User talk:Janosabel/drafts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Futurist Alvin Toffler’s most recent book, Revolutionary Wealth, he makes an extremely important, but generally overlooked point. Specifically, he observes the following: while the First-World countries/societies have demonstrated Promethean effectiveness at both important classes of scientific discovery and the technological innovations often associated with such discoveries, we have been vastly less effective at social and institutional innovation.

These recent, and completely baseless, vacuous and repressive calls for the deletion of Wikipedia content pertaining to the important subject of Binary economics might be quite appropriately taken as a case study for Toffler’s important observation. To the extent that the resistance to the profound promise of Binary economics represented by these calls for the elimination of this content is predicated on a claim to paradigmatic uniqueness for Binary theory and its associated institutional prescriptions, the irony could scarcely be richer. Why? Because it is precisely the paradigmatic distinctness of Binary theory/economics so vehemently resented/resisted by opponents, which is effectively confirmed by the very fact that resistance often comes from both the political and/or academic Right and Left.

Though the reasons of each camp are different, both seem to find in Binary theory/economics grounds for feeling threatened, 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. To the extent that the divergence in political position and policy platforms of both “the Left” and “the Right” are predicated on selectively opposing economic visions – generally gravitating around conflicting views with respect to capital and labor - the irony of their mutual resistance to Binary theory/economics is compounded by the fact that the Binary position with respect to these divergences is merely that they are equally anachronistic and superfluous, because both are ultimately predicated on the very schism with respect to capital and labor that Binary theory effectively renders mute in both theoretical and institutional prescription; and, hence, the relevance of this case to the larger point about the ineffectiveness at social and institutional innovation of the Western societies made by the Tofflers.

It is more than a very sad state of affairs when a conceptual and institutional breakthrough of the importance of Binary theory/economics is subject to such forces; ultimately, it is a very disturbing state of affairs, and one that our society is paying a staggering cost in social, psychological and financial terms to be made to suffer. One can only wonder how many more decades, or even centuries, the peoples of this world will be made to unnecessarily bear such suffering because of the repressive forces of such obfuscation and resistance. One might hope that the beginning of the end of those forces might occur right here by denying the calls to eliminate the Wikipedia content on Binary Economics. ReinersMD 04:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(Earlier, Radek said:) This whole article reads like a press release. It is not encyclopedic.radek 22:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Tags

23rd May, 2007. Rodney Shakespeare writes:- Tags have been put up alleging that there is original research, lack of references and no neutral point of view.

a) Original research.

All statements on the webpage are backed by the relevant documents. Two books referred to are in the process of being published (one on 31st July, 2007 by World Scientific Publications, Masudul Choudhury, The Universal Paradigm -- see amazon.com) and the other (The Modern Universal Paradigm, Rodney Shakespeare) by Trisakti University, delayed by Jakarta flooding. Footnotes briefly indicate the position.

b) Lack of references.

There are 82 references. There could be more but webpages should not get tedious.

c) No neutral point of view.

All the statements are accurate statements about binary economics. This article and the previous one received no objections from binary economists and the present one has already been praised. It is not helpful if critics allege no neutrality when those who know a lot about the subject do not make any such allegation.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Binary_economics"



New version of main article

A new and improved version of the main article is uploaded today (11 May 2007) with photographs to liven up the page.

--Janosabel 18:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Previous comments

The discussion below refers to previous versions of the article and the points raised in it are dealt with in this current version

Janosabel 14:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As the original article on Binary Economics was considered inadequate, I asked Rodney Shakespeare who leads the ongoing development of Binary Economics to provide a proper, informative, substantial article on the present situation. (Information about Rodney Shakespeare can be found below.)

The new article is an extended statement on Binary Economics and brings its development up to date.

A period of seven days was given for discussion before posting this new article on Thursday, 21st September. During the period an article was posted (it is reproduced below). It attracted no discussion or comment or compaison of the texts in article and in discussion.

Janosabel 11:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

About Rodney Shakespeare

Rodney's first book on binary economics (The Two-factor Nation) was published in 1976. Rodney is co-author of the standard textbook on binary economics ─ Binary Economics – the new paradigm (University Press of America, 1999). He is also co-author of the subsequent text ─ Seven Steps to Justice (New European Publications, 2003) ─ which furthers develops binary economics, and also author of The Modern Universal Paradigm, containing later developments, being published later in 2006 by Trisakti University, Jakarta and elsewhere.

Trisakti University (where Rodney is Visiting Professor teaching on the international postgraduate Islamic Economics and Finance program) is the largest private university in Indonesia, the second in prestige, and the birthplace of the Indonesian reformasi revolution. Rodney has also been offered, and has accepted, a Professorship at the Asian University of Bangladesh, the largest private university in Bangladesh. He is a Cambridge MA, a qualified UK Barrister and a well-known paper presenter and lecturer particularly at Islamic conferences dealing with money, the real economy, binary economics, and social and economic justice. In these fields, the leading Islamic academic is Professor Masudul Alam Choudhury with whom Rodney is at present co-authoring a major work ─ The Universal Paradigm and the Islamic World-system (to be published in 2007) ─ which is permeated throughout by binary economics particularly as it has developed over the last four years.

[edit] Comment on criticism

(emphasis added):

"Roth has effectively pointed out some of the salient problems with this view of productivity (Roth 1996, pp. 58–59). Referring to Ashford's hole digger example, Roth argues that someone with human capital had to invent the shovel before it could be used, so the presence of the shovel is not independent of human capital..."

The phrase, human capital is conflating two traditional factors of production and leads to confusion. It is better to keep the concept of "indirect human inputs" bundled with labour. The competence of a lawyer, for example, resulting from six years of study and training is an inalienable part of his present skill but should not be called his capital.--Janosabel 13:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"...Also, Roth notes the presumption that the hole digger has no role in the "productiveness" of the shovel..."

I need to read Roth's article to discover why he "notes" that Binary Economics presumes that the user of a piece of capital equimpment has no role in the deployment of that equipment.--Janosabel 13:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This misunderstanding of binary economics is likely to arise from a statement in Ashford and Shakespeare (1999, pp 129-30):

...we have observed that there are two broad, and mutually exclusive categories of independent producers:- human beings, and captal...

The authors, however, are here referring to two of the abstract categories in classical economic. It is nowhere asserted in binary economics that labour and capital do not collaborate to produce what nither could produce without the other.

Janosabel 22:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"...Thus, it is not at all clear that "capital productiveness" replaces "labor productiveness."..."

Does binary economics say this? It may say that "capital productiveness greatly enhances
labour productivity", and that does not mean that labour has nor role to play.--Janosabel 18:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"...It seems clear that the stocks of human and nonhuman capital are — even in this simplified example — mutually interdependent; that the use of the shovel increases the value of the hole digger's human capital; and that use of the shovel by the hole digger enhances the shovel's value (Roth 1996, p. 60)".

This seems to me an over complicated argument. The point is, is it not?, that a man without a shovel will not be able to make a living in the presence of a competitor with a shovel. And the contention of BE is that the current un-free market conditions make it very difficult for the majority of workers to acquire income generating capital.--Janosabel 18:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Janos writes: In my endeavour to improve the present wikipedia article on binary Economics I made comments as follows which are set out below for the sake of historical record.

This statement (from the article above) may be helpful

"[Binary Economics] makes a distinction between productivity and productiveness. Productivity, in the classical and neo-classical sense, is the ratio of labor as input to the overall output. In contrast, productiveness is the percentage of labor or capital that contributes to the output. Labor and capital are of a different nature, and therefore must be seen as separate inputs that both create output."

In the case of an automated factory, labour's intput is pressing the start button plus some maintenance, no? But this does not mean that labour's share of the output can be evaluated according to the time and effort need to push the button.

The labour that went into the design and construction of the factory is in an entirely different realm of discourse, no?

Edited by

Janosabel 09:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-write

Okay, I re-wrote the heck out of this article. Some general points:

  1. There were not "82" references; there were 25 - most were improperly done, and failed to use the reference tag. I'm also pretty sure these are bad references, and don't support the facts they're referencing. However, I'm tired, and am going to give this article the benefit of a doubt.
  2. I added lots of "uncited" tags, for facts which are asserted, but never verified.
  3. Pictures are not needed to make an article "pretty" - they should show what the article is about, not just to look nice.
  4. There was a lot of editorializing in this piece. Like, tons. I got most of it, but it's still sticking around.
  5. This article reeks of conflict of interest - given that a number of the editors of this article are also primary sources for it, and intimately involved in it. I suggest they back off.
  6. Almost all of the references are bad; we need more information to verify them. Add it, or remove them.
  7. It is incredibly inappropriate to cite unpublished material in a piece like this.
  8. There was also a lot of redundant, or just plain odd material thrown in. This is an article about Binary Economics; not a puff piece to put forward its ideals.

