Talk:Inflation accounting/Archive 1

message: ARCHIVE NOTE: Some sections of this discussion do not flow clearly because an inexperienced editor made changes to the discussion. Please see the article's talk page history for details of all edits. --Foggy Morning 12:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

message: The Kane reference does not open.
Can someone fix it.
Nicolaas J Smith 13:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicolaas, this is opening ok for me, but it's a powerpoint file. I think you need Microsoft Office or OpenOffice software to read it. I'll see if there's a non-powerpoint version available on the Internet. --Foggy Morning 13:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Kane reference does not open

message: To be inserted: Definition, examples, origin, how valued and updated - of constant real value non-monetary items being the same as Historical Cost items. Contrast with variable real value non-monetary items. Define + examples + how valued and updated. Show as sub-classes of non-monetary items. Define monetary and non-monetary items.
The two components of inflation: monetary and non-monetary component.
Not sure that this paragraph should be in article:
"There is a current movement to use inflation accounting to revoke the very destructive effects of the combination of inflation and the global 700 year old stable measuring unit assumption. Also to make people in general and especially the accounting profession aware of the very destructive effects of the stable measuring unit assumption in the world economy. It is intended to use the very successful revoking of the stable measuring unit assumption by Brazil during the period of their Unidade Real de Valor for this purpose. This may eventually lead to the  very desired end of the Historical Cost paradigm which the accounting profession has been unable to successfully resolve for the last 70 years. (quote Kapnick Saxe lecuture over here.)"
Comments?
Important additions to be made: 
(1) Dollarization of company accounts for company specific inflation accounting 
(2) Dollarization of a country´s economy for economy wide inflation accounting - being low inflation economy. 
Nicolaas J Smith 12:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To be added 

message: The Brazilian monetary authorities at the time unknowingly reintroduced the very destructive stable measuring unit assumption when the URV was converted into their monetary unit, the Real. 
Nicolaas J Smith 13:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just notes 

message: Inputs are required from editors with experience in this topic.
Nicolaas J Smith 00:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Purchasing Power Accounting Model 

message: Inputs are required from editors with experience in this topic.
Nicolaas J Smith 00:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Cost Accounting model 

