Talk:Binary economics/Archive 3

message: To end this trollfest I have closed the debate as no merge. There is not a snowball's chance in hell of this ending in a consensus to merge the two. This trollfest ends here. MartinDK 18:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

message: * Participatory economics emphasizes distributed, community control of the means of production;
* Binary economics emphasizes central-bank distribution of interest-free loans;
* Mutual banking (important in some forms of mutualism (economic theory)) emphasizes distributed, community/private distribution of interest-free loans;
* Distributism shares many of the religious elements of binary economics, doesn't it? Jacob Haller 22:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. My point was that BE doesn't seem to have much in common with PE. It has some parallels with other systems, but enough differences that we should avoid those merges as well. Jacob Haller 17:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Differences?

message: 1. The attack is coming from the 'I Don't Like It Brigade' making false argument after false argument e.g. alleging the article contains "proof" when it only states the content of binary economics. All the 'evidence' and 'proof', of course, is in the books.
 
2.  The article is first-class.  If it is genuinely  thought to be too long, then why not simply ask for it to be made shorter e.g. by a quarter?
 
3.  The opening basis of this attack (putting into participatory economics) is very wrong.  Binary economics is not a "planned" economy, it is a market economy and the article spells that out.  How am I to think the attack is made in good faith when the article has not even been read? David Soori, sooriuk@yahoo.com, 18 August 2007
:This was one of the suggestions.  To trim.  Brusegadi 20:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''IF IT IS TOO LONG, WHY NOT ASK FOR IT TO BE MADE SHOTER''?

message: It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Participatory economics. (Discuss)
I am really getting annoyed with these half baked interferences from people.
Or is wikipedia aspiring to be a gatekeeper for everything establishment?
The proposer of the merge does not know what she/he is talking about. I don't mean to be rude to anyone but it does seem that people are trying every trick in the book to make this article disappear.
Why? Is it too effective a challenge to orthodoxy in economic thought which has been driving economies to trample all over the rest of society?
Please, read (without prejudice) and understand at least the current authoritative text on binary economics before making such far-going recommendation.--Janosabel 12:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is going on!? 

message: A google search for:  binary site:http://www.ief-trisakti.or.id/program.php   </br>
gives no results.  Yet, according to the article, that university in indonesia has a program on binary economics.  Could someone fix that.  My impression so far of the article is that it takes things that are happening in the world (like microcredit) and uses them as evidence of notability for binary econ without first providing an external reliable link between these.  I see that there are many google results for 'binary economics' and thats good. Brusegadi 20:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I mean is that mentioning the microcredit initiatives taking place in many parts of Asia (for which, I believe a Nobel prize was awarded) and then mentioning that binary happens to encourage this violates WP:SYN if the article gives the impression that those behind the microcredit are pushing this initiatives because of binary economics.  I see microcredit in many places in the article but it is not properly linked to binary.  If no such link is found, then the mentions of the microcredit would have to be shortened to an example of 'future' applications.  Brusegadi 21:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Remember that I am just another editor.  I am merely giving my opinions.  If you think the article is good as it is, leave it for a while.  I am trying to be patient and wait for more editors to comment because this is one of those cases that is not very clear; at least for me.  Also, thank you for your input.  Happy editing, Brusegadi 21:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Indonesia

message: Childhoodsend,
You are openly declaring that your true motive is to destroy binary economics. "What is unacademic is binary economics as a whole I'm afraid."  That is open hostility and an admission of desire to destroy.
:Now that is hostile and blatantly fails WP:AGF.
 
