Talk:Criticism of fractional-reserve banking

Propaganda

Wow, this article is truly bad. I thought I might learn something about the subject here, but clearly this is mostly one sided propaganda taken from a few sources, like a book written by a farmer. 32F 08:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I would summarize it as: “abandoning the gold standard for money has created a pyramid scheme (made possible by state interventionism) which is causing a destruction of fertile lands”—preposterous! I'm not competent enough in economics to fix this, but at least I'll add a POV banner. --Gro-Tsen 12:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The main author of this article has the following qualifications: B.Com(Hons) majoring in economics, with a focus on monetary economics, with numerous prizes and awards for his study of economics which can be verified at the relevant university (which I am happy to disclose to the appropriate individuals if they want further details), LL.B.(Hons), and an MA in the US, and an LL.M. from Columbia University in New York, having studied international finance and written papers during my LL.M. degree on the IMF and international financial regulation. That author happens to be me. The position taken, whilst controversial, is not unusual to those "in the know". Murray Rothbard and Silvio Gesell are not as well known to the general public as Keynes or Friedman. That doesn't make them wrong, just unknown to those ignorant of monetary economics. Hence the need for the article, to educate those who know nothing about monetary economics. Surprise or shock may mean you're learning something. It doesn't mean what's written is rubbish.

NO! you do not "take positions" in Wikipedia, particularly not "controversial" ones 32F 13:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this "position" is not "unusual" to me at all. I've read Rowbottom's book, and similar sorts of thing. I've seen him talk. 32F 13:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Alan Greenspan (respected doyen of all things monetary) held PRECISELY the same views as those expressed in many sections of this article, as expressed and clearly documented in his early writings on the subject (see Ron Paul's speech attached to the article). I also note that this article has been around for months, without the first section being controversial in any way. After literally hundreds of edits it is as clear and as objective as could possibly be. The references contained at the end of the article are particularly useful for those who don't know anything about fractional reserve banking or have no training or education in financial economics. The "Policy Implications" section had "NPOV" on it, but was removed with the very reasonable comment that the article consistently refers to "MONETARY REFORMERS" holding these views, which is true (with NO IMPLICATION that these views are accurate or even sane).

Given the controversial nature of the subject right now (given that events are playing out almost exactly as explained in the article), and given that this issue involves $$$$ it is "controversial" to some (unlike, say, the mating habits of the kiwi bird in NZ, which rarely induces heart palpitations in readers. Talking about $$$$$$ often does induce heart palpitations, especially if it is your $$$$$$). It is understandable that some vested interests (or ignorant outsiders) would be violently opposed to the contents and bluntly objective tone of the article. This is not propaganda. This is accuracy. This article has been through literally hundreds of revisions. Truth sometimes hurts. So what? In lots of areas (physics, international politics, terrorism, sexual perversion) stuff happens that appears to an outsider as bizarre or ridiculous. Does the observer's revulsion indicate that it isn't really happening?

I suggest the following: someone with at least a Masters (preferrably PhD) degree in monetary or financial economics evaluate and respond. Hedge fund investors with PhD's in finance or physics and at least US $500 million under management are particularly welcome. Uneducated amateur "observers" stay away from the issue (and invest in US government bonds if they wish).

Finally I note that "tyranny" rarely looks like "tyranny" to those it benefits (or even hurts, ironically), and objective and accurate description of a complex system of "tyranny" often angers those the system benefits. That's life. And it's hardly surprising. In fact it's predicted in the article. Why not leave the article out there for people to evaluate for themselves? I think that's called "freedom of speech". That still exists doesn't it??

NO! You do not have "freedom of speech" on Wikipedia to put forward a contentious personal point of view as fact. 32F 13:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What "personal" point of view? Fractional reserve banking happens in exactly the way described. "Monetary reformers" believe the system should be changed (they may well be mad. Many think Libertarians such as Ron Paul are mad. Some think neo-cons are mad. I leave that for you to decide). However it is objectively true that fractional reserve banking happens exactly as explained and monetary reformers believe exactly what they believe. This is all referenced in the article. When I stated that the matter is "controversial" I mean the whole subject is controversial (because it involves $$$), not that what has been stated is not fact-based. Read the references. Get an economics degree. Do something useful, but don't graffiti the article if you (1) have no qualifications in economics and (2) simply don't like what's written. I'm sure there are lots of other wikipedia entries you do know something about. Why not graffiti them instead? What bothers you about this article so much? Particularly if you have no education in financial economics. Why not simply leave it alone? Or contact a friend with a PhD in financial economics and let him discuss the article instead. Do you have one of those? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothymak (talk • contribs) 13:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

For starters, what is wrong with this article as it is

As it is this article is supposed to be about a monetary regime which is currently in existence in essentially every modern country, yet it gives absolutely no considerations in favour of this system! In other words, no explanation of the logic, the rational basis, of the system. That is, to use a word already applied to the article, preposterous.

Instead, it quote-mines folks who write on this topic to find some obscure fed reserve employee who doesn't like "debt money". And tells us that libertarians (themselves rather marginal figures) think "debt money" can "necessarily" lead to "tyranny". This is not a very relevant or important comment given that absolutely no attempt has been made to explain the rationale of "debt money" in the first place. That is not NPOV. So keep the tag on, please. 32F 13:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

First, can I please ask for your qualifications? Second, the system makes perfect sense. It's a profit making machine. Machines that make profits flourish. Machines that don't die. Please provide your "rationale" for the existence of fractional reserve banking. Or ask someone who has a degree in financial economics. Or (again) I respectfully ask you to leave the article alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothymak (talk • contribs) 13:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A person's qualifications are irrelevant. WP is a resource for all people - not just those with PHDs. And, if as suggested above, we need to find somebody with a PHD to review this article then this article needs to be re-written. However, one user can't keep removing tags placed by other users simply because he thinks he is more qualified to understand the article. If an editor raises concerns then those concerns need to be addressed; not brushed under the carpet because another editor considers himself more educationally qualified. B1atv 14:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy for the uneducated to contribute. What, precisely, is factually incorrect in the article. Line by line please. With references if possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothymak (talk • contribs) 14:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I told you already. There is no rationale given for the monetary regime criticized in this article. It is used throughout the entire world. There is a reason for it. A good reason. A reason economists can give that makes it sound reasonable and sensible. There is no sign of this in the article at all. This shows that it is totally NPOV. 32F 14:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No sign of qualifications yet. Are you hiding them like Easter eggs? As I explained, it's a profit making machine. It makes perfect sense. To use an extreme analogy (PLEASE don't take this the wrong way, I feel you could be dangerous if I met you in a back ally somewhere, and I'd hate to think you misunderstood the analogy), cancer makes perfect sense. Cells replicate. They need to replicate to survive. If they replicate too vigorously they kill the host. Cancer cells can be seen to be "good", in the sense that they encourage medical innovation (radiotherapy wouldn't have been discovered without cancer cells existing for example). Cancer cells are created and destroyed in our bodies all the time. Most of us have had them and they get destroyed by the immune system. Sometimes they grow uncontrollably and kill the host. They don't have a clue what they're doing. They're just trying to replicate and survive in the host body.

Banks exist for financial intermediation. They are like glorified accountants with safes behind them. Some banks get aggressive when they lend "too much" and they grow too quickly. Then, to survive they need to keep growing. Or they die. It's as simple (and as "bizarre") as that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothymak (talk • contribs) 14:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I have made it very clear. Maybe you will get some idea from the paragraph I added. But I am not an economist. (Nor are you). Oh, yeah, I also have read McMurtry, "The Cancer Stage of Capitalism". Again, a book of propaganda, not encyclopedia quality material. 32F 14:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're not an economist what are you? Qualifications please. Any will do. Just to get some idea of the person I'm speaking to. It's like talking to a shadow at the moment. I have no idea what the shadow is saying other than "I don't like you". I'm sure there's a rationale for graffiti (it happens all around the world). I don't understand it, but it exists so I'm sure it serves a purpose. Distinguishing graffiti from real comment is easy. Graffiti rants and says nothing verifiable. Comment stays factual and is verifiable (or at least contains references). I'm happy for anyone (educated, uneducated, whatever - I really don't care) to comment, to criticize, to improve the article, to provide additional references. Whatever. Go crazy. Knock yourselves out. But just to say "he's crazy, it makes no sense to me, it's too negative" isn't really a statement about the article. It's a statement about you. Propaganda is propaganda because it has an agenda. I don't care about the article. Delete it for all I care. I really couldn't care less. Do you?

Please feel free to deface the article all you want. And delete it if you wish. There are lots of you out there. This is one of the few articles on the implications of fractional reserve banking. And for some reason you have a problem with that. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothymak (talk • contribs) 15:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This page should be integrated with the existing pages

There are already pages on monetary theory which are clearly written by people who know more about the matters than the people who made this page. This page should be integrated with those pages. Monetary theory is one such page that is well linked in, in contrast to this page. This would bring the page some desperately needed scrutiny from real experts. 32F 15:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I have deleted some sections in the interests of consensus (and personal safety). I hope I've satisfied your desire for consensus and reduced your heart rate and body temperature. It's all better now. Nothing I've written is really happening. It was all propaganda. Just a silly joke. I'm sorry for frightening you. Have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothymak (talk • contribs) 21:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

More specifically, the term "Debt-based monetary system" is often used as a satirical synonym of Fractional-reserve banking by critics of this system; thus, this stub should be moved to the criticism section of Fractional-reserve banking unless Timothymak or anyone else can add substantial material to validate a separate article. -- EGeek 21:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Whatever "EGeek". The number of "courageously" anonymous critics chewing at the carcass of this article is now starting to both bore me and disgust me. Move it around. Deface it. Delete it. Change the stub (by the way, have you seen how full the "fractional reserve banking" comments page is?? Adding another section I'm sure would make it even more "fun"). Call it "satirical" if you wish. The truth is not "deleted" by re-categorizing it, or moving it, or masking it. It is merely displaced. It will rear its Leviathan-like ugly head up again, somewhere. It is inevitable. Like bad karma is inevitable. The "system" of fractional reserve banking is only "satirical" to those who are laughing right now as they watch the "first class" money train career over the side of the cliff, only for the pieces to be desperately picked up and coddled by the central banks of the world. I hope and pray that all the king's horses and all the king's men can put the Humpty Dumpty private bankers back together again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karmaisking (talk • contribs) 23:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael Rowbotham, the "expert" cited most frequently in this article

The self-styled "pricipal author" of this article most frequently cited Rowbotham, yet at the same time told us he himself had carried out serious study in economics, and that no one short of a PhD should dare interact with him. That we should get a degree in economics. Consult a PhD. "provide relevant qualifications in financial economics. Or leave it to someone with a PhD in finance" "Someone with at least a PhD in financial economics please evaluate. Others please comment on something you know something about".

Well, here is a description of Rowbotham's magnum opus by a very positive reviewer:

"His principal argument is that the subject of economics has failed to deliver what it was supposed to. [No need for those PhDs then -- obviously scammers and obfuscators] The beauty of this book is that it is amazingly simple. It is written for anyone who has a quest to learn about the problems, challenges and frustrations of modern man. [In other words, malcontents, not professional scholars]. It assumes no knowledge of economics on behalf of the reader, and what is more, doesn't lecture on economics. [Don't even need much economics to read and then regurgitate from this tract] So even if you did rather poorly in your high school economics course, you can still read and enjoy this book. [Don't even need to pass high school economics apparently]. In fact, if you hated economics, this book is a way to get back at those teachers who haunted you with demand and supply gibberish. [Right, the real economics, the PhDs, are pushing gibberish]. 32F 09:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete this article

I would argue that this article gives a convincing and coherent argument against the debt-based supply of money. I found it interesting and thought-provoking. I agreed with the logic on most points, but disagreed when the logical leaps went a little too far (arguments against immigration for example seemed tacked on). A key weakness with this article is that it has been written with one eye on the exact financial situations we are seeing today, but with a false sense of historical perspective. Whatever this article is though, it does not in any way belong on wikipedia, as it constitutes original research and/or opinion. Delete, delete, delete! To the author of this article: go get a fricking blog. You can link to it off this talk page if you want. I'd probably have a read. You have interesting ideas, and are probably correct on a number of fronts. However, you have no right to evangelise on Wikipedia, and you would do your own credibility a favour by being clear that your ideas are your ideas, and are not underpinned by widespread academic consensus. Cheers, Robin. --82.46.67.74 (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing stated is original - believe me, I'm not that clever. I'm simply summarizing stuff that's been around for decades (in some cases hundreds of years). I'm in the process of referencing everything right now. Why people think this is original research is beyond me. It's all referenced in the article. Robin, I presume you are a professor of monetary economics well-schooled in the history of economic thought. That's the only way you can say this stuff is original. It's not. READ THE REFERENCES. I keep saying this with brutal monotony: you may disagree with the views of everyone included in the references, you may think they are mad, you may want to injure them painfully. Whatever. But the work is hardly ORIGINAL. You appear to be completely unfamiliar with the works of various monetary reformers. I cannot help your narrow "conventional" (Keynesian?) education or narrow-mindedness. I'd like to, but I can't. But the "mad" views of Austrian Economists, of Jim Sinclair, of Hyman Minsky, of Richard C. Cook, of Bill Bonner, of Elaine Meinel Supkis, of Mike Whitney, of Michael Rowbotham, of Robert K. Landis, of Richard Daughty all shed light on some vitally important public policy issues that are screamingly relevant to many people ignorant of economic history - and who themselves are screaming for answers about what is going on in the economy today. Those I have referenced in the article are the distillation of months of careful research and are simply (in my tiny mind) the best selection of economics writers who seek to answer a number of pressing economic questions clearly and concisely, incisively and intelligently (if controversially and even - God Forbid! - "radically"). What is wrong about that??? Since when has clarity of thought been declared a sin? If so, vote me off the island. I don't want to stay on any longer. I have a strange sensation the island is about to implode anyway, regardless of what any of us write.

A few simple questions: What precisely do you think I'm "evangelising"? Communism? Socialism? Libertarianism? Utopianism? Zoroastrianism? There is no one view preferred above any other. They are all laid out, as clearly as my little brain can accomplish. As stated before, the article consistently refers to MONETARY REFORMERS holding X view or Y view, MONETARY REFORMERS arguing A or B. I'm just writing stuff down that I studied at university and I'm literally just summarizing what I thought (stupidly?) were the clearly stated views of a number of competing schools of "monetary reform" thought. We must have gone to different universities and had different interests. I was in the library most of the time. You may have been in the pub. I don't know until you tell me your qualifications (which I'm sure will be forthcoming shortly). Perhaps an original idea slipped out by mistake. If so I sincerely apologize. I don't for the life of me know where this happened in the article. Could you please point out where this mortal sin occurred? It was wholly unintentional I assure you. I'm happy to delete any original thought immediately.

I respect those with a solid argument. With the greatest respect, I don't respect your argument, because you have no argument. You're exactly like "32F". You're saying nothing other than "I don't like you". I already know that. How can you have a "consensus" view on something as "controversial" as monetary reform? It's the same pathetic, weak circular non-sequitur argument all slow establishment-types use to stifle debate and thought on an issue they find uncomfortable (this tried and true method of protecting the status quo is particularly deployed in the medical and economics professions for some bizarre reason - God knows why. It's probably directly proportional to the inflated egos of the current practitioners). The "logic" is as follows: I don't know about this stuff + I haven't heard of these people + these views appear "radical" = This is all rubbish and should be deleted.

Those who propose change to the status quo are left in a Catch-22 position: "You're not published, you're not in the consensus" says the cardigan-clad establishment-type. "Well of course I'm not I can't get published you idiot" says the upstart with the radical idea. Some "radical" ideas have been published (thank God - that's the only way civilization progressed beyond the Golden Age of the Philistine) and I'm carefully listing them here (without one original thought coming out of my tiny brain) simply because these scattered voices have some very clear answers to some very pressing problems.

Witness a wonderful living account of this dilemma by reading the articles of the Famous Mogambo Guru in Daily Reckoning. Richard Daughty is a brilliant writer (and hilarious to boot) but is left marginalized by his "radical" "non-establishment" views. He is literally forced to act like a psychopath because he's been beaten up so many times by the monied Establishment calling him an idiot, mad, psychotic etc etc that's the only space left for him to breathe, to publish. He's in a no-win situation. So, a simple question: What does "consensus view" mean in this context? I've simply summarized the writings of a number of "radicals" and in doing so somehow offended your sensitive sensibilities. So what? Does that mean the article deserves DELETION (the equivalent of the summary execution of a whole train of thought, a whole series of carefully constructed ideas - the very elimination of debate. The antithesis of free speech).

Please I encourage you to improve the article, to provide additional references, to show me word by word, line by line, paragraph by paragraph where you think I've injected an "original" idea (I promise to reference any offending "original" thoughts immediately). I have been doing this in my spare time, so there are many additional references to come before the day of execution arrives for all of us. If you are genuinely interested in freedom of speech and thought, show me word by word, line by line where I have been misled, where I have gone wrong. Why DELETE, DELETE, DELETE? Banks have lost between $1 trillion and $1000 trillion (no that's not a typo) in the last 12 months. Something is wrong with "conventional wisdom" (whatever the Hell that means). Conventional wisdom is taking you and us over a cliff. A little bit of "radicalism" may shed light on the current madness. Don't you think? Show me word by word where I am wrong. Word by word. Line by line. Or shut your face and let others read what they want to read.

In the meantime to protect innocent women and children I've deleted the offending sections of this article until this matter can be resolved. No need to deface the article further until the issue is resolved. I assume you don't have a problem with the current version.--Karmaisking (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Article scope and approach

I encourage you to recognise that your long rant above is not serving your purpose of proving that these are not mad thoughts, but rather reinforcing the impression that this is "mad, psychotic, etc. etc." (as you put it). And telling other editors to "shut your face" as you've done above will, eventually, get you blocked or banned. It pretty much put me off reading any of the rest of what you've written.

Straightforward advice: write less on this page - economy is everything. Add slowly. Learn to footnote and structure the article like other articles. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a collection of treatises. And try to listen to other editors.--Gregalton (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I apologize. U.S., U.K. and E.U. banks potentially losing a collective $1000 trillion (give or take a trillion or two) makes me a little emotional. A global recession/depression also makes me rant ever so slightly. It's all better now. I'll stop contributing. Have a nice day.--Karmaisking (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Word by word. Line by line. Or this goes up again. Soon.--Karmaisking (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you saying? That someone should explain to you how what you've written is incorrect? That is not the way wikipedia works. Please read the guidelines carefully. The burden is on you to demonstrate that the information you want to put up here is verifiable.--Gregalton (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No. I simply question (1) why statements that are clearly referenced should be tainted with the accusation of "originality" and are therefore unacceptable and should be DELETED - especially when I was in the process of carefully referencing everything just before the article was napalmed; and (2) why clear, objective (verifiable) descriptions of the views of various monetary reformers that are currently not in the "mainstream" of economic thought cannot be permitted to exist on a public-access encyclopedia - provided these views are clearly referenced as the beliefs and views of "monetary reformers" (a.k.a psychotic, mad radicals). Don't worry Gregalton, there's no need to feel threatened. We're living in the monetary experiment the Monetary Establishment wanted us to have. We are living in their wet dream they created after decades of hard work and several major wars; that dream being unhinged monetary expansion sourced almost exclusively from the exponential expansion of credit. I hope they get what they wanted - or at least what they deserve. We'll soon see.--Karmaisking (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You attribute accusations to me I have not made. Why don't you try putting in statements, clearly referenced, one at a time and cautiously? See how that goes. And I reiterate: try reading the guidelines first (start with "About Wikipedia" to the left of your screen), and editing other documents bit by bit, to see how that works. You seem to assume that because you wrote a lot and some editors thought it was problematic means that your contributions are not welcome. It may instead be how you presented them. Imagine you went to city hall and started screaming out loud about any subject at all; if you are subsequently ejected, it could be that the screaming was the problem and not the subject matter. In the most simple terms: tone down your rhetoric, including on the talk pages, and see how it goes.

And I remind you: YOU actually deleted the article text. I presume the narrative that it was deleted by "Them" corresponds better with some persecution complex, but it does not correspond to fact.--Gregalton (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and understand your concerns. I will try to keep it nice and clean and not extreme. However, I feel a little bit like I'm taking an etiquitte class on S.S. Titanic. I'm the one being ejected for "shouting", when perhaps everyone should be looking out the damn window.

I'm "shouting" on the talk page because people want this stuff DELETED - not amended, deleted. I'm fighting for survival here. Please a simple question: What do you yourself object to in the article itself? Form or substance, either one. Where have I been "shouting"? Where have I not referenced something adequately? Where do you wish me to improve the article? No one (NO ONE) has made one clear, verfiable criticism of the article itself. OK, my rhetoric on the talk page is extreme, but that's because others want this stuff wiped off the map. Napalmed out of existence. What am I supposed to do? I have deleted it (temporarily) out of deference to the sensitive sensibilities of the other editors (itself a sign of "politeness" that has gone completely unappreciated by you). Until you/they explain why it should remain deleted. I'm waiting for a detailed critique of the article itself. On the substance of the article. And I'm still waiting (Godot-like) for one substantive criticism on the article itself, whilst some editors try to eject this article on the grounds that my conduct in etiquitte class (on the talk page) has been unacceptable. Where's the "logic" in that??--Karmaisking (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Relax.
2. Don't write essays. Keep it short to start with.
3. READ THE INSTRUCTIONS.
4. Read the comments by the editor before. Think about whether what you want to put here is material for an encyclopedia or a blog. Not getting your stuff on here is not "napalmed out of existence." You can still put it in one of a hundred different places.
5. Look at all the other articles in wikipedia first. (Okay, just kidding. Look at SOME of them.)
6. Reference every major point you make.
7. Start slow.
8. Don't expect detailed critiques of long articles - no-one has time to fix it for you. Here's my detailed critique: it was original research, and not an encyclopedia article. Hence, not written for here.
9. If you write a whole bunch of bollocks, people will say it can't be fixed. If you write a small amount of bollocks - and LISTEN - you will get clues on how to do things. If you LISTEN.
10. READ THE INSTRUCTIONS.
11. If it's still unclear to you, find another article you don't care about and dedicate yourself to fixing that first. Come back here after a while. Add one sentence at a time.
12. LISTEN. READ THE INSTRUCTIONS.--Gregalton (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm incredibly relaxed. I'm almost falling off my chair. "No-one has time to fix it for you...it was original research"? You have got to be kidding. Seriously. That's the sum total of your "substantive" criticisms? Did you actually read the references? I will read the instructions. I may even try to give this another go, to squeeze every word into the guidelines (I actually don't currently know what is wrong with the article, because no one has given even one example where the article doesn't fit with the guidelines.) Please define "bollocks" (I thought that would be an etiquitte class faux pas, but obviously not). Where have you spotted the offending "bollocks" in the article? I've been looking and looking and can't find them anywhere. "Add one sentence at a time." OK. In turn, could you please add one substantive criticism at a time? Just one. Any will do.--Karmaisking (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I was kidding about the bollocks. Here's one example: take a look at how articles are structured. They have openings. If they go beyond three or four paragraphs, they split the article up. If you make it look like a wikipedia article, you will get points for effort.

Now for the substantive: para three or four, "Others argue that there is in fact no mathematical necessity for the money supply in a debt-based system to grow, since the interest portion of loan payments is not taken out of circulation, but goes into the lender’s account, where it can be spent back into circulation and eventually be used to pay off some loan principal." No reference.

"“Money is created when loans are issued and debts incurred, money is extinguished when loans are repaid” John B. Henderson, Senior Specialist in Price Economics, Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress." Now, a reference. Not formatted correctly, no source for when or where it was said. So not a real reference.

"government-issued notes and coins do not have the potentially pernicious economic effects of debt-based money described below." Pernicious is biased terminology.

"an economy that does not tolerate unfettered, inherently manipulative paper money or debt money." Biased and emotional, no reference.

"Some monetary reformers also argue that this system of money supply is perverse and inherently "anti-democratic", and inevitably creates an inflationary exponential growth bias in the economy which causes gross over-consumption and is superfluous, unnecessary, environmentally damaging and unstable. " Biased, emotional, no reference.

"It is therefore argued by a number of monetary reformers that the pyramid scheme of fractional reserve banking and the associated exponential growth of debt money in the economy inevitably creates a form of Darwinian "survival of those who can induce others into debt" as it forces the economy inexorably towards indebted consumerism and as it continually and steadily pulls in newly indebted "consumers", to inject more debt money into the economy to pay off the existing debts that have already been accumulated by producers who have borrowed to set up and expand their businesses." Run-on sentence from hell. No reference, biased language, opinionated, etc.

And, for the final example: "A particularly perverse and self-destructive side-effect of the debt-based monetary system is its effect on agriculture." This sums it all up. It has not been established that the debt-based monetary system exists; nor that its effect on agriculture exists at all; but it is willfully stated that those (alleged) effects are perverse and self-dstructive. Note that in this text, this is stated as fact, not opinion, with no reference.

Followed immediately by (sorry, I meant to stop at the one above, but this is just too sweet): "If this is allowed to continue unchecked, fertile arable land will be systematically destroyed and replaced by low-density housing, ultimately condemning local populations to permanent, irredeemable reliance on imported food to survive. If for any reason the monetary system broke down, this population (nominally "rich" but poor in terms of direct access to food supply) could literally starve on its own debt money." Now, do I have to explain what is wrong with this by wikipedia standards? (Apart from the fact that "literally starve on its own debt money" makes no sense whatsoever).

Essentially, the entire article in this redaction reads like this: a great, long, unsourced rant. And the opinion of some other editors - which, having looked again, I can only support - is that in that form, it was unsalvageable.

If, when looking at the article again, you cannot see how this does not meet basic guidelines for inclusion, then I can only suggest you read the guidelines again.--Gregalton (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to do my best to improve the article but it now seems to have been taken over by others. It will be interesting to see how those with no knowledge of financial economics go amending this out of existence.

By the way, I've called the Captain and mentioned that I CLEARLY see water coming into my bedroom. The carpets are soaked and I feel the S.S. Titanic listing portside. I've been told to shut my stupid face and refer to the etiquitte manual and never again call the Captain so late at night. Oh well....--Karmaisking (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Karmaisking, as you know I support retaining this article. however, I also understand the concerns of those posting tags here. i think one thing which might be helpful is to give more attribution to sources for any criticism, claims or assertions posted here. Right now, it is a bit hard to distinguish political claims from objective legitimate facts. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, but could others help me out here addressing the Englishman Gentleman Gregalton's concerns?? I've actually been doing this in my spare time (very late at night) and my professional work cannot pause to clean this stuff up. Good-hearted contributors - don't be afraid to amend, change the form etc. Don't delete if you can avoid it - I'll try to reference every sentence over the next few weeks. Oh... and Gentleman Gregalton, did you read this week's Economist articles on food prices and food security and worldwide food shortages??? It was just sooooo sweet.--Karmaisking (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been wondering who the Brit you were referring to was - now I know. Well, I've been called worse ;).--Gregalton (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's necessary to have a brit playing the bad guy in this tale, I could perhaps fulfill the role? Reading the above, what I think needs to happen is that the article gets taken back to nothing and then rebuilt (same applies to the article on fractional reserve banking). It would take much too long to fix the articles as they stand, like trying to build a skyscraper by filing down a mountain. I'm not an economics professor, just an interested amateur. I am however an academic, and will stand up for my ability to spot an unverified or unverifiable claim. If it helps, the reason I came to this page in the first instance is because of a personal suspicion that the structure of our debt-based economy is inherently unstable and unsustainable. For this reason I wish to seek out sources that discuss the supply of debt, and its relationship to money growth, government and private organisations and economic crises. What I hoped to find was a short, informative piece on how bank lending increases the supply of money. I hoped for a logical article that explained the history, the landmark events, the institutions involved, with reliable graphs and diagrams. What I hoped to find was an article that no rational banker or economist could disagree with, where no facts or statements were in dispute. Gantlord (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources used

As I understand there is some effort ongoing to clean this article up, this is a request to pay careful attention to the sources and the extent to which they meet standards for reliable sources and notability. Many of these appear to be blogs, and some of the publications (but by no means all) to be not well known or to be opinion pieces of no particular notability. These should really be pruned. It would also help this article's credibility if some sources of unquestionable notability and significance (an economics textbook, for example) using the exact phrase "debt-based money" could be cited. I for one still question whether this is a notable school of academic or other thought (as opposed to, for example, a 'populist' restatement of e.g. Austrian school thinking). Would be grateful for strong references that are unambiguous in this sense.--Gregalton (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Distinguished Englishman Gentleman Gregalton, please read your countryman Michael Rowbotham's book, or if you can tolerate the "wrong" English spelling in American books, Ellen Hodgson Brown's book, or anything from Murray Rothbard (he's written so much on this it's not funny). The only thing that's funny is that slow Establishment-types keep attacking this article as lacking "strong references". "Strong references" - in whose opinion? Yours? If so, who are you and please provide full details of your qualifications in financial economics (including where you obtained them) to us all. You're full of confidence in commenting on the article so I assume you've got some very impressive qualifications. I can't wait to see them. I can tell the Nobel prize is coming up soon for you no doubt.

To me these are the best references in the world on the debt-based monetary system. To you they appear rubbish. Who decides? You or me? Or do the Big Bad Bankers (who have built the current stupid dysfunctional system and who are running around today like chickens with their heads cut off) decide? They don't want this stuff published because they hate being called stupid. That's the whole damn point. The most incisive, intelligent astute commentator IN THE WORLD on financial events today is undoubtedly an "unpublished", relatively unknown female blogger called Elaine Meinel Supkis. The internet allows these bright but unknown people to shine (Thank God and your countryman Timothy Berners-Lee for this revolution!!!). READ THE REFERENCES THAT ARE THERE RIGHT NOW. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THEM? Even if they are not written on parchment and have a nice hardbound cover they may actually make sense anyway. I know that sounds incredible but just go with it for a few minutes. Actually try to read them with an open mind. Stay open-minded about the sources and EVALUATE THEM FOR YOURSELF. The idea that an idea needs to be put in an "establishment" textbook before it becomes part of an on-line encyclopedia is soooo 20th century it's almost Triassic (or at least Cretaceous). That's backward thinking (in every sense of the term). It's sad to say but your comment is the EXACT replica of "32F" and the now-humiliated "Gantlord" (who deleted his name presumably in shame). Everything written in the article is coming true - right now, before our very eyes. Look out the window, Distinguished Captain - the S.S. Titanic has sprung a leak and it's obvious to everyone - including even the dumbest Establishment-type.--Karmaisking (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Please see the relevant policies and guidelines for wikipedia as to sources: WP:RS, WP:Verifiability, and WP:Sources. As an example of what is found there, here is one example: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made." These guidelines are easier to follow once one reads them.
2. Please also see policy on No Personal Attacks. Now, I can't tell whether you think calling me an Englishman is an insult, or why you would think that, but it's beginning to sound a bit deranged. Please desist.
3. You may be right. All these blogs may be more right than all the other stuff written by academics and others that check facts and the like. But that's not what the guidelines say about sources. Blogs are made for people who want to write whatever they like; wikipedia is not. See WP:NOT.--Gregalton (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

1. OK. Others can try to squeeze this into the guidelines. I'd fight for the retention of EACH and EVERY reference, but then I'm biased on the subject of $$$$s and how they are made (as is every single person with a dollar bill in their pocket) and accordingly I may be mad - that's for others to decide. If other editors consider some blogs to be unacceptable and illegitimate, delete.
2. Being English is something to be proud of, don't ever think it's something to be ashamed of. You're being paranoid. I also don't know for the life of me why Freemasons aren't more open about their affiliations. It's a noble fraternity with long distinguished traditions.
3. I'm letting this go now, for others to amend and improve. I've got real work to do, in order to get more of those $$$s in order to swap these useless bits of replicating toilet paper for PURE GOLD. Please be kind to the article.
4. Oh... and thanks for the impressive listing of your qualifications. Very impressive. Good luck on that Nobel Prize in Financial Economics.--Karmaisking (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Gregalton, why did you take out the scholarly journal from the Levy institute? I'm also going to throw back in the book about hyperinflation in Germany after WWI. I realize that the one you deleted was a review, so I'll correct that. -- EGeek (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

EGeek: thank you, the book reference is indeed better. For the levy.org article, I apologize that I took it out, it is indeed a good reference. I have not put it back in myself, however, because on checking the article I could not find any text that supports the key contention that "this system of money supply has all the essential characteristics of a monetized Ponzi or pyramid scheme, where the newly indebted find themselves compelled to induce others into debt to enable them to pay off their own debts." The article does refer to Minsky, to Ponzi schemes, but does not link the sub-prime crisis to money supply. Could you show what I may have missed?--Gregalton (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Sources and use of sources

Template:RFC error03:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

How appropriate that the most intense "bombing" of this site to date occurs on the Anniversary of the Boston Tea Party (err...that's a joke for those who are not amused).

Gentleman Gregalton, this is going to get ugly but I really need to ask a simple but very important question: If an article states that "some more extreme monetary reformers predict X (or believe Y)", and I have inserted a blog or an article from GreatRedDragon.com or Mike Whitney CLEARLY confirming this, how can this then be DELETED as illegimate based on the guidelines?? The guidelines are tailored to verify "a fact in the world", not the existence of an opinion about the world. I am not using these sources as a "legitimate" source in the sense that it's used to verify a fact in itself but rather to prove the existence of the opinion. To take an extreme (and admittedly bizarre) example (I need to make it extreme just to get my point across and genuinely don't want to offend anyone, it's just another sick joke just to get the point across), if the article stated: "some more extreme monetary reformers believe fractional reserve banking is run by a small secretive group of satanic sociopathic gay male Freemasons and Illuminati intent on subjugating humanity" and then the article REFERENCES this statement to a weird fringe website run by a monetary reformist nut entitled "Gay Freemasons Want to Take Over the World!!! Pictures Inside!!!", that is surely a legitimate reference. It has NOTHING WHATEVER to do with the veracity of the statement that "Gay Freemasons want to take over the world" and has EVERYTHING to do with "some more EXTREME monetary reformers believe Gay Freemasons want to take over the world". This occurs both with the Mike Whitney reference and the GreatRedDragon reference, and many others you have just deleted. Could you please comment with reference to the guidelines and re-insert if you understand and agree with my point? Thanks.--Karmaisking (talk) 10:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see the following WP guidelines. Reliable sources is the main guideline/policy on this issue, along with Verifiability and WP:Notability. I encourage you to read them and, if you feel I'm being unreasonable, use the formal procedures to ask for others' comments. Here are the parts that relate to my reasoning for removing these sources; I have removed a number at once because many of them do not appear to meet these basic guidelines. I may, of course, have made some errors (see above, where I removed a source inadvertently - although in that case I'm asking for clarity that the source actually supports the point being made by the text - I have discovered a number of references that do not appear to support the point.)

1. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." The reason I removed most of these "sources" is that they fail reliability, correspondence of citation to claim, or notability.
2. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made." This is reasonably straightforward, but I would note that "sources should be appropriate to the claims made" sets the bar fairly high for extraordinary claims.
3. "Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic." There is a large emphasis put on scholarship; for an article that purports to be about monetary policy, it would seem a major oversight that a "school" of thinking about monetary policy does not have scholarly sources that refer to this approach, use the phrase "debt-based monetary system" and similar.
4. "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources." Please note the "directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources." There is also a separate guideline on no original research.
5. "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. ... Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves." It may be useful to look at WP:Reliable source examples.
6. "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications."
7. "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."
8. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". There is a key sentence in this portion of the relevant para, "claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents of such claims say there is a conspiracy to silence them." The guideline WP:Fringe may also be relevant.
9. "Be sure to also adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and not giving undue weight to minority opinions." See WP:Undue for information about giving undue weight to minority opinions.
10. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I am still questioning whether the topic itself is notable.

So, to address your specific example (about the Freemason conspiracy: to say "some say" would give undue weight to a fringe theory. Simply referring to blogs that said this (without identifying it as a fringe theory) would violate neutrality and notability.

I believe most of the articles I cited do not comply with these central guidelines, and the article itself generally does not comply with these. Note that I have left some blogs (Nouriel Roubini's, a noted expert on monetary policy, for example). I have also left books, even in a few cases where they appear to be self-published. Quoting blogs to support the point that "some say..." is insufficient evidence for notability; if this were an article about quilting, that might be different, but for one on monetary policy better sources should be available.

I also repeat that I think it would be easier to make this a "real" article if it were cut down to the bare minimum and built up bit by bit. But that is a recommendation.

Boston Tea Party: the comment seems to be based on inferences you've made about my nationality, which is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Apart from being irrelevant, it also happens to be factually incorrect, based on what I would say is original research, a synthesis of two facts ("English people spell this way" and "this person spells this way") in a bad syllogism ("therefore English").--Gregalton (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen a joke transmuted into an analysis on syllogisms (it kind of loses its "punch" doesn't it?) but thanks for the refresher course on logic. Let's stay "non-ad hominem" if we can...

Ummm... the essence of your comments appears to be as follows: "(1) Quilting wouldn't require the same quality of references that this topic does (WHY?) (2) Every time you say 'some say X' and it's a 'fringe theory' and try to reference it to a blog, it's a violation of the cardinal principles of neutrality and notability."

Double-standards and the unfortunate and insensitive denigration of the noble art of quilting are my initial comments in relation to Point (1). I notice you demanded a cite for the arable land comment here, but didn't bother to require the same level of citation from its actual source - the WP entry on arable land itself. I assume arable land is a lot like quilting? Or is that a syllogism too?

As for Point (2), I take your point, but you're the one being impatient this time. Other contributors can provide "mainstream" thoughts to balance any nasty "fringe" elements. Why not leave the "fringe" stuff in there and have others come and provide the "mainstream" stuff later. The night is young, dear editor.

In fact, given you're such an well-known expert, please don't hold back on my account. PLEASE: Actually make a contribution yourself to balance the "fringe" stuff! Go crazy! Knock yourself out! Instead of deleting and criticizing, how about contributing? You appear to know so much about the topic, but keep deleting stuff and not "balancing" it with "mainstream thought". Balance away my friend. For example, you've deleted an article from GoldSeek listing the proportions of M1, M2, and M3 reported by various central banks, but haven't searched around for a "legitimate" replacement. I spent 4 hours trying to find a better source and couldn't find one. Then 1/2 hour later I come back to the site and find it's deleted! Do you have any idea what you are doing? How long some of these references have taken to collate? Am I frustrated?? You bet! Am I amused? No. Do I care? No, as long as I can keep buying gold, and read hilarious news headlines on how the headless central bank chickens keep running around in tiny circles in sheer terror at the monumentally stupid stuff-up they have all caused.--Karmaisking (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The Money Supply article recently updated the money supply changes in various countries with appropriate sources; however, look at the sources carefully before use. I noticed this M3 was listed under the U.S. even though the M3 statistics ceased over 2 years ago, so those two sources listed are not reliable. -- EGeek (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sincere thanks for all your help EGeek. You are a true gentleman and a scholar.--Karmaisking (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No slight to the fine art of quilting intended. The point is this: there are topics that are well covered by academic sources, and some that are not. I assume quilting has less coverage - if the example is not apt, then perhaps plot summaries of Grey's Anatomy would be better - there are few academic sources on this subject. On monetary policy, there are plenty of academic sources. Since this is the case, those sources should be used to make exceptional claims.

Unfortunately, since this article is currently a dump of unsourced material, getting balance by adding material is not realistic. So, best to start with a few very good sources and a limited text rather than trying to balance this. In other words, balance is probably unachievable without deleting large chunks.--Gregalton (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Gentleman Gregalton: So determined in deletion, so defeatist in actually doing. Don't get so depressed about the prospects of this article, Gregalton. Where's that British stiff upper lip (even if you're not a Brit, buy one on e-bay). There's still hope, surely. Do your very best. Nothing seems to stop those deletions. Surely nothing should stop your determined contribution. At the very least help with the references. You've cut the one on M1/M2/M3 and left without replacing the reference with a better one for example. Surely a man of your stature can find a better one from a "mainstream" source???--Karmaisking (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you seem to have misinterpreted or not read the relevant guidelines (see, for example, WP:V), which are quite straightforward: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." It is not my responsibility to provide reliable sources and evidence if you want it to remain.--Gregalton (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, Gentleman Gregalton, you've misinterpreted MY point. It's not your responsibility, but it would be a nice gesture of goodwill. It's just not cricket to go around disdainfully scorning the article and the sources (and many of the references, which have now been deleted by you), and then casually and openly admit that you haven't even read the two principal sources for the "fringe" thesis that exists here. You know about cricket, don't you Gregalton?--Karmaisking (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have made more than a minor effort to find uses of the expression "debt-based money" and the like. Unsuccessful, I'm sorry to say. Please, provide sources. And yes, I don't consider it at all unfair to ask that those sources be reliable.--Gregalton (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you read the TWO PRINCIPAL SOURCES ALREADY REFERRED TO IN THIS DAMN ARTICLE you'd be more successful in your search. Oh my God is it me or is it Gregalton? I'm losing it...--Karmaisking (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of sources: economic and political criticisms

I have been attempting to review the sources and the use of these sources. As an example, please see the section economic and political criticisms:

"Therefore, significant super-normal profits can be generated by re-zoning agricultural land and replacing it with low-density housing. Urban poverty can often be the final result of the financial incentives inherent in a system which rewards short-term urban development.[14] In the United States for example, 8,900 km² (about 2.2 million acres) of land was added to urban areas between 1992 and 2002, much of it arable land now paved. ... If this is allowed to continue unchecked, forests and fertile arable land (specifically farmland on the fringes of existing urban developments) will be systematically destroyed and replaced by low-density housing, ultimately condemning local populations to permanent, irredeemable reliance on imported food to survive.[15] [16] If for any reason the monetary system broke down, this population (nominally "rich" but poor in terms of direct access to food supply) could find food security a major public policy issue.[17]"

Three significant sources are used here, a United Nations University article on urbanisation and nutrition; a Thomas Friedman NYTimes opinion piece; and an economist article, "Cheap no more".

The text above makes several significant claims:

1. "Significant super-normal profits from re-zoning": This may be a 'therefore' related to the previous sentence, but these articles do not support.
2. Urban poverty can often be the result of financial incentives: source is the UN University paper. I cannot find anything in the paper which supports this point.
3. U.S. data: unsourced and of unclear relevance.
4. "forests and fertile arable land (specifically farmland on the fringes of existing urban developments) will be systematically destroyed and replaced by low-density housing, ultimately condemning local populations to permanent, irredeemable reliance on imported food to survive.": the link to farmland/urban development, and the permanent reliance on imported food are not supported by the article. As an example, the chapter linked to in the UNU article does refer to imported food: "These changes in food consumption patterns are modifying the urban food demand in developing countries, and are increasing their dependence on industrialized nations because these items must be imported (fig. 1). For example, in West Africa net wheat imports for 1976-1980 tripled over those for 1961-1965, making an average growth rate of 11.4% per year. Net rice imports grew at an average of 10.7% per year over the same period. Ninety per cent of these imports were meant for urban centres. As a result of changes in consumption patterns, the quality of urban diet, particularly with respect to fat, animal protein, and vitamin A, has improved." The language about "condemning" to "permanent reliance" is not there at all. They say "increased dependence", but even this is balanced (it is not treated as a necessarily bad thing, given that quality of diet has improved). There is nothing about systematic destruction due to replacement by low-income housing.

Similarly with the Friedman piece: it does not make this link at all. The mention of urban growth is specific to unchecked growth of Jakarta, which causes flooding (due to a failure to implement a buffer zone plan). No connection to food, irredeemable reliance on imported food, low-income housing or anything like it.

The Economist article also contains little that would support these conclusions: it is about prices of food going up worldwide, not about import dependence or urbanization (there is some discussion of urban/rural poverty, but nothing that supports these points).

Unfortunately, I believe this pattern of providing citations that barely, if at all, correspond to the points in the article is endemic; the line between "criticisms" and "facts" is also blurred (and raises questions of neutral point of view), but if the sources do not even correspond to the text, it seriously undermines the reader's ability to trust this article (and by extension Wikipedia).

I would be greatly appreciative if other editors could carefully and thoroughly vet not just the sources, but also the extent to which they correspond to the text.--Gregalton (talk) 12:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Gosh you're a harsh taskmaster. I hope you're not a rugby coach at a British public school - you'd be brutal. Let me be clear: The argument that arable land is being gobbled up for residential development and is destroying farming and farmland comes from Michael Rowbotham in The Grip of Death. The factual reality supporting the point that forests and arable land are being destroyed is contained in the citations (now deleted by the all-seeing, all-knowing Gregalton). The articles ADMITTEDLY and OPENLY state that "development" and "trade" are responsible for the destruction, but the point is that the destruction is occurring and Michael Rowbotham has made the link. Gregalton, I encourage you to actually read Michael Rowbotham's book. Have you done so yet??--Karmaisking (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I haven't read his book. But the way the citations have been inserted suggests they support the conclusions, not the facts. Combining the two and suggesting they support Rowbotham's causal chain is original research.

I will try to find and read his book. So far, however, the conclusion I draw is that almost all of this is Rowbotham's work restated, with citations thrown in to make it look like others agree. Looking carefully at the sources reveals that they said no such thing.--Gregalton (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

One additional point: while I will try to find and read his book, I do note that his notability and the use of his books as reliable sources is under dispute. Hence, more, better sources required.--Gregalton (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ellen Hodgson Brown's book doesn't draw out all the implications of unhinged frb in the same way "Mad" Michael does, but it's yet another source for the thesis. Have you actually bothered to read EITHER book?? I find it ever so...how should I put this...ungentlemanly of you to go around deleting references and disdainfully calling this article a "dumping" ground for unsourced ranting, and yet you have not bothered to read the two central sources for the thesis. Does anyone else detect the slight but ever so potent pong of editorial arrogance around here?--Karmaisking (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I would perhaps be willing to give the benefit of the doubt if the references provided actually corresponded to the text.

Most recent addition: federal reserve governor's speech. In it, I can find nothing that corresponds to "Aside from the moral hazard issue, the key risk with this tactic (cutting interest rates to encourage new debt money creation) is that the central bank exposes the financial system to a currency crisis, as the growth in the money supply spirals out of control due to the need to save the banks from themselves." If I have missed something, please show me where in Mishkin's text he even refers to a currency crisis, "saving the banks from themselves", debt money creation, etc. At least these are reputable sources, but now you're quoting them in a misleading way. (I admit readily I could not check the Science Direct piece; given the track record of use of references here, I would greatly appreciate direct quotes that support the text).

For anyone else who is able to check, the references I'm referring to are at Central Bank Intervention Financial Instability and the Federal Reserve as a Liquidity Provider, by Frederic S. Mishkin--Gregalton (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You are (sort of) correct, and I apologize for the confusion. The article is an excellent summation of the moral hazard implications of excessive central bank support, but doesn't comment specifically on the (obvious) currency implications of the liquidity injections. I still recommend it, but will have to find another sentence to hang it on. I'll also look for a more appropriate reference which connects the increase in the money supply and central bank intervention with a currency crisis. Hold on, I could just look at the U.S. Dollar and the last six months of real life experience! Look out the window, Gregalton. Oh no, that would be way too easy for Gregalton.--Karmaisking (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've found a really cute PowerPoint that I think even Gregalton will understand. If you connect Mishkin's analysis regarding increases in the money supply with the PowerPoint - Hey Presto! - you'll get a currency depreciation. Please keep it in Gregalton. Pleeeaaaassssseeeee--Karmaisking (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the best, funniest, greatest explanation of this phenomenon was achieved by the Famous Mogambo Guru, but this pithy, witty, hilarious piece was deleted by kill-joy Gregalton. For those with a sense of humor, enjoy: The Mogambo Theory of Currency Relativity--Karmaisking (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of sources is getting outrageous

As yet another example:"Given that the profession of this privileged minority is to produce nothing other than debt and inflation, and given that they face being rendered impotent if the power to print debt-free money was returned to government, it is to be expected that those associated and aligned with the private banking interests will use any means necessary to preserve their power, as they have no other skill other than the issuance and distribution of debt money." Even in your (non-peer checked blog) source I could not find any statement like this. The Forgotten War.

Bad, misleading use of references is far worse than not having any. Frankly, this source should not be here, but it may actually be better than the text above.--Gregalton (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I give up. If this doesn't show what the "fight" is all about then I don't know what does. It shows there has been a fight (a very very big fight) over this stuff and some nasty nasty people will do anything to stop this issue being popularized. Can you see the link? Gregalton, there's an entry on short-sightedness I think you should start editing...--Karmaisking (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've lost all respect

I thought I was talking to a Gentleman who actually knew something about what he was pontificating about. I mean, he calls himself an editor. I now realize my trust was sadly mistaken. I've been burned as badly as any idiot bond trader who bought sub-prime on behalf of his big bad bank (no bonus for you this year, bond boy). Gregalton, I just noticed you deleted all references to commentary by Satyajit Das (world-renowned derivatives expert) presumably on the grounds that they look suspiciously "blog-like" in your ignorant, child-like eyes. Oh. My. God. The guy who predicted the crisis. The guy who has a premier textbook published on derivatives (I think it was around 4000 pages long, but my eyes blurred at all the equations and I went to sleep when I tried to read it). Deleting these references has just pushed me. Over. The. Edge. Delete these again and it will prove you have no idea. NONE. Stay far, far away from anything finance or derivative related. Or it will blow you to pieces.--Karmaisking (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am similarly disgusted that any editor would so consistently and grossly misuse and misrepresent references as you've done, as above. I will admit that I should have left the Das piece in - it's very good. But you have not shown any willingness to attempt to follow basic guidelines here, particularly NPOV.

For the record, context is everything. The Das piece you quoted, and Roubini, is found in this chunk:

"Many monetary reformers consider technical terms such as "systemic risk" and "financial contagion" simply as code words for a time when the pyramid scheme of debt inevitably faces periods of collapse due the mismatch between the volatile, unstable growth of debt money and the liquidity requirements of the slower-growing real economy. These economists consider any calls for government or central bank intervention at such times as an illegitimate policy of "saving" the system from being exposed as a financial fraud on the general (indebted) populace. It may also trigger a currency crisis because overseas financiers can no longer trust the integrity of the domestic monetary system to process bad debts appropriately by permitting financial institutions to go bankrupt and be acquired by other financial institutions. Instead the central bank signals its willingness to save the current players in the banking sector by printing money and inflating its way out of the crisis, thereby debasing the value of the domestic currency.

"This is referred to by some monetary reformers and economists as "Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor", as many indebted consumers will still lose their houses and be declared bankrupt regardless whether or not the central bank intervenes to save marginal lenders who have been made insolvent through their mis-timing of the credit cycle.Privatizing Profits and Socializing Losses, by Nouriel RoubiniRegulatory Debauchery by Satyajit Das Future generations of innocent taxpayers may ultimately finance any bail out of reckless lenders, as the money used to fund any bail out will be funds diverted from the general revenue of the central government.A run on the bank"

This seems purposefully to conflate issues and imply that one or both of these would support the statements in the paragraph above (the subsequent para leads with "this is referred to" without being specific). Roubini, for one, would not seem to hold those views; see Dec 15's RGE blog entry, "Why monetary policy easing is warranted even in the current insolvency crisis". And Roubini's piece that you cite is quite clearly advocating a different kind of government intervention (government takeover and administration of Countryside and Northern Rock as insolvent institutions) - he is advocating explicitly that the shareholders should lose their equity. Not monetary reform, but better application of (existing) regulatory powers.

In other words, you are using others out of context and implying they agree with the POV in this article. I see no evidence that either Roubini or Das have ever used the term "debt-based monetary system" or "debt-based money", or would refer to themselves as monetary reformers, but your approach in this section implies that they support the opener, "Aside from the moral hazard issue, the key risk with this tactic (cutting interest rates to encourage new debt money creation) is that the central bank exposes the financial system to a currency crisis, as the growth in the money supply spirals out of control due to the need to save the banks from themselves." Roubini for one has in the past and is now advocating intervention - competent intervention - in the right circumstances.

My point here is that you could use the points made by Roubini and others without the POV embellishments of "currency crisis" (believe me, I do understand the link between inflation and a weakening currency, but that is not the same as a currency crisis) and "spirals out of control", and "code words for a time when the pyramid scheme of debt inevitably faces periods of collapse". But throughout this article, you do not use sources in context, you misstate what they say, and mislead the reader to fit an agenda.--Gregalton (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep this simple, so even a child can understand. Do both Roubini and Das use the term "Socialism for Wall Street" or "Socialism for the Rich" (footnotes 49, 50) when referring to repeated central bank interventions? Yes or No? That's what the references are used for. Simple. They are both reputable sources for the statement/criticism. It's right next to the correct damn sentence. How could this be conflated to be anything other than what it is? Please contribute alternative p.c. expressions if you wish for the other stuff. Use Canadian or British expressions or whatever nice language you want to use to soften the blow. You appear to be great at deleting, not so great at contributing. I don't know what you would call the recent "depreciation" of the U.S. dollar. Some would call it a currency crisis, others would call it a depreciation. It's a qualitative difference. Use the term "damn big fall" for all I care. The fact is that the currency depreciates to a greater or lesser degree with an increase in the money supply, and the risk is that this spirals into a currency crisis. If context is everything, why can't you look out the window? I sit here watching the derivatives and credit markets collapse and Gregalton sits there happily getting fumed up about the exact adjectives and nouns to use in etiquette class on S.S. Titanic. And we wonder why we're in the mess we're in with people like Gregalton thinking they know better...--Karmaisking (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's keep this simple: "crisis" is loaded (not NPOV), "depreciation" is a fact. This simple distinction is the heart of the problem - you consistently use loaded language and cannot tell the difference or why it is important.

As I noted, your use of both these quotes is affected by how and where they are used. If the para before that bears no relation and is just there for show, delete it; it currently has no references whatsoever, and is wholly out of place in an encyclopedia.

I would attempt to contribute more text here, but as noted, the article is too long and biased. To use your analogy, why try to bail out the Titanic when the real problem is that there's a hole in the hull? The article is in such a state that it would be more effective to let it sink and build another.--Gregalton (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Karmaisking, I would like to say i do appreciate the role this article plays. however I would also suggest a more consensus-based approach to this. Gregalton is basically not doing anything extreme in questioning sources. of course, we are free to disagree with him on individual matters. however, i do feel use of blogs can be questionable. It is not enough to merely say that a blog mentioning something proves that it is out there in the world; we need to look deeper for reasons to use that blog. is it the blog of chairman of an economic department at a major university? or a major official of a bank or a think tank? In the case of Roubini of course, he clearly meets all those criteria, so some blogs are clearly valuable. as you can see, my point is not that blogs are unacceptable, but that the bloggger must in themselves constitute a valid source.

I would suggest trying to address some of greg's concerns through use of alternate phrasing, approaches, and sources. I think consensus is reachable here. and also, let's try not to see the glass as half-empty; after all, the context for this whole discussion is that the article is here, and most of it is not even being subject to this debate or to any dispute at all right now. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I have a life. Just like Chuck Prince having to be fired from Citigroup because he was "too close" to his own mistakes, and central bankers today desperately trying to avoid responsibility for loose monetary policy between 2002-2007, a person can be way, way too close to the topic to be objective about its stupid deficiencies. Why is everybody standing around pointing at the carcass of this article without taking a chunk off for themselves? Amend away dear friends, amend away. I'm standing here with Gregalton relentlessly nibbling away at my ankles while everyone else is standing around gawking - except for gentleman and scholar EGeek who is actually doing some work around here (incredible!). I'm sure you've seen the road workers where 5 guys are just standing around looking while one guy actually digs the ditch. That's how I feel! How about others start researching and referencing and deleting where appropriate?? Now's the time to dig in friends. Go for it.--Karmaisking (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources and "scholarly"

Once again, difficulty understanding the meaning of reliable sources. There is a note that the Landis piece is a "scholarly study." Please see reference to scholarly in the reliable sources guideline. While I don't necessarily have a problem with the Landis piece (will read more carefully), it's still a self-published article on a blog. One of the key elements of "scholarly" is that "The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals." Is this so hard to understand?--Gregalton (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Not only that: take a look at the source (which I've left in, despite reservations). It does not correspond to the text you had in, with overstatement, reference to debt-based money, anarchy, blah blah blah. If you're going to use sources of any kind, at least have the courtesy to use them without gross exaggeration.--Gregalton (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Final paragraph (in its entirety) from "The Prophet" Robert K. Landis's magnum opus, written in August 2004, three years before Chapter I of Armageddon began:

"With respect to the form the denouement will take, much has been written within the gold community on the subject of whether we face hyperinflation or deflationary depression as the prelude to monetary collapse. Both sides of the debate appear to accept the premise that whatever may transpire will bear a linear relationship to what now exists. The disagreement centers on the direction the line will go. But today's markets are fully linked by derivatives and technology, and they are patrolled by wolf packs of large, leveraged speculators not noted for their patient outlook. So it seems likely that the terminal monetary crisis will unfold on virtually an instantaneous and discontinuous basis, once the fog of statistical deceit and false market cues begins to lift and a clear trend either way becomes evident. We are not likely to enjoy the luxury of observing either a deflation or an inflation unfold in the fullness of time, but rather, just as Mises foretold, a final and total catastrophe of our fiat monetary system. All we can hope is that once the curtain falls on the current system, the wisdom in the gold bugs' submissions to the Gold Commission will finally find a receptive audience."

"A final and total catastrophe of our fiat monetary system." A final and total catastrophe. A final and total catastrophe. Hmmmmm.... and Gregalton describes my objective, clear summation of Landis's final paragraph "overstatement". Wait for the "overstatement" to become REALITY in 2008 my genius Canadian friend. Just you wait.--Karmaisking (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but that's an opinion piece. obviously it can be used, but the way to use it, IMHO, is by saying, "Some commentators have raised concerns that..." etc. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's what you wrote: "As potential new borrowers and international financiers are scared away from borrowing further, some analysits (sic) predict that the monetary system will inevitably seize up, starved of the fresh injections of debt money it needs for its survival, thereby precipitating economic anarchy either via a deflationary depression or sustained period of stagflationary hyperinflation, which will, in turn, trigger widespread lawlessness and insolvency of the monetary and banking system."

This is not what the text above says: it says catastrophe of the fiat monetary system. Your elaboration that this constitutes anarchy (economic or otherwise), widespread lawlessness and insolvency is not supported by the text. You may believe these are the same, but it is an exaggeration of the original. There have been collapses of fiat monetary systems (and gold or other-"hard" backed systems) in the past that have not led to anarchy or widespread lawlessness. The "starved of fresh injections of debt money it needs for survival" also appears to be your addition (in particular, I don't believe the text uses or gives any credence to the expression "debt-based money", debt money, credit money or any variation thereon). It's also a self-published source.--Gregalton (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, this is going to be hilarious. Where is the Famous Mogambo Guru when you need him. Answer me these two questions, all-seeing, all-knowing Canadian genius: (1) what does a "final and total catastrophe" mean to you? (2) when has a collapse of a fiat monetary system NOT led to anarchy? "Criminal" Ponzi Scot John Law's France? Weimar Republic? Collapse of the Soviet Union (mortality rates soared, life expectancy collapsed, prostitution rife, alcohol abuse through the roof, widespread starvation...I could go on)? Collapse of Manchu China in the early 20th century (replay collapse of the Soviet Union x 100)? Post WWII-Japan (the mass suicides were most definitely NOT fun)? This will either prove your extraordinary historical knowledge - or the fact that you have NO IDEA.--Karmaisking (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Gregalton is right. Karma, please stop quoting opinion pieces and comemtnary which are not scholarly works or research, and then trying to use them to build the main body of the article. that is not a way to build an encyclopedic article. There are many sources which can be used which are nmore neutral, objective, and verifiable. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, dear friends, a simple courtesy: Can ONE person attack me at a time? It's difficult to adjust my aim quickly and you keep coming at me relentlessly, like zombies in a video game. Steve, Gregalton's criticism was no longer about the quality of the source, but rather he had adjusted his aim and had turned his laser-like attention towards my allegedly exaggerated summation of the source, which I then needed to defend to enable the existing sentence to survive. One at a time, dearest descendents of "Criminal" Ponzi Scot John Law, one at a time.--Karmaisking (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You misinterpret how the use of sources works. You are arguing above that monetary collapse necessarily means anarchy, lawlessness, etc. I believe you are wrong about that, but whether I am right or wrong is not the question: your source does not say that; you think he means that, but he does not say that.--Gregalton (talk) 10:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Gregalton, could you please stop moving around so much, I can't aim straight. It's like trying to swat a mosquito. What, precisely, are you saying now?? That I am exaggerating the "modest" phrase "a final and total catastrophe" and conflating that into "lawlessness and anarchy"?? What, precisely, is the difference?? Does it REALLY matter that much, "big picture" Gregalton?? OK, watch. I'll change the sentence. I hope the new version makes you feel soooooo much better.

And don't think I've forgotten about your (1) impressive qualifications and (2) your mind-blowing listing of the multitude of historical precedents where the collapse of a fiat monetary system did NOT result in "anarchy" or "lawlessness" or "drug abuse" (alcohol (post-Soviet Russia), cocaine (Weimar Germany), opium/heroin (Manchu China)) or "prostitution" (male, female, child... in hyperinflationary Weimar Germany you could actually choose between starving mother-daughter Aryan combos in the back streets of Berlin - must have been "fun" for the Versailles Treaty-loving monied parasites) or "widespread starvation" or "soaring mortality" or "collapsing life expectancy"....do you really want me to go on??? My statement that a collapse of a fiat monetary system results in anarchy and lawlessness is the EUPHEMISTIC way of "spinning" the shocking reality. You foolish, foolish establishment child.--Karmaisking (talk) 11:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

My qualifications are not the issue, nor are yours. And no, I really don't want you to go on, because your arguments about the monetary cause of e.g. alcoholism in Russia a) don't really interest me and b) are irrelevant to what the source you chose and cited actually says. And just so it is clear, yes, I believe you are exaggerating the phrase "final and total catastrophe of the fiat monetary system" (you keep leaving out that last part). Just so the difference is clear, imagine two sentences, one with the phrase "complete and utter destruction", and the other with the phrase "complete and utter destruction of the vehicle's carburetor." One of these things is not like the other.

Oh, and the source still doesn't meet basic standards. So a) you choose questionable sources, and b) you layer hyperbole on top.--Gregalton (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

All fixed, my friend. Hope you're happy now.--Karmaisking (talk) 11:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Grateful you provide a page reference for your Weimar text.--Gregalton (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Text removed on agriculture - no connection to sources

I've removed this: "If for any reason the monetary system broke down, urban populations (nominally "rich" but poor in terms of direct access to food supply) could find food increasingly expensive, ultimately resulting in food security becoming a major public policy issue.The Economist, "Cheap No More", December 6, 2007U.N. Agency thinks world food supply is shrinking".

Neither of the articles have much of anything to do with the monetary system, let alone a debt-based monetary system. Economist article has two main themes: demand has gone up, supply has not kept up, resulting in price increases. The bit on monetary policy is here: "Higher food prices have increased inflation around the world, but by different amounts in different countries." (Hence this is driving central banks to raise interest rates). Nothing about breakdown of the monetary system. The NYTimes article says this: "some poor people were being “priced out of the food market"". Nothing about nominally "rich" urban consumers poor in terms of direct access to food supply. Strangely enough, the message is basically that poor people suffer more when the price of essential goods goes up, although poor producers of the goods in question may be better off: "in every country, the least well-off consumers are hardest hit when food prices rise," and "enormous numbers of the poor—both urban and landless labourers—are net buyers of food, not net sellers."

So we have the regular pattern of citation usage here: whether the source is reputable or not, use it to push a point that does not appear in the original articles. And of course, it will be argued that "if the monetary system broke down" poverty would ensue, which may be true, but is not what the articles are about. It also goes without saying that it has nothing to do with the preceding paragraph either, and the point of this para is also to support the contentions of Rowbotham and others about debt, land and agriculture.--Gregalton (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel we're making real progress. You're now going around in small circles, doubling back on issues already addressed above, which must mean the scope of your criticism is narrowing. I welcome this. However, what I don't welcome is the need to repeat myself, over and over. I've already stated above that you need to combine "Mad" Michael's thesis with the references, which are used only to confirm the factual reality of "agflation". I've ALREADY OPENLY ADMITTED this. The articles are used SOLELY to prove prices of soft commodities are going up. You need to read "Mad" Michael to see the full picture. HAVE YOU DONE SO YET??????????

I will make this perfectly reasonable (without prejudice) offer of compromise: I will amend the sentence and add "Mad" Michael as a reference. You prove that you've actually read "Mad" Michael's text by commenting (with page references) on how accurately my sentence reflects "Mad" Michael's thesis. If you have a strong argument that my words do not accurately reflect his argument, or that I have somehow "embellished" his thesis, the sentence can THEN be deleted. Please do not comment on the intrinsic quality of "Mad" Michael's thesis. I already know that you will think his thesis is the equivalent of monetary faeces. The issue is not the quality of his faeces but rather whether I have accurately described the aforementioned faeces. THAT WILL BE THE ONLY ISSUE IN DISPUTE. Until you actually confirm you've read the two principal sources for the thesis presented on this page I fail to see how you can comment authoritatively on the issue because NO ONE CAN EDIT SOMETHING THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND (for the sake of good manners I will confine my criticism solely to your admission that you have not yet read the two aforementioned principal references, and I will scrupulously avoid mentioning your lack of qualifications, or your inability to show one historial instance where a collapse in a fiat monetary system has not led to anarchy, or your embarrassing ignorance of Satyajit Das's stature in this area, or...hold on... I'm beginning to sound petty).

Is my proposal fair, my fair-minded Canadian genius? Please DO NOT say "it's not my responsibility..." If it's not your responsibility to read the references, it's most certainly NOT your responsibility to arrogantly and ignorantly edit the text.--Karmaisking (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So basically your only significant source is what you call Mad Michael? I think it would be fair to say that an article based on essentially one or two references, and sources of questionable notability, may have no place in an encyclopedia. Edit the article down to a para or two. There's no need for a long article on one person's thesis, reiterated by another, unless that thesis is considered significant; given the subject, significance means "some recognition by academic experts."

The point on agflation is that it is not particularly significant that he predicted price changes for agricultural products. Like the proverbial broken clock, he can be right twice a day. The issue is cause and effect, which you have insinuated but not demonstrated, nor found a source that supports the link.

And, although I would prefer not to get into details on countries with a collapse in a fiat monetary system (there are other examples): Russia had three significant monetary shocks, 1991-2, 1995, and 1998; the first and last would under almost any measure count as a collapse of the existing monetary system. I question the assertion that any of these led to anarchy, but certainly the latter two did not. Now, you can of course dispute what is meant by anarchy, but more importantly: did the so-called anarchy of 1991-2 occur because of the collapse of a monetary system that was known to be beyond absurd, or because the country collapsed around it? You have not demonstrated cause and effect. Frankly, I'm not aware of a single (serious) source that claims that the Soviet Union collapsed because of its monetary regime. Without that, there is the issue that it is not clear which direction the causality works in. The same point could be made about the hyperinflation in Serbia/Yugoslavia: even if you want to call it anarchy, you'd have to ignore the fact that there was a war going on, a war that had nothing to do with the monetary regime.

I am not knowledgeable enough about the details in each case, but Turkey and Brazil are both known for continuing long periods of inflation/hyperinflation, including currency collapses, without much that could be termed anarchy. Argentina's currency collapse (not even a fiat monetary system) did not lead to anarchy. Belarus is yet another example: hyperinflation throughout the 1990s, no anarchy.

As for responsibility: it IS your responsibility to read and respect the guidelines, use sources honestly, and not use this as a soapbox for POV pushing. If not, things will get deleted. If you think I'm being unfair, by all means report me to higher sources and whinge to them.--Gregalton (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So, I take it from your long-winded comments that you STILL haven't read either source for the thesis?? I raise these two not because they are the only sources for the thesis (despite you deleting many offending blogs, one or two other "reputable" sources have survived the attempted genocide), but because it would be IMPOSSIBLE to comment on the article WITHOUT reading these two (at minimum). There are literally millions of entries on WP, from oral sex to anal sex to bisexuality to Homer Simpson to Wii to Freemasonry to sociopathy to Mounties. Surely this humble little entry can stay as is, after literally months of attacks from relentless defenders of the status quo, and many, many criticisms (and improvements). No one has been able to mount a sustained attack on the substance of the article itself. You've been nibbling away at my ankles for weeks, to little effect (I sympathize, I really do...it must be difficult to mount an attack if you don't have even a basic knowledge of the topic you're attacking). If you don't want to read the references, STAY AWAY FROM THIS BORING TOPIC and leave it to others to edit. Why are you so interested in deleting something you don't want to read about and, frankly, know next-to-nothing about? Why even stay around? I'm sure you're much more welcome elsewhere. Perhaps try some of the pages listed above? Perhaps you have the requisite qualifications for those more important, interesting topics.--Karmaisking (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right in one sense: I have been attempting to edit bit by bit AT YOUR REQUEST (see long whinges about PLEASE don't delete this...), and attempting to give you some attempt to improve the article and make it correspond more or less to WP guidelines. I conclude it is not worth the effort, you remain where you started - you want to use WP to push a point of view - and I remain where I started, thinking this article is gibberish. So I'll return to just deleting sections that don't come close to meeting the standards.

I've read quite a bit of Web of Debt. It's mostly nonsense strung together in hyperbole.

I know you think I should leave the articles related to monetary theory etc; I happen to dislike gibberish and conspiracy theories masquerading as economics in a public reference source. You like pushing fringe theories. Go do it on a personal blog rather than here.

I have also asked numerous times that you read the guidelines here, like WP:NOT, WP:NPOV. You clearly haven't.--Gregalton (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you related to "Robin" Gantlord? Perhaps you frequent the same private clubs? You're cut from exactly the same mould (do you guys get manufactured somewhere in the back streets of Establishment Britain and then get exported around the world?). Let me repeat, for the last time: Disdain alone is not an argument. It's an EMOTION. Generally emitted from the arrogant to the thoughtful. What precisely am I "pushing"? I've diligently referenced everything, and I've fought to have the non-Libertarian stuff put back in to BALANCE the article (something you wanted to delete - bizarre given your fixation on "balance"). I've repeatedly encouraged you to actually contribute to the article (given your apparent expertise in the area). You were most reluctant to do so, eventually contributing a bland piece of nothingness at the beginning of the article, which I've respectfully left in (despite reflexively wanting to delete it from sheer boredom at its fairy floss lack of substance - great references by the way, well done!). I dispute your characterization of any analysis of monetary theory with a reference to the gold standard as a "fringe" theory, particularly when it's been the dominant monetary system for most of human history.

You sit there doing little else other than criticize and delete. Without much thought or reason I might add. You've clearly STILL not read The Grip of Death. I am forced to ask: What the Hell are you doing here? Why do you keep attacking this article? Come on, fess up. You're from a banker family aren't you? Or you're an "establishment" economist? Or perhaps you're just an arrogant academic who thinks he knows more than he really does? It's (a), (b) or (c). Come on. Which one is it.--Karmaisking (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And you bring things back to personal attacks - again.--Gregalton (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Karmaisking, what is going on here? This is a totally inappropriate tone to take. Gregalton is perfectly within his right to try to achieve better citations and credibility for this article.

--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, that was out of line. However, I do get a tad agitated when an "editor" openly admits he hasn't read the references, then continues to delete great gobs of my very carefully constructed thoughts, happily, in serene ignorance of what in Hell he is doing (kind of like the whole banking fraternity from 2002-2007, don't you think?). Let me be frank and clear about this: Gregalton's comments reveal his clear bias and I would welcome another editor taking over. Why hasn't somebody pulled him up and said, "Hold on, chap. How about reading the references respectfully and then commenting? Also, how about telling us your qualifications so we know you're not just an ignorant fool with an agenda to discredit and then delete the article?"

You want proof of his clear bias?

(1) When asked whether he had read Rowbotham's book (after ALREADY making countless deletions and edits and pushing for its deletion in toto), he casually replies: "Nope, I haven't read his book."

(2) His initial comments regarding the article (apparently without having read ANY of the references): "If you write a whole bunch of bollocks, people will say it can't be fixed"... and..."the entire article in this redaction reads like this: a great, long, unsourced rant."

(3) His overzealous delete button resulted in another (objective) observer asking why he had pointlessly deleted a valid reference, to which he casually responded: "I apologize that I took it out, it is indeed a good reference."

(4) Even after being "encouraged" to ACTUALLY READ THE DAMN REFERENCES and positively contribute to the article to achieve the balance he (apparently) so vehemently desired, he remained strangely passive, responding as follows: "Unfortunately, since this article is currently a dump of unsourced material, getting balance by adding material is not realistic." He then added, for good measure, "To use your analogy, why try to bail out the Titanic when the real problem is that there's a hole in the hull? The article is in such a state that it would be more effective to let it sink and build another."

(5) When he eventually got around to (partially) reading one of the sources, he commented: "I've read quite a bit of Web of Debt. It's mostly nonsense strung together in hyperbole."

If it's not obvious to any objective observer that the pattern and consistency of these comments reveals that the guy is CLEARLY biased - and has a simple and obvious agenda to discredit and then delete the article - I must be mad. Can someone talk to him? Please?--Karmaisking (talk) 11:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Nope, I haven't read his book. I repeat it. One book is not notable. The other sources - particularly as grossly misused - do not support the use of the term debt-based money/monetary system etc. Even the "Web of Debt" book does not seem to use the term consistently (and it's not really an academic work either). The only credible source I can find in there uses it in "quotes", clearly referring to fiat money.
2. You use my 'bollocks' comment out of context. Other editors can see how it was meant: a recommendation to start slow.
3. You're right, I did make a mistake. When I make a mistake, I try to admit it. Given the massive misuse of sources here, an honest mistake.
4. I stand by my comments. The article should be cut back. Other editors have made the same comment, or pushed for deletion.
5. I stand by my comments on Web of Debt.

Other readers can decide whether I am biased - I do have an opinion, I think this is non-notable fringe economics and should go. You appear to be biased as well.

You've had quite some time to demonstrate notability, and it boils down to being sourced primarily from a non-academic source, on an academic topic, from what appears to be a self-published author of no significant notability. Given your consistent misuse of sources, reliance on non-reliable sources, and pattern of personal attacks, I see no reason to maintain the article. You still haven't demonstrated to me why it should remain.

And to reiterate: you have a lot of sources here. Very, very few of them have use the term or refer to debt-based money or the purported theory upon which this article is supposedly based. It boils down to original research.

As for my behaviour, feel free to start a process of review or complain. You keep asking why other editors haven't "pulled me up" and said hold on, asked for my qualifications: several have to date commented that I have been within my rights and made reasonable requests, and one told you that your personal attacks are unacceptable. For those going into the history of this article and your edits, they will also see that you have had similar warnings with respect to other editors.

The problem is, you seem to want the involvement of other editors only so long as they agree with you. Once another editor gets involved (as below) and suggests 2/3 should be trimmed, you complain that it should be one at a time.

Frankly, I've been humouring your disruptive behaviour, POV edits and original research too long.--Gregalton (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your persistence is impressive. Your intellect is not. I suggest you read Rowbotham's text before commenting (or editing) further. As I mentioned above, "fringe" entries are by no means unusual on WP (check out anal sex, porn stars, Seymour Butts, Ron Jeremy, Hugh Hefner, Hustler, Silvia Saint, Jenna Jameson and Bambi Woods - all proud entries in this on-line encyclopedia accessed by kiddies and adults alike, with terrifically informative External Links which I particularly recommend to inquisitive teenagers of all ages). I am frankly amazed that this humble little entry, which attempts to expand the general public's knowledge of modern financial economics in an important way, and deals with matters going to the very heart of the social and environmental sustainability of Western civilization has been subject to such persistent and vicious deleting, editing and attacks by those openly ignorant of many of the central references. And yet such (historically?) "fringe" topics such as the porn industry continue to go from strength to strength, and enjoy exponentially increasing entries on this family-friendly website. Go figure.--Karmaisking (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Grewgalton is raising some extremely valid points. Please do not cast aspersions on his intellect. Please do not find fault with those who wish to revise this article. By the way, I understand that you feel puzzled as to why more people do not wish to add material instead of simply editing your work. As you know, there are hundreds of editors at Wikipedia. If none have felt drawn here to add material, and most of the editors here have come to edit the existing material, that should show you the validity of their concerns. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Another source issue

I am removing this text until the source is firmed up: " The total property value of America is about $38 trillion while the total debt burden is $48 trillion. Ref given is "Speeches David Walker, U.S. Comptroller General, Campaign Warns of Fiscal Doom', St. Paul Pioneer Press, Oct. 30, 2006"

This does not appear to correspond to the original sources, although I cannot find the St. Paul Press original article. The original info from Mr. Walker's presentation is here. A summary given elsewhere is here (associated press). The latter gives the figure $46 trillion - but specifies that this means "national debt that is now $8.5 trillion could reach" this figure over the next few decades. This is described as almost the net worth of americans (presumably, after debt). I can find no reference to total property value of America in either the presentation or the original.

Walker's presentation is sufficiently detailed to check these numbers (figures changed slightly as they were updated): the explicit liabilities of the government (not individuals) total $10.4 trillion. Slide five of Walker's presentation attributes the other $40 or so trillion almost entirely to implicit future social security and medicare benefits (I believe in present value). Slide six: total household net worth is given as $53 trillion. The source for the latter is the Federal Reserve, so we can find the definition easily enough: [yep, it's net worth] - they already removed the debt related to that worth. In fact, total debt for households is only about $14 trillion (of which $10 trillion or so mortgages), swamped by the >$20 trillion value of real estate. Nowhere does Walker's presentation mention total value of property that I can find. (I have not addressed the value of corporations, etc, just households).

Please note that minor differences are likely due to different presentations used, I used the one I could find.

So, while the figures originally used in this article sound impressive, they don't mean what they purport to. Total debt burden from Mr. Walker includes future implied expenditures (which can, of course, actually be changed). This does not at all refer to individual debt, but only to government debt. (And, of course, comparing outstanding debt to the value of the collateral doesn't tell you much more than one limited measure of the riskiness of that debt, but on an aggregate level is basically meaningless).

To sum up: the figures used and their purported meanings do not correspond to the original. They don't make sense. The conclusions drawn from this sound interesting, but I am left wondering about the conclusions drawn if the sources are so grossly misinterpreted that concepts like "net worth" are misunderstood or misused to make a point.

Unfortunately, as above, this tendency re-occurs throughout the article and with many of the sources and references.--Gregalton (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete away, my friend. The contribution wasn't one of mine and I have no opinion either way. It appears that the "big picture" point the contributor wanted to make was that the U.S. is currently BANKRUPT. I make no comment regarding the veracity of that statement.--Karmaisking (talk) 10:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

How to improve this article

I noticed that despite obvious problems with this article, it wasn't deleted which may mean that there are people who agree "debt based monetary system" is a good description for the theory underlying free banking and various alternative money systems (LETs, barter clubs, etc). Of course, Credit money, which is mentioned in the money article, could be the basis of such a system, though I don't know if any theorists describe it as such. If someone can find a credible academic who uses a better (and perhaps more positive) phrase (including credit money) then I would not have a problem with changing the name of the hopefully improved article to that.

The basic improvement would be to cut it down by 2/3 to emphasize the various theories that can be describe as "debt based monetary system" - assuming that's not TOO WP:OR.

I've studied all this a lot in the past and am brushing up again because I am working on an article on E.C. Riegel (see http://www.newapproachtofreedom.info/ and especially Flight from Inflation. While I'm not too impressed with his valun monetary plan, I always have been impressed with this overview of monetary theory p.21:

[The] traditional view may properly be called the objective view of money, inasmuch as it represents money as an entity having some kind of an independent existence, of and by itself. By its logic, money is an entity that can be created by law, apart from trade, and that can be used as a stimulus to trade. Operating under this assumption, men naturally look to governments to be the issuing and regulating authorities for the monetary system. For purposes of discussion, this system will be called the political monetary system. The new idea, the subjective, or integral, idea of money, is that money can spring only from trade——that trade creates money, and not vice versa.

Friedrich Hayek also had some interesting things to say at certain points, re: arguments for getting government out of money, which need to be added to his article, and possibly this. See Monetary Central Planning and the State, Part 32: Friedrich A. Hayek and the Case for the Denationalization of Money by Richard M. Ebeling, August 1999.

Carol Moore 03:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

This is getting messy. Can one person at a time contribute please. We have yet to resolve the multiple issues regarding Gentleman Gregalton. Once this is resolved, we can then deal with other issues. Perhaps you can squeeze the Hayek stuff into an appropriate sentence in the meantime? There's great gobs of stuff from von Mises and Rothbard (and Hayek) on this, but I was trying to be "punchy" and leave the turgid stuff out (after all, this is a "generalist" encyclopedia, not an encyclopedia exclusively for "gold bug" Austrian Economics aficionados). Balance is everything, at least according to Gentleman Gregalton.--Karmaisking (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I definitely was thinking it would be necessary to cut out the messy 1/2 to 2/3 before getting into anything new :-) Carol Moore 21:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Recent Mass Deletions

While I agree there is a lot of fluff in here, these deletions have cut so much that there isn't even on specific reference to anyone using the term at all. Yes, it's a lot of work to cut it down and still keep what's of use. But taking the easy way out and just deletng most of it will not solve the problem. Just lead to revert wars. Carol Moore 14:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

I agree. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Carol, the content that is up is pushing a fringe theory. Per WP:FRINGE and WP:IAR, I am going to keep removing it. Per WP:CONSENSUS, I had initially considered and attempted dialogue. However, none of you have made any constructive edits to the article other than some minor copyediting and reverting my changes. You agree a substantial amount of the article must be removed and reworded, but you want to "discuss" why I should not be allowed to make such substantial changes.

With this in mind and after discovering Karmaisking's sockpuppetry, it occurred to me that discussion was no longer necessary. God knows that if anyone reports me for "edit-warring," any sensible admin will take a simple look at the fact that:

• The article, as is, pushes a fringe theory as fact
• The page was created and primarily maintained by a gang of sockpuppets (Karmaisking = Rememberkarma = Maktimothy = Timothymak).
• Dialogue was attempted, a request for comment was put in (see above)
• Even after the vandal Karmaisking has been dealt with, you two refuse to allow any removal of his vandalism

If you want to report me for 3RR, go ahead. Per WP:IAR, I'm prepared to defend my actions and I am skeptical any action will be taken. Karma was pushing a fringe POV and although I believe you and Sm8900 are both editing in good faith, because you are both Libertarians, you are sympathetic towards Karma's attempts at pushing a fringe POV and won't allow any removal of his vandalism while at the same time not removing any of it yourselves. Despite your good faith (I assume), you're supporting the bad faith edits of Karmaisking.

Furthermore, neither of you have specifically explained what's wrong with my version other than that you want ir to be longer and want to include the unreliable source, Michael Rowbotham. But a short article with little information is better than a bad article filled with misinformation. It would be better for the article on Holocaust denial or 9/11 conspiracy theories to be stubs than to be filled with patent nonsense. I don't care how many citations Karma made. It takes more than one side to engage in an edit war. If you or Steve feel that some of Karma's edits were good and should be included, please include that information in the newer, slimmer version of the article. Since, as you said, 1/2 to 2/3 of it was irrelevant nonsense, this should not be a serious point of contention. Zenwhat (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Support the mass deletions. I tried in the past, gave karmaisking much time and effort, and it still boiled down to a long, hyperbolic screed that was either original research or restatement of Rowbotham's work. Given the low level of usable content, sockpuppetry, etc., better to start from scratch. If indeed there is any notable content that can be brought to bear here, which I doubt. I have advocated for some time starting over, but gave some time; the bulk of this article is still unuseable.--Gregalton (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

the main thing wrong with your version is that you tried to shorten the article by about 95%, by deleting most of the material and not replacing it. (i believe you are editing in good-faith though.) that is why i disagree with your edits. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but remain doubtful that there is anything of note to replace it with. If there remains this fundamental disagreement, I suggest deleting section by section and allowing editors who believe there is some content to add.--Gregalton (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Greg has it exactly right. It's not quite clear what should be kept. The whole thing is just one big messy exposition on the central banking conspiracy theory. Any relevant information on the topic is already to be found in:

• Fiat currency
• Fractional-reserve banking
• Central banking
• Federal Reserve
• Monetary policy

Since the only real reason to keep this page, period, is to give context to a conspiracy theory, while the new version could definitely be expanded, most of the previous information as it was presented is redundant. This article was created by a bad faith editor as a POV fork because he couldn't get away with posting this amount of POV nonsense in the "Criticism of Fractional-Reserve Banking" section in Fractional-reserve banking. For that reason, despite your good faith, reverting the removal of such vandalism itself constitutes vandalism. Zenwhat (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gregalton also. Each section should be deleted separately and evaluated by editors to determine what content should remain. Although out of context, there were more published references in this article than Fiat currency, Fractional-reserve banking, and Central banking combined. Scrapping the article because you or mainstream economists disagree with it violates WP:FRINGE if the subject is notable. Judging by the sources (excluding the blogs, etc.) and my own research, I believe the subject is notable, but the title is incorrect.

I also believe using WP:IAR to force your point is not in the spirit of WP:IAR since it does not maintain the goals of Wikipedia, only your point. -- EGeek (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

EGeek, while I respect your general approach here, there really is no or almost no content of value. There are a lot of published references, but as above, they are also either a) not notable or b) massively misused. It may be a good idea to retain the list of references to see if there is anything that can be salvaged, but mostly (from personal experience) there is not - Karmapuppet's objections notwithstanding. To be blunt, published references "out of context" are worse than mediocre references used properly, it's a fantastic abuse of other editors' good faith and time to check them. See above for my research into the sources - it took a lot of time, and mostly confirmed abuse of process. The ony reason I am suggesting deleting section by section is more good faith; I am quite confident there is little content of note or value here, and I would personally advocate deleting it all.--Gregalton (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

EGeek, since you and I both agree with Greg, we seem to basically agree on what should be done, but disagree on how it should be done. See Immediatism on meta.

We both agree that the article is nonsense and should be changed, but you want to gradually improve it while I want to immediately improve it.

Your proposal

• We have each section be revised, one at a time. (Gradual approach)

My proposal

• We clear out nearly everything and, if anything needs to be put back in, we can do that. (Immediate approach)

Now I believe my proposal is consistent with the spirit of WP:IAR because your proposal was already tried once and failed. A long time ago, this article was proposed for deletion but kept up, based upon the assumption that the article would improve over time. [1] That never happened. Instead, reviewers haven't removed Karma's nonsense, but a great deal more nonsense, especially in the form of dubious citations, has been included.

So, being that this "gradual improvement" approach has already failed in this case, it would be shortsighted to propose it again, just so the article can continue to remain as is and continue to be edited by Karma's sockpuppets. This silly article has remained as is for long enough, I think it's long overdue for the immediate approach I propose. WP:IAR was basically created for this purpose. Zenwhat (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree with the comment above. I feel that we should proceed gradually here, and should not remove existing material too quickly. i fel that most of the material is useful and valid, even if it is problematic to some degree in a few places. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve, please make note of what is "problematic" and "valid". Please keep the past edits and discussions in mind as you do this. The two major problems with the article are:

1. Most sources are unreliable. Sources in Wikipedia must follow notablity policy and Reliable Sources guidelines.

2. Text does not correspond to the source cited. Cited text must correspond to the source it cites. This is true in Wikipedia, research papers, and anytime a source is cited.

I will be deleting text and sources section per section over the next week or two in order to facilitate the current problems with this article. I suggest using Gregalton's edits of this article for reference. -- EGeek (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, with all due respect, you completely miscomprehended my statement about WP:IAR. It is your actions, not your proposal that violate the spirit of WP:IAR. I apologize. I thought my statement was clear.

In regards to Philosophy, I lean toward Eventualism. I fail to see what personal philosophy has to do with WP:IAR. In regards to the "gradual improvement" approach, the first attempt was foiled by User:Karmaisking. I believe a second attempt will return better results.

Gregalton, I agree that deleting the entire article is the best for the short-term; however, due to the current monetary climate in the U.S. and Europe, I doubt the article will remain in that state over the long-term. Your work on this article should not be overlooked though. -- EGeek (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing each section at a time

Per the above editors, not allowing substantial improvements to the article, I propose the following sections be deleted:

• Economic and political criticisms
• Policy Implications
• Proposals by economic reformers
• Conclusion

The reason is because none of that should be relevant if we treat this as fringe theory. You don't discuss the "policy implications" of the New World Order or 9/11 conspiracies. Please, if you're going to revert my edits, specifically say what's worth keeping. Zenwhat (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

While this seems sensible, as I said above, the first and most important thing is right up front in the article to reference WHO actually uses the EXACT phrase, with links or page numbers in books. (Either from the current text or research.)

After that it will be clearer HOW fringe it is (since some of us don't consider Rothbard that fringe, but don't know anything about those other folks :-) And clearer what sections can be deleted. I assume you are correct on those you mention above, once any specific very references to who uses the phrase moved up front.

As I noted on my talk page, I skimmed too fast and never quite figured out what the article was really about until looked at the FIRST entry describing it in just one paragraph. Then realized it was a negative spin on fractional reserve/credit money (private and public) and not an article about credit money. (per my comments recommending additions above.}

Carol Moore 02:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Ooh. Well if there's an article about that already, perhaps a merge would be in order. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In order to decrease or halt further propagation of this subject after we reach a final decision of this article's fate, I have searched as much as I can to find other sources on this subject that specifically use "debt-based monetary system". I request anyone who supports this article to do the same. This is my list:

• Harman, Willis (1997). "The Failure of the Debt-based Monetary System". The New Business of Business: Sharing Responsibility for a Positive Global Future. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. ISBN 1576750183. Retrieved 2007-01-03. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Boyle, David (2002). "Debt-based Money Supply". The Money Changers: Currency Reform from Aristotle to E-Cash. Earthscan. ISBN 1853838950. Retrieved 2007-01-03.

• Auvinen, Tero (2007). "A Monetary Reformist Road to Universal Basic Income". Basic Income Studies. 2 (1). The Berkeley Electronic Press: Article 8. ISSN 1932-0183. Retrieved 2007-01-03. ... In contrast to the conventional use of the term, in a debt‐based monetary system the benefits of seigniorage materialize partly through interest income on ...

→Please note that the quote is from google because a subscription is required to view this article. A search specifically for "debt-based monetary system" at the The Berkeley Electronic Press site also found a second article.

I had trouble finding any further references. Most everything else comes from unreliable sources (i.e. blogs, self-published, etc.) according to WP:RS. -- EGeek (talk) 07:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Onus on Proponents to Include Users of Phrase I couldn't find any evidence in the article that the three named economists used that exact phrase. I did search and find a bunch of people using it so I don't have a problem with keeping the article, I just think rather than blathering on with THEORY, you have an article that

• explains the concept in one paragraph, two at most
• gives top 5-10 examples of use, one short paragraph each
• includes criticism section IF there are 2 or 3 examples from reputable sources.

This article is definitely a negative spin on Fractional reserve/credit money. I don't know if the critics using phrase "debt-based monetary system" are sufficiently prominent to have their criticism included in those articles. (Aside from whatever criticisms there are from mainstream economists.)

I would say that if the proponents can NOT fix up this are soon, the doubters could feel free to make it a minimalist page per the above. Or do it now and then let proponents fill out a few details. Carol Moore 02:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

For what it is worth, the only one I could find consistently using the phrase was Rowbotham. The Web of Debt book uses it less consistently. I don't consider either to be particularly prominent. If any have other uses, they would at least give this some credibility beyond two people. I fully support Carolmooredc's proposal to cut to bare minimum unless someone can come up with something more substantial.--Gregalton (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: after some search, I have found references to debt-based money (although nothing in addition to debt-based monetary system) that have some meaning (although not terribly consistent). THe most significant is this: book where Metzler appears to be one of the originators of the term; I'm not familiar enough to give a detailed background, but he is a well-known Austrian school economist.

However, the usage of the term is quite different: I would say that Rowbotham has borrowed the term and misused it (although there is, of course, an overlap of meaning). Note this is from an extremely reliable source, an academic book on Macroeconomics and Monetary Theory, and this is the only reference to debt-based money.

In this tantalizing snippet from Google books, a phrase that [jumps out] from the 1975 Economic Report of the President, which appears to be quoting a witness before the [1956 hearing] of the Joint Economic Committee, uses this phrase: "Monopoly, or administered pricing makes necessary continuous and ever larger

injections of debt-based money into the economy in an attempt to compensate mass buying power of the people for what has been taken from them...". Can't find or determine the speaker (the 1975 economic report is on the fed web site, but without the appendices/hearings. (There appear to be some mistakes in google books, I think it's a witness at the 1975 hearings).

After all this, I can only boil down to say that it is another phrase used inconsistently, with much of the usage by monetary cranks, and link to other articles.--Gregalton (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work! It's not surprising to find inconsistent uses. People do get creative with words. Maybe have the intro section and then sections like "use by economists", "use by critics (of debt based)", "miscellaneous uses" - and then a criticism section, assuming there is any of note. All short :-) CarolMooreDC talk —Preceding comment was added at 17:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)