Talk:Global financial system/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Global financial system. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Potential resource ...

Financial world dominated by a few deep pockets -- Economic “superentity” controls more than one-third of global wealth by Rachel Ehrenberg Science News Monday, August 15th, 2011, related to Talk:Wealth 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

See arXiv ...

In 2007, a mere 147 companies controlled nearly 40 percent of the monetary value of all transnational corporations ... “This is empirical evidence of what’s been understood anecdotally for years,” says information theorist Brandy Aven of the Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh. ... Tapping into the financial information database Orbis, scientists from ETH Zurich in Switzerland examined transnational companies, which they defined as having at least 10 percent of their holdings in more than one country. Then the team looked at upstream and downstream connections, yielding a network of 600,508 economic actors connected through more than a million ownership ties. ... she notes, interconnectedness can lead to better self-policing and positive behaviors, such as fair labor practices or environmentally friendly policies. And even though the status of many players in the analysis has changed drastically since 2007 (now-defunct Lehman Brothers is a key element of the core), the analysis shows that ownership is becoming increasingly concentrated and increasingly transnational, says Gerald Davis of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. ... Ownership can be difficult to study internationally because holding shares in a mutual fund doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing in the U.S. as it does in communist China. And even within a single country ownership can be hard to tease out, says economist Matthew Jackson of Stanford University. For example, when an individual invests in a mutual fund or even purchases shares through an institution like Merrill Lynch, the firm is often still the official owner of the assets. And even when shareholders do have voting rights, they may not exercise them.

99.181.138.215 (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd assume "communist China" is not the Chinese Soviet Republic, but the PRC. Hasn't "Ownership" and "holding shares in a mutual fund" changed meaning during the history of the PRC? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

arXiv.org of Cornell University Library? 64.27.194.74 (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

potential resources

Talk:Occupy Wall Street/Archive 7 and Talk:"Occupy" protests # Wikilink global financial system

99.181.130.155 (talk) 06:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

NYT resource for where?

Latin America Looks at West’s Fiscal Crises, and Sees Its Own Past by Simon Romero, published January 27, 2012; excerpt ...
In 2011, Latin America’s unemployment rate fell to a 21-year low of 6.8 percent, compared with 8.5 percent in the United States and nearly 10 percent in Europe. While economic growth has slowed in some countries, it is still booming in others. Panama, whose canal is choked to capacity, registered economic growth of 10.5 percent in the first nine months of 2011. Argentina’s economy expanded 9.3 percent in the third quarter. ... Brazil’s unemployment rate is at a historic low of 4.7 percent.

See São Paulo, Brazil, Veja (magazine), Itaú Unibanco, Fundação Getúlio Vargas, 2011 Spanish protests & Occupy Wall Street, Late-2000s financial crisis, Wealth inequality in the United States, Income inequality in Brazil, Category:Brazilian billionaires, Moisés Naím, Chile, Colombia, Patricio Navia, Protectionism,

99.181.159.67 (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Article graphic

The original article graphic BankingCrises.svg was replaced by User:Lawrencekhoo with graphic G_foreign_exchange_market_turnover.gif only tangentially related to the topic, so I have removed it. User:Lawrencekhoo expressed concerns about WP:OR for the BankingCrises.svg graphic, but I see no such problem with the graphic as the graphic contributor clearly states the graphic was compiled from a published data source. However, the BankingCrises.svg may not be the best illustration either, so I am leaving it without a graphic for the time being. Meclee (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Call for contributions to the Global financial system page

The Global financial system page is in poor shape I find. It has no lead section, needs more content and citations, a proper info box. I added content in March 2013, and periodically look what is changing. Reviewing the article and talk page’s history I note that editing/ discussion has basically stalled. (The last edits were formal corrections, but no content was added.) The topic supposedly is of “high importance“ for the business wiki project and globalization wiki project, even of mid-importance for 3 other projects (economics, systems and international relations), and “of interest”, although no rated by the financing wiki project, which is no surprise, I assume the latter finds it too non-technical / political.

Given the inactivity I think it's fair to say the rating by the above mentioned different wiki projects is not sincere. I want to know who puts these wikiproject ratings up (even a duplicate rating by the business project) and who reviews them. I am calling for attention to this page, by putting it on the “attention list” of the business and globalization wikiproject.