Anyways, happy editing! --Haemo 07:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This whole article reads like a press release. It is not encyclopedic.radek 22:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
You should have seen it before I re-wrote it. --Haemo 00:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


With all due respects, the encyclopedic style is a special way of writing. Normally we are trained, in this competitive world, to put our convictions in the most persuasive way possible.

Give the article a chance to evolve and don't throw out the baby in the bathwater. Orthodox (market fundamentalist) economic theories are driving the world to perdition (Guy Routh, The origin of Economic Ideas; Paul Ormerod, The Death of Economics; etc., etc.,).

... I want to see a good entry on this topic. The theoretical challenge to neo-classical and Keynesian economics may be muted, but its practical implications are important. In particular, wealth distribution as a key component in the functioning of capitalist economies is neglected in the classical literature. In my view, this problem is becoming increasingly visible across the world and may yet lead to new theoretical positions in mainstream economics. We have not yet reached that point, however. (Martin Baldwin-Edwards)

Janosabel 09:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that the big image isn't really needed - I mean, we explain all of this in the page; it's just big and ugly the way it is right now. --Haemo 01:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
OK I am willing to learn wikistyle but not without questioning. What are bad references, apart from citing the same (published) work in different contexts? As to the "citation needed" tag, in some instances you removed the citation (like end of para two) in others the assertion is noting a common notable fact (like interest at least doubles the cost of capital purchase -- if one is buying a house, for instance, the payments are mostly interest for the first fifteen or so years).
I suspect that, being trained in numeric disciplines and mainstream economics, you are too severe in judging writings aimed at lesser educated people.
Regards to your cat (no hard feelings :-). -- Janosabel 21:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, well, when I was calling some of the references "bad", I typically means something like "does not back up the fact they reference". For instance, the article says "Although elements of binary economics can be found elsewhere,[9]" - and then you cite a book...where those elements can be found elsewhere. However, that source does not actually say anything about Binary Economics. Or, "Over the last few years binary economics has been developing[15][5][6][2][7][1]" - and then cite some new books and papers. These sources don't verify that statement - you have to do some original research to get there. In addition, most of the "citation needed" statements refer to material which the reference wasn't pointed at. In addition, it's also not sufficient to call something a "notable common fact", since (for example) the cost of interest payments as a percentage of total payments can vary dramatically between payment plans. --Haemo 23:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Am I getting the hang of it? If I make the statement, Neoclassical economics has gutted political economy by making the most important factor of production -- land -- disappear under "the skirt of capital", and just refer to a book, The Corruption of Economics, Gaffney and Harrison (1994), instead of "chapter and verse", is that a poor reference because the reader himself has to search for specific supporting statements in the cited book? -- Janosabel 10:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's one point - you need to specifically point out where that's said. However, the book also has to make that assertion - especially when it's contentious (such as that assertion), we should not write "Neoclassical economics has gutted political economy..." since that makes it appear that the statement is an undisputed fact, but rather something like "Proponents of binary economics argue that neoclassical economics has gutted political economy...", or something to that effect. If you look at this page (WP:CITET), you can see that it has citation templates for references - try to fill them out as much as possible. For example, if you're citing a book, cite the author, publisher, date, pages, etc. --Haemo 00:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Reversing my latest good faith edit: My reference highlights a shameful condition in the richest country in the world, claiming to operate the most successful market economy. Surely, the fact that there are many poor people in spite of being a market economy supports the assertion that markets do fail. Anyway, in your studies of economics you must have come across many economists, yourself, who admit that markets do fail. Do I really need to find those same statemens again? -- Janosabel 22:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
See, there's your problem - the fact that there are many poor people is supported by your reference. That's good. However, the inference that it's a "failure of capitalism" or "shameful" is your personal opinion about the matter - it's also my personal opinion, but as an encyclopedia, we have to strive for neutral point of view; and that means not inserting moral, or editorial, judgments into our article. We can point out facts, and let people make their own decisions, or we can quote other authorities stating their opinions - but we can't make opinions of our own. In addition, the term market failure is a technical one, and doesn't specifically apply to what you've cited there. --Haemo 00:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing market failure

Extensive poverty in the US does not then imply/indicate that the current form of market mechanism tends to fail? Haemo, you have studied economics, can you help out by citing some references yourself?

