User talk:Andrewedwardjudd

Barnstar

		The Business and Economics Barnstar
		I hereby award this barnstar to Andrewedwardjudd for advancing the understanding of economic policies across the community with clarity, neutrality and using Plain English. --Caparn (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

As per wiki policy, this talk page draws the readers attention to the edits i am currently working on, which are in no particular order recorded here

In the United Kingdom, money is endogenous - Mervyn King in 1994

But what did he mean by that?

From about 1991 a remarkable consensus had emerged within developed economies about the optimum design of monetary policy methods. Simplifying somewhat, we could say that the early 1980s saw the final demise of attempts to control the quantities of money (and/or credit) by any direct method

This did not happen all at once.

In 1994 Mervyn King then Chief Economist at the Bank of England said 'One of the most contentious issues in assessing the role of money is the direction of causation between money and demand. Textbooks assume that money is exogenous. It is sometimes dropped by helicopters, as in Friedman’s analysis of a ‘pure’ monetary expansion, or its supply is altered by open-market operations. In the United Kingdom, money is endogenous - the Bank [of England] supplies base money on demand at its prevailing interest rate, and broad money is created by the banking system'.

One of the reasons money is endogenous is because banks create credit rather than lending existing money. Therefore if the central bank in turn has a policy of supplying money on demand at a price, then the broad money supply can keep rising. However, the creation of central bank money actually happened after money creation by the commercial banks (King 1994 Page 264). King continues, 'Therefore the endogeneity of money has caused great confusion, and led some critics to argue that money is unimportant. This is a serious mistake' (King 1994, Page 264).

Charles Goodhart, an economist and formerly an advisor at the Bank of England and a former monetary policy committee member, worked for many years to encourage a different approach to money supply analysis and said the base money multiplier model was 'such an incomplete way of describing the process of the determination of the stock of money that it amounts to misinstruction' Ten years later he said ‘Almost all those who have worked in a [central bank] believe that this view is totally mistaken; in particular, it ignores the implications of several of the crucial institutional features of a modern commercial banking system....’

13 years after Mervyn Kings observations on 'contentious issues' between Exogenous and Endogenous money, Deputy governor Paul Tucker was able to say ”When, ten years ago, Mervyn King delivered a lecture...., he reviewed ideas on the monetary transmission mechanism....... and the role of money (and credit). These days most such accounts.....begin with a simple assertion that the central bank sets the short-term nominal interest rate. And they go on to explain how, given sticky wages and prices, that enables the central bank to shift the short-term real interest rate in a way that either restrains or stimulates aggregate demand. Notice no mention of money here. On this view of the world and, in particular, given this way of implementing monetary policy, money – both narrow and broad – is largely endogenous. The central bank simply supplies whatever amount of base money is demanded by the economy at the prevailing level of interest rates.'

Therefore many Central bankers and monetary economists now believe money creation in banking systems is endogenously created and deposit multiplication by the text book money multiplier is an unsatisfactory teaching tool and explanation of the what really happens.

Note however, it is clear that loans create money and a money multiplier exists related to lending. The issue being addressed however is that money creation is chaotic and cannot be modeled using simple mechanical views of lending only created from existing deposits because banks essentially do not loan out deposits, but rather create credit and then manage the liabilities this creates for them. (Tucker 2007).

However notwithstanding all of the above, dispite the apparent consensus at the BOE and other central banks, twenty five years after the switch to short-term interest rates, macroeconomic instruction at the textbook level still requires students to learn that monetary policy consists (solely) of exogenously imposed changes in the money stock which transmits itself to changes in demand (and then possibly output but more usually the price level) by some version of ‘real balance effects’. This is wholly at odds with our everyday knowledge of the policy instrument and with what central banks widely believe is the transmission of monetary policy effects (Howells P et al 2006 page 3).

stuff being worked on

Charles Goodhart said in 2007, "[When the] Central Bank sets interest rates, as is the generality, the money stock is a dependent, endogenous variable. This is exactly what the heterodox, Post- Keynesians, from Kaldor, through Vicky Chick, and on through Basil Moore and Randy Wray, have been correctly claiming for decades, and I have been in their party on this."

Bank lending

The economic literature on the ‘bank lending’ channel of the Monetary Transmission Mechanism explores the conditions under which a tightening of monetary policy causes the terms on bank lending to tighten over and above the increase in risk-free short-term real rates. The literature has typically assumed

• (i) that a monetary policy tightening is effected by the central bank withdrawing reserves from the system (or slowing the pace of reserves injection);
• (ii) that banks are required to hold a proportion of transactions deposits in reserves, so that reduced reserves provision entails slower deposit growth; and
• (iii) that they do not have unrestricted access to liabilities that are not subject to reserves requirements, and so cannot fill the gap left by slower deposit growth and must, instead, slow loan growth, which they do by tightening credit conditions.

The first two steps seem archaic. The BOE effect monetary policy changes by controlling the price not the quantity of central bank money in the system; and, in the UK, banks choose their own reserves targets rather than having them determined by a balance sheet ratio of some kind. (Tucker, Paul. 2007.12.03 pages 6-7)

Where does this leave base Money, the starting point for much traditional monetary analysis? The BOE explain that banks, in the short run, lever up their balance sheets and expand credit at will - there liabilities are money and because transactions balances and so the means of exchange in our payments system, the moneyness of bank deposits lies at the core of credit intermediation. Subject only but crucially to confidence in their soundness, banks extend credit by simply increasing the borrowing customer’s current account, which can be paid away to wherever the borrower wants by the bank ‘writing a cheque on itself’. That is, banks extend credit by creating money. This ‘money creation’ process is constrained: by their need to manage the liquidity risk – from the withdrawal of deposits and the drawdown of backup lines – to which it exposes them. 15 Adequate capital and liquidity, including for stressed circumstances, are the essential ingredients for maintaining confidence. (Tucker, Paul. 2007.12.03 pages 9-10).

reserve requirements

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/gendoc2002en.pdf

The single monetary policy in the euro area: General documentation on Eurosystem monetary policy instruments and procedures

The daily reserve holding of an institution is calculated as the end-of-day

Alternative views

Alternative views

Endogenous money theory states that the supply of money is credit-driven and determined endogenously by the demand for bank loans, rather than exogenously by monetary authorities.

In an exogenous view of money multiplication, a bank lends depositors money as "excess reserves" and this fraction of the depositors money then becomes the source for new money in the banking system. For example 100 is deposited, 10% is retained as "required reserves", and 90 "excess reserves are loaned.

However there is no requirement for a bank to operate in that manner. In practice, a 10% fractional reserve bank with 10,000 reserves and 100,000 created customer deposits, can comfortably deposit a loan of 1000 into a customers current account if it can borrow 100 reserves.

In the endogenous money view therefor:

• Rather than lending customer money, the banks are extending credit and then managing the liabilities this creates for them

• Loans tend to lead to reserve creation. This is explainable because, since about 1992, the central banks are supplying reserves on demand to keep the money market cash rate at the desired target rate. Therefore if the banking system is short of reserves due to deposit expansion, the central bank is obliged to supply sufficent money to keep the money market interest rate at the target rate.

• The base money multiplier is considered to be a misleading way of describing how banks operate.

• Demand for loans from creditworthy customers becomes the driving force for deposit expansion. If a customer wants a loan, the bank can price the loan, and then borrow whatever amounts are required to maintain their fractional reserves.

In 1994 Mervyn King then Chief Economist at the Bank of England said 'One of the most contentious issues in assessing the role of money is the direction of causation between money and demand. Textbooks assume that money is exogenous.... In the United Kingdom, money is endogenous'

Charles Goodhart, an economist and formerly an advisor at the Bank of England and a former monetary policy committee member, said the base money multiplier model was 'such an incomplete way of describing the process of the determination of the stock of money that it amounts to misinstruction'

What exactlyis so misleading about the money multiplier approach?

• Firstly the base money multiplier contains a number of assumptions that are very easy to make which is of course why it is still embedded in macroeconomics.
• Secondly, the monetary policy instruments used by central banks for some years now, are based on short term interest rates set by the central bank, not the quantity of base money. The base multiplier model requires it to set the quantity of money, but in the real world we know it sets the price.
• Thirdly if the central bank sets the interest rates it must then supply the reserves the banks require and this will depend on the demand for loans at the going rate of interest. Therefore the money supply is determined by the economy rather than the central bank.

Howells has managed to incorporate the main points of the endogenous view on the money-supply process into a macroeconomics textbook.

In 2007 Paul Tucker, outlined some of the practical implications of endogenous money in the UK.

