Talk:Criticism of fractional-reserve banking/Archive 2

Neutrality and Content

This article really strikes me as biased and poorly put together.

If the intent of this article is to provide criticism of fractional reserve banking, then I don't see how constantly pointing out that “mainstream” economists don’t agree with the criticism is of any relevance.

I also object to the use of "mainstream" as some kind of a consensus reference. If someone has a scientific study saying that the vast majority of economists are now Keynesian and support fractional reserve banking then it needs to be referenced before a claim of "mainstream" is made. Even then it detracts from the criticism.

This article is supposed to be ONLY about criticism of the fractional reserve system, not about refuting criticism of the fractional reserve banking system. People should be given the critical points against the fractional reserve system and then be allowed to make up their own minds.

If the critical claims can be referenced and backed by sound theory, then that is all that should be presented. Refutations of criticism should not exist at all on this page as it should be an inherent part of the fractional reserve main article.

Wiki is on dangerous ground with this “rule by majority opinion” entry system. Dissenting voices are not adequately represented and opinions that conflict with the “mainstream” are often dismissed, deleted, or ridiculed openly even when backed by sound theory and evidence.

If people have problems with the criticisms of fractional reserve banking and want to post refutations to each point made, then those refutations should be on a separate page entitled “Rebuttals to criticisms” and they should also have a “Rejoinder to Rebuttals” in order for opposition responses to be heard.

This article however should be strictly reserved to CRITICISM of fractional reserve banking. Get the “consensus” and “mainstream” refutations out since they are meaningless anyways. Leave those for the main article or separate rebuttal articles/sections. Simply pointing out that "mainstream" economists don't agree is not a valid refutation. A valid refutation must contain sound theory or evidence against an explicit critical point. A valid refutation must point out WHY "mainstream" economists don't agree.

The article is a mess - it's a mesh-mash of information and editoral commentary. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, it seems to be confusing fractional reserve banking with fiat money. The "gold standard" is still fractional reserve banking, after all.76.166.204.89 (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This page is pathetic. It is expressed completely from the perspective of a proponent of fractional reserve banking. This article spends more time criticizing the critics of fractional reserve banking than it does allow space for the very necessary criticism of the current system. The article spends more time trying to debunk critics than it does provide criticism. A criticism page exists so people who aren't of the 'mainstream' opinion can express their views. Lines like this one "few if any mainstream economists now endorse such views" and "The term, 'debt-based monetary system', and related terms, such as "debt money"[6] are not used by conventional economists or academic neoclassical economists" belong on the fractional reserve banking page, not the CRITICISM of fractional reserve banking page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.18.159 (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The person who wrote above obviously didn`t read it all, the beginning seems like it`s from a proponent of the system. The person who wrote below obviously did read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.105.229 (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's the opposite - this article is biased in favour of criticism of fractional banking. That violates wp:npov. In fact, the very subject of this article violates WP:POVFORK. You shouldn't have articles solely related to criticizing something. You need to represent both points of view, and not just say that an opposite point of view exists without elucidating it. 163.1.146.198 (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2009

(UTC)

I agree that the article is biased in favour of fractional reserve banking. I disagree with 163.1.146.198 that the idea of having a 'Criticism of Fractional Reserve Banking' page is inherently biased. This is a huge topic, many books have and continue to be written on the subject. How else could it be covered in Wiki? If as part of the original Fractional Reserve Article, there would be the danger that the criticism section would be larger than the original section. Surely as long as readers are aware that this page is criticising fractional reserve banking we are on safe ground.

This article is incredibly biased against what the article is supposed to be talking about in the first place. Just wow... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.20.77 (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

References to Ellen Hodgson Brown don't need to be obliterated

Can someone please provide a ruling on this? Reasons for refs to be re-instated are (1) they are inserted to prove the existence of the opinion, not to establish the "truthfulness" of the opinion (2) She has a well-known book on this subject that is ref'd multiple times in the article already (3) the "blogs" are really just specific (easily accessible) applications of the ideas from the book (4) it would be tiresome to page ref the book when specific articles are available on her website.

I note also that her own entry on WP has been obliterated. What's going on? Why the paranoia? It's a published book after all. The time to get sensitive about this stuff would have been before the book became so well known. Now it looks as though people are just trying to cover up stuff. Let's chill on the application of too-strict rulings and allow people to adequately source material on this important topic, especially given the ongoing debate regarding the GFC. Let's be reasonable here guys. - TheFoodChainIsDying (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Likely, being a banned editor is the first issue you'll encounter in making your edits. BigK HeX (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. See WP:BAN. Ravensfire (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And just to reiterate the point I've made a few times in the talk pages, blogs are rarely good sources. In particular, Wordpress blogs are not going to meet that criteria. Please find a viable secondary source. Ravensfire (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I could well be wrong, but personally, my objections center around an impression I get, which is that some of your edits are meant as a vehicle of promotion about advocates of your preferred viewpoint -- in this case, an advocate of dubious notability. The fact that you are already breaking rules to include such questionable material magnifies the problem. While we're on the topic, IMO, even Rowbotham doesn't have enough notability (and certainly not the credibility) to receive such heavy mention in Wikipedia. WP:RS is yet another problem for your edits.

We know you have a beef with the banking system (and that's fine by me), but Wikipedia shouldn't serve as a platform to promote just any author that you like. There's more than enough high-profile criticism to focus on; sticking to that might go smoother for you. BigK HeX (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're addressing me, not Ravensfire, and given that I'm a polite man, I feel the need to politely respond.

(1) Define notable. (2) You will not get one mainstream writer talking about this stuff. Paul Samuelson's (RIP) textbook didn't cover this stuff because it was a mainstream text. To quote Rothbard on Samuelson's (RIP) text: “Samuelson’s Economics differs from its rivals largely in being bigger, more indigestible, and filled with the flip and unsupported wisecracks with which Samuelson is wont to dismiss deviant economic views.” (3) So, you're left with NON-mainstream (fringe) writers, or none at all. Rowbotham and Brown are arguably fringe in absolute terms but are very notable IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS ARTICLE. Similarly Jenna Jameson is not well known in absolute terms (I doubt many people in India are aware of her body of work) but I note she has an entry on WP. Context matters. (4) I'm not trying to promote anything. I'm trying to assist in this article being a reasonable survey of the literature in the field. I haven't fought to have Money as Debt put back in the article (even though it should). I have NEVER tried to put a "pure" Wordpress blog in any WP article. Brown has a PUBLISHED book ON THIS VERY TOPIC. The "blog" is a direct extension of her book. As I mentioned, it would be tiresome to just page ref the book when the "blog" is just sitting there, with relevant stuff. (5) I don't have a problem with banking. Free banking is fine by me. I have a problem with people who have a problem with people who want to do a reasonable job of covering the "main" writers in this field. That must necessarily include non-mainstream writers, because no one in academia writes about this stuff (at least they don't write about it and survive! Check out Antal E Fekete or Murray Rothbard or von Mises). (6) I had to laugh over the insinuation that I'm "promoting" Brown or Rowbotham. I'm more of an Austrian myself. I think Rowobotham's solutions are insane hyperinflationary garbage. In my view, killing off central banking is much more important than adding another fiat toilet paper currency to the mix. However, that doesn't mean his views should be censored on this topic, given he's written about it extensively.

