This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A lot has happened in the monetary reform debate since the 2008 crisis. This page needs a major update to adjust to this. Especially the reasons why reformers want a new system need to be summarized in a clear manner. I have tried to summarize the criticism of fractional reserve banking in the following points:
These points need to be backed by reports from monetary reform organizations and other critics, as well as academic publications. The following publications appear to be particularly important:
The articles on money creation, fractional-reserve_banking#Criticisms, Credit theory of money, History of money, Heterodox economics and Money as Debt also need a short summary of this criticism with a link like:
The list of proposed alternatives also needs an update. Bolarno ( talk) 12:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
NESARA is a monetary reform legislative proposal at http://www.nesara.org
The late Dr. Harvey Barnard wrote a book called "Draining the Swamp" which talks about the coming monetary rights movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.5.110.24 ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 23 June, 2005
I am planning to give this article a major overhaul, if that's OK. It is currently very dense and switches wildly between criticisms and solutions. There are a lot of well meaning sentences but they don't go together and the whole thing is a bit of a dog's breakfast. It also goes alarmingly off-topic from the start.
Money Reform is an important entry point to a little-taught area of economics so I think it is important to introduce the main objections - namely fractional reserve and the fact that governments do not supply money - then move on to offered alternatives.
This restructure will not add any more references, that are badly needed, but it may be easier to add them once it is done. - RubyJester ( talk) 22:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Monetary reform can be achieved such that it controls the world, its resources and its people through an unelected and unaccountable Single Global Currency Association or through democratically elected national governments.
The sovereignty of nation states includes the issue of a national currency. Robert Mundell states that governments impose national currencies.
NESARA is as questionable a monetary reform initiative as is the Single Global Currency Association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.43.222 ( talk) 08:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I added this before logging in and I don't like to edit other people's comments. But I don't consider it 'neutral' to associate monetary reformers with left or anti-globalization labels.
Sabine Organiser, Forum for Stable Currencies
Publisher, Public Credit Petition
Evolving Transfinancial Economics
There is a project in research, and development called Transfinancial Economics.........
http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Transfinancial_Economics
R.Searle. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
195.188.183.89 (
talk) 12:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The article has apparently been spammed by advocates of gold standard or "full reserve" nonsense. Given they don't even seem to understand how modern capital requirement rules work, nor cite any important global agreements, these issues should be de-emphasized.
This version is far easier to read and provides a better overview of the basic issues and current thought. This version has more on the history of monetary reform movements. Certainly at least the following para shoudl be restored:
The version you wrote is almost unreadable. I do not support its reinsertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.178.15 ( talk) 06:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I raised the POV flag on the article after my own edit because the article is a POV joke after the first two sections. It's clear that the author advocates the gold standard and considers other approaches inferior or subordinate.
The new introduction frames the controversies better so as to debunk some of the stuff further down, but that's not enough. The article needs to actually survey what all of the most recent Swedish Bank Prize and Nobel Peace Prize winners have said about this, including Amartya Sen, Paul Krugman, Daniel Kahneman, Al Gore, Wangari Maathai, etc..
The fact that ecological and biodiversity finance approaches have been left out entirely despite being advocated by a long list of highly credible advocates ( Paul Martin Jr., Gordon Brown, Bill Clinton, etc.) with actual experience running real G8 countries, is probably the surest sign that the article's gold standard view is well out of hand.
The introduction now makes mention of the fact that the UN advocates the triple bottom line ( social capital and natural capital treated as peers to financial capital) approach, but the article needs much more on the biodiversity finance issue, at the very least it.
... should also have a page on wp, as well as Monetary Reform Act. -- 79.102.23.143 ( talk) 19:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that the term "debt-free money" makes any sense. If the government (or anybody else) issues notes that it will accept as payment (for taxes, e.g.), then those notes are counted as liabilities— that is, debt. The notes may be interest-free, but they are debts as a matter of accounting. Should the term "debt-free" be replaced with "interest-free" throughout the article? — KHirsch ( talk) 21:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The "colonial scrip" story is a hoax that was popularized by Congressman Charles Binderup. While Parliament's regulation of currency was a source of friction with the colonies, that had almost disappeared by 1775 and there is no evidence that Franklin or any of the other Founding Fathers ever thought that the currency conflict was a primary cause of the American Revolution.
Blogger Anthony Hopkins investigated the story at his web site, eliciting comments from the late Leo Lemay, distinguished scholar of Benjamin Franklin. Among other things, Lemay says:
As for the causes of the American Revolution, the colonists had many complaints, but the most fundamental one was taxation without representation.
There are no accurate quotations from Franklin, though sometimes his point of view is reflected in the speech, but sometimes, too, it misrepresents him.
You can also check that none of the quotes are valid by searching the comprehensive Papers of Benjamin Franklin web site. — KHirsch ( talk) 21:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Lincoln did not call greenbacks "the greatest blessing the people of this republic ever had."
This quote is from a letter that Lincoln scholars reject as a forgery. See Schwartz, Thomas F. (Autumn, 2000).
"One or Two Lincoln Forgeries" (PDF). For the People: A Newsletter of the Abraham Lincoln Association. 2 (3).
ISSN
1527-2710. {{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help). —
KHirsch (
talk) 21:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
For any interested observers who may be wondering, reverting banned users is one of the exceptions to WP:3RR. USER:Karmaisking is a banned user with a long history of sockpuppeting, and DebtDukkha has all the hallmarks of a Karmaisking sockpuppet. He easily passes the WP:DUCK test. It's a waste of time, but a sockpuppet investigation has been started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karmaisking. LK ( talk) 06:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
BigK HeX and Ravensfire have suggested these changes are "bold". Even leaving aside the irony that new editors are actually encouraged to be "bold" in their edits, these are not bold in any way. They cut down irrelevant (and I might add factually incorrect) stuff about fractional reserve banking. They add a reference to recent stuff from Steve Keen (that subtly corrects the myths about FRB if you actually read the reference). It only really makes amendments to one or two paragraphs. It doesn't change the structure of the article. It seems like it's getting to the point that any edits are being blocked on some pages by self-appointed WP 'guardians'. There is no appeal to WP:POLICY. Just saying you're too bold is actually not a justification to revert. The same bizarre conduct has occurred on the Austrian School page. I think it's important for admins to actually read the refs added and reflect on the relatively minor changes made before auto-reverting on some 'sensitive' pages. Chill guys...
I suspect that there is a difference also in English between monetary reform and currency reform. The introduction of the euro, the dollarisation of some countries and devaluations in the national currency, are example of a currency reform. Monetary reform is another thing, its reform of how money is created, by private banks through fractional reserve-banking or by a state-owned bank for example. So, I suggest that you should have a separate article on currency reform. See Swedish WP, penningreform and valutareform. -- Mats33 ( talk) 01:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Promotional/soapbox statements |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
"Positive Money in the UK Positive Money website tries to raise awareness of the connections between the current monetary and banking system, and some of the biggest social, economic and environmental issues that face society." Who removed my previous attempt and why under Heading "International Monetary reform" ? -- brandsby ( talk) 16.56, 30 August 2013 (UTC) FAO Bob Rayner - What is Positive money advocating if not monetary reform ?? -- brandsby ( talk) 17.00, 2 September 2013 (UTC) |
Dr. Wyplosz has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
Please note that not all countries impose a mandatory reserve ratio (e.g. the UK or Canada). I would also suppress "legal" in the second sentence.
"However, some critics of fractional reserve banking argue that the practice inherently artificially lowers real interest rates and leads to business cycles propagated by excessive capital investment and subsequent contraction": this is plain wrong. Central banks fully control the short term interest rate, which seems what the sentence refers to. This also applies to the last sentence of the following paragraph.
"Some critics discuss the fact that governments pay interest for the use of money which the central bank creates "out of nothing"." Logically this implies that governments should borrow at zero interest, which is nonsensical. Like any borrower, governments should face the cost of credit.
The same applies to developing countries in the next section on central bank independence. The second paragraph of that section is at best misleading and mostly wrong.
Mundell supports a rettunr to gold, but nor the reasons mentioned.
There is no evaluation of the many reform proposals, most of which are nonsensical.
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Wyplosz has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
ExpertIdeasBot ( talk) 18:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Monetary reform and currency reform is not the same thing. Currency reform is when you change from kronor to euro or devalue etc. Monetary reform on the other hand is based on the critique of money creating by private banks. We have just created new wikidata on penningreform vs valutareform in Swedish, based on this, and English WP should also note the difference, and not redirect wrongly. -- Mats33 ( talk) 14:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Monetary reform. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Maybe it would be nice to have a section on the history of monetary reform attempts - perhaps a whole article. It could include the history of the current money system, old religious bans on usury, as well as the reform debates that were prompted by previous crises and crashes in history. Useful references: Zarlenga: The Lost Science of Money; Graeber: Debt: The first 5000 years. Reinhart & Rogoff: This time is different: Eight centuries of financial folly. Di Muzio and Robbins: An Anthropology of Money: A Critical Introduction Bolarno ( talk) 15:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I have added two new sections with arguments for and against monetary reform. I think that a list of these arguments is important in order to understand the reform movement, the problems they are trying to solve, and the possible problems of a reformed system. The publications arguing for reform were easy to find, while publications arguing against reform were quite difficult to find and some of them used a jargon that was difficult to understand. Nevertheless, I have tried to represent both sides in a fair and neutral way. Wikipedia is not a forum for debate, and I don't want to add counterarguments or a review of the debate, because that would be difficult to keep neutral and it would make the article too complicated. The section on Alternative money systems probably needs an update. Bolarno ( talk) 15:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)