Talk:Criticism of fractional-reserve banking/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Propaganda

Wow, this article is truly bad. I thought I might learn something about the subject here, but clearly this is mostly one sided propaganda taken from a few sources, like a book written by a farmer. 32F 08:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I would summarize it as: “abandoning the gold standard for money has created a pyramid scheme (made possible by state interventionism) which is causing a destruction of fertile lands”—preposterous! I'm not competent enough in economics to fix this, but at least I'll add a POV banner. --Gro-Tsen 12:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The main author of this article has the following qualifications: B.Com(Hons) majoring in economics, with a focus on monetary economics, with numerous prizes and awards for his study of economics which can be verified at the relevant university (which I am happy to disclose to the appropriate individuals if they want further details), LL.B.(Hons), and an MA in the US, and an LL.M. from Columbia University in New York, having studied international finance and written papers during my LL.M. degree on the IMF and international financial regulation. That author happens to be me. The position taken, whilst controversial, is not unusual to those "in the know". Murray Rothbard and Silvio Gesell are not as well known to the general public as Keynes or Friedman. That doesn't make them wrong, just unknown to those ignorant of monetary economics. Hence the need for the article, to educate those who know nothing about monetary economics. Surprise or shock may mean you're learning something. It doesn't mean what's written is rubbish.

NO! you do not "take positions" in Wikipedia, particularly not "controversial" ones 32F 13:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this "position" is not "unusual" to me at all. I've read Rowbottom's book, and similar sorts of thing. I've seen him talk. 32F 13:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Alan Greenspan (respected doyen of all things monetary) held PRECISELY the same views as those expressed in many sections of this article, as expressed and clearly documented in his early writings on the subject (see Ron Paul's speech attached to the article). I also note that this article has been around for months, without the first section being controversial in any way. After literally hundreds of edits it is as clear and as objective as could possibly be. The references contained at the end of the article are particularly useful for those who don't know anything about fractional reserve banking or have no training or education in financial economics. The "Policy Implications" section had "NPOV" on it, but was removed with the very reasonable comment that the article consistently refers to "MONETARY REFORMERS" holding these views, which is true (with NO IMPLICATION that these views are accurate or even sane).

Given the controversial nature of the subject right now (given that events are playing out almost exactly as explained in the article), and given that this issue involves $$$$ it is "controversial" to some (unlike, say, the mating habits of the kiwi bird in NZ, which rarely induces heart palpitations in readers. Talking about $$$$$$ often does induce heart palpitations, especially if it is your $$$$$$). It is understandable that some vested interests (or ignorant outsiders) would be violently opposed to the contents and bluntly objective tone of the article. This is not propaganda. This is accuracy. This article has been through literally hundreds of revisions. Truth sometimes hurts. So what? In lots of areas (physics, international politics, terrorism, sexual perversion) stuff happens that appears to an outsider as bizarre or ridiculous. Does the observer's revulsion indicate that it isn't really happening?

I suggest the following: someone with at least a Masters (preferrably PhD) degree in monetary or financial economics evaluate and respond. Hedge fund investors with PhD's in finance or physics and at least US $500 million under management are particularly welcome. Uneducated amateur "observers" stay away from the issue (and invest in US government bonds if they wish).

Finally I note that "tyranny" rarely looks like "tyranny" to those it benefits (or even hurts, ironically), and objective and accurate description of a complex system of "tyranny" often angers those the system benefits. That's life. And it's hardly surprising. In fact it's predicted in the article. Why not leave the article out there for people to evaluate for themselves? I think that's called "freedom of speech". That still exists doesn't it??

NO! You do not have "freedom of speech" on Wikipedia to put forward a contentious personal point of view as fact. 32F 13:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What "personal" point of view? Fractional reserve banking happens in exactly the way described. "Monetary reformers" believe the system should be changed (they may well be mad. Many think Libertarians such as Ron Paul are mad. Some think neo-cons are mad. I leave that for you to decide). However it is objectively true that fractional reserve banking happens exactly as explained and monetary reformers believe exactly what they believe. This is all referenced in the article. When I stated that the matter is "controversial" I mean the whole subject is controversial (because it involves $$$), not that what has been stated is not fact-based. Read the references. Get an economics degree. Do something useful, but don't graffiti the article if you (1) have no qualifications in economics and (2) simply don't like what's written. I'm sure there are lots of other wikipedia entries you do know something about. Why not graffiti them instead? What bothers you about this article so much? Particularly if you have no education in financial economics. Why not simply leave it alone? Or contact a friend with a PhD in financial economics and let him discuss the article instead. Do you have one of those? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothymak (talk • contribs) 13:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

For starters, what is wrong with this article as it is

As it is this article is supposed to be about a monetary regime which is currently in existence in essentially every modern country, yet it gives absolutely no considerations in favour of this system! In other words, no explanation of the logic, the rational basis, of the system. That is, to use a word already applied to the article, preposterous.

Instead, it quote-mines folks who write on this topic to find some obscure fed reserve employee who doesn't like "debt money". And tells us that libertarians (themselves rather marginal figures) think "debt money" can "necessarily" lead to "tyranny". This is not a very relevant or important comment given that absolutely no attempt has been made to explain the rationale of "debt money" in the first place. That is not NPOV. So keep the tag on, please. 32F 13:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

First, can I please ask for your qualifications? Second, the system makes perfect sense. It's a profit making machine. Machines that make profits flourish. Machines that don't die. Please provide your "rationale" for the existence of fractional reserve banking. Or ask someone who has a degree in financial economics. Or (again) I respectfully ask you to leave the article alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothymak (talk • contribs) 13:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A person's qualifications are irrelevant. WP is a resource for all people - not just those with PHDs. And, if as suggested above, we need to find somebody with a PHD to review this article then this article needs to be re-written. However, one user can't keep removing tags placed by other users simply because he thinks he is more qualified to understand the article. If an editor raises concerns then those concerns need to be addressed; not brushed under the carpet because another editor considers himself more educationally qualified. B1atv 14:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy for the uneducated to contribute. What, precisely, is factually incorrect in the article. Line by line please. With references if possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothymak (talk • contribs) 14:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I told you already. There is no rationale given for the monetary regime criticized in this article. It is used throughout the entire world. There is a reason for it. A good reason. A reason economists can give that makes it sound reasonable and sensible. There is no sign of this in the article at all. This shows that it is totally NPOV. 32F 14:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No sign of qualifications yet. Are you hiding them like Easter eggs? As I explained, it's a profit making machine. It makes perfect sense. To use an extreme analogy (PLEASE don't take this the wrong way, I feel you could be dangerous if I met you in a back ally somewhere, and I'd hate to think you misunderstood the analogy), cancer makes perfect sense. Cells replicate. They need to replicate to survive. If they replicate too vigorously they kill the host. Cancer cells can be seen to be "good", in the sense that they encourage medical innovation (radiotherapy wouldn't have been discovered without cancer cells existing for example). Cancer cells are created and destroyed in our bodies all the time. Most of us have had them and they get destroyed by the immune system. Sometimes they grow uncontrollably and kill the host. They don't have a clue what they're doing. They're just trying to replicate and survive in the host body.

Banks exist for financial intermediation. They are like glorified accountants with safes behind them. Some banks get aggressive when they lend "too much" and they grow too quickly. Then, to survive they need to keep growing. Or they die. It's as simple (and as "bizarre") as that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothymak (talk • contribs) 14:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I have made it very clear. Maybe you will get some idea from the paragraph I added. But I am not an economist. (Nor are you). Oh, yeah, I also have read McMurtry, "The Cancer Stage of Capitalism". Again, a book of propaganda, not encyclopedia quality material. 32F 14:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're not an economist what are you? Qualifications please. Any will do. Just to get some idea of the person I'm speaking to. It's like talking to a shadow at the moment. I have no idea what the shadow is saying other than "I don't like you". I'm sure there's a rationale for graffiti (it happens all around the world). I don't understand it, but it exists so I'm sure it serves a purpose. Distinguishing graffiti from real comment is easy. Graffiti rants and says nothing verifiable. Comment stays factual and is verifiable (or at least contains references). I'm happy for anyone (educated, uneducated, whatever - I really don't care) to comment, to criticize, to improve the article, to provide additional references. Whatever. Go crazy. Knock yourselves out. But just to say "he's crazy, it makes no sense to me, it's too negative" isn't really a statement about the article. It's a statement about you. Propaganda is propaganda because it has an agenda. I don't care about the article. Delete it for all I care. I really couldn't care less. Do you?

Please feel free to deface the article all you want. And delete it if you wish. There are lots of you out there. This is one of the few articles on the implications of fractional reserve banking. And for some reason you have a problem with that. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothymak (talk • contribs) 15:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This page should be integrated with the existing pages

There are already pages on monetary theory which are clearly written by people who know more about the matters than the people who made this page. This page should be integrated with those pages. Monetary theory is one such page that is well linked in, in contrast to this page. This would bring the page some desperately needed scrutiny from real experts. 32F 15:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I have deleted some sections in the interests of consensus (and personal safety). I hope I've satisfied your desire for consensus and reduced your heart rate and body temperature. It's all better now. Nothing I've written is really happening. It was all propaganda. Just a silly joke. I'm sorry for frightening you. Have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothymak (talk • contribs) 21:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

More specifically, the term "Debt-based monetary system" is often used as a satirical synonym of Fractional-reserve banking by critics of this system; thus, this stub should be moved to the criticism section of Fractional-reserve banking unless Timothymak or anyone else can add substantial material to validate a separate article. -- EGeek 21:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever "EGeek". The number of "courageously" anonymous critics chewing at the carcass of this article is now starting to both bore me and disgust me. Move it around. Deface it. Delete it. Change the stub (by the way, have you seen how full the "fractional reserve banking" comments page is?? Adding another section I'm sure would make it even more "fun"). Call it "satirical" if you wish. The truth is not "deleted" by re-categorizing it, or moving it, or masking it. It is merely displaced. It will rear its Leviathan-like ugly head up again, somewhere. It is inevitable. Like bad karma is inevitable. The "system" of fractional reserve banking is only "satirical" to those who are laughing right now as they watch the "first class" money train career over the side of the cliff, only for the pieces to be desperately picked up and coddled by the central banks of the world. I hope and pray that all the king's horses and all the king's men can put the Humpty Dumpty private bankers back together again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karmaisking (talk • contribs) 23:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael Rowbotham, the "expert" cited most frequently in this article

The self-styled "pricipal author" of this article most frequently cited Rowbotham, yet at the same time told us he himself had carried out serious study in economics, and that no one short of a PhD should dare interact with him. That we should get a degree in economics. Consult a PhD. "provide relevant qualifications in financial economics. Or leave it to someone with a PhD in finance" "Someone with at least a PhD in financial economics please evaluate. Others please comment on something you know something about".

Well, here is a description of Rowbotham's magnum opus by a very positive reviewer:

"His principal argument is that the subject of economics has failed to deliver what it was supposed to. [No need for those PhDs then -- obviously scammers and obfuscators] The beauty of this book is that it is amazingly simple. It is written for anyone who has a quest to learn about the problems, challenges and frustrations of modern man. [In other words, malcontents, not professional scholars]. It assumes no knowledge of economics on behalf of the reader, and what is more, doesn't lecture on economics. [Don't even need much economics to read and then regurgitate from this tract] So even if you did rather poorly in your high school economics course, you can still read and enjoy this book. [Don't even need to pass high school economics apparently]. In fact, if you hated economics, this book is a way to get back at those teachers who haunted you with demand and supply gibberish. [Right, the real economics, the PhDs, are pushing gibberish]. 32F 09:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete this article

I would argue that this article gives a convincing and coherent argument against the debt-based supply of money. I found it interesting and thought-provoking. I agreed with the logic on most points, but disagreed when the logical leaps went a little too far (arguments against immigration for example seemed tacked on). A key weakness with this article is that it has been written with one eye on the exact financial situations we are seeing today, but with a false sense of historical perspective. Whatever this article is though, it does not in any way belong on wikipedia, as it constitutes original research and/or opinion. Delete, delete, delete! To the author of this article: go get a fricking blog. You can link to it off this talk page if you want. I'd probably have a read. You have interesting ideas, and are probably correct on a number of fronts. However, you have no right to evangelise on Wikipedia, and you would do your own credibility a favour by being clear that your ideas are your ideas, and are not underpinned by widespread academic consensus. Cheers, Robin. --82.46.67.74 (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing stated is original - believe me, I'm not that clever. I'm simply summarizing stuff that's been around for decades (in some cases hundreds of years). I'm in the process of referencing everything right now. Why people think this is original research is beyond me. It's all referenced in the article. Robin, I presume you are a professor of monetary economics well-schooled in the history of economic thought. That's the only way you can say this stuff is original. It's not. READ THE REFERENCES. I keep saying this with brutal monotony: you may disagree with the views of everyone included in the references, you may think they are mad, you may want to injure them painfully. Whatever. But the work is hardly ORIGINAL. You appear to be completely unfamiliar with the works of various monetary reformers. I cannot help your narrow "conventional" (Keynesian?) education or narrow-mindedness. I'd like to, but I can't. But the "mad" views of Austrian Economists, of Jim Sinclair, of Hyman Minsky, of Richard C. Cook, of Bill Bonner, of Elaine Meinel Supkis, of Mike Whitney, of Michael Rowbotham, of Robert K. Landis, of Richard Daughty all shed light on some vitally important public policy issues that are screamingly relevant to many people ignorant of economic history - and who themselves are screaming for answers about what is going on in the economy today. Those I have referenced in the article are the distillation of months of careful research and are simply (in my tiny mind) the best selection of economics writers who seek to answer a number of pressing economic questions clearly and concisely, incisively and intelligently (if controversially and even - God Forbid! - "radically"). What is wrong about that??? Since when has clarity of thought been declared a sin? If so, vote me off the island. I don't want to stay on any longer. I have a strange sensation the island is about to implode anyway, regardless of what any of us write.

A few simple questions: What precisely do you think I'm "evangelising"? Communism? Socialism? Libertarianism? Utopianism? Zoroastrianism? There is no one view preferred above any other. They are all laid out, as clearly as my little brain can accomplish. As stated before, the article consistently refers to MONETARY REFORMERS holding X view or Y view, MONETARY REFORMERS arguing A or B. I'm just writing stuff down that I studied at university and I'm literally just summarizing what I thought (stupidly?) were the clearly stated views of a number of competing schools of "monetary reform" thought. We must have gone to different universities and had different interests. I was in the library most of the time. You may have been in the pub. I don't know until you tell me your qualifications (which I'm sure will be forthcoming shortly). Perhaps an original idea slipped out by mistake. If so I sincerely apologize. I don't for the life of me know where this happened in the article. Could you please point out where this mortal sin occurred? It was wholly unintentional I assure you. I'm happy to delete any original thought immediately.

I respect those with a solid argument. With the greatest respect, I don't respect your argument, because you have no argument. You're exactly like "32F". You're saying nothing other than "I don't like you". I already know that. How can you have a "consensus" view on something as "controversial" as monetary reform? It's the same pathetic, weak circular non-sequitur argument all slow establishment-types use to stifle debate and thought on an issue they find uncomfortable (this tried and true method of protecting the status quo is particularly deployed in the medical and economics professions for some bizarre reason - God knows why. It's probably directly proportional to the inflated egos of the current practitioners). The "logic" is as follows: I don't know about this stuff + I haven't heard of these people + these views appear "radical" = This is all rubbish and should be deleted.

Those who propose change to the status quo are left in a Catch-22 position: "You're not published, you're not in the consensus" says the cardigan-clad establishment-type. "Well of course I'm not I can't get published you idiot" says the upstart with the radical idea. Some "radical" ideas have been published (thank God - that's the only way civilization progressed beyond the Golden Age of the Philistine) and I'm carefully listing them here (without one original thought coming out of my tiny brain) simply because these scattered voices have some very clear answers to some very pressing problems.

Witness a wonderful living account of this dilemma by reading the articles of the Famous Mogambo Guru in Daily Reckoning. Richard Daughty is a brilliant writer (and hilarious to boot) but is left marginalized by his "radical" "non-establishment" views. He is literally forced to act like a psychopath because he's been beaten up so many times by the monied Establishment calling him an idiot, mad, psychotic etc etc that's the only space left for him to breathe, to publish. He's in a no-win situation. So, a simple question: What does "consensus view" mean in this context? I've simply summarized the writings of a number of "radicals" and in doing so somehow offended your sensitive sensibilities. So what? Does that mean the article deserves DELETION (the equivalent of the summary execution of a whole train of thought, a whole series of carefully constructed ideas - the very elimination of debate. The antithesis of free speech).

Please I encourage you to improve the article, to provide additional references, to show me word by word, line by line, paragraph by paragraph where you think I've injected an "original" idea (I promise to reference any offending "original" thoughts immediately). I have been doing this in my spare time, so there are many additional references to come before the day of execution arrives for all of us. If you are genuinely interested in freedom of speech and thought, show me word by word, line by line where I have been misled, where I have gone wrong. Why DELETE, DELETE, DELETE? Banks have lost between $1 trillion and $1000 trillion (no that's not a typo) in the last 12 months. Something is wrong with "conventional wisdom" (whatever the Hell that means). Conventional wisdom is taking you and us over a cliff. A little bit of "radicalism" may shed light on the current madness. Don't you think? Show me word by word where I am wrong. Word by word. Line by line. Or shut your face and let others read what they want to read.

In the meantime to protect innocent women and children I've deleted the offending sections of this article until this matter can be resolved. No need to deface the article further until the issue is resolved. I assume you don't have a problem with the current version.--Karmaisking (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Article scope and approach

I encourage you to recognise that your long rant above is not serving your purpose of proving that these are not mad thoughts, but rather reinforcing the impression that this is "mad, psychotic, etc. etc." (as you put it). And telling other editors to "shut your face" as you've done above will, eventually, get you blocked or banned. It pretty much put me off reading any of the rest of what you've written.

Straightforward advice: write less on this page - economy is everything. Add slowly. Learn to footnote and structure the article like other articles. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a collection of treatises. And try to listen to other editors.--Gregalton (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I apologize. U.S., U.K. and E.U. banks potentially losing a collective $1000 trillion (give or take a trillion or two) makes me a little emotional. A global recession/depression also makes me rant ever so slightly. It's all better now. I'll stop contributing. Have a nice day.--Karmaisking (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Word by word. Line by line. Or this goes up again. Soon.--Karmaisking (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you saying? That someone should explain to you how what you've written is incorrect? That is not the way wikipedia works. Please read the guidelines carefully. The burden is on you to demonstrate that the information you want to put up here is verifiable.--Gregalton (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No. I simply question (1) why statements that are clearly referenced should be tainted with the accusation of "originality" and are therefore unacceptable and should be DELETED - especially when I was in the process of carefully referencing everything just before the article was napalmed; and (2) why clear, objective (verifiable) descriptions of the views of various monetary reformers that are currently not in the "mainstream" of economic thought cannot be permitted to exist on a public-access encyclopedia - provided these views are clearly referenced as the beliefs and views of "monetary reformers" (a.k.a psychotic, mad radicals). Don't worry Gregalton, there's no need to feel threatened. We're living in the monetary experiment the Monetary Establishment wanted us to have. We are living in their wet dream they created after decades of hard work and several major wars; that dream being unhinged monetary expansion sourced almost exclusively from the exponential expansion of credit. I hope they get what they wanted - or at least what they deserve. We'll soon see.--Karmaisking (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You attribute accusations to me I have not made. Why don't you try putting in statements, clearly referenced, one at a time and cautiously? See how that goes. And I reiterate: try reading the guidelines first (start with "About Wikipedia" to the left of your screen), and editing other documents bit by bit, to see how that works. You seem to assume that because you wrote a lot and some editors thought it was problematic means that your contributions are not welcome. It may instead be how you presented them. Imagine you went to city hall and started screaming out loud about any subject at all; if you are subsequently ejected, it could be that the screaming was the problem and not the subject matter. In the most simple terms: tone down your rhetoric, including on the talk pages, and see how it goes.

And I remind you: YOU actually deleted the article text. I presume the narrative that it was deleted by "Them" corresponds better with some persecution complex, but it does not correspond to fact.--Gregalton (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and understand your concerns. I will try to keep it nice and clean and not extreme. However, I feel a little bit like I'm taking an etiquitte class on S.S. Titanic. I'm the one being ejected for "shouting", when perhaps everyone should be looking out the damn window.

