User talk:Lawrencekhoo/Archive 5

Criticism of FRB

Hah! You twinkled my edit. [1]. It looks like there's some interest in cleaning up the article, so I'll check back with it tomorrow and see what's been done. (Sadly, the basic structure seems to be retained though, so I'm guessing that the same notability and RS problems will persist.) Anyways .. cheers! BigK HeX (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I think what happened was, I started twinkle right before you pressed the submit button, so overwrote your edit. I need to be more careful and check my edits after. Regards, --LK (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(copied from request page) Note, however that you were already able to edit the article and, as an autoconfirmed user, your edits will go live immediately. See WP:PEND for details. This simply gives you the ability to accept or reject pending edits. —DoRD (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

External links

Per WP:EL, "This guideline does not apply to inline citations or general references, which should appear in the "References" or "Notes" section." So I deleted the EPI external link in the minimum wage article as it is already in the references. Too bad, it would have given perfect symmetry between supporters and opponents. Academic38 (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to reinstate the link per the section What should be linked in WP:EL where it states: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." The link gives more detail than can be easily incorporated. Also, WP:EL states that sites can be used as both external links and sources, "Exceptions (i.e. sites that can be both references and External Links) include an official site of the article's subject, or a domain specifically devoted to the article's subject which contains multiple subpages and which meets the above criteria." Regards, LK (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Herbener

Per yourtag at Jeffrey Herbener, I have nominated that article for deletion.--GrapedApe (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: German holokaust crimes against Soviet Jews

Hello Lawrencekhoo. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of German holokaust crimes against Soviet Jews, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not an attack page. Thank you. SoWhy 12:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Another Mises Inst. vanity page for deletion

There are a few other articles out there like the bio of Jeffrey_Herebener:Mises Institute vanity pages for non-notable academics with WP:PROF and WP:UNDUE problems. One more, that of Jörg Guido Hülsmann has been nominated for deletion. After having seen your constructive input in the Herebener discussion, I thought I'd post this message here.Bkalafut (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

GNU

Hi. Perhaps you are unaware that GNU will not run without some other kernel, such as Linux? An operating system, by definition, consists of a kernel plus utilities. Since GNU Hurd is not yet functional and probably never will be, GNU is either something other than an operating system, or it is not yet complete. Even Stallman will admit this if pressed. It's why he is so obesessed with calling Linux "GNU/Linux". Yworo (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if you noticed my self-revert five minutes after? I think calling GNU an 'incomplete OS' is going a bit far, but I can see your point. LK (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

GNU

Good edit. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was serious

You've removed my Talk page comments I understand you might have seen them as unserious but it was serious. Policy governs how editors behave it is important policy pages be accurate and I don't think this one is. I gave an example. I'll rewrite per your concerns with a proposed new version of the section and disclosure on my involvement. Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 05:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay I've rewritten with less, hmmm, flippancy. You seem a reasonable editor, the reason I bring this up is not to make a point but to clarify a policy that is very important in the heated topic areas where I edit. Partisan editors of every stripe frequently provoke, tag-team edit-war and drag their perceived adversaries off to the noticeboards -- therefore the right to have reports assessed by an uninvolved admin is very important. I want to make sure this is policy, otherwise let's say "guideline" or write an essay. Thanks for reading, agree my initial comment could have been better written. Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 06:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comments

Hi, you left some intriguing comments at the ANI noticeboard where you state What you describe is highly disruptive behavior that seriously degrades the quality of our articles. Can you provide diffs of this? If HighKing has indeed done this, he should be warned and/or blocked. I realize you probably haven't had the time to examine everything that has been said in detail. Take a look at WT:BISE - the "campaign" page mentioned. Also I encourage you to look closely at the contributions of LevenBoy - how many times does he revert, how many times does he engage in meaningful diaglog, how many times are his edit summaries thinly veiled ad hominen attacks, etc? Then if you still feel the same way about your comment, I'd be interested in understanding why and what I can do. --HighKing (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes_(3rd_nomination)#Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes exists.
neutral notification Collect (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A fragment of a sentence

Do you realise this happened? [2]. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. LK (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Warnings re Andrew Breitbart

In this edit you violated several policies (not just guidelines): WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:V (restoring the false claim that Breitbart edited the videos sourced to a CNN story which says no such thing) and others. Please do not do that again.

Please note that media matters is not a reliable source, and (per BLP) must never be used for negative claims about living people anywhere on Wikipedia.

Did you look at Talk:Andrew Breitbart? You'll see that I explained what I am trying to before I tried to do it. I want to keep our coverage of Ms Sherrod in the Breitbart article as brief as possible, preferably with only one indirect negative claim (like this). Given this, the Resignation of Shirley Sherrod article is not going to be deleted (though it should be renamed); that's where we can go into details, giving the full context and fully reporting her side. (In the Breitbart article, chronological order seems the best approach. In the Sherrod article, we can say that she was 'exonerated' before saying what she was accused of. You get a sandwich structure: (1) she was 'exonerated' of X, (2) what she was accused of (3) how she was 'exonerated'.)

