User talk:Lawrencekhoo/Archive 2

Edits of Jevons paradox and Rebound Effect (conservation)

Could we discuss things? You found something unexpected in my edit, and just reverted the old versions. This is a group process. A complex systems view like mine and an economist's view are bound to have some differences, but we're trying to talk about the same physical world I think.

For example, I adjusted the definition of 'rebound effect', calling it a 'misunderstanding' of how efficiency gains effect the whole economic system. Your definition presented it as if it were an expected minor effect. The difference in tone is due to my looking at the effect of efficiency gains on the economic multiplier, and you seem to be looking at it as a diminishing echo effect. In the particular case it depends on how much of a bottleneck for other things the efficiency gain removes. The way business likes it they find efficiencies that have large bottleneck removal effects, like cutting appliance watter use letting them expand housing subdivisions and things.

It seems the main reason we are talking about the subject at all, though, is that so much reliance is being placed on increasing efficiency to reduce our impacts on the earth, and for a long list of reasons it clearly seems to normally have the opposite effect. Efficiency investments have long been highly effective in increasing productivity through technology or knowledge that increases business outputs.

It's interesting that we can't trace all aspects of the distributed effect, but we can readily see it in the whole system measures. Energy use has long grown at nearly twice the rate of increasing energy efficiency. http://www.synapse9.com/issues/EffLearn_grow.jpg Being one of the main business competitive strategies, and means of increasing output is a major reason it seems. It's been a reliable product multiplier. Will it stop doing that now? My concern is how heavily the national energy and conservation strategies rely on the long evident rebound effect happening. The implication is achieving efficiency gains so dramatic that they somehow cause the two curves to cross and diverge in the opposite directions. Do you see what I'm talking about? Please email. id-at-synapse9.com --Pfhenshaw (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, but you need some source for the arguments you are making. Remember that Wikipedia shouldn't include original research or synthesis, and all arguments presented here should have been articulated already in some other reliable source. I'm happy to see the addition to the page, if you can cite a source for your viewpoint.

On a minor note, I think that calling something a 'misunderstanding' may be too value-laden a term for Wikipedia. Best to stick to more neutral terms.

I've also just revisited the page and rearranged the presentation in a manner that perhaps addresses your problems with it. LK (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

[ph]Lawrence, I don't see any way you changed the misleading definition of the rebound effect. It still says the effect is well understood, when that is only the opinion of people not considering normal whole system growth stimulus efficiency has always provided. I found one recent link that discusses it Dec 08 Energy Efficiency as Economic Stimulus and a more definitive 1999 article that should,http://www.springerlink.com/index/V30618TNK777846U.pdf%7CIssues in modeling induced technological change in energy, environmental, and climate policy], but I don't have the $35fee. Isn't it in all economic texts too? What is less understood may be how whole systems respond to individual changes by propagating on the paths of profitability.

One defect of trying to present settled understanding of confused subjects is that it leaves out the open questions. We really should be putting the open questions in their proper place, no? Perhaps we could say, "Efficiency improvements generally stimulate economic growth and increases all resource uses as a result. It remains open to question whether there are efficiency improvements that have a net effect of conserving resources as this question is unstudied". Of course, another open question is whether the OECD plan to decouple growth from resource use is meaningful. That has major conservation rebound effect implications too. Perhaps we could fix the syntax and include a paragraph on some of these key open questions.--Pfhenshaw (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the theory behind the rebound effect itself is well-understood by economists, although there is disagreement over the size and importance of the effect. Apologies if I didn't make it clear, but I had hoped that the lead to the Rebound effect (conservation) article spells it out clearly. I have read the two papers you link to, and don't find any fundamental differences between their understanding of the rebound effect and my understanding of it.

The system effect that you talk about is actually covered in the article as it now stands, in section 2.2 Economy wide effects. It's quite well understood by economists, and was modelled by Harry Saunders in his paper on the Khazzom-Brooks Postulate.

Also, at the bottom of the lead it says: "in which case, efficiency improvements may paradoxically increase energy use", which I gather, is your point. So I don't really understand where you are coming from. Exactly what do you want the page to say in addition?

LK (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

[ph] I guess it's mainly two things, 1)the need to include the system multiplier effect of efficient technology in the basic concept, and 2)that policies to reduce externalities that stimulate growth will likely multiply them as "doing more with less" has always done.

I still think an "open questions" paragraph would be good. "Well understood" generally means that the questions are all settled and that is clearly not the case here. There are also a large 'rebound effects' in the learning curve problem of efficiencies, making them a sharply limited resource with all kinds of high impact externalities and points of vanishing returns. If policies to prevent externalities that would harm the economies won't just be 'blunted' in their positive effects (as the article now suggests) but actually multiply the negative effects, that has it's own set of major secondary rebound effects is the point.

I think I found part of the conceptual problem. In looking through my books on the history of economic thought Silk, Heilbroner & Spiegel, there's little mention of efficiency, but using technology to "do more with less" has been central to economic theory since Adam Smith. We seem to have two words, 'efficiency' & 'technology', referring to the same thing but having opposite meanings... --Pfhenshaw (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be coming from different academic backgrounds, because I'm finding it hard to understand what you are saying – you're using words differently than what I understand them to mean. What do you mean by a 'system multiplier effect'? and 'policies to reduce externalities ... actually multiply the negative effects,'?

