Talk:Gold standard/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Bordo's Paper linked above

Bordo admits that he is comparing two economies of different composition and that the comparison is an "apples to oranges" one. His words, not mine, see bottom of page 3.

Bordo's paper was about how a properly applied fiat system could either "match" or provide superior inflation protection compared to a gold system. I.e. Bordo admits that gold is superior to an improperly applied fiat system. Also He makes no claims that ANY fiat system has been "properly applied".

Bordo also cites a paper by Sargent and Wallace who state that when commodities competes the one with the lower depreciation rate emerges as the commodity money. i.e. the one that loses value the slowest wins the contest and becomes money. That the free market prizes price stability, above all other considerations, in money is relevant to this article and should be included.71.184.188.254 (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW: The term "coefficient of variation" (which is what the article cites) appears nowhere in the linked paper, is not explained, and frankly I don't think anyone has a clue what it means, except perhaps the author. Is the "coefficient of variation" 100% from a change from .1% to .2%? and is it only 20% from a change in inflation from 5% to 6%? If so, this is misleading, a small change on a small base, looks worse then a larger change on a much larger base. i.e. If the base is .1 and the change .1 (to .2) that's a 100% change. If the base is 5% and the change is 1% (to 6) then the change is only 20%. The size of the base is different by a factor of 50 (.1 and 5). An obvious apples and oranges comparison.71.184.188.254 (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The coefficient of variation is a measure of dispersion in a data set compared to its mean.TheFreeloader (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

IP, you might want to consider a couple of statistics courses - the term is fairly common. Ravensfire (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering I have a BS that includes third year college math, if I have a problem understanding that statement, so do 99.9% of readers. Again the linked paper above nowhere uses the term "coefficient of variation" and it is unclear what the author means by it. Please provide the paper where that coefficient is derived. 71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The link to the source is in the article in the reference note for the statement of course. But here is the direct link [1]. The reason why the coefficient of variation is not explained in the statement, is that it is assumed that people who don't know about the concept will click the wikilink to get to article about it. That is how Wikipedia is usually written in general [2].TheFreeloader (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have already looked at that and as previously stated the author makes no claim that that price variation ware caused by the gold standard itself. I have already pointed out that price variations in a largely agricultural economy are greater then in a largely inductrial economy, ie. the price of wheat, flour, corn, tomatoes, veggies, varies more then the price of a car, bus fare, a sofa, a gallon of paint, a CAT scan, filling out a prescription etc. etc. etc. 71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean he doesn't say the price variation was caused by the gold standard. He says specifically in the section evaluating the performance of gold standard that the economies under the gold standard experienced prices which were highly unstable in the short run because they were made vulnerable to economic shocks by the gold standard.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

IP, you need to read the source again. "But because economies under the gold standard were so vulnerable to real and monetary shocks, prices were highly unstable in the short run. A measure of short-term price instability is the coefficient of variation—the ratio of the standard deviation of annual percentage changes in the price level to the average annual percentage change. The higher the coefficient of variation, the greater the short-term instability. " The source, right before it uses the numbers, describes the effect (unstable prices) and the measuring stick (coefficient of variation) plus gives a decent description of the measuring stick and how to interpret it. Ravensfire (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Bordo also said that comparing the gold standard economies with the industrial economies some 50 years after is an apples an oranges comparison (see the paper I was provided a link to). Above Bordo makes a Comment about the "ECONOMIES under the gold standard", and not about the gold standard. Again where did Bordo state that the price variation was DUE to the gold standard. As previously stated more people died from Indian attacks during the gold standard era versus the fiat era. Those deaths plainly were not caused by the gold standard. Similarly if Bordo fails to state that the price variation was CAUSED by the gold standard then you guys are putting words in his mouth. 71.184.188.254 (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

He says that the price swings in the economy wre caused by real and monetary shocks to the economies. And in the section above he explains that: "The fixed exchange rate [to gold] also caused both monetary and nonmonetary (real) shocks to be transmitted via flows of gold and capital between countries. Therefore, a shock in one country affected the domestic money supply, expenditure, price level, and real income in another country." So, the shocks caused the price swings, and the gold standard caused the shocks. I also think the fact that he mentions the short-run price volatility in a section for evaluating the performance of the gold standard should have been a pretty good clue that he thinks the gold standard caused the volatility, I mean, why else would he mention it there?TheFreeloader (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Fiat also transmits monetary and nonmonetary shocks. A Federal Reserve statement has impact all over the world, the European debt crisis had had an impact in the US, the US housing crash has had an impact in Europe, etc etc etc. Any monetary system will transmit shocks. That does not mean it CAUSES those shocks. If your point is that a gold based system transmits shocks is a disadvantage, then you have to point out that fiat also transmits shocks. Anything else is biased language.71.184.188.254 (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It isn't "my point", it's Michael Bordo's point. And if you have a problem with it, I think you should write to the publishers of The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics and require they redact their article. We cannot do anything about it. We just pass on whatever reliable sources have to say about a subject.TheFreeloader (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Lets try this again. Does or does not a fiat system also transmit monetary and nonmonetary shocks. BTW: This is a yea or no question.71.184.188.254 (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

While this is an intriguing question with many interesting aspects to it, I will have to abstain from this sort of discussion. This talkpage is for discussing improvements to the article, not discussing the subject itself. That means discussing sources, not discussing whether they are right or not.TheFreeloader (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You brought that last point up! I am still waiting for any reference that Bordo believes that higher price variations under the gold standard was caused by the gold standard itself and were not inherent properties of a largely agricultural economy.71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't know how I can help you. You can lead the horse to the water, but you cannot force it to drink. I just wrote above how Bordo says that the gold standard caused shocks to the economy, and those shocks caused short term price volatility. Also, he put the part about the short term price volatility in a section evaluating the performance of the gold standard, and that would not make sense if he didn't believe that the price volatility and the gold standard were causally related.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You can help me by removing the protection you had placed on the article so I can make changes.71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

and the statement you printed did not sat that the gold standard caused those shocks. Only that those shocks were "TRANSMITTED" Causing and transmitting are two different things. The fixed exchange rate [to gold] also caused both monetary and nonmonetary (real) shocks to be transmitted via flows of gold and capital between countries. Today's fiat also "transmits shocks" Just look at the recent stock market plunge partially caused by the transmitted shock of Europe's debt mess as one example.71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The only way I can see what is stated article to make any sense is if Bordo is of the opinion that the gold standard caused shocks to be more frequent. Why else would he put anything about short term price volatility in the section on performance of the gold standard, if he didn't think the price volatility was causally linked to the gold standard. And again if you do not agree with the sources, this is not the forum to discuss that. About the first part, you will not gain anything from edit warring except more blocks. And if you want to edit semi-protected articles, you could just register a user. That would also give you a bit more privacy (without having your IP address shown everywhere).TheFreeloader (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

and as far as I can see, some editor saw something in Bordo's language that he wanted to see, but is in fact not there.71.184.188.254 (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, what is your explanation for Bordo choosing to put the part about short-run price volatility in the section where he is evaluating the performance of the gold standard?TheFreeloader (talk) 07:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not up to me to state why he did something. He did however start that section with "But because economies under the gold standard were so vulnerable to real and monetary shocks, prices were highly unstable in the short run." He is plainly pointing to a property of the economies of the time and not to a property of the gold standard.71.184.188.254 (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Am I now free to make a comment that a largely agricultural economy will have larger annual price variation then a largely industrial economy, due to the price difference in "in season" and "out of season" agricultural products? Ex the price of tomatoes in August versus their price in February.71.184.188.254 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on Freeloaders latest reversion I guess I'm not. The article still needs a biased tag. 71.184.188.254 (talk) 23:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you cannot just go off on a free association stream based on the words in source. Everything you write actually has to be in the source.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

