economics (policy plan.) Yet, I have not seen a single source that states that the writers of the plan were exclusively using binary economics to write such a plan. They could have had charity in mind and charity exists under the current system. That is, just because a policy is written to advocate interest free loans it does not mean that the policy was written with binary economics in mind. You have to source that the writers of the policy used the binary framework and not some other framework that produces the same result in that particular situation. Brusegadi 20:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Brusegardi, please see my response above to Seraphimblade. It is also difficult to detect whether you are acting in good faith or are one of the I-Don't-Like-Brigade because you demanded that the article contain conventional critism and then you deliberately ignored the fact that the article actually contains all the conventional criticism. I lost faith in you when you did that. Why did you do it? Rodney Shakespeare, 15th October, 2007.

If I did not like it I would not have been stayed around for so long. Yet, I like wikipedia too, and I like to follow its guidelines. Brusegadi 22:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete comment[edit]

To those that maintain this page, please do not delete past comments. I noticed certain criticism have been lost in the history instead of being placed in proper archive. __earth (Talk) 08:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you point to specific instances? Brusegadi 22:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Among others, compare [2] and [3] with the current edition. Past "archiving" (if such edits could be called so,) have been improperly done. __earth (Talk) 07:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow. Thats messy. I'll set up a proper archive. Brusegadi 20:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Tone and style[edit]

Following Earth's suggestion, I have deleted the words referring to the Kelso Institute. Quite why Earth needed to put up a blanket Tone And Style tag I don't know because if he does not like the style or tone of anything he can easily say so here (in Talk) and discuss it. Is there anything else that Earth thinks offends a sense of style or Tone? And would he please be specific. Rodney Shakespeare, 16th October, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.155.37 (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, It is not tendentious editing to supply requested sources and to correct error particularly as I believe that you have never read any major book on the subject and are apparently unpholding the principle that Wikipedia articles can and should be altered by people who know nothing about a subject and the result will be an imnprovement. I and others uphold the principle of accuracy. Moreover, I am (and shall) supply the requested reasons and sources and responding to reasonable request can never be tendentious editing. When I supply the sources I shall expect you to defend against complaint that there are too many references.Rodney Shakespeare 17th October, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodney Shakespeare (talkcontribs) 08:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There can never be too many references. :) Please feel free to supply those sources; please do make sure that most of them are from those who are not affiliated with or pushing the topic. And actually, yes, anyone in the world can edit a Wikipedia article, including those who know nothing about the subject. Indeed, personal knowledge should never be required, as articles should simply be a distillation of reliable and reputable sources. And yes, you are editing tendentiously, by continuously reverting and claiming that only those with intimate knowledge of the subject should be allowed to edit. Sorry, that's not the way it works here. If you'd like to restrict who's allowed to alter your material, you're welcome to set up a blog or website of your own, I can point you to several excellent free services. But you can't do that here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Authoritative and non-authoritative sources[edit]

Seraphimblade, I note that you do not distinguish between authoritative (the relevant authors) and non-authoritative sources and you welcome deletions etc made by those who know nothing about the subject. The relevant authors are the reputable sources and if you think they are not then you are openly declaring your complete hostility to the subject. Are you a senior Wikipedia editor? Rodney Shakespeare, 17th October, 2007.

I'm afraid by asking that question, you seem to be missing the point. (To answer it anyway, yes, I have been editing for some time now, in a wide range of areas, and am an administrator.) But that has no bearing on this. My being an administrator or "senior editor" does not give me the right to dictate the content of any article, I simply have the right to edit and comment on it like anyone can. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. If you're looking for a project where experts in an area are sought and can to some degree control content, you may find Citizendium more to your liking. One of our core and founding principles is that anyone in the world may edit any article, provided that he or she is making an effort to improve it. If you disagree that they are improving it, you have every right to state your opinion, but not to bar them from editing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked whether you are a senior Wikipedia editor because your position appears to be that anybody may delete, spoil and vandalise on the ground that they are exercising their right to edit. An example is the diagram which was there to explain and clarify -- and there has been plenty of complaint that people do not understand. But you have objected to it on the ground that the claim of halving the cost is unsourced. You could have just said that without deleting the diagram, could you not? Your arbitrary action also reveals that you do not know that houses generally cost three times over a full period mortgage but a lot depends on rates of interest, pattern of repayment of principal and interest, and many other factors. For big capital projects or lending to governments the amount to repay can be many times the original principal -- the figures for the Humber Bridge, or for lending to Nigeria, for example, -- but, in order to cover all the possibilities of different projects over different periods on different terms, and to be judgementally on the safe side, the figure was stated to be half, a most conservative figure. Everybody who has had a mortgage knows the rough posiiton and also knows that you cannot say exactly when rates can suddenly and considerably change and so you cannot say exactly what final repayment will be. So there can be no source exccept a source which fairly gives a conservative estimate -- which I gave. Rodney Shakespeare

I'm well aware of the effects of interest, yes. However, the problem we run into here is a common one with original synthesis—oversimplification. We cannot simply presume that, were this theory to be implemented tomorrow, it would be implemented in a vacuum. Would easier access to capital, for example, create shortages of materials and housing, driving up the price? Well, I don't know. You don't either. But that's exactly why we don't allow original research. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

VANDALISM[edit]

Vandalism is going on by somebody, so small minded, determined to destroy the article. He has removed the diagram and photographs of Senators Russell Long and Gravel It's outrageous.Un heard of behavior. Yes agree to disagree, but no one has the right to deface, and remove.David Soori 17 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.12.230 (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You can see who made what edits by going to the article and clicking on the "history" tab at the top of the page. For what it's worth, I think the headshots of Long and Gravel were just adding clutter to the article, and if the diagram contained indispensable content it should probably still be adjusted to reflect a neutral point of view or just incorporated into the text. Removing those images hasn't "destroyed" the article. Overall I think the article is really improving with all the edits made over the last few days. -Father Inire 11:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
And actually, anyone has the right to remove, if they are doing so in an effort to improve the article. Good-faith attempts at doing so are not vandalism, whether or not you agree that they are an improvement. (Of course, you have every right to disagree with or dispute any edit as well.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The ESOP affects, in one way or another, possibly around 25,000,000 people in the USA and millions elsewhere in the world yet the photographs are cluttering? And yet you would eliminate the photos of Senators Russell and Long when Wikipedia is full of photos of people who have have had millions of times less effect on the world. Rodney Shakespeare.

