Talk:Monetary policy of the United States/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

Essay? Some help, please

17:52, 6 January 2008 BigK HeX (9,415 bytes) (detailed the economic process) Some of this added information could draw dispute, but the references should satisfy any initial issues.

Frankly, it is to such a degree an essay I think it needs rewrite or removal. Greswik (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a comment about the page being too much of an essay. I'm not exactly sure why an "essay" would be a violation of wikipedia policy. The wiki guideline about personal essays refers to inclusion of "personal feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts)." [see guide] Though I have some feelings about the material, those were not included. I believe I have delivered the material in a pretty straightfoward manner, although I admit the possiblity that unconscious bias may have affected the tone. Also, I assume that standard English writing guidelines are outlined in the 'encyclopedic' style guide, and if so, then I should be within those guideline. The material I added is a simple compilation of factual information, along with the various expert opinions on the facts, as far I am aware. To me, this seems like an acceptable delivery of content in an encyclopedic form. Please help if I'm going astray. BigK HeX (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The article, as it exists now, has big problems with WP:NPOV and perhaps WP:RS (I didn't look at the sources in great detail, but most of them seem to be random websites rather than sources which reflect the general consensus of, say, economists). Perhaps another guideline which gives some idea of what is wrong is WP:OR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. If you are having trouble seeing that the article reads like someone's argument or speech, rather than an effort to summarize what is known about the topic, I suppose I could try to find examples in this article, but maybe it is better to just point to Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics (although I am somewhat disappointed to see that there is only one featured article in economics, game theory, which is perhaps a bit too academic to be a direct example to follow). A lot of the existing articles on related topics, although they've been on wikipedia a while, are not very good examples to follow as they have some of the same problems. Kingdon (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate any specific examples that could be given about NPOV violations in this article. It is my belief that the only area which could fail NPOV is my addition to the "Criticisms" section (and then, only due to a lack of a blaancing perspective). All other parts of the article are simply published fact. Disputing any of the other information should be difficult, as they summarize known processes or government-sourced historical data. The majority of the additions that I made should require no "expert" or "mainstream" consensus, as they are not topics of opinion; so, aside from the "criticisms" section, I do have some trouble seeing how it could seem like an essay of opinion. I'd find that analogous to calling an article biased if it focused on the "negative financial impact of being an armed robbery victim," which is to say that sometimes the facts are just ugly, even without any bias. I would concede that some (probably only one or two) of the sources could fail RS, but that part can/should be easy to correct as the information itself is likely sound ... only needing to be quoted from more established sources. Most of the sources are from the Federal Reserve itself, government-published statistics, or economists who support the need for the Fed. Probably the only source that I cited which could be biased against the Fed is the website by "Hanson, Paul C." I have personally combed my additions for bias issues and even unattributed statements with weasel words -- I am confident that any such problems do not currently exist. However, thanks for bringing up the concern, and for any assistance that you can offer! BigK HeX (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Words like "IOU", "cold hard cash", "almost every single US Dollar", "Americans actually do have to pay for the money", etc. A statement like "If the total amount of loans were repaid to banks, then the entire supply of US dollars would be destroyed" isn't false, it is just worded in an opinionated way. "Occasional Deficit spending is a requirement in a growing economy". "exponential need for more and more money may be contributing directly to inflation in the US. Inflation raises the cost-of-living for everyone, and if inflation exceeds the growth of income, then people are effectively made poorer over time through no fault of their own." "Monetary policy means that the interest rates no longer represent . . .". Especially from this point down, almost every paragraph is infused with some kind of undue emphasis. I mean, "exercise of monetary policy has historically failed to achieve the goals that have been delegated". I'm a bit at a loss if you need this to be pointed out as POV. Kingdon (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree entirely with Kingdon. I think this article should be outright deleted. Please also limit the amount of linking to this article in other articles until some more opinions are found on this; it comes across as extreme soapboxing.--Gregalton (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The revisions prior to January 2008, like [1] or [2], don't really have the NPOV problem. But they do have bad writing, perhaps a WP:NOT#HOWTO problem, little wikification, and are rather short. So I'm not sure I'd advocate reverting to one of those revisions rather than say, blanking the page or creating a one sentence stub, if there is a desire to keep an article on the subject, but just not this one. Just because the article has been around since 2003 doesn't mean that it ever was very good. Kingdon (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Massively repetitive, however, of other articles. Hence I think it should just be deleted.--Gregalton (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, deleting sounds fine. Federal Reserve System and Fractional-reserve banking do seem to cover the topic reasonably well. Kingdon (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Neither of those topics details the process of implementing monetary policy, as does this article. I find those claims of "massive repetition" to be less-than-credible. BigK HeX (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

@ gregalton

Why would I limit linking? I'm pretty sure linking articles is encouraged by wikipedia policy ... or are the "more opinions" to which you're referring, required to come from people that you specifically point here? Linking could only help in bringing *more* opinions, ya know ... ? BigK HeX (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, within reason, linking is a Good Thing (TM). Linking only to an article that you have contributed to, which (as opined by other editors) has POV issues, creates the impression that one is trying to spread a POV. And on a practical level, spreading links throughout the system this way means that they may have to be redone or removed by someone later.--Gregalton (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Errr .. that's only if you've assumed that this article's deletion is a foregone conclusion. Unless you're suggesting merger, I'm going to strive for maintaining this information, until such time that I'm convinced that it is in violation of policy or bends guidelines too far.

@Kingdon

-"IOU" ... I would disagree. I find no connotation there whatsoever. It is simply the relatable, layman's term for a "treasury security." Admittedly, it is a non-technical term, which may be out-of-place in encyclopedic guidelines, but that could be corrected with more verbiage.
-"cold hard cash" .. again, I would say there is no connotation. In fact, the phrase is used because there are few acceptable substitutes that convey the correct meaning, due to some ambiguity with the terms for money.
-"almost every single US Dollar" ... plain fact. But, there is some emphasis there. Emphasis is desired there as it is a vital (and referenced) fact.
-"Americans actually do have to pay for the money" ... some emphasis there, possibly undue.
A statement like "If the total amount of loans were repaid to banks, then the entire supply of US dollars would be destroyed" isn't false, it is just worded in an opinionated way.
I would disagree with the above. It is simple fact. There is no bias in the statement whatsoever. If you are referring to the use of the word "destroyed," because it possibly bothers you in some way, then I should inform you that the word is commonly used by experts in this context (it is the opposite of "creating" money).
"Occasional Deficit spending is a requirement in a growing economy" ... there is no bias in that statement. If I said "Occasional love-making is a requirement in a growing economy" there would be no contention over the tone. Seeing as there is no WP:NotRosyEnough guideline, I truthfully see no problem with the referenced sentence ... or is it common practice for wikipedia editors to shield visitors from simple *facts* that some could find troubling?
"exponential need for more and more money may be contributing directly to inflation in the US. Inflation raises the cost-of-living for everyone, and if inflation exceeds the growth of income, then people are effectively made poorer over time through no fault of their own."
There probably is some undue emphasis in the above.
"exercise of monetary policy has historically failed to achieve the goals that have been delegated".
For this statement, I'd say that you're shooting the messenger. This is a statement of fact ... negative facts do not necessarily denote negative bias. I would be interested in how you would rewrite the statement
I would say that the totality of the article could be better balanced. Positive opinions are actually difficult the find. What I've found on this topic is that --- even at best --- most regard the Federal Reserve and it's policy as a necessary evil.
Thanks for the extensive help. BigK HeX (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Its difficult to be objective over a theoretical topic that is the subject of thousands of books and many controversy.. This page should be a reference guide> not a definition —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.193.21 (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion and policy

Gregalton proposed:
Duplicate material covered in other articles, including fractional reserve banking, federal reserve board, etc., ad nauseam.
MisterHand proposed:
Essay that violates WP:NPOV. Appropriate for a blog, but not for an encyclopedia

I, personally, support the maintenace of the page in a semblence of it's current state.

I have read Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and would still assert that these following policies would support the case for preservation: Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Preserve_information and Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Perfection_is_not_required, as well as Understand Bias and Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance, and to some extent, Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. Also, none of the cited reasons for proposed deletion exists in Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion except with the possibility of "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia" however, even in checking WP:SOAP I still find no relevence to this article. Sorry for all of this legal-type mumbo-jumbo.

I will explain again that the majority of the information is simple present-day "history." The sources are generally incontrovertible, and there is no need to represent a "mainstream" or "majority" viewpoint because these are *not* opinion pieces. Aside from the Criticisms section, the article does not contain a "view" or "perspective" or "pet theory" of monetary policy --- it is relating factual information related to monetary policy, which is mostly uncontestable due to the fact that processes described are at work nearly everyday. I would contend that the information about the implementation of monetary policy in the US is NOT to be found anywhere in wikipedia detailed as on this page. It is also a moderately sized articles (as far as webpages go ...) so I'm sure that this is not likely a merger candidate. Also, no one seems to disputing the accuracy, nor has anyone pointed out any particular source which is problematic, so I am assuming that the only problem is Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Fairness_of_tone, although I still hold that the presentation of facts which generally would induce negative emotion does NOT necessarily denote a problem of bias. If it is still truly an issue, I'm willing to work on corrections, and anyone can feel free to WP:SOFIXIT, in regards to the tone. I would be interested in examples of how some of the statements could be better worded. BigK HeX (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes. I still support deleting the article. It would be better to integrate any new or non-existing information into existing articles. And, please take these comments below as constructively as possible, but I will state upfront that the number of errors and exaggerations in this text - often based on poor sources - is a tedious task to deal with. Where did you get this text? Did you write it yourself or compile it from other sources?
To go through the article (again, any key facts not already in existing articles can be added):
  1. How money is created: already covered in fractional reserve banking and federal reserve.
  2. Federal reserve and money supply: ditto.
  3. How money is placed into circulation: should go in one of the above articles. In this section, I note there are quotes from Hemphill that are not sourced (out of context). The bit about the fed's 'private' status is unbalanced and should be in the fed article.
  4. Ramifications: riddled with errors and misuse of sources. For example, the statement that Federal Reserve holds 45% of debt is wrong (easily found in the treasury bulletin). 45% is held by government agencies and trust funds, etc. Only $800 bln is held by Fed. The Greenspan quote is misused: he says he's "confident that US financial markets ... can readily adapt." The entire para about the cost of "maintaining the money that is printed by the government" is just wrong: there are no interest costs associated with paper money. There are no interest costs associated with bank reserves at the fed. Interest on debt held by the fed is repaid to the government. The interest costs referred to are paid by the private sector. What we are left with is interest paid by the government for money it has borrowed (and almost half of which it pays to its own agencies and trust funds). The subsequent para "more loans must be created each month" is not suppported by the citations, which say nothing of the sort. Next para makes a broad claim about social conflict - no citation. Next para is also not supported by sources (yes, wage growth has not kept pace with inflation for many, but that is a distinct issue from inflation). The claims about exponential growth are not supported, even if relevant. (Can anyone explain to me why exponential growth of a notional unit of account is bad, anyway? Okay, there are more zeros, but so what?). So essentially, the whole remifications section is original reserach and/or wrong.
  5. Money supply, interest rates and the economy: covered in other articles.
  6. Criticism: Artificial influences - covered in Austrian school.
  7. Lack of accountability: the entire bit on audits is nonsense and poorly sourced. The Fed's own page is quite [specific] about how they are audited. I'm looking at the PWC independent audit now. The only supposedly unusual aspect is limited audits by GAO, as described [here], which was specifically put in fed legislation to allow independence (i.e. it would be defying the will of congress to do otherwise). It is also analogous to practice at other central banks - check Bank of Canada website. (And this part should really be in Fed article, if anywhere).
  8. Fulfilment of goals: original research and completely unbalanced. If there is to be such a section, it should be based on citations of note, and with some balance. (Is the Fed batting .500? Better than many administrations...) There is much excellent and nuanced commentary and research of "success" of fed, including much academic research by current chairman of fed, but this ain't it.
  9. Public confusion: quoting only McFadden in this section is comical. At any rate, should be in article on Fed.
  10. Mathematics: Covered in other articles.
I end where I began. I do not see any content in here that is compelling to keep as a separate article, and little that I would keep at all. I would appreciate comments from other editors, but I for one am not prepared to go through line by line fixing an article that has so little distinct content. (Spent too much time on a few others like this).
BigK: I would kindly suggest that, as a new user, it would be more productive to contribute to the existing articles.--Gregalton (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with everything Gregalton has written here and have submitted the article to WP:AFD for opinions from a wider group of editors. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 14:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course you do, MisterHand... Seeing as the "fractional reserve" article stood, and it had definite RS problems, I am confident that this article is much better a candidate for amendment or merger than deletion. BigK HeX (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is filled with misleading information, and it would be a waste of time to clean it up since virtually everything that this article talks about is covered in other articles. Dotter (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

To Gregalton

I have no problem integrating the text into other articles. Obviously, that would be a moot point if the text is disputed. Until such disputes subside or are resolved, then it is not really a good option.
The 45% number is indeed inaccurate. I misread some sources. I thought that seemed like a pretty large leap from the 8% - 10% that the Fed was holding when I last checked into the topic. Easy to correct.
"The Greenspan quote is misused: he says he's '"confident that US financial markets ... can readily adapt.'" ... now that you point it out, I'll concede that the Greenspan quote is misused, but any reasonable person would draw the same conclusions ... it is a "waffling statement" that does not inspire confidence.
"there are no interest costs associated with paper money." That is blatantly wrong. Never did I assert that the government pays the interest and you yourself point out that I refer to the interest burden being with the citizens ("The interest costs referred to are paid by the private sector"). You're arguing against something I never said, unless you dispute that the private sectors bears this burden (which is impossible in light of citable facts).
"broad claim about social conflict" ... it's somewhat harder to find reliable sources on this, though a multitude of less reliable ones exist. My citation on that one is still pending.
"wage growth has not kept pace with inflation for many, but that is a distinct issue from inflation" ... again, I would challenge this statement as being blatantly incorrect. You'll have to cite some sources where I can draw such a conclusion, because any scholarly writing on "real wages" will certainly tell you that wage growth and inflation are fundamentally linked.
"claims about exponential growth are not supported" ... inflation is directly tied to the excessive growth of the money supply (whether that growth is exponential or not). Statement may not be relevent. It's removal may be warranted.
"Can anyone explain to me why exponential growth of a notional unit of account is bad, anyway? Okay, there are more zeros, but so what?" Explaining it to *you* is not really relelvent is it? ... But, perhaps exponential growth is bad because we don't want 1,783 printing presses in 133 different printing houses just to maintain the money supply.... maybe. But, anyways, the more relevent concerns.
"entire bit on audits is nonsense and poorly sourced" ... find me a reliable source on the independent auditing of the Fed's open market operations, and you or I can easily provide the balancing viewpoint. Audits of their wage payments and operating costs, etc. are quite a different (and much less notable) aspect. I don't dispute that at all. In fact, I quite clearly note that they ARE audited in some forms, and the citation dicusses the results of one such audit. Again, if you want to dispute the facts as I have asserted (and cited) then I challenge to you to one single reliable source that shows strong evidence of audits of the open market operations. Also, I contend that the sources I cited for this passage are reliable ... one quotes USCA law (for which I even provide a link to the actual text of the law on the Cornell website); and the other source quotes a "Wall Street Journal" article. If that's not strong enough, I'm sure I can dig up the actual article, although it seems less-than-necessary.
"Fulfilment of goals: original research and completely unbalanced" ... compiling information from reliable sources is NOT original research (even if the information is new to you). Obviously, the Great Depression happened after Fed was established *despite* their mission to prevent such things. If that seems like original research to you .... ummm ... well, I don't know what to tell you. Also, I directly quote a Fed policymaker who says that inflation is ideal if 1 - 2%. I also then quote the Fed's own published statistics on inflation which show an average inflation of 3.4% ... I'm very curious exactly which part of the Fed's mission failure is supposed to consistute original research on my part? Then, I clearly cite reliable sources about the decline of real wages. Again, the Fed's failure is simple historical fact. The fact that I bring it up is not "original research" nor is it bias on my part.
"If there is to be such a section, it should be based on citations of note, and with some balance" ... WP:SOFIXIT! Anyone can certainly feel free to add any balancing perspectives which they feel have been overlooked. Obviously, balance isn't achieved by deletion, or wikipedia would be rather small ....
"quoting only McFadden in this section is comical" ... quoting one of the most notable critics of monetary policy in a section about 'criticisms of monetary policy' is comical? That's certainly an interesting stance.
"I do not see any content ... " I get the impression that you may be a self-styled "defender of economic truth," which is fine. After reading the "fractional reserve" debacle, I actually was going to contact you about this article for advice on improvement, as you seemed to show some patience with karmaisking and he was not even very reasonable. Unfortunately that patience has expired, but your presence here could prove helpful nonetheless. Thanks for your continued input. BigK HeX (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to give the flavour for new editors: please see Louis Thomas McFadden. Some notable quotes: He claimed that Jews controlled the American economy, and that the United States had to choose between "God and the money changers who have unlawfully taken our gold and lawful money into their possession." McFadden also blamed Jews for president Roosevelt's decision to abandon the gold standard, and claimed that "in the United States today, the Gentiles have the slips of paper while the Jews have the lawful money." McFadden is also remembered for his criticism of the Federal Reserve, which he claimed was created and operated by European banking interests who conspired to economically control the United States. On June 10, 1932, McFadden made a 25-minute speech before the House of Representatives, in which he accused the Federal Reserve of deliberately causing the Great Depression. McFadden also claimed that Wall Street bankers funded the Bolshevik Revolution through the Federal Reserve banks and the European central banks with which it cooperated. In 1932, he moved to impeach President Herbert Hoover, and also introduced a resolution bringing conspiracy charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. The impeachment resolution was defeated by a vote of 361 to 8; it was seen as a big vote of confidence to President Hoover from the House." (My emphasis)
This is "one of the most notable critics of monetary policy"? Do you truly not see the issue here?
Burden of interest: I must be missing your point. If I contract to borrow money and pay interest, is that a burden to me? In which case, I'm annoyed about the burden of paying for things I consume, too.
Exponential growth: would not require more printing presses. More zeros on the bills. At any rate, I find it hard to believe that you are seriously arguing that the cost of printing money would be a problem. (And please don't compare to Weimar, Zimbabwe, etc - exponential growth of 2-10% does not necessarily mean hyperinflation).
As for the 3% or 1-2% inflation, the 1-2% target/consensus is relatively new. A nuanced discussion would a) compare with experience of other central banks/currencies; b) note issues regarding the relative weighting of the Fed's "three-pronged" goals; c) cite historical, academic analyses (Bernanke is a good start); d) distinguish between different periods, chairmen, etc.
And, I'm sorry, but I've heard the "SOFIXIT" request before. It is not reasonable to ask others to fix OR/POV articles to this degree. I have made my best suggestion: fix it by deleting it.--Gregalton (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
McFadden is indeed one of the most notable critics of monetary policy in the US. You seem to have fallen into the common trap of confusing notability with credibility. Also, you seem to have personal bias against him. None of that has anything to do with his notability as a critic.
I only refer to interest as a "burden" here. The article quite plainly refers to it as a cost -- the cost of maintaining the money supply. So, again, you're arguing against something that is not stated in the article.
"exponential growth of 2-10% does not necessarily mean hyperinflation" ... and it doesn't NOT mean hyperinflation. Your example of "printing more zeros" is irrelevent as there is little successful precedent in such cases. Simple example ... a printing press has the capability of printing $100 per citizen per day. The average person starts at year #1 with $50 of daily expense. Even with only 3% inflation, the priting presses will be at full capacity in 23 years. Governments have collapsed once that point is reached, even despite your brilliant suggestion that they simply take up everyone's money and add more zeros to them.
"my best suggestion: fix it by deleting it" ... sounds like censorship of verifiable informtion to me. Now that the factual issues are resolved, and weak NPOV arguments stand as the only impediment, I am confident that amedment is the better course. BigK HeX (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You're right, McFadden is notable, but not credible. Quoting a notable source of low credibility (some would say a noted conspiracy theorist) seems POV to me, unless of course the point is to demonstrate the arguments of conspiracy theorists. This is discussed in WP:Fringe, WP:Undue and also the standard example, Flat Earth.
I'm not sure I understand at all why the "cost" of interest is different from any other good. There are costs to roads, too. One might reasonably argue that the benefits outweigh the costs, or at least consider the issue. The point that there are costs to having a functional society seems...I don't even know what to say here... banal? (Would there be costs under any feasible alternative?)
Actually, it does not mean hyperinflation, which has a definition (under international accounting rules, generally in excess of 20% per annum). As for examples of countries that have added (and removed) zeroes with no substantial or uncontrolled cost of printing, one could cite Turkey, Brazil, Italy, France, Russia, etc. The only cases I'm aware of where the costs of printing have been said to be problematic are Weimar and perhaps Zimbabwe, where the problem could be said to be runaway hyperinflation (i.e. hyperinflation accelerating so rapidly that you can't add zeroes fast enough).
I don't know why you're playing the censorship card. Any valid points, if useful and relevant, can be integrated into existing articles as I've suggested. You are confident amendment is the better course, I and some others are not.--Gregalton (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hemphill quote

