→3rr: new section |
|||
Line 350: | Line 350: | ||
Thank you for your replies. I have moved back to the talk page. [[User:Misessus|Misessus]] ([[User talk:Misessus#top|talk]]) 18:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you for your replies. I have moved back to the talk page. [[User:Misessus|Misessus]] ([[User talk:Misessus#top|talk]]) 18:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC) |
||
== 3rr == |
|||
You're now on the edge of {{WP:3rr]] at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austrian_School&curid=1030&action=history Austrian school]. You can't get what you want by edit warring, please stop now and wait for more input on the talk page. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 21:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:26, 28 July 2011
Welcome
Hello, Misessus, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}}
and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! DickClarkMises (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Advice
Hi Misessus. This is just a quick word of advice. I suggest that you don't waste too much time arguing with MainstreamEconomist. I can't say anything for certain but the fact that he has turned up out of nowhere (with no past editing history) and jumped straight into arguing with us, combined with the fact that our incumbent troll has a past history of using straw man sockpuppets to advocate views opposite from his own, makes me suspicious. I know that we disagree about a lot but I would hate to see this guy yanking your chain. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Misessus, I will leave you to the mercy of Wikipedia. :-) :-) :-)
- Daniel, I have only one view. It agrees with yours and part of Misessus. Kind of neutral, hey?
- Daniel, although I feel your are an honest broker, you wear the blinkers of what is generally accepted and you are quite paranoid and a bit naive. You should learn with time to place more trust in the good faith of mankind and not to believe everything you read on Wikipedia as always the absolute factual truth. Remember, new discoveries are being made all the time, peer reviewed and then revealed to the general public - even here on Wikipedia, although you do not realize it. You have read it many times in the article but you cannot see the difference it makes to everything in the economy.
- Daniel, not everyone is only interested in "yanking your chain" (I am not sure I even know exactly what it means) and all that jazz: some of us are actually interested in real economics and its development and will seek to take the best from every school of thought (including the Austrians) and build the future thereon. On the way we will encounter people like you too. That is generally accepted.
MainstreamEconomist (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- DanielRigal, you are the troll here, are you not? Let´s be honest.
MainstreamEconomist (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments
You wrote: Dear friend,
What in the name of all that is good and pure have you written in the preface?
Response --- That preface is copied from the cited source. Those words are not directly mine. I trusted that the source was valid -- I am repeating it here.
Check below -- I am interspersing my response within your comments see /////////
CHAPTER I
PREFACE
1. Who has the right to create money in the United States? Under the Constitution, it is the right and duty of Congress to create money. It is left entirely to Congress.
2. To whom has the Congress delegated this money creating right? To the banking system, that is, to the Federal Reserve System and to the commercial banks of the country.
3. Why is the money-creating power important? Because, by creating money, banks provide the exchange media which the economy needs to prosper and grow. Since the growth and proper functioning of the U.S. economy require increasing amounts of money over the years, those who control the amount of money exercise great power over business activity, the incomes people earn and economic strength.
4. Why was the banking system given the right to create money? The reasons are mainly historical. Still the banks do perform a service in creating money. For once the money and credit is created someone must decide whom to give the money and for what purposes. This the banks do. And bank earnings are the return for wise and proper placing of the money supply.
1. The Constitution does not allow Congress to create money./////// are you saying Patman is completely wrong? ////////The Constitution explicitely prohibits the issuance of bills of credit ///////// Please tell me exactly where that appears in the constitution ////// is a bill of credit a synonym for "money"? ////// and clearly states that the only legal tender is gold and silver. //// are legal tender and Money precisely the same thing?
2. The Federal Reserve system was founded 1913, well over a 100 years after the framing of the Constitution. To say that the Constitution authorizes Congress to create money //// " ... coin money and regulate the value thereof ...??" and that Congress has delegated that right to the Fed is completely absurd. //////// Patman did not say Congress instantly gave that right to the Federal Reserve system -- I guess they waited until 1913.
3. A growing economy does not need new money to be created. If it did, how exactly do you think the economies have grown before th existance of central banks? /// I have no idea -- did economies grow without creating new money?? -- which ones?? ????? --- Patman claims that new money is needed -- are you saying new money never has to be created //////// If the money supply remains constant and the production increases, the value of the money goes up.//// Are you saying there is never a need to create new money? I have read that theory somewhere and it made sense to me as a theory -- but I doubt that any country follows that theory //////// There is absolutely no need to create more units of money. ///// I suppose you might be right in theory -- but I do not think this has been put into practice in any major country for any length of time. Nor do I think it is practical. ////////// In fact, it is that very practice that has lead to economic downturns over and over again. ////////// Perhaps ?? ??? //////////
4. There is no history whatsoever to the supposed right to create money, given to the banks. //////// how did the Fed get the right to issue money? ////// The fractional-reserve system enables the central bank to keep up its operations. ////// I do not understand what you mean in the preceding sentence ////// I believe the fractional reserve system ( of banking) is wonderful invention that allows for virtually unlimited expansion of wealth ////// there is a lot of information on the fractional reserve system at the link I sent you /// As for the banks' profits being the return for a wise and proper placement of the money supply, just how well did the banks do during the 1920s? /////// the fact that the banks screwed up in the '20s or now /// does not negate Patman's statement -- He did not claim they would always be wise -- In fact he more or less said they were untrustworthy and that they should be replaced ///////// Or how well have they been doing now? //////// who is defending them??? -- certainly not me ///////////
Are you for real, or is this some sort of an oversized bad joke? ///// no need for sarcasm -- let's be polite??? ///// Martycarbone (talk) 08:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Misessus (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for writing
I will check my sources and make needed corrections. I am sort of new to this and can't respond off the top of my head.