Calling all interested folks and experts/participants of the wikiprojects to roll their sleeves up. Look forward to hearing from anyone.Wuerzele (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Bringing that article up to standards and getting it reviewed for GA status is high on my to-do list, but my editing activity has been quite low since around February. Personal life has gotten in the way for a while, but I will be giving that article some more attention over this summer. As for the ratings in project banners, I would advise taking those with a grain of salt. I've never seen any of the WikiProjects I'm a member of make any serious effort to keep those ratings accurate and current. To answer your question, whoever adds the project banner usually subjectively picks a rating, and virtually no one ever reviews those ratings (in fact a lot of those ratings won't change unless someone is adjusting them to reflect that the article has become a GA or FA). Ultimately, there will either be people actively interested in working on the article at any given time or there won't be, and that will forever fluctuate. I have a strong interest in the article and a wealth of good sources, but my wiki activity has been limited to lurking over my watchlist for some number of months now. Life just kind of happens that way sometimes. Glad you brought this up though; it is an important topic and international finance is a lacking realm overall on Wikipedia - you can check out my user page to see some of the bolts I've already tightened thus far. Still have a long way to go. John Shandy` • talk 02:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)thank you.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Wuerzele for bringing attention to this article. I am the WikiProject Globalization member who initially rated this as 'start' class, which is a good class for this article. The only lower class is 'stub', and the article is more than a stub. It does indeed need attention. I have no doubt that John Shandy` is the current WikiProject Globalization member with the best qualifications to update this article. I know this is high on his to-do list, but like all volunteer editors he has a lot on his plate. I've been upgrading some other articles related to Global public goods. Once I finish those tasks, if John hasn't had time to work with it, I will at least do a re-org of this article until John has more time. In the meanwhile, anything further you might like to contribute to the article is appreciated! Regards, Meclee (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)thanks for replying--Wuerzele (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Question re: Bretton Woods

The Bretton Woods section does not seem to make mention of the founding of the World Bank. Will that be covered elsewhere? Regards, Meclee (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The section mentions the establishment of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD). At this point in history, there was no entity known as the "World Bank" per se. The World Bank is a name that would emerge later to collectively refer to both the IBRD and the International Development Association (IDA). The World Bank is kind of weird in that it is two organs of the World Bank Group, the IBRD and the IDA. These organs are operated in tandem by a single set of staff. The organizational structure of the World Bank Group can be pictured as follows:

World Bank Group
- World Bank
  - International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  - International Development Association
- International Finance Corporation
- International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
- Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency

More to your point however, I do intend to make this distinction clear. I just haven't fully thought out the best way/location to do it yet. You brought up an important consideration as not everyone is familiar with this nuance. John Shandy` • talk 23:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think it would be good to mention the WB in the Bretton Woods section by saying the IBRD provided the foundation for the WB. Just an opinion to consider. Regards, Meclee (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

That's along the lines of what I was thinking. I've made an edit to the section to improve clarity. See what you think of it. John Shandy` • talk 01:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks good! Regards, Meclee (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Kudos

Just a note to say this article is coming along nicely, John Shandy`, thanks to your hard work! Regards, Meclee (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! John Shandy` • talk 15:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you much for revamping the article. It is a lot better than before. Wish more people contributed, to improve on it, lighten the task ..I did some editing today, not much. --Wuerzele (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Re-org of article

Until someone with more expertise than I has time to substantively improve the article, I am undertaking a re-org and general clean-up. Suggestions for improvement are welcome. Meclee (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Done: a quick re-org simply to make information more readable, remove no lede tag, tag areas for expansion. I may return for additional re-write, but that will require substantial research on my part to become more familiar with the topic. I encourage more knowledgeable editors to contribute to substantive re-write. Meclee (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Added to articles for improvement at Wikipedia:Articles_for_Improvement/Global_financial_system. Meclee (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Delayed thanks, Mclee!--Wuerzele (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Please Help To Edit this article -more angles are needed

I think the article has much improved this year, but the subject still needs more angles, as so far it is written entirely from a Western (US/Euro) urban, power perspective. For example the terms China or India are nowhere to be found, although both undoubtedly are big players. First, while only having a small global share of privately-held external assets/liabilities, these countries hold large official reserves: 16.0 and 3.3% of world reserves in 2004. Second, their international balance sheets are highly asymmetric: both are “short equity, long debt.” Third, China and India have improved their net external positions over the last decade. (Open Economies ReviewSeptember 2007, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 499-520. The Evolving Role of China and India in the Global Financial System. Philip R. Lane,Sergio L. Schmukler) A graphic would be helpful. The article also definitely needs more elaboration on criticism / reform.