So who wrote all that ussourced commentary all over article, which BTW is a lot worse that anything I have done.71.184.188.254 (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Article needs to be tagged as biased

The failure of wiki editors to allow commentary in counterpoint to anti-gold standard language shows bias.

A tag should be placed on the article to reflect that fact.

I am also uncomfortable with the section purporting to show that the gold standard lengthened the Great Depression. Per language in that section the Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve and the US abandoned the gold standard in 1934. How can something that does not exist have any kind of influence on the US economy? 71.184.188.254 (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The US didn't abandon the gold standard in 1934. Exchange regimes were pretty much based on gold in some form until 1971 when the Bretton Woods system stopped being used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.1.105.231 (talk) 03:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If a US citizen can not only be fined but also be imprisoned for owning a legal tender US coin then it is safe to say that a gold standard does not exist. A limited "gold exchange standard" was in effect after 1934 but a gold standard was not in effect.71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

As long as you are guaranteeing convertibility of currency to a set amount of gold which pretty much fixes exchange rates between countries it is a "gold standard." There is no such thing as a limited gold exchange standard because once you have fixed the amount of money to gold then the money supply is also tied to the supply of gold. The gold reserve act did not change the fact that the value of the dollar was still set at a fixed rate to the dollar, I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of that section. 202.1.105.231 (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

US citizens were not guaranteed convertibility and would get laughed at as they were shown the door, at any Federal Reserve or Treasury office, if they went in and demanded gold for their paper dollars. US citizens were subject to fines and imprisonment if they possessed what used to be legal tender US gold coins. That is plainly not guaranteed convertibility. What the US had after 1934 was a limited gold exchange standard with other nations. It is a "limited" standard because those that can take advantage of it are "limited in number". Even that was dropped by Nixon after the Fed and the US were in danger of running out of gold.71.184.188.254 (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The Federal Reserve still had to maintain a sufficient amount of gold to be able to exchange US dollars at 35$ for every ounce of gold for things like settling their balance of payments between their current and capital accounts (essentially trade deficits/surplus) as well as just having to do so by law. Since other countries also had fixed ratios of gold to currency this keeps exchange rates fixed between countries and the money supply fixed also. The effect on the money supply and the average person is basically identical. If anything this section is an argument against the gold standard since the US government had to intervene using the Gold Reserve Act to raise the exchange rate of gold to US dollars from $20.76 to $35 an ounce. So they basically took this measure to give themselves the flexibility of implementing an expansionary monetary policy. And if you look at the historical GDP data, 1934 was basically the trough of the entire recession with GDP and unemployment improving in pretty much every year afterwards up to WWII which would make it seem that there was a positive correlation with an expansion in the money supply and increase in aggregate demand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.1.105.231 (talk) 07:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You are mixing up your periods. Gold was at $20 before the Roosevelt confiscation and $35 after. Gold was revalued because the Fed overprinted redeemable Fed notes, could not meet its obligation for redemption and was in danger of default. That is not a failure of a pure gold standard where every piece of paper money is 100% backed by gold coin before being issued, as was the case before 1913. The Federal Reserve Act reduced the backing to 40% in 1913, allowing the Fed to dramatically expand the money supply. During the dollar raids and banking panics of the 30's a lot of gold was taken out of the US banking system putting pressure on the Fed. In 1934 the situation got so bad that Roosevelt either had to let the Fed default or do something to stop the drain of Federal Reserve gold. He chose to make gold illegal to own for US citizens. When gold is illegal to own there is no gold standard. Addressing your point about GDP, the GDP of the US bottomed in 1932 and not in 1934 as you state. The first two years of that expansion were under that 40% partial backing gold standard. See link http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/table By the early 60's the Fed had so overprinted silver backed notes that there was a risk of default there as well, resulting in the removal of the silver backing of those notes in 1964. By the early 70's the Fed had again so overprinted the money supply that the 20,000 tons of gold seized by Roosevelt had been reduced to 8,000 tons. It continued overprinting after Nixon cut off the gold window and caused the inflation of the 70's. The history of every fiat that ever existed is a history of overprinting and defaults and as Bastiat stated, all fiats eventually return to their true value ZERO. -71.184.188.254 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC).

How am I mixing up periods, I'm saying they devalued gold from $20.76 to $35 an ounce so they could expand the money supply. Where did I say that gold was $20.76 an ounce afterwards. You are again missing the point. It doesn't matter whether gold is "100%" or "40%" backed by gold, all that changes is the actual "effective" rate with which you are setting the value of gold to USD at (in other words 2.5 times higher than the stated amount). The fact that individuals can't own or exchange gold without special permissions is also not that important, whats important is that currency is still effectively pegged to gold at a fixed ratio and that central banks are obligated to maintain that ratio and this affects exchange rates and the money supply. If you don't agree here are some sources.

In a paper from UCLA, page 2:

"Eventually, in the early-mid 1930s...each European nation separately abandoned its gold standard in order to give its central bank greater flexibility in fighting the unemployment characterizing the Great Depression. Only the U.S. remained on the gold standard, albeit one with harsh curbs imposed on the export and possession of gold. And only the U.S. could finance the military defense of the democracies during WWII."

http://www.econ.ucla.edu/thompson/29-1.pdf

Paper from Columbia University:

"Britain went off gold in 1931, and America in 1933. America then went back to gold after devaluing the dollar in 1934."

http://www.columbia.edu/~ram15/LBE.htm

As for when GDP was lowest, it appears I was one year off with 1934. The US Government's Bureau of Economic Analysis has 1933 being the trough. I would think their figures are more reliable that whatever this mutlpl.com site is.