[ph]You're perceptive, thanks for asking rather than just jumping to conclusions. I'm a general systems scientist with a diverse background in physics, design, micro-climate and wide studies in other fields with major ones in economics and paleontology and whole system energy measures. To me whatever actions result in increasing a system's rate of increase have a 'multiplier effect'. Investment sometimes does that, same with tax cuts, same with removing a technology bottleneck. I tend to think of how the physical feedbacks work more than the financial ones, maybe that's what sounds odd to you. The subject of how our way of solving one creates other problems is a large subject. It might be how saving water in arid lands to increase development creates problems the people promoting water conservation would be horrified by, but just were just not considered.

In economics, (negative) externalities are bad things that happen to other people, an unrealized cost of production, if you get rid of the negative externality, there will be nothing but good effects.

[ph]I think that is generally not true. Whether the secondary and tertiary effects decay or multiply is the question, an almost no one ever asks that question as far as I can tell. I think it's a property of our 'sufficing' as a way of making choices. We define a problem as finding something sufficient to address a symptom we noticed, and not to study the secondary effects of our solution. I do sustainability consulting and suggest people plan solutions 'over the hill', not just 'up the hill', and know where the whole effect is going by looking for what environmental reaction will reverse any direction of change.

Since I'm not sure where you're coming from, the only thing I can say is, go ahead and write up what you want to add, but make sure it's properly sourced, and that its not original research WP:OR or synthesis WP:SYN. However, do keep in mind that among economists at least, we think the theory itself is pretty much settled, and it's the size of the rebound effect that's open to debate.

[ph]I'll give that a try. With system effects the distinction between one rebound and another would seem more whether they initiate positive or negative feedbacks, and either multiply or decay as they propagate. I think the real reason conserving resources would usually have a positive feedback rebound is that the things people think to conserve are profitable to conserve too. I think that tends to be the pointer to which kinds of conservation remove bottlenecks that allow the expansion of other things and end increasing the use of the thing conserved. There was a recent study of drip irrigation to protect an aquifer in Texas stimulating development that accelerated depletion of the aquifer. Much of this is "invisible hand" detached from anyone's choices, so hard to trace. It tends to only show in whole system behaviors like the steady improvement in energy efficiency over the years corresponding to matching steady increase in energy use about twice as fast. The whole world seems to believe that efficiency automatically is going to be the kind that reduces impacts (decaying rebound), but commit to making it profitable, and industry is going to most surely pick whatever technology removes their bottlenecks to growth the best(multiplying rebound).

You make an interesting point about the use of the term efficiency. In economics, there is no such confusion. We usually mean pareto efficiency, whether or not we are getting the most we can given technology and resources. In common parlance efficiency and technology gets mixed up, and the page reflects this. I should go through it and see if I can clarify it a bit.

LK (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks --Pfhenshaw (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right about most people assuming that the carry-on effects just fade away instead of multiplying. It's a problem for any microeconomic analysis, and generally just ignored. We (economists) know it's a problem, but if we don't assume that the effects fade away instead of reinforcing, no microeconomic analysis can be done. In macroeconomics there's a less of a problem, as we are trying to model the whole system – but you can still say that we assume quite a lot to make the system tractable. However, the whole thing seems to work reasonably well, both macro and micro analysis; there are many questions that we can't answer, but the answers we do have correspond pretty well with empirical observation. Or, at least that's what we think, others may disagree.  ;-) --LK (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Explaining to policy makers (the public) a micro-economic effect that leads them to expect self-limiting reverse effects from conservation efforts, when multiplying reverse effects are rather more likely, is just the kind of "open issue" that you might mention. That's of particular interest when the purpose in people's minds is to act to avoid dangerous levels of environmental stress by improving the efficiency of everything. If it does the opposite, they'd want to do something else. That conflict seems not to be appreciated in the writing of your comments above. I'm sorry I didn't yet get to drafting the section on open issues yet, been busy, and also not sure how to frame them to fit your model. I'm a physical systems scientist, after all. Maybe you could start by explaining why the macro economic multiplier of rebound effects is inappropriate to mention here, that would give me a better sense of how to work within your construct. Regards --Pfhenshaw (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I thought the the section on "Economy wide effects: New technology creates new production possibilities in and increases economic growth." covered exactly that. The section is a bit thin right now, and it's implication should perhaps be spelled out in more detail, but IMO, that's the correct framework to use, as it's the framework currently used by energy economists. Could I get a source on what you mean by the 'macro economic multiplier of rebound effects'? How it is different from the economic growth effects already mentioned in the article? From the graph that you sent me above, I'm guessing that you mean that it has something to do with the observation that energy use and energy-efficiency have both be growing over time? If so, the correlation could be spurious, not causal, as, when a society develops its only natural that both increase over time. Can you point me to some textbooks or articles that outline your viewpoint on how greater energy-efficiency affects energy use? LK (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

what it seems to miss is pointing out the major misconception being used around the world that making industry more efficient will reduce it's impacts. If the origin of that and it's major import are not up front, then they're not being mentioned at all. I fixed the page again. Please don't step on it again. I'm trying to limit the jarring appearance common business practice and government policy do not take into account the basic macro-economic effects of their self-interest choices, but that seems to be the case, and needs to be mentioned up front.--Pfhenshaw (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Apart from grammar and style issues, I've got two fundamental problems with what you are trying to add. 1) The academic community is still debating the size of the rebound effect. It is not clear at all that increases in efficiency necessarily lead to increased use. You seem to want to emphasize that it must. 2) You contend that the theory doesn't take into account the macro rebound, and that current theory doesn't understand what is going on – such an argument is fundamentally WP:OR. We're supposed to report current theoretical and empirical findings, not our opinion that current theory is wrong.

