Talk:Monetary policy of the United States/Archive 2

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

Accurate use of source (with precise wording) should not be changed

I used a cited source that specifically said "nearly all" of interest income collected by the Fed is returned to the government. This was changed to "a large portion" on the basis that "most people prob would not consider 80% as "nearly all".
The quote was accurate. If you want to dispute the basis for "nearly all", use a source.--Gregalton (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Apologies ... BigK HeX (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

audit exclusion

From Zenwhat:

Open market operations are not subject to being audited[44] because doing so would be redundant, since such activity is already reflected in interest-rate changes.[citation needed][original research?]

I've flagged the text. I've never seen such a claim of "redundancy" made as a case for the audit exclusions. Please reference. BigK HeX (talk) 10:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"Balance" ... sure is bulky

Someone fairly neutral please chop this down ... from the wiki article:

Congressional oversight on monetary policy operations, foreign transactions, and the FOMC operations is exercised through the requirement for reports and through semi-annual monetary policy hearings;
Smale, Pauline. Structure and Functions of The Federal Reserve System pg 6. Congressional Research Service. Archived from the original on 2008-02-01. Retrieved on 2008-02-01.
ultimately, scholars have conceded that the hearings did not prove an effective means of increasing oversight of the Federal Reserve, perhaps genuine accountability never blossomed because "Federal Reserve officials are, after all, masters of managing the competing pressures on monetary policy within a politicized environment that virtually requires that they conceal a good portion of their policy intentions; in addition, Congresspersons prefer to bash an autonomous and secretive Fed for economic misfortune rather than to share the responsibility for that misfortune with a fully accountable Central Bank."
Havrilesky, Thomas M. (1995). The Pressures on American Monetary Policy pg 113. Springer; ISBN 0792395611. Retrieved on 2008-02-01.

Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is bulky, and can be edited to fairly reflect the text. Would have been much easier if the effort had been made to represent the source neutrally. The source's point appears to be (broadly) the relatively stronger influence of the executive (elected government) over the legislative branch (elected legislature) with respect to the Fed. He also provides a pretty strong statement to the effect that if Congress doesn't exercise effective oversight, it's because Congress does not wish to ("plausible deniability"). This is an entirely different and more nuanced view than what you represented the text to be.--Gregalton (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Daly discussion summary

I've posted the following on the reliable sources noticeboard:

This discussion has taken place (inadvertently) on several pages (here, fringe notice board, talk page. I would like to summarize the responses:
  • BigK Hex: Supports use of this source.
  • BernardL: Notes that source is a credible source in economics; unclear whether yes/no for undue or usage in this particular article.
  • EdJohnston: Using Daly is undue in this context.
  • Gregalton, EGeek, Relata refero, ZenWhat: opposes source as undue, not appropriate source in this context, clearly heterodox.
  • Haemo: has not commented specifically on Daly, but believes article has POV issues.
There is clear support for Daly as a source in this particular context only from the editor that inserted the text in question. I note that the specific formulation in question has been used by that same editor since essentially the first revision of this page - only the source has changed in response to requests; see 7 January version: see this version for example.
There is one editor who has not responded to the specific question, the appropriateness/reliability in this context.
There are five editors who specifically say that using Daly in this context is undue or inappropriate.
Is this summary in any way unfaithful to the discussion? I believe this summary makes clear that there is unambiguous support only from one editor, and the source should not be used.
For those who have not been through the history, from the January 7 diff: "Despite the arguments of many "myth debunkers," Americans actually do have to pay for the money that is printed by our government. This payment is in the form of the interest that is charged on the bank loans - loans which are required in order for money to be injected into the economy, and even simply for existing money to be maintained (as noted in "Step 7" in the above process)." This is the specific argument used before Daly got into the picture; this is a clear indication that the issue has been finding a source, any source, that supports the statement the editor wants to make, rather than finding a neutral, credible source or determining what the mainstream view is.--Gregalton (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Also cross-posted from RSN.
"I believe this summary makes clear that there is unambiguous support only from one editor, and the source should not be used." .... Err ... riiiight. At best, you've only opened the door to regarding this as a minority viewpoint and then a new discussion revolving around whether it is a significant or not, which would determine its ultimate fate. So, far there look to me to be:
  • at least 2 that likely support significant inclusion,
  • probably 4 that likely support removal, and
  • 1 that is questionable, but probably supports that the viewpoint is significant, even if only held by minority.
  • So, at 3 supporting inclusion with better balance, versus 4 supporting removal, that pretty much equals No Consensus.
In any case, Jimbo has been paraphrased as saying, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;"
Prominent adherents that have been directly quoted in drawing the same conclusion include:
  1. Herman Daly;
  2. a notable former Chief Economist for the minority staff of the House Budget Committee;
  3. Congressmen Jerry Voorhis and John Rarick;
  4. many prominent conspiracy theorists, such as Jacques Jaikaran, G. Edward Griffin, Chris Martenson, among many others.
This doesn't even include authors and works where the conclusion is developed gradually (which I *think* applies to Irving Fisher). In all, even if this were to be treated as a "minority viewpoint" then it still would seem to deserve coverage for its notability, if nothing else.
Also .. psssst. You might not have noticed, but that older text was sourced too. You disputed it, and got more academic sourcing. Big whoop.
Anyways ... final conclusion is no consensus on reliability. Possible consensus might be possible on whether the viewpoint is only minority-held. BigK HeX (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)