"The economic literature....assumed (i) that a monetary policy tightening is effected by the central bank withdrawing reserves....(ii) that banks are required to hold a proportion of transactions deposits in reserves.... The first two steps seem archaic. We control....the price....of....central bank money....and, in the UK, banks choose their own reserves targets rather than having them determined by a balance sheet ratio of some kind....banks....in the short run....lever up their balance sheets and expand credit at will....banks extend credit by simply increasing the borrowing customer’s current account....banks extend credit by creating money"

Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Seth B. Carpenter and Selva Demiralp have written of their skepticism of the money multiplier mechanism.

Also, the idea that the reserve requirement places an upper limit on the money supply is disputed by some economists outside of the mainstream. Notably, theories of endogenous money date to the 19th century, and were subscribed to by Joseph Schumpeter, and later the post-Keynesians. Endogenous money theory states that the supply of money is credit-driven and determined endogenously by the demand for bank loans, rather than exogenously by monetary authorities.

Money exo- and endogeneity in the evolution of financial institutions and monetary policy implementation

"In what follows we shall take heed of Hicks (1967, p. 153) who advised that “monetary theory… cannot avoid a relation to reality. It belongs to monetary history in a way that economic theory does not always belong to economic history.” Accordingly, this section reviews the evolution of monetary and financial institutions of the Western world and argues that the assumption of exogenous money and the multiplier model of the money-supply process constitute a largely accurate description of the financial system up to the first half of the twentieth century. However, modern institutional conditions, as well as the monetary policy framework in operation, are much better understood from the perspective of endogenous money view in the vein of the bank-centric model of money supply process." (Jablecki, J. page 38)

Alan Holmes, who was at the time a Senior Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York responsible for open market operations wrote in the 1960's "In the real world, banks extend credit, creating deposits in the process, and look for reserves later. The question then becomes one of whether and how the Federal Reserve will accommodate the demand for reserves. In the very short run, the Federal Reserve has little or no choice about accommodating that demand"

Also from the 1960's a work book on bank reserves and deposit expansion from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago explains in the opening paragraph "The relationships shown are based on simplifying assumptions. For the sake of simplicity, the relationships are shown as if they were mechanical, but they are not, as is described later in the booklet. Thus, they should not be interpreted to imply a close and predictable relationship between a specific central bank transaction and the quantity of money"

Later in the booklet it says

"Of course, they do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts. Loans (assets) and deposits (liabilities) both rise by $9,000. Reserves are unchanged by the loan transactions. But the deposit credits constitute new additions to the total deposits of the banking system."

and

"In the real world, a bank's lending is not normally constrained by the amount of excess reserves it has at any given moment. Rather, loans are made, or not made, depending on the bank's credit policies and its expectations about its ability to obtain the funds necessary to pay its customers' checks and maintain required reserves in a timely fashion"

This booklet was last updated in 1992.

Seth B. Carpenter and Selva Demiralp have written of their skepticism of the money multiplier mechanism.

Also, the idea that the reserve requirement places an upper limit on the money supply is disputed by some economists outside of the mainstream. Notably, theories of endogenous money date to the 19th century, and were subscribed to by Joseph Schumpeter, and later the post-Keynesians. Endogenous money theory states that the supply of money is credit-driven and determined endogenously by the demand for bank loans, rather than exogenously by monetary authorities.

In 1994 Mervyn King then Chief Economist at the Bank of England said 'One of the most contentious issues in assessing the role of money is the direction of causation between money and demand. Textbooks assume that money is exogenous. It is sometimes dropped by helicopters, as in Friedman’s analysis of a ‘pure’ monetary expansion, or its supply is altered by open-market operations. In the United Kingdom, money is endogenous - the Bank [of England] supplies base money on demand at its prevailing interest rate, and broad money is created by the banking system. Therefore the endogeneity of money has caused great confusion, and led some critics to argue that money is unimportant. This is a serious mistake'

Charles Goodhart, an economist and formerly an advisor at the Bank of England and a former monetary policy committee member, worked for many years to encourage a different approach to money supply analysis and said the base money multiplier model was 'such an incomplete way of describing the process of the determination of the stock of money that it amounts to misinstruction' Ten years later he said ‘Almost all those who have worked in a [central bank] believe that this view is totally mistaken; in particular, it ignores the implications of several of the crucial institutional features of a modern commercial banking system....’

What exactlyis so misleading about the money multiplier approach?

• Firstly the base money multiplier contains a number of assumptions that are very easy to make which is of course why it is still embedded in macroeconomics.
• Secondly, the monetary policy instruments used by central banks for some years now, are based on short term interest rates set by the central bank, not the quantity of base money. The base multiplier model requires it to set the quantity of money, but in the real world we know it sets the price.
• Thirdly if the central bank sets the interest rates it must then supply the reserves the banks require and this will depend on the demand for loans at the going rate of interest. Therefore the money supply is determined by the economy rather than the central bank.

In 2004 Paul Tucker at the BOE wrote, "When, ten years ago, Mervyn King delivered a lecture...., he reviewed ideas on the monetary transmission mechanism....... and the role of money (and credit). These days most such accounts.....begin with a simple assertion that the central bank sets the short-term nominal interest rate. And they go on to explain how, given sticky wages and prices, that enables the central bank to shift the short-term real interest rate in a way that either restrains or stimulates aggregate demand. Notice no mention of money here. On this view of the world and, in particular, given this way of implementing monetary policy, money – both narrow and broad – is largely endogenous. The central bank simply supplies whatever amount of base money is demanded by the economy at the prevailing level of interest rates".

Howells and Bain (2005) have managed to incorporate the main points of the endogenous view on the money-supply process into a macroeconomics textbook. (Jablecki, J. page 37)

Charles Goodhart said in 2007, "[When the] Central Bank sets interest rates, as is the generality, the money stock is a dependent, endogenous variable. This is exactly what the heterodox, Post- Keynesians, from Kaldor, through Vicky Chick, and on through Basil Moore and Randy Wray, have been correctly claiming for decades, and I have been in their party on this."

Bank lending

In 2007 Paul Tucker, outlined some of the practical implications of endogenous money in the UK.

On pages 6-7 he said

"All this brings back into focus the potential macroeconomic relevance of bank lending.

Bank lending

The economic literature on the ‘bank lending’ channel of the Monetary Transmission Mechanism explores the conditions under which a tightening of monetary policy causes the terms on bank lending to tighten over and above the increase in risk-free short-term real rates. The literature has typically assumed (i) that a monetary policy tightening is effected by the central bank withdrawing reserves from the system (or slowing the pace of reserves injection); (ii) that banks are required to hold a proportion of transactions deposits in reserves, so that reduced reserves provision entails slower deposit growth; and (iii) that they do not have unrestricted access to liabilities that are not subject to reserves requirements, and so cannot fill the gap left by slower deposit growth and must, instead, slow loan growth, which they do by tightening credit conditions. The first two steps seem archaic. We effect monetary policy changes by controlling the price not the quantity of central bank money in the system; and, in the UK, banks choose their own reserves targets rather than having them determined by a balance sheet ratio of some kind."

And on page 9-10 he said

"Where does this leave money (or Money), the starting point for much traditional monetary analysis?

Well, much that I have said about banks – their capacity, in the short run, to lever up their balance sheets and expand credit at will; their role in providing liquidity insurance to investment vehicles and corporates – turns precisely on their liabilities being money. And for this reason, banks are after all decisively different from other intermediaries.

As transactions balances and so the means of exchange in our payments system, the moneyness of bank deposits lies at the core of credit intermediation. Subject only but crucially to confidence in their soundness, banks extend credit by simply increasing the borrowing customer’s current account, which can be paid away to wherever the borrower wants by the bank ‘writing a cheque on itself’. That is, banks extend credit by creating money. This ‘money creation’ process is constrained: by their need to manage the liquidity risk – from the withdrawal of deposits and the drawdown of backup lines – to which it exposes them. Adequate capital and liquidity, including for stressed circumstances, are the essential ingredients for maintaining confidence."

"Hence the appearance of the balance sheet: many small short term deposits matching fewer, larger long term loans. But deposits do not cause the loans, rather loans create deposits" Howells book page 33

Banks with surplus "excess reserves" loan those reserves to other financial institutions - howells P36

References

Bank lending

In 2007 Paul Tucker(Tucker, outlined some of the practical implications of endogenous money in the UK.

On pages 6-7 he said

"All this brings back into focus the potential macroeconomic relevance of bank lending.

