Talk:Triffin dilemma

"American" to "Belgian"
I'm changing Triffin's nationality to Belgian, being as he was born in and died in Belgium, as well as spending much of his later life in his home country. I don't know too much about his life, but the Robert Triffin article lists him as a Belgian. --Impaciente 18:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Belgian-American" is better, and I've made the change, since he was a citizen of both countries. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 05:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

John F Kennedy and Silver Certificates
The article made reference to Kennedy authorising the issue of silver certificates to "create competition for overvalued Federal Reserve Notes"; this is totally incorrect. See here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spider Jerusalem (talk • contribs) 20:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarity of introductory section
The clarity of the introductory section should be improved by someone capable of explaining the subject to non-experts. The issue of the balance of payments as experienced by most countries should be better contrasted with the special circumstance of a currency which also serves as the global reserve currency (as in the Bretton Woods-era US case). Neither general macroeconomic theory nor the Triffin dilemma specifically is explained by statements such as: "Currency inflows and outflows of equal magnitudes cannot both happen at once." This sentence is patently illogical without further substantiation, if indeed it is true in any situation. If this is meant as the "dilemma" it needs to explain why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.76.17 (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Keynes proven right on almost every point in Bretton woods?!?
The text says during a discussion on 2008:

"

Zhou argued that part of the reason for the original Bretton Woods system breaking down was the refusal to adopt Keynes' bancor which would have been a special international currency to be used instead of the dollar.

American economists such as Brad DeLong agreed that on almost every point where Keynes was overruled by the Americans during the Bretton Woods negotiations, he was later proved correct by events. "

I just read the link http://econ161.berkeley.edu/Econ_Articles/reviews/skidelsky3.html and it doesn't seem to mention the bancor, nor does it seem anywhere to say that Keynes was right on almost every point in which he was overruled by Americans. The link is a book review and DeLong's main point on the matter seems to be the differences between White (the American?) and Keynes have been overstated. There is one point where DeLong (not very forcefully) sides with Keynes over White but he doesn't say that Keynes was "proven correct", merely that DeLong himself happens to agree, and I can find no place at which DeLong quantifies over multiple points to justify the "almost every point" in the Wikipedia text.

I suggest that the paragraph "American economists such as Brad DeLong agreed that on almost every point where Keynes was overruled by the Americans during the Bretton Woods negotiations, he was later proved correct by events." either be deleted, or replaced by a direct quote from that link to make clear exactly what DeLong is supposed to have said (also, unless other economists are also cited, I don't think the "American economists such as Brad DeLong agreed", this could be narrowed to "Brad DeLong once said, "" ".

Bayle Shanks (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

IMF wants "Bitcoin"?
The last paragraph (citing http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2010/041310.pdf as reference) mentions that the IMF (or a working group for it) recommends to switch to a global currency called "Bitcoin". I can no-where find "Bitcoin" in the linked PDF, so where does this come from? Is it related to Bitcoin, which was already present at 2010? While Bitcoins would make some sense as a global currency and some people in the Bitcoin community see them heading there for the future, I can't imagine that this is really what was meant already by the IMF in 2010. Maybe some more explanation (also with respect to Bitcoin) and references would be good.

Domob (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Need explanation of why this is a paradox or a dilemma
The article does not give any reason why the Triffin paradox or dilemma should be considered a paradox or dilemma. This is a serious omission in an article whose entire subject is something called a paradox or dilemma. Russell Melaxant 21:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcamp@cinci.rr.com (talk • contribs)

It is explained in the first paragraph, in fact the whole lede make it clear. Kbrose (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

9978724431
mathur bhai pipla 2409:4080:9491:88B2:0:0:A5D:C0B1 (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)