User talk:GeeJayK/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 19 June 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>

, (new)(back)

Autopatrolled

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions, bleat ask away.

We hope you enjoy your newfound POWER — and these external tools:

• Google Scholar Button ^{(Chrome, Firefox)} searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
• web.archive.org and archive.today, among other tools, can save permanent copies of webpages. Never lose a crank website or racist Tweet ever again! Kevlarstar and his dog (Woof!) 07:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! GeeJayK (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Demotion

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, wizard Sysop has been added to your user rights. Feel free to let your newfound POWER course through your veins. Once the high wears off, see RationalWiki:Sysop guide for more information. If you have questions, bleat ask away. Christopher (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! GeeJayK (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Gratz on getting sysopship. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 15:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! GeeJayK (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations! --Goatspeed. _{Happy Holidays!}🎄CircularRasoning🎄^{See what I'm planning} 18:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess it's not bad for someone who almost got banned only two weeks ago... GeeJayK (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

About portuguese

Hey! I've seen you had done some changes to my Canard article in portuguese. Are you a native portuguese speaker? Kaikecarlos (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, ptbr. I've also edited the Draft:Libertarianismo Cultural article. GeeJayK (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I have a Discord with 10 members interessed in translating, it would be good if you are interessed in joining Kaikecarlos (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I won't be able to contribute a lot because I have many projects that are overdued, both here and IRL, but I'll do my best. Send me an email if you don't want to post your Discord account here. GeeJayK (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Desculpem cair de pára-quedas... olá, gente fixe :-) Tuga aqui, disponível para ajudar! UninspiringNickname (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@UninspiringNickname I'm extra, extra busy right now, but I'll tell people on discord. GeeJayK (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait, you guys are Brazilians?

That's cool!

And kudos to you guys and other Portuguese speakers who have translated external links and edited Portuguese-language articles. I've been telling folks on this site for nearly two years that I would do that, but I've never gotten around to actually doing it. Instead, I mostly lurk on this site, and I will occasionally fix spelling and syntax mistakes. Sometimes, I will also add content to WIGO pages and missing citations wherever needed. G Man (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, there are some Portuguese-speaking users here. Glad to see another one. So far the project is on-hold, but who knows, we'll finish it. GeeJayK (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Friendly inquiry

So you're to the right of Nancy, but you support universal healthcare. Are you slightly to the right, and what issues push you further to the right than her? I just thought it was interesting, because I don't consider my political positions to be too terribly different from Nancy Pelosi (except for universal healthcare, ironically enough, which I'm against). Forgive me if universal healthcare is a moderate or centrist position in Brazil, I know next to nothing about Brazilian politics except that Bolsonaro = Brazillian Trump. IveBeenFrank (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, even Friedrich Hayek kinda in fact supported universal healthcare. I supported the Bismarckian model (kinda what they have on Germany and Switzerland), not the Beveridgean model we have here in Brazil (basically the same as in UK, though private healthcare here is also prominent). As for your question, changing it here is probably a right-wing (not even center-right), just like in UK, where Thacther failed to reform it. We had a shitstorm about it a few months ago here too. Another reason to reject the Beveridgean healthcare: if it doesn't work, its's almost impossible to get rid of it. GeeJayK (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Crow food

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Don't shoot until they shoot. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 22:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Roberts

Gonna do a couple of passes through it to straighten out some grammar and idiom. OK? I've never heard of the guy; was he any relation to Maggie Thatcher nee Roberts? Scream!! (talk) 23:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem, thanks, a lot. Answering your question, I don't think so. He's just the son of a rich guy. GeeJayK (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

OK Scream!! (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

HAES

The version of "Health at every size" that you restored has drawn criticism for years. It is poorly-sourced, out-of-date, and not a balanced view of the current scientific understanding of obesity. Plus it contains fat-shaming and juvenile jokes. QuietLuna and myself worked to improve the article. The new version stood for over a year until Cristopher unilaterally decided to restore the old version. That reversion stated "If anyone objects then they can revert me and take it to the talk page." As one of the authors of the new version, I naturally objected. So I restored the old version, per Christopher's edit comment, and was in the process of writing a talk comment. I don't appreciate being threatened with a block for restoring a version that had stood for over a year, when it's apparently fine for Christopher to unilaterally bin a version they don't like. Splainer (talk) 06:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I said I was going to block you because I asked you three times to take it to the talk page. Other sysops would've blocked you after the first warning. Many other users agreed with his move, so it isn't unilaterally, like you said. You've already posted on the talk page. Now, let's wait until there are more answers. I recommend to tell Christopher that you don't like his edit too. GeeJayK (talk) 06:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

His edit was a reversion to an out-dated, bigoted, and poorly-sourced attack piece. What the fuck? — Oxyaena ^Harass 06:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

As someone more familiar with the mathematical elements of economics...

What are you thoughts on this video essay? To lay out my position, I think its one of the most pragmatic approaches to socialism, anti-captialism, and solving class conflict that I've seen, and to a large extent mirrors many of my own opinions on how to empower organized labour, minus the strict Marxism of course. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll watch it. GeeJayK (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie I’m not going to pretend here to be an expert on Marx nor in co-ops, but even though I’m dissatisfied with what I wrote here I’m doing my best.

My main problem with Marx is, ironically, my main problem with Smith, Ricardo, Mill and other liberal economists. They were right about many things… in the XIX century (or, in Smith’s case, XVIII). It’s hard to compare capitalism in the twenty-first century with its terrible counterpart in the XIXth century. For instance, as the guy on the video correctly acknowledges, that Marx believes there’s an ongoing conflict between labor and capital. Right now, however, I believe there’s more of a partnership between the two groups, even if conflicts often arise. Of course there’s still many forms of exploitations going on, but both sides can profit and, I believe, the best way to resolve it is to give everyone a more equal start, similar to what John Rawls believed.

Regarding the video, my main problem is that these worker co-ops make me believe that he wants to abolish property rights. As someone with a more utilitarianist view on ethics, I believe that supporting property rights because of some form of natural law is a mistake. But I do believe that property rights are important to achieve prosperity as they provide important incentives. Yeah, these co-ops might be working (I’d have to check). But in a global scale? I think that’s quite harder since, as he realizes in the Mondragon’s case, many of its problems arise by the fact that they are competing in a global market, and I believe (Ithe advantages that Mondragon provides to its workers also result at least to some extent in economic inefficacy.

And if all the companies adopt a similar model as Mondragon? There would still be a few problems. First, supposing these co-ops are less efficient that your average private company, that might also mean that the total output would be smaller, which can results in a smaller production, higher prices, etc (though you can argue that the general welfare would still be higher since the production would be more well distributed, it’s impossible to say that a priori). This possible inefficiency might even result in more environmental problems; I can elaborate that if you want to. A second problem: If some people decide to work in the old way, would they be allowed to create a private firm? What would happen after that is just speculation.

A more sociological problem I see is the Iron law of oligarchy. I believe these co-ops might turn into oligarchies very easily, becomes the very thing they wanted to destroy, though that’s just a speculation, never seen anything about it. I think his criticism on Mondragon might be in part related to that.

I don’t think these co-ops growing as fast as he suggests (and I think he also ignore those who fail). Most of the studies he linked doesn’t seem to have that many citations even if they aren’t even that recent (most of them use data from 15 years ago or more). I’m not saying these studies are bad as I haven’t read any of them, just that this might be a sign that their conclusions and/or research methods weren’t well accepted, and if these growth was so tremendous I think we would see these companies more often in the news, like we see Uber, Amazon, Alphabet and Tesla just to name a few companies that were created in the last 30 years and are among the most valuable in the world. In the Italian case, if these coops worked so well, why haven't wee heard about them getting huge and competing with the largest Italian companies? And why did the Italian people let them be destroyed by the government without fighting back in the elections? Most of the neoliberal reforms and privatizations in Italy were made by Massimo D'Alema. We do know the good and the bad about these reforms. What is the impact of these co-ops in the Italian economy as a whole?

I’m not sure if he supports these policies because of his own ethical and deontological convictions. If he does, it would be fine to support these policies even if that means sacrificing some economic efficiency and even welfare. But how much are we willing to sacrifice?

One last point I’d like to make (and here I’ll unfortunately have to mention Hayek) is that when he criticizes liberals, saying that they cannot think of anything that isn’t remotely similar to what we have today he falls into an epistemological problem that is called “rationalism constructivism”. It is not easy to create an ideal model of world and foresee all the pitfalls, challenges and flaws that this model has. Co-ops exist since utopic socialists like Owen tried them. What are the reasons why society didn’t evolve the way he wanted to? Probably the fact that authorities didn’t want to is a reason. But maybe there’s more than this. Despite some government activity against them, they are still allowed to exist, and if there’s only a handful of successful exemples around the world then maybe that’s not the best model. As I said before, I don't believe capitalism is fairier than other systems and I'll support another one if it's more efficient, but if co-ops are to substitute capitalism, I believe they are should compete with each other and (you won’t like it) let the consumers decide which one they prefer.