Best wishes, CWC 14:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the page, it's apparent that you have been consistently removing cited negative information from that article. Remember that Wikipedia is not censored. The edit I reverted removed information from several reliable sources, not just media matters. Additionally, as has been discussed on WP:RS/N several times, e.g. [3][4] media matters may be a partisan organization, but it is still a reliable source, and can be cited the same way as other partisan sources, like Fox News, or Paul Krugman. LK (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As to MMfA, it is not a RS just because it was determined to be a RS in certain cases. The RS rule requires a look at the use of a ref in context. So, you have to look at the particular MMfA ref, view it in context, then apply the RS rule. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This is true for all sources. The point is MMfA is to be treated as any other news organization. LK (talk) 06:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars

greetings: my apologies for applying a template to your page. i was unaware of that, so thank you for bringing it to my attention. Badmachine (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I was kinda hoping for a 'I was wrong about the sourcing, you didn't vandalize the page' kinda apology. But I kinda owe you one too for the tone of my message. :-/ LK (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

greetings: indeed, you did not vandalize the page. two credible citations said different things,and i didnt even see the one that quoted the subject herself. i missed the cite, and templated your page. my apologies for both. Badmachine (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

also, this. Badmachine (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

unwatching now. thanks for helping with the sherrod page. Badmachine (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Science Fiction

Do you really think that "usually set in the future" is contentious? The weasel word "usually" means it only has to be over 50%. I can't see non-future SF coming any-where near 50%. Of course, if You want to say that it is unsourced, I'll buy that. Kdammers (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's contentious in that people are arguing on the talk page to remove it. I thought I'ld show good faith and remove my edit since feelings seem to run high on this issue. LK (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Jevons paradox review

I've requested a review here. Hopefully this will give us some ideas for the article. If not, course, that's a good sign for the A-listing...

Wikipedia:Peer review/Jevons paradox/archive1

CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable or not: Robert K. G. Temple on Chinese and world history

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion on Temple's reliability here. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Reduction of Austrian School section

Please stop reducing and supporting reuction of the AS section on the inflation article. There are absolutely no grounds for it. In addition, it is clear from both your comments and comments from other editors that the marginalization is driven by personal reasons. You are breaking the very rules you always tell others to follow. Stop it. Misessus (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what personal animosity you are referring to. My main goal in editing Wikipedia is spelled out clearly on my main user page: "When editing, I like improving presentation and clarity, and making sure that pages are balanced and adequately represent mainstream academic thought." This statement has been on my user page from the start, and remains my overriding motivation. You can expect me to keep on editing Wikipedia to make it look more like a standard respected reference work (like the Encyclopedia Britannica), and I make no apologies for that. Note that Britannica's article on inflation is even longer than ours, and makes no mention of the Austrian school. LK (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I am referring to your constant reductions of the AS section without ever giving any grounds for it. I am referring to your citation of Wiki-rules, even though you yourself break them all the time. The AS is clearly one of the most prominent schools today and its popularity is on the rise. You have absolutely no objective or Wiki-rules related reason to do what you do, so there is a clear personal animosity here. Where it stems from, I do not know, nor do I care to know. What you state as your personal motivations in your editing is also quite irrelevant, not to mention you are in no way qualified or competent to make that sort of a judgement. What Encyclopedia Britannica says is, like your personal motivations, also irrelevant. You don't have to apologize for your motivations, you just have to stop letting your personal vendettas interfere with your editing of Wiki-articles. Do you think you can do that?

Misessus (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken. If you will have a look at my history, you will see that I, personally, have not reduced any AS section contents. What I have done is to note that you have a severe conflict of interest, and to advise you to read WP:COI, which strongly discourages conflict of interest editing. When you continued to revert to your preferred version on topics that you have an obvious conflict of interest on, I have reverted your edits. LK (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Also note that accusations like "you yourself break them all the time", are personal attacks and are considered impolite, breaking one of the basic tenets of Wikipedia, No Personal Attacks. If you are going to throw around accusations like that, kindly back them up with examples and diffs, otherwise withdraw them and apologize. LK (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Technical Problem

Hi, I can't fix this template: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Template:History_of_Turkey_sidebar I want under the Mongols phrase to go to same line as 1243–1335. It's at the center of left column now, I want "under the Mongols" and "1243–1335" go to top line and Anatolian beyliks table to go to just below this line. There are many small states, I want a option to hide them, that's why I added "collapsible" to this template but I could not fix it. Can you fix it? Kavas (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you've fixed your problem. I went to have a look and I've fixed the template up a bit more, let me know if you need anything else done. LK (talk) 04:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a message for you at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Kavas#Template:History_of_Turkey_sidebar Kavas (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The sidebars (Template:History of China‎) in two versions have the same size exactly

Hi, did you know that they have the same size when you edited Template:History of China with the comment "Reverted good faith edits by 배우는사람; Unnecesary, expands an already overlarge sidebar." I measured the width of the template in these two versions using a screen capture tool and found that both have the same 208 pixels in width.--배우는사람 (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Do keep in mind that people use a multitude of browsers, and have different default fonts and different default font sizes. When I do a major template edit, I usually check the results in 3 different browsers on two different computers with different default font sizes. Your edit makes the template larger in many situations. LK (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. That's good. I understand. Thank you for this.--배우는사람 (talk) 07:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I still do want to thank you for the time and effort you took on the edit. I realize how difficult it is to see your efforts reverted by someone else, and hope this does not stop you from contributing to Wikipedia. Best, LK (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Goldilocks economy

I removed the prod tag you placed on Goldilocks economy, as an editor explicitly objected to deletion on the talk page. Please open an AfD if you still believe the article should be deleted. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sogflation

