Talk:Binary economics

message: This article, despite all the discussion about POV, still reads like a pamphlet advocating Binary Economics, and not at all like an encyclopedia article. It is clear that some people are using this article as a way to proselytize. And that intention to proselytize is stated rather boldly: "and feeling a need to try to repress attention finally being pervasively paid to this important subject; precisely the kind of global attention that the Wikipedia venue potentially affords."
GeneCallahan 13:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree but it is really hard to "negotiate" with the owners.  An Rfc may be needed. Brusegadi 16:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Again 

message: Genecallan, Your generalised abuse is not helpful.  You are inventing rules; you appear to have  invented a quotation, and (in your main alteration to the text)made an inaccurate statement.
1.  Generalised abuse.  
Kindly be specific as to what you take objection to.  
2.  Invention of rules.  The content of another another NON-Wikipedia website is not a ground for Wikipedia objection.  Are you one of the official Wikipedia administrators or just somebody inventing new rules which happen to suit his patrticular prejudice?
3.  Invented quotation-- (and feeling a need to try to repress attention finally being pervasively paid to this important subject; precisely the kind of global attention that the Wikipedia venue potentially affords.)  Where does this quotation come from?  Where is it written? Who wrote it?  Did you invent it yourself?
4.  Inaccurate statement.  The whole purpose of the loans is to spread productive capacity. Plenty of opportunity will exist for conventional investment.  Do you think I should add a paragraph explaining this?
5.  Perhaps I am misunderstanding you but (in your previous comment) are you upholding a general Wikipeida right for you (or anybody else) to indulge in generalised abuse, invent rules, invent quotations and make inaccurate statements?  Have you ever actually read any of the main binary books or documents?
Brusegardi.  You and I amicably agreed the alternative technology paragraph -- and I thanked you.  Did you not notice I thanked you?  So what are you now complaining about?  If you have anything specific to take objection to, kindly do so and do not indulge  in generalised sniping.  
What is an Rfc?  Is it usual to impose such a thing without any evidence or warning of what is alleged to be wrong? Making a threat without giving any reason why would normally be considered to be bullying.
Rodney Shakespeare  4th October, 2007.
Brusegardi, are you really a Wikipedia administrator of some sort?  I ask because you think that a non-Wikipedia page has something to do with a Wikipedia page.  Perhaps you would explain your thinking on this  -- and also confirm that you are not a Wiki administrator.
Rodney Shakespeare., 4th October, 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.178.181 (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Abuse, invented quotation and inaccurate statement

message: Hello, I think we need to add the counter views to this article.  Since Binary is a small minority alternate view, wikipedia policy strongly suggests that we document the 'mainstream' views and criticisms of binary.  I'd like editors to suggest courses of action based on [].  Please express your opinions. Brusegadi 02:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to add the criticism to each theoretical point expressed in the article.  To avoid WP:SYN we need to find specific sources criticizing the theory.  The article, as it is now, reads like a POV fork.  Brusegadi 02:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: this is not a helpful contribution. --Janosabel (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Please do not place me in any category.  The point is that binary is NOT mainstream.  As such, wikipedia needs to show the reader the mainstream view and criticisms to Binary Econ. Brusegadi 19:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "...binary is NOT mainstream..." does this mean that wikipedia wants to host articles only about mainstream (dominant) economic models? Janosabel (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Course of Action 

message: There appear to be some major issues with this article both in a clear point of view taken and in the use of novel conclusions and original synthesis to do that. Has this concept actually been tried anywhere? From reading the article, one would be led to believe that not only has it been, but that it has worked brilliantly. I see, however, no sourcing to support either one.
There are several main issues here. The article must either include sourcing to back up that implicit assertion of trial and success, or alternatively, make clear that this is an untried, untested theory. There's nothing wrong with writing about untried theories so long as they are notable and verifiable despite their untested status, but there is a major problem with boosterism. This is not the place to say "This is a good thing, we should try it" (or, for that matter, "This is a bad thing, let's never try it"). If it's an untested thing, we make sure the article makes that clear both implicitly and explicitly, and leave it at that. We can certainly say what proponents of the theory or concept say it will make happen, but we must make that clear through proper attribution. (Rather than "Binary economics will create Utopia[1]", it should be "In his 1999 paper on the subject, John Doe, a lifelong proponent of the theory, stated that binary economics will create Utopia.[1]")
Our job here is to present verifiable fact. We can't say that putting the theory into practice will do something, unless it's widely and commonly accepted by experts in the field that such a result is inevitable (which of course appears not to be the case here). If someone else does say that, we can say that they say that, but we must make it clear that this is their opinion and has not been field-proven. We can say that it has done something, if it has, but only if that was the result of an actual test. And we must present due weight to critics. Unfortunately, that means that if the majority of economists and other experts in the area are critical or skeptical of this concept, we must provide majority weight to that view. It is not our place to take a side or decide if they are right or wrong, only to accurately report and weight the reality of the situation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article problems

