ScienceApologist goes mad, Assembles armies of the night Options

[Hipocrite]

[peter damian]I wonder what editor is standing up against Elonka's block of ScienceApologist on their cellphone. [/peter damian]

[Peter Damian]

I'm assembling my armies of the night
First I'm going to get Hans Adler fired for loving homeopathy. Then I'm going to get Jim Butler imprisoned for impersonating a medical doctor. The I'm going to kill Levine2112 by breaking his back with vertebral subluxation unrelated to chiropractic. Then I'm going to expose Elonka for being an amateur cryptographer with delusions of grandeur. Then I'll put fluoride in ImperfectlyInformed and MaxPont's water to poison them.


Seriously, all, get the FUCK OFF MY TALKPAGE.

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScienceApologist"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=255562610

[edit] But claims it was all a joke.

Seriously, this place needs to lighten up and the lot of us should dig our heads out of our asses. All of us here write for the shittist encyclopedia known to humanity that people use when they are too lazy to move away from their computer screens or are too stupid to know the difference between "quality control" and "lack of quality control". I'm so happy that we've got a community that welcomes with open arms the wayward souls who write stilted poetry about how "chirosceptics" are shills for drug companies, how gaming conventions are the epitome of culture, how spirits are talking to them through static on the radio, and how homeopathy cured them of hay fever. Yeah, that's who I want writing my encyclopedia. A bunch of idiots.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Wed 3rd December 2008, 10:40am

[Son of a Yeti]

I'm assembling my armies of the night

Burnout.

Seems we are losing another good editor

[Hipocrite]

In 48 hours, SA will be free to edit again, and all will be well with the world.

You really think so? So have a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=255570833

As I mentioned on another thread, it's a total burnout.

A pity. A real pity.

No, it's the natural progression of an encyclopedia run by techno-weenies who do not have any respect for people who know more than them about anything. I don't argue with Lar about Lego trains, but I can promise that if I were to fix all of wikipedia's articles on Economics, which remain, to this day, filled with the fringest of the techno-anarchist-austrian-fringe crazyness, Lar would come down like a ton of bricks on me when, for example, SlamDiego, who has been crazifying the "encyclopedia" (a fascist apologist and austrian economics supporter) for over 2 years, started reverting me.

[maggot3]

No, it's the natural progression of an encyclopedia run by techno-weenies who do not have any respect for people who know more than them about anything. I don't argue with Lar about Lego trains, but I can promise that if I were to fix all of wikipedia's articles on Economics, which remain, to this day, filled with the fringest of the techno-anarchist-austrian-fringe crazyness, Lar would come down like a ton of bricks on me when, for example, SlamDiego, who has been crazifying the "encyclopedia" (a fascist apologist and austrian economics supporter) for over 2 years, started reverting me.

That reminds me; I can't help feeling Minimum wage is just a little biased.

EDIT: eh, looking at it again, it's not quite as bad as I thought. The lead is all "minimum wage is evil" though

This post has been edited by maggot3: Wed 3rd December 2008, 8:25pm

[Hipocrite]

That reminds me; I can't help feeling Minimum wage is just a little biased.

EDIT: eh, looking at it again, it's not quite as bad as I thought. The lead is all "minimum wage is evil" though

A little?

A lot. Read just the lead (as you did). Here's the evidence for "There is a broad consensus among economists that minimum wage laws distort the price mechanism and hurt the very people they are intended to help." (this claim is wrong and sourced only to a partisan political interest group - the Republican members of the Joint Economic Comittee of the Congress of the US.)

The second fact is about unemployment - there is wide agreement that in the short run, raising the minium wage causes employment losses. There is not wide agreement about its effects in the long run. The phraseolgy used in the study "employment losses" is a one-time effect. The phraseolgy used in wikipedia is "unemployment," which has indeterminate length. Sloppy, if I were charitable. Dishonest, if I were opining as to the most likley reason. The number (73%) is about a specific change in the minimum wage - not a general "up." The proposed change is drastic, to say the least. Again, dishonest.

It continues dishonestly from there. I don't have enough time.

[Milton Roe]

That reminds me; I can't help feeling Minimum wage is just a little biased.

EDIT: eh, looking at it again, it's not quite as bad as I thought. The lead is all "minimum wage is evil" though

A little?

A lot. Read just the lead (as you did). Here's the evidence for "There is a broad consensus among economists that minimum wage laws distort the price mechanism and hurt the very people they are intended to help." (this claim is wrong and sourced only to a partisan political interest group - the Republican members of the Joint Economic Comittee of the Congress of the US.)

The second fact is about unemployment - there is wide agreement that in the short run, raising the minium wage causes employment losses. There is not wide agreement about its effects in the long run. The phraseolgy used in the study "employment losses" is a one-time effect. The phraseolgy used in wikipedia is "unemployment," which has indeterminate length. Sloppy, if I were charitable. Dishonest, if I were opining as to the most likley reason. The number (73%) is about a specific change in the minimum wage - not a general "up." The proposed change is drastic, to say the least. Again, dishonest.

It continues dishonestly from there. I don't have enough time.

Ummm. This is news to me that economists actually disagree about whether or not a minimum wage has a long term effect on unemployment. Suppose we set it at $100/hr. Does anyone disagree that it would have a permanent effect? Okay, how about $50? Basically, at what price-- at what point-- do economists argue that it STOPS having a permanent effect, and only has a temporary one?

A number, please. And reasoning. There are very few discontinuous curves in nature, and I don't know of any in economics. This would be a first.

[Hipocrite]

That reminds me; I can't help feeling Minimum wage is just a little biased.

EDIT: eh, looking at it again, it's not quite as bad as I thought. The lead is all "minimum wage is evil" though

A little?

A lot. Read just the lead (as you did). Here's the evidence for "There is a broad consensus among economists that minimum wage laws distort the price mechanism and hurt the very people they are intended to help." (this claim is wrong and sourced only to a partisan political interest group - the Republican members of the Joint Economic Comittee of the Congress of the US.)

The second fact is about unemployment - there is wide agreement that in the short run, raising the minium wage causes employment losses. There is not wide agreement about its effects in the long run. The phraseolgy used in the study "employment losses" is a one-time effect. The phraseolgy used in wikipedia is "unemployment," which has indeterminate length. Sloppy, if I were charitable. Dishonest, if I were opining as to the most likley reason. The number (73%) is about a specific change in the minimum wage - not a general "up." The proposed change is drastic, to say the least. Again, dishonest.

It continues dishonestly from there. I don't have enough time.

Ummm. This is news to me that economists actually disagree about whether or not a minimum wage has a long term effect on unemployment. Suppose we set it at $100/hr. Does anyone disagree that it would have a permanent effect? Okay, how about $50? Basically, at what price-- at what point-- do economists argue that it STOPS having a permanent effect, and only has a temporary one?

A number, please. And reasoning. There are very few discontinuous curves in nature, and I don't know of any in economics. This would be a first.

There is no disagreement that large changes in the minimum wage would have major negative effects on employment. Economics, however, past economics 101, cannot be assumed by saying "What happens if we make a REALLY BIG MOVE - ok, a small move is the same."

Empirical studies about the unemployment rate have been inconclusive, to say the least. Here's a paper from the world bank that shows that employment can have multiple equilibria (one of thsoe functions you claim to never have heard of in economics).

http://www.worldbank.org/html/dec/Publicat...049/wps2049.pdf

One of the co-authors is Joseph E. Stiglitz. You may have heard of him.

Another paper was written by George A. Akerlof (and Janet Yellen) - you may have heard of him. He discussed "Efficiency wages."

A further argument is that the labor market is monopsonistic. This causes market failure, as the buyers methodically underbid for labor.

There are scores of cross-state studies - the one I remember is a NJ/PA study that showed that when NJ raised its minimum wage, fast food chains in NJ on the boarder didn't change employment at all, but I can't remember or find that study right now.

None of this, however, is discussed in freshman economics for Computer Science majors, so Wikipedia ignores it. Luckily the Nobel committee didn't.