I am no financial expert, and no expert on the subject, but will contribute where and when I can. --Wuerzele (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

IMFSite.org appears to be a dubious source

IMFSite appears to me to be a dubious source, with no established reputation for fact checking and accuracy. It appears to be very selective and biased in the sources it selects and the minority viewpoints to which it gives great voice - technically speaking, sources aren't required to be "unbiased" but it can be a signal of unreliability (per WP:BIASED). To be honest, it strikes me more as one big advertisement for gold than as a source of information about the global financial architecture. A cursory glance suggests that quite a fair bit of its content is self-published. For the things that aren't self-published, like WSJ articles, books, etc., we should cite those sources directly if we are to use them. Even so, the points of view those sources promote should be attributed to their authors rather than included in Wikipedia's own voice. John Shandy` • talk 20:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with that; but the stuff copied from other sources is cherrypicked to fit one particular perspective, so substituting citations leaves us with an NPOV problem. Removing the content altogether is better. bobrayner (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the way the content has been included seems to carry with it a rather POV undertone. John Shandy` • talk 12:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Perspective

I don't see that this is written to fit a particular perspective. The problem is that the current global financial system originated in the actions of a set of wealthy countries in the Western hemisphere, such that recounting the history seems to be only from that POV. Please note that this article is still in the works; there is a section for criticisms of the system that has yet to be fleshed-out. I would encourage anyone interested in criticism and additional perspectives to begin fleshing-out that section. Regards, Meclee (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely. I've been super busy at work the past 2 months, but after today will be taking a good chunk of time off, so I'm hoping to try and pick up where I left off and build some momentum again. I'm not going to stop working at this article until it's Featured Article status (however long that takes is a separate question). John Shandy` • talk 12:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, after reviewing the hx, I see now that there's a small edit war ongoing. Bobrayner has a point on primary sources and the "voice" of the criticisms that have been added; Wuerzele has a point that those criticisms have been made. Might I suggest that Wuerzele add criticisms here on the talk page such that they can be added to the article in the voice of the authors of the criticisms rather than seeming to be statements of fact? Regards, Meclee (talk) 14:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed Podesta Group content on grounds of notability

I removed the following content:

International lobbying firms play a role in international financial systems, as they increasingly develop cross-border lobbying arms to influence international negotiations. For example, Podesta Group, a Washington lobbying firm, founded "Global Solutions" to influence multilateral free trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and other issues "at the intersection of trade, economics, politics and diplomacy"."Global Solutions | Podesta Group". Podesta.com. Retrieved 2013-04-30.

I cannot find any coverage of this group or its "Global Solutions" entity in the academic literature on international finance and economics, and I've found only sparse news coverage, mostly on news sites I've never heard of before. The only citation offered in the article was the group's website. Even if someone can find appropriate sourcing for this content, I don't think it belongs in this article. It's better suited for those particular trade partnership articles or perhaps an article specifically dealing with international trade or trade negotiations. John Shandy` • talk 17:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Global financial system/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrWooHoo (talk · contribs) 02:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and I'll be reviewing this excellent article! This will be awesome :) Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 02:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: I do my review in a style with a main review covering the GA criteria, a prose review, and then a source review. See this review for an example.

Main Review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	From a first look, the article is AOK. No blatant copyvios/grammar mistakes. More in-depth analysis will be covered in the prose review.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	All issues fixed.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Issues fixed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Issues fixed.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Nothing is uncited in the article.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Aspects of the global financial system are covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article does not veer off topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Seems good and NPOV.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Seems like there has been no edit wars.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I'm a bit confused. Most of the pictures such as this image state that "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States. Note that a few countries have copyright terms longer than 70 years..." Does this mean that you need to add US copyright tags?
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Captions look suitable
	7. Overall assessment.	All issues done and dusted. Thanks for being an awesome reviewer, and I apologize for being on a un-planned wikibreak. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 19:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Images needing Public Domain in United States tag.

