User talk:Panache

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Panache, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 01:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


Good morning. In editing the 2005 civil unrest in France article, you've repeatedly removed the comment about 1968 student riots being the last larger event, only to have it restored by someone else. Often me. In the interests of productivity, why? Aren't they? --Kizor 10:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] of course not

I've pointed this several times in the discussion page with no answer

[edit] Pour signer

Bonjour, j'attire ton attention sur le fait que tu peux signer de ton nom dansles pages de discussion de façon très facile avec quatre "tidles" (~~~~), si tu es authentifié. Cela pourrait t'éviter des pertes de temps à copier-coller ton nom d'utilisateur. Bonne continuation ! Rama 09:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Persistent trolling and violation of Wikipedia's policy against “original research” will cause you to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —SlamDiego←T 06:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not presented any original research, I have only tried to correct your partisan presentation of the theory of quantitative money. In no way can it be said that the second equation is used instead of the first because of lack of relevant data. The second equation is a flow equation it erases all transactions on goods already produced or generated, whatever, this is basics and all fair and honest wikipedians acknowledge it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panache (talk • contribs)
If I were engaged in partisan presentation, I would in fact critique the equation of exchange very effectively. The school of thought to which I belong regards it as fundamentally in error (for excellent reasons). But, because the critique is well out of the mainstream, even though it would be competent and would not be “original research”, it would be out-of-place in the section of the article into which you keep attempting to inject “original research” that is not competent. —SlamDiego←T 21:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I have suggested various other formulations of the passage. I m sure it is possible to improve it and I regard your stubborn opposition to any variation of the current phrasing as very strange indeed. Since we all know that some transactions present in the two first equations are not included in the third and that lack of available data is not the reason for excluding them, why state so ? It is my feeling that it is unfair from you to claim that my attempts at clarifying the presentation are original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panache (talk • contribs)
We know no such thing. Instead of arguing how the data could be collected in theory, try providing a link to the data, or to a reference that reports where the data are held; you will fail. Your inference that the data are available because you can imagine them being available is original as well as ridiculous. —SlamDiego←T 07:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I provided such links. I gave a link to a research using bank withdrawals to assess all market transactions. But there is data that is even of even easier access. I've pointed to it several times but you do not seem to grasp. Housing transactions are not recorded into the GDP, yet they are available.
A simple google of housing transactions brought me here :::::http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=7336
THese are UK's stats.
So I had to do a second google search, WOW is that hard, and I found
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/construction_housing/housing_sales/
there you have the existing one family housing sales ... Guess what there are more sales and prices are higher ... Bet that money has been used for those transactions... Gee could that partly explain why the monetary equation sucks since the 80's the way it does ?
Anyway thanks for giving proof of how *edit* you are. The data is there. It is not because it is not there that it is not used it is because monetarists do not want to use them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panache (talk • contribs)
  • Again, you are pretending that links to theory are links to data; and, here, the theory to which you immediately above direct attention — one of using bank transactions as a proxy — is not even one for acquiring actual data for all transactions. GDP too is a proxy for all transactions, yet no one is claiming that it simply is all transactions.
  • And you are pretending that links to an abundance of data for the housing market are links to data for all transactions, as if people bought-and-sold nothing but houses!
  • I repeat: Try providing a link to the data for all transactions, or to a reference that reports where the data are held.
—SlamDiego←T 23:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Again you are trying to make me say things I m not saying and later you will as usual blame my english and or economic level to state that I don't even understand what I'm saying. You are so kind ... So "for the sake of third parties".
I don't need to prove that there is a way to access the data to "all" transactions. I've never stated that data on all transactions was available. I'm stating that data on houses, for instance, are readily available, yet they are not included in the equation. Hence lack of available data is not the reason for their exclusion. Can you GRASP that ? Nothing in the data prevents adding housing transactions to the GDP. Adding them would create a better estimate of all transactions. Yet transactions on houses are not included. Therefore there is another explanation for their exclusion than "lack of available data". Again can you grasp this point ? What's your problem with it ?
I don't think I even owe you alternative explanations of why the data is excluded. I will try just for your information. Exclusion of capital goods in general and housing transaction in particular may be caused by :
1 a desire to avoid all the complications that go along with taking into account the transactions on goods that were "generated" in earlier time periods.
2 Or it could be an effect of the obsessions with consuming goods price to the point that inflation is defined as a rise in consumption goods prices (a rise in the price of houses, stocks and other capital goods is not seen as being part of inflation).
3 There must other reasons and among them a desire for simplicity (and the absence of national housing bubbles in the state and in the world prior to the 1980's). you can add to the list.
Anyway you look at it, lack of available data is not the reason why data on housing transactions were not included on top of GDP. The data is there. It is there for anyone to see, it could be included anytime. Yet it is not.
I don't know much about the use of banks data to assess the amount of transactions. All I wanted through this link is showing that alternative data was available. There is data on bank withdrawals. This data is available. It could be used instead of GDP and it seems it would provide a far proxy of all transactions. Therefore again it is not because GDP is the best data available that it is used, it is for self evident other theoritical reasons. The exclusion of transactions on capital goods and intermediary transactions is not caused by lack of available data (the data is partially available and could me made available) but by theoritical reasons that need be stated.
I ve not changed my mind on the article, I still hope to find time to completely rewrite it in an objective keynesian way. Hence it will be shown how the equation describes only one of the source of money demand (money demand for transactions), and does this in a very limited way (excluding intermediary and capital goods) thus explaining why the equation so blatantly failed in the asset boom environment of the 90's and 00's.
I don't even know why I answer you you seem to lack basic intellectual integrity and logic. You stated lack of D is the only reason for the exclusion of T and the use of Q instead. I provided proof that D is available for H a part of T, so that lack of D is not the reason for the exclusion of H, and therefore lack of T is not the only reason for the exclusion of T.
This was self evident from the start. And yet after all this time you stick to a phrasing that is SO blatantly false ... Aside for a weird political agenda, stupidity or stubborness, I can't understand such a lack of logic.
So I repeat I don't have to provide a link that would provide acess to all transactions since this is not my thesis. I have not stated "Data on all transactions is available". I have stated "Data on some transactions not included in the GDP is available, therefore the exclusion of these transactions through the exclusive use of GDP is not motivated by lack of available data." I have proven this point. Many times. And I should not have had to google for data on housing. It is self evident and well known that exclusion of capital goods from the equation is purposive and not due to lack of available data. AS a supposed austrian you could for instance read this : http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/blumen/2006/0611.html
"The inflationary nature of the credit-driven boom is hidden from most people as long as the prevalence of easy credit does not translate into rising prices of consumption goods. If for example, assets that make people feel wealthier – stocks and houses –- are going up in price, it will not be perceived as a process of monetary debasement. However, if the monetary injection escapes the confines of asset prices its true inflationary nature becomes more clear to the general population."
Or this http://olldownload.libertyfund.org/Texts/Moss0594/EconomicsofMises/0719_Bk.pdf
both clearly state that the relative prices of capital and consumption goods can be distorted. Therefore it is self evident that excluding transactions on capital goods and the impact of money creation on the price level of those capital goods, is not something that has anything to do with the data available. It has everything to do with self evident theoritical choices.
Finally I m fed up with you and with what I believe to be your bad faith. If you have basic skills and economic literracy, which it seems you have, if you indeed are austrian, then you know you are wrong. Yet you keep on talking and distorting what I've said and doing as if you did not understand the obvious. As long as you behave like this, I simply have no respect for you whatsoever. So, unless you finally realise your errors, I'm not interested in talking to you anymore.Panache 11:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


