From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
/Archive 1, /Archive 2 MERGE PROPOSAL

Contents 1 Ownership Again 2 POV Again 3 Abuse, invented quotation and inaccurate statement 4 Course of Action 5 Appropriate weight and representation of critical views 5.1 Conventional economics compared with binary economics - ALL the mainstream criticism is ALREADY there!! 5.2 Article problems 6 Removal of university 7 Ha, ha! The conventional criticism is already in the article! 8 The article contains adequate criticism of binary economics 9 Reversal of substantial deletion 10 huh? 11 Deletion of two fact requests 12 Reversal of deletion of Iraq plan text 13 Coincidences 14 Don't delete comment 15 =Tone and style 15.1 Authoritative and non-authoritative sources 15.2 VANDALISM 15.3 Room for Grammercy Bank? 15.4 Added reference template to top of article

[edit] Ownership Again

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

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

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

GeneCallahan 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Again

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

GeneCallahan 13:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

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

GeneCallahan 15:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Abuse, invented quotation and inaccurate statement

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

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

Rodney Shakespeare 4th October, 2007.

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

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

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

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

[edit] Course of Action

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

I think we need to add the criticism to each theoretical point expressed in the article. To avoid WP:SYN we need to find specific sources criticizing the theory. The article, as it is now, reads like a POV fork. Brusegadi 02:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

            ==Austrians, keep out!== 

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

Please do not place me in any category. The point is that binary is NOT mainstream. As such, wikipedia needs to show the reader the mainstream view and criticisms to Binary Econ. Brusegadi 19:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] Appropriate weight and representation of critical views

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

               The Need to be Positive.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Searle

[edit] Article problems

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

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

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

[edit] Removal of university

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

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

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

[edit] The article contains adequate criticism of binary economics

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

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

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

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

[edit] Reversal of substantial deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] huh?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Does 'interest free' mean zero nominal or a zero Real Interest Rate?
• The (fully backed) banking system can only lend depositors' money. Can interest be charged on those loans & repayed to depositors?
• Does BE favour zero inflation or deflation?

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

[edit] Deletion of two fact requests

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

[edit] Reversal of deletion of Iraq plan text

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We should not have the reader recognizing such connections by himself. We have to stick to WP:SYN which says that all synthesis of material must be done outside wikipedia. So, any synthesis is to be supported by a source. Thanks for the links to kelso, it looks like an interesting read. Brusegadi 22:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the reader can recognize such connections; we can't control what the reader thinks. However, unless we can support the connections with specific sourcing saying "Yes, there is indeed a connection", we shouldn't be writing about them. And hey, I kinda like this theory. It might work. But this is not the place to write boosterism for it, it is the place to write reality. And the reality is, this is an untried, untested theory, which has little mainstream acceptance. The article should make that, and only that, clear, along with a brief overview of the theory's outline. This is never the place to push anything. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coincidences

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

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

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

[edit] Don't delete comment

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

Can you point to specific instances? Brusegadi 22:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Among others, compare [2] and [3] with the current edition. Past "archiving" (if such edits could be called so,) have been improperly done. __earth ^(Talk) 07:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Thats messy. I'll set up a proper archive. Brusegadi 20:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] =Tone and style

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

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

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

[edit] Authoritative and non-authoritative sources

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

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

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

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

[edit] VANDALISM

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

You can see who made what edits by going to the article and clicking on the "history" tab at the top of the page. For what it's worth, I think the headshots of Long and Gravel were just adding clutter to the article, and if the diagram contained indispensable content it should probably still be adjusted to reflect a neutral point of view or just incorporated into the text. Removing those images hasn't "destroyed" the article. Overall I think the article is really improving with all the edits made over the last few days. -Father Inire 11:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

And actually, anyone has the right to remove, if they are doing so in an effort to improve the article. Good-faith attempts at doing so are not vandalism, whether or not you agree that they are an improvement. (Of course, you have every right to disagree with or dispute any edit as well.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please note, Wikipedia articles do not have a specific author, and in fact one is clearly notified in the edit screen of this: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." (emphasis in original) If you submit work here, it will be editable by anyone in the world. This is not a secret, this is by design and practice. It is not sinister, it's the way this system is meant to work. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Making changes without discussion is vandalism or disrespectful arrogance towards other editors. -- Janosabel 10:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Room for Grammercy Bank?

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

[edit] Added reference template to top of article

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

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