Talk:European Central Bank
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] French translation; copyvio
As I began translating text from the French Wikipedia article (fr:Banque Centrale Européenne), I soon realized that the French article is copy-and-paste from the ECB's website. :*( I did check the ECB copyright, and it does seem fine to reproduce the material. Still, I would rather insert more original, translated materials. – Guppy (talk • contribs) 17:39, November 12, 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Totalitarian?
Making a reference to totalitarian institutions such as the Nazi regime or the Franco regime is inappropriate and out of all proportions. Therefore I removed this phase. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.126.128.2 (talk • contribs) 11:16, December 1, 2003 (UTC).
[edit] Meeting minutes
I think minutes of meetings aren't published (unlike for instance at the Bank of England) so that representatives from each country can make the decisions best for the Eurozone as a whole, and not be pressured into solely concentrating on the benefit for their country, rather than not to reveal internal splits. -- Joolz 14:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] central bank of the eurozone
The ECB is not the central bank of the whole European union, but just for the eurozone. — thewikipedian (talk • contribs) 09:58, May 21, 2004 (UTC).
- The ECB is the Central Bank of the EU's offical currency and it is the head organization for the ESCB which is including all EU central banks. If a few member states maintain a special status in terms of the euro that doesnt make the ECB less the Central Bank of the European Union! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.23.161.113 (talk • contribs) 06:07, February 11, 2006 (UTC).
-
- So you are telling me that the ECB is the central bank of the United Kingdom, if so you are going to need a definition of a central bank that excludes the control of monetary policy, which is set by the Bank of England. The definition used by wikipedia states precisely that, so you had better correct that page aswell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lukeski (talk • contribs) 11:41, October 10, 2006 (UTC).
-
-
- All that can be said is that the ECB is the central bank of the Eurozone. That's not the same as 'the currency of the EU'. This isn't likely to change in the near future. Despite the best attempts by their governments to persuade them otherwise, Dutch and Swedish voters roundly rejected the Euro in 2003. The UK hasn't had a referendum on the Euro, arguably because of the high probability of rejection, and its economic success outside of the Eurozone. Countersubject 13:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Criticism
Forgive my bad English and fix my additions with a more proper English. Anyway I came here to say... what is happening in European Union pages? I see too many "point of view", to be exact, British point of view, ehich usually is quite euroesciptic (this is not bad, but it can be for the wikipedia if it falls in the POV).
I study economy, so i dont see many sense in the criticism about the independence of the eurobank. For an economist should not be doubt that a central bank should be independent for a better management. And antidemocratic? Well, so antidemocratic as the judicial power, we dont vote the judges... (well, I think in USA they do...).
And the low rates. Well of course is a bad thing when the economy is growing too fast, and actually it happens in some countries of the eurozone, as for example Ireland and Spain. So it can happen the bubble stuff (although the low rates is not the only guilty factor). So the criticism should be about in a region so big and diverse, all countries with the same currency has to use the same macroeconomic tools, so what it is necessary in one country is bad in another. Thats the real problem. But it can also happen inside of a country, for example if Minnesota is not growing and California is doing it fast, the suitable interest rate in Min is different than in Cal, so eurozone is not the first one having this problem. You must say that there are less advantadges than disavantadges for other economic reasons than "bubbles". And Japan and USA had a lower interest rate, so you cant neither say eurobank was doing weird stuff with so lowe rate... at least not more weird that the most important economies of the world. And there is economic reason that is an advantadge to say you only care inflation to get ride of that, because it changes teh expects of teh economy, and doing "this trick" you can have a better result in social meanings that saying you care social stuff...
Difficult to explain myself in English, sorry. But please, if you write a paragraph of criticism in the Wikipedia, explain more of 1 POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkmaiki (talk • contribs) 23:17, December 7, 2005 (UTC).
---
Hello! Not an English native myself - still I found the term criticism in-appropriate: economic culture I believe is more neutral to whatevereverybody in here wants to add.
I would also like to see (that is to say: read) a bit more of the Bundesbank spirit - in terms of definition of the bank and our perception (to me pro-European as the institute). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.23.161.113 (talk • contribs) 06:02, February 11, 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Another viewpoint
The reason that the ECB was designed to be independant of political influence is to protect against the tendancy of governments to engage in competitive devaluations, such as those common in the run up to the ERM and EMU. This is when a government decreases interest rates below the appropriate level, stimulating short-term economic growth but ultimately leading to higher inflation and devaluation of the currency. The idea at the time was that governments would be tempted to do this around election times and, if they won, deal with the consequences later or, if they lost, sabotage the opposition taking power.
The reason for the secrecy of the ECB is to do with the financial markets and the vast amounts of money that are made or lost by companies and funds based on interest rate desicions. It is inevitable, in every economy, for companies and individuals to be exposed to interest rate risk. The level of risk people are willing to take depends, to a large extent on the accuracy with which rates can be predicted. If the ECB is too explicit about its moves, firms will take on more risk which, in turn, increases the consequences of any unexpected rate moves by the bank & ultimately hampers thier ability to pursue thier stated goals. If the bank is a little more coy, then companies and individuals will be a lot more reluctant to make large, leveraged bets on currency & interest rate moves, which is ultimately better for themselves, the bank and the economy generally. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.40.131.195 (talk • contribs) 10:07, December 29, 2005 (UTC).
[edit] The Money Masters
I don't know much about economics (and don't, for example, understand why there has to be increases and decreases in money supply in the first place - one of the jobs of central banks), but this extreamly critical documents towards private central banks and their power over the economy, and thus the whole world, has got me on my toes. For sure there can be lots of ways politicians could use central banks harmfully, but at least politicians are democratically elected and thus, at least in priciple, serve the interest of the people. So i guess the question is this: how can we be sure, that the "experts" runing the central banks at the moment use their expertise to serve the interest of the people and not the interest of jewish bankers? If this documentary is to be believied, the history does not speak very highly of them, and i would assume that its the history of Bank of England and US Federal Reserve (both private), that has also led to private European central bank. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.230.6.237 (talk • contribs) 00:15, February 2, 2006 (UTC).
Can i politely suggest,that if you don't understand enough to know why there is a need to control the money supply, you are not really in a position to critically review money masters, and decide whether there is a bais for redistributing anti-semtic opinions. By the way i assure you having worked in banking, and now left, that money masters is not just wrong, it is gibberish, i.e. it doesnt make any sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lukeski (talk • contribs) 11:45, October 10, 2006 (UTC).
And for the one who do understand why it is necesary to control the money suply, could you enlighten us explaining why Money Master doesn´t make any sense?
[edit] Fiscal policy?
The article mentions that the ECB is in charge of fiscal policy for the EU. As it doesn't explain at all how this is done I wanted to ask if that's really true. As far as I know local governments are in charge of fiscal policy. Can the EU increase/decrease public expenditures? Can it change taxes? Maybe the ECB has some influence on the common EU-budget? (but I thought the EU budget is decided by politicians, not by the central bank). Any clarification would be helpful. — SPW 17:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Legal environment
I certainly cannot contribute text, it seems to me that an important feature of the ECB is that it exists and operates according to the laws of one particular nation. The EU has not created an extrastate, as Canberra and Washington DC. Would an expert like to include a small comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reg nim (talk • contribs) 22:03, March 13, 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Every single language
The intro looks messy and is not needed, at least put it in a section not the lead. Skinnyweed 09:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sections Diluted buying power and Inflation and diverted resources
Does anyone else find these to be almost unmistakable essay-sections, or is it just me? Personally I don't think they should even be rewritten, I think they should be removed. They seem to be very POV as well (or are essays always like that? ;) ) Anyone else think they should be removed? - Рэдхот(t • c • e) 22:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, they should be removed, and I have removed them. Not only are they relentlessly POV and absurdly argued (inflation hurts producers?!), they are copyvios from http://workforall.net/ineffectiveness_of_monetary_policy_.html. The user 217.136.94.66 has copied and pasted this and other essays from that web site into several articles. (e.g., see this [1] addition to Euro.) — Mateo SA | talk | Contributions 21:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Incorrect Reserve facts
The page claims ECB having reserves of €4 billion, while a correct value should be a magnitude of thousands times larger. The incorrect figure should either be removed or corrected, preferably supplemented by a definition what assets are included in the figure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.221.119.86 (talk • contribs) 17:39, November 12, 2006 (UTC).
Corrected. Sdnegel 00:10, March 29, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Seat distrubution
"Four of these six seats are reserved for the Eurozone's four big central banks of France, Germany, Italy and Spain"
I'd like a citation that this is official rather than an informal agreement (notice that France had no members on the board between the period Noyer left and Trichet joined). --Explendido Rocha 18:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Irish translation
There are two different Irish translations in the article? It should of course be among the earlier section, but whcih translation is correct? 惑乱 分からん 12:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
