Talk:Exorbitant privilege/Archive 1

Old talk
Exorbitant is ceeding what is usual or proper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.230.53 (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

McKinsey research
I deleted the reference to the McKinsey Global Institute research since there was no valid source. The link www.mckinsey.com/MGI linked to the website of the Institute, however, no information concerning the exorbitant privilege could be found on that webpage. If the reference should be reintroduced, please provide exact sourcing (i.e. the precise webpage - not website - concerned) as per Wikipedia standards. Best regards, --Arbraxan (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Confusing
An example of why this is the case for the U.S., with a contrast to what the disadvantage is for other countries that use different currencies, would be extremely helpful. The current text falls apart in coherence for normal people after the first paragraph. -- Beland (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Who said what
The article currently states that the term "exorbitant privilege" originates from Valéry Giscard d'Estaing. This statement is supported, however, by a single reference pointing to a non-existent link! On the other hand, the term is evident in books such as the eponymous one by Barry Eichengreen. Unless something to support the d'Estaing version comes along, I'm removing all references to it. -The Gnome (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * VGE coined the expression. Barry Eichengreen named his book following this expression (see p.4 in Eichengreen's book). Blaue Max (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Michael Hudson's Super Imperialism
It seems to me that this book is highly relevant to this topic. To quote a little bit from the preface: Michael Hudson’s Super Imperialism: The Origins and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance explains how the dollar’s being forced off gold in 1971 led to a new international financial system in which the world’s central banks are obliged to finance the U.S. balance of payments deficit by using their surplus dollars in the only way that central banks are allowed to use them: to buy U.S. Treasury bonds. In the process, they finance the U.S. Government’s domestic budget deficit as well. The larger America’s balance-of-payments deficit becomes, the more dollars end up in the hands of European, Asian and Near Eastern central banks, and the more money they must recycle back to the United States by buying U.S. Treasury bonds. Over the past decade American savers have been net sellers of government bonds, putting their own money into the stock market, corporate bonds and real estate. Foreign governments have been obliged to hold U.S. bonds whose interest rates have fallen steadily, while their volume now exceeds America’s ability or willingness to pay. pdf freely available: http://michael-hudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/superimperialism.pdf (I'm not going to try to propose changes to the main document myself because I have no faith that it won't be reverted by someone looking for edit points or whatever, but I'm leaving the reference in case someone else is interested and has the time,) boombaard (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

IP desperately wishes De Gaulle sending the French Navy to bring back the gold is a MYTH :
I did some very deep research on the subject. There are NO, not a single ONE, primary source for that assertion, either in France or in the US. On the other hand, I found a primary source from the US Senate that explicitly states that NO gold was ever sent to France in 1965 ; see : United State Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Supplemental Hearings Treasury and Post Office, Special Report on France, 1966, p. 33 (link to google books provided in version Jan. 2nd 2022 at 14:21) My careful edit has since been reverted, citing only secondary sources that can't be verified. I won't enter an editing war because I don't have time for this rigmarole, but this is unscientific to wipe primary sources with dubious, circular and secondary ones. 2A01:CB08:B19:9000:DC5A:2F44:AE62:9CCF (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It was reported in the New York Times. In considerations of source types, Wikipedia content policy explicitly favours secondary sources, preferably scholarship, as is cited in this case. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine, so who do you believe then ? The Treasury and Post Office administrators speaking under oath to the Senate at the time of the alleged facts, or a fairy tale created by an uninspired journalist whose misunderstanding of the realities of gold trading in the postwar is achieving mythical status by being reprinted as gospel ever since ? The reality is France, as every modern nation, was trading gold by compensation. In that case, the gold moved to the IMF vaults, but otherwise, most of the time, gold was purchased from Britain and compensated between the British and US vaults. It's easier to physically cross the Channel than the Atlantic. But if everyone's happy to let a false story stand, so be it.
 * Moreover, this also is directly contradicted by V. Giscard D'Estaing, French Minister of Finance in De Gaulle government ; read at the bottom of p. 320 the paragraph beginning with "Je peux, à ce propos, vous raconter...". What follows translates to : "The General [...] found it was going way too slowly. He suggested I send the cruiser Colbert to New York, and load up our gold by demanding it from the Americans. I let you imagine the effect of this warship's arrival... Thankfully, we were able to not follow suit". (bold is mine)
 * Anyway, for now the converging elements from both sides of the Atlantic, confirming no ship was ever sent, are here for all to see ; if someone wants to catch that ball and run with it, be my guest.
 * Oh, by the way, "IP" doesn't "believe" De Gaulle didn't send the Navy. IP "proved" this wasn't the case. And while there's merit from a legibility point of view to favour citing secondary sources, I don't believe the policy extends to preferring printing falsehoods over facts.
 * 2A01:CB08:B19:9000:DC5A:2F44:AE62:9CCF (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)