Thanks again -- I always welcome well meaning criticism.
Here is my email address -- martycarbone@yahoo.com. Perhaps corresponding by email would be easier. Martycarbone (talk) 08:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Please check << http://www.howto-ville.com/moneykaboom.html >>
Inflation = Increase in the Money Supply = Increased Debt/Credit/Borrowing/Lending
Just a note of thanks for your words of encouragement. Before I get barred again, I thought I might clarify some of my minor edits on inflation. The terrific (pro-Austrian) article by Mike Hewitt (now in the refs) makes clear that the simple characterization of inflation being the printing of paper "fiat currency" (Weimar Republic-style) is now too-simplistic a notion for what is going on in credit markets today.
True fiat currency (printing pieces of debt-free paper currency) died off with silver certificates. We are left with money supply growth from borrowing. From debt. From the issuance of credit. That is, money comes from increases in M3 through new borrowing through fractional reserve banking techniques. That kind of money supply growth/inflation has different characteristics to the fiat/Weimar experience. Ironically, under this Ponzi-like system of money supply, inflation is happening (the currency is being debased), but at the same time people feel there is a "shortage" of money (the indebted fruitlessly run around trying to find the yet-to-be created money required to pay the INTEREST on the all the loans). This pro-Austrian piece is the best summation I've found on the paradoxical nature of the current debt-based system.
The pro-Austrian Mogambo Guru also does a nice job of explaining it here. I picture it like a mad treadmill, where people have to keep running faster and faster just to stay in the one spot. Inflation is a temporary relief in this system, and "welcomed", like a drug addict getting another hit - only for the machine to go faster when the interest on the new debt is due. Of course, von Mises described this crack-up boom as well as any scholar ever has. A great summation on the crack up boom is contained here.
So with this kind of bank-created debt money we can have "mad" inflation AND monetary "shortages" and widespread bankruptcies.
I know you're very familar with this, but I just wanted to provide detail to justify the slight additions to the Austrian school position.
Be well. - LetThemMintPaper (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- You are completely right, inflation today includes much more than the mere creation of new credit. The FRB-system is extremely detrimental, as it expands the injected credit many times over. I've been very pleased to see you clarify what Austrians claim is going in such detail, as my own ambition has always limited itself to the broader overview and the original definition of inflation. Even if the state has come a long way since the days of melting gold coins, the basic principle remains the same, and that is what I wanted to bring forth. I think it is fair to say that we've done a good job :)
- It is very gratifying to see the Austrian view displayed on WP, and thanks to your edits it is easy for anyone to see what view makes more sense. Winning this "battle" may prove very important, as millions of people prefer looking stuff up on WP instead of reading academic litterature. Now the readers of WP get the whole story, which they desrve, despite what the self appointed cencors think.
- Also, thank you for the external links. Some I have read, but others I haven't so I'm looking forward to remedy that.
Misessus (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, FRB expands the initial injection of Fed-created "out of nothing" fiat many times over (greatly compounding the "debasement" effect). It also has many other terribly destructive effects, including creating a "predatory-prey" economic culture (bully-banks doing nothing other than clipping coupons and collecting interest, while the indebted run around killing themselves to pay the interest on the loans), volatile hyperinflation in housing (banks always look to inflate housing as it is an "essential" need - shelter), extreme inequality (well-connected vs. indebted everyone else), consumerism, excess pollution through "over"-production, unsustainable economic development, and massive speculative bubbles (just to name a few). But once it starts, few people want it to (or can afford it to) stop, because, as von Mises recognized as far back as 1912, when it stops this causes mass bankruptcy and a searing depression. What Keynes euphemistically called the "paradox of thrift". Can you believe we haven't progressed substantially beyond von Mises' seminal work of 1912? It shows just how corrupted the incestuous economics "profession" has become. If anything, we have regressed. What other "science" can lay claim to that "achievement"?
- And just on that second-rate plagiarizer John Maynard Keynes, can you believe the moral bankruptcy of a "man" who actively looked for ways to keep the madness going ("in the end we're all dead") rather than admitting to its real causes? Unsurprisingly he was a dear, close (loving?) friend of a certain rather prominant bwanker family. Predictably and simple-mindedly (short cuts were his forte apparently), he fell back on the obvious, "easy" short-term solution of debt-sourced government spending to keep the game of musical chairs alive. Eventually this resulted in WWII. Great "solution" to the problem of bank-created depressions, non?