I hope this is a reasonable response and shows I'm trying to be reasonable here. I recognize that Zealotry in economics is a curse and I'm simply trying to cover the field, even cover views I detest. - TheFoodChainIsDying (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes ... a reasonable response, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is reasonable for you to engage in editing.

"I have a problem with people who have a problem with people who want to do a reasonable job of covering the "main" writers in this field"

This cuts both ways .... if these fringe viewpoints are supposed to be representative of the major criticisms of this field, then it would be evidence that this topic was meant as a WP:POVFORK. Otherwise, there is some advisement which states:

* "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

There actually are criticisms of fractional-reserve banking from reliable sources, so Wikipedia guidelines seem to indicate that the article should stick to those. BigK HeX (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"I don't have a problem with banking. Free banking is fine by me."

I feel I should point out that free banking certainly does not preclude fractional reserves and, in fact, free banking systems in history had much LOWER reserve ratios than the US today. This distinction is muddled in the article. BigK HeX (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As a final note ... I would guess a person with your history probably knows quite a bit about "zealotry." In any case, as popular as the rhetoric may be on the internet, anarchocapitalism is simply not a mainstream viewpoint and their frequent targets of scorn aren't guaranteed to have expansive articles on Wikipedia, due to WP:RS and other such issues. My simple advice is that you might find more satisfaction by sticking to more innocuous edits, but ..... good luck with your crusade. BigK HeX (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. No definition of "notable" forthcoming (I understand it's a difficult concept to explain in simple terms) and you didn't really respond to the main points raised, but still those points you did raise were reasonable. I have to question this bizarre comment however: "I should point out that free banking certainly does not preclude fractional reserves and, in fact, free banking systems in history had much LOWER reserve ratios than the US today. This distinction is muddled in the article."

There are no enforceable reserve ratios in the US today. I would be amazed if the reserve ratios under a gold standard in the 19th century were lower than prevail today. Amazed.

To quote Post-Keynesian economist Steve Keen:

"America still has one [a reserve ratio], but it applies only to household deposits–where the ratio is 10%; but the absence of any requirement for corporate deposits makes a mockery of the very concept. I wasn’t surprised that the US has suspended this right now..."

MISH confirmed that bank reserves in the US went NEGATIVE (how that happens I will never understand).

Where the H*ll are you getting your information that bank reserves were lower in a free banking environment with gold as money? To my mind this is counterintuitive (free banking would allow banks to go bust so they'd be much more cautious) and plain wrong on the facts. - TheFoodChainIsDying (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

On the notability issue ... AFAIK the Web of Debt book does not meet Wikipedia's requirements to be a notable topic of its own, and also Ellen Brown may not meet notability requirements either, and also Brown's opinion is not necessarily free of a small/fringe viewpoint issues, and, fourthly, I don't see how Brown would be recognized as a credible expert on topics of economics or political science; with all four of these criteria unmet, I don't see any reason to promote her viewpoints for an economic policy topic. BigK HeX (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Free Banking

[...continued from previous page-section]

"I don't have a problem with banking. Free banking is fine by me."

I feel I should point out that free banking certainly does not preclude fractional reserves and, in fact, free banking systems in history had much LOWER reserve ratios than the US today. This distinction is muddled in the article. BigK HeX (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Where the H*ll are you getting your information that bank reserves were lower in a free banking environment with gold as money? To my mind this is counterintuitive (free banking would allow banks to go bust so they'd be much more cautious) and plain wrong on the facts. - TheFoodChainIsDying (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be reckless to assume someone else is wrong when it seems that the one thing you know for certain is that you, yourself, have none of the real-world facts that are being referenced; ironically enough, the low reserves factoid is available from a fan of Hayek and researcher for Cato. Not sure how it'd be "counter-intuitive" -- perhaps it's just that real-world facts often trump Rothbard's theorizing when you bother to look deeper than the flowery rhetoric. However, that's all beside the point. I just wanted to help keep the free banking concept straight in the article --- you seem to acknowledge yourself that fractional reserves still can exist with free banking systems, and thus it's fairly contradictory for the article to suggest that free banking is some sort of solution to criticisms of fractional reserve banking. BigK HeX (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I consider it a common courtesy to link the precise reference when making an assertion. Like I did, above. Twice. Could you please do the same. You've made an allegation without any reference other than to the Cato homepage. Given you're so particular about sourcing and have deleted EHB numerous times, I'm very surprised you've been so slack in your own referencing. But plumbers often have leaking taps at home.

Finally, you are plain wrong that free banking advocates are not critics of the current central bank supported PERPETUAL FRB system. To quote the notable (ha ha ha!) Murray Rothbard on this subject:

Given this dismal monetary and banking situation, given a 39:1 pyramiding of checkable deposits and currency on top of gold, given a Fed unchecked and out of control, given a world of fiat moneys, how can we possibly return to a sound noninflationary market money? The objectives, after the discussion in this work, should be clear: (a) to return to a gold standard, a commodity standard unhampered by government intervention; (b) to abolish the Federal Reserve System and return to a system of free and competitive banking; (c) to separate the government from money; and (d) either to enforce 100 percent reserve banking on the commercial banks, or at least to arrive at a system where any bank, at the slightest hint of nonpayment of its demand liabilities, is forced quickly into bankruptcy and liquidation. While the outlawing of fractional reserve as fraud would be preferable if it could be enforced, the problems of enforcement, especially where banks can continually innovate in forms of credit, make free banking an attractive alternative.

The connection between trying to control FRB and free banking should be obvious. The reference isn't needed because it's on the WP page for Murray Rothbard which anyone can look up. Cheers. - TheFoodChainIsDying (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue of the reserve levels wanders from the topic at hand ... which is that free banking does not eliminate fractional reserve banking, and thus makes for a muddled "solution" in an article that is (ostensibly) about criticizing fractional reserve banking.

* "...you are plain wrong that free banking advocates are not critics of the current central bank supported PERPETUAL FRB system"

... I never said they were not critical of the current banking system. You seem to conflate the two topics, but this article says it is specifically about "fractional reserve banking," not "regulated banking systems like that of the US with its central bank." My attempt to maintain the distinction about free banking should be pretty straightforward, but since there seems to be some snag, let's just get right into the heart of the matter.

