Talk:Binary economics/Archive 3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Merge proposal with Participatory economics

Per WP:UNDUE. Not that I think that either two of these fringe theories deserve so much coverage, but from what I understand of these unacademic topics is that "Binary economics" is more or less a sub-theory of "Participatory economics", which is given undue weight by such a long article, not to mention that in articles about such fringe theories, the classical and academic approaches should be given quite more space. --Childhood's End 18:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with either, but they don't look the same to me. Can you elaborate? Jacob Haller 19:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Basically, the binary economics can be thought as 'an application' in the banking systems of the principles described here. They give you free-interest loan (central) and you use them (individual). Well, thats what I gather from all this. I had never heard of it so it is probably not well known (narcissist me!) I think that if you perform a merge directly this article is going to be too big. So, an option is to trim the binary article down so that it can be merged, as a section, into this one. My advice would be to propose a trimming at the binary and then wait a while to see if anyone objects. To see if the binary economics article is undue weight (I dont know much about it) I would go as far as recommending Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I agree with you that having this article being bigger then some of the articles on mainstream topics is not very good but another proposed solution might be expanding the mainstream and keeping this one constant. I am going to post comments on the other talk pages to centralize the discussion. Ciao, Brusegadi 19:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

...binary economics can be thought as 'an application' in the banking systems of the principles described here...;

...I had never heard of it so it is probably not well known...

I am speechless at such arrogance of ignorance. You should let your minds out of their boxes every now and then. Sorry, this thing is really driving me to "loose my cool".

I don't mind discussing with people who disagree with me till the cows come home; but when the subject of disagreement itself is chopped and changed (this is the third verision of the article) and the discussion thread itself is chopped about, there is no chance of reaching understanding and learning where we can agree to disagree. So good luck wikipedians and "devious defenders of the status quo", I have no time for this.--Janosabel 13:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The option that you describe is what I had also in mind. Let's see what can be done. --Childhood's End 19:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The follwing was left by an anon on the other talk. I move it to facilitate commenting: "Title: Another attempt to suppress binary economics Childhood's End's proposal to merge the Binary Economics page with that of Participatory Economics is another attempt to suppress a new paradigm which openly challenges the fundamental assumptions of conventional economics. Because of that challenge the Wiki page clearly, fairly and substantially sets out the basic differences between the two economics. However, Childhood's End (with the exception of binary participation) does not understand what is being said and indulges in the sort of childish abuse -- "unacademic" and "fringe" -- which comes from those who are shocked that anybody should conceive of putting forward a new paradigm. Moreover, having complained about the length of the article, Childhood's End wants to give more space to "classical and academic" approaches" thereby making the article longer. This contradiction indicates that his true motive is suppression. Rodney Shakespeare, 17th August, 2007, rodney.shakespeare1 at btopenworld.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.42.174 (talk • contribs) "

Dear Rodney, I hope that by new paradigm you mean that it is gaining ground quickly. Otherwise, you have contradicted yourself. That is, under the wikipedia guidelines editors are not allowed to write too much of something that is not well known or not held up as standard by a majority of people who study a subject. As editors we have to determine if binary econ. meets these requirements. Please read the notability guidelines at WP:NOTABILITY. Thanks, Brusegadi 20:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless I am wrong, this comment was left by Rodney Shakespeare, one of the few known authors about "binary economics". Looks a bit like a case of COI/advocacy to me... --Childhood's End 20:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Another moved comment:
Must we have these attempts to suppress binary economics? The present article is very accurate, very academic and very clear. In fact it is now one of the best articles in Wikipedia. David Soori, davidsoori at yahoo.com, 17 August 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.47.15 (talk • contribs)

Differences?

• Participatory economics emphasizes distributed, community control of the means of production;
• Binary economics emphasizes central-bank distribution of interest-free loans;
• Mutual banking (important in some forms of mutualism (economic theory)) emphasizes distributed, community/private distribution of interest-free loans;
• Distributism shares many of the religious elements of binary economics, doesn't it? Jacob Haller 22:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Jacob, . 1. Yes, there's a difference.Participatory economics emphasizes distributed, community control of the means of production whereas binary economics generally goes for individual ownership. 2. 2. Yes, there's a difference. Binary economcis uses central bank-issued loans (and I doubt if anything else does) 3. The banking mechanism is different. 4. Proposing wide capital ownership is hardly a religious matter in the sense you mean.

