User talk:GeeJayK

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, GeeJayK!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Bongolian (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

You have two thumbs and a PhD in economic history[edit]

Talk to me about economic history! Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 18:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Stabby the Misanthrope Thank you for the question. Well, actually, I don't have a PhD yet. I will have it in 4 years if things go right. But I can tell you a bit of economic history for sure. Since the Neolithic revolution 10 thousand years ago, there isn't much to talk about. Life was short and miserable for most humans (the vast majority of us died before 5). There were a few places where economic development happened, like Rome and Greece during the classical antiquity and India and China in some periods, but overall humanity seemed doomed to fall into the Malthusian trap (forever. Then, 250 years ago something finally started: continuous, sustainable growth. It started first in England, and then it spread across other countries. Why did it happen after so long? There are three complementary explanations, all of them having strengths and weaknesses.
The first one is geography. Markets develop better when we can transport goods (close to rivers and the sea, and far from mountains), and being on the “malaria belt” is still one of the main reasons why Africa is so poor. Geography is bad news for some countries: we can't change it. However, it cannot be the main explanation: countries like Switzerland managed to get rich despite having a shitty geography, while privileged countries, like Argentina, failed.
The second one, and the most important according to most people studying development, are institutions: democratic countries where the government protect property rights, provides public goods, enforce contracts, uphold the rule of law, etc. are often the richest. And yet, it can't explain everything. Why is Southern Italy so poorer than Northern Italy? Both regions have the same laws and overall the same institutions.
The third explanation, and probably the most popular thanks to Max Weber's research on the protestant work ethic (even though much of his work is now outdated) is culture. Values that disparage work and profit, not being able to trust the others, gender and race norms… They are also important for development.
I would like to write much more than I did (I wanted to write a post three times longer at least) but I don't have time. If you want to know more, there are two recent books on the subject: How the Work Became Rich, by Mark Koyama and Jared Rubin and The Journey of Humanity by Oded Galor. The first one is a reference book that synthesizes the main theories very well, but kinda lacks a main thesis. The second one is a lot deeper, but while Galor explains the main ideas behind growth and development, he has his own Unified growth theoryWikipedia to develop in his book. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
There's not much to talk about the ten thousand years of human history that saw an exponential population growth rate relative to the growth rate of human populations before the Neolithic Revolution? Tell me again, how exactly did markets in the Americas, Oceania, Asia, and Africa open up again? Carthage (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
(EC) When it comes to living standards, very little changed. Galor calls this period the "malthusian epoch" because, I put a growing population would result in lower living standards, despite a higher output. This is one of the things I wanted to write about, and I'll still re-write our article on Malthus based on his work. Also, what kind of red herring is this last question? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
About economic development, the Uruk period saw the mass production of pottery compared to the preceding Ubaid period. The point of the last question is that colonialism opened up the markets of the Americas and Africa prior to the Industrial Revolution, and after. I have a genuine question: does economic development account for the effect of colonialism in its analyses? Carthage (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
If you want to read the books I've mentioned, you'll see that they analyze these periods (including Sumer, IIRC). Anyway, How richer were people in Uruk when compared to the rest of the world? Answer: not very much. Anyway, this is consistent with the theories presented. There is, at first, some growth, followed by stagnation. And yes, economic development account for the effect of colonialism. Koyama and Rubin have an entire chapter about colonialism. Colonialism is yet another subject that I'd like to write on the post, but I didn't have time. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 19:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Anyway, about Uruk: there was an increase in inequality compared to the period that came before, but that was localized. There was a lot of civilizational redundancy back then in a way that there really isn't now. Carthage (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Somebody told me Malthus is a scary, scary man and his ghost is coming to haunt us. Chillpilled (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Chillpilled I don't know this guy, but not gonna happen. Population decline is, for most countries today, a worse problem than population growth. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 22:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


I’m back, how’ve you been? I hope your grandfather is still alright.