- Read Rothbard's devastating critique of that shallow hedonistic shadow of Silvio Gesell, and I'm sure you'd agree he was one of the most destructive "intellectuals" of the 20th century. I cannot contain my contempt for what his poorly plagiarized ideas have wrought. Not when we are looking at the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. To think these kinds of basic economic errors are still being made in the "high-tech" 21st century! Thank God I was kicked out of academia for being too "radical". I would hate to feel responsible for the mess we are now in. - LetThemMintPaper (talk) 02:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Misessus, i'm currently a first year bachelor of commerce student at Sydney university, and this semester i'm studying macroeconomics, you know keynesian theory (which has alot of "exceptions") and so on. I wanted to get a better grasp of inflation and thought i'd check out wikipedia, i've been reading the article (and subsequent talkpage/edits due to the bias dispute) for the last hour or so. I'm really fascinated, I had NO idea there was so many differnt schools of thought! (so fascinated I even signed up to wikipedia to get involved). I really want to know, what are your views on inflation targets, in terms of the Austrian school of economics, compared to main stream economics? AND importantly, how does the Austrian school take into account (for inflation) things like the rise in global food prices and oil prices? I'd like to see an alternative view (and understand it).-Guan Tai Wai (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Guan Tai Wai
- I don't know whether Misessus is still alive (Austrians tend to be targeted for "culling" by the mainstreamers if they get too numerous on WP). Before I get barred again, I'd like to add my 2 gold coins to the issue. Inflation targets are a sham, a joke, an intellectual embarrassment. First, go to Antal E. Fekete's website. Read all his articles, but pay particularly close attention to this one. It is gold on inflation targeting. He is brilliant in how he cuts down this politically convenient but absurd Friedmanite sham. He argues that inflation targeting is nothing more than an attempt by governments and banks to steal quietly. It's still theft in his eyes. In a modern economy, there should be massive DEFLATION, which is good for everyone except the bankers. Bankers cannot stand deflation and are afraid of it like a vampire is afraid of the light. The heart of their "business" is threatened by deflation. But deflation raises real wages. That is what the fight is all about. If you're interested you MUST meet Fekete in Canberra later this year. Your eyes will be opened to a whole new world. - MakTheKnife (talk) 08:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm still alive :)
Guan,
MakTheKnife may be a bit passionate, but he's right about inflation targets. You see, since mainstreamers and especially the political class (politicians and officials) define inflation as a general rise in the level of prices, their inflation targets mean they're hoping that prices won't rise more than the target percentage. Within the EU, that target was set at 2-3 %, but most countries are not able to hit that, but experince price level rises of 4-5 %, sometimes even more. The rises in price level are usually calculated with various indices, the most famous of which is the CPI (Consumer Price Index). You can read all about these ways of measuring inflation in the WP article.
Because the Austrian School maintains the original definition of the word inflation, meaning the act of increasing the amount of units of currency, the inflation targets set by the political class become meaningless. Subsequently, Austrians measure inflation by calculating the growth of the true money supply, basically meaning that if the amount of dollars in circulation in the beginning of the year was 100, and it's grown to 110 at year end, the inflation that years was 10 %. Nothing else is taken into account, as inflation to Austrians is not some mystical, inexplicable, unavoidable economic phenomenon, it is a very distinct and purposeful action taken by the central bank, the effects of which is multiplied because of the credit expansion that takes place in the fractional reserve banking system. The most damaging effect of inflation is the business cycle.
In Janurary this year, the Wall Street Journal published an article that described the price development of oil as measured in US dollars, euros and gold. It showed that during the period 2000 - 2007, the dollar price of oil soared with 350%, the euro price of oil with 200%, but the gold price of oil was almost completely unchanged. The two former currencies were and still are subject to enormous inflation during the period, especially the dollar, because it was around 2000 - 2001 that Greenspan slashed the rate from 5.5% to 1%, and the only way you can cut interest rates like that is to create massive amounts of new units of currency. Gold, however, you can't just create out of thin air, nor can you expand it like you can expand paper money. To give an example, on December 18 2007, the European Central Bank created and injected 349 billion euros, that's about half a trillion US dollars into the European banking system. In one day, with the push of a button.
Rising prices are not causes of inflation, they're the effect of it. But you have to remember that there are numerous reasons for why certain prices go up, others remain stable and some even go down. However, should there be no inflation at all, meaning that the money supply would be constant, real prices would go down meaning real wages would go up. This beacuse with increased production but stable money supply, each unit of currency becomes more valuable in relative term. If there at one point exists 10 dollars and 100 units of goods, the rate is 10 units per dollar. If the money supply remains constant and the amount of available goods increase to a 1000, the rate is now 100 units per dollar. In other words, each dollar buys more units of goods. Conversely, if the rate goes from 10 units per dollar to 1 unit per dollar, the relative value of each dollar has gone down.