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

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

message: There is no secret that conventional economics (whatever that is; try ghosts in peoples' minds) openly criticizes binary economics. The article adequately covers these disagreements.
Moreover, the fact that binary economics spreads the ownership of productive capital broadly has been moved front and center to the opening section.  (All humans play economic roles as either workers, consumers or investors, and deserve to share in the wealth of what's created by those economic actions working in concert.  How anyone could disagree with this FACT is beyond my comprehension).
Changing conventional thinking almost requires a new language (it might be easier to stop bad thinking by an ego perspective that's an illusion of the same mind, but I'll leave that alone for now).  So, we have to work with what we have, and then try and invent new words or new ways of organizing the words so they can properly express the new reality that's acceptable to objectors' minds.
What is Is.  Too bad a lot of humans have to have their thinking squared away in their skulls before they can see what's staring them in the face and accept it.  For them, so be it.  That doesn't change the reality, though. Capt. Nemo 01:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article contains adequate criticism of binary economics 

message: There has been a substantial deletion which I have reversed.  The long and tortuous history of this Wiki page is the clearest evidence that people have great difficulty in understanding binary economics and the deleted text is a crucial part of the clarification and explanation.  Rodney Shakespeare 11th October, 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodney Shakespeare (talk • contribs) 18:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please provide a reliable source for the material which you restored? Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: Seraphimblade, You say that the Iraq Plan is a proposal.  YES, that's EXACTLY what the text says and you deleted it!  For your information there are two such plans being canvassed in the USA -- one for the Iraq government to own and distribute the income to all citizens and the binary one for all the citizens to own and also receive the income. Iraq is one of the nastiest messes in the world and you want to delete any reference to a solution!  And, similarly, you are not interested in a solution to Palestine or Kashimir!  Are you quite sure you are thinking responsibly?  Rodney Shakespeare, 12th October, 2007.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodney Shakespeare (talk • contribs) 10:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not at all interested in a proposed "solution" which has never been put into practice being here, no. Certainly, we do not mention every economic plan based upon mainstream economics that's been proposed but untried in the Economics article. Let's be clear—this is not the place to push your pet theory, even if it is good or right. There are plenty of places to do that, but this is not one of them. As to thinking responsibly, my responsibilities here include ensuring that articles are free from bias and paint a picture of reality as it is, not as someone would like them to be. And the reality is, this is a fringe view lacking in mainstream acceptance. Articles are meant solely to reflect reality, never to change it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: On many of the alleged applications we are presented with a plan that 'applies' binary economics (policy plan.)  Yet, I have not seen a single source that states that the writers of the plan were exclusively using binary economics to write such a plan.  They could have had charity in mind and charity exists under the current system.  That is, just because a policy is written to advocate interest free loans it does not mean that the policy was written with binary economics in mind.  You have to source that the writers of the policy used the binary framework and not some other framework that produces the same result in that particular situation. Brusegadi 20:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I did not like it I would not have been stayed around for so long.  Yet, I like wikipedia too, and I like to follow its guidelines. Brusegadi 22:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coincidences 

message: To those that maintain this page, please do not delete past comments. I noticed certain criticism have been lost in the history instead of being placed in proper archive. __earth (Talk) 08:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you point to specific instances? Brusegadi 22:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Among others, compare  and  with the current edition. Past "archiving" (if such edits could be called so,) have been improperly done. __earth (Talk) 07:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  Thats messy.  I'll set up a proper archive. Brusegadi 20:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't delete comment 

message: Following Earth's suggestion, I have deleted the words referring to the Kelso Institute.  Quite why Earth needed to put up a blanket Tone And Style tag I don't know because if he does not like the style or tone of anything he can easily say so here (in Talk) and discuss it.  Is there anything else that Earth thinks offends a sense of style or Tone?  And would he please be specific.
Rodney Shakespeare, 16th October, 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.155.37 (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There can never be too many references. :) Please feel free to supply those sources; please do make sure that most of them are from those who are not affiliated with or pushing the topic. And actually, yes, anyone in the world can edit a Wikipedia article, including those who know nothing about the subject. Indeed, personal knowledge should never be required, as articles should simply be a distillation of reliable and reputable sources. And yes, you are editing tendentiously, by continuously reverting and claiming that only those with intimate knowledge of the subject should be allowed to edit. Sorry, that's not the way it works here. If you'd like to restrict who's allowed to alter your material, you're welcome to set up a blog or website of your own, I can point you to several excellent free services. But you can't do that here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone and style

message: Seraphimblade, I note that you do not distinguish between authoritative (the relevant authors) and non-authoritative sources and you welcome deletions etc made by  those who know nothing about the subject. The relevant authors are the reputable sources and if you think they are not then you are openly declaring your complete hostility to the subject.  Are you a senior Wikipedia editor?  Rodney Shakespeare, 17th October, 2007.
:I'm afraid by asking that question, you seem to be missing the point. (To answer it anyway, yes, I have been editing for some time now, in a wide range of areas, and am an administrator.) But that has no bearing on this. My being an administrator or "senior editor" does not give me the right to dictate the content of any article, I simply have the right to edit and comment on it like anyone can. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. If you're looking for a project where experts in an area are sought and can to some degree control content, you may find Citizendium more to your liking. One of our core and founding principles is that anyone in the world may edit any article, provided that he or she is making an effort to improve it. If you disagree that they are improving it, you have every right to state your opinion, but not to bar them from editing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm well aware of the effects of interest, yes. However, the problem we run into here is a common one with original synthesis—oversimplification. We cannot simply presume that, were this theory to be implemented tomorrow, it would be implemented in a vacuum. Would easier access to capital, for example, create shortages of materials and housing, driving up the price? Well, I don't know. You don't either. But that's exactly why we don't allow original research. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Authoritative and non-authoritative sources

message: Vandalism is going on by somebody, so small minded, determined to destroy the article.  He has removed the diagram and photographs of Senators Russell Long and Gravel  It's outrageous.Un heard of behavior. Yes agree to disagree, but no one has the right to deface, and remove.David Soori 17 October 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.12.230 (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see who made what edits by going to the article and clicking on the "history" tab at the top of the page. For what it's worth, I think the headshots of Long and Gravel were just adding clutter to the article, and if the diagram contained indispensable content it should probably still be adjusted to reflect a neutral point of view or just incorporated into the text. Removing those images hasn't "destroyed" the article. Overall I think the article is really improving with all the edits made over the last few days. -Father Inire 11:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Please note, Wikipedia articles do not have a specific author, and in fact one is clearly notified in the edit screen of this: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." (emphasis in original) If you submit work here, it will be editable by anyone in the world. This is not a secret, this is by design and practice. It is not sinister, it's the way this system is meant to work. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Making changes without discussion is vandalism or disrespectful arrogance towards other editors. -- Janosabel 10:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: VANDALISM

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

message: Should binary economics be attributed to the works of one Minsky?
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article6078127.ece
"Minsky had spent his time musing on a more permanent solution: the socialisation of the banking system. This he conceived not as an anticapitalist measure, but as the only possible form of a high-consumption, stable capitalism in the future. Minsky argued: 'As socialisation of the towering heights is fully compatible with a large, growing and prosperous private sector, this high-consumption synthesis might well be conducive to greater freedom for entrepreneurial ability and daring than is our present structure.'"
Coincidentally, he is basically the capitalist version of Hilferding. Kjk2.1 (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minsky? 

message: It was recently brought to my notice that three members of cesj (Center for Economic and Social Justice, Washingotn, DC) claim that the present article is not an accurate reflection of binary economics as it has developed.  I immediately offered that they put me on their discussion list (Louis Kelso's Binary Economics Discussion Group) for sufficient time to define and discuss the specific issues and, if agreement were not to be reached, to agree a paragraph defining the disagreement for the Wikipedia article . 
My offer was refused and hence I now turn to Wikipedia Discussion as the place for the matter to be resolved.
Binary economics uses national bank interest-free loans  for ALL aspects of the productive economy AS LONG AS the loans are being spread, over time, to all people in the society.  However, the three people deny the use of the interest-free supply for:-
a)private housing.  Yet the Group is Louis Kelso's Binary Economics Group and the Kelso's, in their last book, wrote a whole chapter advocating the use.
b)micro-credit. Yet the cesj Statement of Vision is signed by thousands of microcredit recipients all of whom are believed to want interest-free micro-credit.
c) clean electricity generation.  National bank interest-free loans would halve, even quarter, the cost and so such clean generation becomes easily financially viable.  There cannot be any objection to this.
d)student loans. Public (state-provided) education is free in the USA but the three cesj members appear to think that, at the age of sixteen or eighteen, a loan to fund educaiton must immeiately bear interest becasue it is a "consumer" loan.  It is, of course, nothing of the sort being a loan to help the student develop his or her future productive capacity.
e) environmental capital projects e.g. a mangrove-crested sea barrage in Bangladesh.  Such projects do not get built if borrowed interest-bearing money is used.  National bank-issued interest-free loan money at least increases the chance of their being built.
f) small farms and businesses.  An interest-free, rather than interest-bearing, loan for a start-up business gets a young person started.  It's as simple as that.
g)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.52.186 (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Rodney, below the edit window there is a box (a few lines down called Wiki markup) with a range if icons and one of them is a ready-made four-tilde icon. Click on that to post your sig. (I am just signing so)Janosabel (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute with three members of cesj -- issues should be discussed one by one 

message: As indicated above (Dispute with three members of cesj -- issues should be discussed one by one) the first specific issue concerns interest-free loans for private housing (roughly, at the moment, with interest-bearing loans,  $200,000 might be borrowed and $600,000 or more repaid).  The three members of cesj (Center for Economic and Social Justice, Washington, DC) object to such interest-free loans for private housing. However, the three members run a Discussion Group (Louis Kelso's Binary Economics Discussion Group)completely devoted to the binary economics of Louis and Patricia Kelso, requiring adhesion to the Kelso's work. Yet the Kelsos, in their last and most authoritative work (Democracy and Economic Power, 1986 and 1991) devote a whole chapter to proposing interest-free loans for private housing which is precisely why binary economists in general approve of the idea.  The position of the three members, therefore, is contradictory (to the Kelso's view and that of other binary economists); hypocritical (because they exclude people from their Group for not following the Kelso line but do not follow it themselves; and, in short, is preposterous unless they expel themselves from their own Group. For the information of non-binary economists it can be added that the interest-free proposal would only take place in circumstances in which the banks are not allowed to create new money (the banks may lend their own money but not create new money and may lend customers' deposits, with permission); loans would only be 80% of valuation; and there would be criminal penalties for false valuations and declarations of income.  In summary, those who claim to uphold Kelso policy cannot reject that policy without being patently contradictory and hypocritical.  NB It is proposed that the next specific issue be interest-free micro-credit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.52.186 (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute - the first specific issue -- private housing 

message: The second specific issue concerns interest-free loans for micro-credit. In India and Bangladesh rural money lenders will charge 100% or more while the commercial banks (having learnt that the poor can be relied on to do everything they can to repay loans)charge 50% or 60%.  It is therefore not surprising that, each year, twenty thousand Indian farmers commit suicide or are forced to sell a kidney. There is also lending by NGO-type organisations and with them the situation is that the loans are about 34% overall (with 17% being the cost of borrowed money and 17% being the cost of administration AND training).  The cost of micro-credit administration is large and the best organisations (e.g. Grameen Bank and the Institute for Integrated Rural Development, IIRD)take responsibility for training/educating the borrowers (which is expensive)as well as helping with other aspects of the borrowers' lives.  Put simply, the commercial bankers are disgracefully battening onto the poor while the well-motiviated NGOs could get the cost down to 17% IF they have a supply of interest-free money to lend onward.  Now it is a quite remarkable fact that the three members of cesj (Center for Economic and Social Justice, Washington, DC)have a website which contains a Statement of Vision whose signatories include over four thousand Bangladesh recipients of micro-credit. These IIRD recipients of micro-credit are committed supporters of binary economics, as are the administrators of IIRD (the writer of this note has visited IIRD and can confirm that the view of IIRD officers is that they want an interest-free loan supply and they can be relied on to do the rest) and nobody in their right mind would think that any poor person in India or Bangladesh would willingly agree to repayment terms above the theoretical minimum of 17%.  So -- the fact must be faced -- it once again looks as if contradiciton and hypocrisy is involved in the position of the three cesj members or maybe it's just callousness towards the poor of the world.Rodney Shakespeare, rodney.shakespeare1@btopenworld.com 86.178.52.186 (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute -- the second specific issue -- micro-credit 

message: This matter is simply ilustrated.  For decades in the UK there has been a proposal to build a barrage across the River Severn (or construct the completely environmentally friendly version of tidal lagoons).  The Severn estuary has one of the largest tidal rises in the world and the project would cleanly generate about 10% of the UK's needed electricity supply.  However, because the project is huge, taking many years to complete, the effect of using interest-bearing money is to make the cost unrepayable.  Howver, with a national bank-issued interest-free loan, the project is immediately financially viable -- and the technical aspects of the project are the well-established ones of concrete and turbines.  However, with the UK now under "austerity" measures, and the government being in thrall to the existing paradigm is determined that there should never be interest-free loans of any sort whatsoever, the Severn River project has recently been cancelled.  So there could not be a clearer illustration of the benefits of interest-free loans for clean electricity genneration and of the grip, apparently upheld by the three members of cesj, of the existing interest-bearing paradigm. Rodney Shakespeare  rodney.shakespeare1@btopenworld.com 86.178.52.186 (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute -- the third specific issue -- clean electricity generation 

message: The main purpose of binary economics is to get all individuals as productive as possible as quickly as possible. Thus the purpose of interest-free micro-credit is to enable poor people to become productive; similarly, as will be seen in the fifth specific issue (below), the purpose of the interest-free loans for small farms and businesses is to get the individuals concerned as productive as possible as quickly as possible.  And it is exactly the same with student loans -- enabling the student to increase his/her productive capacity as quickly as possible. However, the three cesj individuals concerned are apparently alleging that a loan for student education is a "consumer" loan and so must bear interest.  Which is nonsense -- consumer loans are used to fund restaurant meals, clothes,  knick knacks and holidays etc while a student loan is one for increase of future productive capacity. It can also be noted that public (state-provided) education in the USA is generally free but the three cesj members appear to think that, suddenly, at the age of sixteen or eighteen, a loan to fund further education must not only be repaid, which is reasonable, but must be repaid with interest, which is not.  Such a loan is obviously  to help the student develop his or her future productive capacity and so is in line with basic binary principle. Moreover, the interest, as distinct from a genuine administration cost, is unnecessary if the ultimate source is the national bank to which the loan is ultimately repayable Rodney Shakespeare rodney.shakespeare1@btopenworld.com86.178.52.186 (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute -- the fourth specific issue -- student loans 

message: Environmental capital projects are easily illustrated  e.g., a mangrove-crested sea barrage in Bangladesh. Such projects do not get built if borrowed interest-bearing money is used -- the cost is much too high. However, national bank-issued interest-free loans at least increase the chance of their being built. Where such projects are concerned, interest is not necessary (although genuine administration charges are but they can, in practice, be minimal).  Rodney Shakespeare rodney.shakespeare1@btopenworld.com86.178.52.186 (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute -- the fifth specific issue -- environmental capital projects 

message: A national bank-issued interest-free, rather than interest-bearing, loan for a start-up business gets a young person started. It's as simple as that.  There's nothing new in this e.g., see the Bank of North Dakota, USA. It's all about doing what is necessary to improve a person's productiveness as quickly as possible.  And interest (as distinct from a reasonable administration charge) is not necessary if the loan originates in the national bank. Of course, the small farm or business borrower would need a business plan and collateral and also have ability and intent to repay but the loan can be interest-free. Rodney Shakespeare  rodney.shakespeare1@btopenworld.com86.178.52.186 (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute -- the sixth specific issue -- small farms and businesses 

message: Public capital projects means water, sewage, roads, bridges etc. Every day in the world 25,000 people die from the effects of dirty water.  If national bank-issued interest-free loans are used (instead of interest-bearing loans) the projects can be built for one half, one third, even one quarter of the usual cost.  In short, interest-free loans mean that the projects are a practical possibility (and they generally use existing technology.  I fail to see why the three people ocncerned should want to deny clean water and sewage etc to the poor people of the world.
Apart from the three mentioned cesj members I know of no dissent from the explanations (issues one to seven) set out and the overall policy is being splendidly welcomed in Malaysia, Indonesia, Iran, and Bangladesh, which are organising major follow-ups of one sort or another.
And to those countries you can add Iraq -- I will not be able to do any more for the moment because I have been urgently requested to speak at a conference in Baghdad.
NB It would be helpful if Volunteer Marek would, instead of making specious blanket objections and putting up tags, specifically address the issue as to exactly where the article fails to give a factual account.  And does he think that a list of conferences in the various countries, for example, would add to the article?     Rodney Shakespeare rodney.shakespeare1@btopenworld.com86.178.52.186 (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To make significant changes to a text without warning and justification is an act of a tinpot dictator. Surely wikipedia does not want to encourage that type of volunteer editorship?Janosabel (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute -- the seventh specific issue -- public capital projects 

message: Marek made substantial comment and I inserted responses to all of his comment but somebody -- much better at Wikipedia technique than I -- deleted them all.  I am therefore forced to make my responses again as follows (with 'RAS comment' indicating the comment):--
A person can just read the article and see it's problem, which are pretty obvious. More specifically:
Peacock language: Binary economics is partly based on belief that society has an absolute duty to ensure that all humans have good health, housing, education and an independent income, as well as a responsibility to protect the environment for its own sake. - why not just give them all a pony while you're at it too?  RAS comment.  This is an accurate factual statement of what binary economics says and addresses in its policy.  Marek has no right to object to statements of fact about binary economics just because he hates its new, modern analysis and proposals.
Same for: Proponents[8] of binary economics claim that their system contains no expropriation[disambiguation needed] of wealth, and much less redistribution will be necessary. They argue that it cannot cause inflation and is of particular importance as more of the physical contribution to production is automated.[9] and that the Binary economics paradigm[10] is particularly helpful in addressing the issue of why developing countries languish.[11] Advocates[12] contend that implementing their system will lessen national debt and encourage national unity. They believe binary economics could create a stable economy. RAS comment.  All this is an accurate factual statement of what binary economics says and addresses in its policy.  Marek has no right to object to statements of fact about binary economics just because he hates its new, modern analysis and proposals.
Same for: This is at the heart of the binary claim to create an efficiency which creates justice and vice versa.  RAS comment This is an accurate factual statement of what binary economics says and addresses in its policy.  Marek has no right to object to statements of fact about binary economics just because he hates its new, modern analysis and proposals.
Same for: Because of the full payout provision they argued that binary holdings would yield more than five times what is typically paid out today. In the binary economics plan, this improved payout would allow a new widespread capital ownership, and achieve individual incomes which could be possessed by anybody.  RAS comment  This is an accurate factual statement of what binary economics says and addresses in its policy.  Marek has no right to object to statements of fact about binary economics just because he hates its new, modern analysis and proposals.
Same for: binary economics doesn't apply the principle to fiat money IF it is used for the development and spreading of productive capacity to every individual in society. - aside from the fact that the statement simply doesn't make any sense and it's antecedent is incorrect.  RAS comment. It is a fact that binary economics allows money to be created IF it is used for the development and spreading of productive capacity and is repaid eventually toi the national bank.
...
But actually it is better to simply evaluate the article contents in terms of the sentences and claims which are simply nonsensical or which are outright false. In addition to above:
The first contrast is that mainstream academic economics is primarily 'positive economics' (the analysis of 'what is') where binary economics proposes an economic system that ‘ought to be’ ('normative economics'). However, binary productiveness analysis is claimed to be a superior account of reality (‘what is’) than classical positive economics. - false, mainstream economics is both positive and normative. The "claimed" part is unsourced.  RAS comment.  The text says mainstream economics is PRIMARILY 'psoitive economics'.  The claim can be sourced.
Conventional economics upholds productivity[16] - what the hell does this mean? Who's upholding what? Ditto for productivity... is not a direct analysis of physical reality.  RAS comment.  There is a problem if Marek does not know  that conventional productivity is usually total output divided by labour input.
In contrast, the binary analysis of productiveness (see section below) attempts to give accurate credit to the physical contributions of both labour and capital goods to production, attempting to answer a fundamental economic question - Who or what physically creates the wealth? - the question of who or what creates the wealth is part and parcel of mainstream economics as well as economics in general going back to freakin' Aristotle.  RAS comment.  Marek has missed the significance of the word 'accurate'.  Convetional economics over-emphasises the labour contribution to wealth creation whereas binary economics does not.
The third contrast is that conventional economics believes that interest (as distinct from administration cost) is always necessary; - huh? What?  RAS comment.  If Marek has ever borrowed money he will know that it does not usually come interest-free.  Moreocver, the conventional concept of endogenous money upholds the virtues of interest-bearing money.
For newly created money, conventional economics upholds the doctrine of the time value of money - huh? What? "Time value of money" isn't even an economic "doctrine". I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean.  RAS commnent.  On this subject Marek should do some research e.g., look up a relevant article on Time Value of Money in Wikipedia or somewhere.
An assumption of general scarcity is at the heart of conventional economics. Binary economics, however, denies the assumption. Amartya Sen argued that starvation is primarily due to lack of money in the hands of the starving and not the absence of food: thus it is human attitudes, practice, and institutions which are at fault. - classic example of true premise, false conclusion, buttressed by a total non-sequitur, followed by another false conclusion. Yes scarcity is fundamental to conventional economics. Yes, Sen has argued that famines are due to distribution of income rather than low production. But Sen does not deny the importance of scarcity. And he has nothing to do with Binary economics, whatever exactly that may be.  RAS comment.  Bianry economics says that it is possible for all people to have their basic needs satisfied.  Marek may not like that but it is a fact about binary economics.
 