Rodney –– Unfortunately in this case, this IS how Wikipedia works. It is not the best medium for controversial issues. You can keep at this re-editing to try and ensure binary economics receives a "fair" presentation. But it takes a lot of time and effort. Probably better to spend your resources elsewhere. What's happened here has taught me a lot about the limitations of Wikipedia. It is NOT the be all and end all communication tool that humankind has come up with so far. It fits the metaphsic, however: We all have some control; some is all out of our control Capt. Nemo 02:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand there are various points of view on any given subject. Objecting and disagreeing is one thing but it is rather unscrupulous and certainly unacceptable to take it upon oneself to alter an author's work. The honourable way is to openly cite your position. If it has merit, others will concur. Then the author may feel obliged to comply. By such arbitrary action one is led to believe that something of a sinister nature is at work. John Mortl —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Mortl (talkcontribs) 12:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note, Wikipedia articles do not have a specific author, and in fact one is clearly notified in the edit screen of this: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." (emphasis in original) If you submit work here, it will be editable by anyone in the world. This is not a secret, this is by design and practice. It is not sinister, it's the way this system is meant to work. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Making changes without discussion is vandalism or disrespectful arrogance towards other editors. -- Janosabel 10:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Room for Grammercy Bank?[edit]

I was wondering if the Grammercy Bank of Bangledesh should have a part in this article? I can't say that the guy who started it (forgot his name) was doing it with binary economics in mind per se, but from what I know it seems to fit. But I'd like some other opines. Thanks. Rhetth 03:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Added reference template to top of article[edit]

I added the template to the beginning of the article, because it seems to me to have a lot of sections and/or statements which act like they are self-evident. Statements like "Binary economics believes this..." or "Binary economic theory espouses that..." should be cited with a reference. Anything. Throw me a bone. Rhetth (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the citation of this article. The term "believes" is used once in this article with appropriate citation, but not in direct correlation with "Binary economics". Further, the word "espouses" is not used anywhere in the article. So your complaint is unfounded. Overall, this seems a very well cited and fairly well written article. If you cannot cite specific passages to justify your complaint within the next week, the reference template will be removed. David Kendall (talk)

Minsky?[edit]

Should binary economics be attributed to the works of one Minsky?

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article6078127.ece

"Minsky had spent his time musing on a more permanent solution: the socialisation of the banking system. This he conceived not as an anticapitalist measure, but as the only possible form of a high-consumption, stable capitalism in the future. Minsky argued: 'As socialisation of the towering heights is fully compatible with a large, growing and prosperous private sector, this high-consumption synthesis might well be conducive to greater freedom for entrepreneurial ability and daring than is our present structure.'"

Coincidentally, he is basically the capitalist version of Hilferding. Kjk2.1 (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really. Minsky had some very good ideas which are finally drawing appropriate interest given current conditions, but he had basically nothing to do with Binary econ. Kelso and Adler were definitely the first folks to lay out the idea described here in this form. David A Spitzley (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Dispute with three members of cesj -- issues should be discussed one by one[edit]

It was recently brought to my notice that three members of cesj (Center for Economic and Social Justice, Washingotn, DC) claim that the present article is not an accurate reflection of binary economics as it has developed. I immediately offered that they put me on their discussion list (Louis Kelso's Binary Economics Discussion Group) for sufficient time to define and discuss the specific issues and, if agreement were not to be reached, to agree a paragraph defining the disagreement for the Wikipedia article . My offer was refused and hence I now turn to Wikipedia Discussion as the place for the matter to be resolved. Binary economics uses national bank interest-free loans for ALL aspects of the productive economy AS LONG AS the loans are being spread, over time, to all people in the society. However, the three people deny the use of the interest-free supply for:- a)private housing. Yet the Group is Louis Kelso's Binary Economics Group and the Kelso's, in their last book, wrote a whole chapter advocating the use. b)micro-credit. Yet the cesj Statement of Vision is signed by thousands of microcredit recipients all of whom are believed to want interest-free micro-credit. c) clean electricity generation. National bank interest-free loans would halve, even quarter, the cost and so such clean generation becomes easily financially viable. There cannot be any objection to this. d)student loans. Public (state-provided) education is free in the USA but the three cesj members appear to think that, at the age of sixteen or eighteen, a loan to fund educaiton must immeiately bear interest becasue it is a "consumer" loan. It is, of course, nothing of the sort being a loan to help the student develop his or her future productive capacity. e) environmental capital projects e.g. a mangrove-crested sea barrage in Bangladesh. Such projects do not get built if borrowed interest-bearing money is used. National bank-issued interest-free loan money at least increases the chance of their being built. f) small farms and businesses. An interest-free, rather than interest-bearing, loan for a start-up business gets a young person started. It's as simple as that. g) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.52.186 (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC) (Continuing) g) Public capital projects. This means water, sewage, roads, bridges etcand if the three cesj members concerned have any objection to such projects they should say so specifically, Every day in the world 25,000 people die from the effects of dirty water. I fail to see why the three p[eople concerned, apparently determiend to uphold the negative consequences of interest if they can, should deny clean water and sewage etc to the mass of people. Thankyou. Rodney Shakespeare rodney.shakespeare1@btopenworld.com PS I do not know how to do four tildes on my computer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.52.186 (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Rodney, below the edit window there is a box (a few lines down called Wiki markup) with a range if icons and one of them is a ready-made four-tilde icon. Click on that to post your sig. (I am just signing so)Janosabel (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - the first specific issue -- private housing[edit]

As indicated above (Dispute with three members of cesj -- issues should be discussed one by one) the first specific issue concerns interest-free loans for private housing (roughly, at the moment, with interest-bearing loans, $200,000 might be borrowed and $600,000 or more repaid). The three members of cesj (Center for Economic and Social Justice, Washington, DC) object to such interest-free loans for private housing. However, the three members run a Discussion Group (Louis Kelso's Binary Economics Discussion Group)completely devoted to the binary economics of Louis and Patricia Kelso, requiring adhesion to the Kelso's work. Yet the Kelsos, in their last and most authoritative work (Democracy and Economic Power, 1986 and 1991) devote a whole chapter to proposing interest-free loans for private housing which is precisely why binary economists in general approve of the idea. The position of the three members, therefore, is contradictory (to the Kelso's view and that of other binary economists); hypocritical (because they exclude people from their Group for not following the Kelso line but do not follow it themselves; and, in short, is preposterous unless they expel themselves from their own Group. For the information of non-binary economists it can be added that the interest-free proposal would only take place in circumstances in which the banks are not allowed to create new money (the banks may lend their own money but not create new money and may lend customers' deposits, with permission); loans would only be 80% of valuation; and there would be criminal penalties for false valuations and declarations of income. In summary, those who claim to uphold Kelso policy cannot reject that policy without being patently contradictory and hypocritical. NB It is proposed that the next specific issue be interest-free micro-credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.52.186 (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV dispute -- the second specific issue -- micro-credit[edit]

The second specific issue concerns interest-free loans for micro-credit. In India and Bangladesh rural money lenders will charge 100% or more while the commercial banks (having learnt that the poor can be relied on to do everything they can to repay loans)charge 50% or 60%. It is therefore not surprising that, each year, twenty thousand Indian farmers commit suicide or are forced to sell a kidney. There is also lending by NGO-type organisations and with them the situation is that the loans are about 34% overall (with 17% being the cost of borrowed money and 17% being the cost of administration AND training). The cost of micro-credit administration is large and the best organisations (e.g. Grameen Bank and the Institute for Integrated Rural Development, IIRD)take responsibility for training/educating the borrowers (which is expensive)as well as helping with other aspects of the borrowers' lives. Put simply, the commercial bankers are disgracefully battening onto the poor while the well-motiviated NGOs could get the cost down to 17% IF they have a supply of interest-free money to lend onward. Now it is a quite remarkable fact that the three members of cesj (Center for Economic and Social Justice, Washington, DC)have a website which contains a Statement of Vision whose signatories include over four thousand Bangladesh recipients of micro-credit. These IIRD recipients of micro-credit are committed supporters of binary economics, as are the administrators of IIRD (the writer of this note has visited IIRD and can confirm that the view of IIRD officers is that they want an interest-free loan supply and they can be relied on to do the rest) and nobody in their right mind would think that any poor person in India or Bangladesh would willingly agree to repayment terms above the theoretical minimum of 17%. So -- the fact must be faced -- it once again looks as if contradiciton and hypocrisy is involved in the position of the three cesj members or maybe it's just callousness towards the poor of the world.Rodney Shakespeare, rodney.shakespeare1@btopenworld.com 86.178.52.186 (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV dispute -- the third specific issue -- clean electricity generation[edit]