And actually, my reading of the literature is that economists are pretty clear theoretically about what's going on, it's just unclear exactly what the size of the various effects are. Also, economists tend to believe that the rebound effect tends to greater than 100% over the long run, whereas environmentalists tend to believe that its negligible.

LK (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

And yes, I agree completely now with your thesis of what is, and has been going on there. It really is a mostly rambling diatribe that is not neutral... is unfocused and obviously in love with an extremely narrow p.o.v. that seeks to lecture and hector... and lead... rather than inform. Keep me informed if I can be of any help. It is not an article I am focused on, as to interest particularly... but I will do what I can to try to improve it. skip sievert (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection problem and new section in "wage slavery" article

The article currently has a semi-protection lock on it until March, which means that only "established users" can edit it. I apparently don't qualify, though you know from our debates and discussions, that I'm well acquainted with the article. As I think I told you, I wrote most it. I started working on it at around the end of the summer of 2007, but I didn't open an actual account until recently. Do you know what I could do to achieve the "established user" status?

Also, please see the wage slavery discussion page and tell me what you think about the proposal for a new section called "Anti-capitalist Perspectives" NeutralityForever (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You can gain established editor status by making a certain number (I don't know the number) of unreverted contributions to Wikipedia. What we as a community really want are editors that are not too wedded to a particular topic or a particular point of view; editors who are here to make a good encyclopedia, not to make sure a particular page reads in a particular way. (We distrust single purpose accounts.) Hence we appreciate most, those people who wander around contributing and fixing things in a wide variety of pages. Also, since we are a diverse group of people with strong views on many things, we must insist on strict adherence to community rules, like WP:NOR, WP:SYN, WP:NPV, WP:SOURCE, WP:SOCK and WP:POLITE. If you think you can put aside your biases (we all have them), can strictly adhere to community rules, and want to contribute to creating a good encyclopedia, not pushing a particular viewpoint or using wikipedia to promulgate the Truth! (WP:SOAP), then join the community, wander around, fix things, and pretty soon you will be an 'established editor'. LK (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your request has been granted :)))

After reviewing the evidence I concur that the user you mentioned is a sockpuppet of Karmaisking. I've blocked him. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! :-) --LK (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Neo-Capitalism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Neo-Capitalism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Capitalism. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the star! It's very much appreciated, thank you !! Professor marginalia (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

:) CRETOG8(t/c) 00:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And thanks again!

From me JQ (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!

And much more importantly, thanks for your tireless efforts. I have been less active here, partly due to fatigue with some of the more disruptive editors/socks, but mostly because busy elsewhere. But really, it is very encouraging to me to see how much things have improved and much of that is due to you.--Gregalton (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Return of agitprop truth giver

Removed original synthethis/communist/anarchy agitprop from single purpose returned editor. Possible sock puppet? Wage slavery skip sievert (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep a close eye on the article. Let me know if there's anything specific that you'd like me to do. LK (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"Let me know if there's anything specific that you'd like me to do."??? He made 2 reverts and asked you to do a 3rd. You are acting as a sockpuppet for skip. NeutralityForever (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. He did not ask me to do anything. I reverted on my own beliefs. You mistake being polite for a conspiracy against you, which I may add, is not the proper way to behave on wikipedia. LK (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, if that's true I would ask you to honestly answer my post in the wage slavery discussion explaining the 5 changes I made. I would like to hear some explanation of which ones you think constitute "synthesis". Because I've taken a 100% factual-verifiable approach. NeutralityForever (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You were the one that asked me to discuss he issues, why didn't you respond at all??? NeutralityForever (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Dude, give me some time! I've been busy over on gift economy. I've started a reply over at the discussion page of wage slavery, lets keep it there? Thanks, LK (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Save the Netbooks

Thanks. It's worth mentioning that notability is rapidly rising thanks to this scoop too. Anyway the backlash against WP:COI has been quite spectacular, and disappointing given the genuine effort that went into making the article as neutral as possible. -- samj _in^out 19:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What's up Larry?????

Do not erase critical content, CONSULT! It is of extreme importance that people making technology decisions begin to think about the wider rebound effects they are largely unaware of. A page like this devoted to the subject and seeming to an average reader to cover it, needs to make prominent mention of the largest of them. Using better technology so businesses can be more efficient, and reduce their unit impacts, is a primary cause of business growth and the multiplying rebound effects which that has always produced. There is a major conflicting interest and it needs to be mentioned. Please all, consult on how we can do this and don't just erase. --Pfhenshaw (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that not clear? I ask you to consult me on how to make this entry a credible public service. We differ on style and are interested in different questions, but that doesn't change the fact that our "client" in this case is the reader. Is that not correct?