Ditto the above for Sogflation. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing the vulgar comment on my talk page. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I was more than happy to do so. Such attacks are one of the costs of being a good administrator. LK (talk) 04:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Cute rap video on economics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk "Fear the Boom and Bust" a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem
If you have not seen it, you might enjoy this funny rap video about Keynes and Hayek. (Although it does not present a coherent argument.) JRSpriggs (talk) 10:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, saw it last year. Informative, but, makes it appears as if macro economists are divided between Keynesian and Austrian views, whereas, the more accurate description of the debate would be as between Old-Style-Keynesian vs New-Keynesian vs Real Business Cycle, or, if you want to bring in Austrians, between Austrians and 99.9% of the economics profession. LK (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I take it that you are a neo-Keynesian. What are the pros and cons of real business cycle theory (which I never heard of previously (at least by that name)) in your view? JRSpriggs (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I study education and development economics. When it comes to macroeconomics, I think the textbooks have it about right, Growth theory, NAIRU, AD-AS, IS-LM, and the more basic New Keynesian stuff (from the 1990's or so). (The terminology is confusing but 'neo-Keynesian' = old-style Keynesians.) I try to keep up with the new macro stuff, but am dismayed by the recent (last 10 years or so) tendency to want to incorporate more and more RBC type modeling into macroeconomics. The recent fascination with theoretical DSGE models is, I think, not very fruitful.

As to what Real business cycle theory is, it is a class of theories that try to derive the standard macroeconomic results (stylized facts), using Walrasian general equilibrium models, or in modern terminology DSGE models. Imagine that the economy is filled with infinitely lived, perfectly rational economic agents, and that all markets are perfect (full information, perfectly competitive, no government regulation, no price stickiness). Now, try to explain in such a world, why:

• Production, consumption, investment, interest rates, inflation, profits and wages are positively correlated with each other.
• Unemployment is negatively correlated with the above.
• Monetary policy appears to have a real effect on the real economy, e.g. loose money increases production and decreases unemployment.
• There are multi-year periods when production is below trend. (e.g. Great Recession)

To make a long story short, RBC models use 'technological shocks' and institutional factors to try to make their models generate data that 'looks like the real world'. IMO, RBC fails, but the models are mathematically impressive, and so get published. Also, many (perhaps most) RBC papers as of the type "see, I assumed perfect markets, and can still explain the 'real world', so we don't need no steenkin market imperfections". Even some 'New Keynesians' now seem to be engaged in this activity as well. These types of papers generate no policy implications, nor any real understanding of what is going on in the world. This is a serious problem, as it means that a large part of the profession is engaged in what is (IMO) a non-productive enterprise.

LK (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As sort of a TPS comment, LK is largely correct. The basic idea behind RBC macro is compelling: it would be really nice (from a predictive and policy stance) to be able to exploit technological shocks and institutional differences in order to explain changes in the economy. But in practice a lot of the high theory RBC stuff has swallowed its own tail. When you ask a doctrinaire RBC guy about the last recession you either get craziness (scroll down to the bit about Ed Prescott) or nonsensical assertions about a negative technological shock precipitating the crisis by causing agents to believe labor would be less productive. Protonk (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What's a TPS comment? Also, thanks for the link to the Prescott story about the recession, ROFL . LK (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers!

Short for "talk page stalker". Protonk (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I am honored. LK (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the information on RBC. JRSpriggs (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (lib)

Your efforts at Libertarianism are appreciated. BigK HeX (talk) 09:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

A comprehensive analysis of the RfC. Your efforts at moving the article forward are timely and immensely appreciated. BigK HeX (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, the RFC conclusion is very good. Thanks. N6n (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

i wish you would move my comment back

it appears out of context in the current position. you are correct i am in the narrow camp, but i had a whole different rant to fill up space there. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm moving BigK HeX's comment down, as I feel strongly that comments and discussions should be kept separate from the question itself. However, you are more than free to add a whole new rant to the discussion section below. LK (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

then you may have formatted the entire section incorrectly. despite your feelings, moving comments is a violation, i'll let it slide this time, but several others misunderstood my word "neither" as a response to broad or narrow, when actually it was a response to the words you wrote below the section header, "should this page discuss only right-libertarianism, or should it also include other conceptions of libertarianism such as left-libertarianism?" i do think you section was a big help, cheers! Darkstar1st (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case you should have edited you comments to clarify. I note that neither of the other two people who's comments I moved down to appropriate sections have complained, although it made their comments look more out place than yours. LK (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Should this page discuss only right-libertarianism, or should it also include other conceptions of libertarianism such as left-libertarianism? LK (talk) 07:51, 27 Aug

neither, it should focus on the most widely understood definition of libertarianism which is neither left nor right" clarify what? my comment was not directed toward narrow or broad, rather left or right. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

DS, I'm not sure what you're trying to do here, but you probably want to edit the above. LK (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

i am trying to get you to stop moving my comment. edit the above why? Darkstar1st (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

1. The above is improperly formatted, and it is improper to copy other's signatures to different pages, as it gives the wrong impression that I actually wrote the comment above. 2. I am not moving your comment, but merely moving back all the comments I had moved to their appropriate sections. If you insist on adding your comment directly below the question, it would be improper of me to only remove comments from the others. LK (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

you should never move comments. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That is not true, to well-order a discussion, comments may sometimes need to be moved to their proper sub-sections, or headings added. See WP:REFACTOR. LK (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Partisan sources

I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring report

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Darkstar1st_reported_by_User:Lawrencekhoo_.28Result:_declined.29, as comments within it relate to you. --slakr^\ talk / 12:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

lets bury the hatchet, you seem like a smart guy with much to offer wp, the broad section is a good example. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Jevons' paradox

Congrats! Jevons paradox --CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh! I didn't even know we had gotten reviewed. (Apparently, those reviews don't appear on the watchlist if you watchlist the article) I must go thank User:Malleus Fatuorum for fixing stuff and the GA listing. LK (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism RFC

This issue has been debated for years on this talk page, finally there is an active RFC on it, and it's closed within a matter of days? Please reopen. It should be open for at least a month. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

agree also, why has it been declared decided when several editors disagreed? a new rfc has been proposed, the initial rfc was poorly worded, possibly slanted toward a pov. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone is free to open another RfC, but please try to word the question neutrally. I doubt that the results will be different.