I'm "shouting" on the talk page because people want this stuff DELETED - not amended, deleted. I'm fighting for survival here. Please a simple question: What do you yourself object to in the article itself? Form or substance, either one. Where have I been "shouting"? Where have I not referenced something adequately? Where do you wish me to improve the article? No one (NO ONE) has made one clear, verfiable criticism of the article itself. OK, my rhetoric on the talk page is extreme, but that's because others want this stuff wiped off the map. Napalmed out of existence. What am I supposed to do? I have deleted it (temporarily) out of deference to the sensitive sensibilities of the other editors (itself a sign of "politeness" that has gone completely unappreciated by you). Until you/they explain why it should remain deleted. I'm waiting for a detailed critique of the article itself. On the substance of the article. And I'm still waiting (Godot-like) for one substantive criticism on the article itself, whilst some editors try to eject this article on the grounds that my conduct in etiquitte class (on the talk page) has been unacceptable. Where's the "logic" in that??--Karmaisking (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Relax.
2. Don't write essays. Keep it short to start with.
3. READ THE INSTRUCTIONS.
4. Read the comments by the editor before. Think about whether what you want to put here is material for an encyclopedia or a blog. Not getting your stuff on here is not "napalmed out of existence." You can still put it in one of a hundred different places.
5. Look at all the other articles in wikipedia first. (Okay, just kidding. Look at SOME of them.)
6. Reference every major point you make.
7. Start slow.
8. Don't expect detailed critiques of long articles - no-one has time to fix it for you. Here's my detailed critique: it was original research, and not an encyclopedia article. Hence, not written for here.
9. If you write a whole bunch of bollocks, people will say it can't be fixed. If you write a small amount of bollocks - and LISTEN - you will get clues on how to do things. If you LISTEN.
10. READ THE INSTRUCTIONS.
11. If it's still unclear to you, find another article you don't care about and dedicate yourself to fixing that first. Come back here after a while. Add one sentence at a time.
12. LISTEN. READ THE INSTRUCTIONS.--Gregalton (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm incredibly relaxed. I'm almost falling off my chair. "No-one has time to fix it for you...it was original research"? You have got to be kidding. Seriously. That's the sum total of your "substantive" criticisms? Did you actually read the references? I will read the instructions. I may even try to give this another go, to squeeze every word into the guidelines (I actually don't currently know what is wrong with the article, because no one has given even one example where the article doesn't fit with the guidelines.) Please define "bollocks" (I thought that would be an etiquitte class faux pas, but obviously not). Where have you spotted the offending "bollocks" in the article? I've been looking and looking and can't find them anywhere. "Add one sentence at a time." OK. In turn, could you please add one substantive criticism at a time? Just one. Any will do.--Karmaisking (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I was kidding about the bollocks. Here's one example: take a look at how articles are structured. They have openings. If they go beyond three or four paragraphs, they split the article up. If you make it look like a wikipedia article, you will get points for effort.

Now for the substantive: para three or four, "Others argue that there is in fact no mathematical necessity for the money supply in a debt-based system to grow, since the interest portion of loan payments is not taken out of circulation, but goes into the lender’s account, where it can be spent back into circulation and eventually be used to pay off some loan principal." No reference.

"“Money is created when loans are issued and debts incurred, money is extinguished when loans are repaid” John B. Henderson, Senior Specialist in Price Economics, Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress." Now, a reference. Not formatted correctly, no source for when or where it was said. So not a real reference.

"government-issued notes and coins do not have the potentially pernicious economic effects of debt-based money described below." Pernicious is biased terminology.

"an economy that does not tolerate unfettered, inherently manipulative paper money or debt money." Biased and emotional, no reference.

"Some monetary reformers also argue that this system of money supply is perverse and inherently "anti-democratic", and inevitably creates an inflationary exponential growth bias in the economy which causes gross over-consumption and is superfluous, unnecessary, environmentally damaging and unstable. " Biased, emotional, no reference.

"It is therefore argued by a number of monetary reformers that the pyramid scheme of fractional reserve banking and the associated exponential growth of debt money in the economy inevitably creates a form of Darwinian "survival of those who can induce others into debt" as it forces the economy inexorably towards indebted consumerism and as it continually and steadily pulls in newly indebted "consumers", to inject more debt money into the economy to pay off the existing debts that have already been accumulated by producers who have borrowed to set up and expand their businesses." Run-on sentence from hell. No reference, biased language, opinionated, etc.

And, for the final example: "A particularly perverse and self-destructive side-effect of the debt-based monetary system is its effect on agriculture." This sums it all up. It has not been established that the debt-based monetary system exists; nor that its effect on agriculture exists at all; but it is willfully stated that those (alleged) effects are perverse and self-dstructive. Note that in this text, this is stated as fact, not opinion, with no reference.

Followed immediately by (sorry, I meant to stop at the one above, but this is just too sweet): "If this is allowed to continue unchecked, fertile arable land will be systematically destroyed and replaced by low-density housing, ultimately condemning local populations to permanent, irredeemable reliance on imported food to survive. If for any reason the monetary system broke down, this population (nominally "rich" but poor in terms of direct access to food supply) could literally starve on its own debt money." Now, do I have to explain what is wrong with this by wikipedia standards? (Apart from the fact that "literally starve on its own debt money" makes no sense whatsoever).

Essentially, the entire article in this redaction reads like this: a great, long, unsourced rant. And the opinion of some other editors - which, having looked again, I can only support - is that in that form, it was unsalvageable.

If, when looking at the article again, you cannot see how this does not meet basic guidelines for inclusion, then I can only suggest you read the guidelines again.--Gregalton (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to do my best to improve the article but it now seems to have been taken over by others. It will be interesting to see how those with no knowledge of financial economics go amending this out of existence.

By the way, I've called the Captain and mentioned that I CLEARLY see water coming into my bedroom. The carpets are soaked and I feel the S.S. Titanic listing portside. I've been told to shut my stupid face and refer to the etiquitte manual and never again call the Captain so late at night. Oh well....--Karmaisking (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Karmaisking, as you know I support retaining this article. however, I also understand the concerns of those posting tags here. i think one thing which might be helpful is to give more attribution to sources for any criticism, claims or assertions posted here. Right now, it is a bit hard to distinguish political claims from objective legitimate facts. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, but could others help me out here addressing the Englishman Gentleman Gregalton's concerns?? I've actually been doing this in my spare time (very late at night) and my professional work cannot pause to clean this stuff up. Good-hearted contributors - don't be afraid to amend, change the form etc. Don't delete if you can avoid it - I'll try to reference every sentence over the next few weeks. Oh... and Gentleman Gregalton, did you read this week's Economist articles on food prices and food security and worldwide food shortages??? It was just sooooo sweet.--Karmaisking (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been wondering who the Brit you were referring to was - now I know. Well, I've been called worse ;).--Gregalton (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's necessary to have a brit playing the bad guy in this tale, I could perhaps fulfill the role? Reading the above, what I think needs to happen is that the article gets taken back to nothing and then rebuilt (same applies to the article on fractional reserve banking). It would take much too long to fix the articles as they stand, like trying to build a skyscraper by filing down a mountain. I'm not an economics professor, just an interested amateur. I am however an academic, and will stand up for my ability to spot an unverified or unverifiable claim. If it helps, the reason I came to this page in the first instance is because of a personal suspicion that the structure of our debt-based economy is inherently unstable and unsustainable. For this reason I wish to seek out sources that discuss the supply of debt, and its relationship to money growth, government and private organisations and economic crises. What I hoped to find was a short, informative piece on how bank lending increases the supply of money. I hoped for a logical article that explained the history, the landmark events, the institutions involved, with reliable graphs and diagrams. What I hoped to find was an article that no rational banker or economist could disagree with, where no facts or statements were in dispute. Gantlord (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources used

As I understand there is some effort ongoing to clean this article up, this is a request to pay careful attention to the sources and the extent to which they meet standards for reliable sources and notability. Many of these appear to be blogs, and some of the publications (but by no means all) to be not well known or to be opinion pieces of no particular notability. These should really be pruned. It would also help this article's credibility if some sources of unquestionable notability and significance (an economics textbook, for example) using the exact phrase "debt-based money" could be cited. I for one still question whether this is a notable school of academic or other thought (as opposed to, for example, a 'populist' restatement of e.g. Austrian school thinking). Would be grateful for strong references that are unambiguous in this sense.--Gregalton (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Distinguished Englishman Gentleman Gregalton, please read your countryman Michael Rowbotham's book, or if you can tolerate the "wrong" English spelling in American books, Ellen Hodgson Brown's book, or anything from Murray Rothbard (he's written so much on this it's not funny). The only thing that's funny is that slow Establishment-types keep attacking this article as lacking "strong references". "Strong references" - in whose opinion? Yours? If so, who are you and please provide full details of your qualifications in financial economics (including where you obtained them) to us all. You're full of confidence in commenting on the article so I assume you've got some very impressive qualifications. I can't wait to see them. I can tell the Nobel prize is coming up soon for you no doubt.

To me these are the best references in the world on the debt-based monetary system. To you they appear rubbish. Who decides? You or me? Or do the Big Bad Bankers (who have built the current stupid dysfunctional system and who are running around today like chickens with their heads cut off) decide? They don't want this stuff published because they hate being called stupid. That's the whole damn point. The most incisive, intelligent astute commentator IN THE WORLD on financial events today is undoubtedly an "unpublished", relatively unknown female blogger called Elaine Meinel Supkis. The internet allows these bright but unknown people to shine (Thank God and your countryman Timothy Berners-Lee for this revolution!!!). READ THE REFERENCES THAT ARE THERE RIGHT NOW. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THEM? Even if they are not written on parchment and have a nice hardbound cover they may actually make sense anyway. I know that sounds incredible but just go with it for a few minutes. Actually try to read them with an open mind. Stay open-minded about the sources and EVALUATE THEM FOR YOURSELF. The idea that an idea needs to be put in an "establishment" textbook before it becomes part of an on-line encyclopedia is soooo 20th century it's almost Triassic (or at least Cretaceous). That's backward thinking (in every sense of the term). It's sad to say but your comment is the EXACT replica of "32F" and the now-humiliated "Gantlord" (who deleted his name presumably in shame). Everything written in the article is coming true - right now, before our very eyes. Look out the window, Distinguished Captain - the S.S. Titanic has sprung a leak and it's obvious to everyone - including even the dumbest Establishment-type.--Karmaisking (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Please see the relevant policies and guidelines for wikipedia as to sources: WP:RS, WP:Verifiability, and WP:Sources. As an example of what is found there, here is one example: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made." These guidelines are easier to follow once one reads them.
2. Please also see policy on No Personal Attacks. Now, I can't tell whether you think calling me an Englishman is an insult, or why you would think that, but it's beginning to sound a bit deranged. Please desist.
3. You may be right. All these blogs may be more right than all the other stuff written by academics and others that check facts and the like. But that's not what the guidelines say about sources. Blogs are made for people who want to write whatever they like; wikipedia is not. See WP:NOT.--Gregalton (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

1. OK. Others can try to squeeze this into the guidelines. I'd fight for the retention of EACH and EVERY reference, but then I'm biased on the subject of $$$$s and how they are made (as is every single person with a dollar bill in their pocket) and accordingly I may be mad - that's for others to decide. If other editors consider some blogs to be unacceptable and illegitimate, delete.
2. Being English is something to be proud of, don't ever think it's something to be ashamed of. You're being paranoid. I also don't know for the life of me why Freemasons aren't more open about their affiliations. It's a noble fraternity with long distinguished traditions.
3. I'm letting this go now, for others to amend and improve. I've got real work to do, in order to get more of those $$$s in order to swap these useless bits of replicating toilet paper for PURE GOLD. Please be kind to the article.
4. Oh... and thanks for the impressive listing of your qualifications. Very impressive. Good luck on that Nobel Prize in Financial Economics.--Karmaisking (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Gregalton, why did you take out the scholarly journal from the Levy institute? I'm also going to throw back in the book about hyperinflation in Germany after WWI. I realize that the one you deleted was a review, so I'll correct that. -- EGeek (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

EGeek: thank you, the book reference is indeed better. For the levy.org article, I apologize that I took it out, it is indeed a good reference. I have not put it back in myself, however, because on checking the article I could not find any text that supports the key contention that "this system of money supply has all the essential characteristics of a monetized Ponzi or pyramid scheme, where the newly indebted find themselves compelled to induce others into debt to enable them to pay off their own debts." The article does refer to Minsky, to Ponzi schemes, but does not link the sub-prime crisis to money supply. Could you show what I may have missed?--Gregalton (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Sources and use of sources

03:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

How appropriate that the most intense "bombing" of this site to date occurs on the Anniversary of the Boston Tea Party (err...that's a joke for those who are not amused).

Gentleman Gregalton, this is going to get ugly but I really need to ask a simple but very important question: If an article states that "some more extreme monetary reformers predict X (or believe Y)", and I have inserted a blog or an article from GreatRedDragon.com or Mike Whitney CLEARLY confirming this, how can this then be DELETED as illegimate based on the guidelines?? The guidelines are tailored to verify "a fact in the world", not the existence of an opinion about the world. I am not using these sources as a "legitimate" source in the sense that it's used to verify a fact in itself but rather to prove the existence of the opinion. To take an extreme (and admittedly bizarre) example (I need to make it extreme just to get my point across and genuinely don't want to offend anyone, it's just another sick joke just to get the point across), if the article stated: "some more extreme monetary reformers believe fractional reserve banking is run by a small secretive group of satanic sociopathic gay male Freemasons and Illuminati intent on subjugating humanity" and then the article REFERENCES this statement to a weird fringe website run by a monetary reformist nut entitled "Gay Freemasons Want to Take Over the World!!! Pictures Inside!!!", that is surely a legitimate reference. It has NOTHING WHATEVER to do with the veracity of the statement that "Gay Freemasons want to take over the world" and has EVERYTHING to do with "some more EXTREME monetary reformers believe Gay Freemasons want to take over the world". This occurs both with the Mike Whitney reference and the GreatRedDragon reference, and many others you have just deleted. Could you please comment with reference to the guidelines and re-insert if you understand and agree with my point? Thanks.--Karmaisking (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see the following WP guidelines. Reliable sources is the main guideline/policy on this issue, along with Verifiability and WP:Notability. I encourage you to read them and, if you feel I'm being unreasonable, use the formal procedures to ask for others' comments. Here are the parts that relate to my reasoning for removing these sources; I have removed a number at once because many of them do not appear to meet these basic guidelines. I may, of course, have made some errors (see above, where I removed a source inadvertently - although in that case I'm asking for clarity that the source actually supports the point being made by the text - I have discovered a number of references that do not appear to support the point.)

1. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." The reason I removed most of these "sources" is that they fail reliability, correspondence of citation to claim, or notability.
2. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made." This is reasonably straightforward, but I would note that "sources should be appropriate to the claims made" sets the bar fairly high for extraordinary claims.
3. "Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic." There is a large emphasis put on scholarship; for an article that purports to be about monetary policy, it would seem a major oversight that a "school" of thinking about monetary policy does not have scholarly sources that refer to this approach, use the phrase "debt-based monetary system" and similar.
4. "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources." Please note the "directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources." There is also a separate guideline on no original research.
5. "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. ... Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves." It may be useful to look at WP:Reliable source examples.
6. "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications."
7. "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."
8. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". There is a key sentence in this portion of the relevant para, "claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents of such claims say there is a conspiracy to silence them." The guideline WP:Fringe may also be relevant.
9. "Be sure to also adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and not giving undue weight to minority opinions." See WP:Undue for information about giving undue weight to minority opinions.
10. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I am still questioning whether the topic itself is notable.

So, to address your specific example (about the Freemason conspiracy: to say "some say" would give undue weight to a fringe theory. Simply referring to blogs that said this (without identifying it as a fringe theory) would violate neutrality and notability.

I believe most of the articles I cited do not comply with these central guidelines, and the article itself generally does not comply with these. Note that I have left some blogs (Nouriel Roubini's, a noted expert on monetary policy, for example). I have also left books, even in a few cases where they appear to be self-published. Quoting blogs to support the point that "some say..." is insufficient evidence for notability; if this were an article about quilting, that might be different, but for one on monetary policy better sources should be available.

I also repeat that I think it would be easier to make this a "real" article if it were cut down to the bare minimum and built up bit by bit. But that is a recommendation.

Boston Tea Party: the comment seems to be based on inferences you've made about my nationality, which is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Apart from being irrelevant, it also happens to be factually incorrect, based on what I would say is original research, a synthesis of two facts ("English people spell this way" and "this person spells this way") in a bad syllogism ("therefore English").--Gregalton (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen a joke transmuted into an analysis on syllogisms (it kind of loses its "punch" doesn't it?) but thanks for the refresher course on logic. Let's stay "non-ad hominem" if we can...

Ummm... the essence of your comments appears to be as follows: "(1) Quilting wouldn't require the same quality of references that this topic does (WHY?) (2) Every time you say 'some say X' and it's a 'fringe theory' and try to reference it to a blog, it's a violation of the cardinal principles of neutrality and notability."

Double-standards and the unfortunate and insensitive denigration of the noble art of quilting are my initial comments in relation to Point (1). I notice you demanded a cite for the arable land comment here, but didn't bother to require the same level of citation from its actual source - the WP entry on arable land itself. I assume arable land is a lot like quilting? Or is that a syllogism too?

As for Point (2), I take your point, but you're the one being impatient this time. Other contributors can provide "mainstream" thoughts to balance any nasty "fringe" elements. Why not leave the "fringe" stuff in there and have others come and provide the "mainstream" stuff later. The night is young, dear editor.

In fact, given you're such an well-known expert, please don't hold back on my account. PLEASE: Actually make a contribution yourself to balance the "fringe" stuff! Go crazy! Knock yourself out! Instead of deleting and criticizing, how about contributing? You appear to know so much about the topic, but keep deleting stuff and not "balancing" it with "mainstream thought". Balance away my friend. For example, you've deleted an article from GoldSeek listing the proportions of M1, M2, and M3 reported by various central banks, but haven't searched around for a "legitimate" replacement. I spent 4 hours trying to find a better source and couldn't find one. Then 1/2 hour later I come back to the site and find it's deleted! Do you have any idea what you are doing? How long some of these references have taken to collate? Am I frustrated?? You bet! Am I amused? No. Do I care? No, as long as I can keep buying gold, and read hilarious news headlines on how the headless central bank chickens keep running around in tiny circles in sheer terror at the monumentally stupid stuff-up they have all caused.--Karmaisking (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The Money Supply article recently updated the money supply changes in various countries with appropriate sources; however, look at the sources carefully before use. I noticed this M3 was listed under the U.S. even though the M3 statistics ceased over 2 years ago, so those two sources listed are not reliable. -- EGeek (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sincere thanks for all your help EGeek. You are a true gentleman and a scholar.--Karmaisking (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No slight to the fine art of quilting intended. The point is this: there are topics that are well covered by academic sources, and some that are not. I assume quilting has less coverage - if the example is not apt, then perhaps plot summaries of Grey's Anatomy would be better - there are few academic sources on this subject. On monetary policy, there are plenty of academic sources. Since this is the case, those sources should be used to make exceptional claims.

Unfortunately, since this article is currently a dump of unsourced material, getting balance by adding material is not realistic. So, best to start with a few very good sources and a limited text rather than trying to balance this. In other words, balance is probably unachievable without deleting large chunks.--Gregalton (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Gentleman Gregalton: So determined in deletion, so defeatist in actually doing. Don't get so depressed about the prospects of this article, Gregalton. Where's that British stiff upper lip (even if you're not a Brit, buy one on e-bay). There's still hope, surely. Do your very best. Nothing seems to stop those deletions. Surely nothing should stop your determined contribution. At the very least help with the references. You've cut the one on M1/M2/M3 and left without replacing the reference with a better one for example. Surely a man of your stature can find a better one from a "mainstream" source???--Karmaisking (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you seem to have misinterpreted or not read the relevant guidelines (see, for example, WP:V), which are quite straightforward: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." It is not my responsibility to provide reliable sources and evidence if you want it to remain.--Gregalton (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, Gentleman Gregalton, you've misinterpreted MY point. It's not your responsibility, but it would be a nice gesture of goodwill. It's just not cricket to go around disdainfully scorning the article and the sources (and many of the references, which have now been deleted by you), and then casually and openly admit that you haven't even read the two principal sources for the "fringe" thesis that exists here. You know about cricket, don't you Gregalton?--Karmaisking (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have made more than a minor effort to find uses of the expression "debt-based money" and the like. Unsuccessful, I'm sorry to say. Please, provide sources. And yes, I don't consider it at all unfair to ask that those sources be reliable.--Gregalton (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you read the TWO PRINCIPAL SOURCES ALREADY REFERRED TO IN THIS DAMN ARTICLE you'd be more successful in your search. Oh my God is it me or is it Gregalton? I'm losing it...--Karmaisking (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of sources: economic and political criticisms

I have been attempting to review the sources and the use of these sources. As an example, please see the section economic and political criticisms:

"Therefore, significant super-normal profits can be generated by re-zoning agricultural land and replacing it with low-density housing. Urban poverty can often be the final result of the financial incentives inherent in a system which rewards short-term urban development.[14] In the United States for example, 8,900 km² (about 2.2 million acres) of land was added to urban areas between 1992 and 2002, much of it arable land now paved. ... If this is allowed to continue unchecked, forests and fertile arable land (specifically farmland on the fringes of existing urban developments) will be systematically destroyed and replaced by low-density housing, ultimately condemning local populations to permanent, irredeemable reliance on imported food to survive.[15] [16] If for any reason the monetary system broke down, this population (nominally "rich" but poor in terms of direct access to food supply) could find food security a major public policy issue.[17]"

Three significant sources are used here, a United Nations University article on urbanisation and nutrition; a Thomas Friedman NYTimes opinion piece; and an economist article, "Cheap no more".