Binary economics also rejects conventional financial savings doctrine (that there must be financial savings prior to investment) - no financial saving is necessary if money can be created out of nothing. - huh? what? I think this is some basic confusion over some basic concepts. At least the next sentence suggest that:
The theory asserts that what matters is whether the newly created money is interest-free, whether it can be repaid, whether there is effective collateral and whether it goes towards the development and spreading of various forms of productive (and the associated consuming) capacity. - what in the world does it mean for "newly created money" to be "interest-free"? Money is usually interest free. What in the world does it mean for newly created money to "be repaid"? This sentence just doesn't make sense. It's gibberish.  RAS comment.  It is preposterous to assert that 'money is usually interest-free'.  Everybody knows that lent money usually has interest attached.  When money is lent, it has to be repaid.  
The contrast continues: unlike Binary economics, conventional economics is largely unconcerned that the present money supply is generally not directed at the spreading of productive capacity—broadly, productive capital is narrowly owned - huh? what? I have no idea what that means. At best it could be said that "the creation of money supply is generally not...". That would make it make sort of some sense, maybe.  RAS comment.  Yes, this sentence could be re-worded.
Conventional economics upholds the periodic political vote.[20] Binary economics does the same but then deepens democracy[21] by insisting that productive capital and the practical everyday power its ownership gives to individuals be widely distributed as well. In binary economics freedom is only truly achieved if all individuals are able to acquire an independent economic base. - Uh, I guess this sort of has meaning, though it's weird and strange. "Conventional economics upholds the periodic political vote" - what does that mean? "Deepens democracy" - what does that mean? This is written as if someone was writing a political manifesto rather than a serious encyclopedic article.  RAS comment.  The passage is very clear.  Demcoracy today is usaully conceived as being the right periodically to exercise the  power of the vote.  But binary economics adds to the political power the everyday economic power of having an independent income.  This is another binary fact. It is not helpful when, all the time, Marek is revealing that he simply does not like binary economics.
On environmental issues, binary economics claims to have a big advantage over conventional economics because of the interest-free loans which would be available. (See Environment section below.) The appropriate (non-zero) interest rate dominates conventional economic analysis of environment policy - again, huh? I have no idea what this is supposed to mean or in what world this is true. RAS comment.  I, too,  do not know what the sentence means -- I did not write it.
Dear Marek, what is driving you to produce such unhelpful criticism? For example:
Binary economics also rejects conventional financial savings doctrine (that there must be financial savings prior to investment) - no financial saving is necessary if money can be created out of nothing. --- you do not understand where this is coming from?
You do know about quantitative easing --- printing money, in plain English --- yes?. Janosabel (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do NOT delete my responses to Marek -- here they are again inserted into Marek text in a new section 

message: Unfortunately this page seems to be burdened with quite a lot of synthesis, original research, and POV. It needs to be trimmed. With an axe. bobrayner (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can the article be fixed, or should it go to AfD? bobrayner (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is worse than most of the "heterodox economics" articles, which is a mean accomplishment. It should be deleted. Let somebody try to develop a suitable article in a sandbox before inflicting it on the public. It should be deleted.   Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 01:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various problems 

message: I've been tempted over several years to see what I can do with this page, but I've demurred for various reasons.  I just wanted to give a bit of background, speaking as both an admirer of Louis Kelso's ideas and as a trained economist who can at times detect where his eloquence kisses crankiness.  Kelso came up with the Employee Stock Ownership Plan, a worker ownership structure put into US employee benefits law (in significantly modified form) by Senator Russell Long.  In practice he was much more of a political economist than an economist in the modern sense, focusing more on social dynamics surrounding economic processes than their detailed mechanics; his book the Capitalist Manifesto is a pretty decent read as such things go.  
My basic summary of Kelso's economic ideas is that they combine two core ideas:  first, that capitalism as currently practiced is inherently unstable due to the tendency of capital to accumulate in the hands of the existing owners, generating increasing economic inequality which drives demands for redistribution, a trend he argues drives society towards authoritarianism; and second, that the vast majority of economic output is due to the productive contribution of capital, which he judges to transmit most if not all of the output gains due to technological progress, and that labor's share of output is not vanishingly small only due to the aforementioned redistributive policies (minimum wage, tax policy, employer mandates, etc.).  His policy proposals focus on ensuring that new capital generated by investment tends to wind up in the hands of those with minimal capital holdings, typically workers of the expanding firms in his earlier proposals, and later customers, members of communities surrounding the enterprises, and other stakeholder groups.  The primary mechanism for this was various forms of innovative financial (and where necessary, tax and monetary policy) structures to enable investment by these groups without substantial out-of-pocket cost.  Note that you don't really need the second part of the argument above to make these policy proposals, aimed at the first part of the argument, worthwhile, they just make the numbers sound more favorable.
Unfortunately, while it pains me to say this, the more one focuses on what actual economic theory appeared in his work, the more muddled things get, with Kelso's concept of "productiveness" being as far as I can see incoherent.  Basically it's an attempt to get the accounting to reflect the second point above about the dominance of capital in generation of output.  Unfortunately, it just doesn't work when you turn it into an equation, which I think is a reasonable requirement when talking about the numerical relationships of inputs and output.  The various parables about shovels, donkeys and elevators, when you move to mathematics, boil down to changes in production functions, and productiveness is basically an argument about how to apportion credit for changes in output due to switching technologies and associated production functions.  It makes my head hurt...
Anyway, I just wanted to convey that Kelso's writings are much better than the arguments presented in this article might convey. David A Spitzley (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Well I've reviewed the article, don't see the need for the tagfest or a substantive discussion in a year or more so removing tags. I mainly look to see if the lede works, at least for the current state of the body and the reworked one does. I moved a sentence that puts the term in context from background into the lede and added a clarifying one per WP standards, and moved the exposition stuff out of the lede. By no current constituency I meant other than one or two authors in last 10 years. The complaints in the tagging are largely true I think but when the material is put in context as the crackpot splitting it is, as I believe the edit performed does, then the tagging is unnecessary. 72.228.189.184 (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit of context 

