User talk:GrammarCommie

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Regarding the Reaganism page[edit]

Why are my edits being reverted? Saying that government deficits are private savings is a misrepresentation of Sectoral Balances and leads to misunderstanding of economic phenomena.

Start with a little parable by economist/Bloomberg View Columnist Noah Smith about this specific subject:

"Suppose that the economy consists of a number of hunters, who never interact with each other. They just hunt deer, eat some of the meat, and store the rest in the form of salted venison in their sheds out back (imagine that salted venison stays edible forever). Over the years, the stock of salted venison grows and grows.

Is it correct to say that total saving in this economy is zero? Well, it seems like the answer is "no", since households are increasing their stock of real assets. There's no debt, no money, and no firms. It seems like real aggregate saving is positive in years when the total stock of salted venison increases.

Can this be right? Do the hunters have some liabilities that I am not counting, to balance out their real assets? I can't think of any. They have no debts. They don't interact with each other at all. I could make up a corporate sector, and pretend that each household owns a "firm", but it seems like the liabilities and assets of each of those firms would exactly cancel out, leaving the private sector (households + firms) with positive total assets, due to the positive assets of households.

So it seems to me that by storing durable goods, it is possible to save by lending not to an external counterparty, but to nature itself. The private sector runs a real surplus every year, and the only deficit is nature's deficit.

Similarly, suppose we measure savings as income - consumption. Well, income (the amount of fresh venison + the amount of salted venison that enters the hunter's possession each year) is definitely more than consumption (fresh venison eaten each year) for each hunter. That seems to me to indicate that real saving is positive for each household, and thus for the private sector as a whole.

I've been talking in real terms so far. But how about nominal terms? To measure surpluses and deficits in nominal terms, we need a unit of account. So suppose that the hunters now are able to interact with each other, and to trade. Suppose that they decide that the unit of account is the pound of fresh venison. Hunters can trade salt for fresh venison, salted venison for fresh venison, etc. The amount of "money" (fresh venison) in the economy is determined randomly, by nature - i.e., some years, there are more deer to be hunted, some years less.

OK, so what about the nominal value of the real assets (salted venison) sitting in the sheds? This is determined by the nominal price of a pound of salted venison - i.e., how many pounds of fresh venison must be exchanged for a pound of salted venison. The total stock of nominal assets in the economy is given by: (lbs of salted venison) * (lbs of fresh venison / lb of salted venison)

Can this rise? It seems to me that it can. Suppose that the stock of salted venison increases, s per the previous example, but the price of salted venison stays fixed (which we can assume because we're just looking at accounting identities, not at the determinants of prices). It seems that aggregate nominal saving is positive.

So it seems to me, at first blush, that there can be net private saving without the existence of a government, and hence without net government deficits." Or, to keep it simple/short, another example would be a man cutting wood, and using some of it to burn in a fire for warmth and saving up the rest to build a house. Still savings and investment, even without a government.

Where does such a misunderstanding stem from? Well... the equation for GDP is private investment spending (I) + consumption spending (C) + government spending (G) + exports (X) - imports (M). Alternatively, one could put the equation as GDP = consumption + taxes (T) + savings (S) (Why? Consumption is already part of the equation, so that isn't being replaced, but taxes cut from private savings as the government is taking money from people, while savings finance remaining trade surpluses via investment/lending and government deficits via snatching up bonds.)

That leads us to I + C + G + M - I = C + T + S. Take out the C on both sides and we have I + G + X - M = C + T + S. We can then convert it to (S – I) = (G – T) + (X – M). This means that when there is savings net of domestic private investment, they end up going to other places, financing government spending and investment abroad (which translates into a trade surplus as you have money going out to finance the money coming in from net exports.)