P.S..: I know I didn’t direct explain what is perhaps the most pivotal point of my post: why I think property rights are so important to economic growth. That’s because that would require an even longer post than this one, you can check Why Nations Fail, by Daron Acemoglu if you want to know more. I wanted to write a lot more, I didn't adress his point on democracy, for instance, but this post is already overly long, and I don't think it's even that good to begin with. GeeJayK (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply you were an expert, as my opinion was that you were a layman that was better versed in the subject than I in certain areas. As for proerty, I would suspect the author would prefer to abolish Private Property and replace it with "Personal/Public property" system most of the left advocates for, though that assumption is slightly speculative. Finally, unless I missed something, the video author repeatedly stresses that Co-ops are not a magic bullet solution, (and to criticize Mondragon being used as the go to "co-ops work" example), but that he thinks they're a step in the right direction. Essentially, to go back to why I asked you to begin with, I wanted your informed opinion on this person's opinion, something I occasionally do when I see my own opinions reflected back at me to a certain degree, and/or someone says something I think indicates interesting opinions on topics I'm interested in. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

To the last point specifically, this is where myself and the rest of the left suffer from severe disagreements. I believe we should advocate for cautious, methodological changes, so as to phase out capitalism (I also define capitalism differently, which I may have mentioned on Discord a few times) without replacing it with something worse, a cold, hard, and practical approach that is at odds with my more ideologically driven allies on the left. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Could you please do one little thing for me?

Could you please move the page Hélio Couto to Hélio Couto (português)? I don't think it's right for articles in languages other than English to have a title that's just somebody's name. I think that's misleading. I would move it myself but I cannot produce the character ê on my Taiwanese keyboard. Thank you. Spud (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Spud Done. May I ask you a stupid question? You said you can't produce the character ê on your keyboard, but you used it twice on your post here. How did you do it then? GeeJayK (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, I think the article should be deleted. I've never heard of this guy. There are many crooks selling this kind of garbage in the Brazilian Internet, and I don't think he's relevant enough. The article about him in the Portuguese Wikipedia was deleted by WP:PROD once and WP:CSD twice. Couldn't find anything about him in any major Brazilian news website either. GeeJayK (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

That's not a stupid question at all and I'm ;perfectly happy to answer it. When you edit an article, you can click on "Special characters" at the top of the editing box. That allows you to easily add versions of letters in the Roman alphabet not commonly used in English (like ê, ç, ň, ø and ü) as well as Greek, Cyrillic, Arabic and Hebrew letters, characters used to write several Asian languages, International Phonetic Alphabet symbols and other symbols not found on American keyboards (¡, ¿, €, £, ♠, ♣, ♥, ♦). When you move a page, however, you don't have access to Special characters. Then you're limited to what you can produce with your keyboard. So I cannot add (português), (français) or (español) to any page by moving it.

Based on what you've said about Hélio Couto, I'm going to nominate the page for deletion. I will, of course, mention you in the reason for deletion. Spud (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Can't you copy-paste for page moves? It seems like the simplest solution: produce or find the text, copy, go to the page move view, and just paste it in. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations ...

... would seem to be in order. Wishing you and your wife much happiness. Scream!! (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! GeeJayK (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Block of User:Derek Chauvin

I was going to find an admin to block User:Derek Chauvin, but then I noticed that you beat me to it. Any chance that I can have sysop please? Thanks. Harry Potter (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Granted. GeeJayK (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. :) Harry Potter (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Opinion on Hume’s economics

David Hume and Adam Smith were close friends and, as far as I know, influenced eachothers’ economic thought. Since you appear to be the resident economist, I’ll ask you: what’s your opinion on David Hume’s economics? Leucippus^Talk 00:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Leucippus thanks for the question. I assume you don't want a lecture, just my opinion on Hume, right? So, I don't think I need to explain to you what were Hume's views on money, fiscal policy, and stuff like that. I’ll also say that I'm in fact more familiar with his works on philosophy than on economics.

My opinion on Hume (and indeed, most of the economists of his time) is that he was amazing, but today his ideas are of limited use. Indeed, he was a pioneer, and we owe a lot to him (he was, for instance, one of the major influences of the Nobel Prize winner Robert Lucas), but he was writing more than 250 years ago. A different world, where not only the economy, but science and the available methods were different. By that time, people used a very subjective approach, and most of their conclusions came from their perception of the world around them (in Hume's case, the impoverished Scotland). Many, probably most of his arguments are still valid, like the fact that money in the short run can can boost the economy, but in the long run you’ll just have higher prices but not an increase in the output but the way he puts it is unacceptable for us as he does not provide evidence as we know it.

Reading classical economists like Hume or Adam Smith is, in my opinion, akin to read Darwin or Mendel. It’s important for a historical perspective but you’ll learn a lot more reading the new authors. Of couse, economics is more abstract than biology, so their works tend to age better, but you’ll learn a lot more reading a modern manual than reading stuff written when the US was still a British Colony. Does that mean it’s useless to read Hume? When it comes to economics I wouldn’t say so for two reasons. 1, History of Economic Thought is a very important subject. 2 He can still give you great insights (again, his ideas on money are still dominant after all this time, so newer economists still borrow a lot from him. That being said, you need to be really good in order to reach this level.

TL;DR: Hume was one of the greatest minds of his time, not only on economics. But on this subject I think he's outdated, not because he's wrong, but because he came to his conclusions in a way that we can't accept anymore. People will still remember him when any of my favorite economists today are forgotten, but he’s far more important on a historical perspective than as a theoretical reference, even if many of his ideas are still right as far as we know. Maybe as a historian and a philosopher that's not truth as these philosophy is overall even more abstract and tends to age a lot better, but that's how I see him as an economist. GeeJayK (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response. I agree that the main limitation of Hume’s work is historical i.e. economics was in its infancy during Hume’s time, and Hume couldn’t benefit from the sophisticated mathematical tools and empirical methodology that we have today. Leucippus^Talk 12:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Board nomination

You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline here; if you accept, you may wish to campaign.

Bongolian (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds fun. Thanks a lot, I'll consider it. GeeJayK (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Please do. Spud (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Keynes

Here's the banner for you

This user is a Capitalist who supports extensive government regulation.

CorruptUser 21:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@CorruptUser thanks, but despite considering myself a New Keynesian I tend to disagree with the "extensive" word in the userbox.

If you don't know the difference between New Keynesians, Neo-Keynesians and (arghh) Post-Keynesian garbage I'd recommend the The Penguin History of Economics. I think they advertised the book with this slogan . GeeJayK (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Isn't Post-Keynesian just Milton Friedman? I could remove "extensive" if you want though. CorruptUser 21:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I think Milton Friedman's ghost will haunt you this night... Next time call him a Marxist, I honestly believe he holds far more respect for them. Post-Keynesian economics is MMT bullshit and a few other sections like "Circuitism" which I never got really into. I can respect a few of their modern proponents, like Thomas Palley, but it's overall rubbish. Don't worry about changing the userbox, it would be unfair with the other users that added it on their page, they might agree with the "extensive". GeeJayK (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

You the homie

That's it, just want to let you know you're coolSShinx (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm glad you liked it. I don't give sysop rights very often. Please, do not let me down ;). GeeJayK (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Since you seem to know wtf The Economy is

I’ve just been wondering. Would you happen to know what MMT is? If so, would u be able to explain it to someone whose understanding of economics is fairly limited? I’ve just never really come across anything that’s not full of jargon I just don’t get. So yeah any help would be obliged! Thanks! 💜 ASELA^कुरा 💜 12:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Asela Thank you for your question. I'll give you a detailed answer on Monday, probably. I started our article on MMT though most of its current content wasn't written by me. I don't think the article is very good ( adding stuff is on my to-do list, but I just don't have time right now), but it can give you some ideas before I give you the answer you deserve next week. GeeJayK (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Asela Sorry for being late, I've been just extra, extra busy recently. I think MMT pretty much works as a cult, or at least a woo: they believe they have a silver bullet solution that no one ever thought about and/or the the big bad powerful ones are preventing the rest of the world from benefiting from their ideas. Their modus operandi is pretty much doublethink: they say their theory is just a descriptive one (see positive economics and normative economics just to make tons of recommendations of which policies we should do. They say that critics don't understand their theories, but apparently if you agree with them you understood. They say mainstream economics is full of groupthink, but paradigm shift has been the norm in economics since 1936 at least, while heterodox economics still needs to resort to books and papers written decades ago as their main references. They don't have empirical evidence (indeed, their research methods resembles Praxeology and both sides acknowledge the similarities between their epistemologies): they just use a couple of countries (especially Japan) as an exemple of how their theories could work. But even Japan pretty much shows many of the problems with MMT: just like America, the interest rates that the government pay is too low, that’s what allows them to go into huge deficits. When their economy starts to grow again, they’ll either have inflation or make some adjustments. Most of their ideas have been known for decades or even more. Their love to strawman mainstream economics in many other ways. For instance, they believe that every mainstream economist is an ultra deficit hawk that believe even minor deficits will ruin the economy. That’s absurd, most economists agree that some deficit is ok, and that the government can run in larger deficits during recessions (although the limitations of this policy are still up to debate). Even other Post-Keynesian economists acknowledge that their perception of how the mainstream deals with deficits is a dishonest strawman. They supported fucking Brexit!

I wish I had time to enter in the theoretical problems of MMT, but unfortunately I'm just too busy with everything right now. You can check here for better criticism of their theories, or, if you want to wait a bit, I can write some stuff when I have time. As I said before, updating the MMT article is on my do-list. The problem is time. Having a family consumes most of it. GeeJayK (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You have been elected to the board of trustees

You have been elected to the board for the next 2 years. I'm assuming @Cosmikdebris will take care of all this from here as the secretary of the board, I just ran the results. -- Techpriest (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Thank you, everyone that voted for me. I was my last vote, I'm actually surprised with the result. GeeJayK (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Cabal! Spud (talk) 04:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Spud! GeeJayK (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Prophecy of Habakkuk

The kind of editing I was referring to is here on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiqqun_soferim . The article itself doesn’t seem to mention Habakkuk itself, although the article on Habakkuk does reference the Tiqqun Soferim, but the chart at the beginning supplies what’s needed. Skyknight (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I apologize, but I'm not qualified to help you nor I know what you're talking about. I believe user @Bongolian might perhaps help you better than me. GeeJayK (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

This is not an area where I have expertise either. Bongolian (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@GeeJayK You reverted their edits to an article on September 5, I think is what they're here about. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 00:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I've no idea why I've done this. Maybe In was on my phone and I clicked on "rollback edit" by accident. GeeJayK (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Why did you ban me?