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=5&FirstYear=2010&LastYear=2011&Freq=Qtr

It can easily shown that you are mixing things up. The US economy bottomed out in 1932, two years before the gold standard was dropped, and not after 1934. Gold was not devalued from 20.76 to 35 as you state. The DOLLAR was devalued in terms of gold and gold gained value in terms of the dollar. The reason for that was the same old reason since the dawn of time. The government refused to meet its obligations to redeem paper dollars at $20.76 to the ounce. Another thing is that you are stating that GOLD was backed by 40% gold. That is plainly a misunderstanding of my position and a misunderstanding of historical fact. FEDERAL RESERVE PAPER DOLLARS were 40% backed by gold and that allowed the Fed to print $2.50 in notes for every $1 in gold in the possession. Lastly you want to have it both ways. You say that the original gold dollar peg of 20.76 and the 40% backing requirement was dropped in order to expand the money supply and then you say that the new dollar gold peg limited expansion of the money supply. How do you explain the contraction of the money supply in 1937 which caused a downturn in the economy. What was that due to? If the printing of dollars was truly limited after 1934 how do you explain the continual overprinting which forced the US off the silver standard in 1964 and later forced Nixon to close the gold window? Was that not due to an overabundance of newly created dollars to exchange for US silver and gold? If the creation of paper money was truly limited how did that overprinting happen?

If you truly believe what you say, that the US was still on the gold standard after 1934, I invite you to change the section of the article which states that the US was able to get out of the Great Depression faster because it dropped the gold standard. 71.184.188.254 (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, I did mean to write that the dollar was devalued. I really fail to see how anything you wrote above is a counterpoint to the sources I put stating that the US was still on the gold standard. Even the lead to this article states that

"...where the authorities guarantee a fixed exchange rate with another country that is on the gold standard. This creates a de facto gold standard..."

My comments on the 40% backing and 100% backing were in response to your previous post to explain that it doesn't matter in what percentage you back currency with gold. Where above did I ever state anything like "the new dollar gold peg limited expansion of the money supply?" Contractions or expansions in the money supply could obviously happen from outflows and inflows of gold due to deficits and surpluses in a country`s balance of payments. Also the reason the US eventually stopped the convertibility of dollars to gold was because of the Bretton Woods system which had all other currencies convertible into the dollar and then only the dollar convertible into gold. The US thought this was feasible at first because they emerged from WWII with the majority of the world`s gold reserves but the re-emergence of Britain, France, Germany and the economic boom in Japan combined with US balance of payment deficits eventually meant it was unrealistic for them to be able to maintain convertibility when so many countries were holding dollar reserves and they were no longer by far the dominant holder of gold.

You are the one who is trying to argue that the gold standard in the United States was abandoned after 1934 and so shouldn`t be included in the section as having contributed to worsening the depression despite that statement being source. I haven`t seen you providing any sources to support the claim that a gold standard was no longer in existence after 1934. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.237.3.30 (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

In response to your complaint "Where above did I ever state anything like "the new dollar gold peg limited expansion of the money supply?" In a previous post you stated "whats important is that currency is still effectively pegged to gold at a fixed ratio and that central banks are obligated to maintain that ratio and this affects exchange rates and the money supply." Notice the part about "effecting money supply". Seems to me that first you stated that a gold peg acted to limit the money supply and now just above you deny it. I hope this is not bad faith on your part.

You state that you believe that the US was still on a gold standard after 1934. Care to explain how that can be true when it was illegal to own gold after 1934? A gold standard means gold is the money of the land. A gold exchange standard is a standard where the money of the land can be exchanged for gold at a fixed rate by everyone. Neither was true after 1934. I stated somewhere on this talk page that the US was on a limited exchange standard, since the right to exchange was "limited" to sovereign nations. A limited exchange standard is not a gold standard.

The article currently states that the sooner a country went off the gold standard the sooner it got out of the Great Depression. Since you believe that the US was still on the gold standard at that time, I again invite you to find cites to that effect and make changes in that portion of the article. 71.184.188.254 (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I can see it is pointless to argue with you about this. I clearly provided two sources stating that the US was still on the gold standard in papers from two highly prestigious universities and you still ask me for sources? I also explained to you why it is relatively unimportant that individuals cannot convert currency to gold because a country's balance of payments is more important. How hard is it to also understand that pegging your currency to gold does affect the money supply (not "effecting" by the way)? It limits a country's ability to conduct monetary policy because there is a defined cap on the money supply, but where above did I state that the US devaluing the dollar was not a monetary expansion and that "the new dollar peg limited expansion of the money supply?" I clearly said that devaluing the dollar was a monetary expansion. Again, you are the one who initially wanted to eliminate mentions of the gold standard affecting the Depression because you claimed that it did not exist after 1934. If you want that to be changed you need to provide sources. Currently, I interpret the section as just stating that the US had to devalue the dollar to expand the money supply and don't really see a problem with it. 116.237.3.30 (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that the US was in fact on a gold standard after 1934 then I again ask you to act on your beliefs. The article currently states that the US went off the gold standard and that this was one reason reason why the US recovered from the Great Depression. See material backed by cite 10.

If it is your opinion that fining and imprisoning a US citizen for the possession of gold, means that the US is on a gold standard, I have to say that you need to get in touch with reality. So do the economists you cite.

You continue to not have a clue about what you are saying. Above you state that "It limits a country's ability to conduct monetary policy because there is a defined cap on the money supply, but where above did I state that the US devaluing the dollar was not a monetary expansion and that "the new dollar peg limited expansion of the money supply?" " You seem to be unaware that a defined cap on the money supply acts to limit expansion of the money supply. Are you aware that monetary policy is the creation and supply of money into the economy and that a cap on the supply of money acts to limit monetary policy?.71.184.188.254 (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

1937 money supply shrinkage was due to banks hoarding gold and dollars in a reaction very similar to the recent US bank bailout. Banks do not always do as desired when the government tries to stimulate. Keep in mind that the money supply depends n part on the multiplying effects of continued circulation. Of course some private citizens also hoarded money and more secretly gold. Frankly the US governmet could have given banks gold itself from Government reserves and still seen hoarding. That is what scared people and greedy speculators do.72.182.15.249 (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bea data on GDP you linked is not adjusted for inflation. The link I provided is adjusted for inflation. For a proper comparison of economic activity you need to adjust for changes in price levels (inflation). The US economy did in fact bottom out in 1932.71.184.188.254 (talk) 12:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The online Britannica encyclopedia defines a gold standard as follows - Britannica is a mainstream as you can get http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/237431/gold-standard

gold standard, monetary system in which the standard unit of currency is a fixed quantity of gold or is kept at the value of a fixed quantity of gold. The currency is freely convertible at home or abroad into a fixed amount of gold per unit of currency. 71.184.188.254 (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

By focusing on the limited and fairly recent US history surrounding the US change from gold, you are ignoring a huge amount of actual experience with gold standards...thousands of years. Perhaps the amount of numeric detail is limited compared to modern studies, but the histories of Rome, China, dark ages merchant princes up to the industrial revolution shows that economic disasters occur the same way under gold coin standards as today. Gold is smoothing for some people to hold and that is about the limit of its extensively tested economic powers -- unless you are talking wartime pillage and plundering which has been virtually replaced by the stock market. 72.182.15.249 (talk) 07:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Article comment that gold standard worsened Great Depression

is also bullcrap, and likely originates from a Federal Reserve employed flunky

Milton Friedman stated that "the severity of each of the major contractions — 1920-1, 1929-33 and 1937-8 is directly attributable to acts of commission and omission by the Reserve authorities" http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman 71.184.188.254 (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

