Talk:Bretton Woods system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of the WikiProject Numismatics, which is an attempt to facilitate the categorization and creation of accurate and formal Numismatism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join and see a list of open tasks to help with.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
A Wikipedian removed Bretton Woods system from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Removal date: 24 Oct 2006

Contents

[edit] Old merge discussion

merge this page with Bretton Woods??

  • Yes. And when you do, beware the confusing nomenclature: per [1] the Bretton Woods Mountain Resort was created in 1974; the Mount Washington Hotel (added in 1900-1902 to some much smaller facilities which explicitly use the Bretton name) was the actual venue of the Conference. --Jerzy 04:17, 2004 Jan 26 (UTC)
  • NO TO MERGE, removed tag

I'll take off the merge tag, since the question seemed to be decided a couple of years ago (with no new comments). AS of this date, I would vote KEEP, but the Bretton Woods Systemis certainly duplicative as it stands. I'll suggest that the Bretton Woods Conference pretty much stick to the conference (i.e. the start of the system) and the system pretty much stick to the next 20+ years that the system operated. Conceptually they are quite differnt things.Smallbones 09:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] New article on the Bretton Woods system (1944-1971)

I'm still working on the last two sections on my MS word browser. I'll have them finished in the next couple of days. The completed text needs some work too, which I'll be doing. 172 11:32, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Those looking at the article history should be aware that there is a history at Bretton Woods Conference, now a redirect to the article, for material that has been incorporated apparently within Bretton Woods system#The design of the Bretton Woods system --Jerzy(t) 03:32, 2004 Jun 15 (UTC)

I noted this on Talk:Bretton Woods Conference. If anyone rejects this redirect, I'm open to looking at other ways to resolve the overlapping content another way, aside from the redirect. 172 05:59, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry if i got confused; readers should trust 172's version of where the info went, over mine, in case it conflicts with my hurried inference. --Jerzy(t) 12:35, 2004 Jun 15 (UTC)

This sentence in the Cold War section is challengeable: "The rise of the postwar United States as the world's leading industrial, monetary, and military power was rooted in the impact of the U.S. military victory..." on several grounds; (1) military power is created to defend economic power (as military blocs are created to defend trading blocs), so the premise is in reverse. The United States built a large armed force from 1941 onwards to defend its economic interests. Its economic interests were not dictated by its strategic military interests as the sentence suggests. Needs to be rewritten. (2) Further, claiming "its victory" is somewhat disputable since World War II ultimately was a war betrween the Soviet Union & Germany, with the fighting inside the Soviet Union for 4 years and 40 million plus dead (45% of all German casualties were in the Soviet Union). The United States "victory" cost 172,000 casualties (including the Pacific theatre) and European ground actions about 11 months, although there was much inaction in the winter months. Nobs 02:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New work

Perhaps more detail can be added on the relative decline U.S. economic dominance given the reemergence of Japan and Germany and the emergence of the newly industrialized countries in the section on U.S. Balance of Payments Crisis 1958-1968, as this underpins the trends described in this section. As their economies rebuilt and became modernized, as their commercial trade picked up, their currencies became stronger, their account balances improved, and their positions next to the U.S. improved. Also perhaps more can be added on the increasing calls from the Third World to modify the balance of power in the BWIs, such as the emergence of the Non-Aligned Movement, the Group of 77, and UNCTAD. I'll do this eventually if no one else is interested. 172 17:41, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think what this article needs is a large compression and reorganization - the same points are repeated because there is less internal unity than there needs to be, and the system of revanches is not well explained. This will make it easier to explain the wide varieties of reaction to Bretton Woods, and the post-Bretton woods existence of many institutions (such as the IMF etc) and the floating currency regime Stirling Newberry 19:11, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You added some content to the section on the dollar shortage and the Marshall Plan that was already established in the section on the origins of the Bretton Woods system, but I don't know if this necessitates a new outline. Currently the organization is 1) origins 2) design 3) readjustment 4) and collapse of the Bretton Woods system. (This design was intended to reconcile historical, IR, and economic perspectives and to make the article accessible to non-expert readers.) If you have an alternative outline in mind, please post it, as I'll be interested in considering it. 172 19:38, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think the outline is fine, but it needs to have a stronger chronology. Stirling Newberry

[edit] Comment

The remark that the "As world trade increased rapidly through the 1950s, the size of the gold base increased by only a few percent" is peculiar. According to the IMF's International Financial Statistics U.S holdings of gold in 1950 was 652 million fine troy ounces. The same series reports that in 1960 the U.S held 508.690 million ounces. This is hardly, under any stretch of the imagination, an "increase" least of all an increase of "only a few percent". Admittedly, U.S holdings reached 653 million ounces in 1957 (after falling to 621 million ounces in 1955), but this was followed by continuous and substantial decline to 311.2 million ounces in 1968. An increase to 338.38 million ounces in 1969 resumed the outflow of gold leading up to the Nixon Shock.

