Talk:Ben Bernanke/Archive 1

Neutral article? More like NWO ass kissing

I love how this article does not state any of the criticism this man (if you can call him a man he's more like a demon) has generated by the small yet very loud group of people who are currently against the Federal Reserve System and it's raping of the American economy as well as it‘s attempts to gain more control over us. Quite frankly I don't give a damm wither he's Jewish or not and the fact that people are either using this to cover up or convey the truth about him is ridiculous and serves no purpose other then to perpetuate the division created by all religon. It's about time people unvail the pretty little masks that these crooks wear and it expose them for what they are which is New World Order trash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.183.164 (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ben described as a "furious magician" near the start of the article....Groan!

I thought to take it out, but am unfamiliar with article editing, and it's so obvious as not to be likely to trip readers up too badly. Can someone fix it, please.--FurnaldHall (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Johnfravolda (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Did not find "magician" in article text

Error in quotation

The citation from the Princeton Univ. Press is garbled. Whoever placed it, please fix it. 128.8.222.46 22:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Meaning of "inflation hawk"

Could someone please clarify what is meant by "inflation hawks"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.57.250 (talk • contribs)

An inflation hawk holds that the primary goal of monetary policy should be to prevent inflation rather than prompt growth. In practical terms, an inflation hawk would be quicker to pull the trigger on interest rate hikes as the economy heats up coming out of a recession. The effect might be to prematurely end the growth part of the cycle, but the hawks hold that it's a good idea because inflation is a worse ill than low growth or stagnation. So, for example, an inflation hawk isn't really bothered by the fact that wages have been essentially stagnant, or even declining. That's because wage increases are among the primary causes of inflation. And inflation is bad because it destroys the value of money. So, the hawk would say that yes, perhaps you aren't experiencing wage increases, but at least the money you have is still good for something. Some would argue even further that even if wages stagnate, real wages/buying power increase because of technology. The idea there is that if your wages stagnate, and you can only afford to buy $10 widgets for the 10 years, technology is making the widgets better, and you are therefore getting the widgets cheaper (or paying the same for a better widget), and that therefore even if your wage has remained the same, your real wage (buying power) has increased. While every economist agrees that inflation is a major problem, and its prevention should be one of the main goals of any monetary policy, "inflation hawks" are even stronger in this belief than most, and would be willing to make greater sacrifices to economic growth for the sake of preventing inflation. Binkymagnus 00:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

"Bernanke is Jewish, like Greenspan"

Why is "Bernanke is Jewish, like Greenspan" included in this article? I can understand if it merely said "Bernanke is Jewish", but adding that he shares his ethnicity with Greenspan seems unnecessary. What's the point? Does the article on Harriet Miers say "Like Sandra Day O' Connor, Miers is a Christian female of North European descent."? I don't think so. the only reason to include the "Jewish like Greenspan" that is for conspiracy theorists to get agitated. I say, take that line out. (Appalachiangirl 00:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC))

I was trying to assume good faith on his part -- apologies if it didn't come across -- but articles related to the Federal Reserve are constantly subject to vandals referencing Zionist consipiracies to steal the nation's wealth and related junk. I just wanted to nip this discussion in the bud as in my opinion it's off-topic at best. You do have a point that the conspiracy theorists rarely ask before editing. --Afelton 01:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

"Like Greenspan, Bernanke is Jewish."

This line looks ridiculous, in this article --

"Like Greenspan, Bernanke is Jewish."

-- and it reflects badly on Wikipedia and makes it look ridiculous too.

Who cares whether an economist is Jewish or not? What color are his eyes? Does he wear wool or cotton sox? Is he right-handed or left-handed? Why not put some of these not-so-salient facts in the article too...

I suggest that the line be deleted. Any print encyclopedia editor would delete it, as being irrelevant, and so should Wikipedia. --Kessler 00:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to take the line out and ask that "discussion" be used here by anyone who objects. Willing to bet that most commentary will agree with those made so far, that the line is irrelevant to the article.--Kessler 00:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Oops, somebody beat me to it... :-) --Kessler 00:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

my bad. I thought his being Jewish was a good thing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.245.132 (talk • contribs)

so, you think it's a good thing. fine, but it is totally irrelevant to this article which does not discuss his personal life. And the inclusion of his ethnicity/religion will only attract the attention of anti-semitic conspiracy theorists, so it should not be included. (Appalachiangirl 03:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC))

No more than his being Hindu, Christian, Muslim, or athiest would be. It is irrelevant. — ceejayoz ^{talk .com} File:Australia flag large.png 05:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it is interesting and concerning that "The Machine" tends to suppress any discussion when it comes to exposing that a person in high political power is Jewish. Perhaps the more appropriate and relevant question would be whether or not he is a Zionist.....which the majority of Jews are. Zionism is a political idealogy and is certainly relevant to any discussion involving a position of political power and influence.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.103.46 (talk • contribs)

Why is being Jewish controversial? Why do people want to censor that fact? Is there something I am missing here? Supreme court nominees and major politicians are always identified as belonging to some kind of religous organization. Why is it wrong to know what religous organization the Federal Chairman belongs too. We know that Porter Goss head of the CIA is member of the Episcopal church. Is that a state secret?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.139.17.158 (talk • contribs)

Some people read more into Jewishness than religious or ethnic heritage, such as assuming all Jews are political Zionists or support AIPAC and other lobbying groups. In my opinion Wikipedia can make a positive contribution to equality by simply documenting the facts of someone's religious background, thus making knowledge of such things so common as to be irrelevant. Ryanluck 16:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that saying "Like Greenspan,..." is irrelevant and ridiculous; but citing someone’s religion is totally legitimate and informative for a reference work. The Congressional Directory, published by the US government, sites religious affiliation of many members. So I don't buy the irrelevant argument. But is it TRUE that he is a Jew? I could find no reference to support that.

If anyone can support the claim that Bernanke is a Jew, I for one would appreciate that it be reflected in his Wikipedia entry.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RGfuller (talk • contribs)

Please sign your entries... If you really want to discuss this the rest of us need to be able to identify you.

If someone wants to advertise that she herself, or he himself, is this or that religion I don't have much objection. I don't like religious proselytising, and I tend to discount the views of those who do it: members of Congress who wish to pander to and manipulate current religious hysterias, by claiming affiliations they've recently discovered, I definitely include in that last group.

I do object, though, to labeling people "Jew" because someone else figures their family name, or facial profile, or something they've said or written seems to indicate it -- that is what was done here -- and that is what is done, too often, in Europe and the Middle East, forming the basis for some of the most objectionable racism and religious persecution which took place in the last century. So I'd be careful.

If Ben Bernanke himself wants to be called a "Jew" then by all means I'd let him do so. But for others to do so to me seems dangerously close to racism and religious persecution. Either way, this man's religious affiliation does not seem germane to his profession as an economist, and I don't think needs inclusion here -- why not list the color of his eyes as well, as I said before... Sounds to me more like some simply want to conflate "Judaism" with "money-handling" with old images of "Shylock", rather than do the research or stick to the subject. So I'd leave religion out of this one: touchy subject, and irrelevant here.