This quote has been reinserted: "In, summary, almost every US Dollar↑↑ anywhere in the world represents a current outstanding loan of some US citizen somewhere.[[3]] I do not see this source "sourced." When was it said? In what context? Who is Robert Hemphill (I cannot find him on internet, except in relation to this quote)? Note I don't have a huge problem with the quote itself, if it can be sourced properly. And yes, I contend this is not, as referenced here, a proper source - surely the original quote can be found? The "source" provides no further information as to where they got this.--Gregalton (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Err .. is it NOT a quote. The statement in the article is a conclusion that is reinforced by the quote. Robert Hemphill was a credit manager of the Atlanta Federal Reserve. I will add multiple citations to buttress the statement in the article, since a Federal Reserve insider is insufficent. BigK HeX (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
My point is, the quote and status as an insider are not verified. Other quotes would be welcome.--Gregalton (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
As to the rest .... I'm not sure on the policy of Fringe ... I thought it did not discourage minority views that received wide notability. I'll have to review the policy. Feel free to remove the text if it does violate any interpretation of Fringe policy, or I'll do it myself if I come to that understanding.
"there are costs to having a functional society seems...banal" ..... Banal information that is factual and verifable doesn't seem like a candidate for deletion. Leave it and let it bore readers, IMO. If you can reliably dispute it then plesase delete it as an "egregious factual error"
"don't know why you're playing the censorship card" .... I don't know your general history, but the karmaisking debate and the insistence on deletion suggests censorship. The fact that you found this article shortly after Google crawled it, even suggests that you may even actively search for articles of this nature ... if true, it would give further credence to a personal policy of censorship in regards to negative information being disseminated about the Fed. I've seen such persistence before, even in light of incontrovertible evidence, so I am making characterizations about you that may be undue ... but in light of this opposition, the unfound accusations, and the account ban ... it can't be helped. BigK HeX (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Inclusion of information that tries to make a point ('there are costs') without context or the other side of the argument lack balance. If I said, for example, "maintaining the United States transportation network, particularly roads, has enormous costs to government and society" this would be unbalanced and possibly fringe (repeat as necessary for military, justice system, police, education, etc). While technically true (the costs are large), presenting it with no context whatsoever is POV. "The cost of feeding the American people is a huge drain on private and public finances." Well, yes, but without that "cost" they would die. (This is, of course, facetious, but only partly so). Please see WP:NPOV, which clearly states that "Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization." (My emphasis)
I found the article while eradicating excessive links, especially of fringe topics. The fact that your sources overlap to some degree with that other editor's did not help. I have, of course, apologized for the mistaken identity (and please note that I did not advocate blocking you so hastily but asked for a checkuser, but feel that was an honest mistake on Coren's part, for which he also apologized).
I have no link to the fed nor particularly care about the Fed's rep. I do care about (what I believe to be) unbalanced POV articles that give undue weight to fringe theories in a purported encyclopedia. I feel particularly strongly about conspiracy theories being pushed here (not saying you're doing so, but for some reason monetary policy attracts the conspiracy-minded).
And please, "incontrovertible evidence" is a rather loaded phrase, that tends to get thrown around here. I have not made many claims to have The Truth, but have tried to indicate where I believe this article is off track. And yes, I feel it would be better to delete, for reasons I've outlined. Please don't take it personally.--Gregalton (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't take any offense (against you .. Coren's hasty action is another matter). I expected your resistance (as mentioned, I considered preemptively contacting you just so I could get this ball rolling). I don't use the term "incontrovertible evidence" lightly. In this case, I feel justified in using the phrase because the *source* of the information is the very same organization which the information reflects negatively against. I am aware of that NPOV section that cites bias even with facts. I would contend that wikipedia guidelines would lean much more heavily into people "being bold" and adding the balancing perspective than to delete the article for less-than-egregious lopsidedness. The truth of the matter is that the more positive rationales for the Federal Reserve are not readily available in electronic form, and I am trying to keep this article as easy to verify as possible, as some of the information compiled is not well understood. BigK HeX (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
As to the POV-balance of the statements involving "costs of maintaining the money supply" ... most people's first reaction is that simple maintanance of the money supply should NOT be charged to the American public (beyond the cost of printing) and certainly not charged with compound interest. So, including that elaboration would not help with the POV issues, and I intentionally failed to go into that bit of detail. BigK HeX (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your point on the costs of maintaining the money supply. The American "public" does not pay, borrowers do; in fact, to the extent that the American "public" are depositors, they actually get paid for it. As for the actual currency, the American public net-net gets income from seigniorage. The public does, of course, pay for government borrowings, but that is a separate issue (government debt). And, of course, to the extent that any borrowings result in economic growth, they indirectly benefit. There are lots of criticisms and costs that I would agree with, such as the inflation tax in the case of 'excess' money supply growth, but I honestly don't understand your point here.--Gregalton (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
'Tis a simple point. You may be overanalyzing, maybe? The entirety of American currency is supported by bank loans. Bank loans cost interest. American citizens and businesses are the ones to acquire these loans. Thus, American citizens and businesses are the ones paying the interest costs which support the monetary base. There no hidden message in there. Just a simple conclusion of the costs of the economic process. BigK HeX (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess I am overanalyzing. I'm going to do more so: you are presenting this as a bad thing. I could equally argue that US citizens are being provided a service (access to funds for money). I could also argue that if non-US citizens borrow money (which they do), they are subsidizing US money supply creation. At any rate, I would appreciate a proper citation here: this is (IMO) original research of the synthesis type - you have made a conclusion and implied moral judgment about the allocation of the costs that I don't recall seeing elsewhere. (In contrast, the conclusion that non-US citizens holding US physical currency are making an interest-free loan to the US government is quite standard).--Gregalton (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
acknowleged. (I'll let you in on this, though ... I am not presenting it as good nor bad. I am simply presenting it, with no connotation of bias either way. The reason I am presenting it is mostly because there is a lot of misinformation that there is ZERO interest cost paid to support the monetary base, despite the facts.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigK HeX (talk • contribs) 18:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It comes across (IMO) as bad. If you say 'most people's reaction is that ... it should NOT be charged to the American public', it's a bit of a contradiction to then say it's neutral. Where do you see someone claiming that there is zero interest cost paid to support the monetary base? I can only see this interpretation if there is confusion about the different definitions of money (M1 through 17 or whatever they're up to now). There is no interest cost for physical currency, and issue costs are swamped by seigniorage; this is probably what such sources are referring to. Costs for the other types of money are borne by those who borrow it, so hard to see that there is an issue. Stating this point without clearly distinguishing between the types of money would be an issue. (Side note: throughout most of the monetary articles, I find there is mass confusion about the distinctions between the different types of money).--Gregalton (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Even if most Americans hold the view that "murder is bad," then me simply reporting that "murder occured" is not biased. I delievered the information in that statement with no connotation ... I cannot help how it may be generally regarded. I won't bother to cite examples but there are economists who insist that the issuance of "Federal Reserve Notes" and "US Notes" is equivalent. As obviated by the economic process as outlined ... it is not equivalent. BigK HeX (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Deceptive analogy; hard to believe you're even attempting to be neutral with an analogy to murder. "Cost" in this context is entirely nebulous, it's not clear if there is a cost, it's not clear who bears this cost (and whether they are getting something for it and contracting of their free will), and it's not clear that you're even speaking of the same type of money. As written, it implies that the "public" bears this cost - not clear and not supported by citations.
And what is your point about Federal Reserve Notes and US Notes? (Do you really mean obviated here?)--Gregalton (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Nothing deceptive about the analogy. In just as straightforward a manner, as can be described the occurence of something with as much negative connotation as murder, so here am I being unbiased in the presentation of factual "history."
Err .. no .. didn't mean obviated. Meant "made obvious" (not sure where obviated came from.) But, US Notes did not generate any interest so there is no burden to any party, while Federal Reserve Notes (by the involvement of the commercial loan process) do create an interest cost. However, some economists propogate the misinformation that the two must generate equal (or equivalent) costs. This is impossible. I put so much emphasis on this particular point, because I believe that the Federal Reserve, too, propogates this with some deceptive wording of their own ... specifically, their FAQs state "U.S. notes serve no function that is not already served by Federal Reserve notes ..... Both U.S. notes and Federal Reserve notes are part of our national currency and are legal tender. They circulate as money in the same way." This disgustingly ignores the significant difference in interests costs that are generated by the two formerly-competing currencies. US Notes generate zero interest burden, as they are paid directly into circulation as the wages of government employees (mostly Civil War soldiers) [see |here and here. Federal Reserve Notes, on the other hand, generate $70 billion dollars of interest annually through the process of their injection into circulation (assuming 9% interest on commercial loans). So, obviously, calling the two forms of currency issuance as "equivalent" is incorrect. This may be the source of the misinformation about the "zero cost" of Federal Reserve Notes. While most writings on the costs of Federal Reserve Notes correctly point out the Treasury Rebate of the interest on securities (minus some seignorage), that does not equate into the money being "interest-free" or "equivalent to US Notes," as a matter of simple fact. Speaking of seignorage, if I really wanted to soapbox, one candidate fact would be how the Fed gets to name it's own budget, out of the $30+ billion dollars that receives each year. But, I digress.
tl;dr ... I have emphasis on the point to hopefully clear up confusion that may or may not be promulgated by articles from the Federal Reserve BigK HeX (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Please just provide a citation. There is no interest paid on federal reserve notes to holders. You are doing the calculation on an assumed basis (9% on the $800 billion outstanding). If this is the case, surely there should be a good citation.
According to the fed, the only "interest paid" is paid to the US govt (by the US govt). The "interest" on federal reserve notes is defined in e.g. FRBNY's financial statements: "Interest on Federal Reserve Notes: The Board of Governors requires the Reserve Banks to transfer excess earnings to the U.S. Treasury as interest on Federal Reserve notes, after providing for the costs of operations, payment of dividends, and reservation of an amount necessary to equate surplus with capital paid-in." (see here). Hence, the government gets substantially all of the profit ($12 bln of $14 bln profit, almost all of the balance going to surplus capital (as per statute, see note k)). Since substantially all of the income (operating costs are very low) is from interest on government securities, govt pays interest on outstanding debt to each Federal Reserve bank, which then gives it back to the government.
This is the only sense in which interest is paid on federal reserve notes, and it is paid TO the government.--Gregalton (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

@Gregalton

I had already provided additional citation. I have now expanded the para to fit the citations more appropriately, though.
"There is no interest paid on federal reserve notes to holders."
I never claimed that the government (or, by extension, that taxpayers) share any flat interest cost. I am well-aware that the interest paid to the Fed for it's portfolio is generally rebated to the treasury. That part is mostly irrelevent to monetary policy.
However, if you accept that currency is placed into circulation through the grant of loans, then you must similarly accept that the placement of currency into circulation generates a cost of interest. Simple logic dictates this. It is possible that you do not believe that the loan process is the source of money --- this is a difficult concept to grasp, but THAT part is quite easy to verify with reliable sources.
"If this is the case, surely there should be a good citation."
That's quite an assumption. Citations are available which support the facts, but even without that, as mentioned, the fact stands as simple logic. I have expanded the text and provided citations as appropriate.
"This is the only sense in which interest is paid on federal reserve notes, and it is paid TO the government."
You are wrong. You are not the only one, hence my emphasis on the point in the article. (Also, interest isn't paid TO the gov't though it is *rebated* Important technical difference.) More importantly though, emitting currency into circulation DOES come with an attendant interest cost owed to commercial banks by the recipient of the loan. Certainly, loan recipients are aware of the interest cost, just as I am aware of the dollar costs on my hamburger. But, there is also a BIGGER PICTURE ... my hamburger creates an industry for cattle, which supposedly contributes to greenhouse gases .... analogously, the BIGGER PICTURE of an individual's loan is that they are bearing the cost as the end result of the Federal Reserve's desire to expand the monetary base --- as such, the consequence is that interest is required to support the monetary base.
I assume you were unaware of this connection ... the bigger picture. That may explain your resistance to this article and earlier deletion. A lot of confusion clouds the issue, which is why I am trying to have it clearly conveyed. It is both cited fact and simple logic, so, IMO, it should be able to stand (unless someone wants to make the case that my sources about loans and such are in error).
BigK HeX (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I've now edited the steps of the "currency into circulation" process to better cite and attribute the info discussed. That should help to verify the accuracy of the content BigK HeX (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I am disputing a simple contention: you claim that interest is paid on federal reserve notes (cash money). Please provide a source for this statement. This seems a simple requirement and, given how much is written about economics, a good, reliable source should be easy to find.
As for the "bigger picture": WP is not the place to push an interpretation of the "big picture." What you believe to be "cited fact" and "simple logic" is actually original research, at minimum of the synthesis type.--Gregalton (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Essay

This article reads like an essay. It needs a fair bit of work. I added a quick lead, if this is not the purpose of the article please put what is the purpose in the lead. If the article has no puporse, please vote delete at the afd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksanddirt (talk • contribs) 18:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Google caches

Due to the usually nice speeds and highlighting, I draw a lot of info from the "cached" links on Google searches, as opposed to the direct website. In complying with Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Say_where_you_got_it, I cited the links to the cached pages. Revert my undo if the direct links would be more appropriate. (If not, then I apologize to EGeek) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigK HeX (talk • contribs) 01:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work on keeping with citing policy on this. Although I was doing a reliable source check through this section at the time and considered the original source to be more reliable than the google cache. Please comment on the other sources I deleted in a different section. --EGeek (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS

EGeek has objected to some sources as violating RS. I do not think the burden is on me to first justify the original inclusion of the sources. Wikipedia:When_to_cite#Challenging_another_user.27s_edits Requesting use of the {{verify credibility}} template for now, please --BigK HeX (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:When_to_cite#Challenging_another_user.27s_edits the burden is yours, even though I only deleted material. But I will discuss my reason anyway.
To be short and "sweet", I removed sources that were self-published (i.e. Blogs) or sources from organizations with an fringe agenda. In the case of sources citing a reliable source, if these sources originate from one of the above, the source will eventually get shot down; therefore, this source should be changed anyway. For example, if the Greenspan quote about the "paydown of Treasury debt" were not a reliable source, the original Wall Street article should be used instead. --EGeek (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the assistance. But, in order to keep me sane, I'd ask that you please use the {{verify credibility}} (Template:Verify_credibility) for now. It will make it much easier to figure out which ones you are objecting to, so that they can be replaced. If they are deleted, the text becomes unsourced, and I'd have to figure out every sentence that you may have removed attribution from. (Also, I was pretty srue I was diligent in never referencing any blogs.) Again, thank you. BigK HeX (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A list of the sources believed to violate WP:RS in section Ramifications of the Economic Regulation Process:

-- EGeek (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you tagging some of the sources based solely on the fact that they are from the Google cache?? If so, would you please remove such tags or explain why you think Google may be biased.--BigK HeX (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I tagged sources from google cache because I think they are more unreliable than the original page. I am currently trying to get community consensus because I failed find anything about the reliable or verifiability of using cache from search engines like google. --EGeek (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
# ^ a b Schenk, Robert, Ph.D. From Commodity to Bank-Debt Money. Retrieved on 2008-01-07. “Professor of Economics”[unreliable source?]
Why is this tagged? I can't figure out why an account of banking history related by a Ph.D. in Economics is in any way unreliable. Some of these tags are starting to look nearly random. BigK HeX (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
See self-published sources. I fail to see where this professor is an expert in U.S. Monetary Policy or banking in general. --EGeek (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletions

I'd ask that people please not assume that their 1-person "consensus" should override presumption of good faith on my part. I have asserted that all of the information compiled is not the result of original research. I ask that good faith be reciprocated, please. Use of tags where appropriate would be one such act showing good faith, as opposed to heavy-handed deletions.

  1. {{Synthesis}} Template:Syn,
  2. {{cn}},
  3. {{dubious}} Template:Dubious, or
  4. {{or}} Template:Or

Also, I would ask that you make allowances for Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Obvious_deductions, although you are not strictly required to do so. If you are not making such allowances, please note the dispute in this talk page --- a consensus may form. Some editors seem to have no remaining arguments to post, and are resorting to deletions with vague indications of policy violation -- I hope this is not the case. Thanks, again to everyone who is trying to make this the best possible article on monetary policy. --BigK HeX (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd ask that you try to follow NPOV more diligently, and accept deletions and other changes as part of the task of a collaborative process. Making changes to the article does not amount to questioning your good faith.
As the link that you provided above states with respect to original research: "Neutral point of view requires presenting all significant viewpoints on an issue, and may include collecting opinions from multiple, possibly biased and/or conflicting, sources. Organizing published facts and opinions — without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts, or presenting an unpublished conclusion — is not original research."
The "obvious deductions" part claimed sounds nice, but does not apply: read the policy carefully. "More complex logical deductions should, again, not be included under this case." What you are claiming is not equivalent to a simple syllogism nor to basic math. And yes, I know the next part of that sentence reads "they require skills that many readers may not possess." Whether or not I have the skills, you need to demonstrate that your synthesis meets the test of an obvious deduction.--Gregalton (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see the point of tags if you delete without any discussion. --EGeek (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see the points and serious concerns I raised above in 'deletions and policy.' I don't believe we are required to flag every potential deletion in advance, particularly where they have been raised in the discussion page and not fixed. I will try to flag, but don't think it is reasonable to expect it in each case, particularly when language is highly POV and (as documented in several cases) outright wrong.--Gregalton (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I apologize Gregalton. I meant the deletion of flags, not sources or material. BigK HeX asked me to flag sources that believe were unreliable instead of deleting them. Although not required, I flagged the sources as he asked. Then, he deleted the flags without any discussion because he did not agree. Again, I apologize. I was not clear. --EGeek (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I probably read that too quickly...my misinterpretation.--Gregalton (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I retained many of the flags where there was a question of possible bias, which I will replace with more appropriate sources. However, you seem to have just used the flags willy-nilly, to the point that such flagging itself was confusing. You apparently were even flagging Google caches as being some sort of biased or unreliable source(???), which reinforced the idea that your flagging was rather .... "aggressive" (which even you seem to agree with now that the flags have been reverted by your hand. You did specifically mention issue with 4 links which is very helpful; however, you flagged probably 30 citations, which was simply confusing. I'm requesting reasoning behind each source that you want to dispute/delete. Obviously, I can't know what your rationale is from just seeing the flag. As mentioned above, I am requesting discussion of and contentious material. BigK HeX (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I have already conceded the Google cache cites as unreliable sources for now; however, all the other sources I marked still stand as unreliable. I flagged the sources for these 3 reasons:
  1. Bias source expressing a fringe theory (i.e. Idaho Observer)
  2. Where the reason for the source's existence is to persuade the reader to buy something. (i.e. Liberty Dollar
  3. Self-published Source where author is an expert in U.S. Monetary Policy or the banking system in general. This also includes blogs
Please let me know if you have question any particular source after reviewing that the source does not fall into this criteria. I deny your request to list every single source. --EGeek (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
"where author is not an expert" .. this is the general source of our dispute, so far as I can tell. I claim their qualifications make them reliable sources ... you do not. You have gone so far as to challenge a doctor of economics (with 30 years of related experience) whose information simply relates undisputed information about the history of banking that forms part of the curriculum of a well-accredited college's courses. I require your criteria for "expertness" or I can draw nothing from inclusion of your tags and must challenge your use of the tags. I am not sure that we alone will be able to resolve the reliability issue. BigK HeX (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not question his expertise in general economics or his years as a professor. I question his expertise of the current banking system per the context of this article. If you used this professor as a source for general economic principles, then I would consider this professor a reliable source. See self-published sources. Also, please review the title in the citation. It reads "From Commodity to Bank-Debt Money" instead of the website's title "Checking-Account Money" per the link. --EGeek (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I apologize for the confusion. I wrote "where author is not an expert" instead of "where author is an expert" I have fixed this above in my comment above. I hope this clears things up. --EGeek (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