The text above makes several significant claims:

1. "Significant super-normal profits from re-zoning": This may be a 'therefore' related to the previous sentence, but these articles do not support.
2. Urban poverty can often be the result of financial incentives: source is the UN University paper. I cannot find anything in the paper which supports this point.
3. U.S. data: unsourced and of unclear relevance.
4. "forests and fertile arable land (specifically farmland on the fringes of existing urban developments) will be systematically destroyed and replaced by low-density housing, ultimately condemning local populations to permanent, irredeemable reliance on imported food to survive.": the link to farmland/urban development, and the permanent reliance on imported food are not supported by the article. As an example, the chapter linked to in the UNU article does refer to imported food: "These changes in food consumption patterns are modifying the urban food demand in developing countries, and are increasing their dependence on industrialized nations because these items must be imported (fig. 1). For example, in West Africa net wheat imports for 1976-1980 tripled over those for 1961-1965, making an average growth rate of 11.4% per year. Net rice imports grew at an average of 10.7% per year over the same period. Ninety per cent of these imports were meant for urban centres. As a result of changes in consumption patterns, the quality of urban diet, particularly with respect to fat, animal protein, and vitamin A, has improved." The language about "condemning" to "permanent reliance" is not there at all. They say "increased dependence", but even this is balanced (it is not treated as a necessarily bad thing, given that quality of diet has improved). There is nothing about systematic destruction due to replacement by low-income housing.

Similarly with the Friedman piece: it does not make this link at all. The mention of urban growth is specific to unchecked growth of Jakarta, which causes flooding (due to a failure to implement a buffer zone plan). No connection to food, irredeemable reliance on imported food, low-income housing or anything like it.

The Economist article also contains little that would support these conclusions: it is about prices of food going up worldwide, not about import dependence or urbanization (there is some discussion of urban/rural poverty, but nothing that supports these points).

Unfortunately, I believe this pattern of providing citations that barely, if at all, correspond to the points in the article is endemic; the line between "criticisms" and "facts" is also blurred (and raises questions of neutral point of view), but if the sources do not even correspond to the text, it seriously undermines the reader's ability to trust this article (and by extension Wikipedia).

I would be greatly appreciative if other editors could carefully and thoroughly vet not just the sources, but also the extent to which they correspond to the text.--Gregalton (talk) 12:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Gosh you're a harsh taskmaster. I hope you're not a rugby coach at a British public school - you'd be brutal. Let me be clear: The argument that arable land is being gobbled up for residential development and is destroying farming and farmland comes from Michael Rowbotham in The Grip of Death. The factual reality supporting the point that forests and arable land are being destroyed is contained in the citations (now deleted by the all-seeing, all-knowing Gregalton). The articles ADMITTEDLY and OPENLY state that "development" and "trade" are responsible for the destruction, but the point is that the destruction is occurring and Michael Rowbotham has made the link. Gregalton, I encourage you to actually read Michael Rowbotham's book. Have you done so yet??--Karmaisking (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I haven't read his book. But the way the citations have been inserted suggests they support the conclusions, not the facts. Combining the two and suggesting they support Rowbotham's causal chain is original research.

I will try to find and read his book. So far, however, the conclusion I draw is that almost all of this is Rowbotham's work restated, with citations thrown in to make it look like others agree. Looking carefully at the sources reveals that they said no such thing.--Gregalton (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

One additional point: while I will try to find and read his book, I do note that his notability and the use of his books as reliable sources is under dispute. Hence, more, better sources required.--Gregalton (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ellen Hodgson Brown's book doesn't draw out all the implications of unhinged frb in the same way "Mad" Michael does, but it's yet another source for the thesis. Have you actually bothered to read EITHER book?? I find it ever so...how should I put this...ungentlemanly of you to go around deleting references and disdainfully calling this article a "dumping" ground for unsourced ranting, and yet you have not bothered to read the two central sources for the thesis. Does anyone else detect the slight but ever so potent pong of editorial arrogance around here?--Karmaisking (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I would perhaps be willing to give the benefit of the doubt if the references provided actually corresponded to the text.

Most recent addition: federal reserve governor's speech. In it, I can find nothing that corresponds to "Aside from the moral hazard issue, the key risk with this tactic (cutting interest rates to encourage new debt money creation) is that the central bank exposes the financial system to a currency crisis, as the growth in the money supply spirals out of control due to the need to save the banks from themselves." If I have missed something, please show me where in Mishkin's text he even refers to a currency crisis, "saving the banks from themselves", debt money creation, etc. At least these are reputable sources, but now you're quoting them in a misleading way. (I admit readily I could not check the Science Direct piece; given the track record of use of references here, I would greatly appreciate direct quotes that support the text).

For anyone else who is able to check, the references I'm referring to are at Central Bank Intervention Financial Instability and the Federal Reserve as a Liquidity Provider, by Frederic S. Mishkin--Gregalton (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You are (sort of) correct, and I apologize for the confusion. The article is an excellent summation of the moral hazard implications of excessive central bank support, but doesn't comment specifically on the (obvious) currency implications of the liquidity injections. I still recommend it, but will have to find another sentence to hang it on. I'll also look for a more appropriate reference which connects the increase in the money supply and central bank intervention with a currency crisis. Hold on, I could just look at the U.S. Dollar and the last six months of real life experience! Look out the window, Gregalton. Oh no, that would be way too easy for Gregalton.--Karmaisking (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've found a really cute PowerPoint that I think even Gregalton will understand. If you connect Mishkin's analysis regarding increases in the money supply with the PowerPoint - Hey Presto! - you'll get a currency depreciation. Please keep it in Gregalton. Pleeeaaaassssseeeee--Karmaisking (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the best, funniest, greatest explanation of this phenomenon was achieved by the Famous Mogambo Guru, but this pithy, witty, hilarious piece was deleted by kill-joy Gregalton. For those with a sense of humor, enjoy: The Mogambo Theory of Currency Relativity--Karmaisking (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of sources is getting outrageous

As yet another example:"Given that the profession of this privileged minority is to produce nothing other than debt and inflation, and given that they face being rendered impotent if the power to print debt-free money was returned to government, it is to be expected that those associated and aligned with the private banking interests will use any means necessary to preserve their power, as they have no other skill other than the issuance and distribution of debt money." Even in your (non-peer checked blog) source I could not find any statement like this. The Forgotten War.

Bad, misleading use of references is far worse than not having any. Frankly, this source should not be here, but it may actually be better than the text above.--Gregalton (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I give up. If this doesn't show what the "fight" is all about then I don't know what does. It shows there has been a fight (a very very big fight) over this stuff and some nasty nasty people will do anything to stop this issue being popularized. Can you see the link? Gregalton, there's an entry on short-sightedness I think you should start editing...--Karmaisking (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've lost all respect

I thought I was talking to a Gentleman who actually knew something about what he was pontificating about. I mean, he calls himself an editor. I now realize my trust was sadly mistaken. I've been burned as badly as any idiot bond trader who bought sub-prime on behalf of his big bad bank (no bonus for you this year, bond boy). Gregalton, I just noticed you deleted all references to commentary by Satyajit Das (world-renowned derivatives expert) presumably on the grounds that they look suspiciously "blog-like" in your ignorant, child-like eyes. Oh. My. God. The guy who predicted the crisis. The guy who has a premier textbook published on derivatives (I think it was around 4000 pages long, but my eyes blurred at all the equations and I went to sleep when I tried to read it). Deleting these references has just pushed me. Over. The. Edge. Delete these again and it will prove you have no idea. NONE. Stay far, far away from anything finance or derivative related. Or it will blow you to pieces.--Karmaisking (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am similarly disgusted that any editor would so consistently and grossly misuse and misrepresent references as you've done, as above. I will admit that I should have left the Das piece in - it's very good. But you have not shown any willingness to attempt to follow basic guidelines here, particularly NPOV.

For the record, context is everything. The Das piece you quoted, and Roubini, is found in this chunk:

"Many monetary reformers consider technical terms such as "systemic risk" and "financial contagion" simply as code words for a time when the pyramid scheme of debt inevitably faces periods of collapse due the mismatch between the volatile, unstable growth of debt money and the liquidity requirements of the slower-growing real economy. These economists consider any calls for government or central bank intervention at such times as an illegitimate policy of "saving" the system from being exposed as a financial fraud on the general (indebted) populace. It may also trigger a currency crisis because overseas financiers can no longer trust the integrity of the domestic monetary system to process bad debts appropriately by permitting financial institutions to go bankrupt and be acquired by other financial institutions. Instead the central bank signals its willingness to save the current players in the banking sector by printing money and inflating its way out of the crisis, thereby debasing the value of the domestic currency.

"This is referred to by some monetary reformers and economists as "Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor", as many indebted consumers will still lose their houses and be declared bankrupt regardless whether or not the central bank intervenes to save marginal lenders who have been made insolvent through their mis-timing of the credit cycle.Privatizing Profits and Socializing Losses, by Nouriel RoubiniRegulatory Debauchery by Satyajit Das Future generations of innocent taxpayers may ultimately finance any bail out of reckless lenders, as the money used to fund any bail out will be funds diverted from the general revenue of the central government.A run on the bank"

This seems purposefully to conflate issues and imply that one or both of these would support the statements in the paragraph above (the subsequent para leads with "this is referred to" without being specific). Roubini, for one, would not seem to hold those views; see Dec 15's RGE blog entry, "Why monetary policy easing is warranted even in the current insolvency crisis". And Roubini's piece that you cite is quite clearly advocating a different kind of government intervention (government takeover and administration of Countryside and Northern Rock as insolvent institutions) - he is advocating explicitly that the shareholders should lose their equity. Not monetary reform, but better application of (existing) regulatory powers.

In other words, you are using others out of context and implying they agree with the POV in this article. I see no evidence that either Roubini or Das have ever used the term "debt-based monetary system" or "debt-based money", or would refer to themselves as monetary reformers, but your approach in this section implies that they support the opener, "Aside from the moral hazard issue, the key risk with this tactic (cutting interest rates to encourage new debt money creation) is that the central bank exposes the financial system to a currency crisis, as the growth in the money supply spirals out of control due to the need to save the banks from themselves." Roubini for one has in the past and is now advocating intervention - competent intervention - in the right circumstances.

My point here is that you could use the points made by Roubini and others without the POV embellishments of "currency crisis" (believe me, I do understand the link between inflation and a weakening currency, but that is not the same as a currency crisis) and "spirals out of control", and "code words for a time when the pyramid scheme of debt inevitably faces periods of collapse". But throughout this article, you do not use sources in context, you misstate what they say, and mislead the reader to fit an agenda.--Gregalton (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep this simple, so even a child can understand. Do both Roubini and Das use the term "Socialism for Wall Street" or "Socialism for the Rich" (footnotes 49, 50) when referring to repeated central bank interventions? Yes or No? That's what the references are used for. Simple. They are both reputable sources for the statement/criticism. It's right next to the correct damn sentence. How could this be conflated to be anything other than what it is? Please contribute alternative p.c. expressions if you wish for the other stuff. Use Canadian or British expressions or whatever nice language you want to use to soften the blow. You appear to be great at deleting, not so great at contributing. I don't know what you would call the recent "depreciation" of the U.S. dollar. Some would call it a currency crisis, others would call it a depreciation. It's a qualitative difference. Use the term "damn big fall" for all I care. The fact is that the currency depreciates to a greater or lesser degree with an increase in the money supply, and the risk is that this spirals into a currency crisis. If context is everything, why can't you look out the window? I sit here watching the derivatives and credit markets collapse and Gregalton sits there happily getting fumed up about the exact adjectives and nouns to use in etiquette class on S.S. Titanic. And we wonder why we're in the mess we're in with people like Gregalton thinking they know better...--Karmaisking (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's keep this simple: "crisis" is loaded (not NPOV), "depreciation" is a fact. This simple distinction is the heart of the problem - you consistently use loaded language and cannot tell the difference or why it is important.

As I noted, your use of both these quotes is affected by how and where they are used. If the para before that bears no relation and is just there for show, delete it; it currently has no references whatsoever, and is wholly out of place in an encyclopedia.

I would attempt to contribute more text here, but as noted, the article is too long and biased. To use your analogy, why try to bail out the Titanic when the real problem is that there's a hole in the hull? The article is in such a state that it would be more effective to let it sink and build another.--Gregalton (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Karmaisking, I would like to say i do appreciate the role this article plays. however I would also suggest a more consensus-based approach to this. Gregalton is basically not doing anything extreme in questioning sources. of course, we are free to disagree with him on individual matters. however, i do feel use of blogs can be questionable. It is not enough to merely say that a blog mentioning something proves that it is out there in the world; we need to look deeper for reasons to use that blog. is it the blog of chairman of an economic department at a major university? or a major official of a bank or a think tank? In the case of Roubini of course, he clearly meets all those criteria, so some blogs are clearly valuable. as you can see, my point is not that blogs are unacceptable, but that the bloggger must in themselves constitute a valid source.

I would suggest trying to address some of greg's concerns through use of alternate phrasing, approaches, and sources. I think consensus is reachable here. and also, let's try not to see the glass as half-empty; after all, the context for this whole discussion is that the article is here, and most of it is not even being subject to this debate or to any dispute at all right now. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I have a life. Just like Chuck Prince having to be fired from Citigroup because he was "too close" to his own mistakes, and central bankers today desperately trying to avoid responsibility for loose monetary policy between 2002-2007, a person can be way, way too close to the topic to be objective about its stupid deficiencies. Why is everybody standing around pointing at the carcass of this article without taking a chunk off for themselves? Amend away dear friends, amend away. I'm standing here with Gregalton relentlessly nibbling away at my ankles while everyone else is standing around gawking - except for gentleman and scholar EGeek who is actually doing some work around here (incredible!). I'm sure you've seen the road workers where 5 guys are just standing around looking while one guy actually digs the ditch. That's how I feel! How about others start researching and referencing and deleting where appropriate?? Now's the time to dig in friends. Go for it.--Karmaisking (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources and "scholarly"

Once again, difficulty understanding the meaning of reliable sources. There is a note that the Landis piece is a "scholarly study." Please see reference to scholarly in the reliable sources guideline. While I don't necessarily have a problem with the Landis piece (will read more carefully), it's still a self-published article on a blog. One of the key elements of "scholarly" is that "The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals." Is this so hard to understand?--Gregalton (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Not only that: take a look at the source (which I've left in, despite reservations). It does not correspond to the text you had in, with overstatement, reference to debt-based money, anarchy, blah blah blah. If you're going to use sources of any kind, at least have the courtesy to use them without gross exaggeration.--Gregalton (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Final paragraph (in its entirety) from "The Prophet" Robert K. Landis's magnum opus, written in August 2004, three years before Chapter I of Armageddon began:

"With respect to the form the denouement will take, much has been written within the gold community on the subject of whether we face hyperinflation or deflationary depression as the prelude to monetary collapse. Both sides of the debate appear to accept the premise that whatever may transpire will bear a linear relationship to what now exists. The disagreement centers on the direction the line will go. But today's markets are fully linked by derivatives and technology, and they are patrolled by wolf packs of large, leveraged speculators not noted for their patient outlook. So it seems likely that the terminal monetary crisis will unfold on virtually an instantaneous and discontinuous basis, once the fog of statistical deceit and false market cues begins to lift and a clear trend either way becomes evident. We are not likely to enjoy the luxury of observing either a deflation or an inflation unfold in the fullness of time, but rather, just as Mises foretold, a final and total catastrophe of our fiat monetary system. All we can hope is that once the curtain falls on the current system, the wisdom in the gold bugs' submissions to the Gold Commission will finally find a receptive audience."

"A final and total catastrophe of our fiat monetary system." A final and total catastrophe. A final and total catastrophe. Hmmmmm.... and Gregalton describes my objective, clear summation of Landis's final paragraph "overstatement". Wait for the "overstatement" to become REALITY in 2008 my genius Canadian friend. Just you wait.--Karmaisking (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but that's an opinion piece. obviously it can be used, but the way to use it, IMHO, is by saying, "Some commentators have raised concerns that..." etc. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's what you wrote: "As potential new borrowers and international financiers are scared away from borrowing further, some analysits (sic) predict that the monetary system will inevitably seize up, starved of the fresh injections of debt money it needs for its survival, thereby precipitating economic anarchy either via a deflationary depression or sustained period of stagflationary hyperinflation, which will, in turn, trigger widespread lawlessness and insolvency of the monetary and banking system."

This is not what the text above says: it says catastrophe of the fiat monetary system. Your elaboration that this constitutes anarchy (economic or otherwise), widespread lawlessness and insolvency is not supported by the text. You may believe these are the same, but it is an exaggeration of the original. There have been collapses of fiat monetary systems (and gold or other-"hard" backed systems) in the past that have not led to anarchy or widespread lawlessness. The "starved of fresh injections of debt money it needs for survival" also appears to be your addition (in particular, I don't believe the text uses or gives any credence to the expression "debt-based money", debt money, credit money or any variation thereon). It's also a self-published source.--Gregalton (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, this is going to be hilarious. Where is the Famous Mogambo Guru when you need him. Answer me these two questions, all-seeing, all-knowing Canadian genius: (1) what does a "final and total catastrophe" mean to you? (2) when has a collapse of a fiat monetary system NOT led to anarchy? "Criminal" Ponzi Scot John Law's France? Weimar Republic? Collapse of the Soviet Union (mortality rates soared, life expectancy collapsed, prostitution rife, alcohol abuse through the roof, widespread starvation...I could go on)? Collapse of Manchu China in the early 20th century (replay collapse of the Soviet Union x 100)? Post WWII-Japan (the mass suicides were most definitely NOT fun)? This will either prove your extraordinary historical knowledge - or the fact that you have NO IDEA.--Karmaisking (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Gregalton is right. Karma, please stop quoting opinion pieces and comemtnary which are not scholarly works or research, and then trying to use them to build the main body of the article. that is not a way to build an encyclopedic article. There are many sources which can be used which are nmore neutral, objective, and verifiable. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, dear friends, a simple courtesy: Can ONE person attack me at a time? It's difficult to adjust my aim quickly and you keep coming at me relentlessly, like zombies in a video game. Steve, Gregalton's criticism was no longer about the quality of the source, but rather he had adjusted his aim and had turned his laser-like attention towards my allegedly exaggerated summation of the source, which I then needed to defend to enable the existing sentence to survive. One at a time, dearest descendants of "Criminal" Ponzi Scot John Law, one at a time.--Karmaisking (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You misinterpret how the use of sources works. You are arguing above that monetary collapse necessarily means anarchy, lawlessness, etc. I believe you are wrong about that, but whether I am right or wrong is not the question: your source does not say that; you think he means that, but he does not say that.--Gregalton (talk) 10:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Gregalton, could you please stop moving around so much, I can't aim straight. It's like trying to swat a mosquito. What, precisely, are you saying now?? That I am exaggerating the "modest" phrase "a final and total catastrophe" and conflating that into "lawlessness and anarchy"?? What, precisely, is the difference?? Does it REALLY matter that much, "big picture" Gregalton?? OK, watch. I'll change the sentence. I hope the new version makes you feel soooooo much better.

And don't think I've forgotten about your (1) impressive qualifications and (2) your mind-blowing listing of the multitude of historical precedents where the collapse of a fiat monetary system did NOT result in "anarchy" or "lawlessness" or "drug abuse" (alcohol (post-Soviet Russia), cocaine (Weimar Germany), opium/heroin (Manchu China)) or "prostitution" (male, female, child... in hyperinflationary Weimar Germany you could actually choose between starving mother-daughter Aryan combos in the back streets of Berlin - must have been "fun" for the Versailles Treaty-loving monied parasites) or "widespread starvation" or "soaring mortality" or "collapsing life expectancy"....do you really want me to go on??? My statement that a collapse of a fiat monetary system results in anarchy and lawlessness is the EUPHEMISTIC way of "spinning" the shocking reality. You foolish, foolish establishment child.--Karmaisking (talk) 11:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

My qualifications are not the issue, nor are yours. And no, I really don't want you to go on, because your arguments about the monetary cause of e.g. alcoholism in Russia a) don't really interest me and b) are irrelevant to what the source you chose and cited actually says. And just so it is clear, yes, I believe you are exaggerating the phrase "final and total catastrophe of the fiat monetary system" (you keep leaving out that last part). Just so the difference is clear, imagine two sentences, one with the phrase "complete and utter destruction", and the other with the phrase "complete and utter destruction of the vehicle's carburetor." One of these things is not like the other.

Oh, and the source still doesn't meet basic standards. So a) you choose questionable sources, and b) you layer hyperbole on top.--Gregalton (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

All fixed, my friend. Hope you're happy now.--Karmaisking (talk) 11:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Grateful you provide a page reference for your Weimar text.--Gregalton (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Text removed on agriculture - no connection to sources

I've removed this: "If for any reason the monetary system broke down, urban populations (nominally "rich" but poor in terms of direct access to food supply) could find food increasingly expensive, ultimately resulting in food security becoming a major public policy issue.The Economist, "Cheap No More", December 6, 2007U.N. Agency thinks world food supply is shrinking".

Neither of the articles have much of anything to do with the monetary system, let alone a debt-based monetary system. Economist article has two main themes: demand has gone up, supply has not kept up, resulting in price increases. The bit on monetary policy is here: "Higher food prices have increased inflation around the world, but by different amounts in different countries." (Hence this is driving central banks to raise interest rates). Nothing about breakdown of the monetary system. The NYTimes article says this: "some poor people were being “priced out of the food market"". Nothing about nominally "rich" urban consumers poor in terms of direct access to food supply. Strangely enough, the message is basically that poor people suffer more when the price of essential goods goes up, although poor producers of the goods in question may be better off: "in every country, the least well-off consumers are hardest hit when food prices rise," and "enormous numbers of the poor—both urban and landless labourers—are net buyers of food, not net sellers."