This matter is simply ilustrated. For decades in the UK there has been a proposal to build a barrage across the River Severn (or construct the completely environmentally friendly version of tidal lagoons). The Severn estuary has one of the largest tidal rises in the world and the project would cleanly generate about 10% of the UK's needed electricity supply. However, because the project is huge, taking many years to complete, the effect of using interest-bearing money is to make the cost unrepayable. Howver, with a national bank-issued interest-free loan, the project is immediately financially viable -- and the technical aspects of the project are the well-established ones of concrete and turbines. However, with the UK now under "austerity" measures, and the government being in thrall to the existing paradigm is determined that there should never be interest-free loans of any sort whatsoever, the Severn River project has recently been cancelled. So there could not be a clearer illustration of the benefits of interest-free loans for clean electricity genneration and of the grip, apparently upheld by the three members of cesj, of the existing interest-bearing paradigm. Rodney Shakespeare rodney.shakespeare1@btopenworld.com 86.178.52.186 (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV dispute -- the fourth specific issue -- student loans[edit]

The main purpose of binary economics is to get all individuals as productive as possible as quickly as possible. Thus the purpose of interest-free micro-credit is to enable poor people to become productive; similarly, as will be seen in the fifth specific issue (below), the purpose of the interest-free loans for small farms and businesses is to get the individuals concerned as productive as possible as quickly as possible. And it is exactly the same with student loans -- enabling the student to increase his/her productive capacity as quickly as possible. However, the three cesj individuals concerned are apparently alleging that a loan for student education is a "consumer" loan and so must bear interest. Which is nonsense -- consumer loans are used to fund restaurant meals, clothes, knick knacks and holidays etc while a student loan is one for increase of future productive capacity. It can also be noted that public (state-provided) education in the USA is generally free but the three cesj members appear to think that, suddenly, at the age of sixteen or eighteen, a loan to fund further education must not only be repaid, which is reasonable, but must be repaid with interest, which is not. Such a loan is obviously to help the student develop his or her future productive capacity and so is in line with basic binary principle. Moreover, the interest, as distinct from a genuine administration cost, is unnecessary if the ultimate source is the national bank to which the loan is ultimately repayable Rodney Shakespeare rodney.shakespeare1@btopenworld.com86.178.52.186 (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV dispute -- the fifth specific issue -- environmental capital projects[edit]

Environmental capital projects are easily illustrated e.g., a mangrove-crested sea barrage in Bangladesh. Such projects do not get built if borrowed interest-bearing money is used -- the cost is much too high. However, national bank-issued interest-free loans at least increase the chance of their being built. Where such projects are concerned, interest is not necessary (although genuine administration charges are but they can, in practice, be minimal). Rodney Shakespeare rodney.shakespeare1@btopenworld.com86.178.52.186 (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV dispute -- the sixth specific issue -- small farms and businesses[edit]

A national bank-issued interest-free, rather than interest-bearing, loan for a start-up business gets a young person started. It's as simple as that. There's nothing new in this e.g., see the Bank of North Dakota, USA. It's all about doing what is necessary to improve a person's productiveness as quickly as possible. And interest (as distinct from a reasonable administration charge) is not necessary if the loan originates in the national bank. Of course, the small farm or business borrower would need a business plan and collateral and also have ability and intent to repay but the loan can be interest-free. Rodney Shakespeare rodney.shakespeare1@btopenworld.com86.178.52.186 (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

NPOV dispute -- the seventh specific issue -- public capital projects[edit]

Public capital projects means water, sewage, roads, bridges etc. Every day in the world 25,000 people die from the effects of dirty water. If national bank-issued interest-free loans are used (instead of interest-bearing loans) the projects can be built for one half, one third, even one quarter of the usual cost. In short, interest-free loans mean that the projects are a practical possibility (and they generally use existing technology. I fail to see why the three people ocncerned should want to deny clean water and sewage etc to the poor people of the world.

Apart from the three mentioned cesj members I know of no dissent from the explanations (issues one to seven) set out and the overall policy is being splendidly welcomed in Malaysia, Indonesia, Iran, and Bangladesh, which are organising major follow-ups of one sort or another.

And to those countries you can add Iraq -- I will not be able to do any more for the moment because I have been urgently requested to speak at a conference in Baghdad.

NB It would be helpful if Volunteer Marek would, instead of making specious blanket objections and putting up tags, specifically address the issue as to exactly where the article fails to give a factual account. And does he think that a list of conferences in the various countries, for example, would add to the article? Rodney Shakespeare rodney.shakespeare1@btopenworld.com86.178.52.186 (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek seems to be more interested in sabotage and disinformation than in progressing the debate. One does not wipe out a whole entry because one is stuck in another paradigm. Robert Bows rabows@mric.coop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.67.111.10 (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It is difficult to know where to start on the unjustified attacks on "binary economics". The attacks are unjustified and are attempts by people with a different theory to put their point of view through vandalising what is a good explanation of what binary economics is all about. Some might disagree with its applicability and whether it is a "correct theory" or not but that is not a reason for these quite unjustified objections. Wikipedia is about telling us what people are thinking - not whether anyone else thinks it is right or wrong. Binary economics is an established idea that is getting wider currency and is influential in the thinking of people around the globe. The article is a good description of binary economics and it should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cscoxk (talkcontribs) 07:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

118.96.56.245 (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)As a practitioner, a consultant with a certain Ministry of Development for the Development of Disadvantaged Regions, today, 'Binary Economics' provides another 'practical' avenue for improving the conditions of real lives in real places. Thus, while this article offers theory, policy and a few references to places that are 'experimenting' with Binary solutions, it seems to me that "Marek" is isolated from "reality" and hasn't passed from 'Theory' to 'Practice'. Leave the door open to alternatives without exploiting your isolated reality that largely leaves "our" world debased and in chaos. 118.96.56.245 (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"This remark disappeared earlier for reasons unknown and I would really like a justification for such a removal on the notes page. I am reposting now. I said, "It is hard to imagine that an article with such well-cited, verifiable sources could or would be deleted by the request of someone exclaiming obvious undocumented bias and non-neutrality. The insertion of tags on this article is obviously a malicious attempt to get the article deleted because of ideological antipathy... he plans to use the Afd process because he deems it an appropriate stealth attack against an ideology that is steadily gaining adherents and also stimulating widespread awareness of the inherent flaws in alternative and mainstream practices. To delete an entire article that can easily be confirmed through a mere clicking onto the links it cites due to the unspecified criticisms of one disgruntled individual is to ignore the apparent reality that this individual is intimidated by the growing influence of binary economics, not the neutrality of the article itself. To expand on the classic quote from Schopenhauer: first truth is ignored, then it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed, then considered self evident. Because it is impossible to ignore binary economics and impossible to ridicule it or refute any of the substantial evidence that justifies it here on this article, Volunteer Marek is making an effort to initiate an ideologically violent attack on something he fears may be becoming self evident. If he has any serious issues then he should refute the specific disagreements he has with the article. As regards the alleged dispute, the disputers are against consumer loans but, as has been very adequately pointed out in specific items one to seven above, ALL the uses of interest-free loans as set out in the article are for PRODUCTIVE loans and consumer loans are NOT involved.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmorton1978 (talkcontribs) 14:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