Do you believe there is evidence that a free banking system would virtually eliminate institutions with fractional (less than 100%) reserves?

(Do you have a reliable source stating such?)

An ancillary question might be, "Do you think banks with less than 100% reserves become unprofitable in a free banking system?

BigK HeX (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

History has spoken on this issue. When banks were free to print their own currency (backed in theory by specie), they practiced FRB and tended to overprint, leading to many bank failures and periodic banking crisis. To suggest that free banking would eliminate FRB borders on the ridiculous. LK (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree history has spoken, but it's not on your side. When central banks exist to backstop the banking system, moral hazard becomes endemic, with central banks always and everywhere tending to overprint to save their friends. Although (again) you don't reference your assertion I can reference mine. The issue is NOT whether banks tend to overprint in a free banking environment (FRbanks exist to overprint, and would do so on Mars given the chance). The question is whether the volume of paper has been overprinted MORE or LESS compared to a central bank-dominated monetary system (ie has inflation been worse with central banks or within a free banking environment). I haven't seen one scrap of evidence to suggest post-1913 USA was less inflationary than pre-1913. In fact, I've seen loads and loads of evidence to suggest that post-1913 USA has had much (much!) higher inflation than pre-1913, with the period around WWI and in the 1970s being particularly brutal to the middle classes. If anyone has evidence that total inflation in the 19th century was far greater than occurred in the 20th, please post it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.42.239 (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you came back to this discussion and neatly avoided the plain question I posed to you. Hmmm.

In any case, whatever you think you referenced in your first sentence above .... didn't actually provide compelling evidence of anything. More importantly, however, I see you're now trying to toss out a nice juicy red herring about "the quantity of overprinting" when the article is about "debt-money"/fractional-reserve banking. People will just have to accept the fact that they're not going to be able to stuff an entire spectrum of anarchocapitalist concepts onto this coatrack article. The article claims to discuss criticisms about the very nature of the fractional reserve system --- paragraphs of glowing praise for free banking would run counter to that subject and lead to misunderstandings.

I suppose it could be confusing, but the bottom line is that simply because Rothbard occasionally railed against fractional reserves, it does NOT mean that every monetary concept he ever discussed fits in with the criticisms within this article. BigK HeX (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you don't know how to directly reference your statements, you type in the http address of the ref inside square brackets [http]. I'm just trying to be helpful, because you haven't given one quality reference to your assertion that overprinting has been worse in a free banking environment than in a central bank-controlled system. You may have a quality ref just sitting there burning a hole in your pocket and you're unsure how to present it. If so, please feel free to add it in now. Then again, it appears the main page has been semi-protected (again) perhaps to ensure more refs are not included in the article. It appears a number of editors are focusing slightly more on removing stuff rather than adding. I note that you haven't added one new ref although you've deleted some stuff. You also seem to have a problem with the Austrian School and MR in particular judging from your derogatory edits on the AS page. Mastcell seems stuck in the same rut (deleting not contributing). Perhaps you both think "editing" means "deleting"? It doesn't. You can actually add stuff as well. You might want to try it sometime, as I understand WP is now having difficulties attracting editors who actually want to contribute. I wonder why?

Well ... in response

A) I know how to post references here. I also know what is and is not relevant to this discussion. In any case, what you consider to be "supporting references" for many assertions could be stronger... Those like your "overprinting" example ref above look like the kind of poorly-related webpage that could be found by spending just 30 seconds or so on Google; I guess this problem is relevant to your complaint about a lot of the text being zapped, since huge swaths of it had WP:RS problems.

B) I'm confident that there's nothing in your link that was a "derogatory" edit on the AS page.

C) I am aware of what it means to edit on Wikipedia, and deletion's place in that. Perhaps you're not aware of the the difference that tactful behavior could have made with your experience here.

But all of the above is largely inconsequential. The main problem I see is that there seems to be a seriously muddled conflation between the concepts of: "inflation," "the fractional reserve banking system," "the gold standard," "central banking," "free banking" and a few others -- basically, there appears to be an attempt to mash up every anarchocapitalist monetary boogeyman&buzzword and wedge them into this article. I'm confident that it would help to keep the articles a lot clearer if participating editors came to a thorough understanding of those concepts and the relationships between them. BigK HeX (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

One final note - you appear to have a very narrow, binary "Marxist-dialectic" view of this article. It's not FRB or full banking alone. Sometimes there is more than simply an "and or" position. As MR illustrates, advocating free banking is in and of itself an implicit criticism of the (alleged) "counterfeiting" or "Ponzi" mechanism underlying FRB (I'm using MR's terminology here). Any call for an increase in reserve ratios would be an implicit criticism of the "counterfeiting" allegedly implicit in FRB and should be added to this article. For example, if you have the time (and ability) I'd appreciate it if you would add this recent excellent research by Geanakopolos into the article. He calls for an increase in the reserve ratios at all major banks. I consider this analysis relevant to this now-protected article.

You may want to consider the possibility that it's not my "narrow view," but that the free banking issue is contradictory here. In particular, how you claim that Free banking serves as any sort of impeachment of FRB continues to baffle me, considering that the policy change it would have on reserve ratios is to just open up the lowest end of the reserve spectrum. As you just said, calls for preventing low reserves might be appropriate for the subject of this article, but that's certainly quite a different thing from free banking. There's absolutely no history showing that the fractional reserve system was "solved" by free banking, but if it makes sense to you that the legalization of even lower reserves makes for a sensible criticism of the concept of fractional reserve banking, well then I'm not sure what more to say. BigK HeX (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Some text violated policy, but I had a response for it. Since my effort in constructing it has already been expended, I guess I'll go ahead and post it:

(To the IP editor) You might find it helpful to know that I hardly need you to "break it down" to me, when discussing the banking system. I may have little inclination at this time to expand your understanding, but you shouldn't take that to mean that I lack an understanding. I didn't read very far into your post, but one sentence did catch my eye --- I'm not "puzzled" that Austrians claim that reserves might be higher under free banking, in fact, I'm well aware of that speculation. That speculation is not our main problem here. As I've mentioned before, your understanding of monetary concepts appears to be muddled, judging by the edits here. I could spend time pointing out dozens of instances, but I'll give you the courtesy of one example of what I mean. In your long post, you conflated "central banking" with the specific function of "lender of last resort function" and/or "government-sanctioned bank bailouts." The two may be related but are not the same. Allowing the muddling of all of these concepts would be a disservice to those who depend on Wikipedia, and I don't see a need to allow that. I'm not trying to hinder you ... in fact, if you weren't a banned editor, and you made relevant edits that had reflected a technical precision in language and indicated an accurate understanding of the material, I certainly would not stand in your way. BigK HeX (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Marxist-Soviet Dialectic or Plain Old Contradiction?