So we have the regular pattern of citation usage here: whether the source is reputable or not, use it to push a point that does not appear in the original articles. And of course, it will be argued that "if the monetary system broke down" poverty would ensue, which may be true, but is not what the articles are about. It also goes without saying that it has nothing to do with the preceding paragraph either, and the point of this para is also to support the contentions of Rowbotham and others about debt, land and agriculture.--Gregalton (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel we're making real progress. You're now going around in small circles, doubling back on issues already addressed above, which must mean the scope of your criticism is narrowing. I welcome this. However, what I don't welcome is the need to repeat myself, over and over. I've already stated above that you need to combine "Mad" Michael's thesis with the references, which are used only to confirm the factual reality of "agflation". I've ALREADY OPENLY ADMITTED this. The articles are used SOLELY to prove prices of soft commodities are going up. You need to read "Mad" Michael to see the full picture. HAVE YOU DONE SO YET??????????

I will make this perfectly reasonable (without prejudice) offer of compromise: I will amend the sentence and add "Mad" Michael as a reference. You prove that you've actually read "Mad" Michael's text by commenting (with page references) on how accurately my sentence reflects "Mad" Michael's thesis. If you have a strong argument that my words do not accurately reflect his argument, or that I have somehow "embellished" his thesis, the sentence can THEN be deleted. Please do not comment on the intrinsic quality of "Mad" Michael's thesis. I already know that you will think his thesis is the equivalent of monetary faeces. The issue is not the quality of his faeces but rather whether I have accurately described the aforementioned faeces. THAT WILL BE THE ONLY ISSUE IN DISPUTE. Until you actually confirm you've read the two principal sources for the thesis presented on this page I fail to see how you can comment authoritatively on the issue because NO ONE CAN EDIT SOMETHING THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND (for the sake of good manners I will confine my criticism solely to your admission that you have not yet read the two aforementioned principal references, and I will scrupulously avoid mentioning your lack of qualifications, or your inability to show one historial instance where a collapse in a fiat monetary system has not led to anarchy, or your embarrassing ignorance of Satyajit Das's stature in this area, or...hold on... I'm beginning to sound petty).

Is my proposal fair, my fair-minded Canadian genius? Please DO NOT say "it's not my responsibility..." If it's not your responsibility to read the references, it's most certainly NOT your responsibility to arrogantly and ignorantly edit the text.--Karmaisking (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So basically your only significant source is what you call Mad Michael? I think it would be fair to say that an article based on essentially one or two references, and sources of questionable notability, may have no place in an encyclopedia. Edit the article down to a para or two. There's no need for a long article on one person's thesis, reiterated by another, unless that thesis is considered significant; given the subject, significance means "some recognition by academic experts."

The point on agflation is that it is not particularly significant that he predicted price changes for agricultural products. Like the proverbial broken clock, he can be right twice a day. The issue is cause and effect, which you have insinuated but not demonstrated, nor found a source that supports the link.

And, although I would prefer not to get into details on countries with a collapse in a fiat monetary system (there are other examples): Russia had three significant monetary shocks, 1991-2, 1995, and 1998; the first and last would under almost any measure count as a collapse of the existing monetary system. I question the assertion that any of these led to anarchy, but certainly the latter two did not. Now, you can of course dispute what is meant by anarchy, but more importantly: did the so-called anarchy of 1991-2 occur because of the collapse of a monetary system that was known to be beyond absurd, or because the country collapsed around it? You have not demonstrated cause and effect. Frankly, I'm not aware of a single (serious) source that claims that the Soviet Union collapsed because of its monetary regime. Without that, there is the issue that it is not clear which direction the causality works in. The same point could be made about the hyperinflation in Serbia/Yugoslavia: even if you want to call it anarchy, you'd have to ignore the fact that there was a war going on, a war that had nothing to do with the monetary regime.

I am not knowledgeable enough about the details in each case, but Turkey and Brazil are both known for continuing long periods of inflation/hyperinflation, including currency collapses, without much that could be termed anarchy. Argentina's currency collapse (not even a fiat monetary system) did not lead to anarchy. Belarus is yet another example: hyperinflation throughout the 1990s, no anarchy.

As for responsibility: it IS your responsibility to read and respect the guidelines, use sources honestly, and not use this as a soapbox for POV pushing. If not, things will get deleted. If you think I'm being unfair, by all means report me to higher sources and whinge to them.--Gregalton (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So, I take it from your long-winded comments that you STILL haven't read either source for the thesis?? I raise these two not because they are the only sources for the thesis (despite you deleting many offending blogs, one or two other "reputable" sources have survived the attempted genocide), but because it would be IMPOSSIBLE to comment on the article WITHOUT reading these two (at minimum). There are literally millions of entries on WP, from oral sex to anal sex to bisexuality to Homer Simpson to Wii to Freemasonry to sociopathy to Mounties. Surely this humble little entry can stay as is, after literally months of attacks from relentless defenders of the status quo, and many, many criticisms (and improvements). No one has been able to mount a sustained attack on the substance of the article itself. You've been nibbling away at my ankles for weeks, to little effect (I sympathize, I really do...it must be difficult to mount an attack if you don't have even a basic knowledge of the topic you're attacking). If you don't want to read the references, STAY AWAY FROM THIS BORING TOPIC and leave it to others to edit. Why are you so interested in deleting something you don't want to read about and, frankly, know next-to-nothing about? Why even stay around? I'm sure you're much more welcome elsewhere. Perhaps try some of the pages listed above? Perhaps you have the requisite qualifications for those more important, interesting topics.--Karmaisking (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right in one sense: I have been attempting to edit bit by bit AT YOUR REQUEST (see long whinges about PLEASE don't delete this...), and attempting to give you some attempt to improve the article and make it correspond more or less to WP guidelines. I conclude it is not worth the effort, you remain where you started - you want to use WP to push a point of view - and I remain where I started, thinking this article is gibberish. So I'll return to just deleting sections that don't come close to meeting the standards.

I've read quite a bit of Web of Debt. It's mostly nonsense strung together in hyperbole.

I know you think I should leave the articles related to monetary theory etc; I happen to dislike gibberish and conspiracy theories masquerading as economics in a public reference source. You like pushing fringe theories. Go do it on a personal blog rather than here.

I have also asked numerous times that you read the guidelines here, like WP:NOT, WP:NPOV. You clearly haven't.--Gregalton (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you related to "Robin" Gantlord? Perhaps you frequent the same private clubs? You're cut from exactly the same mould (do you guys get manufactured somewhere in the back streets of Establishment Britain and then get exported around the world?). Let me repeat, for the last time: Disdain alone is not an argument. It's an EMOTION. Generally emitted from the arrogant to the thoughtful. What precisely am I "pushing"? I've diligently referenced everything, and I've fought to have the non-Libertarian stuff put back in to BALANCE the article (something you wanted to delete - bizarre given your fixation on "balance"). I've repeatedly encouraged you to actually contribute to the article (given your apparent expertise in the area). You were most reluctant to do so, eventually contributing a bland piece of nothingness at the beginning of the article, which I've respectfully left in (despite reflexively wanting to delete it from sheer boredom at its fairy floss lack of substance - great references by the way, well done!). I dispute your characterization of any analysis of monetary theory with a reference to the gold standard as a "fringe" theory, particularly when it's been the dominant monetary system for most of human history.

You sit there doing little else other than criticize and delete. Without much thought or reason I might add. You've clearly STILL not read The Grip of Death. I am forced to ask: What the Hell are you doing here? Why do you keep attacking this article? Come on, fess up. You're from a banker family aren't you? Or you're an "establishment" economist? Or perhaps you're just an arrogant academic who thinks he knows more than he really does? It's (a), (b) or (c). Come on. Which one is it.--Karmaisking (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And you bring things back to personal attacks - again.--Gregalton (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Karmaisking, what is going on here? This is a totally inappropriate tone to take. Gregalton is perfectly within his right to try to achieve better citations and credibility for this article.

--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, that was out of line. However, I do get a tad agitated when an "editor" openly admits he hasn't read the references, then continues to delete great gobs of my very carefully constructed thoughts, happily, in serene ignorance of what in Hell he is doing (kind of like the whole banking fraternity from 2002-2007, don't you think?). Let me be frank and clear about this: Gregalton's comments reveal his clear bias and I would welcome another editor taking over. Why hasn't somebody pulled him up and said, "Hold on, chap. How about reading the references respectfully and then commenting? Also, how about telling us your qualifications so we know you're not just an ignorant fool with an agenda to discredit and then delete the article?"

You want proof of his clear bias?

(1) When asked whether he had read Rowbotham's book (after ALREADY making countless deletions and edits and pushing for its deletion in toto), he casually replies: "Nope, I haven't read his book."

(2) His initial comments regarding the article (apparently without having read ANY of the references): "If you write a whole bunch of bollocks, people will say it can't be fixed"... and..."the entire article in this redaction reads like this: a great, long, unsourced rant."

(3) His overzealous delete button resulted in another (objective) observer asking why he had pointlessly deleted a valid reference, to which he casually responded: "I apologize that I took it out, it is indeed a good reference."

(4) Even after being "encouraged" to ACTUALLY READ THE DAMN REFERENCES and positively contribute to the article to achieve the balance he (apparently) so vehemently desired, he remained strangely passive, responding as follows: "Unfortunately, since this article is currently a dump of unsourced material, getting balance by adding material is not realistic." He then added, for good measure, "To use your analogy, why try to bail out the Titanic when the real problem is that there's a hole in the hull? The article is in such a state that it would be more effective to let it sink and build another."

(5) When he eventually got around to (partially) reading one of the sources, he commented: "I've read quite a bit of Web of Debt. It's mostly nonsense strung together in hyperbole."

If it's not obvious to any objective observer that the pattern and consistency of these comments reveals that the guy is CLEARLY biased - and has a simple and obvious agenda to discredit and then delete the article - I must be mad. Can someone talk to him? Please?--Karmaisking (talk) 11:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Nope, I haven't read his book. I repeat it. One book is not notable. The other sources - particularly as grossly misused - do not support the use of the term debt-based money/monetary system etc. Even the "Web of Debt" book does not seem to use the term consistently (and it's not really an academic work either). The only credible source I can find in there uses it in "quotes", clearly referring to fiat money.
2. You use my 'bollocks' comment out of context. Other editors can see how it was meant: a recommendation to start slow.
3. You're right, I did make a mistake. When I make a mistake, I try to admit it. Given the massive misuse of sources here, an honest mistake.
4. I stand by my comments. The article should be cut back. Other editors have made the same comment, or pushed for deletion.
5. I stand by my comments on Web of Debt.

Other readers can decide whether I am biased - I do have an opinion, I think this is non-notable fringe economics and should go. You appear to be biased as well.

You've had quite some time to demonstrate notability, and it boils down to being sourced primarily from a non-academic source, on an academic topic, from what appears to be a self-published author of no significant notability. Given your consistent misuse of sources, reliance on non-reliable sources, and pattern of personal attacks, I see no reason to maintain the article. You still haven't demonstrated to me why it should remain.

And to reiterate: you have a lot of sources here. Very, very few of them have use the term or refer to debt-based money or the purported theory upon which this article is supposedly based. It boils down to original research.

As for my behaviour, feel free to start a process of review or complain. You keep asking why other editors haven't "pulled me up" and said hold on, asked for my qualifications: several have to date commented that I have been within my rights and made reasonable requests, and one told you that your personal attacks are unacceptable. For those going into the history of this article and your edits, they will also see that you have had similar warnings with respect to other editors.

The problem is, you seem to want the involvement of other editors only so long as they agree with you. Once another editor gets involved (as below) and suggests 2/3 should be trimmed, you complain that it should be one at a time.

Frankly, I've been humouring your disruptive behaviour, POV edits and original research too long.--Gregalton (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your persistence is impressive. Your intellect is not. I suggest you read Rowbotham's text before commenting (or editing) further. As I mentioned above, "fringe" entries are by no means unusual on WP (check out anal sex, porn stars, Seymore Butts, Ron Jeremy, Hugh Hefner, Hustler, Silvia Saint, Jenna Jameson and Bambi Woods - all proud entries in this on-line encyclopedia accessed by kiddies and adults alike, with terrifically informative External Links which I particularly recommend to inquisitive teenagers of all ages). I am frankly amazed that this humble little entry, which attempts to expand the general public's knowledge of modern financial economics in an important way, and deals with matters going to the very heart of the social and environmental sustainability of Western civilization has been subject to such persistent and vicious deleting, editing and attacks by those openly ignorant of many of the central references. And yet such (historically?) "fringe" topics such as the porn industry continue to go from strength to strength, and enjoy exponentially increasing entries on this family-friendly website. Go figure.--Karmaisking (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Grewgalton is raising some extremely valid points. Please do not cast aspersions on his intellect. Please do not find fault with those who wish to revise this article. By the way, I understand that you feel puzzled as to why more people do not wish to add material instead of simply editing your work. As you know, there are hundreds of editors at Wikipedia. If none have felt drawn here to add material, and most of the editors here have come to edit the existing material, that should show you the validity of their concerns. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Another source issue

I am removing this text until the source is firmed up: " The total property value of America is about $38 trillion while the total debt burden is $48 trillion. Ref given is "Speeches David Walker, U.S. Comptroller General, Campaign Warns of Fiscal Doom', St. Paul Pioneer Press, Oct. 30, 2006"

This does not appear to correspond to the original sources, although I cannot find the St. Paul Press original article. The original info from Mr. Walker's presentation is here. A summary given elsewhere is here (associated press). The latter gives the figure $46 trillion - but specifies that this means "national debt that is now $8.5 trillion could reach" this figure over the next few decades. This is described as almost the net worth of americans (presumably, after debt). I can find no reference to total property value of America in either the presentation or the original.

Walker's presentation is sufficiently detailed to check these numbers (figures changed slightly as they were updated): the explicit liabilities of the government (not individuals) total $10.4 trillion. Slide five of Walker's presentation attributes the other $40 or so trillion almost entirely to implicit future social security and medicare benefits (I believe in present value). Slide six: total household net worth is given as $53 trillion. The source for the latter is the Federal Reserve, so we can find the definition easily enough: [yep, it's net worth] - they already removed the debt related to that worth. In fact, total debt for households is only about $14 trillion (of which $10 trillion or so mortgages), swamped by the >$20 trillion value of real estate. Nowhere does Walker's presentation mention total value of property that I can find. (I have not addressed the value of corporations, etc, just households).

Please note that minor differences are likely due to different presentations used, I used the one I could find.

So, while the figures originally used in this article sound impressive, they don't mean what they purport to. Total debt burden from Mr. Walker includes future implied expenditures (which can, of course, actually be changed). This does not at all refer to individual debt, but only to government debt. (And, of course, comparing outstanding debt to the value of the collateral doesn't tell you much more than one limited measure of the riskiness of that debt, but on an aggregate level is basically meaningless).

To sum up: the figures used and their purported meanings do not correspond to the original. They don't make sense. The conclusions drawn from this sound interesting, but I am left wondering about the conclusions drawn if the sources are so grossly misinterpreted that concepts like "net worth" are misunderstood or misused to make a point.

Unfortunately, as above, this tendency re-occurs throughout the article and with many of the sources and references.--Gregalton (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete away, my friend. The contribution wasn't one of mine and I have no opinion either way. It appears that the "big picture" point the contributor wanted to make was that the U.S. is currently BANKRUPT. I make no comment regarding the veracity of that statement.--Karmaisking (talk) 10:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

How to improve this article

I noticed that despite obvious problems with this article, it wasn't deleted which may mean that there are people who agree "debt based monetary system" is a good description for the theory underlying free banking and various alternative money systems (LETs, barter clubs, etc). Of course, Credit money, which is mentioned in the money article, could be the basis of such a system, though I don't know if any theorists describe it as such. If someone can find a credible academic who uses a better (and perhaps more positive) phrase (including credit money) then I would not have a problem with changing the name of the hopefully improved article to that.

The basic improvement would be to cut it down by 2/3 to emphasize the various theories that can be describe as "debt based monetary system" - assuming that's not TOO WP:OR.

I've studied all this a lot in the past and am brushing up again because I am working on an article on E.C. Riegel (see http://www.newapproachtofreedom.info/ and especially Flight from Inflation. While I'm not too impressed with his valun monetary plan, I always have been impressed with this overview of monetary theory p.21:

[The] traditional view may properly be called the objective view of money, inasmuch as it represents money as an entity having some kind of an independent existence, of and by itself. By its logic, money is an entity that can be created by law, apart from trade, and that can be used as a stimulus to trade. Operating under this assumption, men naturally look to governments to be the issuing and regulating authorities for the monetary system. For purposes of discussion, this system will be called the political monetary system. The new idea, the subjective, or integral, idea of money, is that money can spring only from trade——that trade creates money, and not vice versa.

Friedrich Hayek also had some interesting things to say at certain points, re: arguments for getting government out of money, which need to be added to his article, and possibly this. See Monetary Central Planning and the State, Part 32: Friedrich A. Hayek and the Case for the Denationalization of Money by Richard M. Ebeling, August 1999.

Carol Moore 03:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

This is getting messy. Can one person at a time contribute please. We have yet to resolve the multiple issues regarding Gentleman Gregalton. Once this is resolved, we can then deal with other issues. Perhaps you can squeeze the Hayek stuff into an appropriate sentence in the meantime? There's great gobs of stuff from von Mises and Rothbard (and Hayek) on this, but I was trying to be "punchy" and leave the turgid stuff out (after all, this is a "generalist" encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia exclusively for "gold bug" Austrian Economics aficionados). Balance is everything, at least according to Gentleman Gregalton.--Karmaisking (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I definitely was thinking it would be necessary to cut out the messy 1/2 to 2/3 before getting into anything new :-) Carol Moore 21:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Recent Mass Deletions

While I agree there is a lot of fluff in here, these deletions have cut so much that there isn't even on specific reference to anyone using the term at all. Yes, it's a lot of work to cut it down and still keep what's of use. But taking the easy way out and just deletng most of it will not solve the problem. Just lead to revert wars. Carol Moore 14:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

I agree. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Carol, the content that is up is pushing a fringe theory. Per WP:FRINGE and WP:IAR, I am going to keep removing it. Per WP:CONSENSUS, I had initially considered and attempted dialogue. However, none of you have made any constructive edits to the article other than some minor copyediting and reverting my changes. You agree a substantial amount of the article must be removed and reworded, but you want to "discuss" why I should not be allowed to make such substantial changes.

With this in mind and after discovering Karmaisking's sockpuppetry, it occurred to me that discussion was no longer necessary. God knows that if anyone reports me for "edit-warring," any sensible admin will take a simple look at the fact that:

• The article, as is, pushes a fringe theory as fact
• The page was created and primarily maintained by a gang of sockpuppets (Karmaisking = Rememberkarma = Maktimothy = Timothymak).
• Dialogue was attempted, a request for comment was put in (see above)
• Even after the vandal Karmaisking has been dealt with, you two refuse to allow any removal of his vandalism

If you want to report me for 3RR, go ahead. Per WP:IAR, I'm prepared to defend my actions and I am skeptical any action will be taken. Karma was pushing a fringe POV and although I believe you and Sm8900 are both editing in good faith, because you are both Libertarians, you are sympathetic towards Karma's attempts at pushing a fringe POV and won't allow any removal of his vandalism while at the same time not removing any of it yourselves. Despite your good faith (I assume), you're supporting the bad faith edits of Karmaisking.

Furthermore, neither of you have specifically explained what's wrong with my version other than that you want ir to be longer and want to include the unreliable source, Michael Rowbotham. But a short article with little information is better than a bad article filled with misinformation. It would be better for the article on Holocaust denial or 9/11 conspiracy theories to be stubs than to be filled with patent nonsense. I don't care how many citations Karma made. It takes more than one side to engage in an edit war. If you or Steve feel that some of Karma's edits were good and should be included, please include that information in the newer, slimmer version of the article. Since, as you said, 1/2 to 2/3 of it was irrelevant nonsense, this should not be a serious point of contention. Zenwhat (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Support the mass deletions. I tried in the past, gave karmaisking much time and effort, and it still boiled down to a long, hyperbolic screed that was either original research or restatement of Rowbotham's work. Given the low level of usable content, sockpuppetry, etc., better to start from scratch. If indeed there is any notable content that can be brought to bear here, which I doubt. I have advocated for some time starting over, but gave some time; the bulk of this article is still unuseable.--Gregalton (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

the main thing wrong with your version is that you tried to shorten the article by about 95%, by deleting most of the material and not replacing it. (i believe you are editing in good-faith though.) that is why i disagree with your edits. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but remain doubtful that there is anything of note to replace it with. If there remains this fundamental disagreement, I suggest deleting section by section and allowing editors who believe there is some content to add.--Gregalton (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Greg has it exactly right. It's not quite clear what should be kept. The whole thing is just one big messy exposition on the central banking conspiracy theory. Any relevant information on the topic is already to be found in:

• Fiat currency
• Fractional-reserve banking
• Central banking
• Federal Reserve
• Monetary policy

Since the only real reason to keep this page, period, is to give context to a conspiracy theory, while the new version could definitely be expanded, most of the previous information as it was presented is redundant. This article was created by a bad faith editor as a POV fork because he couldn't get away with posting this amount of POV nonsense in the "Criticism of Fractional-Reserve Banking" section in Fractional-reserve banking. For that reason, despite your good faith, reverting the removal of such vandalism itself constitutes vandalism. Zenwhat (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gregalton also. Each section should be deleted separately and evaluated by editors to determine what content should remain. Although out of context, there were more published references in this article than Fiat currency, Fractional-reserve banking, and Central banking combined. Scrapping the article because you or mainstream economists disagree with it violates WP:FRINGE if the subject is notable. Judging by the sources (excluding the blogs, etc.) and my own research, I believe the subject is notable, but the title is incorrect.