So why did the comment from J. Morton disappear? Was this disappearance done by Volunteer Marek? An answer from Marek, please. Rodney Shakespeare rodney.shakespeare1@btopenworld.com86.178.52.186 (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why Volunteer Marek wants to delete the whole article. This is a burgeoning field of economics and deserves a place in Wikipedia where the reality of exactly what is binary economics can be further defined. Per the experts that started it in the first place. Regards, Capt. Nemo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capt. Nemo (talkcontribs) 01:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

MAREK 1, Did you, or did you not, delete the posting from J. Morton? Somebody did and you are the most likely person, are you not? 2. You have made no attempt to provide any evidence to justify your generalised slurs. 3. I am in possession of an email from Kurland on behalf of himself, Brohawn and Greaney. They DENY having contacted Wikipedia in any way. So, presumably, it all started because YOU wanted to make generalised slurs without any evidence. 4. Kurland, Greaney and Brohawn have not challenged the seven specific interest-free loan issues because ALL of those issues are concerned with productive (and NOT consumer) loans. 5. The above points raise the issue as to whether you should withdraw the tags immediately and, if you do not, whether you should be reported to the Wikipedia administrators for acting in obvious bad faith. Rodney Shakespeare rodney.shakespeare1@btopenworld.com86.178.52.186 (talk) 12:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

To make significant changes to a text without warning and justification is an act of a tinpot dictator. Surely wikipedia does not want to encourage that type of volunteer editorship?Janosabel (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe I did, I don't know. Volunteer Marek  19:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Attention Wikipedia Editors -- please see Discussion in 15.13. Is Volunteer Marek in order?[edit]

I intend to reverse (eliminate) all the tags. By putting up the tags Volunteer Marek has made generalised slurs against the article and he has then refused to debate, let alone provide any specific details in support of his slurs. Moroeover, the three CESJ members deny initiating the tags i.e.the tags were almost certainly done on the sole initiative of Volunteer Marek. Furthermore, the three CESJ members (who are aware of this discussion) have not in anyway challenged the seven specific interest-free loan issues set out in the paragraphs above because ALL of those issues are concerned with productive (and NOT consumer) loans. In addition, Marek has refused to state whether he is, or is not, responsible for the deletion of the post from J. Morton (and Wikipedia administrators should be alerted to the fact that somebody, Marek or not, most certainly deleted the Morton email and so there are big questions as to what is going on). Marek has been given fair warning and so the tags will now be reversed (if my technical skills are capable of doing so) and I also hope that the Wikipedia administrators will take action against Volunteer Market for his actions in bad faith. 86.178.52.186 (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is basically junk, and it is mostly an advertisements for some guys' "investment books" and these "Employee Share Ownership Plans" (as distinct from Employee Ownership, which already has an article). I've noted that associate pages have been created. Additionally it's pretty clear that 1) the article is based almost exclusively on primary sources (i.e. the books it's trying to advertise), aside from a couple general references, and 2) judging by the edit history and this talk page, there's some very serious COI going on here.
Honestly, it should be deleted. Has it been proposed for AfD before? Volunteer Marek  19:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Marek, your actions are in bad faith and your ignorance is appalling. Thus you have read none of the books because none of them, none, are "investment books". Moreover, you say that associate pages have been created. If they have, so what? Wikipedia wants associated pages. But EXACTLY what pages are you referring to? Yes, the article is based on primary sources -- it's MEANT to be based on primary sources, is it not? You obviously know and understand nothing about the subject and I ask that the Wikipedia administrators take action against you for acting in obvious bad faith. Rodney Shakespeare86.178.52.186 (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No, my actions are in total good faith. No, the article is not supposed to be based on primary sources. It should use independent secondary sources. See WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. I know enough of the subject and I am capable of reading so I can tell that this article is very bad and is used in a promotional kind of way. I can also look at the edit history and see that there's some serious conflict-of-interest issues at play here and article ownership. I can also see that you, or your alternate accounts, or associated persons have a tendency to accuse anyone who wants to clean this mess up of bad faith and make threats against them - for example, see the previous discussion with User:Seraphimblade (an administrator btw) in the archives.
Please don't remove the tags until the issues outlined in them have been addressed. Volunteer Marek  23:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Marek, I continually ask you to give specific examples of your objections -- and you continually fail to do so. You say the article is a mess but completely fail to say why.86.178.52.186 (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