If you don't recall, my username was A Mouse from Pluto ^{— Unsigned, by: WhyMouse / talk / contribs}

I'll assume you're not the tenth account created over the last couple of days just to mock Plutocow's name and unblock you. GeeJayK (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Nommies

You've been nominated in the upcoming moderator elections. See the nomination at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations.

Wow, thank you for considering me, Cory. Wasn't expecting to be nominated. I'll consider it. GeeJayK (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Fwiw I think u would be good at it 💜 ASELA^कुरा 💜 05:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Asela! I thought about it and I decided that I'll do it. GeeJayK (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations, I hear that you’re going to become a father. Also forgive me for being so forward, but do you know the gender of the child yet?

In any case, I remember you saying that Lawrence of Arabia was your favourite war film, so with that in mind, what better way to mark this occasion, than with a toast from the man himself and his camel, his “noble transport”. Leucippus^{Salva veritate} 20:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC):

@Leucippus Thanks a lot! Sorry for only answering you now, I've been on a much needed vacation over the last few days and only now I saw your message. Indeed, Lawrence of Arabia is among my favorite movies of all time, and seeing O'Tool riding a camel with David Letterman is just too much fun. Regarding your question, here's the answer. GeeJayK (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, I still have some things I want to say on that topic about war movies. I just need to remember what I wanted to say on that day... GeeJayK (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

My pleasure. Don’t worry about that, I’m glad to hear you’re taking time to relax! Yes, I thought O’Tool and his camel would be a fitting way to celebrate this occasion. A lad! Well, best wishes for you and your soon to be son; will you be calling him John Maynard?

I believe we were discussing Das Boot originally, I suggested that it was one of the greatest war movies of all time; and if my memory serves me well, you suggested that Lawrence of Arabia, and a Japanese war film (which I’d never heard of) should also be included. I hope you remember the name of that Japanese war movie, it seemed, based on what I remember reading on IMDB, to be very interesting, and yet I can’t remember its name … Take it easy man. Leucippus^{Salva veritate} 17:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Leucippus oh, Yeah, now I remember. It was The Human Condition Trilogy. Another great Japanese war movie from the same year is Fires on the Plain. They're both extremely bleak and disturbing, on the same level as Come and See at least. We still haven't decided the name yet, but it will probably be a a more normal one... GeeJayK (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

’John Maynard’ isn’t normal?—for shame! I thought you were a good Keynesian; perhaps Milton then? Oh and thanks for remembering that war movie, I shall try and find time to watch it.

No, but seriously, I’m pleased for you man. What a momentous occasion this is, your life will never be the same once you look into the eyes of your child and they look back, once they reciprocate a smile. Leucippus^{Salva veritate} 17:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

BruceGrubb

So, I know I'm new here, and I don't want to come off as belligerent or like I have a grudge or something, but what's up with BruceGrubb? The more I interact with him, the more dishonest he seems to get. He was talking about Wikipedia policies and pointed to a specific section on one to back himself up. It turns out he's the one who put that on Wikipedia in the first place. I looked at those user logs you posted the other day, and he pulls the exact same stuff here that he did there. Someone perfectly described him back in 2012: "BruceGrubb has problems with original research, misrepresentation of sources, the use of poor sources, and biased editing (largely in the promotion of fringe theories and fringe viewpoints on mainstream subjects). In addition, he often derails talk page discussions with long, rambling barely-relevant edits that often include text copy-pasted from earlier posts on different topics." That's the same as he is now. I'm just kind of baffled this goes on here. Friedman (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Friedman thank you for your post. I'm very busy right now, but I'll give you the detailed answer you deserve in a few days. GeeJayK (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! No hurry. Friedman (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Friedman Sorry I'm late. I just don't have time right now. I'll be brief because I'm very busy and I actually shouldn't even be here. I'll also mark user @BruceGrubb here in case he thinks we're just gossiping about him or being unfair. What you said bothers me a lot. I remember that Bruce once claimed that it's difficult to engage with him because he's autistic and has ADHD. Although I can understand that it makes it harder for him to engage in a normal discussion, I don't think this is an excuse. I don't want to play the armchair psychologist (people have called me out in the past for that) but until the last moderation election, only a month ago, three out of six mods were also autistic, and I think at least another once claimed that they had their doubts. That didn't mean they were bad mods at all. Among the five elected board members of the RMF, at least one is an autistc woman, another is a woman with ADHD and even I had my doubts whether I'm on the spectrum or not (though I don't think I am right now). Many of our best users here (Christopher and GrammarCommie just to name two that once were mods) also said they are in the spectrum. Of course, autism is a broad spectrum and it doesn't affect everyone in the same way, but I do think Bruce could perhaps work a bit harder. According to his user page, he's educated. In fact, at least to my knowledge, very few users here have the same level of education as him. Indeed, he went through some debates during his graduation, so I think he probably learned how to debate ideas IRL. On the Internet IMO is not that different. This also leads us to the next point. I find extremely unhinged how he easly dismiss the academic consensus considering the fact that he also was in the Academia at least for a few years. Granted, Carrier, Lataster, Price and almost all other proponents of the Jesus myth theory have remarkable CVs (Godfried and Doherty apparently being the main exceptions), but still, most educated people don't offer extremely fringe, alternative explanations to the mainstream. I wonder why does he treats the mainstream with such distain. I'd like to elaborate a bit more, but I don't have time right now, probably won't have for months, but thanks anyway and sorry for not being very helpful. GeeJayK (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I really appreciate you taking the time to respond in such detail. You were actually very helpful.

Thanks for the heads up. The majority of people that I've interacted with here seem like fine people, but it's always nice to know more about the community.

I inadvertently found out about Bruce's autism myself, when he later accused me of being the kind of person who wants to run autistic people like himself off of Wikipedia and RationalWiki. It kind of blind-sided me, because of how "victim complex" it came off as. Bruce is very obstinate, which may very well be an effect of his autism, but I feel like he's using his autism as an excuse to continue his behavior, instead of trying to make changes.

I'd write more, but as you probably won't see this for a few months, I'll leave it short.

Thanks again! Friedman (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

On Smith...

Oh, you should have read the whole conversation [as you seem to really know your onions...]

I [and as far as I can tell, GC] were mainly merely talking about what Smith said; I in fact explicitly said my view on the rightness of Smith wasn't the topic. The main bone I kept on trying to explain to Dutchbag was the idea that Smith hated rent-seeking activities; be it the non-investing landlord, the tithe-taking church or the artificially-protected monopolist. I also tried to explain that Smith was a man of his age; his concern about 'consumption vs investment' made more sense in an era of precious little consumer markets, very poorly-developed banking systems and a huge shortage of capital generally. If I'd felt it would actaully been worth it, I'd have pointed out things like Physiocracy, which Smith never truly left behind.

With '[landlords] don’t produce anything and we don’t need them'... neither I or GC said Smith said that. In fact, the only person who said we said that was Dutchbag [I think I literally said otherwise at least three times, which was why by the end I gave up]. This is because Dutch - for reasons honest or not - feels that Smith *has* to be in favour whatever the right-wing libertarians desire in the 2020s, getting angry and resorting to personal attacks when having pointed out the man was a lot more nuanced and writing from 250 years ago to boot.

Just thought I'd drop a line to clarify, as to be honest while the the idea that Dutchbag's ignorant monomania is easy to ignore, the idea a seemingly intelligent/sane person buying their broken record claims kinda pissed me off a bit.

KarmaPolice (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@KarmaPolice In fact I was reading the whole thing right now and realizing how wrong I was. Sorry, I'll post on the thread again to clarify it. GeeJayK (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I did put a couple bits of snark in too, which can confuse matters. Though quite ironically I wrote my own epitaph; I said near the top of the Smith bit words to the effect that he was like the Bible and Marx; often quotemined, rarely genuinely understood.

But while unnecessary, the apology is most appreciated. KarmaPolice (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

???

??? ??? What's this all about? Please be concise I haven't had coffee yet. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie fat fingers. I reverted these two posts and by accident I reverted yours too. GeeJayK (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Ah ok. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Please contact me

Please contact me at ttoulouse@gmail.com. tmtoulouse 21:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tmtoulouse Done. GeeJayK (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@GeeJayK I’m disgusted by your advancement in this company, at my expense‽—De-motion, and de-motion, and de-motion. I’m your older brother GeeJayK, and I was stepped over! Leucippus^{Salva veritate} 01:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Leucippus Since I couldn't get the reference by myself and had to Google it... Yeah, you're probably right, I'm totally unqualified. GeeJayK (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Aye, the scene in question (one of my favourite pieces of acting):

you try to console me with “That’s the way the RW mob wanted it”, I can only rebuff you with “It ain’t the way I wanted it!! I can handle things—I’m smart—, not like everybody says … like dumb! But smart, and I want respect!! Leucippus^{Salva veritate} 19:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for the assist there. Looks like I've annoyed someone, ha. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Noir LeSable You're welcome. This idiot also tried to impersonate my a few days ago, but thank goat no one thought it was me. GeeJayK (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested

Found an econ YouTuber with some critiques of Breadtube's econ positions. Forwarning of bias, he's still mostly left leaning, so keep that in mind. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie, I remember seeing him on RW Twitter a year ago o so. I think he's closer to Mainstream economics than most people might think (indeed, his criticism of BreadTube is pretty mainstream]]. Oddly enough, so is CountraPoints, just like he suggested. While I don't agree with a lot of his ideas, I think his channel does an important job as he criticizes mainstream economics without strawmanning it too much, like many other critics on the left and on the right. GeeJayK (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Gerard Armond Powell

Hi,

You just deleted the page https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gerard_Armond_Powell

Can you tell me why?

