EGeek

Debt-based Monetary System

Thanks for the clean-up on credit crunch. Hope the comment on debt-based monetary system is OK - I really (genuinely) didn't understand your comment about the article. If you look at all investment websites (even RGE Monitor) they will all have disclaimers for legal reasons. Virtually ANY website relating to investment will have this. This is no reason to delete any reference in relation to investment or economics entries.--Rememberkarma (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I will agree with you about the disclaimers. The use of disclaimers exclusively to determine a reference's verifiability was an incorrect assumption. However, opinion pieces and blogs from one author make the reference an opinion of one person; thus, not acceptable for an article of this type. Now published works (books, scholarly journals, etc.) are acceptable from what I understand reading the official policies of Wikipedia. Please consider this difference when creating new references. Gregalton will not be the only editor to shoot these types of references down. -- EGeek (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please clean up your cite change - it didn't work. Sorry, now I see you've embedded in the quote from page 5 of the Ellen Hodgson Brown book. Very neat. Thanks. Sorry about the earlier comment - I didn't click on the link.--Rememberkarma (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome. If you could, please provide page numbers or chapters missing from the book references in the article on the discussion page or add them to the reference. -- EGeek (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR does not apply when there is vandalism. Rememberkarma = Karmaisking = Maktimothy = Timothymak had been using a string of sockpuppets over the last several months to vandalize articles on monetary theory. User:Carolmooredc, who even appears to be a Libertarian, has acknowledged that "debt-based monetary system" should be treated as a political term used by the fringe and that 2/3 to 1/2 of the article should be cut down. I did that. Per WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia cannot be used to push fringe theories, which that article sets out to do. They can be mentioned for historical and cultural relevance (i.e. 9/11 conspiracies, Holocaust denial, New World Order, etc..) and biased terms used in political discourse can be mentioned (i.e. Culture of corruption), but they cannot be presented as facts.

Karma's version of the article, as it stands now, treats "debt-based monetary system" as a valid economic concept, which it isn't. Even if you consider my version to be bad for whatever reason, at the very least, it's in good faith. And so, please edit it rather than reverting.

Gregalton is not the only editor of the article. There is also me, Carol, JzG, and at some point in the past, there was a user named 32F, who had apparently given up -- and all of us are distressed by Karma's vandalism. Zenwhat (talk) 14:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The 3RR exception for vandalism is only for "simple and obvious vandalism such as graffiti or page blanking". The bot, nor anyone else vandalized the article; therefore, the 3RR was still made by you. I have also seen this act before under your IP before you finally decided to register. Please read the policy, again.

I don't have a problem with your argument that the article validates WP:FRINGE; however, you should have started a discussion and found a consensus after the first (non-bot) revert. Judging by your other contributions such as Debt money, it seems you want to force your point through reverts or quick deletion instead of discussing your point and reaching a consensus among the editors. I disagree completely with your methods.

As for the article, I believe the subject is notable; although, maybe not as it is titled. Debt-based money, or money as debt (whichever) is a notable subject based on the number of published works and also has ties with Austrian Economics (but I have not researched enough to validate this link yet). But that is simply my thought about the subject which a will try to reach a consensus with later on.

I appreciate your enthusiasm of economics. Wikipedia needs more editors to fix problems within the economic articles. Please follow the policies and guidelines while doing so. -- EGeek (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this edit. I spoke with User:JzG and you're right about policy. He mentioned that we can more easily root out bad faith editing through a gradual approach. If I make just one simple edit which clearly removes POV, then somebody removes it, that demonstrates bad faith. My plan right now is to just fix the lead of Debt-based monetary system and, if anybody messes with it, then, there we go. By the time I realized that approach made sense, I had already made several edits to the article today, having to worry about the possibility of a revert. Since you proofread my edit, I don't have to worry about that. So, thanks! Zenwhat (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome. I reviewed both the past versions and your contribution and decided that your version was more accurate and NPOV with a couple of changes. I continue to think that some portion of Austrian Economics comes into play around the anti-Keynesian theory of the Gold Standard, but I lack knowledge of Austrian Economics to figure out that link. -- EGeek (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The graph

It seems to me that a lot of the vandalism in Fractional-reserve banking didn't happen in Money creation. You could move a lot of material from there. The numbers on Fractional-reserve banking don't match the graph there, but the numbers on Money creation do. Below is the table from Money creation with the image from Fractional-reserve banking. Oh, but I will just say that I just noticed the term "virtual money." Erase that. That's nonsense. Zenwhat (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How the fractional reserve system can turn $1,000 into $4,570.50

The expansion of $1,000 of actual money. $4,000 of virtual money is created through fractional reserve lending at a 20 percent rate.

In this example, an initial deposit of $1,000 is lent out 10 times at a fractional reserve rate of 20%. In an attempt to simplify an explanation of how it works, a different bank is used for each deposit. In the real world, sometimes when a bank gives out a loan, that same money ends up right back in the same bank so it then has more money to lend out.