I have a problem here with what I see as a blatant double standard: how can you accuse someone of racism while describing "Jew" as a religion? In almost every wikipedia article involving Jews, nobody cares to mention that Jews are an ethnic group that can be traced to Eastern Europe, and a clearly distinct race of people. In other words, an ethnic Jew can attend the Catholic church his whole life, or be an atheist like most Israelis, but remains a Jew by ethnicity. Can we at least clarify that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.164.27 (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

--Kessler 11:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that it is odd and perhaps anti-semitic (I'm not Jewish) that the Jewishness of Bernanke is so front and center here. Lots of comments on Bernanke and Greenspan's page about judaism, but when I look at the pages for previous fed res chairs (most of whom were not Jewish) do not identify their religious preferences or ethnicity at all. Would you start an article with "McCabe, a Scottish-American economist, was head of..."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.31.2 (talk • contribs)

Its vandalism by trolls, not really much to see. Thanks for the note, I reverted it. Cheers! --Tom 18:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This has come up before and yes, it's anti-semitic in intent (the old "Jews control the economy" canard). It is of course relevant to mention his Jewishness in connection with his biography, since it played a significant part in his upbringing, but his ethnicity isn't a defining issue in the same way that it is for (for instance) Colin Powell. Bernanke is hardly the first Jewish banker, after all! -- ChrisO 19:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I decided that listing his religion in the upper right hand box was unnecessary, he is not a religious figure and all one needs to know about his religious views can be found in the biography section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.8.254 (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The Federal Reserve is the private bank The United States of America uses for it's economy. Perhaps it is indeed a 'fact' that these two men who are not related, and share(d) the same job [Chairmen of the Federal Reserve] -obviously a very powerful job. . These two men also share the same (you pick): Heritage/ Religion/ Culture. What if Greenspan was blind, and so was Bernanke? What if both escaped the Sudan? Served in the same branch of Military? Please explain. I do not understand the confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.182.10 (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Middle name

His middle name is Shalom. Hello ?????????????????????????????????—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.66.217 (talk • contribs)

It may not be -- see Discussion below -- Bernanke himself just says "Ben S."...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kessler (talk • contribs)

Helicopter Ben

If you really want to put this nickname in the article, that's fine, but can we keep all the stuff about his deflation speech in one paragraph? Thanks, Afelton 19:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wanted to keep the part about his name separate so that there is no bias, keep it isolated from other stuff, its pejorative and could be easily confused as POV. The deflation speech quote is where the origin of the name comes from, so its needed, as is some context what it means. Stbalbach 19:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

In the interests of objectivity -- a NYT op ed today [2] refers to the nickname "Helicopter Ben" Afelton 16:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I first came across the name in an internal memo distributed to employees of a well known Washington think tank by their senior bond market analyst and knew its only a matter of time for this name to become more widely known, it's what insiders are using and will quickly spread. Stbalbach 16:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Inflation targeting

Shouldn't all this discussion be on a separate page, either as part of inflation or inflation targeting or something like that? Let's just say something wishy-washy (but truthful) such as "some of his public statements [example x y z] have been interpreted that he is a proponent of inflation targeting" and leave it at that. Afelton 19:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree to a point. I think that if are mentioning his view on inflation targeting, then we should have a few sentenced explaining that inflation targeting would be controversial, and why it is controversial, with a link to a more complete explanation. That seems to be the standard wikipedia practice. I certainly want this article to stay focused on Bernanke and not on economics, but I think a reader who comes here should get a feel for what Bernanke believes, and what outside observers think of those beliefs, without having to jump to a dozen other articles.

Put differently, if I knew nothing abour Bernanke, and nothing about economics, and I came to read this page, I'd like to learn just enough to feel like I was able to have a water cooler conversation of the man and his potential policies? -O^O

Right now, after the text was restored, we have "Such an action is controversial among those who hold that stable inflation is fundamentally incompatible with the mandate of the Federal Reserve to create stable prices, those who hold it reduces central bank transparancy [3], and those who believe that inflation targeting limits the flexibility of central banks."

First, US 12 Ch3 Sub 1 225a is titled "Maintenance of long run growth of monetary and credit aggregates" so indeed the goal of the Fed is to maximize growth. No economist on the planet will agree with the notion that inflation targeting is bad for stable prices, because _we will always have small amounts of inflation_. Stable prices do not mean prices that stay exactly the same. Inflation targeting will work to keep inflation low and thus prices stable.

Further, the notion that inflation targetting REDUCES transparency is silly (this Taiwanese article surely makes an interesting argument, but it is not the wide-spread NPOV that one would expect in an encyclopedia article). The entire goal of inflation targeting is to make monetary policy more transparent, predictable, and accountable.

We definitely need to mention that Dr Bernanke is interested in inflation-targeting, since it is his big thing and f.e. The Wall Street Journal is writing on it every day. And it is controversial, because f.e. Greenspan is against it.

But both of these reasons given are wrong, or at least not the "usual" reasons. The typical, NPOV reason that even Dr Bernanke would acknowledge is that inflation-targeting reduces the Fed's flexibility. It has benefits and possibly other detriments, but those should be mentioned elsewhere.

So I suggest restoring to my orignal text: "Such an action is controversial among some economists who believe that inflation targeting limits the flexibility of central banks." or something similar.

If we don't want to mention any cons whatsoever, that is acceptable too.

- Rlove 21:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Whoa Nelly! Thanks for looking at the title of 12 USC 225a, but I wonder if you actually read the mandate? ..goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates - stable prices are absolutely in there. Now whether or not this three-headed mandate is realistic is another question.

I'm not sure who endorse the opinion that we will "always have small amounts of inflation" as it is not generally true. For most of the history of the United States we had long periods of price stability, interrupted with brief periods of inflation or deflation. Typically, deflation corrected prices back to where they had been pre-inflation. Uncorrected inflation can be tied to a handful of key events, and our current period of persistant inflation is a recent phenomenon of the past four decades.

It is, of couse, necessary to have "growth of the monetary and credit aggregates" in a growing economy, or else we will suffer from price deflation. i.e. Congress has authorized the growth of monetary and credit aggregates in order to obtain maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate interest rates. At least they didn't ask for free ponys too, huh? (it's a joke). -O^O

I did read it. It lists a lot of things, indeed stable prices being one of them, but the overarching goal of the fed is balancing growth against inflation. A powerful economy always has some inflation -- in the (0,2) % range -- I am not talking about rampant inflation. Reasons to want a small amount of inflation are numerous (contracts, sticky prices, unemployment, etc.).

But all of this is irrelevant, really. I want the two points removed from the current article, because they are not the current concerns of academics or the financial community. No one believes that inflation targeting is "against the mandate of the Fed". It is a way of _limiting_ inflation. If anything, inflation targeting is a way to be hawkish on inflation. And the point about lack of transparency is very, very wrong: inflation targeting is a mechanism used to _increase_ transparency.

Rlove 23:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. You need to read them again, or be more specific in what sort of "growth" you are talking about. The Fed mandate has three, and only three, goals. Growth is not one of those goals. Growth of money and credit is a tool that the Fed is empowered with by the congress to reach those three (and only those three) goals. -O^O

Ok, remove them then - I won't put them back without additional sourcing. But I insist we keep text the explains that some see inflation targets as a way explicitly embracing the idea that some inflation is acceptable, and that this doesn't make inflation hawks happy.

Some notes (as much for me as anybody):

"Targeting is partly designed to prevent bankers from killing growth by being overly hawkish." - [3]

"Zero inflation, or close to zero depending on measurement error and other technical details, is as good as any other choice in promoting ultimate macroeconomic goals such as full employment and long-term economic growth." - http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/20050526/default.htm

This is an interesting way of putting it "Poole is a long-time advocate of inflation targeting. He has said zero inflation, properly measured, would be the best objective" - [4]

There is a contingent that holds zero inflation as a goal. If Bernanke is supporting an inflation target that is a range of positive numbers, then he clearly isn't in that camp. Striving for zero inflation also means accepting deflation as a risk, which Bernanke's comments have implied isn't his style.