A person can just read the article and see it's problem, which are pretty obvious. More specifically:
Peacock language: Binary economics is partly based on belief that society has an absolute duty to ensure that all humans have good health, housing, education and an independent income, as well as a responsibility to protect the environment for its own sake. - why not just give them all a pony while you're at it too?
Same for: Proponents[8] of binary economics claim that their system contains no expropriation[disambiguation needed] of wealth, and much less redistribution will be necessary. They argue that it cannot cause inflation and is of particular importance as more of the physical contribution to production is automated.[9] and that the Binary economics paradigm[10] is particularly helpful in addressing the issue of why developing countries languish.[11] Advocates[12] contend that implementing their system will lessen national debt and encourage national unity. They believe binary economics could create a stable economy.
Same for: This is at the heart of the binary claim to create an efficiency which creates justice and vice versa.
Same for: Because of the full payout provision they argued that binary holdings would yield more than five times what is typically paid out today. In the binary economics plan, this improved payout would allow a new widespread capital ownership, and achieve individual incomes which could be possessed by anybody.
Same for: binary economics doesn't apply the principle to fiat money IF it is used for the development and spreading of productive capacity to every individual in society. - aside from the fact that the statement simply doesn't make any sense and it's antecedent is incorrect.
...
But actually it is better to simply evaluate the article contents in terms of the sentences and claims which are simply nonsensical or which are outright false. In addition to above:
The first contrast is that mainstream academic economics is primarily 'positive economics' (the analysis of 'what is') where binary economics proposes an economic system that ‘ought to be’ ('normative economics'). However, binary productiveness analysis is claimed to be a superior account of reality (‘what is’) than classical positive economics. - false, mainstream economics is both positive and normative. The "claimed" part is unsourced.
Conventional economics upholds productivity[16] - what the hell does this mean? Who's upholding what? Ditto for productivity... is not a direct analysis of physical reality
In contrast, the binary analysis of productiveness (see section below) attempts to give accurate credit to the physical contributions of both labour and capital goods to production, attempting to answer a fundamental economic question - Who or what physically creates the wealth? - the question of who or what creates the wealth is part and parcel of mainstream economics as well as economics in general going back to freakin' Aristotle.
The third contrast is that conventional economics believes that interest (as distinct from administration cost) is always necessary; - huh? What?
For newly created money, conventional economics upholds the doctrine of the time value of money - huh? What? "Time value of money" isn't even an economic "doctrine". I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean.
An assumption of general scarcity is at the heart of conventional economics. Binary economics, however, denies the assumption. Amartya Sen argued that starvation is primarily due to lack of money in the hands of the starving and not the absence of food: thus it is human attitudes, practice, and institutions which are at fault. - classic example of true premise, false conclusion, buttressed by a total non-sequitur, followed by another false conclusion. Yes scarcity is fundamental to conventional economics. Yes, Sen has argued that famines are due to distribution of income rather than low production. But Sen does not deny the importance of scarcity. And he has nothing to do with Binary economics, whatever exactly that may be.
Binary economics also rejects conventional financial savings doctrine (that there must be financial savings prior to investment) - no financial saving is necessary if money can be created out of nothing. - huh? what? I think this is some basic confusion over some basic concepts. At least the next sentence suggest that:
The theory asserts that what matters is whether the newly created money is interest-free, whether it can be repaid, whether there is effective collateral and whether it goes towards the development and spreading of various forms of productive (and the associated consuming) capacity. - what in the world does it mean for "newly created money" to be "interest-free"? Money is usually interest free. What in the world does it mean for newly created money to "be repaid"? This sentence just doesn't make sense. It's gibberish.
The contrast continues: unlike Binary economics, conventional economics is largely unconcerned that the present money supply is generally not directed at the spreading of productive capacity—broadly, productive capital is narrowly owned - huh? what? I have no idea what that means. At best it could be said that "the creation of money supply is generally not...". That would make it make sort of some sense, maybe.
Conventional economics upholds the periodic political vote.[20] Binary economics does the same but then deepens democracy[21] by insisting that productive capital and the practical everyday power its ownership gives to individuals be widely distributed as well. In binary economics freedom is only truly achieved if all individuals are able to acquire an independent economic base. - Uh, I guess this sort of has meaning, though it's weird and strange. "Conventional economics upholds the periodic political vote" - what does that mean? "Deepens democracy" - what does that mean? This is written as if someone was writing a political manifesto rather than a serious encyclopedic article.
On environmental issues, binary economics claims to have a big advantage over conventional economics because of the interest-free loans which would be available. (See Environment section below.) The appropriate (non-zero) interest rate dominates conventional economic analysis of environment policy - again, huh? I have no idea what this is supposed to mean or in what world this is true.
Dear Marek, what is driving you to produce such unhelpful criticism? For example:
Binary economics also rejects conventional financial savings doctrine (that there must be financial savings prior to investment) - no financial saving is necessary if money can be created out of nothing. --- you do not understand where this is coming from?
You do know about quantitative easing --- printing money, in plain English --- yes?. Janosabel (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I could go on. But basically every single sentence is either nonsense, or if it does make sense it is some irrelevant non-sequitur which appears to have been inserted to make all the kookery sound less kooky. Now, to be honest, I can't be sure if it is the theory itself which is kooky, or just it's presentation in this article. Either way it's not good. However, given the obvious COI problems in that this has been written by some "prominent" Binary economics advocates I suspect the former.

Seriously, I don't have that much time to point out that this is a bad article. Its badness is pretty apparent and obvious to anyone who's not an involved and dedicated fanatic though. Volunteer Marek  00:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I have better things to do with my time - even the portion of it that is uselessly allocated to Wikipedia editing - than engage in pointless discussion with crazy people. Please see the quote from Robert Solow on my user page here [4]. I don't think I can elaborate any more than that.

That quote has no relevance to this discussion and your language here does not reflect the results of an objective assessment. Some suggestions on rephrasing the offensive statements would be more constructive to the work of presenting in Wikipedia a much needed critique of, and alternative to the mainstream economic model. Janosabel (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, sure you can have your little playground here - but please realize that if this is the first encounter with "Binary Economics" that a random person has, they're gonna walk off shaking their head incredulously at the things one can find at the internets/Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek  02:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

...basically every single sentence is either nonsense, or if it does make sense it is some irrelevant non-sequitur which appears to have been inserted to make all the kookery sound less kooky.
Is this an unbiased evaluation? Sounds like someone who just plain hates the subject. Janosabel (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Some comments:

  • First: The tags all seem legit to me, and VM has given sufficient examples of the issues to warrant their retention in my view. Absent a consensus that the issues now have all been resolved, the tags need to stay. One person asserting otherwise does not a consensus make.
  • Second: While it can be frustrating to edit here, calling other editors "crazy people", no matter how warranted you may think it is to do so... is not good. Please don't repeat that, thanks.
  • Third: The section heading seems rather counter productive, can it be changed please to something more neutral? ++Lar: t/c 04:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do NOT delete my responses to Marek -- here they are again inserted into Marek text in a new section[edit]

Marek made substantial comment and I inserted responses to all of his comment but somebody -- much better at Wikipedia technique than I -- deleted them all. I am therefore forced to make my responses again as follows (with 'RAS comment' indicating the comment):--

A person can just read the article and see it's problem, which are pretty obvious. More specifically: Peacock language: Binary economics is partly based on belief that society has an absolute duty to ensure that all humans have good health, housing, education and an independent income, as well as a responsibility to protect the environment for its own sake. - why not just give them all a pony while you're at it too? RAS comment. This is an accurate factual statement of what binary economics says and addresses in its policy. Marek has no right to object to statements of fact about binary economics just because he hates its new, modern analysis and proposals.

Same for: Proponents[8] of binary economics claim that their system contains no expropriation[disambiguation needed] of wealth, and much less redistribution will be necessary. They argue that it cannot cause inflation and is of particular importance as more of the physical contribution to production is automated.[9] and that the Binary economics paradigm[10] is particularly helpful in addressing the issue of why developing countries languish.[11] Advocates[12] contend that implementing their system will lessen national debt and encourage national unity. They believe binary economics could create a stable economy. RAS comment. All this is an accurate factual statement of what binary economics says and addresses in its policy. Marek has no right to object to statements of fact about binary economics just because he hates its new, modern analysis and proposals.

Same for: This is at the heart of the binary claim to create an efficiency which creates justice and vice versa. RAS comment This is an accurate factual statement of what binary economics says and addresses in its policy. Marek has no right to object to statements of fact about binary economics just because he hates its new, modern analysis and proposals.

Same for: Because of the full payout provision they argued that binary holdings would yield more than five times what is typically paid out today. In the binary economics plan, this improved payout would allow a new widespread capital ownership, and achieve individual incomes which could be possessed by anybody. RAS comment This is an accurate factual statement of what binary economics says and addresses in its policy. Marek has no right to object to statements of fact about binary economics just because he hates its new, modern analysis and proposals.

