Talk:Criticism of the Federal Reserve/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Needs Work

This article really needs a clThe first section has a lot of POV staments and needs neutrality and better syntax. I fixed up what I could (at this hour) but it needs some editing in specific knowledge that I don't have. Telso 08:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

I added a mergewith tag. It's not standard practice to separate the criticism of a subject into its own article. Doing so is a recipe for POV forks and duplicated information. By merging this back into the main article, it will attract the attention of more editors and will likely make it to an NPOV state much sooner. Feco 03:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me - Nik42 05:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Shortening of The Info. on the Federal Reserve System Page

I revived this page because the Criticism section of the Fed's page was too long. At some point, I would like to summarize the criticism section of the Fed's page into two or three paragraphs. Please examine this article and the Criticism section of the Federal Reserve System page to make sure no important information is lost.--Dark Charles (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

World War II and the Holocaust

I think one the most frequent criticisms of the Federal Reserve is the accusation of having helped create the economic conditions that enabled the beginning of World War II to occur, a war that unfortunately involved the genocide of European Jews. This is in some ways paradoxical, given that the Federal Reserve is also criticized by anti-semites for having an alleged Jewish influence, a Jewish influence that by all means would not have wanted the genocide of Jews to occur in the first place. ADM (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to talk about the Fed helping to create the Great Depression, then add your information to that section of the page. But if you would like to focus more specifically on how they hurt the Jews, then you should start a new section. In either case, make sure you use good sources (particularly if you would like to focus on the latter topic).--Dark Charles (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

cleaned up

i have cleaned up the article - please edit the document if you have any discrepancies or notice any errors with the document (if its major please post here why). I have added a citations tag as i would like to see more of the material sourced. If you add articles, please make sure you section and subsection them appropriately. I will be adding new sections on governance and legality (and possibly more) in the very near future. Thx Cstof j (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's more than a cleanup. It's an extensive change that IMO puts forward a highly POV viewpoint supported by questionable sources. I think the previous version was better. I would support a revert. 3rd opinion please? LK (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I barely changed any of the actual text except to make it flow with the rearrangement. i didn't add any new data so its not me thats at fault for not adding sources - i noticed this myself and added the refimprove tag.

Though, i have now removed my comment in the first paragraph that fractional reserve banking is highly criticized - looking back i relise that it isn't the place.

Other than that the data is practically identical just rearranged.

(Also, this is an article about criticism of the federal reserve, it may appear that the authors are criticizing the fed because thats what the article is about)

Reverse it if you want but then take it upon yourself to cleanup the article.

Also, as for undoing my other edits why don't you try to improve them instead of just reversing them?

Cstof j (talk) 11:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to tell because the moves are so extensive, but on closer inspection, what you say appears to be largely correct. I apologize and withdraw my objections to your edit to this article. LK (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Dollar reserve currency

I've removed this block of text from the section of the article titled "Global Financial Crisis - Housing Bubble":

The removed text

In addition, some economists, such as Nouriel Roubini, have said that the dollar's status as the reserve currency, "may deteriorate", while others such as Ron Paul have already announed that the dollar-reserve standard is dead. According to Ron Paul: We've had the dollar reserve standard from '71 up until last year. That's collapsed. It's gone. It's done. And they have to have a new monetary standard. And they're planning behind the scenes. We're not entitled to know anything about it. Under the law, they don't have to tell us a thing. But believe me, they're planning. They're panicky, because they don't have an easy answer but there are major changes going on. I have argued this case for years.

I don't see this text as meeting the burden for inclusion, and it seems a little like Ron Paul fancruft. The connection, presumably, works like this: This is an article about the Fed, the Fed may have contributed to the bubble, the bubble presaged the crisis, and one consequence of the crisis is the deterioration of the dollar as a reserve currency. That connection seems a little too attenuated for this article, and even if it isn't, surely we can find a more reputable source to shed light on the matter than a conspiratorial-sounding quote from Paul. -Sifind (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Reading your post above, your blanking of the text looks wholly PoV driven to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

More a question of WP:BALLS than WP:NPOV, actually. If there's a home for a section on the effect of the crisis on the dollar as a reserve currency elsewhere in the article, that's fine, but it doesn't belong in that section. If it's to be included, we should look for a more scholarly, useful quote on the effect on the crisis of the dollar as a reserve currency, not least because Paul's statement has already been falsified by experience. The dollar reserve standard has not "collapsed"; it is neither "gone" or "done" as Paul claimed. The rest of the quote is unencyclopedic, stock conspiratorial drivel ("they"--the leaders of the G8 central banks--are "planning behind the scenes"). That doesn't mean that Paul's quote has to be excluded from the article entirely, within the limits of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, but it does mean that a better source be found for describing what the effect is before we quote Paul's opinion about it. Sifind (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the wanton BLP violation from your post above. Also keep in mind, WP:Fringe is not a policy. I think it would be helpful for you to wait for more input on this, here on the talk page, I do think your edits are wholly PoV driven and stray from WP:UNDUE. You might also have a look at the original research policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm familiar with WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. WP:FRINGE is not policy, but it is a guideline: it states a norm from which reasoned deviation is permitted as common sense demands. (I like to think of it as being like post-Booker sentencing: although an editor may ultimately deviate from the guideline, she should first understand what the guideline requires, and be able to explain why she ignored it.) And since policy follows practice, as you know, it is worth noting that this particular guideline is widely cited and adhered to. Instead of assuming bad faith on my part and throwing around accusations of POV, perhaps you could instead explain why you think that a paragraph and blockquote about the dollar's status as a reserve currency should be in a section titled "Global Financial Crisis - Housing Bubble" within an article on "Criticism of the Federal Reserve," and why, assuming it should be, the greater part of its text should be a quote from Paul, rather than, say, an economist? Sifind (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you were editing in bad faith. As I said, please wait for further input from other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You first said that my "blanking of the text look[ed] wholly PoV driven" to you, before escalating to saying that you "do think [my] edits are wholly PoV driven" (emphases added). Asserting that my edits are PoV driven seems a lot like saying that I was editing in bad faith. Cf. WP:Civility#Assume_good_faith (an assumption of good faith means "assum[ing] that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it" such as by violating the second pillar). You might also consider that if an editor was motivated by POV, or was unwilling to get input from other editors, they would presumably have just removed the text sub rosa, rather than flagging the removal for attention here on the talk page, preserving the text here, and explaining why it was removed. Cf. WP:DGF. Sifind (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think your good faith edits are wholly PoV driven, hence straying in good faith from WP:NPOV and perhaps WP:OR. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

How a consciously PoV edit can be a good faith edit is a subtlety that eludes me, but I will assume that the hair has been cleanly split, and in the interests of fostering a productive editing environment, apologize for my failure to assume the assumption of good faith.Sifind (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If you believe the PoV to be true and that getting it into the article will help the project, that's wholly good faith. If good faith PoV/COI edits were banned, en.Wikipedia would grind to a quick halt. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that Sifind has been doing fine work bringing the article up to snuff. We should thank him and let him get on with it. LK (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You also have a conflict of interest and overwhelming PoV (more or less alikened with that of Sifind) on this topic. I've never taken your edits in this topic area as neutral. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, what exactly is the POV that you think you've detected in my edits? What is LK's conflict of interest? And I still think it would be a positive step for you to explain why you think that a paragraph and blockquote about the dollar's status as a reserve currency should be in a section titled "Global Financial Crisis - Housing Bubble" within an article on "Criticism of the Federal Reserve," and why, assuming it should be, the greater part of its text should be a quote from Ron Paul, rather than, say, an economist?Sifind (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out to you before Gwen, when people share the common interest with the Wikipedia community and policies to build a better encyclopedia, and edit articles to reflect mainstream science, there is no conflict of interest (read WP:COI). Also, the POV that articles should reflect the best reliable sources (refereed journals, textbooks, respected news outlets) with proper weight, is called the neutral POV, that which all editors are supposed to promote. I detect no POV interest in Sifkind's edits except the desire to cleanup the article, and to remove the conspiracy theory slant that seems to premeate articles like these on Wikipedia. My suggestion is that we leave him alone, as he's doing great work. BTW, Sifkind, if you are interested in working on articles like there, you should join Wikiproject Economics. It provides a forum for information and support.LK (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:EXPERT#Warnings_to_expert_editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Just want to point out the obvious. That is a rejected essay that failed to become part of the guidelines. LK (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

My botch, I meant to link to the new draft: Wikipedia:Expert editors/New draft. I bring it up because many editors do see the worry. The wording and how to fit it into a consensus policy or guideline's another tale. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Employment and interest rates

Is user:Teeninvestor's point in removing the section "Employment"--with the comment that it is "unneeded"--that the criticism is wrong, or that it isn't a criticism levelled against the Fed? Sifind (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the criticism is leveled against the Fed, most particularly by classical Keynesian economists. It should be there because all of the other sections are right-wing criticisms.--Dark Charles (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's a notable criticism that is made, it should probably be included whether it's right or wrong. Thanks for reverting it, I have been away and didn't have the opportunity to do so. It should be attributed, however; your edit summary mentions that Krugman has espoused it, so it would be helpful if you could provide a link. Sifind (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

He has at times in the past. I'm afraid I can't supply an exact source, however. It's somewhere near the end of "Return of Depression Economics." I read the book a few months ago, but don't own it. Perhaps someone like Fed Chairman Miller (look here) might be better (though I guess he doesn't count as a critic of the Fed because during that time they had looser monetary policy). I guess, depending upon how you spin it, you could even throw someone like Janet L. Yellen in, because she's known as an inflation "dove."

The position usually comes from more classic Keynesian economists (I'm using "classic" as an adjective, by the way).

Sorry to be so vague.--Dark Charles (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Power to print money was removed from the US Constitution.

Discussion by a single-purpose editor with multiple IPs blocked for disruption and personal attacks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The power to print paper money (Bills of Credit) was removed from the final version of the US Constitution during the Constitutional Convention that drafted the Constitution as too subject to abuse. That removal was on a vote of 9 to 2. As the power to print money was taken away from the Federal government (it was included as a power in the Articles of Confederation and early drafts of the US Constitution), the Federal government does not have the power to print money. Congress CANNOT transfer a power it does not have to a third party like the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve istherefore an unconstitutional body. To meet objections of original research see link to something written 150 years ago. I HOPE nobody here thinks I am over 150 ears old. http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/witherst/witherst.html But soon afterward Congress was shorn of the power to make a paper currency, or to allow a State to use such a currency, made by any authority whatever, as a legal tender. To the proof: "August 16.--It was moved and seconded to strike the words'and emit bills,' out of the 8th clause of the first section of the 7th article--which passed in the affirmative"--nine states aye--two (New Jersey and Maryland) nay. Thus the clause read (as it now reads in the Constitution of the United States and in our own) " to borrow money on the credit," etc. Again: the twelfth article of the "draft" provided as follows: "No State shall coin money nor grant letters of marque," etc. In the Convention, August 28, "it was moved and seconded to insert the words'nor emit bills of credit,' after the word'money' in the twelfth article--which passed in the affirmative"--yeas, 8; nay, (Virginia) 1; divided, 1 (Maryland). "It was moved and seconded to insert the following clause after the last amendment:'Nor make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts;' which passed unanimously in the affirmative--eleven States being present." It is now established, upon a foundation impregnable, that deliberately, on specific motion, and by ayes and noes, the Convention, overruling its committee, denied to Congress the power to emit "bills of credit," or to authorize the States to make a paper issue a legal tender, but explicitly and rigidly confined the former to the power to "coin money"--that is, to make specie, to render it current, at a regulated value, and the States to that, and that only, as a legal tender. When the above proceedings are examined in the light of the history of the times, reflected somewhat, as it is, by the debates in the State conventions to which the Constitution was referred, it is safe to say that the people, the Convention at Philadelphia, and the statesmen of those days, almost universally looked with horror upon a paper currency, and they had the most abundant reason for the sentiment, as their posterity have had, on sundry occasions since. Rhode Island may constitute a special exception, which State had gained an infamous notoriety by the frauds perpetrated through her paper issues and her legislation to support that currency and the frauds, not to mention other scandalous iniquities. Now a link to a transcript of the vote itself http://www.angelfire.com/ut2/lrtopham/convention.html "Mr. Govr. Morris moved to strike out 'and emit bills on the credit of the United States' If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless." "Mr. Butler, 2ds. the motion." "Mr. Madison, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best." "Mr. Govr. Morris. striking out the words will leave room for notes of a responsible minister which will do all the good without the mischief. The monied interest will oppose the plan of Government, if paper emissions be not prohibited." "Mr. Ghorum was for striking out, without inserting any prohibition. if the words stand they may suggest and lead to the measure." "Col. Mason had doubts on the subject. Congs. he thought would not have the power unless it were expressed. Though he had a mortal hatred to paper money, yet as he could not foresee all emergencies, he was unwilling to tie the hands of the Legislature. He observed that the late war could not have been carried on, had such a prohibition existed." "Mr. Ghorum. The power as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing." "Mr. Mercer was a friend to paper money, though in the present state & temper of America, he should neither propose nor approve of such a measure. He was consequently opposed to a prohibition of it altogether. It will stamp suspicion on the Government to deny it a discretion on this point. It was impolitic also to excite the opposition of all those who were friends to paper money. The people of property would be sure to be on the side of the plan, and it was impolitic to purchase their further attachment with the loss of the opposite class of Citizens." "Mr. Ellsworth thought this a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made, were now fresh in the public mind and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By witholding the power from the new Governt. more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost any thing else. Paper money can in no case be necessary. Give the Government credit, and other resources will offer. The power may do harm, never good." "Mr. Randolph, notwithstanding his antipathy to paper money, could not agree to strike out the words, as he could not foresee all the occasions which might arise." "Mr. Wilson. It will have a most salutary influence on the credit of the United States to remove the possibility of paper money. This expedient can never succeed whilst its mischiefs are remembered, and as long as it can be resorted to, it will be a bar to other resources." "Mr. Butler. remarked that paper money was a legal tender in no Country in Europe. He was urgent for disarming the Government of such power." "Mr. Mason was still adverse to tying the hands of the Legislature altogether. If there was no example in Europe as just remarked, it might be observed on the other side, that there was none in which the Government was restrained on this head." "Mr. Read, thought the words, if not struck out, would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelations" "Mr. Langdon had rather reject the whole plan than retain the three words '(and emit bills)'" "On the motion for striking out N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay.* N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay."96.237.131.111 (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Same discussion being held on Talk:Federal Reserve System#Printing Money addition by User:96.237.134.44 / User:96.237.131.111 See also Talk:Federal Reserve System#Printing Money addition by User:96.237.134.44 / User:96.237.131.111, which has the same discussion text as above. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Specific to this article, the IP editor made fairly substantial changes to the Legality section [1]. There are minimal references (Angelfire.com? Really?) in the additions and a fair amount of it seems to be OR to me. Some of these changes are directly related to the change referenced above. I'm going to go through the section (hopefully later today) and post some suggestions here before making the changes, just to save some drama. Ravensfire (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Thanks. The goal is encyclopedic clarity and WP:CONSENSUS, not WP:The Truth. I hadn't noticed other edits. I'll go read up on the content issues so I can contribute more than just an outsider's view of policy.--4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Due to controversy I replaced angelfire link with a link to the Yale Law School Avalon Project - text of the minutes is the same in both places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.134.44 (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC) If anyone believes that the addition needs more cites or better cites, wiki provides a neat little feature where you can tag the article with a cite needed marker at the appropriate spot. Please be CIVIL, mark the places where you believe a cite is needed and I will attempt to provide one. 96.237.134.44 (talk) 20:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Yet again - If anyone believes that the addition needs more cites or better cites, wiki provides a neat little feature where you can tag the article with a cite needed marker at the appropriate spot. Please be CIVIL, mark the places where you believe a cite is needed and I will attempt to provide one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.134.44 (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Prior to the civil war and "the greenback", no legal tender paper money was ever issue under the US Constitution. "The Continental was issued under a power "expressly granted under the Articles of Confederation". Because Congress never tried to issue paper money, there was nothing to argue over and there are no legal cases on this issue prior to the Legal Tender Cases. Case law before these cases is limited to state attempts to issue legal tender paper money. The most famous of those cases is Craig v Missouri in 1830. In that case the US Supreme Court states The terms, "bills of credit" are in themselves vague and general, and, at the present day, almost dismissed from our language. It is then only by resorting to the nomenclature of the day of the Constitution, that we can hope to get at the idea which the framers of the Constitution attached to it. The quotation from Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts therefore was a proper one for this purpose, inasmuch as the sense in which a word is used by a distinguished historian and a man in public life in our own country, not long before the revolution, furnishes a satisfactory criterion for a definition. It is there used as synonymous with paper money, and we will find it distinctly used in the same sense by the first Congress which met under the present Constitution. The whole history and legislation of the time prove that, by bills of credit, the framers of the Constitution meant paper money, with reference to that which had been used in the states from the commencement of the century, down to the time when it ceased to pass, before reduced to its innate worthlessness. It was contended in argument for the defendant in error that it was essential to the description of bills of credit in the sense of the Constitution, that they should be made a lawful tender. But his own quotations negative that idea, and the Constitution does the same in the general prohibition in the states to make anything but gold or silver a legal tender. If, however, it were otherwise, it would hardly avail him here, since these certificates were, as to their officers' salaries, declared a legal tender. The great end and object of this restriction on the power of the states will furnish the best definition of the terms under consideration. The whole was intended to exclude everything from use as a circulating medium except gold and silver, and to give to the United States the exclusive control over the coining and valuing of the metallic medium. That the real dollar may represent property, and not the shadow of it.96.237.134.44 (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Cites supporting my position - showing it is not OR or SYN I believe that Congress does NOT have the power to make paper money a legal tender and does not even have the power to make gold and silver a legal tender.The reference below show clearly that at least one US president and Funding Father agree with me on both counts and that at least two US presidents, and Founding Fathers agree with me on one count. I hope that claims of original research and synthesis can now be put to rest as BOGUS. An old NY times article http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9501E2DB133BEE33A25751C1A9669D94679ED7CF references the following quotes James Madison - Thus the pretext for a paper currency and particularly for making the bill a legal tender, either for public or private debt, was cut off Thomas Jefferson - I now deny their (Congress's) power of making paper money, or anything else, a legal tender A Mr Benton who is also cited, states: The power granted to Congress to coin money is an authority to stamp metallic money, and is not an authority for emitting slips of paper containing promises to pay money. Per Yale Law School records of the minutes of the vote to TAKE AWAY from Congress the power to "emit bills of credit" during the Constitutional Convention as recorded by Founding Father and future president James Madison http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp FN23 This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, [FN24] and particularly for making the bills a tender [FN24] either for public or private debts. and "Mr. Ghorum was for striking out, without inserting any prohibition. if the words stand they may suggest and lead to the measure." My aside: The power to be struck out was the power to "emit". Mr. Ghorum, (Madison misspelled the name - the person is actually Nathanial Gorham) states that if the words stand (the words being "emit bills of credit") that "they may suggest and lead to the measure" with the measure being printing legal tender paper money. To be ABSOLUTELY clear, this vote denied Congress the power to "emit" per money, and strikes at the core of arguments in favor of paper money, because Congress cannot make paper money a legal tender because the power to print paper money was REMOVED from Congress. If Congress cannot even print paper money, how can it make it legal tender? In Federalist 44 - Madison states The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice, of the power which has been the instrument of it. From Craig v Misouri The whole was intended to exclude everything from use as a circulating medium except gold and silver, and to give to the United States the exclusive control over the coining and valuing of the metallic medium. That the real dollar may represent property, and not the shadow of it. From the dissenting opinion to one of the Legal Tender cases http://supreme.justia.com/us/79/457/case.html - starts with THE CHIEF JUSTICE, dissenting Acts of Congress not made in pursuance of the Constitution are not laws. We perceive no connection between the express power to coin money and the inference that the government may, in any contingency, make its securities perform the functions of coined money, as a legal tender in payment of debts It is unnecessary to say that we reject wholly the doctrine, advanced for the first time, we believe, in this Court by the present majority that the legislature has any "powers under the Constitution which grow out of the aggregate of powers conferred upon the government or out of the sovereignty instituted by it." If this proposition be admitted, and it be also admitted that the legislature is the sole judge of the necessity for the exercise of such powers, the government becomes practically absolute and unlimited. It is true that notes issued by banks, both in England and America, were then in circulation and were used in exchanges, and in common speech called money, and that bills of credit, issued both by Congress and by the states, had been recently in circulation under the same general name; but these notes and bills were never regarded as real money, but were always treated as its representatives only, and were described as currency. The legal tender notes themselves do not purport to be anything else than promises to pay money. They have been held to be securities, and therefore exempt from state taxation, [Footnote 3/13] and the idea that it was ever designed to make such notes a standard of value by the framers of the Constitution is wholly new. The sense of the Convention which framed the Constitution is clear from the account given by Mr. Madison of what took place when the power to emit bills of credit was stricken from the reported draft. He says distinctly that he acquiesced in the motion to strike out because the government would not be disabled thereby from the use of public notes, so far as they would be safe and proper, while it cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts. [Footnote 3/14] The whole discussion upon bills of credit proves beyond all possible question that the Convention regarded the power to make notes a legal tender as absolutely excluded from the Constitution. [Footnote 3/15]' but he added, "NOTHING BUT GOLD AND SILVER COIN CAN BE MADE A TENDER IN PAYMENT OF DEBTS." [Footnote 4/68] Utterances of the kind are found throughout the reported decisions of this Court, but there is not a sentence or word to be found within those volumes, from the organization of the court to the passage of the acts of Congress in question, to support the opposite theory. Excellent source states - http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/documents/Papermoneyart.pdf "In the later half of the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court decided a series of cases that upheld the power of Congress to issue paper money and make it legal tender for all debts. Although the last of these was decided in 1884 several constituencies have kept this debate alive. One of those constituencies is a small, but vocal group that has never been reconciled to the idea of American paper money. These folks maintain that the Constitution did not authorize paper money ... More Influential, perhaps, have been legal commentators who agree that he Legal Tender cases were, from an originalist point of view, wrongly decided"

An indication of how low the Fed will go

Discussion by a single-purpose editor with multiple IPs blocked for disruption and personal attacks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To BE CLEAR - I am thinking of adding a reference to this in the article in the transparency section and am looking for comments and/or objections 96.237.134.44 (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC) If you anyone here follows Federal Reserve news, they should be aware of the "Audit the Fed" Bill currently being pushed through the House by Ron Paul. He seems he has a majority oat the House supporting him an his Bill should pass there. It seems that the Fed does not like that bill, and recruited a House member to propose an Amendment gutting it. That House member supposedly had a bunch of "independent" economists who wrote in support of his amendment. It turns out that all except one of those economists are or have been Fed employees. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/18/economists-opposing-fed-a_n_362287.html As the debate over an audit of the Federal Reserve intensifies in the House, one camp is trotting out eight academics that it calls a "political cross section of prominent economists." A review of their backgrounds shows they are anything but. But far from a broad cross-section, the "prominent economists" lobbying on behalf of the Watt bill are in fact deeply involved with the Federal Reserve. Seven of the eight are either currently on the Fed's payroll or have been in the past. Let's run the traps: Frederic Mishkin is a former board member, having served from 2006-2008. His career at the Fed stretches back to 1977 and he currently holds two positions: one as a member of the Center for Latin American Economics at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, where he's been since 1996; and another as an academic consultant to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he's been since 1997. Anil K. Kashyap is currently a consultant with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, a position he's held since 1991. He's also on the economic advisory panel of the New York branch and was a consultant there in 2003. He was a visiting scholar at the division of monetary affairs at the Board of Governors of in1994, 2001 and 2005 and at the division of international finance in 1997. Pete Klenow was a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 1994-1999, 2003-2004, 2006 and again this year. From 2000-2003 he was also a senior economist at that branch. He's currently a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, a position he's held since 2005. He was a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City from 2004-2006. Ricardo J. Caballero was a visiting scholar at Federal Reserve Bank of Boston from 2004-2005 and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Board on multiple occasions. Robert Hall was a research assistant at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from 1982-1984 and an economist there from 1988-1991. Thomas Sargent was an adviser to the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis from 1981 to 1987 and continues to write frequently for Fed-sponsored journals. Micheal Woodford is currently on the Monetary Policy Advisory Committee of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, a position he's held since 2004. He's also listed as a consultant to the research department there dating back to 2005. In the past, he's been a visiting scholar at the Board of Governors and various regional branches in 1987, 1993-1998 and 2000-present, often at multiple banks in the same year. Economists with Fed connections strongly reject the notion that being paid by the bank influences their thinking. But Robert Auerbach, who spent years investigating the institution and is the author of "Deception and Abuse at the Fed", says that those economists are simply in denial. "If you're on the Fed payroll there's a conflict of interest," says Auerbach. 96.237.134.44 (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC) See the Criticism of the Federal Reserve#Transparency issues section - it includes the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. There's also a specific mention about how most economists do (or have) worked for the Fed, raising concerns about challenging their opinions. *shrug* One side bringing only the evidence that supports it's views isn't unusual, it's politics. It's done by every side on every issue. Adding a mention about this to the FRTA article might make sense, but I think just a mention given the bill is still stuck in committee and (apparently) the amendment didn't get added. Ravensfire (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Bringing in supposedly independent outsider who work for you is pretty low on the moral scale - "Thou shalt not bear false witness" made it into the 10 Commandments.96.237.134.44 (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC) "Audit the Fed" passed by House Finance Committee and has 313 co sponsors - per examiner.com - more then enough to pass the House. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.134.44 (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC) The following was deleted due to insinuation Whether any of the economists signing the petition have ties to the Fed is not known, but a background check of eight economists who attempted to sway the House in favor of an Amendment watering down the Transparency Act show that "Seven of the eight are either currently on the Fed's payroll or have been in the past". Is there still insinuation if I shorten it to A background check of eight economists who attempted to sway the House in favor of an Amendment watering down the Transparency Act show that "Seven of the eight are either currently on the Fed's payroll or have been in the past". Aside from the NPOV language and the insinuating tone, there's something there. The claim you're trying to make is "since they worked for the Fed in the past, they are hopelessly biased towards it. Thus, anything positive they say must be tainted." Okay, so does this also work "Since the economist never worked for the Fed, they are hopelessly biased against it. Thus, anything negative they say must be tainted". The Huffington Post article is based on insinuation - that since they worked for the Fed, they must be it's puppets. That's getting into WP:SYN - the person works or has worked for the Fed; the person writes a letter in support of the Fed's position; therefore, the person must be biased towards the Fed. The SOURCE states that some worked for the Fed in the past and some work for her Fed NOW! and represented themselves as INDEPENDENT outsiders. 71.174.142.108 (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC) What I think is supported by the source is that there is the appearance of bias in economists that have worked for the Fed. That because the Fed is the major provider of economic research, those in that field may feel pressure to support the Fed's views. That, I think, is a more powerful statement than saying here's a single example. The Source plainly states that the at lest some of the economists work for the fed NOW and presented themselves as independent outsiders.71.174.142.108 (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Current section "In addition, the Fed sponsors much of the monetary economics research in the United States. Some believe this makes it less likely for researchers to publish findings challenging the status quo that is the Federal Reserve." I have run across that in other places as well71.174.142.108 (talk) Possible addition "This can also cause at least the appearance of impropriety when researchers connected to the Federal Reserve provide information or opinion to Congress and other policy makers" Why are you avoiding the fact that some of those purported outsiders are current fed employees?71.174.142.108 (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I don't really like my wording, to be honest. I think it's got the meaning I want, but it's not as direct as I'd like it to be. Just my thoughts. Ravensfire (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC) "A background check of eight economists who attempted to sway the House in favor of an Amendment watering down the Transparency Act show that "Seven of the eight are either currently on the Fed's payroll or have been in the past" has the advantage of being fully supported by the source.71.174.142.108 (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Please do not place your comments in the middle of my comment. I ask you to refactor your comment to put it after mine. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Due to what, from my perspective, seems to be a constant state of confusion, I responded to each of your points in order so that you would not be confused about what I was responding to. If you feel the need you can reformat my post.71.174.142.108 (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Curious & and Edison entry

I see there is a new popular way to shut out criticism here on wiki, just slap on a label/labeling it after ones own definition / preference and then deleting it. Well all the same I have a specific topic for discussion, I'd like the inclusion of Thomas Edison's criticism to be added with a quote, but I sure as hell wont bother doing the work of writing it and adding it just to have someone with wiki "credentials" removing it instantly for their own personal gratification, with some "spurious" reasoning that Edison isn't notable enough or something of the same sort.Nunamiut (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

What makes his comment "notable" though? Edison is very notable related to things he invented, but economics? This isn't a collection of quotes - use Wikiquote for that. If you want the "policy" reason for why it gets yanked for our "personal gratification", read through WP:COATRACK. Or, of course, just assume that we're part of The Man, here to stop The Truth from getting out. I frankly don't care what you think, as you quite obviously don't care what anyone else thinks. Ravensfire (talk) 12:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I will tell you what makes it noteable: it's historical context, the fact that he made it together with another one of that days most important industrialist, the fact that he must have had a good grasp on economics, running a business, the fact that he was an important figure in his time, the fact that he must have been one of the most prominent and visible(audible) proponents of those very ideas at the time, the fact that it explains the mood of the country, the fact that it can help people to understand how popular the ideas he brought forth were, the fact that it can explain the historical legacy of the mid west movements such as those that brought people like William Jennings Bryant to the front as the democratic candidate to the US presidency on exactly the same ideas. The ludicrous idea and pretense that "quotes" suddenly became something completely separate from history and apart from lexical knowledge, just because someone started creating quotes pages says either something about how narrow minded we have become or how some people try to create the pretense that knowledge has to be reduced to LCD and preferably as mediocre an LCD as possible. Equally interesting, I see the collection in the arsenal to "auto-discredit" people has grown from POV, OR, and NN/NNE to include the very accurate and academic accusation defined as "WP:THETRUTH" ("with jokes", I hope) and several other derogatory accusations that can be leveled even before anyone gets to defend a point honestly with actual arguments. The noise level against unpopular facts, however accurately portrayed or verifiable, is just too intense for any adult to bother spending any more time on contributing seriously to anything of real controversy anymore. Sometimes one gets the impression that the english portion of wikipedia has become the playground for sophomoric US right-wing republican college students or adults left at equal level. The views expressed and the level of attacks are certainly below any academic standard I've ever witnessed in my 20 years debating in and around university and academic subjects anywhere in Europe. But perhaps "The Man" really managed to create a permanent right-wing agenda in some of the weaker minds. I guess Orwell pointed out what happened to unpopular ideas a long time ago in just as much bleak vain as in which he wrote. "Go figure" as it were.Nunamiut (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC) And yes, don't you worry, I certainly do see that you do not care much for anything yes.

"The FOMC versus the Staff: Where Can Monetary Policymakers Add Value?"

I found a good source that might make a good section in this article, if anybody wants to do it. http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~dromer/papers/aer_98_2.pdf--Dark Charles (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 politics

For the first time the Fed has become a major issue in an election--in 2010--and that is very important indeed. Rjensen (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Legality section: content and wikilinks restored

On 17 January, user Terra Novus removed content and wikilinks from the "Legality" section, giving the edit summary, "Trimmed to reflect references". But the material removed furnished necessary and appropriate context for the section, imo, so I've restored it for that reason and because the wikilinked topics and legal cases included in the removed material are so clearly germane to this article. Re the edit-summary objection made about references, I agree that adding a few more direct refs would be beneficial, but I also feel obliged to point out that there's an abundance of supporting refs in the wikilinked articles themselves. Finally, despite choosing to restore the content, I can't say I'm zealously attached to its particular wording. It probably wouldn't be high on my list of priorities otherwise, that is, but if anyone does feel zealous and wants to propose an alternative wording that might be more acceptable to both critics and supporters of the Fed, I'd be happy to collaborate.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I will add some tags for the meanwhile.--  Novus  Orator  01:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Excerpt on legality

The reply to the Ron Paul comment is a misinterpretation.

The case law is settled that 1. a central bank can be created by Congress and 2. said bank can disperse notes.

It has never been settled that a central bank can do the variety of other tasks that the Federal Reserve does, such as fix interest rates, act as a lender of last resort or gold exchanges, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsuraci (talk • contribs) 17:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's the quote:

The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy.

As you can see, it's clear that Ron Paul was taking about whether it's constitutional for a central bank to exist in the U.S. So the reply is on topic. But if you can find a good source that address the constitutionality of how the Fed. distributes money, then you can put that in too. On a side note, the Fed. doesn't "fix interest rates," it alters incentives so that banks will freely choose to change their rates.--Dark Charles 17:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Monetary policy means fixing interest rates, not printing currency. Where is the case law that the Federal Reserve can fix interest rates? The reply is off topic at best and a strawman at worst. --Daniel Suraci (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir, that wasn't what Ron Paul said in the quote. He said it was unconstitutional for a central bank to exist, and as you said in your first comment, case law disagrees with him. Anyway, the Fed doesn't fix interest rates; it uses open market operations to manipulate the Federal Funds rate.--Dark Charles 19:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Loaded Word

Heretical

Say that one no longer holds an opinion or belief, esp. one considered heretical

   - heretics were burned if they would not recant
   - Galileo was forced to recant his assertion that the earth orbited the sun

Claiming that Madison recanted leaves the reader with a feeling that he did so possibly under duress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.222.243 (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Never been audited

An editor added, unsourced, the claim that "This is the first government audit of the Federal Reserve, of any kind, in the near 100 years existence of the Federal Reserve." So two problems with this. First, it's unsourced. Second, it's incorrect. Before adding this back to the article, please supply a reliable source that makes this claim. Ravensfire (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The Laughter Index

I'd like to work in this reference. I think readers need to know how intoxicated these geniuses were by their own bubble. Badams5115 (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Copy incorporating the reference was finished on Feb. 4 in revisions 475236980 through 475268678. Badams5115 (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Criticism on Constitutional grounds keeps getting deleted - there are 3 issues of which I am aware of

1) The belief that only gold and silver can serve as money in the United States based on the Constitutional prohibition on the states issuing paper money and an additional prohibition to make nothing but gold and silver coin a legal tender. Various opinions also state that the Federal government cannot impose a legal tender on any of the states, which are sovereign entities. Thomas Jefferson for instance has been quoted as stating in a letter to John Taylor in 1798 "I now deny [the Federal Government’s] power of making paper money or anything else a legal tender.”

2) The belief that if Congress does have the power to issue paper money, it cannot transfer that power to a third party and especially to a private entity such as the Federal Reserve.

3) That based on a vote during the Constitutional Convention Congress has no power at all to issue paper money, then called "bills of credit", since that power was specifically stripped from Congress on a vote of 9 to 2.

The main FED article states that criticism based on Constitutional grounds exist but that fact keeps getting deleted in this sub article. The above 3 criticism on Constitutional grounds are the only ones I am aware of, and are listed by popularity. Anyone can read the constitution and notice the prohibition on the states, a fair number say that Congressional powers were no meant to be transferred to private entities, but you really need to know your stuff to know that the Constitutional Delegates when finalizing the draft US Constitution removed (aka stripped) the power to issue paper money from Congress on a vote of 9 to 2 based on the then recent experience with the Continental. Think "not worth a Continental"!71.174.141.4 (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/fed_reserve.htm " The Congress illegally gave the FED the right to print money"71.174.141.4 (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

http://familysurvivalprotocol.com/2012/09/20/ndaa-and-its-tumultuous-journey/ "the Federal Reserve system was fraudulently created & it’s Counterfeiting Notes “the Dollar” is illegal & Unconstitutional. Only Gold & Silver can be money"

http://www.healthfreedom.info/Federal_Reserve_Fraud.htm "The passage of the Federal Reserve Act was unconstitutional because 1) the US Constitution prohibited "bills of credit" (i.e., paper notes) and 2) the US Constitution would have to be amended to go off the silver and gold coin standard for money. The US Constitution, the supreme Law of the Land, can only be amended pursuant to Article V. The US Constitution cannot be amended by statute. These unlawful actions by a criminal Congress remind me of a quote by the honorable Alfred E. Neuman of Mad Magazine fame: "America is that land which fought for freedom and then passed laws to get rid of it."

http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/28/is-the-federal-reserve-unconstitutional "For present purposes, though, the point is this: there is no constitutional warrant for an independent Fed that acts as the economy’s master puppeteer; issues puts on the stock market; expropriates fixed-income recipients so that Congress can continue to borrow on the cheap; or targets the unemployment rate."

Yup! There do seem to be some Constitutional based criticisms of the Fed!71.174.141.4 (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, now you're catching on. The Thomas Schauf material --at http://www.apfn.org/apfn/fed_reserve.htm -- and the Damon Root material are possible sources for critiques of the Federal Reserve System. A quick review of the other links does not clearly show who the authors are, so those sources might not work. I'll try to review the Schauf and Root material later today.

The point that we had trying to make was that you yourself were making criticisms up to now. You are an editor of Wikipedia, so that is now allowed. You needed to find examples where SOMEONE ELSE has made these criticisms. Jefferson and Morris, for example, passed away long before the Federal Reserve System was created. The use of a statement such as "a fair number say....." illustrates the problem you are having. However, the Schauf and Root material might work.

Clue: The Federal Reserve System is not a "private entity" or a group of "private entities." We have been through this over and over and over in Wikipedia. This may be new to you, but it is not new to us. The MEMBER BANKS (such as Wells Fargo) are "private" entities in the sense that they are owned by shareholders in the ordinary sense. The twelve Federal Reserve Banks, however, are a bit different. . Please read the material carefully.

By the way, from a legal standpoint, the argument that the Federal Reserve System is unconsitutional would be a legally frivolous argument, for which a monetary penalty could be imposed on a litigant who makes such an argument in a court of law. It would be like arguing that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified, or that an individual is not subject to federal or state laws because that individual is a "sovereign citizen." So, while it's OK to cite such critiques of the Federal Reserve System, such critiques are fringe positions, and should be afforded no more weight in Wikipedia than is properly afforded to such positions. Neutral Point of View does not mean giving equal weight to all positions.

Just so you'll know.... Yours, Famspear (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

NO! I was adding criticisms that appear in mainstream and not so mainstream news. The fact that you are unaware of those criticisms shows you should avoid articles of this nature due to your IGNORANCE! an example of mainstream news

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-09/more-than-half-of-americans-want-fed-reined-in-or-abolished.html "Americans across the political spectrum say the Fed shouldn’t retain its current structure of independence. Asked if the central bank should be more accountable to Congress, left independent or abolished entirely, 39 percent said it should be held more accountable and 16 percent that it should be abolished. Only 37 percent favor the status quo."

Not quite as mainstream http://www.campaignforliberty.org/uncategorized/end-the-fed/ "But in END THE FED, Ron Paul draws on American history, economics, and fascinating stories from his own long political life to argue that the Fed is both corrupt and unconstitutional."71.174.141.4 (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You are confusing two very different things. Those sources do no more than say that some people don't like the Fed and want it abolished. They say nothing about constitutional objections.

What part of "the Fed is both corrupt and unconstitutional." did you miss? 71.174.141.4 (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW: The 12 Regional banks are PRIVATE Institutions not public as you claim. Again you are IGNORANT of the issues on this subject and should avoid it unless you want to parade that ignorance.71.174.141.4 (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Feel the IGNORANCE -http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=avjlPu.bRVmk

The trustees -- Jill Considine, Chester Feldberg and Douglas Foshee -- were appointed in January by the New York Fed, a private institution owned by member banks, which has the power to overturn some of their decisions and to remove them.

www.infowars.com/the-federal-reserve-admits-that-its-12-banks-are-private-not-government-entities/ ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used}

However, the country’s most powerful “agency” – the Federal Reserve – is actually no more federal than Federal Express. The Fed itself admitted (via Bloomberg):

While the Fed’s Washington-based Board of Governors is a federal agency subject to the Freedom of Information Act and other government rules, the New York Fed and other regional banks maintain they are separate institutions, owned by their member banks, and not subject to federal restrictions.71.174.141.4 (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear 71.174.141.4: You're still not fully getting it. We're well aware of the criticisms. We've studied banking for many years. All this may be new to you, but it's not new to us.

Your post is riddled with inaccuracy. Let's look at just one.

You stated: "The 12 Regional banks are PRIVATE Institutions not public as you claim." That is FALSE. I have never said that the 12 regional banks are "public." The twelve regional banks however, are not controlled by "private" interests. All this is explained in the articles.

You said: "Again you are IGNORANT of the issues on this subject and should avoid it unless you want to parade that ignorance". That is FALSE. No, I am not ignorant of the issues on this subject. Please do not engage in personal attacks.

You are in no position to lecture me on this topic, pal. I almost certainly know more about banking, about the Federal Reserve System -- and about critiques of the Fed -- than you or, probably, anyone you know. You see, I have actually studied banking, and I know banking and the Federal Reserve System in a way that neither you (nor G. Edward Griffin, for example) can ever hope to know it. Also, I didn't learn this topic in my spare time, by reading garbage web sites on the internet. I am an attorney and a certified public accountant who happens to be a former auditor of member banks of the Federal Reserve System. I've actually supervised bank audits, and I know more about banks than most bank employees.

So, don't lecture your fellow Wikipedia editors. We're not here to prove anything to you. If anything, we're here to teach you about how Wikipedia works. Famspear (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I cleaned up something added by IP 71.174.141.4. I also deleted a quote from the factcheck web site. Again, the material was inserted to try to make it appear as though factcheck was making a critique of the Fed with that quote -- that the Federal Reserve banks are owned by "big private banks" -- when in fact the factcheck article goes on to say virtually the same thing already stated in the Wikipedia articles -- that the "ownership" of the 12 Federal Reserve banks is not the kind of "ownership" that our contributor at IP 71.174.141.4 apparently would like Wikipedia readers to believe it is. As factcheck more or less states in so many words, the 12 Federal Reserve banks are controlled by the Board of Governors, not by the member banks (i.e., not by "private" interests).

We've been through all this a million times, pal. Famspear (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I notice that one of the "sources" cited by user IP 71.174.141.4 is Alex Jones' "infowars" web site. That's pretty funny. Famspear (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's the actual Bloomberg quote:

"A House panel plans to ask trustees assigned to safeguard the U.S. government’s $182.5 billion investment in American International Group Inc. whether their supervision by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York serves taxpayers’ interests.

"The trustees -- Jill Considine, Chester Feldberg and Douglas Foshee -- were appointed in January by the New York Fed, a private institution owned by member banks, which has the power to overturn some of their decisions and to remove them...."

What the report is saying is that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has the power to remove the trustees of the AIG funds -- a point not made clear by posting the second sentence in isolation.

More to the point, the Bloomberg statement is not a critique of the Federal Reserve System. Bloomberg is saying that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is "owned" by its member banks -- which is, ostensibly, a correct statement. What Bloomberg is NOT saying is that this kind of "ownership" is the same kind of ownership that you have when you own your house, or your car, or ten shares of Wells Fargo stock, or whatever. The material as posted by IP71.174.141.4 would easily leave the false impression that Bloomberg was saying that private interests (i.e., evil, greedy, mean ol', bad ol' private interests) control the Federal Reserve Bank of New York -- which is false and, even worse, it's not what Bloomberg was saying or implying. Famspear (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The Lewis material and other material not a "criticism"

I am moving the Lewis material from the article to here:

In the 1982 case Lewis v. United States the Court stated that "the Reserve Banks are not instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations" The Court stated: "Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region." The Court further stated: "The Banks are listed neither as 'wholly owned' government corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 846 nor as 'mixed ownership' corporations under 31 U.S.C. § 856". The judge therefore dismissed the case against the Federal government and advised that the complaint for damages be refiled directly against the bank as it was a private company, which was not acting as a 'federal instrumentality' at the time the complaint took place. " Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982), at [2]. For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

In Lewis the court referenced several situations where the private Regional Banks or its employees, when acting on behalf of the Federal government, would be considered federal instrumentalities and its employees considered Federal Employees. In United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1982) at [3], A complaint was filed by the Federal government against John C. Hollingshead, an employee of a Regional Reserve Bank, as a corrupt government official engaged in bribery and bid rigging. Hollingshead's responsibilities included soliciting and obtaining bona fide competitive bids from qualified contractors for FRB capital projects in excess of $1,000. He was a 'public official' under the Federal Bribery Statute as this statute broadly defines public official to include any person acting 'for or on behalf of the Government. The Court also noted that under the decision in Brinks Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 466 F.Supp. 116 (D.D.C.1979), "a Federal Reserve Bank is a federal instrumentality for purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. § 351...." Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court also noted: "The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation." Id.

And this:

According to Miranda Fleschert of the Washington Legal Foundation, in response to a Bloomberg request for information under the Freedom of Information Act against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Board objected by stating that the records were not records of the Board itself, and were housed at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which was "not an agency" of the government and therefore not subject to the Act.Legal Opinion by Miranda Fleschert

Yours, Famspear (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's my point. This material is not a "criticism" -- of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, of the Federal Reserve System, or of anything else. Perhaps we can find a previously published, reliable third party source that has USED this material as part of a clearly stated "criticism."

I think that I and other Wikipedia editors have been very generous and liberal over the past few years, in allowing the Lewis material to be inserted or re-inserted from time to time in this article or in the main article on the Federal Reserve System. But I would argue that the time has come to hold someone's feet to the fire. Let's enforce the rule on "No Original Research." Therefore, if someone wants to re-add the Lewis material, then that person should FIRST provide the proper sourcing. Famspear (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Background: Opponents of the Federal Reserve System often do not clearly state their critiques. The Lewis material is cited over and over and over and over and over in various places on the internet for the false proposition that the Federal Reserve System is "private," as a way of supporting the implied -- but usually unstated -- premise that "this is bad." The motivation for this is probably the argument that the Federal Reserve System is controlled by evil, greedy, nefarious "international banksters" who are trying to harm the ordinary people of the United States of America in order to further the evil, greedy banksters.

As I have stated over and over and over and over in the talk pages of Wikipedia, this approach is wrong for a variety of reasons. First, the bald statement that the "Federal Reserve" or the "Federal Reserve System" is "private" is not only incorrect -- it's not really even a criticism, in the absence of an explanation of WHY "private" is "bad." The Court of Appeals in Lewis was not critiquing the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco or the Federal Reserve System or anything else. So, merely dumping material about Lewis into Wikipedia without a clear statement of WHAT THE CRITIQUE IS and a citation to a previously published, reliable third party source that is actually STATING that critique is not proper under Wikipedia rules and guidelines.

Then, there is the separate problem of the fallacy embodied in the implied critique. The fallacy is the use of what some legal scholars call "whole word equivocation." In this case, the words are "private" and "owner" (or "owns" or "ownership"). The false implication is that because a member bank like Wells Fargo "owns" stock in a Federal Reserve Bank, that "ownership" is the same kind of ownership that you or I would have if we own stock in Microsoft or Apple Computer. This part of the problem is already addressed in the article, of course, by the explanations from reliable sources that "ownership" of stock in a Federal Reserve bank does not mean the same as "ownership" of your house, or your car, or your stock in Microsoft. If you own a majority of the stock in Microsoft, you essentially have a controlling interest in Microsoft. By contrast, there is no amount of stock in a Federal Reserve bank that you can own that would give you controlling interest.

Another point regarding the Lewis material that has been moved to this talk page. I myself added some of the material, to provide some balance -- to show that the Court was pointing out that the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco is considered NOT part of the government (i.e., that the bank is "private") for SOME purposes, but IS considered part of the government (i.e., "not private") for other purposes. However, I moved the entire, revised package of material to this talk page because I would argue that we should, as I said, hold some feet to the fire and force those who want to re-add this material to FIRST provide the actual critique -- with proper sourcing. Famspear (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Same basic point regarding the Miranda Fleschert-Washington Legal Foundation material. This material, by itself, is not a criticism of anything. The addition of this material to the article without a properly sourced, clear statement of a criticism by a reliable source appears to be nothing more than an attempt at Original Research -- and an incomplete attempt at that. Famspear (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this removal. I was contemplating removing it myself but then just let it go. Volunteer Marek  17:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Deleted a large swath of material that is descriptive and not criticism - same arguments as Famspear's deletion of the court cases apply.71.174.141.4 (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, if there is widespread criticism of the Fed (and there sure as hell is) per Famspears language "The motivation for this is probably the argument that the Federal Reserve System is controlled by evil, greedy, nefarious "international banksters" who are trying to harm the ordinary people of the United States of America in order to further the evil, greedy banksters." why is it not included? Ah! because someone here thinks it is false! and how do they KNOW it is "false"? Do they have an inside tranck on the inner working of these evil, greedy, nefarious "international banksters"? and if they do aren't they then most likely working for these evil, greedy, nefarious "international banksters"?

"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money and control credit, and with the flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again. Take this great power away from the bankers and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a better and happier world to live in. But if you want to continue the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money and to control credit." Sir Josiah Stamp, Director and President of the Bank of England during the 1920's

"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent." Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.

Yup! Ignore all this and other quotes in the same vein. It's just a comedy routine and you are the butt of the joke. 71.174.141.4 (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Pablum or criticism? Plainly Pablum!

With the wholesale deletion of any and all "criticism" of the Federal Reserve on every single point where it is in fact being criticised I vote that this article be renamed "NO criticism of the Federal Reserve".

Deleted criticism so far includes Constitutional criticism, causing the housing bubble, and bailing out the banksters that control/own it.

"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." Voltaire71.174.141.4 (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

and lets not forget the inflation caused by their money printing, which in addition has caused every boom/bust cycle in the US since 1913.71.174.141.4 (talk) 03:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Since you people don't seem to be familiar with what criticism looks like, here is one example

The largest Wall Street banks control 74% of all the deposits in the country, up from 66% in 2007, and double the levels from the mid-1990’s. These bastions of capitalism wield all of the power in this country, dictating who wins elections, who writes the laws, and who benefits from the distribution of wealth. Only in a corrupt, crony-capitalist, citadel of kleptocracy could the perpetrators of the greatest theft of national wealth in the history of mankind be rewarded with taxpayer financed bailouts, the ability to borrow an unlimited amount of fiat currency at 0% from a Central Bank they control, write the new banking regulations and be applauded by their corporate mainstream media for becoming even Too Bigger to Fail. This Fourth Turning will ultimately come down to a clash between the people and the Wall Street filth.http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=43039

and the fact of the matter is you can find similar opinions in such mainstream websites as Yahoo finance "from people commenting on Main Stream Media bias". 71.174.141.4 (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, look. Get a blog, you can do that for free, and soapbox to your heart's content there. Wikipedia's purpose is not to document the random opinions of every passer by. Volunteer Marek  02:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

One vote for Pablum over criticism!71.174.141.4 (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Inflation

The creation of inflation through money printing is a central complaint against the Federal Reserve. In fact many complaints about the Federal Reserve are based on how this power is used and/or misused and the negative consequences thereof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.141.4 (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

So what? That doesn't mean you get to write a short essay about it. I have neither the time nor inclination to keep explaining how Wikipedia works to you. You need to read WP:Reliable sources, WP:Verify, WP:Citing sources, WP:Neutral point of view, and W:What Wikipedia is not. Nothing can be done about the fact that you seem to buy in to every fringe theory about the Fed you can get your hands on and avoid coming to an actual understanding of it with surprising fervor, but you can at least learn how the project works so you can cut out the petulant nonsense every time your poorly sourced, slanted, poorly written drivel gets deleted. At some point, people will stop assuming you are an incompetent newbie and start deciding you are just being disruptive. -Rrius (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

So which of the citations were bad? A letter from a Congressman? a dictionary definition? the Bureau of Labor Statistics which is the official tracker of inflation? 71.174.141.4 (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

How about a quote from a Nobel Prize winning economist who arguably is the founder of his own SCHOOL of Economics. The Chicago based monetarist school. Is that bad as well?71.174.141.4 (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That stuff does not back up the claim that this is a meaningful and notable criticism. First of all, the first two paragraphs, including the quotation, are completely uncited. Second, a letter from a U.S. Representative stating his beliefs means nothing more than he says he believes those things. You try to use it to support as fact the claim that inflation hits seniors most. Third, a chart from a political scientist is inadequate to back up the proposition about inflation since 1600. It is even less competent to blame any such difference on the Fed. It is not enough to provide a source. You have to use a reliable source that actually backs up the claim made. Fourthly, your proposed language (aside from being poorly written and formatted) is clearly written from the slant of an anti-Fed conspiracy nut, which fails to meet the requirement of being from a neutral point of view]. You have so far shown yourself unable or unwilling to read Wikipedia's guidelines to make yourself a better editor. You continue to edit war despite having been blocked over it. When your proposed text is reverted, you discuss it on the talk page until you achieve consensus. What you have added is so bad that there is no way you will ever get consensus without considerable change to it. So stop being obtuse, stop edit warring, and start educating yourself on how this place works. If you truly didn't intend your last contribution to be intellectually dishonest, it may be that you simply lack the grasp on logic to make a meaningful contribution at Wikipedia (although it would explain why you believe every ridiculous thing you hear about the Fed). -Rrius (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The following quote originated with Ron Paul in his audit the Fed campaign which BTW was a partial success. The language was copied by OTHER Congressman in their correspondence of support for that audit. In other words the majority of the US House of Representatives and the majority of the US Senate, found this language ACCEPTABLE! Who are you to say its not?

Newly created money benefits politically favored financial interests, especially banks, on the front end. Over time, however, the net result of monetary inflation is always the devaluation of savings and purchasing power. This devaluation discourages saving, which is the key to capital accumulation and investment in a healthy economy. Inflation also hits hardest at seniors and those living on fixed incomes. 71.174.141.4 (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Added more citations to address your concerns, including one from to a monster of a dictionary.71.174.141.4 (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

speculative essays like this belong on a person's Facebook page, not here. Rjensen (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

71.174.141.4 you need to understand the difference between sourcing requirements for a college essay and sourcing for a Wikipedia article. Our articles are not supposed to show any originality or creativity whatsoever. (See No Original Research) Every statement, position or argument in an article needs to have been already made by a reliable source. No speculation, analysis or synthesis based on sources is allowed. Not only that, but the contents of an article are supposed to be weighted according to the prominence of a position in reliable sources. (See Due and undue weight) Positions and arguments shouldn't be presented in a Wikipedia article unless it is a prominent argument that has already been seriously made in multiple reliable sources. LK (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Creating inflation is a widespread criticism of the Federal Reserve and needs to be included. If you don't like the way I presented the issue why not make changes to make it acceptable, instead of acting all disruptive?71.174.141.4 (talk) 12:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

the treatment is not encyclopedic and is not based on the many RS. The statement can be made in 2 sentences :"Some critics A, B and C say the Fed creates inflation and inflation is bad for some people, and that bad outweighs the good the Fed does. cite A, B, C." that's all that's needed. Rjensen (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

In the main article where is any reference made to the BAD stuff caused by money printing? If not then you are just acting biased. Also in case you missed it this is a article is about "criticisms". See the title. I am not the one who split off this material. I am just attempting to add a number of the criticisms of the Fed which are not here and are SUPPOSED TO BE per the main article. For instance the main article refers to this sub-article for more information on Constitutional criticisms. WHERE is that material on this sub-article? Repeatedly deleted is where it is at. Same of the material on criticism about causing inflation. THAT material included quotes from Keynes, Lenin and Friedman - ALL of who founded their own schools of economics or were high up in those schools. See Keynesian, Chicago monetarist,and MARXIST economics. Every one is a school which has or had a wide following. 71.174.141.4 (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not enough that you say you are trying to add criticisms. What you need to do is find reliable sources to verify all the claims you are making that are even marginally controversial. What you have done so far, as a rule, is to provide reliable sources for uncontentious matter, and little or none for the crux of your criticisms. I stress your criticisms, because these appear to be essays showing your opinion. At best they show the opinion of one uninformed crackpot out there rather than showing a significant number believe whatever it is you are claiming. Being more specific, your constitutional criticisms (again, note that "constitutional" is lowercase) were drivel and clearly refuted by case law. Fringe theories do not belong here, as has been pointed out to you at least twice. And finally, your inflation material, as well as being plagued by the citation problems mentioned to you numerous times, also doesn't make sense. If we tried to have zero inflation, we would be at enormous risk of deflation; As any economist will tell you, once you hit deflation, it is very, very difficult to get out of it—ask the Japanese. So when you can point to a non-fringe theory (sources and all) holding that a powerful risk of deflation is better than a modest annual inflation rate, we'll take you more seriously. -Rrius (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI: People who undermine the US Constitution, and its protections, likely fall into that class of people called "domestic enemies". My criticisms have never seen the light of day because the courts refuse to touch the issue with a 10 foot pole. Thomas Jefferson, a US PRESIDENT, stated that the Federal government has NO power to declare anything AT ALL a legal tender, JAMES MADISON a US PRESIDENT recorded that the power to print money had been DENIED Congress on a vote of 9 to 2, and that this power which was included in a draft version of the US Constitution, had been stripped from that draft based on the recorded vote and does not appear on the final version of that document. Ellsworth, a CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE US SUPREME COURT stated during the vote

Mr. ELSEWORTH thought this a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made, were now fresh in the public mind and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By witholding the power from the new Governt. more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost any thing else. Paper money can in no case be necessary. Give the Government credit, and other resources will offer. The power may do harm, never good.

If you calling these people crackpots, then you are a wacko loonie.

RE: your complaint that there were citational problems. I repeatedly asked that if anyone had problems with the citations that they put in a "citation needed flag". You even hear about those? Because you certainly never bothered to put one in.13:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.141.4 (talk)

Your objections to deflation are again a crock of shit. The US saw its greatest economic growth during the 1800's when deflation was the NORM. The US went from being a third world power (the 13 colonies) to the greatest economic power on the planet mostly under deflationary conditions. The few times when inflation rared its ugly head was during the various wars. Most economists there days work directly or indirectly for the Federal Reserve. They are paid to put out Federal Reserve propaganda. Looks like you fell for it hook line and sinker. Assuming you are not a shill of the Federal Reserve working this article for purposes of "content control".71.174.141.4 (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

If you believe that deflation is a good thing and drives economic growth, then you are even more ignorant that I thought. Your opinions are of no value, and your continued push to include fringe theory nonsense and your continued failure to take any notice of basic Wikipedia guidelines (despite their having been pointed out to you again and again and again) will eventually lead to your being blocked. You do not have infinite slack to waste everyone's time. -Rrius (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

EVERY economic theory of any substance states that savings drives economic growth. The higher the savings the higher the growth rate. Let me know when you figure out which encourages savings, inflation or deflation. Let me know when you figure out whether the US did better economically after the Fed was founded or before. This assumes that you have the ability to find the answer to so basic a question. A HUMONGOUS assumption.

Your opinions are of no value, you are a blithering idjit who thinks the Regional Federal Reserve Banks are public institutions when they are in fact private entities, the sum of your economic knowledge can be written in large print in the palm of your hand, and your historical knowledge is even smaller. Go back to the village that spawned you. It misses you.71.174.141.4 (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)