-Too bad you don't study economic collapses before 1850...then you would realize cyclic economic crashes occurred even under 100% gold -- pretty much in the same way for the same reasons. People can lose faith in the power of gold too -- especially when large groups are starving somewhere not too far away. Gold did however add the excitement of new colonies with gold mines and military spoils of war before modern world diplomacy and rules of war.72.182.15.249 (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

--The real value of gold is that it is better for personal hoarding. Unlike paper money it does not rot or burn. It can be hidden for scores or even centuries and still retains some value even if the nation it was mined in is no more. The root reason many people want gold coins to return is that they feel gold hoarding would then become anonymous. When I asked why worry about the gold standard, just buy gold, most admitted that they felt the government or banks kept track of who had gold hoarded and that in bad times would "rob" gold hoarders of their gold for world market exchange at national levels. Although I do not understand the compulsive need to hoard, I suspect that last part is probably a valid concern should national survival be at stake.

Too bad you don't know what you are talking about. Of the major economic collapses prior to 1850 the vast majority were caused by a weakening of silver or gold backed money. Back then this was caused debasement of the currency. One of the reasons Rome fell was that it debased its currency so much that economic activity was hindered. China banned paper money some time after Marco Polo visited, because paper money inflation destroyed the economy. Many of the major European economic collapses such as the South Seas Bubble and Mississippi Bubble (John Law) were caused by the use of stock certificates used as money, or to back paper money, instead of using gold as silver money. Based on their experience with the paper Continental, the US Constitutional Convention stripped the power to print paper money (bills of credit) because it could lead to legal tender paper money replacing gold and silver money. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp The real value of gold and silver money is that it cannot be printed ad infinitum, destroying the wealth of the many for the benefit of the few.71.184.188.254 (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hoarding vs low gold quantities

Someone needs to add a paragraph on another aspect of adopting gold standards. There is historical proof that gold standards do not prevent sudden economy crashes and there seems to be suggestion of a particular reason -- hoarding. Gold hoarding reduces available currency from circulation. That is, natural (OCD/paranoid) hoarders tend to drain some gold from any gold standard economy at all times. Given the current world population, its quite possible that under a gold standard, natural hoarding alone could eventually produce a world economic liquidity crisis. But we do know that during economic times of trouble - gold hoarding can easily escalate out of control due to both speculators and panic hoarding. In fact historical accounts suggest that is exactly what happened during many historical pre-1800s European economic crashes. And we do know that panic hoarding of gold reserves were behind many bank run failures in world history. Even under 100% gold reserve your bank will fail if everyone pulls out of you bank and put it under their pillow. More importantly there is no community lending or free accounts under the 100% gold standard desired by natural hoarders. 72.182.15.249 (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Bank failures are caused because banks do not have enough money to meet withdrawals. That will happen under any kind of monetary system under the sun. It is not a disadvantage of the gold standard. Your infatuation with gold hoarding leading to a liquidity crisis is noted but hoarding of any sort of money happens when the perceived risk of making a loan to a bank (also known as a deposit) is greater then the perceived gain of making that loan. A liquidity crisis will happen whenever lenders decide making loans (deposit) to a bank (or banks) is not worth the risk. That again happens when banks are perceived to have overextend themselves and will happen under any sort of monetary system. Notice that US institutions are currently reducing lending to European banks based on the perceived risks in Europe, causing a liquidity crisis there. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/212b8776-d7dd-11e0-a5d9-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1o. 71.184.188.254 (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

financial repression and "Some economists"

Roubini knows about and states it negatively impacts economic growth http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=262716 Krugman knows about and is engaging in selective blindness, since he thinks none of it is going on any longer (even a village idiot should be able to see that current US interest rates paid out to savers are lower then the inflation rate.) http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/financial-repression/ It gets heard in investment conferences a lot - http://lewrockwell.com/wiggin/wiggin-addison11.1.html The Bond King Bill Gross warns about it http://www.midasletter.com/index.php/bill-gross-illuminates-financial-repression-by-central-banks/ The IMF posts papers on it on its website http://www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/2011/res2/pdf/crbs.pdf

"some" is low balling the number71.184.188.254 (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Short-run price instability

Here is the part of the research paper where it mentions short-run price instability as a disadvantage to the gold standard:

"The advantage of adhering to the gold standard is that it provides a market-driven mechanism to ensure long-run price stability. The disadvantage is that it involves significant resource costs and makes aggregate price level volatility depend on real shocks. Nevertheless, the gold standard has long been viewed as superior to an inconvertible fiat regime in providing for price stability. But a fiat regime based on a credible nominal anchor provides the price stability benefits of the gold standard with neither the resource costs nor the short-run variability associated with the gold standard."

I don't see how it in good faith can be claimed that what is said in the article is misrepresenting what is being said above.

And in response to the repeated claim that Wikipedia does not allow presenting correlations without explicit claims of some specific causal relationship, this is simply not true. WP:SYN says that you cannot put together facts so as to imply a correlation between them, if the sources used do not note that correlation. But if the sources are pointing out a correlation, it is perfectly acceptable for the article to do that too.TheFreeloader (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The language above states that the gold standard is superior to fiat. How is that a disadvantage?71.184.188.254 (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It does not. It, like the article, says that the gold standard provides long-run price stability. It says that the conventional wisdom is that the gold standard is more stable than fiat regimes. But it then goes on to say that in reality, a rule based fiat currency regime, like the Taylor rule or inflation targeting, is even more stable throughout than the gold standard. And if it wasn't clear enough, the paper repeats it in the next paragraph when it says: "As Irving Fisher argued, we find that if a central bank wants price stability for the short-term, then stabilizing a broad price index clearly dominates the classic gold standard." If I had the chance to do so, I would find the Irving Fisher piece referred to, and we would have yet another source agreeing with the argument in the article.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Which part of "the gold standard has long been viewed as superior to an inconvertible fiat regime in providing for price stability." is difficult for you to understand? Being superior is not a disadvantage. With respect to this "But a fiat regime based on a credible nominal anchor provides the price stability benefits of the gold standard with neither the resource costs nor the short-run variability associated with the gold standard." he makes no claim that any fiat has ever been based on a "credible nominal anchor". Fiat is by definition unbacked paper, is inconvertible, and has no anchor. If it was backed then it woudn't be fiat. Then it would be a "backed currency".71.184.188.254 (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A book review is a secondary source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[5] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[6] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review.71.184.188.254 (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

and in case the above is not sufficient

Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.71.184.188.254 (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality flag added

Due to the wholesale deletion of backed pro gold material and the insertion of unbacked anti gold material, I am adding a neutrality flag — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC) A\]

Among the disputes

Continuing addition of "gold is associated with short term fluctuation" as a negative - association does not equal causation. As written the article implies that gold standard causes short term price fluctuation which then result in bank panics. Historically it is the opposite. Bank panics cause short term fluctuation as people hoard money and economic uncertainty causes them to hunker down and put a little money aside for a rainy day (which is staring them in the face during a bank panic).