Thanks,

Jen

@Jen609 Thank you for your contact. It wasn't ready for the main space. Please, work on the page on the RationalWiki:Drafts, or in your own sandbox before puting it on the main space. GeeJayK (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking back

You are probably not the South American sockpuppet. I appreciate you for being on the few who are not rude during disputes. Sending this message as I've noticed that any time me or other people get into disputes, someone starts raiding talk pages with registered-account sockpuppets to try to amplify the dispute. This happened on the MMT page (I thought it was you, but that seems unlikely now), during the last ATIM dispute, and also when GC permabanned himself. The sockpuppet has a habit of naming GC and also a few other former editors. 2friedeggs or whatever his name was, was trying to figure out with me who is doing that. I assure you it is not me. Whoever it is, whatever they are doing is also borderline illegal, and if the sockpuppets continue during disputes, I think we should ask a server admin to check the IP (real or VPN) of whoever is doing it. As they are doing it consistently. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 20:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Neiltyson1fan, thank you for your message. Problem is, we know who is harassing us. He uses Tor, and the community has rejected fair use, so even Trent cannot use it with support of the editors. GeeJayK (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

what nelson piquet said

hey there, am i right i thinking you are brazilian? if i havent just pulled that out my arse i wonder if you are able to provide any insight to what piquet called hamilton? i read 'neguihino' is translated as 'nigga' but piquet insists he didnt say anything racist. is what he said really as overtly racist as nigga is in english?is it racist at all in brazil and direct translation might be close to nigga, but usage far removed? or is racist for some parts of brazil but not for others? does context work for against piquet? is it really just a cultural misunderstanding? i cant seem to find any significant comment from brazilians, except something from urban dictionary saying it can be used for white or black people in brazil, while novelist and lyricist Paulo Coelho assures us on twitter piquet remarks were racist. piquets past statements have often been controversial for various reasons so i can understand he not getting the benefit of the doubt, and his current paling around with bolsonaro doesnt help him in some quarters, but could piquet really be right here? could he really meant something not racist, or not as racist but still racist (where i suspect is most likely, or was it really as racist as nigga is and he knew it and meant it as such? whatever the truth, piquet will still be, on balance, a bit of prick and no one seems to be jumping to his defence

i bet ayrton senna wouldnt have found himself in such a controversy.

coverage in english media and f1's official stance is uniformly piquet was super racist and against any cultural misunderstandings but little coming from brazil that would confirm or dispute this stance or give any kind of nuance. thought perhaps you might be able to add some perspective missing from what ive seen in english media. thanks if you do, butfeel free to ignore, piquet banned from the f1 paddock is the only real or lasting result of this. f1 has people actually working for them still having to walk back from controversial statements concerning driver activism while holding grand prixs in countries with appalling human rights abuses probably bigger issues in formula one AMassiveGay (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

and ofcourse please ignore if this is already beimg discussed elsewhere and ive missed it. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay thank you for your question. IMO what Piquet said was probably racist, and indeed unnecessarily offensive and uncalled for. The word “neguinho” does not translate well in English. It can be racist, but it is also often used between lovey-dovey couples, and it’s also the artistic name of Neguinho da Beija-Flor, a famous Samba composer. However, the way he used the word, “o neguinho”, is often used in a racist way to show disdain toward blacks and can be roughly translated as “that little black person”. Why would he call Hamilton as “the little black person” instead of just, you know, Hamilton, his name? In other words, I’d say the word is not inherently racist at all, but the context makes the case very difficult for Piquet

I dunno if Piquet’s actually racist, but he is indeed a bitter old man and, as far as I know he still supports Jair Bolsonaro, and their crew tries to be unnecessarily offensive all the times, so I think he wanted to show how politically incorrect he is by showing his disdain toward Hamilton. I would even say that he did it on purpose: until not so long ago you could make this sort of racist statement and get away with it. Not anymore. He wanted to show that you can still make use of these racist words and no one would care. GeeJayK (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

indeed. he said it about a year ago. i guess its possible he was pissed at hamilton for running his son in law into a wall - seems like good reason to be pissed at himi guess referring to him - a seven time world champion - like he did was intended to show disdain. choosing his race as the thing to belittle him probably a pretty dumb move considering hamiltons vocal anti racist activism. maybe lack of imagination as well thoughtless/cluelessness over racial issues sort of racism that people of a certain age tend to have. or maybe his go to insult would have been homophobic but remembered nearly getting sued by senna over it and couldnt think of anything of else to say or know anything more about hamilton than hes the black one (and 7 times world champion) so went with referring to him like he was the help. but im reading too much into it. wikipedia has virtually nothing about him since his driving career ended and ive not watched f1 since senna died.

my take home from this piquet isnt or didnt intend the overt and virulently racist implications of a 'nigga' translation, but still racist is another kind and still problematic way. 'It’s more than language. These archaic mindsets need to change and have no place in our sport' as hamilton said.

thanks for the context AMassiveGay (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

hamiltons next big struggle with the fia appears to be over if he can wear a nose ring when racing. you pick your fights i guess AMassiveGay (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Frank P. Ramsey’s economics

Hi mate. I enjoyed having a read of your Criticism of Socialism draft. I was wondering, on a related note, whether you’ve read any of F.P. Ramsey’s economic work (for instance see this SEP article). Interestingly (If I remember correctly) Keynes was Ramsey’s doctoral adviser. Regards --Leucippus^{Salva veritate} 00:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Leucippus Thanks, I'm glad that at least someone is actually reading it. It's still far from finished, but I think I'm doing, in general, a good job. I actually read one paper by Ramsey on taxation many years ago. Very mathematical, especially for 100 years ago (you can see by you SEP link). Can't say I remember a lot, but I think his main thesis is that the government shout tax inelastic goods. Is this correct? Well, to some extent it is, but there are a few pitfalls too. Food, for instance, is very inelastic, as people just need it, while luxury goods aren't. I don't know a lot about his like, but according to his Wikipedia page he was indeed a genius that unfortunately died too young. GeeJayK (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for demoting me

I wanted to ask, to avoid those obnoxious filters, but was afraid to because my account is less than a day old. Thanks again. Vee (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it also means less work for us sysops too. GeeJayK (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Ha ha, that's true. With the number of edits I've already made today, it must've been quite the headache. Vee (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you able to move pages?

Can you please move the page Stopped clock to Stopped clock moment? It is a better fit for what the article is about. Erik10012 (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Erik10012 While I wouldn't mind the change, I personally believe you should discuss it on the article's talk page first. GeeJayK (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Give me 30 mins

I’m in a meeting. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

responded. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello!

Someone recommended I talk to someone on the Board of Trustees to help me with my current issue.

I'm trying to get a RW page that was archived on January 29 this year--Saloon Archive Page 401--removed from web.archive.org since it contains slanderous content against me and a doxing of a friend's real name, posted by an unhinged troll who's been stalking me and a handful of my friends for three years across various Websites without ceasing or desisting—it's enough to make anyone paranoid. The archive people did nothing, as I don't own the page's address, so I was hoping you could intervene. No worries if you can't, but thanks for considering.

All the best,

~HelpWantedImParanoid

@HelpWantedImParanoid thank you for your message. As much as I'd like to help, I'm currently traveling and I have no access to a computer soI won't be able to do this (indeed, writing elaborated messages on a phone is something I can't do). So, unless you want to wait for at least two weeks, I'd suggest you to contact another staff member. I'm pretty sure @Cosmikdebris and @Spud might be able to help you out on this one better than me. I'd suggest you to setting up an e-mail on your account too. You can see on Wikipedia:Emailing users if you want to know more. Regards. GeeJayK (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Alliance to take down pseudo academia on rationalwiki

Jungianism, Post-Keynesianism, Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, Jesus Myth Theory, Rommel myth, pollute this wiki. I propose we make an alliance to curb all these pseudo academic beliefs off of the website. Even Yahweh being a volcano, the literal mascot of r/bad history is done without irony. We need to fix this. Left wing Identity politics on this wiki are based, the economics are shit. I’ll do further research on what needs to be fixed--Jakester499 (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Obviously we need the approval of the mobocracy to institute these changes but I fear rationalwiki becoming more and more full of shit, plus the radicalization of subreddits into alt right or tankie forums may prove to be an omen for rationalwiki.--Jakester499 (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jakester499 If you think Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism are compariable to "pseudo-academia", the "Jesus Myth Theory", and the "Rommel myth", the only thing I can suggest to you would be to research what you are talking about before making these laughable comparisons. While all those three things you metioned have some foundations in academia, they are not based in purely academia. Socialism and Communism are not "fringe historical theories". I have heard Anti-communists before, but you are perhaps the worst among them. Wisconcom (talk) 22:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry to step on toes and their is no personal animosity at all but rather I find political humanism where the state takes care of all needs of sapient and sentient consciousnesses within a pragmatic and effective sense to be far more reliable then communism anarchism socialism and syndicalism. I agree almost 100% with the left except on economics, even Marxist historiography may have use (I don’t know for certain and am prepared to be proven wrong). If you can prove me wrong please do it is necessary in science not prove our hypothesis through trying to prove it but rather through trying to disprove it--Jakester499 (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

So you are critical of Marxist economic theory? What particular aspect do you disagree with that would make you consider things such as Marxism to be pseudo-academia? Wisconcom (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Special:Diff/2496205 Seriously now, communism pollutes this wiki? socialism pollutes this wiki? Are you for real or just trolling. I invite to bring any article to AfD though, I'll be sure to oppose every single nomination. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC) @Jakester499 sure, let's do it. Just give me a week, I'm not at home right now. Also, we must not conflate the political and sociological theories of Marxism/socialism/anarchism with their economic theories. People like Pierre Bourdieu might have a point even if their economic ideas are utterly garbage. Sorry for any typos, I'm on my phone. Also, if you and @Wisconcom want to debate, please do it on the bar. I usually wouldn't mind but I'm already receiving too many e-mails. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of what one thinks about anti-capitalist movements, their points do have merit. Enough to be serious subjects of debate in academia. Vee (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Yo motherfucker

Some dickhead nominated you for mod or some shit. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 06:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow, thanks a lot! I'll think about it. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 21:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Saloon Unlearning Economics - value.

