User talk:Leobons

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Leobons, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Deal

I gave a source that proved that there is an "emerging consensus". Hayek and Rothbard don´t prove the opposite since they did not contribute to recent evaluations since the 1980s. Please quote a source that proves that there is not an "emerging consensus". --Pass3456 (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The austrian school is heterodox economics.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

^ Boettke, Peter. "Is Austrian Economics Heterodox Economics?". The Austrian Economists. Archived from the original on 28 March 2009. Retrieved 2009-02-13. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
^ Boettke, Peter J. (2003). "28A: The Austrian School of Economics 1950-2000". In Warren Samuels, Jeff E. Biddle, and John B. Davis (ed.). A Companion to the History of Economic Thought. Blackwell Publishing. pp. 446–452. ISBN 978-0-631-22573-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
^ "Heterodox economics: Marginal revolutionaries". The Economist. December 31, 2011. Retrieved February 22, 2012.
^ Caplan, Bryan. "Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist". George Mason University. Retrieved 2008-07-04. More than anything else, what prevents Austrians from getting more publications in mainstream journals is that their papers rarely use mathematics or econometrics, research tools that Austrians reject on principle...Mises and Rothbard however err when they say that economic history can only illustrate economic theory. In particular, empirical evidence is often necessary to determine whether a theoretical factor is quantitatively significant...Austrians reject econometrics on principle because economic theory is true a priori, so statistics or historical study cannot "test" theory.

Considering your point a fair statement would be: "emerging consensus in mainstream economics". Agreed? --Pass3456 (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability

Hello Leobons, since you are a newcomer I whant to point to Wikipedia:Verifiability. There are many users working on one and the same article. Therefore it is important to provide reliable verifiable sources for your edits. Please keep in mind that the quality of wikipedia depends on the used material. Another important topic is Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia should be based on scientific articles and books, not on own opinions. --Pass3456 (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of the Great Depression

I realized only after I wrote one of my edit summaries that it may have come across as sounding hostile. That was most certainly not my intent, and there's a good chance you never took it that way. I just wanted to make sure that if my revision was changed at all, it would only be partly undone. As it turned out, Pass3456 had a better solution than I did.

I hope that you are more satisfied now with that section of the article. The article no longer states dogmatically that the policies of the Herbert administration were guided by the liquidationist school of thought. I think you improved the article when you restored the statement that Hoover himself believed he had not sided with the liquidationists. By including that statement, we warn the reader not to oversimplify the events of this period. When people talk about any historical event, they very often tend to oversimplify.JDefauw (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)JDefauw[reply]

File permission problem with File:Apple--maps-google-maps-comparison.png

Thanks for uploading File:Apple--maps-google-maps-comparison.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. DHN (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't produce the picture and it was just floating around. I think anyone with an iPhone can do it, I just don't have one. It's a pretty nice comparison though, maybe if you as admin, want to produce one for the benefit of the article it would be good. Sorry for any trouble.

Orphaned non-free image File:Apple--maps-google-maps-comparison.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Apple--maps-google-maps-comparison.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Austrian_Economists:_Boettke-1] Boettke, Peter. "Is Austrian Economics Heterodox Economics?". The Austrian Economists. Archived from the original on 28 March 2009. Retrieved 2009-02-13. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

[Boettke_and_Leeson-2] Boettke, Peter J. (2003). "28A: The Austrian School of Economics 1950-2000". In Warren Samuels, Jeff E. Biddle, and John B. Davis (ed.). A Companion to the History of Economic Thought. Blackwell Publishing. pp. 446–452. ISBN 978-0-631-22573-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

[3] "Heterodox economics: Marginal revolutionaries". The Economist. December 31, 2011. Retrieved February 22, 2012.

[Caplan-4] Caplan, Bryan. "Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist". George Mason University. Retrieved 2008-07-04. More than anything else, what prevents Austrians from getting more publications in mainstream journals is that their papers rarely use mathematics or econometrics, research tools that Austrians reject on principle...Mises and Rothbard however err when they say that economic history can only illustrate economic theory. In particular, empirical evidence is often necessary to determine whether a theoretical factor is quantitatively significant...Austrians reject econometrics on principle because economic theory is true a priori, so statistics or historical study cannot "test" theory.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]