Done I have amended the applicable image files on Wikimedia Commons to include the Public Domain in the United States tag. John Shandy` • talk 02:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Prose Review

Note: If you have changed the sentence that needed to be corrected, press Enter and start off the line with ::, then use Y or Done If the change was only partially done use Y, and N or Not done if the change could not occur. (If you would explain why, I would be greatly appreciated :P) To see code, go to edit source and copy the code.

Lead

Again, like I said in the table, (in point 1B) how about you try summarizing the lead to make it shorter? Also, according to this page you usually don't need to reference the lead.

If you look through the most recent 100 edits you'll see that a substantial effort has already been made to not only further summarize the lead, but to reduce the length of the article overall. From Aug. 17-20, I reduced the lead's readable prose by 1,957 characters. From Aug. 23-Sep. 6, I reduced the article's readable prose by about 5,073 characters (or 6.4%). Though the lead definitely has opportunities for improved conciseness, I do think the lead length is reasonable even though it may not be optimal. To be honest, I deem it a challenging matter of walking the line between the Manual of Style's length and summary standards. Since you're reading the article with a fresh set of eyes, I would certainly appreciate any particular suggestions you have for things that seem too detailed in the lead. That will help me better shorten it. John Shandy` • talk 00:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been doing some copyediting to the lead section and I've reduced another ~501 characters from its readable prose. Reaching for a comparison, I grabbed today's featured article Biscayne National Park and measured the readable prose length of its lead by pasting it into a text editor (3887 characters, or 4.7% of total article), versus this article's current lead (3629 characters, or 3.6%). And GFS is longer than the Biscayne article by about ~18,600 characters. Regarding the citations in the lead, I removed one which I felt was unnecessary and I repositioned another to not disrupt the sentence. I believe those few remaining are appropriate and necessary however, as they strengthen support for the summarization of the system's key changes (and aims of those changes) over time. John Shandy` • talk 21:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

History of international financial architecture (1)

"The world experienced substantial changes prior to 1914 which created an environment favorable..."

Add a comma after 1914.

Done John Shandy` • talk 00:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"Approximately 25 million (or 70%) of these travelers migrated to the United States while most of the rest..."

Add a comma after while.

Done John Shandy` • talk 00:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"The Bank of England had to sustain an artificially high discount lending rate until 1908."

If it's needed, add a comma after rate.

Not done I don't think this would be proper, because "until 1908" is essential information for the sentence's meaning and it is at the end of the sentence. John Shandy` • talk 00:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"from the Panic of 1907, underpinning legislators' hesitance in trusting individual investors such as John Pierpont..."

Add a comma after investors?

Done John Shandy` • talk 00:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

History of international financial architecture (1.2+1.3)

"In 1930, the Allied powers established the..."

Change "Allied powers" to "Allied Powers."

Not done I'm not sure one way is correct over the other. Encyclopedia Britannica does capitalize Powers, but Dictionary.com's lexicon does not capitalize powers. Wikipedia uses Axis powers for the opposition, and this was indeed what influenced my original decision not to capitalize the second word when I wrote it. I'm impartial to one or the other, but its present form is at least consistent. John Shandy` • talk 00:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"Delegates intended the agreement to suffice while member states would negotiate..."

Add a comma after suffice if necessary.

Not done Commas should really only be used before while when it is used to mean something similar to whereas. This sentence is rather conveying that delegates intended the agreement to suffice during the interim in which their nations would negotiate the establishment of a formal trade organization. John Shandy` • talk 00:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

History of international financial architecture (1.4+1.5)

No issues.

Implications of globalized capital

"Because the balance of payments sums to zero, a current account surplus indicates a deficit in the asset accounts and vis versa."

Vice versa, not vis versa? What's your opinion?

Done John Shandy` • talk 23:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Participants

No issues.

Future of the global financial system

"of disparate regulatory environments and beggar thy neighbour policies"

Is this article British/American? If it's American, use the following code. beggar thy neighbour|beggar thy neighbor (with brackets)

Done John Shandy` • talk 23:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Source Review

Reference 9 and 57 are both dead. Maybe replace them/just get rid of them?

Done The URLs for references 9 and 57 have been updated to reflect location changes made by the Bank of England and the World Economic Forum. As well, I have updated the URL for reference 58 (also a World Economic Forum source). John Shandy` • talk 22:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, I've asked the Teahouse here whether or not you can do the page numbers superscripted.

I responded in that thread with my thoughts on this article's use of the {{rp}} template. John Shandy` • talk 22:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)