Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/12 April 2011/Fractional-reserve banking

Request details
Editors Lawrencekhoo, BigK and others are preventing reliable sources from being added making it impossible to present a neutral point of view on the wiki for Fractional Reserve Banking. The Wiki is currently written as the Truth in the voice of Wiki.

Andrewedwardjudd and Reissgo are attempting to get reliable sources added.

Who is involved?
Those preventing a neutral point of view are:
 * Lawrencekhoo
 * BigK HeX
 * bobrayner

Those working to create a neutral point of view are:
 * Reissgo
 * andrewedwardjudd

Acceptance of Mediation

 * ~andrewedwardjudd
 * Reissgo

What is the dispute?
Editors preventing neutral point of view

What would you like to change about this?
I want to present the neutral view as it exists rather than having it altered by these editors.

"Does the conversation need better structure? Are folks having difficulty communicating? Are they talking past each other? Stuff like that."

Bobrayner is not in the discussion on the talk page. BigK says the alternative view can only be expanded if reliable sources are found - which he then deletes - otherwise he is not in a discussion. The fight to get a neutral point of view has been going on for years since feb 2007 when a section of the wiki was deleted. Some 'alternative view' sources have been added - many are deleted. Lawrencekhoo has softened his attitude towards me.

How do you think we can help?
If wiki genuinely wants neutral points of view please help us to get one presented.
 * Bobrayner should be discussing the page if he wants to delete editors work. He has never once directly engaged with me or to my knowledge made any comments on the talk page since i became an editor.
 * Bigk should discuss the issues rather than repeating "WP:Fringe" and demanding we produce citations. He just deletes citations for no good reason.
 * Lawrencekhoo seems to believe that text books written for people at the start of their economic learning life written by university academics, are more reliable sources for information than the latest central banking policy and operational documents written by people with decades of practical experiences of everyday banking practicies. He appears enraged that i prefer what the central banking operational documents say on the subject.

The whole situation is very odd.

Mediator notes
The requesting party should notify all involved parties with the goal of resolving this problem. Please also condense any and all notes.rm2dance (talk)

andrewedwardjudd
1) BigK says the alternative view can only be expanded if reliable sources are found - which he then deletes.... LawrenceKhoo refuses to talk to me.....Bobraynor deletes but is not apparently involved Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
 * >>Rm2Dance said: 'It appears that problems and lack of teamwork may have died down in over 2 days in regards to BigK HeX's remark, "The present version seems to me far less contentious than when mediation was first sought" dated 23:06, 20 April 2011'
 * The current allowed version was produced via a large number of deletions. So it yet clear how the alternative view will evolve because it arises only from respectable citations which need to be added without deletion.  Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

2) As for LawrenceKhoo, if this editor is still editing/causing problems, then the problem has to be taken higher up in the dispute chain, and this user should be banned, or whatever remedy the formal dispute-related committee(s) decides upon. rm2dance (talk)
 * LawrenceKhoo is no different to the others involved and is not deserving of being singled out in this manner. Please remove or rephrase this comment.  You have already said the process is informal and there are other stages if necessary.  Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

3) BigK HeX and bobraynor refuse to even discuss the issues Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
 * >>>Rm2dance said 'refusing to join talks equates to automatic pointlessness in continuing talks. For a mediation case like this to approach harmony, there has to be:


 * Willingness of all editors causing the conflict to be in discussion towards the common goal of resolving it quickly.'

Current Solution
I will contact all involved parties who previously are unwilling to join to request that they join in order to solve the claimed NPOV problem(s), instead of wasting everybody's time by taking the problem higher up. If this fails, and problems caused by editors who are unwilling to join talks persist, then this case should simply be closed, and the dispute taken higher up. As already made clear in the Mediation Cabal process, this is informal and the mediator has no administrative privileges.rm2dance (talk)

Actions Taken

 * 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
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Reissgo#Joining_Talks_Request_Sent

Current Status
Waiting to see if any problems arises. I expect to check back later this weekend, fyi. rm2dance (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please do not end this mediation only because BigK HeX or any other of the deleters say they are happier. The current alternate view is simply the remaining wreckage of their past actions,  where the reasons for these deleted respectable citations remains a mystery, and discussion is not happening.Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Administrative notes
As requested by the mediator on this page:


 * All parties have been formally notified on their talk pages and there is a section in the talk page.
 * The notes for this mediation have been reduced down to the bare minimum

The mediator has also been notified of these notifications and changes.