Repeated deletion of quotes attributed to Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman and other mainstream economists in favor of a fringe/minor theory.

Repeated deletion of material from economists that show that minor/fringe thesis is flawed.

Placement of fringe/theory in the top slot to make it look more popular - so far only two economists have been shown to support it.

Newly added unbacked material purported to show that the limited supply of money under a gold standard would act to slow economic activity. History shows that economies grow best under a stable money then an unstable one. Switzerland versus Zimbabwe come to mind. Cite states that "economy cannot grow unless more gold is mined" is so fringe that it is on a par with UFO's are based inside a hollow earth.

and what the heck is with the wholesale deletion of neutral historic data on coinage and the gold silver ratio?71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

association does not equal causation

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

The opposite belief, correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship.

Capische? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.188.254 (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I just said it above, but apparently you didn't hear that, nowhere in Wikipedia policy does it say that you cannot mention a correlation which is mentioned in a source without also including a guess at a causal reason for the correlation. This is a criteria you have made up. Reliable sources say there is a relationship between two phenomenons, then we can say the same. We are not here to find the Truth, we are merely here to tell readers information which can be verified by reliable sources.TheFreeloader (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Again: for it to be under disadvatage you need to show that it is a disadvatage.71.184.188.254 (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

And again, it is expressed the conclusion of the research paper that higher short run price instability is a disadvantage with the gold standard. This is further backed up by the following sentence which explains that short run price instability may cause financial instability. And to the part about primary sources you cited below, the encyclopedia article referenced is a secondary source. Therefore this point is actually much better covered when it comes to secondary sources than many other points in the Advantages and Disadvantages sections, seeing as many of those do not cite secondary sources.TheFreeloader (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The paper states that it is "associated' with the gold standard. The paper makes no claim that this is a disadvantage. The paper claims that the gold standard is "superior" to fiat but that some sort of currency can be developed that is superior to the gold standard. For instance a currency that grows at the same rate as the economy or a currency backed by a basket of commodities. AGAIN association does not mean causation. The use of additional Schwartz material is "synthesis" as it is in support of a point never made. Read above correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy71.184.188.254 (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I can just say that I think you are deliberately misreading the source. I think it would be clear to anyone who isn't pushing a POV like you that the sources are saying that one of the disadvantages to the gold standard is the short run price instability historically associated with it. If someone else were actually backing your reading of the sources, then I might change my mind. But until then, I just have to say that you have shown to be so committed to POV pushing over improving the encyclopedia that I cannot take your opinions on this matter seriously. You are clearly apply widely different standards to what is acceptable for what you think can be included under Advantages and what can be included under Disadvantages.TheFreeloader (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Show me where the author states that the gold standard causes that short run price instability. Association means jack. The gold standard was also associated with sailing ships. 71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

And you really should show where the author states that this short term price instability was worse under gold then under fiat. Having a smaller variation is beneficial as it provides stability (good for business as it reduces uncertainty in business conditions).71.184.188.254 (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Material removed from the Disadvantages

This section (*Economic growth would be constrained by the gold supply.) was removed by another user even though it's based on sourced information. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It is wacko fringe opinionj and has no place in a wiki article. The author claims that under a gold standard economic growth would cease if gold mining stopped. There are 3 things that contribute to economic growth. Ideas for making old products better or at lower cost (assembly line), thinking up new products some of which can make older products cheaper or faster ( computers and automated assembly lines) and more hands to do the work. For the authors opinion not to wacko fringe, somehow a stop in gold mining would make people cease thinking of better ways to make new products, cease thinking of new products, and somehow would make people stop having babies. As it stands, that opinion is about as popular as UFO's are based inside a hollow earth. aka WACKO FRINGE!71.184.188.254 (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Fringe opinions have no place in a wiki article. Like 3RR, your ignorance of wiki policy continues to shine.71.184.188.254 (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You removed material that is based on sourced information. One of the sources is from a professor at Iowa State University. I placed an edit warring warning on your talk page a little earlier. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Per wiki policy, fringe opinions have no place in a wiki article, and anybody that thinks closing gold mines will stop people from having babies is as wacko as they come.71.184.188.254 (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not quite how it works on wikipedia. You need to prove whatever you think is fringe. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Fringe opinion has no place in a wiki article. Look it up!71.184.188.254 (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll say it again. You need to PROVE that it's fringe. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

NO. YOU need to prove that it's not fringe, and good luck with proving closing gold mines stops people from having babies. 71.184.188.254 (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW: Your continuing deletion of quotes by Friedman and other economists weaken your case. At a minimum you look like you have a double standard. Notice that wiki has a NPOV policy as well and you deleting material direct from the mouth of the most influential economist of modern times while pushing some drivel from a third string economist (at best) shows your lack of a neutral point of view.71.184.188.254 (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Your continuing distortion of wiki policies makes me continue to doubt your good faith. Wiki policy is that the CHALENGED party needs to provide the backup.71.184.188.254 (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Credit-boom

Re: objection - Our overall conclusion is that the gold standard was neither the cause nor the solution to the credit-boom problem.

Another cite which you keep deleting states that the Federal Reserve specifically created to make money "elastic" meaning expandable at will. The creation of the federal Reserve negated the "inelastic" property of the gold standard and allowed an expanding money supply which could then act as fuel to a credit boom. gold money is "inelastic" because it "can't be printed at will".

Perhaps you should read what you are deleting sometime.71.184.188.254 (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW a cite needs to show that someone stated something. If they quote someone else later on, that's part of showing different viewpoints. Have you ever heard of the term "on the other hand"?71.184.188.254 (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

elastic Federal Reserve notes

What is the objection to language referring to inelastic gold money being replaced by elastic Federal Reserve money repeatedly deleted from the article? With only a 40% backing you can issue 2.5 times as much currency compared to 100% backed money. Under the 100% backed classical gold standard money was inelastic, while elastic 40% gold backed notes were created under the early 20'th Century partially backed gold standard.

The issue here is gold money is inelastic and cannot be continually created to fuel credit booms, while a change from a 100% gold standard to a 40% gold standard allows a 2.5 fold increase in the money supply, which can be used to fuel a credit boom. When the 40% limit is reached then money can't be printed any more since the backing would drop below 40%. Money then again becomes inelastic since it can't be printed at will.71.184.188.254 (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is a minor theory getting top billing

"Prolongation of the Great Depression" starts of with a minor theory which states that the gold standard was responsible for extending the Great Depression. Major theories are as follows

The Great Depression was extended by crappy government policies which screwed up the free market, making recovery more difficult,

The Great Depression was extended by crappy Federal Reserve policies, like the monetary tightening around 1937 which caused the economy to slide back into depression.