message: Real Value Accounting
Foggy Morning, your name is sort of appropriate for this article. (Time for a joke!)
Inflation accounting was sort of foggy up to now. The fog is now starting to clear.
I must admit that I also did not study the Brazilian URV while I was writing the book. (lol, I did not study anything. Anyways, it is too boring to read hundreds of books that all seemed to be wrong in any case. Seems to me I tried to reinvent the wheel. Maybe I could feel that they were all wrong and that it was best to try and figure the problem out from the start or from basics. Maybe that was what happened.)
Anyway, the more I get to know about the URV the more it appears that the URV and Real Value Accounting is one and the same thing. Actually dollarization, the URV and Real Value Accounting are all one and the same model. See the article. The only really new part in Real Value Accounting is the daily update bit, that is, all non-monetary items in all economies are only valid when they are all updated to today´s real value. You can only look at any non-monetary item and correctly understand its real value, only when it is always updated to today´s real value. Historical values are of no use - never to be used. We only know what real value is today. We cannot put our beings and minds back in the past to comprehend past levels of real value using historical values. We have to update them to today´s real value to understand them and to interpret and use them correctly today.
That means that financial reports are only correct and valid on the period end date, that is, when they are prepared and consulted only on the period end date. When all items in a financial report about a period in the past are not updated to today´s real value, they are all wrong. They have to be updated to today´s real value to be valid and correct.
That means that hard copies of financial statements are only valid on the period end date. They are wrong after that date. Computerised automatically always-updated to today´s real value presentation is the best for financial reports.
In that sense, 98% of Real Value Accounting is already generally accepted in accounting and economic literature. Real Value Accounting and Real Terms Accounting were already generally accepted in the past as names for Constant (Current) Purchasing Power Accounting models. Whittington´s book is dated 1983. The other case is that university course in America.
So, Real Value Accounting is generally accepted and can enter Wikipedia as such. It is the same as dollarization and the URV, it has been lectured for years in America and it is generally accepted in accounting literature. That is, the CPP part. 
Thus, the only not generally accepted part of Real Value Accounting is the part that I may have invented, the daily update part. I think it boils down to that. 
I now feel very confident that I will be able to defend Real Value Accounting already being generally accepted as part of inflation accounting. The new part is not. 
Well, maybe that is not the whole story. There are other novel, not yet generally accepted, parts to Real Value Accounting. They are the facts that it is applicable to all low inflationary economies and also in deflationary economies to eliminate the real value creation effects of the stable measuring unit assumption in deflationary economies. 
So, now Real Value Accounting becomes a little more not generally accepted. The problem is that Real Value Accounting is a complete accounting model. It applies in all economic models. It is the natural next step in our fundamental model of accounting. 
Now I see the real problem with Real Value Accounting: it is not just an inflation accounting model. It is a complete basic accounting model like the Historical Cost Accounting model. It is a comprehensive fundamental accounting model. 
Thus: Real Value Accounting is a complete or comprehensive accounting model and not just an inflation accounting model. It has four parts or components. 
1. The CPP part is its normal inflation accounting part excluding the daily update bit. The CPP part is not new at all. The CPP part is exactly the same as in dollarization and the URV. That part of Real Value Accounting is completely generally accepted and can enter Wikipedia. I can even enter it myself since I am not the originator/author of that part. That already existed for a very long time. 
There is a problem with the fact that the use of the parallel rate to update constant real value non-monetary items under the Real Value Inflation Accounting model in hyperinflationary economies is not yet generally accepted.
On closer analysis I realised that the use of the parallel rate is actually generally accepted. The fact that the Brazilians´ Unidade Real de Valor had a 1:1 parity with he USD proves that. 
So, the whole Real Value Inflation Accounting version is generally accepted. So, all of it is acceptable for Wikipedia. 
2. The real value enabler or current or today´s real value part is new. That is not yet generally accepted.
I was wrong here too. The a new URV was calculated every day. So the daily update part is not new. That is also generally accepted as proven by the URV daily update.
3. The fact that Real Value Accounting is applicable in all low inflationary economies to stop the destruction of real value in all constant real value non-monetary items not fully or never updated in the low inflation world economy is the only part of Real Value Accounting not yet generally accepted under inflation.
It can also be said that both parts of Real Value Inflation Accounting are generally accepted under hyperinflation.
So, for inflation accounting purposes, the whole of Real Value Inflation Accounting is generally accepted. All of it can enter Wikipedia as generally accepted.
The fact that Real Value Accounting is to be applied in deflationary economies is also not yet generally accepted. This however is not applicable under inflation.
I think that´s it. That may be the whole story, so far. 
I feel much better now. I don´t have to fight with Wikipedia anymore. I know what is generally accepted and what is not. That´s a relief. It was really a problem before I could seperate all the parts. Now I don´t think it will be so much of a problem
Nicolaas J Smith 10:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Value Accounting finally seperated into its two parts under hyperinflation: both generally accepted. 