message: I am generally an advocate of binary economics, and have some questions about the "issues" status. Having little experience with Wikipedia language or processes, I apologize if I do something wrong and any help in that regard is appreciated. 
1. What is the process for removing some of the issues header notifications? I realize you may say "correct them", but who reviews the page regularly to see if they are corrected? It appears this article has been gone over, corrected, and added to extensively since these issues were posted and/or disputes made. 
a) Citations - Surely the addition and reduction of citations that has been argued back and forth since 2008 is enough to allow this to be settled.
b) Advertisement - How can an article about a THEORY be written like an advertisement (unless it is declared to be THE BEST theory)? Clearly the present article is primarily written by proponents, but who else has the desire to spend the time required to go into the necessary detail? Binary economics makes huge claims of how, if implemented, it can save the world. That is the exact nature of specific economic theories. But the language here uses a tone that acknowledges unproven status. "Binary economists contend..The “wage system,” binary economists assert...Some binary economists believe that measuring..." etc. It does not use an asserting tone of proven superiority of the theory or variations of it.
c) Original Research - This article contains clear references and citations to well-known published sources. I see no original thought coming into it. Any specific examples right now?
d) Puffery, etc. - Not seeing this. Anyone have specifics?
e) Neutrality - I hereby reject this "issue" being applied to an untested theory. (Again, unless the superiority of it is stated as fact.)
f) Synthesis - I guess being a Wikinovice I should defer this one to veterans. Maybe we could leave this issue as a compromise with the professional pessimists. Not saying they don't play a valuable role in society..
2. What is the criteria to move past “start” status in the WikiProject Economics?
Thank you in advance for your help.
DaveHamill (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated overall status 

message: The edits demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the fact that binary economics is based on the banking principle, where Keynesian, Monetarist/Chicago, and Austrian economics, as well as their offshoots, are based on the currency principle.  The attempt to analyze or critique binary economics in terms of currency principle economics, while no doubt well-intentioned, is thus invalid.  You cannot judge banking principle economics in terms of currency principle economics, and expect to have anything other than nonsense.  It is unrealistic.  A system must be judged in terms of its own principles, or not at all.
:No. We're not here to present uncritical in-universe coverage of every idea, fantasy, notion, and whim. This is an encyclopædia. As soon as reliable independent sources say that your system is awesome and solves countless real-world problems, then the encyclopædia will say that. Not until then. bobrayner (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello? bobrayner (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What is to be done about this article? It somehow manages the dual feat of being completely incoherent, yet presenting its subject matter uncritically. The text cited in the introduction - The Capitalist Manifesto - doesn't use the term "binary economics". The main chap who does seems to be a Mr Rodney Shakespeare who, lo and behold, seems to have written most of this article, written or contributed to many of the sources cited and dominated the talk page. Surely the whole thing has to be rewritten from scratch. That is going to be difficult given the almost complete absence of independent sources on the subject - something characteristic of a fringe theory, and which makes me wonder if the topic is notable. Is deletion appropriate? If not, what to do? LeContexte (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of it needs to be cleaned up. Would you like to help? bobrayner (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel I know enough about the subject, unfortunately LeContexte (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted to Earlier Version 

message: A request made at the Third Opinion project has been removed because there has not been any recent discussion about any issues about this page. All forms of mediated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia require thorough talk page discussion about a dispute before requesting assistance. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Third Opinion request