I closed the RfC because a) there were enough comments to judge consensus, b) there had been no new issues raised and no new participants coming in for a few days, and c) the discussion risked becoming overwhelmed by wall-of-text postings on irrelevant issues. LK (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Fractional reserve banking edits.

Hi. I note that you undid many (but not all) the edits I made to the fractional reserve banking page. Please could you explain your reasons for doing so. In particular, the document called "Modern money mechanics" appears to be very old. The most recent reference it makes is 1992 so I would assume it was published in around 92/93? The name implies that the document is "modern" and may falsely lead people to assume that it was at least approximately up to date. This is very far from the truth and so I think to just leave it there without some sort of health warning is positively misleading to Wikipedia readers.Reissgo (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your edits reflect a fundamental misunderstanding about the way modern banking works. As I've tried to explain to you before, economics is hard, and you really should take at least a couple of courses in economics before wading in. Also, we should try to describe things in a neutral manner (see WP:NPV), so I reverted the language to remove value laden-terms that you had introduced. If you want a blow-by-blow explanation about the particular edits I did, let's do it on the article talk page. LK (talk) 06:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I have started on the talk page. By the way I have been doing a lot of research in this area. You will notice its been a long time since I first made any edits. Most undergraduate courses in economics teach an old fashioned cartoon version of banking. Can you suggest a book?/paper?/website? which you would assert would give a genuinely up to date description of money creation? At a minimum, I would expect it to discus Basel, capital adequacy and the fact that reserve requirements are different depending on who the loan is being made to.Reissgo (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"As I've tried to explain to you before, economics is hard, and you really should take at least a couple of courses in economics before wading in". I note that you have not refuted a single one of the edits I made. I suggest you read some of the work on the banking sector by Steve Keen, Mish Shedlock and Karl Denninger. These guys have taken the time to dig in to how the banking system works in practice. I do not believe that any undergraduate courses would teach what they have discovered. Reissgo (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note that according to Wikipedia policy, it's not up to me to disprove your views, it's up to you to show that they are backed by reliable sources, and reflect the scientific consensus on the subject. Wikipedia is based on Verifiability not Truth. If you want to contribute to articles, please do read the standard textbooks, and try to summarize them for the appropriate articles. As a respected encyclopedia, Wikipedia presents the mainstream view first and foremost, and so we would do well if we can present the subjects as well as a well written, popular, mainstream university textbook.

Steve Keen is Associate Professor in economics and finance at the University of Western Sydney, and as such he has my respect. However, note that he is a post-Keynesian, and holds a distinctively heterodox view of how banking works (that 99% of the economics profession does not agree with). Until and unless these post-Keynesian views make it into the mainstream, they should not have more than a passing mention in the main pages about money, banking and finance. LK (talk) 05:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The 99:1 weighting you give ignores the fact that the 99%, A) caused the crisis and B) never saw it coming. Keen at al. saw it coming. In capitalism, the idea is that those that make bad decisions go bust, leaving those that get it right to carry on running the show. The 99% should now be "bust". Please re-evaluate your weightings. Perhaps you should watch some of the lectures at http://ineteconomics.org/ and watch some pretty heavyweight professors queuing up to say how mainstream economics got things wrong and needs to be reconsidered. When you talk about the "consensus" you should keep in mind that the consensus has probably changed significantly in the past three years. The "mainstream" is starting to doubt its own previously held beliefs and giving far more credence to assorted heterodox economics. Minsky's views for example are way more respected now than they were a few years ago. What may have been 99:1 before the crash has probably moved to 80:20. Wikipedia should reflect this.

With regard your comment "please do read the standard textbooks, and try to summarize them for the appropriate articles": I do not beleive that is what wikipedia is supposed to be about. Truth should trump textbooks. If your recipe for inclusion in wikipedia was "what the majority of textbooks say" then pluto would still be described as a "planet". On the day it was re-classified as a "dwarf planet" there was one document describing it as such vs countless textbooks describing at as a "planet". This example is perhaps overstating my case - but I hope you can see the principle.

Sorry, your observations and 'TRUTH' have no standing here. We base our articles on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. If you don't think an online encyclopedia should be organized that way, you are free to challenge these principles on the main policy pages, or to contribute at the numerous other online encyclopedia that organize according to different principles. As to your example about Pluto, please do read our policies about identifying reliable sources, you will find that they cover difficult cases quite comprehensively. LK (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"Theory of the firm" on the Priority scale

Hi, L. I notice that a while ago you gave Theory of the firm Mid-priority on the WikiProject Economics's priority scale, down from High-priority where it had been (conceivably, that's b/c of improvements that happened in the interim). Still, there might be case for moving it back to High priority. The article does seem unusual for it sophistication and depth. I think that there is a possibility for further improvements, which upgrading priority might stimulate. In Economics, there is a "Firms" section, which I think would be further strengthened with an improved Theory of the firm link. Thank you for your consideration on this. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's a pretty good article, I've just upped the article class from 'Start' to 'B'. However, as for priority, Theory of the firm is a pretty esoteric topic, and is not covered in either Introductory or Intermediate MacroMicro, hence, I believe that mid-priority is appropriate. I believe we have to save high priority for basic topics like elasticity, business cycles, demand, production functions, etc. Regards LK (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Lawrence. A keen quality upgrade, IMO. Per the relevant portions of Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Assessment#Priority scale:

High: Subject is important but not vital to a lay person's overview of economics. Broad economic topics taught at the undergraduate college level are likely of high importance. This includes distinguished economists that may not be well-known outside the field. Examples: Imperfect competition, Gross domestic product, Robert Solow

Mid: Subject fills in more minor details of economics, or adds a depth of understanding to the field. A practicing economist would find these subjects useful, but lay people would likely not. Examples: Gini coefficient, Keynesian cross

I do appreciate your comments and do not think that they are unreasonable. But I don’t believe that a higher ranking would be unreasonable either. Rather, there's enough wiggle room to allow a higher ranking, especially as to the simple (and brilliant?) description at Theory of the firm#Overview, which has topics taught "at the undergraduate college level," though not so often as 'theory of the firm'. Offhand, I can actually name a textbook that takes up the subject pretty much as such, and not just any textbook but arguably the most influential econ textbook of the 20th century: Samuelson and (now) Nordhaus's Economics (textbook) under ch. 6, Business Organizations "The Nature of the Firm." No bells and whistles as to treatment, but it's there. In any case, satisfying the 2nd sentence of High above is (likely} a sufficient condition, not a necessary condition, for High-priority ranking.

Here’s a case where invoking the principle of charity (from philosophy) I think would be useful as a WP:Guideline. How could a priority ranking for article XXX possibly be "true"? Answering that question might avoid many WP edit disputes. You mention some articles on which there is likely to be agreement as to high priority, but h-p articles parallel to theory of the firm are Consumer behavior and Consumer theory (to be sure treated neater there, like a one-cell organism rather than multi-cell organisms). Relatedly, theory of the firm is a broad bridge between industrial organization (h-p) and the firm in economics. Moreover, if theory of the firm is more than a "minor detail of economics" (per mid-priority above) that leaves room for it at higher than mid-priority. A gray area, I maintain accept, and one on which reasonable and informed editors have differed but one where the benefit of the doubt may permit an ungrudging tip toward h-p as a broad (not just deep) economic subject. The real question comes down to this: Is the subject important? Let me go a little rhetorical (hey, it’s your Talk page – only savants watch it regularly, right? ). To say that it’s not important would imply that the cumulative subject of the Theory of the firm#Overview is unimportant, that the subject of boundaries of the firm are unimportant, despite the opposite contention here ([close Pages tab] lead section), that from Smith to Marshall to Coase to Williamson the value added to the theory of the firm is unimportant. IMO, reasonable, well-informed people could believe otherwise. BW, Thomasmeeks (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC) P.S. You doubtless have other things to do. So, please don't feel any urgency about responding early if at all.

• Minor micro comment here. Taken at face value, the theory of the firm represents a very important sub-topic in microeconomics at the undergrad and graduate level. Most canonical micro texts include a top level section on the theory of the firm (e.g. Varian) and there are micro courses (like IO and labor) where theories of the firm play front and center in discussions of production. However when examined more closely the "theory of the firm" is often glossed over. What I mean to say is that in the texts and in the courses We are talking about the phrase "theory of the firm" is largely a stand-in for discussion of production functions, market structures and other more general micro concepts. Specific theories about what drives firm composition tend to be relegated to specific IO classes and texts. As a thought exercise, imagine how many undergraduate intermediate micro courses discuss Coase's paper or Williamson's work on boundaries of the firm? In my experience if we talk to undergraduates about Coase we are often talking about externalities, not about transaction costs. In that sense the theory of the firm defined narrowly is not really a general economics topic of "high" importance. As a countervailing point, categorization is cheap; we don't lose too much in attention or scope if we give the benefit of the doubt to marginal subjects. So if we conclude that the theory of the firm lies on the high side of "Mid" importance rather than on the low side of "High" importance, we mitt as well just slot it into "High". Protonk (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat echoing Protonk here. (Caveat about my preferences: I think "The Nature of the Firm" may be the single greatest economics paper ever published.) In my experience, "theory of the firm" as an expression was primarily about production functions and profit maximization and such, so I've been surprised to see the WP article focusing on nature/existence of the firm. I think these two things are separate enough both conceptually and in how they're treated in the economics field that they should exist in two separate articles on WP. The production-function type stuff should definitely be "high" importance, I'm agnostic on the "nature of the firm" stuff. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the different uses of 'theory of the firm' — call them I and II (AKA Varian ch. 1) — and the non-buzz of I (noted more than once above) & "nature" (w "boundaries" perhaps the more pregnant and accurate term). Still, there's a little more I'd like to add to the undisputed points above, including a couple pp. later in Samuelson and Nordhaus the telling page inset, "Production in the firm and the market," and the priority of firm subjects in Part 1 of Handbook of Industrial Organization, 1989, v. 1. If Industrial organization and II would be high High-priority, "Theory of the firm I" might still get an h-p pass. There is a pretty decent "firm, theory of the" article in The New Palgrave (2008). But I do acknowledge that beyond giving the benefit of the doubt to a seemingly fundamental subject in micro, if perusal of econ links here and above fails to persuade, reasonable people are likely reading the h-p standard in more or less restrictive ways. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Protonk's points that Theory of the Firm I (production functions, profit maximization, and market structure) is high priority, but Theory of the Firm II (transaction costs, firm boundaries) is mid-priority. Given that the current article reflects Theory of the Firm II, I'ld tend to rate it as mid priority. However, I don't feel strongly about the subject, so feel free to change the rating if you like, I don't have a horse in this race. LK (talk) 04:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not signed up on the econ Project. So, I'd be reluctant. I do appreciate the comments above, however. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

making things worse

by re-adding your post, you may be baiting blue into one of his famous comments, plz don't fan the flames here, i am trying to get blue to not comment on other editors, so you reposting what he just deleted may upset him. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to repost, I was just trying to post once. But my message didn't appear when I refreshed the screen, so I posted again as I thought that my first posting did not work. Perusing the history, I see now that Bluerobe had deleted my comment almost as soon as I posted it. Not a good sign I think.