There are indeed many different schools of economic thought to choose from. However, the so called mainstream schools are similar in many ways. These include all forms of keynesianism, moentarism and neoclassisim. The Austrian School on the other hand, is very much different from the mainstream schools. One of the main differences is that mainstream like to use mathematics, various models and draw their conclusions from made up scenarios that simply don't exist. In other words, they are trying to apply the methodology of the natural sciences on a social science. The problem with this is that the natural sciences are objective sciences, whereas social sciences are subjective. You can't quantify them. In economics, one of the most important factors are the subjective values of each individual in any given moment in time. You can't measure that. For instance, you can say that you value a pint of beer more than a glass of wine, but you can't say how much more (i.e. 1.23 times more). You can't measure value, like you can measure gravity, mass, velocity, time, density and so on. The Austrians don't do that. Instead, they use logical deduction to derive economic law from known axioms.
If you at any time have any questions about Austrianism or want the Austrian view on something in particular, please drop me a note like you did now. Also, I very much recommend that you browse onto www.mises.org, the website of the Mises Institute. There you'll find thousands of articles, free downloadable books and hours and hours of audio lectures and audio books.
Misessus (talk) 08:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Extremely interesting concepts (that differ quite alot from what i'm being taught at uni); I do find that economics does attempt to tame the untameable but it is necessary to understand how economies operate. As I understand inflation, and the creation of the money supply, is; as populations increase and more people are seeking to earn money and thus spend it, old currency values are too blunt to accurately measure value, so currency values are decreased so that much greater and precise 'numerical' values can be applied. Previously where a dollar may have equaled a shirt and a hamburger, now $348.50 equals a shirt, a hamburger and a pair of pants. I think the truth behind 'inflation' and currency, is the need to compensate for a person's value of things, and their own personal greed. In reality it comes down to the fact that in the past some people (lords, barons, kings etc.) held alot of Gold and valuables. Everyone wanted to hold alot of Gold and valuables; so currency developed to now allowing everyone to believe they hold alot of Gold and valuables. Thanks to that belief, (that paper and coin hold great value), man's appetite for personal gain is satiated no longer under iron fist but paper and coin.-Guan Tai Wai (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
3 revert rule
And what would be the purpose of contesting the block? Read the talk page on the inflation article, for heaven's sake. I've given hundreds if not thousands of reasons for the edits. Not to mention that people like Gregalton and his sockpuppets are doing the exact same thing, reverting everything I do. Do they get blocked? Hell no.
Thank your for revealing what WP economics project is all about. A forum in which the political views of the editors are promoted and all contesting vies cencored.
So much for the free encyclopedia.
All of you have constantly complained about the Austrian school getting "undue weight". How that is even possible is beyond me, but it is pure and simple base cencorship. You have also stated that certain views must and shall be promoted at the expense of others. What is that, but pure and simple base propaganda. Every single bit of Austrian text had been substantially sourced, much more than any mainstream passage, and still you delete it stating "unverified claims" as the reason.
Now, as this is my own page, I'll ask you to stay the hell away. It is quite enough that the likes of you corrupt important articles on WP. You will not pollute my own talk page.
It's Starting Again
Be careful from here on. It's going to get ugly. They've blocked me again. I don't see much hope for us. - $laveryWorldwideInc (talk) 04:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Do you agree with my comments on LK's page? I hope so :-) - 165.228.245.66 (talk) 05:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
September 2008
Hello Misessus. User:Lawrencekhoo has filed a complaint about your editing of Inflation at WP:AN/3RR. Though you have not reverted four times in 24 hours, it looks like you are persistently restoring a point of view that doesn't yet have consensus support on the Talk page.
The Talk page is not yet a model of consensus-building, but you might be able to help to improve it. It seems that you already have some knowledge of the subject.
Per WP:EW a revert war to get your preferred version into the article is a violation, so I'm hoping you will search for compromise with the other editors. Since you were blocked for edit warring as recently as 6 September, you do not have a lot of leeway here. Looking forward to more careful editing in the future. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Henry Hazlitt's "One lesson"
Misessus,
I read Henry Hazlitt's "One lesson" several years ago, and it is indeed an excellently written book, illuminating many salient points. I use it sometimes in the classes I teach. However, economic understanding has moved on from what was known 60 years ago.
I would like to extend an olive branch to you and explain a few things that you might not understand.
- Even the most cursory look at our edit histories will show that the many editors who do not agree with you are independent people with different interests, and are not socks. However, we are united in wanting economics articles reflect standard textbook economics.
- Economics is hard. Trying to use verbal arguments to do it, is like trying to use geometrical proofs (like Newton used) to do modern particle physics. As an example, consider the question of the pricing of a stock option, or the calculation of deadweight loss from Monopoly pricing.
- Austrian economists are largely ignored by the mainstream. You can do a BA in economics in most schools without hearing about them, and even at the graduate level, you only hear about them in History of Economics classes.
- Austrian economists are ignored not because they are censored, or despised for political reasons (Right-wing Chicago school economists receive accolades beyond their relative numbers), but rather because their arguments don't convince us. While academic economists make verbal arguments, that is just the tip of the iceberg. All the deep issues are fought over using complex algebraical models and painstaking statistical studies that are impenetrable to the layman, but which are nonetheless convincing and comprehensible to the trained economist.