In the meantime I will have another try. -- Janosabel

I wrote the article on market failure, and as you can see you're using it in a colloquial sense - rather than the technical sense that it's used in economics. --Haemo 20:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I missed that. It seems it is a re-write. I find it noteworthy that a discussion has been rumbling on for over two years.
Why is it so important in some schools of economic theory to insist that market failures do not exist? It must be largely a psychological issue of hanging to this ideal of a perfectly self-adjusting a-moral and impartial mechanism.
Adam Smith has used the image of the "invisible hand" once in his multivolume treatise. At the same time he made numerous statements, references, and caveats warning that the market mechanism alone cannot fulfil humanity's highest aspirations. He stated, for example, that the wealth of a country is measured by the well being of its workers. (I don't think that I have misread things but cannot remember the references.) How can then, an a-human market ensure that the market clearing price of labour does not fall below subsistence level? (Remember, workers cannot disappear from the market because it is uneconomic to produce themselves, when their price falls below subsistence.) -- Janosabel 16:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] weird

This article sounds like it is describing one of those pseudosciences. __earth (Talk) 12:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I replied to __Earth. Still waiting for a comment. -- Janosabel 10:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

So, Earth, you find it weird. Four universities have made agreements to teach the subject and about ten are likely to want to in the immediate future. Are they weird as well?

Rodney Shakespeare. 12.05 30th May, 2007

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Earth"

I'm going to second the complaints about this not appearing encylopaedic. To those of us with sceptical dispositions, it really does come off as promoting a pseudo-science. I tracked here from Milton Friedman's assessment of it and I think it must have been presented very differently to him than it is here. He'd have given it short shrift if it'd started waxing lyrical about man's relationship with God. It is unclear whether it is an economics discipline, a political philosophy, a theology or all of the above. I'm not sure if this article has been taken over by someone who is expanding it beyond the subject's typical remit. I cannot judge because I do not know about binary economics and this article has unfortunately not helped me correct that. --Panlane 19:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Panlane, you may find it of interest to look at one of the origingal expositions of binary economics. It is available onlne. The article here attempts to present this economic model in the context of current grave concerns which mainstream economics seems unable to address. -- Janosabel 18:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Panlane, The article is written clearly and the diagram is clear (or was -- it has been vandalised)-- a supply of interest-free loans comes from the central bank (via the banking system) for the development and spreading of productive capacity. Actually, the principle has been used at various times in the past (Canada, New Zealand) and possibly is being used in the present (Malaysia and Guernsey -- though both are cagey about revealing detail). I am surprised to see you challenging this new subject when you have read nothing and apparently would find the information that four universities, and Trisakti in particular, have made agreements to teach the subject as irrelevant. As regards the relationship with God and the implications thereof you may not like that but it is an integral part of the thinking and its practical implementation -- people are not to be left to starve etc. It is also a historical fact that Pravda saw b.e. (as it was at the time) as extreme right-wing and Friedman as extreme left-wing. One of them must be wrong but I think the significance of that is eluding you. Rodney Shakespeare 17.39 31st May, 2007

Just a point, but that diagram has not been "vandalism" - large, unlinked images like that violated the Wikipedia manual of style, and (in addition) the mechanism is explained in the text of the article. If someone wants to see it more, they can click the image. --Haemo 20:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it is clear to me what is happening. I criticised the style in which the article is written, not the subject content. As stated, I don't know enough about it to do that latter. Surely as an educated lay-person unfamiliar with the discipline, i.e. Wikipedia's assumed audience, I am a better judge of how accessible it is than a professional binary economist such as Rodney Shakespeare. I am not criticising you, I am asking that you as a person that knows the subject express it in clear concise terms to someone like me, that does not. Your reply above was a better distillation of binary economics than this article --Panlane 09:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further re-write

