Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-27 Gold as a measure of inflation

Mediation Case: 2006-05-27 Gold as a measure of inflation
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Carbonate 20:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * A dispute has arisen over a subsection in the inflation article regarding the use of gold as a measure of inflation. Both parties seem to have definite and diametrically opposed views on the issue.


 * Who's involved?
 * Carbonate
 * RandomP


 * What's going on?
 * A revert war seems to be forming with accusation of POV.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * Help to keep the original factual content in place as proper NPOV manterial.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * my talk page is fine?


 * Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?


 * This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do
 * what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.


 * okay.

Mediator response
I will be happy to act as mediator in this case. As I see it, productive discussion has been taking place on Talk:Inflation, and Carbonite has shown willingness to address Random's concerns. Random still, however, believes there is more work to be done.

At time of writing Random has not formally agreed to participate in this mediation case, in fact Carbonite has, as far as I know, not yet made him aware of the request. However, Random has expressed interest in mediation (see diff above), so I have contacted him myself.

Currently, RandomP has raised some concerns which have not yet been replied to. If RandomP accepts mediation then this would seem like the natural starting point. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Evidence
Please report evidence in this section with for misconduct and  for 3RR violations. If you need help ask a mediator or an advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil. Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.

Long discussion in gold and NPOV sections of the articles discussion page.

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Once the actual POV parts were pointed out I revised them as best I could without changing the basic premise of gold as measure of inflation.

Mediator's first draft
Moved to the talk page, please see #First draft for discussion.

Second draft
''Please see #Discussion of second draft for discussion on this version.

Gold and silver, in one form or another, were used as money from at least 600 BC to at least the end of the Bretton Woods system in 1971. After 1971 transactions even between countries became independent of gold; nonetheless, gold and silver coins are still minted all over the world, and some websites allow users to use gold to pay for goods and services.

If gold is considered a form of currency, its money supply has risen by about 2% a year since 1850, as new supplies are mined and refined. Unlike with fiat currency, there is no way, even in theory, to introduce unlimited gold into the economy. On the other hand, there is nothing restricting the amount of gold mined either &mdash; while this hasn't happened to gold, many other materials once considered valuable enough to use as currency have been commoditised.

Initial phase
I agree to mediation. The issue is specifically the subsection "Gold" in the Inflation article. There has, indeed, been a brief revert war, which started when I replaced the subsection while attempting to preserve all encyclopedic information.

I believe it was unwarranted to revert that replacement, and that any NPOV issues Carbonate sees can be fixed in the new version more easily than starting from the pre-replacement version. While Carbonate has improved the original section, most problems still remain, and I consider the current section inferior to the post-replacement version, not least because it is much longer.

RandomP 14:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said above, I think the points RandomP last raised on the discussion page are the natural starting point, so I've quoted them below:
 * quote begins: this doesn't mean that this is my own opinion
 * Starting with the saying is inappropriate and violates the NPOV by hiding behind a quote.
 * Gold and silver are no longer used as money, and we just do not know whether they have been "since the invention of money", nor will we ever have a way of knowing for sure.
 * "have held their value for millennia .. metal": I'm unhappy with this. Millennia are very long, and it's very hard to compare values before and after (to the extent that that's possible) the industrial revolution .. I'm also not sure whether silver has held more than its industrial value at times.
 * "this immutable rate": it's definitely not immutable. Mining can be influenced, or, at least, gold can be effectively destroyed by dissolving it in the ocean. This also suggests that it'll always be 2% p.a., and that's an outright prediction.
 * quote ends
 * Looking at them, the obvious question is: can Carbonate or anyone else give sources for the disputed claims? Concern #1 is the most obvious example, which refers to the opening: "There is a saying "Gold is money, period." " If it's a saying so widespread that it's worth opening a section with, we ought to be able to cite at least one reliable source who has quoted it as such. The 2% p.a. figure is also a very specific claim - where did it come from?
 * I understand that currently all the article's sources are at the bottom and there are no in-line citations for anything, so it may be that the source is already in the article somewhere - but if the information is being questioned, we need to know exactly where it comes from. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to be perfectly clear: I don't doubt that "gold is money" is a widespread saying (it is).  It's just that it's inappropriate to open the section with.  (Sorry if this sounds too much like deconstruction, but the very fact that there is such a saying seems to imply that it's not generally accepted as truth ... at least as far as I know, "dollar bills are money" is not a saying for exactly that reason.
 * Google comes up with this, which includes the quote.
 * I've been unable to find a reliable source for the 2% p.a. claim. Some data is available at, which requires registration.
 * RandomP 17:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems I am to take the defense of this section (which I originated btw). Let me suggest that if it is inappropriate to start the section with the quote, bury it in the middle. As to the length, it is MUCH shorter then the following section on prices (in fact, all three of the sections I contributed together are shorter than the prices section).

I will try to address RandomP's points here briefly:


 * 1) A couple of places it is mentioned are  from Jim Puplava's website who mentioned in the reference section I believe and  a long list of quotes.  I also believe it is attributed to Warren Buffet but I can't find a reference to that through all the clutter. As I mentioned, if opening the section with a quote is inappropriate, bury it.


 * 1) Wikipedia disputes this point in gold coin and silver coin.  If they aren't money, why are they being minted as legal tender even today?  The very first sentence of the gold coin section mentions coins from 700 BC.  Can you tell me when money was invented?


 * 1) Again using gold coin.  2000AD to 700BC is getting mighty close to 3 millennia of documented usage.... As is currently mentioned in original content, even the Pound (currency) and Denarius only span centuries.  Where does the new content mention that relationship?

Silver has only had industrial value since its electrical properties were understood. Did you know that every RFID tag uses a small amount of silver. I am of course excluding jewelry, silver ware and medicinal uses from industrial.


 * 1) The 2% figure I used comes from "Empire of Debt" by William Bonner.  I am sure that productions fluctuated over the centuries but I believe that over all 2% is accurate.  It just sounds about right.  RandomP suggested in the discussion that some new technology would enable mankind to find all the gold it wanted but Hubbert peak theory clearly shows that for non renewable natural resources, the rate of discovery is correlated only to the number of reserves left to be discovered.  As with oil, the production of gold will peak and then fall in to an irreversible decline.  If this is the case, the rate of inflation (which I remind is what we are talking about in this article) will only fall.

Does this address the points raised by user:RandomP?

As I have stated before, the changes made cloud the issue of gold as a measure of inflation. I am more than happy to address POV but I don't think it is appropriate to say "Ultimately, there is no perfect answer to the question of how much inflation has occurred over a particular period of time. This is especially true for long periods of time." when gold very clearly does to some degree at least.

Carbonate 07:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I just reread the revision and I have questions regarding it.

What justification do you have that the end of the Bretton Woods agreement ended gold's tenure as money? Just because the U.S. reniged on its agreement does not mean all of mankind was convinced.

If gold isn't money, why is gold jewelry a status symbol?

How does "....while others consider gold and silver commodities with no special qualities" enhance the idea that gold is a measure of inflation?

if this is true "On the other hand, there is nothing restricting the amount of gold mined either..." why has it not been done?

According to Cent (United States coin) the opposite of "...many other materials once considered valuable enough to use as currency have been commoditised." is true.

Carbonate 08:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

My revision said
 * Gold and silver, in one form or another, were used as money from at least 600 BC to the end of the Bretton Woods system in 1971

In particular, this does not say they are no longer used as money today; whether this is true is a contentious issue (google "gold is money" and "gold is not money" and you'll find many opinions on this, some notable).

Furthermore, this does not say that gold wasn't used as money before 600 BC. That's the earliest I could find references for.

The 2% p.a. figure fails to hold up even for the second half of the 19th century, by the WGC's numbers.

Hubbert's peak theory is just that - a theory, which holds true in a mathematical model.

Carbonate, where do you get the "Ultimately, there is no perfect answer to the question of how much inflation has occurred over a particular period of time. This is especially true for long periods of time." quote? I don't disagree with it, but you seem to suggest it pertains to the issue to be discussed here, and I don't see that.

Okay, I'm having a serious issue here, and maybe mediation can help. I just don't know how to reply when Carbonate says something like


 * According to Cent (United States coin) the opposite of "...many other materials once considered valuable enough to use as currency have been commoditised." is true.

There seems to be a fundamental logical issue here. Of the four statements
 * (A) many other materials once considered valuable enough to use as currency have been commoditised.
 * (B) many other materials once commodities are not considered valuable enough to use as currency.
 * (C) no other materials once considered valuable enough to use as currency have been commoditised.
 * (D) no other materials once commodities are not considered valuable enough to use as currency.

I would consider (C) the opposite of (A). Carbonate seems to be saying "(B) is true, so (A) clearly cannot be". I'm not sure whether (B) is true, but it doesn't contradict (A) at all!

So, how can I deal with this? It appears to me that Carbonate might be forgetting that there's a difference between not saying something and saying the negation is true.

Help?

RandomP 11:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The article on the penny shows that some commodities have become too valuable to be used as money. The copper required to make a penny is worth more than a penny forcing the mint to switch to zinc. This is outlined in the article and is also the reason why silver is not used in the dime, quarter or dollar. Where is that in the list of logical statements?

After checking again, I noticed that the "Ultimately, there is no perfect answer..." quote came from a different section of the article. I apologize for attributing it to you.

I won't respond to criticism of Hubbert's theory until you can come up with something better than "it just a theory". Did you even read the page?

Can you please link to the data you see on www.gold.org? The only freely available figures I found were for a 2 year period which is less than a tenth of a percent of the relevant time span.

You are correct that the revision does not explicitly say that it wasn't used, but by placing brackets about when it was used you imply that outside of that period its use is discontinued. I am certain that that was the intention, the implication that the end of Bretton ended gold as money.

While I have admitted my slants and tried to fix them, I have not heard any concession that the revision is also slanted nor any suggestions about how to fix the revision. How is that more NPOV? The opinion behind revision is declared in user:RandomP. On talk:inflation I stated that I did in fact not consider myself to be a gold bug but a dollar skeptic. I would hope that this would be illustrated by the other two sections I added to the measure of inflation.

Carbonate 18:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not sure how this mediation business is supposed to work, so I'll just wait right here until I hear back from the mediator. If we're supposed to just go on discussing this, please let me know.

But I just don't know how to discuss things with Carbonate. I can describe an example, but it's hard to do for me without making it sound like an accusation, and that isn't what this is about.

RandomP 19:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If I seem unhelpful or slow to reply during this mediation, it's because I'm trying to avoid appearing to 'pick a side', especially in the middle of a discussion. Currently I'm having some trouble linking your discussion above with the paragraph itself. There seem to be three main points:


 * 1) The "gold is money, period" quote. It seems fairly trivial to negotiate a compromise that will see the quote put in a more suitable place within the paragraph, so I'd like to put that aside for the moment in favor of focusing on the two issues below.
 * 2) The figure of 2% p.a. for historical inflation in the gold money supply. This is sourced to Empire of Debt by Bill Bonner, and disputed by RandomP on the basis of figures from the World Gold Council. From this PDF that RandomP linked to, I ran the World row from the "Gold Reserves 1950-1998, Selected Countries" table through a spreadsheet, and although the growth in that figure is just under 1-2% at first, from 1960 onwards it's closer to zero or negative. I'm not familiar with gold terminology, or whether the figure I used is a fair one to compare Bonner's figure with. However, I would like to see a more solid basis for the 2% figure than what we seem to have at the moment, which is:
 * 3) *that it's somewhere in Bonner's book - Carbonate, would you be able to provide the exact quote or section? As I understand it, Empire of Debt was mainly about America's trade deficit; given this, I would like to see the context in which the 2% figure is presented.
 * 4) *Hubbert's peak theory supports it - isn't that about oil? Is it accepted practice to apply the theory to everything you dig out of the ground? (This question is absolutely not rhetorical.) Carbonate rejects RandomP's assertion that 'it's just a theory' outright, but looking at the Critique section of Hubbert peak theory he's not the only person to think this.
 * 5) The third point is whether gold and silver, "in one form or another", is still used as currency. Carbonate's edits have implied it is, RandomP's have implied that that ended with the Breton Woods system. I'm trying to work out what exactly Carbonate's reasoning is based on, because reading his reasoning above, it seems to centre on how gold and silver are used to make currency and precious jewelry. I don't get this - paper is used to make currency, and sapphires are used to make precious jewelry, but none are currency by themselves'. I'd like to see more explanation of this, bearing in mind that although I'm a student of economics, I'm know relatively little about the subject of gold - just like most of the people who will read the article.

Above I've tried to crystallize what the dispute with the current paragraph is, please correct me if I've missed something. I would be grateful, Carbonate, if you could address the questions above about Bonner's 2% figure and the reasoning behind the implication that gold is still used as a currency today, and was not phased out with Breton Woods. If it seems like I'm picking on you, it's mainly because your version of the section is the one that's currently in the article :-) --Sam Blanning(talk) 20:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think you got nearly everything right. Thanks! The only (minor) caveats:
 * monetary gold reserves aren't necessarily the same as the "gold money supply", whatever you want that to be; I looked at the historic monetary gold data for 1845-1945, and found that the rate of increase started out at closer to 3% p.a. before dropping to approximately 2% p.a. at the start of the century. Note that there is no way for the inflation figure to have been anywhere near 2% p.a. when considered over the last 2,000 years - that would leave us with less than a microgram of gold in AD 1.
 * I'm unhappy saying that my edit "implied" the end of gold as money in 1971. As I've said in other places, I'm not at all sure it didn't have limited use as money until the collapse of the soviet union, if only as a black market currency that wasn't as politically dangerous as western currency.  First off, it certainly isn't a logical implication.  More importantly, I included both "at least" and "Even today, some still consider gold as a form of money", which I feel is accurate.  Note that "some" in that sentence is balanced by "others", which does not imply that "some" are in the minority.

As a constructive proposal, I would be okay with the section saying "at least from 600 BC to the end" or "at least from 600 BC to at least the end" instead of "from at least".

RandomP 20:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC) http://www.dailyreckoning.com/Featured/Karlsson1206.html

Thanks, I wasn't expecting to get everything right, but I'm glad I've got a grip on which bits might need editing in order to come to a conclusion. I'd like to hear Carbonate's response to my questions, and then I think I'll be able to have a go at drafting an initial compromise version of the section we can work from. --Sam Blanning(talk) 21:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope this horizontal line works, I'm not totally familiar with wiki script. I will respond first to Samuel.


 * 1) Agreed
 * 2) I am unable to find it in the book using the index and it would take me a week to reread it all. May I offer a link to Bill Bonner's website that states "As Mark Skousen showed in his book The Economics of a Pure Gold Standard, the global supply of gold has historically tended to grow 1-2% per year."  Between the two of you I am getting the impression that on a historical basis this figure is high.  If that is the case, doesn't that exemplify gold as a measure of inflation?
 * 3) If coin minted (and there by backed) by gold is not explicit enough for gold being used as money, www.goldmoney.com must surely suffice. It is a paypal like intitution where "gold grams" can be bought and used as payments for goods and services.  Although the trading of gold has been electrified, all transactions are denominated in grams of gold (or more recently silver).

If the above link is insufficient to confirm the 2% (and now after RandomP's milligram argument I'm thinking it should be changed to an even lower 1%), I will require some time to provide a page number and contextual quote.

The thing about coins minted in gold is that they are actually backed by a precious metal. A dollar bill is backed only by a government's word these days. During the Bretton Wood's era, central banks (not people) were entitled to exchange dollars for gold at set rate and thus dollars were on the gold standard. A 5$ |silver eagel is worth at least 5$ as legal tender or 1 troy ounce of fine silver (approx. 12$). This is how all money used to be, backed by the metal it was made of and that is why any ancient roman coins you see will have been "clipped". The treasury (and citizens as well) would cut a bit off to melt down. This is called Debasement.

I respect the level to which you are holding my claims and I hope that if I am able to back them up to your satisfaction, you will respect the importance I place on this issue. If the United States dollar undergoes Hyper-inflation (notice the picture on that last link) we will all be in for a world of hurt.

In response to RandomP,


 * 1) That is correct. Reserves are what is stored, supply is "all that there is". See the money supply section in this article.  Am I right that you are saying the 2% is too high?
 * 2) You are talking about "at least" and "some" and "others". I just read the sentence and it said to me that gold ceased to be money.  I have made many concessions but this will not be one of them.  The intent of the sentence is unacceptable as it disputes the very premise of the section of gold as an indicator of inflation (which I might add, your previous point shows gold is an excellent measure with a very low and relatively constant rate of inflation itself).

Carbonate 00:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to ramble on about the Hubbert peak thing...

The good news is that by 2010 we will be able to look back at production levels and say whether they peaked or not. The bad news is that if they peak, where is China and India going to get the energy to grow at 10% a year? The theory should be applicable to any none renewable resource (a term which critics of Hubbert contest under Abiogenic petroleum origin) but I must admit I do not posses the math skills to understand Hubbert's equations. I do have enough chemistry to know that abiogenic oil has rate limiting issues (have you ever seen the iodine in starch trick?) which preclude it from producing some 85 million barrels of oil we gobble down each and every day.

Matthew Simmons explained in his book Twillight in the Desert that oil fields come in royal families. Usually the Queen or a Prince is found first. Then geologists zero in on the King. After that the Lords are quickly picked off and you are left to look for the commoners and surfs. This is also how mineral deposits are found and I would speculate that sooner rather than later, Hubbert's equations will be applied to copper which we are running low of.

Fortunately, metals are elements and can be neither created nor destroyed outside of nuclear reactions. So at least here there is the possibility of recycling unlike oil. But unlike energy, there are no alternative to metals. It is simply impossible to make steel without iron. Also unlike oil, the earth really does have a soft yummy center made of all the metals we will ever need.

Carbonate 04:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The sentence did not say that gold ceased being money. It's as simple as that.

Yes, it did hint at the end of Bretton Woods as a point where it became debatable whether gold in any form was used as money. That's appropriate, since at that point, even transactions between countries, which had hitherto relied on the convertibility of the US dollar into gold, became independent of gold. I also pointed out that the issue is controversial today.

Note that everything in this section pertains to gold as a "currency" whose inflation might be interesting; no attempt is made to justify how this would help in measuring inflation - clearly the year-on-year increase of the gold price is a bad measure of inflation, but a long-term average might be. However, if we're going to include anything about that, we must also say that something drastic did change for gold in the 1970s ... that's why I insist on the Bretton Woods reference.

Otherwise, I suggest we stay on topic.

RandomP 12:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop the presses!!


 * Bank run
 * Digital gold currency
 * Gold exchange-traded fund
 * Gold as an investment
 * Silver as an investment
 * Precious metal
 * Fractional-reserve banking

Holy wikipedia batman! Who would have thought so much golden information could have come from that first distantly related link?!?! I assume that any revision to this article will take the information from these others in to account?

I would like to request a few days recess to digest these new articles and follow some of the extensive linkages before we continue.

Carbonate 11:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see how this has relevance to the three (or four) very specific questions that we are in mediation about, though. I suggest we do that, first.

While I don't mind taking a break, I believe the best way to go forward is to write an acceptable short summary of gold as money in one article (and it might as well be inflation, because at least someone's willing to discuss things there), and then reproduce it as an acceptable summary while linking to a detailed article, either in the weirdly-named gold as an investment, gold standard, or a newly created gold as money.

(There's also User:RandomP/Gold Bug watchlist, if you want to watch my work on related articles.)

RandomP 14:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

(spurious accusation of vandalism from an uninvolved, anonymous party removed by mediator. take it to talk, it isn't relevant here.)

I don't know what is more ironic, RandomP questioning Hubbert peak theory while proposing the exact same thing as "Wikipedia's zenith of usefulness" in his talk page or his highly contested changes to discredit the simple and millennia old notion that gold is a store of value to win a mediation on the inflation page.

I would like clarification as to where we stand on the 3 points raised by Sam Blanning. Have I answered those issues satisfactorily or are they still contested? If any are, which and why?

I think that this is also a good time to bring in some easier to digest expert testimony. One of the citations on the inflation article is for a book written by Jim Puplava but he also produces a free radio show. Inflation has been discussed in depth recently, especially in this episode. The whole show is available as a free download in many formats including mp3 and podcasts.

Carbonate 08:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

First draft
Ok, I've tried to rewrite the section based on what I've read here - see the "compromise offers" subsection above. I'm still having a problem connecting some of what's been said here to the article. I would certainly appreciate it if the parties could keep seemingly irrelevant matters, such as User:RandomP's userpage opinions, out of this mediation.

What I did to the section was, going through the points RandomP raised before this mediation started:
 * 1) The "gold is money" quote - I removed it for the moment. There may be a place for it, but it should be put in the context of whoever claims it, not stated as fact.
 * 2) Whether gold or silver is still used as money - I tried to note all the points raised here, about the end of the Breton Woods system, the continuing presence of gold and silver coins and the existence of gold trading websites.
 * 3) Gold and silver holding their value for millennia - I removed this for the moment. I agree with RandomP that millennia are very long and it's difficult to compare figures over such a long period of time, and as yet, I haven't seen a source where someone did this.
 * 4) The rate of growth in supply - I put this as "about 2%" over the past 150 years, removing the word "immutable".

I don't pretend that my version is a satisfactory compromise, but I'd like the parties to "edit it mercilessly" as well as continuing the discussion here, so we can keep everything on topic. Neither party has edited the article in a while - that's mostly a good thing, because public edit wars are disruptive, but it does mean that as discussion goes on, it tends to get more and more disconnected from the writing of the article. So please be active in fixing the unsatisfactory bits with my version. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Er, my initial comment must come in two parts: As to the four points mentioned above, I agree with the opinions set out in your comment.

However, the section itself is absolutely unacceptable; could you make clear which version you base this on?

Note that concerns that were addressed in the section as currently in the article mysteriously pop up again in your proposal; since my list of four concerns applied to the version in the article, not the version you appear to have based the proposal.


 * "as money since the invention of money": we absolutely do not know this
 * how being used as money and being a benchmark of inflation is the same is a mystery to me.
 * "over the past 150 years .. encouraging governments throughout history": clearly a development limited to the last centuries cannot have had an effect "throughout history"
 * "throughout history": nonsense. fiat money, possibly ignoring brief experiments in china, is a modern development.
 * "limited by ...": this totally focusses on mining gold. The world's oceans contain gold in huge quantities - all the gold ever mined is equivalent to the amount of gold in the ocean under an area half the size of Maine.  The deposit doesn't need to be found, it's unlikely that any extraction method would rely heavily on labour ...
 * "it became debatable whether gold could be considered as much of a benchmark as previously": clearly, under a gold standard, the gold price does not give you a very good benchmark of inflation, as it's constant ... I just do not understand the assertion here.
 * the gold standard wasn't "solidified" by bretton woods, it was reintroduced, having largely been suspended during wwii.

okay, I'm just going to stop here, but the proposal you posted is, again, unacceptable.

I would like to point out that "After 1971 transactions between countries became independent of gold [...] nonetheless, gold and silver coins are still minted all over the world, and some websites allow traders to use gold to pay for goods and services." (excluding the removed section) is something I am totally happy with, and would like to see in the article.

RandomP 15:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't pretending it was acceptable as something to go into the article. What I was trying to do was post something to work on. A few of your points, like the bit about "throughout history" not making sense, I could easily correct. However, your second point, "how being used as money and being a benchmark of inflation is the same is a mystery to me", I don't have an answer to, even though it seems somewhat fundamental. Isn't that why we have this section in the article?

I've removed my attempt at writing the section, since it was apparently so far from workable. RandomP, perhaps I could ask you to write the section as you think it should be now? I appreciate that your position at the start of this mediation was that despite revisions, "the current section is still worse than the one I replaced it with", but I hope that this mediation has raised points - like those about the modern usage of gold - that would mean that you would favor something more than just a revert to your last edit. I still think that at this stage we need a draft of the article that tries to address the points raised here - I'm sorry that my attempt failed in that regard. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As to your second paragraph, I couldn't agree more - I've learned various new things through this discussion, and those newly sourced statements would change my proposed section. I'll write it.

As to the first one, I must admit I kind of went ahead and edited a section without questioning whether it's appropriate in the first place. The section appears to be more about applying the concept of inflation to a gold currency than about gold as a "benchmark" of inflation. I guess the point is something along the lines of "gold has an inflation rate of 2%, so you can measure long-term inflation by looking at the growth rate of the gold price. The extent to which this is practicable is of course another issue, as looking at the monetary exchange equation reveals:  only if two of the three other variables stay constant, or cancel the effects of each other's change is this consistent with the economic theory behind the MEE, which isn't universally accepted ...

However, as Carbonate now appears to think this mediation case has relevance to a number of other articles (Carbonate: is this correct?), I suggest we continue anyway. The alternative would be to remove the section entirely, as far as I can see.

RandomP 17:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of second draft
My suggestion (feel free to re-section this as appropriate):

(this text copied to #Second draft by mediator)

Gold and silver, in one form or another, were used as money from at least 600 BC to at least the end of the Bretton Woods system in 1971. After 1971 transactions even between countries became independent of gold; nonetheless, gold and silver coins are still minted all over the world, and some websites allow users to use gold to pay for goods and services.

If gold is considered a form of currency, its money supply has risen by about 2% a year since 1850, as new supplies are mined and refined. Unlike with fiat currency, there is no way, even in theory, to introduce unlimited gold into the economy. On the other hand, there is nothing restricting the amount of gold mined either &mdash; while this hasn't happened to gold, many other materials once considered valuable enough to use as currency have been commoditised.

Admittedly very close to my original paragraph, and I'm unhappy with the last sentence in particular - that other materials have been commoditised is an aside, but going into a long argument about whether gold could be commoditised seems out of place.

RandomP 18:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

First off, I would like to bring up a matter of procedure. I spent 10 mins looking for this elusive first draft which had already drawn several comments before I noticed a small statement saying that it had been removed. I had to then go back through the history to even read it. This is unacceptable. That one party's comments could cause the censorship of this material in discussion log before the other has even had a chance to read it is unfair. I would like to request that the first draft be recommitted to the record before proceeding.

Carbonate 20:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Carbonate - I've copied the section to the talk page of this mediation case. I removed it from the main page because I felt that given RandomP's objections, it wasn't useful as a starting point for a rewrite of the section. Removing it wasn't "censorship". What we are trying to do here is write a couple of paragraphs of an article, and anything that isn't useful to that end isn't useful at all.

I copied RandomP's version to #Second draft above, and I would prefer that we work on that, since we know it is acceptable to one party, and we should be able to make it acceptable to all of us. Remember, the draft is there to be edited mercilessly.

Also, please reply to the question I put to you on your talk page - if we're talking about matters of procedure, I would like to know whether I did inadvertently remove a comment of yours, believing it came from an uninvolved party, when in fact it was you having logged out.

Sam Blanning(talk) 23:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was my posting. RandomP has been cutting out anything he disagrees with in every article that mentions gold. There have been 3RR's popping up in discussion pages and vast amounts of legitimate content is being culled by his crusade. By removing the first draft from this log, you are diminishing the extent to which RandomP refuses to compromise. I believe I have made many good faith efforts to resolve this issue but I don't see any compromises coming back. What is more, RandomP is side stepping this mediation process by adding the very paragraph that is in dispute in to other articles Gold_as_an_investment&diff=56384126&oldid=56344623 at the expense of accurate and valid content.

RandomP wants censorship. His only proposed alternative to getting his way is to have the section removed. He has been cutting entire paragraphs from articles that relate directly to this issue Gold_as_an_investment&diff=56774535&oldid=56772980 of gold as a measure of inflation. It was stated near the beginning that I was not being picked on but that the burden was being placed on me because it was my version in place. Well that doesn't seem entirely accurate any more as RandomP's version has been added to other articles. The current version of this article contains many many compromises and has already been edited by others. Most of RandomP's edits are disputed by the local communities that work on them and few are free of the POV he accuses other of.

I feel that RandomP is being given a free hand to challenge content without having to justify his own. I also feel that my arguments in defense of content are not being acknowledged. Where is the balance in that?

Carbonate 00:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have anything to say about the section in question?

I discuss changes I make to articles on their talk pages, with other editors taking enough of an interest in a given article to monitor the talk page.

As far as I am concerned, this mediation process is about one specific article, inflation. So far, no other disputes have led to mediation attempts.

If you want to discuss the way I edit or my intentions in editing Wikipedia, there are several available avenues:
 * my talk page, where you can freely accuse me of wanting censorship, of secretly wishing all gold would disappear, and other hideous thought crimes I might be committing.
 * the administrators' noticeboard, the right place to go if you want the "vandalism" you accuse me of to stop.
 * WP:AN/3RR, more specifically, if you think I violated the three-revert rule.
 * WP:RFC, "which seeks community input regarding specific topical, policy, and personality disputes".
 * pages I edited, in case you want to watch what I'm doing.

This page, however, has a specific purpose. I think we're getting closer to agreeing on a section to put into the Inflation article, which will hopefully make it better, conform more closely to the NPOV, and give us something to base work on other articles on.

The current state is that we have a compromise proposal, which I wrote by incorporating Sam's proposed changes. I believe it's pretty much good to go, though merciless editing, as always, is appreciated.

What's your view?

RandomP 00:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fundamental flaws with the 2nd draft


 * 1) By bounding the time period in any way in the first sentence, the implication that gold is no longer considered a store of value can not be avoided. It doesn't matter what weasel words you use to get around this and the fact is, gold is a store of value.
 * 2) If the bretton woods must be mentioned, do so in the 2nd sentence.
 * 3) The 2nd paragraph diminished gold again by starting of with "if" and there is no need for it except to include POV.
 * 4) The 2nd and 3rd sentences in the 2nd paragraph attempt to state a fact and then weasel out of it. Gold can be neither created nor destroyed except by a nuclear reaction so how is it that nothing restricts the amount that can be mined?
 * 5) The focus of the last sentence should be on measuring inflation, not disparaging the use of metals to store value. Fiat currency's loose value so fast that any coin made of metal soon becomes more valuable as a metal.  This has happened to every single fiat currency in the whole history of mankind including (as has yet to be acknowledged) the U.S. Penny.
 * 6) The original article shows gold resilience to inflation as compared to 2 fiat currencies. Where is this content?
 * 7) The saying has been eliminated.
 * 8) The link to the U.S. Treasury's gold valuations is missing.
 * 9) No mention is made of the U.S. inflation up to 1971 and subsequent run on gold that lead to the ending of the bretton wood agreement.

Can I at least have acknowledgment of these flaws? I have in the past admitted my POV's and I feel that it is time for RandomP to start affirmatively taking responsibility for his.

Carbonate 00:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. You seem to propose to change the section to say "store of value" instead of "money". I agree this might make it both more pertinent to the article and help end this debate.

While I believe even the presentation of gold in the store of value needs very slight NPOV improvements, gold is a store of value - people buy it predicting that it will retain its high value; whether they will be right is another question.

With the section so changed, of course, it becomes very short - essentially "Gold has been a store of value since time immemorial. Over the last 150 years, gold has been mined at a rate of about 2% p.a. of the existing refined gold.  By correcting for this increase in the amount of gold available, and assuming that this rate of increase as well as the real value of all refined gold remains constant, the gold price can be used to measure inflation, at least in the long term.". I'm sure you can do better: would you like to propose a draft version of the section?

As for the "nothing restricts the amount that can be mined", you do raise a good point - I would like the section to say that while there is a lot of gold that could potentially be refined, hundreds or thousands of times more than has been so far, it is new technology that is required for that to happen, not a monetary board meeting of a central bank. If you can find a good way of expressing that (or disagree with it, of course), please do so.

RandomP 02:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I will wait for comments from the mediator concerning my complaints about this process.

Carbonate 00:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see the sources you mentioned on your talk page, Carbonate. They sound interesting, and if they stand up they will make it a lot easier to add the content you feel is currently missing.

I'm unsure what you mean about the complaints about this process. First off, it is not helpful to mediation to accuse the other party of "vandalism", "censorship", a "crusade" and so on. Please assume good faith. RandomP is entitled to continue to edit articles other than this one in whatever way he sees fit, and his suggestion to keep this mediation focused on Inflation seems reasonable to me. Secondly, I'm not sure why you feel that your "arguments in defense of content are not being acknowledged". RandomP has said not too long ago that "I've learned various new things through this discussion, and those newly sourced statements would change my proposed section" and generally seems to me to be taking your arguments very seriously. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What?!? The statement "I've learned various new things..." was in response to your proposed edit which I never got the chance to even see... How is that acknowledgment of my concerns? I still don't understand why that was removed from the log. Even if it isn't accepted, it doesn't do any harm to leave it there and removing it breaks all the continuity of the discussion.

I think you have noticed my hesitation to post reference material now as it has a tendency to disappear in edits. Up to this point I have been assuming good faith but looking at RandomP's proposed compromise combined with the removal of information from articles referenced here in defense of the criticism against the facts that are being questioned I am beginning to wonder...

I guess I am just not aware of the ground rules. Are we allowed to reference articles as being factually relevant to the debate? What am I supposed to do if those articles are then changed so that they indicate the reverse of what I was referencing? Its like having the rug pulled out from under me.

Carbonate 13:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

In order to prevent changes I will begin posting verbatim quotes from source material as well as indicating the reference.

RandomP has claimed
 * ""as money since the invention of money": we absolutely do not know this"
 * "how being used as money and being a benchmark of inflation is the same is a mystery to me."
 * ""it became debatable whether gold could be considered as much of a benchmark as previously": clearly, under a gold standard, the gold price does not give you a very good benchmark of inflation, as it's constant ... I just do not understand the assertion here."

Both of these are refuted in the gold article by the text in the History section

History

Gold has been known and highly valued since prehistoric times. It may have been the first metal used by humans and was valued for ornamentation and rituals. Egyptian hieroglyphs from as early as 2600 BCE describe gold, which king Tushratta of the Mitanni claimed was as "common as dust" in Egypt. Egypt and Nubia had the resources to make them major gold-producing areas for much of history. Gold is also mentioned several times in the Old Testament. The south-east corner of the Black Sea was famed for its gold. Exploitation is said to date from the time of Midas, and this gold was important in the establishment of what is probably the world's earliest coinage in Lydia between 643 and 630 BCE.

The European exploration of the Americas was fueled in no small part by reports of the gold ornaments displayed in great profusion by Native American peoples, especially in Central America, Peru, and Colombia.

Gold has long been considered one of the most precious metals, and its value has been used as the standard for many currencies (known as the gold standard) in history. Gold has been used as a symbol for purity, value, royalty, and particularly roles that combine these properties (see gold album). Gold as a sign of wealth and prestige was made fun of by Thomas More in his treatise Utopia. On that imaginary island, gold is so abundant that it is used to make chains for slaves, tableware and lavatory-seats. When ambassadors from other countries arrive, dressed in ostentatious gold jewels and badges, the Utopians mistake them for menial servants, paying homage instead to the most modestly-dressed of their party.

This section explicitly states that gold is thought to be of the first coinage. There has been repeated questioning of the use of the word millennia and I hope that the dates indicated finally put that to rest. Obviously gold has been used as millennia, the figures presented so far indicate that it has only been in the last century and a half that the gold supply has increased more than 1% pa and as such forms a reliable benchmark for inflation of other stores of value.

From the article Money we can quote

"Money" is any good or token used by a society as a medium of exchange, store of value and unit of account.

While gold satisfies all three of these criteria, I have yet to hear RandomP give an example of a fiat currency that does. Gold is a medium of exchange according to the gold article worded as

Gold forms the basis for a monetary standard used by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). Its ISO currency code is XAU.

We have already seen how it is store of value and if you follow the ISO_4217 link you will see that

159. XAG Silver (one Troy ounce) 160. XAU Gold (one Troy ounce) ... 170. XPD Palladium (one Troy ounce) 171. XPF CFP franc (French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna) 172. XPT Platinum (one Troy ounce)

Which denominate a unit of account. Gold has been, is and always will be gold. I hope this point is now settled in the affirmative. If it isn't, I would like to see real evidence that contradicts what I have presented up to this point.

RandomP also suggests
 * "limited by ...": this totally focusses on mining gold. The world's oceans contain gold in huge quantities - all the gold ever mined is equivalent to the amount of gold in the ocean under an area half the size of Maine. The deposit doesn't need to be found, it's unlikely that any extraction method would rely heavily on labour ...

I would like him to provide even one example of a gold mine on the floor of an ocean (ship wrecks do not count).

RandomP asserts
 * "throughout history": nonsense. fiat money, possibly ignoring brief experiments in china, is a modern development.

At the very least this can be fixed by changing the statement to "throughout the history of fiat currency" but I believe it easier to reference the section that is currently in place (and which I will assume here in good faith will not be altered) to find fiat currency's from the age of the roman empire. How far back is pre-history? So that assertion doesn't seem to hold water.

And then there is the whole issue of the quote. Sam said
 * The "gold is money, period" quote. It seems fairly trivial to negotiate a compromise that will see the quote put in a more suitable place within the paragraph, so I'd like to put that aside for the moment in favor of focusing on the two issues below.
 * Concern #1 is the most obvious example, which refers to the opening: "There is a saying "Gold is money, period." " If it's a saying so widespread that it's worth opening a section with, we ought to be able to cite at least one reliable source who has quoted it as such.

So after wasting hours beating my head up against searches for +"Gold is money" +"Warren Buffet" I stumbled upon poor dead John Pierpont Morgan. And as Bill Bonner said in his book, the dead are a lot wiser than the living. In his address to the House of Representatives in 1913, JP Morgan said emphatically "Gold is money, and nothing else." as he tried to convince the government not to surrender the power of money creation to what would become the privately owned "Federal Reserve". JP Morgan know that you just can't trust bankers (because he was one) and that they would print the value of the dollar away. Since that time the US dollar has lost 95% of its value while gold has kept its.

Given these revelations, I suggest that the content in place stand as factually accurate and needing only minor revisions which I will do. Unless of course there is some other points that can be raised which would bring in to question the validity of what is currently represented?

Carbonate 14:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The US debt per capita has just topped 28 000. debt clock.

Carbonate 21:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, WP:RS is quite clear that Wikipedia articles do not meet the requirement for reliable sources; it seems quite clear that an unsourced statement must not be established merely by being reproduced all over Wikipedia.

Thanks for providing a reference to the saying. A saying that dates back to 1913 and thus to the gold standard vs silver standard debate seems inapplicable to me today, though I must again note that my original revision included the saying; it just didn't do so prominently.

Are you insisting that a section that refers to gold as money stay in the article, or are you willing to accept my proposal instead focussing on gold as a store of value - which is all that's really needed in the inflation article?

I'm perfectly happy writing the next draft if you do not want to do so, but I will wait to hear from you before I do so.

RandomP 19:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Money and store of value are synonymous and entirely interchangeable. The article does as it stands does not focus on gold as money but gold as a measure of inflation. Please don't try to redefine the topic to suit your needs. Feel free to take another attempt at rewriting the article but your revision should address all the points of deficiency I laid out against your first draft. You may not pick and choose as you see fit.

Carbonate 20:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That might be your opinion, but it's not the one used in money or store of value. The section as it stands focusses on gold as money, even though its heading suggests it's about gold as a measure of inflation.

If you insist on such points as the inclusion of a statement declaring that gold is money, even today, but are unwilling to provide a source for it (that is not another Wikipedia article), I believe that there is no viability to future mediation, and arbitration should be pursued instead.

Note that that's an if. I'm totally willing to pursue mediation further, though I must have a good hard look to see whether I have any new information to base changes to my proposed section on.

RandomP 21:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent opportunity for the mediator to make some findings of fact.

Carbonate 00:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to make a "finding of fact", if that's to be interpreted as "saying who is right". This being an informal mediation, I could do that if I saw no other way forward, but I don't feel that it would be appropriate at this time - and it wouldn't be a binding decision anyway.

I will try to give my thoughts on the disagreements about reliable sources: I think RandomP's argument that a quote from JP Morgan is a bit old to back up an assertion that relates to the present is valid - moreover, what I originally suggested (though I admit I didn't make the distinction clear) was that a source should be found that did not just have the saying in it, but made clear that it is widely quoted. I.e, if JP Morgan said "gold is money", all we can say is 'JP Morgan said "gold is money"', and as RandomP points out, there is a context issue there in terms of time. If the Wall Street Journal or whoever ran an article recently saying 'Everyone agrees "gold is money"', only then can we say "there is a saying" (though the question of prominence remains if there is significant disagreement).

As for the thing about money and store of value, I don't understand Carbonate's assertion that the definitions are "interchangeable" - our own articles say that being a store of value is only one-third of being money, the other two-thirds being medium of exchange and unit of account. While RandomP is absolutely correct that Wikipedia articles can not use other Wikipedia articles for the purposes of verification, it seems clear to me that this is the correct definition. As I understand it, a house is a store of value, but it's not a medium of exchange, and doesn't qualify as 'money'.

I would like to hear your response to the second paragraph of RandomP's last post, Carbonate, and whether you have any more thoughts on RandomP's suggestion to "[focus] on gold as a store of value - which is all that's really needed in the inflation article" given what has been said about the difference between money and store of value. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Just two remarks:

The "gold is money" quote can be referenced to the New York Times article that I pointed to above, which establishes it's a quote in use today.

Our money article is a bit negligent in not pointing out that the medium of exchange and standard of deferred payment functions are considered by "some" (I realize that's a totally weasly statement) to be distinct, bringing the total up to four. I mention this largely because there appears to be virtually no debt denominated in gold, so it appears not to be currently fulfilling that function. On the other hand, of course, is something is both the accepted store of value and the accepted medium of exchange, it's fairly hard to imagine it not being the standard of deferred payment - however, with several units of account competing to be store of value and medium of exchange, it's conceivable all three would be different.

RandomP 19:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Has gold ever been used as money?

Carbonate 22:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure that question was addressed to me, but I'll answer:

Yes, it has been. For example, in post-1873 (or 1871, sources differ) Germany, the German gold mark was used as a store of value, as a medium of exchange (gold coins, and bank-notes exchangeable for gold), as a basic unit of account, and as a standard of deferred payment (for example, in contracts - I'm not sure whether mortgages where common back then).

The "gold standard" in the United States while private gold ownership was illegal is of course a bit more of an issue, and the extent to which devaluations became expected is something I frankly don't know much about.

Does this answer your question? Do you want to write a store of value draft? If you want me to do so, please say so. Thanks!

RandomP 00:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

So what evidence has been presented that proves it stopped being money?

Carbonate 00:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No such evidence is needed. Were we to state that "gold has been used as money from 600 BC to 1971, in one form or another" (we do not), there would be an implication that gold ceased being money in 1971. Absence of evidence for the contrary, at least as far as my googling skills go, is complete (there is a gold loan still offered, but it's valued at a premium and limited to too short an interval to be considered deferred payment).

Note, again, that my draft proposal specifically includes an "at least" that cannot be parsed not to apply to the year 1971 as the end of the time period in which gold was considered money. I do not know of a better formulation to avoid the implication that gold stopped being money then while simultaneously avoiding the implication that money did not stop being money then, or stopped being money before then.

Do you have evidence that grain stopped being money, as a curious aside?

I'm sure that if I were to dig through the economic library for the rest of the year, I would find some paper where it is asserted that gold is no longer money today, or maybe even a textbook.

Again, I am not going to write another draft until you or the mediator tell me to go ahead; I believe it is just fair that you have the opportunity to do so, and you have not foregone it.

RandomP 00:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, we are not talking about grain. We are also not talking about loans. Loans are not a requisite for money. Some religions even prohibit charging interest which makes loans impossible but they still have forms of money. As I stated in my points against your last draft, putting an upper bound on the time implies the end of gold as money or are your facts not subject to the same scrutiny? I was asked to specifically quote the 2% figure and spent more than an hour going through the index of "Empire of Debt" and failing to find it I presented an alternative source via Bill Bonner's website.

You have agreed that gold was money. The wiki article and your first draft set the time of this fact back as far as two and a half millennia ago (plus or minus a few centuries). Your draft implies that gold suddenly stopped being money nary two score of years gone by. What is your source for this? Is it so obscure that a further year of study is required to prove it? For all the facts you cut out in your version, you seem to include a few you can't back up with evidence...

Does that satisfy Sam's request for a response to RandomP's 2nd paragraph?

Carbonate 02:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

We do not need a source for things we do not say.

Again: For purposes of this article, I do not want to imply that gold ceased being money. In the next draft, I would like to include a sentence that fulfills these two criteria:
 * does not imply gold ceased being money in 1971
 * does not imply gold continued being money after 1971

My best suggestion for this sentence is
 * ''gold [...] [was] used as money [...] to at least [...] 1971.

I am open to suggestions for a better sentence meeting the two criteria. I insist on the first criterion. I take it you insist on the second. I've made a suggestion. It's your turn.

RandomP 02:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

(Loans are a case of deferred payment, and the use of a medium of exchange for loans can be considered evidence for the use of that medium as money.)

RandomP 02:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the quote, I believe I have always shown flexibility on that issue. It was suggested that something so general and ill defined should not start the article. Well, it is now specific and precisely defined so I assume that the objections to starting the section with an appropriately rewritten quote has been satisfied. As for its relevance in this day and age, let me make two points which should satisfy that objection as well.


 * JP Morgan made the statement before the house in opposition to the creation of the Federal Reserve. Has anyone not heard of Alan Greenspan?  Has a week (or maybe even a day) gone by without some news article on the TV or papers about (helicopter commander) Ben Bernenke this year?  Or of the decisions of the Fed raising interest rates to fight inflation?  You remember the topic right (answer- inflation)?  These are all players upon the very stage that JP Morgan tried to keep from being built with the quote in question.
 * A google search for the phrase "Gold is money" returns about 45 000 (that is forty five thousand) hits. Most of these hits are from current publications and blogs.  If blogs do not indicate current trends in our society, I would like an example of something that does.

I had better stop here lest I begin invoking Ayn Rand!

So loans provide evidence that a medium is currency? Then allow me to link the current lease rates for various metals including gold and a nice graph of those rates over the last few weeks.

May I assume the issue of gold as money has been settled now?

Carbonate 02:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, just to sum up my opinion here:
 * For a medium of exchange to be money, it needs to fulfill further criteria
 * one of those criteria is that it is a "standard of deferred payment"
 * one way for a medium to be a standard of deferred payment is for it to be widely available for long-term loans
 * gold appears to be available to special industries for at most a year.

Going back from the fourth statement to the first is a fallacy.

Carbonate, I have a specific question:

Do you insist a statement (not a reference to the saying) implying that gold is still money be included in the article?

Just to say it one more time, I do not insist that a statement implying gold no longer is money is included. I do insist that a statement implying gold still is money is not included.

It would help tremendously if your answer could be a simple yes or no.

RandomP 02:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is the example of a "gold mine on the ocean floor" that I asked for?

Carbonate 02:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

here is a ref to something like that, though I have no idea what you need it for.

I would be very glad if you could answer my last question; a simple yes or no should suffice, and as I honestly do not know what your answer would be, I see no other way to move forward on this. It's not a rhetoric or trick question: either you want the statement included, in which case we disagree about whether there are sufficient sources for it;  or you do not want it included, in which case we can continue working on a compromise section.

Thanks in advance!

RandomP 03:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where that statement is in the article now outside of the quote. I believe the quote should be updated with the new information now available but other than that I am happy with the section that is in place. I feel it provides a neutral point of view while providing a significant number of relevant facts and links.

Sam has expressed concern over the use of the word immutable which I would be happy to replace with something involving words like "steady" or "consistent". Maybe even a reworking of that whole sentence would be appropriate to ensure that it delivered the content in a NPOV way.

The important thing here is the facts and how they relate to the article. When I wrote this section originally I tried to tie it in with the other sections and provide a balance to the extremely long prices section (which was the only measure the page offered at the time I might add). I am truly sorry if my first stab at it allowed by opinions on the subject matter to show through. As I stated in the mediation request, when these deficiencies were pointed out I did my best to fix them without reducing the content level. That is quite a different approach than showing an opinion by removing everything one doesn't agree with and throwing the tatters down for public consumption.

I think it is appropriate to mention that of the four measures that are currently present, I originated three. What was it again that you contributed?

Carbonate 03:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that "Gold and silver have been used as money since the invention of money" implies that that continues to be the case.

This is not the place to discuss history, except as it pertains to the section we're discussing. There are other places to do that.

So, is that a no or a yes?

RandomP 05:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not require a statement that implies gold is still money.

Would changing that sentence to read "Gold and silver were first used as money in the 7th century B.C." fix it?

I believe that makes it a simple statement of fact without implying that it is or is not still used as money. History is important if gold is to be held up as a long term measure of inflation.

Carbonate 09:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that I reread the article with that change in mind it seems to duplicate the last sentence of the first paragraph. Would you like to remove the sentence altogether on that basis and leave the last to state the facts?

Carbonate 09:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I suggest that 'This system remained in place until Richard Nixon "closed the gold window" after France began to...' be made more specific and accurate by changing to 'This system remained in place until 1971 when Richard Nixon said "The gold window is closed" after France began to...'

This adds the year that you want in its context and uses the actual words spoken between the quotes (minus the links which didn't copy and paste).

Carbonate 09:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The suggestions sound good to me. Do you want to write a draft, so we can see how far apart we still are?

I'm a tiny bit suspicious of the Nixon quote, but only because I don't know a reference for it. I'll go googling later.

RandomP 11:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I will if the mediator says to.

Carbonate 07:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be very helpful.

I tried Googling for the Nixon quote myself, and although lots of sources use the 'closing the window' language in one way or the other, I couldn't find an exact quote along those lines. But I assume that there is a reason that lots of different sources use those specific words. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. It's his August 15, 1971 speech, and I'm pretty sure the New York Times should have a reprint-in-full in its August 16, 1971 issue.

Failing that, (PDF), which might be his prepared notes or a press release rather than the actual speech.

It includes the rather undramatic "I have directed Secretary Connally to suspend temporarily the convertibility of the dollar into gold or other reserve assets". Since the speech was released at 9 p.m., I rather doubt that any further remarks were published that day.

I am not sure whether it is notable that so much of the speech is concerned with inflation. It certainly surprised me.

RandomP 16:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of third draft
The current version in place looks li There is a saying "Gold is money, period.". Gold and silver have been used as money since the invention of money. These two precious metals are a benchmark of inflation and have held their value for millennia compared to the centuries, at most, of the Denarius and Pound sterling both of which started out based on precious metal. Gold has experienced an historical inflation rate of about 2% as new supplies are mined and refined and it is this immutable rate which has prompted governments throughout history to turn to the creation of fiat currency. While the rate of inflation of the gold supply is limited by the effort required to find feasible deposits, the labour required to mine the deposits that are found and the energy required to refine the mined ore in to gold, nothing effectively stops governments from printing fiat currency. Gold and silver, in one form or another, were used as money from at least 600 BC and are currently minted in to gold coin and silver coin all over the world.

At the Bretton Woods Conference, the Bretton Woods system solidified the gold standard by requiring the signatories to adopt an exchange rate for their currency. This system remained in place until Richard Nixon "closed the gold window" after France began to demand the gold represented by the U.S. dollars held by the central bank of France. This run on the U.S. gold deposits happened because there were more dollars in circulation than was backed by gold. Today, the U.S. Treasury values its gold at 42.2222 per troy ounce as stipulated by the Bretton Woods agreement.

I propose changes (and I would like more discussion on Nixon) to make it read some thing like

In 1913, J. P. Morgan said before the House of Representatives "Gold is money, and nothing else." in opposition to the creation of the Federal Reserve. The precious metal gold has been a benchmark of inflation and have held their value for millennia compared to the centuries, at most, of the Denarius and Pound sterling both of which started out based on precious metal. Gold has experienced an historical inflation rate of about 2% and it is this restrictive rate which has prompted governments throughout history to turn to the creation of fiat currency. While the rate of inflation of the gold supply is limited by the effort required to find feasible deposits, the labour required to mine the deposits that are found and the energy required to refine the mined ore in to gold, nothing effectively stops governments from printing currency. Gold and silver, in one form or another, were used as money from at least 600 BC and are currently minted in to gold coin and silver coin all over the world.

At the Bretton Woods Conference, the Bretton Woods system reinstated the gold standard by requiring the signatories to adopt an exchange rate for their currency. This system remained in place until 1971 when Richard Nixon announced "The gold window is closed." after France began to demand gold for the U.S. dollars held by the central bank of France. This run on the U.S. gold deposits happened because there were more dollars in circulation than was backed by gold. Today, the U.S. Treasury values its gold at 42.2222 per troy ounce as stipulated by the Bretton Woods agreement.

I believe we should check the accuracy of the Nixon quote. This may be a similar situation as the JP Morgan quote where the meaning has been diluted over time. I have removed the 2nd sentence completely and changed immutable to restrictive while eliminating the "mined and refined" part which is better said shortly after.

I believe that starting with the federal reserve quote makes a nice transition from the money supply measure which proceeds it. I believe that having the historical use of gold as money at the end of the last paragraph and the discussion of the bretton woods agreement provides a clear separation of the two ideas and allows for good flow and tie in between the paragraphs. I believe RandomP wanted the word solidified changed to reinstated or something to that effect so I have done so. The year that the bretton woods ended has been included as well as the removal of "represented by" language.

I also trimmed a duplicate link to fiat currency and shortened the 2nd instance to just currency.

Carbonate 02:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm also going to suggest that the sentence with the 2% still needs some work. I think some tempering with that 150 year figure previous mention would be appropriate (especially because as RandomP pointed out it can't be that high since 0 A.D.) and I believe there is an opportunity to qualify "...the creation of fiat currency" by inserting "debasement and".

How say you?

Carbonate 02:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if my remarks sound negative; but I do think we should give this an honest attempt and have at least one more draft.


 * the quote: opening the section with a 1913 quote about a domestic issue of the US which had then been on the gold standard for many years seems exaggerated to me.  If you want to mention the relationship between the need of a central bank and fiat money, there surely must be a more appropriate place than here, and a more appropriate way to do it than to include a quote without a hint of what it means?  I'm not sure what it means.  Was he concerned about the use of silver as money?  a central bank circulating unbacked currency?  legal tender laws (I thought those had already been in place?)?
 * "has been a benchmark of inflation": how? this also sounds like it's been a benchmark of inflation for millennia, which would be odd.
 * "have held their value for millennia": against what? compared to what?  what kind of value are you talking about?
 * "Denarius": correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a silver coin? how has it lost its value if silver maintained its?
 * "restrictive rate": I don't see how that makes sense, at all. What's being restricted?
 * I think what limits the amount of gold produced does not need to be spelled out in such detail - for example, whether it's labour that's required to extract gold once the deposit has been found, or energy, or capital, is not something that we need to take an opinion on.
 * "nothing effectively stops governments from printing currency": nothing but international treaties (in the case of the ECB), constitutions (in many other countries), and the difficulty of paying for imports with money that's not accepted anywhere else. nothing effectively stops governments from defaulting on their national debt, except for those three or very similar reasons.  It's not "the government" that prints money, it's the central bank, which is usually (and, in the case of the ECB at least, actually) an independent entity.
 * I'm vetoing anything that refers to future inflation rates as "this" when this could easily be misread to apply to a 2% p.a. rate.
 * it's just not true that "governments" have used fiat currency "throughout history". Stating something as their reason for doing so (when they did, arguably not until after 1971) needs a source, and is something I'd dispute.
 * is "the gold window is closed" a quote? I don't think I've seen it attributed as a quote anywhere but here.
 * I'm not sure whether blaming france is accurate, and I need a source for that, too.
 * "because there were more dollars in circulation than was backed by gold": oh? I mean, hadn't that been the case for quite a while?  how do we know it wasn't, say, international trade imbalances as the european economies recovered?
 * lots of minor things: inflation is 2% p.a., not 2%;  $42.2222, not 42.2222

Note that I didn't say anything about the "gold and silver" sentence. I can live with it. It might not be perfect grammar, but given the controversial state of the subject it might be the best we can do ...

RandomP 12:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't even know what to say. Half of these points seem like perpetuation of things I have already addressed. This is precisely why I have been asking for an accounting of outstanding issues.

"have held their value for millennia": against what? compared to what? what kind of value are you talking about?

If you can't answer this, I don't see how you have any business editing an article on inflation. Have you even read the article?

"restrictive rate": I don't see how that makes sense, at all. What's being restricted?

Are you baiting me? You do know we are talking about inflation right? Perhaps the mediator can answer some of these questions because I feel like a math professor of a calculus course being interrupted by a student in the front row to ask in all earnestness what 2 + 3 is equal to.

Carbonate 14:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not baiting you. Sorry about the "restrictive rate", now that I read it again I got it - though it's still quite a leap to go from something restricting inflation of the money supply to governments abolishing it.

But "have held their value for millennia"? That's at least two of them, and I honestly have no idea what a lump of gold would have been worth in AD 6. I'm not sure in which regions continuous gold ownership was possible for such a long period. Keep in mind that if we're going to use the MEE to define inflation, we need a measure of "real" GDP, and the only absolutely consistent way to do that is to decide price levels (relative valuations, if you want to avoid all reference to money) in advance. Which price levels do you use? If it's today's, what's the relative valuation of a decent-size loaf of bread and a slave, to name two things commonly traded for money in the Roman empire? If it's the one of AD 6, how many loaves of bread for a laptop computer?

I'm not saying the old "impossible to define inflation over long periods" section should go back in. It's quite easy to define, but if you actually want to calculate it, you need to decide how. And "have held their value for millennia" sounds to me like "had no significant inflation for millennia"; but then it's contrasted with the Denarius and Pound Sterling, at least one of which had inflation, but which apparently still counts as "having held its value".

As for having no business editing this (or any other) article, as long as I'm reasonably sure I'm improving an article by editing it, I'll be quite happy to.

RandomP 15:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Abolishing gold. That is an interesting concept.

Have you ever heard of "Frankincense, gold and myrrh"?

price levels are in no way consistent and are the poorest measure of inflation. Look at CPI. After the nonsense hedonic adjustments, it measures nothing.

You don't need a laptop computer to survive. How many loafs of bread have you bought this year?

Compare and contrast the Denarius between its first and last issue please.

It's not just the "restrictive rate". You made only one valid comment regarding the p.a. and $ (both trivial and easy to fix). The rest was utter nonsense.

Carbonate 02:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to highlight your nonsense

"nothing effectively stops governments from printing currency": nothing but international treaties (in the case of the ECB), constitutions (in many other countries), and the difficulty of paying for imports with money that's not accepted anywhere else. nothing effectively stops governments from defaulting on their national debt, except for those three or very similar reasons. It's not "the government" that prints money, it's the central bank, which is usually (and, in the case of the ECB at least, actually) an independent entity.

now go read sect. 10 of the U.S. constitution.

Carbonate 02:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Abolishing the gold standard. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Section 10 prevents individual states from doing certain things, effectively limiting those actions to federal or (back then, other) supernational organs. I do not see how it pertains to the current discussion.

The statement that "nothing effectively limits governments" is unsourced, disputed, and untrue in general: the international money market is in fact a very effective limit.

I am, also, unsure how to answer the rest of your comment. It doesn't offer a source or a justification for the statement I disputed, as far as I can tell. Saying that it was silver that held its value while any individual Denarius coin, which was made of silver, did not seems a bit weird to me. Comparing the value of different coins made of different alloys seems inappropriate - after all, no one required you to hand over your old money in excess for (less shiny) new money?

Are we stalling here?

RandomP 03:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I would ask you the same thing after the silly comments you made.

I don't believe that it is my responsibility to prove a negative. Please prove your assertion that the international money market is a very effective limit. How was it effective in stopping the hyper-inflation in Germany, Argentina or Russia? Why is the Federal Reserve worried about inflation at this very moment? Just because the international money markets are saying "Wait a sec, you keep printing money and running triple deficits (Fiscal, Trade and Social Security)." by reducing the price of the U.S. dollar (which btw will only worsen the trade deficit because America is a "service economy". To bad only Americans need to hire American attorneys and accountants.  This make fascinating reading btw.  Notice that the "service surplus" is an order of magnitude smaller than the "goods deficit".  In Feb or Mar I was amused by the fact that the "goods deficit" grew by more than the entire "service surplus") until the U.S. gets its buget in order (note the size of the interest payments compared to oh say the funding for NASA).

What do you think happened to all the silver dollars? Of course people withdrew them when the value stamped on the metal fell below the value of the metal. I thought you were arguing that fiat currency was able to hold its value versus metals? You keep giving evidence of the consequences of inflation (or in your case debasement (which is why I suggested adding the word)).

Carbonate 06:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Carbonate, there is something very simple we need to agree on:


 * Statements that go in the article need to be supported by sources.
 * Statements that don't, like opinions expressed during a discussion, don't need them. We can agree to disagree about them.
 * Removing a statement does not require a source contradicting it; the absence of sources supporting it suffices.

I'd appreciate it if you could stop calling my comments "silly", imply that any questions I have are as easy to answer for you as "what is 2+3?" is to a mathematics professor, and the like. "Nonsense" is okay, IMHO, for statements you do not understand.

The wider situation of the world economy is not at issue here. As far as I'm aware, I've never said that fiat money would predictably "hold its value" against metals (which I think is equivalent to "metal prices stay constant, or at least don't rise").

There's a specific statement in your draft: "nothing effectively stops governments from printing currency". I disagree with it, and my counter-suggestion is "In theory, there is no limit to the amount of fiat currency put into circulation", or the similar formulation in my draft.

This should be very easy to discuss: if you can't substantiate your statement, it goes out. If I can't substantiate mine, it doesn't go in.

We're at the first step. Can you substantiate, or does it go out?

RandomP 06:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

lol, "This should be very easy to discuss: if you can't substantiate your statement, it goes out.  If I can't substantiate mine, it doesn't go in."

so heads you win tails I loose?

I already have by giving three recent examples in fairly major economies but just to make it more clear, Zimbabwe is currently hyper-inflating.

I don't have to prove that there is nothing stopping governments from printing money as that would be proving a negative. The fact is that governments print money (great gobs of it).

Carbonate 07:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you've misread what I said:

If you cannot substantiate your statement, your statement is removed. If I cannot substantiate my statement, my statement doesn't go in.

I don't get what you're saying about "proving a negative".

RandomP 07:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't. I will offer this as yet another compromise. "...required to refine the mined ore in to gold, nothing has yet been found to effectively stop governments from printing currency."

Carbonate 08:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, I believe (personal opinion) that statement to be untrue: for all we know, hyper-inflation doesn't happen to euro-like currencies.

And it's not "governments" that print currency. The ECB could easily be a private organization, for example.

So that statement is unacceptable to me, too.

What do you dislike about my suggestion?

RandomP 08:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

We do? I don't know that. Where is your source that proves it can't happen? Oh wait, am I asking you to prove a negative?

Let me just check the back of last weeks economist. Ah, here it is, year over year change in money supply for euro area. The broad measure (M3) 8.8%, the narrow (M1) 9.8%. That means there are 9.8% more paper euros today then there were a year ago. WOWSERS!!!!

You keep saying that governments don't print currency, which is as true as saying governments don't train soldiers or governments don't decide legal cases. The central bank is just as much a part of the government as the army or the courts. So give your central banks are not the government rhetoric a rest.

The suggestion presented was out of context and it white washes the facts about fiat currency. The change I suggested states a simple fact (and I thank you again for helping to sterilize the article of any POV).

I understand and appreciate your convictions toward the current fad in paper money but some things you must come to grips with is that the paper promises they represent will be broken just like they have always been and that humans have an innate trust in things they can touch. When you touch gold, you are touching something that is valuable. Paper money can certainly be handled but you can't touch what makes it valuable.

My favorite definition of hyper-inflation is that it occurs the moment a newly minted dollar reduces the value of the overall money supply including that dollar. After that point, every dollar (I use dollars here but I mean token that represents currency like pound,rand,mark,etc,etc) you create reduces the value of all the existing ones by more than the percentage of change in the actual existing supply. That point is very much like hubberts peak in that you can only tell it has happened after you have a chance to look back. I wonder if that is how the event horizon of a black hole works? Looking forward doesn't reveal the danger but looking back tells you that you are in a world of hurt.

Carbonate 09:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Help. I'm not seeing a way forward.

Again, Carbonate, I do not need to disprove a statement for it to be removed from the article. I just need to question it, and that makes it your job to, at least, point to another article or common-sense argument that supports it. Your suggestion is not "a simple fact".

Sam, would you mind commenting on what our (that's mine and Carbonate's and possibly yours) options are at this point? I think we've worked our way to a specific question, and the discussion demonstrates why I do not see a way forward. Thanks!

RandomP 09:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Again we seem to come back to the question of reliable sources. The above makes for interesting reading as an economic debate, but it would be of little use to anyone who questions the claims in the article. If RandomP questions a claim in the article, then readers other than him will. When they do, we need to point them to a reliable third-party source that substantiates that claim. We can't point them to this discussion; no-one should ever have to read more than the article and the external links references to find out the verifiable facts. RandomP's assertion that "I do not need to disprove a statement for it to be removed from the article" is correct - the first sentence of WP:V is relevant here: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (emphasis theirs).

If the proposed sentence is "nothing has yet been found to effectively stop governments from printing currency", we need to be able to point to a source that says "nothing has yet been found to effectively stop governments from printing currency". Pointing to government press releases and the back of the Economist (to pull out a couple of the external references offered above) simply won't satisfy our readers.

Focusing purely on the single sentence under discussion at the moment, because the same principles will apply to much of the dispute, I believe the bold statement "nothing has yet been found to effectively stop governments from printing currency" does need to be sourced. As a relative economic layman, I can think of at least three things which might stop governments from printing currency. Whether there is anything which effectively stops them is of course open to debate, but that's why we need to either back the wording up or make it more neutral. If we take the option to make it more neutral, I would like to know whether Carbonate objects to RandomP's proposed sentence "In theory, there is no limit to the amount of fiat currency put into circulation" instead. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As I stated to RandomP, it is out of context. The sentence currently reads "While the rate of inflation of the gold supply is limited by the effort required to find feasible deposits, the labour required to mine the deposits that are found and the energy required to refine the mined ore in to gold, nothing effectively stops governments from printing currency."

So what is it exactly that is being proposed?

Carbonate 07:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

From

"It will be interesting to watch the reaction of the US monetary agents to any significant down turn in the US stock and bond markets. These markets began a correction in early August and during the first half of this month approximately 50 billion dollars were added to the US money supply. As Mr. Greenspan stressed in his speech, the Fed can create money without limit. Put another way, there is no limit to the amount by which the purchasing power of the dollar can be eroded."

From

"In reality, what President Nixon "accomplished" was to enable the federal government to create money without limit."

From

As Mr. Greenspan has repeatedly pointed out (see my What Does Mr. Greenspan Really Think?), the Federal Reserve stands ready to create money "without limit."

Carbonate 07:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The bold part of the current statement is the word "nothing" and in fact it is wrong.

How about "...required to refine the mined ore in to gold, nothing but the gold standard has yet been found to effectively stop governments from printing currency." <-- notice how I included the context.

But as is highlighted most recently by Nixon and less recently by Britain, France, Germany, Russia, etc, etc, governments can rewrite laws and constitutions. Agreements and treaties are only worth something if everyone lives up to them and unlike citizens of a country of law that can go to a court and have agreements enforced, only the barrel of a gun (an perhaps economic sanctions to a lesser degree) enforce agreements between countries. This is aptly demonstrated by the U.S. government who broke the bretton woods agreement and started issuing more paper than they had gold backing. In such a situation it is only reasonable to expect some creditor to come a-knocking for fulfillment of the debt (oh and just edify RandomP about France's role in the ending of BW, this timeline should give a brief overview (good stuff starts at The End Of the "Fixed" Dollar)).

Sam, I am disappointed that you have taken my links out of context and tried to use them against me "Pointing to government press releases and the back of the Economist (to pull out a couple of the external references offered above) simply won't satisfy our readers.". If you read back you will see that they were very clearly offered in opposition to RandomP's statements and not in support of my own. There is a big difference in that. I am seeing a common thread in this discussion where RandomP makes patently absurd remarks and is not asked to justify them with evidence while at the same time, picking the nits from every one of mine.

Although reliable sources may be the letter of the law, RandomP's actions are very clearly against the spirit of the law Vandalism. Blanking articles is a form of vandalism and has been offered as an acceptable solution by RandomP in his statement "The alternative would be to remove the section entirely, as far as I can see.". It is not acceptable. I agree that reliable sources must be quoted when facts are questioned but I think after offering evidence for each of the facts that RandomP has tried to remove, RandomP's questioning time should be passed to someone else.

Carbonate 08:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to reply to some of Carbonate's comments.

Even discounting the nature of the sources you cited, Carbonate, they do not seem to support your version of the sentence.

"nothing but the gold standard has yet been found to effectively stop governments from printing currency" is editorializing, in my opinion. It's also inaccurate; not just on the old government/central bank issue, but also because even on a gold standard, the printing of money would presumably not stop entirely. I'm also a bit confused why "nothing but the gold standard" seems to exclude a silver or copper standard (or a proposed oil standard, or whatever), which would presumably have a similar effect.

I could live with a short sentence contrasting the situations with and without a gold standard: On a gold standard, only as much money can be printed that the central bank is confident it can exchange for gold all the money that's going to come back to it. Without a gold standard, that limit does not exist.

RandomP 14:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What are the three things which Sam says can limit government from printing money?

Carbonate 09:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, Carbonate, I find your claim that RandomP is violating WP:VAND extremely distressing. Vandalism is more a state of mind than anything else - it's about acting in bad faith with the intent of damaging the encyclopedia. Removing sections is only vandalism if done in bad faith - blanking vandalism usually consists of blanking an entire article, or random sections of text, not removing paragraphs because you think they shouldn't be in there. Bottom line, RandomP isn't a vandal. If you think the issue is that RandomP is trying to damage Wikipedia, then this mediation isn't remotely sustainable. Please state if you are willing to rethink your position on this.

In the hope that you will reconsider, back to the matter at hand. Regarding your question to me, legal restraints (national and international), concern for the welfare of its citizens and the gold standard are three things that spring to my mind. To repeat myself, "effectively" is the important word. Rather than trying to throw myself into the debate, I was purely making the point that if we say "nothing effectively stops..." or "nothing but the gold standard stops..." the question immediately arises "why not X..?" and there has to be a satisfactory answer.

That leads us to your references, and - well, I apologize if I questioned something that wasn't related to the article as if it was... but I'm finding it hard to pick out the ones that are related to the article. You ask why I've been questioning your remarks and not RandomP's - well, I've been trying to limit myself purely to the suggested sentences to go into the article, as saying which side is right in the higher economic debate is beyond me (and beyond this encyclopedia until one side is unambiguously proven right - hah, as if). And in those cases, RandomP's versions appear to me to contain fewer bold statements that need external support to stay as they are. I'm not trying to take sides, just trying to keep us focused on what is needed to continue.

You have, of course, given some external references above. RandomP hasn't described his specific concerns with them yet, and I can't blame him until you clarify where you stand on the vandalism/not vandalism issue, as it is essential to the continuation of this mediation. I have my own thoughts on those sources, but I would like you to clear up the vandalism issue first, so we know we can still move together on this, and then hopefully RandomP will feel able to clarify his thoughts on them.

Sam Blanning(talk) 22:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess it does come down to good faith doesn't it? I have been trying to give RandomP every benefit of the doubt but then I come across comments like ""restrictive rate": I don't see how that makes sense, at all. What's being restricted?". I know you have said that the personal statements RandomP has on his talk page are not relevant here but have not seen a suggestion yet that advances the concept this section is supposed to discuss. In fact, everything RandomP has suggested is to contradict the concept. What is more, statements like

"I'm also a bit confused why "nothing but the gold standard" seems to exclude a silver or copper standard (or a proposed oil standard, or whatever), which would presumably have a similar effect."

are in my humble opinion made in nothing but a bad faith attempt to draw this discussion out in to multiple front lines. RandomP has already suggested twice (if my count is accurate) that this mediation be abandoned. I'm finding it difficult to disagree as I do not believe I am receiving good faith from the other party but an attempt to justify the removal of information they personally disagree with without any other justification.

I have not seen acceptance of the validity of any content which I feel I have gone to great lengths to demonstrate. I tire of disputing the 2% figure. I'm tired of googling for trivial notions. I am tired of having historical events ignored as being "out of date" or "not relevant to this day and age". I now concur with RandomP that this process be moved to a more formal forum.

Carbonate 08:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm not going to answer some of that.

One thing I feel I do have to say is that as far as I'm aware, I never suggested "this process be moved to a more formal forum" or "be abandoned". I've asked Sam what our options are, and I've wondered out loud about the viability of the mediation process, but I agreed to participate in it, and that means I do not just walk out.

I'm not sure which references I have not expressed specific concern over. If it's the three that appear to go back to Greenspan's statement here, not only is that statement far removed from what is in the draft, it is also qualified by the next paragraph which describes why the Federal Reserve specifically limits inflation - note that the three other major central banks do not even leave themselves any option, as they have adopted overarching policies limiting the amount of money they create by a target inflation rate.

My reading is that the statement in those references is significantly weaker than what it was suggested as a source for, and thus unsuitable.

Or were these other references you were talking about, Sam?

RandomP 10:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

RandomP - I was trying to refer to Carbonate's very last post. Perhaps I read "I'm not going to reply to some of Carbonate's comments" to apply to more than you actually meant, sorry if I wasn't clear.

I'm now struggling to see a way forward myself, I'm afraid. As far as I can see, Carbonate feels that the statements in his text are sufficiently backed up, and is frustrated that he is being asked to give ground on them. The doubt over RandomP's motives is also casting a shadow over the discussion. Thing is, I can't give anyone much satisfaction with regards to whether their efforts are being acknowledged. I can agree with either party, or both, or none, but what mediation has to achieve is that the parties agree with each other. After all, I won't be editing the article, and I certainly can't stop either party from doing so. The above frustration and the specter of accusations of bad faith means I see no natural way to move the discussion forward at this point.

When I say 'struggling to see a way forward', I only mean within the confines of this mediation page. If it ends, I can offer some advice as to the next step. We are at something of a weird point, in that Carbonate has said "I now concur with RandomP that this process be moved to a more formal forum", and RandomP has said he didn't say that in the first place, so I'm not certain whether Carbonate's motion to move the dispute to a different forum still stands. If both parties do continue discussion then naturally I'm not going to walk out either - if either party believes the process should be moved, please make it clear and I'll give my thoughts on how to proceed.

Sam Blanning(talk) 20:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

By "I'm not going to reply to some of Carbonate's comments", I was referring specifically to the reference to (to avoid saying "accusation of") vandalism.

As above, when I last said "I'm not seeing a way forward", I'm not really seeing a way forward. I think that Carbonate appeared to be saying that certain statements needn't have verifiable sources, as long as challengers couldn't come up with sources contradicting them, when he said:


 * I don't have to prove that there is nothing stopping governments from printing money as that would be proving a negative.

(I subsequently pointed out that I don't get what Carbonate meant by that, but no further explanation ensued.)

I think that is an issue that this mediation process might yet be able to settle: Are we disagreeing about whether certain statements need sources, or are we disagreeing about whether adequate sources have been provided for one specific statement, that "nothing effectively stops governments from printing currency"?

However, I also suspect that the overall mediation process is stuck. There appears to be no version of that statement that is acceptable to both Carbonate and me, including removing it (which is acceptable to me, but I believe is unacceptable to Carbonate).

I think I should point out that I believe it is ultimately the mediator who decides whether the mediation process should go forward: with one party saying they'd like to see things moved to a more formal process, and the other saying they don't see a way forward, that seems like the obvious choice, in the absence of any brilliant ideas ;-)

RandomP 22:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The real problem here is that one party believes that fiat currencies are inherently inflationary, that the fractional reserve system promotes dishonesty of bankers and more specifically that the U.S. dollar will suffer the same fate as every other failed fiat currency, while the other finds the fractional reserve system to be an excellent tool, faith in the good intentions of fed chairmans and comfort in the rise of housing prices. One of those parties choose to make gold as a measure of inflation the battle ground for these opinions.

Opinions generally guide actions but like the whole climate change debate, if alarmists are wrong it merely impedes growth and reduces prosperity; if the status quo are wrong the mistake is more than likely to be a terminal one. Unlike the climate change debate, humanity has been through this before.

I believe it was Samuel Clemens that said "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

Can the statement in question be proven? No, it can't because aliens could land on Earth tomorrow and show us how. Mankind has tried the gold standard which failed as recently as 1971 which RandomP insists on stating. Mankind has tried treaties as enshrined in the U.S. constitution. The notion of a government putting the interests of its citizens before its own is so laughable it doesn't merit discussion but ridicule.

If the words of the man responsible for inflating away the worlds reserve currency isn't enough to convince, nothing will be; to be honest, I still don't understand how this statement doesn't fall under common sense. Who ever heard of a fiat currency that didn't inflate?!?!?!

The article is about inflation. The section is about measures of inflation. The subsection under mediation is gold as a measure of. The section should show how gold has been inflated, how its inflation rate varies over time and how it compares to other units that inflate. There are three other measures in the article, if the money supply measure is accurate inflation is running at close to 10%. If the prices measure is accurate then the price of gold would indicate a level of inflation should be something like (580$ - 420$) / (420$) in the last year.

My frustration comes from RandomP's obvious lack of knowledge on the topic even on the slender amount of content he did contribute. I get the feeling that RandomP relies on google searches more than sitting down with a book. I also get the feeling that RandomP puts a lot weight on what happened yesteryear than what happened yestercentury. Even half way through the first book of Adam Smith's 'The Wealth of Nations' I have attained a great deal of respect for how much mankind had figured out more than 300 years ago. Its easy to say 'prove it' and delete 'unsited material'; it is a bit more difficult to read 700+ page books even when they are as enthralling as Atlas Shrugged. That is the problem with RandomP's stance on wikipedia, by the standard he operates on, the real contributers have to defend the contributions they make to any layman who walks along and questions it.

I think the reason RandomP doesn't see a way forward is because he can't conceive that he might just be wrong. After the remark he made on my talk page about the U.S. debt per capita, I know that that is why I don't see a way forward.

Carbonate 16:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Very briefly, and just for the record: I disagree with Carbonate's description of my opinions. They're my own, I don't have to share them, and I frequently don't.

Let me be frank here: I have no idea what happens next. I can see that, if and when Sam so decides (and in the absence of brilliant ideas, I'm not sure there's an alternative), he can declare the mediation process failed. What then?

RandomP 17:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what is going to happen either but I do know what has happened in the past. Lets just say the track record is not very encouraging.

Carbonate 19:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well then, I suppose this mediation is closed.

As a next step, I would recommend returning discussion to Talk:Inflation, and posting it on Requests for comment/Economy and trade. A link to the mediation here should be added, though it would probably help if either editor briefly summarized their current position on Talk:Inflation for the benefit of outside editors, who've never seen the dispute before (and, let's be honest, they might be reluctant to read the entire discussion here).

I'm sorry this mediation didn't work out, but I'm optimistic that this can still be resolved. RfCs don't provide an instant solution, so don't panic if editors don't immediately flood into the article, but in my own experience with RfCs you usually get enough new faces to provide a different perspective and get enough numbers that a consensus can be formed. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)