You've got it backwards. The burden of proof is on the person who wants to add disputed material. Thus far, you have shown NO sources to back up your opinion on the subject. Further, you refuse to engage on the talk page, preferring instead to put snarky comments into the lead of the article (which is highly inappropriate). Let's keep the talk on the talk page of the article. LK (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

William Holl the Younger

Please respect the "in use" tag when you come across it. ciao Rotational (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You are misusing 'in use' tags. They are only supposed to be there for a short time signifying that someone is actually actively editing the page. They're not supposed to signify ownership, and prevent other people from editing the page. Furthermore, you're reverting to a section heading style that doesn't follow the Manual of Style. You're breaking community guidelines. Please stop. LK (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The tag does read "several hours" - and gives you the right to remove it if that period has been exceeded. For you to interpret my motives is presumptuous, and to further divine "ownership" is impertinent. My original message was extremely polite and I'm amazed at the negativity you are able to read into it. ciao Rotational (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering that all you did was to revert my edit and reinstall the 'in use' tag 12 hours later, I think I am more than justified in coming to the conclusion that I did. And it was rude and pointy of you to put an in use tag on my talk page. And then to top it off, to edit my own comments on my talk page is too much. You are being impolite. LK (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks! NJGW (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Pennyseven

User Pennyseven is, I believe, Nicolaas Smith, an editor who has been blocked many times for sockpuppeteering. He is also pushing his own book, and blog, real value accounting: see this diff. Since he and I have had disagreements in the past and I have other things to do, and more importantly, since you may have a constructive relationship with him, it would probably be more effective if you could interact with him to keep conflict of interest and other issues in mind.

And yes, Pennyseven, I am quite aware that you will read this and accuse me of an evil secret conspiracy against you. You can leave accusations on my own talkpage.--Gregalton (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. I needed a break from wikidrama for a while. After looking at the histories of Nicolaas Smith and PennySeven, I would tend to agree with you that they are the same person. However, I have no problems with a user with a checkered past coming back, as long as they have reformed and agree to play by the rules. I also agree that Constant Purchasing Power Accounting is getting a little out of control, and as it stands now, it's not exactly a credit to wikipedia. However, no one is disputing his version of the article (perhaps because it's an obscure topic), and I'm loathe to get involved in a topic I know little about, except perhaps for style issues. I'll drop PennySeven a note about the issues that you have, but frankly speaking, I'ld rather not get involved in any disputes right now. LK (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your open-minded approach. I regard that as very enlightened.

I am surprised that the Constant Purchasing Power Accounting article has not drawn any contrary edits so far. I did have a contrary opinion on the International Financial Reporting Standards article. I only wish it to read the International Accounting Standard Board´s way. That is the guarantee of being generally accepted. It will be difficult for anyone to undo what is already part of International Accounting Standards for 20 years. I am really acting as an "unofficial" IASB agent - so-to-speak - promoting IASs.

Obviously it is to my advantage that you regard it as an obscure topic :-)

PennySeven (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and I am also mostly on a wikidrama break. And in fact I am also fine if PennySeven returns and behaves, contributing constructively. I'm just going to avoid getting involved (for the most part) to avoid more wikidrama.--Gregalton (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Economic methodology

Thank you, Lawrence. Sorry about that. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I've made worse mistakes. ;-)

LK (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Minimum wage

I'd be glad to clean up the basic explanation in the article, but I don't know the current "standard" economic textbooks. 1) Could you identify two or three of them for me, and 2) One or two textbooks are referenced already. I found 'em at a small local college and quoted from 'em, but they didn't look especially "standard" to me. Do you think they're good enough to pass muster? Lou Sander (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The two most popular undergraduate-level economics textbooks right now are probably:

Economics by Paul Krugman (Nobel laureate!) & Robin Wells, and

Principles of Economics by N. Gregory Mankiw

I'm sure you can find them in the library or pick up a used copy.

best, LK (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Texas Constituition

But the part were it states "they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient" does grant the right for a revolution in case. Mayorofrosharon (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And as well as in the Texas Decleration of Independence "When, in consequence of such acts of malfeasance and abdication on the part of the government, anarchy prevails, and civil society is dissolved into its original elements. In such a crisis, the first law of nature, the right of self-preservation, the inherent and inalienable rights of the people to appeal to first principles, and take their political affairs into their own hands in extreme cases, enjoins it as a right towards themselves, and a sacred obligation to their posterity, to abolish such government, and create another in its stead, calculated to rescue them from impending dangers, and to secure their future welfare and happiness"Mayorofrosharon (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting edit in Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Looks like we made a conflicting edit (that the Wiki software didn't catch) in the Wikipedia:Verifiability. The edits took place on 00:26, 25 March 2009. I liked your "The availability of a source is not a sufficient reason..." contribution, but thought it should be moved to better spot in the article. Apparently you had the same thought. Anyway, the text now exists twice in the article. Mine version is in a new section Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_and_Justifying_Topic_Inclusion Any opinion as to which location we should go with? Fixer1234 (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Another editor reverted the text to a version before these edits, so this comment is no longer valid. BestFixer1234 (talk) 04:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Han Dynasty

Hello Lawrencekhoo. We've talked in the past (about Four Great Inventions of ancient China and Zhang Heng's article). Recently I've rewritten the main article for Han Dynasty as well as written five separate branch articles for it (i.e. Economy, History, Government, Science and Technology, and Society and Culture). I was wondering if you would have a look and comment on the talk page about further improving the article, as it is rated by Wikiproject Chinese History as a top importance article. Thank you.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Inflation RM

You previously participated in a discussion at Talk:Inflation. The article has been moved again so, if you care to clarify of reiterate your position, please participate at Talk:Inflation (financial)#Requested move: part 2. — AjaxSmack 23:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. LK (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Dan Schlund

The decision to delete the article Dan Schlund is now being reviewed. You have been sent this message because you have previously been involved in the AfD discussion(s) concerning this article. If you are interested in the review discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 3. Thank you. Esasus (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Gold Standard