I have rewritten the introduction to focus on the core that you outlined in your response. It is now easier to follow, more concise and - in the honest opinion of a sceptic - far more persuasive. Obviously this discipline (or at least its authors) appears to be heavily tied with Islam at present so I would recommend that this is broached in a separate later section. The assumption that binary economics is about man's connection with god or relates at all to it is not necessarily so. Rather it frequently is mentioned in an environmental (perhaps also worth a mention) rather than religious context. --Panlane 10:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now rewritten the whole article. I have added mention of why binary economics appeals to certain religious viewpoints in the introduction. This should be elaborated on later in the article n a new section but from a secular NPOV perspective. I have removed the picture of the vet students as it added nothing to the article. I have improved the overall grammar and clarity in parts. I have removed the entire section of Binary Economics Today because this was entirely POV and the only NPOV information gave nothing except binary economists are publishing papers on X, Y and Z. No further details about the findings or conclusions of those papers. If and when this is filled out and rewritten in NPOV it should be reinstated. I have also eliminated all mentions of cost-savings, e.g. hospital builds would be less than half price. These were extremely contentious statements which had no references. Until they are explained and referenced, they should not be included.

Much of the article is fine, it just needed slimming. Perhaps now we can muscle it up. --Panlane 17:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we need a list of conferences? What does this add? Other disciplines don't list the often too numerous to mention meetings of their representatives. I vote for its removal but it isn't POV so I'll leave it up to others. --Panlane 18:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work on the re-write! I second your removal of the list of conferences - not necessary, and not really encyclopedic, given that it privileges the views of those giving the conferences as being more important to the topic. --Haemo 22:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I assert that the factual and neutrality of this excellent article on Binary Economics is NOT disputed. I also assert that claims in this article are verifiable. See among other websites and excellent writings: www.cesj.org www.kelsoinstitute.org | www.www.binaryeconomics.net | www.globaljusticemovement.org | www.globaljusticemovement.net

I vote a STRONG KEEP regarding the importance of this article staying on Wikipedia.

We are watching a significant paradigm shift in economics, one that empowers all humans on the Earth from the grassroots upwards to the heavens. This does not happen every day, and it is dramatic to watch it unfold.

How could any knowledgable person argue against a fundamental right of ALL humans to a stipend income from their pro-rata share of consuming production? (to start at just one point). Without consumption there can be only limited production. They are intertwined like a hand in a glove.

Binary Economics is also very organic. It recognizes how people automatically enter into natural economic relationships in order to sustain their lives.

Regards, Steve Nieman President, the Ownership Union®, a binary stakeholders union | Interim CEO, the Downwind Corp, a binary economics corporation Capt. Nemo 01:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creating money

Okasy I realize that I'm probably about the most hated person here right now but in good faith let me try to clarify what I believe to be a factual error.

According to the article money creation would not be possible since loans would be tunneled through private banks at 0% interest. This is all perfectly fine, nothing new about this. Kelso did not invent this idea. What troubles me is that the article says that deposits and bank capital (vague term but okay) could be used to lend out money in addition to the interest free loans. First of all this contradicts Friedman's original proposal which was based on the idea that deposits are private property that should not be used by the bank to generate revenue in the form of interest. To make the idea that banks would still be able to lend out deposits fit within the over all framework of this model you need to explain to the reader how these deposits, which per assumption do not originate from the 0% tunneled loans, are generated. Where could this money come from if the 0% interest loans are used for investment?

One explanation might be that they originate from say student loans, tunneled through the banks at 0% interest. which in turn are used in the real economy to facilitate efficient trading. Thus if we alter the assumption that all 0% loans are used to finance productive capital this may work. This money is then deposited in the bank and then used gradually. If this indeed is the theory then given that there is no interest then theoretically the model would work and the central bank would not be generating inflation because the loans simly cancel out once repaid at 0% interest. Inflation may still exist because of international trade with countries not implementing this regime but at least the model would work and be logically consistent. I really do believe that you need to rewrite this to explain what I just said. One question: how is the supply and demand for money equilibrated when the interest rate equals 0? Should this be understood as rationing of money?