References and Reliability

"If you used this professor as a source for general economic principles" .... that is precisely how I used him as a source. If you're not reading the sources in context, then it will make things rather difficult. I used him to reference the fact that "banks make loans when holding excess reserves." That is a staple of the banking industry in general. I fail to see how such an easily qualified source would be unable to reliably make such an assertion. If you require more intense rigor to reinforce even information that is in general consensus among experts in the field, then I do not believe that I can satisfy you. As mentioned, we hold a fundamental difference of opinion in "expertness" which may not be resolvable on our own. BigK HeX (talk) 08:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
As to the title .... the overall exposition is named as cited. It is broken into sections (chapters). I linked directly into the relevent chapter, in order to facilitate verifiability. However, the name is correct as cited. It seems you are perturbed by any usage of economic terms similar to "debt-based" and probably regard such authors as fringe kooks. If so, I contend that the usage of such terms do not (by themselves) impugn the qualifications of sources in making general assertions about their particular fields of study. BigK HeX (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Mountain. Molehill. While I don't have a particular problem with the source in question, if it's such a simple, basic concept surely it is covered elsewhere (and in fact it is). It also is a partly ad-driven site, which is not ideal. Just move on rather than see this as an unresolvable issue. For the moment, it's not that problematic a source.
But this source is the least of the problem - there are still lots of blog, quotes from liberttree (which are mostly unreferenced, etc), and a bunch of others. Please work on those, rather than worrying about a difference of opinion with one source.--Gregalton (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Certainly I'll be working on some of the sourcing, but I wanted to make it clear that EGeek has set the bar so unrealistically high on the matter of "expertness" that even after my edits, the issue will still be standing. Personally, I don't even really see much problem with the "quote" pages, though they may be provided by organizations with agendas ... they are simply compilations of quotes which I feel require less stringent standards ... but that feeling probably is counter to WP:RS (though it still seems pretty reasonable). BigK HeX (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Policy on self-published sources says this:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

I believe this source does not satify the "established expert" exception to the No self-published source policy.
However, Gregalton is right. There are other unreliable sources that require more attention. I have shown that I did not place the flags "willy nilly" per your accusation; thus, I expect these flags to not get deleted this time. I do not intend to delete flag items until you have had a chance to review and discuss them. Then, we can decide what to do.--EGeek (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications
... and how do you know that his work is not accpeted by third-party sources. Certainly you didn't check. You are making assertions that you didn't even bother to check .... hence, "willy-nilly." I would point out that multiple schools of repute utilize Dr. Schenk's "cyber-economics" writings as part of their own curriculum. BigK HeX (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I checked every source. I made a good faith effort to check the reliability of every source. I know this professor wrote articles published in many economic magazines and wrote the first online textbook of economics. I know he is widely accepted in his field. His field is not the banking system. If you have evidence to the contrary, then I will reconsider. --EGeek (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 ???
Are you saying that you are aware that multiple colleges utilize the exact same information that I used from Dr. Schenk, and you are still disputing it? I'd easily contend that the fact that "banks create money" is pretty darn intrinsic to the study of modern economics, and the fact that "banks have a tendency to loan free reserves" should fall well into that expertise, IMHO. BigK HeX (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware that his "online textbook" in economics has been used by many schools. I also agree that "banks create money" and this money is created by the use of deposits to issue loans. These are two basic principles of fractional reserve banking. I disagree that this professor is an expert in this field, and without any evidence I will not be convinced otherwise.
Since Gregalton also feels this source is fine, other unreliable sources are being ignored, and I have failed to present a better source, you are welcome to delete the flag. --EGeek (talk) 06:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Just improve the ones you can easily, first. The problem with the quote farms is that they give no context and it is difficult to confirm, identify the speakers properly, etc, and have a tendency to cherry-pick and leave out issues of relevance. As near as I can figure, for example, Hemphill spoke in 1939 or thereabouts, but this widely circulated quote does not seem to be confirmed by anyone. Editors can disagree about what constitutes a reliable source, but when there are so many that do not seem balanced, it raises questions. While I know it is a separate issue, the debt-based monetary system article is a good example - completely POV and, it turned out, made such egregious misuse of sources that it made the whole article dubious.--Gregalton (talk) 15:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Can I make a compromise suggestion here? I kind of disagree with EGeek on this one - it's probably marginally acceptable (but much better sources could be found with little effort). Leave the flag and don't worry about it. Fix all the other ones that are more problematic as soon as possible. We can get to this one later. If you fix all the other ones, heck, I'LL find a replacement source.
Or in a more general sense: fight less about each individual change and source and try to make this a well-sourced, non-POV article. If YOU are making changes that make it noticeably better, there will be less dispute. You have TWO editors spending a lot of time on this article - more than it warrants in its current condition in my blunt opinion. Take advantage of that rather than disputing each source.--Gregalton (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Inflation tax

"The net effect would be that citizens effectively can be made poorer over time through no fault of their own.

Further information: Inflation tax"

I request information on why this was deleted. The page history indicates some belief WP:OR was violated, though I don't see how, as that seems to contradict the editor's statement above

"There are lots of criticisms and costs that I would agree with, such as the inflation tax in the case of 'excess' money supply growth"

BigK HeX (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I flagged the edit line with OR/opinion. The statement "net effect would be that citizens effectively can be made poorer over time through no fault of their own" is highly opinionated original research" (certainly the concept of "fault" is unbalanced). So it is opinion.
Second, the context of the quote was this: "Thus, an exponential need for increasing amounts of money may be contributing factor towards inflation in the US. Inflation raises the cost-of-living for everyone, and if inflation exceeds the growth of income, then real wages decline." The link to inflation tax is OR: the inflation tax is NOT held to be about real wages, but about those holders of cash balances, as in the article on the inflation tax. Your qualification of "if inflation exceeds the growth of income" makes the link even more tenuous and unrelated. If inflation is exceeding the growth of income, then perhaps there is another cause? What is causing the divergence? The articles cited do not clarify this issue or attribute causality. Hence it is OR.
Side note: some applications of macroeconomics would say that "income" by definition equals inflation plus productivity growth, where income is national income (GDP). So you are talking about a distribution of income, either between labour and capital or between different individuals/groups.
At any rate, deletion based on straightforward reasons as in first two paras above. You misread my previous point: there are contexts in which there is a cost associated with inflation, referred to as inflation tax; this was not meant as blanket approval of your use of the term.--Gregalton (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
You seem to make no distinction between OR violations and the simple need for more relevent citations. Perhaps you should. Although that could just be the extension of you having no desire to presume good faith on the part of other editors (me, in this case). BigK HeX (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I think this is both OR and POV. But if you find the right citations, it can of course go in.
And please desist with the good faith accusations. It's tedious.--Gregalton (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I've flagged this statement with "dubious": "Inflation raises the cost-of-living for everyone, and if inflation exceeds the growth of income, then real wages decline."
Here is a case where the "obvious deduction and sources make dubious claims:
  1. Inflation raises the cost of living for everyone: not demonstrably true from sources (in real terms);
  2. Inflation exceeds the growth of income, then real wages decline: this is actually definitional, so doesn't actually say anything (by definition, if real wages decline, inflation has exceeded growth in income - that's what a decline in real wages means).
  3. The sources do not actually support this. Checking through, this is based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics data, notes for which can be found [here]. The definition states quite clearly that this is "estimated arithmetic averages (means) of the hourly and weekly earnings of all production and nonsupervisory jobs in the private nonfarm sector of the economy". In other words, this is most emphatically not "everyone"; it is entirely possible from these sources that the real wages of other individuals (e.g. management, rock stars, farmers, what have you) went up, and real wages on average were unchanged (or went up).
Grateful other comments, but the "obvious conclusion" would appear to be wrong and original research. (And for this to be a reliable source, it really should have far better and more complete notes, for example, direct from BLS).--Gregalton (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd gladly ... bah. Nevermind. BigK HeX (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Assertions about money

The article currently makes this claim: "It follows that almost↑↑↑ every printed US Dollar bill anywhere in the world represents a current outstanding loan of some citizen to a US bank somewhere.[15]" I am flagging this dubious and questioning the source (a blog at http://www.appropriate-economics.org/asia/thailand/golden.html). Note that the claim that every printed US dollar bill represents an outstanding loan is not supported by the text, the blog. This represents a significant point of confusion, the different types of money supply (M0 through M3/M4). If 90% of M3 is bank debt, this is not printed money (as well documented by the definition). There is no claim that I can find that bills represent debts of commercial banks.--Gregalton (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Although, I'd say this is quite easily "obvious deduction" I could agree with the above. A small step in the process has been neglected, which might make the difference. I'll fill in the missing "link" between loans and bills with text and references. BigK HeX (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You say "tomato", I say "factually inaccurate" ;).
I'll leave you to see how to work whatever the point you're making is, but here's a link that makes it perfectly clear with respect to federal reserve notes (IMO): "In effect, by holding our currency, citizens of the rest of the world are making an interest-free loan to the United States." Or this: "Currency issuing is highly profitable for governments because the issuance of non-interest-bearing central bank currency liabilities gives rise, correspondingly, to comparable holdings of earning assets by the central bank." This is Edward W. Kelley, Jr., member, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, before the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, July 13, 1994 - Statements to the Congress - Transcript.
Look forward to seeing the reference that closes the loop on the missing link, as it is (for me) a novel and not obvious deduction.--Gregalton (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Want to make it clear

Although I am being fairly contentious, I do appreciate the effort that the current co-editors are expending. I am very appreciative of the expansion of the text, and hope that the information I compiled will be able to stand, so that this collaboration can help break the trend that many of the economics articles seem to have fallen into when going any further than 'Econ 101.' It's been said that wikipedia is lacking in the economics area of knowledge. This article might be that next bit that fills in a little more of that shadow. BigK HeX (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Likewise. And I am trying to retain an open mind on this, but one problem I have is when I do searches to try to find information that makes a credible point, I get non-academic, conspiracy-minded polemics about the Fed being involved in JFK's death and other nonsense. I'm not saying that this is where you are trying to go, but getting some strong references that talk about a fundamentally academic subject in academic terms (not necessarily equations, but credible sources) would make a major difference.--Gregalton (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. This is precisely why I decided to make this effort. To think that so much confusion exists over such a fundamental issue is disgusting. One would hope that answering such a fundamental question as "how does money get from the Mint, into your pockets" should be something any high-school level student could parrot from memory. Instead, it takes months of digging to finally gather all of the pieces, and then weeks more to strip away the hysterical crud. (Well, at least that's the trouble that I found in doing it. Others' mileage may vary...) In any case, I think I can satisfy your rigorous criteria, and if so, what better place than wikipedia for people to find the answer to such a fundamental and seemingly-easy question as "where does my money come from?" ... as opposed to being bombarded with asinine Truths (TM) that run the gamut from moon-men to worse.
The flagging is proving a great help. Now that I have better insight into which text is contentious, I can clarify, and am doing so now. I do have the feeling that the text will become awkward to read, which is counter to my goal of being accessible and verifiable to laymen, but, if it is required for the text to stand, then - obviously - it's a cost I have to accept. BigK HeX (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's frankly not that easy a topic. Confused a lot of great minds over the years. Let me know if I can help.
As to the longer term "what the article needs", I still think more on what the monetary policy is, rather than money creation dynamics, would be better. (In fact, I still think most of the content should be in other articles...). A few suggested sources: federal reserve sites actually have a lot of info. So do some other central banks, like the Canadian one (helps get a sense that the federal reserve looks weird due to the strange structure, but in practice works a lot like other central banks. Textbooks on macroeconomics are surprisingly good and contain much fo the same information, without the screeds and political baggage. Good luck.--Gregalton (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
No ... definitely not a simple topic, but certainly fundamental enough ... I'm sad that it's not given at least a brief overview at the high-school level. A lot of this stuff could be generalized into other articles, but nearly all of my information (and certainly, my sources) are centered on the Federal Reserve, and ... .as such, it became information that is pretty specific to the United States (though it can be assumed to be applicable to any nation under a Central Bank) ... but I think I know where assumtions would end up  :oD
You've already helped a great deal by tagging the relevent info. Instead of checking diffs, I can now just reconstruct and expand the existing text to use the citations more appropriately. There is indeed a lot of info available, but ... as you can see, I'm am striving to include some information that goes beyond the bits in most basic texts, to make this an article that doesn't leave any gaps about the process from Mints to pocket. Thanks for the graciousness in allowing me this extra time. BigK HeX (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, it is an article about US monetary policy, so understandable to not have much about other countries. I actually meant that checking what goes on in other countries would give some balance and confirm / deny the extent to which Fed monetary policy and other elements are "normal." For example, lots of countries have had nominally privately-owned central banks (e.g. Canada), and then realised that the nominal ownership did not reflect reality. (Why the Fed hasn't changed is likely due to fear of reopening the political question, but it doesn't matter much since, although nominally private, the ownership rights of the member banks are so restricted that it's hard to equate with ownership). Likewise auditing - Bank of Canada also not audited by auditor general.
Likewise for inflation targeting and the 1-2% target, fairly new, Brits were among first, Kiwis in there somewhere, Bernanke talking about it (cautiously).
Likewise for fractional reserve and money multiplier - some countries (e.g. Canada) have reduced reserve requirement to zero. Has anything changed? (Is there an infinite money multiplier?) Not really - banks have their own internal measures and targets (usually based on liquidity) that have the same effect as reserves. You could call them reserves or not, but the same analysis applies: when they have more liquid assets than their target (e.g. 'excess reserves'), they make more loans; when they don't have enough, they take measures to acquire/build up more reserves and/or make more reserves. Interesting article here essentially claims that the reserve requirement and changes to it actually have no effect (as long as reserve requirement is not binding, e.g. banks' target level of reserves is higher than minimum reserve level); therefore the money multiplier is simply a measure of what is happening, not what the Fed thinks should happen (endogenous to financial system rather than exogenous). Or, as I think put succinctly on one of the sites, "we don't control the money supply - we influence it." (Paraphrased) Sort of like driving a car by moving around in the backseat (imperfect analogy - implies there is a steering wheel).--Gregalton (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick requests

BigHex, could you please:

  • Edit out the google cache links? Should be easy - I've done one or two.
  • Would you agree the footnote about the fed's "private" status can go? It's thoroughly debunked and meaningless now.
  • Deal with the other "footnote" styles? They seem to stick out, and I'm sure something is in the WP:MOS.
  • Clear out at as many of the unreliable sources as possible?--Gregalton (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the cache is a problem. That is directly the source of most of my info. "Editing" them out, would amount to removing the "intermediate source." While they should be equivalent, it is theoretically possible that a check in some Web Archive could show differences between the actual site and the Google cache at the time of access (especially since most of the federal websites are updated to stay current). I suppose I could go back and re-verify the information on the primary site, but that's lower on my priority list than resolving other issues.
The Fed footnote ... I see that you clarified the passage as supported by the citation, but even without the legalese, it is widely regarded by experts that the Fed banks are completely private entities. I'm not sure what you mean by "debunked," but the information about it's public/private status could have important bearing on the regard of monetary policy. But, for details, I allow for other articles to cover the topic in depth. Most people assume that monetary policy is implemeted through federal entities ... it clearly is not -- even 5 of the 12 members of the FOMC represent interests that are completely independant of the federal government. I think it forms an important point that could prompt a reader to pursue further investigation.
I'll check up on the use of footnotes. But, integrating the text makes it quite unwieldy.
I'm still working on the sourcing. EGeek's flags are unusable per the dispute above, so I'm having to use my own discretion. I'll remove blogs ASAP though (except possibly http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/about.html .. which seems to be the work of a publication with fair editorial involvement .. possibly still questionable though). BigK HeX (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
"EGeek's flags are unusable..." So flagging the sources instead of deleting them is useless to you? I did it in the first place because you asked. I have told you why I deleted them and pointed you to the policies and guidelines. If you disagree with with one source, that is fine; however, do not use that one disagreement to justify that all the other sources are still reliable. --EGeek (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know that you put in special effort only as a courtesy to me. However, I don't just disagree with 1 source ... I disagree with your assessment process. However, that doesn't mean that I have simply discounted your advisement; I left many of your flags there. Seeing as you have denied my request on information about the worthiness of the individual sources, I must fall back on my own judgement. This is (obviously) a faulty situation, seeing as it was my own judgement that prompted me to originally include the sources. BigK HeX (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll direct you separately to info on the fed; short form, federal reserve banks are technically private, but in practice effectively government "instrumentalities." Could you point me to the experts of which you speak who say the fed banks are "completely private entities"?
Let me put it a different way: if you own a car, but have signed over all rights to use, operate, and dispose of the car in exchange for $100 a year, do you own the car? (If a bank owns an SPV that owns mortgages, but all the funds flow to noteholders, does the bank "own" the SPV in any meaningful sense? Courts treat this differently...) In the case of the bank-members/owners, they get 6% dividends, and the requirement to be liable for a share of the FRB's liabilities, and all other profits must go to government.
As for the footnotes, that is why I would suggest removing the non-essential (the bit about the fed ownership) and integrating the key points into text.
Google cache: better to point directly to the original, not an IP address. Content: no need to re-verify for those.--Gregalton (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Your analogy is inapplicable. The Fed banks maintain significant operations beyond the direct dictate of the BoG (administration, investments, etc). The control of the BoG is significant, but not total. A more appropriate analogy would probably be something like a chartered-flight service. The company hasn't signed over it's functions completely to the gov't, but they do make themselves available when the gov't has need of their service.
"Each of the 12 Federal Reserve Banks is separately incorporated, and each has its own president and board of directors." -- cleveland Fed
You yourself say "federal reserve banks are technically private," anything else is needless muddling. They are "effectively government 'instrumentalities'" means nearly nothing in the case of the Fed, especially considering the fact that monetary policy is intentionally insulated from politics in Washington; those are mostly contradictory statements --- how can something be a direct tool of the gov't AND also be insulated from the directives of elected officials. The handling of the Fed is a long ways from how NASA and the Postal Service operate.
Moreover, the New York Fed is responsible for moving millions of dollars each day through the Open market operations. By law, we are trusting a private entity with such a responsibility without any independent auditing. So, even though I try to avoid emphasizing this point in the article, I would certainly say that the technicality of their legal status is quite an important one. BigK HeX (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
A few responses: this is not just a technicality. I did not say the Fed is like NASA or the post office, which are (I believe) agencies. It is also not true that there is "no independent auditing." As documented.
Rather than give parallels, let's try quotes. "Although privately owned and managed, the Federal Reserve banks are under strict, centralized, government control." Can you show me a reliable quote that says they are "completely private entities"?--Gregalton (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
See also here for more detail about the control of the FOMC and all the significant elements of monetary policy. Or "The Federal Reserve Banks stand on the borderline between private and public credit agencies, being privately owned, but in large part publicly managed." I can find many more.
Central banks everywhere are strange creatures: usually creatures of government, usually directly government-owned, but given some independence from usual government control to insulate them from the vagaries of politics.
The ironic thing is that the Fed system was designed with the compromise of private ownership under Woodrow Wilson, modified to give most control to government (albeit somewhat indirectly) under Roosevelt, with additional government intervention and control over the years - but retaining the fig leaf of private ownership because the political scene would not accept too much 'gummint' (govt for those of us with teeth). Now, the conspiracy theorists latch on to the private ownership structure - which is technically true, but substantively under government control and with almost none of the benefits of ownership - as an indication it is a cabal of bankers destroying society. Ah well. (There is literally tonnes of stuff in google books on the history of the fed and monetary policy, which is what this article should really be about...)
But again, let's stick to quotes.--Gregalton (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
And, to go to the source: "The holding of this stock (in the federal reserve system), however, does not carry with it the control and financial interest conveyed to holders of common stock in for-profit organizations. It is merely a legal obligation of Federal Reserve membership, and the stock may not be sold or pledged as collateral for loans." See [4], pg. 12. So, a) 2000 of the 2900 member banks as at 2004 were obliged to join (by law); b) they do not get the 'control or financial interest' of normal private shareholders; c) they do not get a right to profits beyond a small fixed amount, and they can't sell their shares; and d) they are technically shareholders in banks that have a federal charter, controlled by congress, that subjects it to direct government oversight including partial audits by the GAO. Even their budgets must be approved by the BoG, and the BoG decides how profits, costs and everything else is to be allocated between the 12 banks.
You make your own conclusions, but I have trouble concluding that this constitutes private ownership in any meaningful way, and certainly cannot be characterised as "completely private entities." (And they are generally not characterized as such)--Gregalton (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I say "completely private" here just to make my point that it is waffling non-sense to say otherwise. Either an entity is under the direct control of our elected officials ("public") or it is not. What you say basically amounts to, "they're so well-controlled that they may as well be public... even though they are private business entities." You choose to emphasize one part, to the exclusion of the rest. I do happen to be pretty familiar with the various official descriptions of the Fed; however, all of your quotes have qualifiers that I consider particularly damning. No matter how one wants to "describe" the Fed; descriptions cannot override the (well-known) actuality of its legally-defined independence from elected governance. I could argue that such independence turns those qualifiers into contradictions. "The government controls the Fed so well it's like a tool of the government." versus "The Fed is independent from politicians for the good of the country." It is quite simple fact that the banks themselves are private entities --- it is actually the technicality that they are subject to the dictate of the BoG. I make it quite clear that they receive direction from the Board of Governors.
Also, I'd say that the lack of rights being conferred by the ownership of stock in the Fed is mostly a non-issue; the directors and president of the banks are still the head of private entities. As to the "fig leaf of private ownership," the independence of the even the Board of Governors from elected governance is explicit and legally defined ... the banks themselves are further removed. The issue of the private status of the Federal Reserve banks is not disputed (even beyond tort law), AFAIK. I do not believe that I even intimate that this status is damning in any sense in the article. As with other info, I present it to clear up a common public misconception.
"It is also not true that there is 'no independent auditing.' As documented." ..... Which documentation is that? I do not believe you took me up on the challenge of providing one single account of an independent audit of the open market operations. If you want to dispute the accuracy, you are more than welcome to do so if you have any facts to back-up your feelings on the matter. If these accounting holes exist (as my sources indicate they do), such a large hole in the auditing process is tantamount to a policeman saying, "we got a call about a suspected drug dealer, but we've investigated him for weeks and have never seen any illicit transactions ... so we think he's clean, although we're not allowed to follow him into the rough neighborhoods." .... well something like that anyways. BigK HeX (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Just provide citations. You say "completely private entities." You say "widely regarded by experts." I've provided several expert quotes that directly contradict that, including saying "effectively gave control to the federal reserve board."
You say "without any independent auditing." Not true, as documented - they are audited by several independent organisations. You claim that the lack of auditing of open market operations is particularly significant, but the claim there is no independent auditing is, ahem, factually inaccurate.--Gregalton (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Unless you dispute the validity of the accounts purported to have been given by the Federal Reserve's own Inspector General (along with numerous congresspersons), it is NOT factually inaccurate. Your personal feelings about an inaccuracy cannot be supported by any facts, and so I would hold that your claim of "factual inaccuracy" is actually what lies in error. I would owe you a debt of gratitude if you were to prove me wrong. If ever you come across actual information that proves this as an egregious error, please post it here and delete the text outright. BigK HeX (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I've provided a link to the independent audit of their financial statements (as well as a number of other audit documents). Ergo, they are independently audited. From what I can read of the 1993 Inspector General's report (since which date, by the way, there have been changes and statutory revisions) the claim is that it isn't "enough." The issue with GAO is that Congress, which writes the laws about Fed and the GAO, has not authorised GAO to audit certain functions (for well documented reasons that reasonable people can disagree about). That's an entirely different claim than "without any independent auditing," which is the factually inaccurate claim you keep repeating.--Gregalton (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I understand you. I'm certain that I make it clear in the article that the Fed is independently audited. Where is the link you've provided? Does it show audits of the FRB of New York's near-daily OMOs? I'm very interested in this ..... BigK HeX (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any reason or source to assert that the independent audit done excludes OMOs? The sources so far only say that the GAO cannot audit OMOs.--Gregalton (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Awww .. passing up on my challenge. You're no fun! BigK HeX (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OMOs