Bank lending

The economic literature on the ‘bank lending’ channel of the Monetary Transmission Mechanism explores the conditions under which a tightening of monetary policy causes the terms on bank lending to tighten over and above the increase in risk-free short-term real rates. The literature has typically assumed (i) that a monetary policy tightening is effected by the central bank withdrawing reserves from the system (or slowing the pace of reserves injection); (ii) that banks are required to hold a proportion of transactions deposits in reserves, so that reduced reserves provision entails slower deposit growth; and (iii) that they do not have unrestricted access to liabilities that are not subject to reserves requirements, and so cannot fill the gap left by slower deposit growth and must, instead, slow loan growth, which they do by tightening credit conditions. The first two steps seem archaic. We effect monetary policy changes by controlling the price not the quantity of central bank money in the system; and, in the UK, banks choose their own reserves targets rather than having them determined by a balance sheet ratio of some kind."

And on page 9-10 he said

"Where does this leave money (or Money), the starting point for much traditional monetary analysis?

Well, much that I have said about banks – their capacity, in the short run, to lever up their balance sheets and expand credit at will; their role in providing liquidity insurance to investment vehicles and corporates – turns precisely on their liabilities being money. And for this reason, banks are after all decisively different from other intermediaries.

As transactions balances and so the means of exchange in our payments system, the moneyness of bank deposits lies at the core of credit intermediation. Subject only but crucially to confidence in their soundness, banks extend credit by simply increasing the borrowing customer’s current account, which can be paid away to wherever the borrower wants by the bank ‘writing a cheque on itself’. That is, banks extend credit by creating money. This ‘money creation’ process is constrained: by their need to manage the liquidity risk – from the withdrawal of deposits and the drawdown of backup lines – to which it exposes them. Adequate capital and liquidity, including for stressed circumstances, are the essential ingredients for maintaining confidence."

shortened version of tucker quotation

In 2007 Paul Tucker, outlined some of the practical implications of endogenous money on UK banking.

On pages 6-7 he said

"this brings back into focus the potential macroeconomic relevance of bank lending.

Bank lending

The economic literature....has typically assumed (i) that a monetary policy tightening is effected by the central bank withdrawing reserves from the system (or slowing the pace of reserves injection); (ii) that banks are required to hold a proportion of transactions deposits in reserves, so that reduced reserves provision entails slower deposit growth; and iii.....The first two steps seem archaic. We ....control.... the price not the quantity of central bank money in the system; and, in the UK, banks choose their own reserves targets rather than having them determined by a balance sheet ratio of some kind."

And on page 9-10 he said

"Where does this leave money (or Money), the starting point for much traditional monetary analysis?

....banks....in the short run,....lever up their balance sheets and expand credit at will....banks extend credit by simply increasing the borrowing customer’s current account....banks extend credit by creating money. This ‘money creation’ process is constrained: by their need to manage the liquidity risk – from the withdrawal of deposits and the drawdown of backup lines – to which it exposes them."

Comparing lending models

In the discussion so far we have only considered a credit model of lending where loans demanded by customers leads to central bank money being created as required for the commercial banks.

There are therefore two models of lending to consider:

• 1. a relending model using existing deposits to create loans
• 2. a credit model where deposits are created from loans when customers request loans and the liabilities this creates are then managed by the bank - using other currently available on demand money systems, as per Tuckers comments above.

The relending model as as follows

For this model, if a bank has 100 reserves and 100 customer deposits the bank can only create 90 in new loans with a single loan. According to this model, if a customer wanted a loan of 171 credited to their current account, then two loans would have to be done as follows for a bank using a fractional reserve of 10%.

Note: At stage a) The bank is required to retain 10 reserves to back 100 newly created deposit money and at stage b) it is required to retain another 9 reserves, and then at stage c) it needs to retain another 8.1 reserves

Table 1: Private bank T-account
Assets	Liabilites
(a) 100 paper dollars deposited	100 created deposit money owed to customer 1
(b) Borrower's IOU worth $90	90 created deposit money owed to customer 2
(c) Borrower's IOU worth $81	81 created deposit money owed to customer 2

The bank now has 27.1 "required reserves" and 72.9 "excess reserves"

The credit money model is as follows

Note: at stage a) (as for the relending model) The bank is required to retain 10 reserves to back 100 newly created deposit money and at stage b) it is required to retain another 17.1 reserves

Table 1: Private bank T-account
Assets	Liabilites
(a) 100 paper dollars deposited	100 created deposit money owed to customer 1
(b) Borrower's IOU worth $171	171 created deposit money owed to customer 2

The bank now has 27.1 "required reserves" and 72.9 "excess reserves"

The results are the same and there is no requirement for stage c)

The relending model mainly focuses on cash/Gold loans rather than bank credit. The relending model is, as Tucker put it, archaic in the context of modern banking systems and practices.

Joining Talks Request Sent

Hi!^^ I have contacted everyone:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lawrencekhoo#Hi_Wonderful_Person.21.21.5E.5E
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bobrayner#Hi_Wonderful_Person.21.21.5E.5E
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BigK_HeX#Hi_Wonderful_Person.21.21.5E.5E
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Reissgo#Joining_Talks_Request_Sent

I request, merely in case it needs to be made known, to please not say or do anything that makes it seem like a person is "hostile" when obviously a person is not. We are trying to solve something. That is the only goal that matters. In the event that the sent request to join talks fails, this may be evidenced in the higher levels of disputes. Thank you kindly. rm2dance (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Mediator helps Wonderful people, obviously not hostile, and difficult andrewedwardjudd solve problem.

Is this really how wiki operates? The mediation editor gets created after i ask for help and then writes this to each side

---

Hi Wonderful person! If the requesting party "Andrewedwardjudd" (who also would like solve the problem) is making it difficult, and the problem comes to no resolution, then the case will simply be closed.

---

Versus.

---

Hi, please not say or do anything that makes it seem like a person is "hostile" when obviously a person is not.

---

Evidently this is just another childish game to obfuscate and waste peoples time when the objective is no change at all.

modern banking practices

A number of highly respected central bankers and monetary economists believe the money multiplier is a very unsatisfactory way of describing how credit is created in the real world, mainly because it ignores the influences of prices, and the way that modern central banking manages the money supply.

From about 1991 a remarkable consensus had emerged within developed economies about the optimum design of monetary policy methods. In essence central bankers gave up attempts to directly control the amount of money in the economy and instead moved to indirect methods by targeting interest rates.

Additionally, although when you look at a banks balance sheet, it appears new deposits are causing loans to be created, in reality banks create credit so that new loans create new deposits in the banking system. (Howells P. Page 33)

Therefore banks do not as a policy 'lend their customers money' but rather as a policy 'they lever, their balance sheet' by creating commercial bank money, while simultaneously managing the liquidity risk this creates for them.

In practice, rather than lending available "excess reserves" as a customer lending policy, as described in the base money multiplier model, banks tend to lend their "excess reserves" to other financial institutions - often on an overnight basis, so that they have these deposits available earning interest, while still being available to meet customer withdrawal requests. (Howells P, Page 36)

Seth B. Carpenter, a monetary policy and financial markets researcher at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and Selva Demiralp concluded the simple textbook base money multiplier is implausible in the United States.

Also, the idea that the reserve requirement places an upper limit on the money supply is disputed by some economists, including for example the former chief economist of the Bank of England and current Governor, Mervyn King, and the UK's foremost central banking economist Charles Goodhart. In 2007, Goodhart said, "[When the] Central Bank sets interest rates, as is the generality, the money stock is a dependent, endogenous variable. This is exactly what the heterodox, Post-Keynesians, from Kaldor, through Vicky Chick, and on through Basil Moore and Randy Wray, have been correctly claiming for decades, and I have been in their party on this."

Theories of endogenous money date to the 19th century, and were described by Joseph Schumpeter, and later the post-Keynesians. Endogenous money theory states that the supply of money is credit-driven and determined endogenously by the demand for bank loans, rather than exogenously by monetary authorities.

In 1994, Mervyn King said 'One of the most contentious issues in assessing the role of money is the direction of causation between money and demand. Textbooks assume that money is exogenous. It is sometimes dropped by helicopters, as in Friedman’s analysis of a ‘pure’ monetary expansion, or its supply is altered by open-market operations. In the United Kingdom, money is endogenous - the Bank [of England] supplies base money on demand at its prevailing interest rate, and broad money is created by the banking system. Therefore the endogeneity of money has caused great confusion, and led some critics to argue that money is unimportant. This is a serious mistake'

Goodhart, formerly an advisor at the Bank of England and a former monetary policy committee member, worked for many years to encourage a different approach to money supply analysis and said the base money multiplier model was 'such an incomplete way of describing the process of the determination of the stock of money that it amounts to misinstruction' Ten years later he said ‘Almost all those who have worked in a [central bank] believe that this view is totally mistaken; in particular, it ignores the implications of several of the crucial institutional features of a modern commercial banking system....’

