Talk:Bretton Woods system/Archives/2013

List of countries

It would be nice to have a list of countries participating in the Bretton Woods system. Can't seem to find it anywhere. 222.70.183.31 (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Old merge discussion

merge this page with Bretton Woods??

• Yes. And when you do, beware the confusing nomenclature: per [1] the Bretton Woods Mountain Resort was created in 1974; the Mount Washington Hotel (added in 1900-1902 to some much smaller facilities which explicitly use the Bretton name) was the actual venue of the Conference. --Jerzy 04:17, 2004 Jan 26 (UTC)

• NO TO MERGE, removed tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New work

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

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

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

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

Comment

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

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

This article does not mention the interesting circumstances of Canada under Bretton Woods. From 1950 to 1972, Canada maintained a floating exchange rate with the US, due to the Bank of Canada's concern that a fixed rate would cause rapid inflation of the Canadian dollar. I think is should be included in a new section, but I have no idea how to do this.68.148.225.153 (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Elliott April 6th 2008

Cliffhanger ending!

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

It broke my heart.

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

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

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

Floating Currency

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

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

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

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

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

Opps. You're right. That was probably a typo... I'm probably responsible, being the main author. Sorry about that. 172 19:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article looks very good. I would like to work with you on it and will make suggestions here rather than butcher your work. I notice there is no definition of reserve asset in wiki which is needed for the IMF article; there was an edit on this page sometime ago that deleted a referance to the pound being used as a "reserve, transaction and currency asset". Perhaps we work together to create a good definition for both pages.Nobs 19:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I am no longer an active conributor, though, so please contact me by email (sokolov47@yahoo.com) if you need any help. 172 22:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just backing the parent comment. I found the article well done and very informative. The stub on China's currency provide a good lever to expand the article as more time goes along.

Hegemony - bipolar oblivion

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

CORRECTION:

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

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

Axezz, 29.03.2005 CET 3:29 AM

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

Zilch 19/10/05@15.29GMT

Eisenhower & the Pound

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

How many Countries? 28 or 29?

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

Spero?

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

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

Number of allies

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

One would imagine the USSR and other communist states were not participating (fully/at all) therfore the word "all" is misleading and should be removed.86.112.89.88 (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe the USSR was both a signatory at the UN Monetary and Financial Conference and an early participant and only withdrew later. In any case, I think the question regarding allies is somewhat irrelevant here. It's entirely possible that a subset of the allies participated in the initial conference, with a further subset participating in the actual system via membership in the IMF. On the first question (the USSR) I can check some references on Monday. Abu Casey (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Gold reserves held by the US

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

Seperate section on Keynes' Alternative Vision?

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

International Development Agency? etc

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

This asserts that this was done to counter an expected UN move to create a development finance regime or institution. If this is the case, it should be cited. Abu Casey (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Bretton Woods System

Who Are The People Behind That System!?

-List of the 730 Delegates of the Allied Nations

-List of the Presidents of that Time

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

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

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

Robert Triffin

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

Post Bretton Woods

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

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

I'll second this call for more "Post Bretton Woods" information. My extremely limited understanding is that the US suspended convertibility in no small part because Spain was making a run on US gold reserves. There must be so much more to this. Patriotick 11:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

One popular way of thinking about Bretton Woods is not that it failed but that it was abandoned, especially by United States trade policy. A "Post Bretton Woods" article would dwarf this article by comparison and lead to a neutrality dispute that will last twice as long as the Bretton Woods model itself lasted. The reason is simple: there is a monetary system in place, but it is governed by a virtual senate of financiers, banks, and multinational corporations. It is not transparent, not responsive, and not negotiable by the public. And that's just the beginning of the dispute. "Post Bretton Woods" would be the combination of thousands of articles already bogged down by neutrality issues.

NPOV

I quote;

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

Please could we have some citations/statistics here.

No, that's silly. This is an elementary description of the international division of labor and convertibility. 172 | Talk 00:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's elementary, then it should be easy to find references to support it. -- Beland 01:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There was and is no mechanism whereby the US could extract extra-ordinary profits from trade with developing nations. (anon, 14:40, 05 December 2006)

Are you kidding me?--169.232.119.242 (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of good article status

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

New Bretton Woods

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

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

Violation of Copyright?

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

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

In LaFeber pg10, it appears almost exactly the same:

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

Another case is this portion of the text:

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

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

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

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

NPOV?

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

Since noone's spoken out against it up to now, feel free to change it. —Nightstallion (?) 22:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A little too long?

• I was looking at this article a few days ago for my economy project. and it looks a little too long and detailed for anyone to read who doesn't have 2-3 hours of spare time to connect everything written here. I'm (obviously) not an expert on the subject, so I wouldn't like to mess up the article, but I'd like to sugest a good cleanup of the article. or put a extended overview on the top, let's sy 2-3 pages when copied to word. (btw, this article has 27) Shadowhunter2011 23:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• It does seem very long. Is there a way to split the article up per standards? —ScouterSig 17:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I just wish the standards allowed for a "Summary" section, letting those who understand this to quickly summarize in less than 3-4 paragraphs,

1) Why did this happen? 2) What were the goals? 3) What were the key points brought into law? 4) What were the short term effects? 5) What were the Long term effects?

Does this idea allow Opinion to reign over fact? possibly. Is it something that could quite possibly be VERY useful? definitely. I think the closest thing we have at the moment is the Simple English wikipedia, which has effectively come to symbolize "Is this article convoluted and written by specialists, FOR specialists? Click Here!" for me. 66.215.20.28 (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Balance of Payments deficit

Should this term be replaced with "Current account deficits?"

Dkdeepak 05:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)dkdeepak

Discrepancy concerning U.S. balance of payments deficit

Under "The dollar shortages and the Marshall Plan" it is stated "...from 1950 on, the United States ran a balance of payments deficit..." while under "The U.S. balance of payments crisis (1958–68)" it says "In 1958, the U.S. balance of payments swung negative."

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/United-States-BALANCE-OF-PAYMENTS.html

"Since 1950, the United States has generally recorded deficits in its overall payments with the rest of the world..."

http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/center/mm/eng/mm_sc_03.htm (Citation 8)

"Continuous U.S. balance of payments deficits during the 1950s had provided the world with liquidity..."

Neither section contains citations, but these two websites both point to 1950 being the correct figure. I changed the 1958 figure to reflect this. If anyone can find statistical tables for the US balance of payments between 1945 and 1960, they can make corrections as needed.

SuperBeastMachineGod (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Quality

This page is long for what it is, vague in places (e.g. White favoured a plan for economic stability and Keynes favoured one for growth) and mostly unreferenced. Wikidea 11:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Last sentence of Atlantic Charters is overly subjective

"The United States would therefore use its position of influence to reopen and control the world economy, so as to give unhindered access to all nations' markets and materials."

The above excerpt seems a little heavy...did the US control the world economy?? It was an enormous influence and obviously negotiated from a position of power and achieved many goals, but this sentence seems to carry a little bit of bias against the US. It reads like a conspiracy was at play. Give us proof, because I see no evidence of that. Certainly unhindered access to all nations' markets and materials never happened either. Bartimmer (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Many parts of the text are strongly biased towards a Keynesian point of view;

while Keynes' wanted a system that encouraged economic growth.

This assumes, prima facie, that the system Keynes wanted would actually be capable of encouraging growth. Rival economic schools might dispute the assertion.

similarly;

But the United States, as a likely creditor nation, and eager to take on the role of the world's economic powerhouse, baulked at Keynes' plan and did not pay serious attention to it. The U.S. contingent was too concerned about inflationary pressures in the postwar economy, and White saw an imbalance as a problem only of the deficit country.

Gives totally unsupported assertions of motive as well as POV. "Too concerned?"

Can anyone prove that the U.S. was "too concerned" as an objective fact? This is a point of view of some party, and should be treated as such or removed.

----Ryan Wise (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)76.166.24.76 (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just corrected vandalism from September 2006!

In 1970, U.S. President Richard Nixon lifted import quotas on oil in an attempt to reduce energy costs; instead, however, this exacerbated dollar flight, and created pressure from petro-dollars now linked to gas-euros resulting the 1963 energy transition from coal to gas with the creation of the Dutch Gasunie [3]. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bretton_Woods_system&oldid=77901868

A 1970 policy resulted in a 1963 energy transition? Gas-euros in 1970? Didn't anybody notice this IP edit didn't make any sense? Looks like nobody is really caring for this article. Sad. 89.182.201.220 (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly a POV violation

This article is clearly biased against the United States using words like "hegemony" and "distress." Almost none of the claims cite any sources. I am busy teaching a class on the Federal Reserve system this quarter so do not have time to do the editing myself. Anyway, it is not up to Wikipedia standards and either needs to be completely reworked or simply removed altogether. 128.146.137.174 (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, these are quite normal terms used about the system within academic circles (see for instance this article by Benjamin J. Cohen [2]). While much work can be done on this article, removing words such as hegemon, which refer to mainstream academic theories (hegemonic stability theory is one of the most accepted theories on the BWS in IPE), would be downright wrong. Anyanghaseyo (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There did seem to be some strong bias against the US – especially the sentence in the lede about distress , so Ive removed it: "This action caused considerable financial stress in the world economy and created the unique situation whereby the United States dollar became the "reserve currency" for the states that signed the agreement."

• While not exactly false, its very misleading. The Nixon shock, while significant, caused much less distress to the world economy than many of the other 140+ post bretton wood crises like the 73 & 79 oil shocks or the 97 asian financial crises, to name just a few.

Secondly, while in a sense Bretton Woods was ended unilaterally, it was only due to strong pressure from non US countries, who took advantage of weaknesses in the system in various ways, e.g. to run down the US gold reserves while building their own hoards. (cites added about this to improve article).

On the other hand, I think it generally a quality article and agree we should keep the word hegemony in there. While some Americans might not like it as the word was first populised by communists like Gramci, its now a very widely used term in IPE thats totally non pejorative. It means the US a dominant role but doesnt imply it was oppressive – in fact, except to us Brits who were maybe still seen as a potential rival, the US was extraordinarily generous to most of the world after WWII, helping not just Europe and Japan but most of what was then called the 3rd world by sponsoring development economics, and by providing extensive practical aid. They were most restrained and relatively speaking hardly exploited the massive power advantage they had at all. Ive removed the tag now the neutrality issue has been addressed, no objection to it being re added if felt to be required. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

This edit introduced additional bias by declaring something a 'flaw' without citation. It was sufficient to simply remove the 'distress' statement which was POV, as other events overall could be cited as distressful. I think the original claim of bias was unjustified, as the cited 'trouble' terms are accepted widely as technically neutral characterizations. Kbrose (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

On another note, the article reads often as some personal reflection of history, with non-encyclopedic terms (such as "to no avail", which I rephrased) and is severely lacking references. Kbrose (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep good improvements. I know many cites for the triffin flaw, but I'll leave it out for now as I guess you might also think its undue weight as apart from Keynes's intuition the issue wasnt understood at the time. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Essaylike tag removal

Removed the tag because while here and there some language sticks out a bit, obviously the article is not essay-like. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Deflationary spirals

This sentence is at least confusing, and arguably wrong:

'The "beggar thy neighbor" policies of 1930s governments—using currency devaluations to increase the competitiveness of a country's export products to reduce balance of payments deficits—worsened national deflationary spirals, which resulted in plummeting national incomes, shrinking demand, mass unemployment, and an overall decline in world trade.'

Currency devaluations are inflationary by nature, so they can't really be cited as causes of deflationary spirals. It reads as though currency devaluations (which generally involve plain old printing money) would serve to exacerbate deflation, which is the opposite of what happens after a devaluation. It's very likely that government policies worsened the economic situation (e.g., the interest rate hikes to defend the weakening dollar, following the British Pound's collapse in 1931) but incorrect (and very confusing) to say that currency devaluations led to deflationary spirals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.116.250.246 (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Bretton Woods Monetary System vs. Bretton Woods Institutions

An article on the Bretton Woods System--specifically, the post-War monetary system--should include any discussion of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) nor the later International Finance Corporation (IFC) and International Development Association (IDA). The IBRD was not part of the monetary system created at the UN Monetary and Financial Conference, but was one of two "Bretton Woods Institutions" created at the conference. Further, additional institutions created as part of the World Bank Group likewise have no relevance in a discussion of the Bretton Woods (Monetary) System, although they might be relevant to a discussion of Bretton Woods Institutions. As such, I suggest (at best) that references to the IBRD in this article be limited to the fact that it was created at the UN Monetary and Financial Conference, but deleted, along with references to the IDA and IFC, everywhere else. For example, Benjamen Cohen's article on the BW system only mentions the World Bank in this manner ("Bretton Woods System", prepared for the Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy by Dr. B. Cohen). Abu Casey (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Definition vs History

This article immediately launches into a long, detailed history of the subject. No concise definition of the Bretton Woods system is provided. I would argue that the majority of people reading this article are here to learn quickly what the Bretton Woods system actually is, and therefore most readers will be unhappy with this article. The closest thing to a definition comes in the fourth paragraph (beginning "The chief features of the Bretton Woods system...") which is a single long very dense sentence accompanied by no exposition. I would like to see the opening paragraphs reworked to include a concise definition of the system that can be understood without reading the entire article. The occasional reader who is interested in the history of the subject can then read on for a fuller understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekiko (talk • contribs) 18:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

External links to this page exist on IMF, Federal Reserve Archive websites

I've been researching Bretton Woods this weekend, and discovered that the history page of the International Monetary Fund's official website (http://www.imf.org/external/about/history) and the archive of the St. Louis Federal Reserve branch (http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/topics/?tid=86) both contain links to this page. It seems to me that it should be a priority to return this page to "good article" status, since important sites are using it as an introductory resource. Tonialoconte (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Blanchard op. cit.

I don't see any mention of a reference by Blanchard. What is the source for this text? Currently citation #22. SPECIFICO talk 00:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system#Great_Depression

First collection of words starting with a capital letter and ending with a full stop: "The bretton wood agreement is among the powerful on the goals and means of international economic management facilitated the decisions reached by the Bretton Woods Conference." I dare not call it a sentence. It looks like a completed Mad Lib.

Can someone familiar with the subject advise me

 1. should "bretton wood" be "Bretton Woods", and

 2. what meaning is the contributor struggling to convey here?

—Xojo (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)