Talk:Criticism of fractional-reserve banking

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 December 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Why is the quantifier "some" in this article almost 30 times?

some

To some

Some have

Some argue

some circles

some analysts

some schools

Some politicians

some commentators

Some Libertarians

Some economic thinkers

some political thinkers

Some monetary reformers

Some more extreme monetary reformers

The main fractional reserve article has about 3 equivalent uses of the word "some" used as a quantifier of advocates/critics with 2 of them also being used to quantify critics.

Without changing anything else can all the uses of the word some when used as a quantifier for critics (which makes the article sound ridiculous) be changed to --critics of "debt based" monetary system-- (or something similar) --libertarian critics-- or --critics-- wherever applicable. Critics can be broadly divided into these groups and therefore will not need to be quantified Ad nauseam with the word "some" which will drastically improve the aesthetics of this article.

Edit request from 71.112.248.253, 31 March 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is a documentary presented on Google Videos that is historical in presentation that I believe should be added to the artcle on Federal Reserve Banking. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6076118677860424204#

71.112.248.253 (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not going to happen. Linking to the video is problematic as it has a high chance of being a copyright violation. There doesn't seem to be any endorsement from the homepage of the film itself to the Google Video version. It is also not the sort of thing the external links policy recommends linking to. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the fact that the request doesn't state "Please change X to Y." – Ajl^talk 23:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Bullet on "Ethics of Earnings from Fractional-Reserve Banking" Within General Criticisms

While I only have evidence of myself having proposed the challenge, contributions to references for other similar considerations is wanton, else this proposal will be discarded.

The proposal seeks to include a bullet to extrapolate upon the statement, "While there is no controversy over the fact that the commercial banking system expands the money supply, critics find it problematic that banks 'create money out of nothing.'"

** Ethics of Earnings from Fractional-Reserve Banking **

<insert name> has challenged that the earnings volume is excessive gratuity relative to the ethics of source entitlement, which represents a moral hazard of fiduciary trust by government and a disproportionate marginal revenue product according to moral expectation.

GeMiJa (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Loaded terms.

I majored in economics in college and the terms "mainstream" and "non-mainstream" were not used. The preferred terminology of the academic community in economics is "orthodox" and "heterodox". I believe these terms are far more neutral than those that are currently in use by this page. I recommend editing the page to reflect this more neutral academic view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.210.228.204 (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. --Namaste@^? 19:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur and will make the appropriate edits. 76.104.136.215 (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV removed

The article changed significantly since Dec. 2007, I've removed the NPOV template, please use {{POV-section}} or better yet {{POV-statement}} for statements and detail issues here. This will help address them quickly. - Roy Boy 05:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-F.R.B. Statements and Criticisms of the criticism of fractional reserve banking?

This page is about criticism of fractional reserve banking. As such, it seems unnecessary and even inappropriate to include criticisms of the criticisms of fractional reserve banking or statements that are pro-fractional reserve banking. I think these sections should be removed unless anyone can provide a logical argument why criticisms of the criticism of fractional reserve banking should be on this criticism page:

"There are individuals, even within such groups as the Austrian school, that reject the notion that fractional reserve banking is inherently destabilizing and that full-reserve banking is the appropriate solution. One such Austrian thinker, Steven Horwitz, argued that full-reserve banking would impose similar costs of price adjustments in reaction to growth (through a reduction in the overall price level) as would inflation, and hence offer no inherent advantages over fiat currencies and fractional reserve banking."

In addition to being poorly worded and containing grammatical errors, the above passage is off-topic and irrelevant as it is not a criticism of fractional reserve banking, which is the subject of this page.

"Hayek accepted that bank credit and fractional reserve banking — even if they contributed to business cycles — were necessary."

A statement about fractional reserve banking being "necessary" is not a criticism of fractional reserve banking and is therefore off-topic and should be removed.

"Pascal Salin argues that a full-reserve banking system should not be enforced legally, and dispute Murray Rothbard's characterization of fractional-reserve banking as a simple form of recursive embezzlement, and rather advocate the abolition of central banking, and suggest that free banking replace the current system. Austrian monetary theorist George Selgin has also argued in favor of fractional reserve banking."

Another off-topic passage. This is not a page about Austrian economists who argue in favor of fractional reserve banking; IT IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE CRITICISMS OF FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING.

76.104.136.215 (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported statement/Blog linked is not a RS

"Within the economics profession today, most criticisms are from heterodox economics such as those of the Austrian School.[4]"

This links to a blog. According to Identifying reliable sources, "...self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable....'Blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs." Blogs are not a RS for Wiki, and in this case, the blog is not a news outlet nor is "the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."