Rodney Shakespeare 18th August, 2007.

Yeah. My point was that BE doesn't seem to have much in common with PE. It has some parallels with other systems, but enough differences that we should avoid those merges as well. Jacob Haller 17:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a new paradigm

Dear Brusegadi, 1. There is no contradiction. A new paradigm is a new view of reality which opens up new ways of doing things. It has nothing to do with being well known. Virtually all new paradigms are suppressed by contemporaries (see Kuhn on Scientific Revolutions). It is about time that a new paradigm was not suppressed.

2. The article very clearly sets out the distinctions between conventional economics and binary economics. Binary economics is thus in effect sui generis.

3. Not well known? There are eleven thousand ESOPs (Employee Share Ownership Plans)in just the USA Some of them involve thousands of employees. You say that is not well known? Wikipedia has articles about tiny townships that nobody has heard of, about singers nobody has heard of, and yet there would be a belittling of the ESOP and its big economic importance?

4. You refer to the majority of people who study a subject. 'Study' means, of course, that, at the very least, they should have read the main books (there about eleven of them) and at least some of the seventy or so published papers). I presume you agree that they should have read at least some of the books -- say three -- and papers.

5. I presume you wish to have confirmation of the article by others. Professor Masudul Alam Choudhury is thought by many to be the leading Islamic economist and is welcoming binary economics and writing about it. Would you like me to ask him for his view? Or, because he is a Muslim, would that be unacceptable? And, similarly, with Professor Harahap and others?

6. The discussion of this article has been seriously prejudiced by moving it away from where people would expect to find it to a place where people with little technical ability will never find it. Moreover, the discussion is at the bottom of a very long page with other, old discussion. All that prejudices the discussion and confines it to people like yourself who are knowledgeable about computers. I am sure this was accidental but would you please now put the discussion back to the place where most people can find it? Rodney Shakespeare 17th August, 2007

I did not intend to cloud the discussion, if you like, we can move it. About the article, it is great that it is upcoming, but policies are policies. That is, unless we can establish notability using external sources, we cannot assign something undue weight. For example, in many climate science articles the views of the minorities are given their respective share, but notice that we do not have entire articles on some of their views, simply because, despite the fact that they have followers, their work is not notable enough to warrant huge inclusions. In order to determine, we will wait and see what other members of the community think. I will move the discussion to the page that you requested, I hope that is ok with all. Brusegadi 23:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Point 1; You could have invented cold fusion; this would not be the place to write extensively about it until major journals in physics wrote about it and became the new consensus. We are not allowed to do original research and we have to give minority viewes their corresponding weight. In addition, editors must avoid a conflict of interest.

Point 2; If binary econ is its own thing, where is the proof of notability from highly regarded sources? Peer-reviewed journals?

Point 3;ESOPs prove the notability of...ESOPs. Unless you can find sources that document the casual link between Binary econ and ESOPs then ESOPs are their own thing created for other reasons.

Point 4; I meant to say; those who are active in research; how many thousand are there?

Point 5; Masudul Alam Choudhury, and two or three people more writing about the subject does not make the subject notable. Also, try not to bring religious views forward, it is not the point of the discussion. Focus on what's important. Why is the fact that he is a Muslim relevant? I understand that interest rates are regarded as usury in Islam, but I dont see how that plays a role in this discussion.

Point 6; I have moved it per your request. I needed to do it at home because the computer clusters at school were going to close.