The Austian School view that the Great Depression was horrible because of the size of the credit bubble created in the 20's by the Fed. The Austrian School view is "the bigger the bubble the worse the crash".

Also why do alternate views to this minor theory keep getting deleted. Friedman's opinions kept getting deleted and now similar views by Economist Robert Murphy keep getting deleted.71.184.188.254 (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Something's gotten chewed up here:

I can't tell what this sentence is supposed to mean, mostly because it's one long subject with no predicate:

"As notes devalued; or silver ceased to circulate as a store of value; or there was a depression as governments, demanding specie as payment, drained the circulating medium out of the economy."

Perhaps somebody who has followed this article in the past can figure out what happened to that and the passages on either side of it. Poihths (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Gold in Industry

Have there been any reports done on how a gold standard would be affected now that we use gold as practical industrial material? I know for most of its history, gold had no large scale function, but is incredibly valuable for computer technologies today. I don't really know how to phrase this, so googling it hasnt worked out. I just didnt see it mentioned anywhere. I have no plans to request an update to the page, unless such a report can be found. So if anyone knows of one, that would be a good thing to put in. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"some economists" and lengthening of Great Depression

Per personal experience I believe that the "some economists" believe that the Great Depression was extended by the gold standard to be an gross exageration. I consider myself well read on economic matters and this article is the first place I have run across which blames the length of the Great Depression on the Gold Standard.

Unless cites can be provided showing that this position is supported by more then "a few" economists I will be changing that "some" to "a few".71.184.188.254 (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

still waiting to see if anyone can provide evidence for "some". So far I know of "two".71.184.188.254 (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Continuing to wait!71.184.188.254 (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

some is two if precedence means anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.114.111 (talk) 07:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

When the total number of economists is probably in the ten's of thousands, "some" implies more then 2.71.184.188.254 (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The relation between the gold standard and the Great Depression is an important point in the literature. I'm surprised as you have not come across this given that you claim to be well read on economic matters. Just to give a couple of examples. Eichengreen has a well known piece on how staying on the gold standard delayed recovery from the Depression. Bernanke has a paper on the international propagation of the crisis through the mechanisms of the gold standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.251.25.181 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Eichengreen can claim that the moon is made of green cheese as well and that would jibe about as well with reality. Canada left the gold standard in 1929, Great Britain in 1931 the US in 1934, France in 1937. There is no substantial difference in the course of the Great depression in these 4 countries. The Great Depression did not end 8 years earlier in Canada then it did in France or 5 years earlier then it did in the US.71.174.135.204 (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Fringe opinion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.71.184.188.254 (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Good. So your claim is that it's "held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority". Now you need to prove that because you're the one disputing the addition. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Did I mention I find you two faced? Per wiki policy, the onus is on the one ADDING the material to prove it is not fringe. Like I said, good luck finding people who think closing gold mines will stop people from having babies, or from thinking up better ways of doing things.71.184.188.254 (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at your edit, I see nothing resembling the claim that "closing gold mines will stop people from having babies". As far as I can tell, you're the only one advancing that position. Furthermore, the source for that statement was from a collection of course materials compiled by Iowa State University Economics professor Eun Kwan Choi for an Econ. 355 class, and the main text for that class appears to be "International Economics: Theory and Policy" by Paul R. Krugman, who is a widely cited economist and almost certainly not a member of the "wacko fringe". 68.52.208.245 (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Even a graduate of public miseducation should know that economic growth depends, in part, on population growth. A larger population can produce more goods and services then a smaller one. It's one reason why the US has a bigger economy then Switzerland. If closing gold mines stops economic growth, then it must also stop population growth. 71.184.188.254 (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the "public miseducation" comment above - but continuing deletion of mainstream material by Somedifferentstuff is pi(&^&* me off.71.184.188.254 (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW: Krugman is probably the last diehard Keynesian out there. He is one of the people that pushed (a decade ago) for money printing with the intent of causing a housing bubble. Look where that got us. He hasn't got up to speed on what happens to pump priming when you are already deep in debt. Pump priming works (somewhat) in a low debt environment, but when you are already deep in debt and facing default then the harm caused by getting deeper in debt outweighs the benefits of pump priming. To quote "you can't solve a debt problem by getting deeper in debt". 71.184.188.254 (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Your argument that since "economic growth depends, in part, on population growth," therefore "if closing gold mines stops economic growth, then it must also stop population growth" is both logically unsound (based on the information provided) and a violation of Wikipedia policy to push in the manner you have chosen. First, there can be multiple variables impacting economic growth and the change of a single variable can impact economic growth requiring other variables to change in consequence. To assert otherwise requires that you provide a reliable source. Otherwise, you are pushing original research and possibly synthesizing an argument. Second, your assertion that Krugman "pushed (a decade ago) for money printing with the intent of causing a housing bubble" is possibly a violation of our policy on living persons. You are essentially asserting that Krugman intended to cause an economic crash and you must provide a reliable source to back up that claim, or you are in violation of policy. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

There are in fact a multitude of things that effect economic growth. My objection was to the insertion of language in the article that a stop in gold production would stop economic growth. I hope we can agree that stopping gold production would not stop economic growth and that any such opinion is about as wacko fringe as UFO's are based inside a hollow earth.71.174.135.204 (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Critisism of that minor theory keeps getting deleted

CITED criticism of this minor theory which shows that the authors didn't even get the order of countries leaving the gold standard correct, keeps getting deleted. Why? 71.184.188.254 (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Canada left the Gold standard in 1929, Great Britain in 1931, The US in 1934 and France in 1937. The Great Depression followed pretty much the exact same course in all of these countries. Is itr any wonder that this is a low popularity/fringe theory?71.174.135.204 (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 March 2012

The gold exchange standard was in place during the interwar period not before WWI. Before WWI, the classical gold standard operated.

176.251.25.181 (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

POV tag added

Added POV tag due to continuing deletion of pro gold standard material and the insertion of bogus anti-gold material

1) Deletion of US Constitutional Convention language designed to ban paper money and insure US stayed on a silver and gold coin standard. Cites include language hosted at avalon.com run by Yale law School, from the notes of James Madison. Language attributed to James Madison of Federalist 44 and Language from US Supreme Court rulings also cited.

2) Deletion of material on the inter-war gold standard showing it was a dismal shadow of the true gold standard. Cites include Bordo and Eichengreen. Both authors are cited extensively elsewhere in the article.

3)Deletion of material showing that increased savings under a gold standard lead to higher economic growth. Check the history books - growth since the last ties to gold were dropped by Nixon in the 70's have been the most dismal in US history, while growth in the 19th century under the old school gold and silver coin standard were highest.

4)Material contrary to Eichengreens position that staying on the gold standard lengthened tge Great Depression. Plainly low popularity/fringe since NOBODY blames the US 1937 last gasp recession on the gold standard.