- Most of the people in the econ wikiproject don't mind a bit of mention of the Austrian school, here and there. However, we believe that readers should see a treatment of economic subjects similar to what would be acceptable in a university-level text book, in line with WP:UNDUE and WP:NPV.
lk (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
LK
I'm sorry, but you're hardly the one to teach me about economics. And as far as the science goes, its all but been destroyed by the political trappings and scientifications by the mainstreamers. People like Fisher, Keynes and Samuelson have done what I fear to be irreparable damage.
I couldn't care less what editors like you, JQ, Gregalton think, its obvious you have your own agenda and have no other interest in WP's economics project than to promote your own favourites and block everyone else. If anything has become clear during the last 10 years, it is exactly that the mainstream, textbook vies must be challenged, and what better way is there than to utilize the world wide web?
Pricing has nothing to do with economics, that's entrepreurship. Mainstreamers often confuse the two. Another thing they get mixed up, is that you can't use natural science methodology on a social science. Austrians use logical deduction, which is how you must deal with social sciences, especially economics, as it is subjective, not objective. And tell me this: howcome no mainstreamer have ever been able to offer a satisfactory explantation to the same economic problems that keep recurring again and again and again? Today's credit crunch took most of the profession completely of guard. Columnists are screaming "Where are the economists!?". And they're right in doing so, because most have gone underground and disappeared, not knowing what to do. Except the Austrians, they saw this coming a long time ago. And as for time, the economic laws are equally applicable today as they were thousands of years ago. They don't change just because mainstreamers start to redefine economic terms.
Yes, the mainstreamers surely ignore the Austrians, as they ignore the incredible devastation their policies lead to. Nothing new there.
Chicago shool economists have been intimate with the political class for decades and are as mainstream as keynesianism and neoclassisism. Their view is also very state friendly, so of course they are on good terms with the powers that be. Your proclamations of painstaking statistical studies and algebraic modelling is complete nonsense. I repeat my question: howcome none of the economists who believe in that mush 1) never have seen any of the crises during the past 100 years coming (Fisher case in point) and 2) never have been able to explain why it happened?
Can you answer that?
So you can chum up with your buddies in your rediculous WP econ project as much as you want. I'm going to make sure the readers get a glimpse of real economics, not just the humbug and propaganda taught to us by the universties, echoed by the media and implemented by the state.
Misessus (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
3RR applies to User talk pages as well
Stop reverting the removal of your comments on my user talk page. If you revert again you will break WP:3RR. Also, don't leave me any more messages on my talk page. I have no interest in talking to you as you cannot conduct a civil conversation. lk (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Says the person who first equates Austrianism with witchcraft, then claims Alan Greenspan was an Austrian-sympathetic and who finally deletes a response which does nothing but points out his answers were wrong.
You really have no sense of self awareness, do you? Hardly surprising, people like you usually start to make things up in order to escape a debate they know they'll lose.
Misessus (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Austrian wars
Hello Misessus. You may have some knowledge of Austrian economics that could be helpful to some of our economics articles. I closed a recent 3RR complaint with no action except for a warning to you, but the ferocity of the views expressed in that debate by both sides suggest that this issue won't go away quietly. Note there is a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics#Input requested regarding Austrian School that might benefit from your participation. So far the discussion seems very temperate, and I've no doubt that if you were to invite compromise there on any of the outstanding issues it would be well received. Austrian economics doesn't give the final answer to everything, but it deserves balanced coverage in Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello Ed,
I browsed through the discussion you linked to and sadly I didn't see much difference from any other discussion, eithere here on WP or elsewhere. The fact is that mainstreamers, like most editors here, simply don't know anything about Austrian economics, nor are they interested in knowing. They've never given any other argument than the "fringe"-arguement, that the Austrian view gets undue weight and then thrown up a bunch of WP-rules.
The edits I've made have been thoroughly sourced and completely neutral, which is why no one has been able to give any real reson to remove them. In all honesty, I never could imagine such hostility when I started to add the Austrian view to the inflation article. Evidently, I had an utterly false understanding of WP when I signed up. I thought all contributions would be welcomed. I guess I should have known better.
Be that as it may. I will keep editing the inflation article as I have been doing up untill now. If an administrator wants to shut me down for doing so, go right ahead.
Misessus (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest caution because that kind of a statement suggests a willingness to edit-war. It's possible that you have important information that is not yet reflected in our economics articles. The best way to ensure that your information is received and accepted is to make cogent arguments on Talk pages in a temperate manner. Since you came close to a citation for edit-warring last time around, you may not have much slack if you charge back into the fray with no change in your approach. All this assumes that you have good sources to offer, which I have not yet noticed. EdJohnston (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
It has become quite clear that mainstreamers can do exactly whatever they want, whereas others cannot. The term "edit-war" applies selectively. Ban me if you like. As for the sources, I suggest you read for yourself. Most of the sources I've used are externally linked. Whatever knowledge I have is clearly not wanted on WP, as it seems to favour the propaganda of the political class.