Sorry to bother, we all have limited time so I completely understand if you don't follow this up, but I just noticed this in the saloon bar and it hasn't gotten that many responses yet, all a bit in a similar vein and I noticed you were quite active in some of the political discussions (not exactly my main terrain) and had a stronger focus on economics, perhaps more background in it as well, so it seemed interesting what you might think about this, to get some more perspectives on it. Cheers! ConverginglyRational (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@ConverginglyRational Thanks for the message, I haven’t checked the SB for a few days (been quite busy), so I didn’t see the thread. The problem of the video is the fact that it is >over one hour long. So unfortunately, I don’t have time to watch it right now. However, knowing UE, I can imagine some of his arguments. He’s actually very good at history of the economic thought (that’s usually the only thing heterodox economists are good at, I love HET books written by these cranks), so he has probably 1 quoted Joan Robinson claiming that Marginal utility is circular and 2 that useless things don’t have value, so claiming that LVT is refuted because you can dig a hole for 50 years and it’s still won’t have any value is incorrect. The problem with Robinson’s argument is because she’s ignoring preferences, and that marginal utility is more of a tool than anything else. The problem with the second argument is the fact that it is completely ad hoc, as Robert Nozick says.

This discussion is overall very philosophical and actually lacks any application. That’s why heterodox economists (both on the left and on the right) care so much about it, I think. Regards. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 03:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I think Marx's LTOV is more useful as a tool for exploring class dynamics than actually explaining value. IOW, just because something is heterdox doesn't necessarily mean it's without utility. Vee (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

That's actually possible. If that's true, it's more of a sociological than an economic tool. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 03:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

What makes citing rightist heterodox economists okay but not leftist heterodox economists?

Out of curiosity, what's the difference? Vee (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Vee I don't get your point, there are good heterodox economists on both sides, like Dani Rodrik (left) and Randall Holcombe (right). GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 03:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I was of the impression that you seemed to consider leftist heterodox economics crankery in its entirety, as opposed to rightist heterodox economics. I must've been mistaken. My apologies. Vee (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Vee Don't worry, no hard feelings. My problem with heterodox economics on the left is, in fact, the same that I have of those on the right: they spend way too much time studying older authors instead of coming up with new ideas. Physicists don't spend too much time (as far as I'm aware) reading Principa Mathematica. That's why I think reading stuff like Wealth of the Nations, Das Kapital, General Theory, etc... while not being a bad idea, is not as good as reading an actual modern textbook. Also, both post-keynesian economists and Austrians follow a similar methodology that I can't agree with.

If you wanna check, I've criticized Austrians on this site many times. Indeed, my first article here was on Walter Block, and right now, while I'm working on the Great Depression article, I criticized the Austrian business cycle theory, just to give you two examples. Even when it comes to Friedrich Hayek, by far the best Austrian, I think his legacy as an economist is mixed, and I think he's better as a political philosopher. I've written a bit about it on the Austrian school article too and I'll probably write on Hayek's own article in the future. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 03:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I will do so. I admit I may have been blinded by bias here. Thank you for the suggestions. Vee (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I am curious to what makes Dani Rodrik left exactly? Isn’t his field primarily in the focus of international economics, globalization, etc? If he works from a heterodox school — his academic profiles seem to significantly downplay it. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@OnlySortaDumb There are perhaps better examples then him on the good, left-leaning, heterodox approach, like Thomas Palley, but I still see Rodrik as someone on the center-left on the field. His views on industrial policy are usually considered to be on the left. I believe he even said emerging markets must devalue their currencies to compete with rich countries, which is something that most mainstream economists will strongly disagree with. Also, as far as I'm aware he's a also mild critic of globalization, but I'm not very familiar with this part of his work. I also remember reading one article by him on Project Syndicate (not academic then) where he criticized the orthodox approach on fighting inflation. Two years ago he also organized a book called "Combating Inequality", one of the best books I read this year. Not saying, of course, that the left has monopoly on fighting inequality (indeed, some authors on the center-right, like Mankiw and Acemoglu also wrote chapters on this book), but it is overall a left-leaning book, with many other economists affiliated with the left (Saez, Zucman, etc) and even some philosophers, like Scanlon also writing chapters for it, explaining why inequality matters, although I admit I'm not super familiar with their work outside this book. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Although, granted, if you believe that in order to be on the left you need to be anti-capitalist, then he's not on the left. John Roemer is probably the most famous example of a modern anticapitalist economist, but I don't know anything about his work. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 16:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I see, yeah. Thank you for clarifying. I have heard of Roemer before I think his name occasionally comes up in sources on Analytical Marxism. I think I have a few of his works on a reading list. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC).

VeryLazyPizza

Some user by the name of VeryLazyPizza recently vandalized an article, so I gave them a slap on the wrist. I suspect that they might be a ban evader, but I'm not certain, so could you please look into it? --Luigifan18 (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Luigifan18 I don't remember seeing this pattern of vandalism here before, so I'm not sure if they're evading. Anyway, nine ours is ok for a block. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure if I would have blocked them at all (or blocked them for one hour) if I didn't suspect them of ban evading. @Plutocow did ban an account named "LazyPizza" yesterday IIRC. --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I just double-checked. The vandalism was on the Ted Cruz page, it was vandalized by a user calling themselves "LazyPizza" yesterday, and it got vandalized by an IP shortly before the VeryLazyPizza edits (Plutocow blocked that IP address). Not only that, all three instances of wandalism were essentially transphobia and STD mudslinging. There's definitely a pattern of vandalism here… I think my initial hunch of ban evasion was correct. I'm going to go ahead with a full block now. I also protected the Ted Cruz page, because seriously, that's three wandal strikes in two days. What a headache. --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

…Never mind, @Plutocow beat me to it. Looks like my work is done for the time being. --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Castillo

Peruvian media is overwhelmingly right-leaning due to the wealth of the people who own it which has been largely gained through neoliberalism, and a cursory Google search shows that Diario Correjo and Ojos are explicitly right-wing sources (I am somewhat decent at reading Spanish). Castillo's support mainly comes from poor indigenous farmers, who haven't benefited at all from Peru's wealth. Castillo's main goals besides replacing the constitution were largely to lower poverty. He actually came from a poor background, which for Latin American leaders and especially Peruvian ones is rare. Due to Peru's constitution however, by the time he came into power, he was basically powerless as any time he did anything that would remotely threaten the status quo, Congress would impeach him and force him to either move right or lose power. Ultimately, by the third time this happened he must have snapped, and decided he'd rather confront the problem directly rather than compromise with a Congress so reactionary that even a center-right president wasn't good enough for them. The reason why I don't call it a coup was because it wasn't a naked power grab; it was an attempt to prevent his powers from being undemocratically removed, and his goals weren't to become dictator but rather to run new Senate elections and to have a more democratic constitution; if that's a coup, then it's more in line with the Carnation Revolution than January 6th. Still, as I said, I disagree with his actions, as due to the constitution that could have only ended in disaster and essentially empowered the right wing in that country. But still, it's reductive to assume that legal means right in this case, and while what he did was pragmatically a mistake it's easy to see where he's coming from. The Fujimori-era constitution makes it as difficult as possible to change anything in Peru, and as long as it remains in place their indigenous population is going to continue to be poor as the wealth from Peru's resources goes pretty much exclusively to white people. Plutocow (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Trying not to quote mine you, sorry if I failed at that. This will probably be my only post on the subject, but feel free to leave another message, I promise you I'll read your answer. First thing, I don't think calling the press "biased" is an argument to be honest (as you might know from our previous conversations, I don't care a lot about bias, as long as the information is accurate and it's not obvious slant). That's what Donald Trump supporters say after all. Castillo's support doesn't come from anywhere; he's extremely unpopular. The Gini Index in Peru is dropping, so I'd say that the poor are indeed in a better situation right now [1] Also, let's not forget that the Congress is elected by the people, just like Castillo; it indeed represents the people better than him, since he only got like 10% of the votes. I can respect the idea that what the Congress was doing was just constitutional hardball, but at least they had the law on their side. Castillo didn't have the right to dissolve the Congress. It wasn't a countercoup, most analysts thought that he could even survive this impeachment attempt. It doesn't matter, when you try to dissolve the Congress without the law on your side it is a coup attempt. The Carnation Revolution overthrown a dictatorship, while Peru, despite all it's flaws, is still a democracy. One last thing, I'm sorry for suggesting that you couldn't read in Spanish. That was indeed rude from my part. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 02:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess part of it is I'm not really fond of the democracy/dictatorship binary. There's no perfect democracy, which would be defined as every person having an equal vote; things like money and social influence will always get in the way. Similarly, there's no "perfect" dictatorship either, even the most repressive dictator still needs support from the military. I could declare myself dictator of Minnesota right now, but it's meaningless if no one recognizes my power. Plus, there are unclear cases, for example, where would you put a country like Morocco or Lebanon on a democracy/dictatorship binary? So countries exist on a spectrum between democracy and authoritarianism rather than being one or the other; for example, the U.S. is considered a democracy but has antidemocratic aspects like the Electoral College, which can (and has in 1824) completely overrule the popular vote, and while Cuba is largely authoritarian, they did allow their citizenry to influence and then vote on their 2022 family code. So, with Peru, I'm less concerned about whether or not it's a democracy and more whether specific aspects are democratic or not. If, for instance, Trump won the 2020 election because all the electors from California voted for Trump, even though it would be legal for them to do this and the U.S. would still be a democracy by most measures, you would likely call bullshit. Pointing out bias in this case is relevant mostly because these publications have a conflict of interest in this situation. Overall, we can agree that what Castillo did was ill-advised, as it was clear that he would not have enough support to accomplish what he was trying to do, but I guess I'm sick of seeing Western media outlets misrepresent the situation and compare it to things like January 6th, one particularly stupid article claimed "Pedro Castillo was impeached for "moral incapacity", the same offense that Fujimori was impeached for", which, aside from the attempt to equate Castillo and Fujimori and ignoring what "moral incapacity" means, also ignores that that same impeachment reason was used on Martín Vizcarra in a case that was controversial to say the least. It's also disheartening how Chile also recently failed to replace their Pinochet-era constitution after the Western media again was pointlessly fearmongering about it because maybe it could've meant more Chileans having access to their country's resources rather than trans-national corporations. Overall though, the equating of "anti-constitutional" to "bad" is a problem here, as Peru's constitution isn't comparable to the U.S.'s as it was designed to make it as difficult as possible to change anything from a dictatorship-era, and even if it technically fits the definition of a democracy Peru will never be truly democratic until it rids itself of the shackles of that constitution. Plutocow (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The Gini index is a poor inequality measure courtesy of The Guardian. It doesn't matter what your total income is if you're spending "30-50% of that on rent" to quote the article. Vee (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It is because we're trying to measure inequality. Anyway, we can use poverty rate too. [2]. Things are getting better in Peru. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 03:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