Info on Fed banks' legal statuses has been cited and the text has been simplified. BigK HeX (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear what you think you've proven, but a) OMOs affect the financial position of the federal reserve banks (specifically, the New York Fed); and b) the financial position and earnings of the fed are audited. Independently. I'm not sure how you think they "exclude" OMOs or how this constitutes what you claim. The sources quoted state that GAO does not audit OMO. This is a different statement from "never been independently audited."
That said, I've only glanced at the article after your most recent revisions but it appears you've attempted to make the text a bit more neutral. Much appreciated.
Now, if other sources can be improved or deleted it would be a big step forward and maintain momentum. (I don't personally think the WSJ quote indirectly quoted from a completely POV source meets the test, but one step at a time.)--Gregalton (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Well ... I never held an agenda of making the text biased.  ;-) It's just that where the information reflects negatively, I pull no punches and candy-coat nothing. However, I have been taking cues from your edits that seems to have a significant effect on the tone, and incorporation of your text has added much-needed balance on topics that I did not have readily compiled in my old notes.
Yes .. baby steps. Though I expected some resistance, being new to the editing process, I did not expect so much objection to the sources I used in my notes (especially when glancing through so many economics articles that have ZERO citations). Finding alternate sources is an unexpected challenge, but I have faith in the veracity of the information I'm providing (minus a few acknowledged errors), so I believe it is a challenege that I can meet in a reasonable timespan. I have already prioritized sourcing of some of the info as low-priority, and removed the corresponding text until I have time to delve into those areas. (Basically, I already know that filtering out the kook-conspiracy stuff in those areas will be extraordinarily time-consuming.) BigK HeX (talk) 06:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you would find starting with reliable sources would be much more productive than starting with some theory/"facts"/conclusions and subsequently "filtering out the kook conspiracy stuff." (It begs the question where the theory/facts/conclusions came from, for one). There is plenty on monetary policy and the fed of a nuanced but critical nature. Ben Bernanke, for example, pretty much made his academic bones on the causes of the depression, much of the blame for which he lays at the door of the Fed at the time, and his textbooks are good. Alan Blinder (former governor) has written standard textbooks on macroeconomics and is also not without criticism. Metzler's history is useful. Volcker certainly disagreed with the course taken by his predecessors. How much time would have been saved compared to trying to "filter" if you'd started with sources such as those? I daresay one might even learn something.--Gregalton (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
As to "what I think I am proving" .... well, I'm not allowed to soapbox, so I am just presenting the info and allowing people to draw their own conclusions.
But I will respond to your point about audits by saying this ... selling liquor affected Al Capone's financial position greatly, too. It would have been interesting to see the Dept. of Justice's case against him if they were allowed to audit everything *except* his liquor purchases and sales. If you really want me to soapbox, then I'd say "to commit the perfect crime, you don't have to be intelligent, just in charge of the investigation that follows." BigK HeX (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to argue with such logic (allegations based on allusion to proven criminals), but it's good to see that you "have no agenda".--Gregalton (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
No .... I don't have an "agenda [of bias]" (which is distinctly different from having well-researched interests). I didn't start my research with any agenda of "trashing the Fed," but if I find parts of the economic landscape that look a cesspool and smell like a cesspool, I'm not going to call it "slightly dirty recycled water." People deserve the ability to learn about the most powerful organization in the country without reading about moon-men taking over the world, nor having to wade through articles so full of euphemism that they practically describe rainbow-colored unicorns prancing about.
It was your choice to present a huge accounting loophole as a non-issue ("I'm unclear what you think you've proven....") Regardless of how I exemplified the issue, you would have been unable to cogently argue for it, so your feigned indignation on this point now is as good a concession as any other --- certainly the easy route. BigK HeX (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The Fed's financial statements are audited, independently, by a well-known third party accounting firm. All open market operations are reflected in the Federal Reserve Bank's financial statements. What "accounting loophole" are you referring to? If you think this is not the case, please provide a reference.--Gregalton (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Were we arguing the points in the opposite manner, I think you'd probably describe the above text ["Fed's financial statements are audited, independently... All open market operations are reflected in the Federal Reserve Bank's financial statements"] as a "synthesis without references." As you're well-aware, I've already provided direct quotes from reliable sources ... you choose to remain intransigent in your disbelief, which is an issue you'll have to work through on your end. You're obviously an intelligent person, so I'm not sure why you would persist in some strange claim that basically amounts to "you can sure as hell figure out whether a person is on the up-and-up by just looking at their savings account and their property ... it doesn't even matter if you can't investigate their checking activities." Audits exist solely to reinforce trust ... a partial audit inspires even less than partial trust. BigK HeX (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, last effort: have you actually read the actual audit?
You can download (as one example) the FRB-New York's financial statements here. This include such gems as:
  1. Independence: "To ensure auditor independence, the Board of Governors requires that PwC be independent in all matters relating to the audit."
  2. Accuracy: "In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Bank as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and results of its operations for the years then ended, on the basis of accounting described in Note 3."
  3. Internal control: "A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (ii) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (iii) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements."
  4. Open market operations: "The FOMC, in the conduct of monetary policy, establishes policy regarding domestic open market operations, oversees these operations, and annually issues authorizations and directives to the Bank for its execution of transactions. The Bank is authorized and directed by the FOMC to conduct operations in domestic markets, including the direct purchase and sale of U.S. government securities, the purchase of securities under agreements to resell, the sale of securities under agreements to repurchase, and the lending of U.S. government securities. The Bank executes these open market transactions at the direction of the FOMC and holds the resulting securities, with the exception of securities purchased under agreements to resell, in the portfolio known as the System Open Market Account (“SOMA”).
  5. "SOMA": " U.S. Government Securities and Investments Denominated in ForeignCurrencies: U.S. government securities and investments denominated in foreign currencies comprising the SOMA are recorded at cost, on a settlement-date basis, and adjusted for amortization of premiums or accretion of discounts on a straight-line basis. Interest income is accrued on a straight-line basis. Gains and losses resulting from sales of securities are determined by specific issues based on average cost." ... "U.S. government securities held in the SOMA are lent to U.S. government securities dealers in order to facilitate the effective functioning of the domestic securities market. Securities-lending transactions are fully collateralized by other U.S. government securities and the collateral taken is in excess of the market value of the securities loaned. The Bank charges the dealer a fee for borrowing securities and the fees are reported as a component of “Other income.” etc in much greater detail.
So, the audit opinion by PWC establishes: a) the auditor is independent, and does an audit (hence "independent audit"); b) the auditor checks both the facts on record and the internal system to record those facts and events, and expresses an opinion on whether these numbers reflect the actual situation for the balance sheet and income; c) The Bank here executes OMOs at the direction of the FOMC, and holds them in an account called SOMA; d) in substantial detail the policies for accounting for these operations and the portfolio are explained and the results published.
This is what is referred to as an independent audit, and the contents explicitly identify that the OMOs are included in this audit and the published financial statements.--Gregalton (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Have you actually read the actual audit? If so, you certainly do read selectively  :o(
It ALSO includes such gems as
"The Bank’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. Our responsibility is to express opinions on management’s assessment and on the effectiveness of the Bank’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit."
Let's paraphrase that as "It's up to the Bank to perform the audits ... we at PriceWaterhouseCooper just make sure that their audit methods are sound." Yeah... really trust-inspiring stuff there.
"Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements."
Oh ... yes. You closed the case on this one. BigK HeX (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Ummm - I read the part in the sentence you quoted that says based on our audit. This is what is known as the audit opinion. They perform the audit itself and express that opinion according to the audit standards (also specified). All of this seems to support my contention that this is an audit. Do you have something else in mind?--Gregalton (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you're persistent in your faith. The actual way to read that is that it is "based on our audit of the Bank's auditing methods (and not a comprehensive audit of their transactions)." BigK HeX (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
There are TWO audit opinions here. They audited the Bank's financial statements - as written. They audited the Bank's internal controls over financial reporting: "We conducted our audit of internal control over financial reporting in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards as established by the Auditing Standards Board (United States) and in accordance with the auditing standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. An audit of internal control over financial reporting includes obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, evaluating management’s assessment, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing such other procedures as we consider necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinions."--Gregalton (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh yes ... the other audit. The one on finacial statements.... And exactly which of the OMO activities are we inferring from the financial position statements listed?  :o(
All in all ... it's a mighty comprehensive audit.[sarcasm] An independent company makes sure that the statements put together by the bank are consistent, and then they make sure the bank is using "good rules" when that bank audits itself and is putting together those statements (well .... except that whole "internal control over financial reporting may not detect misstatements" part ... but nevermind that). So ... if nothing else, at a bare minimum we learn from these audits that the accounting is clean or that the Fed has the resources to "cook thier books" evenly. All the while, no one from the outside actually is allowed to peek into any of the vaults. Very confidence-boosting, to be sure. BigK HeX (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, allegations and insinuations - a fine argument. This is clearly not productive; you've already decided what the Truth (TM) is, and have no idea what an audit is anyway. So, continue trolling, it's not worth discussing with you.--Gregalton (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
No, this line is not productive if you're trying to prove that the audits provide oversight that is in any way comprehensive, especially with regard to OMOs. I don't have to allege or insinuate *anything* --- they do that well enough with their own words and disclaimer; and it's generally accepted that " aggressive accounting" can nullify any assurances given by financial audits; moreover, the OMO transactions are not externally audited. So, what I do know abouts audits is more than enough to let me also know that the methods used by the Fed don't inspire much trust. BigK HeX (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Your source for claiming OMO transactions are not externally audited are the WSJ and NYTimes articles cited (1989 and 1983)?--Gregalton (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Among others, but feel free to begin any dispute with those (as necessary to improve the factual accuracy of the article). If I'm wrong then that area needs to be improved. But, a limited financial audit is a different thing from external auditing of OMO transactions, and a far-cry from a fraud-prevention investigation. BigK HeX (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

We're gonna audit like it's 1999

The law was changed in 1999 to require annual independent audit (see [5], known as 12USC248b). So the pre-1999 discussion has been overtaken by events. Now, you may believe that this type of audit is insufficient, but that is distinct from the claim that there is no independent audit; but at any rateplease provide more recent independent citations - otherwise we are giving undue weight to criticisms and this point should be relegated to history.--Gregalton (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Citing irrelevent legal developments ... do you mean that seriously? Feel free to add the note about changes in the audit of financial statements, but I will support my text until something relevent about OMO transactions proves an error ... otherwise, you may be relying on factually inaccrate synthesis. BigK HeX (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's a quote describing your law ...
In 1999, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) inserted an amendment in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLB) Act imposing fairly stringent independent audit requirements on the Fed. Like most of its proposed forbears, Reid’s measure exempted the central bank’s monetary policy operations from outside audits.
Predictably, the Fed objected to Senator Reid’s amendment and convinced Congress to replace it with a bare-bones provision that essentially formalized the central bank’s existing practice. As a result, the GLB Act signed by President Clinton requires only that the Board of Governors “order” an annual independent audit of financial statements filed by each Reserve Bank as well as the Board itself – with no definition of the term “independent” and none of the additional auditing authority sought by Senator Reid.
Also, from 2006 are the following suggestions
a seven point program that would bring the Federal Reserve up to speed for 21st century democracy:
1 Regular open press conferences by the Chairman. Alan Greenspan and his predecessors never held press conferences.
2 Adhere to the Budget Act which requires the submission of a formal annual budget subject to review by OMB and the Congress. (Currently the Federal Reserve prepares a limited in house budget and gives it self approval).
3 Require congressional appropriations for all Federal Reserve activities. Currently the Federal Reserve finances whatever it pleases with public funds derived from the buying and selling of government bonds in the market as part of its control of the money supply. Surplus funds are returned to the U. S. Treasury annually.
4 Allow the early release of Minutes of Federal Open Market Committee meetings with exceptions for national security issues.
5 Hold open meetings on all issues not involving monetary policy.
6 Require full audits by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Currently the Fed refuses to allow GAO to audit anything involving monetary policy as defined by the Fed itself.
7 Support legislation to prohibit commercial bank officials from serving on the boards of the 12 Federal Reserve District Banks.
Anyways, let's not try "gaming the system" here with a load of citation BS. Or, if you're just taking shots in the dark to support your unwarranted faith in "the system" then let's not waste each other's time like that, please. Putting your efforts into discovering The Whole Truth, stripped of all of the whitewash would be a great use of your intellect, though. :o( BigK HeX (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Please provide a source. Please don't waste your time with rants about me - my point is simply that including criticisms from 1983 - particularly ones that specifically request an independent audit, which was then provided for in law - is unbalanced. More recent and hence relevant criticisms are welcome.
And with respect to my faith in 'the system', you have no idea what I believe. I simply think an article should attempt to have some balance, which the current version makes little attempt to establish.--Gregalton (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
AFAIK, criticisms ARE the predominant opinion in regards to the Fed. But, I do agree that more balance would be a worthy effort. If the other issues die down, I'd have more time to expand those areas. I actually have already started a section which attempts to balance the negativity of the criticisms. I'll be doing more in the coming days to help with balance.
In regards to the audit issue though, I still hold that the legal revision was irrelevant to the contentions in that part of the article (OMOs). It couldn't hurt to note the revision, but it still has no bearing on monetary policy transactions. BigK HeX (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I missed the remark about the approach to sources. Textbooks and such are certainly not a bad way to go. I've never seen the currency process outlined in one place, as explicitly as I detailed it. In particular, nearly every summation of the process skips over the final commercial loan process. Your apparent rejection to the notion would indicate that learning certain approaches don't tell the full story. The fact that the full story is not laid out, prompted some investigation into the less conventional "theories," which was not fruitless. I am aware of Bernarke's investigations into the Depression, and even his subsequent apology to Milton Friedman. Historic failures of the Fed are easy to research, but I think it'd be be useful if the common person could get a brief but explicit overview of the stuff that is more mired in confusion. BigK HeX (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Basic macroeconomics and banking textbooks cover this. I don't think that having this article repeat information covered in several other WP articles is the way to avoid more confusion, and while the "less conventional" sources hold out the promise of easy understanding, it's often because they're spouting nonsense. Usually, of course, with just enough non-nonsense to sound plausible, or substantial misuse of terminology.--Gregalton (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
According to the editors in the AfD, there is no consensus that this material is duplicated, so this particular argument is very unlikely to stand. BigK HeX (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
That is incorrect. There was no consensus on deletion. --EGeek (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Inflation and wages

I'm going to delete unless a good reason is given the bit on wages and inflation. The Rick Wolff article does not support the contention, that the fall in real wages is due to inflation - the article doesn't even mention inflation. For more detailed discussion on this, see also Krugman, Conscience of a Liberal, pp. 124-133, for example. The fall in real wages is, quite simply, a question of distribution of income, not an inflation issue. He gives the specific citation that wages would be 35 percent higher in real terms if wage distribution had remained unchanged (including adjustments for higher than CPI increases in nonwage labour costs, e.g. medical insurance).
I'm sure there's a point that could be made about wages and inflation, but this ain't it.--Gregalton (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. I'll fill it in with better info later. BigK HeX (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. I'd greatly appreciate if other ones with citation requests, particularly those marked dubious, were removed as well (it would be better if you could do it). When good cites are found later to support these points, they can always be reinstated.--Gregalton (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
By your judgement versus mine, those would be pretty different results. I agree with the assessment of the text on real wages as you described above; however, I still support the currency issue which you hold as dubious. Most of that text is already cited with information from the Federal Reserve websites, so I believe the sourcing is currently sufficient (though I don't mind providing stronger citations). Apparently you'd like more direct quotes on the matter as opposed to summations. I do not believe that such a request merits a policy of "having to perform a deletion until the request is fulfilled." BigK HeX (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please just provide citation in the article or directly here. My issue with the line that "Thus, an exponential need for increasing amounts of money may be contributing factor towards inflation in the US" is that a) it's synthesis; b) it's meaningless (exponential growth is the way it's measured, if it were additive, it would be falling inflation); c) it seems to imply a causal link (not even clear to what) that I don't see anywhere else; and d) it seems to be implying something bad that is not supported by text.
Even the strict monetary rule proponents (e.g. Friedman, Bundesbank) agree that for prices to remain stable, money supply has to grow with GDP, and if GDP growth is constant, it's exponential. If y grows by 2% a year, y(x) = y(0)(1 + 2%)^x, where x is the number of years from y(0). It's exponential by definition, by simple math. So what?--Gregalton (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Well ... as you yourself say, I don't contend that the situation is bad, good, or indifferent. I just present the information. I'll reword that as necessary though. You make a good point here that it is currently muddled. BigK HeX (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Article on monetary policy - the education of Ben Bernanke

One could do worse than use this NYTimes article as an anchor: [6]--Gregalton (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It does look like an intersting source to mine for a new section that could be added about specific trends in monetary policy. Would be good to compare and contrast with various policy stances by Greenspan and William McChesney Martin, et. al. BigK HeX (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Should this be moved?

It seems that this text might really be good for the main article on money creation

In the United States, the two primary types of money reported by the Federal Reserve are M1 and M2.[1] M1 money consists of physical cash outstanding, travelers' checks and demand deposits. M2 (broad money) includes all of M1, plus savings deposits, small-value time deposits and retail money market funds. In addition, many economists and others refer to M0 (also known as the monetary base, physical cash outstanding plus reserves with the central bank) and M3, a somewhat broader measure than M2.
The difference between these alternative measures is significant: as at December, 2007, the value of M1 was $1,364 billion, while M2 was over $7.5 trillion (approximately five times more than M1, and slightly less than ten times the amount of physical currency in circulation).

The difference between these alternative measures is significant: as at December, 2007, the value of M1 was $1,364 billion, while M2 was over $7.5 trillion (approximately five times more than M1, and slightly less than ten times the amount of physical currency in circulation). BigK HeX (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the article in current form keeps referring to "money" without distinction between the types, it may be useful. But then, I still believe that much of the article should be merged into articles about money creation, rather than attempting to come up with a new version of the existing WP articles.--Gregalton (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Specifically, which parts should be merged into which articles? BigK HeX (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The "Money Creation" and "Opinions of the Federal Reserve" sections should be moved to the Federal Reserve article. While the "Money Creation" section sounds better in the money creation article, this section explains money creation through the Federal Reserve.
I believe the "Money Creation and Money Supply" section is important to provide background information and article links related to the main topic. --EGeek (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Colonel Warden has mentioned that the Federal Reserve article is too large as it stands (per WP:SIZE). I would agree with that. Maybe the whole set of articles needs an overhaul to be more logically structured? BigK HeX (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Then other articles could be made to branch off of that article per WP:SIZE. The criticism section of Federal Reserve could be broken off to a different article. Another article could explain day-to-day operations of how the Federal Reserve expands or contracts the money supply. --EGeek (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Currency and loan interest

I have provided direct quotes to reinforce the summations in sections related to currency and interest. I have removed some of the tags, as well. I'd ask that editors refrain from deleting the text or distorting its meaning or level of emphasis, without a credible (verifiable) dispute. Feel free to raise any source concerns here, in regards to the new sources. I assert that the "Daly" source is reliable, though. BigK HeX (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

So your best source is an economist who explicitly rejects mainstream economics? While notable, it is not a mainstream view, and I doubt that anyone would consider Daly a noted expert on monetary policy.--Gregalton (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
To me, any of my sources is just fine. You wanted a source whom I could explicitly quote. Daly serves that particular purpose fine in the quoted passage about the current system, since it can stand independent of the alternate theories. You're more than welcome to prove him a liar, if you can cite a source that claims that commercial banks do NOT generally charge interest on loans. I'd probably also say its something of a fallacy to claim that someone is not an expert in something just because they do not believe in it--there are plenty of Hebrew/Islamic/etc experts on the Bible. BigK HeX (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The Purpose of this Article

According to the first line:

"The purpose of this article is to explain the current implementation of monetary policy in the United States"

Instead, this article explains function of fractional reserve banking, Federal Reserve, and common criticism for each, which can be found in other articles.

This article never mentions:

  • inflation targeting
  • Strong/weak dollar policy - actually, no mention of Foreign Currency Operations at all
  • Core CPI
  • Robust Policies
  • Current Goals

or even...

  • Current Policy

Therefore, this article is not about current implementation of monetary policy in the United States. What is the purpose of this article? --EGeek (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My god ... all that text about the United States' Federal Reserve and the methods it uses to influence the economy using the monetary base ... and it turns out that stuff is not about the implementation of monetary policy??
I'd say that half of that stuff you are suggesting (CPI, inflation targeting, robust policies) seem to pertain to "monetary policy" in general, and not anything particular to the United States. Certainly, a brief foray into those topics could be useful. On the US-specific stuff, the text does briefly touch on the goals of the recent Fed leaders, and anyone can feel free to add a new section and expand into those areas. Something on the goals of the recent Fed Governors would be pretty nice. Gregalton has suggested a link which would be of use. BigK HeX (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I apologize. I will be more specific. While articles like fractional reserve banking and Federal Reserve describe the different methods and tools of monetary control, this article says it explains "the current implementation of monetary policy in the United States"; however, this article only explains fractional reserve banking and the tools of the Federal Reserve.
For this article to "explain the current implementation of monetary policy in the United States", it should answer these questions:
  • What is the Fed's current inflation target?
  • Does the Fed support a strong or weak dollar?
  • How does the Fed use Core CPI? How important is this measure to its current policy?
  • What Robust Policies are used during times of economic uncertainty?
  • What are the Fed's current goals? (Hint: This was a 1977 amendment to the Federal Reserve Act)
"all that text about the United States' Federal Reserve and the methods it uses to influence the economy" belong on the Federal Reserve article that explains the "Federal Reserve and the methods it uses to influence the economy". This article's context does not match its lead; therefore, what is the purpose of this article? --EGeek (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, technically, implementation and design goals are two different things. Implementation is the "how," while the goals are the "why." By analogy, you can talk about *how* an airline company moves people around (by just reviewing their flight schedules), but you don't necessarily know why the schedule is designed as it is. In any case, including information about policy goals would be useful information. BigK HeX (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
From your analogy, the "how" would not be the day-to-operations. The "how" would be the strategy to achieve their goals. The goals would be the "what". The goals and the strategy answer the questions:
  • What are we trying to achieve?
  • How will we achieve it?
Implementation is more about long-term strategy than it is the day-to-day operations. Details of the day-to-day operations of the Federal Reserve do not belong in an article whose purpose is to explain how the Federal Reserve attempts to achieve the monetary policy goals it has been assigned. --EGeek (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Although you probably won't believe it, I'll go ahead and say it. Strategy is not implementation. Strategy could easily be included in this article, but that does not mean that the current information about day-to-day operation is misplaced here. BigK HeX (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
"Strategy is not implementation" I agree. That is why I compared strategy to day-to-day activities and not implementation. Monetary policy is a means to achieve the goals of monetary policy, and open market operations, which is what this article is mostly talking about) is one of the tools. --EGeek (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh .. perhaps the part you won't believe is that the day-to-day operations *are* the implementation; the strategy is something different. If I don't do it myself, a discussion in strategy would be pretty nice. That info is probably not the easiest to find, though. BigK HeX (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
No. I do not believe it.
Webster:
implement - carry out accomplish; to provide instruments or means of expression for.
operations - performance of a practical work or of something involving the practical application of principles or processes.
strategy - a careful plan or method.
Cambridge Dictionary:
implement - to put a plan or system into operation
operation - an activity which is planned to achieve something
strategy - a detailed plan for achieving success in situations such as war, politics, business, industry or sport, or the skill of planning for such situations.
MSN Encarta:
implement - carry out or fulfill something: to put something into effect or action
operation - the state of functioning or of being in effect
strategy - a carefully devised plan of action to achieve a goal, or the art of developing or carrying out such a plan
dictionary.com:
implementation - any article used in some activity, esp. an instrument, tool, or utensil.
operations - an act or instance, process, or manner of functioning or operating.
strategy - a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result
Wikipedia:
implementation - the realization of an application, or execution of a plan, idea, model, design, specification, standard, algorithm, or policy.
operations - the method by which a device performs its function. (Wiktionary)
strategy - a long term plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal
As I wrote before, I agree that "strategy is not implementation". I also agree content on monetary strategy would be useful. --EGeek (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag should be added

NPOV tag and maybe some other tags should be added to this article due to abovementioned concerns. --Doopdoop (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Could be true, but there may be a difference between POV issues and simply not using euphemisms. BigK HeX (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Money Creation Section

There is a consistency issue with the first paragraph of money creation describing the money supply during different periods of time. The present day and 1959 sources cited show the amount of currency (M0) in circulation while the 1933 shows the amount of M1 money supply. --EGeek (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two other problems with this section:

  1. #8 and #9 explain the normal functions of fractional reserve banking covered in another article; thus, not required for explanation of the Federal Reserve's daily operations.
  2. Most of the last few paragraphs of the section contain bogus arguements from fringe or unreliable sources or misstatements from reliable sources. Due to WP:NPOV, if the fringe sources and related statements remain, sources and related statements with an opposing viewpoint must be added. --EGeek (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It is a bit inconsistent, but the text shows there being "less than" the M1 amount, which would still be true.
#8 and #9 are not extensive parts of the article, so I support any duplication there, as they are critical parts of the monetary policy process. I think the "duplicate material" arguments are starting to stretch pretty far.
The fringe allegations made above are inspecific. I will continue to support the sources. If someone would like to add an alternate perspective that is directly relevent, please feel free. I doubt that any of the sources are"misstated." Please be specific in pointing that out, if possible. BigK HeX (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree than the "less than" comment still works since "M0" is less than "M1". I also understand that "M0" data from the early 1930s is a little harder to find; however, I think this statement would confuse the reader between the differences in "M0" and "M1" throughout the article.
#8 and #9 does not involve monetary policy. Free reserves are a function of the fractional reserve banking system. Open market operations' affect on free reserves is already covered in the last part of this section.
Ecological Economics is a fringe theory; therefore, Herman Daly's article is a POV reference and requires an opposing view or deletion. The quote from Robert Hemphill in the Financial Sense article, for which I also question its reliability, is actually a quote from another source that quotes Robert Hemphill, - "Griffin, G. Edward, The Creature From Jekyll Island, American Media, 1998, p. 185."
Also, this section explains more about the function of open market operations on money supply than it does about "money creation". Money creation is a function of fractional reserve banking, not a function of the central bank, or monetary policy. --EGeek (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

BigK HeX, in regards to your recent edits to this section, open market operations use reserves which are part of the M1 money supply, not necessarily currency ("M0"). I have provided a compromise between our two different edits. --EGeek (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, regarding this quote:

"For the vast majority of US money in circulation, each of the printed US dollars throughout the world represents a current outstanding loan of some citizen to a US bank."

This statement cites a gold bug site, the Ludwig von Mises Institute (Austrian Economics is fringe when it comes to money), and the paper from an Ecological Economist, which is also a fringe form of economics. The other sources use M1 and M2 money, not M0. I have corrected this statement. --EGeek (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The compromise statement is perfectly fine. Thanks  :o)
As for "ecological economics," this wiki article doesn't delve into any discussion of ecological economics. The point of the WP:FRINGE policy is to provide balance against theories so that none are given "undue weight." I don't discuss *any* theory in Money Creation section, so there is no balance required, in my (possibly wrong) opinion. But, I mean ... by analogy, you're kinda saying that I need a "balancing perspective" from a Christian, because I quoted a Rabbi who says that Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the messiah. The quoted section of ecological economics is a summation of actual events. So, I do not believe that any fringe policies can apply unless you're claiming that Daly is engaging in some sort of "revisionist history" (ala, "Holocaust didn't happen") type of thing. In short, I'm am using his summation of facts, not his proposal of any theory, and, in this context, I still support that he is a qualified expert.
As for "duplication of information" on fractional reserve banking, I will still support the inclusion of text. Removing such crucial text is like saying that Grant's tactics in the civil war should not be included in an article on Ulysses Grant, becasue they exist in the "Civil War" article. I think that's stretching things quite a bit. Not only that, but fractional reserve banking alone is a general concept and has ZERO to do with monetary policy on its own, so I would doubt that any discussion of monetary policy exists in that article. As such, I highly doubt that the consequences using fractional reserve banking in monetary policy is discussed ... meaning that this information is NOT duplicated. This information is not widely available, so I feel compelled to vigorously support the elaboration of the implementation of monetary policy as it currently flows. BigK HeX (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
"this wiki article doesn't delve into any discussion of ecological economics" which is why an ecological economist does not need to be sourced. According to WP:NPOV, POV context and sources must balance with opposing POV context and sources. It does not matter if its a theory.
My other point about #8 and #9 was that the material was repeated (although reworded) in the paragraph below it. The point of free reserves has everything to do with a fractional reserve system. If "fractional reserve banking alone is a general concept and has ZERO to do with monetary policy", then why does monetary policy include a reserve requirement? --EGeek (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
According to what I read in WP:NPOV (specifically, WP:ASF) no balance is needed. This is the presentation of plain fact. There are no opinions involved. I believe our fundamental difference lies in this point. It would help if you explain where you see some sort of "subjective view" here, in regards to the use of Daly's material. I honestly cannot understand how a factual conclusion can be biased ... certainly it can be wrong but that's a bit of a different matter from what you're suggesting. I think he's well-qualified enough to trump either of our beliefs in the matter, but a conflicting expert statement would be quite interesting.
Fractional reserve banking (on its own) does not have anything to do with monetary policy. Monetary policy, on the other hand, does use the fractional reserve system. That distinction probably does have bearing on how the two articles should be structured. Anyhoo, I'll try to cut out any text that is getting duplicated or reworded in the same section. BigK HeX (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
"I honestly cannot understand how a factual conclusion can be biased ..." If I am colorblind and say, "This apple is black." Was that a fact? Was that an opinion? Was it an observation from my Point Of View? Citing a source who is critical of the fractional reserve banking system to explain the cost of the fractional reserve banking system is POV. --EGeek (talk) 05:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
That's still not bias; it's inaccuracy from an unreliable source. Your usage of the term "POV" stretches beyong its intended meaning. POV in wikipedia refers to matters of subjective opinion. Daly is not "colorblind" to neoclassical economics. He's still an expert in the branch, whether he holds it in high regard or not. More importantly, the quoted section has *nothing* to do with either theory of economics. THAT seems to be the point you keep missing. I'm having difficulty understanding your argument here .... it's like you're saying that I could NOT quote a Linux using computer engineer who says that "stanndard installations of Windows Vista can use X amount of disk space" just because that person doesn't like Microsoft's policies.
I would think that the best argument here would be to impeach Daly's credibility in making the summation. However, I'm pretty sure he is well-qualified in the context used by the article, so I will continue to support him as a reliable source. BigK HeX (talk) 13:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
A far better argument would be to find an unimpeachable source - given that macro textbooks that cover this subject have been written by, among others, the current head of the Fed, it should not be difficult. To rely on this source with no qualification demonstrates that the goal is to search for citations that support a POV, rather than creating a neutral encylopedic article.--Gregalton (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
"Support a POV" would again point to some subjective material. I still cannot find where there is any subjectivity in the Daly quote. If you want to claim that he doesn't know what he's talking about, then please assert that instead.
Anyways, I'm not relying on this source as if he were some sole bastion of truth. I provide him as a source at your request for an expert that could be quote explicitly. All of the other sources provide the same conclusion, but you wanted to dispute that.
I would conjecture that the very fact that you two are resistant to these conclusions shows that common texts do not delve into the matter. So, perhaps finding discussion of the subject is more difficult than you assert. It is exactly because people with a decent background in economics (such as yourself) are unaware of these conclusions, that I emphasize it. BigK HeX (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The fact that common texts do not "delve into the matter" indicates that this is original research or a fringe opinion; to give it prominence in an article on monetary policy is out of place and not NPOV. Two editors have specifically requested a better source; please provide.--Gregalton (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
As made obvious by the fact that an expert asserts it, it is not "original research." I contend that it is not a "fringe opinion," especially since no one here has provided a "mainstream counter-argument." Just claiming that a source violates policy is NOT the same as showing that a source violates policy. I doubt that wikipedia uses "baseless contention" as a legitimate way to dispute a source ... otherwise anyone could pick a random policy and claim that the author should remove the source. So, for now, the fact that two editors dispute it makes no difference to me at this time, since neither can provide any decent reason for disputing the source. I doubt either opposing editor here feels competent in disputing a renowned economist on the strength of their own credentials, so please provide verifiable evidence from a reliable source that proves this to be an error or a minority belief. Until such time, I will vigorously support the source and related material. (Note that discussions of only the US Treasury's interest burden are not relevent to the material in contention.) BigK HeX (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep, an expert. Sure. He uses the money supply, GDP, and interest rates, but fails to correlate those with inflation. Inflation is the entropy of economic growth. Either this guy did not understand his own statement, or his field does not cover this subject very accurately. While the application of physics to sociology is quite interesting, and I think it could evolve into something in the future. I fail to see where the economic community currently accepts this heterodox field for use in economics or monetary theory. --EGeek (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you asserting that you, personally, are a more qualified economist? Interesting .... Anyhoo, to re-focus this current contention, I believe that the article has zero discussion of any heterodox economic theories. The issue at hand is whether Daly's examination of current monetary policy reaches a suspect conclusion ... perhaps held contrary to some other "mainstream" conclusion. If it can be shown that there is a contrary "mainstream" conclusion about the fact that the money supply requires loans (and subsequent interest) in order to circulate, then please show it with verifiable references. If some "mainstream" summation cannot be shown, then it also cannot be shown that the quoted Daly text is a fringe "opinion." BigK HeX (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Placing undue emphasis can also be POV. I say it is a fringe opinion, and unless you can provide a better quote, it should stay out. At issue is that (to my knowledge) no mainstream economist places the emphasis on lending being "required" for the money supply; it is simply definitional (the money supply is affected by the demand for money). The characterization of the money supply "requiring" lending and implying that this means a dependency on borrowed money is a common feature of crackpot monetary conspiracy theorists and not found in mainstream writing.
In this sense, the citation of an economist explicitly opposed to economic growth and most of the other tenets of mainstream economics is POV as it places undue emphasis on a non-typical characterization.--Gregalton (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not consider myself an expert in ecological economics. I do consider Daly a notable expert in ecological economics. The problem is, as Daly himself puts it in the citation, "...ecological economics focuses on the physical or real economy...". As I have shown in this source I found, ecological economic monetary theories are too underdeveloped to be considered a reliable source. --EGeek (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I will again assert that neither of you is qualified to say "it is fringe because *I* say so." Please show it is fringe by posting verifiable info about someone "in the mainstream" who reaches an alternate (contradictory) conclusion. Until, I will support the inclusion of the text as I wrote it. Also, I'd tend to think that logical facts cannot be given "undue weight," so until it is proven somehow that Daly's assessment of monetary policy is some economics version of Flat Earth, I will continue to emphasize it. BigK HeX (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
What if Herman Daly says so? From your own source:

"...why is there virtually no dialogue between the ecological economists and the mainstream economists..."(p.2)

"Under our current fractional reserve banking system, favored by the neoclassical mainstream..."(p.10)

"If we follow mainstream economists..."(p.26)

Herman Daly's own words show that there is a separation between mainstream economics and ecological economics. Other ecological sources not only show this separation, but also complain about it. Since ecological economics is separate from mainstream economics, it is a fringe theory. --EGeek (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Certainly not a reliable source on monetary economics. Neither would a labor economist or any one of dozens of other subfields. If there were for some reason a shortage of macroeconomists, monetary economists or textbooks on macreconomics...--Gregalton (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
EGeek .. you continue to miss the point, so I'd ask that you re-read this section to see what is really being argued. Differentiation between ecological economics and neoclassicism is not under dispute.
Gregalton .. you have any proof for such an assertion? Seems pretty far-fetched to assert that Daly is an idiot in monetary economics when he was chosen to LEAD THE WORLD BANK. Err ... yeah. BigK HeX (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
...of environmental development affairs. That is an appropriate position for an ecological economist.
My current dispute is the differentiation between mainstream economics and ecological economics. If ecological economics is not part of the "mainstream", then it is a "fringe" theory, not a "the presentation of plain fact"; therefore, WP:ASF does not apply. If you want to try to prove that interest represents a cost that requires constant injection of money, then use sources that cite Irving Fisher or his work. He is more notable and more represented in the mainstream than Professor Daly. --EGeek (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, the article section in question quotes NOTHING of ecological economics, nor neoclassicism. The relevant part of the article is a summation of monetary policy, and, in particular, a summation of the involvement of fractional reserve banking in monetary policy. The summation is fact that should be freely useful under WP:ASF, seeing as no relevant contradiction has been pointed out here. BigK HeX (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Your own POV about relevancy does not matter. WP:ASF is for simple facts that are not disputed. I posted a source that disputed the "fact"; therefore, it is not really a fact. --EGeek (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggest moving the article

In view of the naming standards on Wikipedia, I suggest/recommend moving this article to Monetary policy of the United States, unabbreviating the name of the country. Any thoughts? AecisBrievenbus 21:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I very much agree. The current title is outside of regular conventions for "Subject X of Country Y" articles. --Merovingian (T, C) 21:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've been bold, moved it, and fixed the double redirects. This should be an uncontroversial move. --Merovingian (T, C) 21:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I, too, thought the same thing when I first starting making additions to the article. I did create a redirect a while back (Monetary Policy of the United States). Sadly, content disputes have stifled correction of conformity issues. BigK HeX (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Merovingian ... one would think that it's uncontroversial, but this talk page is full of strange arguments being tossed around  :o( BigK HeX (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Daly again

I am looking at the Daly piece, which says in the relevant section "Although the US government receives income overall from seigniorage, there are costs associated with maintaining the money that is printed by the government. In fact, interest must be paid for the money authorized by the Federal Reserve, as noted by Herman Daly.
In the Daly piece, I find only this: "Over 95% of our money supply is created by the private banking system (demand deposits) and bears interest as a condition of its existence. Unless loans are repaid at interest and renewed, the money supply will shrink and transactions will be more difficult."
The text in the article seems to confuse money printed by the government with "money supply", which is far broader (as noted in the article itself). Please provide a cite which actually supports the contention.--Gregalton (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Errr ... if something applies to a broader set, then it similarly applies to the narrow, included subset. I am denying your request for additional citation, but will vigorously support the text. I regretfully inform you that any deletions on this basis will be considered highly disruptive. Please look into this matter before acting hastily. BigK HeX (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It is not evident that what applies to broad money supply necessarily applies to the monetary base. Unless this is supported, I will delete.--Gregalton (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It IS evident. Again, please look into this matter before acting hastily. BigK HeX (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Please provide supporting documentation then. You have made a logical claim that is not obvious.--Gregalton (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
My claim IS obvious, for the reason originally stated in this section. If that reason is not sufficient for you, then that it sad, but you must still accept it as undeniable. One of the wikipedia essays deals with this. You would not be helping yourself by raising dispute here. BigK HeX (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I have provided quotes above that specifically state that interest is not paid on printed money, nor on reserves. So your claim that they are subsets appears to be inaccurate. --Gregalton (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Miller "balance"

Question

Please explain how this statement in the wiki article:

  • Eric Miller criticizes Daly's logic [about the interest costs of the money supply], concluding that money is created in the banking system in response to demand, which justifies its cost

Is justified by this text from the citation:

The connection between money and GDP growth is therefore not as obvious as Daly assumes ... For it to be the reverse would require the money supply to be exogenously set and not demand-determined (endogenous). Strangely, the first part of the excerpt suggests that Daly understands that money is endogenous to demand, though his conclusion does not logically follow from it.

Miller is quite obviously criticizing this assertion from Daly:

Fractional reserve money is therefore not neutral with respect to the scale of the physical economy—it requires growth of GDP to keep the money supply from declining. And GDP growth correlates positively with throughput growth.

Miller takes no obvious stance on this relevant quote from Daly that is actually used in the wiki article:

The "Most Contentious" Text Award

Over 95% of our money supply is created by the private banking system (demand deposits) and bears interest as a condition of its existence.

Request

This usage described above constitutes a misrepresentation of the Miller source. Please remove it. BigK HeX (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Miller rationale

You left out the relevant part in your ellipsis, the full quote includes "Rather, Post Keynesians are adamant that money is not causal (e.g. Lavoie, 1984; Rochon, 1999). The growth of fractional-reserve fiat money is better understood as a response to the financing needs of economic activities, not the cause of those activities. For it to be the reverse would require the money supply to be exogenously set and not demand-determined (endogenous). Strangely, the first part of the excerpt suggests that Daly understands that money is endogenous to demand, though his conclusion does not logically follow from it." Endogeneity here is straightforwardly interpreted as justifying the cost.--Gregalton (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Err .. yeah. I left that stuff out because not a single word of it is referring to interest costs. [Hint ... hint. "economic activities" is again a reference to Daly's assertions about GDP] So ... you wanna try that explanation again? And, please please, narrow it down to precisely where interest is discussed by Miller.
The citation is being plainly misrepresented, and if it were construed faithfully, it's presence would be quite extraneous in the wiki article. Please remove it. BigK HeX (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope, the citation is right on the money. The cost (interest) of money is a response to financing needs. Of course, the Daly citation should just go, in which case this can go.--Gregalton (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Ahh... yes. "The cost of money" I completely missed Miller discussing that. Hrrmmm ... wait. I still do not see Miller referring to "the cost of money" anywhere. Please try again. (Or better yet, concede the obvious and support deletion of the misrepresented Miller reference.) BigK HeX (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
If you concede that Daly is not a reliable source on macroeconomics, happy to; if both are deleted it will be fine. Since the article you're citing is not about macroeconomics, it really is stretching to use it in this context.--Gregalton (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
So, you know that the text misrepresents the source, but are only "happy to" admit it, if I remove a source that is quoted correctly? Interesting .... BigK HeX (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it represents the source accurately, but would not be necessary if a poor source were removed (since it refers to that poor source).--Gregalton (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
"it represents the source accurately,"
Yet you refuse to point out precisely where Miller refers to interest costs. Point out precisely where, or just remove the source, please. Desperation doesn't justify the misrepresentation of a source, and probably won't win any points here  :o( BigK HeX (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
"would not be necessary if a poor source were removed"
Strangely, that sounds an awful lot like "hey, no fair, I can't dispute your source, so you can't use it." I'm pretty sure that you are rational enough to see this misrepresentation here. Please defer to your integrity. BigK HeX (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Absurd comment. We have extensively documented the dispute about your source. None of this discussion would be necessary if the Daly source met the basic requirements of wp:rs ("Sources should be appropriate to the claims made." - not a text on macroeconomics or monetary policy, so does not correspond); wp:v "published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.; view has no prominence in macroeconomic literature, but only in ecological economics piece (and even here tangentially); wp:fringe "that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study," (as in the Daly source itself, ecological economics departs from prevailing view in macroeconomics); wp:npov " Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject" - view not represented at all among mainstream macroeconomists. None of this requires us to demonstrate why (or even if) it is wrong, just irrelevant.
Daly source does not meet these requirements - it is not even a text on macroeconomics - and should be removed.
To me the Miller quote is perfectly clear and adequately represented. I'm tired of explaining things to you, like the discussion about how the existence of an independent audit demonstrates that the Fed is independently audited, so see no likelihood that you will deign to understand this. The documentation on why the Daly piece does not meet basic standards is extensive, and you refuse to understand any of that.
But again, if we delete poor sources, we should delete the Daly piece, which would allow us to get beyond this subject.--Gregalton (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
In that long diatribe, you have still neglected to do this:
"point out precisely where Miller refers to interest costs." (The "cost of money" as you refer to it.)
I apologize if you've done this already. I'd humbly ask that you do so again more succinctly. Very succinctly, please. BigK HeX (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Wow, I can really see why this article has a neutrality tag. Let's consider this section:

“ The current economic process uses Treasury Securities which only exist when the nation is in debt.[citation needed] In 2005, the Federal Reserve held approximately 9% of the national debt [2] in order to support the monetary base. Experts are hopeful that other assets could take the place of National Debt as the fundamental basis, and Alan Greenspan, long the head of the Federal Reserve, has been quoted as saying, "I am confident that U.S. financial markets, which are the most innovative and efficient in the world, can readily adapt to a paydown of Treasury debt by creating private alternatives with many of the attributes that market participants value in Treasury securities."[3]

Although the US government receives income overall from seigniorage, there are costs associated with maintaining the money that is printed by the government. Specifically, the ecological economist explains "Over 95% of our money supply [in the United States] is created by the private banking system (demand deposits) and bears interest as a condition of its existence."[4] The interest costs are owed by those that have borrowed from US banks for their loan--the loan is required in order for money to be injected into the economy, and even simply for existing money to be maintained (as noted in "Step 9" in the above process).[5][6] However, economist Eric Miller criticizes Daly's logic, concluding that money is created in the banking system in response to demand, which justifies its cost.[7]

Growth of the supply of money in the US must be matched with an equal amount of interest-bearing debt in the country.[4][5][8] If the total amount of loans were repaid to banks, then the money supply would shrink. These important steps appear to widely misunderstood, according to the volume of literature on topics such as "Federal Reserve conspiracy" and "Federal Reserve fraud."[9]

 ”

First of all, the opening line is misleading — yes, Treasury securities are a form of debt, however the term "in debt" has the colloquial meaning which is at odds with how these are used. Government debt, in this sense, could be technical — a government which has, on the balance sheets a completely healthy debt-credit level would and could still use Treasury bonds.

The second paragraph is worse. First, it begins by stating that "there are costs associated with maintaining the money that is printed by the government" — but, it then goes on to talk about how 95% of the money supply is created via interest bearing accounts! These are two totally different measures — the second statement does not support the first one. Furthermore, the presentation here is misleading, since it implies that this is an "injection" of money into the system — when in reality, it is simply a byproduct of how fractional reserve banking expands the money supply. The fact that bank accounts increase the money supply is a byproduct of deposits; the implied causality of "condition" and "injection" is misleading. The third paragraph's first sentence here is blatantly false — growth of the money supply does not need to be matched by an equal amount of interest bearing debt. The only situation in which it does, it when we are talking about a growth in the money supply caused solely by changes in how private banks hold deposits — one can increase the money supply without requiring a 1:1 increase in debt by simply printing more money, and then injecting it into the economy using open market operations (which actually remove debt). There's also a lot of irrelevant, and misleading things in this section which probably should be removed.

Since I'm not here to be solely critical, one could rewrite the section as follows:

“ Modern implementation of monetary policy relies on open market operations performed by the central bank, using Treasury securities to manipulate the monetary base. These securities, which form 9% of total Treasury holdings of the national debt,[10] are bought and sold to expand or contract the supply of currency in circulation. The majority of the money supply is then created through the process of fractional reserve banking, wherein deposits at banks expand the money supply via the money multiplier effect — consequently, over 95% of the money supply in the United States is created as the result of interest-bearing deposits. ”

It's shorter, more to the point, and avoids all of the confusing and misleading (and often POV) statements made in the previous version. --Haemo (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Your suggested paragraph would be a fine inclusion for describing the Fed's use of fractional reserve banking. However, it would have problems as a revision as suggested. The original paragraph is concerned mostly with relaying the costs of monetary policy, which is a notable, relevant, and important topic. Your suggested revision doesn't even touch on that subject at all, and hence, is inadequate in conveying the intended meaning. BigK HeX (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
"there are costs associated with maintaining the money that is printed by the government" — but, it then goes on to talk about how 95% of the money supply is created via interest bearing accounts! These are two totally different measures"
They are different measures, however, one is a subset of the other. So, mathematical set-logic dictates that the second statement does support the first. IMO, constantly switching between various money aggregates during the article would be confusing, so I try to "downgrade" all references to a single measure throughout. However, I have to use quotes faithfully, so some issues are introduced. BigK HeX (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
"The third paragraph's first sentence here is blatantly false ... when we are talking about a growth in the money supply caused solely by changes in how private banks hold deposits — one can increase the money supply without requiring a 1:1 increase in debt by simply printing more money, and then injecting it into the economy using open market operations (which actually remove debt). There's also a lot of irrelevant, and misleading things in this section which probably should be removed."
Your explanation of open market operations here is not matching reality. The use of Open market operations are what ultimately necessitate the 1:1 increase of debt. Banks do not give away the money they receive into their reserve accounts from the Fed's purchases of T-bonds. They loan it out; thus necessitating a commensurate increase in debt for the money from the Fed. Feel free to browse through the citations and explore for yourself. BigK HeX (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
But the point being made is that the 95% of the money supply created using interest bearing accounts is a disjoint subset from the money printed by the government! Asserting that a statement applies to a given subset of the money supply certainly does not imply that it relates to the rest. The first sentence has no relation to the second. Furthermore, the current paragraph is entitled "Monetary Policy" — not "Costs of the US money supply". A discussion of the costs is perhaps relevant, but is not a major consideration.
As to your last point, that is not a 1:1 increase in the supply — the increase in the money supply is the currency base injected, plus that created via the money multiplier effect. Even though all of the money created by the latter effect requires private debt, the money supply increase by the former does not — the net effect is probably more than commensurate, since the money multiplier tends to be much higher than 2. You appear to be mistaken on this point. --Haemo (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me, perhaps, be clear on this last point. There is an equal creation of debt to currency, whenever open market operations occur — however, the growth in the money supply is caused by both the increase in the monetary base, as well as the actions of banks lending out money. For instance, if a given bank has a Treasury security on its book, when the Fed "buys" the security back (generally, this occurs through non-renewal) it uses newly printed currency. The currency is then used by the back to (1) pay back outstanding liabilities or (2) lent out. In either case, the currency enters circulation — it will return, however, (minus the small holding percentage) to the bank where it will be lent out (minus the reserve), creating debt. It is correct to say that the total supply of currency necessitates an equal supply of public debt in the economy — however, it is not correct to say that the match with the total supply must be "with an equal amount" of public debt. --Haemo (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
"Equal" does need to be stricken if I put that in there with reference to the entire money supply. It is good to have such a critical eye on this article. It helps that you are familiar with the workings of the Open Market (and set logic too)! If you can tone down my (unintentional!) POV while still retaining the intended meaning, I would be utterly in your debt. BigK HeX (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Haemo, agree, please Be Bold and edit away.--Gregalton (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Haemo, most people have trouble accepting even a 1:1 ratio of debt-to-monetary base. I considered elaborating on that, but decided to leave it with just quoting your "1:1". But, yes, it is in fact much more. However, even the initial deposits of "new money" from the Fed are used for private loans.
Currency is not a significantly disjoint set from deposits. Additional currency within the system can only be spawned from existing bank deposits, so the intersection of sets almost fully includes currency (with the disjoint area being quite insignificant). Federal Reserve Notes are only introduced to the public through commercial bank loans, and then their subsequent withdrawal from banks. Thus --- using set logic --- currency can be used as a legitimate substitute in many situations. I think this helps to keep the article simpler to understand, personally. I could well be wrong, though. BigK HeX (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Grego. Of course Haemo is free to edit however he likes. I generally have no dispute with factually accurate edits. BigK HeX (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Structure

Well, I think a good idea might be to come up with a good structure for this article. Do we want some historical material here? Because there's a whole issue of the Journal of Financial History devoted to early US monetary policy and monetary union. There's also a large number of survey articles out there. I think sketching out a rough outline of what we want to talk about might be a good plan. Here's my idea. Feel free to edit this, as you see fit:
1 Lead
2 Table of Contents (autogenerated)
3 History of US monetary policy
3.1 Early history 
3.2 Modern history
4 Structure of modern US institutions
4.1 Federal Reserve
4.2 US Treasury
4.3 Fractional reserve banking in the US
5 Opinions of US policy
5.1 Pro
5.2 Con
6 See also
7 References
8 Further reading
9 External links
This kind of structure works well, and I'd like to kill off the "controveries" section by merging it into the body better. --Haemo (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That looks great, Haemo. I'd also love to incorporate Federal Resrve targets in there somewhere, as EGeek has suggested. Early history would certainly be fascinating.

I'd like to get away from this article being so much about the Federal Reserve; the Fed. is an important part of how US monetary policy is implemented, but I think we want to focus on the policy more. So, Federal Reserve targets are definitely something we want to mention — can you think of any other major headings that might help focus the article on "policy" precisely? --Haemo (talk) 05:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
EGeek has some pretty nice suggestions above ... foreign investments, and a few other topics that are specific to the US. Something about the Gold-standard is probably relevant as well. Brief contrast to fiscal policy, maybe? BigK HeX (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
History works too. Prior to the Revolution, the US economy was on a quasi-fiat system for each state which was kind of bizarre, before it moved to a de facto silver standard, and then to a gold standard. It would probably be a good idea to mention it in there. --Haemo (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I also like this structure. I suggest that we only add material specific to monetary policy and unique to this article for the US institution section. Does early US history only include up to the post-Revolutionary period (prior to ratification of the US Constitution) or does it include the American colonial period? Does modern monetary policy begin with the Federal Reserve Act? --EGeek (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
We can include just prior to the Revolution, since it's important for understanding how the US monetary system was set up. I'm a little bit short on sources for some of the later material — esp. 19th-20th century prior to the Great War. --Haemo (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we insert "section stubs"? It might encourage people to be bold. BigK HeX (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Number without context and bias

I am removing this: "As indicated above, the money supply has grown by more than 750 billion dollars since 1933, under the influence of the Federal Reserve." It is redundant (mentioned above), does not fit with the rest of the text, and the "under the influence of the federal reserve" sounds like an acusation rather than a statement of fact.
If an attempt were to be made to be neutral, these numerical examples might be balanced by putting them in relevant terms. By my calcs, the increase from 1933 to 2008 represents about 5% increase per year.--Gregalton (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Without context? It's in the middle of two staements that show how that money got into the system. If you don't like the wording, then change it, instead of deleting. If you'd stop deleting valid text over minor disputes with POV wording, we'd be progressing through the more contentious areas more effectively. If you are uncapable/unwilling to edit POV text while retaining the same meaning though, I guess we need to figure out some other strategy.
Overall, the hastiness of your call to deletion for any little rationale is something I find hard not to see as provocation. BigK HeX (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Growth of the "printed" money supply does not equal interest bearing debt

I have removed the word "printed" from the following text: "Growth of the supply of printed money in the US is balanced against an equal amount of interest-bearing debt in the country." This is not supported by the citations, including Daly. I reiterate, there is a distinction between printed money and the broad money supply that this statement confuses.--Gregalton (talk) 07:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll reiterate that one is a subset of the other, and, that being the case, then substitution would be a valid usage. I use it for clarity and consistency, since I'd hate for every reference to money measures to refer to something different. Currency is the smallest and would be the most universally-useful. It's a minor point, but I will likely, in the future, revert your changes, where set-theory is applicable. BigK HeX (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It is a "subset" that is different, as documented previously.--Gregalton (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
So .... you're saying that M0 is *not* fully included within M1? Hrmmmm .... please verify your conclusions of set logic, a bit. BigK HeX (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
"In effect, by holding our currency, citizens of the rest of the world are making an interest-free loan to the United States." So your reference to set logic may be, umm, wrong - elements of the set are different from each other. Since this also corresponds to what your Daly says, roughly, that 95% of the money supply earns interest - meaning 5% does not; this roughly corresponds to the approximately 5% of M1 that is M0. So M0 is included in M1, and therefore the statement that printed money is balanced against an equal amount of interest bearing debt is wrong. Since "printed money" does not equal the money supply does not equal interest-bearing debt, it is also wrong (M0 does not equal M1). There is a relationship but it is not 1:1. Or, put the way I did, the vast majority of the money supply (M1 minus M0) corresponds to loans.--Gregalton (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks ... I'll check that link out. I did leave in the usage of "money supply" where you changed it, though. It's a minor issue to me, but it seems confusing that each reference to "money supply" in the article could refer to something different. BigK HeX (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand it is confusing. But I'm not randomly changing it from one to the other - if you think it's unclear, please explain why and I'll be happy to edit for clarity, but changing it back to printed money or currency (one of the words usually taken to be a synonym for printed money, possibly including or not reserves and hence the monetary base, but definitely not M1) is a problem. Money supply corresponds to Daly's usage, which is obviously M1 (or one of the other Ms, but NOT M0) or he would not say '95%.' The reason I am insisting on the distinction is precisely because (some) monetary cranks like to refer to the "fact" that the US government pays interest on federal reserve notes - which is simply wrong. Just as badly, it is extremely biased.
Honestly, if it is a "minor issue" to you, I'm bewildered why you keep changing these back.--Gregalton (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
As mentioned, I have suspended deletion at the time being, while other issues are in contention. However, I do feel quite justified in making the change ... so long as M1 includes all of M0. Meh .... we'll raise this one in the distant future. Though you may be interested in the bit about syllogisms in WP:NOTOR BigK HeX (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect syllogism: it is not established that all money has identical features, or specifically this feature. Even Daly's comment does not say "all" money.--Gregalton (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Meh ... technically, it is an OK syllogism, because M0 consists of currency and reserves, and currency is technically a subset of reserves. Food for thought, I s'pose. BigK HeX (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I must misunderstand you. Interest is not paid on reserves either. Just because they add up different types of money does not mean they are identical - hence the term high-powered money, for example, and the different terms. So the syllogism does not hold, even if they are types of money.--Gregalton (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah... the logical relations aren't exactly straightforward. Elaborating is a task I'll save for later, so I guess the continuous contextual changes of the term "money supply" in the wiki article will just have to swallowed until such time. Bah  :o( BigK HeX (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Dependency" on the banking system

Just plain biased. Is the banking system dependent on the government instead? The Fed? The economy? Not clear at all which direction - or perhaps mutual dependency. Just leave it out, please.--Gregalton (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I find it very elaborative. However, I've always been willing to figure out a compromise, since outright deletion isn't satisfactory to me. Unfortunately, deletion has been your primary "cure-all" in this article, for whatever reason. BigK HeX (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It now reads "As loans from private banks are primarily used to expand the money supply...". Does the text actually say that? Are the authors actually saying that the purpose of lending is first and foremost to expand the money supply? I can remember reading quite recently that increase of the money supply is a byproduct of the banking system, but not this. Can you explain please?
On a separate note, there are non-private banks (Eximbank would be one) that are not private, but also have the same effect on the money supply. Unless this "private" part is really true, it should not be in the text.--Gregalton (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The phrasing has been adjusted to reflect that it is the Fed that "uses" lending to affect the money supply, as opposed to banks themselves having any concern over the effects on the money supply.. Sorry. BigK HeX (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Greenspan quote / national debt

This quote is misused to make some unclear point about how money is dependent on the government being in debt. That is not at all the case: the sources used and even the most cursory web search show that the context in which this quote came up was that the Clinton government was retiring debt so quickly that a) could eventually lead to the Fed having to depend more on other types of assets for its collateral; and b) geeky economists were worried about constructing formulas that couldn't depend on having a dependable risk-free rate, and lots of finance people were worried about having a good yield curve. (Oh, and the geeky answer was "we'll work something out but the math won't be anywhere near as nice").
The section name "Monetary policy" also seems a bit odd in an article entitled "Monetary policy". What is this section supposed to be about?--Gregalton (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
If the "point" is unclear, are you certain that there is an attempt to make a point?
Anyhoo, the quote is used in a section that refers to using something other than National Debt, and I believe that you are stating above that Greenspan's context was responding to being cut off from using National Debt. The contexts seem to match so far as that goes? I'll reserve further comment, as I must be missing a crucial point. BigK HeX (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


I didn't title the section, as it currently stands. I thought you did that.... ? Must've been EGeek. I originally entitled it "Ramifications of Monetary Policy" which is what it was about. The benefits and cost to the public arising from the use of monetary policy. BigK HeX (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Money Creation (Part 2)

I made a new section due to the length of the old one. In response to the edit comments that User:BigK_HeX made:

"uninformed edit rv... non-incorporated *businesses* do NOT receive loans (plz research) ...also E Miller disputes Daly's correlation w/ GDP...says zero about quote used in article"

I give my response.

