User talk:Bkwillwm/Archive 2

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our

If you are going to edit the article, please join our dicussion on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Che Guevara and also on the discussions on the talk page before making edits. We are all working to save the article and would be happy to have you help. Mattisse 17:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Autograph book requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article consists of a dictionary definition that has been transwikied and the author information recorded.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Kkmurray (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent contribution to that article. I'm far from an expert in economics; I was attempting to neutrally reword that passage. What do you think of the current intro? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the rewording was generally good, you just happened to use a word according to English common usage instead of its technical, economic definition. I noticed I made a mistake too since the sentence talks about output and the data was GDP per capita. Generally, I think the intro is OK. New economy changes frequently, so it seems hard to maintain a high quality static version on articles like these. I'll take a closer look and see what else I can find.--Bkwillwm (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

A

Pls. read Economic system and give reputable sources where the expression "gift economy" is referred to an economic system. As long as you are not able to provide this, I will delete this POV. --Meisterkoch (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Bkwillwm. It does not appear that anyone notified you about

To state that Franco was not a fascist is not POV. It is a fact of history and political science. It is the overwhelming consensus of scholars on the subject; Payne says as much. I provided two reliable sources to support this, Payne and Laqueur (although you quibble over Payne's words). The fact that he may have borrowed the trappings of Fascism is beside the point. Many interwar governments had policies in common with fascism, including the New Deal. As to the Roman Salute, even American school children early in the century used it during the pledge of allegiance. If you insist, I will demonstrate the point for you on the talk page. It is fair to say Franco was authoritarian and a dictator and that some of his supporters early on were fascist but going beyond that is not accurate. Mamalujo (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of shifting the article form away from being a list and convert it to regular article with more discussion of each index (background, technical properties, usage).

Excellent! As it is, it's great to have these assembled in one article, but more history and critical apparatus would significantly amplify the value of the article. —SlamDiego_←T 04:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bkwillwm, I see you have a history of working on the article

Thank you for your help on the above. Now comes the more ocmplicated part of making the change without losing the history of "Monetary economics" which is now a REDIRECT. My plan is to put the history of the earlier ME article and Talk page on the MT Talk page, then chamnge the name of the MT Talk to ME Talk. If you have any thoughts on this, please let me know either here, on MT Talk. or on my Talk page. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have translated into French the (great) article about the "Economy of the Iroquois" and I'm now proposing it as an Article de qualité (equivalent to FA). I've put some questions and remarks on the talk page, could you have a look at it? Thanks. --Fanfwah (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for catching the word I neglected in the caption of Joseph Leavitt. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet another question on the talk page! Fanfwah (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've done some edits to the False Face Society article, specifically to the Modern Conflicts section. Since you created the article and are quite knowledgeable about the Iroquois in general, maybe you could help me with some questions I left on its talk page. Sorry for usurping this section of your talk page, but it seemed appropriate and I was at a loss for where to place a new one. Apwith (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings. I noticed you commented on the autograph book stub article a while back and voiced the hope that it would be expanded. I just wanted to let you know that it has been – I wrote a full-length article last night, when I stumbled onto the page and found it disappointingly short. --Xiaphias (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What caused the housing bubble if a mandated increase in sub-prime mortgages didn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.123.42 (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've started a talk section of “Marginal utility” which you might want to use, but I wanted toput a sort of restatement here.

There is a difference amongst the claims

• that utility need not be quantitified
• that marginal utility need not be quantified
• that marginal utility can diminish without being quantified

The passage that you removed speaks to the last point. —SlamDiego_←T 13:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I just added alot of information about the Cars for Clunkers bill and wanted to confirm with you that: a. the content is appropriate for Wikipedia b. the references are done correctly (i referenced after each paragraph, should i do it less?)

Please advise if you don't mind. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariabaena (talk • contribs) 03:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Good addition, and I agree with the caption on the first chart, but we really need a citation for that interpretation. I thought that I'd ask you on your talk page for a citation before tagging it, as you might have a citation immediately at hand. —SlamDiego_←T 04:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the chance to throw in a citation. Mishkin's textbook also has a chart showing that money velocity is unstable and economically correlated. I realized by caption was a little one-sided, but the chart ended up being more one-sided than I expected.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I replied to your message on user:chzz/talk#OR tag on Search for a Method a few days ago; sorry, I forgot to let you know until now.  Chzz  ►  22:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for such interesting article. Now it is translating to russian. May be you know where I can find any statistical data about Iroquois? Lime82 (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your updates, mate! Wikidea 10:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the cite about what macro-economists now agree upon. The list according to the cite you provided is:

1) coherent intertemporal general-equilibrium foundations

2) base quantitative policy analysis on econometrically validated structural models

3) model expectations as endogenous

4) real disturbances are an important source of economic fluctuations

5) Monetary policy is now widely agreed to be effective

Of the above, the original Keynesian model was completely lacking in 1) and 3). It was not general-equilibrium, it was partial-equilibrium of the worst sort. Expectations were not endogenous, they were in fact not a factor in consumption decisions (which were simply a fixed proportion of income).

The above two shortcomings made Keynes be thought of poorly by theoretical economists.

2) and 4) were at best tangential to Keynes, not really related or relevant.

5) was an alternative view of the world, a competitor to Keynes.

If there was anything at all that is similar to Keynes' model in the above list, it was that wages and prices are sticky.

So if the above 5 are the current "mainstream" then I fail to see how this "mainstream" has anything to do with Keynes.

And also if you look at the cite carefully, the only time the word Neo-Keynesian is mentioned is in the sentence "In the 1960s and early 1970s, the main division was between the neo-Keynesians and the monetarist school." That hardly is support for neo-Keynsian being the current "mainstream".