I would have expected a little more attention to detail and a committment not to distort such easily verifable economic reality in this article.

[edit] Cliffhanger ending!

Oh man, was I the only one heartbroken to get to the last sections' missing headers!? I was getting really, really into the story, wonder how will it all pan out, when will the US go off the gold standard, and hey what about these WTO protests lately and whatnot, then BANG! the article end.

It broke my heart.

So, is anyone still working on this article? (Great work so far, BTW.) --Carl 08:43, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think your suggestion of WTO protests is a good one; at least I don't see the direct link with Bretton Woods. --Michaël 10:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is still work in progess on the article. Stirling Newberry 18:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Floating Currency

Suggestion: don't put post-Bretton Woods order here but in Floating currency. Stirling Newberry 18:50, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully in order to make the text more accessible to general readers, I added some backgrounding on the structural changes in the 1960 and 1970s undermining international monetary management toward the end of the article. More work is still needed. 172 19:17, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. And the FC article is essentially a stub. Stirling Newberry 19:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that is quite an important article to leave as a stub. Perhaps we can come up with a draft outline for that article and divvy up the work? When we're done, perhaps we can also create a historical series along with the gold standard article. 172 20:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Text reads "running not just a balance of payments deficit but also a trade deficit"; this is somewhat confusing because it is the actual trade deficit that leads to the balance of payments deficit, unless one is trading on credit or late in paying bills. Should read "running not just a trade deficit but also a balance payments deficit", i.e. late in paying bills. Perhaps I can get some help...Nobs 18:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Opps. You're right. That was probably a typo... I'm probably responsible, being the main author. Sorry about that. 172 19:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The article looks very good. I would like to work with you on it and will make suggestions here rather than butcher your work. I notice there is no definition of reserve asset in wiki which is needed for the IMF article; there was an edit on this page sometime ago that deleted a referance to the pound being used as a "reserve, transaction and currency asset". Perhaps we work together to create a good definition for both pages.Nobs 19:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I am no longer an active conributor, though, so please contact me by email (sokolov47@yahoo.com) if you need any help. 172 22:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just backing the parent comment. I found the article well done and very informative. The stub on China's currency provide a good lever to expand the article as more time goes along.

[edit] Hegemony - bipolar oblivion

CORRECTION: Until 1991 there were no hegemony in the world economy. In the western hemisphere one can say in the article that there was a hegemony. I urge someone to correct "hegemony" quoted just before 2. "The design of the Bretton Woods system".

CORRECTION:

3.2 Bretton Woods and the Cold War: "United States as the world's leading industrial, monetary, and MILITARY power was rooted in the impact of the U.S. military victory, in the instability of the national states in postwar Europe, and the wartime devastation of the Soviet economy."

US was not the leading military power a short while after the WWII.

Axezz, 29.03.2005 CET 3:29 AM

Anonymous 192.68.228.4: I hope you can withstand criticism, may I suggest "security umbrella" is a better term than the obscure "security-related umbrella" whatever that is.

Also, these two phrases make no sense: "urge for the U.S. political and" and "supposed security threat from USSR diminished" (I know, I know, they were there before your edits). How does a "supposed threat" diminish? How does something that may or may not exist categorically reduce in size or quanity, unless it either diminishes is size either in the minds of the people imagining it, or the writer observing their hallucinations. Either way, it doesn't make anysense.

Incidently, what is "bipolar oblivion"? Can anyone explain? Thx Nobs 15:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

on Hegemony: "But as the nineteenth century had been economically dominated by Britain, the second half of the twentieth was to be one of U.S. hegemony."

This sentence is I believe unnecessary, as it tends to increase the subjectivity of the article. that this may be true is irrelevant, the content of this article should be objective.