Misessus (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Why can't you go improve an article on an Austrian economist? That would help people take you more seriously. If you just go back and edit-war on Inflation your days on Wikipedia might be numbered. (I make no brief for the current defenders of that page, I know little about its recent history). I won't 'read for myself,' it's up to people who want to add information to provide reliable sources. It's called *work*, many of our contributors are willing to do it, regardless of their economic persuasion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Just to be clear. I've stated many times over that every contribution I've made has been thoroughly sourced. You said you hadn't noticed those sources. Then, when I told you to see for yourself, you responded that you won't do that. You'll have to excuse me, but that makes me a bit confused.
- As said, looking through the list of sources on the inflation article, you'll see that well over a third of the listed sources are in support of Austrian texts. This means that the Austrian texts are, in relative terms, much more sourced than any other. And you mean to suggest I haven't done the "work many of our contributors are willing to do"? I've done much more than "most of your contributors", which you would know, had you bothered to actually look through the article.
- So I have to ask this: As an administrator, how do you justify the statement "I won't read for myself"? Isn't that what an administrator is supposed to do, especially when he time and time again makes overt threats of imminent ban?
- As for your original question. I will not allow WP to dump the Austrian School in some obsucure, hidden subcategory in no man's land. The Austrian School is the oldest continual school of economic thought and the only school that isn't entwined with politics. Its economists hold professor positions in several accreditet universities and are authors of best selling books. The Mises Institute celebrated its 25th anniversary this year and has enjoyed a steady growth, most especially the Mises University.
- There has been absolutely no basis for any of the deletions of Austrian text from the inflation article, none what so ever. Even should all my edits be left in place, the keynesian view is till front and centre. And there's another thing, if the Austrian view should be confined to articles on Austrianism, why shouldn't that princple apply to Keynesianism and monetarism as well?
Misessus (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the Madness Never Ends?
Witch hunts can go on forever. It depends on the degree of madness and strength of zealotry in one's opponents. And they are certainly not short of either. Check out my talk page.
Be well. - MakTheKnife (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the reminder. I know I forget it sometimes, but I try my best to put it there.Misessus (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello
Hello Misessus. I am a fellow Austrian School enthusiast who is interested on improving articles of this type on Wikipedia. I'm looking forward to collaborating with you in the future. Feel free to stop by my talk page to debate economics or to voice any questions you might have.-- Novus Orator 08:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
American Civil War
I do not advocate an edit war. Please be calm in this case. Cussing and reverting others will only hinder our efforts :)--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 19:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to take a look at User:White Shadows/ACW and post here anytime that you think needs to be added to it. I plan on posting this in a GAR, RFC, or even possible Arbcom case if need be.--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 21:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Blocked
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. m.o.p 02:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)- Please note that I'm disheartened to do this. Normally, I give warnings, but you've already received one before, and multiple editors tried to talk you down. I appreciate that you gave reasoning for your edits, both in edit summaries and on the talk page, but you still continued to edit-war; I'm sad to say that I have to block for that. If you have any questions, ask them here and I'll respond. My advice - take some time, think about what the others have said, and don't take this personally. Coming back with a fresh mind does wonders. Cheers, m.o.p 02:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation, but the fact is that no matter the circumstances, I'm always the one who gets blocked. No matter what I do, no matter how much I source, no matter how much I explain it on the talk page, this is always the way it ends up. It seems like its always ok to reverse my edits without any reason whatsoever, but when I undo those baseless revisions I get blocked. You say you are disheartened. Thank you for that. But how do you think I feel when I'm constantly getting overruled in favor of editors who don't have the same knowledge as I have about the subject and clearly have a personal interest of distorting the article. I'm sad to say that many of WP's articles, especially those on economics and history, have little regard for actual facts and are quite propagandist in nature. The constant blocking of informed people in favor of idealogues like BigK and others does seroius damage to WP's reputation and credibility. Maybe that is something you should be concerned about. Personally, I have no choice but to tell people to completely disregard what WP says in regards to economics and history, because I know those articles are no reflecting facts, but a certain point of view.
- I don't think coming back "with a fresh mind" will make any difference. I know that whenever I try to rectify distortions and untruths in any given articles, my revisions will be undone and if I try to protect the article I will get blocked, just like what happened this time. I think its time for WP to change its practice on this issue and actually investigate the so called edit war before acting. In my opinion, it is simply wrong to accuse someone who is trying to protect the integrity of the article for edit warring, when vandals like BigK don't give him any choice but to undo revisions several times. Misessus (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- As I said, I appreciate your attempts to reasonably discuss this. However, you still broke the 3-revert rule; even if you hadn't, you've been warned for edit-warring in the past. Even if you fully believe the information you are inserting is correct, you cannot continuously butt heads with somebody over it. It just doesn't work like that. This is why you were blocked. Sure, you sourced, and sure, you discussed, but you still went ahead and warred. This is why you're being blocked. Next time, please stick to the talk page and get an administrator if you feel that information isn't being properly presented.