Because of these modern banking systems, banks are not truelly lending existing central bank money, but are instead creating money while managing the liabilities this creates for them by having lines of credit, and access to a highly liquid money market - at rates near to those targeted by the central bank. It is true the banks are continually getting deposits of central bank money, and they are most certainly paying out central bank money as required, but deposits do not create loans but rather demand for loans creates deposits. After a loan is demanded, and existing sources of central bank money are sought, as required, whatever additional Central bank money necessary to achieve a banking system balance, at the prevailing central bank policy rate, is supplied on demand, at a price, by the central banks (King 1994).

payments systems

In practice, Banks creating large value loans can borrow the loan money in real time by systems operated by major central banks, where it is established practice the central banks will support the payments systems during the day, via overdraft or repurchase agreement.. Endogenous money proponents then argue the banks can borrow whatever they need to settle with the central bank from the money market before the end of the day.

monetary targeting abandoned

http://www.bis.org/review/r060616e.pdf Third, it is well established that the short-term monetary interest rate is the instrument of monetary policy and not any quantitative monetary variable.

Alternative views

See also: Endogenous money

Theories of endogenous money date to the 19th century, and were described by Joseph Schumpeter, and later the post-Keynesians. Endogenous money theory states that the supply of money is credit-driven and determined endogenously by the demand for bank loans, rather than exogenously by monetary authorities.

Though not a mainstream economic belief, a number of central bankers and monetary economists believe the money multiplier or relending model, is a very unrealistic way of describing how banking works in practice.

Charles Goodhart, an authority on central banking, worked for many years to encourage a different approach to money supply analysis and said the base money multiplier model was "such an incomplete way of describing the process of the determination of the stock of money that it amounts to misinstruction" Ten years later he said: "Almost all those who have worked in a [central bank] believe that this view is totally mistaken; in particular, it ignores the implications of several of the crucial institutional features of a modern commercial banking system..." . Goodhart has characterized the money stock as a dependent endogenous variable. In 1994, Mervyn King said that the causation between money and demand is a contentious issue. He notes that in the United Kingdom money is endogenous, as the Bank of England provides base money on demand and broad money is created by the banking system.

Seth B. Carpenter and Selva Demiralp concluded the simple textbook base money multiplier is implausible in the United States.

A number of central bankers and economists propose that, rather than deposits leading to loans, causality is reversed, and loans lead to deposits. (Howells P, Page 33)

FRB definition revisited

Currently the page begins

• Fractional-reserve banking is the banking practice in which only a fraction of a bank's deposits are kept as reserves (cash and other highly liquid assets) available for withdrawal.The bank lends out some or most of the deposited funds, while still allowing all deposits to be withdrawn upon demand.

Back in November 2010 a few people were working towards improving the text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fractional-reserve_banking&diff=394905000&oldid=394658401

I noticed that "backed by" has been changed to "kept as". I think this has the same unclarity that "backed by" has. What about saying that "only a fraction of deposits can be withdrawn on-demand" with the possible qualification "even though all deposits are promised to be withdrawable on-demand". Maybe theres a less long winded way to say this. Fresheneesz (talk) 01:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

My suggested version of the text is

• Fractional-reserve banking is the banking practice in which only a fraction of the total money value of customer deposits is kept as reserves (cash and other highly liquid assets) for expected customer withdrawals.The bank lends out some or most of the deposited funds, while still allowing each customer to make withdrawals on demand.

The important point being that customer deposits inside the bank are IOU money and a fraction of the customers existing deposits is not kept as reserves which is outside money. They are different monies.

that Flash Video software or a web browser supporting H.264/MPEG-4 AVC is necessary to see the content.

May 2011 Lawrencekhoo defence of Bigk's attack on my honesty

For the record, after bigk made the following unjustified and confused attack on my honesty,

Agree with Freeloader. User:Andrewedwardjudd's latest edits seem to involve an awful lot of counter-productive obfuscation. BigK HeX (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

where Bigk seems unable to understand simple bank accounting, Lawrencekhoo removed my comment about bigk's silly behaviour, left bigk's attack on me and posted this piece of wikilawyering in my user talk,

Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Fractional-reserve_banking. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors.

I have reverted your lastest unhelpful and unnecesary personal attack.[1] You have been here long enough to learn our rules. Kindly stop the personal attacks. --LK (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you please direct me to the rules which say it acceptable behaviour to say an edit performed by an editor is deceitful or deliberately misleading? So that you can use such rules to claim i am abusive while those who abuse me are celibrated as wonderful people. I see no such rules.Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Hello, Andrewedwardjudd. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Gerardw (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(missing header)

"Hi, I have replied to your message on my talk page.Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd"

Hi Andrew, sorry - can't find your response to my message here.Mischling (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

FRB

I thought it was a fairly simple system a couple of years ago, but what i've worked out since then, is that there really isn't anything simple about banking practices, if there was, it don't think there would be this much discussion.

So I'm not sure exactly what you mean by:

"So a bank AAA with adequate reserves, against existing deposits, makes a loan to a customer that will later pay bank BBB."

Let's say we have bank AAA with 1000 in deposit, no loans no reserves. It makes a loan to a customer, 900 say, so we now have:

1900 deposits, 900 loan capital 100 reserves.

The customer moves 900 in deposits to bank BBB and we now have:

AAA: 1000 deposits 900 loan capital 100 reserves BBB: 900 deposit

assuming there have been no loan repayments whilst this is going on.

But so what? This is just the normal expansion from initial conditions. A more realistic scenario would be something like:

AAA: 1000 deposits 900 loan capital 100 reserves BBB 1000 deposits 900 loan capital 100 reserves

and the actual behaviour of that setup, will depend quite crucially on whether the loans have been made to account holders at the same bank the loan was originated from or not, whether it's possible to sell loans, and a few other factors such as which order the clerks handling the clearing function processed their cheques.

Not all of this though is actually relevant for today's banking system, where for the most part there are no reserve requirements. Which is a common mistake made by current Economists whom nobody seems to have told about the Basel treaties and their regulatory framework changes.

Wiki, imho, is actually doing the right thing here. There isn't a consensus on this system, and its many variants, there aren't any good explanations of it, and what there is is a lot of competing theories, many of which suffer from fairly basic mistakes about the system primarily arising from people not realising how much it has changed over time. I've written a computer model of the textbook system, and so i have a fairly high confidence in how that behaves, but until i've extended it to include gold standard regulation and Basel regulation I wouldn't like to say too much on how they actually behave in practice. Mischling (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. In your example below,

>>Let's say we have bank AAA with 1000 in deposit, no loans no reserves. It makes a loan to a customer, 900 say, so we now have:

>>1900 deposits, 900 loan capital 100 reserves.

If i understand your example correctly, I believe an accountant would maintain the accounts in a double entry book keeping system in the way shown in modern money mechanics as follows:

Comment. Customer.w deposits 1000 central bank money at bank AAA

1000 CB Reserves as bank assets.....T.....(Customer.w) 1000 liabilities for CB Reserves

Comment. Create customer.x loan

900 loan repayment asset..................T.....(Customer.x) 900 liabilities for CB Reserves

Total Assets.....................................T......Liabilities

1900................................................T......1900

The bank then has a fractional reserve of 1000 central bank reserves held to back the banks created commercial bank money liabilities of 1900, for just under 50% fractional Reserve.

Can you clarify this is what your example is showing please?Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwarjudd

There is no central bank involved in this example. I'm talking just about the reserve from the deposit that the bank is required to keep in the simple model shown on the FRB wiki page. Let's agree on how the simple model works before introducing other complications. When the bank issues the loan, it creates a new bank deposit and increases the total quantity of deposits in the system.

Let me suggest that one of the historical issues with descriptions of FRB is a confusion between 'money' and bank deposits. Fractional reserve banking is really a system regulating (or not) the quantity of bank deposits (which are completely interchangeable with physical money, and indeed are in that sense money - but it is bank deposit regulation that is the critical factor here.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mischling (talk • contribs) 13:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Full-reserve banking

Hi,

Your recent edit to the full-reserve banking talk page involved removing some comments made by other editors, I don't know if this was your intention but removing other peoples comments like this is generally frowned on for reasons which I'm sure you can appreciate.

I'm assuming that this was just an honest mistake and that no malice was intended, but it may come across as confusing to some of the editors involved - I've therefore taken the liberty of reverting your edit and placing your comment back on the page as seems appropriate (feel free to move it somewhere else if I've done this wrong).

Please don't take this the wrong way, I understand that you are having a bit of a hard time with wikipedia at the moment and I don't mean this notice as any sort of threat or warning, just trying to explain my actions.