Table 1: $1,000 of actual money loaned out 10 times with a 20 percent reserve rate
Individual Bank	amount deposited at bank	amount loaned out	amount left in bank (reserves)
A	$1,000.00	$800.00	$200.00
B	$800.00	$640.00	$160.00
C	$640.00	$512.00	$128.00
D	$512.00	$409.60	$102.40
E	$409.60	$327.68	$81.92
F	$327.68	$262.14	$65.54
G	$262.14	$209.72	$52.43
H	$209.72	$167.77	$41.94
I	$167.77	$134.22	$33.55
J	$134.22	$107.37	$26.84
K	$107.37
			total reserves:
			$892.63
	total deposits:	total amount loaned out:	total reserves + last amount deposited
	$4,570.50	$3,570.50	$1,000.00

Notice how no new money was physically created. Only the $1,000 from the initial deposit was used. New money is created virtually through loans. The 2 boxes marked in red show where the original $1,000 is throughout the entire process. The total reserves plus the last deposit will always equal the original amount, which in this case is $1,000. As this process continues, more new money is created.

Also notice how when a loan is paid back, money is erased from existence. This is how the money supply is expanded and contracted through a fractional reserve lending system.

Thanks for the information. Another editor found a citation that describes the two type of money as "central bank" and "commerical bank" money. If this material is already in money creation, then a "see also" or at least a link to money creation would be better than the tables and graphs.--EGeek (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll let you add it, if you like. Also, in the future, please respond to comments on users' talk pages. Otherwise, they might not know you've responded. Zenwhat (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Monetary policy

Thanks - for a moment I thought you had decided to edit my comments for politeness, which actually struck me as not a bad idea ;). Your editing there is much appreciated, I am beginning to lose patience with the monetary cranks.--Gregalton (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

BigK HeX trolling.

I've issued a posting on User:BigK HeX on WP:ANI. Please take a look. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks: History of the Federal Reserve System

Hey, I wanted to thank you for splitting all that text out of Federal Reserve System. It had been bothering me for a while, having such a long and unruly section in the article. I figured I would have to do it myself, and was not looking forward to it, and then voila! you handled it yourself (and did a better job than I think I could have). I wanted to let you know that I appreciate it. Keep up the good work. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of fractional reserve banking/Milton Friedman

Dear EGeek, I've noticed that you thought Friedman was not an opponent of fractional-reserve banking, but I've provided evidence that he was on the talk page of Criticism to fractional-reserve banking. Im new to wikipedia, not sure if it is in the right place! Yours, Jamalloyman

confused newbie

EGeek wrote I noticed you were discussing the article within the article itself. If you want to discuss an article, please use the "discussion" tab at the top of the page to get to the talk page. A new section can be created within the talk page by using the "new section" tab. Also keep in mind while editing that Wikipedia article are suppose to represent a world-wide view. The fractional-reserve comments you made only refer to Federal Reserve reserve requirements. The reserve requirements are different in other countries. -- EGeek (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

---

reply follows --------

1 Is there a discussion tab at the top of each page -- including one I am trying to edit? 2 Is there a "new section" tab at the top of each page -- including one I am trying to edit? 3 Who will respond to that "discussion" or "new section discussion" ? 4 With regard to a "world wide view". What do I do if I only have good information on the U.S. Federal Reserve? Any one person can't know about all the various systems used by all countries?? 5 How will I know if you get this message? 6 If you answer -- (a) how will I know it and (b) how should I retrieve that answer? 7 Does "save page" on this page send the message to you?

Thank

Marty Martycarbone (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

How the fractional reserve system can turn $1,000 into $4,570.50

EGeek

I think the chart following the above words is a serious misrepresentation of the fractional reserve system.

The source for the chart seems to be a Federal Reserve publication. That particular publication simply has things wrong.

I can direct you to the actual Federal Law that covers the fractional reserve requirements. I think it will become apparent that the graph and the surrounding words. Would you like me to direct you to that law?

I am of the personal opinion that fractional reserve banking is a perfectly legitimate way of controlling the money supply -- but it simply does not work the way the chart suggests.

Fractional Reserve Banking is, in my opinion, explained accurately in Congreesman Wright Patman's (a) "A Primer on Money", (b) a speech he made to Congress introducing that book and (c) "Money Facts" a sister publication to "A Primer ... " I can send you links to those three publications -- shall I?

In any event -- those three publications (a to c above) should probably be listed as sources of information on "Fractional Reserve Banking"

Marty Martycarbone (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You are invited to look at my user page, where I am making an attempt to start a new article on Money and the Money Supply. Your advice and suggestions are invited Martycarbone (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"Unreliable source"

Gentleman, Scholar, and Goldbug, Mike Hewitt: Please get your excellent piece listed in the Mises.org website. Then EGeek will have no excuse. Remember EGeek, you said anything from Mises.org would be considered reliable. I am waiting for this excellent, accurate piece to go "mainstream". Just. Waiting. - LetThemMintPaper (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing work on inflation

Another point of view on what would be considered undue attention to non-mainstream views would be most welcome.--Gregalton (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)