It would be good if you could get Bluerobe to stop, as his behavior is actively hurting the project. Do note that I don't consider politely asking someone to please stop insulting others as 'baiting' or 'fan the flames', so I would ask you to be more careful about how you describe the actions of others. Thanks, LK (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

you are correct, my flame comment was directed at the repost, not the post. i have made a bet with snowed that blue would improve greatly in 2 days if left alone, or even given mild support, if i lose, i must eat my hat and supply pictures, plz help by asking other editors to cease fire, or even giving blue a compliment when deserved. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

History of Turkey

According to User:dbachmann, the creation of History of Turkey is "an absolutely pointless creation. Please help working on the EXISTING shoddy articles instead of just creating more shoddy articles". He has suggested that this article be split into articles entitled History of Anatolia and History of the Republic of Turkey, accessible from a disambiguation page. Anatolia is a peninsula in Western Asia, today most of Turkey is in Anatolia. But, the problem is the name of the country was changed to Turkey after the 1200's, and Ottoman Empire was called Turkey in Europe. In addition, Ottoman Empire's capital was not in Anatolia after 1365, it was moved to Edirne and then to Constantinople, and these two cities are in Europe. Besides, Ottoman Empire was a European country and Anatolia does not refer to European parts of Turkey. Kavas (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not really my area. I suggest that you go ahead and do what you think should be done with naming and such, and when challenged, argue your points on the talk page, proving reliable sources to back you up. If you meet someone who you think unreasonably disagrees with you, ask for a third opinion to settle the matter. If you find yourself in a dispute and cannot reach a reasoned consensus, and need a neutral third opinion, feel free to leave me a message about it here, and I'll drop by the talk page to have a look. regards LK (talk) 07:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul Krugman

If you were ever attempt to take the Paul Krugman article to featured--the highest status--you would never achieve it with only one over-saturated side profile that faces away from the text on an 81KB article. I doubt with only one image you'd even reach 'good article' status. I totally respect that you feel that my contribution was not right for the lead, but I found your wholesale revert, and its rationale, to be pretty poor. If you take it out again I won't revert, but you're also not doing the article any favors. --David Shankbone 05:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The photo that you had previously moved into the text makes for a much better lead photo. I would respectfully disagree that a good article needs more than one (good) photo of the subject. Personally, I think photos should illustrate and illuminate, and not be purely decorative. LK (talk) 06:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with that, but the idea that the one image, the one angle, the one point in time, is the only illustration that embodies the summation of the individual is weird. Is there only one photo of you, Lawrencekhoo, that completely sums up your life, your image, your personality, that it would be the only image of you on the article about your life? --David Shankbone 07:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There is one photo that I think of as 'myself', whenever I catch my image in the mirror I'm constantly surprised that I don't look like that. ;-) But seriously, I would agree that a few photos of the subject in a normal length biography article is about right. LK (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

:-) --David Shankbone 14:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Philippine restaurant chains

Just wanted to say thanks for looking at the article and showing how Reflinks is used. I'm sure that I will find that useful in the future. Lambanog (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad I could be of help. Let me know if I can be of any further assistance. LK (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Responded to your revert at inflation's talk page

Talk:Inflation#Definition_of_inflation_and_proposal_for_changing_this_article.27s_name_to_Price_Inflation, thanks. Fresheneesz (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Error on Jevons Graph.

On the second graph on the Jevons Paradox page, you have misinterpreted what it shows. In [the discussion page], I have said:

"Graph text in error.

The graph showing the consequences under "inelastic demand" STILL shows increased consumption, just lesser increase than under "elastic demand". That use does not double with halving of price does not mean that use hasn't increased! The total area under the curve has, however, gone down, which means that less $$ is SPENT overall. The Jevons Paradox does not say that more will be spent, only that more will be used. E.g.; Say the electricity demand in a particular area is 1 Meg-hour per month (10^3 = 1,000 kwh), when the cost is 10¢/kwh. That means $10^2 = $100 is spent on power each month. A pocket fission plant is installed in the neighborhood, and sells power at 1¢/kwh. Demand (we'll postulate) doubles, so 2 Mwh = 2,000 kwh is used, now costing just $20. So the expenditure has dropped, but USAGE has still increased (doubled). Which is all that Jevons predicts. So the caption and explanation of the second graph is wrong."

To be more mathematical about it, the area represents cost (price x quantity), which drops under inelastic demand, but quantity is simply x-axis number, which does in fact increase.