- As for the other editors and their level of knowledge; I'd leave this out of the equation if I were you. Editing Wikipedia becomes a lot harder when you think you know more about something than another user.
- Finally, please don't see yourself as the 'protector' of an article. Get an administrator. Let us deal with it, we've done it before. But don't take things into your own hands. Trust me, I've investigated, but I can't offer any insight because you've disregarded multiple warnings and continued to disrupt Wikipedia.
- In closing, please think about this next time before you do anything. I'm not saying stop editing - you're obviously an intelligent individual. I'm not trying to discourage you from improving Wikipedia. I'm just trying to tell you that sometimes, you've got to consider the other party's opinions, no matter how twisted you find them. Does that sound fair? m.o.p 19:37, 7 February 2011 (UT
No, it sounds exactly like the meaningless sermons I've been given in the past. What is edit war really? Someone adds or removes something, only to have that undone by someone else. When the first person is then forced to repeat his revision, he is blocked for edit warring. The vandal who actually started everything is not touched, not even reprimanded. Why? Because the first person reached the third revision limit first, which is inevitable. And you call this a good system? Neither you or any other administrator seem to have the slightest clue what's going on, because you never investigate, you only look at statistics. "You had been warned several times". Right. No matter what it was actually about, just count on your fingers 1,2,3 and the block him. If he tries again, ban him. Don't concern yourself with what he is actually doing. And then you have the audacity to say you don't want to discourage me from editing? That instead of trying to retain at least some quality of the articles I should trust in an administrator. Well, you've shown how worthy of trust administrators are.
You can have your WP with all your supposed rules. Thank you for proving yet again that WP is nothing more than a propaganda site. Keep marginalizing everything you don't like and for goodness sake never take editors' knowledge about the subject matter into account. After all, WP is about subjective opinion, not facts. Misessus (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I never specifically mentioned you by name..but you may want to take a look ;)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--White Shadows We live in a beautiful world 21:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
This may interest you
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Austrian_School#Is_David_Gordon_on_par_with_David_Irving.3F
A question
Just saw your changes to Austrian school. Thanks -- but: why is it good to mark up for internal links when there's no article? I'm off to read WP:MOS, but so far I don't get it. Pluses: somebody might be moved to create the article; (hmmm. . .) allows you to imply that linked items are notable. Minuses: waste of time for new users; emphasizes what WP doesn't have rather than what it does have; distracts from the article. I guess it's that last point that bothers me. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hi! I'm not sure what you're referring to. If it is the update of the he list of notable Austrians, I had to remove some names to make room for the actually notable persons. It made more sense to remove those without article than those with. I checked with LvMI as well.
Misessus (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Richard Ebeling
Hello-The Richard Ebeling article could use some help. It looks like Richard Ebeling himself is the primary editor, which raises big WP:COI problems, and the number of links to his writings seems very unnecessarily large. I'd rather not get into it myself, because I wouldn't want it to seem like another mainstream-vs-Austrian conflict. Maybe you could help. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Your language on Talk:Austrian School
So, after reviewing all of that, I have to tell your, the language you are using to describe other editors simply isn't acceptable. You claim other people are making ad hominem attacks, when in fact all they are doing is explaining that you, like all authors, have to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines even when you don't like them if you want to edit here. You keep asking others to argue the points of the debate, but that's not what we do--we argue about what sources to include, or how to balance viewpoints, but we do not argue about what economic theory is or isn't correct (per WP:NOTFORUM). In this aspect, you seem to be completely misunderstanding verifiability--you seem to think it means whether or not what someone said was "verified" by what happened in the real world. In fact, though, "verifiability" on Wikipedia means "can be found in reliable sources". And finally, you must stop describing the talking of other editors as "inane whining" or calling them "bigoted". That's a pretty clear violation of our rule forbidding personal attacks.
Now, if you want to try getting other uninvolved editors through an RfC as I explained there, let me know and I'll help set that up; but I'm not going to help if you persist in attacking other editors. Let me know (you can reply here or on the article's talk page, I'm watching both). Qwyrxian (talk) 09:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well I can see there is absolutely no point in any of this. It is my language that is important, not the integrity of the article. That's irrelevant. Any sourced material in favor of the Austrian School is removed. Consensus means that two people, who have made their antipathy towards the Austrian School clear, agree to shatter the integrity of the article. Consensus according to WP policy. You can write whatever you want in the article, as long as it is critical of the Austrian School. You don't need reliable sources, you only need sources, such as someone's wife claiming that Mises had said something. This is your idea of verifiability? John Hick's WIFE?
- A Harvard and Columbia trained NYT best selling economic historian is merely OR, but John Hick's wife, that is the very epitome of reliability. CNN isn't a reliable source either, of course. What is that compared to Ursula?
- You don't need to know anything about the subject matter either, e.g. what economic prediction means when you're writing a section on economic predictions. No, as long as you have Ursula on your side, you can write whatever the hell you want and delete whatever the hell you want.