Additionally, the statement reads "most criticisms" made of fractional reserve banking "are from heterodox economics such as those of the Austrian School." The link to the blog does not support the statement that "most criticism" is from heterodox economics such as the Austrian School. The statement is made as an appeal to the majority logical fallacy to cast doubt on criticisms of F.R.B. It should be removed.

76.104.136.215 (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS says: "Self-published material may 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". Which certainly applies to Caplan. bobrayner (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Deletions

This page isn't big to start with, despite the massive historical discussions over the pros and cons of FRBs (from Muslims, Christians etc etc). VolunteerMarek's volunteering a little too much in making mass deletions of the page and all I'm asking is that he respectfully explains each deletion (there are no additions, of course) on this talk page first. Reasonable, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.150.166 (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my edit summaries. The stuff I removed was various instances of:

Misrepresentation of sources
Off topic stuff
Fringe theories
Unsourced OR
Sourced to non-RS sources (blogs, etc)

And so on. Wikipedia is not your own personal blog to talk about your feelings.VolunteerMarek 03:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be interest in how an anon IP with no edits knows about 3RR. Wait, don't tell me, you've been blocked for edit warring over exactly the same thing in the past and now you've come back with new account.

Also, please cut the personal attacks and ethnic insults.VolunteerMarek 03:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Sorry, throw away comments about the mass deletions are insufficient reason not to justify each deletion (no additions, of course). This is not a personal blog - none of the page is written by me. Mass deletions have been made by bankers, government employees and others with socialist (Keynesian) POVs previously (I'm tired of recounting the long list of censorship zombies). Which one are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.150.166 (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was supposed to be a member of the Stasi [1] [2]?

And look, it's actually up to YOU to show that the text you wish to add can be sourced to reliable sources. Unsourced text, text which misrepresents the sources, or text sourced to junk sources can - and should - be removed.

If you want the break down though, here it is:

This is completely irrelevant to the subject matter. Not to mention just plain weird and self-contradictory. At best it belongs in the article on Economic growth, though it really doesn't qualify for that either per WP:FRINGE. Finally, the words "fractional banking" do not even appear in the source (or even just the word "fractional") which pretty much means that the source does not support the text.

This text misrepresents the source. What Friedman is criticizing there is not fractional banking, but rather discretionary monetary policy. Two different things.

There's three problems with this text. First the text being included misrepresents the source. Second, the source is not even about fractional banking. Finally, this is a blog, not a reliable source.

Mises.org is not a reliable source. Enough said.

This at least attributes the statement to Mises.org. But you don't need three references to three unreliable sources to back it up.

This text is essentially unsourced OR, with one link to an unreliable source.

This is based on a primary source and it involves whoever put that in's interpretation of a particular legal case. Classic OR.

So, can we please remove the sword wielding skeletons from the article, Randy? VolunteerMarek 04:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but if you'd explained this before page protecting I would have easily found reliable references:

1. Replace Mises with any one of Jorg Guido Hulsmann, Thomas Woods, Murray Rothbard or Jesus Huerto de Soto (all have published books on the topic that can replace all of the Mises refs).

2. Replace OR on environmental destruction with refs from Michael Rowbotham.

But I see you don't really want to "improve" the page by finding better refs. Perhaps this pathetic little discussion won't matter soon anyway. Don't panic - the page is now protected (censored?) and I know LRC is not a reliable source from your (and WP's) point of view. Perhaps I'll find something reliable on FRB from the European Central Bank's publications, as it deals with Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and all the Northern Banks that will immediately go bust if one of these countries defaults? Ha Ha Ha! They'll need to bring back the Stasi soon to stem the chaos that mass defaults will (inevitably) create. Negative interest rates on Swiss bonds crack me up. That's the funniest thing I've seen all year. Paying the Swiss money to keep your cash just so you preserve your capital from European government default. How bizarre, how pathetic, how laughable the financial world has become. But let's not mention that in the body of the article. It could start a bank run out of Europe.

If you look at the article revision history, you will see that Volunteer Marek is not the editor who protected the page. As for the rest of your little rant, please see WP:NOTAFORUM. More importantly, please read WP:Identifying reliable sources. John Shandy` • talk 16:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fractionalreserves.com

I think that fractionalreserves.com should be added as "external link" from this page. I know it was removed from the main "fractional reserve banking" page because its not neutral, but in the context of a page about *criticisms* of fractional reserve banking, I think it is spot on. The sources of information are largely central bankers and monetary specialists -look at the resources page. The shorter articles have all been published on other sites previously (Renegadeeconomist.com, positivemoney.org.uk) . Just because it has one link to a book hardly makes it a "commercial" site. I know the site is my own, but is that relevant? How is this link fundamentally different to the James Robertson link? Please make any answers about the facts and logic, not personal sniping. Reissgo (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]