I also believe using WP:IAR to force your point is not in the spirit of WP:IAR since it does not maintain the goals of Wikipedia, only your point. -- EGeek (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

EGeek, while I respect your general approach here, there really is no or almost no content of value. There are a lot of published references, but as above, they are also either a) not notable or b) massively misused. It may be a good idea to retain the list of references to see if there is anything that can be salvaged, but mostly (from personal experience) there is not - Karmapuppet's objections notwithstanding. To be blunt, published references "out of context" are worse than mediocre references used properly, it's a fantastic abuse of other editors' good faith and time to check them. See above for my research into the sources - it took a lot of time, and mostly confirmed abuse of process. The ony reason I am suggesting deleting section by section is more good faith; I am quite confident there is little content of note or value here, and I would personally advocate deleting it all.--Gregalton (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

EGeek, since you and I both agree with Greg, we seem to basically agree on what should be done, but disagree on how it should be done. See Immediatism on meta.

We both agree that the article is nonsense and should be changed, but you want to gradually improve it while I want to immediately improve it.

Your proposal

• We have each section be revised, one at a time. (Gradual approach)

My proposal

• We clear out nearly everything and, if anything needs to be put back in, we can do that. (Immediate approach)

Now I believe my proposal is consistent with the spirit of WP:IAR because your proposal was already tried once and failed. A long time ago, this article was proposed for deletion but kept up, based upon the assumption that the article would improve over time. [1] That never happened. Instead, reviewers haven't removed Karma's nonsense, but a great deal more nonsense, especially in the form of dubious citations, has been included.

So, being that this "gradual improvement" approach has already failed in this case, it would be shortsighted to propose it again, just so the article can continue to remain as is and continue to be edited by Karma's sockpuppets. This silly article has remained as is for long enough, I think it's long overdue for the immediate approach I propose. WP:IAR was basically created for this purpose. Zenwhat (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree with the comment above. I feel that we should proceed gradually here, and should not remove existing material too quickly. i fel that most of the material is useful and valid, even if it is problematic to some degree in a few places. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve, please make note of what is "problematic" and "valid". Please keep the past edits and discussions in mind as you do this. The two major problems with the article are:

1. Most sources are unreliable. Sources in Wikipedia must follow notablity policy and Reliable Sources guidelines.

2. Text does not correspond to the source cited. Cited text must correspond to the source it cites. This is true in Wikipedia, research papers, and anytime a source is cited.

I will be deleting text and sources section per section over the next week or two in order to facilitate the current problems with this article. I suggest using Gregalton's edits of this article for reference. -- EGeek (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, with all due respect, you completely miscomprehended my statement about WP:IAR. It is your actions, not your proposal that violate the spirit of WP:IAR. I apologize. I thought my statement was clear.

In regards to Philosophy, I lean toward Eventualism. I fail to see what personal philosophy has to do with WP:IAR. In regards to the "gradual improvement" approach, the first attempt was foiled by User:Karmaisking. I believe a second attempt will return better results.

Gregalton, I agree that deleting the entire article is the best for the short-term; however, due to the current monetary climate in the U.S. and Europe, I doubt the article will remain in that state over the long-term. Your work on this article should not be overlooked though. -- EGeek (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still confused. What sources say this is a fringe theory? The ref in the lead doesn't actually say that AFAICT. Is there really a consensus to gut this article? -- Kendrick7^talk 06:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE says, "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study". In this case the mainstream view is mainstream economics. --EGeek (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing each section at a time

Per the above editors, not allowing substantial improvements to the article, I propose the following sections be deleted:

• Economic and political criticisms
• Policy Implications
• Proposals by economic reformers
• Conclusion

The reason is because none of that should be relevant if we treat this as fringe theory. You don't discuss the "policy implications" of the New World Order or 9/11 conspiracies. Please, if you're going to revert my edits, specifically say what's worth keeping. Zenwhat (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

While this seems sensible, as I said above, the first and most important thing is right up front in the article to reference WHO actually uses the EXACT phrase, with links or page numbers in books. (Either from the current text or research.)

After that it will be clearer HOW fringe it is (since some of us don't consider Rothbard that fringe, but don't know anything about those other folks :-) And clearer what sections can be deleted. I assume you are correct on those you mention above, once any specific very references to who uses the phrase moved up front.

As I noted on my talk page, I skimmed too fast and never quite figured out what the article was really about until looked at the FIRST entry describing it in just one paragraph. Then realized it was a negative spin on fractional reserve/credit money (private and public) and not an article about credit money. (per my comments recommending additions above.}

Carol Moore 02:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Ooh. Well if there's an article about that already, perhaps a merge would be in order. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In order to decrease or halt further propagation of this subject after we reach a final decision of this article's fate, I have searched as much as I can to find other sources on this subject that specifically use "debt-based monetary system". I request anyone who supports this article to do the same. This is my list:

• Harman, Willis (1997). "The Failure of the Debt-based Monetary System". The New Business of Business: Sharing Responsibility for a Positive Global Future. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. ISBN 1576750183. Retrieved 2007-01-03. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Boyle, David (2002). "Debt-based Money Supply". The Money Changers: Currency Reform from Aristotle to E-Cash. Earthscan. ISBN 1853838950. Retrieved 2007-01-03.

• Auvinen, Tero (2007). "A Monetary Reformist Road to Universal Basic Income". Basic Income Studies. 2 (1). The Berkeley Electronic Press: Article 8. ISSN 1932-0183. Retrieved 2007-01-03. ... In contrast to the conventional use of the term, in a debt‐based monetary system the benefits of seigniorage materialize partly through interest income on ...

→Please note that the quote is from google because a subscription is required to view this article. A search specifically for "debt-based monetary system" at the The Berkeley Electronic Press site also found a second article.

I had trouble finding any further references. Most everything else comes from unreliable sources (i.e. blogs, self-published, etc.) according to WP:RS. -- EGeek (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Onus on Proponents to Include Users of Phrase I couldn't find any evidence in the article that the three named economists used that exact phrase. I did search and find a bunch of people using it so I don't have a problem with keeping the article, I just think rather than blathering on with THEORY, you have an article that

• explains the concept in one paragraph, two at most
• gives top 5-10 examples of use, one short paragraph each
• includes criticism section IF there are 2 or 3 examples from reputable sources.

This article is definitely a negative spin on Fractional reserve/credit money. I don't know if the critics using phrase "debt-based monetary system" are sufficiently prominent to have their criticism included in those articles. (Aside from whatever criticisms there are from mainstream economists.)

I would say that if the proponents can NOT fix up this are soon, the doubters could feel free to make it a minimalist page per the above. Or do it now and then let proponents fill out a few details. Carol Moore 02:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

For what it is worth, the only one I could find consistently using the phrase was Rowbotham. The Web of Debt book uses it less consistently. I don't consider either to be particularly prominent. If any have other uses, they would at least give this some credibility beyond two people. I fully support Carolmooredc's proposal to cut to bare minimum unless someone can come up with something more substantial.--Gregalton (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: after some search, I have found references to debt-based money (although nothing in addition to debt-based monetary system) that have some meaning (although not terribly consistent). THe most significant is this: book where Metzler appears to be one of the originators of the term; I'm not familiar enough to give a detailed background, but he is a well-known Austrian school economist.

However, the usage of the term is quite different: I would say that Rowbotham has borrowed the term and misused it (although there is, of course, an overlap of meaning). Note this is from an extremely reliable source, an academic book on Macroeconomics and Monetary Theory, and this is the only reference to debt-based money.

In this tantalizing snippet from Google books, a phrase that [jumps out] from the 1975 Economic Report of the President, which appears to be quoting a witness before the [1956 hearing] of the Joint Economic Committee, uses this phrase: "Monopoly, or administered pricing makes necessary continuous and ever larger

injections of debt-based money into the economy in an attempt to compensate mass buying power of the people for what has been taken from them...". Can't find or determine the speaker (the 1975 economic report is on the fed web site, but without the appendices/hearings. (There appear to be some mistakes in google books, I think it's a witness at the 1975 hearings).

After all this, I can only boil down to say that it is another phrase used inconsistently, with much of the usage by monetary cranks, and link to other articles.--Gregalton (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work! It's not surprising to find inconsistent uses. People do get creative with words. Maybe have the intro section and then sections like "use by economists", "use by critics (of debt based)", "miscellaneous uses" - and then a criticism section, assuming there is any of note. All short :-) CarolMooreDC talk —Preceding comment was added at 17:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent Section Deletion/Modifications

As I noted already, I would be reviewing and deleting, if necessary, each section of the article. I noted the two major ongoing problems with the article and asked for anyone who disagrees to provide appropriate information.

The two major, ongoing problems as noted before are:

1. Most sources are unreliable. Sources in Wikipedia must follow notablity policy and Reliable Sources guidelines.

2. Text does not correspond to the source cited. Cited text must correspond to the source it cites. This is true in Wikipedia, research papers, and anytime a source is cited.

The Effects on economic health was modified because of unreliable sources weasel words. The Political and legal solutions section focused on banking law and the IMF. It was unclear what this section had to do with the article. --EGeek (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cites for Conventional Economic Analysis

I'm back. I was condemned to solitary confinement for a week due to my "shouting" during etiquitte class. I was confined to a dirty third class cabin of S.S. Titanic and it was not a pleasant experience I can assure you. Rats everywhere. I even saw some of the biggest rats actually leaving the ship whilst I was locked up in that filthy hole (they were carrying euros and Swiss francs and gold bars and muttering something in Pidgin English about "gold leasing from the Fed" and "scam" and "suckers". What the Hell was that all about? They also pointed and exclaimed "that way to Mont Perilous"... or "Mount Philistine"... or something like that. God knows what they were on about but they wanted to get the Hell off the boat quick-smart, that's for sure).

Anyway, the reason for my comment is that I've been observing the slow descent of this article into anodyne rubbish (it's been like watching evolution in reverse), and I've been AMAZED no one has had the time (or the guts?) to provide citations for the conventional economic analysis section. It's sitting there as naked as an innocent little girl in a Seymore Butts film. If it's so "conventional" where the Hell are all the cites? Where is a disciple of "pretty boy" Keynes when you need one? Where are the rational expectations dudes with their Lucas equations? Where are the neo-classicalists? Come on, stand up for yourselves! Don't take this lying down. Austrian Economics has been marginalized and ridiculed for decades. Now is the time to show us what you're made of. There are so many of you in tenured academia and yet NOT ONE OF YOU has had the guts to comment or provide references on the conventional stuff. Shame on you. Where's your courage? You guys are yella.--Karmaisking (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Cites provided.--Gregalton (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• "virtually all banking systems worldwide operate on some form of fractional reserve banking, and full-reserve banking is often considered 'hypothetical.'"

The above statement is false and should be balanced. Most countries on modern currency boards have held full commodity reserves for their currencies .. a notable example would be Hong Kong. BigK HeX (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing the banking system with the currency regime. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority does hold full reserves for all of their notes issued; commercial banks operating in Hong Kong do not hold full reserves against all of their deposits.--Gregalton (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Gregalton gets active (again)

Dearest Gregalton, given the "heated" discussions above regarding your compulsive deletes and edits on this page, how about you discuss further deletions here rather than continue the slaughter unilaterally? Also, how about REFERENCING you own work of "genius" - the "Conventional Economic Analysis" section - first, BEFORE you attempt to scale Mont Perelin? Do NOT delete without discussion here, given your proven track record of recidivistic deletion activity.--Karmaisking (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in this case the discussions above clearly support extensive deletions. Please do not reinsert w/o discussion here. And please try to be civil.--Gregalton (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Lede alterations

I replaced a reference with a fact tag because it did not make the claim the article reported. I replaced "paper currency" with "representative money". Fiat current and representative currency are the "two kinds" of money, whereas "paper currency" can be either government-backed or convertible to specie. 06:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Auto-archiving

I've established an auto-archiver here. Much-needed.--Gregalton (talk) 09:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Why so many deletions?

sorry, I tried to read this article but somehow it is now edited so that there is no information as to what the real (or even any) criticism is of fractional-reserve banking. Instead, there are a lot of confusing statements that point to somebody's idea that there is no such criticism. Please restore the original history with accurate citations, or just remove the whole article if you can't agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.124.69 (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You (obviously) haven't read the archived talk pages. The decision on deletion of this article was negative (the decision was "To Keep"). However, several editors decided that much of the "explanatory" material was unnecessary or original research, and so that explanatory material was deleted. You can still access it via the history pages if you wish; however there was a consensus decision to delete around 90% of the earlier versions of this article and no one has made a material contribution since some of the principal editors left/were barred.--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The original article "Debt-based Monetary System" was written mostly by a single editor who only used a few reliable sources - most were blogs or gold bug sites. This particular editor was permanently banned from Wikipedia due to continued violations even after several warnings and temporary bans. Since this article only explains one type of criticism of fractional reserve banking, either a merge into the fractional reserve banking article or a merge of the criticism section from the fractional reserve banking article to this article should be considered.--EGeek (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Simple Description

No one seems to have put a decent description of how fractional reserve banking works in the article or the main page... Mabye someone could post something to this effect...

A Warehouseman opens a facility of 20 grain elevators, he is in business for several years and develops a reputation for honesty, he proptly reedeems any receipts on demand and without incident. One day our honest warehouseman makes the observation: You know, i always have a certain amount of unredeemed grain in my warehouse, which i could use to make a profit for myself. The warehouseman then forges 2 receipts for grain and sells them to a commodities trader on the stock exchange. Now, our warehouseman only has 20 grain elevators, but he now has receipts circulating for grain in 22 elevators. Our warhouseman is now an embezzler, which is defined as " one who appropriates fraudulently to one's own use what is entrusted to one's care and management." The grain entrusted to the warehouseman was a bailment, that is, it was redeemable on demand in its entirety, it was NEVER loaned to the warehouseman and the warehouseman could not list it as an asset. If he does he falls under the definition given as an embezzeler. Now that he has 22 receipts circulating, suppose the unthinkable happens: all of his customers return for their grain. Our warehouseman is in quite a pickle now, because he has 2 more receipts than elevators of grain. His embezzeling schemes are now uncovered; he has lost his customers trust and he is now insolvent and out of business.

this is a simple explanation of how banks have worked since their inception, and if you read the criticism article and especially the main article, this process is talked about as if it is a legitimate business practice and the problem of bank runs (or grain runs) is not that bankers were embezzeling funds, but that they were found out! And all the government financial institutions do is codify this process. All of their effort is used towards 'keeping the secret' and not allowing the fraud to see the light of day. The way banks work is very very very simple, please dont be fooled into doing laps around the keynesian track of circular logic. This is an easy to understand third-grade-scam, you don't need to take college calculus to figure out how it works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.89.68 (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, the detailed explanation of the fraud/embezzlement was there - before Gregalton and Zenwhat killed it off. My experience on these pages has been truly bizarre. It's as if these editors are both hiding under a glass table secretly whispering to each other: "Sssshhhhh! Perhaps if we keep deleting stuff our brilliant scam will never be discovered and we will rule the world!" - while the rest of us are going about our daily business, knowing of their childish game, looking on in disbelief that they can be so childish.

The reason that frb still exists is that if you try to lift the glass table and laugh at them, they call you all sorts of nasty names, start screaming you're a commie or a fascist or a nazi - and if you really threaten them they really will kill you. So the ridiculous fraud continues with a tiny minority of frightened psychopaths in our midst hiding under their diamond-encrusted glass tables, with most of us sniggering behind our hands but too gutless to kill them (and frb) off for good.

The really interesting question is no longer the nature of the fraud (any idiot who googles "Murray Rothbard" can do that), but rather answering the intriguing question: what happens if the fraud continues? Most people stop when they realize the fraud and say "this has to stop, this is stupid and ridiculous and criminal and insane!" That boat has sailed - your government HAS ALREADY been taken over. The Constitution only allows gold and silver to be legal tender and guess what - it isn't! Are you going to believe the bankers - or your own eyes? The counter-revolution has already happened. Gold is in the vaults of...you guessed it...the BANKS!!! They have ALREADY stolen the grain - ALL OF IT.

Now we have to live with the fraud, or else some scenes from The Godfather will be replayed right in front of your face. Our parents or grandparents allowed this to happen and now (as the Mogambo Guru says) we are freaking doomed.

This article is about what happens when the fraud continues for a long time, with government support, and community acquiescence. And the simple answer is that prices get HUGELY distorted by debt: asset prices (especially residential land) experience hyperinflation and consumer goods experience deflation, and food stays strangely cheap - until it is not available at all. And a few paper rich, morally blind, tapeworm-like parasitic bankers take over a corrupt government and the rest of the populace sinks into debt slavery until the whole stupid game collapses. That's what Ludwig von Mises called a "final and total catastrophe" of our fiat money system, and this has happened in the fall of the Roman Empire, Weimar Germany, Argentina, post-Soviet Union, Manchu China, John Law's France - in other words, lots of places. It happens all the time. And it's happening again right now, before our very eyes. It's fun when bankers take over government, isn't it?

But please don't think this article didn't have this stuff in there. It did. And the children wanted to stay under the glass table and pretend we didn't know "the big secret".--Socppt13 (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Friedman et al claims

I'd be grateful for a source regarding Friedman's criticisms of fractional reserve banking.--Gregalton (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

He was very critical of Federal Reserve policy but was not as up-front as Murray Rothbard on the "parasitic" evils of fractional reserve banking. However, he was clearly supportive of the "controversial" information contained in the "Money Masters" videos, which was extremely critical of unhinged frb. His support of the Monetary Reform Act is mentioned here. No doubt others can find more "reputable" sources for his criticism of the Federal Reserve (which he clearly accused of causing the Great Depression).--Karmaisking (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This does not seem to constitute criticism of the concept of fractional reserve banking. I've taken a look at his monetary history of the US, and can find no clearly critical statement on this. I'm removing until something can be found.--Gregalton (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Milton Friedman was more a critic of intervention from the Federal Reserve than a critic of fractional reserve banking. Friedman would probably agree more with "free" banking than full-reserve banking. Although, he showed support for monetary reform, there is no evidence (that I could fine) that he agreed with the proposal of full reserve banking. --EGeek (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to wikipedia but would just like to point out that Friedman did support full-reserve banking:

"As a student of Henry Simons and Lloyd Mints, I am naturally inclined to take the fractional reserve character of our commercial banking system as the focal point in a discussion of banking reform. I shall follow them also in recommending that the present system be replaced by one in which 100% reserves are required."

Milton, F., A program for monetary stability, New York, Fordham University Press, 1960, pp. 65

I'm surprised to see opponents of fractional reserve banking as cranks and non-mainstream, seen as there is a long history of opposition to it(See the social credit movement) and many mainstream economists (such as Milton Friedman) oppose it. Jamalloyman (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Did he meant 100% reserves for central or for commercial banks? --Doopdoop (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In optimum quantity of money page 83, he seems to be taking a more nuanced view (emphasizing how much he disagrees with Simons). As far as I can tell from brief research, he seems to be saying full reserve only on demand deposits. As some have discussed, this version of full-reserve banking doesn't change much: it's easily subverted/avoided by money market accounts and the like. Remember, there are different types of money, and (save cash and reserves) all the other components (M1 through 57 or whatever we're up to now) are money substitutes. The distinction is (even in Friedman's words) somewhat arbitrary.--Gregalton (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Gregalton. Much appreciated. However I think his opposition to Simons is based more on how the reform would be implemented rather than on the reform itself. Friedman still writes that "I agree with Simons on the desirability of 100% reserve banking" (page 83). I think that when Friedman writes about this reform he is referring to M3 (ie: demand deposites etc. like you said) but I don't think it would be easily subverted if there was a law stating 100% reserves were required... Also, thankyou to however moved my original quotation from the auto-archiver, my apologies. Jamalloyman (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Freidman favored a central bank though. Very confusing... 81.227.12.92 (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the other part of this that's easily neglected is that it's entirely possible that Friedman changed his mind. People keep bringing up Greenspan as a supporter of the gold standard (going by a 1962 paper he wrote), whereas he later admitted that a well-run central bank was "close" to a gold standard and more flexible. Friedman's own rule-based monetary policy was a central bank with decision points removed (autopilot).

I can't remember who put it this way and I'm paraphrasing, but someone said the problem is that a well-run central bank is superior to any mechanistic approach (such as gold standard); this is met with the argument that central banks will be badly run, so a rule or system is needed to prevent this; but a badly-run central bank or govt can subvert the original rules (break the link to any standard, for example) at any time.