- Tell me, what is the point of even having an article on the Austrian School in the first place? Why not delete the whole damn thing. It would be better not to read the article at all than reading the shattered junk posted there now. How you can look through the talk page and not see the unbelievable bigotry towards the Austrian School is beyond me. You talk a great game of neutrality and objectivity. There has never been any trace of that in the editing of the AS article. Every objection is ignored, everything sourced is removed. Two bigots are enough for consensus. Tell me, as an admin here on WP, why do you find it favorable to deliberately shatter any credibility WP might have left on economics and history? Why do you purposefully turn it into trash? What is the reason for this? Misessus (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you read what I wrote there, I actually pointed out that perhaps the CNN reference also belongs in the article. I don't know for certain, because I haven't read it (or the other reference), nor do I know how WP:DUE applies in this case. And if you think that a particular source isn't reliable, take it to WP:RSN, as I explained, if you think you're not being heard on the article itself. And please stop using the word "bigot", because, for one, it doesn't even make sense here (you can't be "bigoted" towards a set of economic theories), and two, its a personal attack; continue to use that or other similar words and I'll block you. Finally, you keep claiming the article lacks credibility and is trash, but the way to fix it isn't to attack other users. It's to provide good, reliable sources, challenge those claims that are badly sourced, use dispute resolution as necessary, consult noticeboards, and so on. Maybe you misunderstood what adminship means--there is never a situation where an admin will (or, at least, should) come in and make rulings on content; that's not what admins do. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, apparently its the admins job to make sure the integrity of certain articles is as low as possible and block every attempt to correct, blocking every user that tries to do anything about it, and supporting every bully who thrashes the hard work of editors who tries to improve articles. This is an old story and has been seen all over internet.
- As for reliability, it is clear that anything critical of the Austrian School is reliable. Doesn't matter who said what, the mere fact that it is critical makes it reliable. The wife of someone unknown person claiming to have heard something said, that is reliable, but Ivy League trained historian Thomas Woods is just OR. How the hell can you justify that position. Please explain that. And while you're at it, how can you keep saying that the best way to improve the article is to provide good, reliable sources, when such sourced material is being continuously deleted and replaced by old wive's tales? How can you claim that when an explanation of what economic predictions actually are is deleted in favor of a clearly misguided WSJ-article? Explain.
- As for consensus, what consensus do you see on the talk page except two people agreeing to destroy the article? You keep complaining about my language. Maybe you should read the explanations for why the claims about both Mises and Schiff should be removed. I explained it quite laboriously, but just like BigK and everyone else, you skipped right over what was actually important and started lecturing me on language.
- I want you to explain to me
- 1. Why my explanations aren't valid (indeed, nobody even commented them on the talk page)
- 2. How a wife's tale can be considered reliable, when an Ivy League trained historian is not.
- 3. How a WSJ article that doesn't actually challenge the prediction made can be advanced as proof that the prediction was wrong, in light of sourced evidence that the prediction was in fact completely correct.
- 4. Why a section which is supposed to illustrate Austrian criticism of mainstream practices in fact reads like a criticism of the Austrian School.
- 5. Why the criticism of the Austrian School is not confined to the Criticisms section but is instead present throughout the whole article, so that the whole article is more aptly named "Criticisms of the Austrian School".
Answering each of the above:
- Your explanations, for the most part, are arguments about economics. Your opinion about what is or is not true, with reference to the Austrian School, is irrelevant, as far as Wikipedia is concerned.
- I'm going to go look at the sources myself. Again, though, when you find yourself in a dispute about sources, the correct next step isn't to go defaming other editors, or even to go calling in an admin, its to use the processes we have to sort this out.
- I'll look at that source as well.
- I don't know, I haven't read the article. It's too far out of my field of expertise for me to be able to give meaningful input.
- Because "criticism sections" are actually strongly discouraged per WP:NPOV. Now, yes, I admit, a lot of articles have them, but it is generally considered to be better practice, when possible, to incorporate criticism in appropriate places throughout the article. Putting it all in one place tends to give undue impact to the criticism. Now, the criticism included still needs to be not excessive (unless, the theory is in general rejected), but that's a more complex issue.
And on your last line, why should I keep helping you if you keep being insulting? Seriously, you came to my page (I don't know why, given that I've never edited the article before), and I'm trying to provide that help--part of which is telling you about policies, part of which is telling you what I'm allowed and not allowed to do as an admin, and part of which is to tell you where to go to actually get help in the way you want. If you just want to be insulting, there are hundreds of other articles I could be working on. I'm honestly and sincerely trying to help you, because I think its worthwhile to try to get things right, and I know that to do that it takes talking, analysis of sources, and good behavior. Regarding the sources, I'll reply on the article's talk page as it is appropriate that everyone be allowed to comment. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- You may note that after looking at the info, I agree that the Mises prediction does not belong (not because it's not verified--it is), but because it's undue. I don't have a subscription, so I can't look at the WSJ article; if you have one and want to forward it to me by email or copy and past it to a sandbox, let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your replies. I have moved back to the talk page. Misessus (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
3rr
You're now on the edge of {{WP:3rr]] at Austrian school. You can't get what you want by edit warring, please stop now and wait for more input on the talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)