I find the ideas interesting, but, unfortunately, that is may not be enough to merit an article that size. I beg you, Rodney, to please try and establish the importance beyond reasonable doubt. Finally, I propose to try and find a way to get more editors involved. I do not feel comfortable accepting the merge, but I also do not feel comfortable not accepting it. I need to be convinced and I am sure many editors will be as well. Thanks, Brusegadi 03:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Brusegadi 1. There is nothing original about books and papers which have been published. Once they are published the originality is over. It's original to you -- just as anything in a book can be original to a person -- but publication is publication. 2. It has been explained that binary economics is a new paradigm which goes back fifty years or so. Have you read Thomas Kuhn or not? 3. ESOPs. Are you seriously disputing the link between binary econ and ESOPs? Yes or no. I have already stated in previous discussion that you can have another hundred footnotes if necessary but that makes things tedious. You seem to be making any point you can to suppress binary econ. 4. You ask about research. That is a trap question. If I answer it you will then say binary econ is doing original research. The books and papers are published and so, from the point of view of the article, the originality is over. If I say there are students doing research I suppose you will again say there cannot be originality. 5. You are showing bias. It's not two or three authors-- try reading the footnotes and lists for authors but there are others. You are complainingg that the article is too long and now you want it longer and more footnotes. 6. You have completely missed the point about Masudul Choudhury. As I said, if it had been Milton Friedman you would not be arguing but because it is a top class academic who is a Muslim you just ignore him. That's cultural prejudice. 7. You say you find the ideas interesting but the article is too long. At the moment the article (briefly) covers all the main points. Does Wikipedia really want an article that is inadequate? You surprise me.

Rodney Shakespeare 18th August, 2007

---

Dear Brusegadi, 1. Please move the discussion back. 2. To be frank, it really does look as if you are trying to suppress a new subject. Right from the word go "editors" have apparently been of the view that they can pronounce on something about which they obviously know nothing. And you are doing the same -- you talk about "the majority of people who study a subject". Yes, exactly, but have you studied binary economics? What books and papers about it have you read? And have ANY of the people trying to suppress binary economics read ANY document about it? The impression really is being given that, just because you had not heard of binary economics before, you think it should be suppressed. 3. You talk about 'notability'. The Capitalist Manifesto made a considerable splash at the time and there are now 11,000 ESOPs(Employees Share Ownership Plans) in the USA and many more around the world. And an ESOP can have thousands of members. You have ignored this point -- and the information is in the article which I presume you have read. It does not engender confidence that you are trying to be fair when either you have not heard of the ESOP or you have not read the article, or both. And the significance of Trisakti University is that it is the biggest private university in Indonesia and the founding place (including where they shot the students) of the Indonesia democracy revolution. 4. You are also ignoring other substantial points. I stated that Professor Choudhury is thought by many to be the leading Islamic economist. If I had said 'Milton Friedman' (also thought by many to be the leading Western economist) that would be the end of the matter, would it not? But, no doubt accidentally, you ignored what I wrote because Choudhury is a Muslim. Is Wikipedia intended to be merely a narrow Western construct with no resonance for Muslims? Yes, it was accidental but by ignoring what I wrote about Professor Choudhury, you are in fact showing cultural prejudice. For starters why don't you do a proper Google on Masudul Alam Choudhury? I will know if you've done it properly if, for example, I ask you to give a rough estimate of the number of books he has written. 5. But the most serious aspect of this matter (although, to be frank, I doubt if you will think it relevant) is that you are also apparently unaware of the huge importance that the development of binary economics is to good relations between Islam and the West. Nothing, nothing, that you or the other "editors" have written shows the slightest understanding about the present world situation and the need for new thinking. And when it appears under your nose you cannot see it let alone welcome it as something which would solve problems and give kudos to Wikipedia. When I write to you kindly, in response, address all my points . Thankyou. Rodney Shakespeare 17th August, 2007.

Binary economics are comprehensively debunked there [1] but that's not the point. WP:WEIGHT is. As policy says, even "If you are able to prove something that no one or few currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof." But since the Mises Institute discussed it, I guess it makes binary economics notable enough to warrant a description in this article. --Childhood's End 01:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Binary economics is definitely different from Participatory economics, and deserves its own page. Both theories aim to build a more just society but in different ways. Binary economics advocates a free market economy where ownership of assets is distributed more evenly throughout the society. Private property is essential. Participatory economics advocates a planned economy and is critical of free market and private property. The Binary economics page on Wikipedia can be significantly improved, and made more concise. Here is a link to a document that I think synthesizes more clearly what Binary economics is [2]. Radu Seserman 18th August, 2007.