I realize that you will be probably be telling me that that this is all perfectly obvious but trust me on this... when reading the article as it is now from a purely economic point of view(forget politics) then it simply doies not add up. You need to explain this better and I have now given you a good faith example of how this could be done. MartinDK 13:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the section in question to clarify what I believe you actually mean. MartinDK 13:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Martin, thank you for the good faith help to make something positive out of this dispute. I am interested in two things here. One is to clear up some misunderstanding that may or may not be due to the way the original article was written. The second is the more tricky one of talking across paradigmic boundaries.
Let me broach this second issue with the help of a metaphor. If one has never seen a cow, it will be difficult to understand someone trying to convince us that we should exchange our horse for a cow if we want lots of milk. The advocates of binary economics seem to be talking gibberish because it is a different animal from orthodox economics.
The issue of money creation is also complicated by the fact that terms can mean different things to different people and in different contexts. I understand 100% reserve as the practice of lending out no more money than taken in as deposits (advisably less, say, 90% of deposits). In normal times this precaution can be (and is) suspended because deposits will tend to regularly exceed withdrawals. (Friedman, I believe, is talking about something else.)
If banks lend multiples of deposits (ten pounds, say, for every pound deposited (current practice), they are creating credit-money out of nothing. It is this practice that binary economics seeks to harness (with proper anti-inflationary safeguards) as a service to benefit the whole of the national (and world?) community (without imposing a private tax called "interest" on credit creation, as at present).--Janosabel 18:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we are getting closer to an understanding here. The way money creation is usually understood is that banks create money not because they lend out more money than is being deposited or held in reserves from other sources but because loans and deposists are included individually when keeping track of how much money exists in the economy. So, if I deposit 100 pounds and the bank then lends out 80 pounds of those a total of 180 pounds now exist. Thus the bank has created 80 pounds that it is now generating revenue from because the interest rate on loans exceeds the interest rate on deposits. Friedman believed that this was wrong because the deposits are private property. Supporters of binary economics seem to approach this fundamentally differently which is causing confusion. Regardless of whether one supports binary economics or not I think the article should be understandable for the far majority of economics interested people who come here.
The practise of lending out more than is being deposited or kept as reserves from other sources (high-powered money) is considered extremely risky and is not allowed in most countries with an efficient supervision of the financial sector. It has been known to happen in less developed economies causing catastrophical collapse of the financial sector with huge human costs (unemployment, poverty) as a result from this hazardous practice. Perhaps the article should contain a small section explaining the difference between how binary economists and mainstream economists understand money creation and how the total amount of money in an economy is calculated? MartinDK 09:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] criticism of article

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binary economics. Archived, please do not modify it

Highlights from four critics from the above page:

  • this article is nonsense
  • this is not a mainstream economics theory
  • incoherent blatant nonsense that no economist with respect for himself would ever waste a second on (an economist with a master's degree)
  • no respecting economist would take binary economics seriously.
  • bad science
  • a fringe theory with no acceptance amongst professional economists.
  • it reads as POV gibberish
  • this article isn't economics, it's a thinly veiled rationalisation of the Islamic prohibition on lending money for interest
  • I will be removing the links to your website as spam
  • little more than political propaganda in disguise
  • the Kelso Institute is not the reliable source that it sounds like. It is a website run by Patricia Kelso, the wife of the originator of this theory

Thanks to those voting to "keep" and to the editors for withdrawing the "delete" note.

People familiar with the history of economic thought* may find some of these criticisms familiar. They are reminscent of the comments traded among economists, over the centuries, when colleagues strayed outside the accepted norms of their discipline.--Janosabel 22:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  • See The Origin of Economic Ideas, Guy Routh (1989)

Now, where is the article, critique of neoclassical economics?

Actually the article on Economics contains a long critique of economics and neo-classical economics in particular. MartinDK 10:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] factual accuracy is disputed

Where: Uses of central bank-issued interest-free loans MartinDK 10:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why: Does not properly explain to the vast majority of economists who read this article how binary economists interpret money creation. Specifically, the use of the term money creation and 100% reserves and the reference to Friedman confuses mainstream economists when reading this. MartinDK 10:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How to correct: Introduce the reader to how concepts known to him, such as money creation, should be interpreted to understand properly what is being said. It's a bit like writing a university paper... just because you understand what is being said doesn't mean that others with a different and more common understanding and academic background is going to understand it. MartinDK 10:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the neutrality is disputed

Where: The end of the article MartinDK 10:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why: Needs to better explain why binary economics is being criticized. MartinDK 10:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How to correct: Expand/rewrite that section. MartinDK 10:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article or section may contain original research or unverified claims