Point being, inflation targets are certainly seen by some as being bad because the constrain the bank. But inflation targets are also certainly seen by another group as being bad because they are inherently inflationary (unless we are saying that the target is zero or a negative number, which isn't what Bernanke is saying, and it is silly to bring up). -O^O

So nice when Wikipedia editors discuss and then agree on a compromise! This is very-un-wiki behavior... I may have to start reverting to get an edit war going. Anyway, I think the current language is fine, thanks for hashing it out. Now, I think we should have a separate inflation targeting article, as the current inflation article is too long and doesn't really address targeting very much. Maybe over the weekend... Afelton 00:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Statistically likely IQ

RLove: Your arbitrary exclusion of the reference to Bernanke's IQ and its rarity in the population is high-handed. It is a fact of potential interest to many, and serves to highlight one (of many) reasons he should seriously be considered for the position.

To include a reference in the body of the text would be pedantic and would destroy the flow of the article. Nonetheless, the conversion is well accepted in the high IQ universe and has been subjected to rigorous testing over the years.

The article is not simply a discussion of macroeconomics; it is a portrait of a man. The fact and insight I added contributes to that portrait.

But if you need the warm fuzzy of researching this conversion, I suggest you start with www.davidpbrown.co.uk. Further study on your part will serve only to confirm the accuracy of my addition.

I shan't bother to reinsert the addition. Your type would love to re-exert your power of "reversion". If you'd like to take it up at a more personal level, I am Donnernv@aol.com—Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnernv (talk • contribs)

His IQ is one thing, the correlation between SAT scores and what his IQ is statistically likely to be his quite another. Further, even if we acknowledge that that is interesting, I doubt the validity. Information besides economics is very interesting -- this is a bio, after all. But unsubstantiated correlated data is not a bio. This is a professional quality encyclopedia.

Another point: Should we start placing the correlated IQ after every mention of someone's SAT score? What about placing other correlated data, translated data, synonyms, equivalents, et cetera after every applicable value? Should we do that, too? Of course not. We could get into a never ending mess. Rlove 15:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I think "I doubt the validity" was pretty well discredited as a telling argument in a scientific inquiry after 1359 AD or so. You can bring youself up to speed by reading Frey and Detterman (2003) from Case Western Reserve or the excellent review article "Mostly About the SAT as an IQ Test" published in the September 1999 issue of Telicom, the Journal of the International Society of Philosophical Inquiry.

Until you do so, your comments will receive the weight they deserve. Your second paragraph simply contains straw men that have nothing to do with the precise subject at hand. Donnernv—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.5 (talk • contribs)

No, the second paragraph is actually the key point. We don't put indirect information such as this in encyclopedias. If people want to see the link between SATs and IQs, that is an interesting bit of information to add (if properly referenced) to SAT -- which, btw, currently has a section on IQ that is not fully supportive of your claim. But, anyhow, we don't parenthetically add after every x the note "which implies y" whenever we have the evidence suggesting the correlation. Lots of data about Bernanke makes him statistically likely to possess all sorts of implications; we don't list that. See my point? It is not that your SAT <-> IQ link is not interesting, it is just not a direct piece of data about Bernanke and thus does not belong here. Rlove 04:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess I missed the memo that announced that you had been appointed the Grand Arbiter of all things Wikipedia. Who is the "we" to whom you refer in your second sentence? And if you are not, in fact, the Grand Arbiter, what is your justification for deciding what "we" will or not add?

Justify your assumed position. Now. Donnernv.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.5 (talk • contribs)

Please do not be so combative or commanding. I am not, in any way, a "Grand Arbiter" of Wikipedia. I am trying, unfortunately without much success, to make a nuanced and logical argument to you, in an effort to CONVINCE not DICTATE TO you of this position. This really is not the mountain it has been made to be; the issue is simply. My name, Robert, has certain statistical implications according to the book Freakonomics (seriously). But whenever I list my name, I don't write down those correlations. For a lot of reasons: it is just a correlation, for one. But the most important point is that the data is not directly related to ME. Every piece of data in the world has statistically-likely implications. They belong in articles about the data. Bernanke is a wonderful economist and he is going to get confirmed, no doubt. But unless we have proof of his actual IQ... Rlove 17:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

If the Israeli's had the oil it would be sold at a discount and there wouldn't be any terrorism.

First name

Is his given first name Bernard, or Benjamin, or just Ben? MZMcBride 03:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's how he says it, Bernanke himself... I'm a great believer in respecting an individual's personal expression, of this sort of preference: some parents give their kids pretty awful names...

"Ben S. Bernanke sworn in as fourteenth Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System..."

http://www.federalreserve.gov/

"Members of the Board of Governors -- Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman..."

http://www.federalreserve.gov/bios/

"Ben S. Bernanke (Ph. D., MIT, 1979), is the Howard Harrison and Gabrielle Snyder Beck Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at Princeton University and the Chairman of the Department of Economics..."

http://www.princeton.edu/~bernanke/

-- seems to me pretty clear that he wants to be called just plain "Ben".

I figure if Bernanke wanted to advertise his religion, or lack of it, or political preferences or eating Wheaties every morning or anything else, using his name, he'd have done so himself. He hasn't. So the rest of us would be just second-guessing to do so, and I think we shouldn't. We should let him speak for himself, on this, and from the above it appears to me that he has.

--Kessler 17:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoever feels responsible for this page should feel ashamed about not addressing McBride's question. If Wiki is useful for anything, it's precisely this kind of pedantic detail. Will someone please find out if Bernanke was "christened" Benjamin or Bernard or whatever, he can't have started life simply as "Ben". Do the research for gawds sake, he is only one of the ten most important people on the planet. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.59.255 (talk • contribs)

You mean there is NO birth certificate ANYWHERE containing his full name? No school record ANYWHERE where is name is written in full? No government document he EVER signed using his full name? No interview with his parents where they say his full name? Very ODD, to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.164.27 (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ben S.

The name Ben Shalom appears to have been vandalism thrown in as follows:

(cur) (last) 17:45, 24 October 2005 GabrielRozenberg (shalom)

-- and never corrected. I've looked, and never found any website or bibliographic or other reference in which Bernanke himself has used anything other than "Ben S." -- if someone else does, please post that evidence here if you make the change, otherwise we'll just rv. it if that "Ben Shalom" pops up again.

--Kessler 16:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi - this wasn't vandalism. Not sure what my source was now but I think it was Reuters. Fair enough if you want to remove it until we can back it up properly - fine by me - but unless he's like Harry S. Truman the S must stand for something, and once we know what it is for certain, I think we should put it in in full. Given that it has never been corrected in the past four months, I think it's plausible that I got it right, but like I say, I've not got the source to hand. Perhaps someone else can help. Gabriel Rozenberg 00:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, that didn't take too long... Our source is the White House nomination itself. Seems pretty reliable to me.

[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/nominations/94.html]

On the basis of this reference, I'm going to reinstate Shalom. It's not the same as the question over Ben/Benjamin; Ben is clearly the first name he goes by, whereas S. is just an abbreviation for the middle name Shalom which he has. The Wikipedia convention is clearly to use the name in full at first mention; eg George W. Bush starts George Walker Bush, despite the fact he doesn't go around calling himself that on anything other than his passport. GabrielRozenberg 01:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

OK & agreed: he & they would have been careful, on that announcement. But now, does that mean he's "Jewish"? That was the original problem, here... I say no, that he isn't unless & until he says he is.

ps. On the Web there are plenty of websites & blogs etc. claiming that Bernanke is Jewish -- some to praise him, some to put him down -- and guess what a large number of them cite, this very Wikipedia article... So I think we have to be careful, about these things, & observe some standards... If a guy doesn't want his beliefs discussed, and doesn't discuss them, our own labeling of them is sheer & sometimes-dangerous speculation, I believe.

--Kessler 01:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Bernanke's not a politician

Chairman Bernanke's not a politician. He is a public official, but his position as Chairman of the Fed is independent of the political process, sort of in the same way that a judge is. I removed from the group "Jewish-American politicians" because I thought that didn't make sense.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.105.39 (talk • contribs)

"theory"

I do not understand (or like) the remark about "theory" at the end of the current article.

First, his academic work is not really theory. It is very empirical. So the claim is inaccurate.

Second, if the article is going to cite some objection to his appointment, can it be specific? That is, force a critic to be quoted in public? Right now the article is just reciting hearsay.

For the record, very, very few of the members of the Board of Governors are or have been "investors." The Fed is not supposed to be Wall Street, Incorporated. --66.108.95.115 21:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the theory post above - get some source for this or delete it. In addition, I don't think you can argue that the real life experience of some finance jockey constitutes preparation for determining the supply of money. All the Fed needs to know is how changes in the money supply affect the economy and the actions rational actors will take. The idea that he has no business experience and is thus unsuited is bull; I think his lack of business experience maybe reduces his initial credibility on Wall Street, and that's all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.135.253 (talk • contribs)

I have removed the "Career Controversy" section because it was nothing but weasel words. The text I removed was:

Due to the fact that Bernanke has never actually worked in corporate America in his lifetime, investors and some economists argue that he is not suited for his position as Chairman of the Fed, fearing that his lack of real life economic experience makes him more likely to institute theoretically attractive but practically untested policies.

-- JHP 05:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

German Pronunciation

Why is the German Pronunciation included? He's not German. Does he speak German and call himself that name in that language? Documenting the pronunciation of names in foreign languages might make an interesting article on its own, but I don't see how it's relevant here. As always, I'm happy for someone to show that I'm wrong. Ryanluck 16:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversial statements

Shouldn't it be mentioned that Bernanke said something like how union decline has been bad? He said some other things in that speech. -Amit—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.246.198 (talk • contribs)

More info in Awards and fellowships

looking at his cv from princeton shows that he's gotten quite a few prestigious awards and fellowships. easy stuff for soemone who wants to make this article even better :)

http://www.princeton.edu/~bernanke/htmlcv.htm

TitaniumDreads 22:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism -- the removal of valid categories and a valid source

Please cease the vandalism of this page. The vandalism consists of the removal of a reference to Bernanke's childhood/familial faith (see [5]) and the removal of 5 valid categories including:

• Category:People from South Carolina
• Category:American bankers
• Category:Jewish businesspeople
• Category:Jewish Americans
• Category:American businesspeople

The removal of valid sources and categories from articles is considered vandalism, so please desist from removing factual information from Wikipedia. Thank you. --Wassermann 08:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Censorship

Let this article's edit history note the blatant censorship of valid, factual, relevant, and sourced information that is occurring on this page by User:Jayjg, User:Humus sapiens, User:Bishonen, User:King of Corsairs (possible sockpuppet?), and others. --Wassermann 07:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wassermann... Changes you wish to contest do not necessarily constitute Vandalism. "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." The fact that information is sourced does not mean that that information is relevant, useful, or in any way enriches an article. King of Corsairs 01:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems like too many editors are marching out of step with you. Sourced doesn't mean notable, and I don't see any relevance of his alleged Jewishness to his biography/career. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This dosen't make much sense. There are 100s if not 1,000s of bios that include folks in the above categories. Why is it importanty to keep this out of his bio? Thanks, --Tom 13:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it shouldn't be in those other articles. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#All or nothing is also relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wassermann, your persistent cries of "vandalism" and "censorship" are a violation of WP:CIVIL. Please review Humus Sapiens' comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I definitely don't think "vandalism" and "censorship" are appropriate words to use here. But it does raise an interesting point which I've been pondering with regard to some other biographical articles - how do you objectively define what is relevant to the biography? Rather than attempting to substitute our own judgment for that of reliable sources, I would suggest that the best approach would be to regard as relevant the information that is attested by the subject himself or by multiple reliable third-party sources (such as biographical profiles in reputable media outlets). For instance, if media outlets X, Y and Z all independently cite a particular biographical detail, it's reasonable to assume that the detail in question is notable. -- ChrisO 20:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional censorship of remarks about Beb Bernanke skills

see below for example of needed additions to article removed by the howling mob supporting bernanke who censor:

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Ben Bernanke for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked. Tvoz/talk 19:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

my additions WERE suggestions to IMPROVE the article as esp Ben Bernanke is an extreme joke and his contributions are pitiful esp e.g. he claims to have been a scholar on the depresion time period of the 1920's-30's , but THEN in fact his actions substantially created the recent and ongoing financial crisis AS Bernanke TO COMBAT extreme price manipuluations by speculators in hiking prices of gold & oil , Bernanke instituted an extreme monetary squeeze after the mortgage crisis had begun, THAT extreme servere monetary squeeze is what has almost tossed the USA into a depression again but this so called clown who claims to be an expert on the 30's depression is the one who did all that ... such CLEAR facts, needed to be added to the article and talk page for adding to the article, and the fact that YOU are so entirely ignorant of all the FACTS about this, means YOU SHOULD NOT BE EDITING IT OR commenting on my suggestion to add that to the Bernanke article and that YOU SHOULD MOVE ON GET a life and stop pretending to be a wiki editor, when you DO NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE and use technical terms to block what my attempted additions were , extremely needed info about the head financial guy in the USA WHO IS IN FACT an inexperienced CLOWN... same as you are a clown in pretending to be a wiki editor...

and these general remarks apply to ab every mention of this page as ... I WILL ADD , as a unique special expert remarks intended to be discussed to be included in the article and one of the wiki CLOWN editors will freak out, attack me and claim my remarks are inappropriate, BECAUSE the clown editor is so unknowledgeable about the subject he does not discern I AM MAKING AN EXPERT SUGGESTED ADDITION TO THE ARTICLE...

/s/ cucootenni toth sr ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.221.97 (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Name in Hebrew?

Is his name in Hebrew really necessary? I thought that was only for Israelis or rabbis (i.e. people who are often/primarily/traditionally referred to in that language or who spoke that language themselves). I mean, there's no Hebrew name for Einstein, Alan Greenspan, Madeline Albright etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.166.176 (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I took it out. Lots of people have Hebrew-derived names, but it doesn't make sense to put the Hebrew in for all those cases. Pfalstad 01:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If the name is in Hebrew (it's not derived from Hebrew it is actually Hebrew)-than, why not to write it down in Hebrew? And more, you should finish the discussion before you delete something which is not a vandalism, other wise-it's really don’t look good. How ever, the all issue is not of great importance.And oh, Einstein, Greenspan and Albright (which is not Jewish any way) are not a Hebrew names —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilisa (talk • contribs) 08:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ohav Shalom

Would it be appropriate to include, parenthetically, the meaning in English of "Ohav Shalom" (the name of the synagogue)? If so, could someone confirm or deny that it does or does not mean "love of peace"? My Hebrew is a bit rough around the edges in any case and on top of that is not helped by seeing only the transliterated form of the name, so I'm not confident putting it into the article unless someone can confirm it. But it seems odd to me, in the English Language Wikipedia, to include the Hebrew name of the synagogue in the article sans any translation, since the Hebrew name won't mean anything to most English speakers. --Jonadab, 2007 Sep 27.

I speak Hebrew, and I can elaborate a bit on "Ohav Shalom". First, "Shalom" is Peace in Hebrew. "Ohav" means "I will love", but it can also be interpreted to mean "I currently love and will continue to love". Therefore, one interpretation for "Ohav Shalom" is that "I will love peace - now and forever". Having said that, I should also add that I'm not an expert in translation, nor am I close to being one. Still, I am a native Hebrew speaker with strong English skills, and I do think my interpretation is correct. 93.173.72.238 (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul's criticism of Bernanke

I removed the final sentence - Ron Paul's criticism of Bernanke - because it seems to me inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia article. Its inclusion would seem to me suitable only in a separate section on politicians' comments on the Fed chairman including politicians across the spectrum, or even presidential candidates in general. That MIGHT give the reader a fairer view of general political opinion. But the removed sentence by itself gave the reader - perhaps a neophyte or student - a misleading impression of the neutral/ consensus view of Bernanke. (It would be suitable in the entry on Paul, however.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brozhnik (talk • contribs) 04:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I put the Ron Paul clip in. I figured someone would probably remove it. There is quite a bit of opinion in this article. Given that not all opinion is elided, I think Bernanke comes off far too well. Many educated and intelligent people believe as I do that he is party to the ongoing destruction of the US economy, the decimation of the US middle class and savaging of the poor, all through reckless inflationary monetary policy and market intervention. Isn't that worth a passing mention? Jive Dadson (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Bernanke Flinch

Does anyone have a source for this term? Wikipedia is the first I've heard of it.66.150.206.225 (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to come here to explain why I just REMOVED the sentence about the so-called "Bernanke Flinch." For one thing, as the above comment notes, it absolutely would have to be referenced to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Moreover, it would need to be much more specific. "Rogue Trader" is presumably a reference to Jerome Kerviel of the Societe Generale bank in France, but -- if that's what it means -- the idea that the effect of rapidly unwinding Kerviel's frauds had anything to do with Bernanke is highly unconvincing. (But the entry doesn't say anything specific- all the more reason it should go.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brozhnik (talk • contribs) 03:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

South of the Border

I added a reference to the famed amusement park, where Bernanke worked during his summers to put himself through college -- as anyone who's taken I-95 from Miami to the Jersey shore can tell you, this is a notable biographical detail! (On a more serious note, it's been mentioned in several biographical articles about Bernanke; I included the New York Times simply because it's the first google result of many.) signed, a friendly anonymouse! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.68.60 (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Family members in Early Life...

4/13/2008: I edited some information in the Early Life section, relating to family members. This included removal of the erroneous information that David Bernanke is Ben's younger brother and Chair of Anatomy at Medical University of South Carolina. As the aforementioned David Bernanke, I feel comfortable to delete this information. I am actually Ben's cousin (4 years older, in fact), and I am Course Director of the medical gross anatomy course at Medical University of South Carolina, but certainly not the Chairman of the department. I also added some information about Ben's younger brother and sister (my other cousins...). There was a bit of mixup about his grandfathers, which will be further corrected as I confirm information with other bits of family. We DO have an interesting family history, with a lot of varied vocations among the several cousins... but this is certainly true for all families, I think. Does this information really need to be posted in Wiki ? I would appreciate some input on this question. Dbernanke (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Info on Jonas Bernanke from http://www.nytstore.com/ProdDetailEI.aspx (enter Bernanke to see details, country of origin, and date of arrival at Ellis Island). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.100.60 (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Military Service

What is the purpose of this line in the Education section ? He performed no military service. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Bernanke art

Michelangeloh (talk · contribs · logs) added an item in a new "In popular culture" section that he created, about an oil painting that depicts Bernanke. I removed it with a question about why this is notable for Bernanke's biography, and the poster reinstated it without comment or response. Further, the footnote citation is incorrect - does not link to an article about the piece of art or the artist. I don't want to edit war on this, but I do question this addition to the article, so I'm asking for other editors to comment. Tvoz/talk 22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently there was an edit conflict and JNW's removal got in before mine did - but the same point applies.Tvoz/talk 23:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is about Bernanke, not artists' interpretations of him. Might be appropriate if Bernanke commented publicly on the piece, and those statements were covered by the media... but even that scenario would be thin stuff, trivia that does not add substance to the biography. JNW (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say that an artist's depiction of the subject is relevant for the article, if the artwork was a notable one and supported by sufficient references, which in this case it is not, so I've removed it. The ref doesn't even mention it, and even if it did, one ref alone would be thin stuff. Ty 22:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Bernanke and Crisis

Many credit Bernake esp with aiding USA recently in its finanical crisis, but there should also be an understanding and discussion of the cause of this crisis as it relates to Bernanke, esp as many also credit Bernanke with,in large part,causing that financial crisis by his severe monetary squeeze to counter huge spikes in prices of oil and gold. That Bernanke led monetary squeeze surely was an overwhelming cause of the present financial crisis....

See also discussion of Bernanke role in AIG rescue and global market crisis in Fall of 2008

willy chairman global markets 69.121.221.97 (talk) 07:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"Eight Days", New Yorker Sept 14, 2009, pages 58-81 by James Stewart summarizing what occurred in the eight days Sept 15-23, 2008 with heavy interviews by James Stewart of Paulson, Bernanke, Geitner and establishing that neither Paulson, Bernanke or Geitner knew what was occurring then or now -

link by CINCU SOH impchin 69.121.221.97 (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversial Statements

There should be a section outlining the controvertial statements that he has made against congress and the fact that he has hired lobbyists to prevent HR 1207 from passing through PR relations

This is an essential addition to further get the truth out of what's going on. I mean, it's time that we finally made the truth known. The truth will set you free. Truth never changes but peoples perceptions of it do. If we simply tell the truth as much as we are able to, then things will be better for everybody. Not telling the truth is technically lying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IrateManBear (talk • contribs) 08:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Government Offices

Scuse me but isn't the Fed a non-government operation? Why does wiki perpetrate the typical appearance that it is a government office when it is in fact, like the post office, a private body. Give me a break. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.82.117 (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Wife, Children?

Why no mention of his wife and children? 98.221.131.77 (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Political affiliation?

Is there any information on what political party Bernanke identifies most with, if any? I recall an Economist article from a few months ago labeling him Republican, but I think they just assumed that. The WSJ inferred that he "endorsed" Obama by supporting the Democrats' stimulus bill http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455027730552509.html#articleTabs%3Darticle and then there are scattered sources saying Bernanke himself "doesn't know his own politics." Does anyone else have any information on this? 173.60.200.38 (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Young adult section

The "Young adult" section of the article mentions that he worked in construction and at South of the Border before going to Harvard, and at South of the Border during his summers whilst at Harvard. One of the sources cited states that he worked both in construction and at SotB before Harvard, and the other during. Does anyone know which is correct? Or course, they could both be... Cordless Larry (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Religion

He may be Jewish but can we get a reliable source for this? The last name Abdul is commonly used by Muslims but Paula Abdul is Jewish.--119.73.0.171 (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

POV problems

The section on his nomination to be chairman of the federal reserve is way too positive ("stellar credentials"?) and hardly encyclopedic. This needs to be fixed with more neutral wording. Now it looks like Bernanke wrote it himself. KarlFrei (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Repetitious edits

You (Chandr45) have made an edit to the Ben Bernanke page several times now, concerning someone who lived at Winthrop House during his Bernanke's undergraduate years. Nearly 400 people lived there at that time, and additional numbers came and went while he was there. Why are you pointing to one of them, Blankfein, but not mentioning the others? Surely, most of these associations were of no consequence.

You need to show why Blankfein's presence was significant. It could be important, of course, or it may be utterly insignificant. This is left to the reader's imagination, which suggests something sinister. What is the connection? Fconaway (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

bernanke's government salary

How much salary is paid to Bernanke from the fed? Where can I find the answer? 67.182.50.34 (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqbog.htm Fat&Happy (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Song by Lemon Demon.

Lemon Demon has a song about Ben Bernanke on Yuoutube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfsb5HUFMQ0&feature=fvw&fmt=18 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.118.100 (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}Emjaymem (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What should be changed?  fetchcomms☛ 01:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotection

{{editsemiprotected}} This article is regularly vandalized. It should be semi-protected.Emjaymem (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} is to request edits; please use WP:RPP instead, thanks  Chzz  ►  02:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Brad DeLong reference (citation 51)

I just finished listening to the entire lecture cited in the reference section, and could not find a single reference to Ben Bernanke. While Bernanke has done ground-breaking work on the Great Depression, and it is acknowledged pretty much universally, perhaps another citation would be more appropriate. If someone can point me to the right DeLong lecture, I'd be grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.113 (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit

Hello, another editor insists upon putting the following quote in the article "the New York Times considers Bernanke 'a student if not necessarily a devotee of the British economist John Maynard Keynes'..." which I think shouldn't be in the article for three reasons. (1) Every student of economics has studied Keynesian economics so it's meaninglessly broad. (2) It's kind of out side the scope of the New York times' business section to be making decisions about different monetary approaches (not to mention that the quote was just written in passing and was not the focus of the article), so we have a minor case of WP:POV. (3) The quote is being used to set up a dichotomy which wasn't in the NY times article, so we have a mild case of WP:SYNTHESIS. --Dark Charles (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Since no one has commented, I filed a dispute (Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests). Hopefully someone will come by, so we can get a third opinion.--Dark Charles (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the NYT is using the term "student" in precisely the meaning of "a follower" rather than someone who has merely studied Keynes. The article later describes him as "no laissez-faire ideologue". I can't really see the POV and SYNTH in this either, it is merely reinforcing the Bloomberg quote already in the article. I don't know whether or not this is giving undue weight to this view by having two quotes, I am not competent to judge, but if so that should be easy enough to resolve. A compromise could be to edit down to a single summarising sentence while keeping both references. SpinningSpark 17:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It says "a student if not necessarily a devotee of the British economist John Maynard Keynes", so it seems to me like "devotee"="follower" and "student"="some one who has studied the issue".

The reason why I think it's synthesis is that the sentence above says more-or-less: Probably free-market economist. And the edit says Keynesian economist which is only relevant if we're lead to conclude not free-market economist (I think the unspoken premise is either free-market or Keynesian economist). This seems, to me, the obvious intent because of the "however", which suggest a contrast to the prior statement.

I think it's a loose POV because the lead in WP:POV says that articles should only contain quotes from people who are considered experts in their field. While a journalist is an expert on the news, I don't think they're experts on making distinctions between economic fields.

Anyway, unless you want to continue discussing the issue, WP:CON applies so either you or the other editor can change it back.--Dark Charles (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The article makes it quite clear that Bernanke is a follower of Keynesian economics. We all know it anyway, Dark Charles. If that quote is insignificant, than the quote calling him a "libertarian-republican" is also broad, arbitrary, and extremely insignificant. I am not saying this because I am a libertarian, I am not a libertarian. But it's obvious to anyone who follows Bernanke, that Bernanke does not follow anything even close to libertarian or austro-libertarian economics.JackD523 06:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the quote itself wasn't useful, because all mainstream economics builds upon Keynesian ideas. For instance, Milton Friedman thought that flooding the market with cash during a recession was good policy too, though Monetarism and Keynesian economics are considered unique. I don't object to the content so much as the meaningfulness and how the quote was used. In fact, if you go back to what I actually changed, I left the Bloomberg stuff even though it was being used to make the same point.

As far as the libertarian Republican thing, I didn't look at the source and I don't buy the claim either, but if the source is good and the information from the source isn't being used to argue a point not in the source, then it's fair to throw it in as long as every one can agree. Are you recommending changes? I don't mind helping.--Dark Charles (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

strange tone in adult life section

It seems like the "Adult Life" section is designed to endear Bernanke to readers. I don't understand how the details of Bernanke's mortgage or the cheap car he drives are particularly relevant to this article. This section may have implicit bias. Not super important, just something that stuck out to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.102.64 (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

If controversies must be 100% about Ben Bernanke then remove the references to the AIG bailout and Merril Lynch merger

No new controversies are apparently allowed in the "controversies as chairman" section unless said controversy is 100% directly related to Ben Bernanke himself personally (even though the two currently listed don't have to do with ben directly).

Attempts have been made by multiple individuals over the course of months to add or keep the controversy under Chairman Bernenke's leadership, where the fed, while he was chairman, ceased to publish the m3 money supply numbers. This constantly gets removed under the guise that it isn't about Ben Bernanke (among other absurd reasons such as the claim by GB fan that the end of the M3 wasn't a controversy).

The controversies currently under the "controversies as chairman" section are not about Ben Bernanke either. The AIG bailout isn't about Ben Bernanke at all, and neither is the controversy about the Merril lynch bailout. These are controversies that occurred WHILE Ben Bernanke was chairman (hence the title of the section "controversies as chairman"), but apparently these are the ONLY controversies as chairman that are allowed to be mentioned.

Since there apparently can be no reasoning with two entrenched individuals with power at wikipedia (GB fan and Off2rioro) because they just like to summarily remove any new controversy to the "controversies as chairman" section, then IN THE INTEREST OF CONSISTENCY and honesty, ALL controversies while Ben Bernanke is chairman (unless they are completely about Ben personally) should be removed from the Ben Bernanke page.

Either fairness should be allowed, and new and current controversies as chairman should be allowed under the "controversies as chairman" section (ones similar to the AIG and merril lynch bailouts, which are not about Ben personally), or the section should be removed entirely rather than allowing only two arbitrary controversies on the page.

Summarily deleting any new additions of major controversies while Ben Bernanke is chairman, while arbitrarily keeping two, is inconsistent, is inherently biased, and is totally not in keeping with wikipedia's standards. 174.23.202.121 (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

These two controversies are adequately sourced. The sources do say that people criticized Bernanke directly for his involvement in the AIG and Merril Lynch affairs. No one has said that the controversy has to be 100% about Bernanke, we are only saying that the sources provided need to state that it is a controversy and that Bernanke is criticized for it. ~~ GB fan ~~ 05:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Whitewashing history to cover for Bernanke

An individual calling himself "GB fan" is intent on hiding the fact that not even two months after Mr Bernanke became chairman of the "fed," the federal reserve ceased to publicly reveal the M3 money supply numbers for the first time. Even though this is publicly known, I even cited a news story from msn detailing this action.