Zilch 19/10/05@15.29GMT

[edit] Eisenhower & the Pound

Can anyone find the basis in the Bretton Woods system relating to this sentence in the Crisisarticle : "Eisenhower threatened to sell the United States reserves of the British pound and thereby precipitate a collapse of the British currency."

[edit] How many Countries? 28 or 29?

So some of my records said 28 nations ratified on Dec. 27 1945... How many participated, and how many ratified?
~ender 2005-09-23 19:05:MST

[edit] Spero?

I was just reviewing for a test by looking over some Wikipedia articles. I noticed that, at least in the "Decline of the Dollar" subsection, the text is extremely similar to that by Joan Spero in _The Politics of International Economic Relations_, fourth edition, chapter 2- required reading for my class. It seems to be just rephrased from Spero's text, which is not listed as a reference. Am I missing its listing? 82.201.227.242 20:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)Anne

I noticed a few sections of the article were very similar to existing texts at the beginning of the year when reading for my courses. I'm not sure what to do, although I still have a few of the texts to cross-check with.--cj | talk 04:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Number of allies

How many Allies of World War II were there? 44, as claimed in Bretton Woods system, or 45, as claimed in United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference? --Art Carlson 15:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gold reserves held by the US

What percentage of the gold reserves at the end of WWII were held by the US. Bretton Woods system#The rise of U.S. hegemony (third paragraph) says 80%; Bretton Woods system#The U.S. balance of payments crisis (1958–68) (first paragraph) says 60%. --Art Carlson 21:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seperate section on Keynes' Alternative Vision?

The article seems great, but I had one idea: what about making a new section under "2 The design of the Bretton Woods system" or under one of its subsections, called "Keynes' Alternative Vision" or something like that. I have only read a bit on this from a secondary source, but it seems like Keynes alternative scheme for the post-war economic order was pretty interesting (some of which is mentioned in the article, like the "bancor"). He proposed an international debt clearning house and a system which would allow debtor nations to develop. The overview I read of this was in George Monbiot's Manifesto for a New World Order. I don't know the material well enough to write it myself, but I think it might make a really informative and thought-provoking addition to the article. Originalexplorer 18:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] International Development Agency? etc

I had to correct the date for the creation of the International Finance Corporation (checked the official website) so I assume that "International Development Agency" was also a mistake. I changed it to "International Development Association", which is what I think they were getting at. Correct me if I'm wrong.--Catquas 03:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bretton Woods System

Who Are The People Behind That System!?

-List of the 730 Delegates of the Allied Nations

-List of the Presidents of that Time

What Is The Original/Exact Text Of That Agreement!?


Remember This Article Is For The Public Neithr For Linguists Nor For Politicians Short And Simple Sentences

Well, this format is supposed to allow us to go into an infinitely complex discussion of a subject. However, the main article should probably be easy enough to understand.

[edit] Robert Triffin

I added a bit about him in a notably awkward way. I think he was pretty important--predicting the downfall with pretty exact reasons as to why the system failed--and should be noted as such. As far as I know, he's the most noted economist to predict the contradiction between liquidity and confidence in the growing Bretton Woods system. Right? I any case, it's relevant, however I figure I should discuss how exactly it should be put in. gren グレン 07:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post Bretton Woods

This article is extremely vague on what happened after the collapse of Bretton Woods. At the very least it should treat the effects of the collapse as part of this article. I believe there is probably a good argument for having an article titled Bretton Woods II or Post Bretton Woods (I don't think that Monetary hegemony really describes this properly as it's more or less one point of view). But this article goes into such detail about the 1945-1971 financial regime, but to my knowledge Wikipedia has no specific article treating the 1971-present history of global finance. (If I'm mistaken I'll be happily redirected.) I do recognize that there is no "system" in the sense of an agreed framework. To the extent that there is no longer a need for a system is another aspect that could be elucidated.