Does it strike anyone else that it's strange to have this page protected AND to have a request for editors to improve the page because of "multuple issues" with the page? If it's any help I undertake not to touch the page, provided it isn't completely purged of content (BigHex did a reasonable but not complete purge job). I can't believe there aren't people out there with additional references to finish the job on this page. Given that we are finding (French?) PIIGS really can't fly on irredeemable debt money (at least not forever), and sovereign debt is the last irredeemable debt to suddenly default, it's a pretty topical page right now. Perhaps Mastcell can reconsider the ban? Or perhaps other editors can clean up the page? There are approximately 6.79 billion people on this God-forsaken planet. I'm surprised I'm the only one who has an interest in cleaning up the refs on this page. Could one or two others of the 6.79 billion please help out. Other than BigHex of course, who deletes a little more often than he contributes.

Smells like yet another wonderful KiK-Conflation ['contributing' and 'adding text']. Aside from your many other faulty understandings, perhaps, one day you'll come to realize that deletion (in service of the WP policies) IS a contribution. The deletions mostly stem from your blatant efforts to hang every Austrian school monetary buzzword that you've ever heard of onto the coatrack article as it was originally created. Anyways, even though you lack the capacity to understand my contributions, I might have provided one of the most important simple additions to your little pet project article. I (possibly single-handedly) took it out of the moronic nutjob fringe, and gave it the bit of historical mainstream respectability that your coatrack project has (not to take anything away from the weeks of struggle invested into the article by quite a few other editors). All in all, considering the disaster that you left in the laps of Wikipedia's reasonable editors, I'm rather proud of my small work with the article, deletions included (perhaps, especially). BigK HeX (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you think a guy with an eraser is the equivalent of a Shakespeare. Hard to get published with just an eraser, but good luck in any case. A few quick comments: (1) "Mainstream respectability"? That wouldn't be the same group of mainstream idiots who completely failed to forsee the biggest economic catastrophe since the Great Depression, would it? The same ones who caused the disaster? You can vote for who in the "mainstream" was the biggest idiot in causing this crisis here. Please cast your vote. (2) I'm glad you have such a high opinion of yourself, but could someone with slightly less hubris and more citations start contributing to this page please. It is a mess right now, and as it is still page protected someone with an established name needs to clean this up. Despite BigHex's view that his brilliant deletions "add" to the page, I dare say actually adding a few additional cites would be more productive and useful to the average reader than simply deleting whole slabs of the material. And BigHex - building bombs with depleted uranium is also "production" but isn't as lasting as a Shakespeare play. "Bombing" a site and producing a prescient piece of writing that few people in the world could have written are slightly different "skills". Perhaps this distinction eludes you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.51.49 (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And just on your stale "challenge" above, asking whether free banking would "virtually eliminate" FRB, I give you this piece by Frank Shostak. He couldn't have described the Austrian position on free banking any more clearly. I think even you will "get" the point that free banking constrains FRB activities through reading this article. If you come back with some snide comment that it doesn't address your issue, then I'm afraid we have to agree to disagree whether free would (greatly!) constrain FRB in a way no central bank-supported system could. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.51.49 (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You amaze me nearly every single time, with your uncanny ability to stuff so many fallacy-ridden arguments and false "proofs" into your silly diatribes. BigK HeX (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually .... you know what? I've got a few minutes to kill. Let's have a little fun and see how many we can find!

1. "you think a guy with an eraser is the equivalent of a Shakespeare" -- false attribution/straw man
2. writing of a play compared to the editing of an encyclopedia --- false analogy
3. "...with just an eraser" --- Ignoring the edits where I've made additions? cherry picking
4. "Hard to get published with just an eraser..." --- Who in the world was talking about "getting published"? red herring
5. "...group of mainstream idiots who completely failed to forsee..." Completely failed, eh? hasty generalization
6. "you have such a high opinion of yourself" Umm ... pride in one's effort ≠ high opinion of one's self false attribution or mere ad hominem
7. "building bombs with depleted uranium is also "production"" ... red herring
8. "...but isn't as lasting as a Shakespeare play." The goal is following WP's policies, not creating legendary art. red herring
9. ""Bombing" a site and producing a prescient piece of writing that few people in the world could have written" ... errr, WP:WikipediaIsNotAnActOfWar and WP:NOT#ESSAY, that's two red herrings for the price of one

Woohoo! At least 10 fallacies in 13 sentences. I think you win! BigK HeX (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You do have a lot of time on your hands! Not enough time to comment on the Frank Shostak piece (clearly showing the connection between CONSTRAINING FRB and free banking) and not enough time to vote for the biggest mainstream idiot who caused the GFC. But enough time to spend reading through this talk page - strangely without lifting a finger to add much-needed cites (Shostak, Geanakopolos) to the main page. Strange priorities. And no sense of humor. But then, given the "quality" of your discussion on the AS talk page, hardly surprising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.51.49 (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A "much needed cite"??? That's hilarious. If calling it a "false proof" wasn't enough .... what more could I possibly say about that self-published blog piece where Shostak rambles off a bunch of bare assertions about banking. Clearly Shostak hits a logical home run when he pulls this gem of wisdom out of the blue, that with "....free banking...the potential for the creation of money out of thin air is minimal." Certainly, there's no room for disputing the convincing case that Shostak presents on free banking [which is about one sentence long]. Maybe someone else will play the fun game of counting how many WP policies would be violated by trying to use the Shostak piece as a citation. Maybe the Wikipedia Fun Club will be interested?? Do ya think??? BigK HeX (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh... and if you're truly concerned about the "quality" of talk page discussion --- see my above fallacy count and go from there. I hate to deprive you of the audience you crave, but I think I've had enough laughs for one thread. BigK HeX (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that, after I stand up to your "challenge" and provide a directly relevant cite from someone who did actually predict the GFC, you produce nothing but ad homs and snide comments. Shostak actually takes at least 10 paragraphs to carefully describe the process of FRB in both a free and central bank-supported environment. He also explains his "money out of thin air" comment at length. Your derogatory comments are therefore disingenuous. I would be interested in the number of WP policies violated by daring to include this in the main page. He is an economist and adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute. Article entries from Mises have been accepted in the past (note: this is not a blog entry). What more do you want? An endorsement from Larry Summers? And I note you've had nothing to say about the Geanakopolos piece. Cat got your tongue on that one too? BigK Hex, I think we both know your edits/deletions betray a bias towards the now-discredited central-bank loving mainstream. There's no shame in that (there are lots of people out there just like you - they're called Keynesians). I just don't know why you want to come onto this side of the shoreline, when there are lots of Keynesian parties happening on other beaches (Japan for 20 years, now Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Iceland, the UK, Washington). Why not "party" on those trendy Keynesian pages and leave this boring, esoteric page alone? You clearly aren't interested in any critic of FRB or central banking (you haven't added a single anti-FRB cite in all your edits/deletions). You can't seriously suggest you're "NPOV" can you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.53.84 (talk) 05:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

And I suggest that now is the time to quit, while you're way behind. Digging a bigger hole for yourself on free banking would make you look even more Keynesian (after all, digging bigger and bigger unpayable, irredeemable debt-holes is what Keynesianism is famous for! Ha Ha Ha!).