"GB fan" refuses to talk about this and makes repeated absurd claims such as stating that this isn't a controversy. Talk about ridiculous. Saying that The "fed" hiding the M3 numbers from the public, so the public cannot know for sure the REAL size of the dollar supply, is somehow not a controversy is patently absurd.

For the most part, the only individuals who wants to wipe this from history "GB fan" and "off2riorob"

The other absurd claim GB fan repeatedly makes is that Ben Bernanke had nothing to do with ceasing the publication of the m3 numbers. Again this is totally absurd because the action to stop the m3 numbers took place AFTER Ben became chairman.

Off2riorob also wants to completely wipe this from history instead of making suggestions of how this true controversy while Bernanke was chairman, can be explained better. This guy is INCREDIBLE and actually claims that this controversial action by the "fed" has "no connection" to Bernanke, even though Bernanke was chairman when it was done. HA!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.207.32 (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• - Please attempt to focus on content and not contributors. The cite you are adding does not mention Bernanke once. http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/FedKillsAKeyInflationGauge.aspx here is the content the user is wanting to add supported by this cite that doesn't mention the subject of this article at all. IMO it has no place here, perhaps in the article about the fed, but not at all in this form as presented by this user, who seems to be accusing good faith contributors who are just following policy of all sorts of imaginary claims. Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, we wouldn't have a problem if you would respect other people's work by attempting to talk BEFORE you wipe their work off the map. Anyway, the article cited doesn't NEED to be about Bernanke because he was chairman when the "fed" stopped publishing the m3 money supply numbers. If you would stop wiping people's work out before discussing things, you would have noticed this. 97.126.207.32 (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• I am just following correct procedure, this is an article about living person and there are strict requirements for addition and your desired addition has been removed by multiple users because it is not in line with guidelines. You would do better by going and looking for a citation that supports that this had anything to do with Bernanke or at least a citation that includes his name. Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As Off2riorob pointed out, the article is about Bernanke, and everything thing in it should be tied directly to him. This is something that belongs in the Federal Reserve System article, not here. This was pointed out in many of the revert comments. Your addition was Boldly made, but was Reverted. WP:BRD points that you would have then opened some discussion about it, which you did, finally, after multiple editors removed the material. Finally, please do not attack other editors, such as calling them a "vandal" because they disagree with your edit. Using that criteria, you'd have multiple editors calling you a vandal, which hasn't happened. Ravensfire (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought I reverted the M3 information too. At any rate, your source wasn't about Ben Bernanke. It was just about the Federal Reserve generally. Thus WP:OR. By the way, the information you're trying to put in is a better fit in the Criticism of the Federal Reserve article. However, even if you want to put your edit there, you'll have to find a different source because the one you're using is just a news report, and doesn't really treat it like a controversy.----Dark Charles 00:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• You guys are amazing. You seem to only want to protect the status quo. Haven't you guys noticed that Bernanke was the chairman when the publishing of the m3 numbers ceased? Furthermore, the very section to which this controversy was added is titled "controversies as chairman" (and Ben was chairman when it was done). It laughable the lengths several of you will go to keep new information from being added. Using your logic, the controversies about the AIG bailout and Merril Lynch merger should also be removed since they aren't 100% about Ben Bernanke. Haven't you thought about it that way? If you refuse to allow the addition of new controversies while Ben is chairman, then you need to get rid of the section on the page about him that is titled "controversies as chairman." Seriously, why even HAVE a section on Ben Bernanke's page about controversies while he was chairman if you are not willing to allow controversies to be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.202.121 (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources used in this article have to be about Ben Bernanke. It's WP:OR if the source doesn't mention Bernanke as the causal factor. If you can find sources in the article that don't mention Bernanke, then you can delete the corresponding content (but make sure you explain your deletion in the edit summary, however). Remember, even for simple things, if you have a source that says A implies B, and another source saying A is true, you can't even conclude B is true in the article unless you have another source that says so. Those are the rules. Your source didn't mention that the information was a controversy, much less say that it was Bernanke's fault. You need to find a source that does both of those things, before it's not WP:OR.--Dark Charles 05:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not against controversies being in the article. The problem is that the sources provided do not say that Bernanke was criticized for the ending of the M3. The sources do not even say that the Fed was criticized for the ending of the M3. Since the is a BLP anything contentious that is not adwquately sourced should be immediately removed and that is what is happening there. I will look closer at the other sections and see if the sourcing is adequate there. ~~ GB fan ~~ 05:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Also the burden is on the editor who adds or readds information to show with reliable sources that it belongs. The burden is not on the editors removing the information to show it doesn't belong. ~~ GB fan ~~ 06:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ending publication of the M3 money supply numbers

On March 23, 2006, almost two months after becoming chairman, the Federal Reserve for the first time ceased to publicly gather the M3 money supply numbers. The M3 was a very important gauge of inflation for many investors for many years since an increase in the amount of dollars in circulation tends to cause price inflation. There are still estimates of what the "M3," or what the total dollars in circulation could be. These estimates are produced by various private institutions. They use the M2 numbers which are still publicly published by the Federal Reserve, plus large and long term deposits to determine the total dollar supply -

citation 25

The author states, "economic volatility has been permanently eliminated", the use of the transitive verb "eliminated" and adverb "permanently" is too strong and does not reflect the tone of the speech or its main contention, focus or analysis. Quoting from the speech, second paragraph, last sentence (accessed 7/12/2010 - from this articles eg "Ben Bernanke" link) "the recessions have become less frequent and less severe", even a quick skim over the text as I did should indicate that absolute language is not apparent in the article and should be sufficient evidence for taking out this piece of the article based on this citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.238.136 (talk) 05:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think I fixed it--and it only took me four edits to do it!--Dark Charles 18:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of edits to controvesy section

OK this is what I put in the article on Bernanke (twice):

"Despite recent denials from Bernanke, his quantitative easing (QE) policy may be responsible for the dramatic inflation in food and energy prices, partially responsible for social unrest in African and Middle East countries. The timing of QE1 and QE2 coincided with massive speculative positions in crude oil futures. " Similar correlation exists with corn futures speculation and other food futures. The concern is that a sea of liquidity unleashed by the Federal Reserve is tunneled into destructive speculation rather than real improvement of US economy."

The comment was removed within minutes. Can someone tell me what was wrong with the statement? The wiki vigilantes make me sick. This why I will never contribute money to Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.217.249 (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please don't create attacking headers , use discussion to find the reason - we have policies and guidelines and free speech as such is not available - if you want free speech I recommend you get yourself a blog - its very easy these days. http://en.wordpress.com/ - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob, could you please explain why you do this rather than keeping deleting new entries? Thank you.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.217.249 (talk) 15:46, February 10, 2011

I've returned the section heading to a neutral tone. Attacking others, as you are doing, is not acceptable. Ravensfire (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, please note that blogs are generally not considered reliable sources. Information, especially about a living person must be sourced to a RS. Your edit was not, hence the reverts. Ravensfire (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I see. I'm wasting my time here on wiki. Over and out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.217.249 (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If you don't understand the need for good sources, and why that blog doesn't qualify, then yes, you are wasting your time. We've linked several pages that explain the reasons for those requirements, you need to review them. Ravensfire (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

References

Bernanke's Thesis and Feynman

Richard Feynman should have read Bernanke's thesis. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EZcpTTjjXY -- OE, Jan 2010

Feynman apparently didn't read Bernanke's thesis. The YouTube snippet does not criticize any specific writer, so it is a bit of arch and vague opinion.Fconaway (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Bernanke's thesis how to keep the markets liquid in a crisis, and what we learned from the Great Depression. But albeit all that, America is broke, and so are other Anglo-Saxon entities. This is serious business. We can always till the soil, turn it over, but finally, the nutrients have to come from somewhere, to use this 'harvest' analogy. Osterluzei (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Too add to this. I find Ben Bernanke to be an outstanding economist and chairman of the Federal Reserve. I see him more as a doctor with his patients "the US economy and State budgets". There, he looked for remedies to keep his patients alive and as well as possible. This is a serious task, since the illness is grave. I just don't think Dr. Bernanke is responsible for the crisis that hit us. His philosophy to keep the money flowing, even if it required a short term debt increase, was the right reaction to the economic situation. Remember 1000's of billions disappeared when values dropped an debts had to be written off. Now, within the framework of slow growth, the risk for inflation in the US remains low because demand is still not back. I know this is an oversimplification, but at least, that is how I see it, with my limited knowledge from 101 economy courses I took as an undergraduate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.144.210 (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

no controversy in the lead?

"One myth that’s out there is that what we’re doing is printing money. We’re not printing money." Bernake Dec/10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxSv2rnBGA8

"The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press, that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at no cost." Bernake Nov/02

is there support for adding at least one controversy to the lede? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

no, not because it's controversial, but because it doesn't fit the scope of the lede. A singular comment on a specific situation does not belong in a general summary of a person and their career, unless that quote happens to be so famous it's more well known than the person. That is not the case here. I have no problem adding content like this to the article (though I always recommend keeping a pretty tight rein on POV.) but it's not lede material.204.65.34.206 (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul in Controversies as Fed Chairman section

Ron Paul has a widely-known-to-be-strange pov. Why is his one quote in the section under controversies? It is not about a controversy. It isn't appropriate there, or probably anywhere on wikipedia. It is anti-government, anti-establishment propaganda.72.187.99.79 (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Congressman Ron Paul has said, referring to Bernanke: "There is something fishy about the head of the world’s most powerful government bureaucracy, one that is involved in a full-time counterfeiting operation to sustain monopolistic financial cartels, and the world’s most powerful central planner, who sets the price of money worldwide, proclaiming the glories of capitalism.”[42]72.187.99.79 (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ron Paul's claims may be fringe, or demonstrably false, but truth isn't the only criterion for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. If a bunch of people take Ron Paul's claim seriously then I think it's worth a mention in this article, though we shouldn't give it undue weight. bobrayner (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a criticism of the Federal reserve itself however, rather than being directed at Bernanke specifically Drsmoo (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Warning!

No problem with waves, he said; but forgot to look out for icebergs. No problem with business cycles, but forgot about fraud and speculation in the trillion dollar class. Does not this interest some scholar? I'm incompetent.Idealist707 (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Religious Jew

The infobox field religion needs an explicit citation. What is in the text anyway has his being an ethnic Jew. The religious aspect seems to be private (and hence unreported in secondary sources), in which case we shouldn't note it here. I will remove the field per WP:BLP by tomorrow if no citation is forthcoming.Churn and change (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Article is controversial to the point of wikipedia policies failure

I understand that the article is and has to be written according to the wikipedia standards, so it talks about Bern Bernanke respectfully as about an 'American economist', former professor, etc. But the guy advocates printing money to fix the economy. He did it twice (QE1 and QE2), this didn't work (economy is still not recovered as of now). And now he decided to do QE3. The person suggesting to print money to fix the economy just can't be taken seriously as printing money would inevitably cause (already causing) inflation and will erode everybody's saving and hurt in the near future. I can't find any public internet forum where community of experts would agree that this is indeed a great idea and QEs worked and have to be continued. (Anybody can provide a reference of such discussions where people agree that QEs indeed work?) I think this article demonstrates a significant failure of wikipedia policies as the wikipedia description of this person is in strike contrast with the consensus opinion of any majority of any public forum of qualified people that can be found. I don't necessarily know what the fix for this problem is within the context of wikipedia. And based on the previous items in this talk page, statements about the controversial character of Bernanke were aggressively purged in the past for some reasons. Isn't wikipedia supposed to reflect the consensus opinion? Where can the consensus opinion that QEs are great and should be continued be found? Why the term 'quantitative easing' isn't even mentioned in the article? This is his major initiative. Yurivict (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Privately owned non-governmental central bank

I am not the IP who undid this, but that edit brought this to my attention. This phrase is a bit misleading. Though accurate, it glosses over the chair and members of the Fed being appointed by the President. Unlike other privately owned entities, the "owners" don't have all that much say in its running. The bank's mandate is from Congress, and can be expanded or restricted by Congressional action. Its actions do not need governmental approval, but its profits go to the government and the government sets the salaries of its top employees. I think we should just drop the qualifier. Churn and change (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Leaving as Fed chair: info needed

As far as I can see this article does not mention that, several weeks (or months?) ago it was announced that Bernanke is stepping down as Fed chair soon, at the end of this term. This should be mentioned in the lead and in the section on his being the chair, with appropriate citations. In the latter section it should also be mentioned, again with appropriate citations, whether his departure is voluntary, and if not then why not. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Broken Footnote Link

The following footnote link, #47: ^ Brad DeLong. "Lecture 10: Depressions and Panics, 1840–1933" Economics 113 – American Economic History UC Berkeley take you to a page that says the content is no longer available. I don't know enough about Economics to even begin looking for an alternative source. I have changed nothing in the article. Can someone else help? Carmaskid (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ben Bernanke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100201173825/http://www.chron.com:80/disp/story.mpl/business/6841150.html to http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6841150.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ben Bernanke. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100612232747/http://nationalmerit.org/scholars_you_may_know.php to http://www.nationalmerit.org/scholars_you_may_know.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

His Book

Is it in violation of the rules to use his book "Courage to Act" as a direct source of information on this page?

EconomicHisorianinTraining (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ben Bernanke. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080530085102/http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/29839/1/05915220.pdf to http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/1721.1/29839/1/05915220.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0%2C28804%2C1946375_1947251_1947520%2C00.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ben Bernanke. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090520235631/http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media_center/2009/apr/pdfs/BofAmergLetter.pdf to http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media_center/2009/apr/pdfs/BofAmergLetter.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304235814/http://webcast.berkeley.edu/mediaplayer/player.swf to http://webcast.berkeley.edu/mediaplayer/player.swf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100119050606/http://press.princeton.edu/TOCs/c6817.html to http://press.princeton.edu/TOCs/c6817.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100704124101/http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s6817.html to http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s6817.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://unjobs.org/authors/ben-s.-bernanke
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110127073601/http://www.aei.org/event/1104 to http://www.aei.org/event/1104
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150410104634/http://www.couragetoactbook.com/ to http://www.couragetoactbook.com/

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Adult life

The listed TIME ref does not mention when the two met or even that it was a blind date or that she attended Wellesey. Can someone dig up a better source? And find out when the two married? hbdragon88 (talk) 07:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The article should also clear up what Bernanke did about the draft because it mentions he was at Harvard in 1971, a year when millions of us were in the Army. This is relevant because, although Bernanke was a bit young for Vietnam, he was not completely too young and Vietnam was the NUMBER ONE issue for healthy males at that time. Most writers for Wikipedia are too young to know that, but it remains historically true anyhow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

If you find some reliable source mentioning that period of his life, you can even add that information yourself. The article doesn't have any kind of edit protection. Enivid (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Category

I did not find a category-tag [[Category:Members of the United States National Academy of Sciences]] in the article. Is this Category included in a category mentioned in the article? or is it missing? --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)