IF IT IS TOO LONG, WHY NOT ASK FOR IT TO BE MADE SHOTER?

1. The attack is coming from the 'I Don't Like It Brigade' making false argument after false argument e.g. alleging the article contains "proof" when it only states the content of binary economics. All the 'evidence' and 'proof', of course, is in the books.

2. The article is first-class. If it is genuinely thought to be too long, then why not simply ask for it to be made shorter e.g. by a quarter?

3. The opening basis of this attack (putting into participatory economics) is very wrong. Binary economics is not a "planned" economy, it is a market economy and the article spells that out. How am I to think the attack is made in good faith when the article has not even been read? David Soori, sooriuk@yahoo.com, 18 August 2007

This was one of the suggestions. To trim. Brusegadi 20:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What is going on!?

It has been suggested that this article or section be merged into Participatory economics. (Discuss)

I am really getting annoyed with these half baked interferences from people. Or is wikipedia aspiring to be a gatekeeper for everything establishment?

The proposer of the merge does not know what she/he is talking about. I don't mean to be rude to anyone but it does seem that people are trying every trick in the book to make this article disappear. Why? Is it too effective a challenge to orthodoxy in economic thought which has been driving economies to trample all over the rest of society?

Please, read (without prejudice) and understand at least the current authoritative text on binary economics before making such far-going recommendation.--Janosabel 12:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Shortening

I have shortened the text. If, without destroying the meaning and key information, anybody is able to point out any further specific suggestions for deletion/alteration, I shall be grateful. Rodney Shakespeare 18th August, 2007.

We have lost Janos, a first-class editor

I have just seen Janos's posting. If I understand it correctly, we have lost Janos because he is enraged at the combination of sheer ignorance, prejudice and the chopping about of the discussion thread.

Janos is a first- class editor, always helpful, always courteous but, alas, people have now pushed him too far.

Janos, if you read this, we are all very grateful to you and hope that you will manage to keep in touch.

Rodney Shakespeare 18th August, 2007

Indonesia

A google search for: binary site:http://www.ief-trisakti.or.id/program.php
gives no results. Yet, according to the article, that university in indonesia has a program on binary economics. Could someone fix that. My impression so far of the article is that it takes things that are happening in the world (like microcredit) and uses them as evidence of notability for binary econ without first providing an external reliable link between these. I see that there are many google results for 'binary economics' and thats good. Brusegadi 20:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Brusegadi. 1. I see that the particular IEF website is out of date. I asked a considerable time ago for it to be fixed but nothing as yet has happened. I will ask again.

2. What do you mean about microcredit? Microcredit is a huge reality - apart from Grameen I guess there are probably about 150 micro-finance NGOs of one sort or another in Bangladesh alone and also in a number of other countries (that's why Yunus got the Nobel Prize). The NGOs use commercial money and grants (e.g. from Europe, but grant money is drying up) and, in particular circumstances, even issue interest-free loans to particular people. But a central bank interest-free loans supply is not used and it should be -- and that is the binary proposal. Surely the article makes it very clear that interest-free loans for micro-credit is what binary econ. proposes? If you go to the Wiki article on Grameen you will see some of the criticism (it's a bit unfair - Grameen cannot do much about it) of Grameen using interest-bearing money. I also do not undertstand what you mean by "providing an external reliable link between these"?

What I mean is that mentioning the microcredit initiatives taking place in many parts of Asia (for which, I believe a Nobel prize was awarded) and then mentioning that binary happens to encourage this violates WP:SYN if the article gives the impression that those behind the microcredit are pushing this initiatives because of binary economics. I see microcredit in many places in the article but it is not properly linked to binary. If no such link is found, then the mentions of the microcredit would have to be shortened to an example of 'future' applications. Brusegadi 21:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

3. Do you have any specific sentences etc to be shortened or is it now reasonably OK? Rodney Shakespeare 18th August, 2007.

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

Problems

I am not yet sure that this article should go either as the notability issue looks borderline, and I hope we will get more input. But this article certainly has HUGE problems.

• Case of WP:OWN
• Case of advocacy
• Obviously not compliant with WP:WEIGHT
• Instances of WP:SYN
• Lot of work to do before reaching NPOV

Binary economics proponents may strongly believe in it, it remains very fringe and unacademic.

If the article stays, in my opinion, one of the first things that will need to be addressed is style. Binary economics may claim that it is a free market oriented system and may attempt at making it look like, but it is probably not. Language should thus be changed so that we read "it claims to be..." rather than "it is...". Same for several other claims made herein. --Childhood's End 23:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Childshoodend, It would be helpful if, instead of vague, abusive generalising, you give SPECIFIC examples of what you mean. Exactly what is "unacademic?" And why? Are you asking for more footnotes or not? And will you then complain that there are too many? Exactly what is a HUGE problem? Exactly what is not NPOV? What is "fringe" in your view? You are great at abuse and making unsubstantiated allegations and, very obviously, did not read the article -- which was a major factor in causing Janos to resign in disgust. You do realise that, don't you? One of the very best people got fed up because you had not read and if you had, had not understood and only want to destroy. There is still considerable doubt even now whether you have read the article. So kindly stop your generalised abuse, get specific and try and be constructive because, so far, everything you are doing appears to be deliberately destructive. For a start kindly give SPECIFIC examples so that is is possible to know what you mean. Rodney Shakespeare. 18th August, 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.48.203 (talk) 23:39:25, August 18, 2007 (UTC)

Just re-read my posts, I gave a few specifics. To answer your questions:

-What is unacademic is binary economics as a whole I'm afraid. First and foremost, it is not thaught anywhere, or as far as I know. Second, it essentially appeals to social justice and economic justice (hardly economic concepts). There's also quite a lot of banking assumptions that are simply inconceivable (for instance, to say that fractional-reserve banking 'creates' money, although it may seem to be the case at first sight, is far-stretched. It creates 'overcredit', but the money is still not there. I do think that this practice is a problem, but this practice is mostly attributable to keynesianism, government regulations and accounting rules, not to the free-market system).

-As for footnotes, there's plenty, but all from the same 5-6 authors. This indicates a problem for both notability and weight.

Your other questions, I think, are addressed by this. I hope I am clearer. Please believe that I'm not here to "destroy" and such, but there are some problems here that ought to be addressed. Perhaps I could help make a few edits to the article to make it more NPOV in some regards, but I expect that you would not like them. Regards. --Childhood's End 04:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Kindly stop being hostile, become accurate, and give SPECIFIC examples

Childhoodsend, You are openly declaring that your true motive is to destroy binary economics. "What is unacademic is binary economics as a whole I'm afraid." That is open hostility and an admission of desire to destroy.

Now that is hostile and blatantly fails WP:AGF.

1. Binary economics is taught at Trisakti, the biggest private university in Indonesia and birthplace of the reformasi revolution. The internet information is out of date and I have written to ask that the information be corrected.

Even if true, the biggest private university in Indonesia and birthplace of the reformasi revolution hardly makes a subject academic or notable by itself.

2. The meaning of "social and economic justice" is spelt out all over the article. Have you not noticed? What, would you say, for example, is the significance of the definition of competence?

Everyone has his definition of "social and economic justice", but it essentially converges to special interest demands, social-democracy and/or socialism, not to economics. As 'your' article directs to, economic justice is social justice, and social justice is the philosophical backbone for every left-leaning program or so - few people will deny this.

3 You deny that the fractional reserve banking and the banking system creates money. PURleezz!! Which of the following authorities would you like to be quoted? The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago? Sir Josiah Stamp (Bank of England)? Sir Reginald McKenna (UK Chancellor of Exchequer)? JK Galbraith? A Governor of the Canadian Central Bank? Royal New Zealand Monetary Commission? And what about Sir Edwin George, Governor of the Bank of England, with whom I have had correspondence? The generally accepted percentages today in the UK are roughly 97% created by the banks and 3% by the government. Did you not know that?

See my reply to the thread below. If you mean "creates money in the books", then I agree. But not about real money.

4. 'Over-credit'? 'The money is still not there?'? Ha ha! So if I put £1,000 of 'overcredit' into your bank account, you cannot spend it because it is not money? Are you going to tell me you can't spend it? Ha ha ha! The most charitable intepretation of your remarks on this subject is that your understanding of money is about a century out of date.

See my reply to the thread below. Besides, being lent other people's money would not mean that money has been created.

4. Where in the article does it say that the 'free market' creates money?

It says that the current banking system does, which is meant as criticism of conventional economics. Now, I would agree that conventional economics are not necessarily upholding truly free markets.

5. In the article there's about 17 authors of one sort or another referred to, not 3 or 4 as you claim. A recent book refers to probably 50 or more dealing with various aspects. Some other books have 50 -100 in each book. You think 49 footnotes is plenty -- yes, it's actually too many -- and so what number of authors in footnotes would you think is right? (And please remember the problem of accurately annotating the text without increasing the number of footnotes over 49.)

Out of 61 references, there are roughly 32 which are citations of either yourself, Kelsos or Ashford. Nice advertisement for your books there...

I have responded substantially to this criticism. Please check what I have done (deletion of footnote and author references) and see if the position is now satisfactory. I have also responded to the two specific NPOV points you made below.Rodney Shakespeare, 20th August, 2007

6. I keep asking you for specific examples of non-NPOV. Kindly start off with giving me two SPECIFIC examples and then the problem can be fixed.

Randomly taken in 5 seconds:

• • conventional economics does not have the specific mechanisms to address environmental issues in a large-scale way.
  • Since further and higher education should be encouraged, student loans should not bear interest.

--Childhood's End 14:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

---

I hope I have addressed both your above points (see alterations in the main article) to your satisfaction. If there's any more, please say. Rodney Shakespeare 20th August, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.157.204 (talk) 15:34, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Rodney Shakespeare 19th August, 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.145.154.121 (talk) 09:20:29, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

What kind of joker is this?

What kind of joker is it who thinks that money put into a bank account is not money that can be spent; who cannot count past 8 (authors); who says he does not wish to destroy but yet says "binary economics is unacademic as a whole I'm afraid"; and does not know that the fractional reserve banking system creates money? It can only be some sort of twisted joke. So I press on and ask that if there are any objections will you please stop the generalised attack and give specific examples of what is alleged to be wrong. Look, you had a lot of good will, especially in the Developing and Third Worlds. Due to unsavory , and unpalatable articles in the New York Times, followed by the Independent in London, all the good will be lost. I am sure you learned gentlemen and ladies will take it on board and very seriously. David Soori sooriuk@yahoo.com 19 August 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.243.141.81 (talk) 18:09:58, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

If fractional-reserve banking really creates real money, runs on the banks would not be the potential problem that they actually represent. Fractional-reserve banking is an accounting practice (you could say it creates money 'in the books') supported by risk management policies and special-interest legislation. I'm not arguing further about it since that's not the point. --Childhood's End 14:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand how it works. What you refer to as real money only constitutes a small fraction of the actual money present in the economy. Banks create money when they lend out money that was previously deposited. They create purchasing power which did not otherwise exist. To the households in the economy there is no difference between so called real money and money created by banks. To them its all the same. It is entirely possible for someone to deposit money that they loaned. To the individual household it makes no difference where the money came from. To avoid that this leads to bank runs because the depositors fear that their deposits will not be available when they wish to withdraw them banks are regulated by the authorities. They cannot recklessly lend out money. If no such regulation existed the banks would have no incentive other than their own risk-aversion to stop creating money because they profit from it due to the difference between the interest rate on deposits and loans. The argument that the central bank would work as lender of last resort anyway is flawed because the central bank cannot simply print more money due to the consequences such an action would have on the exchange rate. MartinDK 17:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