But what it doesn't at all say is that government deficits are private savings. Not even close. It just says that private savings may finance government deficits as opposed to other things such as exports and domestic private investment (Which in fact somewhat backs up the 'crowding-out theory" among many Reagan-lovers on the right, saying that government stimulus is absolutely no good because it just replaces private sector activities). And you know as well as I do that that is by no means the intent of this article. — Unsigned, by: DancingCake / talk / contribs

You didn't state any of that, you just removed a sourced statement without explaining your view that the source doesn't back up the claim made therein. Comrade GC (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie I did, though. Put the summary for my edit as "Misleading. Private savings are possible in an economy without government spending. Rather, it's just private savings minus private investment that makes up the deficit, which is completely different." if that isn't enough, I apologize, I'm a bit new to this wiki thing. DancingCake (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


Why did you revert this? CowHouse (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

From reading the article in question it seemed to me the point was polygraphs can be "beaten" not that the basic design is ineffective. However that was how I read the article, if you disagree with the exact nature of the conclusions I came to feel free to revert it back. Comrade GC (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@CowHouse well erm, this awkward but it part I deleted does fit with my findings so err... I put it back. Comrade GC (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Beware the Apocalypse[edit]

Don't know if you watched this. It was great fun. Nerd (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nerd The show or the scene? Comrade GC (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Both. But I remembered this scene -- whose music is wonderful -- when I was typing that line on the Coop page. Nerd (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Jeffrey Tomkins[edit]

Hi. With regard to your reversion of my edit on Jeffrey Tomkins, its certainly not true that "there is no such field as plant sciences"! Its a synonym of botany, and an increasing number of unis have changed the names of their plant-based courses from botany to plant sciences in the belief that the former sounds old-fashioned (the same as the Zoology --> Animal Biology shift). A quick google search confirms this - e.g. my own uni now has a 'Department of Plant Sciences' (, as does Oxford. Crucially, the university at which Tomkins got his qualification (Idaho) has a Department of Plant Sciences ( - hence my justification for my original edit that we don't need scare quotes around facts! Thanks (talk) 09:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

We are winning.[edit]

Hope you're ready — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

That's nice, On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Comrade GC (talk) 12:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Don't think of Grawp too much[edit]

Keep those kinds of questions about Grawp to a minimum. Give benefit of doubt. Unlike whatever happened to J. Zoia, this person has significantly less grounds to be accused as a sock of Grawp. Either way, either ignore the post or point out that it's unacceptable. Take care! P.S. Your post you made in RationalWiki:Moderator elections in 18:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC) has a run-on. Use a period or a semicolon to separate complete clauses, not commas. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Mass shooting[edit]

Why did you revert my edit? Was there something factually incorrect? KyleButler (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The edits you made were potentially libelous in nature and I'm really not interested in getting sued by the families of mass shooting victims. Comrade GC (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
How is it could be argued libelous? Is there anything factually inaccurate about that? It could also be argued that the shooters were assholes, would stating that be libelous? Would calling fundies assholes be libelous? KyleButler (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Examine your edits, think on it, then re examine them again and think on it again. Which part could be construed a libelous? And for the record you cited no sources for your claims, making them opinions, not facts. Comrade GC (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
TrollChristopher (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
GrammarCommie, just for future reference, a defamation claim can't be successfully maintained if the allegedly defamed person is deceased. CowHouse (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@CowHouse My apologies for using incorrect wording however, my point still stands. The edits in question were dubious, and that was before they started naming names. Comrade GC (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Didn't a moderator literally just say that you shouldn't accuse people of being trolls without evidence? KyleButler (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Neither I nor CowHouse made the post in question. Comrade GC (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
And another moderator is saying that, even though there’s no proof you’re a troll, this discussion isn’t going to lead to anything productive and is in rather poor taste, considering there’s probably already been multiple mass shootings in America this year. I’m not ordering anyone to do anything, just asking you to stop with all the murder-relayed stuff. Christopher (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
So you're saying I should go edit something about butterflies that doesn't interest me because it's a nicer topic than mass shootings? You must be a grave kisser. Rationally speaking, not everything in life is roses like they tell you in fundie church. KyleButler (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@Christopher It's murder-related not murder-relayed. Comrade GC (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
”t” and “y” are next to each other on a qwerty keyboard and I’m editing from my phone. Christopher (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@Christopher I couldn't resist, sorry. Comrade GC (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
(EC)It’s fine. Christopher (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
So far, all of your edits bar one have been about how mass shooting victims can be bad people, although this is obviously true, the degree to which you’re going on about it doesn’t paint you in a very good light. And I’m no fundie. Christopher (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Troll Christopher (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