5) NOBODY Has shown that Eichengreens position (4) is anything other then low popularity/fringe yet it gets outsize mention.

6) Wacko Fringe dufus opinion that not mining gold under a gold standard will end economic growth is still in article. Economic growth depends on the number of people available to work, and newer better methods of production coming on line. Lastly to stop gold production under a gold standard you need to close every mine out there. Good freaking luck on that.

7) Article states that prices were more volatile under a gold standard. The author makes no claim that this volatility was caused by the gold standard itself. Others point to regular bank panics and the fractional banking system causing large swings in the money supply as banks overlend leading to a boom, then go broke when they overextend themselves leading to a contraction in lending and a shrinking money supply. It is basic economics that the supply of money has a direct effect on price levels. 71.174.135.204 (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

How is (1) important to this article? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

How is it not? Notice the article is about the gold standard and that the additional material is under US. I believe that a ban on paper money, taken to keep the US on a gold and silver coin standard, that was in effect for 100 years is relevant. Much more relevant that the fringe wacko dufus comment in the article that stopping gold mining will stop economic growth. see #6 above.71.174.135.204 (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You need a reliable secondary source for such claims. Interpretation of primary sources falls under WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I question your views on reliable sources since wiki prefers the use of primary sources on legal issues. Secondly Madison is both a primary and secondary source. He recorded the Votes. That makes his a secondary source. He took part in one of the votes and that also makes him a primary source, and pushed for a ban on paper money while campaigning for the US Constitution. The votes in question were cited by the dissenting US Supreme Court Justices in their dissent to the reversal of their upholding the ban on paper money by Grants newly packed court. The link to the US Legal Tender cases is provided and it plainly mentions that Madison recorded the votes in question. IS US Supreme Court language not good enough for you?

Additionally pretty the material is already part of the wiki article on the Legal Tender Cases. Please provide what convoluted thinking makes you believe that while the material is acceptable there, it is not acceptable on this article.71.174.135.204 (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

8) Repeated deletion of material from Milton Friedman and others, in direct opposition to Eichengreens proposition that staying on the gold standard lengthened the Great Depression. The material from Milton Friedman was from an interview with him, and also direct quotes from his book with Anna Schwartz. Deletion of contrary positions by such a mainstream and respected figure in nothing other than biased. As pointed earlier Canada went off the Gold Standard in 1929, Britain in 1931, the US in 1934 and France in 1937 yet the Great Depression followed pretty much the same course in all of these countries. One of the dissenters to Eichengreen pointed out, that Eichengreens proposition can only be find support by a careful choice of countries, and even then the the dates used for when those countries went off the gold standard are not the historically accepted dates. 71.174.135.204 (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for article edit

I am requesting the following historical information be included at the start of the section on the US. The vast majority already appears in the Legal Tender Cases wiki article and in neither synthesis, nor OR. The cites are also used in that article as well and are reliable.

Based on the bad experience with the Continental, during the Constitutional Convention a vote was taken to strip language allowing the Federal Government to print paper money, at the time called "bills of credit", which was carried on a vote of 9 to 2. A later vote taken to completely strip the power to print paper money from the states was agreed to on a vote of with 8 states in favor, 1 opposed and 1 divided. Writing in favor of the new Constitution James Madison wrote that the power to print money should also be given up by the states due to its "pestilent effects". This ban on paper money lasted until the need to fund the Civil War forced the Federal Government to issue legal tender paper "greenbacks". When the constitutionality of the greenback was challenged the US Supreme Court initially ruled that they were unconstitutional.However the addition of two new pro paper money justices by President Grant resulted in overturning the prior ruling in what are usually referred to as the Legal Tender Cases.71.174.135.204 (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

De Gaulle

"Under the administration of the French President Charles de Gaulle up to 1970, France reduced its dollar reserves..." In fact de Gaulle stood down as president in 1969. So should this say "up to 1969", or did it continue until 1970 under de Gaulle's successor Pompidou? MFlet1 (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Government policies tent to extend beyond the term of the leader who put them in place, so it is should not surprise that France continued to convert dollars into gold after deGaulle left office. France under deGaulle was directly responsible for breaking the London Gold Pool. To put in simple terms France converted the dollars it received from trade to gold in London and took its gold out of the London Market. This caused a scarcity of gold and ended up breaking the Pool which was used by England and the US to keep the dollar fixed to gold for purposes of international trade. The Pool's breakdown led to the demise of the Breton Woods system shortly after and the cutting of the last ties of the dollar to gold by Nixon.

Same old story of printing too many dollars, causing them to fall in value against real goods and services. That time the printing was to fund the guns and butter policies of Johnson aka to fund the Vietnam War without raising taxes. 71.174.135.204 (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You really need to supply source given your history of WP:SYNTH, etc. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

What SYNTH? That the Founding fathers took action to keep the US on a gold and silver coin standard after their experience with the Continental? That is historical fact. BTW: Still waiting on you to explain to me why that fact, prominently included in the Legal Tender Cases article cannot be used in this article.71.174.135.204 (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yet more bias

A bias tag on the article has now been removed without a discussion of the points raised above. This is in violation of wiki policy and just goes to show that at least some wiki editors are interested in nothing but removing dissenting voices. Perhaps they believe that consensus can be achieves by silencing those that do not consent. Orwellian doublespeak and doublethink straight out of 1984.71.174.135.204 (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No, just junk without proper sources from the world of the fringe. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Why do you consider US Supreme Court opinion a fringe source?71.174.135.204 (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

A higher savings rate leads to a higher growth rate

Seems clear that per Solow and his model as well as earlier models " a higher savings rate leads to a higher growth rate, although human inventiveness plays a higher role ... see language below. This language is also relevant to the wacko/fringe theory that closing gold mines under a gold standard will kill economic growth. All it will do is increase the value of gold money - i.e lead to deflation, such as was common in the high growth era of the 19th century.

A country with a higher saving rate will experience faster growth, e.g. Singapore had a 40% saving rate in the period 1960 to 1996 and annual GDP growth of 5-6%, compared with Kenya in the same time period which had a 15% saving rate and annual GDP growth of just 1%. This relationship was anticipated in the earlier models, and is retained in the Solow model; however, in the very long-run capital accumulation appears to be less significant than technological innovation in the Solow model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.135.204 (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

As with most of your recent edits please read WP:SYNTH ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

and what do I "synthesize" when I look at historic growth rates, and find that growth under a pure gold standard was higher then under a partial gold standard and much higher then under fiat paper?71.174.135.204 (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

tp://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2012/03/22/bernanke-slams-gold-defends-feds-make-it-up-system/3/

From Forbes magazine interview with Nathan Lewis. "You still can’t devalue yourself to prosperity. For 182 years, until 1971, the United States adhered to the principle of a gold standard, and became the wealthiest, most powerful, most innovative, and most advanced country the world has ever seen. Since 1971, even by the government’s own unnaturally-rosy statistics, the average worker is making less than in 1970, after adjusting for currency devaluation. The reality is that we are poorer than forty years ago. The United States is in a slow decline, and will likely remain in one until we return to the principle that made us great: the gold standard system."71.174.135.204 (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