Same for: binary economics doesn't apply the principle to fiat money IF it is used for the development and spreading of productive capacity to every individual in society. - aside from the fact that the statement simply doesn't make any sense and it's antecedent is incorrect. RAS comment. It is a fact that binary economics allows money to be created IF it is used for the development and spreading of productive capacity and is repaid eventually toi the national bank. ... But actually it is better to simply evaluate the article contents in terms of the sentences and claims which are simply nonsensical or which are outright false. In addition to above: The first contrast is that mainstream academic economics is primarily 'positive economics' (the analysis of 'what is') where binary economics proposes an economic system that ‘ought to be’ ('normative economics'). However, binary productiveness analysis is claimed to be a superior account of reality (‘what is’) than classical positive economics. - false, mainstream economics is both positive and normative. The "claimed" part is unsourced. RAS comment. The text says mainstream economics is PRIMARILY 'psoitive economics'. The claim can be sourced.

Conventional economics upholds productivity[16] - what the hell does this mean? Who's upholding what? Ditto for productivity... is not a direct analysis of physical reality. RAS comment. There is a problem if Marek does not know that conventional productivity is usually total output divided by labour input.

In contrast, the binary analysis of productiveness (see section below) attempts to give accurate credit to the physical contributions of both labour and capital goods to production, attempting to answer a fundamental economic question - Who or what physically creates the wealth? - the question of who or what creates the wealth is part and parcel of mainstream economics as well as economics in general going back to freakin' Aristotle. RAS comment. Marek has missed the significance of the word 'accurate'. Convetional economics over-emphasises the labour contribution to wealth creation whereas binary economics does not.

The third contrast is that conventional economics believes that interest (as distinct from administration cost) is always necessary; - huh? What? RAS comment. If Marek has ever borrowed money he will know that it does not usually come interest-free. Moreocver, the conventional concept of endogenous money upholds the virtues of interest-bearing money.

For newly created money, conventional economics upholds the doctrine of the time value of money - huh? What? "Time value of money" isn't even an economic "doctrine". I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean. RAS commnent. On this subject Marek should do some research e.g., look up a relevant article on Time Value of Money in Wikipedia or somewhere.

An assumption of general scarcity is at the heart of conventional economics. Binary economics, however, denies the assumption. Amartya Sen argued that starvation is primarily due to lack of money in the hands of the starving and not the absence of food: thus it is human attitudes, practice, and institutions which are at fault. - classic example of true premise, false conclusion, buttressed by a total non-sequitur, followed by another false conclusion. Yes scarcity is fundamental to conventional economics. Yes, Sen has argued that famines are due to distribution of income rather than low production. But Sen does not deny the importance of scarcity. And he has nothing to do with Binary economics, whatever exactly that may be. RAS comment. Bianry economics says that it is possible for all people to have their basic needs satisfied. Marek may not like that but it is a fact about binary economics.

Binary economics also rejects conventional financial savings doctrine (that there must be financial savings prior to investment) - no financial saving is necessary if money can be created out of nothing. - huh? what? I think this is some basic confusion over some basic concepts. At least the next sentence suggest that: The theory asserts that what matters is whether the newly created money is interest-free, whether it can be repaid, whether there is effective collateral and whether it goes towards the development and spreading of various forms of productive (and the associated consuming) capacity. - what in the world does it mean for "newly created money" to be "interest-free"? Money is usually interest free. What in the world does it mean for newly created money to "be repaid"? This sentence just doesn't make sense. It's gibberish. RAS comment. It is preposterous to assert that 'money is usually interest-free'. Everybody knows that lent money usually has interest attached. When money is lent, it has to be repaid.

The contrast continues: unlike Binary economics, conventional economics is largely unconcerned that the present money supply is generally not directed at the spreading of productive capacity—broadly, productive capital is narrowly owned - huh? what? I have no idea what that means. At best it could be said that "the creation of money supply is generally not...". That would make it make sort of some sense, maybe. RAS comment. Yes, this sentence could be re-worded.

Conventional economics upholds the periodic political vote.[20] Binary economics does the same but then deepens democracy[21] by insisting that productive capital and the practical everyday power its ownership gives to individuals be widely distributed as well. In binary economics freedom is only truly achieved if all individuals are able to acquire an independent economic base. - Uh, I guess this sort of has meaning, though it's weird and strange. "Conventional economics upholds the periodic political vote" - what does that mean? "Deepens democracy" - what does that mean? This is written as if someone was writing a political manifesto rather than a serious encyclopedic article. RAS comment. The passage is very clear. Demcoracy today is usaully conceived as being the right periodically to exercise the power of the vote. But binary economics adds to the political power the everyday economic power of having an independent income. This is another binary fact. It is not helpful when, all the time, Marek is revealing that he simply does not like binary economics.

On environmental issues, binary economics claims to have a big advantage over conventional economics because of the interest-free loans which would be available. (See Environment section below.) The appropriate (non-zero) interest rate dominates conventional economic analysis of environment policy - again, huh? I have no idea what this is supposed to mean or in what world this is true. RAS comment. I, too, do not know what the sentence means -- I did not write it.

Dear Marek, what is driving you to produce such unhelpful criticism? For example: Binary economics also rejects conventional financial savings doctrine (that there must be financial savings prior to investment) - no financial saving is necessary if money can be created out of nothing. --- you do not understand where this is coming from? You do know about quantitative easing --- printing money, in plain English --- yes?. Janosabel (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC) I could go on. But basically every single sentence is either nonsense, or if it does make sense it is some irrelevant non-sequitur which appears to have been inserted to make all the kookery sound less kooky. Now, to be honest, I can't be sure if it is the theory itself which is kooky, or just it's presentation in this article. Either way it's not good. However, given the obvious COI problems in that this has been written by some "prominent" Binary economics advocates I suspect the former. RAS comment. The article is a factual account of binary economics which has been developing over fifty years or so. Binary economics is of great importance to the modern world as evidenced by the continual stream of international conferences at which I present papers (and other binary economists have their own activities etc) In my case, from last Novemeber, it's been Malaysia, Indonesia, Indonesia again and Iraq (where the high-security car I was in was subject to an attempted hijack or killing. It was a narrow escape -- I don't just sit in front of a computer, you know.) In the months to come there are conferences in Iran, Iran again, Malaysia and Indonesia.

Seriously, I don't have that much time to point out that this is a bad article. Its badness is pretty apparent and obvious to anyone who's not an involved and dedicated fanatic though. Volunteer Marek 00:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC) RAS comment. The article is factual -- Marek simply does not like a factual account of a new economics analysis and set of associated proposals.

Honestly I have better things to do with my time - even the portion of it that is uselessly allocated to Wikipedia editing - than engage in pointless discussion with crazy people. Please see the quote from Robert Solow on my user page here [4]. I don't think I can elaborate any more than that. RAS comment. So I'm crazy, am I? Please refrain from childish abuse. And how do you explain all those conference invitations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.46.80 (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Various problems[edit]

Unfortunately this page seems to be burdened with quite a lot of synthesis, original research, and POV. It needs to be trimmed. With an axe. bobrayner (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Can the article be fixed, or should it go to AfD? bobrayner (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
This article is worse than most of the "heterodox economics" articles, which is a mean accomplishment. It should be deleted. Let somebody try to develop a suitable article in a sandbox before inflicting it on the public. It should be deleted.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 01:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

With some exceptions -- e.g. sombody has deleted the fact that the Kelsos, in a full chapter, proposed the use of interest-free loans for private housing -- the article sets out the facts about binary economics. And that is the purpose of a Wikipedia article about binary economics which has been developing for fifty years. It appears that some people attack an article because it contains facts that they do not like. 86.177.217.59 (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

A bit of context[edit]

I've been tempted over several years to see what I can do with this page, but I've demurred for various reasons. I just wanted to give a bit of background, speaking as both an admirer of Louis Kelso's ideas and as a trained economist who can at times detect where his eloquence kisses crankiness. Kelso came up with the Employee Stock Ownership Plan, a worker ownership structure put into US employee benefits law (in significantly modified form) by Senator Russell Long. In practice he was much more of a political economist than an economist in the modern sense, focusing more on social dynamics surrounding economic processes than their detailed mechanics; his book the Capitalist Manifesto is a pretty decent read as such things go.