Where: Most of the article. MartinDK 10:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why: Primarily because some of the most crucial links were not working. Also, it would be beneficial if the article provided references to more peer-reviewed articles and less articles written by authors of the article. Links to websites created by the authors of this article are nor recommended per Wikipedia policy. You can link to your own creations if they are peer-reviewed or are considered central to the theory. I believe that such central sources are limited to the works of Kelso. Avoid general links like the link to the Kelso website. Provide direct links to the sources. MartinDK 10:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How to correct: Fix the links that were removed in the latest version of the article. Dig up more peer-reviewed articles to establish that this is a notable theory/school within economics. Rely less on working papers and sources written by the authors of the article. MartinDK 10:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] other (great) ideas to improve the article

Idea: Focus more on Microfinance

Why: Microfinance is beyond any doubt a notable subject. There are loads of peer-reviewed and other reliable sources. By focusing more on this as an application of binary economics we overcome two of the main problems: The lack of peer-rewieved sources and notability. Solve those two problems and the POV tag can go as well. Also, it allows us two give the reader a real world example of what is being discussed which would make the article much more approachable. MartinDK 15:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I did a search just to illustrate my point. This search reveals a number of peer-reviewed articles, unfortunately all from the same journal. Now, if we do a simular search for microfinance we get this. That is a huge improvement in the variety of sources! With all due respect to the authors of the articles from the first search this is a much broader collection of sources. I also know that the Asian Development Bank has a number of reports about this that could be linked to directly. So, what do you think? Should we expand the article to include this? That would vastly improve the article since it would no longer be about the theory exclusively but also about a practical and notable implementation of at least parts of the theory. MartinDK 13:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy of latest book

a) In order to improve a situation in which people have little or no knowledge of any standard binary book (let alone an up-to-date one), I offer a free copy of the latest book – The Modern Universal Paradigm (Shakespeare) – to a person who has been acting in good faith and who can be relied on in future to convey the facts accurately. Please decide among yourselves who that person should be and then send the snail mail address to me at rodney.shakespeare1@btopenworld.com whereon I will post the book and, if necessary, provide further information etc. by email.

b) There is also available to everyone an extensive and informative website – in effect, a long, clearly written, article --at http://binaryeconomics.net

c) There continue to be problems with the comments being made. For example, the remark about being heavily tied in with Islam ignores the fact that binary economics is an expression of some fundamental beliefs lying behind ALL the main religions – and the Islamic connection at the moment is only because Islam is where the matter is first being progressed (there are reasons for that – see Preface to The Universal Paradigm and Islamic World-system — (Choudhury/Shakespeare).

Furthermore, if you go to the Loans section at www.binaryeconomics.net you will see the non-Islamic countries where interest-free loans are being, or have been, used and, at this moment, a three week lecture tour is being arranged for me in a non-Islamic country. Binary economics is universal, OK?

d) Some quick comments. i) There is nothing wrong in lending people’s deposits for various purposes including investment IF they (the depositors) give permission.

ii) In circumstances of 100% banking reserves, the supply and demand for interest-free loans is essentially a matter of whether or not a proposal can show that it will pay for itself – binary economics has an extra layer of scrutiny on this matter. This is not rationing but a market allocation for projects viewed to be practical and capable of paying for themselves.

iii) The fractional reserve creation of money which allows a bank to create credit as a multiple of deposits (which credit is then deposited elsewhere and so allowing even more credit creation) is a system capable of an almost endless creation of money. MartinDK rightly says that this is extremely risky but, despite pious words, this is what happens at present and it is so risky that the present world financial system could yet collapse because such credit creation is continuing on a massive scale (and is also the main worldwide cause of continual inflation and rising asset prices). Binary economics, however, (eventually) stops the banks creating continual multiples of credit and ensures that interest-free credit creation is directed at productive capacity which must not only pay for itself but also, at the same time, distribute consuming capacity thereby balancing supply and demand. Unlike the present system binary economics is a sensible, responsible market economics.

iv) MartinDK recounts past ‘criticism’ which, in reality, is low-class vulgar abuse and then he rightly thanks those who voted to KEEP: and also thanks the Wiki editors for withdrawing the proposal to delete. But that proposal was a disgrace which should never have been made, let alone have received support. When this sort of proposal is made and receives support the good faith of those making the proposal or supporting it is very much called into question.