That's also a bad measure because the threshold is arbitrary; $6.85 a day is not enough money to get enough food. Anyway, if any spectators are interested, this is the only article from the Western media that I could find that I feel gives a fair account of what just happened in Peru. Plutocow (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Things are still bad=/=things aren't getting better. Point is, 64% of the population earned less than this in 2001. Less than 20 years after, it's less than 30%. I went to Peru ten years ago and I was astonished with all the poverty I saw even on Cuzco, a relatively "rich" city. This year, my sister went there and she could see the difference. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 03:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

And how much of it are they spending on rent and necessities? Why should they be forced to spend that money on rent and necessities in the first place, instead of housing and necessities being socially guaranteed? What makes this just? Vee (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(ec)Given inflation, that's not really much, and the really poor areas of Peru are the rural and indigenous areas rather than the cities. "Things are getting better" is meaningless when many people still can't afford enough food, not to mention that institutional racism and forced displacement by corporations are still huge problems for the indigenous population in Peru. Castillo seemed like he might have been able to change this, but sadly that's not the way things worked out. Plutocow (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(EC)I didn't say anything about fairness, Vee, that's another debate. What I said is that Peruvians are getting richer and the distribution of income is getting more even. The country's income per capita is still rather low, the problem there is the lack of resources, they need economic growth in order to solve problems like the ones you've mentioned[3]. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells}

Peru has plenty of natural resources, the problem is that transnational corporations take advantage of most of them, and the few Peruvians that benefit are largely white. Plutocow (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)_{Where every lie is true} 04:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

How's come it's not much? These values are adjusted by inflation. 20 years ago, the measure was 2 dollars per day. I know the rural areas are still poor, but the population overall is still getting richer. Castillo couldn't resolve the issue because his policies were not based on evidence, and because he is an authoritarian, populist bigot. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 04:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Or maybe because he was dealing with an intractable legislature that viewed him as the second coming of Josef Stalin. Either way, none of this answers the question of how much they're spending on rent and necessities. Vee (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, in order to spend on those things, they need to economic growth first. They were achieving it at a rather fast pace. If you're talking about the Baumol Effect, I'd suggest this study [4]. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 04:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(ec)This is probably your most reductive take thus far. There are several reasons why Castillo wasn't able to accomplish much. One is his political inexperience, as he was basically an outsider, and many of his appointments were probably ill advised. Another one is the constant squabbling with Congress, which as Barack Obama will tell you isn't conducive to getting anything done. Finally, since Congress could impeach him at any time for any reason, he couldn't really do anything that would upset them, and had to compromise twice to hold on to power and probably would have had to do it a third time he didn't decide to basically end his political career. But saying it was because "his policies were not based on evidence" is reductive when, well, he wasn't able to implement those policies in the first place. Also, I feel like you calling him a "bigot" is poisoning the well here, he is homophobic but even with a different president things wouldn't really be different in that regard since Peru is still overwhelmingly socially conservative. Still, it's worth noting that in Peru, Castillo was the target of a lot of bigotry himself for his indigenous background; remember, this is the country that was committing genocide against the indigenous population less than 25 years ago, so I feel labeling him "bigot" as if that makes him special in a country like Peru is reductive and irrelevant to this conversation. Plutocow (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I am flabbergasted to how Pluto says something like “this isn’t much because people still can’t afford food making more then what is set as poverty rate” is met with “but’s the rate is adjusted for inflation and the standard used to be way lower!”. Like that just feels almost intentional to miss the point. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you misread my post. I was answering when they said "Given inflation, that's not really much." My answer to this point was economic growth. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 04:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, hunger is not a major problem in Peru. [5] GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 04:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Nah. In re-reading the post, the point about economic growth seems more of an after-thought as a “besides” to anticipate any potential responses. Pluto’s point was that standard is arbitrary, that making more than $6.89 a day doesn’t guarantee you can afford food. Any point about inflation, or whether or not hunger is a major problem in Peru isn’t actually addressing Pluto’s argument. It’s an irrelevant premise. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Then you're reading it wrong again. The UN decides that this is the poverty line IIRC. Pluto said (as far as I understood) that the sharp drop on poverty is not that relevant because 6.89 bucks is worth less than it used to 20 years ago. That's not correct because the values are adjusted. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 04:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(ec)Also, none of GeeJayK's arguments have really addressed the point of how it's the indigenous population that is especially suffering under Peru's current system. The closest is him saying "I know the rural areas are still poor, but the population overall is still getting richer", which doesn't really address the problem here, especially with the very real possibility a Fujimori could regain power which would be really bad for the indigenous population. Plutocow (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

How are they suffering if their income is rising and the country is getting more equal? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 04:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The mention of inflation is in regards to the cost of living becoming higher, I don’t think Pluto was referencing whether the standard itself was adjusted to inflation though they can correct me on that. The standard being decided by the UN doesn’t make it any less arbitrary, and the point about the overall population gets into some fallacy of composition territory. There are people who are still struggling in peru, and you can’t use national trends to infer individual benefits. That’s the ecological inference fallacy. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(ec)At this point I'm inclined to call intellectual dishonesty. You fucking admitted the rural areas were still poor. The vast majority of indigenous people in Peru live in rural areas. Plus, country-wide stats can't be used to extrapolate how a specific group is doing; as an example just because New Hampshire is getting wealthier doesn't mean the same thing is happening in West Virginia. You can't reduce an entire country to just one single stat. Plutocow (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Did you miss the study I posted here[6]? The entire population benefits from growth, I think that was clear. You're free to show data that shows that the indigenous people are not getting richer too. Do you have it? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 04:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@OnlySortaDumb You're mistaking inflation with cost of living. Although intricated, these are not the same. See the study I posted on the Baumol Effect. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 04:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Clicking the posted study and finding a general neoliberal economic argument that’s locked behind a paywall with nothing actually related to addressing the indigenous population in Peru is really fucking telling of the intellectual honesty here. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ (EC) Being the only one that is actually capable of posting peer-reviewd studies here indeed says a lot about it. I'm sorry. Reality has a neoliberal bias. If you want to help the poor, make the economy grow. Again, you're the one suggesting that the indigenous population are not benefiting from the economic growth (theory tells that the entire population benefits from it). You're free to post a good study that contradicts mine. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 04:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(EC)That study has nothing to do with the indigenous population in Peru. And while it's hard to find a good source that doesn't rely on a flawed metric like the poverty line, indigenous poverty has been increasing in the last few years, largely as a result of the pandemic but it's not like things are improving from there, not to mention that many of them are being displaced by corporations. It's clear that indigenous Peruvians aren't benefiting from Peru's economic growth the same way that the white urban population is, and institutional racism is still a huge problem in Peru. Plutocow (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, I've already answer this. The entire population should be doing better thanks to the economic growth, including indigenous population. According to your own link, the poverty was also dropping among them before the pandemic, so I believe your data supports my conclusion. I don't see how it's clear that "indigenous Peruvians aren't benefiting from Peru's economic growth the same way that the white urban population is". Can you explain? Because now I'm inclined to say you are acting in bad faith. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 05:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(ec)Also, "the entire population benefits from economic growth" is reductive because due to things like institutional racism and generational wealth, not everyone will benefit in the same way. Also, it's worth noting that China, while capitalist, hasn't exactly played by the neoliberal playbook yet still managed to see a huge poverty reduction (well, by the same measures other countries have supposedly reduced poverty). But in Peru's case, people are literally being displaced by unregulated corporations, so how neoliberalism is benefitting them is anyone's guess. Plutocow (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, the study I linked used the poverty line measurement, which I admitted was flawed. Also, even if life is improving for indigenous Peruvians as you claimed, that doesn't really matter when so many are still poor, a 1% improvement is basically meaningless then. I feel like you're trying to argue more based off technicalities rather than the actual situation on the ground. Plutocow (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem is, according to your own link, poverty dropped from 70% to 20% in less than 15 years, it's not a a 1% improvement. That's a jawdropping drop of 70%. Even if the metric if flawed it's still very hard to say that things haven't improved. I'll ask again, do you have an actual study arguing that things haven't got better for them over the past 15-20 years? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 05:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(ec)And it should be obvious that the Indigenous population isn't gaining wealth at the same rate as the white urban population, I mean, to say otherwise would be denying the effects of institutional racism. For a US example, are New Hampshire and Mississippi gaining wealth at the same rate? Has the poverty rate in Mississippi been decreasing for black people at the same rate as it has for white people? I feel like this should be an obvious point but I will find citations if necessary. Plutocow (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Once again, you are missing the bigger picture here. If the poverty rate doesn't include all the people who are poor, then it's fallacious to assume that everyone not included in the poverty line is not poor. Furthermore, even if they are "less poor", they are still, well, poor, and income ignores factors like environmental destruction and displacement that are giving the indigenous people a hard time. Third, that they're doing slightly better now than they were under a regime that was actively committing genocide against them isn't exactly an impressive accomplishment. Plutocow (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@GeeJayK in response to that initial comment. Oh god where I start with this.