My basic summary of Kelso's economic ideas is that they combine two core ideas: first, that capitalism as currently practiced is inherently unstable due to the tendency of capital to accumulate in the hands of the existing owners, generating increasing economic inequality which drives demands for redistribution, a trend he argues drives society towards authoritarianism; and second, that the vast majority of economic output is due to the productive contribution of capital, which he judges to transmit most if not all of the output gains due to technological progress, and that labor's share of output is not vanishingly small only due to the aforementioned redistributive policies (minimum wage, tax policy, employer mandates, etc.). His policy proposals focus on ensuring that new capital generated by investment tends to wind up in the hands of those with minimal capital holdings, typically workers of the expanding firms in his earlier proposals, and later customers, members of communities surrounding the enterprises, and other stakeholder groups. The primary mechanism for this was various forms of innovative financial (and where necessary, tax and monetary policy) structures to enable investment by these groups without substantial out-of-pocket cost. Note that you don't really need the second part of the argument above to make these policy proposals, aimed at the first part of the argument, worthwhile, they just make the numbers sound more favorable.

Unfortunately, while it pains me to say this, the more one focuses on what actual economic theory appeared in his work, the more muddled things get, with Kelso's concept of "productiveness" being as far as I can see incoherent. Basically it's an attempt to get the accounting to reflect the second point above about the dominance of capital in generation of output. Unfortunately, it just doesn't work when you turn it into an equation, which I think is a reasonable requirement when talking about the numerical relationships of inputs and output. The various parables about shovels, donkeys and elevators, when you move to mathematics, boil down to changes in production functions, and productiveness is basically an argument about how to apportion credit for changes in output due to switching technologies and associated production functions. It makes my head hurt...

Anyway, I just wanted to convey that Kelso's writings are much better than the arguments presented in this article might convey. David A Spitzley (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC) {{Multiple issues | peacock=January 2011 | POV=January 2011 | refimprove=March 2008 | original research=January 2011 | advert=January 2011 | synthesis=January 2011 }}

OK. Well I've reviewed the article, don't see the need for the tagfest or a substantive discussion in a year or more so removing tags. I mainly look to see if the lede works, at least for the current state of the body and the reworked one does. I moved a sentence that puts the term in context from background into the lede and added a clarifying one per WP standards, and moved the exposition stuff out of the lede. By no current constituency I meant other than one or two authors in last 10 years. The complaints in the tagging are largely true I think but when the material is put in context as the crackpot splitting it is, as I believe the edit performed does, then the tagging is unnecessary. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Unreadable and off topic[edit]

There are long-winded, purposeless, meaningless sentences all over this article that have little to nothing to do with the topic,

"That being the case, in an economy in which the legal tender currency consists of a private sector asset-backed paper currency issued or authorized by the central bank and the currency is not convertible into specie, a fractional reserve requirement artificially limits the amount of bills a commercial bank can accept, and thus the rate of capital growth in the economy.[75] By rediscounting all qualified acceptances at the central bank, a commercial bank can have 100% reserves of legal tender currency or the equivalent in central bank demand deposits, and thus be able to meet immediately any conceivable demand put on its liquidity.[76]"

Wikipediocracy is currently debating whether this is the worst of the worse of Wikipedia. I'm going to bet on it. -98.191.188.114 (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted to an earlier, leaner revision. However, the problem will come back sooner or later. bobrayner (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Justification for Reposting and Response[edit]

We have “undone” Mr. Bobrayner’s unilateral and arbitrary deletion of all of the material we added. Our additions were intended to correct the flaws noted by previous editors — including spelling and grammar corrections. (“Justicesoldier” is a screen name used by a group of scholars in binary economics.) We have also added further new material to complete the revision process that Mr. Bobrayner interrupted.

To begin, we need to make clear that the “earlier, leaner revision” to which Mr. Bobrayner reverted, was one to which we had no input whatsoever. In common with other Wikipedia editors and a number of binary economists, we agreed that there were serious flaws in it.

It is therefore baffling to us why Mr. Bobrayner rejected out-of-hand everything we added to correct the noted flaws — down to the spelling and grammar corrections! — and reverted to a version that, in our opinion, distorts and misrepresents the principles and applications of binary economics. His action suggests that he truly sees no difference between the two versions. This seems unlikely, in view of the months of research that went into the additions by persons with years of experience in binary economics.

That, or Mr. Bobrayner believes it would be easier — and more to his benefit — for the “Wikipediocracy” to judge binary economics based on a distorted and confusing article than one supported with verifiable third party sources and publications. This would be putting the worst foot forward, so to speak, in an effort to present binary economics in the worst possible light and prejudice others who would otherwise have taken the time to review the presentation and cited support without any interference due to Mr. Bobrayner’s evident bias.

Thus, we (a team of binary economists, including an attorney, a CPA, an editor, and authors of articles on economics and finance that have appeared in the Encyclopedia of Catholic Social Thought, Social Science, and Social Policy (2007), The Great Depression and the New Deal: A Thematic Encyclopedia (2009), the upcoming Encyclopedia of Politics in the American West, The Journal of Socio-Economics (2001) and The Journal of Employee Ownership Law and Finance (1998)), have restored the material he deleted. We have also added the material that was scheduled for this week before we discovered what Mr. Bobrayner had done and took the time to prepare this response.

As far as we can tell, his action appears to have been based on a reaction to binary economics itself. It is not supported by evidence, argument, or refutation of the cited sources, most of which are recognized authorities in the field of economics and finance, and some of which (e.g., Adam Smith, Henry Thornton, Jean-Baptiste Say) are considered economic classics.

The absence of specifics combined with Mr. Bobrayner’s use of vague, negative, and emotionally charged language in support of his action argues that his intent is more to discredit binary economics than to make an objective assessment of the material and its presentation. The sole example he gives of a “long-winded, purposeless, meaningless sentence” that has “little to nothing [sic] to do with the topic” is a conclusion taken out of context.

Admittedly, the material in the sole selected passage is highly technical. It involves the role of discounting and rediscounting private sector bills of exchange versus open market operations in government bills of credit in commercial and central banking theory, and how both fit into the practice of fractional reserve banking in contrast to a 100% reserve requirement. This is not cocktail party conversation or Sunday supplement material. Nevertheless, the passage should be clear to anyone reading the paragraphs leading up to it. It was a response to certain beliefs about money, credit, and banking in general, and fractional reserve banking in particular, held by some binary economists.