Undue weight

This article is almost as large as the article on Fractional-reserve banking itself. Can anyone find a single resource which establishes the notability of all this criticism?

Some of it is interesting history, and it's also worth noting fringe views, but the article seems to treat a fringe view with undue weight. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Did a fair amount of clean-up. Hope it's appreciated. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not frankly. The removal of the non-RS source doesn't make sense in the context of the article. The bible believers site is not used to verify the "truth" of allegations, but simply to confirm that some individuals are using the term "debt-money". It's irrelevant whether they are RS or not - to ref the website is to confirm the existence of the use of the term itself. To use an analogy: If the article read "Some monetary reformers believe Jim Cramer is a shyster paid by Goldman Sachs to push people further into debt" and the article referenced this to a non-RS website entitled "We Are Monetary Reformers And Hate Jim Cramer Because He Is A Slimy Shyster" that would be a legitimate ref to confirm the statement that "Some monetary reformers believe Jim Cramer is a shyster" not to confirm the "reality" that Jim Cramer is a shyster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.82.209 (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That's incorrect. You're making the assumption that the site has correct information, that it hasn't made the reference up. If a site is not a WP:RS, then the information in there should not be used in an article. Ravensfire (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No, we are talking about the mere EXISTENCE of the English term "Debt money". It exists because a non-RS site used it. It still exists. You cannot deny it exists - the ref itself proves the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.82.209 (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope - doesn't work that way. It's gotta be from a RS. If it's truly being used, then it shouldn't be that hard to find. It's it a term used by a small, fringe group that nobody's heard of, and we can only find the term on some offball site, it cannot be used. If you want to state something as a fact (including that a term is used), there should be a RS reference behind it. Ravensfire (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, what about a published book and a ref from WP itself - Money as Debt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.82.209 (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I also think the potential societal impact section is far too long and unref'd but the potential solutions sections is both necessary and fully ref'd. So once the ban comes off I'll be rearranging Zenwhat's edits slightly and I hope that's OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.82.209 (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove the Bible Believer's site because I didn't think it was "true". That's irrelevant. It's not an RS.

Wikipedia doesn't reference non-RS in any situation. If you think otherwise, you're mistaken. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I repeat: OK, what about a published book and a ref from WP itself - Money as Debt? RS is so subjective, I just wanted to check what gets through and what doesn't before I put it in.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.82.209 (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.130.65 (talk)

There are likely better places to ask, though it's probably a strange question to be posed by a banned editor. BigK HeX (talk) 03:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

In reverse order, Wikipedia should (almost) never be used as a source for a Wikipedia article. Everything except for commonly accepted facts (the sky is blue) should be sourced, so you use the source in the other article. Web Of Debt seems to be a self-published source from a vanity press. Those usually aren't going to cut it as reliable sources. Ravensfire (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Whoa... hold on... too many terms I don't understand. What's "vanity press"? And surely a non-RS site can be used just to confirm the existence of the term "debt-money". The article had words to the effect "Some monetary reformers refer to money created in parallel with debt as 'debt money'." If the only sites that use the term "debt-money" are non-RS, does that mean that the term doesn't exist at all? I mean, I'm looking at a site and it says "America's Greatest Problem - It's Debt Money System!!!" Doesn't that - in itself - confirm the existence of the term in the modern English language? Similarly, if there was an article on swearing and the article read 'Some people swear by referring to a woman's .... as "c*#t"' - can that be referenced to a youtube comedy shot or a non-RS website actually using the term, or does WP consider that the term does not exist AT ALL merely because no RS uses the term?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.130.65 (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Click on the links in the post and read them. Your other questions have been answered above, even if you don't like the answer. Ravensfire (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I did. EHB didn't publish her own book. And there's no reference to "vanity press" in the links you provided, so I'm at a loss to know what the Hell that means. Does it mean each book comes with a little mirror built into the inside front cover of every copy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.130.65 (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

First link in the self-published sources is to Vanity press. The reading I did on 3rd Millenium Press was pretty clear that's it falls into that category. I also found several sites (author help sites, incidentally) that also describe it as such. As for the rest, you're trying to be difficult. No worries - you've got all the information available to you about why those references won't work. Ravensfire (talk) 04:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Where is the RS that EHB's book has been paid for by her? Note: It must be RS. Your own self-publised suspicions won't cut it I'm afraid (that's WP policy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.130.65 (talk) 04:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess subtle hints won't work. Here - let me point you to a few things. First - the Third Millenium Press website. Second - look at the second paragraph. Third - note this phrase "...authors with the infrastructure and resources necessary to publish and sell their work themselves" It's not too hard to find, really. The burden of proof is on you, the person wanting to use the reference, to show it is reliable. I suggest trying RSN. Ravensfire (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Ravensfire above. I came to the same conclusion about the publishers -- that Enghart and Third Millenium Press fail WP:RS. If the question is referred to the WP community, and the source is approved, then that's all well and good. Until then, KarmaIsKing probably should expect that such sources will be removed from any Wiki article. BigK HeX (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I hate to rain on everyone's parade, but I feel as I'm the only human amongst the 6.79 billion monetary ignoramuses to give a damn about this article, despite my busy schedule, it falls to me to respond (yet again). (1) I thought only reliable SECONDARY sources are acceptable in WP. Ravensfire's investigative skills are impressive, but constitute OR. Where is the reliable secondary source saying EHB's book was paid for by her? (2) This is particularly important given Ravensfire's bizarre straw man attack. The book is published (now) by Engdahl Publishing. Regardless of 3rd Millenium's status, that's really beside the point. Why even raise it now? As a "set up" to delete? (3) Guys, let's get real here. When a book has over 140 comments in the review section of Amazon, when it has an associated blog drawing thousands of hits every week (sometimes tens of thousands), when the author has appeared on The Keiser Report and when reviews have come from The Daily Bell and others praising the work as well researched and ground-breaking, I think you can safely say that denying its existence is pretty pointless. Putting your heads in the sand on this one ain't gonna cut it. I'm gonna drag you heads out of the sand and shove them into something warm, moist and very, very smelly. The damn ugly truth. Old media used to reflexively run when this stuff was discussed (Rothbard never appeared on 60 Minutes). It's kind of funny when mainstreamers think the same games can be played on WP, with no commercials and limitless e-space. How can you possibly justify deleting the book now? I watch with interest how you guys try to squirm out of this one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenGooIsaGreatActor (talk • contribs) 09:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Short version: "Boo hoo! My sources are super-crappy. Waah waah, why do the mean 'Keynesians' keep enforcing Wikipedia's rules with me! I'm such a victim."