BINARY ECONOMICS SHOULD NOT BE MERGED WITH PARECON

I oppose the merging of Binary Economics with any other WP page. The merging proposal of Binary Economics with Parecon is quite illogical. Parecon seeks to improve Socialism. Binary Economics seeks to improve Capitalism. The basic principles, methods, ethics and even the metaphysical assumptions of the two economic models (or theories) are fundamentally different, as even a cursory reading of the respective WP-pages will demonstrate. Merging Parecon with BE is like merging fire with water. Michiel Bijkerk, 22 August 2007 63.245.41.149 02:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.245.41.149 (talk) 00:31, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

It's not surprising that some people are apparently trying to suppress Binary Economics, because it challenges the current system whereby governments looking for resources to carry out public works have to BORROW AT INTEREST from the private banking system. The World Bank literally engineers poverty in the world by creating funds out of nothing and enslaves developing companies by forcing them to pay back these funds with interest. Upholders of the current paradigm will be unhappy to have its mechanisms so clearly exposed, and this is why they are seeking to bury the ideas of Binary Economics inside a completely separate discipline. This is all fairly obvious and it's a shame we have to spend so much time discussing it. To summarise, I disagree with the proposed merger. (Maryfee 21:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC))

binary economics deserves its own page

I oppose the merging of the binary economics page with any other. 71.252.212.181 05:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)John Médaille, 25th August, 200771.252.212.181 05:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion concerns two systems of what has been called ‘economic subsidiarity’. The binary recognizes the importance of private ownership of wealth in both capital and labour as a universal human right. The participatory does not address the distinction between the two. It is important to clear thought that they should remain separate in the categorization of knowledge. Peter challen 07:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Peter Challen

I would like to express an emphatic challenge to the proposal to simply fold the Binary Economics section into a topic such as Participatory Economics.

While there are numerous ideas, proposals, policies, etc., that might reasonably fall within the domain of such a rubric, and while it is certainly a fact that the ultimate effect of implementing a system truly faithful to Binary principles and institutional prescriptions would be an economics of universal participation, it is profoundly important to stress what makes Binary economics distinct.

The point of departure for Binary economics is not merely some general adherance to a vague egalitarianism that makes an indescriminate virtue of participation on general humanistic grounds. While it is certainly consistent and complimentary with the spirit of egalitarianism and humanism, its point of departure is something much more conceptually specific and substantive; a recognition of deep and fundamental oversights in prevailing economic theory which have both allowed for the emergence and persistence of legal and institutional arrangements which have historically prevented universal participation from ever actually becoming manifest, and which then theoretically rationalize that exclusion.

By recognizing the oversights and flaws of conventional theory, defining theoretical corrections to these, and then designing specific institutional modifications based on those corrections, Binary economics is much more than merely some loose assembly of nice participatory suggestions. The conceptual and theoretical grounding provided by its trio of principles - 1.) Productiveness, as distinct from the conventional economic concept of productivity; 2.) the Independent Productivenss of capital; and 3.) the Binary Property Right - elevate Binary economics to a theoretically genuinely paradigmatically distinct and profoundly important body of work in its own rite; not something to be categorized as a footnote within some other subject space. MARK REINERS

---

I would like to add my objection to folding Binary Economics into a topic such as Participatory Economics.

Binary Economics is a distinctive paradigm shift, something humankind has never seen when it comes to our attempts to describe and organize with words all of our relationships to money and credit.

Current economic theories and practices are simply anti-human for the majority of us living and working on this planet. Nature is abundant. The Earth has much to offer all of us –– and freely, if we organize ourselves properly to what should be everyone's birthright.

A proper production/consumption/income and money/credit economic structure is essential if humans are to live peacefully in this world. As Life so far has proven, our current socio-polit-economic institutions have fallen far short. There are many humans simply locked out of a participatory economic process this is everyone's fundamental and inalienable right.

Binary Economics beautifully addresses these fundamental problems, and can and should stand alone for what it is.

Steve Nieman, President, the Ownership Union® —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capt. Nemo (talk • contribs) 14:53, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Religions which ban urury

Actually, it's only Christianity and Islam which ban usury, while none of the Eastern religions have such a ban, so I've taken out "all major religions".

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.