--BrianFH (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to particpate in the December 2010 Wikification Drive

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 18:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

Talk:Chokutō

Hello! Following your request, I have provided some images of at Talk:Chokutō. Could you kindly insert the image in the Chokutō article? Thank you! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 09:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added the images. LK (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

FRB

I appreciate you taking the time to step back and see where we both stand. I responded on my talk page Fresheneesz (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Money Creation

You claimed that a new passage was unreferenced. That is simply untrue. The following passage on the Money Multiplier is the reference and equations used. This is a nature extension of combining re-lending and the money multiplier. You shouldn't deprive other people of something that you clearly don't get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javalizard (talk • contribs) 21:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The reference cited is "Mankiw, N. Gregory (2001), Principles of Macroeconomics". I know that text book, I have used that textbook as the primary text in several classes that I have thought. I can assure you that it does not state anything close to the paragraphs you have introduced. In fact, the textbook directly contradicts your assertions. LK (talk) 07:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, you reverted what you call original research when the revert was clarity in the article. Just because you can't do math doesn't mean you should or can deprive others of useful information. Can you not see the difference between the reserve rate and the reserve ratio? Other pages on wikipedia even talk about how initial deposits can and should be multiplied by the money multiplier to see how in can be maximally expanded to.

If you don't think different mathematical seres produce different results, you must never have taken a math class. Only an idiot would claim such a thing as original research. Stop imposing your limited knowledge on the world and get with the program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javalizard (talk • contribs) 16:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the difference between the reserve rate and the reserve ratio. Most people don't, that's why i described the relationship between these two things. there is none. Look for instance at the money multiplier section. The money multiplier in the example would be 25% not 20% as 80 divided by 20 is 4.... not 5. The text before my changes even say in the example that the reserve rate is 20% and not the reserve ratio which, by the example, you can see with your own eyes that only 20% of the initial deposit is converted into reserves. You can see with you own eyes that 80 divided by 20 is 4 so hence the reserve ratio is 1 over 4 and thus 25%. Are you telling me that that looking at the example, using common sense and basic mathematics, together with the facts on the page is original research? You must be off your rocker. Javalizard (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have some rather strange idiosyncratic ideas about how the money multiplier and the money creation process works. I don't claim to understand that. What I do understand is the mainstream standard explanation of the money multiplier and the money creation process. It is Wikipedia's job to present the mainstream explanation first and foremost, regardless of what editors may think is the TRUTH (please see WP:TRUTH). You seem to be continually inserting your own idiosyncratic explanation of the money multiplier process, an explanation that contradicts basic textbook accounts. This constitutes original research, and is against policy. Please stop. LK (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Showing how an equation works by changing the numbers in the variables is NOT original research as you suggest. It is showing how the equations work. If I were to make claims of original equations it would be original research but showing that 2*3=6 in one instance and 2*4=8 in another is NOT original research as you suggest. Javalizard (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop editwarring the relending section by claiming it is without source when the source is indicated as the PDF called Modern Money Mechanics on wikipedia. Please take your edits to the talk page. Javalizard (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Proper usage of mathematics is not original research as you claim. Javalizard (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Quantitative Easing

I noticed you undid my revision about the reversal of quantitative easing saying it was 'POV' and 'unreferenced'. This is simply not true, the reference is the BBC news article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7924506.stm which states "Theoretically, when the economy has recovered, the Bank of England sells the bonds it has bought and destroys the cash it receives. That means in the long term there has been no extra cash created." So destroying the money is referenced and the theoretical part implies it has never been reversed anywhere which it never has so was a true statement. Perhaps when you undo someones revision you should not make up the reasons why you are undoing them. Your explanation simply was untrue and you blatantly ignored the reference on the article. I will give you the opportunity to edit the article to keep these points in before I undo your edit. --Caparn (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Just because one source uses POV langauge does not mean that wikipedia should. You should stop referencing one BBC opinion piece as if it were the bible. Also, let's keep the talk about articles on the article talk page please. LK (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

LawrenceKhoo, thank you for your work on the QE page. That page has been an embarrassing mess for a long time, but thanks to your diligent work, it's looking much better now. Ernestfax^Talk 22:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouraging message. It's made my day! LK (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Please leave any reasons for reversion on the QE discussion page. I've started a new section for Printing Money vs QE. I think the similarities as well as the differences should be included to give some balance. --Caparn (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason is clearly noted in the edit summary, by myself and the other editors who have reverted you. It is POV and OR, and you are reintroducing it against the consensus of the other editors there. LK (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect, it is neither POV nor OR, it is all verifiable referenced articles. See discussion --Caparn (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That is your opinion. It is the opinion of the other editors that the addition should not be added as it stands. LK (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't checked the edits in question, but is the dispute over whether Quantitative Easing is reversed, making the money ephemeral? That is certainly the official Federal Reserve plan (although, of course, they deny that they're conducting QE...Bernanke differentiates what they are doing, calling it Credit Easing); The Fed intends to sell back the securities and destroy the money from the sale, exactly as it destroys the money paid back to it in the overnight, 30, and 90 day loans. The latter is why we do not have a far greater quantity of money in the economy right now, despite the trillions lent out in 2008-9. I can probably dig up some official Fed docs on the question of destroying ephemeral money, if it would be helpful. --Kaz (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Caparn and I have had a long running dispute over the QE page. As far as I can tell, Caparn wants to emphasize how 'irresponsible' it is that Central Banks are creating money 'out of thin air', whereas I just want to state the process plainly in neutral, albeit technical, langauge. Currently, Caparn seems to think that the QE process requires that the Central Bank creates money first, and then use the 'new money' to buy financial assets, I have been trying to explain to him that it is the buying of financial assets (and the crediting of private banks' accounts) by the Central Bank that creates money. That is, printing money and keeping it in the Central Bank does nothing to the money supply; the money supply increases only when money leaves the Central Bank (electronically or otherwise).

