Talk:Criticism of the Federal Reserve/Archive 3

Ravensfire thinks that this is unsourced
Material added

According to advocates of free markets, central planning such as Federal Reserve monetary policies have contributed to the slow growth of the US economy. Minimizing government interference in the operation of the free markets is an ideal, which follows Frederich von Hayek’s (author of 1944 classic The Road to Serfdom) view that maximizing the ability of business to allocate resources efficiently at the lowest levels without government or political interference combined with the freedom to contract worked best to ensure a productive economy. Conversely, the failed examples of communist and socialist governments, which prohibited or controlled private business nearly totally, seemed to cement Hayek’s view as the correct approach. Milton Friedman was in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve System and replacing it with a mathematical model that would keep the quantity of money increasing at a steady rate, issued directly by the government (Treasury) and ending fractional reserve banking powers for the banks. He said he actually would “like to abolish the Fed“, and pointed out that when he wrote about reforming the Fed it was simply his recommendations of how it should be run given that it exists. Though opposed to the existence of the Fed, Friedman argued that, given that it does exist, a steady expansion of the money supply was the only wise policy, and he warned against efforts by a treasury or central bank such as the Fed to do otherwise. Friedman emphasized the advantages of free market economics and the disadvantages of government intervention and regulation. He opposed cartels and monopolistic business practices such as the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 created in the US banking industry, delegating to them the exclusive power to create most of the US money supply.

Language from source 2nd paragraph


 * The distinction is between theory and practice. Theoretically to minimize government interference in the operation of the free markets is an ideal, which follows Frederich von Hayek’s (author of 1944 classic The Road to Serfdom) view that maximizing the ability of business to allocate resources efficiently at the lowest levels without government or political interference combined with the freedom to contract worked best to ensure a productive economy. Conversely, the failed examples of communist and socialist governments, which prohibited or controlled private business nearly totally, seemed to cement Hayek’s view as the correct approach.

a bit over half way down paragraph starting with


 * Friedman was in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve System and replacing it with a mathematical model that would keep the quantity of money increasing at a steady rate, issued directly by the government (Treasury) and ending fractional reserve banking powers for the banks, which is why he supported our Monetary Reform Act. He said he actually would “like to abolish the Fed“, and pointed out that when he wrote about reforming the Fed it was simply his recommendations of how it should be run given that it exists. Though opposed to the existence of the Fed, Friedman argued that, given that it does exist, a steady expansion of the money supply was the only wise policy, and he warned against efforts by a treasury or central bank such as the Fed to do otherwise.

the first part of the next paragraph


 * Friedman emphasized the advantages of free market economics and the disadvantages of government intervention and regulation. He opposed cartels and monopolistic business practices such as the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 created in the US banking industry, delegating to them the exclusive power to create most of the US money supply.

The material added is a slightly condensed version of the source material. Perhaps Ravensfire should actually READ the source before opining the the material is unsourced and making himself look foolish.71.174.133.100 (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Bernacke on Friedman and Friedman on the FED
http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/2002/20021108/

I can think of no greater honor than being invited to speak on the occasion of Milton Friedman's ninetieth birthday. Among economic scholars, Friedman has no peer.

Friedman on the Federal Reserve

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMY0tAHHF_M

"My first preference would be to abolish the Federal Reserve"71.174.133.100 (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Central planning section
The first is a general article summarizing free market based objections to the Fed. and the second is from Stockman's own blog and therefore from the horses mouth.

If you object to statements about Friedman read the wiki article on him or view the video of the interview I added (because of your objection) of him stating that his "FIRST PREFERENCE" would be to abolish the Fed. His fallback position is to have a slow steady increase in the money supply.71.174.133.100 (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Problem 1, lots of unsourced stuff in there. Moneymasters.com is not a reliable sources. You're duplicating material that's already on the page.  Way too much weight to Stockman (again!).  Ravensfire ( talk ) 16:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Nothing added is unsourced. The material is slightly condensed from the sources cited. Some is word for word. Stockman is a noted free market thinker. Friedman is ranked as one of the top economist of the 20th century, some say the numero uno because they believe Keynes was a hack. Hayek is also a noted economist, certainly in the top 10 and likely in the top 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.133.100 (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Added a link to Mish Shedlocks article which Stockman was commenting on. That one includes lots of nice charts released by FRED. The FR in FRED stands for Federal Reserve. Tell me again how data released by the Federal Reserve is bad? 71.174.133.100 (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Central Planning - definition - The guidance of the economy by direct government control over a large portion of economic activity, as contrasted with allowing markets to serve this purpose.

Control of the money supply and interest rates fit the bill. So the Federal Reserve is in fact engaged in central planning since there is no free market on interest rates.71.174.133.100 (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * And this highlights another problem with the edit - it's classic WP:COATRACK. General criticism about central banks belongs in the Central bank article.  Vaguely trying to tie it to the FRS by a "such as the Federal Reserve monitary policies" is a good hint about that.  So now you've got another issue raised about your edit that you've utterly ignored. Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Your response is classic bull crap. Those in favor of free markets want to "End the Fed" and those people included Milton Friedman and Hayek, two of the most noted economists of the 20th century. Both are Nobel Prize winners. Either Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is allowed to work its magic or the economy underperforms.71.174.133.100 (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Tsk, tsk, tsk. Once again, not reading and just reacting.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 20:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Tsk, Tsk, Tsk. Why don't you read the following section. You might want to retract your opinion that the material is unsourced. You can capable of reading and doing a comparison right?71.174.133.100 (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Ravensfire declines to engage in "talk"
The following has been on his talk page for a few days. Sad to say no response.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ravensfire#Criticism_of_the_Federal_Reserve

Lets try this again. You deleted the material because according to you it was "massively unsourced". I have helpfully copied the source material and pasted it on the talk page of the article. Please compare the added material with the source material and advise on what is according to you "massively unsourced".

Regarding your other concerns - I see no duplication. Perhaps you can point it out.

Regarding your objections to the sources - Why do you consider a maker of financial documentaries unreliable? This is one of them http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-money-masters/

What is your objection to a statement made by Milton Friedman on a video?

What is your objection to the opinions of David Stockman made on his own web site?71.174.133.100 (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Central Planning
Material has been deleted on the grounds that Federal Reserve does not engage in central planning. A definition of central planning follows.

Central Planning - definition - The guidance of the economy by direct government control over a large portion of economic activity, as contrasted with allowing markets to serve this purpose.

Control of the money supply and interest rates fit the bill. So the Federal Reserve is in fact engaged in central planning since there is no free market on interest rates. The Federal Reserve engages in fixing some interest rates and thereby manipulating all interest rates. Current debt levels in the US are about 3 times GDP. All those loans have been issues either at a Federal Reserve controlled or manipulated interest rate. Additionally bank deposits, although not counted as loans on any statistic are according to the courts loans to your bank. That number runs is in the trillions of dollars.

So the Fed at a minimum has influence the cost of transactions of at least 300% of the US GDP and that does not count interest earned on money deposits. I would think only a fool would NOT consider that "a large portion of economic activity"71.174.133.100 (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Directors
I think Specifico must love addition

This language was and continues to be in the article

Each bank has a nine member board of directors: three elected by the commercial banks in the Bank's region, and six chosen – three each by the member banks and the Board of Governors – "to represent the public with due consideration to the interests of agriculture, commerce, industry, services, labor and consumers."

I added the following which is clearer, but declined to delete the confusing section above due to the likelyhood that some vindicative smokescreen spewing wiki editor would report me for a 3RR.

Six of the directors are elected by the member banks of the respective Federal Reserve District (District), and three of the directors are appointed by the Board of Governors. Directors play an important role in the effective functioning of the Federal Reserve and all directors are expected to participate in the formulation of monetary policy.

Would anyone like to add the cleaner language or do you all really like "3 are added by commercial banks" "3 are added by member banks" ( yet Betsy those are the commercial banks again) and 3 by the Board of Governors? Do we really need to add 3 and 3 to get 6, or can we all just skip the addition part and write down 6?71.174.137.244 (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't make personal remarks about editors on the article talk page. SPECIFICO  talk  01:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This does not answer the question of which language is superior, the version that forces the reader to add 3 plus 3 or the one that does not. Both are sourced from federal reserve websites. Any thoughts?71.174.137.244 (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Constitutionality main page language posted below
Criticism[edit] Main article: Criticism of the Federal Reserve The Federal Reserve System has faced various criticisms since its inception in 1913. These criticisms include the assertions that the Federal Reserve System violates the United States Constitution and that it impedes economic prosperity.[citation needed] Critic Miranda Fleschert contended in 2009 that the twelve regional Federal Reserve banks (as opposed to the entire system) consider themselves private corporations with private funding.[179]

A movement to audit the Federal Reserve System has gained national traction, and in 2012 a bill related to the movement passed through the House of Representatives.[180] Critics see auditing as a means of gaining insight into an institution they contend has historically has had little to no transparency, that has acted without congressional approval or oversight, and that has the power to create and loan U.S. dollars based on a monetary policy determined by its own interests.[181]71.174.137.244 (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Constitionality - New Section
A request for dialogue on a Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve has been DENIED through a closure of the talk page section.

The main article points to this subarticle for that material, and this so called "closure" seems to be the work of a biased editor. It will therefore be ignored.

I again ask for dialogue to reach consensus, that this material may be presented here as indicated by the main article.71.174.137.244 (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for not continuing your edit war to push a poor edit into the article. Problem 1 - quote farm.  This is an encyclopedia, not a blog.  Problem 2 - no reference for the legal status of fed notes.  Paper money was held to be constitutional long before the FRS was created, so the Notes would have been legal when the FRS was created.  The article on Federal Reserve Notes already has a section on the constitutionality of the notes that does a far better job (still much room for improvement) covering that issue - at most a See Also link to that section should be here.  Problem 3 - copy past.  Copying an entire section out of a source (and that source is a bit questionable - no author?) is a copy-paste, even if you reference it.  Paraphrase it.  Problem 4 - WP:COATRACK.  The second half of your section is pure coatrack, not related to FRS.
 * There is no question there are those that argue the FRS as a whole is unconstitutional, ignoring McCulloch v. Maryland. But the section you added is, simply put, awful and would not help readers. Ravensfire ( talk ) 14:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ravensfire - The ORIGINAL "demand note" Federal Reserve notes were considered constitutional because they were NOT legal tender and were privately issued and further were convertable to Legal Tender US coin. The Unconstitutionality comes in as to whether the US government can make private paper money legal tender when the power to even ISSUE paper money was specifically DENIED it. At the vote during the Constitutional Convention when James Madison asked if it was "sufficient" to just ban the making of paper money legal tender he was responded to in the NEGATIVE by two other members at that meeting. i.e. IT was NOT sufficient. This is part of Madisons record of the Convention and hosted by YALE LAW SCHOOL.


 * The transfer of power issue quote was originally published in the Congressional Record and reprinted elsewhere.71.174.137.244 (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * McCulloch v. Maryland is irrelevant to an objection on the constitutionality of making privately issued paper money legal tender since that was never a part of that case. Congress never attemped to make paper notes issued by a private bank legal tender excepting Federal Reserve notes. McCullach was ruled on over a century before that action.71.174.137.244 (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is a question to ponder, why is OK to look at McCulloch v. Maryland, and using it in support of the Federal Reserve and legal tender paper money (leaving aside the fact that the case did not even touch on legal tender paper money, or whether Congress could divest itself of its powers and invest then in a 3rd party which by any stretch of the imagination is NOT CONGRESS) yet the use of a PRESIDENTS recording of what may be the most historical moment in US history (The Constitutional Convention) is practically laughed at? Does it sound two faced to you? because it sure does to me.71.174.137.244 (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

:Lewis V US
Rereading some of the comment I am frankly amazed at how off the wall they are.

A suit regarding the actions of an employee of the Federal Reserve Branch Bank was brought against the UNITED STATES.

The judge stated "You poor blighted fool! The Branch Bank is not part of the US government! DISMISSED!"

How is this evidence that the Branch Bank a part of the US government? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.137.244 (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink... Ravensfire ( talk ) 13:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You ARE SO RIGHT. Care to explain how a dismissal of that case indicates that the judge thought the Branch Bank was a part of the US government? A point of view which YOU posted in support of.71.174.137.244 (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Please, remember to actually drink some knowledge this time.  Federal Reserve Bank Ravensfire ( talk ) 13:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Still asking how a dismissal of a case on the grounds that the Branch Bank was NOT a part of the US government indicates that it is a part of the US government?71.174.137.244 (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Ravensfire's language above and to which I am refering to follows "Using Lewis to say the FR Banks are private entities with no qualification is a mis-statement at best." 71.174.137.244 (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 71.174.137.244: We have already provided you with the information you need, including a direct quote from the text of the Lewis case. The Court specifically stated that the Federal Reserve banks are indeed federal instrumentalities for purposes of SOME laws and that they are private for purposes of one other law (specifically, the Federal Tort Claims Act). Your continued argumentation -- after having been provided with the information -- tends to give others the impression that you desperately want to ignore some of the Court's statements. You are definitely not helping your case. You didn't persuade anyone here. Editor Ravensfire is correct, for the reasons he and I have given to you. Famspear (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I personally don't think that this comment by Neostalin was helpful at ALL "It seems like the courts actually agree with me that the Federal Reserves regional banks are government agencies and they are subject to FOIA and that the Fed's attempt to define themselves as agencies not subject to it is wrong."


 * The comment is wrong on so many grounds that the only comparable thing I can think of is the guy who was policing the Federal Reserve article a few years ago in order to remove all traces of the Jekyll Island meeting because according to him it never happened!71.174.137.244 (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible sources on the Constitutionality of legal tender paper money
A Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court

The sense of the Convention which framed the Constitution is clear from the account given by Mr. Madison of what took place when the power to emit bills of credit was stricken from the reported draft. He says distinctly that he acquiesced in the motion to strike out because the government would not be disabled thereby from the use of public notes, so far as they would be safe and proper, while it cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts. The whole discussion upon bills of credit proves beyond all possible question that the Convention regarded the power to make notes a legal tender as absolutely excluded from the Constitution.

Is the opinion of a US Chief Justice of the Supreme Court acceptable to you guys, or is he "fringe"?71.174.137.244 (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge with Federal Reserve System article?
This article is not in good shape. Anyone agree with me that it should be trimmed, rigorously sourced, and merged with the Federal Reserve System article? SPECIFICO talk  15:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree on merging it, but the rest of your complaints are legitimate. For example the line "Interference in the economy is considered by many to be the #1 reason to either dismantle or reduce the powers of the Federal Reserve.[23] Those favoring free markets contend that if Adams Smith's invisible hand is not allowed to work its magic then the economy suffers." is awkwardly written and just plain weird. I'm also unsure of what the person who wrote this meant by "those favoring free markets" means because plenty of people who love capitalism want some type of government control over the money supply. I'm not sure if Adam Smith advocated free banking either, I think the writer just referenced Adam Smith as an easy appeal to authority because most people respond positively when that name is brought up.

There is also the fact that the government controlling monetary policy isn't the same thing as "central planning". Either way some of the sections like transparency and ownership are very good as are articles detailing the Federal Reserves partial responisbilities in economic collapses. NeoStalinist (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't have a strong view, but I'm inclined to say leave this as a separate article. Famspear (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I think if the planning section undergoes some revision the article will be much better. NeoStalinist (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

NeoStalinist: Why is it central planning when the Old Soviet Union controlled interest rates but not Central Planning when the Fed does the same?71.174.137.244 (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 71... You need to find strong WP:RS references for the content you propose to add to the article.  Don't talk about your view of central planning.  Find published references which state what you think are significant.   SPECIFICO  talk  16:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Specifico and NeoStalinist: The following article from the free market Mises Institute refers to the FRB as "America’s monetary central planners" https://mises.org/library/federal-reserve-policies-cause-booms-and-busts "Yellen has insisted that she and the other members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, who serve as America’s monetary central planners". In case you don't know Mises was a Nobel Prize winning economist and the Mises Institute published material based on his theories. If you haven't heard of him then you can thank the Federal Reserves "stifling of economic thought". Arguably he is one of the top 3 economist, alongside Keynes and Friedman. 71.174.137.244 (talk)`


 * Reading the article Stockman refers to todays "destructive monetary central planning". David Stockman was the architect of Reagonomics, arguably the most pro economic growth policies of recent US history, and is an influential figure in free market thinking.71.174.137.244 (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The following title of an article at the Foundation for Economic Educations also seems relevant http://fee.org/freeman/detail/ninety-years-of-monetary-central-planning-in-the-united-states "Ninety Years of Monetary Central Planning in the United States"71.174.137.244 (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

"Why is it central planning when the Old Soviet Union controlled interest rates but not Central Planning when the Fed does the same?"

Because control over the money supply is not the same thing as control over the economy. The Soviet Union actually planned and coordinated economic activity through state agencies like Gosplan. The Fed only deals with monetary issues. Saying they "centrally plan" the monetary system is also redundant because all governments, government agencies, NGO's and firms engage in planning. At best you could argue the Fed has a negative influence on the economy.

As for Mises, he was actually not that important at all, especially compared to Austrian school giants like Henry Hazlitt and F.A Hayek, and he never won the Nobel Prize in economics either.NeoStalinist (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected Mises did not win the Nobel Prize. He died a few years after they started giving it out so he had little chance. As for him being a lesser influence then Hazlitt or Hayek, both notable free market thinkers, the Austrian School in the US is centered on the Mises institute and not the Hazlitt or Hayek Institutes. It would seem that the Austrian school thinks he is more important that the other two.


 * Regarding your position that control over the money supply is not the same as control of the economy, I would like to point out that even the Old Soviet Union did not have "control" of its economy. If they did it would not have blown up and resulting in its disintegration. Neither does Cuba, Venezuala, Greece, Spain, North Korea, or any other country you care to name. That does not mean that they cannot "plan" and push those plans despite those plans being dogpoop.


 * “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.” Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild and


 * or "I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire and I control the British money supply.” - Nathan Rothschild.71.174.137.244 (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

How did the Soviet Government not have control of its economy? The mining, manufacturing, farming and finance were all carried out by state controlled firms coordinated by state planning ministries. This is directly opposed to America where its almost all done by the private sector in a market economy. If control over the money supply based on your logic, is control of the nation and its economy the Soviet Union would have had its economy controlled by the government. Taking it one step further that would mean the united States economy is somehow controlled exclusively through Federal Reserve policy, which would imply America isn't capitalist.

As for Nathan Rothschild, he was definitely overvaluing the importance of monetary policy. Not to mention that those quotes may have never even been said at all.

The fact that the Mises Institute is named after Mises does not mean he is the most important Austrian thinker of the 20th century. Ludwig von Mises said at a dinner honoring Hazlitt: "In this age of the great struggle in favor of freedom and the social system in which men can live as free men, you are our leader. You have indefatigably fought against the step-by-step advance of the powers anxious to destroy everything that human civilization has created over a long period of centuries... You are the economic conscience of our country and of our nation."(Got that from the wiki page on Henry Hazlitt) NeoStalinist (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Unless you take the position that the Old Soviet Union intentionally caused its economy to blow up (and it blew up big time) then it did not have "control". Control implies a 100% meeting of whatever ends you set. Nobody has or will ever have that kind of "control". Central Planning is "acts taken to control the economy to achieve predetermined ends". The Fed can influence so many ways involving money transactions that it has wide influence over that economy. It is a fact that it uses that influence "to control the economy to achieve predetermined ends". That is by definition Central Planning. However don't confuse PLANNING with ACHIEVING. The Fed has been goosing the economy with near zero interest since 2007. Even after a decade of "acts to control the economy" most will agree that Fed policy has been a dismal failure in restoring a normal economy, with normal growth and normal employment levels. Not much in the way of "ACHIEVING". Most communist countries have found out the hard way that interfering with the economy results in subpar economic growth or even economic disaster. BTW: Interference in the economy is one of the criticisms of the Fed just deleted. Any thoughts?


 * Since you don't like the other quotes how about killing people to protect banking interests? "I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested." Smedley Butler US Marine Corps General.71.174.137.244 (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"Control implies a 100% meeting of whatever ends you set" Not necessarily, governments can control an economy with no real long term goals. The Fed trying to achieve goals is not central planning. You even admit they can only "influence" the economy. "That is by definition Central Planning". Don't confuse influence with planning. If the government wanted to plan banking they could just nationalize all the banks. Paying for a paved road is also influencing the economy and the US government has been "influencing" the economic development of the nation since Washington.

Similarly environmental, educational, financial and defense policies also have end goals. They aren't planning the economic system, they are trying to meet ends.

As for your quote it is incredibly irrelevant. The entire 19th century the US government was fighting natives to secure land. What does the US military fighting for economic security have to do with anything? People have always fought over resources, sadly this is not something new that the banks invented. NeoStalinist (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess you never heard of "control" being the goal of control. That type of control is all about making sure you get the most bennies without having to do anything except discredit, imprison, or kill your rivals. I'm sure Stalin was all for improving the lot of the people as he killed off the Russian middle class, Mao was also all about improving the lot of the Chinese as his 5 year plans killed off about 50 million of them through starvation. Pol Pop was also a GREAT GREAT humanitarian as he killed off a large portion of the Cambodian population, and impoverished the rest.


 * Central planning is all about the government using every tool it has to push the economy in predetermined directions which government hacks think would be beneficial, even if only to their chance of getting elected or re-elected.


 * What is today called "Central Planning" is just a different spin on the ago old theme of history which is "beat them up and take their stuff" and since you missed it, that Marine General was taking about actions that he had a part of in the 20th Century not the 19th. Lots of hostile Indians around killing off the settlers?? Kinda doubt it! No! Lose the Kinda!


 * Let me know what service the Fed provides that is worth over a TRILLION per year. Purchasing 100 BILLION a month in securities (treasury and mortgage paper) with thin air (money created through a bookkeeping entry) increases Fed assets by 1.2 TRILLION per year, and this is not the only source of income that the Fed has. In this case the FED refers to the BRANCH banks and especially the one in NY. You can get LOTS of bennies with a TRILLION bucks, even paper bucks!71.174.137.244 (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you really trying to compare Pol Pot with the Federal Reserve? NeoStalinist (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The Fed has a long long way to go to reach Pol Pots status as a mass murderer, but has probably impoverished more people then he did. Retirees in the US and others depending on interest income for survival,have been absolutely SCREWED by the Feds low interest rates to bail out its insolvent member banks. The US has a lot more retirees then the whole of Cambodia's population. I have no clue how many of those retirees died due to a lack of income, but I am absolutely sure that it more then zero. Check any statistics you care and they will confirm that "The rich live longer" and the richer you are the longer you tend to live. Something about being able to afford a roof over your head, food in your belly, and heat in the winter.71.174.137.244 (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

OR and irrelevant
I've removed a whole bunch of OR from this crappy article. What else needs to be removed is the part which confuse criticism of a particular Fed chairman (for example, Greenspan) with the criticism of the Fed. By analogy, I might be critical of a particular President, or Congressman, or even composition of the Congress, but that does not make me a critic of democracy. Two different things.

Applying Wikipedia's policy on original research would go a long way to cleaning this up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your edits were pretty good. The article is still missing a citation or tow but I'm working on them. Otherwise now that the planning section has been removed the article has gone from a D to a B in my opinion. NeoStalinist (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but it's nowhere near a B. Maybe a C-.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Restored most of the deleted material. Krugman for instance was criticizing Fed policies under Greenspan. Stifling of economic thought is a valid criticism since so many economists are directly or indirectly employed by the Fed and are afraid to say anything against it for fear of being relieved of the burden of their employment, and criticism of the Feds interference in the economy causing subpar growth is widespread. The first link of that particular section claims it is the #1 reason to "End the Fed". Fed actions are considered to be the reason we had the Great Depression. Does anyone feel that causing the Great Depression enhanced US economic growth? If so then consider a mental institution as your future habitat. Just a short list of Fed caused bubbles and misteps, The Roaring 20's bubble caused by money printing ending in a bust called the Great Depression, the inflation of the 70's caused by excessive money printing to fund Johnson's Guns and Butter policies (that would be fighting the Vietnam War and instituting the first massive welfare program in US history), the crash of 87 caused by a tightening of interest rates right after Greenspan took Volkers place. The money printing caused internet stock bubble at the turn of the century, the recession following that bubble caused by a tightening of interest rates, followed by more money printing that caused the housing bubble, in turn followed by the "Great Recession" as the housing bubble crashed, which in turn was followed by some of the most energetic money printing ever seen in the US for at best so-so economic results. Lastly and ongoing, is anyone happy to get .1% interest on their bank accounts while prices go up 2-3% per year? If you are, then you can "Thank the Fed". Me, I would rather curse them along with practically every other person having a bank account in the US. BTW: cursing them is called "criticism".71.174.137.244 (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No, these are mostly off topic or based on fringe sources or original research (like most of your comment).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And dude, in the 1920's the US was on the gold standard! There was no "bubble caused by money printing", there was no "money printing". There was serious deflation. Please, get your facts straight, even if you're just going to comment on talk. See WP:COMPETENCE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, you realize that Friedman's criticism of the Fed and their actions during the Great Depression was that they... didn't print enough money? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, you realize that Lyndon Johnson was president up until 1969, and inflation during his presidency was actually low? The 1970's inflation started with the oil shocks and Nixon, who used political power to pressure the Fed to "print more money" to help his re-election chances - that's what happens when you subject the Central Bank to political (democratic?) oversight.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * RE 1920's money printing - It in fact happened and the US was not a gold standard, it was in a bastardized standard with both coins and paper serving as money. The Fed was required by law to hold 40% backing for its then non-legal tender notes. By the end of the 1920's it had issued all it could and was just under the max it could issue. Banks were required to put a portion of their deposits as reserves at the Fed. These reserves were the gold that backed the Federal Reserve notes. During the Bank Panics people took money from their banks in GOLD and SILVER coin reducing deposits. Banks went belly up further reducing deposits. The reduction in deposits cause a reduction in reserves at the Fed. That means the FED had LESS gold for 40% backed non-legal tended notes. That means they BY LAY had to decrease the number of notes outstanding thereby reducing the money supply.


 * The Regional Banks are BANKS - They will always go to the edge and sometimes beyond to make an extra penny. In the 20's they went to the edge and the proof is the shrinking money supply. If they had left some leeway on the 40% backing the money supply would NOT HAVE CONTRACTED as it did.


 * A severe recession with bank panics further impacted by a contracting money supply ended up causing the Great Depression. If the US was actually under a gold standard the money supply would not have contracted because gold and silver coins do not get melted because their metal content is slightly less then their bullion value. Nobody sane is going to melt a $20 gold piece to get $19.00 in coins. Just as a growing money supply causes inflation a shrinking money supply cause DEFLATION. Pretty much every economist will tell you that this is not a good thing.


 * The first big inflation of the 70's peaked in the early 70's. It took a few years for government to ramp up welfare programs and a few more for money printing to circulate and the system and cause higher prices. Nixon even instituted price controls. Check your history.


 * Milton Friedman - Inflation is everywhere and at all times a monetary phenomenon - i.e. it is a result of money printing.


 * Ludwig von Mises - crack up boom - a boom is created by money printing which distorts the economy resulting in a crash. Money printing sends false signals of what resources are available for investment. When those resources don't turn up because they do not exist the economy crashes. 71.174.137.244 (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And it's not like being on gold standard or not means you can't also print money. Popish Plot (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Gresham's law - Bad money drives out good money. Care to guess which was driven out and which we ended up with?71.174.137.244 (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Mirepresenatation
Regarding a complaint by Volunteer Marek that I am misrepresenting citations, I would like to point out that he in at least one instance misrepresents Friedman's opinion that the Fed should be abolished was a passing fancy, that Friedman grew out of. Instead this was a strongly held belief that Friedman never grew out of.

The Friedman interview partially reproduced above where Friedman states that his preference is to see the Fed abolished is one of many such statements and since this interview took place when Friedman was 94 years old it is MOST unlikely to be a passing fancy that he grew out of.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2006/Friedmantranscript.html That interviewer starts off by this comment

"I recently sat down with Milton Friedman, a few days before his 94th birthday"

and I further dare ANYONE to show me a cite I used that misrepresents any language I added to this article.71.174.137.244 (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * He was discussing a hypothetical. Find reliable secondary sources. If you're right then that shouldn't be that hard.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Wiki policy is that primary sources can be used as long as an educated person can verify that the language added to the article is supported by the cited Original source. Try reading wiki policy for once instead of assuming you know what it is. Same goes for your mistaken opinion that Friedman preference to abolish the Fed was a passing fancy he grew out of.71.174.137.244 (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.". You haven't provided such a reliable secondary source despite repeated requests.
 * "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself". This is exactly what you have been trying to do.
 * Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * What am I interpreting, analyzing, synthesizing or evaluating by stating an opinion by Ron Paul that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional? What am I interpreting, analyzing, synthesizing or evaluating by stating an opinion by Milton Friedman that inflation is always a monetary phenomenon? What am I interpreting, analyzing, synthesizing or evaluating by stating an opinion by Milton Friedman that he would prefer to see the Fed abolished. An opinion BTW whuch was not a passing fancy as you seem to believe but a long held opinion of his.71.174.137.244 (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And just out of curiosity what am I interpreting, analyzing, synthesizing or evaluating by citing language in the congressional record, and reproduced in a book, in which a question of one Congressman by another Congressman is recorded in which one of those Congressman states flatly that the transfer of a Congressional power to the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional.71.174.137.244 (talk) 06:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As has already explained, the Ron Paul is WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. He's already in the article anyway. You're just playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games and wasting people's time.
 * The other parts are either irrelevant (yes, inflation is mostly a monetary phenomenon but what does that have to do with this article?) or original research based on primary sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Nobody is in the article on constitutionality since you deleted that material. Ron Paul is in the article because he authored a bill to audit the Fed and hold it more accountable. Something long overdue.


 * I did hear that but I don't believe that the Constitutionality issue is either undue or fringe. Unless you can back it up then your opinion that it is Fringe is your opinion and not a fact. Undue implies not important. Control of the money supply by bankers who use that power to leach off of the economy is an important issue. If you consider that unimportant then you are at best a fool, since some of the money they leech comes out of YOUR pocket. Only a fool likes to have his pocket picked. To my knowledge no poll has ever been conducted to determine how many believe the Fed is unconstitutional. One poll cited in the article has a minority favoring abolition. Even if only one third of those polled favor abolishing the Fed on Constitutional grounds, that is still above 5%, which to me is the Fringe cutoff level.


 * Lets try this again. BAD monetary policy can lead to and has led to The Great Depression, The inflationary 70's, the crash of 87, the turn of the century stock bubble, the housing bubble, the housing crash, the subsequent Great Recession and the last decades pathetic growth rates, so bad that they are unprecedented EXCEPT for the Great Depression and all of those were at least helped along and most likely caused by bad Federal Reserve monetary policy (sometimes too tight and other times not tight enough). If bad monetary policy leads to suck ass results then the organization which gave us those suck ass results gets "criticized" and rightly so. 71.174.137.244 (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wheren't you just asking about what it is that you're "interpreting, analyzing, synthesizing or evaluating"? Seriously, if you want to rant, get a blog. WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Nothing interpreted, analysed synthesized or evaluated at all. Helicopter Ben admitted that the Fed cause the Great Depression and you can find sources for every one of the above listed fiascoes as having been directly caused by the Fed monetary policy or heavily stoked by it. Excess money printing causes bubbles and for every bubble you will find people commenting on the excess money printing as a cause. Crashes are the aftereffects of bubbles. Find a bubble and you will find a crash when the bubble breaks. Find a crash and you will find subpar economic growth as the economy recovers from both the bubble and the crash. If monetary policy causes a bubble which is followed by a crash (100% certain) accompanies by subpar economic growth (again 100% certain) then blaming the money printers for all 3 is justified. The Fed is responsible for the Great Depression, the inflationary 70, and the just passed Great Recession. NO interpretation, analysis, synthesis, or evaluation needed at all.


 * Here you go CBS News as mainstream as it gets http://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-the-fed-cause-the-recession/

"First, though, let me make clear that I do not share Bernanke's view that the Fed's low interest rate policy did not the cause of the financial crisis."71.174.137.244 (talk) 08:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * " I don't think that the Fed's policy was a mistake given what they knew at the time, and given the condition of the economy after the dot.com crash". Stop misrepresenting sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's get the full quote out there instead of your selected portion " I don't think that the Fed's policy was a mistake given what they knew at the time, and given the condition of the economy after the dot.com crash -- and that is, essentially, Bernanke's argument -- but I don't think it's correct to say that policy played no role at all in the financial crisis."
 * Although he could have said it in a less confusing manner, the speaker states that this is "Bernanke's argument" and that he disagree with it. His personal opinion is "I don't think it's correct to say that policy played no role at all in the financial crisis." From CBS News - as mainstream as it gets.71.174.137.244 (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Rereading the CBS article I noticed that the author claims to be more pro-Fed then most, so per that statement, middle of the line criticism of the Fed for causing the Great Recession is more severe then his.71.174.137.244 (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * RE: "misrepresentation" -- don't call Marketwatch.com "CBS." They once had a common parent company but that's where the similarity ends. You are citing an opinion piece by a notable economist who is discussing some fine points of monetary policy but is not criticizing the institution of the Federal Reserve System.  If you want to contribute to this article, you need to find sources which support content that will garner consensus.  Otherwise your edits will not be accepted and eventually you'll be disenfranchised here.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The link shows CBS as the parent site. CBS is as mainstream as it gets. So is Markewatch for that matter.


 * The following could have been phrased better but let me help you out with the parsing


 * "First, though, let me make clear that I do not share Bernanke's view that the Fed's low interest rate policy did not the cause of the financial crisis.".


 * Bernanke's view per economist "the Fed's low interest rate policy did not the cause of the financial crisis."


 * Economists opinion - "I do not share Bernanke's view".


 * Fingers are pointed in the article to all sorts of places, but the economist plainly states that Fed policies had a part to play in that fiasco AND PER THE TITLE the fiasco is the recession (commonly called the Great Recession) sparked by the housing crash.71.174.137.244 (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Great Inflation
In case people here are unaware inflation is caused by money printing and the formula shows up in the first semester macroeconomics textbook.

Here is a link to the formula and some decent examples http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/infldynamic.htm

That formula is P = V*M/T

The price level (P) goes up if either money velocity goes up (V), the quantity of money goes up(M) or the production of goods and services goes down(T) or some combination. Hyperinflation is always caused by money printing, and results from an increase in the money supply causing an increase in the velocity of money, and furter causing a drop in production as no one is sure if they can make a profit.

So for purposes of the the Great Inflation language I include, one Fed chairman and his staff were so clueless that they didn't know basic economic theory, another was unwilling to take action because tightening the money supply would have increased unemployment, and the third bit the bullet after the failures of 1 and 2 let inflation go out of control and he crushed it through a tight monetary policy, which led to a steep recession and high unemployment.

The language is a criticism of Federal Reserve policy and the unwelcome side effects, which most first year economics student could have predicted, much less the supposed experts hired by the Fed. This excludes those economic students who can't add 1 to get at 2 and failed macroeconomics.71.174.137.244 (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, but 1) "Great Inflation", if it can be called that (that's not a common name in the sources) was not a hyperinflation and 2) the equation of exchange can also imply that an increase in M increases T if the economy is operating under full capacity. At the time the belief was that this was the case. It's actually not about the Quantity Theory, but rather the expectations augmented Philips Curve.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It is what an economist called it in a Federal Reserve publication used for citations. If you don't like that title then how about 'The inflationary 70's", or The Fed's inflatioanry policies of the 1960's and 70's? or something similar?

Do you even know what you said by increasing M increases T at FULL CAPACITY?? By definition FULL CAPACITY cannot be increased because it is FULL CAPACITY. FULL CAPACITY can only be increased by investing in the means of production, and that means saving some production, bricks, mortar, steel, etc. etc. for later use to improve those means (building a factory, digging a mine, drilling an oil well etc etc/ If anything increasing M decreases interest rates and lowers the propensity to save, increases the propensity to consume, and thereby reduces the saved production to be used to be used to improve the means of productions. 71.174.137.244 (talk) 03:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You are not reading correctly. I said, quote "if the economy is operating under full capacity". And by the way, what you are describing is almost exactly what Friedman derisively called "the atrophied and rigid caricature (of the quantity theory)".
 * And I might as well also mention this: I remember having to deal with you before, several years ago. IIRC you were banned or blocked for exactly the behavior you are engaging in now. Tendentious POV pushing, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games, misrepresentation of sources and failing to abide by WP:CONSENSUS. I see you're still at it, wasting everyone's time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I remember getting banned and some no account wiki editors not getting banned while engaging the the exact same conduct. Seemed kinda two faced at the time. Also remember complaining about the conduct of wiki editors engaged in multiple 3RR violations and never getting any action. Seems that when those a-holes reported me I always got banned even when I wasn't engaged in 3RR. Seems that I also got banned by saying that this type of action is biased and I cannot see myself becoming a wiki editor because I decline to lend my good name to a group of two faced slime. I got banned for that too. Just goes to show that two faced slime can't stand being called two faced a-holes.


 * Back on topic- there is substantial criticism of the Fed for distorting market forces, thereby reducing overall economic growth, there is some criticism of the Constitutionality of Fed money printing for two reasons, both valid, and there msot certainly is criticism that the Fed caused the inflation of the 70's, that last is now pretty much UNIVERSALLY accepted as shown by the fact that it appears within Federal Reserve publications. Your actions in deleting this last is most certainly not constructive.


 * Regarding your use of the word under. Please be aware that the way you used it means "AT Full production" in the same manner as "under" full power means "full speed ahead". Per your later comment, yes an increase in production can be caused by an increase in the money supply as long as the economy is operating at less then full capacity. However that effect is not as powerful as it could be since even at less then full production, some, many or even most sectors of the economy will be running at full production and cannot provide other sectors with the needed input to run at full speed.71.174.137.244 (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So you are returned banned user. Not surprised.
 * Anyway, let's leave the original research out of it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And what original research would that be? Citing the foremost US economist Friedman? citing another free market advocate Stockman? citing a US Congressman? citing a book which reproduced language recorded in the Congressional Record? or citing a US CHIEF Justice of the Supreme Court?71.174.137.244 (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Engaging in interpretation of primary sources to push a particular POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ron Paul's statement that the Fed is unconstitutional needs no interpretation. Friedman's statement that his preference would be to abolish the Fed needs no interpretation. Language in a Federal Reserve publication that the inflation of the 70's could have been avoided by Federal Reserve action needs no interpretation. That this action was not taken because one Fed chairman was clueless on what causes inflation and another was unwilling to take action again needs no interpretation. Care to try again? I already commented on wiki policy on the use of original sources. 71.174.137.244 (talk) 05:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Sigh. This is pointless.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I fully agree! You either misrepresented or were clueless on Friedman's opinion on abolishing the Fed. You misrepresented Friedman's opinion on what Japan should do to get out of her slump. Either that or you did not even bother to read the article in the link you provided. Lastly you don't seem to understand that wiki policy ALLOWS the use of primary sources as long as an educated person can verify that the citation supports that language added.71.174.137.244 (talk) 05:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Friedman meant that he wanted to systematize the policy calculations. He did not mean that he wanted to abandon the role of the Central Bank. He said this largely for effect, and discussed many other issues concerning the Fed and the role of central banking which make clear that your proposed text is misuse of a primary source and undue for this article.  Repeating your statements after they've been rejected is soon going to exhaust the patience of the community.  If your goal is to improve this article, please consider whether you can find a constructive way to participate. SPECIFICO  talk  20:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Friedman stated on may ocasions that he would prefer to abolish the Fed and that failing that a purely mechanical system of increasing the money supply would be preferable to actual Fed practices.71.174.137.244 (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Friedman on inflation
http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2006/Friedmantranscript.html

Milton Friedman; .... "inflation is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon."

Milton Friedman: .... every central bank has come to accept the view that it's responsible for inflation.

and further

Milton Friedman: I've always been in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve and substituting a machine program that would keep the quantity of money going up at a steady rate.

Russ Roberts: And over the last 20 years or so, they've approximated that.

Milton Friedman: Come closer to approximating it. Absolutely.

Russ Roberts: And I would argue, and I assume you would as well, that the relative stability of the U.S. economy over the last 20 years is a reflection of that steady growth in the money supply.

Milton Friedman: I think there's no doubt at all.

Russ Roberts: The non-erratic path.

Milton Friedman: It's a golden period. It's a period in which you had declining inflation but a fairly steady rate, a steady level. You had only three recessions, all of them brief, all of them mild. I don't believe you can find another 20-year period in American history. But it's interesting to note that so far as the international acceptance of monetary control is concerned, it was started by the Bank of New Zealand, not by the Federal Reserve Bank.


 * Again, what in the world does this have to do with the subject of this article? Get a blog.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Aren't you deleting material on the Fed causing the inflation of the 70's? Aren't you also deleting material on the Fed distorting market forces and thereby reducing economic growth? Aren't the above quotes by the person considered the foremost US economist EVER relevant to both those issues?71.174.137.244 (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.ssf/2013/09/opinion_abolish_the_federal_re.html

Mr. Friedman, who was kind enough to comment on my columns, told me the three main causes for inflation were: 1) a too-rapid increase in the money supply, 2) a too-rapid increase in the money supply and 3) a too-rapid increase in the money supply. So, according to him, those who fear future rapid inflation have reason to be worried.

And, by the way, Milton Friedman also advocated eliminating the Federal Reserve, primarily because of its dismal failures.71.174.137.244 (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You need a reliable source. The proposition that inflation is caused by "too-rapid increase in the money supply" is non-controversial. What does this have to do with criticism of the Fed? How do we know what constitutes "too-rapid" of an increase as opposed to "too slow" of an increase (which Friedman also warned about) or a "just rapid enough" of an increase? I'm sorry but we're way way way deep into crank territory here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, do you know what organization is responsible for increasing the money supply of the United States? Here is a hint. It starts with "Federal" and end in "Reserve". Friedman believed that 3% was "just right". You would know this if you knew anything about Friedman. But considering you believe that his desire to abolish the Fed was a passing fancy, It is plainly evident that you have no clue.71.174.137.244 (talk) 06:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh. No, Friedman picked "3%" as an example. He believed - for most of his life although he changed his mind in the 90's - that what mattered was that money supply grew at a constant. 2%. Or 4%. Or 3% if you'd like.
 * Ok. I've had enough of the personal attacks and trying to talk to someone who's obviously engaged in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, and while the Fed does control the monetary base, the money supply is not the monetary base. The Fed can change the monetary base but how that translates into a change in the money supply depends on the banking system and the monetary transmission mechanism.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "The use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success. I’m not sure I would as of today push it as hard as I once did" - MF Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The money supply is any of a number of M's such as M1, M2 and the long dead M3. All those are influence by the "quantity of money" since the "quantity of money is a part of those M's. The quantity of money is directly controlled by the Fed. Depending on what M you are talking about it can include checking accounts, money market funds, saving accounts and other "money storage media". The size of that media is directly influence by the reserve requirements set by the Fed. The Fed either directly controls of heavily influences ALL components of the M's.


 * I'm kinda not happy about your misrepresentation of Friedman's position on disbanding the Fed myself. Can't decide if its just ignorance or something worse.71.174.137.244 (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the quantity of money is NOT directly controlled by the Fed. Imperfectly, yes. Directly, no. This is pretty basic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you UNAWARE that the paper money in tour wallet is a FEDERAL RESERVE note issued by the FEDERAL RESERVE BRANCH BANKS and they THEY decide how may to issue? So yes Dorothy the QUANTITY of money is directly controlled by the Fed!71.174.137.244 (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Milton Friedman on the Federal Reserve
Some nice criticism of the Fed by Milton Friedman starting with "I have long been in favor of abolishing it"

Go that Marek???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6fkdagNrjI

In this video Friedman states that he gave this opinion to Arthur Burns who served as Fed Chairman in the 70's. The video used as a cite in the article in from decades after. So yes Dorothy Friedman believed that the Fed should be abolished for DECADES. An NO Dorothy, it was NOT a one time statement.

To other editors: Merak has also been deleting the plainly evident opinion of Friedman in favor of language that this opinion was a one time thing. (NPA content redacted)

Victim Raises Hand! 71.174.137.244 (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * IP, you are misinterpreting a primary source. Find secondary RS which discuss Friedman's work on the Federal Reserve System.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Exactly what am I misinterpreting from a comment such as "I have long been in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve"?71.174.137.244 (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Inflationary 70's
We have a paper in a Federal Reserve Publication stating the Inflation of the 60's an 70's were basically caused by a Chairman of the Fed who was clueless on what causes inflation and another who was unwilling to take action.

If someone here thinks that the inflation was caused by something OTHER then Fed money printing please add your opinion below with some kind of supporting link.14:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In case anyone wants to confirm, the above was from Allen H Meltzer Origins of the Great Inflation FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF ST. LOUIS REVIEW March/April 2005 page 145 https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/05/03/part2/Meltzer.pdf


 * Next we have another paper http://www.federalreservehistory.org/Period/Essay/13 THE GREAT INFLATION 1965 to 1982 by Michael Bryan, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta  that also refers to that period as "The Great Inflation".


 * "The Great Inflation was the defining macroeconomic event of the second half of the twentieth century. Over the nearly two decades it lasted, the global monetary system established during World War II was abandoned, there were four economic recessions, two severe energy shortages, and the unprecedented peacetime implementation of wage and price controls. It was, according to one prominent economist, “the greatest failure of American macroeconomic policy in the postwar period” (Siegel 1994)."71.174.137.244 (talk) 12:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * and


 * "While economists debate the relative importance of the factors that motivated and perpetuated inflation for more than a decade, there is little debate about its source. The origins of the Great Inflation were policies that allowed for an excessive growth in the supply of money—Federal Reserve policies."


 * Someone here needs to learn a bit of basic economics before he goes on a drive by shooting spree!71.174.137.244 (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)