WilderBicycle 18:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Icon fedora.svg * dons Mod Hat *Icon fedora.svg

In case you're wondering, I now believe KyleButler to be a troll given no improvement after being questioned on the Chicken coop (and also playing a race card out of nowhere), so there is no excuse "but a mod said you shouldn't accuse me of being a troll". GrammarCommie, please do not engage further with this user. If this user continues being distasteful after the well-deserved block, then bring up a Chicken Coop case and we'll vote for this user to be banned. Fair enough? But yeah, if you suspect they're here only to make pathetic comments please don't respond to them. It drags the conversation, nothing is productive from hurling insults repeatedly, and I have to use troll collapse. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario I stopped caring about them hours ago, been busy watching anime (Overlord season 2 is finally out!!) and playing one of my favorite action MMORPGs. That was roughly after the above posts from Readymade and Christopher. Comrade GC (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Good, I was spending my time playing Smash Crusade. But yeah, try your best not to feel the troll? Otherwise, just go play "GrammarCommie's favorite action MMORPGs". :P --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 04:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Elf Rogue[edit]

I'd say Halfling rogues are a bit more cliche. Besides, my campaign has to use Pathfinder rules (don't worry, they're not too different), and Elves get bonuses for Intelligence, not Dexterity. I'd say an Elf rogue would be cool. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Ministry of Praise[edit]

I like your new signature, Comrade! Was it guided by from the gates of hell by the iron hands of Joseph Stalin himself? Nerd (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nerd Actually it was inspired by 1984, and the Ministry of Truth as well as the comment patterns on my talk page. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Complimenting your efforts to ensure this corner of the World Wide Web embraces Communist ideology and Mother Russia, no doubt. Nerd (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


HardWork.jpg Tireless Worker Award
For ingenuity beyond the call of duty
For mopping up unseemly things

Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

kirkegaard as a pedophile[edit]

mainstream news source describe him as a pedophile: Pringles (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

First off, please use proper capitalization, punctuation, and grammar. For example "A mainstream news source describes him as a pedophile." would be the properly constructed version of your sentence. Secondly, you cited RT as a legit source? LMFAO!!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I said mainstream news source... perhaps you cannot read. There's also posts where you have made grammar and punctuation errors - so not sure why you troll. One of your embarrassing mistakes here, where you cannot even spell "its" properly and you were laughed at already.Pringles (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Witt, RT is a bullshit source that says whatever Putin tells them to say. They're mainstream in the same way that Fox is mainstream.
PS:I see you're still sore over your last round with me. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
If I can add in, even if RT is "mainstream" with Russian context, citing only RT and then making a blanket generalization to describe the [already-vague] "mainstream media" is logically fallacious. Additionally, even in the source you listed, I don't see an explicit mention that Kirkegaard is a pedophile as opposed to someone who is apologia for its actions. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Re:Goat being rated bronze[edit]

I also disagree somehwat with Goat being rated bronze. Policy states that the article is free of needless snark and in-jokes. It's kind of hard to achieve that when the entire thing is an in-joke. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario You have a point, shall we put it to a vote on the Goat talkpage? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps. I also think we should really take missionality into account, later, when to rating articles too. We all know neither Goat nor Cat are missional. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Swedish gay pride parade[edit]

What are your objections to the Swedish gay pride parade article? -- (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

As explained by @CowHouse the article in question is from two years ago. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


Is it possible that we all died, and we're in Heaven, EiK is in hell, and his eternal punishment/our eternal reward is discussing Dungeons and Dragons on his talkpage? Probably not, but the thought occurred to me. RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe... or we are all trapped in the Warp and we deny it. K0rnsbl0dLet the galaxy burn!"Kill!Maim!Burn!" 02:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Tips on how to be a better grammar guy[edit]

Well, I'm obviously on the other side of the political spectrum but do you have any useful ideas on how to be better on grammar edits and spellchecking, Comrade? K0rnsbl0dLet the galaxy burn!"Kill!Maim!Burn!" 02:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)