Talk:Criticism of fractional-reserve banking

Neutrality and Content

This article really strikes me as biased and poorly put together.

If the intent of this article is to provide criticism of fractional reserve banking, then I don't see how constantly pointing out that “mainstream” economists don’t agree with the criticism is of any relevance.

I also object to the use of "mainstream" as some kind of a consensus reference. If someone has a scientific study saying that the vast majority of economists are now Keynesian and support fractional reserve banking then it needs to be referenced before a claim of "mainstream" is made. Even then it detracts from the criticism.

This article is supposed to be ONLY about criticism of the fractional reserve system, not about refuting criticism of the fractional reserve banking system. People should be given the critical points against the fractional reserve system and then be allowed to make up their own minds.

If the critical claims can be referenced and backed by sound theory, then that is all that should be presented. Refutations of criticism should not exist at all on this page as it should be an inherent part of the fractional reserve main article.

Wiki is on dangerous ground with this “rule by majority opinion” entry system. Dissenting voices are not adequately represented and opinions that conflict with the “mainstream” are often dismissed, deleted, or ridiculed openly even when backed by sound theory and evidence.

If people have problems with the criticisms of fractional reserve banking and want to post refutations to each point made, then those refutations should be on a separate page entitled “Rebuttals to criticisms” and they should also have a “Rejoinder to Rebuttals” in order for opposition responses to be heard.

This article however should be strictly reserved to CRITICISM of fractional reserve banking. Get the “consensus” and “mainstream” refutations out since they are meaningless anyways. Leave those for the main article or separate rebuttal articles/sections. Simply pointing out that "mainstream" economists don't agree is not a valid refutation. A valid refutation must contain sound theory or evidence against an explicit critical point. A valid refutation must point out WHY "mainstream" economists don't agree.

The article is a mess - it's a mesh-mash of information and editoral commentary. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, it seems to be confusing fractional reserve banking with fiat money. The "gold standard" is still fractional reserve banking, after all.76.166.204.89 (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This page is pathetic. It is expressed completely from the perspective of a proponent of fractional reserve banking. This article spends more time criticizing the critics of fractional reserve banking than it does allow space for the very necessary criticism of the current system. The article spends more time trying to debunk critics than it does provide criticism. A criticism page exists so people who aren't of the 'mainstream' opinion can express their views. Lines like this one "few if any mainstream economists now endorse such views" and "The term, 'debt-based monetary system', and related terms, such as "debt money"[6] are not used by conventional economists or academic neoclassical economists" belong on the fractional reserve banking page, not the CRITICISM of fractional reserve banking page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.18.159 (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The person who wrote above obviously didn`t read it all, the beginning seems like it`s from a proponent of the system. The person who wrote below obviously did read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.105.229 (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's the opposite - this article is biased in favour of criticism of fractional banking. That violates wp:npov. In fact, the very subject of this article violates WP:POVFORK. You shouldn't have articles solely related to criticizing something. You need to represent both points of view, and not just say that an opposite point of view exists without elucidating it. 163.1.146.198 (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2009

(UTC)

I agree that the article is biased in favour of fractional reserve banking. I disagree with 163.1.146.198 that the idea of having a 'Criticism of Fractional Reserve Banking' page is inherently biased. This is a huge topic, many books have and continue to be written on the subject. How else could it be covered in Wiki? If as part of the original Fractional Reserve Article, there would be the danger that the criticism section would be larger than the original section. Surely as long as readers are aware that this page is criticising fractional reserve banking we are on safe ground.

This article is incredibly biased against what the article is supposed to be talking about in the first place. Just wow... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.20.77 (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

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

some

To some

Some have

Some argue

some circles

some analysts

some schools

Some politicians

some commentators

Some Libertarians

Some economic thinkers

some political thinkers

Some monetary reformers

Some more extreme monetary reformers

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

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

References to Ellen Hodgson Brown don't need to be obliterated

Can someone please provide a ruling on this? Reasons for refs to be re-instated are (1) they are inserted to prove the existence of the opinion, not to establish the "truthfulness" of the opinion (2) She has a well-known book on this subject that is ref'd multiple times in the article already (3) the "blogs" are really just specific (easily accessible) applications of the ideas from the book (4) it would be tiresome to page ref the book when specific articles are available on her website.

