Talk:Janet Yellen/Archive 1

Untitled
Should some of the lists in this article be converted into prose? RJFJR (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

VC term date
Yellen's 4-yr term as Vice Chair started on Oct 4, 2010. However, her 14-yr term as governor technically started on Feb 1, 2010, as noted in http://senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/one_item_and_teasers/nom_confc.htm. --Emjaymem (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Being a chair
How can you be a 'chair'? Does it make those who are not 'chairs' 'stools'?? Or tables? No wonder this article is locked. There must be dozens of people who believe in the English language who are trying to correct this nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.167.176 (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chair Enivid (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Philosophy
The section on her philosophy should include a statement about how the modern Phillips curve is different from the old one: it includes a role for consumer expectations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youko shi (talk • contribs) 06:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree but would go further. This sentence is very misleading, and illogical: "[She] believes in the modern version of the Phillips curve, which, in its original, pre-1970s form, stated.." Wait, what? 1. she believes in the modern version. and 2. the original form of the modern version was pre-1970's and says XYZ. That doesn't make any sense.

"[She] believes in the modern version of the Phillips curve, which, in its original, pre-1970s form, stated.." So the modern-version-of-the-Phillips-curve has an original, pre-1970's form?? I dont think so. I would like to see the original, pre-1970's form of the modern version of the Phillips curve. And furthermore, I would like to see it authentically, exactly as the people of the 1960's saw the original form of the modern version of the Phillips curve.

"its" refers to "the modern version of the Philips curve" So the page is talking about "in its original, pre-1970's form" being "in the-modern-version-of-the-Phillips-curve's original, pre-1970's form". But wait, The-modern-version-of-the-Phillips-curve MIGHT have an original form, but that form is certainly NOT pre-1970's. Actually the "original" form of The-modern-version-of-the-Phillips-curve is simply the form of The-modern-version-of-the-Phillips-curve as it "originally" was. And the form of The-modern-version-of-the-Phillips-curve as it originally was did not exist until the first modern version existed. The original form of the Phillips curve is not the same as the original form of the modern version. I'm sorry but the modern version does not have an "original pre-1970's form". The Phillips curve has an "original pre-1970's form", but the modern version does not. So, it is just very misleading to say that she believes in the modern version of Phillips, which in its original pre-1970 form says XYZ. It is a convoluted sentence tying her to the what the original Phillips curve says. Not only is it a sentence structure mistake to tie her to XYZ; it is a mistake to summarize original Phillips, and another mistake not summarize the modern version.

Let's make it simpler: She doesn't believe in the original version - she believes in the modern version. So it doesn't need to tell us what the original version says, cuz that's not relevant. The modern version is what's relevant. I really think we should correct those four things I listed. This is starting to appear biased in the way it reads.

artman77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.1.143 (talk) 09:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Links
>> Yellen Faces Test Bernanke Failed: Ease Bubbles>> The Fed: At a crossroads(Lihaas (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)).

Chairman (chairperson, chairwoman)
I was surprised to see chairman, chairperson and chairwoman used inconsistently throughout the article. I noticed this when a similar discussion appeared on ITN:C: an original blurb was changed to chairman from either chairperson or chairwoman. I have quickly gone through the article to change chairperson and chairwoman to chairman, which appears to be the correct description and is used throughout Wikipedia. I have left alone references to other job titles, since chairman might not be the official title there. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing to "Chair" per use of term on official page. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Also called "chair" on the CEA website: https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/about/former-chairs  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Jew?
Is she jewish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.101.224.234 (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course she is. 101.51.229.142 (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh, i think "Of course she is", from a one edit IP, must raise more doubt than it calms! A simple Google search only heightens the doubt, with the leading entries coming from sites belonging to Jewish-conspiracy paranoids. Thanks to the colleague who found a high-credibility site that confirms this insignificant fact. --Jerzy•t 00:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "insignificant". LMFAO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.60.123 (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Insignificant to most people who can use an encyclopedia; probably highly significant on Stormfront. 2600:1006:B123:E074:5AD:4287:E314:1B02 (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's very significant in one way. Antisemitic individuals are more likely to oppose the Federal Reserve because so many of its leaders have been Jewish. (She's the third consecutive Jewish chair/chairman/chairperson/etc.; the last non-Jew was Paul Volcker.)

Also, there is some overlap between the "Jewish-conspiracy paranoids", who believe "Protocols of the Zions of Elders", etc., and the "anti-Federal Reserve Bank" conspiracy paranoids who think that because our currency isn't backed by gold or silver, it isn't "money" and can't be taxed or whatever. Just because a viewpoint is nuts doesn't make the underlying factual basis "insignificant". Actually, it can be very significant depending on what results from the false belief. For example, historians now believe that the Spanish didn't blow up the U.S.S. Maine, but the fact that it exploded is significant mainly because this led so many Americans to believe (falsely) that Spain was responsible that the U.S. declared war over the incident. I don't have the time and/or interest to develop a well-sourced paragraph on this for the article, but someone else might.47.139.46.160 (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Paternal genealogy
The article says "Her father's family originally came from the Polish town of Suwałki.[citation needed]"

This sentence technically can't be true as written: Suwałki wasn't a Polish town at the time (it was ruled by Russia then, although it is Polish now). Someone should fix that.

Moving onto the more complicated issue:

I attempted to find a citation for the claim that his family was from there, but was only able to confirm that he was from somewhere in "Russia" (which was then a gigantic empire, even larger in some places than the Soviet Union of later years).

Anyway, here's what I've found. Someone will need to separate the "original research" from the properly sourced material before putting this into the article. Also, I felt that familysearch.org was the best website to use to cite for genealogical records, because anyone can access the records there for free (unlike subscription sites, such as ancestry.com), but user MjolnirPants didn't agree and reverted my edit solely because I used familysearch.org as a source, so someone has to find another source or defend the source I used.

In the 1940 U.S. census, there are two couples with names matching her parents (Anna and Julius Yellen):

The older Julius Yellen was born in Russia and was 59 in 1940. However, he died in 1941 and therefore cannot be her father.

In 1940, the younger Julius Yellen was 33 and living with his mother-in-law Ida Bluementhal, the surname name given in the article for Anna Yellen's maiden name (Blumenthal), making it nearly certain that it is the correct family (since two surnames and two given names match). Because he was 33 in 1940, he would have been born in 1906 or 1907. The only death record I found with his name, a date of birth in that range, and the birthplace given in the 1940 census cited above (New York State), shows his dates of birth and death as December 4, 1906, and August 1975, which is interesting, but not really relevant, unless someone seems a reason to mention her father's death in the article. Getting back to the ancestry search, the only birth record I found with his name, a date of birth in 1906 or 1907, and a birthplace in New York State, also gives his date of birth as December 4, 1906, and gives his parents as Jacob Yellen, age 29, and Sarah Kovadlo, age 30. Finally, the only pre-1940 census record that matched was in the 1910 census, when Jacob and Sarah were 34, and it says that they were both born in "Russia". .

So, after much work, of the two men named Julius Yellen who had wives named Anna, one was born in Russia and the other had two parents that were both in "Russia", so whether I'm right or wrong about which one was Janet Yellen's father, I'm right that her father's family was from "Russia".

Now, the next step for whomever wants to pick up this project is to look for records that show where in "Russia". I would suggest passenger manifests and the JRI-Poland website. As a starting point, the 1910 census cited above says that an uncle who was 27 was born in Russia and an older brother who was 15 was born in England, so the family was still in Russia in the early 1880's, in England circa 1895, and in the U.S. by the end of 1906. 47.139.46.160 (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox phrase "18th Chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers" is inaccurate
Regardless of your opinion on whether she is a chair, a chairman, or a chairwoman, there is no question that fewer than 17 of her predecessors at the Council of Economic Advisers had the title "Chairwoman". In fact, I think she had only 17 predecessors and that most or all of them were male and were called "Chairman". She is either the first or one of the first to be called "Chairwoman".47.139.44.102 (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Janet Yellen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140303182947/http://finance.yahoo.com/news/yellen-takes-over-fed-bernanke-departs-154802812.html to https://finance.yahoo.com/news/yellen-takes-over-fed-bernanke-departs-154802812.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20110713014417/http://imarketnews.com/node/20604 to http://imarketnews.com/node/20604

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Janet Yellen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161118224059/http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/yellen-sends-a-message-to-trump-hands-off-dodd-frank/ar-AAkqq5E?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp to http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/yellen-sends-a-message-to-trump-hands-off-dodd-frank/ar-AAkqq5E?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

American Economic Association
Yellen is running for President of the American Economic Association. At present, she is unopposed. 63.88.62.157 (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The AEA website actually lists her as president-elect. But I can't seem to find any secondary sources discussing the topic. Do you know of any articles on the topic? MarginalCost (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The position is mostly ceremonial, I believe. Secondary sources will be hard to find. Wikiacc (¶) 11:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Repeated Attempts to Rush Right past The Modern Version into the Original Version
Yellen does not believe the Original Version. But we summarize it on the page, we link to it, etc. We don't summarize what she DOES believe on her page, the Modern version. We don't link to what she does believe, the modern version.

Original: "there is a simple inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation" Janet Yellen does not believe this. She believes the modern version.

So, summarize what the modern version says on her page. It says "IN THE SHORT RUN there is a simple inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation for shifts ALONG the Phillips curve due to interest rate changes. Whatever combo of inflation and GDP we have, there is a SHORT-RUN phillips curve through it, a line representing a short-run trade-off of the short-run inverse relationship between inflation and GDP. Other things affect GDP and inflation in different ways, not only the inverse relationship.  But also, there is this relationship.  Interest rates will put the economy somewhere on that downward sloping line representing the inverse relationship; interest rates can slide us up and down that curve.  The curve itself can shift for many reasons.  Interest rates are only one aspect of the economy and even of governmental policy, but they slide us effectively up and down that curve in a short-term trade-off of the effects of interest rates on GDP and on inflation."

So, that's what she thinks. The modern version. She does not think "there is a simple inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation". There is an entire universe of (GDP,inflation) pairs that are possible. The one we're on is determined by MANY things. But whatever combo of output/inflation that we have now, we can slide up and down a SHORT-RUN phillips curve running through that point via changing interest rates.

So again, DOES NOT EQUAL "there is a simple inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation".

______________________________

Actually, overall, this is the FOURTH time that the page points her beliefs right on through to the original version, instead of pointing them to the modern version as she believes:

Once by briefly summarizing what the original version says instead of briefly summarizing the modern version, the thing she believes, which would be the relevant thing to be summarizing on her wiki page in the philosophy section. Makes readers think she holds the beliefs summarized - original version beliefs.

a second time with that sentence "believes in the modern version of the Phillips curve, which, in its original, pre-1970s form, stated a simple inverse relationship between unemployment and inflation." Still reads like it says "she believes in the-modern-version-of-the-Phillips-curve," "which, in the-modern-version-of-the-Phillips-curve's original pre-1970's form stated..." Makes readers think she believes that, that being the original form.

a third time hyper-linking to the original version rather than hyper-linking to the modern version. When you link you immediately see this perfect summary of the original version. Linking there from her page makes readers think that she would believe that, believe what they just linked to, which is the Original version. Actually the link is not just 'on her page'. It is what you link to at the end of the sentence saying Yellen believes in... [Phillips curve]. Second, I think we should link instead to what she believes. misleading to say "she believes in the modern version of [the Phillips curve]" and linking to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_curve rather than "she believes in [the modern version of the Phillips curve]" and linking to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_curve#The_Phillips_curve_today

And finally, we do it a fourth time, which I haven't mentioned: paraphrasing her out of context with "At the same meeting, she also claimed that each percentage point reduction in inflation results in a 4.4 percent loss of Gross Domestic Product." If pulled out of her FOMC debate statement and left by itself it would be more of an original version summary, not a modern version statement. We assume she has a static long-term model? I mean, she has written three books and published lots of papers. A two-minute debate at the FOMC about targetting output? And yet, even in that two minute debate, she started to talk about dynamic inconsistency but didn't have time. That should tell us that she is not making this statement in a long-run or partial-equilibrium way. When she says "each percentage point reduction in inflation results in a 4.4 percent loss of Gross Domestic Product.", she means that whatever GDP/inflation combo we have (as determined by MANY things), we can slide up and down a SHORT-RUN phillips curve through that point. This curve has a SLOPE of 4.4% per 1% for our short-run trade-off. Even saying in the sentence before the quoted one that we should " 'occaisionally' let inflation rise if.. " should show us she doesn't think it is a static model.

I think we should fix all four. That quote out of context is simplistic and represents an original version stance, the fourth attempt to assign an original version belief system on her.

So, here is what she IS saying with that quote:

" Inflation can change from a variety of factors, most of which do not affect GDP in a clear way. But if we were to fairly quickly change the fed funds rate or other rates with open market transactions in such a way as to decrease inflation from a higher-than-optimal level by one point - during a time when the economy is not at full employment - then this would result in (yes she means in a causal way) GDP being 4.4 percent lower (annualized) than it otherwise would have been during the period of the rate.  This is the COST of targeting only inflation.  After writing for thirty years about (among other things) the costs of over-targeting inflation, I have brought the actual dollar cost (4.4 percent or about $300 Billion).  This is why the Fed was given a dual mandate.  We don't control everything, but we have to choose SOME short-term interest rate, which will put us on SOME point of the SHORT-RUN phillips curve. And in doing so, we are currently trading off between what that rate does to unemployment and what it does to inflation, and there is a mountain of empirical evidence that the short-run Phillips curve the Fed has been facing since 1992 implies that we trade-off at the rate of 4.4 percent per one percent of inflation, so it is not Costless to ignore the dual mandate and target only inflation. In fact, in this same little FOMC debate about the dual mandate, on page prior, I said that 'Fortunately, the goals of price stability and output stability are often in harmony.' " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.1.143 (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ditto on the revised paragraph. Joeedh (talk) 07:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

views on the NAIRU
- I think it's fine to use the FT source to source the fact that she believes in the NAIRU. But let's leave the debate about the validity of the concept out of it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, the phrasing "defender of the NAIRU" is not particularly encyclopedic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Fair point about the word "defender", "proponent" is probably more suited. As to the NAIRU: I disagree that this should be left out from the section on her economic philosophy and think this is in line with Wikipedia style. At other places, authors' views are joined with the respective evidence on the matter and not simply left as the authors views, except where the case is obvious. Especially given her influence and the importance of the concept on the policies of the Fed, I think this should be included. 4EverStudent (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The Fed uses the NAIRU as a modelling tool; if you read their meeting transcripts they've been skeptical of it forever.  It's not that they don't believe it exists, they're just skeptical they can know what it is. It's like the "natural rate of interest," it's an economic quantity that can't be observed directly, only estimated. Joeedh (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

July 2019
On the android wikipedia app, the first sentence reads: "Janet Louise Yellen is an American economist at the Brooking Institution who served as the worst Chair of the Federal Reserve." Since "worst" is subjective, please remove from the wikipedia app. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.181.221 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm not sure why the Wikipedia Android app was showing an old version of the article that was removed on July 5, because I saw the same thing. However, I just made a small edit to the article, and the Android app is now showing the current version of the article, which doesn't contain vandalism. Thanks for bringing this up! —  Newslinger  talk   08:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

height discrepancy
Citation number 42 mentions Janet Yellen's height as a factor in not remaining chair, but the The Washington Post has corrected the height at the bottom. I'm noticing when I search the web for Janet Yellen's height that I'm being linked to various articles that seem to stem from the same story, the one that has corrected it to 5ft, as well as Wikipedia. Now I know this is an incredibly minor issue, but we should aim for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catchy122 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I wouldn't be opposed to removing the sentence altogether - it's not attributed to any particular source in the Post, for starters. If we do leave it in, we may as well remove the height altogether, just saying something like "Yellen's short height was reportedly a factor" MarginalCost (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll do that. If anyone happens to have a source for the actual height, feel free to link it here and we can correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catchy122 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Status of Secretary of Treasury nomination
It was widely reported yesterday that Biden will nominate Yellen. I believe that does belong in the article. I think the infobox is very premature. Biden has not nominated her yet nor has he publicly announced his intention to nominate her. It's still (reliable) press reports. There will be time to add more as the process moves along. Knope7 (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * She's technically gonna be the nominee. Though, that wouldn't become official until Biden takes office. But, we use nominee anyways, before then. GoodDay (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

78th United States Secretary of the Treasury
I don't want to start an editing war here so I'm just putting this topic in talk, but I don't think that it should say that she is the 78th United States Secretary of the Treasury for now. As of the time I'm writing this (December 2020), she has neither been nominated by a sitting President nor confirmed by the Senate. While Joe Biden has announced his intention to nominate her when he takes office, and while she will in all likelihood become the 78th United States Secretary of the Treasury in 2021, it is not absolutely certain that a potentially GOP held Senate will confirm her. A lot of political shenanigans could conceivably occur (not that I'm saying that they definitely will) and it is conceivable that she could not ever take office. My point is that I don't think that this article should state as a matter of fact that she is "Assuming office" as the "78th United States Secretary of the Treasury". 2600:6C40:1900:166E:EC33:3833:F0C:36B9 (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC) JMM


 * Agreed. I've commented out that part of the infobox. We should wait at least until the official nomination to show that. Enivid (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in the discussion over at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I read the discussion about Blinken. The current infobox description of her status is now consistent with what was recommended at the Noticeboard. I think it should remain that way.--FeralOink (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yellen is listed here as Secretary of the Treasury, but she is not, yet. Despite her confirmation, she still needs to be sworn in. Can we update this to Secretary-Designate or the proper term? Dlez (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You're quite correct. However, I've learned that trying to get less knowledgeable editors to wait until the swearing-in, is like spitting water up Niagara Falls. GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm finding this to be true. Quite correct. I suppose we ought to let it stand and then update the dates later? Thanks!
 * Yup. GoodDay (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Phrasing of party affiliation in lead section
As it currently stands, Yellen's political affiliation is mentioned before every role she's held other than secretary of the treasury. I think this may violate WP:UNDUE. The current phrasing differs from the biographies of most other people who served as Chair of the Federal Reserve or United States Secretary of the Treasury. I could go either way on if her personal political affiliation is needed in the lead, but if included, I do not think it should be the start of the second sentence. I tried making edits, but they were both reverted. TJMSmith (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Polish roots?
Jeleń in polish mean Deer. Please, add to article more about her genealogy from Poland. Thanks! KKE --31.179.121.4 (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Possible overturn of Roe v Wade
Isn't the current Possible overturn of Roe v Wade section an example of WP:CRYSTAL? Vgbyp (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * ” It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included.” Wallnot (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

"Yellen" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Yellen and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 9 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

"The new Bernanke" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The new Bernanke and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 9 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)