One could argue (Krugman has) that Greenspan had the same problem with regulation: by ideology, he believed all regulation would be subject to problems, and so refused to enact/enforce regulations even when they were obviously needed, were within his powers, and would be net positives.--Gregalton (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Or, more succintly put, all systems that have experimented with unfettered fractional-reserve banking have failed. Badly. And the current U.K./U.S. "experiment" (started in 1694/1913 and ending...soon?) will fail also. In worldwide starvation (bees dying + bats dying = starvation) and toxic, irredeemable, pollution (check out your local freshwater creeks and rivers - tell me I'm lying). Has any "civilization" destroyed fertile arable land more quickly than the Anglos? Can someone research this and comment, because I can't believe any "civilization" has done this more quickly than the rump of the cannibalistic "British Vempire" (including the post-Fed U.S.).--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 11:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, I don't want to fight you (but I will if I have to, and I'll have fun doing it)

Ummmm - is anyone actually suggesting "unfettered" fractional reserve banking (except for the free banking enthusiasts)?--Gregalton (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Fed, actually. There have been no meaningful reserve requirements since 1995. Sweeps and zero reserves on non-transactional accounts took care of that. Joebob2k6 (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Unfettered" is perhaps not apt. I mean "unfettered" not in the sense of "completely unregulated" but in the sense that it is unchained from any real prospect of the money supply reverting to its previous lower level. It is "unfettered" (not unregulated - unfettered) in the sense that frb is unhinged from gold/silver or any other stable asset, thereby killing off any prospect of reversion to a stable money supply, as occurs in a gold standard economy, where after the "party" of funny money games and musical chairs inevitably stops, the bankers die along with a fair section of the real economy and everyone (bankers included) revert to "zero" and start over again - with savers rewarded with sky-high real interest rates and asset prices coming back once more within the reach of the (unleveraged) middle classes. Arguably (and let's not argue the point here - we're all dying of boredom at this point), a gold standard "anchors" the money supply, and kills off the ability to perpetually increase the money supply through frb. Free banking is obviously the extreme end-game of "unfettered" frb but once the link from gold is removed, frb is unconstrained by the theoretical "threat" of reversion back to "zero", and can slowly grow (or should that be kill?) an economy through surreptitious (or should that be insidious?) inflation (or debasement) of the currency, thereby getting the "do-ers" (or working classes) back on the treadmill and away from the accumulation of real savings (gold/silver) which would otherwise allow them to retire early in relative comfort (God forbid!). "Unfettered" is perhaps not an apt term, but someone needs to capture the way in which frb inflates the economy on a sea of rising, interlocking debt-claims and in doing so drowns the economy in debt and perpetual, force-fed economic growth - until it all collapses when the real economy cannot continue to grow exponentially forever, at which point the economy collapses into a kind of holocaust of mutually assured bankruptcy (MAB). Sometimes, the collapse is triggered by a sustained period of suicidal environmental destruction due to mindless overconsumption, or (more often) a land price collapse, or (much more often) simply losing a war. Throughout history, losing a war = confiscation of treasure (gold and silver in particular, but oil and opium have also become popular recently) + government bankruptcy + debt slavery.

If I can be frank without being barbaric, I frankly don't like your first sentence. It sucks. And given you hate the very existence of the article anyway, I frankly see no reason why you should be the one to decide what "debt-based monetary system" means. It means what critics say it means (whether it's an accurate criticism or not is beside the point). I'm therefore going to carefully revert and hope you don't have an issue with that. If you do, it will be a long night...--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the version inserted is tendentious and POV. Your long para above makes the same mistake of confusing the currency regime with the banking regime.

And, while I don't mean to exaggerate your sentence, I'd appreciate it if we could avoid phrasing like "fight but I will if I have to and I'll have fun doing it"). There's no need.--Gregalton (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, there's no confusion. I understand exactly what you're saying and, frankly, you're dead wrong.

Those who use the term "debt-based monetary system" are referring to the "monetary system" in toto - both the currency regime and the banking/regulatory regime combined. To think that both exist independent of each other is, frankly, a strange (some would say tendentious) comment. To take an obvious, self-evident example: a gold standard monetary system would greatly constrain frb, resulting in periodic (some would say catastrophic) deflations. Similarly, I speculate that if banking regulations required all managers/directors of banks to be personally liable for the banks' liabilities, I am sure the move away from gold would have been a slow and cautious one. Fiat currency is loved by bankers and governments around the world, because the issuance of non-asset-based currency can allow M0 to "catch up" with the growth of M3 if the citizenry panic and start stampeding back to the tip of the pyramid by trying to pull real money out, Northern Rock-style. Interestingly, it appears that as money has moved further away from being asset-based (first gold was killed off, then coins were debased, then paper money was replaced by "electronic" or credit card-money) each "evolution" of debt/credit money has grown exponentially faster than the last. So it is irrefutable that both interact with each other and that the choice of currency regime will have a profound impact on the banking system. It's so obvious I'm surprised this needs to be explained: The currency regime is intimately connected with the banking regime.

Now, having established that, those who use the term "debt-based monetary system" are not necessarily criticizing frb alone. As you rightly point out, someone like Antal E. Fekete strongly supports a return to the gold standard and the opening of the Mint to gold and silver, but is not in any way opposed to fractional-reserve banking (provided, as you say, it is done "right"). At the other end of the spectrum, you have somebody like Stephen A. Zarlenga who is perfectly OK with government issued debt-free fiat currency but wants to severely constrain private frb. Both come within the scope of this article, but have radically different solutions to the problem.

Critics use the term to refer to a currency/banking/regulatory/financial "system" where the issuance of new "money" is dominated or predominantly controlled by the private banks. This requires (1) a fast-growing, easily convertible, non-asset-backed monopoly currency (2) frb to be privately owned and controlled, legal, socially accepted and lightly regulated (3) the constant, perpetual acquisition of marketable commodities (land, resources, human debt-slaves, otherwise known as immigrants) and (4) a pool of gullible, compliant sucker...sorry...savers/depositors either at home or overseas (either domestic, non-gold hoarding suckers, or dumb foreign government bond-buying suckers will do).

Note that these critics may have it all wrong, may have little understanding of monetary economics, may in fact have serious mental disorders bordering on psychosis. Whatever. Regardless, this is what they are referring to when using the term. Whether they are attacking a straw man or Superman is not the issue. That is what they are referring to when they use the term. I hope this long, detailed, considered explanation has justified my revert. Please provide a detailed refutation if you disagree. And sorry about the joke. I am becoming unsubtle in my old age.--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the gold standard co-existed with fractional reserve banking, how is it that they are not independent?--Gregalton (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Come on, let's be serious. "Co-existed" is a gross exaggeration. It was never a "peaceful" co-existence. The term "co-exist" suggests "living together happily" and that mischaracterizes history terribly. As is clear from the cite in the article which details the thousands of banking collapses throughout history, and this Guardian piece, the gold standard and frb never had a peaceful co-existence. It was a violent, tempestuous, mad fight to the death - which was ultimately won by frb and the private banks. Which is why we no longer have gold in circulation, and why it was removed (forcibly) by nearly all governments around the world - including Roosevelt in the U.S. under instruction by...you tell us Gregalton.--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not making claims about how good or bad the coexistence is or was. You claimed they are not independent choices, which is not true. Neither have the causes of the instability you refer to been demonstrated to be fractional reserve banking or the combination with the gold standard.--Gregalton (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In our money system, there is no difference between the currency and banking regime. If a bank makes a loan, money is created, if the treasury issues a bond, it is bought by the fed with money just created. The moment this system was instituted, the gold standard became theater. That is why FDR confiscated domestic holdings, and Nixon closed the foreign gold window. Joebob2k6 (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This draws out some of the interactions between choice of currency regime and monetary crises, but is very narrow (myopic?) in its scope (as is true for most academic economists). This also talks about similar issues. The gold standard is now so discredited in academic and institutional circles that it is virtually impossible to find anything about choice of currency regime beyond the usual "fixed/floating" fiat currency blah, blah, blah, such as this bland little speech and this turgid IMF research paper. This does the usual post-mortem on the Asian fiancial crisis, but doesn't get very far. This is perhaps more useful in that it explicitly links the currency regime, capital controls and banking crises. This irreverent, witty, piece by "True Compass" Gary North gives a nice insight into the policy problems the current Federal Reserve is facing within the current regulatory/financial regime. However no one has really done a good job of drawing out the very complex interactions between choice of currency regime and banking regulation. It is perhaps a fertile ground for further research. It appears obvious (at least to me) that deregulation of the banking sector has been facilitated by the "morphing" of money from hard and real to soft and ephemeral. In other words, as money has moved from asset-backed and tangible to electronic and symbolic, this has allowed fractional-reserve banking much freer reign and the regulatory regime has been loosened to accommodate this sleight of hand. However no one in academia looks at these things from a distance - they're always butting their heads against the latest monetary fad - so no one has the broad sweep of history in front of them. Except perhaps non-academic economists like Antal E. Fekete and Stephen A. Zarlenga, who do have that broad sweep of history in their writings, and who do appreciate the interaction between choice of currency (hard/soft) and banking behavior and the reflexive, Pavlovian, zombie-like oscillations in the financial regulatory environment - which generally has perfectly predictable, mindless, robotic, repetitive decade-long swings between two extremes: Glass-Steagall Act tight/morally upright/Bankers = $atan, and Clintonesque Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act loose/what are morals?/Bankers = Gods. Of course, given the shallowness of the analysis always undertaken after the latest financial collapse and the "spin" that accompanies the inevitable bubble blow up to hide what really happened (which at its heart is always a form of simple, not-very-smart monetary fraud), neither policy extreme ever deals with the heart of the dilemma and bites the bullet and makes the REAL choice between: (1) killing off frb and issuing debt-free govt fiat as Zarlenga/Rowbotham/Brown advocate, or (2) letting the market for gold and silver rip, and opening up the Mint, as Fekete/Paul/Daughty advocate. Fekete goes for gold because he thinks that cures most banking idiocies. Zarlenga goes for government issued debt-free fiat currency and the slow suffocation of private frb because he doesn't want to see the catastrophic deflations that occur with gold, but also doesn't like the implicit debt slavery of the working populace that he believes inevitably occurs with privately-controlled "corrupting/corroding" frb. Both however clearly see the interaction I'm talking about. The fact that you don't see it is sad, but then so many don't see it, it's hardly surprising you don't either. Those who do see it generally end up marginalized. Or dead. I'd love to see some research on how government-issued debt-free fiat currency has gone through the ages. Obviously there's stuff floating around on greenbacks and Kennedy bills, but it's devilishly difficult to find "reputable" academically-endorsed stuff on this topic for some strange reason. Stephen A. Zarlenga and Ellen Hodgson Brown and Michael Rowbotham all refer to these brief interludes with "genuine" fiat (which have all been violently killed off, at least to date), but no academic economist (that I know of) has analyzed the economic performance of these economies. If anyone has seen anything "reputable" on the topic of debt-free government-issued fiat money, I'd greatly appreciate hearing from you. Gregalton perhaps?--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a lot of writing to say that you're not happy with the current state of reliable sources. Regrettable, perhaps, but that really has very little to do with an encyclopedia or encyclopedic content.--Gregalton (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it has this much to do with it: The first sentence of this "fringe" article should stay as is. The "fringe" writers of questionable reliability and integrity (Zarlenga, Rowbotham, Brown, Fekete, North, von Mises, Rothbard) would, I hope, all agree.--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Current version links to private banks, which (if you read the article in question) has little to do with it. It is also pretty standard to use the expression in the title of the article in the first sentence to make it clear. I'll try to do a compromise edit and see if you can live with it.--Gregalton (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, I know what you mean, but the English terminology has lost any distinction between "nationalized govt-owned" banks and "private" (meaning non-govt owned) banks. Look at the last sentence in private banks and that explains exactly what I mean. I'd leave it as is. Alternatively, if you can find an expression for "non-government-owned" banks which doesn't sound turgid, use it. The distinction matters because some monetary reformers would be more relaxed about frb if it was govt owned (however, it appears that most non-gold standard monetary reformers would want to completely avoid the cyclical silliness of "mad" frb and simply issue debt-free fiat and have close-to-full reserves, which is Stephen Zarlenga's position)--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"Money as Debt" as an External Link

It's an interesting question whether "Money as Debt" should remain as an External Link, even though it has been deleted as a stand alone entry in WP itself (apparently on notability grounds). Does anyone know whether there are any WP guidelines on whether something can stay in as an External Link, even though it has been deleted as an entry on WP itself? Even though it may not be notable "enough" to live as a stand alone entry on WP, an External Link may still provide useful explanatory background to the article itself - provided it is not spam, or defamatory etc. No one has suggested that "Money as Debt" is inaccurate or defamatory or spam. It has been accepted as fact-based and informative, but has been rejected on the grounds that it is "fringe" and therefore not sufficiently "notable". I assume there is greater latitude given to allow a "trivial but informative" External Link? Is this correct? This is an interesting (albeit somewhat arcane) question which an expert on WP guidelines could perhaps explain. In the meantime I've reinstated the External Link to "Money as Debt" but obviously not added it back as a "See Also" internal link.--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 08:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

See external links. I see no reason to include this. It's not notable, it's factuality has in fact been questioned. The site also seems to be advertising for the DVD of the movie, not a review or commentary on it. As such, I'm deleting the link.--Gregalton (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Fact-based? I'm sorry, no. I stopped watching this "documentary" after it stated that banks could make a $10,000 loan from only $1,111.12 of deposits (creating $100,000 from the multiplier effect) due to a 10% reserve ratio (9:1 ratio in the movie). Based on what I read from synopsis and reviews, the rest of the movie might as well discuss UFOs. There is a reason beyond a simple coverup conspiracy why this movie is not discussed through reputable and reliable channels; thus, leading to its non-notability and exclusion from Wikipedia. Also note that this article was deleted on grounds of notability, not "fringe". Based on policy, Fringe articles are not excluded from Wikipedia unless they are not notable.--EGeek (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can be troubled to go to the fractional reserve article on Wikipedia, you will see that there is nothing at all wrong with the math in the video, which is finance 101. 10% reserves is a 9:1 multiplier ($1 in $9 out + $1 held in reserve). 1111.12 is 10,000/9 rounded up. Example: 100 dollars are put in an account. 10 are held in reserve, 90 are loaned on to next account. 9 dollars are held in reserve, 81 dollars are loaned on. 8.1 dollars are held in reserve, 72.9 are loaned on. etc. this is an infinite sum, but we only need around 40 iterations at 10% reserve to capture most of the multiplier, which is 9. This is in the Wikipedia article. Joebob2k6 (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You missed my point. Yes, the multiplier effect would allow the initial deposit of $1111.12 to increase to $10,000; however, the video stated that the bank can immediately loan out 900% ($10,000) of the initial $1111.12 deposit. Then the video begins the multiplier effect based on that amount to reach $100,000. The problem with this logic is a bank can not loan out more than it has. The bank could only loan out $1,000 (90% of $1111.12), not $10,000. The multiplier effect does not change this fact. --EGeek (talk) 04:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You say, "a bank can not loan out more than it has"? I am not sure what you mean. There is no question that a bank that receives a $1000 deposit can loan out $9000 more dollars, using fractional reserve. The video is asserting that the fed is also loaning at fractional reserves. Is this what you are claiming is not true? As far as missing your point? I doubt it. Your point was that the video had its facts wrong. you gave an example. Your example, and subsequent defense have not supported your allegation. Joebob2k6 (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

If a bank has $1000 in assets it can not lend out $9000 in assets. It is simple accounting. The bank would need either $9000 more in liabilities(loans or deposits) or capital(investments), which would also add $9000 more to its assets, to make this loan. I was not talking about the fed, this article is on fractional-reserve banking criticisms, not the Federal Reserve. --EGeek (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is simple accounting. The $1000 is the reserve and the $9000 is the amount of new loans that are permitted. If you ran the bank and used only one account instead of chaining them, you would be laughed at as a rube, and fired. All banks are permitted to loan at fractional reserve, which is actually less than 3% on transaction deposits, which are the vast majority, so the multiplier is far more than 10. It is practically closer to zero reserves due to sweep accounts. Your promise to pay back the loan plus any lien they can get is the asset they book. I keep asking you to go read the wikipedia page on fractional reserve banking, have you seen the table? Or you can read the Fed's own documents on their site, like I do. Joebob2k6 (talk) 05:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The most elementary formula in accounting is: Assets = Liabilities + Capital. When a deposit of $1000 is made in a bank, the $1000 cash is the assets and $1000 demand deposits is the liability. If the bank wants to make a loan of $900, it would credit $900 cash and debit $900 for the loan. So the Assets($100 cash + $900 loans) = Liabilities($1000 demand deposits). For a the same bank with a $1000 deposit to make a $9000 loan, it would need at least $8000 more in assets. Even if $8000 in assets magically appears, $8000 in liabilities(loans or deposits), $8000 in capital(investment), or a combination of both must come from somewhere. --EGeek (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

your promise to pay is the asset offsetting the loan. Did you know that when you open a visa card, your max limit is counted as a bank asset?Joebob2k6 (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The max limit is also counted as a bank liability that decreases as charges are made to the card. So what bank liability offsets the bank's loan asset above the initial deposit? --EGeek (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, "the bank would need either $9000 more in liabilities(loans or deposits)..." In other words, each loan the bank made would have to be deposited back into that same bank for the multiplier effect to occur. If the loan of $900 is used to buy something, the merchant may deposit that $900 into the bank again. At this point the bank would have assets of $1,000 cash and $900 in loans, and liabilities of $1,900 in demand deposits. Assuming 10% reserve requirements, the bank would need to keep $190 (10% of $1,900 demand deposits), so the bank can make a loan of $810 ($1000 cash - $190 required reserves). This only continues if the resulting loan is deposited into the bank. Apparently, Analoguni's tables are confusing some editors (and I seriously mean no offense - this is useful information) and a simpler approach needs to be taken. I will post this issue on the Fractional Reserve Banking discussion page unless I misunderstood you. --EGeek (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is legal for the banks to chain deposits within themselves, but from a higher level, it does not matter if banks trade the loans between each other or keep it in house as the net add to the money supply is the same. As you can see from the mechanism, debt is indistinguishable from money, they are really the same thing. Regular banks create and destroy money every time they create or retire a loan. Since they create 1/reserve times more money than the fed creates, that means most inflation is caused by private finance, not direct government spending. I think you should watch the whole video and then check it with other sources. It will check out, and you will be the wiser editor for taking the effort.Joebob2k6 (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that a bank can make a single $9,000 loan from a single $1,000 deposit, or did I misunderstand? --EGeek (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Your right about reserve requirements in the United States. Other countries depend on their on their own central banks or equivalent authority for reserve requirements. For example, The People's Bank of China currently requires a reserve ratio of 16.5%. --EGeek (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, you are exactly right EGeek. As always your attention to detail is beyond compare (but your ability to see the "big picture" is, perhaps, somewhat impaired). The video exaggerates the nature of the "fraud" (to use Murray Rothbard's blunt term). You correctly point out that the "fraud" is slightly more subtle than the video depicts. The "big picture" point is whether frb is fraudulent. Some say yes. Others are Keynesians.--Socppt13 (talk) 14:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Karma. I won't deny that fraud occurs in the fractional-reserve banking system; however, a full-reserve banking system will not solve this problem. I fail to see how a discussion about basic banking principles turns into a discussion about bankers conjuring up money from thin air. I don't live in a world of wizards and sorcerers; I live in a world of science and math. The multiplier effect is a simple mathematical effect of money whenever a loan is created (under a full or fractional system). I also fail to see how fractional reserve banking is a Keynesian idea since it existed long before John Maynard Keynes. --EGeek (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks EGeek. You are the only contributor throughout this mess who has genuinely impressed me. Your research abilities and attention to detail are simply incredible. And your sense of fair play in the midst of the chaotic debates was very refreshing. I am in deep admiration of the purity of your intellect.

However I do feel you tend to take things too literally. My last comment was a joke. I have major "issues" with neo-Keynesians, which dates back to my economics thesis, where my "groundbreaking" analysis of probability theory from a subjectivist Austrian perspective was trashed mercilessly by my professors. I admit I am still scarred by the experience.

Getting back on point (and I have to be quick before I'm killed off again), you say: "I won't deny that fraud occurs in the fractional-reserve banking system; however, a full-reserve banking system will not solve this problem. I fail to see how a discussion about basic banking principles turns into a discussion about bankers conjuring up money from thin air."

How can you fail to see that a discussion about basic banking principles always (eventually) turns into a discussion about "bankers conjuring up money from thin air"? That's what frb does! The definition of "money" is so crucial here, so let's go through this carefully. With gold, the fraud is much more obvious, so let's stay with that. With a gold standard and frb, "real" money is slowly (insidiously?) replaced with an inferior "representation" of money (paper certificates) which ITSELF is then used for commercial transactions - which then becomes a form of money, but which grows faster than the "true" monetary base (gold). It's a very simple, very obvious example of Gresham's Law. That in itself is a form of "sorcery"! How can you not see it? As Gary North points out here, central bankers are simply second-rate illusionists, trying to maintain the credibility of the monopoly currency whilst knowingly debasing it through periodic bank rescues and monetary inflation - and by being relentlessly vigilant in seeing to it that the populace does not use the "real" monetary core (gold/silver) as money - which would effectively bankrupt the financial system in no time BECAUSE of the "sorcery" NECESSARILY associated with frb. Bankers are nothing but second-rate illusionists, replacing "real" money with fake and getting their brave indebted clients/entrepeneurs/gamblers/innovators to go out on a heroic but futile mission to find "real" money that is disappearing like a mirage - thereby profiting from its replacement every time Gresham's Law is applied - gold, then lower value metal coins, then paper, then credit card debt, then...then...then what? Bankers simply ride on the back of hope and profit when hope turns to despair.