  1. Both corporate and non-corporate businesses receive loans from banks. It normally requires a strict business plan and length of operational turnover. There is also statistical data available on non-corporate business loans. So your statement "non-incorporated businesses do NOT receive loans" is false.
  2. Daly says,

    Under our current fractional reserve banking system, favored by the neoclassical mainstream, the money supply is a by-product of private commercial activities of lending and borrowing, rather than a public utility for effecting exchange. Over 95% of our money supply is created by the private banking system (demand deposits) and bears interest as a condition of its existence. Unless loans are repaid at interest and renewed, the money supply will shrink and transactions will be more difficult. Fractional reserve money is therefore not neutral with respect to the scale of the physical economy—it requires growth of GDP to keep the money supply from declining.(pp.10-11)

    Miller says,

    The growth of fractional-reserve fiat money is better understood as a response to the financing needs of economic activities, not the cause of those activities. For it to be the reverse would require the money supply to be exogenously set and not demand-determined (endogenous). Strangely, the first part of the excerpt suggests that Daly understands that money is endogenous to demand, though his conclusion does not logically follow from it.(p.72)

    You can find the Daly quote on page 70. Miller made a point that financing activities are a product of the demand for those activities, not the financing activities themselves. Daly ignores his own statement about GDP growth and concludes that the money supply requires GDP growth instead of the reverse. --EGeek (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Money Creation (elaboration)

"Both corporate and non-corporate businesses ... statistical data available on non-corporate business loans." You're asserting facts without verifiable references. AFAIK, non-incorporated "businesses" are NOT granted loans. Some person within the company must prove credibility and also accept the liability. Corporations are granted citizen-status for liability purposes. In either case, it is ultimately a citizen accepting the loan... whether person or corporation. BigK HeX (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. I was giving you a chance to correct yourself. The Federal Reserve keeps statistical data on nonfarm noncorporate businesses, which includes types of liabilities such as bank loans. In Regards to liability, look up the term LLC (Limited Liability Company) and the phrase "piercing the corporate veil". --EGeek (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Daly ignores his own statement about GDP growth and concludes that the money supply requires GDP growth instead of the reverse." Err ... again, you keep arguing against something that is completely absent in the wiki article. I have no dispute on this point for now, as it seems irrelevant right now. EGeek, I'd ask that we limit discussion to topics actually broached in the wiki article. Ecological economics is nowhere mentioned (n-o-w-h-e-r-e .. in case you missed that). So, all of these strange tangents about economics theory are interesting, but really have no bearing on the wiki article. Let's please stick to the wiki stuff. I used a single quote from Daly that has no basis in any theories of economics, so if you want to censor that statement, then please find a verifiable contradiction. BigK HeX (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In response I'll just quote your own words: "Ecological economics is nowhere(sic) mentioned [in this article.]" So why are you using an ecological economist for a source? "I used a single quote from Daly that has no basis in any theories of economics." Such as monetary theory?
Also, please do not restructure the context to downplay a source's relevance because you don't like how it downplays your source. Adding a source that refutes another source does not censor it. It balances the statement. --EGeek (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Miller made a point that financing activities are a product of the demand for those activities, not the financing activities themselves." This is the most relevant contention that I could find, so I'll comment here using an analogy. Increases in the aggregate public demand for Cadillacs require a commensurate increase of income taxes paid within the Cadillac company (by the additional workers who produce the extra Cadillacs). Just because demand is the initial impetus, this does not negate a summation of costs. BigK HeX (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that an increase in income will create more demand (unless income-elasticity is zero), Miller describes just the opposite. This does not negate costs. As I wrote in the article, it justifies them. Miller describes a demand-pull scenario where the money supply increases due to the demand for growth. Daly describes a cost-push scenario where demand is driven by the money produced by the fractional reserve banking system; although, he describes money as endogenous (demand-driven). --EGeek (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC Daly

Discussion is not being engaged. Steps in a process involving monetary policy are cited, and a logical conclusion about the use of those cited steps is quoted from Herman Daly. An editor is disputing the validity of the quote citing: A) unreliable source, claiming that the economist is ignorant in monetary economics; B) egregious factual error, without providing any verifiable contradiction; C) fringe, without providing any evidence of an existing "mainstream counterargument." Requests have been made for relevant and verifiable info that could contradict the cited text in contention; however, 3RR is being warned while the verifiable material under contention is being deleted without providing the requested contradictions (other than the "common knowledge" of the editor himself). This dispute is primarily centered on the Money creation section of the article. Should a "consensus" of one or two people be allowed to cite their own common knowledge as legitimate dispute for a conclusion reached by a noted prefessional? Others statements in contention are minor but may need opinions. (see this diff about citizens and bank loans) BigK HeX (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I welcome this RfC. A few points:
  1. No-one said that Daly is "ignorant." All that is stated is that this is not his field of specialisation.
  2. According to wp:rs, a reliable source is scholarly. The source cited does not appear to be a scholarly publication in the sense of vetted, but self-published.
  3. According to wp:verifiability and wp:npov "fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view." This view is not prominent.
  4. According to wp:verifiability, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Note that "whose work in the relevant field" is bolded in the policy. As can be seen in the article and Daly's background, his area of expertise is not at all in the area of monetary policy or macroeconomics, but ecological economics. The article itself notes that ecological economics is separate from 'mainstream economics', let alone monetary policy/macroeconomics.
  5. BigK Hex asks for sources specifically contradicting Daly. This is proving a negative. This work is so outside the mainstream that it has no visibility amongst macroeconomist/monetary policy specialists.
There are plenty of reliable sources available on this subject. The editor above wants to use specific formulations and present it as fact. To do so, rather than use sources on a well-researched subject from absolutely unimpeachable sources (such as, for example, textbooks by the current head of the Federal Reserve which are widely available), the editor has had to resort to obscure works by non-specialists that just happen to use the formulation he wishes to promote. This clearly demonstrates a personal agenda and violation of wp:npov. It gives undue attention to borderline sources and fringe interpretations, while overstating the case (justified by 'the facts themselves are such', a classic formulation of POV pushers.
As it is, this entire article resembles a POV fork from Federal Reserve System rather than an article on US monetary policy.--Gregalton (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. "No-one said that Daly is "ignorant." ... this is not his field of specialisation."
    1. You certainly do dance with euphemisms. As stated in the RfC, you have very certainly claimed he is ignorant in monetary economics, enough to be considered unreliable.
  2. "According to wp:rs, a reliable source is scholarly ..... According to wp:verifiability, 'Self-published material may...'"
    1. I guess the publisher, the University of Maryland, isn't accredited well enough for you ... ? Your unfounded censorship is the only thing that is not reliable, nor verifiable in this matter.
  3. "This view is not prominent."
    1. Awww .. yet you refuse to show any evidence of "the" prominent view. Amazing how that works. According to wikipedia policy, YOU are engaging in original research, and trying to counter my verifiable text with it. That is unacceptable. Until such time that someone scholarly publishes your "prominent" view, my text should be allowable.
  4. "BigK Hex asks for sources specifically contradicting Daly."
    1. Well ... that seems like a pretty reasonable response to deletion of verifiable material, yet you keep refusing it, and have opted to continue the unwarranted deletions.
  5. "This is proving a negative. This work is so outside the mainstream that it has no visibility amongst macroeconomist/monetary policy specialists."
    1. lol .. you sure do have a lot of trouble proving that the Earth is round here. Your inability to find your supposed "mainstream" view is NOT a justification according to any wikipedia policy, guideline, or essay. In fact it is against WP:WQT which states

      Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste; Argue facts; Don't ignore questions; Recognize your own biases and keep them in check; etc.

  6. "editor has had to resort to obscure works by non-specialists that just happen to use the formulation he wishes to promote .... a classic formulation of POV pushers"
    1. Oh yes ... a work published by an accredited university and written by a notable expert in economics that is so obscure that it has links all over Google. And .... also. I used textbooks that similarly support the same conclusion. You refuted those, demanding an explicit quote. You have your explicit quote, and you refute it with vague, baseless, unfounded, unproven, random allegations of "policy violations." A classic formulation for censors who have no factual "high ground." It must be awfully nice to edit articles in your fashion. If you don't like something ... just claim that it is "fringe" even if it is obvious and verifiable, then conspire with enough editors to avoid 3RR in pushing your own POV censorship, without providing a single shred of evidence. BigK HeX (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Does not appear to be published by the University of Maryland. At least, judging by the actual link. It is simply carried on the personal website of a professor there. This does still not obviate the point that the field of specialisation is NOT monetary policy or macroeconomics, and specifically states - repeatedly - that ecological economics is outside of mainstream economics.--Gregalton (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Then it's a good thing that I don't use any of his theories on ecological economics.
Also, the source is published on the University's website, specifically by their School of Public Policy. If you want to make an assertion that the school is disavowing these publications, then please do so directly and then prove it. Otherwise, let's avoid frivolous commentary. BigK HeX (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
If you have any evidence that this publication is peer reviewed, please provide it. On ecological economics, Daly would be a notable source.--Gregalton (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You want *me* to do your homework for you??? YOU are the one making unfounded assertions. However, in an effort to move past this stonewalling I will accede to your undue request.
Firstly, I'd note that you are cherry-picking sources fairly conveniently :o(
Your buddy EGeek has already provided evidence of peer review ([7]) in this wiki article and it stands right in the same passage as the usage of the source you are disputing. This source does NOT contradict Daly's summation of monetary policy, though Miller does contradict Daly's asserted link between GDP and the money supply.
That is somewhat weak evidence of peer-review, but I thought it was interesting how you manage to raise such untenable arguments. In any case, I'll go ahead and provide solid evidence that the Daly source certainly meets the WP:RS guidelines. Specifically, I'll assert that the Daly source was given in the proper academic environment - see http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/retrieve/2935/etd2244.pdf and then please refrain from raising any further disputes of cited and verifiable text that you are unwilling to prove yourself (outside of your "intuition"). Making edits based on no verifiable dispute is very disruptive behavior, in my opinion. BigK HeX (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Peer reviewed refers to peer reviewed publications. Not that a peer happened to review it, but that a publication is consistently reviewed by peers prior to publication.--Gregalton (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
-----
Obviously, you did not even care to check the indicated source that describes some of the academic vetting of the Daly source. Anyways, per WP:ASF and the WP:TE essay, I will continue to be bold in the inclusion of verifiable information.

There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict WP:BOLD. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.[1] Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information.

If you are not motivated enough to provide evidence to support your deletions, then please consider that your edits are not as productive as they could be, and may, in fact, be disruptive. In particular, your assertions for deletion "Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research."
So, if you truly belive that I am pushing a fringe opinion with undue weight, then the guidelines suggest that "Sometimes well-meaning editors may be misled by fringe publications or make honest mistakes when representing a citation. Such people may reasonably defend their positions for a short time, then concede the issue when they encounter better evidence..." Feel free to provide that "better evidence." BigK HeX (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
In response to BigK HeX's RfC remarks:

"A) unreliable source, claiming that the economist is ignorant in monetary economics"

I have argued before that the source is unreliable because it is self-published and the author is not an expert in the field of monetary economics required for the reliability of the source.

"B) egregious factual error, without providing any verifiable contradiction"

The cited text is a logical conclusion of the author of the source, not a simple fact. Another source was provided to refute this logic providing balance, but it was dismissed by BigK HeX.

"C) fringe, without providing any evidence of an existing "mainstream counterargument."

Although finding a "mainstream" counterargument is difficult, I contend that it is because "mainstream" economists do not consider Herman Daly's concept notable enough to evaluate in a published work. Ecological Economics has already been discussed in the talk page under the Problem with Money Creation section. Herman Daly shows that ecological economics is a fringe field of study in his own source:

"...why is there virtually no dialogue between the ecological economists and the mainstream economists..."(p.2)

"Under our current fractional reserve banking system, favored by the neoclassical mainstream..."(p.10)

"If we follow mainstream economists..."(p.26)

However, these statements were also dismissed by BigK HeX where he stated, "Differentiation between ecological economics and neoclassicism is not under dispute."
Regarding BigK HeX's statement:

"Should a 'consensus' of one or two people be allowed to cite their own common knowledge as legitimate dispute for a conclusion reached by a noted prefessional?"

While common knowledge was used to explain cited material in the talk page, sources were evaluated based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not the knowledge of the editors in question. Please see the talk page of this article to view other engagements of discussion. --EGeek (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Daly Source .. RS

With respect to the article: why should I have to research where and how your article was verified? Just tell us where it was published. And keep in mind that even if it was published, you have not responded to the point that he is not a recognised expert in the relevant field, monetary economics.
You quote the ArbCom decision above, and miss the point "sourced reliably." Since that is precisely the subject of this discussion (whether this point is sourced reliably), the text above does not apply.
(And please note that while I'm trying to be open, I'm honestly a little tired of having to deal with statements that are not accurate or gross exaggerations. I would appreciate it if you could tone down the rhetoric and just answer the question. "Head of the World Bank". Umm - not. "Published by University of Maryland." Umm - not. Ad nauseam).--Gregalton (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Peer-reviewed by CANSEE in 2003 and during the The Global Conscience Conference (Copenhagen, May 2004, ISBN: 87-89843-66-5). Also, published by both Anthem Press and Edward Elgar Publishing. In addition, can be found in the bibliographies of the following: a scholarly writing at the Simon Fraser University, another published by the Royal Society of New Zealand (Mar 2004), a doctoral dissertation submitted to the Instituto Superior de Ciências do Trabalho e da Empresa, another submitted to the Università degli Studi di Verona, the Local Environment (2005) journal, the International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology (2005), etc. and has been accepted into curriculum of various universities. BigK HeX (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Until such time that you "prove" that a person needs to be a specialist in strictly the field of "monetary economics" in order to make reliable assertions about economic topics covered within that field (among other fields), I do not feel compelled to "prove" that a noted economist, well-versed in neoclassicism fits your criteria. Your request is presently refused. Without growing consensus, I'm not going to jump through anymore of your contrived hoops ... first you demand an explicit quote.. now you demand that the source be proven an expert in a cross-curricular branch of economics. Next, I assume that you'll require that the source be experienced as a Federal Reserve chairperson, or some such (as you keep implying with your Bernanke comments).
I understand that you have made such edits a focus of your time, but, I'm still new and fresh here -- don't take your accumulated wikistress out on me. I'm NOT a crank (as evidenced by your inabilty to "show me the error of my ways"). The exhaustion of your patience must not be allowed to sway me in-the-least to relent in pressing you for verifiability on your own assertions. So, now I invite you to either present vetted "mainstream" conclusions that directly and relevantly contradict Daly or stop claiming "Fringe" violation (and accept that the chance that your intuition may be flawed). If you are not motivated enough to prove your case, then I can understand that, but would request that you please avoid engaging in disruptive deletion of reliably sourced material. BigK HeX (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I hereby recognise that it has in fact been published, as documented by you (thanks for providing).
I still hold that this is not NPOV (see wp:undue) and that this is not a recognised expert in the appropriate field (monetary policy). This is not in any way an indictment of Daly (I have never claimed he is ignorant, just that this is not a mainstream view). Grateful views from other editors.--Gregalton (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is the fact that it's a pretty obvious conclusion that follows from the dependence on commercial loans as the primary means of increasing the monetary base; I'd still contend that there is nothing subjective about Daly's statement. Thus WP:ASF may be more relevent than WP:UNDUE.
Also, by disputing the source, you are implictly claiming that your review is more qualified than any of the peer reviews. It is somewhat in poor taste to concede the scholarship of the source and then disregard the implications of such scholarship. (The entire point in justifying scholarly publication is so that the content is trustworthy.) So, your contention about his "expertness" should be justified by similar conclusion from Daly's peers. If you are to continue insisting that he is unqualified and/or "not mainstream" then providing any evidence of the type requested would be greatly appreciated (and is likely necessary to support any further deletions of the material). BigK HeX (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I am noting again that the relevant field is macroeconomics, not ecological economics, as before. EGeek has explained well above why citations from mainstream economics is not possible: it's not notable enough for a macroeconomist to even comment on (what I referred to as 'proving a negative.'). If you wish to show it's not giving undue attention, provide a citation from a relevant field.--Gregalton (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter what the "relevent field" is. If his peers have not commented, then you shouldn't take the presumption of commenting for them. Request presently denied. If you persist in claiming "fringe" then I'll assume it to be your burden to prove that the "earth is round." BigK HeX (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Daly explicitly says that the paper examines "main features and issues in ecological economics, noting differences and questions under debate with mainline neoclassical economics" - in other words, because he is a major, tenured professor he states up front that his views are not mainstream. We cannot, in an encylopaedia article, feature any discussion of economic theory that is not neoclassical in origin. That, simply, is a violation of WP:FRINGE. Relata refero (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. The problem is that the text in contention is NOT a discussion pertaining to any particular theory of economics. BigK HeX (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
We are not competent to come to that conclusion. Relata refero (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Not sure how you make that assertion. Theory is pretty well distinguishable from summation of historical events. I don't think "over 95% of the State of New York is receiving snow, and therefore currently bears reduced visibility as a condition of the snow's existence" could in any way be construed as "theoretical." BigK HeX (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I should think that the title, "Ecological Economics: The Concept of Scale and Its Relation to Allocation, Distribution, and Uneconomic Growth", establishes quite clearly that the paper is in the field of ecological economics, not monetary policy.--Gregalton (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, you're attributing more importance to "monetary economics specialization" than I would agree with. An experienced economist publishing a source through proper academic channels making conclusions that a layperson could agree with, needs in no way the credentials that you demand, IMO. BigK HeX (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
If it is so straightforward and obvious, and something that no-one would disagree with, it should be trivial to find a source in the appropriate subject field that agrees. But you do not, have not and apparently cannot. So it is evidently not so obvious a conclusion. (And I should think I qualify as a layperson)--Gregalton (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Err ... I'm not required to find well-lauded experts of every particular academic sub-field to meet reliability standards. Daly is an expert economists. If his statement is so obviously disputable, then it should be trivial to for *you* to find one of his peers that disputes it ;o)
In any case, the other provided sources support the same conclusion. I assume the orignally provided sources are still there, but that's probably a bad assumption here. Check the old diffs, if needed. If mainstream sources are missing, for some reason, I'll incorporate some more. BigK HeX (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please, provide the mainstream sources. That is all I'm asking. Repeatedly. Again and again.
I'm not asking for "every particular academic sub-field." Just mainstream. The only "sub-field" in question is monetary policy/macroeconomics. Preferably in an article about monetary policy. For a wikipedia article about monetary theory, that's really not an outrageous request.--Gregalton (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. That is what is required. Please do this, and the problem goes away. (Do not do it, and the citation goes away.) Relata refero (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No. This is not required. It may be preferred, but I will continue to support a reliable source being used within its appropriate context. If there is conflicting evidence, then introduce it into the article, and the problem goes away. (Do not do it, and the verifiable text may be left without a "balancing viewpoint." [Obviously no such "balance" exists]) BigK HeX (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It is required because this is source is not reliable in this context. Nobody but you thinks it is. Is that clear? Relata refero (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Ahh ... ok. Could you tell me which of Daly's peers (or which significant Wikipedia consensus) you're quoting that mentions this source is unreliable outside of ecological economics though, please?
If there is a contradictory "prevailing view," then I'm pretty sure the article should just be exapnded with these other views. BigK HeX (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't need to tell you that, because Daly tells us. In the part where he admits that this is not neoclassical economics. By definition, the paper is non-mainstream. Relata refero (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Err ... conclusions drawn about monetary policy are not neoclassical economics either, strictly speaking.
But, anyhoo ... from WP:RS, "Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic."
From Wikipedia:UNDUE, "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."
If someone feels that there is another prominent interpretation or viewpoint, then by all means, be bold. BigK HeX (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Err ... conclusions drawn about monetary policy are not neoclassical economics either, strictly speaking." Yes, they are. In fact, Friedman is both the arch-monetarist and the arch-neoclassicist.
Not a major scholarly interpretation, and not a significant viewpoint. Relata refero (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. Not a major scholarly interpretation of the topic - not even on the topic.
  2. Not a significant viewpoint, and not prominent in any discussion of monetary economics (since you still cannot provide any other source that says this). Prominent in ecological economics and should be highly visible in an article on ecological economics.--Gregalton (talk) 06:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation is .. incorrect?

Are you serious? From the revision history, "Daly text is not cited properly - please stop reverting text when the citation is incorrect!" -- Gregalton. You're seriously reverting text due to some dispute with the format of the citation? I assume that you are referring to the fact that the current citation links the most easily accessible format, as opposed to the most scholarly format. This seems to be an exremely minor dispute, especially considering that you have already acknowledged that the source is available through proper channels. Basing a revert on such a dispute, instead of fixing the citation info is quite ..... unproductive. BigK HeX (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, incorrect, not the format of the citation. The version changed: "---for the vast majority of US money in circulation---each dollar throughout the world represents a current outstanding loan of some debtor to a private commercial bank" misstates the original text, "Over 95% of our money supply is created by the private banking system (demand deposits) and bears interest as a condition of its existence." "Money supply" is not equivalent to "each dollar". (I could even quibble about the "current outstanding loan" when the text says "demand deposit", but at least let's not confuse "currency" with "money supply".--Gregalton (talk) 10:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Same rationale as discussed with Haemo below. Currency is a subset. That being the case, then it is a legitimate substitution. BigK HeX (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Citizen"

I am removing this. There are three points that should be blindingly obvious, and a citation has still not been provided.

