Talk:Quantitative easing/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Sources and Credibility of This Entire Article - POV Check Nomination Discussion

There is a serious problem with the sources for this article: most are journalistic articles or references from banks themselves. All references are in question. The very article is in question given the support for the definining first-sentence of the article. POV Check discussion is below.

Journalistic articles cannot themselves be sources for fact as they are themselves secondary sources. For support of an economic principle, citation of journalistic articles for the facts is insufficient to verify. Sources of facts of journalistic articles must be checked, especially in light of widespread accusations of media bias, and evidence of government planting of stories and aspects of stories into the media.

In short, journalistic articles cannot be seen as trusted sources of factual information about Quantitative Easing.

In attempting to verify facts about QE, I viewed the sources, and found articles from journalistic articles from papers widely accused of and known to provide government propaganda. Quantitative easing is such a controversial subject that verification of fact through journalistic articles simply cannot be trusted.

In light of this, the whole of this article on Quantitative Easing is put into question. Should this article be further reviewed and scrutinized to remove indirect and secondary links? Should this article really be based on journalistic articles in light of the controversy surrounding QE, especially in light of who benefits from misinforming the public about QE and the relationship between publishers of these journalistic articles and those who benefit directly from QE policies.

Added references to beginning of article to notify users of questionable references.

Folks, this is not a page for you to edit if you are part of the industry or someone who directly benefits from quantative easing. This means, all you bankers need to stay off this page, stop editing, and stop citing yourselves and your industry and it's supporters to spell out something that does not accurately reflect what Quantitative Easing is. The fact is, QE is no more than a last-ditch effort by central banks to save an economy by printing fiat money in a pure Ponzi scheme. It involves the sale of bonds which are part of a 30 year declining market which has nowhere else to go. We need a clear understanding of this policy because it benefits less than a handful of people globally, and to the detriment of literally everyone else o the planet.

This article is a shining example of how awful Wikipedia can be to user who simply takes what they read for granted without verifying it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.172.159.39 (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

My addition of references to the questionable nature of the references to this article were removed with the editor stating he "checked the references." Yes, indeed he did, and found that they were, as I stated, all from central banks, think tanks, and newspapers. Not a single scholarly article on Quantitative Easing is included in this article.

As an example of what is meant by the failure of this article to cite neutral and reliable sources, let's examine the first reference, which is to this statement:

"Quantitative easing (QE) is a type of monetary policy used by central banks to stimulate the economy when standard monetary policy has become ineffective."

This is not a statement of fact, it is in fact an opinion. The statement suggests intention on the part of banks, who are then referenced in the citation. While this may be what the banks say the policy is for, it is not fact and does not describe the policy itself. This places the very definition of the policy into the hands of those who wield it. This is by no means neutral. It is possible, and I believe very likely, that banks are not acting on behalf of society, but rather on behalf of themselves. It is therefore in their best interests to subvert the true meaning of a policy such as QE which has every potential to destroy the economy because it is a policy which concentrates wealth significantly. Because these banks benefit from this policy, they should not be allowed to define it for the public; yet that is precisely what this article does. The citations which support the above statement are from two central banks and two media organizations. More specifically, one citation is from the Bank of England, another from the BBC, both state-run institutions and therefore representing an unreliable source. The other sources are another central bank, and The Economist, a journal widely accused of being biased.

This discussion involves one statement, the first statement, a statement which declares the very definition of the term which this article is meant to explain. And all citations for that statement are biased, as is the very statement itself: we are relying on banks to tell us what QE is, and why they would implement it. This is banks telling us what they are doing why, in a policy which benefits themselves to our detriment.

This article is beyond repair. I am nominating it for POV check.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.172.159.39 (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

189.172.181.231 (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

If you believe that the article is seriously flawed, I suggest that you apply at the Economics wikiproject for a review. I myself am a member of the wikiproject, and I don't see any glaringly obvious problems. However, since I've been actively involved in editing this article, I'll withhold my own judgement, and leave it for someone else to judge if there are any serious problems that need to be fixed. LK (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The reliance on secondary sources is a feature, not a bug. An unsupported assertion of a massive conspiracy by governments, scholars, journalists, and industry to hide The Truth is not a basis for a demand for a neutrality check. If there's a source you'd like to see added to the article, then go ahead, but be prepared for the possibility that you will be reverted and asked to discuss the change. Lagrange613 17:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

After reading the entire talk page and re-reading some of the intro, I have to agree with unsigned: This article is not sufficiently NPOV. The deviations are subtle, and it doesn't do a bad job introducing a novice to the topic, but still it could get a reader off-track pretty quickly. Let's take the first sentence "Quantitative easing (QE) is a monetary policy used by central banks to stimulate the economy when standard monetary policy has become ineffective". Only 3 of 4 source links work, and only one is primary, the others are journalists. The primary is Fed President Boullard's 2010 article, and actually he doesn't say that. He says the objective of QE is to lower long term interest rates. Sure the context of the action was a poor economy, but then say that. A more neutral tone might be "QE is a monetary policy introduced by central banks in the context of weak or negative economic growth. Central banks claim the policy objective is to lower long term interest rates. Many detractors claim it will be counter-productive" That's a bit chunky for intro, but you get my drift. I can easily provide 4 reputable primary sources for each mini-statement.

I'm going to mull on this for a few days, and if I get no interest on talk I'll go for a rewrite since I'm doing some work in this area right now anyway.Greenbe (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the statement: "Journalistic articles cannot themselves be sources for fact as they are themselves secondary sources." That is incorrect. Here's why.

When engaging in original research, primary sources are generally preferred over secondary sources. For example, when doing original legal research, "primary authority" is generally preferred over "secondary authority."

However, Original Research (as that term is used in Wikipedia) is a violation of the rules of Wikipedia. Under our rules, articles should generally be based mainly on secondary sources. There will be occasionally exceptions to that rule, but that's the rule.

Now, let's look at this verbiage:

"Folks, this is not a page for you to edit if you are part of the industry or someone who directly benefits from quantative [sic] easing. This means, all you bankers need to stay off this page, stop editing . . . "

No, not exactly. It is true that if an editor has a conflict of interest with respect to an article, he or she should generally considering refraining from editing that article. However, there is absolutely no rule that would indicate that someone "in the industry" of banking should not edit a banking-related article. That is a frivolous position.

And this verbiage:

"In short, journalistic articles cannot be seen as trusted sources of factual information about Quantitative Easing."

I'm sorry, but that's not correct. Famspear (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is another example of incorrect verbiage:

"one citation is from the Bank of England, another from the BBC, both state-run institutions and therefore representing an unreliable source. The other sources are another central bank, and The Economist, a journal widely accused of being biased....

Again, these are not valid arguments. The fact that the source is a state-run institution does not necessarily make it "unreliable." And, that fact that the state-run institution might be "biased" is not objectionable. Indeed, in Wikipedia, sources are allowed to be biased.

Read that again, very slowly: Sources are allowed to be biased. Here's why.

The fact that a source is biased does not necessarily make that source not reliable. Wikipedia articles include sources with opposing points of view. Sometimes, those opposing points of view may be developed because a source is biased. The fact that a source is biased is not, generally speaking, a valid ground for objection.

Wikipedia has a rule on Neutral Point of View. This NPOV rule does not require that sources be unbiased. Instead, it requires that Wikipedia generally present opposing views from reliable, previously published sources without Wikipedia itself taking a position as to who is right and who is wrong. The concept of an "unbiased" source and the concept of a reliable source are two different concepts. Famspear (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Banks do not lend out reserves

I am sorry but this article is wrong. As seen in this Bank of England paper, loans create deposits: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1.aspx 90.217.167.67 (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

^^^ This is the correct answer and most of the comments on this subject are mistaken. The US Fed is prohibited by law from buying its own paper but has no problem selling it (treasuries) on the open market. The Fed doesn't "print money" or create new money when it "increases the money supply", does QE or however it is described. It simply increases the percentage of depositors' money banks can loan, and influences interest rates downward via what it will pay and charge at its Overnight Window.

Increasing the money supply means making more money available to the economy from lending institutions. It doesn't mean actually printing money or even creating new real money on paper. See M1 and M2 for descriptions of the money supply!!

The Fed can also decrease the money supply by tightening bank lending restrictions (the percentage of depositors' money banks may loan) and then it can influence interest rates higher by its rates at its overnight window.

If a bank can get only .05% annual interest rate at the Fed for its overnight excess, it's likely to find a borrower at a higher rate of say 4%. If the Fed will on the other hand pay 8%, the bank isn't motivated to lend at anything less than about 10%. The Fed drops its rates so low that banks must lend to regular customers to make any money.

The Fed actually makes money on this by both paying and charging for money at this Window, depending on what each bank needs to meet reserve requirements.

This article really needs to be totally rewritten as to what the money supply really is, and how the Fed influences it.

Cmre3456 (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The discount window and reserve requirements are two tools of monetary policy. Open market operations are another, and they're the dominant policy tool used by the Fed. In particular, they're how QE is done. Lagrange613 03:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

So, I go to the first link and see a statement that Fed operations cause it to have to print more money to have enough in circulation. The context is real paper and coins. The Fed has never printed money. The US Dept. of the Treasury does. And so I go in circles, wandering how far this thing can spin out of control with misstatements and misnomers. Every statement made in error by some coiffed hair TV reporter is being parroted on here, LOL.

We need to separate the Fed from Europe, describe what each does because they are different, and get our facts right. This page has spun out of control and IMHO needs to be divided into at least the Fed, the BOE and even the Eurozone as separate pages to reflect their different laws and policies.

The Fed can buy US bonds to put more money into the economy, but not new bonds which it must sell to create real and true debt. The BOE may buy its own issues and who knows where the Eurozone ever gets any money, LOL.

Cheers!!!!

Cmre3456 (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, if we're talking about U.S. notes and coins, then it's the Mint that does the printing. But, of course, the main macroeconomic impact comes from the Treasury (fiscal policy) and the Fed (monetary policy). You seem to have finally conceded that the Fed can buy bonds, and the article already has separate sections for the different central banks. So I guess we're done here? Lagrange613 02:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is reading this a year later, it just so happens the OP in this section is completely correct. I will one up his correctness: Not only do banks not lend out reserves, they cannot lend out reserves. It's not just a matter of will, desire or intent. It's a fundamental definition of reserves. Yes, this is the most often repeated phrase "Despite all the QE, banks are not lending out the reserves" but it doesn't make it true. Reserves by definition are an inter-bank phenomena and cannot be directly moved to non-banks. They can be lent to other banks, but they remain reserves, and thus are not "lent out" to the non-bank economy. It's not just semantics it's a major problem with QE. Just google "banks do not lend out reserves" you will hit tons of sources. But I agree, the phrase is often repeated in many respectable scholarly papers, not just reporters with good hair. Greenbe (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Greenbe: Not exactly. Banks can most certainly lend "reserves." And, it is indeed a matter of the fundamental definition of reserves. At least in the United States, the term "reserves" has a specific, technical meaning in banking. The term "reserves" is not limited to "inter-bank phenomena." In the United States, the term "reserves" includes vault cash which includes paper currency and current coins. So, it's physically possible for a bank to lend "reserves" -- it's just that it should be -- and is -- relatively rare. Famspear (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Greenbe: In the United States, the term "reserves" is defined in a Federal Reserve regulation called Regulation D. Here are some excerpts:

"Maintenance of required reserves.

"(a)(1) A depository institution, a U.S. branch or agency of a foreign bank, and an Edge or Agreement corporation shall satisfy reserve requirements by maintaining vault cash and, if vault cash does not fully satisfy the institution's reserve requirement, in the form of a balance maintained

"(i) In the institution's account at the Federal Reserve Bank in the Federal Reserve District in which the institution is located, or

"(ii) With a pass-through correspondent in accordance with §204.5(d).

[ . . . ]"

--from 12 C.F.R. section 204.5(a) (emphasis added).

For the computation of the required reserve, see 12 C.F.R. section 204.4. The term "vault cash" is defined at 12 C.F.R. section 204.2. Yours, Famspear (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Famspear QE is all about electronic reserves, often referred to in the literature as excess reserves. It's (a)(1)(i) and (ii) above. I know it's hard to believe they cannot be lent out because it is so often repeated as the main reason or mechanism, but it just is. If you read Bullard reference carefully, he actually does not say reserves will be lent, rather that the goal of QE is reduce long term interest rates. He doesn't explain further, but I assume the idea is that would induce people to borrow more. Net new borrowing surely does create new money.

If you want to believe QE is specifically & directly about increasing the number of greenbacks (aka Federal Reserve Notes) in circulation, you are welcome to cite your sources but I think they will be few and far between. Greenbe (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Greenbe: No, you repeated a mistake that has been bouncing around the internet. You said that banks "cannot lend out reserves. It's not just a matter of will, desire or intent. It's a fundamental definition of reserves." That was incorrect. I corrected you on that.

QE is not "specifically & directly about increasing the number of greenbacks (aka Federal Reserve Notes) in circulation." Who told you otherwise? Again: Banks in the United States only rarely issue loan proceeds in the form of paper currency or coin. What part of that are you not getting?

The issue here is not what "Bullard" or someone else said. The issue is what YOU said. You were wrong. I corrected you. If (as it appears) you're going to try to lecture other editors here on the fundamentals of banking, you need to do a little more studying, first. Famspear (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

PS: I just corrected a mistake in the third paragraph of the article. The article falsely referred to banks lending "reserves," when the source material did not say that at all.

Quantitative easing is not a process of trying to get a commercial bank to lend out its "reserves." Quantitative easing generally is a process whereby a "central bank" buys long-term financial assets from a commercial bank and thereby increases the reserves of the commercial bank (usually, that means increasing the "checking account" balance, so to speak, that the commercial bank has with the central bank), thereby increasing the potential amount of loans the commercial bank can make. It's simple math. If the reserve requirement has not changed, and your reserves have increased, you can now make more loans than you could before your reserves increased.

That does not mean, however, that the commercial bank then makes the loans by doling out its reserves to the borrowers. What that means is that the commercial bank makes loans in the way a commercial bank generally makes loans: by debiting an asset account (e.g., "loan receivable") on its books and by crediting a liability account (such as a customer's checking account). Famspear (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Famspear: There is no reason to capitalize "The issue is what YOU said" your attack is starting to get personal. I will not respond in kind, but I think Wiki frowns on that kind of thing. I asked for your sources none have been forthcoming, there are many sources for what I have said but here is just one that I think does a reasonable job of explaining it. For those not familiar, a reserve is created when a bank buys a security (or lends with the security as collateral). The asset is the security bought, the liability is the deposit created in the name of the bank that sold the security, and they have to be recorded in equal pairs by double entry accounting. Any bank can in theory create reserves for another bank, but in this case the Fed is the main actor. Since the Fed only allows other banks to directly hold deposits with the Fed, once those reserves are created they have nowhere to go. They can be extinguished if the Fed sells the securities back. They could in theory be lent or sold between banks, but then you are just exchange one bank's name for another on the deposit but the total amount of reserves remains unchanged. But they cannot be "lent out" in the common meaning of the phrase, which is to lend them out to non-banks such as households (eg mortgages), small business, corporations etc.

As I've said, the OP in this talk section is 100% correct when she writes "I am sorry but this article is wrong. As seen in this Bank of England paper, loans create deposits" and then @Cmre3456: writes "^^^ This is the correct answer and most of the comments on this subject are mistaken" and "This article really needs to be totally rewritten" I thoroughly agree with and support all these statements. The good news is we have tons of primary sources, all the key voting members of the central banks around the world that engage in QE speak and write regularly, and we can quote their explanation first before repeating journalists opinions.

I am not going to respond further to this thread, but readers should not take my silence as agreement.Greenbe (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear Greenbe: No, I am not attacking you personally. I corrected an error you made, and I responded to your snippy comment, where you said, "If you want to believe QE is specifically & directly about increasing the number of greenbacks (aka Federal Reserve Notes) in circulation, you are welcome to cite your sources but I think they will be few and far between." That comment falsely implied that I was arguing that QE is about increasing the number of Federal Reserve notes in circulation. You indicated that I was "welcome to cite my sources," as though I had made such a claim, but that I needed to find "sources" to cite.

In short, you set up what some people refer to as a "strawman" argument. When another editor corrects something you wrote, don't try to divert attention from your error by trying to show off the knowledge you think you have.

Your comments implied that you feel you have a certain level of knowledge about the subject of banking, etc., as though you feel qualified to "teach" me or others here something about it. What I am saying is that if you want to do that, you need to study the subject more, first. Famspear (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

To summarize: The basic statement, "banks do not lend out reserves" is generally correct. Greenbe's claim that banks "cannot lend out reserves" because of the "fundamental definition of reserves" is blatantly false. Greenbe implied that he knew the definition of "reserves," but he was wrong. I quoted from Federal Reserve Regulation D to show him his error.

Obviously, it is physically possible, for example, to issue loan proceeds in the form of paper currency. That's not the way banks normally make loans.

However, if making such loans were impossible, as Greenbe incorrectly claimed, there would be no need for the AICPA audit guide for bank auditors to include a statement that such a practice constitutes a weakness in internal control. See, e.g., Industry Audit Guide: Audits of Banks, p. 56, Banking Committee, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (1983). Famspear (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Above, Greenbe says, "For those not familiar, a reserve is created when a bank buys a security...." Again that is generally incorrect. A reserve may be created when a bank sells a security, not when a bank buys a security.

The term "security" here generally means a Treasury bill, or a Treasury note, or a Treasury bond, or a municipal security, etc.

By contrast, "reserves" (at least in the United States) consist principally of paper currency and coin on hand, plus the balance in the commercial bank's account with the applicable Federal Reserve bank. A security purchased by the bank does not generally count as part of the bank's "reserves." Perhaps Greenbe is using the term "security" to mean something else, though. Famspear (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

PS: The first step in the concept of quantitative easing involves having a commercial bank increase its reserves by selling a security -- not by buying one. Famspear (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Locking in low interest rates/low economic growth to preserve federal budget.

Interest on the national debt is at historically low rates. If interest rates were to rise to historic norms, or if there were a period of rapid economic growth which caused them to go above historic norms, the percentage of the U.S. federal budget would dramatically rise. Interest is already about 6 percent of the budget. The interest rates could conceivably more than double in a market dominated by supply and demand rather than fed intervention. A huge jump in borrowing, to meet the un-planned-for jump in the budget, could create a feed-back loop of interest rate rise. During the Carter administration, short term interest rates spiked to eighteen percent. At present they are at what? Approaching negative rates? That danger of ballooning the budget creates tacit government and Fed policy of never raising interest rates and maintaining an era of very low economic growth, to avoid inflation. Hypercallipygian (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)