1. No one stated that cost of living and inflation were one and the same, to allege someone as confusing the two carries the social implicature that they did state they were the same — given that’s not the case this argument is a strawman fallacy.
2. If the citation doesn’t address the specific demographic and problem being talked about it is not a relevant citation and is thus a red herring fallacy. If I start citing a tangentially related nasa article in an argument about climatology that doesn’t necessitate that my argument is now more credible then whatever my opponent is talking about; that is especially not the case when the study in question doesn’t even address my opponents point. Sources don’t fix a fallacious argument.
3. No, reality does not have any sort of ideological bias that’s naturalistically absurd. The external world doesn’t come pre-formed to what the correct human values are. That’s metaphysical nonsense.

Rural indigenous low-income people in Peru are not interchangeable with some arbitrarily defined economic construct of “the poor” to infer general properties to the larger set as being reducible to a narrower subset within that set is a logical fallacy. There is no burden of proof on Pluto to treat your conclusion as the null hypothesis in this context. Your argument isn’t made stronger and less fallacious simply because evidence for a different conclusion has yet to be provided. Also demanding evidence for a negative is getting into some extremely unreasonable territory here. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

1. Irrelevant.
2. You don't know how research is done on social sciences and I'm not going to educate you on the subject, though I can recommend you some books. Anyway, Plutocow posted a link showing how poverty dropped among indigenous people there
3. It's a joke, it's one of our pages: fun:real world. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 05:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Given that OSD has a literal degree in psychology and works in a lab, I think you, a policy wonk, shouldn't be lecturing him on how social science work is done. Vee (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Plutocow While not a study, this one was written by my favorite living South American economist. You should read it, even if you disagree with his conclusions. I'm reading it right now and I'm finding it very interesting. He answers some of your questions, including environmental destruction (which is kinda of moving the goalpost since, as far as I understood, we were talking about wealth. Of course it would be fallacious to assume that everyone not included in the poverty line is not poor. But as far as theory goes, everyone is doing better. Probably a lot better considering how fast Peru grew over the last few decades. Again, do you have a study arguing otherwise? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 05:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Plutocow and OnlySortaDumb My argument is simple: Peru grew a lot over the last 2 decades. The theory says that this should be good for every group. You guys, as far as I understand, said that this might not have happened to indigenous people. Do you have any evidence on that? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 05:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

No, I think their argument was that the improvement was so marginal as to be practically meaningless. Nothing you have said or cited has addressed this. Vee (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure a 70% drop is far from meaningless, and again, theory says that it shouldn't meaningless, considering how fast the growth was. Do you have any evidence that it was meaningless? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 05:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(ec)The article agrees with me that rural indigenous Peruvians have not seen the same benefits that other Peruvians have from globalization, so I dunno why we're still arguing this. I don't see how environmental destruction is moving the goalposts since number one, I repeatedly brought up displacement, a related issue, and number two a huge part of my point is how statistics can't entirely represent the situation on the ground. Also, I don't exactly appreciate you saying my link "show[ed] how poverty dropped among indigenous people there" without mentioning the caveats. Additionally, you still haven't really focused on how indigenous people are actually doing on the ground. Plutocow (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, Vee's argument was clearly referring to how $6.85 a day is still poverty wages and you haven't made an attempt to show that poverty (actual poverty, not defined by an arbitrary threshold) has gone down among Peru's indigenous population. Plutocow (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Plutocow did we mention globalization? I was thinking more about macroeconomic stability and secure property rights. Yeah, they are still poor, but far less poor then they were until not so long ago. My argument is that they are probably quite better than before, considering the economic growth on Peru over the last 20 years. If things continue, they'll probably be a lot richer within a generation. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 05:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I literally hold a degree in a social science; there is no need to educate me here. I have aced advanced courses within the social science department at my university. This entire response to what I stated about bad inferences amounts to a ad hominem fallacy. You are not addressing what my actual point is, or what anyone’s point really is. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Nah, that's just argument from authority, you're pretty bad on the subject. I'll repeate myself again. Theory says that everyone profits from growth. Therefore, the indigenous people probably profited from it too. Do you have any evidence that they aren't considerably better now than they were 20 years ago? Or maybe that theory is wrong. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 05:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

No, it's a response to a blatant bad faith ad hom. OSD's degree has no actual relevance to his argument that your cites are nothing more than a red herring. Vee (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

That's because he's still arguing that we need to analyze the indigenous population (we can, and we did, they are better off now). But that doesn't mean we can't assume that they aren't wealthier now, since there's a solid theory saying that they should be. If something works for over a hundred of countries, it probably work for relatively small groups too. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 05:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(ec)20 years ago was just after the end of the genocidal Fujimori regime so you're equating multiple factors here, not to mention once again asking us to prove a negative. Also, I don't care if indigenous Peruvians are making four dollars a day or eight dollars a day when either way that's poverty wages. Arguing about whether their lives technically improved loses sight of the bigger picture, which I have tried to tell you multiple times. Plutocow (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(ec) Also gee your source does not actually demonstrate that all groups benefit because that would be conceptually absurd for any academic to claim in earnest. You posted a study that showed that “the poor” benefits from economic growth. That doesn’t define all possible demographics. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(EC) No, I'm not asking you guys to prove a negative, I'm asking you guys to prove that the theory (growth generally benefits everyone), is wrong. You're the ones denying what evidence says. Why could the Peruvian indigenous people be exceptions? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 05:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Using a broader example here, despite hundreds of years of economic growth black generational wealth is still significantly dwarfed by white generational wealth and there are still incredibly poor areas like the Mississippi River Delta and several inner-city ghettos. The market simply can't act as a long-term equalizer when institutional racism is present, and institutional racism is still a huge problem in Peru as it is in the rest of Latin America and if we're being honest the entire world. Plutocow (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

“ If something works for over a hundred of countries, it probably work for relatively small groups too” is actually like a clear demonstration of a statistical fallacy that I already made reference to [7] - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

You cannot make inferences about subsets sharing the same properties of the populations they are found within. It’s totally possible for trends for individual groups within the larger population to be effected differently then what the population aggregate suggests. Given everything that Pluto has been saying so far there is strong reason to suggest why a good number of indigenous people wouldn’t be represented in these statistics. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(EC) @Plutocow I'm pretty sure that the quality of life of these groups is also better now than it was 100 years ago. I'm not saying that advances aren't needed, but that things are getting better. Again, you're free to compare data from 100 years ago and now.

@OnlySortaDumb, so do you have any evidence that theory is incorrect and that the these people didn't benefit from the economic growth, like they should? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 06:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

|@Plutocow and OnlySortaDumb I'll ask once again. The theory says that the poor benefit from growth. Why could we be facing an exception? GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 06:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

To build off Pluto’s point about generational wealth if you were measure it looking at the American population as a whole the average rate of growth will be biased by the demographics who experience most of that growth. Everyone may be benefiting technically, but not to the same degree. So that rate of growth in terms of wealth by generation is not going to be the same for everyone; and you can’t disprove that there isn’t a subset that isn’t experiencing much of any growth at all. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(ec)Once again, you're missing the larger point. Of course, medical and technological advances have made life technically better over the past 100 years, but black wealth has stayed consistently behind white wealth and that's not a problem that will go away on its own. One of the flaws of neoliberalism is that it doesn't take systemic racism into account, which is something the market cannot solve and will only perpetuate. As long as indigenous wealth doesn't rise at the same rate as the rest of the country, these problems will remain, which is why what Castillo (yay, bringing this back to somewhat of the original topic) wanted to do was so important. Plutocow (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(EC) I'm not sure I understood your pos, Sorta, but inequality is also dropping in Peru. So, the poor are actually benefiting more than the rich. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 06:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(ec)Again, you're looking at a single statistic that covers an entire population. Just because inequality between white Peruvians is going down doesn't mean the inequality between white and indigenous people is going down. You essentially made the same fallacy again by equating "the poor" in Peru with specifically the indigenous poor in Peru. Plutocow (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It’s not required of me to prove that the ecological fallacy you are making is in fact, a thing. Asking to provide evidence that a theory is incorrect is again asking for a negative, but even then the theory you are referencing is NOT making the claim that any one who is classified as poor is experiencing a benefit to an equal degree as anyone else in the same demographic. (Nor is it even suggesting an impossibility for anyone to not benefit). You are imposing a fallacious conclusion on your source that it isn’t providing. I know economists are not as dumb to push the argument you are making. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(EC) This "holy market solves everything" approach kind of ignores intersectional analysis and structural inequities that result in problems like racial gaps in intergenerational wealth and systemic land displacement. The indigenous wouldn't need to be sold their land back if it wasn't stolen from them at the behest of market forces in the first place. Vee (talk) 06:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(EC) According to my source:

. What we do learn is that growth generally does benefit the poor as much as everyone else, so that the growth-enhancing policies of good rule of law, fiscal discipline, and openness to international trade should be at the center of successful poverty reduction strategies

So, yeah, they recommend policies that were pursuit in Peru. Didn't they work? That's my question. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 06:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Keyword here is "generally". It's not stating that this is some 100% hard law like E=mc^2. Plutocow (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Plutocow but no one said that. Do you have any evidence that this did not apply to Peru and they are an exception, however?