BigK HeX (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Instead of wasting everyone's time with long-winded and pathetic rants, you could do as advised and take the matter up with the RSN. (When it fails there -- as it almost certainly should -- maybe then you'll realize that getting this article to a state that you find satisfactory actually takes hard work.) Once you pull your head out of the sand and decide to do that work, you might find that you'll actually become educated on this topic you keep trying to write about, as opposed to continuing with the current mishmash of confused misunderstandings that you continue to exhibit. Of course, being banned might make the issue moot ... BigK HeX (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ravensfire: Wikipedia should not "almost" never use itself as a reference. Wikipedia should never, never, never, never, never ever ever ever EVER use itself as a reference. Imagine a book establishing a fact on page 10 merely because the same fact was previously stated on page 3. I agree Web Of Debt seems to be self-published. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Wellll, there is that one exception for saying something about Wikipedia itself ... Agree though, best to say Never. Ravensfire (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Typos and Errors

Whilst we're in the midst of the worst developed-world public debt crisis human civilization has ever seen (funny, it ain't) I notice that multiple errors remain on this page and no one gives a damn. "Monetary Reform" should be "Monetary reform" to clean up the wiki link. Sections need to be referenced or deleted. The unnecessary "Parental Warning" stickers need to be removed. I wonder if Goldman Sachs or Barclays controls this page and is preventing editing so that the page can't be improved? Perhaps I'm getting paranoid in my old age... - $atan's$pawn (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This little Sysiphus can now rest a while... - $atan's$pawn (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No rest for the wicked, apparently... (and just when I thought I had this article nailed with great references, including the great de Soto!) - $$$MakeMore$$$ (talk) 05:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Money / credit contractions

A "credit crunch" occurs where new debt money is not available at any interest rate - even for those with previously acceptable credit ratings - due to widespread insolvency in the banking system.

Virtually all of debt money / credit are check book entries that don't exist until a loan is issued. If something does not exist until it is invented / loaned / issued, then its invention or issue or loaning is just a matter of policy. If it is "not available," as in the above quotation from the current article, then it is only by will or policy.

• Please state or even speculate in the article who it is in the USA, Canada, UK who sets policy and when it should be implemented.

• Provide several sets of ideas as to why they do what they do.

• Say or speculate or theorize at what point the camel's back would be considered broken and the current system not end in a one world government with a one world currency and an RFID chip implanted in each of us recording our right to live that could be turned off at will.

The issue or crunching of money supplies and credit are controlled by private individuals who own the monetary system.

The debts are all owed to these people who keep their identities secret and therefore shall not declare this wealth and power to the tax authorities simply because all of the debt of most countries on the planet are owed to them personally by the tax payers of all those indebted countries.

The economic cycles are made to happen on purpose, but their timing is impossible to predict without insider information. Pundits such as David Icke spell out in clear language why this is so.

Consider this video presentation made by an evangelical Christian preacher in church in 2003 about the economic system involved with the US Federal Reserve System. In this video sequence it is explained how the crash of 1929 happened. A US Senator who owned his own bank received a call from the American Banking Association (or similar such organization) telling him instructions to follow in the upcoming period of time to cause the crash and subsequent contraction of the money supply. Many other interesting information is mentioned also about just which politicians were critical of the monetary system. It explains the history involving the bank runs that happened in 1907 that lead to the secret plans of the US Fed in 1910, the vote splitting that happened between conservative republicans Howard Taft and Teddy Roosevelt to get Woodrow Wilson elected president because the backers of Wilson provided millions of dollars of funding to support Roosevelt to fix the election via the vote splitting scheme, then the signing of the Fed Reserve Act of Christmas eve of 1913.

Consider also the threat of population growth on finite planetary resources and how these things are reported by government officials and the news media. It mentions the peak oil predictions, the reserves of coal that were miscalculated, the new oil finds that would sustain consumption for only a few days at most, and all sorts of lucid illustrations of why the population growth must stop or reverse itself in fairly short order.

http://www.bankingcanada.ca/ auto-plays an audio recording loop of a lecture by David Icke of England about the nature of fiat debt based money existing only after a loan is issued. The site refers to a Canadian banking policy story about Pierre Elliot Trudeau and his finance minister Jean Chretien being pressured in 1974 to monetize Canada's debt by officials representing the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. The controllers of the World Bank and the IMF are not your average guys.

Oldspammer (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Skimming the above post roughly, a lot of the suggested links (and related ideas) seem to fall under WP:FRINGE. BigK HeX (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Talking yesterday with a mainstream Canadian economist, you are correct in your presumption that my ideas are non-mainstream with university trained / indoctrinated economists, but this is because my mathematical modeling of how the economy works runs with the assertion that the influence of fractional reserve banking (part of the topic of this wiki article) has an 80+% influence on the money supply of a nation. My other main assertion is that private bankers and their professional associations are completely able to call the shots on (this 80+% amount of) market liquidity, wiping out any true market forces in the economy with respect to inflation, credit, and deflation, regardless or in spite of governments' spending--be it from debt-free money or from monetized debt-money.

If a private individual's yearly salary or wages is well outstripped by his interest payments, then that person should declare bankruptcy. If the same thing happens to a government, it too, in a way, has to declare the same. When in bankruptcy, the government or the individual usually has to become subservient to the lender, hopefully settling the debt amount at pennies on the dollar as a loss for the lender, however, how often is this seen in the case of governments? With governments, they tend to give away their sovereignty by any number of methods including giving away lands, resources, and influence over law making--tyranny.

We in USA, Canada, EU, and other places have seen laws that materialize "out of nowhere" that adversely affect the general public to severely restrict freedoms, public ownership of highways, hydroelectric power generation, fresh water supplies, electronic voting systems, while increasing the tax burden, and so on, while loosening restrictions on media ownership, monopolies, trade with lower wage nations, financial derivatives, government corruption, and so on.

Non-mainstream media critics everywhere are attempting to identify that there are scams being run against "the people." For example, the human caused global warming scam where laws are being prepared so that Gestapo brigades will be sent house to house, and to targeted businesses to inspect them for "trace green house gas" production infringements, while the true polluters pay fake carbon offset credits to permit them really to pollute to extremes. While the planet's climate and temperature is always changing, this is due completely to the influence of something called "the sun." Solar output is not constant. There are things known as solar cycles, and sun spot cycles. Temperatures on other planets are known to fluctuate over time--is this due to human activity? The main green house gas on planet Earth is water vapor that has an overwhelming influence compared to trace atmospheric gases. Cold ocean waters hold within them higher saturation levels of all atmospheric gases including water vapor, CO2 and methane, as compared with warmer ocean waters--this is a law of physics. (Warmer water evaporates more water vapor, and similarly emits other gases that it had held in solution.) It is just a trick to cause taxes to rise, individual rights to be taken away that global warming is being blamed entirely on human activity. The warming and cooling evidence of ice core samples shows that CO2 levels correlate highly with the changes, excepting that its levels trail the temperature change rather than proceed it. Global temperatures obviously effect the temperatures of the oceans.