message: Real Value Accounting
Foggy Morning,
The more I work on the article the more it is coming right. But, I am understanding a lot more as we go along. It is almost like writing a book again.
The basic elements of the article are there but the presentation will change a lot:
There is only one inflation accounting model: CPP. All three models are exactly the same.
This is logical: the purchasing power of money is destroyed. one problem = one solution = cpp.
The big problem is the rate, the chaos in actual hyperinflation and the fact that the gov is against the rate and does not supply a single rate.  
Dollarization, URV and RVA are all the same CPP model. The way each uses a different rate is the only difference among them. 
The only novel element RVA brings to inflation accounting is the real value enabler.
RVA is the local currency side of dollarization. Nothing new at all. It all falls into place now.
The URV is the organized gov controlled, correct way. The dollarizatio/RVA combination is the solution when there is no official single rate. Dollarization/RVA are the two sides of the same thing. The one side USD - the other side the local currency or RVA.
It´s all just a big puzzle : like writing RVA was. 
In an organized situation it is simple URV. No problem. The gov supplies the rate for the country. No gov rate is the big problem. (the gov is the enemy -  happens in hyperinflation.  very clear in Zim now. the gov fights the market. the market always wins. the market = the people )
The OMIR case is very interesting. 
That is also the reason there is no standard. The standard has to standardise daily updating. Without that, nothing works in hyperinflation. In hyperinflation daily updating is essential. You cannot do without it. It must thus be in the standard too. 
Finally: to fix everything you need to fix everything: To stop the need for inflation accounting you need to ban the stable measuring unit assumption in low inflation economies. That is: end Hist. Cost. People have got to get used to updating everything in low inflation economies. In that way you will end imbalances in all economic modes.
If you get into monetary hyperinflation in the future with a system like that, there will be no imbalances because there will be no SMUA. No more Zimbabwe situation possible. 
That is the jist of the article. Now it has to neatly written to bring all that out.
The short answer : SMUA = economic/public enemy number one. Answer: end HCA. 
The biggest problem is the SMUA. The biggest problem in hyperinflation is that the gov is against the rate. Solve those two and you solve everything. 
The fact that the gov is against the rate makes an international standard almost impossible - but that will be overcome.
Of course: 
monetary inflation is something completely different. has almost nothing to do with the above . or : it actually has nothing to do with the above. it is monetary inflation.
all the above treats non-monetary inflation. two completely different things.
It´s crazy that this article has nothing to do with actual cash hyperinflation, isn´t it? But it is absolutely correct. 
Another very clear proof that monetary inflation and non-monetary inflation are two very different items. The first being the result of an economic process and the second being the very destructive result of an accounting practice.
RVA is simply just the local currency accounting part of dollarization. The only novel part is the real value enabler.
Foggy Morning, I don´t know if you follow any of this.
Do you? Give me some indication. How much of this do you follow?
Successful country inflation accounting in the past:
1. URV in Brazil
2. Dollarization in Panama.
3. Dollarization in Equador.
4. Dollarization with German Mark in Yugoslavia
These are all really accounting solutions.
I don´t think the currency board in Argentina can be listed as successful. In the end it was a disaster. 
Real Value Accounting
Nicolaas J Smith 05:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicolaas, I can't follow all the edits you've made to this talk page or the article. Please see the article's edit history and talk page history to see the problem I'm encountering. The article's edit history is here and the talk page history is here. Did you read the information on WP:Tutorial? --Foggy Morning 03:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The solution 

message: ===1. Dollarization of a company´s accounts===
Dollarization of a company´s daily accounting and business practices in a hyperinflationary economy is a very successful form of inflation accounting that reduces non-monetary inflation to the level of the hard currency used. This is a very simple, easily implemented and very  effective inflation accounting model available to companies in a high or hyperinflationary economy.
The critical requirement is that a company has to be able to update all its selling prices at the daily parallel rate. When a company can do that, it can dollarize the rest of its business. It will have no fear of hyperinflation. The rate would be immaterial to it.
It is such a simple, easily understood, easily implemented and very effective model that it could replace the flawed and ineffective IAS 29 as an International Accounting Standard.
It has an extremely low implementation cost
The stable measuring unit assumption and the Historical Cost model are 98% revoked under this model.
===2. Unidade Real de Valor or Real Value Index Unit ===
The Brazilian Unidade Real de Valor practice was a very successful economy wide inflation accounting model.
The URV allowed Brazil to have a growing non-monetary economy while they still had monetary or cash hyperinflation in their monetary unit.
The URV eliminated non-monetary inflation in Brazil since it was a non-monetary reference unit used to maintain the real values of non-monetary items by updating their nominal values.
This model is in essence the same as the company dollarization model and the Real Value Accounting model.
The Brazilian URV was unique in the sense that it had two parts: 1. the stable non-monetary index part and 2. the final conversion of the URV into the monetary unit part.
Only the first part is required as a general case. The second part would be a general case only in circumstances very similar to the Brazilian case. If hyperinflation is much higher than the 2000% in the Brazilian case and if price indeces are not available for the construction of the index as in the case of Zimbabwe, then the case is simply a dollarization case.
When the country URV is calculated on the basis of country specific price indeces like in the Brazilian case, this model would revoke the stable measuring unit assumption and the Historical Cost Accounting 100%.
===3. Real Value Accounting===
The book "RealValueAccounting.Com - The next step in our fundamental model of accounting"  by Nicolaas J Smith is available as a free download at the Social Science Research Network at   
The specific intention of the Real Value Inflation Accounting practice for hyperinflationary economies is to stop the combination of hyperinflation and the stable measuring unit assumption from destroying the real values of constant real value non-monetary items in a company or an economy not fully or never updated as a result of the implementation of the Historical Cost Accounting model or any other accounting model that does not allow the continuous updating of all constant real value non-monetary items in terms of  the current (today´s) parallel rate in an hyperinflationary economy.
The Real Value Inflation Accounting model also contains the daily updating element as implemented under the Unidade Real de Valor and the dollarization model. 
Non-monetary items would be valued at today´s real value compliant with all current IASB International Standards excluding the stable measuring unit assumption, IAS29 and the definition of monetary items in IAS 21. 
The basic underlying principles of Real Value Inflation Accounting for hyperinflationary economies are almost identical to those the Unidade Real de Valor and dollarization models were based on. 
A "general purchasing power accounting" course, being taught as a secondary part of a university financial accountancy degree course in the USA, is listed in the university´s degree sylabus as Real Value Accounting. This course is not the same as the comprehensive Real Value Accounting model described above.
The stable measuring unit assumption and the Historical Cost model are revoked 100% under all versions of the Real Value Accounting model.
===5 Dollarization of an economy.===
Examples are of country dollarizations are Ecuador and Panama. Argentina had a currency board.
This model revokes the stable measuring unit assumption and the Historical Cost model 98%. This model implements the Real Value Accounting model 98%.
IAS 29
(Quote Dr Kucuksozen, head of Turkey´s International Accounting Standards Departement)
(Quote Dr Gustavo Franco, ex Governor of the Central Bank of Brazil and one of the creators of the URV)
Both these quotes are from private email correspondence and do not serve as sources of quotes - I am sure.
--------------
The company dollarization model, the Unidade Real de Valor model and the Real Value Accounting model are different versions of the same Constant Purchasing Power model. They differ in the choice of non-monetary index used to update constant real value non-monetary items. The dollarization model uses the hard currency as a direct substitute for a non-monetary index, the URV constructed its own non-monetary index while the Real Value Inflation Accounting model uses the parallel rate in hyperinflationary economies. The dollarization model revokes the stable measuring unit assumption and the Historical Cost model by 98% while the last two revoke them completely while they are in use.
The Brazilian Unidade Real de Valor stabilisation practice was a very successful inflation accounting model applied to a whole hyperinflationary economy. 
Nicolaas J Smith 06:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Inflation accounting models'''

message: Examples are of country dollarizations are Ecuador and Panama. Argentina had a currency board.
This model revokes the stable measuring unit assumption and the Historical Cost model 98%. This model implements the Real Value Accounting model 98%.
IAS 29
(Quote Dr Kucuksozen, head of Turkey´s International Accounting Standards Departement)
(Quote Dr Gustavo Franco, ex Governor of the Central Bank of Brazil and one of the creators of the URV)
Both these quotes are from private email correspondence and do not serve as sources of quotes - I am sure.
--------------
The company dollarization model, the Unidade Real de Valor model and the Real Value Accounting model are different versions of the same Constant Purchasing Power model. They differ in the choice of non-monetary index used to update constant real value non-monetary items. The dollarization model uses the hard currency as a direct substitute for a non-monetary index, the URV constructed its own non-monetary index while the Real Value Inflation Accounting model uses the parallel rate in hyperinflationary economies. The dollarization model revokes the stable measuring unit assumption and the Historical Cost model by 98% while the last two revoke them completely while they are in use.
The Brazilian Unidade Real de Valor stabilisation practice was a very successful inflation accounting model applied to a whole hyperinflationary economy. 
Nicolaas J Smith 06:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 5 [[Dollarization]] of an economy.

message: Nicolaas, let's develop this article further before trying to link it to other articles in Wikipedia. Have you read Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and procedures?  --Foggy Morning 01:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left Greensburger a message about this. --Foggy Morning 10:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 65.78.212.145 is an anonymous editor, so I don't think sending a message will have much impact. The See also section is for listing closely related Wikipedia topics that are not mentioned and wikilinked inside this article. Real versus nominal value is a closely related topic that isn't wikilinked in this article, so I think the anon editor has a good point in including it. Why do you want it removed? --Foggy Morning 10:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The suggestion for wikilink policy is here. Short form summary: links are good; too many can make it hard to read (don't link every second word, link a given word or expression only once). Red ones are bad.--Gregalton 12:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further development needed 

message: Foggy Morning,
By the way, I am coming to understand the Wikipedia philosophy more and more.
I am from now on using the username Herbou that is not my real name. I can see the logic in not using your real name. When you use your real name you always have a Conflict of Interest since you are always promoting your own name and your own knowledge. It is better not to use your real name.
I am not a sock puppet of Nicolaas J Smith or Nicolaas Smith.
Herbou 10:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:Username. As for your point about agreeing with everyone else: there is no obligation to agree. There are policies to the effect that editors should write the articles so that they are neutral and cite references, avoid conflict of interest, etc. For example, find a notable, unrelated source that says there is non-monetary inflation with a definition. (As a side comment, it helps to use terminology that is widely used - non-monetary inflation is generally used to refer to inflation that is not caused by monetary expansion, for example by price shocks. Examples of this usage are here and here). At any rate, welcome and hope the wikification process is not too painful.--Gregalton 12:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No-one is asking you to leave. Some - including Foggy Morning and others - are providing suggestions as to how to integrate content that accords with the basic Wikipedia approach. I also think that inflation accounting is an important subject, and should be included. If you would like a short example of how to make it fit the guidelines better, there is a phrase in a recent edit - "IAS 29 lacks credibility." That is an unreferenced opinion and has a notable point of view. If you find a quote from a notable source, for example, "Jacques Chirac says IAS29 is not credible because ...", that is a notable comment (although hopefully a better-known expert than the former French president could be found); even if it is not neutral, it is documented that it is a notable point of view. Foggy Morning noted that your linking was a bit overdone (too many makes the article hard to read, particularly when they are links to nowhere and end up in red); I for one appreciate that you took his suggestion constructively. This and other points are in the manual of style and WP:About. As for conflict of interest, simply find references that support your points, ideally from notable, authoritative sources. Unfortunately, that generally means from other people's articles/books rather than your own. Hope this helps, and again, welcome.--Gregalton 13:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent quote. The simple statement that "There is some concern that 'financial statements prepared under IAS29, using general price indices [are] not informative for users."ref etc. This is (in my view) more precise than a "lack of credibility," and the quote expresses a particular concern and issue with relative authority. Exactly how the shortcomings can be expressed neutrally in an article.--Gregalton 18:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  name change 

message: Bad faith editing can include deliberate disruption just to prove a point = copied from Wikipedia policies. 
I think it is important for all editors to avoid bad faith editing especially when another editor is working in good faith but may not know all the ins and outs of Wikipedia yet. 
:Oh, please stop the accusations of bad faith. There was an 'unreferenced' flag put on a section that was unreferenced. This doesn't say it's wrong, it simply says it's unreferenced. Just like it sounds. Provide references, rather than spending time writing these long accusations.--Gregalton 19:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad faith editing can include deliberate disruption just to prove a point  

message: Foggy Morning can you please indicate what you want referenced.
Please let me explain the reason for the flag.
Some days ago I had the term non-monetary inflation in that section of the article.
Gregalton mentioned here in the discussion page as you can see above that non-monetary inflation is used in another context and he gave two links.
So, I took the term out. 
Everything was fine.
Then I put the term non-monetary inflation back in that section of the article.
Gregalton immediately put the no references flag up. 
He wants a reference for the term non-monetary inflation as you can see very clearly above. He asks for it specifically.
This is what Gregalton wrote above:
:"Rather than attempting to prove the point this way, why not just provide a reference that uses the phrase 'non-monetary inflation' in the sense that you are referring to?--Gregalton 19:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire section is unreferenced. As for non-monetary inflation, the article (higher up) says this: 'Inflation has two components: monetary inflation called cash inflation and non-monetary inflation called historical cost accounting inflation.' A reference would be helpful for what appears to be a central point of your analysis and definition.--Gregalton 14:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foggy Morning can you please indicate what you want referenced. 

message: Herbou, you've put a lot of good information into this article. I'm sorry I haven't had as much time to work on it as you. I'll try to help out with some "wikifying" within the next few days (that just means using the standard WP:MOS format). I found an example of how a general price-level adjustment is done using a price index. This might help introduce readers to the subject, so I'll add it to the article, and I'd appreciate your feedback on the example.
Many readers will have no idea what inflation accounting is, so the lead section (before the table of contents) should be a simplified overview of the main points in the article. There are quite a few guidelines and policies in Wikipedia, and nobody learns them quickly. I doubt very many people know them all! :))  I'll try to help out here with what I know, and others will probably come help, too. It takes time.
Please do not take editorial changes personally. Do you remember the user who made a change to a quote in this article? You asked me to leave him a note about changing quotations, and I did. Do you think he intended to damage this article in any way? I doubt it. He just made a mistake -- probably didn't notice that it was a direct quotation. Everyone makes mistakes, and most people learn from them and move on. 
Gregalton is online more than I am, and he can help you more than I can. He's got experience and can give you good suggestions for improving this article. When he puts an unreferenced tag on a section, he's letting you and other editors know that the section needs references. He's not attacking you.  He's pointing out where the article needs improvement in order to be verifiable. Lots of articles in Wikipedia need improvement, but often editors don't realize what's needed to improve an article. He's trying to help you here with this article. 
The article discussion page is for discussing the article with other editors -- asking a question, maybe asking if someone else has a reference for something you remember reading but can't find, maybe reaching a concensus on what qualifies as a good reference, maybe discussing the outline of the article. Discussion pages sometimes include long arguments about the what's in the article. But these arguments should never be personal attacks. Discuss or argue the facts in the article, but avoid attacking another editor or generally-accepted norms. Use facts and references to explain your points, especially if they are outside generally-accepted norms. 
There are some policies in Wikipedia that are very strongly enforced -- but usually new editors are forgiven a lot of mistakes. This is the policy WP:Assume good faith. I assume you're here to help make Wikipedia a better encylcopedia. Gregalton assumes the same thing. But new editors, especially, can be rude without realizing they're being rude. And new editors can break a lot of rules without realizing they're doing it. 
You've contributed a lot of good information here in a very short time, and gregalton and I are trying to help you "learn the ropes" in Wikipedia. Everything you've added to Wikipedia is saved in the encylopedia's history. It's not possible to permanently delete something here, it just goes into page history and user history files. Certain deletions by Administrators aren't viewable by others, but that doesn't mean they completely go away.
I don't mean to be preachy here, but you're an intelligent adult with a good heart. Please use both your heart and mind when you edit Wikipedia. Assume good faith, and also take time to learn the encyclopedia's policies and standards. You can help a lot of people understand inflation accounting if you're patient and work with other editors to do this. You can also help improve other articles in related topics that you understand well. And you can also contribute to unrelated articles by researching the topic and contributing information. Wikipedia is like that.
This article is getting better at a marvelous rate, but it's not yet a good article. I think it could be one in time. Someday it might be a featured article. Who knows?  
Herbou, I asked you to work with me on this article because I believe it's an important topic for Wikipedia -- and you know this topic, whereas I'm in learning mode on this topic. But it's also important for you to understand how Wikipedia works. This article will probably succeed or fail based on the quality and completeness of its references. But the article can also slowly and painfully fail for being a battleground of article edits and talk page comments. You and I and gregalton know this doesn't help the article improve -- it just makes the article fuzzy and unstable.
I believe that your heart is in the right place... but that you're not applying your mind to this Wikipedia article. You have a good mind, Herbou. Use it here in Wikipedia, please. 
Here are some basic rules for you to follow, for now:
* Do not change or delete talk page comments made by yourself or anyone else.
* Do not pretend you are someone you are not.
Foggy Morning,
By the way, I am coming to understand the Wikipedia philosophy more and more.
I am from now on using the username Herbou that is not my real name. I can see the logic in not using your real name. When you use your real name you always have a Conflict of Interest since you are always promoting your own name and your own knowledge. It is better not to use your real name.
I am not a sock puppet of Nicolaas J Smith or Nicolaas Smith.
Herbou 10:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making good progress 

message: Just a friendly suggestion: reading one or two larger edits rather than a series of small ones would be much easier. If the "preview" button is used, you can see how the text will look, check links, etc., and edit more effectively, and at the same time make it easier for others to use.--Gregalton 11:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing suggestion 

message: Foggy Moring, with respect, please state what AfD is or stand for.
With respect,
Herbou 06:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foggy Moring, with respect, please state what AfD is or stand for.  

message: Gregalton: with respect, I have removed that phrase that inflation has two components from the article.
With respect.
It is a fact that inflation has two components, namely a monetary and a non-montary component and I have a verifiable, exceptional third party published source for it, namely, Dr Cemal Kucukzosen, the head of the International Accounting Standards Department of the Capital Markets Board of Turkey. 
I remove the phrase to stop this editing war it is provoking. I hope you can accept the fact that the phrase do not appear in the article but only here in the discussion page and in a published book and properly verified and sourced as stated above. 
It is now established with absolute certainty that a fact that is backed up by a verifiable, exceptional third party published source is being kept out of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia Policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."
With respect.
Herbou 16:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gregalton: with respect, I have removed the phrase that inflation has two components from the article. 

message: Wikipedia Policy: with respect "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."
It is absolutely clear to me that what is happening here has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia Policy.
With respect.
Herbou 16:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Policy: with respect "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." 

message: Foggy Morning, with respect,  you have my full support to have the article deleted.
I have lost all my enthusiasm to work in this very hostile atmosphere created by Gregalton.
Luckily it is a big world and this work is appreciated in other spheres and not denigrated like over here. It is pleasant to do the same work somewhere else in a friendly and helpful atmosphere. I will apply my energies there and not here. 
With respect.
Herbou 16:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foggy Morning, with respect, you have my full support to have the article deleted.  

message: Unfortunately I was not very kind to Gregalton in the past. He now justifiably holds this against me and against this article. I understand his view point. 
Gregalton, I apologise for my unkind behaviour to you in the past here on Wikipedia. I am only human and I now apologise. I learn from my mistakes here on Wikipedia.
Herbou 10:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I appreciate your note. I will be offline for several days, so good luck on the work with Foggy. I will put a few flags now to try to indicate the types of points that I think need to be referenced above all. Best,--Gregalton 02:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gregalton: I apologise for my unkind behaviour towards you in the past. 

message: Herbou, I can spend more time this week working with you on this article. I think we might be able to fix it up together. If we can't, well, at least we both gave it our best shot! :)
I'll come here at least once a day to make edits for the next week. Gregalton might be putting a flag or tag on the article. If he does, DO NOT REMOVE THE TAG OR FLAG.
Do you want to work with me on this article this week? --Foggy Morning 20:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let´s carry on.
Herbou 06:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This week

message: The Wikipedia policies state that disputed items without citations can be removed by any editor.
I have now done that and removed 100% of the disputed items. I am entitled to do this in terms of Wikipedia policies. 
I think the last NPOV tag can also be removed as all the disputed items have been removed.
I think it will be completely unfair to carry on and on and on adding direct citation requests for every single word in the article and continuing disputing everything in the article. I may be wrong, but that is not the spirit of Wikipedia.
I think this article has now reached its final point as all disputed content has been removed.
Gregalton, I am sure you can pass the article now. It doesn´t say much now. In fact, it hardly says anything. So I am sure that will be acceptable to you. It now agrees with everything. It is now properly Wikified. 
Herbou 20:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gregalton : All disputed content removed.