 * Since there has been no discussion here in several months, and since 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 this page to ask that it be left open. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
The whole problem in this debate is that there seems to be a disconnect between the view expressed in most textbooks and the views expressed in research papers and by central bankers in speeches and other documents. Its rather analogous to having most ordinary family doctors (in the UK they're called General Practitioners) having a view X about brain surgery, while the brain surgeons themselves have a view Y. Now if we label both brain surgeons and doctors as simply "doctors", then one could say that the "majority" or "mainstream" view is X. If however we consider the views of brain surgeons as being of a higher level of expertise, and say that their view trumps ordinary doctors, then we could say that the "majority" or "mainstream" view is Y. I believe that wikipedia would want to publish the view of the majority of the most expert possible category of sources. In this case of describing how the monetary system works, the most expert category would be "research papers" and "The views of senior central bankers". AndrewWardJudd has now built up a formidable collection of references to journal papers and the words of central bankers here. BigKHex and Lawrencekhoo between them have produced nothing in reply other than the words of textbooks.

... anticipating the reply of BK and LK... I can imagine that they will suggest that we've "had this debate before". Indeed this is true, but previously they have criticised the quality and quantity of my references. Andrewwardjudd has increased both the quality and quantity enormously, so this issue needs to be reconsidered. Reissgo (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'll make a comment here, but may not have time to participate in informal mediation. Anyways, absolutely nothing provided by either User:Reissgo or User:Andrewedwardjudd has indicated the viewpoint in question has generally accepted by the mainstream.  In fact, the sources they've provided have reinforced the fact that the view is one regarded as minority.  Nearly all of the authors in their sources have prefaced their commentary by describing how their view is not generally well-accepted.  By WP:NPOV, the article cannot be rewritten from this minority point of view as Reissgo and Andrewedwardjudd have attempted to do.  BigK HeX (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's an old example of a thread wherein I pointed out to User:Reissgo how his own sources indicate that the view is held by a minority: . Most of User:Andrewedwardjudd's newer sources give similar indications.  Sadly, Reissgo cared little about the impact that WP:NPOV policy would have when I pointed this months ago, and I doubt he'll be much more inclined to defer to policy now.  BigK HeX (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the citations say the text book view of macroconomics does not apply to the real world But the charge against you is that you are preventing a fair representation of the so called minority view where esteemed people are saying the text book view is unreliable.  Even now you want to obfuscate away these simple realities. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 07:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd


 * BigK is correct to point out that the papers suggest that their view is a minority. But they are stating that in a sense equivalent to the brain surgeons sating that "view Y" is a minority amongst family doctors. AFAIK they do not state that it is a minority view in peer reviewed literature, or amongst central bankers. Amongst the most expert level of sources, the views that Andrew Judd and I have been putting forward appear to be THE MAJORITY. BigK has no right to insist that these opinions must be couched in demeaning language, like "outside of the mainstream" and "alternative". Reissgo (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, do you have any reliable sources which says that endogenous money theory is generally accepted among central bankers and monetary economists, or is that just something that you yourself have concluded?TheFreeloader (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * before getting involved. Please read where I said "I want to present the alternate view as it exists rather than having it altered by these editors"
 * Thanks. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
 * Yes, I have done that. And then what?TheFreeloader (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement that i make a case for "generally accepted" at this point in time. It is an 'alternative view' section not the 'general view' section.Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
 * Well, but I commented on what Reissgo said, and he seemed to say that endogenous money is the most accepted view among monetary economists on how money creation through fractional reserve banking works. So I just asked him to show where he has that from. But if you see endogenous money as a minority view on this subject, you must also see that, per WP:NPOV, this view can not be described in as much detail, in the article on the general subject, as the majority view. I think the best thing you could do would be to make the additions about endogenous money in the article on the subject, where you find more room to elaborate on the theory. Then you can summarize the most important points from that article and try to get them into fractional-reserve banking article. I think that approach would be much beneficial to Wikipedia, as the valuable contributions you have to make about endogenous money will not go to waste just because there might not be room for them all in the fractional reserve banking article.TheFreeloader (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the quality of the references; endogenous money, the money multiplier and credit money probably only require a few sentences each. The mechanics of this view of money creation could then be briefly described. A major issue at the moment is that credit money is being attacked so that my text no longer describes the viewpoint correctly and the citations are not being allowed.  Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
 * Well, again, I think the best thing to do would be to make your additions to the endogenous money article first, that way people who are interested in the theory can at least click on to that article to find out more about it. And then afterwards take the essential points for the understanding of the theory from that article and add them, with the appropriate references, to the article on fractional-reserve banking. I think it would be sad for the encyclopedia if the contributions you want to make about endogenous money get lost because one gets bogged down with an all-or-nothing mentality, where only getting things into article on the general subject matters.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in endogenous money theory - I am interested in the mechanics of everyday banking and central banking where i rely mostly on central banking documents to learn more about the real world processing involved. The current wiki FRB is mostly wrong about most things.  Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