Regards and happy editing, Bob House 884 (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Deposit: The action of depositing base money into a deposit account for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deposit: The action of depositing base money into a deposit account is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deposit: The action of depositing base money into a deposit account until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. LK (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:REDACT

Please do not materially change your own comments as you did at Talk:Quantitative easing#"Unconventional", per WP:REDACT. If you decline to revert your deletion of the two paragraphs, I will repost them under my own signature. Lagrange613 (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

recent revert at QE

About this edit[2], I do not disagree with the fact that many central banks target a corridor. Rather, I disagree with the emphasis placed on the issue. Targetting a 25 basis point either way corridor is essentially targetting a particular interest rate. There is no reason to treat this issue in an article about QE. The proper place to add it would be in monetary policy. Also, the fact that central banks target a narrow corridor does not mean that textbooks accounts are incorrect. LK (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

if you do not disagree that such a method exists for many of the important central banks then that is good. Earlier i have seen you make several comments where you do seem to strongly disagree that such a method exists at for example the BOE where again you emphasised descretionary OMO.

The reason i added it to the QE page was that OMO was emphasised as the method and earlier in march you had been critical of user Caparm? where it appeared you lacked clarity about payment of interest on reserves - and this of course followed on from your comments about the BOE. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

I don't see how emphasizing that central banks target a narrow corridor rather than a single interest rate is relevant to QE. All that's neccesary there is a rudimentary knowledge of OMO. LK (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I note that you have thrice introduced the contested material on the QE page. Please keep in mind the 3 revert rule. I highly suggest a self-revert in order to show good faith. LK (talk) 05:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Lawrence, If you wish to be the person that trashes an editors work while abusing their edits as original research and claiming they are some kind of wacko wp:truther who invents things, and then wishes to manipulate this well meaning person to removing their own knowledge, then it is not my role to change to show good faith. Andrewedwardjudd (talk)andrewedwardjudd —Preceding undated comment added 05:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC).

Please keep things WP:CIVIL. Note that I have been infallingly polite to you, regardless of how I may disagree with what you say. I would ask for the same consideration. Also, can we keep this on the same page please? LK (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, please do not revert again at QE, doing so would be edit warring and disruptive. LK (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

please stop associating my good name with WP:Truth while you keep claiming you are being polite towards me. Associating me with an article ridiculing people who do not provide references is clearly abusive or shows you do not understand how insulting your behaviour can be seen as. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Can I suggest that you remove the names from our messages, and ask a neutral third party to comment on who has been rude and who has been polite? This may be an illuminating experience. LK (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

After seeing all the silly game being played during the mediation cabal i can already see it would be a total waste of time to expect to find a neutral third party in an attempt to moderate your activities on wiki.Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

I take it that you believe that the only editor on Wikipedia who can understand what is really going on is you. It's unfortunate that you have so little faith in the people here. Perhaps if you asked for mentorship it would improve your experience here. LK (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What i know about wiki is many editors who lack knowledge of the subject like to make it difficult for other editors, when a little bit of humility and willingness to learn would make for a more enjoyable experience for everybody. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 08:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Learn from you for course, since you know the truth. Have you considered that perhaps, that if you had a little bit of humility and willingness to learn, it would make for a more enjoyable experience for everybody? LK (talk) 08:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult for you to take responsibility for your actions? You abuse people by trashing them personally with the WP:truth garbage and insist on making out you are some kind of an expert knowing better than the BOE itself. It has nothing to do with me. You have a god complex and you are out of control Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

I'ld like to remind you again about civility. Statements like "You have a god complex and you are out of control" really are not acceptable. I would also ask that you stop to throwing around accusations. Specifically, kindly show when I have "abuse people by trashing them personally" or when I have insisted that I know "better than the BOE itself". Please retract your accusations unless you can provide proof that I have done as you accuse. LK (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Your methods are subtle. (Edit added later - The following is either word for word, or very similar to what you have said, or the essential nature of what you have said or done in a conversation with me, or your actions involving me. For example you reported me for abuse.)

• 'anybody who read the entire document would agree with me',
• 'Obviously the text does not mean that',
• 'even if I am wrong about the boe action it does not change the fact the blog writer was wrong, and therefore does not mean that my hostility towards reissgo was unjustified, so your attempts to make out he has been martyred are totally wrong',
• "Reissgo, have you ever worked in a bank? I have..... Instead of having a presumption of how things work.....seek out people with real world experience who can discuss this with you."

"The BOE can change the guidelines of the repo facility at any time. They have no legal obligation to buy a gilt on demand. Even if I am wrong and there is now a non-discretionary gilt repo facility, this does not make Ressigo right about his assertion that the blog entry somehow proves that "much of the FRB article is wrong", so don't try to paint Ressigo as some sort of wronged martyr here."

• 'I am not going to censure bigk for accusing you of being devious or being dishonest but i am going to report you for reacting to what he said by accusing you of being consistantly rude',
• You repeatedly ensure my name and others names are associated with wp:truth when you know full well it produces line after line of abusive comments towards editors who want to make things up without citations
• 'whatever you say about federal reserve policy is of zero consequence, because i know it makes no difference to my correct position at all',

"I think you are mistaken that the Fed intraday liquidity facility plays an important role in credit creation, as it's supposed to be a very short-term clearing-house facility. Also, if you read "Modern Money Mechanics" from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in its entirety, it is quite clear that they are in the 'reserves and the multiplier limit money creation' school of thought. But let's not get into arguments about exactly who is right or who is wrong on specific institutional details and the implications of those institutional details as these are irrelevant to the larger issue."

• 'dont abuse me by saying i am wikilawyering'.
• 'removing original research, unsubstantiated incorrect opinion, and commentary'.
• 'Editors here do not have a problem with many of the edits you wish to make but we just need to ensure it is written in the correct style where we are wanting to create a quality encyclopedia. Think encyclopedia britannia'
• 'I have been unfailingly polite with you' Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

You have mixed in things I have written with things that I have not, and have just made some other stuff up. Mis-attributing rude statements to some else is dishonest and is being impolite. Kindly strike out these statements which I have not written, which you imply are verbatim quotes of my messages. If you cannot provide the diff of where I stated those things, kindly admit that you are mistaken in attributing those statements to me.

LK (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I corrected some of your spelling such as commentary and unfailingly but otherwise that is essentially what you said or did. Pick out any single example and i will wade thru the material to present it to you. The first two for example were during the MMM crap you gave me, where only you are qualified to read a document. Obviously they are typical examples of the stuff you dish out to other people on wiki where you seem unable to avoid being incredibly nasty simply because you think you have some kind of superior ability to know things the other person is unqualified to know and where it seems time and time again you do not want knowledge to be revealed to the world unless it can pass thru the filter of your own opinions. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwarjudd

You claim that the above are my actual words, except for correcting for spelling mistakes. You ask me to pick a couple of examples and you will show me where I have written that. Very well. Kindly show where I have ever written:

• 'I am not going to censure bigk for accusing you of being devious or being dishonest but i am going to report you for reacting to what he said by accusing you of being consistantly rude'
• 'whatever you say about federal reserve policy is of zero consequence, because i know it makes no difference to my correct position at all'

Produce the diff in which I have said these words, or else apologize and retract your accusations. LK (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I am saying it is what you said or did more or less, where for example a court of law would agree it is what you say and do to me and others and those were typical examples where i am not distorting the truth.

1. Bigk twice accused me of obfuscation. Which is an insulting thing to say about me. When i said he was being silly, a very mild rebuke to him, you reported me for being consistantly rude. You then steadfastly refused to acknowledge the abuse i got from Bigk. Saying an editor could say anything they wanted about an edit, and that i needed to learn about wiki policy - which is just absurd. Eventually i asked you to get a dictionary. All you could say was that whatever he did, it was irrelevant, and you have just kept up the assault against me that i am rude to others when you do such things to me as if you are totally blind.

2. The federal reserve lends automatically without collateral upto hundreds of millions per day as an on demand day time overdraft when reserves are transferred using fedwire. Obviously this majorly enables a bank to create loans without regard to the reserves it holds, where if there is a reserve shortage the feds will supply the reserves. No amount of citations by me could get any response from you other than to the effect 'the federal reserve say that their policies have no impact on bank lending in the way you are suggesting I am satisfied you are wrong/I am right'. Which was nuts. You were obviously completely wrong. You just make things up to support your opinion. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

You put those words in quote marks, implying that I wrote those statements. When I objected, you responded[3] that apart from correcting my spelling those were my words. You cannot produce a diff, and yet you refuse to retract your accusation, making further accusations instead. Kindly state clearly now that you have made a false accusation, and that you admit that I did not write those words. I remind you that it is uncivil to accuse someone of making rude statements that he did not make.

