User talk:Reissgo/Archive 1

Off wiki
Were you contacted by anyone with respect to your dispute with William M. Connolley? Who? Hipocrite (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A3RO started making comments (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A3RO) but then decided he didn't want to get involved. Why do you ask? Have you had battles with William M. Connolley? Have you some suggestions? Reissgo (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I mean what got you to come back to Wikipedia to complain about it months after it happened? Hipocrite (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It was the fact that all discussion of the paper (including the more sensible "argument B") had been rolled up within the headline "went nowhere" - I only just noticed that very recently. That was the last straw. I was pretty pissed off even before that. Reissgo (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Leave it alone for now
Reissgo, just leave it alone for now. At some point in the next few months, there's a very good chance WMC's behavior will be addressed at arbcom, and you can present your evidence then. This is an ongoing problem but it will take time to address. ATren (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have just read your user page. It is clear that your goals are aligned with mine, so I will happily take your advice. I have one question though, you said "you can present your evidence then" - but it is not clear to me how that will work. Is someone going to send me an email in three months time saying "can we have your evidence now please"... or do I have to put my name down and say "I want to present evidence in this case"... If its your opinion that there is so much other evidence against WMC that his behaviours are likely to be curtailed on that evidence alone, then I'm happy to just let things rest.


 * One more question - how can I find out the result of arbcom's deliberations over WMC? Reissgo (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you provide a list of editors who have contacted you off-wiki about WMC? Hipocrite (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure of the definition of "off-wiki". If it means by direct email, then the answer is none. If you mean here on my talk page the answer is A3RO and ATren. That's all. Reissgo (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Reading between the lines of your comment and the earlier message, I have a feeling that you're suspecting that someone contacted me to encourage me to make a complaint about WMC. Well I can assure you that this is not the case. I simply, at random, just decided to look at the old climate sensitivity discussion page to see if anything had happened there. Reissgo (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Reissgo, if and when it gets to that point, I will try to remember to notify you, or you can just check in every now and then. And if it does come to that I will likely mention your issue in my evidence, since it appears to be a representative case. ATren (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Great. Thanks for your help. Reissgo (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind
I put a table of contents at the top of your page. Also, I believe you wanted to be informed of the upcoming ArbCom case. Here is a link to the evidence page if you want to present your case. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and thanks. Reissgo (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Shadowstats
An interesting site. It seems like it's run by just one person though, albiet with what appears to be a decent background. Do you know of other major sites that reference it? I've also got concerns about if it's a RS or not - right now I'm leaning towards no. (And see it's been removed from the article)  Ravensfire ( talk ) 15:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I just found these two links: http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/24/gold-investing-bullion-personal-finance-etf-gld.html and http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article4790099.ece Reissgo (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just type "link:www.shadowstats.com" into a google search. Note there is no space between the colon and the www.Reissgo (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Fractional Reserve Banking
I responded on my talk page. BTW, I've had some experiences with frustrating editors myself. Fresheneesz (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied again Fresheneesz (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again Fresheneesz (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad you liked it. Was looking at your interesting blog, btw. As I hinted on the FRB page, I think that the MMT Modern Monetary Theory or Chartalism (descended from Functional finance) people have done their homework and finally gotten economics right, to something approaching the coherence and intellectual standards of other sciences - partly by getting finance and accounting right, which much of the rest of economics ignores. The three blogs listed in the chartalism article are great places to learn about it. Many basic ideas have been rediscovered a ridiculous number of times over decades and centuries, very confusing if you like to understand history, but this time it looks like they are tieing the strands together to get one coherent, airtight and philosophically well-grounded theory.  They have an interesting relation with the Austrians - they are kind of the anti-Austrians, but the tension between the two schools has been productive. Abba Lerner was a student of Friedrich von Hayek, L. Randall Wray was a student of Hyman Minsky who was a student of non-Austrian Austrian Joseph Schumpeter etc.   Saw that you are a fan of Michael Hudson (economist) - he is a fellow traveler with the MMT/ Kansas City school crowd.John Z (talk) 18:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hatting
Had I hatted the discussion in questiion, it would have looked like this:

Money multiplier
It is my contention that the idea that the reserve ratio puts a cap on the amount of money that can be created from a given monetary base is simply a convenient "story" used for teaching purposes, much like the concept of "electron shells" is a convenient way of teaching students about chemical bonds. The "professional" chemists know that there are no such thing as electron shells. I have made this challenge (and have had support) on the fractional reserve banking discussion page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fractional-reserve_banking#This_article_indicates_that_much_of_the_FRB_article_is_wrong I have suggested that the reference given for the statement "The most common mechanism used to measure this increase in the money supply is typically called the money multiplier. It calculates the maximum amount of money that an initial deposit can be expanded to with a given reserve ratio." is not sufficient quality because it is "teaching material" rather than a refereed paper. Reissgo (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Dismiss This notice is vague on sources and doesn't really seem appropriate here. If it is to be discussed here, then, Reissgo has been asserting that the thoroughly-sourced (and generally accepted/largely uncontroversial) material is incorrect.  To my understanding of policy, such Everything The Experts Have Taught You Is Wrong sort of claim requires exceptional sources, which Reissgo has been unable to provide. BigK HeX (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. I would in fact go further with respect to the quality of reference required to support the quote. There have been a great many peer reviewed papers refuting the claim made in the quote. If it is the case that I'm wrong and the money multiplier story as indeed taken seriously by central bankers, then it is virtually certain that there will exist peer reviewed papers or internal academic central bank papers along the lines of "the critics of the money multiplier story are wrong and here's why". So a very old reference that makes no mention of critics of the idea would IMHO not be a reliable source. Reissgo (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The difference between "electron shells" and Reissgo's attempted analogy is that chemistry teachers TELL you that it's a teaching aid that is not literal; Reissgo's sourcing doesn't seem to indicate this is done with fractional reserve. BigK HeX (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * what gives you the right to stick the word "dismiss" in bold with a bullet point next to your comment making it look all official? I have come to this forum to get an independent opinion on the dispute between us. Please don't try to make it look as if the result has already been determined in your favor. Reissgo (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorely tempted to hat the above back-and-forth, but will refrain. The source in question is a teaching aid published by McGraw Hill. Notwithstanding that MH is a respected academic publisher, I would not use this source. Nothing in the RS guidelines leads me to think that this could be used as a source on Wikipedia. There are certainly textbooks and other publications that make the identical statement. Those should be used in preference to that. If there are reliable sources which state that this formulation is wrong, there is no problem in including that information as well and those sources. I have not seen a specific question about those sources so I am not in a position to give an opinion on any particular such source. Fladrif (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

See? Hatting is not to be used lightly, and never by participants in an ongoing discussionFladrif (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Chartalism
I was wondering if you could explain something. I follow a bit of austrian-economic writings, and I was unfamiliar with Chartalism until your recent RSN post. The idea that money is debt, sure seems like a perversion of a commodity system rather than a universal truth. I can see that if you force fiat money from the beginning, then perhaps there is something to be said, but maybe you can explain the connection. From the Chartalism article, I couldn't quite grasp the necessity of deficit spending to have fiat money. It seems even in a fiat-constructed system you could find a way to create legal tender which would not represent debt.

Regarding your editing, I have a feeling you are going to come up against the old wall of mainstream consensus. It happens in many different articles, but you should take note that it is possible the view you hold is the accurate one, but that this won't be grasped by mainstream academics or other sources for a very long time (or never). Wikipedia is only going to represent the view in proportion to its sourcing, regardless of whether it's 'true'. You might try to get a one sentence mention, something along the lines that, 'some bankers have explained the textbook version is a slight oversimplification, and that money supply is actually flexible at the margins of the reserve rate', or something like that. If you don't have any success on the core articles, you can always make Chartalism a featured article so that anyone who wants to learn about it has a great place to go. Per WP:NPOV that's really how debates like this are supposed to go, reflecting the old guard for long enough that the preponderance of sources can catch up.

Let me know if you have any questions, or if you don't feel like going into these details, no prob. Ocaasi (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Mediation cabal
Hi, has opened a mediation cabal case on fractional reserve banking. Just letting you know, since you're named in the case but andrewedwardjudd may have forgotten to notify you. I do a little work at medcab but am wary of taking this one due to prior involvement. Have fun... bobrayner (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. Reissgo (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Reissgo

This formally notifies you of my request for mediation to prevent deletion of:

1. My reliable sources, and

2. My attempts to create a neutral point of view:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-04-12/fractional_reserve_banking

Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Andrewedwardjudd

Edit warring
Just a friendly reminder that edit warring is not an acceptable approach. Please do not edit disruptively. BigK HeX (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Joining Talks Request Sent
Hi!^^ I have contacted everyone:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lawrencekhoo#Hi_Wonderful_Person.21.21.5E.5E
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bobrayner#Hi_Wonderful_Person.21.21.5E.5E
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BigK_HeX#Hi_Wonderful_Person.21.21.5E.5E
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrewedwardjudd#Joining_Talks_Request_Sent

I request, merely in case it needs to be made known, to please not say or do anything that makes it seem like a person is "hostile" when obviously a person is not. We are trying to solve something. That is the only goal that matters. In the event that the sent request to join talks fails, this may be evidenced in the higher levels of disputes. Thank you kindly. rm2dance (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Mediation request to be closed
Since there has been no discussion at Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-04-12/fractional_reserve_banking in several months, and the mediator who accepted the case has, per his talk page, apparently chosen to leave Wikipedia. I will close the listing after 22:00 UTC on September 2, 2011, unless someone edits that page to ask that it be left open. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Diamond–Dybvig model
You seem to dis-believe me when I say that the Diamond–Dybvig model is the standard model on banking instability and banking crisis. Can I suggest that you have a look at the wikipedia page on the Diamond–Dybvig model? Also, a cursory glance at the google search results for Diamond–Dybvig should convince you that it is a widely used and taught model on banking instability. Additionally, note that a special issue of the Economic Quarterly devoted to the DD model was issued in 2009 (edited by Ed Prescott), just after the advent of the financial crisis. Regards, --LK (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

May 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Fractional reserve banking, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''Per WP:TPYES it is appropriate to welcome newcomers. The edit you reverted was a friendly message and was done by a long established editor. "Rational purpose" is well established in that the note was encouraging to the newcomer. The material does not come under any WP:TPNO criteria. Please restore the remark.'' – S. Rich (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Under most circumstances I would agree with you. Indeed this is the first time I have ever deleted a comment in all of the many hundreds of edits I have made. I deleted it because I considered it to be purely sarcastic abuse and to contain no other information. Reissgo (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If it was sarcastic or abusive, you might have brought up WP:BITE with Famspear. But it looked 100% acceptable to me. Please restore. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree, Rapatan shared some logical, technical information, so to thank him/her for sharing their "feelings" is, I think, a dig at them - implying that they are being governed by their (less rational) emotions rather than their logic.Reissgo (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ask Famspear what was intended with the comment. (In fact, you can do so off-wiki via email.) In the meantime, you should give Famspear the benefit of the doubt and restore. – S. Rich (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * From bitter experience, I fear this could open up a hornets nest so I won't be doing that. I am running out of energy for this debate - so if you want to revert my deletion, feel free... But I still think Famspear was being sarcastic. Reissgo (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Alas, I've discovered the interchange. Like you say, best not to open the hornets nest. I'll leave it to Famspear to revert. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Reissgo: I respectfully submit that you owe me an apology for removing my post from the talk page.

I also note your comment, "From bitter experience, I fear this [asking Famspear what he meant by the comment] could open up a hornets nest...." I take it from this comment that you are referring to the experience of prior discussions that you and I have had on that article's talk page, and that the experience -- which I assume you liken to dealing with a "hornet's nest" -- has left you "bitter." Thus, I assume that your action in deleting my comment resulted from your "bitterness."

I would ask you (and any other interested readers) to go back and review the history of our interactions on the talk page for the article. I certainly do not consider our prior interactions in Wikipedia to be anything close to a "hornets nest," and certainly not anything over which you should feel "bitter."

I also respectfully submit that the fact that you considered my post to be a "dig" at the other poster, and that you consider my comment to have been "purely sarcastic abuse" are not valid reasons for deleting my post -- even if for the sake of argument we assume that you happen to be right about my motivation. All I wrote was: "thank you for sharing that with us..." That hardly rises to the level of a talk page post by one editor that should be deleted by another. I am not going to restore the comment myself; I am asking you to do that, as did fellow editor Srich32977. Famspear (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

– Alright, ALLright! I'll restore it. Then you two can kiss and make up, Okay? Everything will be Happy Happy Joy Joy – S. Rich (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * for the record, my "bitter experience" was with Wikipedia in general, not anyone in particular. Reissgo (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Fractional reserve banking and money multiplier, sigh
Hi Reissgo, I have tried to assist you with getting some sense on that page. I can see you have had a real battle, especially with Famspear and Specifico These guys seem to want to play "god", and suppress genuine research. I am not sure what their agenda is. I think they are just plainly arrogant, and think they know all there is to know. they look at it from a USA bias which does not help. It is a real shame because the page is poor at the moment. In fact I relied wrongly on the multiplier model when I first started looking at money and banking. We will keep striving, although Wiki is brought into disrepute with the c*** on that page. I have tried to communicate with Specifico via his talk page, but he just blocks me (as well as erasing valid material from the Wiki page) he is more destructive rather than constructive. Brandsby (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The whole problem with wikipedia is that you only need a single person to ruin a page... which in a way makes it undemocratic. Actually SPECIFICO is not the only person that has helped keep the BS on the frb page, there have been others in the past. Someone calling himself bigkhex caused all sorts of aggro when he was active. Reissgo (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have found out about a lot of good stuff on Wikepedia in the last few years. It is a real shame that this page is so poor, and vandalized by these people. Brandsby (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Best of luck with latest change, before Specifico wakes up ! Brandsby (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Fractional Reserve
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please review WP:3RR and undo your re-insertion of the disputed content on the Fractional Reserve article. SPECIFICO talk  01:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * "If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes"... This is my whole problem. There are too many reverts without discussion on the talk page! Reissgo (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see EW here:
SPECIFICO talk  13:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Fractional reserve banking. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC) Regarding the edit warring block I've just placed: I strongly suggest that you take more care in editing carefully and collaboratively, especially in regards to articles in this topic area. You are building a history of edit warring in this topic area, and that may eventually lead to discussion of a topic ban if enough people get frustrated with your behavior. Just because someone hasn't explained themselves on the talk page doesn't give you the automatic right to re-insert the material they reverted – it's still edit warring regardless of who's "right". &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Fractional Reserve
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Fractional reserve banking. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Please read WP:BRD and do not edit war. SPECIFICO talk  14:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd love to WP:BRD but it takes two to do the "D" part. Reissgo (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just in case you missed it, I started a section "Is the former governor of the Bank of England a RS for this claim" on the talk page. Reissgo (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Fractional Reserve
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing.

SPECIFICO talk  02:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SPECIFICO talk  19:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

March 2014
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Fractional reserve banking, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please read NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. ''In you use the term vandalism. I recommend you use WP:Dispute resolution to discuss these edits instead of saying "vandalism". Thank you.'' – S. Rich (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of a week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Fractional reserve banking. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

COI?
Are you perhaps employed in the finance sector or perhaps have some other COI that might bias your editing on the topic of fractional reserve banking?-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 11:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A fair question. I am not employed in the financial sector. I work as a freelance computer programmer. I once did a programming contract for Chase Manhatten Bank for three months... this was about 25 years ago. I am an unpaid supporter of a campaign group called PositiveMoney. Economics is just a hobby interest of mine.


 * In answer to your comment on the FRB talk page. A reserve ratio could put a cap on the amount of lending if the central bank maintains a fixed monetary base. In practice however, central banks create new reserves as the banks demand, this is why there is no cap. Reissgo (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ressigo, you do have a COI in that you have a book (currently on sale on Amazon), that treats the subject of fractional reserve banking and how economists are incorrect about it. This makes your editing of the page on fractional reserve banking a bit 'iffy' - frowned on, if not disallowed. LK (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The book earns me about $10 per month. I am currently on a six month contract earning $70 per hour. My edits have nothing to do with promoting my book. A major claim of my book is that the people that run the monetary system know full well that money is endogenous while the majority of (non-specialist) economists are have been fooled by the textbooks into believing the money multiplier model. Having wiki present the money multiplier model actually makes me look more correct in my assertion! Also for the record, I said something about money in my book that I later found to be incorrect. So the information I'm trying to get into wikipedia will actually contradict my book. Reissgo (talk) 10:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Your denial is as illogical as your editing. If you resume your disruptive behavior after the end of the block, you will be risking a more lasting sanction.  It's really up to you which way this goes.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's have a civil discussion
Dear Reissgo,

I'm not sure how much free time I'll have to devote to this, but if you want, I'm willing to try to talk through the issue of money creation in a fractional reserve system with you. However, I'm only up for this if we both come in with an open mind, ready to question our beliefs.

I'll start by briefly stating what I think is inaccurate about the text-book treatment, that we should work on incorporating into the article. All this is, as far as I know, standard mainstream thinking. The textbook treatment simplifies, but textbook writers (Ben Bernanke for example) are fully aware of these issues. LK (talk) 07:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In a fractional reserve system, bank lending expands the money supply, as bank deposits are considered money in their own right.
 * Bank lending in most jurisdictions are limited by capital controls (Basel III) and not by reserve requirements.
 * A bank is not limited in its lending per se by its deposits, as it can borrow from other banks, however, the banking system as a whole is limited by the amount of high powered money that exists.
 * During low inflation periods, banks are not limited in lending as they are sitting on excess liquidity.
 * Even during normal (moderate inflation) periods, if a central bank sets an interest rate target (as most do today), they have implicitly given up a quantity target, and so the amount of bank lending in the system as a whole is not quantity limited, rather it is limited by the amount that banks are willing to lend at the targeted interest rate. The quantity of high powered money automatically changes to accommodate bank lending as the central bank enacts open market operations to maintain its interest rate target.

I should also add what I think should not be in the article, as these statements are demonstrably untrue. LK (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Bank lending is unlimited as a bank creates the money that it lends.
 * A bank never pays attention to the excess funds they hold and the amount they can borrow when they decide on lending policy.
 * If a bank lends out more than the amount of excess reserves on hand, it doesn't matter, and it doesn't have to seek more deposits or try to borrow from the interbank market.
 * When high powered money in increased, the money supply immediately jumps by a proportionate amount (10% increase in high powered money -> 10% increase in M2). There is no secondary money creation process; secondary money creation happens immediately.

As an additional aside, pre-Great-Depression economists' descriptions of how the monetary system works are not good guides for today, as the monetary system has changed. Most significantly, commercial banks used to print their own banknotes; they no longer do so today. (In some places they still do so (e.g. Hong Kong), but they are subject to extremely tight restrictions, so that they are in essence just functioning as 'printers' for central bank money.)

When commercial banks could print their own notes, their behavior was different. They paid little attention to the amount of funds on hand when they lent out money (which they printed themselves.) A bank would only borrow high powered money, not 'normal' money (bank notes), as it could print its own bank notes. Secondary money creation was near immediate, a bank receiving a deposit of $100 in gold coins could immediately print and lend out $1000. LK (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to go through all your points right now (I may have later), but I just want to pick you up on one point. You say "A bank is not limited in its lending per se by its deposits, as it can borrow from other banks, however, the banking system as a whole is limited by the amount of high powered money that exists.".. well that's sort-of true, but mostly not true. A more accurate statement would be that "IF the central banks decided to enforce a fixed monetary base AND there was a non-zero reserve requirement in place, THEN this this would limit the maximum that the banks could lend"... however in reality, central banks all? (certainly UK) have a policy of allowing banks to get new reserves on demand. So in practice there is no cap, at least no cap based on 1/RR. Reissgo (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict, adding here) That's not exactly correct. Even without official reserve requirements, banks need to keep reserves so that depositors can actually withdraw money. Also, it is the willingness of central banks to expand high powered money that allows commercial bank lending to increase. One can say: "My spending is limited by the amount of money that my mother is willing to give me. As yet, she's never refused any of my requests for money." The second sentence does not mean that the first is incorrect. But this is largely semantics. For the topic at hand, unless banks hold excess reserves, bank lending and high powered money must increase together.
 * As an aside, the BOE directly lends to commercial banks at the "Official Bank Rate". According to the BOE, changing the official bank rate is currently their main instrument of monetary policy. This differs from most other central banks around the world that use open market operations (OMOs) as their main policy instrument. For example, the Fed buys and sells short term Treasury notes to maintain an inter-bank interest rate target. It does offer a discount window to commercial banks, but the stigma associated with using the discount window effectively means that banks almost never use it. LK (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, just noticed that your 5th bullet point (in the first block) acknowledges my point. So we are in agreement - at least so long as wiki doesn't shout from the rooftops that reserve requirements put a cap on total lending, whilst keeping totally silent on the practical reality which is that there is no cap. Reissgo (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "One can say: 'My spending is limited by the amount of money that my mother is willing to give me. As yet, she's never refused any of my requests for money.' The second sentence does not mean that the first is incorrect."... perfectly put. The first sentence is true, but if stated without mentioning the second then it would be a misleading indication of the son's spending capabilities. The second sentence needs to be presented as prominently as the first. Can we agree on that? Reissgo (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure, not a problem. This point is well understood by economists who have even a cursory familiarity with the subject. It's even in some of the introductory university textbooks, and definitely in the intermediate macro ones. I'll see if I can dig up a source. LK (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * - missed this first time round, only just seen it. We're agreed on something!! Reissgo (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The wiki page currently explains the first sentence at great length even giving a long winded example illustrating the son running out of money and being prevented from further spending. This is misleading as hell. Reissgo (talk) 13:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * comment I am not planning to participate in this discussion but I hope you'll keep in mind that the topic of this article is narrow and specific. It's not an article about "money supply" or "monetary economics" or "credit issuance." Second point: regardless of whether the re-lending heuristic is a useful first step in explaining the practice of fractional reserve banking, it is not the case that the supply of credit is infinite (though discussion of all the factors which limit it are beyond the scope of this article.)    SPECIFICO  talk  13:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The "re-lending heuristic" is both technically wrong, and IMHO makes the explanation more complex because it requires the summation of geometric progression (which most students won't know how to do). If you actually employ the (true) loans-first model then the "limit" (if the central bank decided to enforce a fixed monetary base) is then a simple one shot multiplication. Reissgo (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The "re-lending heuristic" does avoid having to tell students the perplexing idea that banks create money out of nothing... but once you explain that what they create are actually spendable IOU's (as the BOE recently confirmed) then this becomes quite easy to grasp. Reissgo (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually the relending heuristic is correct. When the CB injects money into the economy (or lowers the bank rate target) banks increase lending - but this is only the first step. The redeposit of the money lent out encourages additional lending, which further increases M2. We know this is true because when a country experiences an acceleration in the inflation rate from monetary expansion - i.e. the central bank starts pumping money into the economy - the data shows that the money multiplier actually falls for a short time. It takes a bit of time for M2 to catch up to unexpected increases in M0.
 * Also, textbooks always explain how banks create money (we don't use 'out of nothing' - which is emotionally charged language and not exactly correct). Banks create money when they lend, because the act of lending creates unbacked deposits. It is these unbacked deposits that is the 'new money' created - not the money that they lend out (which in most cases is actual high powered money). LK (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, also: The suggestion that central banks always accomodate commercial banks' customer demand for additional credit is false.  We happen to be in a period of easy monetary policy and slack loan demand recently but CBs do in fact constrain the total available credit and the analogy above which compares banks to spoiled children is incorrect.  SPECIFICO  talk  03:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Specifico, you mistake my analogy. I'm not try to say that banks are like spoilt children. I'm trying to make the point that just because a constraint is generally non-binding does not mean that the constraint does not exist. LK (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * [insert] Hi LK. I meant to be disagreeing not with you but with Riessgo's statement which precedes yours. I understand one of his themes to be that there's really no control, regulatory, institutional, or behavioral, of the banks' credit issuance.  I see now that you agreed to look for supporting references, but I was basically trying to say the same thing you just said in your reply to me.  We don't have infinite issuance of money.  The re-lending heuristic is useful in the same way as the heuristics used in high school math are useful to introduce the idea of the first derivative of a convex function.  It's not false  -- it's just not the whole story.  SPECIFICO  talk  12:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitary break
In reply to LK.. "Actually the relending heuristic is correct"... I think its more accurate to say that under certain circumstances its kinda-sorta-like the real world. To say "When the CB injects money into the economy (or lowers the bank rate target) banks increase lending" is putting it too strongly. There is only a tendency for that to be so, but when a big asset bubble bursts and the enthusiasm for borrowing for the purpose of purchasing that asset nosedives, then it very much isn't true. Why use a not-actually-true-story-that-can-occasionally-be-very-wrong, when the truth is (IMHO) actually simpler.

"we don't use 'out of nothing' - which is emotionally charged language" - well then how about using Perry Mehrling's description which is that a loan is actually an exchange of IOU's. Your non-spendable IOU (your loan contract) is exchanged for the bank's spendable IOU. You could then (if you want to defend banks) labour the point that the bank is taking a risk because it obviously has to honour its own IOU in the case that the borrower defaults. With that description, everything falls into place. Reissgo (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm not following this. We do the lending-relending thing because it is correct most of the time, and it illustrates one reason why monetary injections take effect with a lag. It's true that during liquidity traps, the relending doesn't happen - but liquidity traps are non-normal times. As an aside, if inflation rates are high, even if a credit bubble bursts banks will keep on lending (or at least buy stocks and bonds). That's because the inflation tax on cash means that excess reserves suffer from a high negative real interest rate. So it's only during times of liquidity traps that the relending breaks down. I don't see what the "simpler" story would be.
 * I'm also not sure what point you're trying to make with "exchange of IOs", or what you mean by "with that description [exchange of IOUs] everything falls into place".
 * I feel that you're still laboring under the mis-conception that it is the crediting of borrowers checking accounts that 'creates money'. Rather it's the creating of unbacked deposits that creates money. For example, suppose that a bank takes in $1000 in deposits into a checking account (creating $1000 deposit money). Later that week it lends out $900 in cash. It's just created $900 of broad money without "creating new deposit money" that's because excess reserves don't count as money, but cash in hand does. Suppose instead it buys $900 of government bonds from the government, transferring reserves through the central bank to the government's account. Again, it's created $900 of broad money. LK (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Whilst it is true that it is only the creation of unbacked deposits which increase broad money, it is not the case that it is the removal of monetary assets which creates unbacked deposits. So there are two problems with this example. Firstly, when a bank lends out cash it must record the fact that the borrower has to pay it back - that is, it creates a loan asset - and it must also record the fact that the sum has been taken in cash, which it does through the borrower's account, a deposit liability. So the borrower's account is first credited with the amount of the loan and then debited with the cash withdrawal (while the cash account is credited with the payment to the borrower). The broad monetary aggregates all increase when the borrower's account is credited. But although deposits decrease when cash is withdrawn, cash in circulation increases, so monetary aggregates are unaffected. Bank money as measured by monetary aggregates is created when deposits are credited following a loan, not when monetary asset backing is withdrawn from existing deposits.


 * Secondly, when a bank buys bonds directly from the government, reserves are transferred to the government's central bank account. The bank's deposit base is not affected by this and therefore broad monetary aggregates are also unaffected. No bank money is created in this process. The bank simply exchanges one asset for another. If the bank buys government bonds from the market, however, it credits the bond dealer's account, and its deposit base (and therefore broad monetary aggregates) increases. It's only asset purchases from the private sector which also create bank money. Sceptical-h (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "We do the lending-relending thing because it is correct most of the time" - don't include me in that "we". Lets say that some textbook writers have explained frb using a lending-relending story because they think its correct most of the time. I suspect most textbook writers are lazily copying other textbook writers. There's probably not a lot of examination of primary sources in the process. Anyway - "correct most of the time" is not good enough because the times when its not correct are so incredibly important. And for Japan, has dominated the last couple of decades.


 * "not sure what point you're trying to make with 'exchange of IOUs'". The exchange of IOU's is a more accurate description of the process of getting a bank loan (are you disputing that this explanation is in fact correct, or are you just saying its no good for teaching?). When you try and explain to someone about banks creating money, they are often A) bemused B) sceptical C) left with a feeling that some part of the story is missing... but if you explain that the "money" the banks create is in fact an IOU of base money, then the explanation makes more sense. People know that you do not need a special printing press and magical powers to create an IOU out of thin air. People know that anyone can create an IOU with a ball point pen and a sheet of paper. People also know that when an IOU is repaid, then the IOU ceases to be valid. So repayments destroying money also makes sense.


 * "I feel that you're still laboring under the mis-conception that it is the crediting of borrowers checking accounts that 'creates money'". I'm afraid I am. This BOE document contains the sentence "the act of lending creates deposits". Are they wrong? Why did they write that? Reissgo (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I noticed that in your worked example you said "Later that week it lends out $900 in cash"... this is a rather unusual event. Ninety something percent of purchases are made electronically these days. Do you need such an unusually big withdrawal of cash (relative to the size of loan) in your example to make your point? If someone goes into a bank and says "I'd like to borrow $1000 and I'd like to have it in cash right now" then (without having checked all the details) I could well believe that this rare scenario doesn't increase the money supply. Reissgo (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Having a little more time on my hands, I had a think and decided I should resist the lending-relending tale a little harder. I kinda-sorta looks plausible if you squint very hard - but its really very unsatisfactory indeed. I feel it is a bit like saying "as drivers go faster it causes them to press harder on the accelerator"... well there may well be a correlation between the car's speed and the degree of pressure on the pedal, but the causation is backwards. Also, what about the Kydland and Prescott paper where they say "Both the monetary base and M1 series are generally procyclical and, if anything, the monetary base lags the cycle slightly." Reissgo (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I feel that you've stopped having an open mind to this issue, so I'm minded to stop the discussion. However, I'll go a few more rounds, with hope in my heart. There are a few things that you need to keep in mind, which, not having a standard introduction to economics, you may miss. First, there is a market for loanable funds, also referred to as the market for money. As with most markets, there are supply shocks and demand shocks. What you have in mind is a particular type of shock - a demand pull shock, where an increase in bank loans pulls reserves out of the central bank. (Which will cause an increase in broad money first, as excess reserves are drawn down, and a lagged increase in money base.) There are three other types of shocks that can also affect the market. In general, we shouldn't emphasize one particular type of shock, but rather describe the structure of the market itself. (Which is not to say that demand pull may not be the most common type of shock - leading to money base usually lagging the cycle.)
 * Secondly, the act of bank lending creates money because it creates unbacked deposits, NOT because the bank creates new deposits. If what you say is true, that the act of creating deposits is what creates money, then when banks lend out cash money, there would be no money creation. This is an important theoretical point, it doesn't matter if it only happens one time in a thousand.
 * I don't have time right now, but there is a good reason why the money base lags the cycle - because most shocks affecting the market are demand shocks. However, changes in central bank policy causes money base to lead the cycle. This will be easier to explain with a diagram, I'll draw one up a bit later and post it. In the mean time, I want you consider that maybe - just maybe - textbook writers like Greg Mankiw, Ben Bernanke, and Paul Krugman, know what they are talking about. LK (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * One possible reason you and I may feel despondent about reaching agreement is the fact that we are arguing on multiple fronts simultaneously. This, combined with the 24hour turnaround for replies will tend to lead to overly long and tangled replies. To help alleviate this problem, I'm going to start a bunch of separate section headings below and see if we can keep our separate arguments neatly parcelled on each thread. You may want to abandon one thread as a lost cause whilst feeling you are making progress on another. Feel free to edit/add new sections. Reissgo (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Are demand deposits IOU's of base money. [RESOLVED]
Both Perry Mehrling and the BOE in their recent paper say they are. I think they are. Reissgo (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No arguments here. Your wording is a bit strange but it's generally accepted that demand deposits are claims on base money. LK (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Loans-enable-deposits vs deposits-enable-loans - which one best corresponds to reality?
There are a few things that you need to keep in mind, which, not having a standard introduction to economics, you may miss. First, there is a market for loanable funds, also referred to as the market for money. As with most markets, there are supply shocks and demand shocks. What you have in mind is a particular type of shock - a demand pull shock, where an increase in bank loans pulls reserves out of the central bank. (Which will cause an increase in broad money first, as excess reserves are drawn down, and a lagged increase in money base.) There are three other types of shocks that can also affect the market. In general, we shouldn't emphasize one particular type of shock, but rather describe the structure of the market itself. (Which is not to say that demand pull may not be the most common type of shock - leading to money base usually lagging the cycle.)

Secondly, the act of bank lending creates money because it creates unbacked deposits, NOT because the bank creates new deposits. If what you say is true, that the act of creating deposits is what creates money, then when banks lend out cash money, there would be no money creation. This is an important theoretical point, it doesn't matter if it only happens one time in a thousand.

I don't have time right now, but there is a good reason why the money base lags the cycle - because most shocks affecting the market are demand shocks. However, changes in central bank policy causes money base to lead the cycle. This will be easier to explain with a diagram, I'll draw one up a bit later and post it. In the mean time, I want you consider that maybe - just maybe - textbook writers like Greg Mankiw, Ben Bernanke, and Paul Krugman, know what they are talking about. LK (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I confess that most of my arguments about money are not based of a first principles analysis of the primary sources. I am not familiar enough with them. My conclusions are based more on using my scientific background to choose between disagreeing experts. So, for example, if a brain surgeon and a family doctor have differing opinions on a technicality of brain surgery I am inclined to believe the brain surgeon. It appears to me that central bankers are in a better position to understand the monetary system than any other group of people within economics. And from what I can tell, the verdict is unanimously in favour of loans-enable-deposits. It doesn't even appear to be controversial in research papers. I.e. if it were truly controversial, there would be some papers or central bankers saying "These loans-enable-deposits guys are nuts, they have made mistake X, the truth is actually deposits-enable-loans". I have never come across such a paper. If you know of one, I genuinely promise to consider it very deeply and to present it to people I know that are familiar with the primary sources of the monetary system.
 * If you are only choosing between experts, then consider that Ben Bernanke was chair of the Fed, and his textbook is standard mainstream (with the money multiplication table and all that). Also, the Fed has publications that describe the money creation process much as what you would see in textbooks. The BOE has some documents that could be interpreted to support endogenous money, but when examined closely, they are actually close to mainstream as well. In general, endogenous money people are only to be found in England, and the ones with the most heterodox ideas tend to be unaffiliated with reputable organizations.
 * Also, as far as I know, most academic papers (except those from endogenous money people) hold a textbook mainstream conception of how money creation works. For example, macro papers routinely treat Central Bank monetary policy as being important in determining the availability of credit and the amount of economic activity - endogenous money people on the other hand, believe that central banks are essentially powerless in determining both. LK (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "If what you say is true, that the act of creating deposits is what creates money, then when banks lend out cash money, there would be no money creation." I could well believe that when banks lend out cash there is no money creation. The whole reason money gets created and destroyed by banks is because they can create and destroy IOU's-of-base-money. If banks merely shuffled notes and coins around the system, passing them from saver to borrower, then there would be no money creation by banks - it would be full reserve banking.


 * The statement that "when banks lend out cash, there is no money creation" goes against logic and the definition of money, and also contradicts the academic literature on the subject. Banks would still create money, even if there is no electronic payments and the only physical money is gold coins, because bank demand deposit balances are considered money as well. Under 100% reserve banking, banks cannot lend out funds from demand deposits. LK (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I need to correct myself here... My sentence "If banks merely shuffled notes and coins around the system, passing them from saver to borrower, then there would be no money creation by banks - it would be full reserve banking." should have been "If banks merely shuffled notes and coins around the system, passing them from saver to borrower (achieving this via the use of strictly enforced time deposits (which are not money) and maturity matching), then there would be no money creation by banks - it would be full reserve banking." Reissgo (talk) 07:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Something just dawned on me. Maybe this example where a borrower insists on taking out his loan as cash is your counter-example to loans-create-deposits. Maybe you're saying "*usually* loans create deposits, but in some cases (maybe 5% of the time) deposits enable loans"... is that what you're saying? Am I getting closer? Reissgo (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No. When a bank takes in a new deposit, the balance on that demand deposit account is initially 100% backed by reserves. Money creation happens when banks lend because the act of lending means that the demand deposit balance (which is considered money in its own right) is no longer 100% backed. Money supply has increased since we now have both the initial demand deposit balance as well as the money loaned out (which is also money). LK (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Deposits enable loans - is that a reasonable teaching aid even if not true.
If you insist that deposits enable loans, then we may have to resolve another thread first before putting anything here. Reissgo (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This language "deposits enable loans" vs "loans enable deposits" is language from the endogenous money people. I would say this: if there is no inter-bank lending and no borrowing from the central bank, and a bank holds no excess reserves and no bonds, then taking in more deposits is necessary for a bank to make more loans. When teaching about how banks work, it's useful to start with this case before moving forward. LK (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Do reserve requirements put a cap on the money supply. [RESOLVED]
As far as I can tell, we are in agreement on this point. I.e. in theory it could, but in practice it doesn't. Reissgo (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The constraint in theory exists. CBs can, and have in the past, attempted to control the supply of money. But if the CB follows an interest rate target (as most do today), it gives up on controlling the quantity of money. Hubbard and Obrien (2013), Economics, Chapter 25: Monetary Policy, p943 can be used as a source for this. LK (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Does the current frb page reflect things we're agreed upon.
Earlier I said "The first sentence is true, but if stated without mentioning the second then it would be a misleading indication of the son's spending capabilities. The second sentence needs to be presented as prominently as the first. Can we agree on that?", to which you replied: "Sure, not a problem". The current page give a long slow motion account of the "first sentence" but no mention of the second. If I make any edits SPECIFICO will undo it as a knee jerk reaction. Is there any chance you could do something? Reissgo (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think Specifico will object to a brief properly worded sourced statement in the lead. We must also make sure the main text is changed at the same time, as things shouldn't exist only in the lead. Also, the FRB page is not the right article for a long discussion on monetary policy, the monetary policy article is more appropriate for that. However, it shouldn't be a problem to make clear that under current CB policy, interest rates (not the quantity of base money per se) is the control instrument. LK (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The frb page, section "Example of deposit multiplication"
The frb page currently includes the words: "an initial $100 deposit of central bank money is made into Bank A. Bank A takes 20 percent of it, or $20, and sets it aside as reserves, and then can theoretically loan out the remaining 80 percent, or $80."

Does this sentence correspond to reality. And if not, what should be done about it? Reissgo (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If rr=20%, a deposit of $100 would create excess reserves of $80, which the bank can loan out. So, yest, I would agree that that statement is basically correct. LK (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I just had another look at "Modern Money Mechanics" (which includes the words "The relationships shown are based on simplifying assumptions" in the intro) and noticed the following sentence. "Of course, they do not really pay out loans from the money they receive as deposits. If they did this, no additional money would be created. What they do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers' transaction accounts."... So the Fed are clearly saying that the idea of relending deposits is not-actually-true. So presumably the wiki page should also make it clear that its not actually true. Reissgo (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * At the beginning of that section, it states, "banks are required to maintain reserves equal to only a fraction of their deposits. Reserves in excess of this amount may be used to increase earning assets — loans and investments" showing that the authors of the documents clearly hold a 'loans are made from excess reserves' mindset. I'm looking at the sentence in question and will respond in a while. LK (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe that the sentence "If they did this, no additional money would be created. " is a mistake on the part of the authors, as lending out cash would in fact expand money supply. If you look at the rest of the money creation section, it's clearly a mainstream textbook description of the money expansion process, with the iterated stepwise lending and all that. You can't just pick one sentence from a document and claim the document agrees with your view, you should look at the totality, otherwise it'll be cherry-picking. LK (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm a but rushed right now, but I think I've just twigged something. I think there's a sloppiness in the descriptions about the exact nature of what's going on when "a saver leaves deposits and the banks then lend them out"... There could in fact be multiple scenarios, each with different consequences:


 * 1. The saver deposits $X in cash to his bank (A).
 * 2. The saver deposits a cheque for $X from someone else in the same bank (A).
 * 3. The saver deposits a cheque for $X from someone with an account at a different bank B.


 * In case 1, the $X will be taken in by the bank (removing the cash from the money supply). The bank will then add $X to the saver's account (adding it back to the money supply). Net effect - no change to money supply. The bank has now got $X more reserves, and also $X more liabilities. It needs to keep RR% of those $X of reserves to maintain its reserve requirements. The remainder (100-RR%) of $X (call this $R) could be lent out directly to someone wanting a loan of $R which they want immediately in cash. Or they could lend out some amount much greater than $R, to someone that wants a loan purely electronically.


 * In case 2, the $X deposit does not increase the banks reserves at all. It is entirely useless with regard enabling the bank to lend more to anyone. None of that $X deposit can be re-lent.


 * In case 3, the deposit of $X will cause a transfer of $X of reserves from bank B to bank A. The $X of extra reserves that bank A now has, enables bank A to do more lending in a similar way to case 1, i.e. $X cash or >> $X if electronic.


 * The proportion of each scenario that occurs in practice may be very unequal. The textbooks tell a story which makes it sound like the whole relending chain is composed entirely of the not actually very common sequence:
 * "scenario 1 followed by the lending of $R cash followup" ... repeat.


 * Scenario 3 has a potential complication in that if there is a large ebb and flow in both directions between bank A and B, then the transfer of reserves may be an end-of-day *net* transfer of reserves. This may make no difference at all and I'm happy to ignore that aspect of things for now.


 * Are we in agreement on the technicalities of the 3 scenarios? Reissgo (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In the following discussion, I'm going to assume that banks don't engage in inter-bank borrowing, cashing in of bond holdings, and borrowing from the central bank, as these will increase a bank's reserves, facilitating more lending.
 * Case 1: You are right that the bank can lend $R out for a customer who wants to borrow cash, but you are wrong in saying that the bank can lend out more than $R to a customer who only wants the funds electronically. In almost all cases, a person borrowing money is doing so in order to pay someone else. That other person (or company) is, more likely than not, a customer of a different bank. Banks don't lend out more than their excess reserves, if they have no alternate source of funding. They don't lend based on the vague hope that the person who is will be paid by the loan is also a customer of their bank. (However, they do lend based on past trends in deposits, so if a bank has been experiencing increasing amounts of deposits, it may lend out more than the reserves it currently has on hand.)
 * Case 2: You are right if person A has the balance sitting in his checking account, and transfers the balance to person B, who also let's it sit in his checking account. This changes nothing for the bank. However, note that if person A has just borrowed the money from the bank, then depositing the money from that loan into the account of another customer will enable more lending. The bank had previously set aside excess reserves equal to the loan in anticipation of those funds leaving the bank. The check depositing the loan into the account of another customer will cause the bank to recalculate the amount of excess reserves that it has. It will increase it's estimate of excess reserves by $R.
 * You are right that Case 3 is the same as Case 1, it doesn't matter whether funds enter the bank via cash or electronic money.
 * You are wrong in thinking that there is a difference between the customer taking the loan in cash or taking the loan electronically. If you were right, banks would likely treat differently people who wish to borrow in cash or borrow electronically, and may charge different interest rates. This is not the case. Banks don't care very much whether they credit your account or they give you cash. When they lend out funds, they expect those funds to leave the bank, either electronically or via cash. LK (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll just like to clarify that an overdraft facility or line of credit, is not considered a loan in and of itself. Only funds tapped by the borrower is considered a loan, and the borrower only pays interest on funds borrowed, not on the full limit of the line of credit. If a customer wishes to borrow in order to have liquidity (i.e. he/she wishes to have the ability to draw funds, rather than having an immediate need to pay someone else), the customer will very likely negotiate a line of credit, rather than taking out a loan and letting the funds sit unused. Almost all loans are used to pay someone else almost immediately. LK (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know about you, but I sense some progress here. I have a little hunch that my "potential complication" I mentioned earlier is just about to become critical, but I don't have time to work it all out right now and I may be away from a PC for 48hrs... I'll be back. Reissgo (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

"Case 1: You are right that the bank can lend $R out for a customer who wants to borrow cash, but you are wrong in saying that the bank can lend out more than $R to a customer who only wants the funds electronically..."

I think we are getting closer to the heart of our differences...

I think I am right in saying that a bank can lend out much more than $R to someone who (like most people) will mainly use his borrowed money for electronic payments. And here's why:

If financial transactions only occurred very infrequently (like one or two a day in an imagined system in a tiny village with two banks and reserve requirement restrictions applied on a second by second basis) then you are perfectly correct to assert that the $R would not safely allow the bank to make a loan of size greater than $R.

If they risked it and then found that the recipient of the loan used it to make a payment to the other bank B, then bank A would not have enough excess reserves to pay to bank B without breaking the reserve requirements.

But in the real world, large banks may make thousands of new loans every day, not only that but the reserve requirement rules are only applied to the average state of affairs over a period of weeks. This leads to a situation where *both* banks A and B could make multiple loans totaling $Y whilst statistically it is likely that only a small fraction of the $Y would actually be required by either of them for end of day net payments... So long as bank B is doing the same sort of thing, bank A can make loans of >>$R without much risk of running low on reserves. Reissgo (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No, retail banking is highly fragmented. Even the largest banks have less than 10% of the market each. (See graph here.) Also, some funds stay out as cash and don't make it back into the banking system. Banks do not loan out funds with the expectation that a large proportion will make it back into the bank. This has nothing to do with RR rules, this has to do with having high powered funds to satisfy demands for payment after a loan has been made. LK (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Look, banks do lend out based on expected future deposit growth if deposits have been growing consistently. They also do lend aggressively, eating into their required reserves, based on being able to borrow on the interbank market as required. However, banks do not expect that their unilateral decision to increase lending will increase their own deposits, and increase lending based on that expectation. Logic and experience tells us that it doesn't. Most of the time, funds lent out don't come back. It doesn't matter whether they are lending electronically or in cash. Suppose my deposits have been holding sturdy, and I have $20mil in excess reserves, and another $10mil in required reserves. I'll aim on lending out at least $20; I may lend out up to a little less than $30 if prospects are good and I can borrow easily. I will not lend out more than $30. If I did so, and for some reason I fail to borrow funds in time to satisfy my need for liquidity, I've just driven my bank into bankruptcy.  LK (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * My first comment is that doing things in the hope that the statistics suggest you will "probably get away with it" is built into banking culture. You could even argue that it is the principle behind how fractional reserve banking works!


 * Your point about the banking sector being fragmented is important, but to counter that I'd just point out that the law of large numbers will still play a part, especially when combined with the multi(2?)-week averaging process for satisfying reserve requirements.


 * With regard: "banks do lend out based on expected future deposit growth if deposits have been growing consistently". They do not have to have that thought specifically in mind when they lend out. They may lend out with a notion that they can get reserves from *somewhere* (from the central bank if nowhere else) and then simply observe over time that sufficient reserves are often available simply because reserves arrive from other banks as part of the ordinary payments (customer B giving money to customer A) process.


 * With regard: "Banks do not loan out funds with the expectation that a large proportion will make it back into the bank"... To which I'd say - why ever not?. Not considering leaks of cash to the public for a moment, if you have n banks in the system all with similar behaviours, then on average over time, you would certainly expect that the rate of flow of reserves leaving any one bank X, would (on average) be similar to the rate of reserves arriving from other banks to bank X. You appear to be trying to deny this.


 * What happens in the short term, and with a small number of transactions, is very different to what happens in the long term with a large number of transactions. Over a very short period, the total inflows and outflows could be very out of balance. Over a longer period the flows are liable to become closer to 50:50. This is why the reserve-averaging component of the regulations is so critical. Reissgo (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * At this point I feel that it will be beneficial to go over a bank's balance sheet in the form of a T-accounts diagram. Are you familiar with the concept? Here's an example of such a diagram from a former investment banker's blog. We should go over the implications of liquidity constraints, reserve requirements, and Basel capital controls on a bank's balance sheet. LK (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I am aware of these things, but I don't often think about banking with those tools... Its not my language of choice. Also I'm not convinced it will shed any new light on our dispute. After all, I am already in agreement with you in the case of reserve requirements being enforced on a second-by-second basis. My argument is all about how the "constraints" change when you have the averaging of reserves allowed. My argument is all about an emergent property of the system. If your T-account analysis is going to consider A) the averaging process and B) the possibility of emergent phenomena of multiple banks having similar behaviours (rather than just thinking in terms of a single transaction from the point of view on a single bank) then by all means go ahead. Reissgo (talk) 08:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You're using law of large numbers wrong. And if you are not familiar with the dynamics of a bank's balance sheet, you're not going to understand anything about the constraints a bank faces.
 * I'm sorry, but I've had enough. I don't think we're getting anywhere. Perhaps somewhere out there, there is a banker that believes that they can lend out more than the funds they have access to (liquid reserves + salable bonds + possible lines of credit), because somehow, their action of lending more will increase deposits into their own bank. All I can say is, I have worked in a bank, I have friends and relatives who work in banks, some of my students work in banks, and I don't know of any banker who acts in such a way. LK (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I found one: "In the real world, banks extend credit, creating deposits in the process, and look for reserves later." - Holmes, 1969 page 73 Reissgo (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "It's a process that, even today, few bankers understand" - Milton Friedman. Reissgo (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Those quotes don't state 'a bank does not face constraints in lending because lending will always increase a bank's deposits.' LK (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * BTW, Holmes was a Fed vice-president. FYI, here's the context of the quote ("Controlling Monetary Aggregates", Conference proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston June 1969). Note the last paragraph.


 * With regard thinking "because somehow, their action of lending more will increase deposits into their own bank" - there is no need at all for this thought to cross a bankers mind. They merely observe the ease with which they seem to be able to get enough reserves. Reissgo (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ordinary bankers are just cogs in the machine - there is no need for them to try and understand any emergent phenomena. *Central* bankers however, are in charge of the machine in its entirety and have every incentive to understand emergent phenomena. And amongst central bankers, it appears that the consensus is with me. Reissgo (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * So, bankers don't understand how the system works, mainstream economists and textbook writers don't understand how the system works, the Fed doesn't understand how the system works, only a handful of English post-Keynesians understand what's going on. Please excuse me if I don't reply anymore, but I don't think I will have anymore time for this. LK (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to describe the official position of the Bank of England as a that of "a handful of English post-Keynesians" then that's your problem. As for your suggestion that I think that the "Fed doesn't understand how the system works". I suspect that there are people within the fed that do. Carpenter and Demiralp for example and probably many more besides. You have never shown me a single document from the fed (or anyone else for that matter) which is aimed at professionals, which defends the money multiplier/relending tale. I have presented you with 10 that say its BS. So I'm winning 10-0 so far. Reissgo (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You have claimed many things about what the views of central bankers are, but have not been able to produce RS to back those claims. Find me one official document from the BOE that states that an individual commercial bank does not face constraints on its lending of the sort that I have described (i.e. cannot lend more than reserves+liquid bonds+ready borrowings). I doubt that you can, but I also doubt that you will change your mind, so we have nothing left to talk about. LK (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO's removal of most of the references in the criticisms of textbook descriptions section of FRB page
I urge you to look at the quotes from the papers here and reconsider.
 * I hope you'll understand, your one week block is a blessing. You can use it to reevaluate your behavior here. If you continue where you left off, it's not going to lead anywhere constructive. If you care about your ideas and about WP, I urge you to read the abundant discussion of content and behavior norms on the help pages.   SPECIFICO  talk  12:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * One principle of wiki is that editors should discuss the technicalities of the issues being discussed. The link I gave leads to a page showing selected quotes from papers, which, correct me if you think I'm wrong, show that these papers are indeed critical of textbook explanations of frb. Reissgo (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * SPECIFICO's answer.... zip, zilch, nada.


 * Yet again you run away from discussion of the issues themselves. How about addressing them please. Reissgo (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. In reference to a recent comment I saw of yours - I have never employed a sockpuppet. Reissgo (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

You are invited to add to QE with 6 year old language.
You are invited to add to QE with 6 year old language.

6YearOld (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

BRD
Please review WP:BRD. It's not good practice to undo a revert, even if you believe your view is correct. I would say you are close to exhausting the patience of the other editors on the Fractional Reserve article. SPECIFICO talk  17:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing -- please review policy
Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Fractional reserve banking. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large.


 * SPECIFICO talk  23:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

, while it may appear to you that has been canvassing, you appear to overlook that it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. As far as I am concerned, you should show evidence of canvassing, before you are entitled to make this accusation. Feel free to check my userpage for the message that I received, notifying me as a former contributor of the ongoing discussion, to improve its quality by broadening participation to achieve consensus. The defensive (or passive-aggressive) attitude contained in the above post is unwelcoming contributors, and may bias editors such as myself who have never edited with you before. Sincerely,--Wuerzele (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not appropriate to be selective in such notifications. Kindly refrain from personal remarks such as the above. SPECIFICO  talk  18:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Kindly provide evidence of selectivity. Sincerely,--Wuerzele (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

re fractional reserve banking
I saw your post on the fractional reserve banking talkpage today

"In the section "Money multiplier", I added the words "The central bank simply supplies whatever amount of base money is  demanded by the economy at the prevailing level of interest rates." which is a direct quote from perhaps the most reliable source on the monetary system that exists, i.e. the Bank of England Quarterly Review. My added sentence is merely extra detail for the preceding sentence: "However, rather than directly limiting the money supply, central banks typically pursue an interest rate target to control bank issuance of credit". Presumably you agree with the preceding sentence as you have not deleted it. I don't understand... "

I dont understand this either, but the EXACT same thing happened to me over teh past few days on the 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid page. like you I tried to improve upon a (poorly sourced) section (dioxin impurities). I added a recent source One editor comes in moves the section around after deleting a whole lot (no additions) and then another guy, comes in, totally new to the site and plays the same game. reverts and edit wars in edit summaries, no talk page at first they dont understand the content, this is obvious to me by their sparse content related comments. I also presumed they agreed with the preceding status quo sentence as they had not deleted it, but in the end they called teh one sentence too little and lack of notability, fringe and what not. NUTS! together they deleted what was there for 7 years, uncontested factual info. so now a 2 paragraph section is all gone. nada. and then the tone ! they used quick salami tactic. -just thought you'd like to hear from someone with a similar experience. sorry I was of no help on the fractional reserve banking page.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. Feels like we're in the same boat! Reissgo (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * (SPECIFICO added this unsigned comment:) I suggest you read the WP policy on "Tendentious editing," and "Single purpose accounts" which could result in your being blocked from banking related articles or banned from the site altogether. While it's currently the case that nobody has mustered the energy to document all your violations in a formal complaint, I think it's clear from various talk page interactions that you've just about exhausted the community's patience with your behavior.  Please consider.  Also, please don't post on my talk page.  You can ping me here on yours if you wish to address any remarks to me.  Thanks.


 * Is "ping" a term describing some wikipedia process? (If it is I can't find it) Or did you just mean that If I wrote something here you are paying enough attention to notice? Please clarify. Reissgo (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI pinging
FYI WP:PING & please sign talk page remarks with the 4 tilde marks ~. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There seem to be many different things listed under WP:PING, but if I've understood it correctly; if I put in my text, then SPECIFICO will receive a notification. Is that right?
 * With regard the 4 tilde's, quite right, sorry I forgot. Reissgo (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup. I think Specifico has activated his preferences to receive pings. – S. Rich (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Reissgo (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Fractional Reserve removal of RS content from lede.
The lede summarizes the sourced content of the article. Removal of stable reliably sourced content can get you blocked from editing. You should revert your removal from the lede. SPECIFICO talk  15:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You say stable - but its only just been added (correct me if I'm wrong).
 * With regard "reliably sourced" - see talk. My source, that says it aint so, is even more reliable than the one given. My source was written by the people that run the monetary system, and it was aimed at professionals.
 * With regard getting blocked, I will obey 3RR. I have also started a talk topic. I encourage you to contribute. Reissgo (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If you end up being blocked, it won't be for 3RR. It will be for tendentious editing over the course of several years as a single purpose account.  It's up to you whether you take the time to read WP policy and try to channel your efforts in a constructive way.  The fact is, however that a clear and consistent consensus has rejected your edits and interactions and you are basically playing Russian Roulette here until the day one editor musters the energy to request a community review of your participation here. Read the article and you'll see where the stable sourced content and reference are situated.   SPECIFICO  talk  17:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The most common reason for people rejecting my edits in the past has been a lack of reliable sources. But now with the publication of "Money creation in the modern economy" by the BoE earlier *this year*, those days are over. My sources are the highest imaginable quality. Written by the people that run the system, for professionals. What source could possibly be more authoritative than that? Reissgo (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Full_reserve_banking
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You have made 4 reverts within 24 hours. I suggest you undo your last round of reverts to ensure you will not be blocked. Please use talk to promote consensus. SPECIFICO talk  23:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.