Anyway I wanna ask if Milei can be categorized as a fascist, he is legit far right and has ties to other far rightists who are legit fascists (Meloni, Bolsonaro, Orban, etc). Rational Dude (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Rational Dude Thank you for the message. I personally like to see the opinion of the press before calling politicians fascists. I've seen them calling Milei far-right, but I don't recall any news outlet calling him a fascist. That being said, if someone wants to add the category, I won't oppose either, though I'd advice you to not do it yourself since you're still topic banned. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 00:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Always my friend. You’re absolutely right about checking press articles for a common consensus on this topic. I saw quite a few news outlets with articles describing him as far right (I think at least one even described him as a fascist). And don’t worry about me adding categories, I know better than to violate my topic ban. I just wanted to ask you first. Also, isn’t Argentina an authoritarian regime because of the dictatorial actions of Milei (like the crackdowns and gutting government programs)? Rational Dude (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't say so. The institutions seem to be working there. Is Milei authoritarian? I think he is, but he doesn't have enough power, in fact the Congress and the judiciary system are blocking much of his policies. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 00:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Alright. But I still that there is a legitimate consensus to label and categorize him as a fascist though because of his beliefs and how they influence his policies. Rational Dude (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

"According to critics"[edit]

This is weasel wording by definition (it's not really different from "some experts believe…" or similar weasel wording). All you need to do to fix it is specify what critics. Plutocow (talk) 00:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Plutocow it isn't when it's a criticism that has been used literally thousands of times. I have no interest at editing that article at the moment, (I was going to rename it but someone already did it for me) but I'll add Naomi Klein's The Shock Therapy tomorrow as a source then. By the way, you might wanna clean up the Wiki of this weasel word then, just search for it. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 00:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


If you want to be pedantic, you can argue that Panama is partially in South America as it straddles the Darién gap, which is considered the boundary between Central and South America. (Either that, or Colombia is partially in Central America.) Ultimately though, there is no objective line on a map you can draw to separate Central and South America. Plutocow (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@Plutocow Fair enough, though I don't think we should classify them as a South American country. Even Wikipedia, that is extremely meticulous with these categories don't have them in the South America category. I won't dispute if you, or anyone else revert my edit though. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 21:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


I was using sources posted on the discord by Chillpilled. You have a problem? Take it up with them. Anyway, why did you remove the bit on Costco? Are you gonna claim an actual example of corporate price-gouging is somehow "anecdotal evidence"? Carthage (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

What does Chillpilled has anything to do with this discussion? Regarding the Costco example, it's just poor understandig on how elasticity works, so it's utterly irrelevant to the page. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 23:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Because they were the one that raised the sources and brought up Costco, you clown. Carthage (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
And? GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 23:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Then raise it up with them. I was using sources they provided. it's not that hard to comprehend. Carthage (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
They didn't edit the page. Stop blaming others for what you did. Discord is not the Wiki. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 23:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
"Blaming"? I was simply updating the page based off of new sources provided. Would you accuse them of being a denialist given they were the one who provided the sources? Clearly they, and I, thought it was relevant.
Anyway, what does it matter if something is heterodox? Weren't you the one who stated that "fringe" does not equal wrong? Also given how it mentions recent inflation, looking at a longer period of time seems an irrelevant criticism. Simply changing the numbers does not change the reality on the ground. Carthage (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


Is there a rule on ratwiki for specifically formatting citations? Rational Dude (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rational Dude No, RW:CS doesn't mention anything about formatting citations, so if you ever get blocked because of this, I would consider such block an abuse of sysop tools. However, it's usually consider a good thing to format your citations. I wrote an essay about how to format sources quickly and easily: Essay:How to use Wikipedia to add beautiful sources, perfect sources to your articles. GeeJayKWhere all evil dwells Where every lie is true 15:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
@GeeJayK I ask because I made a mistake with several articles (which I corrected and formatted my citations). But carthage and duce believe that I've been neglectful and think a block for me is necessary. While I agree about correcting my citations, I think a block is harsh and counterproductive. You can find the atim here. Rational Dude (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)