If you can find anything on the economic performance of economies that have restricted frb and issued debt-free govt fiat from the Treasury please find it for me. I know you're the very best man for the job. The only question is: Will you?--Socppt13 (talk) 10:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Your reasoning that this is fringe because it is not on mainstream news is circular. The reason that it is not on mainstream news is that people get upset when they find out that rich bankers are making up money and causing inflation. You do not see any mainstream coverage of naked short selling either. Is that also fringe? You will see this story on TV someday, but by then it will be old news. Joebob2k6 (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You are taking the notability concept to absurd lengths. If there can be a link to "Webster's Wobbins" - a blog on birds, and if there can be a detailed essay on Bizarro, the comics supervillain, then I think there can be a link to a site about the history of central banking. If you want to try to impeach that video, knock yourself out, but you will not get anywhere. It is more solid than 99% of mainstream news reports. Joebob2k6 (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please read the nobility guideline. If you or anyone can find 3-4 reliable sources (not blog, goldbug, conspiracy sites, etc.) then there is no reason (even for "fringe" topics) that it should be excluded from Wikipedia. Others may disagree, but the core policies are clear on this matter. --EGeek (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

_You_ need to read the notability guidelines. They explicitly state that notability is not a popularity contest, a link counting contest, or anything like that. This video would meet the notability standard for a page on criticism of fractional reserve banking even if it had a mistake, and was linked by no-one.Joebob2k6 (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It also says that nobility is distinct from "fame" and "importance". I use 3-4 reliable sources as a rule of thumb. Normally, 3-4 good reliable sources provide significant coverage of a subject or topic for an article. There are more specific guidelines for films and internet content, but they don't differ much from the general guidelines. Also, no sources at all will not help your case. --EGeek (talk) 06:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming the arbitrary bias. The video is obviously notable within the field of fractional reserve criticism, and that is what this article covers. Threatening to camp-edit anyone that tries to add the link, but who will not submit 3-4 links to you from places that you arbitrarily approve of is a clear violation of NPOV policy. Since you have already shown that you are ignorant of modern banking practices, maybe you should not be so aggressive about what others can and cannot link to. Joebob2k6 (talk) 05:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In other words, if you can find "mainstream" academics or govt or IMF officials who support your views on a monetary revolution, we can add them to the article. (Chances of finding one of those: 0.00%).--Socppt13 (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know what "my views" are, since I never stated them. What are "my views", so I can support them. By the way, Milton Friedman, Nobel prize winner in economics was not a big fan of the Fed, and even described how to get rid of it.Joebob2k6 (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I consider publications and books(not blogs or forums) from mises as reliable sources since they meet all of the criteria. If an editor has a problem with it, take it to the noticeboard. I remember that there was one reliable source from Keith Hart in the October 2007 edition of Anthropology Today where the video was briefly mentioned, but that does not make the video notable. --EGeek (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

How does one contribute to an article on "criticism of fractional reserve banking" when people hostile to such criticism have elevated themselves to judge the contributions? The people actively editing here have not demonstrated that they understand that well how the fed operates, or even official wikipedia policies. Why should they be the judge?Joebob2k6 (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, keep in mind that this article is about fractional reserve banking criticisms, not Federal Reserve criticisms. If a reliability of source is questioned it can be brought up on the noticeboard. --EGeek (talk) 06:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is about fractional reserve banking criticisms. Why do you keep bringing up the Fed? I am talking about fractional reserve banking. Again, I ask when are you going to educate yourself on the topic you have chosen to camp-edit, fractional reserve banking? Joebob2k6 (talk) 05:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Easy, big boy. EGeek is not a bully - he is genuine about this article and did positively contribute with some excellent amendments/additions in earlier iterations. Zenwhat is a bully, and in my respectful opinion is also completely unhinged. Gregalton is a British (Keynesian?) bully, but does it much more elegantly than Zenwhat, so he's kind of fun to deal with. EGeek only raised the issue of the Fed because of this comment from one of your earlier contributions: "The video is asserting that the fed is also loaning at fractional reserves." You've confused poor EGeek. I agree the video should be in, but EGeek is not the real enemy. The real enemy will come out of his dark little hole when you try to put the video back in the main article. Give it a go. See who deletes and that will be your answer.--Socppt13 (talk) 07:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, Fair enough Socppt3. I am new to this page and do not know who is doing it, but I know that it is against stated wikipedia policy. I am speaking up because the page has problems, I am not editing because there is an edit war here. The archive of this page has a whole other set of posts (for some reason removed) that make it clear that its been going on a while. Anyway, this video should be included as well as any other decent videos, like money masters, because they are the best overview of CB criticism available and accessible to the average wikipedia user. Joebob2k6 (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This video and the excellent Money Masters video, and The Creature from Jekyll Island, and Antal E Fekete, and Stephen Zarlenga, and Ellen Hodgson Brown and Michael Rowbotham (who really hits hard) should all be added. They have all been deleted in some form in previous edit wars. I've been killed off so many times it's not funny. The only thing that's funny is that some editors think camp-editing and deleting this stuff over and over will somehow preserve frb's dwindling credibility - and given what's going on in credit markets today that really is hilarious. As I said before: Give it a go. Add the stuff you want back in. Edit away. You have as much right as any to edit the main article. You clearly know your stuff. Don't be afraid to edit - and fight for your edits. The worst that can happen is that Zenwhat will call you a nazi and terminate you. That's not the end of the world. Unfettered "fraudulent" frb is the end of the world (I think you know that), so enter the fray my friend. I am about to die so someone needs to keep the flame - and the Constitution - alive.--Socppt13 (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's slightly disturbing when "critics" and "editors" keep deleting all references to Money as Debt without having fully reviewed the material. I didn't see one reference to UFOs in the entire video. Perhaps if you watched it through to the end you may form a different, more balanced view? One slight, very technical error does not destroy the usefulness of the video to inform and teach, nor does it prove that the video is peddling conspiracy theory paranoia (I assume that is the intended implication in your use of the "UFO" smear?). I will respectfully leave out any reference to "Money as Debt" in deference to your views, but please try to be more respectful and less dismissive of this material, allowing others to make their own judgment. That scoundrel and rogue, Karmaisking, has been removed (fairly in my view) for his/her outrageously disrespectful conduct towards other honest, humble and good-hearted contributors, such as Gregalton and Zenwhat, who were just trying to improve the article and ensure the truth was accurately reflected in this article. Let's not repeat the error and let's try to remind ourselves of Gregalton's wise admonition to "try to be civil" at all times.--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to be civil, let's not put "question quotes" when referring to others without some reason. I personally think EGeek is a "scholar and a gentleperson." ))

His main point is that the movie is not notable, and has some content that appears to be of questionable accuracy that would certainly make it non-encyclopedic. In other words, it's getting deleted from links because it's irrelevant to a serious article. And please refrain from linking to it further (like twice in para above) in talk pages unless there is some compelling reason - makes people like me who spend too much time removing conspiracy theory/promotional nonsense from WP unhappy.--Gregalton (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I fully support your firm stance against that loser/reject/troll/sockpuppet/mockpuppet/conspirator, the uncouth "Barbarian" Karmaisking, Gregalton.

However, I must make the following very humble corrections to your post. First, I have no issue with EGeek being described as a "scholar and gentleman/gentleperson/gentle[insert pc expression here]." Why did you feel the need to make this redundant comment?

More importantly, some would find your unfounded (implicit) assertion that "Money as Debt" is "conspiracy theory/promotional nonsense" an unkind, ungenerous... nay, uncivil... smear on the video. You ask others to be civil. Please lead by example. Characterizing this video as "conspiracy theory/promotional nonsense" prejudices the ability of others to reach their own conclusions. I encourage others to view the video and form their own opinion, uncolored by anyone else's tainted characterizations - either "Barbarian" Karmaisking's biased, zealot-like support, or Gregalton's "civil" disdain.--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 06:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I "question quoted" my comment on EGeek both as a compliment to him and to show that its use is unnecessary and (since ironic) not polite. In short, a joke, and not a very good one.

Fine, I have my opinion on this video, and it is not an implicit one but explicit. That does not prevent anyone from forming their own opinion, but may serve as a red flag that "this is not considered factual, reliable, or notable."

But we stray from the point of the talk page, which is about the article. Basta.--Gregalton (talk) 06:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now I see "the joke". Very amusing.

There's no need to "red flag" an external link to protect people from themselves. I am confident that the public has the intelligence to understand the underlying issues coming out of the Money as Debt video. I agree that "Barbarian" Karmaisking's support of the gold standard is ridiculous primitive 19th century nonsense that should be condemned forever and ever to the cold dark "dustbin of history" (just like communism). Long reign unregulated fractional reserve banking/central banking forever and ever, I say. (Do I hear three cheers from Zenwhat?) It's lasted terrifically well so far. Long may "the system" of replicating "boomerang" fiat currencies flourish and procreate.

Oh, one final point: I felt it a sign of civil politeness to link Money as Debt in this post to the actual video rather than the "conspiracy theory/promotional nonsense" website, so others can easily judge for themselves the subject we are discussing. That should end the matter. Basta indeed.--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Since central banking started in the 18th century, is it also primitive, outdated nonsense? Joebob2k6 (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually saw the gold standard as a way for nations to develop their national and central banking systems during the 18th, 19th 20th centuries. Today, developing and emerging nations use major currencies (dollar, euro, etc.) in a similar way by pegging their national currency to one of these major currencies or a basket of currencies. I would bet a reliable source on this topic has been published somewhere. --EGeek (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I should have mentioned this before: WP policy is no personal attacks. I see no reason to withhold this courtesy from banned editors, particularly as they are not around to respond.--Gregalton (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Pardonnez-moi, Gregalton. I was referring to Karmaisking as a "Barbarian" in light-hearted memory of distinguished Cambridge Apostle and Bloomsbury "celebrity" John Maynard Keynes' famous derisory comment in relation to gold: "In truth, the gold standard is already a barbarous relic" (Monetary Reform (1924), p. 172). Not only was he a famous Cambridge Apostle and a classic British genius - he was also a prophet! What a man of courage and intellect! We miss his kind today, given the troubles we now face. Will the next Keynes-like Cambridge Apostle please stand up to save us all?--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Vladimir Z. Nuri's academic research paper on Fractional-reserve banking as Economic Parasitism

I note that this research paper has repeatedly been added to the External Links and it has repeatedly been removed. I vote to keep it in. It is a somewhat "novel" analysis of monetary theory, the money supply, and fractional-reserve banking, but I see no reason to delete this important research paper given that (1) it is a heavily researched, academic published paper and (2) it is DIRECTLY relevant to the topic at hand. Could someone please review the paper and comment before I put it back in? I note that I make no judgment or comment on the intrinsic substance of the article itself. No one can comment on the intrinsic quality of the paper. The question is only whether it is a paper which addresses the topic at hand. Obviously, there have been heated discussions regarding the intrinsic quality of a number of references on this topic and the issue is one that seems to immediately generate a lot of heat. Editors have been banned, people have been called all sorts of ugly names. There's been some nasty nashing of teeth around here. So please, could commentators please refrain from disparaging (from their subjective view) the substance of any future references and confine their comments solely to whether the references are pertinent to the topic.

I believe this paper is pertinent to the topic at hand.

If no comments are forthcoming (or if the reasons for deletion are weak, such as "it's not notable", "I don't like what Nuri says", "I hate Nuri's guts and pray to God that he dies soon or at least has a bad accident" etc etc) I'll throw it back up in the next few days. Thanks.--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I object and am deleting. Notability wp:n is one of the core principles, and hence by definition not a weak argument on wikipedia. I also question whether this paper has been published; RECEP is simply a site where economic papers can be put up, and does not indicate that it has been peer reviewed. It also does not meet the wp:el criteria.--Gregalton (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting based on notability wp:n is such a subjective nebulous amorphous grey corruptible concept, I wonder whether it should be used so strictly (brutally?) in an open-source website. This paper is "published" on-line. It is "notable" in the sense that it is an academic work dealing DIRECTLY with the topic at hand. I recognize that Nuri is not as well known as debt-loving economists such as Keynes or Friedman, but few monetary economists reach such heights of Superman or Nigella Lawson-type "celebrity" anyway. Could you please apply and justify this rule specifically in relation to this article. If the argument is that it's not notable because no one has heard of Nuri then Nuri will never be known and he will die without his work ever being seen. Surely Keynes was young once (before he ended up dead). How did he get "notable" other than someone like Gregalton leaving his paper lying around the desks of the Cambridge Apostles? This paper is notable to me because: (1) it's a heavily researched published paper that (2) goes into the topic at hand in some further detail. That is indisputable. That is why it should remain.--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 08:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NOT. WP is not the place for him to become notable or become an economic celebrity; Keynes should not/would not have started here anyway. If you find notability amorphous, please feel free to bring it up on talk pages at wp:n. I believe this is essentially self-published (not peer-reviewed, as per wp:rs).--Gregalton (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I take your point.--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, Gregalton, it wasn't me who put them back in. I've just been tidying up the first para of the article. I'd vote for Nuri, I'd vote out the comic. And I'd leave more See Also's, but then that's just me.--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 06:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Should Antal E. Fekete be added as a "See Also" Link?

Antal E. Fekete is a powerful critic of the current monetary system. See his website. It contains numerous trenchant articles on the dysfunction (and eventual catastrophic implosion) of exponentially expanding irredeemable debt. The question is whether he is a critic of fractional-reserve banking, as applied in its current modern form.

Gregalton has deleted any reference to Antal E. Fekete based on this moderate, nuanced article defending the history of fractional-reserve banking, contesting the Austrian School's negative "conceived in sin and inherently deceptive and fraudulent and totalitarian" conception of fractional-reserve banking.

I present the following more recent articles, indicating a hardening of his line against the modern mutation of frb/central banking: here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Either there isn't an inconsistency (conceived in Heaven, descended into a modern-day Hell) or he has changed his mind. One or the other. Either way, he should be included as a "notable" external link. Any thoughts?--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In the article I referenced, he primarily refers to gold standard as being the main issue, and fractional reserve banking as okay (if done right).

I also don't think EVERY critic of fractional reserve banking needs to be added here. In general, the see also sections tend to get bloated and can be cut down. Why Fekete in particular?

So here's a suggested compromise: if you can integrate his point of view into the text with a reference, he will be there and doesn't need to be linked to see also.--Gregalton (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and done. By the way, I don't think every critic should be added either (there are a lot of crazy ones out there), only the ones who get the criticism right. Antal E. Fekete gets it so right it's scary.--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding a few non-mainstream mentions

Gregalton, I am somewhat puzzled by your behaviour. First, you claim that this article is "fringe" and argued for its deletion. Now you have deleted several significant writers who are critics of the current monetary system and who (in my view) should be included on this page. You seem to be going around in a circle: This topic is not very notable because not many people are writing on it. When people who ARE writing on it are added to the article, they get deleted because the article shouldn't include a "list" of people who are writing about it. Why not leave in the names so people can do further research themselves to verify the claims? Surely that is the fairest approach. It's not as though adding these names expands the article by 500%. It's just one sentence - but that sentence then allows others to do substantial further research in tracking down these writers/critics. What is wrong with that?--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above - lists and see alsos are not particularly helpful in the context of an encyclopedic article. If you want to include every tom, dick and harry who has said something about this, ref with coherent references in reliable sources. In other words, improve the article rather than just list/namespamming. If they have nothing coherent to say, leave them out.--Gregalton (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"Not helpful"...to whom? They are certainly helpful to those who want to do further research or who wish to verify some of the statements made in the article. They (obviously) would not be helpful to those who don't have an interest in reading about the subject. But then, they wouldn't be on this page, would they? Regardless, I have abided by your taste in encyclopedic writing style, however subjective that assessment may be, because (1) you appear to be able to block people and (2) I am not a barbarian who wishes to fight with anyone.--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

See the various manual of style docs, wp:not, wp:el, etc. Not helpful in the sense of doesn't read or look like an article, just a collection of links - covered in wp:not.--Gregalton (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at your recent additions, in every single case that I can see, you've added no content to the article, just links to the same existing text where no support is needed. This is just linkspamming and I'm reverting.--Gregalton (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Clean up of Cites in Conventional Analysis

I note that the footnotes to this section contain many superfluous, redundant []s and are basically a mess. It looks like someone vomited out the footnotes. Can someone take the time to clean this up? Perhaps Gregalton? I also note that the substance of the section is dense, circular and not elegantly written. Can someone give this another go please? It urgently needs a clean-up.--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This request has stayed here for some time and no one made any attempt to clean this up. I have done so. CEA now looks much neater, with the substance still there, but the irrelevant guff removed. I would be amazed if anyone (Gregalton included) wanted to put the trivial, irrelevant stuff back in. Everyone appears to agree that long-winded rubbish should be cut down. I could not agree more - especially in CEA.--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look, and thanks. Please note, however, that much of what may be considered "irrelevant" cites were inserted in response to requests for citations.--Gregalton (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This was not a "clean-up" but a wholesale removal of well-refed content. If you have specific issues, please take it bit by bit.--Gregalton (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Gregalton let's be reasonable. CEA is, at best, peripheral (at worst completely irrelevant) to the topic. Other editors complained and then got (understandably) cheesed off and left. Your myopic determination is the only thing that has left the article in this bizarre twisted state (defense of CEA first, deleted sections on DBMS last, confusion everywhere, nothing clearly stated in CEA...a mess). The sentences are refed, but so what. Superman is well refed but is IRRELEVANT to the article so is not included here. I have not deleted the whole section (although arguably it is irrelevant, but in the interests of balance it can stay). However most of it was dense irrelevant material that amounted to a long-winded "defense" of the current monetary system and mainstream economics more broadly - which can be found in greater detail (with much better writing style) elsewhere on WP. What remains is the nub of your long-winded comments. It's fine. Merely because you wrote it and refed it doesn't make it readable, relevant or even sane. Gregalton, get some perspective. Please.--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 05:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

For perspective, please see wp:undue; since the conventional is the standard interpretation, it should be prominent. I've stated from the beginning that this article should never have existed, since it was mostly an attempt to promote a mishmash of fringe theories. At least some of the support for maintaining it came from sockpuppets. Well, so be it, it exists, but removing good refs is not constructive.--Gregalton (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Your CEA is prominent. It's still there. It's just not as long-winded/turgid. What you're saying is "FRB isn't a problem in mainstream economics and this stuff is either trivial, already dealt with within the mainstream or rubbish fringe cranksterism". That's all you're really saying (and I've said it in one sentence!). Why say it so badly? Especially when you've criticized others for being long-winded and cut this article down around 90%? I'm going to do one last revert. Is there anyone else out there with an opinion, because Gregalton is very proud of his own writing and like his refs. But hates everyone else.--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 06:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't revert. Your comments above are not constructive either. The refs are strong and you may not like the writing but you have removed important components directly related to the subject, such as the distinction between different types of money (which most of the fringe stuff ignores).

Define "strong". In the context of this article. Why not add the whole corpus of Keynesian economics, monetarism, neo-classical economics and mainstream economics in CEA just for good measure. The refs are "good" in the sense that they appear to have relevance to the sentences, but the sentences are irrelevant to the article. I genuinely have to question your perspective Gregalton. As stated above, what you're saying can in fact be said in one short sentence. To drag out CEA as you are doing confuses the non-academic public and makes this more complex and turgid than it needs to be. Elegant writing is a virtue. Writing irrelevant dense rubbish is a sin.--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 06:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks once again for your constructive comments. As for "irrelevant dense rubbish", please see your contributions to the section above in "Please I don't want to fight you."

Now that you've gotten that off your chest, please look at your edits again: I repeat, you have removed distinctions important to the concept (different types of money) and refs that were reqested by other editors.

You may also wish to review wp:wikiquette. Your claims that I "hate everyone else" and other borderline personal attacks are not contributing anything.--Gregalton (talk) 06:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree - my writing in that section is very similar to your writing style. I was trying to "get into the groove" - if you know what I mean. And I'm sorry I accused you of "hating everyone else". That's incorrect. I admit it appears you like Zenwhat. Zenwhat certainly loves you.--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As for your substantive comments, I beg to differ. The stuff deleted is peripheral or tangential or irrelevant to the topic. If you wish to "improve" mainstream economics or Keynesian economics or neoclassical economics, please feel free. As someone with (apparently) little background or interest in monetary reform perhaps you should be more deferential to others who have read more about the topic. I suggest the current version is perfectly acceptable, gives readers scope to further investigate the wonderful world of mainstream economics - and doesn't weigh this article down with lead.--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh...one last point...can somebody (a disciple of neo-Keynesian economics perhaps?) find a "reputable" cite for this: "Others argue that there is in fact no mathematical necessity for the money supply in a debt-based system to grow, since the interest portion of loan payments is not taken out of circulation, but goes into the lender’s account, where it can be spent back into circulation and eventually be used to pay off some loan principal. The exponential growth of debt need not give any concern because if GDP growth is positive GDP is also growing exponentially and the ratio of debt to GDP might change in any direction." If no one can find a cite, I will remove it.--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The quote is disingenuous. While both GDP and debt are governed by the exponential, they have different time constants. The time constant defined by customary interest rates is far faster than GDP growth, which is tethered to population growth and incremental improvements in efficiency. The divergence of the curves is in one direction, and will eventually overwhelm the timescales of participants (your paycheck will be devalued noticeably before the deposit settles). Joebob2k6 (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not tangential or irrelevant, and removing cited material is poor wikiquette, and seemingly at conflict with your request to improve citations. Your removal of POV when the sections are not neutral is also not constructive. I'll be reverting again. I'd once again request you consider not deleting well-sourced material again, nor removing flags that have been placed with cause. And cease and desist with insults and attacks, such as "Barbarism."--Gregalton (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Government-issued fiat currency can be issued debt-free" - Dubious/Discuss

OK. Discuss what? It's been tried before. I'd be amazed if this is refuted. Fiat currency issued by the treasury is inherently debt-free in the sense that it's not a claim that needs repayment. If the Mint hasn't been killed off, citizens could still redeem in gold or silver, but the note doesn't represent a bank debt - and therefore, crucially, interest doesn't need to be paid on its issuance. What's "dubious" about the sentence Gregalton?--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 06:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you find a reliable source? The sentence is 1) irrelevant, because it is about fiat currency, not fractional reserve banking, and b) meaningless - if it's not a claim that needs repayment, it's hard to say it's a claim. The main point is, these arguments keep confusing currency regime and banking regime. They are not the same issue.--Gregalton (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no "confusion" (see "I don't want to fight you" above). I don't know whether you'd call The Lost Science of Money a "reliable" source, but it certainly can be used as a basis for the claim. If you agree please include it as a cite.--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Strange Bizarre Edit War Suddenly Appears

I have no idea what triggered this, but after weeks of a stable, relatively clean article sitting here, Gregalton has taken it upon himself to go back in history and pick his preferred version. Which has many defects, which have been highlighted and discussed above. I note that the whole article is POV tagged. Has been for months. This has NEVER been removed by any editor after it was flagged. Certainly not by me. Are you proposing to put POV on every sentence, just in case the reader needed to be "red flagged" on every "offensive" sentence? The WHOLE ARTICLE is POV flagged ALREADY, for Pete's sake! What more do you want? And the CEA section has been comprehensively dealt with above, with no support for the long-winded stuff being left in other than weak points about the stuff being refed (so what?) from its rather precious author (which hardly constitutes an objective assessment). CEA is dealt with in mainstream economics more than adequately and that constitutes a SEPARATE article, having virtually nothing to do with DBMS. I'm going to revert unless a reasonable, reasoned analysis comes from somebody (anybody).--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Your representation of the history is nonsense. I reverted to a version not from weeks ago, but from only several days ago, when you decided to remove large chunks.

The "edit war" is a result of only one thing, your removal of well-cited material. And I have POV flagged two sections, not every sentence, with specific reasoning explained in each case: they are not written neutrally.

And please stop with the annoying sobriquets such as "precious." That is, if I'm counting correctly, at least the second attack comment you've made today with "barbarism."--Gregalton (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I may have had the dates wrong regarding the old version you want to use (if I do I apologize), but it appears clear the reversion was from many edits ago (it also involved an edit of the first para as well as the CEA section). I will keep this reasonable and objective. I hope you will see the sincerity of my point of view and accept the reasonableness of my position.

First, you appear to have taken the barbarian comment completely out of context. I was saying Karma was a barbarian (given his support of the gold standard) and don't want any barbarism to reappear anywhere. I never accused you of barbarism. However, based on your comment, I do suspect you take things out of context (for further evidence of this, see below).

Second, you clearly appear to have supported Zenwhat in an earlier section of this very talk page when he made the following comment (and I quote): "It would be better for the article on Holocaust denial or 9/11 conspiracy theories to be stubs than to be filled with patent nonsense. I don't care how many citations Karma made. It takes more than one side to engage in an edit war."

"I don't care how many citations Karma made." Don't. Care. How. Many. Citations.

I support the spirit of Zenwhat's strong condemnation. He appears to be making the point that if the stuff that is written is irrelevant or rubbish it should be deleted, REGARDLESS of the level of citation or referencing. That is a reasonable point. It is one you appear to have been behind Zenwhat on. One that you fully supported at the time.

Now, applying the test to the CEA section: What is the nub of this article about? It is attempting to explain the use of the term "debt-based monetary system". Primarily, that is what the article is about. In what context is the term used? Well, I can find it used in the following contexts: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. All these comments are in the context of criticizing the current orthodoxy and criticizing the system that creates money primarily through the combined use of fiat and private frb.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with the intelligence, accuracy or otherwise of these views. The references I have listed clearly establish the context within which the term is used. Now, you argue that CEA is justified because the use of DBMS to describe the current monetary system is "fringe". Again, fair enough, I have no problem with that. But then to argue that the old CEA section should stay (dense references on mainstream economics, on and on about orthodox economic theory) is unbalanced IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS ARTICLE, and, arguably, completely irrelevant. I am not saying that it doesn't deserve to be in here at all. I am trying to be reasonable here. The smaller version of CEA nicely summarizes the current orthodoxy, guides readers to better-written articles on mainstream economics and alerts them to the fact that the use of DBMS is fringe. That's all that needs to be said IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS ARTICLE.

To use a pathetic analogy (at least it gets the point across), the article on anal sex does not need a long, detailed section on the Catholic Church's condemnation of buggery. That would be unbalanced in the context of the article. Perhaps a comment that some religions condemn anal sex would be sufficient to warn people it's something you may not want to try in front of your local Bishop. But to have the Catholic Church's position dominate the article (however well referenced) would seem bizarre, unbalanced and unnecessary, if a reference to religious condemnation of the practice is needed at all (which it probably isn't).

I trust I have made my point perfectly, crystal, clear.--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Editwars with sockpuppets

User:Lagrandebanquesucre is a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Karmaisking. Just can't stay away. Particularly offensive given consistent escalating personal attacks and diversionary tactic of attacking himself (see above). Should have pointed out core policy sooner. Certainly there will be less patience with other obsessives next time 'round.--Gregalton (talk) 18:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Condemned Socppt11's dying wish

My last, final, dying, wish: A considered response to the substantive issues raised. Even a sockpuppet condemned to death deserves at least that. Please.--Socppt11 (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, you don't actually.--Gregalton (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There are some serious problems with how this article is being handled

Asides from the obvious conflict coming from people who are apparently either for or against fractional reserve banking, there are problems with this article, especially with regard to pejorative terms. 'Full reserve banking is considered "hypothetical"', similar to calling evolution merely a theory, it sets off a bad precedent for the rest of the article.

"Differences in terminology (debt money, for example) do not represent, from the "mainstream" perspective, new analysis, and the more extreme conclusions about the "inevitable" negative impacts of so-called debt-based money and "fraud" perpetrated by banking circles upon the public are considered akin to conspiracy theories. The subject of debt-based money (as distinct from traditional monetary policy) is absent from reputable academic economic publications, and is largely relegated to fringe status."

In this paragraph, anything questioning the prevailing orthodoxy is referred to as not "mainstream" (what are the quotes doing there?), is linked with some sort of economic extremism, "so-called" debt based money, and the coupe-de-grace, relegating anything but the most prevailing analysis of the outcomes of this policy as "akin to conspiracy theories". While it may be absent from the abovementioned reputable economic publications, to require someone to search the entirety of every article ever published by unnamed publications is a little excessive, so I did a google search instead. It turned up a number of news articles, two actual economic papers (though I'm not sure if they're peer reviewed) and one book on amazon, within the first two pages.

Censoring something because you don't support it is anathema to what Wikipedia is supposed to stand for. Deciding to delete things because they may not be factually accurate is obvious premption of opposing points of view. The day every single article, peer reviewed or otherwise, is utterly factually accurate is a day when policies like NPOV will be unneeded, but until then, I can't see how it's justifiable to exclude things that differ from what you want to hear, simply because there is an "extreme conclusion" or god forbid, a minor mathematical mistake. But I know this section on the talk page is just going to be deleted anyways, and whoever has the vested interest can go back to pretending that everyone loves fractional reserve banking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.81.206 (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What are the claims ???

Reading the article, I think I still don't know what are the claims of the critics of fractional reserve

in the article, I could find just:

"as the money supply and the economy grows, the nation becomes increasingly indebted at the same time"

"transitory and unsustainable aberration from traditional, slower-growing, asset-based monetary systems, with potentially destructive economic effects." (rather vague, right ?)

"debt must grow exponentially in order for the monetary system to remain solvent"

I have also seen the criticism that, for solvency, there is need of exponential growth of GDP (though not in the article)

I think we should compile a list of claims in here, so that they can appear clearly in the article, with arguments against them, and for them, should those exist. (in particular,what are the desctructive effects of claim 2 ?)

So I ask for help in this compilation. Please, however, avoid discussing the merits of the claims here (we can do this afterwards, claim by claim) so that I (and other editors) can actually read the list and use it. Cold Light (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, it's been beaten up so much there's not much left. If you want to have a crack at this, I suggest you read the following: Brown's Web of Debt, Rowbotham's Grip of Death, The Forgotten War, Murray Rothbard's The Mystery of Banking and Antal E. Fekete's writings, then distill the arguments into this section. All the critics are doing is really re-writing and summarizing Mike's analysis, and adding from stuff from the social credit movement. Ironically they all have exactly the same criticism (even Marx had the same idea). But their solutions are all radically different from each other.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.173.164 (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I came here to say the exact same thing. This article jumps the gun by trying to refute something which hasn't even been offered. It's ugly. II | (t - c) 19:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone were to write a measured, reasonable summary of the claims, it would be useful to incorporate it. But please, a concise, reasonable, NPOV summary of the claims. Concise as in brief.--Gregalton (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed claim addition

This is an off-the-cuff addition of the basics. Help sourcing it would be nice, although I can do it myself later. Begins with a summary of the process:

The central claim of fractional-banking opponents is that a "debt-based monetary system" increases the money supply, leading to inflation and speculative economic bubbles.

When banks lend out the money deposited in them and hold only a fraction in reserve (the reserve ratio), they create money if the assumption that the money lent out is deposited and lent out several times over holds true. This feature allows central banks to temporarily flex or permanently change the money supply through open market operations, thereby affecting interest rates such as the federal funds rate. The money supply is flexed through repurchase agreements of securities on banks' balance sheets, and permanently changed through the outright purchase or sale of securities. When securities are replaced by cash on a banks balance sheet, the bank can lend out more, and as the borrowers spend the new money, it is deposited in banks which will lend it out again. Mainstream economists believe that an increase in money supply, typically temporary, is important to stimulate the economy during recessions to avoid bank runs, deflation, and other problems. Mainstream economists also believe that the money supply must be periodically increased in a growing economy to avoid deflation; if an economy produces more goods but less money exists, deflation is expected to occur. Central banks aim for predictable consistency in the price index.

The Austrian Business Cycle Theory holds that the periodic expansions and recessions of the business cycle are largely due to the flexing of the money supply by central banks. (I could be wrong) This view is not well-regarded by mainstream economists, and dramatic recessions and speculative bubbles precede central banking (see list of recessions in the United_States). These recessions were often exacerbated by the lack of central banking, with its ability to flex the money supply. Milton Friedman and Ben Bernanke attribute the Great Depression to faulty policy in the Federal Reserve, but they believe this policy did not increase the money supply enough.

Mainstream economists do acknowledge the increased risk of speculative bubbles and inflation from poor central banking policy. Milton Friedman has argued that the control over the money supply by individuals should be relinquished and replaced with a consistent rate of growth in the money supply of between 3 and 5%. (Something I read in Cap&Freedom, but it seems like it should be more tied to economic growth ...)

This covers the basics, and maybe it places too much emphasis on central banks and Austrian business cycle theory. Still, I think it would be decent to begin this article with the basics. There are a lot of misconceptions surrounding how central banks work, how the money is actually created, how long it is created, and why it is created. It seems more accurate to say that when the central bank "extends credit" or "flexes the supply" when its actions are temporary. Of course, we need to work on what is objectionable about fractional-reserve banking outside of the central bank element, or else this might as well be called "criticisms of central banking".

I also wonder whether the gold standard and central banking are necessarily mutually exclusive, as the critics seem to think, and I think they aren't. However, I would agree that banking can't really operate on a full reserve, because lending is no longer possible. According to critics the Bank of Amsterdam operated like this, but it might be misleading to call it a bank at this point. Interesting article, though, as are Adam Smith's comments on it. II | (t - c) 06:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It's OK. I'd give it a bare pass. To be blunt, it's a very shallow analysis. Your small camera is pointed at a tiny corner of the big picture. Mainstream economists also focus their tiny camera on the "plumbing" of the monetary system, whereas "debt-based" critics focus on the economic, social and environmental effects this system of debt-money creation has. In order for the central banking/frb system to work, someone has to be the "sucker" who gets into debt in order for the "debt money" to be created. Who is that sucker? What does he/she buy with the new debt money? A car? A house? A new bag? And who gets that newly-created money (i.e. who gets rich off debt)? What does that system of money creation do to the economy? Michael Rowbotham is probably the best at teasing out the implications of this system of money supply. For an Austrian view, see this excellent piece by Robert K. Landis. If you summarized Landis's analysis you would better capture the key issues of the "debt-based" claims, to which (they allege) the mainstream is willfully blind. Willfully blind, like a blind man leading a blind man leading a blind man...over a monetary cliff (interestingly, the first blind man always tends to pull away at the last second leaving the others to fall, but all along says he was blind and couldn't see it coming. Like Greenspan retiring a year before the 2007 credit crunch). It's funny how credit markets work, isn't it? It's especially funny (bordering on hilarious) to see who gets picked as a "favorite" (and is saved from bankruptcy by the taxpayer) and who gets left to be slaughtered. It's always good to have friends at the Fed when the pretty, fey game of musical chairs stops and the bullets and blood start flying. - 165.228.245.66 (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the term "sucker" needs more justification. Is a corporation that borrows at 5% to build a factory that earns 10% a "sucker"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmatht (talk • contribs) 12:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Sucker" = Someone who goes into debt to finance consumption spending or speculative short term investment (gambling?) on Ponzi-like credit instruments or lives off unsustainable, indebted consumption spending. Examples: indebted consumers...investment bankers...hedge funds...private equity "barbarians"...property developers...shopping center owners. "Investor" = someone who borrows to build a profitable, strong cash-flow positive, sustainable business. Examples: Steve Jobs...solar energy technology companies...paper/plastic/glass recycling facilities (richest woman in China owns cardboard recycling plants)...new companies that extract valuable nutrients from sewage and human waste (phosphates etc) and turn these into fertilizer (I hate to say this, but even human corpses and dead animals are valuable for the extraction of phosphates)...water purification plants...organic farmers. The key difference between a "sucker" and a true "investor" is the time horizon of each. If you have the time horizon of a mayfly, your "investments" will last just as long. - SalvationIsReal (talk) 10:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Differences between Fiat & Representative currency

Disregarding any other debate on the article, the second paragraph - "Mainstream economists make no material distinction between representative money and fiat currency"... REALLY? Mainstream economists don't see how money convertible to a commodity is materially different than fiat money? Nmcclana (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

conventional analysis

The conventional analysis was a mess. It looked like a bunch of answers to the "debt-based" claims, jumbled together in no particular order. I tryed to make it readable without changing its content

I am not an economist, so I might have made mistakes, and would appreciate if someone more knowledgeable took a look to find my mistakes Cold Light (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, a non-economist has done a very good job of translating the double-speak into plain English. I've added a little detail, just to (hopefully) contribute to the clarity you've brought. Thanks for making the effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.173.164 (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I am somewhat familiar with the criticism of fractional reserve banking and I'll try to work on this piece later. The basic problem with this entry is that the contents do not match the title. The title says it is about "criticism". Yet whoever wrote the content is obviously not a critic him/herself but a believer. So the writer keeps arguing against the criticism which is supposed to be the content of this piece.

This piece should present clearly the whole of the criticism about fractional-reserve banking, without all those asides against the critics. --Rverzola (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

New Entry! The difference is, government-issued currency doesn't need to be repaid through taxation, while central bank issued currency only comes into existence through loans or treasury bond sales. The principal is issued, but not the interest. When these loans and bonds come due, the interest sucks up the circulating currency, causing economic depression, so more money must be borrowed into circulation if only to keep the economy going. In addition, this gives the bankers very great powers, to finance foreign military and industrial buildups, to manipulate the economy, bribe legislators (we just call it campaign contributions), and finally to take over vast properties vouched as security for unrepayable loans. The last president to try to fix this was Jack Kennedy; he tried to reform campaign finance and he also issued U.S. Notes as money, debt-free money. A U.S. Note is issued by sovereign right, just like a U.S. Bond, but the difference is no taxes must be levied against future taxpayers because the U.S. Note is not auctioned, but simply spent, when additional currency is necessary to maintain economic health. It worked for the American Colonies, it worked for Abraham "Greenback" Lincoln, and it will work for us, too. The only danger is to the men who make the change back to honest money. Lincoln and Kennedy paid the ultimate price for being honest heads of state, and I predict any man who threatens the money monopoly will have lots of problems. Read Congressman Charles August Lindbergh's books on the money trust, and why World War One was financially possible, although the European powers were already bankrupt from a debt-financed arms race. Paul Warburg's brother Max was 'Finanzminister' for the Kaiser. Now, are you starting to figure things out? Bob Brown —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.28.127 (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

innapropriate use of neutrality notice here

'The basic debate' and 'basic nature of system' sections contain only descriptions of attributed and referenced arguments, except for the unreferenced claim represented by paragraph four of 'the basic debate'. The description of arguments is neutraly put. The neutrality notices seem to be applied to the arguments themselves, rather than the desciption of the arguments. This use of the notice is entirely innapropriate as the arguments are not being proposed in the paragraphs but merely described. Neutrality cannot be an issue for these sections on an 'equal space' basis either as the large 'conventional analysis' section puts the mainstream alternative positon. Whereas neutrality might or might not be an issue for the whole article, the separate notices for these sections are entirely innapropriate as things stand. ALSO -as the article is about criticisms, said criticisms should be put before counterarguments are presented. ie. the 'conventional analysis' section should FOLLOW the critisms, rather than precede them. ALSO -I'll second 68.144.81.206 in asking what the deal is with all the scare-quotes? Are they there for a reason? Actually I'll second all of 68.144.81.206's points. Won't make changes as I am not an ecomomist, but proper presentation should not be any harder just because the issue is contentious. It would be nice if someone more expert in this area could take a few minuites to tidy this article though. 60.242.91.158 (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Page title seems a severe misrepresentation

As noted in the previous section of this talk page, this page's content seems to bear almost no resemblance to subject the title purports to cover. I'll reserve opinion on whether a page covering only "Criticisms of Fractional Reserve Banking" represents a POV-fork, but the title is currently terribly misleading, considering the article's content. I realize that this page has undergone quite an "evolution" from it's inception, but even while I praise all of the conscientious effort gone into making this an informative read, I still must conclude that it's current direction is inappropriate. At the very least, the article's content needs to be moved to a new article with a title along the lines of "Opinions on Fractional Reserve Banking. At that point, the criticisms page can be written to actually discuss the purported topic in detail, and afterwards it may even be prudent merge those details into the "Opinions on FRB" page, if it would not make that article overly large. I'll wait a while to see opinion, but will likely Be Bold and move this content in the next few days, if the content continues to range so far from the article title. BigK HeX (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind the Wikipedia system, and WP:POVFORK. Sub-pages, expand a particular topic, but with the same (neutral) viewpoint as the main page. This page, to be valid, should present a summury of the mainstream view, criticisms of the mainstream view, and mainstream responses to those criticism. See for example, the page on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies. As such, I think the page title is ok. It can be changed to Fractional-reserve banking controversies if you like, but I don't think that is that different. However, the page itself needs to be reorganized and cleaned up. It's in pretty bad shape. LK (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I gave it a rough cleanup pass. I may try to do more with it later. BigK HeX (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The posting by Cameron Scott is absolutely correct. This criticism page is rendered completely useless because it is written in a manner that constantly refutes itself, and is designed (and it seems almost intentionally) to give a reader the impression that there are no legitimate criticisms of the fractional-reserve system. This makes no sense from a factual standpoint as there are obvious and significant flaws and iniquities of the fractional-reserve lending system, and it makes no sense from a Wikipedia standpoint either because a 'Criticsm' page is self-evidently the place where detractors may state their case, not further support the case of the existing system. To do the opposite on a criticism page is absolutely asinine. I personally will create a more accurate page in the near future as an alternative, because this one is nothing short of garbage and the edit function appears to be disabled. The common public have the right to understand how their financial system works because it more than anything effects their daily lives and yet, the large majority of citizens remain woefully ignorant as to how common banking practice actually works. This of course is intentional, as most bankers understand that if the common public was wise to the truth about how the existing system works, it would inevitably be abolished. But you don't have to take my word for it. "It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand how our banking and monetary system, for if they did , I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." -Henry Ford