This is an excellent article (I have my quibbles but a) I'm no economist and b) I'm speaking generally in Wikipedia terms). Not having any treatment of the details of the end or the system or quasi-system which followed or the transition or the effects of the end/loss of Bretton Woods is a serious omission, though. Global finance didn't "end" in 1971. I would like to write such an article, but I really dare not. Any ideas on how to resolve this? --Dhartung | Talk 09:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pegged Rates

I was astonished to find no mention in this lengthy article of the pegged rates of the different currencies, possibly the most important aspect of the whole system. I've added those that I have at my finger tips and will put in more as I can verify them. Perhaps others have some to include?
Dove1950 21:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's there. See this section of the article. 172 | Talk 22:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Look again. Not a single rate is given, only the value of gold in US$.
Dove1950 19:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I quote;

Bretton Woods, then, created a system of triangular trade: the United States would use the convertible financial system to trade at a tremendous profit with developing nations, expanding industry and acquiring raw materials. It would use this surplus to send dollars to Europe, which would then be used to rebuild their economies, and make the United States the market for their products. This would allow the other industrialized nations to purchase products from the Third World, which reinforced the American role as the guarantor of stability. When this triangle became destabilized, Bretton Woods entered a period of crisis which lead ultimately to its collapse.

Please could we have some citations/statistics here.

No, that's silly. This is an elementary description of the international division of labor and convertibility. 172 | Talk 00:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
If it's elementary, then it should be easy to find references to support it. -- Beland 01:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
There was and is no mechanism whereby the US could extract extra-ordinary profits from trade with developing nations. (anon, 14:40, 05 December 2006)

[edit] Removal of good article status

The good article criteria include compliance with Wikipedia:Verifiability. By this measure, we should expect that most of the material in a good article would have references, but it seems that only the direct quotations in this article are referenced. Therefore, I have de-listed this as a "good article". Though I must say, it is one of the better articles on the site, and quite an interesting read. Clearly a lot of work has gone into it. -- Beland 01:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Bretton Woods

Shouldn't this article focus more on contemporary issues??? Bretton Woods mostly comes up in the news these days in references to proposals for a new international monetary system. Notice, for example, all the links that come up in a search for New Bretton Woods JamesCH 17:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Half of those links are to the LaRouche Movement. -Will Beback 20:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of Copyright?

(Putting this back in because the previous user accidently deleted it) I would like to point out that there are some significant similarities between portions of the text in this document and LaFeber's "America, Russia, and the Cold War 1945-1996", 8th Edition. For example, this section:

Yet, U.S. officials were determined to break open the empire. Combined, British and U.S. trade accounted for well over half the world's exchange of goods. If the British bloc could be split apart, the U.S. would be well on its way to opening the entire global marketplace. ... A devastated Britain had little choice. Two world wars had destroyed the country's principal industries that paid for the importation of half the nation's food and nearly all its raw materials except coal. The British had no choice but to ask for aid. In 1945, the U.S. agreed to a loan of $3.8 billion. In return, weary British officials promised to negotiate the agreement.

In LaFeber pg10, it appears almost exactly the same:

Yet American officials were determined to break open the empire. Combined, British and U.S. trade accounted for more than half the world's exchange of goods. If the British bloc could be split apart, the United States would be well on the way to opening the entire global marketplace. A devastated England had no choice. Two wars had destroyed its principle industries that paid for the importation of half the nation's food and nearly all its raw materials except coal. The British asked for help. In 1945 the United States agreed to loan $3.8 billion. In return, weary London officials promised to dismantle much of their imperial trading bloc.

Another case is this portion of the text:

Financier and self-appointed adviser to presidents and congressmen, Bernard Baruch, summed up the spirit of Bretton Woods in early 1945: if we can "stop subsidization of labor and sweated competition in the export markets," as well as prevent rebuilding of war machines, "oh boy, oh boy, what long term prosperity we will have."

In LaFeber pg 9-10, it is again almost identical:

Financier and self-appointed adviser to Presidents and congressmen, Bernard Baruch, caught the spirit in early 1945: if we can "stop subsidization of labor and sweated competition in the export markets," as well as prevent rebuilding of war machines, "oh boy, oh boy, what long term prosperity we will have."

I realise the last example does reference LaFeber as the source, however in both cases there are no quotes to denote *which* segments are being referenced directly from LaFeber. Myself, I'm pretty much a newbie, and have no idea what process should be followed, but I figured this should be brought to your attention. krou 19:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

Not an experienced Wikipedia user, but I'm a little concerned with a line under "The Great Depression" under "Origins." I don't think it's universally agreed that "proliferation of foreign exchange controls and trade barriers led to economic disaster." Can I just change this or I do I have to float it around here first? I don't want to step on anyone's toes.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/r/e/Talk%7EBretton_Woods_system_9278.html"