Anyways, I haven't looked at the page recently. But I think it's OK as it stands, so there is no on-going dispute. Regards, --LK (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I consider QE to range between harmful and (in this case) irrelevant, but agree that the article should be value-neutral on the topic. Interestingly, the Fed in this case based its "Credit Easing" on the newly hoarded Excess Reserves of its member banks. That pool of cash, triggered by the 2008 Fed policy change of paying interest on excess reserves (which normally hovered at zero), amounted to 1.2 trillion dollars, and the Fed's two bursts of QE has added up to slightly less. This means the Fed actually feels like it did not even create money at all, in this case (ergo Credit Easing, no change in quantity). Hmmm...maybe a separate section should be made for Credit Easing. Nevermind, I'm just rambling, now. What made me respond was his quoting of an article saying the central bank would destroy the money returned, as if that were in question. But I see, he was just trying to show how this means there's money being made that would later be destroyed.--Kaz (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Reserve Ratio vs Reserve Rate

You claim they are the same. Please. Cite your source and prove me wrong. In fact, why don't you just change money creation to say that with sources. It would help my understanding of the world. Javalizard (talk) 04:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken, it is up to you to prove your contention that such a distinction exists. See WP:PROVEIT: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." I would also add that the term "reserve rate" does not exist in the index for the several macroeconomics text books that I happen to have on hand (Mankiw, Krugman and Wells, Abel and Bernanke, Barro, and Sachs and Larrain).

I am copying this to the article talk page. From now on, please reserve all article talk to the article talk page. All further such communications will be copied there. LK (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

FSM image

Hi LK, I noticed you moved an image right, per MOS. I know that MOS indicates that lead images should be positioned right, but I can't find anything about images within sections. Where does that come from? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tryp, The MOS suggests that images not be places left directly under a level 3 or lower sub-title heading. The reason is that the image can separate the text from the heading, thereby confusing the reader. I'm not sure where it is in the MOS, but I can look for it if you're interested. Regards, --LK (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, it's not a big deal, but I had sort of remembered something along those same lines, but when I went to MOS, the only thing I could find was in terms of the lead. It could be possible that it's no longer in the guideline, or maybe I just missed it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

HOET substance and tone

Hello, again, L. How the time flies. I was looking at History of economic thought recently & was reminded of how many Edits you made there. I also still recall vividly your Talk-page substance and tone,§ all to the good of that page & corresponding subsequent article Edits IMO, even today. Still a lot to go there, despite its being farther than almost all major econ articles, but you moved it along w great patience and knowledge, & in the right direction.§ Esp. per WP:CIV, which I relate to a recent viewing of a television documentary on stress.[5]) P.S. I benefited from perusing your User page & links. So, it's OK not to blank to it. BW, Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Unfortunately I don't have much time to edit Wikipedia anymore, and so haven't looked at History of economic thought in months. If there are any particular issues you would like help resolving, do please let me know. regards, LK (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I trust that the increase in the opportunity cost of your time is a happy circumstance for you. May whatever WP Editing you do be a pleasure, not a chore, that is, MU ≥ MC. No, nothing in particular on HOET, which, notwithstanding its undeniable strengths, still has a long way to go (& which I don't feel in much of a position to do much about except episodically). For someone who is cutting back on Editing, you put the rest of us to shame. BW, Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Quotation that you deleted from Unintended Consequences

Greetings fellow Pastafarian! You deleted the quotation that I added which seemed to me to have been a valuable addition. I am new to making modifications. Did you object to the content and its pertinence to the article? Is there a different/better way to integrate it? I have pasted it below.

Thanks. LadyArguer (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The law of unintended consequences is what happens when a simple system tries to regulate a complex system. The political system is simple, it operates with limited information (rational ignorance), short time horizons, low feedback, and poor and misaligned incentives. Society in contrast is a complex, evolving, high-feedback, incentive-driven system. When a simple system tries to regulate a complex system you often get unintended consequences.”

Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia. Sorry for being lazy earlier and not leaving an explanation for why I removed this quote. I see two problems with including this in the article. First, it's not properly cited. Direct quotations need to be verifiable – they must be directly attributed to the exact article or source that they come from. Second, unless this argument enters regular academic discourse, I don't think it deserves space alongside the standard academic explanations from Robert Merton, the foremost scholar in this field. LK (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Move protected?

Do you know how to get Financial crisis (2007–present) moved? I think it is move protected from early January. Right now I don't care much what it is moved to, as long as the title doesn't say that we are currently in a financial crisis. Thanks in advance for any help. Smallbones (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are right, the page is move protected. We'll need an admin to do it. I believe that someone will deal with it once 7 days are up (in about a day) after the intial posting on WP:Requested moves. If the request is being ignored after tomorrow, I suggest leaving a message at the talk page of a friendly admin. LK (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Nicholas Kaldor

Dear Lawrence, I hope it is Ok with you. I have put Nick Kaldor back as a PKer as I am pretty sure that is where most who are interested in classifying economists into schools of thought would be inclined to put him. I think the problem may be that he did some work which is noted which might be used/taught/accepted by neoclassicals but I don't think that would be sufficient to make him a neoclassical. Perhaps he had an early neoclassical period before becoming a Post-Keynesian might be how would be inclined to put it. I guess if this is really a dispute we should look for sources. Any views? Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC))

Personally, I'm more familiar with his earlier work, so I think of him as neo-classical or neo-ricardian. But I'm not all that familiar with his later career. If you say he is better known as a post-Keynesian, I have no reason to disbelieve you. Regards, LK (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Business and Economics Barnstar
		I hereby award this barnstar to Lawrencekhoo for outstanding contributions to the accuracy, clarity and neutrality of our economics articles. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Much thanks! Now, if only the Nobel committee will call ...   ;-)

--LK (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)