v) As regards alleged lack of neutrality I precisely identified the essence of the Terrell/Roth complaint and explained their misunderstanding and it is not helpful if people, without being specific, then continue to make a blanket claim of lack of neutrality. Because binary economics is a new paradigm, vicious attacks are bound to be made – in the case of one professor it took me a year to force him to admit that the reason why he got everything wrong was that he had not read anything at all about the subject yet (believe it or not) he had the main binary textbook in his possession! Criticism must be fair, accurate and specific and I hope that the offer of the book will improve the standard and also stop the nonsense about unverified claims. There are no unverified claims – everything at www.binaryeconomics.net can be referred to published books, papers etc

vi) The comment about peer-reviewed articles misses the point that binary economics is a new paradigm and so it cannot be fairly understood from within the old paradigm. The extraordinary course of events concerned with this article is the clearest evidence of a new paradigm which some people are unable to comprehend and want to destroy.

vii) On microfinance, it is sensible to propose discussing it more but distinction must be made between conventional micro-finance and binary micro-finance. They are completely different animals – one bears interest, and the other does not. Kindly do not in any way muddle people as to the difference which means, for instance, that a woman can have $2 per day to live on instead on $1. Thus, far from being exploitative, binary economics is a decent, moral economics.

viii) The linking of conventional articles to binary economics courts the danger of muddying the good name of binary economics (and it already has to put up with a lot of spiteful assault) simply because binary economics is not only different but it also, unlike conventional economics, has moral purpose. A new paradigm is a new paradigm and, ultimately, can only be understood in its own terms (See Kuhn etc). Rodney Shakespeare, 24th July, 2007, rodney.shakespeare1@btopenworld.com

[edit] What next? Mooting another rewrite

It is time get the article properly up to standard and remove the tags. But it is common sense that anybody wanting to write on binary economics should at least have read and understood the standard text book, Binary Economics -- The New Paradigm, Ashford & Shakespeare, on the subject.

Rodney Shakespeare offered a free copy of The Modern Universal Paradigm to a person who has been acting in good faith and who can be relied on in future to convey the facts accurately. This latest book presents binary economics in the larger context of a paradigm shift, since economics is not just about economics because an economy is an organic part of a societal whole. However, a more professional article needs the scholarly resources of the full textbook by Ashford & Shakespeare.

In the meanwhile I intend doing the sensible thing by asking Rodney Shakespeare to re-write the article taking account of the good faith alterations made so far.--Janosabel 21:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC) {{helpme}}

I don't think I should just replace the current article since a whole lot of discussion goes with it. How do I create a "redirect" page to a proposed improved version?--Janosabel 21:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
If I understand your question correctly, I'll suggest that you create the new version of the article in a sandbox. Then you can just put a link here to that "development version". Once it is ready, it can me moved here and the page histories can be merged. You may want to get consensus to have the current article protected, to keep from having 2 versions worked on at once. --After Midnight 0001 23:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for replying so propmptly. The new version of the article in response to the more positive comments here is now ready. As suggested above this current version should be protected from further edits and I hereby ask for a consensus to that effect.--Janosabel 20:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The latest books must be studied

Janos, It is true that anybody wanting to write on binary economics should at least have read and understood Binary Economics - the new paradigm (1999). However, since 1999, binary economics has made, and is making, further development and to get properly up to date it is necessary to read The Modern Universal Paradigm (2007) – which is why I have offered a free copy to a person acting in good faith and capable of conveying the facts accurately. Good faith, of course, really does require a willingness to read the key books particularly when it is being openly and consistently stated that a new paradigm is involved and new paradigms cannot be understood from within the old paradigm (Kuhn).

Moreover, there is a binary development within Islam lead by Masudul Alam Choudhury. A Google search on him and his extensive works will quickly establish that he is of the highest authority and explain why he is considered by many to be the leading Islamic economist. I mention this because The Universal Paradigm and Islamic World-system is being published on 31st July, 2007 and anybody who is genuinely concerned with understanding what is happening has to read that book as well. Rodney Shakespeare, 27th July, 2007, rodney.shakespeare1@btopenworld.com

The new article is of high standard. The full diagram is essential. David Soori sooriuk@yahoo.com 31st July, 2007