No, plainly you did insist that all the data were available, even if you don't realize what you've been insisting. No one argued that none of the data were available; after all, the transactions counted in GDP are transactions. Simply showing that data can be found for some transactions outside of GDP doesn't change the fact that we don't have the data required to use “the transactions form” of the equation of exchange. Notice that the mathematical form of “M•V = P•Q” is exactly the same as the mathematical form of “M•VT = P•T”. The difference is just the semantic content. The Q isn't just some of the transactions that count towards GDP, and the T isn't just just some transactions; it is all transactions. You would know this if you had a stronger background in economics, and it can be inferred from the article — note that VT is explicitly defined in terms of “all transactions with which a unit of money is spent”. (The reason that V, in the GDP version, has distinct definition is because when we focus on different set of transactions then the relevant velocity will be different.) As the passage that you tried to delete said:
The previous equation, known as the “transactions form”, presents the difficulty that the associated data are not available. Data for final expenditures are more readily available.
Again: Your understandings of economics and of English are inadequate for you to be editing the economics articles in the English-language Wikipedia. I will leave it to others to read and deal with your edits to the Critics section of the article on the quantity theory, but I will work to ensure that the other sections remain competent.
—SlamDiego←T 21:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
As I have stated elsewhere, I am well aware of deficiencies in the equation of exchange; however, you have misunderstood what the actual deficiencies are, and your edits have misrepresented the theory and the motivations of those who use the version “M•V = P•Q”. The first duty of any article is to accurately represent its subject, regardless of whether you or I or anyone else endorses it. —SlamDiego←T 23:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wp:npa

Hi, just dropping by after reading over some of the talk pages you have been contributing to - I think some of your input violates wikipedia's no personal attack policy which you should read about here - this edit in particular [1] is one that you should probably undo or reword, kind regards sbandrews (t) 17:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I second that -- please strive to be polite in your interactions with other editors. We're all in this together. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

coming after a few months... M wondering how I can edit those things i wrote ——Preceding unsigned comment added by Panache (talk • contribs)

Once a comment has been archived (as were those), it should not be editted at all. And, even before it has been archived, if there has already been a reply to a comment, then the only significant edit to the original comment that would be appropriate would be a strike-through (with the <strike></strike> tags), to indicate that the comment is withdrawn (generally with an explanatory note in a subsequent comment); to otherwise edit a comment substantially after a reply is to falsify the context in which the reply were given. —SlamDiego←T 04:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)