  1. Physical persons: loans to non-citizens would still apply (such as immigrants/residents without citizenship).
  2. Legal persons: legal persons do not have citizenship. There is no basis for concluding that foreign legal persons would not qualify.
  3. LLCs: there are legal entities that are not legal persons.

If there is some point you are trying to make with this, please provide it (and a source).--Gregalton (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Immigrants, alien residents, and legal persons ... hrmm .. you mean *citizens* of another country?
LLCs are also separate legal entities (citizens).
... reincorporating text. Will continue to do so. Also, you did not just "remove citizen" ... you distorted the entire original meaning, once again contraverting the Daly source (diff of 05:41, 29 January 2008). This disruption is unproductive. Please restrain yourself. BigK HeX (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The concept of citizenship does not apply - any legal entity or person without citizenship can also take a bank loan, and it would have the same effect on the money supply. So your point is that "citizens" should be broadened to "citizens of some country"? What about the stateless? This is just silly. Why is this relevant?--Gregalton (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
In addition, your source makes no reference to citizenship. Please provide a citation.--Gregalton (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Citation is unnecessary as it would support an issue tangential to the article ... namely, "what are the requirements to become a loanee of a commercial bank."
It can be muddled with burdenous legalese if that suits you in the interests of accuracy (something akin to "legal entity" would certainly apply but such attempts at "clarity" (through exacting legal specificity) would seem to be self-defeating in regards to clarity).
It is relevent because it clarifies the placement of the oft-confused burden of interest. Specifically, it helps to differentiate between loans to the Federal government which is commonly construed as a shared burden of the entire citizenry of the US, versus a private loan of an individual (or the aggregation, thereof). If you feel the need to add legalese to it, then I encourage you to be bold, but note that I will try to keep the text as readable and unwieldy as possible, within the constraints of the supporting citations. I'll see what modification satisfies you, and then we can try to work from there. I'd hate to add another footnote, as those already are getting too long. But, honestly, the elaborations arising from these disputes are introducing far too much tangential muddling into the article, for my tastes. BigK HeX (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Why not just avoid mentioning things that are not important? What if the borrower was a foreign government? Does that increase or decrease the money supply? Citizenship is irrelevant and I believe biased. Sticking to the statement in the source would be the easiest. And are you certain that money borrowed from the government does not increase the money supply (if that money is then spent and hence recycled through the system)? Is your point above that it is a private loan of the individual a fact? Why do you insist on putting this in if you have no evidence that it is the case even after it has been questioned several times?--Gregalton (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
* "Why not just avoid mentioning things that are not important?"
Obviously, it's my contention that the distinction is important. There is a lot of misinformation about the government owing interest and such ... a lack of clarity here may perpetuate that.
* "What if the borrower was a foreign government"
It won't be, so the question is moot. If government borrowing was linked to a bank, it would be distinctly more indirect, much more so than you are suggesting.
* "are you certain that money borrowed from the government does not increase the money supply"
Elaborate please. Borrowed, how ... through the standard OMO process? Even if you are suggesting some other method as a theoretical option, it would not be something that occurred in practice, so your question is still likely only academic. Methods aside from OMOs have only insignificant affects on the growth of the money supply, as a practical matter-of-course.
* "Why do you insist on putting this in if you have no evidence that it is the case even after it has been questioned several times?"
Err ... *every* source has supported this. Your failure to see the evidence must be stemming from your refusal to accept the text and, subsequently, any verification through the references. But, armchair psychology aside, it should be pretty clear that commercial banks serve corporate entities and individuals. I have no idea who exactly you think these commercial loans are going to....? I mean ... the only "entity" left would be governments, and certainly, foreign governments are not simply walking into a Citibank branch on Main Street and signing up for these loans.
Your argument is baffling me. Really, if monetary policy is not your particular strongpoint, and you also are not going to take the time to digest and understand the references, I really cannot see how you legitimately justify making such heavy-handed deletions. BigK HeX (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The Daly source only says "over 95% of our money is created by the private banking system." I find no reference to citizenship.
For foreign governments, are you certain that "it won't be?" I seem to remember something in the 80s that occurred because banks lent to ... foreign governments.
Which source precisely has referred to citizenship?
And again, I for one reject the concept of citizenship for legal entities, and do not see references to support.
And drop the snide comments about monetary policy being my "particular strongpoint" - name calling isn't helping to establish your credibility.
I will delete this statement again unless a source is provided that actually corresponds to the statement.--Gregalton (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see you've actually removed the citizen part. Good. I am removing the "dependency" part - it's not balanced.--Gregalton (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
If removed, I will replace the dependency part. It's factual, pertinent, explanatory, and relevent. Your claim of "balance" problems is unconvincing.
* " ... created by the private banking system." I find no reference to citizenship
I doubt that you will answer, but ... who is it exactly that you think commercial banks actually approve loans for?
"... you certain that "it won't be?" I seem to remember"
Yes. The process for governments being "loaned money by banks" is far more indirect than the simple statement suggests. (Do you really think that the US "went into debt with other countries" because George Bush went and sat with a few foreign bankers and signed for loans on behalf of the US?)
"Which source precisely has referred to citizenship? ... I for one reject the concept ..."
Every source that referred to the granting of a loan. It is implicit, because individual (human or corporate) citizens are the only practical loan recipients to exist. It seems you want an entire article's worth of footnotes to explain every summary used, until each concept is broken down to elementary levels of specificity. I, personally, feel that is outside the scope of the article, and probably not a requirement by strict Wikipedia policy. But, I defer for now until I have more experience in editing. I'll find some more appropriate substitute for the concept of "citizen" later.
* "drop the snide comments"
I am not trying to insult you. I believe I've actually already praised your apparent intelligence, and I do truly value this dispute for the end-product that should result. However, my "snide comment" is more a comment on the obvious. You have been pressing me for answers when the provided citations already have those answers. If true, this points to both: A) an initial unfamiliarity to this depth with this subject material, and B) a disinclination to fully absorb the information within the provided references before raising dispute. It might help to tone down the heavy-handed and premature deletions. If you make a plain effort to overcome the trust you've developed in your intuition of the matter, and become receptive to available literature on the matter, then our effort would be much more collaborative. Recently, your modus operandi has been to immediately delete any material that you find is counter to your intuition, and then question me on the content of the references. It's likely improper to censor material on the primary basis that you, personally, have not yet absorbed the cited material. Evidence of this exists above in the number of occasions where you have hastily challenged material, and then had to concede it.
As for my "credibility" ... I have no illusions about the usefulness of my "credibility" here. As far as I can tell, it counts for nothing in Wikipedia, and, I've witnessed (on this very page) that only the reliability of my sources really counts in the end-product. However, I do hope to maintain civility. BigK HeX (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
As for citizen and some other terms: in terms of the editing process, if another editor specifically suggests it is out of place and you don't have a reference (you believe it's implicit), apparently it is not a given. Get a reference or stop reinserting it.
Foreign governments can and have borrowed directly from banks. Non-citizens of various types can and do borrow from banks. And if they're citizens of some other country, why specify citizen? Wouldn't the phrase borrower be accurate, unbiased and non-contentious? (This is a classic example of the problem here: you believe something is implicit, others say it's not a fact and not an unbiased statement, you argue the point, revert again and again, claim it's in the sources, and only at the end of this process admit it's 'implicit' and you don't have a reference. Please stop wasting time and just leave it out until you get a source if it's just something you think).
In general on this, the point is that if you put something in that you believe is implicit, but somebody else questions because (they believe) it is not factual, not neutral or simply nonsense - that's when you need a reference.
If the language is neutral, reasonable, non-contentious and sticks to simple facts, I will ask for fewer references. If you can accept edits to make texts neutral and unbiased, I won't have to request references as much. If the references are dubious, I will ask for more. If you don't understand why I or another editor thinks a point is biased, ask, but stop with the refrain of 'they're just facts.' It's disingenuous and not credible, you are clearly choosing words for specific reasons, so don't pretend that "the facts themselves are biased."
On both fronts, you are trying to protect ownership of this article. That's not the way it works. See wp:own.
Sorry, you don't get to play the "not trying to insult" card; that is precisely what you were trying to do.--Gregalton (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
That was a pretty long-winded rant for an issue (the word "citizen") that I've already conceded. I've long ago explained that I found it to be implicit part of the commercial loan process.
As for your edits to "make text neutral and unbiased" .. I have consistently ignored such edits. When you significantly alter the meaning of entire referenced passages, then I will continue re-inserting the text. Case in point, would be how you have repeatedly removed an entire sentence for a dispute involving a single word. Also, you currently have removed passages (in violation of 3RR) that I will be reinserting at some point.
Trust me ... if ever I had taken the occasion to insult you, it would have been done quite clearly. I see no need for that type of unproductive behavior. If I felt that I had to insult you, then I would likely hold some animosity towards you. I have none ... which could be evidenced by the fact that I have refrained from reporting your obvious 3RR violation (even despite the multiple Admin notices you've lodged against me).
1st revert at 14:06, 29 January 2008
2nd revert at 18:51, 29 January 2008
3rd revert at 19:55, 29 January 2008
4th set of reverts at 02:39, 30 January 2008
I will, regretfully, need to have intervention of some sort if disruptive editing continues. Disputing a single word cannot possibly justify deletion of an entire statement that is generally supported by a citation. Other such disruptive edits include: disputing simple mathematical set-logic type inferences, deletion of cited material for "balance" purposes, and invoking "fringe" violations without stating references to the mainstream consensus. To paraprahse you, "the point is that if you take spmething out that you believe is implicit, but somebody else questions because (they believe) your rationale is not factual, not neutral or simply nonsense - that's when you need a reference."
Feel free to neutralize any suggestive language by rearranging phraseology, but please try to keep the orignal informational content intact in some fashion, if it is cited properly. BigK HeX (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
That's the problem - not cited properly, indicated as such, and you reverted.--Gregalton (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the 3RR team would not have found that as sufficient justification. Anyways, you could have changed the single word in dispute, if that was the problem with the entire passage. That would have been a lot less contentious. There is still lots of other cited material you recently deleted that I will be re-inserting. I still contend that deleting properly cited material is disruptive. It's unfortunate that the RfC and "expert request" tags are proving ineffective, so I suppose consensus-building is virtually impossible. You still may want to make a case for such deletions ... or not. Up to you, I s'pose. BigK HeX (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
And I contend that misusing sources is disruptive. I have made cases - you disagree in great detail, although generally without sources, and not just with me, and then claim you're being censored. So be it.--Gregalton (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Footnote deletion

I see some information was incorporated (very nice to see), and some was deleted. I see no reason why the Federal Reserve structure information was deleted. Our personal dislike of certain information is not a very good justification. I'm well aware that your initial intuition about the matter was incorrect and that you have been resistant to the information being related about the Fed's widely ackowledged private corporation status, but it is still factual and relevant. Why you insist on putting such effort into stirring up disruptions, when there are far more pressing disputes ... I'll never understand. Needlessly unproductive, if ya ask me. BigK HeX (talk) 09:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think if you look carefully you will find that the information is still there, as I was simply trying to retain the information but format it (as I requested of you previously); I did not intend to remove anything. That said, you have to come to terms with the fact that you don't own this article. Other editors can edit and have opinions about what is important and what should be cut down. Since there is a link to the article on the Federal Reserve which deals with it in much more detail, there is no basis for complaint. If you feel the article dedicated to that subject somehow misstates something, it can be dealt with there, in an effort to minimize contradictions. This article should not become a POV fork.--Gregalton (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hrrmmm .. you say that almost as if I've disputed every bit of the 20 kb or so that probably have already been deleted for lack of importance. Though there has been a good bit of protestation form my side, I have also accepted many of the edits without dispute. Really, I have never claimed ownership of the article. I do feel obligated to defend it's factual accuracy to the best of my ability. Obviously, I acknowledge that disputes concerning relative importance will arise. But as a consequence of the various deletions, it was inevitable that we would reach the "critical" point whereupon pretty much any remaining info in the article is something I've deemed as important.
Clarifying "quasi-public" shouldn't qualify as a fork. It's an unusual term, that can be explained rather succinctly. BigK HeX (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I still feel the Fed ownership is best dealt with on the Federal Reserve page. I also note this [[8]]. To simply state the Fed is a private corporation with independent directors misses the point explained well there: "The Fed may be privately owned, but it is controlled by the government." This is far more clear and succinct.--Gregalton (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
That is quite succinct. I can almost agree with a statement along those lines. My problem with it is that it conveys an influence of elected officials ("controlled by the government"). The Fed is pretty much unique in its isolation from elected governance. But, of course, detailing all of that would be a mouthful that would certainly be better gleaned from the main article on the Fed. Err ... I don't know. I guess I'll see if anyone outside of the 3 current active editors takes an independent interest in the phrasing of the footnote. BigK HeX (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Is the Supreme Court part of government? It is generally considered one of the three branches of government. So the inference does not appear to be correct. (Not to mention that Congress can and does change the Fed's charter unilaterally - no direct input from the "owners" - and all of the Governors are appointed directly by the elected government). And while this is not something that "proves" anything, I recently looked at the c.v.s of all the Fed Reserve Bank Presidents. All but one - 11 of 12 - were either directly from the government, inside the Fed itself, or academia/public service. The President of the NY Fed came from the Treasury - if I'm not mistaken, directly. Only one was from the private sector, and not even from a top banking position (economic consultancy I believe). The reality is that no Fed Reserve president is appointed unless the Governors approve directly (and they probably effectively nominate).
Flaherty has a number of other debunking articles about the Fed, including overview, a brief history and more. There is even a page devoted to Myth #7: The Federal Reserve charges interest on the currency we use.--Gregalton (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the Fed's independence can usefully be compared to the constitutionally mandated independence of a full branch of the government that acts in the full plain view of the public.
I'm aware of Flaherty's series of Myth debunking. It, however, only reviews the net interest charged to the US government, which is useful (but not complete) information. BigK HeX (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the Fed is far less independent, both historically and in practice - Congress can't easily change laws on the Supremes. And I don't recall any GAO audits of any activities of the Supremes. Plus, I don't know about "full plain view": do they publish their deliberations?--Gregalton (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Heh ... again, it's a *branch* of the government ;o) Checks-and-balances are the control. No administration used to execute law enjoys the intentional isolation of the Fed. Congress *can* change laws on the Fed, but that speaks nothing of the practicality of doing so. Significant legal changes to Fed operations have not occurred but maybe twice ... last one being in the 1970's.
Court Auditing is certainly a lot more comprehensive than audits of the Fed. And heck .. the courts don't even transact millions of dollars each day, nor do they have the authority to create money. BigK HeX (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe the most usual term for describing the Federal Reserve's status in the US government is something along the lines of "The US Federal Reserve is a quasi-private corporation legislatively accountable to Congress, but independent in its day-to-day operations. It is managed by an independent board of directors appointed jointly by its member banks, and Congress." This is pretty neutral, and gets all of the major points without running into issues like "OMG IT'S A PRIVATE COMPANY" — a lot of the problems surrounding this topic are that the terms are loaded for laymen. Terms like "private corporation" and "debt" have a business/economic technical meaning which is different than what a general layman would understand — for instance, many laymen see the amount of debt borne by corporations as a "bad thing", when it has very real benefits even if it could easily be paid off. --Haemo (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't use the above suggestion exactly, but I think I got close. Specifically, I couldn't use "quasi-private" because the footnote is being used to elaborate on the term "quasi-public." Good suggestion though, Haemo. If this needs to be improved further, then let me know (or be bold)!
While the US Federal Reserve Banks are technically private corporations,[32] they are legislatively accountable to Congress, but independent in their day-to-day operations. The Federal Reserve System is managed by an independent board of directors appointed jointly by its member banks, and Congress. The Chairman of the Board is generally considered the have the most important position, followed, in importance, by the New York Reserve Bank's president BigK HeX (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's try to start putting some of the content together into other sections. I don't like footnotes, especially when they can be explained earlier in the article. --Haemo (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I have boldly "deleted" the footnote, after merging the material into an earlier part of the article. --Haemo (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's beautiful. Much obliged to you, Haemo. BigK HeX (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


In terms of the independence issue the current version is better, thanks to all. I'm a little unclear what is meant by "legislatively accountable"; I think it would be easier to just say 'accountable.'
To be honest, I don't know much about how the courts are audited. But if I were to put my hyper-skeptical conspiracy theorist cap on, I'd say 'not audited by GAO!' 'What about the Supremes!' 'All they're doing is auditing travel expenses!'. So I'm not sure I buy the "a lot more comprehensive" point above, but I think you see my point: elected governments create quasi-independent structures, such as the courts, that are insulated from the electoral cycle for very good reasons.--Gregalton (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I have no problem with the government protecting us from ourselves, and would even agree that it is needed. But denying audits of the agency that creates money, is probably as ludicrous as sealing every case heard by the Supreme Court. Which is to say that independence does NOT require perpetual secrecy. BigK HeX (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Monetary Policy Audits

Too bad, almost had it there. Who denies the audits? Ummm, Congress passed a law exempting its creation from a specific type of audit. Why? For similar reasons. One can rationally disagree about whether they are needed, but inuendo about this sounds like crazy conspiracy theories. Referring to "millions of dollars" in transactions doesn't add anything more than paranoia (quite apart from the Dr. Evil-like order of magnitude issue).--Gregalton (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Millions per day. That should be Dr Evil-esque. That's a lot of money for a govenrment agency to handle without worry of independent audit.
Also, ummm, Congress passed the law creating the Fed too, but that didn't stop the Great Depression. Not everything passed by Congress is actually for the public good. If you're trying to gauge my feeling on it, then I'd say that I see nothing wrong with allowing a comprehensive GAO audit of every 7th year which is sealed for another 7 years (e.g., one conducted near the end of the chairman's term with results released in the middle of the next term, plus another full audit conducted mid-term and released near the end of the chairman's term). Meh .. it's all academic though, as NO lawmaker has successfully applied trustworthy checks into the Fed system. Likely, none will. BigK HeX (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
My point about Dr. Evil was precisely the opposite (the wikilink has a line on this): millions is peanuts. The Fed deals in tens/hundreds of millions/billions per day.
Again, the Fed is audited, independently - to say otherwise flies in the face of facts. Anyone may think it's insufficient, or that the existing checks are not trustworthy, but that's an opinion, and the implication that there is something untoward going on is just inuendo. Congress can enact such laws or instructions if it wishes. A balanced article would simply note that the Fed is not audited like other agencies (in some respects, it is arguably audited more rigorously than other government entities), note the (purported) reasons for that, and (credible) criticisms of that state of affairs.
I personally would have no problem with audits being done for financial probity to eradicate some of the myths (my opinion only), but the limits are there to retain independence. Rational observers can debate what the right balance is between independence and oversight, but a balanced article should not emphasize the conspiracy theory-driven theories. There is plenty of academic work on the independence issue.
As for the Great Depression and all of the other mistakes by the Fed (which are legion, as screw-ups are natural to any creation of congress - legislative or physical): notably these things happened during periods when the Fed had less independence (and, of course, they simply knew less then than is known now). The academic literature also discusses this.--Gregalton (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The Fed is audited --- but the independent audits only comprise limited summary financial statement audits and assessments of internal controls. The audits are far from comprehensive, lacking--among other important things--independent observation of material physical assets and disclosure of investment activities of the New York Branch. In short, the auditing system is quite weak. To claim otherwise, actually would fly in the face of facts. Simply noting the weakness of the audits is far from "kooky." Even worse is that even the internal audits are subject to compromise, by having such relations as placing 30-year executive veterans of PriceWaterhouseCooper in charge of the internal audits that are then reviwed by PWC. But, I don't have to say any of that if I Wikipedia:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. Certainly the Fed is audited more rigourously than some low-budget agencies, but their audit independence is far short of their closest peers, such as the Mint or private commercial banks. BigK HeX (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This isn't really an issue about monetary policy; it's about the legal structure of oversight for the Federal Reserve. I don't think this is really a productive discussion, nor does it appear to have any clear purpose in improving the article. --Haemo (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Overall, I agree, Haemo. To bring this topic back to relevance though, my main point of audits in the article was about audits of monetary policy transactions (of which, no independent audits have ever occurred). I doubt that the opposing editors here would allow a stripped-down version of that info to stand, without elaborations on what audits do occur within the Fed. BigK HeX (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You keep repeating this claim that no independent audits have ever occurred of monetary policy transactions. Please stop repeating it without a source. It's just inuendo and your interpretation. The same goes for your comparison of the details of any of the audits and comparisons with audits of commercial banks.--Gregalton (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
"without a source" you say, eh? .... Not sure how you manage to keep ignoring the sources I do provide. Also you have been unsuccessful in your attempts to even find evidence that independent audits of such transactions are permitted much less to discuss any published results of such an audit. BigK HeX (talk) 06:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)