1.  Binary economics is taught at Trisakti, the biggest private university in Indonesia and birthplace of the reformasi revolution.  The internet information is out of date and I have written to ask that the information be corrected.
:Even if true, the biggest private university in Indonesia and birthplace of the reformasi revolution hardly makes a subject academic or notable by itself. 
2.   The meaning of "social and economic justice" is spelt out all over the article. Have you not noticed? What, would you say, for example, is the significance of the definition of competence?
:Everyone has his definition of "social and economic justice", but it essentially converges to special interest demands, social-democracy and/or socialism, not to economics. As 'your' article directs to, economic justice is social justice, and social justice is the philosophical backbone for every left-leaning program or so - few people will deny this.
3 You deny that the fractional reserve banking and the banking system creates money. PURleezz!! Which of the following authorities would you like to be quoted?  The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago?  Sir Josiah Stamp (Bank of England)? Sir Reginald McKenna (UK Chancellor of Exchequer)?  JK Galbraith?  A Governor of the Canadian Central Bank?  Royal New Zealand Monetary Commission?  And what about Sir Edwin George, Governor of the Bank of England, with whom I have had correspondence? The generally accepted percentages today in the UK are roughly 97% created by the banks and 3% by the government.  Did you not know that?
:See my reply to the thread below. If you mean "creates money in the books", then I agree. But not about real money.
4. 'Over-credit'? 'The money is still not there?'?  Ha ha!   So if I put £1,000 of 'overcredit' into your bank account, you cannot spend it because it is not money? Are you going to tell me you can't spend it? Ha ha ha!  The most charitable intepretation of your remarks on this subject is that your understanding of money is about a century out of date. 
:See my reply to the thread below. Besides, being lent other people's money would not mean that money has been created.
4.  Where in the article does it say that the 'free market' creates money?  
:It says that the current banking system does, which is meant as criticism of conventional economics. Now, I would agree that conventional economics are not necessarily upholding truly free markets.
5. In the article there's about 17 authors of one sort or another referred to, not 3 or 4 as you claim.  A recent book refers to probably 50 or more dealing with various aspects.  Some other books have 50 -100 in each book.  You think 49 footnotes is plenty -- yes, it's actually too many -- and so what number of authors in footnotes would you think is right?  (And please remember the problem of accurately annotating the text without increasing the number of footnotes over 49.)
:Out of 61 references, there are roughly 32 which are citations of either yourself, Kelsos or Ashford. Nice advertisement for your books there...
I have responded substantially to this criticism.  Please check what I have done (deletion of footnote and author references) and see if the position is now satisfactory.  I have also responded to the two specific NPOV points you made below.Rodney Shakespeare, 20th August, 2007 
6.  I keep asking you for specific examples of non-NPOV.  Kindly start off with giving me two SPECIFIC examples and then the problem can be fixed.  
:Randomly taken in 5 seconds:
**conventional economics does not have the specific mechanisms to address environmental issues in a large-scale way.
**Since further and higher education should be encouraged, student loans should not bear interest. 
:--Childhood's End 14:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kindly stop being hostile, become accurate, and give SPECIFIC examples

message: What kind of joker is it who thinks that money put into a bank account is not money that can be spent; who cannot count past 8 (authors); who says he does not wish to destroy but yet says "binary economics is unacademic as a whole I'm afraid"; and does not know that the fractional reserve banking system creates money?
It can only be some sort of twisted joke.
So I press on and ask that if there are any objections will you please stop the generalised attack and give specific examples of what is alleged to be wrong.
Look, you had a lot of good will, especially in the Developing and Third Worlds. Due to unsavory , and unpalatable articles in the New York Times, followed by the Independent in London, all the good will be lost. I am sure you learned gentlemen and ladies will take it on board and very seriously.
David Soori sooriuk@yahoo.com 19 August 2007  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.243.141.81 (talk) 18:09:58, August 19, 2007 (UTC) 
:If fractional-reserve banking really creates real money, runs on the banks would not be the potential problem that they actually represent. Fractional-reserve banking is an accounting practice (you could say it creates money 'in the books') supported by risk management policies and special-interest legislation. I'm not arguing further about it since that's not the point. --Childhood's End 14:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't understand how it works. What you refer to as real money only constitutes a small fraction of the actual money present in the economy. Banks create money when they lend out money that was previously deposited. They create purchasing power which did not otherwise exist. To the households in the economy there is no difference between so called real money and money created by banks. To them its all the same. It is entirely possible for someone to deposit money that they loaned. To the individual household it makes no difference where the money came from. To avoid that this leads to bank runs because the depositors fear that their deposits will not be available when they wish to withdraw them banks are regulated by the authorities. They cannot recklessly lend out money. If no such regulation existed the banks would have no incentive other than their own risk-aversion to stop creating money because they profit from it due to the difference between the interest rate on deposits and loans. The argument that the central bank would work as lender of last resort anyway is flawed because the central bank cannot simply print more money due to the consequences such an action would have on the exchange rate. MartinDK 17:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What kind of joker is this?

message: I oppose the merging of Binary Economics with any other WP page. The merging proposal of Binary Economics with Parecon is quite illogical. Parecon seeks to improve Socialism. Binary Economics seeks to improve Capitalism. The basic principles, methods, ethics and even the metaphysical assumptions of the two economic models (or theories) are fundamentally different, as even a cursory reading of the respective WP-pages will demonstrate. Merging Parecon with BE is like merging fire with water. Michiel Bijkerk, 22 August 2007 63.245.41.149 02:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BINARY ECONOMICS SHOULD NOT BE MERGED WITH PARECON 

message: I oppose the merging of the binary economics page with any other.  
71.252.212.181 05:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: binary economics deserves its own page