According to this other study:

Incomes in the poorest two quintiles on average increase at the same rate as overall average incomes. This is because, in a global dataset spanning 118 countries over the past four decades, changes in the share of income of the poorest quintiles are generally small and uncorrelated with changes in average income. The variation in changes in quintile shares is also small relative to the variation in growth in average incomes, implying that the latter accounts for most of the variation in income growth in the poorest quintiles. These findings hold across most regions and time periods and when conditioning on a variety of country-level factors that may matter for growth and inequality changes. This evidence confirms the central importance of economic growth for poverty reduction and illustrates the difficulty of identifying specific macroeconomic policies that are significantly associated with the relative growth rates of those in the poorest quintiles.

One of the countries they study? Peru. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 06:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, we run into the same problem of equating the poor in Peru with the indigenous poor, once again you are missing the larger picture of inequality, and once again no matter what I say you keep just reverting to the same argument of "growth benefits everyone, prove it didn't benefit the indigenous people of Peru!" Despite me trying to bring up larger issues like displacement, institutional racism, and environmental destruction and even trying to look at the larger picture or the situation on the ground as opposed to a few numbers with flawed metrics, you seemingly ignore everything and just retreat to that same argument. It's really getting tiring at this point. Plutocow (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Again, all the poor should be benefited (and you link on statista suggest that this happened). I agree with you there's still a lot to be done, even a hardcore neoliberal like de Soto agrees if you, but I'm talking about one single aspect here: wealth. We don't have any reason to believe that the growth wasn't good for them. Did the end of Fujimori's dictatorship helped? Probably. But so did growth, or at least that's what should have happened. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 06:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Can the indigenous Peruvian people be an exception? Yes. But I don't think it's me that should prove that. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 06:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Plutocow You're trying to talk about the big picture. That's fine, we can do it. But that wasn't my point here. I'm talking about only one variable, wealth, and I believe that you guys could at least bring some studies to back your claims. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 06:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(ec)But it doesn't say all the poor benefited, just that the poor as a whole did, and for example just because the U.S.'s economy is growing doesn't mean that the economy of West Virginia is growing. Like really, the source does not say that every single poor person benefited or every single subgroup of the poor benefited and you are asking us here to prove the negative. I mean, come on. That's like me saying "generally, rolling a six-sided die will give you a number less than six" and then me asking you to prove that the die I just rolled isn't less than six. It doesn't work that way and if you're not willing to put in the work to prove a point which the article you cited is not arguing, then we're done here. I'm trying to talk a bit more broadly than wealth, since wealth alone can't indicate everything about how a group is doing and the metrics of measuring it are often flawed, but you're the one who reverts to only talking about wealth. Plutocow (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Someone: “two and two makes four”. Gee: “Do you have a study to back up your claims?”. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

(EC)Yeah, I already understood that. But again, I don't think there's any reason to believ ~a priori that the indigenous Peruvian people didn't benefit from the economic growth there. I believe that I'm not the one that should prove that they could be exceptions. Well, I'm going to sleep. Believe it or not, I enjoyed debating with you guys. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 06:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@OnlySortaDumb, Well, at least I posted sources proving my points. I'm still waiting for a source that suggests that the Peruvian indigenous people might be exceptions and haven't profit from the remarkable economic growth on Peru. If you want another one, focusing only on Peru, have it [8]:

Our analysis strongly suggests that the openness to international trade and macroeconomic stability that have sustained strong economic growth and poverty reduction in Peru have been consistent with the narrowing of postcolonial ethnic inequalities. It would thus be ideal that any policy strategy to further reduce ethnic-related gaps preserves Peru’s growth policy pillars and concentrates on Pareto-efficient reforms.

GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Referring to the indigenous population as "exceptions" suggests you do not know how a category mistake works. No one stated they were "exceptions" to any pre-conceived rule. The allegation is that applying these facts regarding how economic growth benefits the poor to the concerns that Pluto is talking about is a misapplication. No one here is required to provide an external peer-reviewed study alleging that YOU in particular are making a category mistake. No researchers is providing scientific studies on the specific rhetorical strategies you use. Our claims are sufficiently evidenced by this entire conversation. Three users are observing the exact same conceptual error and are making reference to it. Explaining exactly what's wrong with your reasoning in this circumstances, and you are not addressing that allegation at all. As per usual you just make up a position for anyone accusing you of making a fallacy, and demanding that they prove to you this imaginary conclusion you have applied to them. No one is fooled by this behavior except maybe you because I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not doing this intentionally. But that is giving you the benefit of the doubt. The uncharitable interpretation is that you are purposely being intellectually dishonest and manipulative. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

So, since you proved you're wrong you changed your argument (again). Q.E.D. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Pluto isn’t really talking about income gains that the lowest-income earners make whenever a nation experiences economic growth. Which is the narrow “benefit” you are referring to. Pluto is making reference to ethnic displacement, systematic racism, and unequal gains experienced by the indigenous rural population. This isn’t addressed by the sources you provide, and this is relevant to the topic of Castillo given his platform focus on indigenous inequality.

You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole to make this a conversation about growth and property rights so you can whip out the scholarly sources and feel superior. That is not an charitable or honest engagement with Pluto. Overall benefits to large demographics does not tell you specifics about individual subgroups. This is stats 101 territory. Regardless the specifics that Pluto is referring to isn’t even being addressed. What does economic growth have to do with ethnic displacement? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

According to their first post "he Fujimori-era constitution makes it as difficult as possible to change anything in Peru, and as long as it remains in place their indigenous population is going to continue to be poor as the wealth from Peru's resources goes pretty much exclusively to white people." I believe I proved that this is not happening. The indigenous people in Peru is not going to continue to be poor for long if the current economic growth remains. Also, as my last study suggested, mestizos are now richer than whites in Peru. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 22:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't at all change my argument I been consistently making reference to the fallacy of division/composition/the ecological fallacy/category mistakes literally this whole time. You can use the find function and find I have been making this exact argument literally this whole freaking time. It also an argument that Pluto has been making to you just not referring to the fallacies by name, but explaining to you why the evidence you provided does not support the conclusion that indigenous people only make gains with economic growth. Ethnic displacement is something they experience alongside economic growth, no one would call that a benefit, and if populations are being displaced out of a given territory there is reason to suspect they may not be represented in national statistics – especially the case if they feel the need to leave the country. Pluto does not want to talk about abstract population aggregates, they want to address what real people actually experience on the ground and why that's politically relevant to the conversation and is not dismissible by any notion of income gains or poverty reduction for the countries poor via economic growth.

You provided evidence in regards to how a larger demographic experiences gains with economic growth, and you made reference to poverty reduction happening within indigenous communities when compared to an arbitrarily set poverty line. That doesn't disprove the notion that indigenous people may still be relatively poor when compared to the white population and that the gains they received isn't as dramatic as it is for the white population or as dramatic as it should be from a ethical standpoint. Really we should be comparing economic gains between low-income demographics divided by race, instead of looking solely at low-income people as a whole or even just specifically low-income indigenous people. We should also be taking a more relativistic approach in measuring poverty instead of looking solely on whether or not a population meets and arbitrarily set poverty-line. As Vee and Pluto have alluded to some people can still be financially struggling or even unable to afford to feed their families, and yet still be above the poverty-line. The rate of poverty decline is highly sensitive to how you decide to measure it, and if the measurement isn't externally valid then it's not sufficient or valid evidence to accurately represent a real reduction. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC).

At this point you're consciously lying after being proved wrong, that wasn't your point when the conversation started. I don't see any reason to continue this conversation. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 23:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The statista source states that the poverty rate for the indigenous community in 2020 was at 32.4 % compared to the 20% rate in 2019. There is a ten percent difference there with the rate being the highest it has ever been since 2012. We can probably chalk that up to the lack of economic growth due to the pandemic, but the well being of the indigenous communities isn't reducible to this one statistic and their relative poverty rate to the white population isn't shown to be growing at the same rate as the white population based on these numbers. We also just have to assume that this operational definition for poverty is externally valid in this context in order to assume it accurately reflects the lived experiences of indigenous people in poverty. Given everything that Pluto has alluded to in regards to systematic racism and ethnic displacement – the fact that many people may still be very much poor despite living above this line suggests we have no reason to run with this assumption that this operational definition is undoubtedly valid. I do not doubt that this rate has a causal relation to economic growth, but I share Pluto's skepticism here. A skepticism frankly you don't seem to really understand. Economic suffering and it's reduction is not purely reflected in a number representing poverty rates. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Show me evidence of my supposed lie. Give me quotes that show I contradict myself. I'll wait. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)