Re: 04:03, April 6, 2009 Lawrencekhoo (talk | contribs) (42,655 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Zeamays; Please add context first before adding back. (TW)) (undo) What context did you have in mind? There is already plenty of material on Wikipedia about the US Constitution which can be accessed through the link I provided. You need to give a better explanation for deleting this material, which predates the next History item. --Zeamays (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You added a sentence at the beginning of the section that is unconnected and unrelated to the rest of the section. When I saw it, I asked myself, 'why is this here?' IMO, it distracts from the rest of the article, and as far as I can tell, it makes no point. LK (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I thought it was obvious and self-explanatory that the US Constitution required a gold and silver standard prior to the earliest other events in the history section. --Zeamays (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the US constitution prohibits the states from issuing money, except for gold and silver coins. It doesn't prohibit the federal government or any other entity from issuing non-gold/non-silver money. So, my reaction is, so what has this to do with the gold standard (which is the issuing of notes that are freely convertible to gold)? LK (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Requiring only gold and silver coinage was an early precursor to a later stage when paper currency was more accepted. I still think this is valuable material that sets the stage for later events. I will try to make this more apparent in my next edit. Or you could. --Zeamays (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Left-wing nationalism

As you commented on Left-wing nationalism in the past, I wish to inform you that I have listed it for deletion. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing nationalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

See what you think

But it looks to me like a bunch of new o.r. as it relates to anarcho primitivist stuff is being interjected in the Wage slavery article. skip sievert (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think its the nature of the article to attract people who are used to writing verbosely, and who don't easily recognize the distinction between summary and synthesis. I'll have a look. LK (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

They are sourcing also from Utube in a couple of places, and some other iffy sourcing,... and also taking gigantic leaps of reasoning in the presentation of their information... (my opinion). It does not appear to me that the addition is an improvement but seems more to muddy it up again with another sub set of belief system reasoning. skip sievert (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

I have 2 granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll strive to be conservative with my use and use it only to revert clearly unproductive edits that break community guidelines, never for edit warring. Regards, --LK (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Best of luck, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

ABCT

Did you check the source before this edit? Short press release by the Swedish Academy specifically notes Hayek's business cycle theory when it talks about his contribution in the field of economic theory. Also, in this edit you had removed White's source, and then you completely removed White on the basis that he is not notable and that claim is unsourced. Such editing can be viewed as extremely disingenuous. -- Vision Thing -- 19:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're biased on this issue, and your editing shows it. If you read the press release, Hayek was cited mostly for his contributions other than on business fluctuations. The section I removed made it sound as if the nobel was specifically for his work on ABCT. LK (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Points of interest

Hello L.K. - I thought you might find this interesting http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice/1 ... a friend of mine who is an Econophysics economist sent me the link to this. The article was written by Simon Johnson, a professor at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, was the chief economist at the International Monetary Fund during 2007 and 2008. skip sievert (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Reading it right now. LK (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

Request for Arbitration. Aquafanatic ^Talk 27 April 2009 (UTC)

another thanks

no problem, i always keep an eye or two on that article. i've done lots of anonymous edits on it, since i've only recently made this account. i'm sorta familiar with the chap who wrote the bulk of it (sort of his pet project, along with his youtube videos - you can find him at youtube.com/mr1001nights), and while i'm generally in agreement with him on a lot of things, the article can undeniably get very POV and synthesis heavy. and he's really bad at formatting sources, bless him. not sure if i'll ever chip in on the discussion page, since i've had really bad experiences in the past with wikidrama, but if you ever need another opinion on something, you can always ask Jibbideejibbish (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Conversation

Could you join the conversation now ongoing at the bottom of User talk:Carcharoth? Jehochman ^Talk 13:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

history of economic thought

Hello there, I wonder if you'd like to give your opinion on the way this page should look, as I've seen some of your good work on other pages. I wrote it a while ago and have been slowly adding, improving, but I am running into difficulty if you see the bottom of the talk page. Wikidea 20:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, again "LK". Your working Paul Samuelson's Economics (textbook) into the text commendably clarifies its relation to the fn. already there referencing his phenomenally influential text. (No comment necessary.) --Thomasmeeks (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) LK (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

ADHD

Hi LK. A couple of days ago you stopped in briefly at the Talk page of ADHD controversies with a wise comment. I've quoted you in a new section there, "The very first paragraph", and would appreciate more of your wisdom, if you're so inclined. Thanks, Hordaland (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Mediation for the Article Koi

Hell, my name is Drew. I saw a request for mediation at WP:MEDCABAL in which you were one of the named as one of the involved parties.
This message is not an attempt at mediation, but rather to established that the involved parties are willing to submit to mediation, and that I am the person for the job.
I am a member of WP:FISH and WP:AQF, and have submitted eight fish related articles. I believe this give me some insight into the nature of the article in question.
My question for you:Are you willing to submit to mediation, and are you willing to let me be the mediator?Drew Smith What I've done 11:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this question still active? Aquafanatic AKA Jediknight hasn't discussed the question on the talk page since the arbitration committee turned down his request for arbitration. Since the dispute is down to just one sentence in the current version, I had thought that the issue was resolved. LK (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have closed the request for mediation as the dispute has been resolved.Drew Smith What I've done 13:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Recession

I may have made a mistake, either by posting on your talk page or by identifying something as vandalism that wasn't. Apologies, if that's the case. What I seem to recall identifying as vandalism is this:

For the hip hop album by Young Jeezy, see The Recession.

which someone else reverted. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I wrote a new disambiguation page for recession, and fixed up the disambiguation hat note. LK (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

CRA

Hello Lawrencekhoo. Have you ever heard of Charles Cordonier? This was added to the CRA article without a cite, "In 1999 the Congress enacted and President Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, spearheaded by activist Charles Cordonier also known as the "Financial Services Modernization Act" Thanks! Scribner (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems dubious to me, I'm going to remove it and ask the anonymous IP that added it for a source. LK (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review

Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xeno^talk 14:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Same editor returned with same edits

As before, ignoring all consensus or page improvements ... Wage slavery - skip sievert (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Keynes

Hi there! Youre the only economist I've noticed doing anything on John Maynard Keynes these past few months, so I thought I'd let drop you a note about the rewrite Ive just done. I'm planning to spend a few hours more on it these next couple of weeks, then I was going to ask yourself and creotog if you were interested in contributing as I've looked at some of your work and would very much value your opinion. After that I'm planning to ask a few folk to help with presentation and then take it to the Featured Article review folks. PS – I realize you might be busy or just not interested, in which case I wont be offended if you just delete this message without comment. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That's great. It's good that someone is doing something with the article. I'll try and drop by once in a while, and contribute if I can. Best, LK (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Think I've got it ready in terms of content, just need to tidy up the references, external links and stuff. Please make any changes you deem fitting before I submit it for the FAC process! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It's looking good. I cleaned up the lead a bit. I think it's ready to go for a peer review. LK (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been advised to take it to Good Article first, will probably do that on Monday, let me know if you want to co-nom! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be great. I'ld love to co-nom. I'm going to put in more work into the article to justify the co-nomination. LK (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent improvements, have done the GA nom. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

123.3.175.141

I know the article (Austrian School) is a target of a determined sock, and I've been watching the article and blocking socks as needed. However I must admit that there is at best a flimsy correlation between this particular IP's edits and those of banned user Karmaisking. Keep in mind more than one person may have a varied viewpoint, and overall you must WP:AGF and not revert good faith edits. I would urge you to discuss the edits with the user rather than revert. Particularly you should talk about what you believe to be wrong and how their edits do not adhere to Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Otherwise you may open an WP:SPI, but simply reverting any edits that are not vandalism without more evidence is unlikely to be the best course of action. Thanks. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This IP reintroduced exactly essentially the same edits as an admitted sock of KiK. I felt that, and the fact that the location of the IP is consistent, was evidence enough. LK (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly my skimming may have been hasty, but they did not seem exact to me. Again, it's possible more than one person has a similar view on things. Overall this wasn't a clear cut case (for me), which is why I gave the note. It's too bad you were given a similar note after mine, but overall the consensus between the two seems to be that you should keep in mind WP:AGF and if you're convinced otherwise do a WP:SPI. Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I mis-spoke, the edits are similar, but not exact. However, given that in this edit KiK states that he knows the user, and that KiK has tried exactly this tactic (pretending to be a new user, and playing mindgames on established editors) several times before, it seems clear that 123.3.175.141 is either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet of KiK. LK (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

edit warring

I see that most of your edits to Austrian School lately have been undo/reverts of what seem like good faith, sourced content and your contributions to the article are beginning to look like edit warring and could be an abuse of the rollback function which, so far as articles go, is meant only for reverting straightforward vandalism. Rollback can also be used to revert confirmed sockpuppetry, but this is not at all clear with these edits. If you have worries that the edits you've reverted are owing to sockpuppetry on the article, please handle this through WP:RCU. As to content, the article clearly could be helped for now by input from more editors, although most sourced criticism about the topic should likely be kept in the criticism section and language which may seem strongly advocative should be closely and thoroughly sourced. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am merely enforcing community policy on banned user Karmaisking. If you think the edits should be there, feel free to add as your own. LK (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for an apology for this false accusation. LK (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Short wikibreak

Well it was a good try... :-) Hope you got at least a little rest to relieve the wikistress. While I'm here.. could you voice your thoughts on the economics sidebar template? I think we're in a 2 / 2 deadlock at the moment and could use some additional opinions. I've posted at the Economics project but haven't received any additional participation. Morphh ^(talk) 13:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think I can contribute anything meaningful to the discussion. Either version seems fine to me. LK (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Krugman and CSB

I noticed that you have joined WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Would you accept as a source on Krugman issue an article from a Croatian business paper [1]? It says: "Nobelovac Paul Krugman, koji već godinama za New York Times piše vrlo zanimljivu kolumnu prije sedam godina kritizirao je tadašnjeg predsjednika Feda Alana Greenspana zbog optimizma i nagovarao ga da tadašnju recesiju izazvanu neprimjerenim pumpanjem tehnoloških dionica riješi stvaranjem „nekretninskog balona"." Translated: "Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, who for last several years writes a very interesting column for New York Times, seven years ago criticized Alan Greenspan, at the time current Chairman of the Fed, for his optimism and advised him to solve recession caused by the crash of tech bubble by creating "housing bubble". -- Vision Thing -- 14:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Krugman denies that he was advising the creation of a housing bubble here:

[2], so I doubt this would be appropriate. (I know you were here for LK's opinion, but as I was stopping by for something else, thought I would provide the link.) Academic38 (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, CSB aims to broaden the distribution of topics that Wikipedia covers, to try and address the bias in topics introduced by the population distribution of its editors and what they are interested in. As for the question, since Krugman and Arnold Kling [3] (the person who's article first started this current furor) both state that Krugman did not advocate the creation of a housing bubble in 2002, I don't think it's appropriate to cite a Croation newspaper that is just now picking up on the internet controversy. LK (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You're clearly wrong about Krugman wanting to create a housing bubble. He was in fact ridiculing Greenspan for creating the Nasdaq bubble in the 2002 Op-Ed piece that you continually quote. Read the entire article. Scribner (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Dude, have you seen my preferred version? I too think that Krugman doesn't deserve the rap he's getting on the internets. My personal take is that Krugman thought the following in 2002: 'We need really really low interest rates right now. A small housing boom might be ok, and might even be helpful. But we have to be very very careful that it doesn't get carried away.' And, later, in 2005, 'deregulation is creating a housing bubble, and Greenspan is too blind to see that. He's really got to reign in on the banks.' But, it's hard to prove this version of events vs all the Krugman haters out there. We've got to work out a version that's acceptable to everyone. LK (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Minimum wage talk page

Could you stop by the minimum wage talk page and comment on my question there regarding the section of the article on "Basic Income"? Thanks. Academic38 (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've left a message on the talk page of Minimum wage. Hope this helps. LK (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

the socionics AFD

Re your input on the Socionics AFD: I looked through several pages of the google scholar results, and I only found a few references to socionics as personality typing, and none of those were third party. Most of the cites have to do with some AI/petri net thing. Please take another look for yourself. Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right, my bad. I'm changing my vote. LK (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

A bad faith recommendation. Didn't even try to look them up in Russian. Seems like this article needs a bit of WP:BIAS Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Economics sidebar

Hello, again, LK.

I was interested to see your Edit at Template:Economics sidebar with the Edit summary:

Fields and subfields naturally follows from general categories; shouldn't be split by techniques; also allows getting rid of the confusing double heading

Obviously moving the "Techniques" section down is the new element as to earlier discussion. Would you consider allowing me to discuss that aspect of the the Edit here on this Talk page? If the discussion ripened enough, we could always copy all or part of the discussion to the Econ sidebar Talk page as appropriate. The advantage of discussing it here is directness that dialogue allows.§ If discussion revealed areas of agreement, we wouldn't need ro burden later discussion elsewhere (if any) with details on which there was agreement. I'd look for your response here. Thanks.

§ Of course no one else would be precluded form joining us here, as well. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure feel free. I don't have very strong opinions about the drop-downs, but my basic feeling about the sidebar is that anything that makes it more compact and less confusing is good. LK (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thx. It's easier for me stare at what I'm discussing, so I've got rough copies below. On the drop-downs, that's a differnet topic. So, it won't come up here. (B) makes for a clean sidebar narrative according to their "headings", as your Edit summary indicates. Furthermore, one can argue that "Techniques" are inputs for Micro/Macro and "Fields", the outputs. So, I think I get the point of moving "Techniques" down to follow both. (If you'd agree, disagree, or wish to add more, please let me know.) Still, I believe that I can make a stronger case for moving "Techniques" back up.

If one of us can convince the other. that would be best outcome IMO, including if you change my mind. I think that WP would work even better if more editors believed the same thing. That's in the spirit of WP:NPOV. OK, I'll get off my soapbox now.

I think you're a very busy person, so please don't feel any urgency to reply quickly. And if you'd like me to limit myself to one Edit a day, or whatever, that's fine. I appreciate the opportunity to interact. I try to include as much in an Edit as I can anticipate would meet the concerns of another in the course of expressing my own concerns. Thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it, Micro, Macro, etc, are the main trunks of the 'tree' of economics, and the different fields are it's branches. And as you indicated, techniques can be interpreted as the process by which this tree of economic knowledge was developed. That's why I think Micro, Macro, etc, shouldn't be separated by 'techniques' from 'fields and sub-fields'. However, I'm open to other interpretations of the categories, and am eager to hear what your thinking is on this matter. best, LK (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am humbled by your last remark in the knowledge that we approach a big subject toward a common end.

I think I see what you're driving at with the tree analogy. I believe that it can be plausibly expanded to include Techniques. I'll number the points below for reference (if necessary).

1T. The trunk is the main stem of the tree from which the branches come.[4] Before Micro, Macro, and HOET were so named, they were around at least by 1776, I think we'd agree. They were certainly the trunk of the subject early on.

2T. The trunk grew by adding grafts (Techniques) to it from math, statistics, accounting, and experimemntal methods. That growth was part of HOET.

3T. The Techniques stimulated Econ as a subject, including Micro, Macro, and Methodology.

4T. The above linkage of Techniques to Micro, Macro, HOET, and Methodology arguably warrants the placement of Techniques in the (A) template. Conversely, placing Techniques at the bottom of the Template would obscure its relation to those subjects.

5T. The expanded trunk from Techniques arguably facilitated growth of the branches (Fields) that the trunk supports as well. So, the influence of Techniques in (A) works both up and down.

6T. The Template placement of the items in the under the Techniques link after History of Economic Thought and Methodology and before the Fields and subfields closely parallels the JEL classification codes with JEL: B, including History of Economic Thought and Methodology followed by JEL: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods, and before most of the Fields and subfields. So, (A) not only makes sense as per above but reduces the deviation from the JEL classification codes (a significant WP:VER source), compared to (B). Best, --Thomasmeeks (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Thomas, I understand your point about the historical development of the subject. And I think the JEL classification codes reflects this historical development. However, I remain unconvinced that, given the subject of economics today, techniques should logically be between Micro, Macro and the fields. I think that someone approaching the subject of econmics as it currently exists would see the fields as a logical extension of the main categories, and techniques as something apart. I don't think that's just my own personal bias, people usually regard the methods used as being different from the subject itself. However, to tell you the truth, either version A or B is fine with me. LK (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Points well taken, Lawrence. We're "reading from the same page." More agreement than personal circumstances permit me to elaborate on for now with the nuance that your remarks deserve. Let me only say that thank you does express my sentiment. Best, Thomasmeeks (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

A bit more. On the 2nd and 3rd sentences from the end of your previous Edit, if Micro & Macro followed (rather than preceded) HOET, & Methodology, that would be one thing. But that's not the case. There's already a separation of M&M from "Fields" (namely, HOET & Methodology. Even without that, I believe that in light of (2T-6T), "Techniques" in (A) warrants a place early in the sidebar, as is the case in the JEL classification codes. There is also a parallel of (A) even in Principles texts as to early discussion of reading graphs -- an elementary "technique", to go there along with possibly even a brief discussion of econometrics. I do appreciate your allowing me to make a case here for (A). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Lawrencekhoo/Archive 2

sock?

User:Skipsievert has a contribution history going back to 2007 and you're calling him a sock?. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to revert DecadesAtBernies, as should be obvious from the edit history. LK (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As you now know, you also reverted a much bigger edit by Skipsievert. Please be more careful, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

socionics AN/I discussion

you may wish to comment on the newly created administrator's noticeboard incident discussion regarding the conduct of User:Tcaudilllg and User:Rmcnew in relation to the page socionics, located here. Thanks. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Economic history of China(Pre-1911)

I'm going to submit it for GA review once I get it copyedited by several editors. Once the prose is up to standard, this will be a GA. Perhaps Economic history of Modern China could also be updated.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Lawrencekhoo! Teeninvestor deserves the bulk of the credit, though. I only wrote the (majority of the) Han Dynasty section, after all. Well, that and I added just about all of the pictures (except for one or two). I think it is ready for a GA review. It will be Teen's first! Cheers lad.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

History of economic thought aspect

I am finding your recent edit on History of economic thought to be unhelpful, and actually counter to making a good article. You removed blocks of info. in the lead apparently without knowing that the information was and is reflected in the article. I returned this slightly edited info. back in.

More recent advances in economics include the development of real business cycle theory andnew Keynesian economics which have revolutionized the field of macroeconomics. And in microeconomics, and the development of behavioral economics, experimental economics, financial analysis, game theory and Nash equilibrium, have evolved to study how human, social, cognitive and emotional factors enable better understanding of economic decisions by consumers, borrowers, and investors. Sustainability issues which involve environmental economics and ecological economics have become basic issues in economic thought. Energy economics which relates to Biophysical economics, attempts to factor in thermodynamic aspects of energy and environment.

You may or may not know about these developments. You may or may not have an interest or desire to understand more about those ideas. However, do not remove those mainstream and well know contemporary aspects of this history. Its not really fair to people interested in the subject. If you would like more information on some of these ideas here is a starting point [5], here is more information [6] and more [7]... Here is more basic history of Biophysical economics [8] and here is a paper on it also [9]. skip sievert (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you point to the exact sections where this information is extensively discussed in the body, so that it deserves a place in the lead? Claiming that it is there is not good enough. LK (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I repeat. Please do not point to a false dichotomy of how you think the article could be organized according to your personal criteria of opinion as to importance of various sourced and ref noted concepts and ideas that are well known and a part of the subject. Do not remove critical information from the article that is well known and much discussed and written about, and sourced. There is not extensive discussion of multiple things in the lead as to body with multiple things. The ideas in the lead are obviously part of the article though. The article is in a rewrite also. It is depriving others of actual information in regard to modern economic thought with the removal of information you did. I find your information removal to be a part of ax grinding for the mainstream economics of 18th. century origin and not appropriate for adequate information presentation in the here and now.

You may not like the information. You may not understand the information. You may not be interested in the information. You may be against the information... and I do not care if you are for or against it, or think it is right or wrong. But please, do not act as self appointed person that thinks they should remove the information. That is not fair to the idea of making information known in an unbiased and neutral way. Please revert your edit for those reasons... because you are not being an honest broker of information currently [10] in my opinion. This leads to credibility problems and problematic cooperation in my opinion.

Depriving others of interesting and useful information with your removal of information does not really serve the project. skip sievert (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is a collaborative project, different editors will have different opinions about what is important, and what should be in and what shouldn't be. The only thing we have to guide us are community guidelines. I'm just trying to follow the guidelines outlined in the Manual of Style, which clearly states that the lead should summarize the article. Therefore, what is in the body should be in the lead with relative weights as in the body. What isn't in the body, or is just trivially discussed, shouldn't be in the lead. Doing anything else is just going to lead to disagreements. LK (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. You are not editing cooperatively, but competitively. Instead of removing information you could have expanded it. As said the article is in a rewrite and you are cherry picking certain things that apparently you find you do not care for. skip sievert (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I can only restate the rule – the lead should reflect the body. You are accusing me of cherry picking what I don't like. However, I've only removed from the lead what was not significantly discussed in the body. If the article is in the middle of a rewrite, I would suggest you rewrite the body first before changing the lead. LK (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If... and that is a very long if, you had bothered to look at the section connected with environmental and ecological economics which leads to Energy economics, and thermoeconomic concepts also known as biophysical and bioeconomics... you could not make that argument. The rule? The most important rule is that when a rule... and you are cherry picking that one also... gets in the way of improving the project ... ignore it. skip sievert (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)