Who is behind this human made global warming scam? Decades ago at 4th World Wilderness Congress in 1987, Maurice Strong, a Canadian tycoon involved in oil and mining, introduced a speaker to the lectern who would be promoting a new bank that would supposedly assist in fighting the global warming problem. It was then called the World Conservation Bank, but has subsequently been named The Global Environment Facility (GEF).

bank set in motion by international financier Edmond de Rothschild and Maurice Strong

a Google search Link for info

Google Video search for items on Maurice Strong and Rothschild

The prior linked videos claimed that the IMF, Wold Bank, and Bank for International Settlements influenced Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien to monetize all further government spending and the existing Canadian government debt in 1974. The Rothschild family are supposedly deeply involved in the founding of those and many such world-government organizations.

If inflation is to be combated or not, excess money supply is to blame, as is the fight to balance trade deficits. Witness each time the Canadian dollar rises with respect to the American dollar--what do Canadian business leaders and their think tanks all start preaching? Most want to lower the Canadian standard of living by lowering the value of the Canadian dollar so that Canadian goods and services can remain competitive with those of other nations--as opposed to renegotiating wages and salaries of their workers to suitable levels, thereby avoiding mass layoffs. But what this Canadian dollar rise would also mean is that Canadians could buy up foreign competitors more easily by having a currency that is of increasing relative value, and that the value of Canadian cash savings would have appreciated, rather than depreciated in value. With the 80+% influence on the supply of money through fractional reserve banking practices, foreign and Canadian private bankers within Canada can vary the Canadian supply of money more so than the government--with or without having government debt. If part of the partial goal of any government spending is to increase wealth within the country, it will have the opposite effect if that spending is borrowed because taxes must then pay back both the principle plus the interest. If just the principle was paid back, then no net result would happen from borrowing, but the compound interest must also be paid, and this results in a net negative economic wealth of that particular country. This is a fact unless there is some hidden foolish assertion that "debt should never be repaid," and compound interest should be allowed to accumulate so that the tax burden on the people is deliberately increased until taxes will no longer cover it--forcing bankruptcy on the nation.

• So, I still want to see the current article address what key mainstream economic assertions in the economic models say that private bankers do not have this dominant situation with respect to a currency's value, inflation / deflation, and liquidity, virtually casting aside the influence of government to cause or prevent inflation whether or not government borrowing or debt free spending is used to attempt to grow the economy of the given nation. Oldspammer (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Good comment Oldspammer.

From a broad perspective what I wonder about is why the available supply of credit, or money dictates the supply and demand of goods and services by controlling how much work, employment there is available due to companies reliance on the capital available. The result of this being that the amount of available work is completely dependent on the availability of capital.

This system or framework is completely upside down and everyone would be better off in an economic system where the supply of money flexibly followed the "demand for work" and the "supply of consumers" that would follow from earnings for that work. A capital system that was flexible enough to enable the maximum employment possible and which was not so inefficient that it actually "discouraged" people from looking for work. A easy way to understand the ridiculousness of the current system or framework is obvious when one considers the loss of productivity that results from a %10 vs %4 unemployment rate which is guaranteed to result in much higher productivity losses (therefore lower supply resulting in higher prices) than the losses of productivity due to loan defaults if enough capital was supplied to maximize employment. Just to be clear my point is that the current system is obviously flawed and so is any system that does not maximize employment while retaining free trade between individuals along with supply and demand principles. It is obvious the current system is the best system implemented up until now but that in no way rules out the possibility that a better system is possible which will continue the evolutionary trend of ever improving economic systems that has been happening since commerce began and wherein each evolutionary step has generally been beneficial to everyone from the richest of the rich to the peasants, slaves and poorest of the poor.174.4.3.121 (talk) 17:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Article could use massive rewrite

It's no secret that it was written as a POV WP:COATRACK, and despite attention from editors interested in correcting balance and notability issues, it still could use a substantial rewrite. Building it from a stub might be the most effective way to do so. BigK HeX (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article could use serious rewriting. However, that's not a valid reason for essentially blanking it. I've removed the worst section and all the portions marked as uncited. What remains appears to be either cited or unchallenged, though there are a few "whos" and challenges to neutrality. These are issues which can be corrected. There is no hurry and blanking appears to be overkill here. Yworo (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned, if you're going to wikihound my edits ... I don't mind if you restore the text and then actually fix it. If you're just going to revert me and then only spend 60 seconds deleting a single section and just leaving the article rather close to the sorry state it was already in, then that IS a problem to me.

I think that this article should be merged with Criticism of the Federal Reserve and put back in the sub-section of Fractional-reserve banking. There is not enough stuff out there to make this a full article, unless you create the article as a soapbox for Austrian economics -- which quite a few pages on Wikipedia unfortunately are.

It's a fork for a fringe-view. Imagine if faith-healer Wikipedians made an article, "Criticism of modern medicine". Fractional-reserve banking is a part of basic, mainstream economics. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't belong in the article Criticism of the Federal Reserve, as that would imply a US-centric view. Criticism of fractional-reserve banking is an international phenomenon. The only article it could be correct merged with would be Fractional-reserve banking itself. Yworo (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin

Why was this sentence removed? It made no claims about any third party, only sourced the opinions of the subject of the sentence. Yworo (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This cannot be a serious question.

G. Edward Griffin has written that a fractional-reserve based banking system is inherently destructive and inevitably generates debasement of the currency, extreme inequality or periodic crises;

It's glaringly obvious that Griffin's opinion is directly characterizing a third party (the banking system) as written in the article. BigK HeX (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The banking system is not a party. It's a system of multiple individual banks. No identifiable entity is being attacked. You really need to step back from this rather than twist the rules beyond all recognition. Yworo (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you'd bother to read the source, that chapter isn't about the current banking system at all. It starts with The Bank of Venice in 1361 and runs through problems with fractional reserve at the Bank of England in 1857! Read the source before putting your foot in it. Yworo (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Response to third opinion request:

to Quote Yworo "It's a system of multiple individual banks. No identifiable entity is being attacked."—Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

.

Yworo himself makes it quite clear above that the "identifiable entities" include the Bank of Venice and the Bank of England.

Even aside from that, policy demands no such requirement that entities being individually identifiable.