I would invite andrewedwardjudd to try to present this case more neutrally, instead of carefully framing it in terms of people who want a neutral article (ie. him) versus the bad guys who want a biased article (all the people who disagree with him). Apart from the merely annoying slips, like the lack of signatures or threading which make things harder to read, there do seem to be a series of more substantial policy issues - for instance, I had to notify parties involved in this case because andrewedwardjudd didn't, and he has since taken to talkpage canvassing of other editors who he thinks might be able to help him "push through" some difficult edits, and of course there's the editwarring. And that's even before we get to the content problem itself, the sourcing, and the huge talkpage screeds. This is no way to set about improving an article; and engaging with an editor like this is very difficult. bobrayner (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Even if to decide to become involved in mediation ultimately, there's certainly no way I would join while the issue is framed as it has been on this page. BigK HeX (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You three are gaming the system to prevent a neutral point of view. There is no need for me to deal with this situation any differently.  If you refuse to cooperate we just go to the next phase to force you to cooperate.  You obviously have no intentions of cooperating.Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd


 * I think the comments on this page make it clear that informal mediation with the parties involved here would be futile. My thanks to User:rm2dance for volunteering, but the continued hostility and POV tone is a good sign to me that I shouldn't allocate my efforts into participating.  Good luck, all. BigK HeX (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it will be futile. You and bobraynor refuse to even discuss the issues and LK decided last week he would not be discussing things with me.
 * And the mediator profile was only created last week after i asked for mediation so there is next to no hope of a reliable independant person in the community being involved
 * Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 07:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd


 * Comment. The present version seems to me far less contentious than when mediation was first sought. BigK HeX (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok rm2dance, you've asked us to "express any concerns you may have". My main concern is that BigK HeX repeatedly undoes edits on the grounds that he considers them not to be "mainstream" or not the "majority" view. When I press him to define mainstream or tell me "the majority view amongst whom", he either changes the subject, does not answer, or claims he has answered the question before - all of these actions leave me unable to edit because I know he will just undo my edits with the same "its not the majority view" claim. I consider this disruptive behavior and I would like you enforce clarity on the definition of "mainstream" or "the majority".


 * I consider the views expressed in multiple unchallenged, peer reviewed papers and the words of senior central bankers (when not in simplified "teaching material"), by definition, to be the current mainstream consensus. Reissgo (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As everyone can see I [provided an obvious link to Reissgo's sources admitting their view is not the prevalent one. Reissgo's willful blindness to such evidence is precisely the reason I do not waste my time humoring his requests any longer.  [[User:BigK HeX|BigK HeX]] (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What a load of rubbish. Reissgo was correct about timed deposits and you are still abusing him.

sec break1

 * The position can be summarised as follows:
 * Reissgo: "There are peer reviewed papers suggesting endogenous money theory (EMT) is true".
 * BigK: "The papers themselves acknowledge its not the majority view".
 * Reissgo: "The papers merely acknowledge that this is not what it is taught to young students. The papers do NOT state that it is a minority view amongst peer reviewed papers or central bankers. If anything, they claim it is the majority view amongst that (higher ranking/more expert) group".
 * BigK: "I refuse to continue this discussion" (as evidenced by the fact that in the edit record you can see he put the words "final comment").
 * Reissgo (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I just want to note a few things that will hopefully help sort out this matter:

1. The mainstream view about money creation is presented in this article on Money Supply in the New Palgrave by Benjamin Friedman, Harvard Economics prof. This is not 'text book' material. It is cutting edge understanding written by an expert for experts in the field of monetary economics. I'll be estatic if the view expressed in the New Palgrave article is properly incorporated into Wikipedia.

2. Endogenous money can be divided into 'weak' and 'strong' views. The 'weak endogenous money view' (described by Goodhart, etc.) is that as long as central banks target interest rates, they do not control the quantity of money, since they must accomodate any change in money demand in order to fix interest rates. I believe that almost all mainstream economists agree with the 'weak endogenous money view', since it's widely accepted that you can either control the price or the quantity of money, but not both at the same time. That said, there is debate in the mainstream over what is the appropriate way to i) teach about and describe the monetary system, ii) model it in the economic models. AFAIK, most mainstreamers still believe that the traditional 'text-book' view is the appropriate way to teach and describe it, with more debate about how best to model it. The 'strong endogenous money view' is that the action of lending out money creates the money and the reserves neccesary to support the new money. Central banks cannot control the amount of money even if they give up interest rate targetting. In fact, central banks cannot and have never been able to control the amount of money in the economy. Demand for credit has always determined money supply. (I'm unclear about this view, so I may not be correctly describing it.)

3. The appropriate place to include discussion of these issues is the money creation and endogenous money articles, and to a lesser extent the money multiplier article. Fractional reserve banking should not have an extended discussion of these issues. I'm perfectly happy to see the weak endogenous money view incorporated into the appropriate Wikipedia articles. But, one must bear in mind weight, balance, and whether the issues are directly related to the subject of the article (Coatrack issues).

I'm totally swamped with work right now, so will not be participating in edits to the article, mediation or further debates. For reference, you can assume that I side with BigK and Freeloader on these issues, except that I'm probably more willing than either of them to rewrite the article to incorporate endogenous money viewpoints. I'll accept whatever comes out of mediation as long as it's acceptable to the regulars at WP:ECON. In case anyone desperately needs to talk with me, send me an email through the system. LK (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The appropriate place to discuss changes is in the article talk pages. Meanwhile your weak and strong endogenous ideas, and comments about private banks creating reserves, appear to be missing how private banks can create loans and create deposits where no previous deposits existedAndrewedwardjudd (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
 * unfortunately I do not have access to the palgrave document. But from what you've said it appears that you are perhaps acknowledging that the "experts" (central bankers, monetary economists) know full well that the "textbook" explanation is not how things actually work in the real world and either strong or weak endogenous money is a truer reflection of reality. If that's the case, then how about we just come clean and say as much on the main page. I don't mind the teaching-aid explanation being used so long as it is clearly described as such at the outset and the endogenous money views do not have to be couched in derogatory language. Reissgo (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: "derogatory language"
 * If you have a problem with the article explicitly noting minority views as being such, then you can take that up on the WP:NPOV talk page. Otherwise, it is a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia that, "it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view."  BigK HeX (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Our policy at Wiki is quite clear. Editors should not present controversial items in the main text as facts or the Truth, but should instead present a neutral point of view.  At the moment the article is written as if the writer is talking about facts rather than a commonly held opinion. The current article lacks balance for it to meet NPOV   Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd
 * It was always my intention to go to the NPOV noticeboard eventually - but it is supposedly bad form to start up on a new forum when a debate is active on an existing one. Maybe you should clarify whether you are accepting mediation here or not. If you are not then we should get this cabal closed and I can go to NPOV.


 * With regard "derogatory language" - well unless I am misunderstanding him - LK seems to be softening his attitude towards the endogenous money brigade. He said "AFAIK, most mainstreamers still believe that the traditional 'text-book' view is the appropriate way to teach and describe it" which (in a round about way) appears to be in-tune with what I've been saying for a very long time. i.e. the experts know that the 'textbook' description is a teaching aid that does not correspond to how banking works in the real world. I note that you have made no comment on the first part of my sentence you criticized, i.e. "I don't mind the teaching-aid explanation being used so long as it is clearly described as such at the outset" - I think it would be constructive for you to make your position clear on that. Reissgo (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I responded to your similar claim, when you made it many months ago [ last November ]. It gets pretty tedious to address the same issues with you over and over.  When you find reliable sources that describe the money multiplier method as being commonly thought of by economists as nothing more than a "teaching aid", THEN you can insert text to describe it as such. BigK HeX (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The current article clearly violates NPOV which is a fundamental non-negotiable policy of wiki
 * Explanation of the neutral point of view
 * Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice.
 * Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd


 * A note about my wording 'teach and describe', I did not mean to imply that the multiplier is widely viewed as merely a teaching tool. There's little contention that once a central bank targets interst rates, it supplies reserves as neccesary to accomodate changes in the demand for money. However, AFAIK, most economists do not think this negates the multiplier process, most are still happy with the textbook description of the system, with the caveat that central banks are constantly adjusting the amount of money to keep interest rates stable.
 * Also, I did not make up the terminology of 'strong' and 'weak' endogenous money views. It's from the academic literature on endogenous money. See this and this for example. However, I may not be using these terms correctly, or accurately describing their viewpoints. Monetary economics is not my field, and the endogenous money literature is relatively obscure even among monetary economists.
 * LK (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously Goodhart does not support the relending model and yet you are saying you agree with him.
 * As far as i can see you are confusing,
 * 1. the accurate ability of an economist to know how much broad money can be created by the banking system in theory relative to the amount of existing base money, with
 * 2. The use of the relending model to describe how a fractional reserve bank operates where this model requires that banks create loans from existing deposits - rather than new deposits being created within the banking system once loans are demanded.
 * Where 3. it does not matter how the commercial bank money deposits are created to know the theoretical upper limit of broad money that can be created
 * Please be kind, and clarify what you are saying.
 * Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Let me try to explain my views. But if we're going to get into so much detail, we should probably start the mediation process more formally. The trouble is that there are several issues here, and many of us likely agree on some but disagree on other issues. Let me list those that I see, followed with my understanding of the issue:

1. The money multiplier 'limits money creation'.
 * My view: The money multiplier is just the ratio of broad money to base money, hence it just is, and doesn't limit anything. The reserve ratio (or other financial ratio) limits money creation from a given amount of base money, in that the money multiplier must be less than 1/rr.

2. The central bank controls the quantity of money
 * My view: The central bank can control the amount of money by mandating the reserve ratio, and by controlling the base money issued. However, there are two caveats. First, if the central bank targets interest rates it effectively gives up control over the quantity of money for control of the price of money. Second, when interest rates are very low (liquidity trap) or during a systemic crisis, banks might not lend (or borrowers might not borrow) and excess reserves will accumulate in banks, central banks lose control over the money multiplier, and hence lose control over broad money.

3. Lending and relending through the 'money multiplier process' expands the money supply.
 * My view: This is a good description for the commercial banking system as a whole. Empirical studies have shown that the amount of broad money expands slowly in response to a positive influx of base money. This is likely because any additional base money expands deposits through a lending and re-lending process much like what is described by the textbooks. Individual banks may not perceive that their lending is limited by the amounf of excess reserves they hold, because they can borrow from each other, but for the system as a whole, new lending is limited by the amount of additional reserves introduced into the system by the central bank.

4. Endogenous money, what is it?
 * My view: If it is just the observation that central banks no longer control the amount of money once they have decided on an interest rate target (what I called the weak view), almost everyone would agree with that. If it is that central banks cannot control the amount of money in the system even giving up the interest target, that would be a minority view (except for the situations of liquidity trap and systemic crisis I noted above.)

There are likely other issues, but I really must get back to work. If we take this to mediation, I'll try to make time to participate. --LK (talk) 05:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue lies in your 3. Lending and relending.
 * Wiki FRB already talks about lines of credit therefore,
 * if bank AAA has a 1000 line of credit with BBB then
 * AAA can create a 100 customerXXX loan to purchase an item from a customerYYY of BBB without reference to an existing deposit by drawing down 100 on its line of credit with BBB, ie increase its borrowings from BBB.
 * In practice BBB will also likely have a line of credit with AAA. Once one of them reaches their max limit then alternative sources of funding have to be found via, the money market or by attracting retail funds/discouraging loan creation thru interest rate rises.
 * Therefore simple and standard banking practices, used for hundreds of years, make the relending model an inadequate way of describing how banking really operates.Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd


 * I won't be participating in any mediation with Andrewedwardjudd, see my talk page for why. --LK (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What has my age and work place experiences got to do with the reality that i am attempting to reason with people who show no inclination whatsoever to engage in reason? Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwarjudd


 * I'm pretty sure it's your hostility and persistent assumptions of bad faith that are the most fundamental impediment to discussion. You seem to expect that people will both continue to humor your assaults and engage with you in finding a consensus on the article --- the reality is that you will continue to find those two expectations to be mutually exclusive. BigK HeX (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I just received an interesting reply from Charles Goodhard.
 * Why is it that people like you take it upon yourself to cast all who disagree with you into 'outer darkness' if they quote institutional details in their analysis (Goodhard 2010). Why do you think you have the right to abuse people who disagree with your opinions by calling them fringe and contantly mocking them?    How has it come about that mainstream economists refuse to deal with realities?
 * And you dont even have the balls to discuss the issues with me.Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

How long are we required to pretend there is any hope of compromise before we move to the next stage?

 * There is obviously no hope of change from this mediation.
 * The current wiki FRB relending model presentation is being supported as unchallengable fact or Truth by the deleters in clear violation of wiki policy that this should not be happening
 * all that is happening here is time wasting with zero chance of agreement.
 * Evidently it is necessary to waste time elsewhere to get some chance NPOV can apply to wiki FRBAndrewedwardjudd (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd


 * It might be wise to look at whatever role YOU may be playing in impeding the mediation process. That would include the way you've framed the issue here on the mediation page.  I have no desire to proceed with the issue described as you have done. BigK HeX (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Lets recap.  The wiki is written in a factual manner in the voice of wiki, while meanwhile the foremost central banking economist in the world says this type of simple text book presentation is 'absolute baloney' (goodhart, 1984 page 200).  And so far all attempts to get a change have been blocked by YOU and others.
 * There were many others who came before me. They were all driven away by YOU and others.Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd