Talk:Gold standard/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Federalist 44

It is believed that Madison wrote Federalist 44

According to the Britannica Encyclopedia, the Federalist papers were written by Madison, Hamilton and John Jay. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/203506/Federalist-papers

same for the New World Book Encyclopedia http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Federalist_papers further states that Hamilton and Madison authorship lists with 12 papers having disputed authorship. It also states that research shows Madison's list to be the correct one. "Statistical analysis has been undertaken a number of times to try to decide based on word frequencies and writing styles, and nearly all of the statistical studies show that all 12 disputed papers were written by Madison."

Constitution.org lists Madison as the author http://constitution.org/fed/federa44.htm

Yale Law School lists Madison as the author http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed44.asp

The university of Chicago lists Madison as the author http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_10_1s5.html

Seems to me that the per just about every reputable source states Madison wrote Federalist 44 including Madison himself.71.174.135.204 (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI: Federalist 44 is not one of the papers whose authorship is in dispute. In this site http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/madison.htm papers with disputed authorship are listed as (Hamilton or Madison) See Federalist 63 for an example. No such notation appears beside 44. You seem to believe that authorship of Federalist 44 is in dispute. Does or does not Yale Law School show Madison as the author http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed44.asp and is or is not Yale Law School as reputable source?71.174.135.204 (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup. You are right I was confused on the numbers. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

primary sources

Again: wiki policy allows for the use of primary sources as long as a lay person with no special knowledge of the topic can confirm that material added is backed by the primary document. Unless it can be shown that a lay person CANNOT confirm the material added, then any objection to the use of a primary document is just hot air.71.174.135.204 (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Also Again: From the material provided it can easily be confirmed that a vote took place during the Constitutional Convention to ban the printing of paper money by the Federal Government and that the vote passed 9 to 2.

From the material provided it can easily be confirmed that a vote took place during the Constitutional Convention to ban the printing of paper money by the states and that this vote also passed.

From the material provided it can easily be confirmed that James Madison campaigned against paper money due to its "pestilent effects" and pushed for the enactment of the new US Constitution because it banned paper money.

From the material provided it can easily be confirmed that the US Supreme Court originally held that paper money was unconstitutional.

From the material provided it can easily be confirmed that the US Supreme Court later reversed itself and stated that paper money was constitutional. Material from the wiki article on the Legal Tender Cases states that this reversal happened because Grant packed the court with two new pro paper money justices.

I don't see anything here that would be called synthesis, original research, or the improper use of a primary source. Most of the material already appears in the wiki article on the Legal Tender Cases. One exception being the vote taken to deny the states the power to print money, which is irrelevant to a case determining whether the Feds can print money.71.174.135.204 (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

An aside on HEPBURN: Prior to the issuance of greenbacks to fund the Civil War there is NO record of the the Federal Government printing money, or declaring same to be legal tender. The greenback era wad thus the first time this issue COULD appear before the courts. There was a case, which I believe was around 1830 which declared it illegal for a state to pay its bills with promissory notes instead of cold hard cash. If you want I should be able to find this case as well. The case does have relevance re: the California IOU's of the recent past.71.174.135.204 (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Last chance: What is your point and what does it have to do with improving this article? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Considering you have avoiding responding to the core issue, which has to do with the proper use of primary sources I have yet to have a a FIRST chance. As to my objective: I am trying to add relevant material on the US gold and silver standard as practiced preceding the civil war. Last I checked the world was not created in the 1870's. Even hardcore Christians give it a few thousand years. You objected to the material I added on the grounds of improper use of primary sources. Above I point out AGAIN, that I used primary sources in accordance with wiki policy on the use of those sources. I am again addressing your objection. You continue to avoid that issue.

Please advise, as requested on numerous occasions, exactly what a lay person without knowledge of the subject CANNOT confirm??71.174.135.204 (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. What can and cannot be confirmed...

1. It cannot easily be confirmed that a vote took place during the Constitutional Convention to ban the printing of paper money by the Federal Government and that the vote passed 9 to 2. Such a vote never took place.

2. It can easily be confirmed that a vote took place during the Constitutional Convention to ban the printing of paper money by the states and that this vote also passed.

3. It cannot easily be confirmed that James Madison campaigned against paper money due to its 'pestilent effects' and pushed for the enactment of the new US Constitution because it banned paper money.

However, it can easily be confirmed that in Federalist 44 the author, presumably James Madison derided the issuance of paper money by the states under the Articles of Confederation due to its "pestilent effects" and supported the new Constitution's prohibition against the states from issuing paper money in writing that this "must give pleasure to every citizen".

4. It can easily be confirmed that in Hepburn v. Griswold (1896) the US Supreme Court originally held that paper money held the issuance of United States Notes as a legal tender, the paper currency known as "greenbacks", under the Legal Tender Acts unconstitutional.

5. It can easily be confirmed that in Legal Tender Cases (1870) the US Supreme Court reversed itself overruled Hepburn v. Griswold and stated that paper money was finding issuance of United States Notes as a legal tender, the paper currency known as "greenbacks", under the Legal Tender Acts constitutional.

6. Material from the wiki article on the Legal Tender Cases states states that this reversal happened because Grant packed the court with two new pro paper money justices.

• Regardless of the fact that Grant did not "pack" the Court with "pro-paper money" justices... see WP:CIRCULAR. And thanks for pointing out the errors in that article. I'll fix it.

Please note: WP:AGF is not a death pact. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

RE: Point 1: What exactly do you think that the vote recorded by James Madison as passing 9 to 2 was about? The vote specifically motioned by Gov. Morris on Aug 16, 1787 with

Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.

with the vote being

On the motion for striking out N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN22]

The position of the two opposed are recorded as follows by Madison

Mr. MERCER was a friend to paper money, though in the present state & temper of America, he should neither propose nor approve of such a measure. He was consequently opposed to a prohibition of it altogether. It will stamp suspicion on the Government to deny it a discretion on this point. It was impolitic also to excite the opposition of all those who were friends to paper money. The people of property would be sure to be on the side of the plan, and it was impolitic to purchase their further attachment with the loss of the opposite class of Citizens

Mr. RANDOLPH, notwithstanding his antipathy to paper money, could not agree to strike out the words, as he could not foresee all the occasions which [FN21] might arise.

It seems to me that both Mr Mercer and Mr Randolph understand that they are voting to prohibit paper money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.135.204 (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

What Mercer or Randolph understood is immaterial. The only result of that vote was the striking of "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States" from the enumerated powers. Nothing more, nothing less. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Down to one item in dispute. I hope! The proposed addition was as follows "Based on the bad experience with the Continental, during the Constitutional Convention a vote was taken to strip language allowing the Federal Government to print paper money, at the time called "bills of credit", which was carried on a vote of 9 to 2." http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp

Was there or was there not a vote recorded on Madison's notes for Aug 16, 1787 to strip/remove/delete the power to issue "bills on the credit of the United States"? http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp If you want I can again link a copy of the draft Constitution which includes the power to issue "bills of credit".

During the vote the opinion of Mr. Elseworth is recorded by Madison as "Mr. ELSEWORTH thought this a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made, were now fresh in the public mind and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By witholding the power from the new Governt. more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost any thing else. Paper money can in no case be necessary. Give the Government credit, and other resources will offer. The power may do harm, never good."

If the vote was not about paper money, then what was it about? Madison asks Gov Morris if a prohibition on making this something a tender would not be sufficient, so it obviously has something to do with something that can be made "a tender" with paper money being mentioned by about half of those taking part in the discussion. "Mr. MADISON, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender?"

BTW: Are you aware that the term "a tender" appears only once in the US Constitution - No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts

Golly Gee Batman, what ever could the vote be about. 71.174.135.204 (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Obviously the vote was about paper money. However, it did not ban the printing of paper money by the Federal Government. The sole result was the striking of "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States". —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps pointing out the meaning of "emit" might help

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/emit emit 2nd meaning: a : to issue with authority; especially : to put (as money) into circulation. 71.174.135.204 (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Would it satisfy you if the comment was changed to something like "removed the power to issue paper as money"? 71.174.135.204 (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not really as the power was not removed. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that removing language permitting the exercise of a power, has absolutely nothing to do with the actual exercise of that power. How Orwellian of you! Please enlighten me by informing me what power, if any, was removed by removing the language allowing the issuance of bills of credit. So far we know that to emit means "to issue" and that bills of credit were referred to as "paper money" by the people taking the vote. Go for it! 71.174.135.204 (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what power was removed. Obviously it was not the power to issue bills of credit (aka paper money).

You do understand that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of law under the Constitution, right? That the Court's interpretation of the Constitution is the only interpretation that carries any legal weight? If you are claiming the Congress does not have the constitutional authority to make paper money legal tender then take it up with the Court.

Take the time to understand OuroborosCobra's comment below. Until you come with some sources my work here is done. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

More Orwellian doublethink. You say you don't know what something is but it sure as hell isn't this thing despite that there thing being virtually spat upon by virtually everyone taking part in the vote. As for the Supreme Court being the final arbiter, I point out that per US Supreme Court rulings paper money was unconstitutional for close to 100 years until the Supreme Court reversed itself in the Legal Tender Cases after two pro paper money justices were added by Grant.

This is no different than stating that abortions were illegal in the US up until Roe v Wade when enough pro abortion judges had been nominated into the court to reverse prior rulings. For close to 100 years that "arbiter" held a position on paper money opposite to the current one, and that this position was why there was no Federal paper money issued in the US for that period of time.

Do you also take the position that abortion was ALWAYS legal in the US, jut because it is considered legal now?71.174.135.204 (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

IP, this is the entire reason why Wikipedia shies away from using Primary Sources. It forces us into interpretation of those sources. Find reliable secondary sources supporting your interpretation of these documents. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

What interpretation is there. I state that there was a vote during the Constitutional Convention to strip language allowing the issuance of paper money. That the vote passed 9 to 2 is part of the historical record. Last I checked when you strip off a power, the entity you strip it from NO LONGER HAS IT. Do you disagree?

I already provided language from the dissent to the Legal Tender Cases from the Supreme Court Justices who upheld a tradition lasting almost 100 years of no paper money. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/79/457/case.html - BTW: There were a number of dissents in the case written by different judges. What may look like virtually identical material below is similar opinions by different justices.

"The sense of the Convention which framed the Constitution is clear from the account given by Mr. Madison of what took place when the power to emit bills of credit was stricken from the reported draft. He says distinctly that he acquiesced in the motion to strike out because the government would not be disabled thereby from the use of public notes, so far as they would be safe and proper, while it cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts. [Footnote 3/14] The whole discussion upon bills of credit proves beyond all possible question that the Convention regarded the power to make notes a legal tender as absolutely excluded from the Constitution. [Footnote 3/15]"

"Suffice it to say, without reproducing the discussion, that the motion prevailed -- nine states to two -- and the clause was stricken out and no attempt was ever made to restore it. Paper money as legal tender had few or no advocates in the Convention, and it never had more than one open advocate throughout the period the Constitution was under discussion, either in the Convention which framed it or in the conventions of the states where it was ratified. Virginia voted in the affirmative on the motion to strike out that clause, Mr. Madison being satisfied that if the motion prevailed, it would not have the effect to disable the government from the use of Treasury notes, and being himself in favor of cutting "off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender, either for public or private debts." [Footnote 4/38] When the draft for the Constitution was reported, the clause prohibiting the states from making anything but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts contained an exception "in case Congress consented," but the Convention struck out the exception and made the prohibition absolute, one of the members remarking that it was a favorable moment to crush out paper money, and all or nearly all of the Convention seemed to concur in the sentiment. [Footnote 4/39]

""Sufficient also is recorded in the reports of the decisions of this Court to show that the Court, from the organization of the judicial system to the day when the judgments in the cases before the court were announced, [Footnote 4/51] held opinions utterly opposed to such a construction of the Constitution as would authorize Congress to make paper promises a legal tender as between debtor and creditor.""

"Virginia voted for the motion, and Mr. Madison has appended a note to the debates stating that her vote was occasioned by his acquiescence and that he became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the government from the use of public notes, as far as they could be safe and proper, and would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts. [Footnote 5/14]" If anything is manifest from these debates, it is that the members of the Convention intended to withhold from Congress the power to issue bills to circulate as money -- that is, to be receivable in compulsory payment, or, in other words, having the quality of legal tender -- and that the express power to issue the bills was denied under an apprehension that if granted, it would give a pretext to Congress, under the idea of declaring their effect, to annex to them that quality."

A couple more references that say the same thing http://www.mega.nu/ampp/getman.html Per the source the material is based on a Law Review article "The phrase "and emit bills" finally was struck from the document because the overwhelming majority of the framers were unalterably opposed to paper legal tender."

http://www.ebooksread.com/authors-eng/john-jay-knox/united-states-notes-a-history-of-the-various-issues-of-paper-money-by-the-gover-xon/1-united-states-notes-a-history-of-the-various-issues-of-paper-money-by-the-gover-xon.shtml John Jay Knox served as Comptroller of the Currency in the 1800's and his comment on the legal tender case is that the ruling was a result of a slow process of a less and less strict observance of the intent of the Framers

"At the date of the adoption of the Constitution, the issue of paper money in any form was popularly re- garded with aversion. The experience of the colonists with bills of credit, as paper money was then called, had been fraught with loss and political disturbance, and the experience with the like issues by the Contin- ental Congress had so affected the minds of the wisest and best men of that time, that in the Federal Conven-tion the general feeling was one of almost bitter opposi-tion to granting the power to emit bills of credit to the new Government. IS'o one can examine the records of those days without being thoroughly impressed that the sense of the Convention was in favor of an absolute prohibition. Further proof may be found in the fact that from 1791 to 1812, a period of twenty-one years, the method of raising funds for the Government by the issue of bills of credit was not even suo^cjested"

I left what looks like scanning errors alone so nobody can complain I edited the document71.174.135.204 (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a good primary source for ya...

In view, therefore, of all these facts when we find them establishing the present government, with all the powers before rehearsed, giving to it, amongst other things, the sole control of the money of the country and expressly prohibiting the States from issuing bills of credit and from making anything but gold and silver a legal tender, and imposing no such restriction upon the General government, how can we resist the conclusion that they intended to leave to it that power unimpaired, in case the future exigencies of the nation should require its exercise?

I am aware that according to the report of Mr. Madison in the original draft of the Constitution, the clause relating to the borrowing of money read, 'to borrow money and emit bills on the credit of the United States,' and that the words, 'and emit bills,' were, after some debate, struck out. But they were struck out with diverse views of members, some deeming them useless and others deeming them hurtful. The result was that they chose to adopt the Constitution as it now stands, without any words either of grant or restriction of power, and it is our duty to construe the instrument by its words, in the light of history, of the general nature of government, and the incidents of sovereignty.

The same argument was employed against the creation of a United States bank. A power to create corporations was proposed in the Convention and rejected. The power was proposed with a limited application to cases where the public good might require them and the authority of a single State might be incompetent. It was still rejected. It was then confined to the building of canals, but without effect. It was argued that such a power was unnecessary and might be dangerous. Yet Congress has not only chartered two United States banks, whose constitutionality has been sustained by this court, but several other institutions. As a means appropriate and conducive to the end of carrying into effect the other powers of the government, such as that of borrowing money with promptness and dispatch, and [79 U.S. 457, 560] facilitating the fiscal operations of the government, it was deemed within the power of Congress to create such an institution under the general power given to pass all such laws as might be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the other powers granted. The views of particular members or the course of proceedings in the Convention cannot control the fair meaning and general scope of the Constitution as it was finally framed and now stands. It is a finished document, complete in itself, and to be interpreted in the light of history and of the circumstances of the period in which it was framed.

—79 U.S. (12 Wall) 457, 559 (1870), Justice Bradley (concurring).

Enjoy. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That of course is his opinion, but it was not the opinion of the majority of the court prior to the Legal Tender Cases, just as the legality of abortions was not the opinion of the court until Roe v Wade. There are any number of issues on which the position of the court has changed over the years. Despite the 14th Amendment, the 5th amendment right against self incrimination was only recently (historically speaking) imposed upon the states. The 2nd amendment right to own a gun was imposed upon the states only a couple of years ago (McDonald v Chicago) again despite the longstanding prohibition in the 14th. As far as I know Section 2 of the 14th Amendment has NEVER been enforced (that is the requirement that apportionment of Representatives be adjusted for any deprivation of the right to vote) despite that requirement being on the books for about 140 years. What is your problem with showing the historical fact that Supreme Court opinion on paper money changed with the Legal Tender Cases? Last I checked history did not start after the Civil War.71.174.135.204 (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Bills of credit and paper money synonymous

From U.S. Supreme Court BRISCOE v. BANK OF KENTUCKY, 36 U.S. 257 (1837)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=36&invol=257

Bills of credit and paper money are synonymous. The abuse of paper money, during the difficulties of the revolutionary war, and the ruin which its extravagant issue produced, were the causes of the constitutional prohibition.

and from Craig v. Missouri - 29 U.S. 410 (1830)

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/29/410/case.html

Craig v. Missouri - 29 U.S. 410 (1830)

"To emit bills of credit" conveys to the mind the idea of issuing paper intended to circulate through the community for its ordinary purposes as money, which paper is redeemable at a future day. 71.174.135.204 (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Madison's Notes http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp

Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.

Mr. BUTLER, 2ds. the motion.

Mr. MADISON, will it not be sufficient to prohibit the making them a tender? This will remove the temptation to emit them with unjust views. And promissory notes in that shape may in some emergencies be best.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS. striking out the words will leave room still for notes of a responsible minister which will do all the good without the mischief. The Monied interest will oppose the plan of Government, if paper emissions be not prohibited.

From the above Madison asks if instead of prohibiting the emission of paper money, a prohibiting on the making of paper money a tender would be sufficient. Mr. Morris answers that it would be insufficient because the monied interests would oppose the plan if paper emissions were not prohibited.

Madisons note FN23 plainly states that is his understanding that the purpose of the vote was to "cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts."

FN23 This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, [FN24] and particularly for making the bills a tender [FN24] either for public or private debts.71.174.135.204 (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Madisons note FN23

Would a lay person with no special knowledge be able to confirm that "according to Madison's Notes" the vote to strip/delete/remove the language allowing the issuance of notes on the credit of the US "would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, [FN24] and particularly for making the bills a tender [FN24] either for public or private debts."?

Complete note - http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp

FN23 This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, [FN24] and particularly for making the bills a tender [FN24] either for public or private debts. 71.174.135.204 (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Once again, it is not our place to interpret these primary sources, especially when they are legal in nature. Find a secondary source that interprets your primary. I don't even know why you are asking about a "lay person" to begin with. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiki policy allows the use of primary sources if a lay person with no special knowledge of the issue can confirm the material added to the article is supported by the source. Your objection is noted and discarded as irrelevant to this discussion.71.174.135.204 (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Wiki policy plainly states that "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."

A secondary source is only required if there is an interpretation of the source material "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.135.204 (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You have made the same claim or asked the same question at least nine times [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. If you don't like the answers please feel free to file a report at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. You might also want read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It does seem to me that SOMEONE has yet to grasp that wiki allows primary sources for citations. Please respond as to whether Madison understood, from his notes, that the vote passed 9-2 was to cut off any pretext for paper money and making legal tender of the same.71.174.135.204 (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You are asking for interpretation. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Make that ten times that you've asked this question. You should ask over at WP:RSN —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Am I interpreting this as well? http://www.rogershermansociety.org/nature_of_money.htm

George Bancroft's History of the United States of America, Vol. VI. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1886, Page 303 states it this way:

James Madison left his testimony that "the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender, either for public or private debts, was cut off." This is the interpretation of the clause, made at the time of its adoption alike by its authors and by its opponents, accepted by all the statesmen of that age, not open to dispute because too clear for argument, and never disputed so long as any one man who took part in framing the constitution remained alive.71.174.135.204 (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That depends, what are you trying to use it to say? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to say that there was a vote at the Constitutional Convention to strip the power to issue paper money from the new Constitution, that this vote passed 9 to 2 and that per Madison the purpose of the vote was to cut off any "pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making that currency a tender". 71.174.135.204 (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The former is not stated in your primary source. Removing language from the Constitution does not mean that the power does not exist, per say. Furthermore, no language was added specifically prohibiting that power and even if Madison did vote for that reason, he wasn't the only voter. Per note 63, some of those voting for striking the language did so not out of total opposition to paper money, but rather out of a hope to not promote its adoption. Some, such as Gorham, specifically opposed adding language prohibiting the use of paper money as they did not want to prohibit its use, just not promote it. Therefore, by the votes and discussion, it seems that power was not intended as prohibited to Congress. This is why it is worth having secondary sources for interpretation. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretation does not conform to the source document aka Madisons Notes FN23

FN23 This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, [FN24] and particularly for making the bills a tender [FN24] either for public or private debts

According to Madison the vote was to "cut off the pretext for a paper currency, [FN24] and particularly for making the bills a tender" The "secondary source plainly states that "This is the interpretation of the clause, made at the time of its adoption alike by its authors and by its opponents, accepted by all the statesmen of that age, not open to dispute because too clear for argument, and never disputed so long as any one man who took part in framing the constitution remained alive." Constitutional interpretation has changed over the years, going from the question of whether a power was delegated to whether a power could be sneaked in on some pretext. The Founders, cognizant of "power creep" added the 10th Amendment shortly after in the Bill of Rights to prohibit the use of powers "not delegated". The power to "emit" paper money was removed and therefore NOT DELEGATED because the prohibition on making it a legal tender was considered INSUFICIENT! see below.71.174.135.204 (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Gorham misinterpreted

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp

Mr. GHORUM was for striking out, without inserting any prohibition. if the words stand they may suggest and lead to the measure.

Col. [FN20] MASON had doubts on the subject. Congs. he thought would not have the power unless it were expressed. Though he had a mortal hatred to paper money, yet as he could not foresee all emergences, he was unwilling to tie the hands of the Legislature. He observed that the late war could not have been carried on, had such a prohibition existed.

Mr. GHORUM. The power as far as it will be necessary or safe, is involved in that of borrowing.

From above Gorham was against the issuance of paper money, and thought that the only power that would be "necessary or safe" to delegate would be the power to borrow. It seems to me plainly obvious that there is no need to insert a prohibition making paper money a tender when the power to emit paper money itself is prohibited and cannot exist.71.174.135.204 (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The vote is the vote

Re objections that people voted for or against the issuance of paper money for different reasons, what does that have to do with the fact that the vote carried 9 to 2? That the vote passed 9 to 2 is a historical fact supported by all known documentation. This fact is NOT subject to debate.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp

Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless.

On the motion for striking out

N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN22] 71.174.135.204 (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A) They did not vote for or against the existence of paper money. Many, possibly including Madison himself (why you harp pretty much only on him and not the ten others, I don't know) recognized its importance at times of need such as the Revolution. The vote was for or against inclusion of specific language within the US Constitution. Arguments about the 10th Amendment don't really hold up considering that it did not exist at the time of this vote.

B) What the vote actually means, legally speaking, is something for secondary sources and/or the courts to determine. They have, and determined that paper money is not against the Constitution, and that the voters did not intend to forbid the power to make paper money.

I am left asking exactly what it is that you want to put in the article. What is the purpose of this conversation, and what do ou want to use the vote to say? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

They voted to ban the issue of paper money, during which vote a suggestion by Madison to just ban the making of it "a tender" was rejected as insufficient.71.174.135.204 (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

With respect to B I am asking for the inclusion of material showing that up until the Legal Tender Cases, a period of about 100 years, Court opinion was that paper money was prohibited.71.174.135.204 (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

With respect to the 10th Amendment, it was enacted to prevent an ever increasing growth in the power of the Federal Government. The 10th specifically prohibits the exercise of powers NOT granted. The power to issue money was in fact NOT GRANTED.71.174.135.204 (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

As to what I want to put in the article I suggest you read the section of this talk page where I have specified what I wish included. It's been sitting there waiting for you to act on it.71.174.135.204 (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Pro Con Lists Are Bad

Heading just about sums it up: pro/con lists are inherently biased. Categorizing things as pros or cons is a subjective task and one unfit for wikipedia. The number one tsk for this article should be integrating those two sections into a "Effects of the Gold Standard"-type section. Dash1224 (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia censors on a roll

What other explanation is there for refusing to cover 100 years worth of history?71.174.135.204 (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Disadvantages

Came back to see if artilce was still protected and yup, its still protected. Since I can't change anything I will point out a few defects in the ddisadvantages section.

On limited supply of gold - the amount of gold per person is about the same as 100 years ago under the gold standard. The supply of gold is no obstacle to a gold standard. The article comment that the limited supply of gold would limit its use under a gold standard is stupid. A gold standard requires the use of gold so how can it limit its use? Retarded!

Higher real interest rates under a gold standard as a disadvantage is also stupid. First there are more savers then debtors, so higher interest rates help more people. That's a benefit. The net interest is a wash - one outgo is another's income. That's a wash. In general debt is considered WAY worse then saving so anything that encourages savings is a net social plus. See all the debt crisis all over the world today caused by excessive debt. There is no crisis anywhere that has even been caused by excessive savings.

Anything that monkeys with a free market causes distortions reducing overall economic growth. Fiat is all about distorting the economy for the gain of a few, the bankers and governments.

Monetary policy is not determined by gold production. Under a gold standard there is no monetary policy to distort the economy and deduce overall growth.

Short run price instability is bogus. No claim has been made by the author or anyone else that the gold standard caused that price instability.

The only time the gold standard can be speculatively attacked is when claim on gold are greater then the supply of gold. That is not an issue under a 100% gold standard since every paper claim is backed 100%. It is only a probled under a partial gold standard when gold claims are not covered by gold on hand.

Under a gold standard a country by definition CAN'T devalue its currency. An ounce of gold will always be an ounce of gold. The gold standard is used specifically because gold money can't be devalued.

Most economists don't have two brain cells to rub together. Screwing with the free market reduces overall economic growth.

Central banks have caused every major financial disaster of the past 100 years. Putting shackles on the ability of a central bank to take any kind of action is a GOOD thing.71.184.188.254 (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

-You have a good point. The description of limited gold for currency should refer to there being less than 200 grams of extracted gold per person on the earth to serve as currency. That is one very small coin for each person. And that is only after we stop using gold in electronics, industry , dentistry, jewelry and historical artifacts. Frankly I suspect that an attempt to return to the gold standard would see a barter economy instead, since "true" gold standard believers would see gold as too valuable to be used in ordinary business transactions.

-Obviously the article is ambiguous since they meant a monetary policy as to what percentage of national currency is backed by gold. So actually you are referring to a 100% gold coinage standard when you say no monetary policy. In any case you have not cited a practical 100% gold coinage system (sizes/weights/denominations) for a real fully industrialized nation and the weight of gold required. Until you do most of us will think you have no idea of the mass of gold required and that you just assume on faith alone that a solution exists. Or maybe I misjudge your intelligence and ethics, I have met more practical Libertarians who are simply too polite to publicly say that their ideas include returning to 1830s level populations and industrial technology -- thus greatly reducing the amount of gold required.

-Actually gold or silver is famous for all the economic instability before the introduction of paper money. Its called panic and speculative gold hoarding. Under gold currency the first hint of economic goods failing results in everyone "burying" their coinage if they can afford -- resulting in a sudden crash as regional business slams to a stop due to lack of coins flowing in the markets. Later under partial gold reserves a slightly delayed form of this resulted in bank runs and when enough banks collapsed again a dramatic economic slow down.

-Gold coins are easy to devalue if actually placed into circulation. In fact devaluation is commonly not limited to government action but includes most private citizens. How? 100% gold coins are terrible coins because they are soft, bendable, and easily filed down. Because they do not hold shape well, its fairly easy to mix in a little base metal and recast forgeries - or recast with base metal slugs in the middle. You can make gold and silver coins resistant to casual civilian devaluation by hardening them with special alloy mixtures. But then the coins are not 100% gold or silver which bothers a lot of purists even if the marked value does not exceed the actual weight of gold and silver included. And of course once you alloy then governments can twiddle with the alloy percentages and coin weights which sets off the OCD types even if the government does not advertise bad gold or silver weights. Enough OCD false alarms and the common people stop listening then the government is really likely to put in less gold or silver during fiscal crisis.

-Why not just proclaim "a free market is a barter market"? Because with no easily available currency, there are few if any set prices. Many gold coin folk also think set prices are "rigged" prices. Something about bartering is supposed to reveal hidden true value or quality even if you know little about the product. I agree that in a barter economy what you "pay" depends on what you have to offer and your barter skill.

--And that is the REAL truth of every historical 100% gold coinage economy, coins were rarely used by the common people for any but the most expensive purchases in life. Almost all common business was good via goods exchange. Gold and silver coins were mainly a convenience for the well-to-do and rich and for significant business deals where no suitable goods exchange could be negotiated. The often referenced late 1800s were a rare exception due to the riches of the industrial revolution hitting a low population. But the American Western movie is still mostly a lie when you see gold coins being spent in a saloon. Silver and copper yes. But keep in mind a $20 gold piece was worth the equal of around $2000 USD today. The general store account is mostly true because goods tended to cost less than convenient coinage and coinage was short - and many an account settlement included home goods as well as coins.

72.182.15.249 (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't know what you are attempting to state above. A 100% backed paper money or a true gold standard (no legal tender paper) just means that this is the only money available and it will therefore be the only money used. It's value will be determined by the market. I pointed out above that the amount of gold available per person is roughly the same as it was 100 years ago under the 100% gold standard. The objections that there is not enough gold to serve as money is therefor plainly bogus.71.184.188.254 (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

If you knew anything about economics you would know that having a gold standard is something that actually works against free markets. For example, (although it is not exactly the same as a gold standard) the euro is one of the reasons that the Greek debt crisis has become so bad. Because the ECB handles interest rates on the euro for the entire Eurozone, Greece is not able to simply devalue its own currency to lighten its debt burden. Because it can't exercise monetary policy it has few options and this has led to greater speculative attacks on Greek government bonds, CDS and other assets which has only further worsened Greek credit ratings and yields. If they could have used a currency devaluation to reinstate investor confidence they could have rolled over or restructured their debts and combined this with reduced spending to make the situation much more manageable.142.151.169.92 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC).

The reason the Greek debt crisis got so bad in that Greece, as a member of the EU, was able to get loans as almost the same rate as Germany. Rates which it did not deserve. With a lot of help from Goldman Sachs it was also able to HIDE large portions of its debt from the markets, which continued to loan even more money at undeservedly low rates. Higher interest rates serve to limit the size of debt by reducing the debt load that can be carried, and by acting as a disincentive to get deeper in debt. Under the EU euro regime, both of these two market forces were nullified. If Greece had borrowed at true free market rates it would have reached its debt load limit many years ago and likely would not have done so because of punitive high interest rates acting to limit debt growth.71.174.135.204 (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW In free markets people get to choose the money of their choice. Fiat, which is imposed on the markets, is by definition anti-free markets. Gold and silver have been the money of choice for thousands of years while every fiat ever produced has already failed and is worthless or will eventually fail and become worthless.71.174.135.204 (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the limit to economic growth that a Gold standard imposes, I would like to ask if this should not be listed under "advantages" instead of "disadvantages", given that we are living on a finite planet with a finite amount of resources. Thus, it is irrational to assume that any economic system can escape these constraints. This point has been well argued in "Limit to Growth" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth). That being the case, the limits to economic growth imposed by the Gold Standard are both natural and desirable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauricelavenant (talk • contribs) 09:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

England

Shouldn't the section on England be United Kingdom? I don't know much about economics (which is why I didn't just edit it) but the acts mentioned - the 1819 Act for the Resumption of Cash Payments and the 1844 Bank Charter Act - are acts of the UK parliament and the coinage programme mentioned was conducted by the UK government.

It's wrongly confusing England with the UK, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.235.59.198 (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

USD and Gold Standard

Need to mention that the U.S. dollar, while not legally guaranteed to be convertible at a fixed rate to gold, is backed about 40 percent by gold collateral held at the Federal Reserve, the remaining 60% by government paper (i.e., future taxation on the same dollars). There are 928 billion dollars outstanding, and 400 billion dollars' worth of gold held as collateral against the same (see Wikipedia "Federal reserve" article). Note that the 11.04 billion dollars of gold listed on the Federal Reserve's balance sheet is based on a fake, legislated evaluation of 42 and 2/9 dollars per ounce, also stated in that article, while the real value is at least 20 times higher. This collateralization is important enough to include in the article because it is surprisingly widely misunderstood that the U.S. dollar is not backed by gold whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.51.81 (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You can't use Wikipedia as a self-reference to source the material you wish inserted. You will need to find outside sources. This is true generally, but even more so when you call things "fake." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The Federal reserve note has not been backed by 40% since the 1934 Roosevelt confiscation. At that point it became illegal for US citizens to hold the legal Constitutional money of the US. The Roosevelt confiscation happened because the bank panics of the 1930's were causing people to take their money out of banks in favor of gold and silver coin, and threatening the Federal Reserve with both insolvency and bankruptcy. To put it bluntly, the US went off the gold standard to protect a bunch of bankers from their imminent failure to meet their contractual obligations to convert non legal tender Federal Reserve notes to US gold coin. A contractual obligation stated on the face of every one of those notes.71.174.135.71 (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

higher savings rate results in higher growth rate

The gold standard act to increase savings by rewarding savers with higher interest rates and pretty much every economic model out there states that a higher savings rate acts to increase capital formation and that this results in higher economic growth.

The Federal Reserve of St Loius http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/es/09/ES0946.pdf states: real GDP growth has been higher when the savings rate is increasing then when it is falling

The Solow Growth Model http://www.digitaleconomist.org/cap_4020.html

According to this model, an increase in the rate of savings leads to growth in the capital stock and therefore a higher Standard of Living.

Cambridge Univ Press http://www.princeton.edu/rpds/papers/Deaton_Saving_and_Growth.pdf

Savings drives growth and the appropriate policies for growth are those that promote savings

Erste Group Research http://www.acting-man.com/blog/media/2012/07/Special-Report-Gold-2012-In-GOLD-we-TRUST.pdf

The driving forces of economic health are savings and investment, not consumption and debt.

BTW: Anyone feel incentivised to save by the .1% interest rate you would be getting at your local bank? Just like the Federal Reserve caused the Great depression by fostering a credit bubble in the 1920's, it has again fostered another credit bubble and has caused the Great Recession. History repeats!71.174.135.71 (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The inimical effects of high debt levels http://danielamerman.com/articles/2012/OverC.html

An excellent historical analysis of this issue can be found in the working paper, "Debt Overhangs: Past and Present", which was published by the National Bureau of Economic Research in April, 2012. Authored by Carmen Reinhart, Vincent Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, it examines 26 different "debt overhangs" that have occurred around the world since 1800, with "debt overhang" being defined as public debt exceeding 90% of GDP for at least five years. Among the many nations studied were the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada and Australia.

The analysis determined that while growth averaged 3.5% per year when public debt was less than 90% of GDP, it went down to only 2.3% per year when public debt was more than 90% of GDP. This is a reduction of 1.2%, or a little more than a third of annual economic growth.71.174.135.71 (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Some recent news

not reflected in article

The Republican party wants to set up a commission to look into restoring the gold standard

Gold is now a Tier 1 asset for banks. That puts it in the class of "least risky" assets on a par with the dollar, yen, euro and other reserve currencies. Gold is now being treated as a de facto currency by governments and banks worldwide.71.174.128.45 (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

source type

Is "freetheplanet.net" a scholarly source or does it use scholarly sources? If not, what is the value of its information based on? 108.45.122.74 (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Artilce still full of clueless drivel and propaganda

The US showed the highest economic growth even under a gold standard (late 1800's) , slower growth under the partial gold standard up to Nixon, and the slowest growth ever under the current fiat system. Of the 4 decades since Nixon cut the lat ties to gold, the US has had 2 decades considered "Lost Decades" where economic growth was pathetic or nonexistent.

Why is the article bashing the gold standard under which the living standard of the US improved the fastest and praising the current fiat system which is currently about to give us yet another decade of pathetic economic growth?

Can you say bias?71.174.128.45 (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, bias, I saw no mention of Larry White's book on competitive monetary institutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.50.247 (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

quote from Rothchild letter

http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/vindication2/vindication2_6.html

Mr. Sherman declares that there has never before been such an opportunity for capitalists to accumulate money, as that presented by this act and that the old plan, of State Banks is so unpopular, that the new scheme will, by mere contrast, be most favorably regarded, notwithstanding the fact that it gives the National Banks an almost absolute control of the National finances. "The few who can understand the system," he says, "will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of the people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.141.4 (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

As a Christian I am into Biblical Prophecy. If you are not into Biblical Prophecy skip down to about 3/4 of the way down that link given to get at the meat point about the Gold Standand. The point referenced is near the bottom, and interesting to think about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easeltine (talk • contribs) 17:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Nearly word-for-word but not cited

I am newer to editing and wanted to check on this usage - the paragraph that reads "In modern times the British West Indies..." is nearly written word-for-word from Andrei, Liviu C. (2011). Money and Market in the Economy of All Times: Another World History of Money and Pre-Money Based Economies. Xlibris Corporation. pp. 146-147. I have cited the paragraph as the whole thing is from Andrei (2011), but does it require copyediting etc for NPOV? Thanks --meghaninmotion 18:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meghaninmotion (talk • contribs)

Also, in editing another section, have come across similar situation - with information drawn from Andrei (2011) again. (Section about peso changes for gold standard in Philippines.) The source (Andrei, 2011) cites only "Wikipedia" without further information - doesn't this suggest an UNVERIFIABLE loop of citing? As in, the Wikipedia article would cite an e-book that vaguely sites the general Wikipedia project without any further details. Any advice and tips to proceed would be appreciated. --meghaninmotion 17:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meghaninmotion (talk • contribs)

Friedman's Role in "Nixon Shock"

I believe it was on the advice of Milton Friedman that led Nixon to change the nation's gold policy. Does anyone have a reference for this? If so, this should be mentioned in the article. Friedman's role is important, because it add context to the current debate about returning to the gold standard. (The Libertarians who advocate this change also tend to name Friedman as one of their own.) —MiguelMunoz (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

A possible contradiction between the Advantage and Disadvantage sections.

Advantage

... while the importation of gold by net exporters serves to increase the money supply ...

Disadvantage

The gold standard acts as a limit on economic growth.[59] "As an economy's productive capacity grows, then so should its money supply. Because a gold standard requires that money be backed in the metal, then the scarcity of the metal constrains the ability of the economy to produce more capital and grow."[59]

That's garbage thinking held by many economists today. If follows modern day thinking that an expansion of the money supply (say by the Fed) spurs economic growth while a contraction of the money would reduce it. That is true in the short run bur wrong in the long run. In the long run money printing distorts price signals causing misallocation of capital and reduced economic growth. It also results in lower interest rates which harm savers, causing them to save less, resulting in reduced capital formation and reduced growth. Low interest rates also spur debt growth. High debt growth is a negative for economic growth as well, since by definition any debt taken out for consumption (and not investment) acts to reduce capital formation. i.e. Saved money does not go into upgrading the infrastructure when loaned out to pay for a steak dinner.71.174.140.32 (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

If an economy's productive capacity grows (it produces more), wouldn't it export goods/services to increase its money supply? If it were incapable of exporting enough goods/services to offset its imports, does the country deserve further mismanagement by its government? Wouldn't a properly functioning government decrease imports until its free market produced enough to offset whatever it wishes to import? Wouldn't a properly functioning government balance its trade budget?

Other thoughts

Those in power do not have the ethics and/or knowledge required to do what's best for their fellow paying citizens. They wish to maintain control my manipulating our currency and markets in an attempt to achieve more power, fulfill campaign promises, and/or to pander to those in need. Without the desire to self-regulate their spending addition, gold is required to offer transparency and to make clear the only way to achieve their goals is by increasing production or taxes. They would no longer get away with printing more currency and silently destroying the purchasing power of their paying citizens in the process.

Per WP policy, this is not the place to present or discuss your opinions about the gold standard. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The citation given doesn't support the statement.

The statement is, "In the US and United Kingdom, from 1945 to 1980 negative real interest rates have cost lenders an estimated 3-4% of GDP per year on average."

The reference is to NBER Working Paper 16893, available online at http://www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/2011/res2/pdf/crbs.pdf.

The reference says, "For the United States and the United Kingdom our estimates of the annual liquidation of debt via negative real interest rates amounted on average from 3 to 4 percent of GDP a year. For Australia and Italy, which recorded higher inflation rates, the liquidation effect was larger (around 5 percent per annum)."

Those are two very different things. Poihths (talk) 03:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but when I deposit money in a bank (counts as a loan) I kinda feel screwed getting .1% or less with inflation running 2-3%. The value of my deposit (loan) drops by that 2-3% per year. 71.174.140.32 (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The last revert encapsulates the disputes here

I added a verbatim (that means word for word) "DEFINITION" from Marriam Webstrer dictionary

It was deleted because of RS (questionable source) and NPOV.

The COURT system used that dictionary to check on the meaning of words. It is the the very heart of RELIABLE SOURCE.

as for NPOV - there is/can be no question of NPOV on the meaning of a word - the meaning is the meaning.

can you now guess why my tone toward wiki editors in general is kinda disparaging?71.174.140.32 (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

disparaging comment about inflation and gold

The following appears in the advantages section

"However, an examination of actual historical data shows that inflation (and deflation) magnitudes were actually far higher under the gold standard.[54]

The problem with this is that the author is comparing the war inflation during and after WW1 with the not so warlike recent past. Also the wartime inflation was caused by 1) Federal Reserve money printing to fund the war, and 2) a relative lack of goods and services due to increase war production and a relative scarcity of peacetime goods, causing an increase in price for those goods. Neither the money printing nor the results of the war were caused by the gold standard. Blaming the gold standard for the results of Fed money printing and a war is insane!

Wars are usually accompanied by inflation, the Revolutionary War by hyperinflation and not just mere inflation, there was inflation during and after the Civil War, WW1, WW2 and money printed to fund the Vietnam War has been cited as a cause of the 70's inflation. 71.174.140.32 (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Back it up with some sources or your assertions have no place in the article. It is clear that you lack neutrality with regards to this article. Don4of4 ^[Talk] 01:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the source article for that cite the periods claimed to be under the gold standard included the period of WW1. In case you don't know the Fed was founded in 1913, before WW1.71.174.140.32 (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Central banking is not inconsistent with various forms of gold standard. SPECIFICO talk 01:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

and pretty much every source I know about states that the partially backed "interwar gold standard" was a disaster because it let the Fed print tons of unbacked Federal reserve notes. When people rushed to convert them into gold during the bank panics of the 30's the Fed HAD TO REDUCE the money supply. THAT was what caused the Great Depression.

I would not a have an objection to a study between the same time of period - a war under the gold standard and and war under fiat or near fiat like WW2. The study I question compares war inflation with peace time inflation. That is not a valid comparison.

http://kalyan-city.blogspot.com/2011/07/types-of-inflation-in-economics-with.html

War-Time Inflation : Inflation that takes place during the period of a war-like situation is known as War-Time inflation. During a war, scare productive resources are all diverted and prioritized to produce military goods and equipments. This overall result in very limited supply or extreme shortage (low availability) of resources (raw materials) to produce essential commodities. Production and supply of basic goods slow down and can no longer meet the soaring demand from people. Consequently, prices of essential goods keep on rising in the market resulting in War-Time Inflation.71.174.140.32 (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do not use the talk page to present your personal theories or narratives. SPECIFICO talk 02:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

What personal theory? Wartime inflation? or that comparing a period of wartime inflation with a period of peace time inflation is more then a bit deceptive?71.174.140.32 (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

getting tiring

Deletion of material positive to the gold standard is getting tiring.

Forbes magazine, Prof Bordo and the Britannica Encyclopedia are mainstream reliable sources. Bordo has previously been cited about half a dozen times in this article.

As for the material being fringe, the Austrian School as a CLASS believes that the money chosen by the market is the best money. Historically that has been gold and silver. The Austrian School is a minority school not a fringe school.

Monetarists as a CLASS believe that the best money is money that grows at a slow steady rate since that kind of money does not cause shocks in the economy. Gold is that kind of money because the supply of gold grows at a slow steady rate fitting their DEFINITION of the best kind of money. Again Monetarism is a minority school and not a fringe school.71.174.140.32 (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Monetarism - http://invest.yourdictionary.com/monetarist

Monetarists dislike government initiatives that influence the economy. Instead, slow but steady growth in the money supply is seen as the key to growth.71.174.140.32 (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Monetarists in general do not advocate a gold standard. "Free banking" whether Austrian or otherwise, is fringe. Not all Austrians favor Free Banking. Your sources for the material are opinion pieces from Forbes, not RS, and SYNTH use of other material with the non-RS. Please do not reinsert prior to consensus here. SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Monetarists support ANY kind of money that grows at a slow steady rate. They are more concerned that it grow at a slow steady rate, then what the money actually is.71.174.140.32 (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Forbes magazine

Objection has been made that Forbes magazine is not a reliable source. It is the #1 US business magazine and because of that the #1 world business magazine. Economic historian Robert Higgs states the same thing aka that the growth during the Gilded Age was due to sound money and low government regulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Higgs

https://mises.org/store/Transformation-of-the-American-Economy-1865-1914-P10743.aspx

The Gilded Age, lasting from 1865 to World War I, was an era of economic growth never before seen in the history of the world. The standard of living of the modern age was born during this time of phenomenal transition. Lives lengthen. Wealth exploded. The middle class lived better than kings a century earlier.

And yet this period in history is mostly ignored in the classroom. Those who do address it are keen to debunk the overall trends and instead focus on the plight of small sectors, generally seeking to debunk the idea that it was a period of growth.

The finest response to the "revisionist" view was written by a young Robert Higgs. Fresh out of graduate school and not yet exposed to the Austrian literature, he used the tools he had to shore up the reputation of the Gilded Age and explain that the growth was real and it happened due to free markets and sound money.71.174.140.32 (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Please have a careful look at the following WP Policy. Thank you. WP:NOT. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever your complaint, Forbes IS a reliable source, so is Bordo, and so is the Britannica Encyclopedia. Again Forbes is the #1 business, magazine, Britannica is the #1 Encyclopedia, and Bordo is an economics professor already being used here for cites. The article I cite is Bordo writing an article for another online Encyclopedia. If you have a complaint about the reliability of those source, SPELL IT OUT. DO NOT CHANGE THE SUBJECT. You cooperation would be appreciated, more stupidity on the other hand is not!71.174.140.32 (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This request for specifics has been up for 3 days and no response. How long do I have to wait before being 100% certain that you (SPECIFICO) are acting in bad faith?71.174.140.32 (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Deflation

Last week I tried to add material showing that not all deflations are bad, straight from a study done by the staff of the Federal Reserve. Of all the instances of deflation studied by that group, only one - the Great Depression, was bad. As usual when it comes to pro gold material it got deleted.

Here is similar material from one of the articles already used as a source for this article.

http://www.economist.com/node/13610845

The Economist - article the Greater of two Evils. cite #75.

"If prices are falling because of advancing productivity, as at the end of the 19th century, it is a sign of progress, not economic collapse."71.174.140.32 (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Likely same user who was blocked before

In the talk page archive here[10] you can see involvement from User:71.174.135.204 (who was blocked for a month in 2012 according to his block log). I think this is the same user as the one above (71.174.140.32). The majority of this user's edits on Wikipedia are to this one article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all the editors who have commented about this. I concur that 71 is probably the same user as before, and I have semi-protected the article indefinitely. Let me know if there needs to be any admin intervention on the talk page as well. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've now blocked 71.174.140.32 for 1 month. Hopefully this should curb the IDHT posts, but let me know if more intervention is needed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Three kinds of gold standard

This claim in the lead has been bugging me for a long time: "Three types of gold standards may be distinguished ... gold specie ... gold exchange ... gold buillion" I've never seen this distinction made outside of Wikipedia and as far as I can tell there are no sources in the article that back this claim. Is there any RS that makes this claim? Is there any reason to keep this? LK (talk) 09:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you are right, I couldn't find any reliable sources which clearly made this distinction. And in any event, it is clearly not a distinction which is that prominently featured in the literature, that it should take up most of the lead section for this article. A proper lead section would summarize what is said in the article. In this case I think one paragraph on the history of the gold standard and another paragraph summarizing the theory and advocacy sections would be appropriate.TheFreeloader (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Protection

I've fully-protected the article for two days to stop the edit warring. I considered using semi-protection, but I don't think there has really been a good explanation of how the no original research and neutral point of view policies relate to the material in question, so I have fully-protected so as to not disadvantage 71.174.140.32 (I'll use "71" from now on as it's easier). On Wikipedia we solve issues like this first and foremost by rational discussion, and we only resort to more drastic measures like blocks and page protection if those don't work. So now that no-one except admins can edit the article for two days, let's take the time to talk about the issues and see if we can come to a mutual understanding.

First, let's go over the basics of original synthesis, which is what the other editors claim that 71 has been doing. On the "no original research" policy page, "original synthesis" is defined like this: " If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research." At first glance some parts of the passage added by 71 seem to be obvious original research. 71 adds a statement A, "After a return to the gold standard after the Civil War, from 1870 to 1912 the US experienced an increase in industrial production of 682%.". They follow it up with a statement B, "This compares to an increase in industrial production of 159% from 1970 to 2012, a period where money had no ties to gold." These two statements are reliable and factual, but when put together they make it seem as though the decline in production is due to the switch from the gold standard to fiat currency, when in reality there are many more factors at work, for example American factories having to compete with factories in China where workers are paid much less.

This, on the face of it, seems like original research. But as 71 rightly points out, all of these points are made in the same source, namely this Forbes article. So the author of that article is actually intending to portray the decline in production as being caused by the switch from the gold standard. So it is not, technically, original research, even though it sets off a great many of the alarm bells that original research would. Instead, another policy is at work here, namely that of undue weight, part of the neutral point of view page.

Here is the definition of undue weight: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Now there has been a lot of material published about the gold standard, much of it in peer-reviewed journals and academic books. I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, but I imagine that the views expressed in the Forbes article are in quite a small minority when compared with the mainstream literature. (How much of a minority, I will let you debate among yourselves.) According to the undue weight policy, we can't present minority views as the truth, but we must present them in the context of the majority viewpoint. And if the viewpoint is in a tiny minority, we don't include it at all.

So I don't things are looking too good for the inclusion of 71's material as it stands. We might be able to include some of it, if it is edited to conform with our policies, but definitely not all of it. 71, I suggest you read the policies that I've mentioned thoroughly, and think about their implications for the article. After you have fully understood them, you will find it a lot easier to get your content accepted into the article. And for everyone else, I'd like you to try and find a way of incorporating 71's text into the article that respects our content policies, and doesn't involve just reverting them wholesale. With any luck, that way everyone will win. And please feel free to ask me on my talk page if you have any questions. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The material is based on Austrian School economics. The Austrian School is a minority school but not a tiny minority. Today I added new material almost identical to the Forbes article that is already in the wiki article on the Economic History of the United States. I keep adding material because people keep saying it is miniscule minority view. In fact economic growth in the late 1800's being aided by a return to sound money (gold and silver) after the Civil War greenback decade, may actually be the mainstream view of economic historians. It is certainly not a miniscule minority view. Above I provided a link to a book by one of those economic historians.71.174.140.32 (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Just look at the title of that Forbes article. Any accusation that I am manufacturing anything gets blown away just by reading the title. that title is - The Correlation Between The Gold Standard And Stupendous Growth Is Clear71.174.140.32 (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Another article by the same author which I took material from is is titled "Booming Economic Growth Can Be Broken Down To Four Easy Words"

and a third - The 1870-1914 Gold Standard: The Most Perfect One Ever Created- http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2013/01/03/the-1870-1914-gold-standard-the-most-perfect-one-ever-created/ That article starts off

"The most perfect monetary system humans have yet created was the world gold standard system of the late 19th century, roughly 1870-1914."

I am making up nothing!71.174.140.32 (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so let's say that it's not a view in the tiny minority. (As I said, I'm not an expert here.) In that case, how would you alter your proposed text to put it in the context of the mainstream opinion? Can you show how widespread the opinion is? Are there any academic sources that share the view of the Forbes article, and can you locate them? Even better, do any established textbooks or encyclopaedia articles mention these theories? tertiary sources like this can be useful for judging what is and is not undue weight. And also, how can you express your ideas so that they avoid introducing any novel ideas or original research into the article? (A hint - you will definitely need to drop the passage that says "I suggest that the secret could be expressed in four words: Low Taxes, Stable Money. I call this the Magic Formula." The word "I" doesn't belong in encyclopaedia articles.) As well as the policy pages I mentioned, I also recommend reading the "words to watch" page to see what kind of writing is normally used on Wikipedia. When you come up with a suggestion for a new wording, put it here on the talk page (with references) and then the other editors can comment on it or revise it. Once you have all found a version that has consensus then that can go in the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The Austrian School is in fact not a tiny minority, same for the Monetarist School. I don't understand your question about "put in context". When I try to the points made in the disadvantages section "in context" somebody deletes the material - see the point below about deflation being bad only "sometimes" and not "always". The Austrian School as a class believes that the best money is the money chosen by the market, that means gold and silver. The Monetarists as a class, believe that the best money is one that grows slowly so that no man-made shocks are created reducing business uncertainty and therefor reducing investment and growth. That kind of money includes gold and silver since both can only grow at the slow pace of mine production. Businessmen are more likely to invest in a stable environment then in an unstable environment. Both schools of thought have members whose opinion varies wildly from the norm of the school. These are not my ideas and are mainstream for the schools of thought mentioned. Regarding the passage you want dropped - the "I" is the author of the article and not myself. Low Taxes being a plus for business is as mainstream as it gets. Sound Money being a plus for business is also fairly mainstream. Re: a version that all editors can agree on. The only version worth doing is a version that corresponds as closely as possible to the source document(s). Cut and Paste works pretty well in conveying the sources viewpoint. Any change of that viewpoint (which is common) for "political" considerations is a distortion of the source material and should therefore be unacceptable.71.174.140.32 (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. About the "I" passage - if it is a quotation, it needs to be put in speech marks and attributed to the speaker. (See Wikipedia:Quotations for the details.) Before I go through any of the other content issues, though, I should point out that I'm not the person that you need to convince of your argument. I just protected the article; I don't have a stake in the content. I just started this dialogue in the interest of explaining the policies involved to you, as it looked like no-one had previously taken the trouble to do that, but other than that I don't really have an interest in this article. The people you need to convince are the other regular editors here. So, does anyone else have any comments about what 71 has said? We can't really start a dialogue if you don't let us know what you think. But please, be nice - newcomers are not on the menu at Restaurant Wikipedia. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Strad, thanks for your patient support of this article and editor. I think the points concerning the substance of the edit have been covered above. It's been stated above that his editor is mistaken as to most of what he asserts on the talk page. Various WP policies have been pointed out. If the editor still disagrees after having read the comments here, the next step would be to provide specific RS references to support the specific text under discussion. Repeating assertions on which there's already been comment, without responding to that comment, is not going to lead to resolution of the disagreement. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Stradivarius states that the material was not OR so I not mistaken about that. Please list things that you believe I am mistaken about and we can deal with them. If you don't list anything than I can only assume you are acting in bad faith.71.174.140.32 (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you give a careful second reading to Strad's remarks above. The Forbes piece you wish to use is a blog post by a writer with no credentials or expertise relating to the Gold Standard. The Forbes page clearly states "The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer." You will need to find WP:RS citations to support the text you wish to include in the article. For valid well-considered exposition of matters relating to economics there is rarely a shortage of recognized RS from which to draw. Please refrain from further personal attacks. SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Concur. None of the Forbes sources are suitable and most of the claims are WP:UNDUE. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, as I said, it is not an accepted view that the US industrialization was caused by the gold standard. It is undue weight to include this fringe opinion here in any form. It is obvious synthesis and OR to try to tie monetarists to this view. No good sources at all have been presented for that connection.

And to Mr. Stradivarius who seems to think that we have to with a newcomer here, I can assure you that that is not the case. We have had disputes like this one the last three years with this person. He is on a dynamic IP and refuses to get a user account. He is a tendentious editor, who given half a chance will try to filibuster the talk page, thinking that if his views are just repeated enough it will change Wikipedia policy. These spurts of editwarring will usually only end when the article is put on long term semi-protection. So excuse us if we are trying to make short shrift of this, but we know every step of this process all too well.TheFreeloader (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

That economic growth in the late 1800's was not helped along by the gold standard is not accepted by who? It is accepted by the Austian School of economics and at least one economic historian I linked above. Show me where the other schools of economics DO NOT support the view that high growth in the late 1800's were in part caused by the stability of the gold standard. If you want I can replace the Forbes material with similar material appearing in the wiki article on The Economic history of the United States and/or the material from the economic historian referenced above. That material is sourced to one of the foremost Austrian economists ever.

Re: Why I don't become a registered wiki editor: I decline to become a wiki editor because I choose not to associate myself with IGNORANT anal retentive scum. Sorry if the truth hurts.

Nathan Lewis self description on the web site of his employer (lying a about your background at your employers web site gets you fired) is "I run a small private investment partnership, which invests globally with a macro theme. I would say the study of economics is best done in the tradition of the gentleman economists of the past, such as David Ricardo, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill. Previously, I was an economist and macro strategist for a firm that served institutional investors. My book Gold: the Once and Future Money was released in 2007, and is now available in German, Chinese, Korean and Russian. My opinion pieces have appeared in the Financial Times, Asian Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones Newswires, Worth, Daily Yomiuri, Asia Times, Pravda, Huffington Post, and numerous other print and online publications. I also have a personal website at newworldeconomics.com."

He is an economist, author, and longtime contributor to Forbes magazine (I counted about 50 articles written by him for Forbes) and in one of his articles he claims to have gone before Congress to testify. Sounds like a legit source to me. How many people cited in wiki articles have good enough credentials to be invited to testify before Congress? The fact is NOT MANY!

Why do you consider the Forbes website unusable Blog material? If Keynesian poster boy Krugman had a blog (he does) would material on that blog authored by Krugman also be unusable for wiki articles?

RE:Additionally about your complaint that Nathan Lewis has no credentials to speak on the gold standard, please advise why that dufus writing an opinion piece at The Atlantic is better,(However, an examination of actual historical data shows that inflation (and deflation) magnitudes were actually far higher under the gold standard.[54][55]) and my attempts to delete his OBVIOUSLY bogus material has been resisted by wiki editors! The statement made by that dufus is that inflation under the gold standard was higher then under fiat. He compares the wartime inflation of WW1 (likely created by Fed money printing) with current peacetime inflation. Freeloader (an apt nome BTW) went in and added Prof Bordo as an additional cite to that OBVIOUSLY bogus material. Bordo in that added cite states that support for the gold standard increases during times of high inflation and that "This makes sense: whatever other problems there were with the gold standard, persistent inflation was not one of them. Between 1880 and 1914, the period when the United States was on the “classical gold standard,” inflation averaged only 0.1 percent per year." Bordo in fact contradicts the material from The Atlantic and does not support it. I leave you to consider what kind of person would consider BORDO's comment as support of the The Atlantic article. Words like "biased" and "not in touch with reality" pop into my mind.71.174.140.32 (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't particularly like these WP:IDHT-discussions with you, but I will humor you with a short reply this once.

As you know, at Wikipedia the burden of proof is always with the person who wants to add content. So it is you, as the person who wants to add this statement, who has to prove that the view is held by a significant minority by pointing to prominent adherents. And no, I don't think the Forbes opinion piece writer, in him of himself, is enough to show that his view is held by a significant minority. Some academic writing or statements from people who done significant academic work would be far more convincing.

On the claim that the magnitudes of price swings were higher under the gold standard than under fiat money in the US. Michael Bordo has written extensively on this in several published academic papers. You really should know this, as we have discussed this multiple times before, which is why it feels like pretty much a waste of time to engage in discussion with you, as you keep deploying this WP:IDHT-tactic, thinking that if you can just drive people tired with your obtuseness and verbosity, you will eventually get your way.TheFreeloader (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The Forbes writer represents the views of the Austrian School which is in fact a substantial minority view. Re: Bordo and price variability, Bordo states that prices on average during the gold era changed an average of .1%. Some Brain dead morons in the economics field, in light of this "fact", have switched to bashing the gold standard because of large changes in the "coefficient" of variability. ie. If inflation is .1% and goes to 1% it increases 10 fold. Sounds bad doesn't it? On the other hand if inflation is 5% and goes to 10% the change is only 1 fold. In other words gold gets bashed because inflation went up 10 fold ( from .1 to 1%) while fiat gets blessed because it only doubles (from 5 to 10%). This is garbage thinking. A price increase of 1% is much better then a price increase of 10%.

Direct from Bordo http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GoldStandard.html "As mentioned, the great virtue of the gold standard was that it assured long-term price stability. Compare the aforementioned average annual inflation rate of 0.1 percent between 1880 and 1914 with the average of 4.1 percent between 1946 and 2003. (The reason for excluding the period from 1914 to 1946 is that it was neither a period of the classical gold standard nor a period during which governments understood how to manage monetary policy.)71.184.177.67 (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)