I note also that her own entry on WP has been obliterated. What's going on? Why the paranoia? It's a published book after all. The time to get sensitive about this stuff would have been before the book became so well known. Now it looks as though people are just trying to cover up stuff. Let's chill on the application of too-strict rulings and allow people to adequately source material on this important topic, especially given the ongoing debate regarding the GFC. Let's be reasonable here guys. - TheFoodChainIsDying (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Likely, being a banned editor is the first issue you'll encounter in making your edits. BigK HeX (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. See WP:BAN. Ravensfire (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And just to reiterate the point I've made a few times in the talk pages, blogs are rarely good sources. In particular, Wordpress blogs are not going to meet that criteria. Please find a viable secondary source. Ravensfire (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I could well be wrong, but personally, my objections center around an impression I get, which is that some of your edits are meant as a vehicle of promotion about advocates of your preferred viewpoint -- in this case, an advocate of dubious notability. The fact that you are already breaking rules to include such questionable material magnifies the problem. While we're on the topic, IMO, even Rowbotham doesn't have enough notability (and certainly not the credibility) to receive such heavy mention in Wikipedia. WP:RS is yet another problem for your edits.

We know you have a beef with the banking system (and that's fine by me), but Wikipedia shouldn't serve as a platform to promote just any author that you like. There's more than enough high-profile criticism to focus on; sticking to that might go smoother for you. BigK HeX (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're addressing me, not Ravensfire, and given that I'm a polite man, I feel the need to politely respond.

(1) Define notable. (2) You will not get one mainstream writer talking about this stuff. Paul Samuelson's (RIP) textbook didn't cover this stuff because it was a mainstream text. To quote Rothbard on Samuelson's (RIP) text: “Samuelson’s Economics differs from its rivals largely in being bigger, more indigestible, and filled with the flip and unsupported wisecracks with which Samuelson is wont to dismiss deviant economic views.” (3) So, you're left with NON-mainstream (fringe) writers, or none at all. Rowbotham and Brown are arguably fringe in absolute terms but are very notable IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS ARTICLE. Similarly Jenna Jameson is not well known in absolute terms (I doubt many people in India are aware of her body of work) but I note she has an entry on WP. Context matters. (4) I'm not trying to promote anything. I'm trying to assist in this article being a reasonable survey of the literature in the field. I haven't fought to have Money as Debt put back in the article (even though it should). I have NEVER tried to put a "pure" Wordpress blog in any WP article. Brown has a PUBLISHED book ON THIS VERY TOPIC. The "blog" is a direct extension of her book. As I mentioned, it would be tiresome to just page ref the book when the "blog" is just sitting there, with relevant stuff. (5) I don't have a problem with banking. Free banking is fine by me. I have a problem with people who have a problem with people who want to do a reasonable job of covering the "main" writers in this field. That must necessarily include non-mainstream writers, because no one in academia writes about this stuff (at least they don't write about it and survive! Check out Antal E Fekete or Murray Rothbard or von Mises). (6) I had to laugh over the insinuation that I'm "promoting" Brown or Rowbotham. I'm more of an Austrian myself. I think Rowobotham's solutions are insane hyperinflationary garbage. In my view, killing off central banking is much more important than adding another fiat toilet paper currency to the mix. However, that doesn't mean his views should be censored on this topic, given he's written about it extensively.

I hope this is a reasonable response and shows I'm trying to be reasonable here. I recognize that Zealotry in economics is a curse and I'm simply trying to cover the field, even cover views I detest. - TheFoodChainIsDying (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes ... a reasonable response, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is reasonable for you to engage in editing.

"I have a problem with people who have a problem with people who want to do a reasonable job of covering the "main" writers in this field"

This cuts both ways .... if these fringe viewpoints are supposed to be representative of the major criticisms of this field, then it would be evidence that this topic was meant as a WP:POVFORK. Otherwise, there is some advisement which states:

* "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

There actually are criticisms of fractional-reserve banking from reliable sources, so Wikipedia guidelines seem to indicate that the article should stick to those. BigK HeX (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"I don't have a problem with banking. Free banking is fine by me."

I feel I should point out that free banking certainly does not preclude fractional reserves and, in fact, free banking systems in history had much LOWER reserve ratios than the US today. This distinction is muddled in the article. BigK HeX (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As a final note ... I would guess a person with your history probably knows quite a bit about "zealotry." In any case, as popular as the rhetoric may be on the internet, anarchocapitalism is simply not a mainstream viewpoint and their frequent targets of scorn aren't guaranteed to have expansive articles on Wikipedia, due to WP:RS and other such issues. My simple advice is that you might find more satisfaction by sticking to more innocuous edits, but ..... good luck with your crusade. BigK HeX (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. No definition of "notable" forthcoming (I understand it's a difficult concept to explain in simple terms) and you didn't really respond to the main points raised, but still those points you did raise were reasonable. I have to question this bizarre comment however: "I should point out that free banking certainly does not preclude fractional reserves and, in fact, free banking systems in history had much LOWER reserve ratios than the US today. This distinction is muddled in the article."

There are no enforceable reserve ratios in the US today. I would be amazed if the reserve ratios under a gold standard in the 19th century were lower than prevail today. Amazed.

To quote Post-Keynesian economist Steve Keen:

"America still has one [a reserve ratio], but it applies only to household deposits–where the ratio is 10%; but the absence of any requirement for corporate deposits makes a mockery of the very concept. I wasn’t surprised that the US has suspended this right now..."

MISH confirmed that bank reserves in the US went NEGATIVE (how that happens I will never understand).

Where the H*ll are you getting your information that bank reserves were lower in a free banking environment with gold as money? To my mind this is counterintuitive (free banking would allow banks to go bust so they'd be much more cautious) and plain wrong on the facts. - TheFoodChainIsDying (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

On the notability issue ... AFAIK the Web of Debt book does not meet Wikipedia's requirements to be a notable topic of its own, and also Ellen Brown may not meet notability requirements either, and also Brown's opinion is not necessarily free of a small/fringe viewpoint issues, and, fourthly, I don't see how Brown would be recognized as a credible expert on topics of economics or political science; with all four of these criteria unmet, I don't see any reason to promote her viewpoints for an economic policy topic. BigK HeX (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Free Banking

[...continued from previous page-section]

"I don't have a problem with banking. Free banking is fine by me."

I feel I should point out that free banking certainly does not preclude fractional reserves and, in fact, free banking systems in history had much LOWER reserve ratios than the US today. This distinction is muddled in the article. BigK HeX (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Where the H*ll are you getting your information that bank reserves were lower in a free banking environment with gold as money? To my mind this is counterintuitive (free banking would allow banks to go bust so they'd be much more cautious) and plain wrong on the facts. - TheFoodChainIsDying (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be reckless to assume someone else is wrong when it seems that the one thing you know for certain is that you, yourself, have none of the real-world facts that are being referenced; ironically enough, the low reserves factoid is available from a fan of Hayek and researcher for Cato. Not sure how it'd be "counter-intuitive" -- perhaps it's just that real-world facts often trump Rothbard's theorizing when you bother to look deeper than the flowery rhetoric. However, that's all beside the point. I just wanted to help keep the free banking concept straight in the article --- you seem to acknowledge yourself that fractional reserves still can exist with free banking systems, and thus it's fairly contradictory for the article to suggest that free banking is some sort of solution to criticisms of fractional reserve banking. BigK HeX (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I consider it a common courtesy to link the precise reference when making an assertion. Like I did, above. Twice. Could you please do the same. You've made an allegation without any reference other than to the Cato homepage. Given you're so particular about sourcing and have deleted EHB numerous times, I'm very surprised you've been so slack in your own referencing. But plumbers often have leaking taps at home.

Finally, you are plain wrong that free banking advocates are not critics of the current central bank supported PERPETUAL FRB system. To quote the notable (ha ha ha!) Murray Rothbard on this subject:

Given this dismal monetary and banking situation, given a 39:1 pyramiding of checkable deposits and currency on top of gold, given a Fed unchecked and out of control, given a world of fiat moneys, how can we possibly return to a sound noninflationary market money? The objectives, after the discussion in this work, should be clear: (a) to return to a gold standard, a commodity standard unhampered by government intervention; (b) to abolish the Federal Reserve System and return to a system of free and competitive banking; (c) to separate the government from money; and (d) either to enforce 100 percent reserve banking on the commercial banks, or at least to arrive at a system where any bank, at the slightest hint of nonpayment of its demand liabilities, is forced quickly into bankruptcy and liquidation. While the outlawing of fractional reserve as fraud would be preferable if it could be enforced, the problems of enforcement, especially where banks can continually innovate in forms of credit, make free banking an attractive alternative.

The connection between trying to control FRB and free banking should be obvious. The reference isn't needed because it's on the WP page for Murray Rothbard which anyone can look up. Cheers. - TheFoodChainIsDying (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue of the reserve levels wanders from the topic at hand ... which is that free banking does not eliminate fractional reserve banking, and thus makes for a muddled "solution" in an article that is (ostensibly) about criticizing fractional reserve banking.

* "...you are plain wrong that free banking advocates are not critics of the current central bank supported PERPETUAL FRB system"

... I never said they were not critical of the current banking system. You seem to conflate the two topics, but this article says it is specifically about "fractional reserve banking," not "regulated banking systems like that of the US with its central bank." My attempt to maintain the distinction about free banking should be pretty straightforward, but since there seems to be some snag, let's just get right into the heart of the matter.

Do you believe there is evidence that a free banking system would virtually eliminate institutions with fractional (less than 100%) reserves?

(Do you have a reliable source stating such?)

An ancillary question might be, "Do you think banks with less than 100% reserves become unprofitable in a free banking system?

BigK HeX (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

History has spoken on this issue. When banks were free to print their own currency (backed in theory by specie), they practiced FRB and tended to overprint, leading to many bank failures and periodic banking crisis. To suggest that free banking would eliminate FRB borders on the ridiculous. LK (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree history has spoken, but it's not on your side. When central banks exist to backstop the banking system, moral hazard becomes endemic, with central banks always and everywhere tending to overprint to save their friends. Although (again) you don't reference your assertion I can reference mine. The issue is NOT whether banks tend to overprint in a free banking environment (FRbanks exist to overprint, and would do so on Mars given the chance). The question is whether the volume of paper has been overprinted MORE or LESS compared to a central bank-dominated monetary system (ie has inflation been worse with central banks or within a free banking environment). I haven't seen one scrap of evidence to suggest post-1913 USA was less inflationary than pre-1913. In fact, I've seen loads and loads of evidence to suggest that post-1913 USA has had much (much!) higher inflation than pre-1913, with the period around WWI and in the 1970s being particularly brutal to the middle classes. If anyone has evidence that total inflation in the 19th century was far greater than occurred in the 20th, please post it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.42.239 (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I see you came back to this discussion and neatly avoided the plain question I posed to you. Hmmm.

In any case, whatever you think you referenced in your first sentence above .... didn't actually provide compelling evidence of anything. More importantly, however, I see you're now trying to toss out a nice juicy red herring about "the quantity of overprinting" when the article is about "debt-money"/fractional-reserve banking. People will just have to accept the fact that they're not going to be able to stuff an entire spectrum of anarchocapitalist concepts onto this coatrack article. The article claims to discuss criticisms about the very nature of the fractional reserve system --- paragraphs of glowing praise for free banking would run counter to that subject and lead to misunderstandings.

I suppose it could be confusing, but the bottom line is that simply because Rothbard occasionally railed against fractional reserves, it does NOT mean that every monetary concept he ever discussed fits in with the criticisms within this article. BigK HeX (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you don't know how to directly reference your statements, you type in the http address of the ref inside square brackets [http]. I'm just trying to be helpful, because you haven't given one quality reference to your assertion that overprinting has been worse in a free banking environment than in a central bank-controlled system. You may have a quality ref just sitting there burning a hole in your pocket and you're unsure how to present it. If so, please feel free to add it in now. Then again, it appears the main page has been semi-protected (again) perhaps to ensure more refs are not included in the article. It appears a number of editors are focusing slightly more on removing stuff rather than adding. I note that you haven't added one new ref although you've deleted some stuff. You also seem to have a problem with the Austrian School and MR in particular judging from your derogatory edits on the AS page. Mastcell seems stuck in the same rut (deleting not contributing). Perhaps you both think "editing" means "deleting"? It doesn't. You can actually add stuff as well. You might want to try it sometime, as I understand WP is now having difficulties attracting editors who actually want to contribute. I wonder why?

Well ... in response

A) I know how to post references here. I also know what is and is not relevant to this discussion. In any case, what you consider to be "supporting references" for many assertions could be stronger... Those like your "overprinting" example ref above look like the kind of poorly-related webpage that could be found by spending just 30 seconds or so on Google; I guess this problem is relevant to your complaint about a lot of the text being zapped, since huge swaths of it had WP:RS problems.

B) I'm confident that there's nothing in your link that was a "derogatory" edit on the AS page.

C) I am aware of what it means to edit on Wikipedia, and deletion's place in that. Perhaps you're not aware of the the difference that tactful behavior could have made with your experience here.

But all of the above is largely inconsequential. The main problem I see is that there seems to be a seriously muddled conflation between the concepts of: "inflation," "the fractional reserve banking system," "the gold standard," "central banking," "free banking" and a few others -- basically, there appears to be an attempt to mash up every anarchocapitalist monetary boogeyman&buzzword and wedge them into this article. I'm confident that it would help to keep the articles a lot clearer if participating editors came to a thorough understanding of those concepts and the relationships between them. BigK HeX (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

One final note - you appear to have a very narrow, binary "Marxist-dialectic" view of this article. It's not FRB or full banking alone. Sometimes there is more than simply an "and or" position. As MR illustrates, advocating free banking is in and of itself an implicit criticism of the (alleged) "counterfeiting" or "Ponzi" mechanism underlying FRB (I'm using MR's terminology here). Any call for an increase in reserve ratios would be an implicit criticism of the "counterfeiting" allegedly implicit in FRB and should be added to this article. For example, if you have the time (and ability) I'd appreciate it if you would add this recent excellent research by Geanakopolos into the article. He calls for an increase in the reserve ratios at all major banks. I consider this analysis relevant to this now-protected article.

You may want to consider the possibility that it's not my "narrow view," but that the free banking issue is contradictory here. In particular, how you claim that Free banking serves as any sort of impeachment of FRB continues to baffle me, considering that the policy change it would have on reserve ratios is to just open up the lowest end of the reserve spectrum. As you just said, calls for preventing low reserves might be appropriate for the subject of this article, but that's certainly quite a different thing from free banking. There's absolutely no history showing that the fractional reserve system was "solved" by free banking, but if it makes sense to you that the legalization of even lower reserves makes for a sensible criticism of the concept of fractional reserve banking, well then I'm not sure what more to say. BigK HeX (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Some text violated policy, but I had a response for it. Since my effort in constructing it has already been expended, I guess I'll go ahead and post it:

(To the IP editor) You might find it helpful to know that I hardly need you to "break it down" to me, when discussing the banking system. I may have little inclination at this time to expand your understanding, but you shouldn't take that to mean that I lack an understanding. I didn't read very far into your post, but one sentence did catch my eye --- I'm not "puzzled" that Austrians claim that reserves might be higher under free banking, in fact, I'm well aware of that speculation. That speculation is not our main problem here. As I've mentioned before, your understanding of monetary concepts appears to be muddled, judging by the edits here. I could spend time pointing out dozens of instances, but I'll give you the courtesy of one example of what I mean. In your long post, you conflated "central banking" with the specific function of "lender of last resort function" and/or "government-sanctioned bank bailouts." The two may be related but are not the same. Allowing the muddling of all of these concepts would be a disservice to those who depend on Wikipedia, and I don't see a need to allow that. I'm not trying to hinder you ... in fact, if you weren't a banned editor, and you made relevant edits that had reflected a technical precision in language and indicated an accurate understanding of the material, I certainly would not stand in your way. BigK HeX (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Marxist-Soviet Dialectic or Plain Old Contradiction?

Does it strike anyone else that it's strange to have this page protected AND to have a request for editors to improve the page because of "multuple issues" with the page? If it's any help I undertake not to touch the page, provided it isn't completely purged of content (BigHex did a reasonable but not complete purge job). I can't believe there aren't people out there with additional references to finish the job on this page. Given that we are finding (French?) PIIGS really can't fly on irredeemable debt money (at least not forever), and sovereign debt is the last irredeemable debt to suddenly default, it's a pretty topical page right now. Perhaps Mastcell can reconsider the ban? Or perhaps other editors can clean up the page? There are approximately 6.79 billion people on this God-forsaken planet. I'm surprised I'm the only one who has an interest in cleaning up the refs on this page. Could one or two others of the 6.79 billion please help out. Other than BigHex of course, who deletes a little more often than he contributes.

Smells like yet another wonderful KiK-Conflation ['contributing' and 'adding text']. Aside from your many other faulty understandings, perhaps, one day you'll come to realize that deletion (in service of the WP policies) IS a contribution. The deletions mostly stem from your blatant efforts to hang every Austrian school monetary buzzword that you've ever heard of onto the coatrack article as it was originally created. Anyways, even though you lack the capacity to understand my contributions, I might have provided one of the most important simple additions to your little pet project article. I (possibly single-handedly) took it out of the moronic nutjob fringe, and gave it the bit of historical mainstream respectability that your coatrack project has (not to take anything away from the weeks of struggle invested into the article by quite a few other editors). All in all, considering the disaster that you left in the laps of Wikipedia's reasonable editors, I'm rather proud of my small work with the article, deletions included (perhaps, especially). BigK HeX (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you think a guy with an eraser is the equivalent of a Shakespeare. Hard to get published with just an eraser, but good luck in any case. A few quick comments: (1) "Mainstream respectability"? That wouldn't be the same group of mainstream idiots who completely failed to forsee the biggest economic catastrophe since the Great Depression, would it? The same ones who caused the disaster? You can vote for who in the "mainstream" was the biggest idiot in causing this crisis here. Please cast your vote. (2) I'm glad you have such a high opinion of yourself, but could someone with slightly less hubris and more citations start contributing to this page please. It is a mess right now, and as it is still page protected someone with an established name needs to clean this up. Despite BigHex's view that his brilliant deletions "add" to the page, I dare say actually adding a few additional cites would be more productive and useful to the average reader than simply deleting whole slabs of the material. And BigHex - building bombs with depleted uranium is also "production" but isn't as lasting as a Shakespeare play. "Bombing" a site and producing a prescient piece of writing that few people in the world could have written are slightly different "skills". Perhaps this distinction eludes you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.51.49 (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And just on your stale "challenge" above, asking whether free banking would "virtually eliminate" FRB, I give you this piece by Frank Shostak. He couldn't have described the Austrian position on free banking any more clearly. I think even you will "get" the point that free banking constrains FRB activities through reading this article. If you come back with some snide comment that it doesn't address your issue, then I'm afraid we have to agree to disagree whether free would (greatly!) constrain FRB in a way no central bank-supported system could. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.51.49 (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You amaze me nearly every single time, with your uncanny ability to stuff so many fallacy-ridden arguments and false "proofs" into your silly diatribes. BigK HeX (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually .... you know what? I've got a few minutes to kill. Let's have a little fun and see how many we can find!

1. "you think a guy with an eraser is the equivalent of a Shakespeare" -- false attribution/straw man
2. writing of a play compared to the editing of an encyclopedia --- false analogy
3. "...with just an eraser" --- Ignoring the edits where I've made additions? cherry picking
4. "Hard to get published with just an eraser..." --- Who in the world was talking about "getting published"? red herring
5. "...group of mainstream idiots who completely failed to forsee..." Completely failed, eh? hasty generalization
6. "you have such a high opinion of yourself" Umm ... pride in one's effort ≠ high opinion of one's self false attribution or mere ad hominem
7. "building bombs with depleted uranium is also "production"" ... red herring
8. "...but isn't as lasting as a Shakespeare play." The goal is following WP's policies, not creating legendary art. red herring
9. ""Bombing" a site and producing a prescient piece of writing that few people in the world could have written" ... errr, WP:WikipediaIsNotAnActOfWar and WP:NOT#ESSAY, that's two red herrings for the price of one

Woohoo! At least 10 fallacies in 13 sentences. I think you win! BigK HeX (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You do have a lot of time on your hands! Not enough time to comment on the Frank Shostak piece (clearly showing the connection between CONSTRAINING FRB and free banking) and not enough time to vote for the biggest mainstream idiot who caused the GFC. But enough time to spend reading through this talk page - strangely without lifting a finger to add much-needed cites (Shostak, Geanakopolos) to the main page. Strange priorities. And no sense of humor. But then, given the "quality" of your discussion on the AS talk page, hardly surprising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.51.49 (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A "much needed cite"??? That's hilarious. If calling it a "false proof" wasn't enough .... what more could I possibly say about that self-published blog piece where Shostak rambles off a bunch of bare assertions about banking. Clearly Shostak hits a logical home run when he pulls this gem of wisdom out of the blue, that with "....free banking...the potential for the creation of money out of thin air is minimal." Certainly, there's no room for disputing the convincing case that Shostak presents on free banking [which is about one sentence long]. Maybe someone else will play the fun game of counting how many WP policies would be violated by trying to use the Shostak piece as a citation. Maybe the Wikipedia Fun Club will be interested?? Do ya think??? BigK HeX (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh... and if you're truly concerned about the "quality" of talk page discussion --- see my above fallacy count and go from there. I hate to deprive you of the audience you crave, but I think I've had enough laughs for one thread. BigK HeX (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that, after I stand up to your "challenge" and provide a directly relevant cite from someone who did actually predict the GFC, you produce nothing but ad homs and snide comments. Shostak actually takes at least 10 paragraphs to carefully describe the process of FRB in both a free and central bank-supported environment. He also explains his "money out of thin air" comment at length. Your derogatory comments are therefore disingenuous. I would be interested in the number of WP policies violated by daring to include this in the main page. He is an economist and adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute. Article entries from Mises have been accepted in the past (note: this is not a blog entry). What more do you want? An endorsement from Larry Summers? And I note you've had nothing to say about the Geanakopolos piece. Cat got your tongue on that one too? BigK Hex, I think we both know your edits/deletions betray a bias towards the now-discredited central-bank loving mainstream. There's no shame in that (there are lots of people out there just like you - they're called Keynesians). I just don't know why you want to come onto this side of the shoreline, when there are lots of Keynesian parties happening on other beaches (Japan for 20 years, now Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Iceland, the UK, Washington). Why not "party" on those trendy Keynesian pages and leave this boring, esoteric page alone? You clearly aren't interested in any critic of FRB or central banking (you haven't added a single anti-FRB cite in all your edits/deletions). You can't seriously suggest you're "NPOV" can you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.53.84 (talk) 05:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

And I suggest that now is the time to quit, while you're way behind. Digging a bigger hole for yourself on free banking would make you look even more Keynesian (after all, digging bigger and bigger unpayable, irredeemable debt-holes is what Keynesianism is famous for! Ha Ha Ha!).

Undue weight

This article is almost as large as the article on Fractional-reserve banking itself. Can anyone find a single resource which establishes the notability of all this criticism?

Some of it is interesting history, and it's also worth noting fringe views, but the article seems to treat a fringe view with undue weight. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Did a fair amount of clean-up. Hope it's appreciated. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not frankly. The removal of the non-RS source doesn't make sense in the context of the article. The bible believers site is not used to verify the "truth" of allegations, but simply to confirm that some individuals are using the term "debt-money". It's irrelevant whether they are RS or not - to ref the website is to confirm the existence of the use of the term itself. To use an analogy: If the article read "Some monetary reformers believe Jim Cramer is a shyster paid by Goldman Sachs to push people further into debt" and the article referenced this to a non-RS website entitled "We Are Monetary Reformers And Hate Jim Cramer Because He Is A Slimy Shyster" that would be a legitimate ref to confirm the statement that "Some monetary reformers believe Jim Cramer is a shyster" not to confirm the "reality" that Jim Cramer is a shyster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.82.209 (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That's incorrect. You're making the assumption that the site has correct information, that it hasn't made the reference up. If a site is not a WP:RS, then the information in there should not be used in an article. Ravensfire (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No, we are talking about the mere EXISTENCE of the English term "Debt money". It exists because a non-RS site used it. It still exists. You cannot deny it exists - the ref itself proves the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.82.209 (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope - doesn't work that way. It's gotta be from a RS. If it's truly being used, then it shouldn't be that hard to find. It's it a term used by a small, fringe group that nobody's heard of, and we can only find the term on some offball site, it cannot be used. If you want to state something as a fact (including that a term is used), there should be a RS reference behind it. Ravensfire (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, what about a published book and a ref from WP itself - Money as Debt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.82.209 (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I also think the potential societal impact section is far too long and unref'd but the potential solutions sections is both necessary and fully ref'd. So once the ban comes off I'll be rearranging Zenwhat's edits slightly and I hope that's OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.82.209 (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove the Bible Believer's site because I didn't think it was "true". That's irrelevant. It's not an RS.

Wikipedia doesn't reference non-RS in any situation. If you think otherwise, you're mistaken. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I repeat: OK, what about a published book and a ref from WP itself - Money as Debt? RS is so subjective, I just wanted to check what gets through and what doesn't before I put it in.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.82.209 (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.130.65 (talk)