Talk:Criticism of fractional-reserve banking/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)