LK (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Lawrence you are obfuscating. Which means you are dishonestly hiding what has happened for some purpose. I may have incorrectly used quotes but i wanted to make it crystal clear that is the kind of thing you do or say 'where your methods are subtle'. When you objected i shortly afterwards changed 'say' to 'say or do', because the part about bigks' abuse using obfuscation was not something you totally said but rather something you did and said where that was the clear flavour of your behaviour. I made an edit to add 'do' so you might have missed it?

Obviously these are good examples of your behaviour where your methods are subtle and designed to prevent another editor from getting the changes they want where you attempt to undermine the character of the editor or attempt to assert your superiority over them, where your opinion is more important than reality. You need to reflect upon your behaviour rather than demanding i alter realityAndrewedwardjudd (talk) 08:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Remove those quote marks and state clearly that you were mistaken, and that I did not write those things. LK (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Lawrence, where there are quote marks, that is essentially what you said to me or what was very very clearly implied, where i said your methods are subtle. I have no problem with what i have said on this subject. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 08:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

All the bullet points are quote marked, implying that those are my words. They are not. Take some responsibilty for your actions. Retract your false accusations. LK (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing i am saying about you is false. However to clarify and to reflect your objections so far i have added the following

• (Edit added later - The following is either word for word, or very similar to what you have said, or the essential nature of what you have said or done in a conversation with me, or your actions involving me. For example you reported me for abuse.)

Edit warring at Quantitative easing

You have been engaged in an edit war at Quantitative easing. Given the currently heated atmosphere surrounding that article, I would like to request that you take a voluntary unilateral no-fault one month break from editing that article (but not the talkpage). There are enough editors paying attention there that any edits you propose that attain consensus will be swiftly enacted by another editor. This is a request for voluntary action, but please be aware that any further edit warring may result in you being blocked from editing. Please also be more circumspect in your communications with other editors; Wikipedia is not a battleground. When an editorial disagreement starts to get out of hand, it is best to restrict your comments carefully to potential improvements of the article while following the steps outlined at WP:Dispute resolution. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 22:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Heads up - LK is on a one month break. The next couple of weeks would be a good time to fill in the details on QE before QE3, 4 and 5 hit right after Greece blows up. Cheers.EuroRIP (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Peace

Dear Andrew,

I am trying to help you. From my own experience, I want to assure you that it is best to forget about old problems. Administrators do not punish editors for old mistakes, but from current misbehavior that seems to threaten to disrupt WP.

Thus, it is not appropriate to keep on complaining about past conflicts, particularly when LK has disengaged from this conflict. Continuing to complain about old scores cannot help and might hurt, if it becomes disruptive or violates WP:NPA.

I want to clarify that I see no ongoing misbehavior from LK, rather a resumption of his usual good behavior. Again, both of you were asked to move along and disengage.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have done my best to emphasise my point of view.

The problem for wiki finance is the way that editors who lack knowledge of modern banking practices work together to make it very difficult for changes to be made to the pages. One recently arrived editor has been insisting every word is cited - even when the citations are already present. Wiki finance is what it is consequently. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

"hiding information"

Of the various complaints in your latest edit, the only one that's new is the accusation that I said you were "hiding information". Please indicate where I said such a thing. Also I would like to understand why you said I did this "privately" since we have only communicated on public Wikipedia talk pages. Thank you. Lagrange613 (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I dont consider my front yard where anybody can walk in and talk to me to be a public place and neither do i consider your front yard to be a public place. You did not talk to me via email or phone or anything like that. I will change privately to 'in a discussion on your talk page'.Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Personal attack

I have redacted your latest personal attack at Talk:Quantitative easing. If you make any more personal attacks I'm going straight to ANI. Lagrange613 (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If you had any integrity you would have dealt with the abuse others got from your mates. All you people want is a result.

There is something odd going on at wiki. What it is I do not know. However the oddness is more interesting than the financial topic. LK for example seems to have a slavish adherance to the beliefs and opinions of text book writers. LK also seems to think he is enormously smart. And in the wider academic community i have since learnt that people who look at banking from an operational point of view who learn how banking actually operates are quickly regarded as 'fringe characters' who are 'cast into outer darkness'. Because of this many central bankers appear to have long thought of academic writings as being irrelevant since they clearly do not understand how central banking operates.

It could be wiki is the playground for some kind of academic turf war, where egos rather than knowledge is at stake.

It is however very odd and quite interesting how it plays out day after day with the same players working to repel the 'ignorant masses'. Even the central bankers are "outside of the mainstream".

BigK for example appears to be an academic who knows very little about the operational side of banking and yet can be relied on to support LK along with the others. Bobraynor makes a big deal on his user page about his efforts against systematic bias on wiki. He is however part of systematic bias.

There is however more to it than just a turf war. The frequent way that editors use WP:Truth to abuse other editors is an example of that. WP:Truth relies on the new editors unfamiliarity with the connotation they are being linked to. WP:truth is a way of calling an editor biased or stupid. Why would anybody obfuscate in that kind of manner? What is the purpose if not to drive somebody mad with confusion and frustration where the objective is not knowledge but rather to win a battle.

Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

June 2011

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Money out of nothing

Andrewedwardjudd, Please feel free to put your comments about "Money from nothing" you have left on my talk page on the QE discussion page. They all add to the interest of the debate. --Caparn (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

3RR

You seem to be edit warring to add your unsourced opinion that "the heat loss is always from the warmer layer to the colder layer" to the Greenhouse effect article: please discuss before adding this again, and provide a source that actually covers this point. If you've not already been made aware of it, please note WP:3RR and stop now. For your information, The greenhouse effect and the 2nd law of thermodynamics: intermediate discusses backradiation. . . dave souza, talk 18:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Dave, reference 9 that is already on the page covers this. Let me know if you cannot find it. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Hi Andrew, by my rough count you've now made five reverts within 24 hours. It doesn't matter whether your edits are right or wrong, that crosses a line where you're now liable to be blocked, and have only been spared that because no-one's bothered to report your editing to WP:AN/EW.

I've tried to advise you gently, the standard template sets this out more explicitly:

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

So, please discuss and gain consensus for your proposals on the talk page before editing the article. . dave souza, talk 08:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned just above. Reference 9 already on the page covers the issue of the surface heating the atmosphere to warm it and cause emissions which then are absorbed by the surface which then as explained by ref 9 acts to slow down the rate of cooling of the surface. As explained by ref 9 the atmosphere cannot stop the flow of heat from the surface all it can do is slow down the flow of heat from the surface, like a blanket does. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Short break

Hi there,

First off, could you take a look at WP:ARBCC, especially the remedies part of the final decision?

Second, could you take a 48 hour break from the articles you have been working on? I see about a 150 edits from you just over the last week on a few talk pages, and that much contribution has a potential to overwhelm other editors.

Thanks, NW (Talk) 06:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You're now obviously over 3RR, and you aren't listening. I'm now going to compose the 3RR report, which is tedious. If you'll promise to actually take NW's advice and take a break of 48h starting now, I wont file it, or will retract it if filed William M. Connolley (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Andrewedwardjudd reported by User:William M. Connolley .28Result:_.29 William M. Connolley (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

That request is no longer a request; it is a topic ban from all articles relating to the greenhouse effect issued under WP:ARBCC. You really need to tone down your behavior and refrain from edit warring.

I would also advise that you take a look at textbooks on this subject instead of using websites as references in discussion. They have already summarized the literature and would be far more helpful in assisting in you understand the topic and improve the article than popular science websites. NW (Talk) 15:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

As already explained, the issues i raised are already covered in reference 9. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

You're topic banned. That includes talk pages. It includes any discussion of the issue. Your edits at GHE, and [4], break that ban William M. Connolley (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I left a comment on my talk page that you might be interested in reading when you have the time. NW (Talk) 23:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Backradiation

Based on measurements with spacecraft, the temperature can drop over 100°C in only a few minutes when the craft enters the shadow of the Earth. The fact that this does not occur on the surface is called "the Greenhouse Effect". Based on blackbody theory, a 15°C surface will emit 390W/m2 and cool very quickly without an additional energy source. However, it only cools about 10°C over an 8 hour night. Since, at night, the atmosphere is typically much warmer than the surface, it makes sense that the atmosphere is the radiation source. Based on surface measurements, the net radiation loss is only about 40 W/m2, not the 390 W/m2 expected without an atmosphere. Q Science (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Your sig is weird

Have you noticed that your sig comes out like "Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd"? Why do you add the terminating "andrewedwardjudd"? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Banning?

Have you really been banned? Connolley has been banned extensively for misbehaviour, those doing the banning generally have to have an exalted status, perhaps he has been fully reinstated. Do you have a link to your banning notice for me? --Damorbel (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi I am assuming you can see all the text below about this? Thanks for being supportive. I appreciated that. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

March 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating a climate change-related topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Andrewedwardjudd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The reason for my blocking said, I did not understand the references,text books, and science and that I should study more. The reality is that the existing references on this page totally supported what I was saying. For example: http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/

"This reduction in the efficiency of the Earth to lose heat causes the surface temperature to rise above the effective temperature calculated above (Te) until finally, enough heat is able to escape to space to balance the incoming solar radiation. The effect is analogous to that of a blanket that traps the body heat preventing it from escaping into the room and thus keeps us warm on cold nights.

All that the IR absorbing gases do is make it more difficult for heat to escape, they don't

(and :can't) stop the heat output"

This is what I said:

"The cold atmosphere is radiatively like a space blanket made of foil. You provide the source of heat to feel warmer. The space blanket cannot heat you"

"A blanket cannot make a person warmer. The person makes themselves warmer because the blanket slows down their rate of cooling. "

"The backradiation flow does act like an insulator"

And for my accurate efforts, fully backed by citations, all I got from the abusive William M Connolley was:

"Thats is a horrible way to put it. Don't mention blankets"

"The words you use, all the language, reads like you don't really know what you're talking about, or don't know how to express what you do know."

Additionally I pointed out another reference by the famous John Tyndall, totally did not agree with the text provided. Connolley was never endingly rude and obnoxious, and endlessly repeated I was wrong. Connolley was like a cracked record telling me i was incoherant, wrong and citing the reference incorrectly. I notice now he is altering some of the text to reflect many of the points I raised.

Connolley is a thug. There is no other word for it. He is mean, rude, ignorant and blatantly abusive towards people. I am a Science graduate who was only describing what is commonly known and already cited on the page.

Who decided to tell Nuclear Warfare, who was involved in the banning, that i was lacking knowledge, using references incorrectly, and needed to read text books to understand the topic? It just sounds like the same cracked record coming from his masters voice.

As I see an editor has just come here to tell me to stop attacking Connolley, I feel obliged to remind the reader that Connolley behaves like a thug on Wiki, and knowledgeable editors like me deserve to be treated better, rather than banned from the pages Connolley patrols, and then further injured by the suggestion that I am the guilty party. Connolley simply behaves in a disgusting manner, as a bully boy, where insults and intimidation seem to be his modus operandi. Consistantly in his responses to me he has shown no genuine attempt to create an atmosphere where discussion can lead to article changes. His action is to block, then insult by denigrating the character and ability of the editor attempting to create a discussion with him. There are laws against libel, and Wiki should not be encouraging this kind of law breaking by so openly supporting such stupid behaviour.

Everything I was talking about was fully supported by top quality scientific references and is simply basic radiation and atmospheric science

I find it very interesting that you react to the threat of legal action by doing more things to protect the individual who was so abusive towards me. Evidently legal action is the only thing that you people are ever going to listen to.

Everything I said on the pages was supported by quality references. Connolley and the others have no idea what they are talking about. The fact that Connolley has been busy changing the pages to reflect many of the things I tried to point out to Wiki, speaks volumes about the inadequacy of the procedure to protect people like me from thugs like Connolley, who evidently can do whatever they want and still get protection from Wiki.

You guys just dont know when to give up do you?

http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/wikipedia-administrator-edits-over-5000-articles-to-hide-natural-medieval-global-warming/

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2009/12/wikipedia-agw-bias-wiki-censor-william-connolley-axed

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/224785/wikipropaganda/lawrence-solomon

I am sure some folks at The New Yorker, CBS news and many other organisations will just love for you to keep on defending thuggery on Wiki that is being used to attack well cited scientific comments that are not supportive of the silly points of view created by Connolley and the rest of the gang operating there.

If you want to keep on going you will be dealing with a class action against the lot of you for defending a silly thug.

I had never heard of Connolley before this stupidity began. But if you want me to find out more about him and bring it court then go ahead and keep on attacking me while you defend that silly thug. :-)

And I never heard of Lawrence Solomon until 5 minutes ago, if you guys keep this up, Lawrence and I are going to be best buddies before the day is up. You want pain? You can have all the pain you want and at no cost to me! If we go to court you will be destroyed. :-)

The really stupid thing is that I can prove I have been spending vast amounts of my personal time for years on end persuading people the greenhouse effect was fully supported by quality scientific evidence.

All Connolley and the gang have to do is align their silly thinking with the scientific view that is available in the very citations that already exist on the wiki pages you are banning me from while you support thuggery. The whole thing is stupid. It can only have been created by stupid people who do not understand the science behind how the models are calculating the Earths energy budget.

But wait there is more! Wiki can help me find people who have an axe to grind and already know all about the antics of Connolley. :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase%2FClimate_change%2FProposed_decision%2FNew_proposals#Harassment_of_William_M._Connolley_off-wiki

-))

Here is an example of how the wiki greenhouse effect page is mixing up scientific reality with the clearly expressed opinions of the editors on the talk pages.

The strongly expressed view of the editors was that the cold atmosphere is heating the hot surface

Here is the Article text in question:

Within the region where radiative effects are important the description given by the idealized greenhouse model becomes realistic: The surface of the Earth, warmed to a temperature around 255 K, radiates long-wavelength, infrared heat in the range 4–100 μm.[14] At these wavelengths, greenhouse gases that were largely transparent to incoming solar radiation are more absorbent.[14]

From Wiki reference 9 we find:

'Because the atmosphere is almost transparent to sunlight, all that is absorbed at the surface results in warming and the emission of IR radiation;

So wiki and reference 9 agree

The article text continues:

Each layer of atmosphere with greenhouses gases absorbs some of the heat being radiated upwards from lower layers. It re-radiates in all directions, both upwards and downwards; in equilibrium (by definition) the same amount as it has absorbed. This results in more warmth below.

And reference 9

this radiation cannot freely escape into space because of absorption in the atmosphere by trace gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2). These absorbing gases and their surrounding air warm up, emitting radiation downward, towards the Earth's surface, as well as upward, towards space.'

So Wiki omitts that the atmosphere is warmed as a result of radiation being absorbed from below.

But, Wiki says that heat from below is being radiated upwards to be absorbed by the Green House gases. (Actually heat is not being radiated upwards but rather radiation in the form of electro magnetic energy is being radiated upwards) but, in any case, correctly says this absorbed radiation is emitted in all directions, including downwards. And also correctly says this results in more warmth below. But Wiki does not explain why there is more warmth below and does not make it clear that the lower layers are warming the higher greenhouse absorbing layers. And we know the editors believe the reason there is more warmth below is because the cold atmosphere is heating the hot surface.

Wiki continues:

Increasing the concentration of the gases increases the amount of absorption and re-radiation, and thereby further warms the layers and ultimately the surface below.[10]

So now Wiki finally agrees that the greenhouse gases are being warmed by the absorption from the heat that wiki says is coming from below.

Evidently the wiki text is written to support the opinion of the editors who think the cold gas is heating the hot surface, and the result is the reader is left to believe the more warmth below came from the greenhouse gases heating the surface.

Reference 9 however says:

"This reduction in the efficiency of the Earth to lose heat causes the surface temperature to rise above the effective temperature calculated above (Te) until finally, enough heat is able to escape to space to balance the incoming solar radiation. The effect is analogous to that of a blanket that traps the body heat preventing it from escaping into the room and thus keeps us warm on cold nights.

All that the IR absorbing gases do is make it more difficult for heat to escape, they don't

(and :can't) stop the heat output"

But again, endless times Connolley told me i was wrong and said I was interpreting the references wrongly but gave no actual reasons why I was wrong other than things like:

"bleurgh"

"Thats is a horrible way to put it. Don't mention blankets"

"The words you use, all the language, reads like you don't really know what you're talking about, or don't know how to express what you do know."

"I see no evidence that you're reading anything I'm saying "

However on one particular occasion Connolley did attempt a discussion of the near surface green house effect:

"Because the near-sfc is opaque, the GHE doesn't much matter there."

A strange statement once it becomes obvious the heated surface radiations are being almost entirely absorbed near the surface to warm the atmosphere very near the surface of the Earth.

Do you really want Wiki editors who are so scientifically ignorant having such power over reality??

This is all Wiki has to do to avoid an escalation of this issue

1. Get somebody who is genuinely scientifically knowledgeable about radiation science, and who if you want is involved in climate science and greenhouse models, who can review what I have written here, and can confirm that everything I have talked about here is scientifically justified and that the editors version of a cold gas warming the hotter surface is wrong.