The logic that this insertion of text is "OK" simply because

A) someone holds that opinion (in an unreliable source), and

B) because the target of criticism is not some specific individual

seems rather sketchy to me. Using that exact same logic we could include Time Cube-based criticisms of physics into the physics article simply based on the idea that:

A) we can "verify" that Gene Ray holds the opinion that Time Cube is an accurate theory, and that

B) mainstream physics is not an "identifiable entity"

I'm pretty sure that someone just having an opinion floating in the ether is not sufficient for inclusion, just because the target of the criticism isn't a single human.

But in case, Yworo himself elaborates on the specific "identifiable entitites". BigK HeX (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hold up, allow me to look at this source, I was not asked about that Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The individual seems notable enough for the opinion given, he is not a top notch economist but he is not Joe the Plumber either. I was planning on nominating it for merge as suggested above anyway. this is a POV-fork article to begin with Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahh OK -- I definitely agree that it's a POV-fork. Just to wrap things up for this question, did you settle on a whether 3rd parties are being characterized here? BigK HeX (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not beleive as the context is in the article. Whether or not the Original Source is? thats unable to verified by myself, but its a minor point if we agree with the merge as it won't be here since in an Article on the Criticism of Such a system he is notable but in a wider article than he cannot be there without violating WP:UNDUE Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources?

This edit seems to be disputed rather stringently. The sourcing may need to be re-verified given the recent rewrite. BigK HeX (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Expansion of the actual criticisms of FRB urgently needed

With due respect, this discussion is abysmal, no doubt because of the vagueness of the original article. An article about "Criticism of fractional-reserve banking" needs to address what the criticisms are rather than who made them and what school of economics he or she belongs to and whether self-proclaimed orthodoxists regard them as members of their club. As a result, multiple unrelated criticicisms are bundled together. To give a illustration:

  Criticism: fractional-reserve banking (FRB)allows banks to issue spendable money against non-redeemable debts
  Prevarication: Critics condemn fiat money. These critics want to return to the gold standard.
  Rebuttal: Such critics are not orthodox so their views don't count.

You see the problem? Governments printing debt-free money is not the same as banks printing debt-money but it links together these separate concepts and throws in a third irrelevant one - the gold standard as if that's the only alternative. It's perfectly possible to "approve" of fiat money while "condemning" FRB and not wanting anything to do with the archaic gold standard.

This is a plea for an urgent re-write. I read the article as a non-economist in the faint hope it would shed light on the current heated debate about FRB led by such people as Ben Dyson and Paul Grignon, but it doesn't, it just diverted me to finding out what one particular bunch of economists, who happened to dislike FRB, said a hundred years ago.

Kind regards DP —Preceding unsigned comment added by a89.243.250.114 (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

[removed personal attacks by Banned User, User:Karmaisking] BigK HeX (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Your calling me "naive in the extreme" is unnecessarily patronising and belligerent, more suited to a teenie blog where flaming is the de facto norm. I wonder what you get out of belittling contributors and making personal attacks? You sound as though Wikipedia has become a game for you which you win by pissing people off until they go away.

I am not completely stupid.

- Newbie DP

89.243.250.114 (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are so astute as to be amazing, given that you don't even seem to be familiar with the editor you've described, who DOES indeed love to game the system. As for problems with the article, any help in the form of reliably sourced, non-fringe theories would be appreciated. BigK HeX (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Fractional Reserve and the Gold Standard

It is stated or assumed in a few places in the article that fractional reserve banking and fiat money are related, as though you can't have one without the other. Not true. Even if ONLY gold coins and bank deposits were used as money the balance sheet for a fractional reserve gold system bank could be

Assets

$90m in gold coins owed to us (Loans by Bank)

$10m in gold coins in our vault (Bank Reserve)

Liabilities

Deposits $100m (payable in gold coins if demanded)

The exact same money multipier applies if deposits (cheques) are used for money. And when Bank notes were redeemable in gold, there was still FRB. 114.78.20.197 (talk) 09:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Attempted to de-bias this page

I cleaned up the page a bit, and removed a lot of content that seems to be intentionally meant to belittle the criticisms presented on the page. Lots of things were qualified with "mainstream economists don't think this" or "This person has no formal training in economics but thinks this." Those aren't appropriate for this page - this page is not about rebuttals to these criticisms. Tho of course contrary opinions can be relevant and appropriate, weasel words aren't. If anyone wants to discuss my edits, heres the place. Fresheneesz (talk) 07:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Per WP:CONTENTFORK, article spinouts should not become 'walled gardens' protecting and glorifying fringe views. Content on this page should (except for reasons of space) be able to fit naturally into the main page on fractional-reserve banking. LK (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that this shouldn't be a walled garden. However, there were significant numbers of statements obviously intended to make certain of the criticisms on this page seem absurd, rather than simply stating both sides in an unbiased manner. I don't think my edits would be out of place in the main fractional reserve banking page. Fresheneesz (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Having (unfortunately) been involved in the genesis of this page, which effectively boils down to a compromise (a poor one, IMHO, but most compromises are imperfect) while User:Karmaisking was in his first round of wikiwarring. I think most of the 'debt-based monetary system' sources are fringe or simply overemphasized in this article. Really none are mainstream enough to warrant their own article - or to put it differently, if a 'criticism' article needs to exist, the debt-based monetary system stuff should be relegated far enough down so as to be vanishingly small.

If you have a real interest in improving this article, which sounds to be true, perhaps focus first on adding in other criticisms and getting the weight right, and worry about 'de-biasing' the mainstream responses to fringe critics once that balance is better. Just a suggestion.--Gregalton (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'll take a look around to see what other criticisms are out there and expand this page. Fresheneesz (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the following a fringe/crank criticism "if 100 credits are created and loaned into the economy at 10% per year, at the end of the year 110 credits will be needed to pay the loan and extinguish the debt. However, since the additional 10 credits does not yet exist, it too must be borrowed. This implies that debt must grow exponentially in order for the monetary system to remain solvent". For example, wouldn't the same argument apply to gold coin money "if 100 gold coins are loaned into the economy at 10% per year, at the end of the year 110 gold coins will be needed to pay the loan. However, since the additional 10 gold coins do not yet exist, they too must be borrowed. This implies that debt must grow exponentially in order for the monetary system to remain solvent". Surely that's not right? 114.78.7.228 (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not a fringe criticism and your counter argument is a complete straw man.

The difference being that the bank cannot loan out gold coins that do not exist whereas they can loan money in the broader sense since they only exist in terms of book-keeping. The relevant part of the argument is that, with the gold it is obvious that their is only a certain amount of real resources available on the planet, but the current system assumes that this is not true. It is therefore both exponential and unavoidably unstable. It will collapse catastrophically sooner or later by mathematical necessity. Obbas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC).