Ross, real names are relevant because all too many people in forums like this hurl personal abuse from behind what I call the pusillanimous veil of anonymity at people whose names (and hence occupations or affiliations) are transparently obvious, as substitute for reasoned argument - and yet readers are not able to judge, because people like you and 'Skeptic' aren't willing to identify themselves and their affiliations, whether they are any less free of vested or conflicted interest than those whom they abuse.

So, you can say "it's about time [I] and other economists faced the reality of a GFC created by a Global Central Banking scam .. etc" because you know I am an economist. So? And because you say so? With all due respect (and until you put your full name to your remarks, I think less respect is due), with what authority do you say so, other that of any other citizen?

And what do you mean by 'face the reality'? I've never run a central bank. And while I've always acknowledged that the GFC was brought on by, among other things, excessively risky practices by financial institutions (including banks) about which regulators (including central banks) did too little, I don't feel like I bear any personal responsibility for that (apart from anything else, the bank for which I used to work didn't engage to any material degree in the kind of lending practices which did contribute to the GFC).

If you've had visits from the AFP because of your 'political activity' then, in the absence of any knowledge of precisely what form that 'activity' took, you have my sympathy. But that doesn't give you the right to hurl personal abuse at people simply because of their occupation, or because of what others in similar occupations may (in your opinion) have done.

Saul, I take some issue with your concern about online anonymity. For example, I post quite a lot on family Law and child support matters and under the legislation governing both those areas publication of information which could lead to the identities of parties becoming known is forbidden.

Nonetheless, Graham knows my name.

As a figure who has a public profile and significant public credibility in your field of expertise, you gain from having your byline attached to your comments. Others who remain anonymous have to stand or fall based entirely on their words in the particular comment - their credibility is not established.

It cuts both ways.

@Saul Eslake: real names are relevant because all too many people in forums like this hurl personal abuse from behind what I call the pusillanimous veil of anonymity

I've been on the internet for longer than most, on this site for a while, and in particular I work with open source which is by any measure a highly constructive activity all almost all communication is done on the internet. Highly emotive flame wars are an inevitable part of all unmoderated interaction between who haven't met face to face. It doesn't matter if everyone knows each other's real name or not, and more importantly it doesn't seem to have a huge effect on the outcome.

The raw nature of the interaction does mean you have to grow a much tougher hide. You also have to put your faith in human nature and the law of averages. In other words, you are going to have to trust an inflammatory comment aimed at you is going to be read by most people the same way you read it, and in the end is going to tell readers more about the poster than it does about you.

Also, we regulars here know more about the posters than you do. We know the Arjay is an ardent consumer of conspiracy theories, there is a cacophony of voices like skeptic's that react to any threat to their world view by hurling abuse at the perceived attacker, and Antiseptic invariably manages to drag his personal gender war into the conversation.

Putting it all together, your pointing out skeptic is a "gutless wonder who can't do anything but hurl personal abuse" didn't tell me anything new about skeptic, but it did tell me a bit about you.

That's disappointing because I didn't come here to learn about that side of you. I enjoy reading your articles because we aren't often see experts taking the time to dumb their public policy ideas so we plebs can understand it. And it's even rarer to be blessed with experts taking the time to debate the points, as you did with Senexx.

rstuart:"Antiseptic invariably manages to drag his personal gender war into the conversation."

Not true on two counts. first, I don't have a "personal gender war", although I do consider the direction our society is being dragged by dishonest and self-serving feminist misrepresentations and reconstruction of social norms is a bad one and doomed to failure once the resources run out. That is perfectly germane to the topic and Saul Eslake's piece does not contradict this view.

Second, unless my views on feminism are relevant, I don't raise them. I see no reason why I shouldn't do so when they are relevant.

One of the biggest problems faced by frequent contributors is that everyone "knows what they think", so they often don't read it properly, instead inserting a narrative of their own devising the fits with whatever they think the other persons views will be. Perhaps genuine anonymity with absolutely no identification of the posters might resolve some of that, although some will be instantly identifiable on style alone.

All-in-all I tend to agree that a thicker skin and a decent capacity to think critically about what is said are critical in participating properly in on-line discussions. Far too many substitute a thin skin and an appeal to pity (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-pity.html) for considered responses. This stifles discussion rather than encouraging it and should be condemned.

"rstuart" and others, I realize that various people may have valid reasons for using pseudonyms online. They may, for example, be public servants who are not supposed to have any views other than those of the government of the day.

My skin is as thick as it needed to be to work in and around financial market dealing rooms for the best part of 25 years. I don't lose sleep over the 'slings and arrows' hurled by the likes of 'skeptic' and 'arjay'.

I guess what I am trying to say is that there is, or at least in my view there ought to be, a greater obligaton on those who do use pseudonyms to observe the conventions that usually apply to civil discourse.

Amost everyone who reads my stuff knows that I used to work for a bank, although even when I did work for a bank I always tried to couch my public remarks in terms of what I saw as being in the national interest, as opposed to the commercial interests of my employer (and I sometimes got into trouble, internally, for that). And my other past and present affiliations are disclosed in the biography that's available on here. But surely it's hypocritical for those who accuse me of being motivated solely by the commercial interests of my former employer, not to reveal what interests or affiliations (eg, membership of political organizations or lobby groups) they might have - which, of course, anonymous posters never do.

'rstuart', you're right that those anonymous posters who do resort to crude personal abuse reveal more about themselves than they do about the targets of their abuse.

Incidentally, I don't seek to 'dumb down' stuff for public consumption. I've always tried to write about economic issues in language that the general public can understand, rather than in the language of academic journals. And I'm usually happy to engage in discussion with people who disagree or criticize what I've written, as long as they're not abusive. But I do reserve the right to defend myself against gratuituous or offensive personal abuse.

Saul Eslake:"in my view there ought to be, a greater obligaton on those who do use pseudonyms to observe the conventions that usually apply to civil discourse. "

Is the "obligaton" a special econometric term? The quantum of personal responsibility, perhaps?..

I don't agree. A properly placed barb can carry a great deal of meaning in a small package. The real shame is that so few seem capable of either constructing or placing such darts well, so things degenerate to mere abuse. I don't claim special status in this regard: despite my best efforts I sometimes cringe at the things that creep in.

As you say, when such abuse occurs it diminishes the lustre of the argument presented and can cause the discussion to derail. Such is life. If it were a perfect world you economists wouldn't have much to talk about...