It does require, however, that the reader realize — as was clearly stated several times, both in the reversion and in the added material — that binary economics is based, at least in part, on what binary economists argue are serious flaws in fundamental assumptions of all modern schools of economics (i.e., socialist, Keynesian, Monetarist/Chicago, Austrian schools), or the total failure of other schools of economics to offer scholarly refutation of the logic or fundamental principles offered by binary economists. It was, in fact, the lack of scholarly analysis by Mr. Bobrayner, or some unsuspected streak of negativity to unfamiliar ideas, that may have excited something of a crusading spirit in Mr. Bobrayner.

For example, as explained in our revisions, binary economics employs the "banking principle" embodied in Say's Law of Markets as applied in the real bills doctrine. It also defines “money” as anything that can be accepted in settlement of a debt. Conventional economic theory is based on the assumption that "money" consists of currency or currency substitutes alone. This is known as the "currency principle." This makes it difficult for someone analyzing binary economics from a currency principle perspective to understand an analysis from a banking principle perspective. Critics of binary economics cannot fairly judge the subject based on their own principles, rather than the principles of binary economics.

It was not, however, for any failure to comply with the principles of modern economic thought that Mr. Bobrayner deleted the material, at least ostensibly. Instead, he claims that the article (still in the process of revision) was, again, “long-winded, purposeless, [and] meaningless,” labeling it “the worst of the worse [sic].”

“Long-winded” is a matter of subjective opinion, not objective fact. We cannot, therefore, refute it. “Purposeless” is simply incorrect. The purpose is to explain binary economics. That is self-evident. Whether the article actually fulfills its purpose is, again, a matter of opinion.

“Meaningless” is another matter. The article, both the reversion and that with the added material, contains definitions of the terms used. It cites standard references (e.g., Black’s Law Dictionary, Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations) and recognized authorities in binary economics, such as Dr. Norman Kurland and Dr. Robert H. A. Ashford. Mr. Bobrayner does not appear to have paid attention to these definitions, and seems to have disregarded the cites that expand on the material in the article in much greater depth.

The truth or falsity of binary economics as a different paradigm is therefore not the issue, especially when judged from its deviations from or differences with mainstream economic theory. The objective or proven truth of a theory like binary economics is, per the Wikipedia’s stated guidelines, not the basis for rejecting what claims to be a different paradigm. Wikipedia’s concern is whether the claims or statements can be verified from independent sources. This was done.

Mr. Bobrayner did not say he found discrepancies in the cites in the article, or flaws in our arguments based on our stated assumptions. Given our definitions and explanations in the supporting material cited, he should have specified what he believes the problem(s) to be, not make blanket and unproved assertions based on personal opinion. He should not delete everything merely because he does not want to take the time to assess the claims of binary economics fairly, and on its own terms.

To be fair, material on binary economics should be reviewed by people who can demonstrate an understanding of definitions of key terms (e.g., money, currency, property, pure credit, “past” versus “future” savings), and the basic logic and principles involved in understanding the different paradigm conceived by Kelso. We also differ from Kelso’s later writings that would extend “pure credit” to non-productive and non-self-liquidating assets like housing and education. This Mr. Bobrayner did not do. One does not, after all, ask a reviewer of murder mysteries who hates science fiction to review the publications of Baen Books, or a vegan to comment on the quality or presentation of the products in the local butcher shop.

Without objectivity, or at least an attempt at it, we run the risk of automatic rejection of unfamiliar yet possibly useful, even valuable material, and may initiate a pointless and acrimonious back-and-forth to no one’s benefit.Justicesoldier (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that the walls of unreadable text have spread from the article and now infect the talkpage too.
How odd that such a singular-sounding account-name is shared between multiple people! Shared accounts generally get blocked. Of course, sometimes lone cranks pretend to be a group in order to bolster their position. bobrayner (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Updated overall status[edit]

I am generally an advocate of binary economics, and have some questions about the "issues" status. Having little experience with Wikipedia language or processes, I apologize if I do something wrong and any help in that regard is appreciated.

1. What is the process for removing some of the issues header notifications? I realize you may say "correct them", but who reviews the page regularly to see if they are corrected? It appears this article has been gone over, corrected, and added to extensively since these issues were posted and/or disputes made. a) Citations - Surely the addition and reduction of citations that has been argued back and forth since 2008 is enough to allow this to be settled. b) Advertisement - How can an article about a THEORY be written like an advertisement (unless it is declared to be THE BEST theory)? Clearly the present article is primarily written by proponents, but who else has the desire to spend the time required to go into the necessary detail? Binary economics makes huge claims of how, if implemented, it can save the world. That is the exact nature of specific economic theories. But the language here uses a tone that acknowledges unproven status. "Binary economists contend..The “wage system,” binary economists assert...Some binary economists believe that measuring..." etc. It does not use an asserting tone of proven superiority of the theory or variations of it. c) Original Research - This article contains clear references and citations to well-known published sources. I see no original thought coming into it. Any specific examples right now? d) Puffery, etc. - Not seeing this. Anyone have specifics? e) Neutrality - I hereby reject this "issue" being applied to an untested theory. (Again, unless the superiority of it is stated as fact.) f) Synthesis - I guess being a Wikinovice I should defer this one to veterans. Maybe we could leave this issue as a compromise with the professional pessimists. Not saying they don't play a valuable role in society..

2. What is the criteria to move past “start” status in the WikiProject Economics?

Thank you in advance for your help.

DaveHamill (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)DaveHamill

Reverted to Earlier Version[edit]

The edits demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the fact that binary economics is based on the banking principle, where Keynesian, Monetarist/Chicago, and Austrian economics, as well as their offshoots, are based on the currency principle. The attempt to analyze or critique binary economics in terms of currency principle economics, while no doubt well-intentioned, is thus invalid. You cannot judge banking principle economics in terms of currency principle economics, and expect to have anything other than nonsense. It is unrealistic. A system must be judged in terms of its own principles, or not at all.

No. We're not here to present uncritical in-universe coverage of every idea, fantasy, notion, and whim. This is an encyclopædia. As soon as reliable independent sources say that your system is awesome and solves countless real-world problems, then the encyclopædia will say that. Not until then. bobrayner (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello? bobrayner (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
What is to be done about this article? It somehow manages the dual feat of being completely incoherent, yet presenting its subject matter uncritically. The text cited in the introduction - The Capitalist Manifesto - doesn't use the term "binary economics". The main chap who does seems to be a Mr Rodney Shakespeare who, lo and behold, seems to have written most of this article, written or contributed to many of the sources cited and dominated the talk page. Surely the whole thing has to be rewritten from scratch. That is going to be difficult given the almost complete absence of independent sources on the subject - something characteristic of a fringe theory, and which makes me wonder if the topic is notable. Is deletion appropriate? If not, what to do? LeContexte (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Much of it needs to be cleaned up. Would you like to help? bobrayner (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't feel I know enough about the subject, unfortunately LeContexte (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed the last revert made, and entirely agree with it. It's not great, but it's a great deal better than the long POV essay that was there previously. JusticeSoldier, do not reinsert this version again, it most certainly does not have consensus and does not serve as an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia is not for advocacy, and articles must remain neutral in tone. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request[edit]

A request made at the Third Opinion project has been removed because there has not been any recent discussion about any issues about this page. All forms of mediated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia require thorough talk page discussion about a dispute before requesting assistance. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)