Steel2009 (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your points about Keynes don't have anything to do with the issue on

Neo-Keynesian economics. The paper I cited states that New Keynesian economics forms part of current mainstream economics, and that's what the article says. New Keynesianism developed out of Neo-Keynesianism which came out of Keynes. I could discuss Keynes's theory, but it's not even relevant here. It's twice removed from the statement in the article.--Bkwillwm (talk

) 04:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If anything a multi-generational model with endogenous expectations is a rational expectations model. If you introduce features like sticky wages and prices into it, then it is more a modified rational expectations model rather than anything Keynesian. Be that as it may, it appears to me that the reference you provided does not say the "mainstream" is Neo-Keynesian.

If you are claiming that the "mainstream" is Neo-Keynesian, because the cited article is Neo-Keynesian, you are committing two bits of "original research". First you are claiming that the article represents the "mainstream". Secondly, you are claiming that the article's content is Neo-Keynesian.

Either find better cites for your claim that Neo-Keynesian is the "mainstream" (a poorly defined weaselish word to begin with), or remove the text.

Steel2009 (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

From your non-answer I presume you are okay with the removal of the disputed text. Steel2009 (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I had limited internet access for a few days. Don't read too much into it. First of all, you don't seem to understand even the basics of what you're debating. The text you've removed from the article says that "New Keynesianism" forms part of current mainstream Macro. The current status of Neo-Keynesianism (the predecessor for New Keynesianism) isn't the subject of the text issue at issue. Second, the article I cited clearly states that mainstream macro is a synthesis between some New Keynesian and New Classical ideas. Several other articles also mention this synthesis and state it makes up the current mainstream. I will add them to the article soon. This discussion is better suited to a talk page. If you want to debate this further, please discuss at Talk:Neo-Keynesian economics.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Spare me stuff like "ou don't seem to understand even the basics of what you're debating". If I told you my qualifications, be assured I would leave you behind by a mile. So stick to the subject and don't make this personal.

Where in the reference that you provide does it say "that "New Keynesianism" forms part of current mainstream Macro"? And where does the reference "clearly states that mainstream macro is a synthesis between some New Keynesian and New Classical ideas"? Steel2009 (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Until now, you've always used the term "Neo-Keynesianism" when the text in question and my arguments are regarding "New Keynesianism." It doesn't matter what your credentials are if you're missing the subject of the debate. Please see the cited section in Mankiw, and I'm adding another paper on the "New Neoclassical Synthesis", cited by Woodford and Mankiw.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You should follow the discussion, and not make obvious factual errors. If you keep making factual errors it becomes hard to discuss anything. You wrote "you've always used the term "Neo-Keynesianism" when the text in question" I had actually never used the word "Neo-Keynesianism" except to quote you once. I had used the word "Neo-Keynesian" (which is bad enough) without making it worse by saying "Neo-Keynesianism".

The text which I had originally edited was "This is known as the new Keynesian synthesis, and currently forms the mainstream of macroeconomic theory."

After a series of edits the text that you currently have written is "The new Keynesians helped create a "New Neo-Classical synthesis" that currently forms the mainstream of macroeconomic theory."

The current text is much much better than saying "new Keynesian synthesis" is the mainstream, as it says that "New Neo-Classical synthesis" is the mainstream, and that "new Keynesians" only "helped" create the "mainstream".

"New Neo-Classical synthesis" sounds much more like rational expectations and Neo-classical economics than anything Keynesian. If it incorporates Keynesian ideas like slowly adjusting prices and wages, that is acceptable to me.

There are still weasel words like "helped" and undefined and convoluted terms like "New Neo-Classical" (what next, New Nuovo Notun Naya Neu Neuf New-Classical?) in the current text that are a disservice to the lay readers, but it is not something I would like to spend any more time fixing.

Cheers,

Steel2009 (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Having not followed the particular Keynesian source, it seemed like the Criticism section was a place for pot-shots from various theories, and since Keynesians were the only ones shooting, I figured I'd even the score. Open Currency Areas are not exactly common subjects for discussion in Austrian circles, but the notion of market determination of pretty much everything--and especially currencies--certainly is... so I thought I'd add the general information (which included in one of the sources a biographical note about Hayek favoring competing currencies), and then I synthesized the rest from the ether of Austrian readings which is stored in my personal cache (and, potentially, though not immediately, sourceable). Nonetheless, it's better sourced now and I even discovered that there is ONE article specifically about OCA's in the Austrian literature (don't worry, though, there are hundreds of tangential and supporting general competing currency/anti-monetary policy articles). I also have an inkling that just because something is unsourced it doesn't mean it's speculative, and I prefer it left to improve rather than just reverted. so long, 71.224.206.164 (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC).

Could I ask you to revisit your oppose on Scalia? I've thrown some criticism in there, including in a crucial spot in the evaluation section. Many thanks,--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello there. Sorry to bother you, but you are (titularly at least) a member of WP:WikiProject Economics, as defined by this category. If you don't know me, I'm a Wikipedia administrator, but an unqualified economist. I enjoy writing about economics, but I'm not very good at it, which is why I would like to support in any way I can the strong body of economists here on Wikipedia. I'm only bothering you because you are probably one of them. Together, I'd like us to establish the future direction of WikiProject Economics, but first, we need to know who we've got to help.

Whatever your area of expertise or level of qualification, if you're interested in helping with the WikiProject (even if only as part of a larger commitment to this wonderful online encyclopedia of ours), would you mind adding your signature to this page? It only takes a second. Thank you.

Message delivered on behalf of User:Jarry1250 by LivingBot.

Thanks for alerting me to these issues. It looks like I missed adding a reference so you were looking in the wrong book. I corrected the citation issue and tried to deal with the hook problems.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear}