Talk:Gold standard/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

High debt levels considered single biggest threat to national security - who would of thunk it

http://www.executivegov.com/2010/08/mullen-national-debt-is-a-security-threat/

The national debt is the single biggest threat to national security, according to Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Thank you buyer of last resort for government debt! You have been SO helpfull! ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

To Freeloader - What Ron Paul thinks

http://www.fool.com/investing/international/2009/09/25/should-we-abolish-the-federal-reserve.aspx - the high points

Paul thinks the Fed is the root cause of the financial crisis

Jennifer Schonberger: In the wake of the financial crisis, some in Congress want to give even greater power to the Fed. You want to abolish the Fed. Why?

Congressman Ron Paul: Because they caused all the trouble. A monetary policy of easy credit and artificially low interest rates was the main source of the financial bubble,

Schonberger: So this would be a world with less credit, would it not?

Paul: Yes, there would be less credit, but it would still be steady growth. You would never have periods of economic tumult if you had economic growth of 4% or 5% -- so you would never have the temptation to turn it off. … There would be enough credit, but there wouldn't be an excess amount. … It would be determined by the marketplace rather than by the artificialness of the Federal Reserve.

Schonberger: What is the biggest downside risk to abolishing the Fed?

Paul: I don't know of any risk.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a consensus that only material specifically citing the gold standard can be used as cites in this article?

I would like confirmation of this (IMO EXTREMELY STUPID POLICY) as there are numerous portions of the article which would need to be deleted based on that consensus.

Please confirm this EXTREMELY STUPID CONSENSUS does in fact exist and I will start deletion material contrary to that consensus.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree with such a consensus. I do not necessarily object to references here that do not refer specifically to "gold standard" or "fiat currency." What I object to, and what other editors have clearly objected to above, is your use of such references to spin your own pet theories. Plazak (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

A number of cites have been provided indicating that the US did better economically under the gold standard then the fiat standard. To paraphrase the BBC that is BLOOMIN OBVIOUS!71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you know of any way to increase savings by punishing savers let me know. Convoluted thinking makes me smile.

If you know of a way to reduce debt by rewarding debtors also please let me know. As above convoluted thinking makes me smile.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

And none of your cites for that have said that the performance was better BECAUSE of being on a gold standard. You're pointing to a chart and saying "Look! Look!" And then saying that it was obviously because of the gold standard. That's not going to work - that's classic synthesis which should be, to paraphrase the BBC, BLOOMIN OBVIOUS. Ravensfire (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The wiki article on the Gilded Age states that one of the reasons for the exceptional economic growth of that age was "hard money policies". My guess is that your historical knowledge doesn't include the fact that the last of the fiat money greeenbacks of civil war fame were retired in 1879. That article also includes a comment by Rothbard (a big time Austrian School economist) comparing that exceptional growth with the pathetic performance of the 1970's. You should be aware that Nixon severed the last ties of the dollar to gold in 1971, ushiring in the first of the "lost decades" of economic growth under the fiat system. You are now living in the second of those two decades.

Comment that fiat greenback were retired in 1879 is here http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h171.html

comment already reflected in wikipedia are here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age#Economic_growth and include ". After the short-lived panic of 1873, the economy recovered with the advent of hard money policies and industrialization." as well as "Capital investment also increased tremendously during the 1880's, increasing nearly 500%, while capital formation doubled during the decade. Rothbard states that:

This massive 500-percent decade-on-decade increase has never since been even closely rivaled. It stands in particular contrast to the virtual stagnation witnessed by the 1970s.

Perhaps these comments by Rothbard "already in wikipedia" might shed more light http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard#Free_market_money

Rothbard believed the monopoly power of government over the issuance and distribution of money was inherently destructive and unethical. The belief derived from Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek's Austrian theory of the business cycle, which holds that undue credit expansion inevitably leads to a gross misallocation of capital resources, triggering unsustainable credit bubbles and, eventually, economic depressions.

Inquiring minds want to know how well the economy grows during economic depressions, of which the Fed has already caused TWO.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Of my other cites on this issue

This obviously is a comment that economic growth under the gold standard was better then under the fiat standard

http://cafehayek.com/2009/08/abolish-the-fed.html But consider: the US economy has actually grown less rapidly since 1914 [the year the Federal Reserve began operation] than it did before.

as is this

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_08/robinsr082410.html The Ethics Of Gold Ron Robins "What modern economists choose to forget is that during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries while the world was on a gold standard, global economic growth was unprecedented

It looks to me like quite a few wiki editors either have their blinders on or are BLOOMIN BLIND to begin with.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Check it yourself

Handy dandy little tool to check historical economic growth

http://www.measuringworth.com/growth/

Instructions for those that can't figure out what to do

Under US click on the box before "Real GDP"

Inside the two boxes beside that enter the staring year and then the ending year - then click "calculate"

Try from 1790 to 1913 - the years under which the US was "mainly" under a "hard money" standard

From 1913 to 1971 - when the dollar had some ties to gold

and from 1971 to 2009 - when the dollar had no ties to gold

If what you get is surprising to you then you have missed the BLOOMIN OBVIOUS which I have been trying to add to the article for about a month now.

Now adjust what you get by the fact that "household working hours" dropped up to about 1970 and then started rising as the need for TWO incomes were needed to stay in the middle class.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

BLATANT POV by Freeloader

Freeloader considers a source worthy of being cited for the gold standards bad points (much exegerated in the article) But thinks that the source MAIN PLUS for the gold standard is not worth mentioning.

Bordo states - "As mentioned, the great virtue of the gold standard was that it assured long-term price stability.". I added that exact quote - word for word - into the article - Freeloader then deleted it.

To remove language on the "GREAT VIRTUE" aka the most beneficial aspect of the gold standard is BLATANT POV PUSH.71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You neglected to put quotation marks around the quote, so don't blame others when they edit the wording. Blatent POV? Not at all. The idea is there, so quit whining. Plazak (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

((ec)) He deleted it? Really? Hmm, I think you should recheck the article, or your vision. It's still there. You should also remember that when you exactly quote something you should, you know, actually quote it, with quotes, and attribution in the article. I'm slightly revising that statement by moving "great virtue" to match the format of the other advantages. Seriously, 71, ease up on the tone of your posts. You are NOT helping anything by your continual accusations (especially when proven wrong). Ravensfire (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I didn't actually delete it. I just moved it, as the general theme is already being covered in another bullet point.TheFreeloader (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean you BURIED it. The "GREAT VIRTUE" aka the most beneficial aspect of the gold standard deserves the top slot in the advantages section- not buried in the body.71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

and it's not "A" great virtue, the source states it is "THE" great virtue. Burying and minimizing this main point does in fact show POV bias71.184.184.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC).

How did I bury it? I put it first in the bullet point. If you'd like to you could move that bullet point up first too, I really doesn't matter to me. Also, I really don't like that you calling me a PoV pusher, I have actually spend quite some time reading through the opinions of gold standard supporters in the interest of wp:writing for the opponent, but simply haven't been able to find any points which weren't more or less covered already.TheFreeloader (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

At top dog it deserves the top spot, not buried. You are a POV pusher. The fact that you delete material favorable to the gold standard and then BURY the top advantage of the gold standard indicates something and that something is NOT evenhandedness.71.184.184.238 (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Last time I'm gonna say this, 71, stop with the personal attacks. The continual belittling of those you disagree with is not helpful here and is tiresome to see time and time again. Reminders, sarcasm and direct requests asking you to stop have not worked, so this is the last direct request I'm making here. I've no issue with discussion, but you carry it beyond the article and into the editor. Stop. Ravensfire (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is tiresome dealing with people that can't quite grasp that savings is rewarded by a higher real interest rate. It's even more tiresome dealing with people that think that buying a house is investing in the economy. Let me know what those 18 million currently empty units are producing when you figure it out.71.184.184.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC).

Some people here say that some of additions need more sourcing

Here is one that you would run into "REGULARLY" if you bothered to read economic news. Anyone who questions that a healty environment for small business is the key to economic growth is "BLOOMIN" ignorant.

http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/110572/the-10-things-the-government-could-do-to-cut-unemployment-in-half?sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=#mwpphu-container

Saving Small Business. Economists, Fed Chief Bernanke, and organizations like the Small Business Administration have repeatedly made the point that small businesses are and have been the primary engine of job creation in America. Companies with work forces under 500 create nearly half of private non-farm GDP. Large companies have had easy access to capital markets even with the depressed economy. They have been able to take advantage of historically low-interest rates to stockpile capital.

By contrast, banks have been reluctant to fund small operations that have little or no cash and uncertain prospects and usually a relatively small number of customers. The idea that the federal government should shoulder some of the risk of small business loans has been proposed several times, but no legislation has been passed to support small business bank aid on a wide-scale basis. Without a well-funded small business sector, unemployment is unlikely to improve.71.184.184.238 (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

And how is this helpful to improving this article? This isn't a WP:SOAPBOX, please make it relevant. Ravensfire (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It provides backing for my point that under a gold standard, which has more plentiful savings, small business is not starved for capital and can improve the growth rate of the economy to a much greater extent then it can under present circumstances, where it is starved for capital and can't do jack! 71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

improper sourcing

For this recent edit, I randomly checked the first three cites for the snippet beginning, "'Since the gold standard rewards savers, there is a greater pool of savings which can be used to make investments and start new industries." None of them is adequate to the task of supporting what they supposedly support. None mentions the gold standard (or fiat currency). I have to assume the rest of the edit is of similar quality, and revert it. CRETOG8(t/c) 02:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Which part of "punishing savers reduces savings" don't you understand?

also

Which part of "rewarding debtors reduces savings" don't you understand?71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What "points are not addressed", and what "refs are inadequate"? BTW: Did you notice you deleted a citation that you asked for? proving again that your powers of observation are legendary (that's sarcasm BTW).71.184.184.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC).

What part of "None mentions the gold standard" don't you understand? Your sources need to specifically mention the gold standard when you're trying to describe the advantages of that. You're continually throwing out example after example of WP:SYNTH, which is why editor after editor reverts your changes. Ravensfire (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

IF I DELETED EVERY REF ON THE PAGE THAT DID NOT MENTION THE GOLD STANDARD THE ARTICLE WOULD BE GONE!71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I did notice that I deleted a ref which was in the place where I asked for a ref, but the ref wasn't addressing the gold standard, and so not what I asked for. CRETOG8(t/c) 21:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You asked for a ref that deflation rewards savers. You got and then you deleted it. Your clear focused vision humbles me. BTW: That was also sarcasm.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

regarding this edit, see above. Nothing has changed in regards to what I said at the start of this section. CRETOG8(t/c) 00:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus that cites have to reference the gold standard - your objection is smelly stinking garbage. If it wasn't you'd have deleted about half the article. Why don't you back up that objection and start deleting buddy boy? 71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

More for Freeloader - Jim Rogers sez

http://www.cnbc.com/id/23588079/Jim_Rogers_Abolish_the_Fed

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke should resign and the Fed should be abolished as a way to boost the falling dollar and speed up the recovery of the U.S. economy, investor Jim Rogers, CEO of Rogers Holdings, told CNBC Europe Wednesday.

Federal Reserve The Federal Reserve headquarters in Washington, DC.

Asked what he would do if he were in Bernanke's shoes, Rogers, who slammed the Fed for pouring liquidity in the system and accepting mortgage-backed securities as guarantees, said: "I would abolish the Federal Reserve and I would resign."

If this happened, "we don't have anybody printing money, we don't have inflation in the land, we don't have a collapsing U.S. dollar," he told "Squawk Box Europe."71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the many cites that keeps getting deleted and supporting the fact that economic growth under the gold standard is (in the quotes words) "unprecedented" is actually one that originated with Freeloader and states http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GoldStandard.html

During that time, the majority of countries adhered (in varying degrees) to gold. It was also a period of unprecedented economic growth with relatively free trade in goods, labor, and capital.

Seems Freeloader is more then a bit two faced on what that cite can be used for. He feels he can use that cite to support HIS addition but it's "not good enough" to be used by someone else.

His use of that cite - and its addition to this articles content is here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gold_standard&diff=381376136&oldid=381238193

I called that action by Freeloader blatant two faced POV. What do others think?71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be alright if it was only that statement you added, that is to say something like "The time during the 19. century where many countries were on the gold standard, the world experienced unprecedented growth". What I object to is the fact that you keep adding your own synthesis around that statement. You just can not write things which aren't directly stated in the cite you provide.TheFreeloader (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if your VAST (sarcasm) knowledge of economics shows a way of growing a economy that does not involve investing. Also let me know if that vast knowledge includes the fact that savings = investing in mainstream economics. So rub those two brain cells together, which economy grows better - one that rewards saving which can then be used to invest in new products and processes or one that punishes saving and REDUCES the pool of money available for investment. To anyone with even a bare smattering of economic knowledge the answers are obvious. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I could think of some reasons why more savings would not automatically translate into more investment. For instance if there is nothing good to invest in because the economy is expected to continuously contract (possibly because of the paradox of thrift). Or because of nominal yields on debt being close to zero, making cash as good an investment as debt. Or because of fluctuations in the short term value of money, making the value of debt uncertain.

I am not saying savings can't lead to investment. I am just saying that not very much is all that certain and obvious in the field of economics, and therefore most claims about economic matters in wikipedia should be accompanied by references.TheFreeloader (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You avoided the question: Let me repeat it - Does your VAST (sarcasm intended) knowledge of economics shows a way of growing a economy that does not involve investing?71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, doesn't your hypothesis kinda fall flat if one of the parts of it is wrong anyways. I mean if you could just as well borrow to invest or saving doesn't lead to investment, then how much conclusions worth then? But to your question, I'm actually not that sure there is such a tight relation between the relative investment and gdp growth. Investment was a smaller part of gdp in the 1990's than in the 2000's, as people started investing more in housing in the 2000's.TheFreeloader (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You need someone to have saved before you can borrow his stash. That's Econ .0001 - and below basic basket weaving. BTW: Your comment about "investing in housing" deserves a ROTFLMAO. Housing is a CONSUMABLE end product. Investing in the economy means investing in the means of production. You know them there things called factories, mines, and power generators. Them there things that "produce". ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!71.184.184.238 (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The way the Bureau of Economic Analysis divide up the contributions to GDP, residential fixed investment is included under gross private domestic investment. And as I said earlier, investment was 15.8% of GDP in 1996 and 17.4% of gdp in 2006[1].TheFreeloader (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You are getting confused between rental properties and homes. According to this graph http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/resfi.htm that kind of investment fell apart in the middle of the decade, probably BECAUSE the housing building boom killed the rental market. Again - When you find out please let me know what those 18 million EMPTY units are producing, besides roaches and rats.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No I don't think I am confusing anything. Greg Mankiw's Principles of Economics: "Investment also includes expenditure on new housing. (By convention, expenditure on new housing is the one form of household spending categorized as investment rather than consumption.)". To the vacant houses, I can just say, whether something is an investment isn't decided based on its usefulness. What does a factory which isn't being used, because there isn't demand for what it is producing, produce. And that kinda goes to the center of your whole reverse economics argument. The idea you want to pass on as obvious is that if a society just invests enough in equipment and factories, the demand for the products to be produced there will appear on its own. It clearly doesn't work that way, and you will not find any respected economists who claims that.TheFreeloader (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The item I want included is that increased savings = increased investment (which a basic economic principle - somewhere around DUH!) and that increased investment = a higher economic growth rate (which is also a basic economic principle - also somewhere around DUH!).71.184.184.238 (talk) 11:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Those are not basic economic principles (if they were there probably wouldn't be this trouble find citations which support them). I have already explained why those assumptions are not always true. Increased savings will not always give more investment as sometimes there just isn't anything good to invest in. And investment doesn't always lead to economic growth as money can be put into unnecessary and unproductive investments.TheFreeloader (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Those principles are in fact that basic. You can't invest when there are no savings available to invest WITH! and without investment there is no way to increase production. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

See DUH! section below. Let me know if you feel like an idiot after reading it.71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you turned the logic around there. You can't do that. Even if those statements you just gave are taken to be true, they are still based on bad logic. Just because you can't have investment without saving, it doesn't mean you can't have saving without investment. And likewise just because you can't have increased production without investment, it doesn't mean that you can't have investment without increased production.(It's like saying, my car won't run without gas. Therefore if fill gas on my car it will run. No, it won't if lack of gas wasn't what was wrong with it.)TheFreeloader (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

See DUH! - the basic textbook proposition that saving must equal investment -- and you either didn't read or failed to comprehend this - The change in inventories brings savings and investment into balance without any intention by business to increase investment. A not quite DUH! concept but not an advanced concept either.71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: your second point - misallocation of resources happens all the time under both the fiat and gold systems - and under both systems those that misallocate too much go broke. Per many schools of economic though - if the invisible hand of the market is nudged from its free market path - misallocation happens more often resulting in reducing economic growth. The Fed and its monkeying with interest rates and money supply not only nudges that hand but bodyslams it from its path resulting is MUCH reduced economic growth rates. Witness 18 million EMPTY housing units producing nothing but rats and roaches. At $100,000 a whack, those empty units account for 1.5 TRILLION in misallocated resources - a significant portion of TOTAL US capital - and $100,000 a whack is a conservative guess as to their actual cost to build.71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

DUH!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_identity

Savings identity or the savings investment identity is a concept in National Income Accounting stating that the amount saved (S) in an economy will be amount invested (I)

In other words, investment must be financed by some combination of private domestic savings, government savings (surplus), and foreign savings (foreign capital inflows).[1] [2]

The change in inventories brings savings and investment into balance without any intention by business to increase investment.[2]

Adam Smith notes this in The Wealth of Nations and it figures into the question of general equilibrium and the general glut controversy. In the general equilibrium model savings must equal investment for the economy to clear.[1]71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

http://macrovb.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-does-savings-equal-investment.html

Savings is what is not spent. Let Y = income and C equal consumption. Therefore, Y - C = S. Using a national income accounts identity for AP Economics, Y = C + I. If I subtract C from both sides, I have Y - C = I. Since Y - C is Savings, I'm left with S = I. The following video shows this again.

http://mikeroeconomics.blogspot.com/2009/03/what-does-saving-equal-investment-mean.html

Assume that Consumption, C, is 5; Investment, I, is 2; Government spending, G, is 2; Exports, Ex is 1; Imports, Im, is 3. Use the national income accounts identity to find GDP, Y. That is: Y = C + I + G + (E - I) or 7 = 5 + 2 + 2 - 2. Calculate National Saving as Y - C - G. Thus, 7 - 5 - 2 or 0. That means that all of the funds for Investment, I, must have come from some where. In other words, the economy must have had loans to fund domestic investment. If I calculate national savings and move Investment to the left side of the equation, the identity is: S - I = Nx. Since Net Exports are negative, that means flows of domestic currency left the country. Those flows return to the country as a "Capital Inflow" or investment. Thus, if one takes I - E one can derive the inflow of capital into the domestic country which is used to augment domestic investment.

If the investment is in capital goods, technology, and education I believe that the inflows will have a positive effect on future growth. In this case, if the government is incurring a deficit, then the future generation will receive benefits greater than the costs of government spending.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/saving-investment-keynes-evolution/

Keynes showed that the fact that spending equals income, or equivalently that saving equals investment,

http://www.abc.net.au/money/currency/features/feat4.htm

Nothing in the foregoing discussion overrides the basic textbook proposition that saving must equal investment.71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In the last link, the very next after what you quoted is as follows:

"But it is evident that the proposition needs to be interpreted with some care. It holds only in a global, not in a national sense. If we are investing, then the saving to fund that investment must be coming from somewhere. But it need not be coming from the private sector, and it needs not be coming from home.

Nationally, therefore, the relationship between saving and investment can be virtually anything, depending on whether we are increasing or decreasing our indebtedness to the rest of the world. This is presumably the technical basis of Professor Harper's dismissal of the significance of the national saving rate as an influence on national economic growth and prosperity."

It seems to me that that kinda goes against your hypothesis. (Savings could just as well be used for foreign investment as domestic investment).TheFreeloader (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Trying to hide you ignorance by blather - Nothing in the foregoing discussion overrides the basic textbook proposition that saving must equal investment.71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it only holds true global sense (he even emphasizes this). So savings can just as well be going to fuel investment in foreign countries. I think this would be especially be true in the uncertain environment the gold standard would create.TheFreeloader (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The only thing it does is support my point of a lack of savings. If you need to import savings then you by definition don't have enough.71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

US Savings can't even cover US needs. One of the things a trade deficit means is that foreigners are LOANING you money.71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Seriously ... use the talk page

IP, you know that your edits do not have consensus. You have been reverted time and again, as you disregard the objections and comments made by multiple editors. For the last time, please outline your edits and how you think this latest round of changes have addressed the issues that have been raised. Ravensfire (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

List your objections.71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

See above. If you really want to improve the article, create a single section for each point you want to raise with that point, then reply to it with how you've addressed previous objections. Don't soapbox, don't rant, just discuss the edits you are wanting to make to the article. The burden is on you to address the objections, not on us to continually remake them over and over when you simply ignore them. Hint - the main objection has been synthesis. Ravensfire (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

List your objections and I will address them.71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion

I have started a thread at AN/I about this page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Synthesis.2C edit warring.2C incivility on Gold standard by 71.184.184.238. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Remove Advantages/Disadvantages

In the same way that there is a Wikipedia movement to remove the idea of a "Praise/Criticism" Standalone sections in BLP pages, so too should here, in order to bring this article back up to "Featured" Status, should we remove the standalone "Advantages/Disadvantages" sections.

A featured article has these points weaved into the article, as these sections also bring to them "however, ....." to each point - therefore, it makes them more of an argument-list than encyclopedic additions.

Each point I read could be put in a proper, and better understood section in the article, as it would enhance the content of other sections. It should be seriously considered. Bullercruz1 (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Bobrayner - what synthesis

Bobrayner - You reverted a edit of mine with an objection to synthesis? What was synthesized?

BTW: Anyone even glancing at US economic history knows that the US has its best economic growth under the gold standard, somewhat less growth when ties to gold were loosened with the creation of the Fed in 1913, and the worst economic performance after Nixon cut the last ties to gold.

A good argument can even be made that for the average American the US has gone downhill since the 1960's. In the 60's you needed only one income to enjoy a middle class existence, today you need two. 96.237.129.44 (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Correlation of cherrypicked events is not causation; please don't try to frame it as such. No doubt you could make an argument along those lines, but that's pretty much the definition of WP:SYNTHESIS. bobrayner (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

My reference specifically attributed the exceptional growth in the US during the gold standard to the reinstatement of the gold standard after the Civil war. He also said that the waning of the British empire was a result of England going off of the gold standard. He also stated that the hyperinflation in Zimbabwe was directly responsible for its economic destruction.

Not to say that the gold standard (or its lack) was the only thing that caused those happenings, but it certainly related. For instance a thieving Zimbabwe government stole in every way possible, only one of those ways was to destroy the currency through hyperinflation.96.237.129.44 (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we would agree, then, that Zimbabwe's problems were generally caused by bad government, rather than the specific question of whether or not its currency was tied to one particular shiny metal. However, your edit to the article frames Zimbabwe's problems in terms of the gold standard. That is synthesis. bobrayner (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Bad government tries to steal in every way possible. One of those ways is by creating money from thin air. Something that the gold standard prevents and the fiat standard enables. Something experienced first hand by the Founding Fathers by way of the fiat Continental currency. An event which they specifically tried to prevent from happening again when they specifically included in the US Constitution the requirement that only gold and silver can be made legal tender.96.237.129.44 (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Economics need not be constrained by the political proclamations of a small group of people who studied law or religion - or did not study at all - two and a half centuries ago. Economics has moved on considerably since then. bobrayner (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If your savings were destroyed by hyperinflation, you don't need to know much about economics to realize you got shafted and to take steps to make sure you never got shafted in the same manner again. Many of the Founding Fathers were shafted by the hyperinflated Continental and took steps to ensure that future generations were not shafted in the same way. As a result the US had a stable currency for 150 some odd years and became the economic powerhouse of the planet. The Germans got shafted in the same manner after WWI - took steps to prevent that shafting from happening again and are now the economic powerhouse of Europe. I detect a trend. How about you?

As for economics advancing since then, why has the US had its worst economic disasters under the guidance of modern economic thought? I detect a problem with modern economic thought. How about you?

Please stop editwarring. bobrayner (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Same to you and please stop saying that statements directly attributed to a reference are synthesis. 96.237.129.44 (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed contested text from the article three times. You have added it five times. Which is a violation of WP:3RR?

You may have noticed that I have left your text in the article rather than remove it again, because I don't want to get drawn into an edit war. You have "won", to the extent that hitting the revert button more times is "winning". I'm happy to wait for input from other editors; perhaps somebody else's input may help us move forward. bobrayner (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've already experienced enough double teaming by wiki editors to not give a shit anymore. Again you claim that the material I added is synthesis. Exactly what have I synthesized?96.237.129.44 (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I said in my first reply that "Correlation of cherrypicked events is not causation". If you don't agree, I could just copy & paste it over and over again, but that would be rude.

It's not double teaming. There has been no collusion between me and the other editor (I don't even know who they are); they appear to have removed your text because they also felt it was synthesis. If multiple people think your argument has a severe flaw, conspiracy is not the most likely explanation. Please try to assume good faith. bobrayner (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is rife with cherrypicking. The statement that the sooner a country got off the gold standard during the Great Depression, the sooner it got better is straight from documents authored by the biased Federal Reserve - which actually caused the Great Depression. It's also like saying that the sooner one gets shot in the foot, goes to the hospital and gets stitched up, the sooner one can walk again. The question of who shot you in the foot in the first place is conveniently ignored.96.237.129.44 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC).

BTW: Your synthesis argument is bogus. Even if if the material is synthesis, for it not be usable in a wiki article that synthesis has to originate with me. It plainly does not originate with me. I just happen to agree with it.96.237.129.44 (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

First problem - I've got serious questions about using articles on goldseek.com as a reference. For economic growth, there should be some excellent sources out there highlighting various economic periods and their growth/decline, plus offering thoughts about why. A goldbug saying that the growth is because the gold standard was brought back? Shocking! But let's ignore the periods of decline in those years, and previous declines while on gold standard. And blaming Germany's post WW I decline on going off the gold standard, while ignoring the crushign reperations they were paying? Wow. You reference three "facts" (albiet, reference them with the same bad article), but then draw a conclusion without referencing that small little detail. That's pure SYNTH - a textbook example, in fact. Ravensfire (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, and welcome back! Although with a different IP as before, no longer posting as 71.184.X.X I see. Ravensfire (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice little backstab there. Ever consider that if I unplug my computer stuff to move it to another room, my internet provider gives me a new IP? Do you know that if I get a power failure the same thing happens when power comes back up?96.237.129.44 (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope - no backstab. I know quite well how dynamic IP's work (even most DSL lines are dynamic). You aren't attempting to hide anything - there is no problem or concern. Call it me just making sure. Ravensfire (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

and I've got problems using Federal Reserve documents that are anti gold standard for matterial- after all if the gold standard came back, the Fed would be useless. That makes those documents plainly biased. As for those excellent sources - I put them up months ago and you got rid of of them - REPEATEDLY - by stating that you would only accept sources talking specifically about the gold standard. I found one for you. Live with it! It is a matter of historical fact that the US performed better economically under the gold standard, less well when there were only partial ties to gold, and worst after Nixon cut the last ties to gold. As I stated above, the US became an economic powerhouse under the gold standard, did Ok with partial ties, and has been at a standstill (or worse) since the 60's , when a middle class lifestyle could be supported by one income. Now it takes two, and even with two the middle class is shrinking.96.237.129.44 (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to rule out sources such as the Federal Reserve due to their being "anti gold", it's going to be quite difficult to make any further progress towards an artilce which we can all agree is accurate. bobrayner (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't quite get it. I haven't removed Fed material for any reason. YOU and the other wiki editors have removed pro-gold material, because it is pro gold material, on BOGUS grounds. Even if the material is synthesis, for it to not be usable it has to be MY synthesis.96.237.129.44 (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

So the growth of the 80's and 90's in the US never happened, or what? And how did the post war booms happen in Japan and the Asian Tigers, when they all either had fiat currencies or were pegged to fiat currencies? And how about China and India today, they aren't on the gold standard either. Only looking at one country's history, and within that even only at certain periods, does not create the basis for a very robust economic theory. That probably also why you will not find respectable economists who will reason as you do on this subject.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The growth in the 80's and 90's happened because the Fed controlled itself after screwing up the economy in the 70's by overprinting money. It has since forgotten the lessons of the 70's and has screwed up the last decade by again overprinting money. My point is simply that a stable value money is an economic plus and that gold is the most stable money that man has ever come up with. Historically when a people allow their currency to be debased they suffer for it. 71.174.130.146 (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What is "MY" synthesis?

A gold standard results in higher economic growth then a fiat standard. The highest economic growth ever recorded in the US happened under the gold standard

Backed up by - http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1291645800.php America’s great prosperity during this period resulted from the fact that the gold standard had been restored (after the Civil War) in 1879 and remained in force for 54 additional years.

On the other hand excessive fiat money inflation results in reduced economic performance,

backed up by - http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1291645800.php Under its gold standard Britannia ruled the waves and remained very close to the U.S. in economic progress. But in 1931 she gave up gold, and in 1946 Britain elected a group of Keynesians to run the country. Almost immediately, the British pound collapsed. From being the leading country of the world, Britain became just another European country. From the empire upon which the sun never set, Britain set.

up to the outright destruction of the economy.

backed up by - http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1291645800.php Even worse than Germany was modern Zimbabwe, where prices went up by more than 1 trillion to 1. Life expectancy dropped from 60 years to 40 years. Unemployment reached 90%, and there were reports of starvation and cholera. 96.237.129.44 (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Still haven't seen anyone saying it is MY synthesis. Perhaps you guys should read up on wiki rules.96.237.129.44 (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop editwarring. bobrayner (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to. Again: Show me what is MY synthesis.96.237.129.44 (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Conclusions not backed by reliable sources. You probably need to go to WP:RSN if you'd like a second opinion on if the goldseek article is a realiable source, and WP:ORN if your edit is not WP:SYNTH. The concensus here is that the article is not a reliable source and your edit is OR/SYNTH. Ravensfire (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Goldseek is a website hosting pro gold investment advisors. Are you stating that the advisor who authored the article referenced, is incompetent to discuss issues on the gold standard?71.174.130.146 (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've requested page protection because you didn't get the hint. Don't edit war. Period. Discuss, get concensus, then change. You went WAY past the 3RR line, got blocked, then IP hopped to get around that block. Not acceptable. Until you can at least pay lip service to Wikipedia's policies, I'm done here. Ravensfire (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Does paying lip service include NOT responding to qeustions? Come on! Let's DISCUSS - show me what is MY original research, MY synthesis, or that the author is incompetent.71.184.190.168 (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd take the hint if you can show me what is MY original research, MY synthesis, or that the author is incompetent. BTW he has over 100 articles here http://www.gold-eagle.com/research/katzndx.html so somebody thinks he has two brain cells to rub together. So far you people have acted like a bunch of censors.71.174.130.146 (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The reference doesn't say out right that fiat money reduces economic growth and leads to collapse. That is your synthesis of the text. Also I can not see any evidence of the source having an editorial process required by WP:RS. And in any event what is being expressed in that article is such a minority view among economists that it certainly shouldn't be presented as fact, and probably doesn't deserve to be mentioned at all under WP:NPOV.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

He does in fact state that fiat money inflation screwed up Zimbabwe and that was included in the new material. To quote "Even worse than Germany was modern Zimbabwe, where prices went up by more than 1 trillion to 1. Life expectancy dropped from 60 years to 40 years. Unemployment reached 90%, and there were reports of starvation and cholera." Care to try again or do you think that 90% unemployment is a sign of economic strength?? As for being a minority view - wikipedia states that the Gilded Age (late 1800's) was the time when the US had its best economic performance and further attributes it to the "return of hard money policies". In case you don't know it "hard money" refers to gold and silver.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age The Gilded Age saw the greatest period of economic growth in American history. After the short-lived panic of 1873, the economy recovered with the advent of hard money policies and industrialization. From 1869 to 1879, the US economy grew at a rate of 6.8% for NNP (GDP minus capital depreciation) and 4.5% for NNP per capita, despite the panic of 1873.The economy repeated this period of growth in the 1880s, in which the wealth of the nation grew at an annual rate of 3.8%, while the GDP was also doubled. Real wages also increased greatly during the 1880s.[12] Economist Milton Friedman states that for the 1880s, "The highest decadal rate [of growth of real reproducible, tangible wealth per head from 1805 to 1950] for periods of about ten years was apparently reached in the eighties with approximately 3.8 percent."[13]71.184.190.168 (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Come on people! Let's DISCUSS

Show me what is MY synthesis, MY original research or that an author who has over 100 articles stores online for reference by a THIRD party, is incompetent.71.174.130.146 (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Does the term "two faced lying sack of shit" ring a bell?71.184.190.168 (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In case you don't get it. That's me not so politely asking you to DISCUSS! 71.184.190.168 (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

We will discuss nothing while you are blocked. Evading your block doesn't at all help your situation. And your histrionic demand to get your version NOW is truly harming your credibility. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Dates of adoption of a gold standard

Useful in some respects, but sitting awkwardly at the moment, needed to move it pro tem at the very least to get a good flow. Is anyone not in favour of keeping it in the longer term? It could sure use some pruning or citations. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 20:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this info should be in the article. Also, if we could add dates for the abolition of the gold standard, that would be useful. There could be some problems with definitions, I suppose. Perhaps we could prepare a table here on the talk page and move it back into the article? Any ideas? Alfons Åberg (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Extended content

The first "disadvantage" is wrong At equilibrium the risk free rate will be at growth plus inflation. It makes no sense to assume that rates will be the same in a deflationary economy. It is true that an unexpected decline in the rate of inflation will cause a wealth transfer from debtors to creditors. But this is not a property of the gold standard at equilibrium. There is no trivial way in which *real* rates are impacted by the choice of unit of account. I think this point should be removed. [By the way, first wikipedia edit. Not sure if I'm adding a new point in the right way. Sorry if I'm doing something wrong.] Karstenh (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC) The second one disadvantage is not just wrong, it is stupid. Savers are the most responsible members of society while debtors tend to be the most irresponsible. According to how the "disadvantage" is written - enabling irresponsible behavior is a "good thing". 96.237.129.44 (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Both of the first two disadvantages do in fact appear to be wrong for the reason that they confuse stable deflation with surprise disinflation. Does anyone disagree? Should they be removed? There is, however, an additional unmentioned disadvantage of the gold standard: To the extent that the increase in supply fails to keep up with the rate of growth, it will be deflationary. If some prices/wages are in fact sticky, then any pressure (up or down) or those prices will cause a drag on growth. This is why inflation and inflation expectations are supposed to be kept as stable as possible. This seems like a major disadvantage and might be the first one listed. Perhaps the fourth and fifth points could be rewritten in a more general manner with this in mind. I'm wondering if the whole Theory section needs to be rewritten taking into account recent theory including both classical and Keynesian perspectives on money/growth. It certainly needs a lot more academic references. Karstenh (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Goldseek as a fring source Goldseek hosts pro gold investment advisors who have made millions ( and probably billions for a few clients). Compare that with so called mainstream sources like Helicopter Ben - who looks like he can't find his ass with both hands, a map, a GPS and explicit directions. http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=8112 “We’ve never had a decline in house prices on a nationwide basis. So, what I think what is more likely is that house prices will slow, maybe stabilize, might slow consumption spending a bit. I don’t think it’s gonna drive the economy too far from its full employment path, though.” – 7/1/2005 “Housing markets are cooling a bit. Our expectation is that the decline in activity or the slowing in activity will be moderate, that house prices will probably continue to rise.” – 2/15/2006 March 28th, 2007 – Ben Bernanke: “At this juncture . . . the impact on the broader economy and financial markets of the problems in the subprime markets seems likely to be contained,” May 17th, 2007 – Bernanke: “While rising delinquencies and foreclosures will continue to weigh heavily on the housing market this year, it will not cripple the U.S.” June 20th, 2007 – Bernanke: (the subprime fallout) “will not affect the economy overall.” October 15th, 2007 – Bernanke: “It is not the responsibility of the Federal Reserve – nor would it be appropriate – to protect lenders and investors from the consequences of their financial decisions.” February 29th, 2008 – Bernanke: “I expect there will be some failures. I don’t anticipate any serious problems of that sort among the large internationally active banks that make up a very substantial part of our banking system.” June 9th, 2008 – Bernanke: Despite a recent spike in the nation’s unemployment rate, the danger that the economy has fallen into a “substantial downturn” appears to have waned, July 16th, 2008 – Bernanke: (Freddie and Fannie) “…will make it through the storm”, “… in no danger of failing.”,”…adequately capitalized” September 19th, 2008 – Bernanke: “most severe financial crisis” in the post-World War II era. Investment banks are seeing “tremendous runs on their cash,” Bernanke said. “Without action, they will fail soon.” As you can see, he has been a regular Nostradamus with his predictions.96.237.129.44 (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC) Deleted sentence in need of citation I deleted this sentence flagged as in need for citation for a year. "It (the Bretton Woods Agreement T.) also prevented countries from manipulating their currency's value to gain an edge in international trade." Well, while active trade manipulations were obviously not possible as rates were fixed, the system did also fixed some international trade "edges", e.g., by the realtive undervaluation of the German Mark contributing to huge German trade surplusses and corresponding outflows of US gold. So the statement is technically correct, not to say trivial, but it still does not purport an adequate impression of the situation. Best regards, --Trinitrix (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Terribly Keynesian bias The sections on the Depression show a terribly Keynesian bias and I suggest that reference be made to Lionel Robbins's 1934 exposition of these events in his book The Great Depression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.174.32 (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC) I agree. Many of the sections, particularly those that discuss the benefits and criticisms of the gold standard, have a Keynesian/monetarist bias. There are several authors who would dispute the popularized statist views of these sections. Many of the statements are made as facts when the reality is that they are unproven theories which, according to the Austrian school, do not work. However, because of a general disinformation about economics and the pervasiveness of corporatist/socialist ideologies, such attitudes and bias pro or con a gold standard, various panics, and general economic thinking are hard to find in a neutral context. I think this article needs an "Undue" tag. Hradek (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Yea this is horrific. If you take a minute to think about it, the criticisms of gold make no sense. Some of this can be cleaned up, but a lot of it needs more technical knowledge. I havent read my Rothbard and Paul yet.--Metallurgist (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Whoah, people, whoah. The best articles are based on verifiability not truth. We have a responsibility not to right the truth (tm), or to appraise the arguments ourselves. If the current published media has a bias towards Keynesianism, we must also have a bias towards Keynesianism, per WP:BALANCE. Now, who has any stats on that? - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 09:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Does that mean if the media has a creationist bias, we have to report that too? Keynesianism has a well documented history of being completely false. I removed some parts that are easily proven false or misguided. Some of this is simple logic, others of it is proven. It is verifiable in that it is sourced. We could have split articles. "Keynesian view" vs. "Austrian view" But I would say thats utterly ridiculous since Keynesianism is usually easily refuted.--Metallurgist (talk) 07:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC) Edited Advantages/Disadvantages section I noticed there was a discrepancy between the advantages and disadvantages sections. The advantages section listed the purported advantages of the gold standard. The disadvantages section also listed the purported disadvantages of the system. But in the disadvantages section there were goldbug rebuttals to each point worked in. Either both sides should have rebuttals or neither should so I removed the rebuttals in the disadvantages side in interests of NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.236.252.231 (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Greenspan Greenspan famously argued the case for returning to a gold standard in his 1966 paper "Gold and Economic Freedom", in which he described supporters of fiat currencies as "welfare statists" intent on using monetary policies to finance deficit spending. He has argued that the fiat money system of his day (pre-Nixon Shock) had retained the favorable properties of the gold standard because central bankers had pursued monetary policy as if a gold standard were still in place This is confusing. Wasn't the US dollar currently (then) using a form of the gold standard? Why would he be arguing for a return? Was he arguing for a change to the current system in the US or for other countries to use gold directly rather then being tied to the US? Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC) I just read the article. The above quote is wrong in claiming Greenspan argued for a 'return'. He is actually arguing for change to a "pure" version of the gold standard, one that is even more rigid that the pre WWII US government practices. Google the article, it is duplicated across the web and easily found. 203.9.151.254 (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC) I have since removed the sentence He has argued that the fiat money system of his day (pre-Nixon Shock) had retained the favorable properties of the gold standard because central bankers had pursued monetary policy as if a gold standard were still in place because I can't see how the cited article supports it (particularly the 'his day' bit). Perhaps I misread it, but it sure don't seem to be in there. 203.9.151.254 (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC) A 1966 paper would also be outdated if you are trying to argue against a floating exchange system since the world was using the Bretton Woods system then which was basically just a modified gold standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.1.105.230 (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Coefficient of variation Price changes in the gold standard were both positive (inflation) and negative (deflation) in the gold standard era and averaged close to zero. The coefficient of variation is either suspect or useless in such a situation. http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/mult_pkg/faq/general/coefficient_of_variation.htm There are some requirements that must be met in order for the CV to be interpreted in the ways we have described. The most obvious problem arises when the mean of a variable is zero. In this case, the CV cannot be calculated. Even if the mean of a variable is not zero, but the variable contains both positive and negative values and the mean is close to zero, then the CV can be misleading. The CV of a variable or the CV of a prediction model for a variable can be considered as a reasonable measure if the variable contains only positive values. This is a definite disadvantage of CVs. 71.184.188.254 (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC) In plain English the coefficient of variation calculated by Bordo has excellent odds of being goobleygook.71.184.188.254 (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC) You are right, those numbers could potentially be misleading. As the coefficient of variation is a ratio, it could both be the numerator (the standard deviation) and the denominator (the mean) which was causing the difference. So, I took the figures out of the article.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Its not about whether the numbers are misleading, its whether Bordo recognized that he was not doing his statistical work correctly. The above referenced limitation on the CV is a divide by zero issue, or a divide by a near zero number, both of which will yield garbage. The text still in the article is based on that garbage statistical work and is also misleading. If the mean is .1% and you get a change of 1%, the coefficient is 10, if the mean is 2% and you get a change of 1% (the exact same change) the coefficient is .5, or one twentieth of the first example. To say that because the coefficient is different by a factor of 20, the price change is different, is a big pile of smelly do-do.71.184.188.254 (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC) It would be appreciated if you change the time for the idea of coinage to reach China from Greece to 10 years from 20. While fixing one mistake I neglected to fix the other before the page became protected again. 71.184.188.254 (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC) globalize tag removed Back in Jan 11 someone added the 'Globalize' tag, but did not give any mention of their reasons. I've hence removed the tag as I can't see what the problem is. If someone still feels the article lacks a global view that's fine, but please explain your concerns on the discussion page. Please don't just whack a tag on the article and then vanish. 203.9.151.254 (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC) I suspect the globalize referred to the lack of references to experiences and practices of nations other than the US and UK. They may be looking for examples of nations like North Korea with strong objections to currency rates based on the US dollar. In the world currency exchange markets nations like North Korea may have not any choice. But what do nations like North Korea use to define their currency rates internal or with other nations in closed regional or political market places? Do Iran and North Korea use Uranium oxide to back their currency in private trades? 72.182.15.249 (talk) 06:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC) Disadvantages The Disadvantages section has a lot of Keynesian theories that are easily shown to be mistaken. "The total amount of gold..." This is a common Keynesian assertion, but it makes absolutely no sense when thought about. Murray Rothbard and Hans-Herman Hoppe have written about why its completely absurd. [2] and [3] "Mainstream economists believe that economic recessions..." I can fairly easily present Austrian school criticisms of this view. There has not been any proof that stimulus fixes recessions. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. The Great Depression was not fixed by stimulus (contrary to the common view) [4]. We can also look at the present recession, there are media that are reporting that the stimulus didnt work. [5] sort of goes into that. "Monetary policy would essentially..." This is similar to above. Perhaps we can synthesize it all to say something like "Gold restricts the ability of central banks to modify the money supply, which is a tactic that Keynesians believe can reverse or soften recessions." "Although the gold standard gives long-term price stability..." What does this even mean? It seems like another convoluted, contrived formula. I am still looking for an Austrian interpretation or response. This provides somewhat of a counter to the assertion that gold is volatile. I am sure there is a really good rebuttal to this bullet, but I am not well versed enough in Austrian and gold theory. "Mainstream economists believe that a low,..." [6] might have some useful counters. But also, the central bank can get out of control, so asserting that steady inflation is good for the economy can be proven wrong with all the hyperinflations, and present inflation in the US. "It is difficult to manipulate a gold standard ..." This is a rehash of the first bullet. I think some of the bullets can be merged very easily. Others of them are nonsense, but there I step into OR a bit, altho there definitely are sources out there. Further, I think instead of using "mainstream", we need to use Keynesian or Monetarist, depending on where the claim comes from. Austrian economics is claimed to not be mainstream, but there have been many prominent Austrian economists and there are plenty of Austrian professors tenured right now. They are a minority, but how can there really be a mainstream in such a diverse, complicated, and contested field? This must be figured out.--Metallurgist (talk) 08:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC) We gotta keep WP:DUE in mind. While some people might find what is written at mises.org quite sensible, it is still somewhat of a fringe sources. And as such it just doesn't work to base too much of this quite controversial section on that source. It will give people the wrong impression about how accepted various views are to let a fringe source deliver rebuttals to all the mainstream opinion. And about "mainstream economics" I think it's common parlance to talk about Keynesian and neoclassical economics as mainstream. Of course if some view is only shared by Keynesians or monetarists then we should specify that, but I don't think it is warranted to try to phase out the term "mainstream economics" given how often it is used by reliable sources.TheFreeloader (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC) As a finance and economics joint specialist, I disagree with labeling these theories as specifically "Keynesian" or "Monetarist." If you take economics classes at any pretty much any university these kinds of things will be taught pretty much as the standard view of what is generally correct. Austrian School is definitely a fringe faction, although a very vocal minority. Also it seems to me that many people who associate themselves with Austrian School either don't have a formal background in economics or seem to have first studied philosophy, sociology or some other social science. Of course this is just an unverified observation on my part. 114.86.202.166 (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia considers Austrian economists to be a minority group and not a fringe group. 71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Academia considers them a fringe. Austrian school has become popular with alot of people because real economics is very mathematical and uses abstract models that are difficult to understand where as Austrian school basically just relies on reasoning based on "common sense." Anyways, I guess my main point would be that in the academic world Austrian school really has a small presence and many criticize its credibility so I don't think it should have its own sections on articles on Wikipedia. There are many other minority schools of thought that should not be included either but since the people who support Austrian school are so vocal you will see people arguing to put in Austrian school viewpoints but not supporting other ones. 202.1.105.231 (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC) The wikipedia article on Austrian Economics states that they are a minority group. If wikipedia states that they are a minority group then for wikipedia purposes they are a minority group and not a fringe group.71.184.188.254 (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC) The wiki article on Schools of Economic Thought lists no less then 15 "current" Schools of Economic thought. I doubt that any single one of them can claim to be a "majority" school since it is unlikely that a majority of economists support it. In other words they are ALL either minority or fringe groups.71.184.188.254 (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Austrian economics is called a "mainstream" school. 71.184.188.254 (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC) By whom? The Wikipedia article about it says that "From the middle of the 20th century onwards, it has been considered outside the mainstream".TheFreeloader (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC) and in the wiki article on Schools of Economic Thought, the section "Viewpoints within mainstream economics" mentions Austrian School as one of those mainstream schools. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_economic_thought#Viewpoints_within_mainstream_economics Wikipedia is very politically correct - they do not call anyone a fringe group or anything that might imply that a group is less than fully respected as equals by their colleagues - even if that is obviously an evasion of reality. Unfortunately that does tend to conflict with Wikipedia's desire to cite only the most authoritative sources. But I like the idea that Wikipedia is not afraid to include 3rd deviation schools of thought because you do need to be able understand these people when real life forces you to work with them. At least Wikipedia tends to sort out who are most articulate leaders of these very small minorities.72.182.15.249 (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC) Mainstream economics encompasses a wide (but not unbounded) range of views. Politically, most mainstream economists hold views ranging from laissez-faire to modern liberalism. There are also divergent views on particular issues within economics, such as the effectiveness and desirability of Keynesian macroeconomic policy. Although, historically, few mainstream economists have regarded themselves as members of a "school", many would identify with one or more of neoclassical economics, monetarism, Keynesian economics, new classical economics, Austrian School, or behavioral economics.71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC) A Google search of the terms "Austrian school of Economics" and "Keynesian School of Economics" shows more hits in google for Austrian School by a factor of 5. Austrian school got 540,000 hits and Keynesian School got 96,000. In googled web pages Austrian School is the mainstream while Keynesian is the fringe.71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC) That might be because the Keynesian school is more often referred to as Keynesian economics. But it doesn't matter anyways, we do not decide anything based on Google search results here, we base our content what reliable sources tell us. And as opposed to the unsourced piece you cited, the claim that the Austrian School is heterodox/outside the mainstream is well sourced in most places. Here are some of the sources for the claim [7][[8][9][10].TheFreeloader (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Do you honestly believe that 'historically, few mainstream economists have regarded themselves as members of a "school" ?' Macroeconomics is not a very old field, and back in the day you were pretty much either a neoclassical/classical guy or a Keynesian guy. In simplified terms, the main difference between the two was whether you assumed that price levels were sticky and that aggregate demand would adjust to clear the market or that aggregate demand was sticky and that price levels changed to return the market to equilibrium. This would be clearly conflicting so it would be difficult to identify as being both Keynesian and Neoclassical/Classical. Of course today its widely accepted that the assumption of a fixed price level is more relevant in the short run and the assumption of a fixed aggregate demand is more relevant in the medium to long run. If you still don't believe that economists identify with different schools of thought you should go read about the saltwater/freshwater split, Wikipedia even has an article on it. Whether or not the words Austrian school of economics gets more hits on Google than Keynesian School of economics is not a good indicator of whether or not Austrian school is more mainstream. The basic macroeconomic models that most people learn are the same (IS/LM, AD/AS, Solow growth model, Phillips curve, Okun's law, Marshall-Lerner condition etc.), the main sticking points are on the assumptions that you use when applying them. The difference between Austrian economics is that it doesn't use models or empirical methods because it thinks that they are not useful and relies just on "reasoning" so it pretty much becomes philosophy. This is why it is considered a fringe faction among economics because the methodology it advocates is entirely unscientific. Also to put in behavioural economics as a separate "school" of thought is like a mathematics professor saying that he is from the "linear algebra" or "partial differential equations" school of thought. Its more an area of study rather than a separate school of thought. Anyways most of this is beyond the point because this is not really a discussion board, but if you want to argue that Austrian school is not a relatively minor faction then provide reliable sources stating otherwise. 202.1.105.231 (talk) 06:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC) In case it is not clear - the term 'historically, few mainstream economists have regarded themselves as members of a "school" ?' is copied from a wiki article. Macroeconomics goes back at least to Adam Smith and "The Wealth of Nations" published in 1776. National economics falls under "MACROeconomics" and not "MICROeconomics" Whether or not Austrian School gets more Google hit then Keynesian School is valid insofar as it shows that in some ways Austrian school is more popular then Keynesian. Again a wiki article on Economic Schools lists is as a minority and not a fringe school. For wiki purposes that makes it a minority school and not a fringe school. That same article lists it among the mainstream schools. For wiki purposes that means it is mainstream. 71.184.188.254 (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Hayek gets mentioned in this Forbes article http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2011/08/24/the-federal-reserves-flawed-approach-to-monetary-policy/. Keynes is not, and I hope we can agree that Forbes is about as mainstream as apple pie and marshmallows. 71.184.188.254 (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Pretty much all the theories and models used in the study of Macroeconomics and the actual term macroeconomics pretty much have a one century history. It certainly did not begin with Adam Smith. Wealth of Nations will always get mentioned in introductory economics courses because it was pretty much the first book or writing to advocate that market forces of supply and demand maximized efficiency/utility, pointed out the idea of gains from specialization and also outlined a flawed but preliminary concept of comparative advantage. 'National economics falls under "MACROeconomics" and not "MICROeconomics"' Um ok, where did I mention anything about microeconomics? Using the argument of Austrian School gets more hits is hardly useful to determining whether or not its more "mainstream" than Keynesian. Its an entirely unscientific method. I mean it ignores the fact that the word Austrian is just much more common and likely to appear in writing than the word Keynesian which is pretty specific. Also, Austrian School IS probably a more popular topic for people on the internet because actual economics is difficult to understand and mathematical whereas Austrian School is probably much more accessible to the average person. But would you defer to what the average person believes when talking about things like math or physics? Maybe economics is not as much of a hard science, but it still requires actual study to achieve good understanding because a lot of the time the "common sense" answer to what you would think is correct is actually not. If someone where to really take the effort and look through all the published papers and articles in academic journals in the past years and label each of them as discussing concepts that are Keynesian or Austrian, that would be a pretty good and comprehensive test of Austrian Schools standing among economists. I would pretty much guarantee that Austrian would have much, much fewer than Keynesian. A one sentence mention of one economist associated with Austrian School economics in an article in Forbes is also hardly a strong argument that Austrian School deserves to have its own specific counterpoints to everything in the article that is incongruous with what Austrians advocate. 116.237.3.30 (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Where to start oh where to start. Macro vrs Micro. Do you wish to dispute that Wealth of Nations is a text on MACROeconomics written over 200 years ago, and that Macroeconomics is at least that old? Nice to see that you admit that in some circles (like the internet) Austrian School is more mentioned then Keynesian. My understanding is that Austrian School bases its theories and prediction on human action. Since human action is prone to illogical outcomes and math is a logical field of study, predictions based on human action should give more accurate results then predictions made using straight math. (I notice that above you make the same point with your "common sense language.) The Forbes article made one mention of a NOBEL PRIZE winning economist. Notice that no other economist was mentioned. People that get the NOBLE PRIZE are either mainstream or are where mainstream is headed. Nobel Prize winning economists that are mentioned in Forbes are nothing but mainstream. Actually economics is pretty easy to understand if you strip away all the trappings. It is all about supply and demand. You understand supply and demand and you understand 90% of economics. For instance the Fed controls interest rates by controlling the money supply. Dump more supply into the system and the cost of money (interest rates) drops absent an equal increase in loan demand (never happens in the short term). Supply more money into the system and the value (not talking about the cost this time) of money drops due to the greater supply. Look up the classical meaning of "inflation". 71.184.188.254 (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Considering that when Wealth of Nations was written the terms macro and microeconomics was not even coined yet and the basic theories and models you would learn when studying macroeconomics did not exist in 1776 no I would not call it a text on macroeconomics. If you were to read up on the few things I wrote for why Wealth of Nations was influential you would also find that they would have more application in microeconomics than macro today. The field of macroeconomics as it is today did not exist until the 20th century. No, not at all. Economics is not `pretty easy to understand`if you strip away all the trappings.` There are no `trappings.` Its like saying math is easy to understand if you strip away all the trappings. Supply and demand is only the most, most basic building blocks of economics. And even with that you still should know what an utility function is, an indifference curve, externalities, marginal consumption, marginal utility, marginal rate of substitution, marginal rate of technical substitution, intertemporal consumption, price elasticity, income elasticity, how interest rates move in response to changes in price of assets, the effects of unexpected inflation/expected inflation and way too many other things that I am too lazy to list right now to begin to have a basic knowledge of what economics is. How many economics courses have you take or books on economics have you read that you can conclude that it is ``pretty easy to understand?`` The problem is that people do not respect economics as a field that requires math and understanding of specific concepts. Its a misinformed viewpoint and disrespectful to economists and other people who study economics to think that you can understand ``90% of economics`` if you understand ``supply and demand`` (this itself is even a concept that most people don`t really understand, in microeconomics the utility function and indifference curve are pretty much what people call ``supply and demand`` and the aggregate supply and aggregate demand used in macroeconomics both have specific equations for which the variables such as consumption, investment, government spending, and net exports used also have their own separate functions). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.237.3.30 (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Considering not one mainstream economist, except a few followers of the Austrian School, predicted the housing bubble, I'd say that economists deserve quite a bit of disrespect. How hard is it to figure out that if you keep on pumping money into a sector, that the sector will end up in a bubble? Yet not one mainstream economist, excepting Austrian school, came to that realization before it smacked everyone in the face with a two by four.71.184.188.254 (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Again statements without sources. I highly disagree with the claim that "not one mainstream economist" predicted the housing bubble "excepting Austrian school." So you are pretty much saying that you are stating that it is pretty easy to understand economics while not having ever learned what economics actually was? And you're response is to just put down some kind of snarky comment about the housing crisis. Also now you are starting to get into an area that also concerns finance rather than economics. The housing crisis was largely caused by an originate to distribute model where financial intermediaries were taking large groups of mortgages, securitizing them, selling these to investors and earning money on the commissions. The problem was that there was a conflict of interest because intermediaries were passing on the risk of mortgage holders defaulting to investors so there was an incentive to just give out as many mortgages as possible even to those whose credit really wasn't good enough. The cash flows from these mortgage backed securities were also often very complicated as well as being grouped into different tranches so that they could have very high credit ratings which obscured what their true riskiness was to investors. 116.237.3.30 (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC) The housing crisis was national in scope and effected such a large part of the economy that it is nothing but a MACROeconomics issue. It was caused by the Fed printing money which had to find a home. That money ended up finding a home in the housing sector causing a bubble which few mainstream economists predicted. Economists are hired to predict the future in order to maximize business performance. That is their job. In my circles an abject failure to perform a job is rewarded by disrespect. Lastly it is impossible to have a bubble unless there is a source of "extra" money to fuel that bubble. Above you are describing the process by which that extra money found a home. Secularization, fraud, bad mortgage ratings, etc. are the process. Money printing was the cause.71.184.188.254 (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC) Pointless to keep on arguing with someone who just refuses to listen while ignoring most of the issues I bring up and who has pretty much all but admitted he has no background in economics. Yup "secularization" is totally one of the things that caused the bubble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.185.121 (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Assuming you are are 116.237 and not a third person, I can safely say that trying to have a conversation with someone that in one breath states that the gold standard (which actually should have been worded "ties to gold") acts to limit money creation and in the next breath asks "where did I say that" is at best trying. Add in the comment that gold is backed by 40% gold, refusing to accept the mainstream view of the gold standard as a standard of either gold coin or "at will" exchange of paper for gold (see Britannica definition), refused to accept that the economy bottomed in 1932 using real inflation adjusted numbers, who wasn't aware that Macroeconomics dates back to at least The Wealth of Nations, the process is at best trying. I can't say that I will miss this. Have a nice day!71.184.188.254 (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Bullet #1 is a misdirect. The original argument is about not being able to make enough physical gold coins for effective circulation (less than 200grams of gold mined per person on the world and much of that tied up in electronic, jewelry, and industry). One very small gold coin per person is not going to work well, even if 50% of the world is too young or too old to use theirs. So its an intentional diversion to reply that we can make gold as expensive as needed to cover the currency value placed in banks. That has nothing to do with solving the coinage issue. But if we start up silver mining again a silver standard might be feasible. No paper money with a 100% gold reserve does not satisfy many of the gold standard advocates. Most want to hold the gold and do not want to go through a bank or government to collect that gold. I also doubt that gold would be voluntarily returned to circulation once collected. Hello barter economy. Or maybe the full idea would be operating as your own personal gold reserve bank only yielding up your gold when neighbors lose confidence in your IOUs for whatever goods or services you sell. The remaining bullets are half-truths. Yes current economic theory might be BS. But it is unethical and silly to ignore centuries of gold standard ECONOMIC HISTORY and claim that economic problems disappear under a gold standard. The historical proof (start with Rome and move through the 1700s) is that most economic problems seem to occur regardless of whether you use gold -- people will lose confidence and disaster strikes. In fact the only noticable change is that faster communication allows economic disaster to occur faster across the same distances -- what once took months or even years can now take place in hours or minutes or even seconds under computer control.72.182.15.249 (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC) Freeloader wiki policy does not require proof of common knowledge like that Paris is in France or that tomatoes cost more in winter then in summer71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC) WP:V requires all statements which get challenged to be supported by references. If the conclusions you make are so obvious, the writer of the source for the claim about short term price volatility would probably included them in his article.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Do you actually require confirmation that agricultural commodities are more expensive "out of season" then when "in season"? Seriously? 71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC) When you've got a good reference that makes the same point in relation to the gold standard, please re-add your material. Until then, it's unsourced commentary. Your arguement of common knowledge fails here - this isn't specifically about only agricultural commodities, but a much more general comment. Ravensfire (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC) (ec)No, rather the claim I want verified is that the short term price volatility in the late 19th and early 20th in the US was created by swings in agricultural prices. And please wait until you have a source for that claim with adding the statement back in the article.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Doesn't matter what year it is. Seasonal price variation of agricultural commodities has been present since agricultural products were first priced. If you want to play hardball, I want verification that the author of that study on price variability removed the impact of agricultural price variability from his study and that the price variability he is talking about is wholly due to the gold standard. If it does not, then it is a flawed study and references to its conclusions should be removed.71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC) I don't have to prove that what he is saying it true, I just have to prove that he said what he said. The first sentence of WP:V is: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".TheFreeloader (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC) and I have cited a source that states seasonal variability of agricultural products exists. Just out of curiosity. Do you want proof that seasons existed in the 1800's as well?71.184.188.254 (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC) No, I want a source for the claim that swings in agricultural prices were the cause of the American short term price volatility during the time of the gold standard.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC) and I want confirmation that the author on short term price variability removed the impact of seasonal agricultural produce price changes from his study and blames the gold standard ONLY for the remaining price variability. If he didn't do such a basic adjustment, then his study is flawed and should be removed as a refernce.71.184.188.254 (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC) IP - please read WP:SYNTH, because that's what you've got right now. Also, please read WP:3RR. You are beyond 3 reverts at this point. Multiple editors have issues with your changes and there is some discussion happening. Do not, however, continue to force the information in when it's disputed like this. You will end up getting blocked. I'm leaving the same warning on your talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Just out of curiosity, what do you claim I am synthesizing? That season exists? That agricultural commodities have seasonal prices variations? or what?71.184.188.254 (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC) We do not need to judge the quality of our sources' methods. Only that they are reliable sources. Again we are going for verifiability, not truth at Wikipedia.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Actually you do have to judge the quality of your sources. High quality sources are preferable to low quality ones, and properly performed studies are preferred to faulty ones. If they are faulty then by definition they are not "reliable". If there is a case to be made that a study is low quality or faulty then a counterpoint to that study should be added. Again please provide evidenc3e that the study cited did in fact take into account seasonal price variation of agricultural products. If you cannot then the study is faulty and should be removed, or counterpoint language should be added.71.184.188.254 (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC) No, the way to decide whether a source is high quality is not to make a judgment about its methods. Rather it is to look at nature of the publication. And I would say that an encyclopedia like Concise Encyclopedia of Economics is a pretty reliable source.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC) IP - Please stop with the continual reverts. It's called edit-warring and you are WAY past the WP:3RR limit. You have multiple editors disagreeing with your change and giving you reasons why. You need to work on the talk page before pushing your change back in. I've left a warning on your talk page, I'll do so here. Do not revert this again. Discuss it here and get consensus. I don't think Freeloader or I question that agricultural commodities have price fluctuations. I am chuckling a bit that we're talking about the US and you bring in a source with data from the Phillipines. Yes, that's called WP:SYNTH. You take unrelated facts to form a conclusion that's not supported by the sources. That's the problem we're having. Both periods mentioned in that section would have had price changes. Find something that would explain why the coefficient of variation was so much greater in one period than the other. Ravensfire (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC) and in return I am chuckling at the fact that you didn't pick up on the fact that the Phillipines is a tropical country, has two growing seasons for a lot of crops, and still has a 25% price variance, while the US is temperate country, has one growing season and so has an even greater variance. Now back to the subject at hand, is there any evidence that the study cited makes any effort at all to adjust for seasonal price variations in agricultural products. It compares price variations in a largely agricultural economy with a variations in a largely industrial one. A pretty pathetic study methodology. If it does not make adjustments then it as about as relevant to this article as stating that more Indian raids happened under the gold standard then under fiat. 71.184.188.254 (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC) You didn't hear what I said about verifiability, not truth, did you? It really is of no important at all to us as editors how research has been done, as long as it is published by reliable sources. But since you seem so interested in this subject, I will help you a bit in your studies. Here is a paper about price instability and the gold standard[11]. If you look at the charts toward the back of the paper, in the summary section, you will see that the uncertainty about inflation under the gold standard runs a lot longer (like 5 years+) than it would seem reasonable to attribute to seasonal swings in agricultural prices.TheFreeloader (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC) You didn't hear what I said as well. Let me repeat: Is there any indication that the author claimed that the gold standard was responsible for those price variations. If he did claim that the higher price variations were caused by the gold standard, did he bother to check and remove the impact of other causes of price variations. If he did not then the all he said that there were different size variations and not that the change from gold to fiat has anything to do with reducing the size of the price changes. That is about as relevant to this article as stating that more people died of Indian attacks under gold then under fiat, that people were shorter under gold then under fiat, or even that peoples lives were shorter under gold then under fiat. All are true statements, all are VERIFIABLE statements and all are IRRELEVANT to this article. The reference to price fluctuations seems to me to be nothing more then an attempt to "blacked by association". A well worn tool of biased editors and a reason to tag this article as biased.71.184.188.254 (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC) For Wikipedia, that doesn't matter. Please see WP:RS and WP:V. Ravensfire (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC) It does indeed matter as wiki has a BIAS policy. This portion of the article is both irrelevant or misleading. i.e it shows BIAS. I wish to add counterpoint language in order to reduce that BIAS. Failure on your part to allow this shows that you have OWENERSHIP issues. Last I checked that was a wiki no-no. BIAS complaints require the article to be tagged.71.184.188.254 (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Irrelevant by what measure? It's a text about the subject at hand and published in publication with an editorial process and written by professor of economics specialized in writing about different monetary regimes, having published several books on the subject[12]. I fail to see how this by any measure specified in Wikipedia policy could be irrelevant.TheFreeloader (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC) It is irrelevant if the price variation was not caused by the gold standard but was innate to the economy. The language in the article implies it was cause by the gold standard -- Notice that it is under "Disadvantages". So far no showing has been made that the author claimed these variations were caused by the gold standard and if you can't show that, then you either need to remove the language from disadvantages, or add a disclaimer that the author made no claim that this price variation was caused buy the gold standard. .71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry, I assumed you knew how to use the reference notes in Wikipedia articles. Here is a link to the sources for the statement[13].TheFreeloader (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Repeating: I have already looked at that and as previously stated the author makes no claim that that price variation were caused by the gold standard itself. I have already pointed out that price variations in a largely agricultural economy are greater then in a largely industrial economy, i.e. the price of wheat, flour, corn, tomatoes, veggies, varies more then the price of a car, bus fare, a sofa, a gallon of paint, a CAT scan, filling out a prescription etc. etc. etc. 71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC) I agree that it is inappropriate to label a correlation of price variation with the gold standard as a disadvantage of the gold standard. Your study of the Philippines shows only a correlation, and not a causation. Therefore, you cannot blame the gold standard. Therefore, please remove this bullet from the disadvantages list. Adamjazz (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC) The study cited was to show that agricultural products have large prices changes. That the price changes in the Philippines (a tropical country with two crops per year on many agricultural products) is 25% indicates that the agricultural price changes in the US (a temperate one crop per year country) a century ago were of at least that magnitude. Transportation of these products also plays a part in price changes. Shipping veggies from Florida to NY or Chicago would have been more expensive 150 years ago then it is today. Also slower as well as more expensive transportation without the advantages of refrigeration (increasing spoilage before the product reached market) would have played a large part in price changes.71.184.188.254 (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC) Just an observation -- but given a world economy and market, you got to know product supply, total market and key usages. Supply variation alone can be deceptive. I suspect "seasonal" price variations for food products are not tied to only the local growing season but also to the Northern temperate hemisphere growing season where the bulk of world international consumers live. Only products with very low exports would follow strictly local seasonal variations. Even then you might have issues with demands associated with tourism with different seasons or a primarily usage requiring a second product with different supply factors...or even something like religious holidays demanding Christmas trees out of phase with their actual growing season. 72.182.15.249 (talk) 07:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)