2. Back off from protecting Connolley. I will not attack him unless he begins attacking me. He was the thug. Not me.

3. Allow me to attempt to explain to the assembled group of editors, why the second law of thermodynamics does not have to be violated, for there to be dangerous warming of the Earth as a result of greenhouse gas emissions, because contrary to their strong belief, the cold atmosphere does not heat the hotter surface, but instead the hotter surface is unable to cool so rapidly while being heated by the Sun, due to the presence of warmed radiation-emitting-green-house-gases, and therefore the heated radiation-emitting-surface is forced to rise in temperature, until it can get rid of the heat coming from the Sun, even while heat losses from the surface have to pass through the insulating one way radiative blanket that the greenhouse gases create.

Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Decline reason:

Unblock requests containing personal attacks are not considered. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Andrewedwardjudd. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. Dougweller (talk) 08:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Changing your unblock request (after it was denied) to further attack an editor suggests that you are going to continue such attacks. I suggest that you not be unblocked until you do two things - agree that you did not intend a legal threat and are not going to take legal action, and agree that you are going to stop such personal attacks. Dougweller (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that this editor has once again changed his declined unblock request, see [5] - making his legal threat more explicit. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Andrewedwardjudd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

While editing Wiki Greenhouse effect, I realised that all, or nearly all of the Wiki editors reverting my edits believed the greenhouse effect worked contrary to the second law of thermodynamics so that I was repeatedly told things like "of course colder gases can warm the hotter layers below".

For example:

"There appears to be a problem with not understanding the second law here? The second law applies to isolated (closed) physical systems. It does not apply to forced systems like an atmosphere subject to radiation. In a forced system of course "colder gases can warm the hotter layers below". So the people who are against the idea aren't ones with much knowledge of physics. Do we need to worry about them? I guess only if discussion about them becomes notable... --BozMo talk 13:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Or if, say, a large number of them started aggressively editing Wikipedia... :P MastCell Talk 17:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I tried to point out the greenhouse effect did not operate contrary to the second law of thermodynamics, because the greenhouse effect works by reducing the cooling rate of the surface, where the surface is heated by something other than the cold atmosphere. Eg the sun is known to heat the surface. This was confirmed by reference 9 already on the article page.

Dave Souza, informed me a few times i was attempting to add my unsourced opinion to the pages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrewedwardjudd&diff=next&oldid=483319435

On other occasion Dave informed me I was attempting to add 'an odd unsupported opinion' to Wiki. (After I was banned, Dave and a few other editors also made sure that supportive editors comments that supported me, were quickly removed from the wiki talk pages, or hidden behind a green banner, and really acted in a quite personal manner against me that was entirely unjustified).

However, At the time I did not realise a reference on the page already showed I was correct. So I got some references from Skeptical Science, a pro greenhouse effect website. Not one single person disputed these references and William M Connelley even said they were very good references. Instead I was told i was using the words in the references incorrectly.

William M Connelly generally never engaged with me other than to say I was wrong, or to say I used the reference wrongly. Why he was saying I was wrong was a mystery to me. The references said i was right. Quite what William M Connelley believed about cold gases heating the hot surface never became clear to me, because he refused to continue the conversation. However his tone suggested he was supporting all the other editors who had 'already explained why I was wrong' and therefore it must be true they all believed the cold atmosphere was heating the hotter surface.

When I was banned it was said that I was being banned, in part, because I was unable to read references and was using unreliable references, and my understanding would be improved by reading text books as follows.

"a topic ban from all articles relating to the greenhouse effect issued under WP:ARBCC. You really need to tone down your behavior and refrain from edit warring.

I would also advise that you take a look at textbooks on this subject instead of using websites as references in discussion. They have already summarized the literature and would be far more helpful in assisting in you understand the topic and improve the article than popular science websites. "

The general tone of many editors was that I could not read, knew very little, and was being unreasonably disruptive for not agreeing with their correct views.

Below I provide an explanation why my edits were supported by the available reference already cited by the page.

To recap: The strongly expressed view of most, if not all of the editors, was that the cold atmosphere is heating the hot surface

Here is the Wiki Article text in question:

Within the region where radiative effects are important the description given by the idealized greenhouse model becomes realistic: The surface of the Earth, warmed to a temperature around 255 K, radiates long-wavelength, infrared heat in the range 4–100 μm.[14] At these wavelengths, greenhouse gases that were largely transparent to incoming solar radiation are more absorbent.[14]

From Wiki reference 9 we find:

'Because the atmosphere is almost transparent to sunlight, all that is absorbed at the surface results in warming and the emission of IR radiation; this radiation cannot freely escape into space because of absorption in the atmosphere by trace gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2)

So wiki and reference 9 agree

The article text continues:

Each layer of atmosphere with greenhouses gases absorbs some of the heat being radiated upwards from lower layers. It re-radiates in all directions, both upwards and downwards; in equilibrium (by definition) the same amount as it has absorbed. This results in more warmth below.

And reference 9

These [greenhouse]absorbing gases and their surrounding air warm up, emitting radiation downward, towards the Earth's surface, as well as upward, towards space.'

So Wiki omitts that the atmosphere is warmed as a result of radiation being absorbed from below.

But, Wiki says that heat from below is being radiated upwards to be absorbed by the Green House gases. (Actually heat is not being radiated upwards but rather radiation in the form of electro magnetic energy is being radiated upwards) but, in any case without quibbling unnecessarily, Wiki correctly says this absorbed radiation is emitted in all directions, including downwards. And also correctly says this results in more warmth below. But Wiki does not explain why there is more warmth below and does not make it clear that the hotter lower layers are warming the colder higher greenhouse absorbing layers. And we know the editors believe the reason there is more warmth below is because the cold atmosphere is heating the hot surface.

Wiki continues:

Increasing the concentration of the gases increases the amount of absorption and re-radiation, and thereby further warms the layers and ultimately the surface below.[10]

So now Wiki finally agrees that the greenhouse gases are being warmed by the absorption from the heat that wiki says is coming from below.

Evidently the wiki text is written to support the opinion of the editors who think the cold gas is heating the hot surface, and the result is the reader is left to believe the more warmth below came from the greenhouse gases heating the surface.

Reference 9 however says:

"This reduction in the efficiency of the Earth to lose heat causes the surface temperature to rise above the effective temperature calculated above (Te) until finally, enough heat is able to escape to space to balance the incoming solar radiation. The effect is analogous to that of a blanket that traps the body heat preventing it from escaping into the room and thus keeps us warm on cold nights.

All that the IR absorbing gases do is make it more difficult for heat to escape, they don't

(and :can't) stop the heat output"

But again, endless times in particular, user William M Connolley told me i was wrong and said I was interpreting the references wrongly but gave no actual reasons why I was wrong other than things like,

"bleurgh"

Talking about "blankets" certainly doesn't help William M. Connolley (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC

"Thats is a horrible way to put it. Don't mention blankets"

"The words you use, all the language, reads like you don't really know what you're talking about, or don't know how to express what you do know."

"I see no evidence that you're reading anything I'm saying "

Why would William M Connolley object to the use of the word blanket as used in a reference on the page, unless he believed the cold gases are warming the surface, contrary to the second law of thermodynamics? But as I said earlier mostly William M Connelley did not interact with me other than to say I was wrong. I never found out why he thought I was using the references incorrectly.

However on one particular occasion William M Connolley did attempt a discussion of the near surface green house effect:

"Because the near-sfc is opaque, the GHE doesn't much matter there."

A strange statement once it becomes obvious the heated surface radiations are being almost entirely absorbed near the surface to warm the atmosphere very near the surface of the Earth.

To sum up, obviously I feel I have been very unreasonably treated by the editors on Wiki, and by the Wiki system that has enabled these editors to make unsupported statements against me, with no justification for them having done that.

The block was unnecessary. The editors of the page do not have to believe the Greenhouse effect causes the atmosphere to heat the surface in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Wiki should allow me to explain using the available scientific literature, that I am a responsible and decent person who has only been reading the available scientific literature that demonstrates my argument was well founded and scientifically supported.

If Wiki will not allow me to clear my good name on Wiki as an editor, then Wiki should indicate to me some other way that I can clear my good name on Wiki, such as giving me some email addresses and contact names and telephone numbers at Wiki so I can resolve this matter in a way that suits everybody concerned.

At this point in time I withdraw my threats of legal action. I require however that Wiki enables me to clear my good name on Wiki by some method. As I understand it, Wiki policy already provides for ensuring that people who feel they have been defamed by editors, have some ability to set the record straight.

Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Decline reason:

Talk page access revoked. T. Canens (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As you can no longer edit this page, you can request an unblock via Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. Dougweller (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment

Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment.

The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project. (Even if your currently blocked)

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Andrewedwardjudd

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Andrewedwardjudd requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Veracious ^(•‿•)^ 03:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)