IP User

(Past post)

User: 71.184.188.254 (talk) has been blocked for a month which can be seen on his talk page. He added the POV tag to this article and I will remove it unless there are any objections. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed POV tag. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(Present post)

• User: 71.174.135.204, whose comments can be seen in the sections above, is the same person as 71.184.188.254 (talk). This article (but not the talk page), was recently protected from IP edits as can be seen here [3]. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Your removal of the tag then and your removal of that tag now is contrary to wiki policies on bias tag. Wiki policy requires that the items in dispute be discussed before removal. They were not discussed then and they have not been discussed now. Lastly I was banned for reporting your sorry ass for committing a 3rr violation which you in fact did commit. In the Orwellian world of wikipedia, where some are more equal then others, reporting a 3rr is a punishable offense.71.174.135.204 (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see this. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

wiki policy on primary sources

wiki police on the use of primary sources "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source"

The policy plainly states that wiki policy allows the use of primary sources to make straightforward, descriptive statements of fact that can easily be confirmed.

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see anything here that would be called synthesis, original research, or the improper use of a primary source. Most of the material already appears in the wiki article on the Legal Tender Cases. One exception being the vote taken to deny the states the power to print money, which is irrelevant to a case determining whether the Feds can print money.71.174.135.204 (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You need a secondary source that ties all these things together otherwise it's synth. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you believe that I am synthesizing?71.174.135.204 (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The whole thing as it relates to the gold standard. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What is this "whole thing" thingie? Please be specific. 71.174.135.204 (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The "whole thing" is your synthesis of the relationship between the gold standard and the primary sources above. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The above material was about the US staying on a gold and silver coin standard. It was called bi-metallism. Look it up.71.174.135.204 (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Response re:Madison

The following list is from 71.174.135.204's post of 15:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC). I've taken the liberty of adding using the citations, prefixed with [IP], from its edit request of 17:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC); please advise if this is incorrect.

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

• The citation supplied only confirms that a motion to strike "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States" was made and reason given by the delegate making the motion. The supplied quote gives only the first of the fifteen lines reported and omits the footnotes from the quote supplied for the vote. Specifically...

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

• While there was certainly a lengthy debate on the topic and "it is necessary to concede that a powerful argument may be built up from the intent of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention"; claiming the vote enacted a constitutional "ban the printing of paper money by the Federal Government" is a fabrication.
• Also, the source is WP:PRIMARY.

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

• Ignoring the fact that the source is WP:PRIMARY and that some lines are omitted. This has nothing to do with the topic of the article and only serves to confuse the issue with phrases like "any thing but gold & silver coin a tender", "making these prohibitions absolute", and "a favorable crisis for crushing paper money".

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

• This is simply the disingenuous use of a primary source cherry-picked for the use of "pestilent effects". In other words, the statement is an unsupported fabrication.

• Please read WP:PRIMARY..."All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."... "Primary sources are very close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." Madison is most definitely a primary source in this instance.

I'll cover the Legal Tender Cases and the "Grant packed the Court" fabrication later. Right now I need a shower. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Citations and References
IP Citations References

I find your response avoids the issue. Per wiki policy a primary source can be used if the statement based on that source is easily verifiable by a lay person.

1) Did or did not a vote take place stripping/deleting the power to emit bills of credit from the enumerated powers of the Federal government, which passed 9 to 2, stripping/deleting that power from the draft copy of the US Constitution?

1a) Is or is not the power to "emit bills of credit" a power listed in the early draft of the US Constitution Section VII Section 1 provided here http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/draft.html

1b) Is it not true that the power to "emit bills of credit" is a power NOT listed ANYWHERE in the final version of the US Constitution since that power was stripped/deleted from the list of enumerated powers http://constitutionus.com/

1c) Is the power to emit bills of credit the power that we today colloquially call the power to print money. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_credit

2)Did or did not a vote take place stripping the power to emit bills of credit from the states? Is or is not that power prohibited to the states in the final version of the US Constitution?

2a) Did or did not the states prior to the formation of the Federal government have the power to "emit bills of credit" and that they exercised that power during the Revolutionary War by emitting Continentals?

2b) In order to ban paper money aka bills of credit, does or does not one have to prohibit that power from ALL entities capable of exercising it?

3) Did or did not Madison campaign in favor of the US Constitution in Federalist 44, by stating http://constitution.org/fed/federa44.htm

The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice, of the power which has been the instrument of it. In addition to these persuasive considerations, it may be observed, that the same reasons which show the necessity of denying to the States the power of regulating coin, prove with equal force that they ought not to be at liberty to substitute a paper medium in the place of coin.

4: You avoided any mention of the Supreme Court ruling upholding the ban on paper money, declaring the Civil War "greenback" unconstitutional.

5: You avoided the later Supreme Court ruling reversing that ban after Grant added two pro-paper money justices, in which the dissenters (the people upholding the paper money ban in point (4) specifically mention the votes in points (1) and (2). http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/79/457/case.html

5a) For instance, does or does not this language appear in Legal Tender Cases - 79 U.S. 457 (1870) http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/79/457/case.html

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

Lastly: Your complaint was that primary sources cannot be used. That is 100% wrong and your objections do not show that you have learned anything. You have not addressed this issue. Please reread the policy and address the same. Your attempts to avoid this issue with specious arguments are not appreciated in the least.71.174.135.204 (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Which part of "I'll cover the Legal Tender Cases and the "Grant packed the Court" fabrication later." did you not understand? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Your objections miss the point of wiki rules on primary sources. The point is that the primary sources state that 1) there was a vote taken to strip the power to emit bills of credit from the Constitution and that the vote passed,2) that there was a vote passed to strip the states from emitting bills of credit and that the vote passed,3) that Madison while campaigning for the Constitution urged the states to give up the power to print money, and that the states WOULD be giving up that power by enacting the new constitution,4) that the US Supreme Court initially ruled that the civil war greenbacks were unconstitutional, 5)and that later the US Supreme Court overturned this earlier decision after Grant added two new pro paper money justices who voted to overturn the unconstitutionality of the greenback and who declared the greenback paper money Constitutional over the objections of what had been a previous majority. Is there anything here that CANNOT be confirmed by a lay person with no special knowledge of the topic, when looking at the cites provided?? THIS is the core issue. Pretty much everything else is hot air.

Addressing your accusation that I am cherry picking. On the vote to strip the power to issued bills of credit that won on a vote of 9 to 2. Following are the comments, per Madison, of the two opposed. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp

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

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

Both plainly understood that the vote was about prohibition paper money. 71.174.135.204 (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Response re:All

1. Did or did not a vote take place stripping/deleting the power to emit bills of credit from the enumerated powers of the Federal government, which passed 9 to 2, stripping/deleting that power from the draft copy of the US Constitution?

• Yes, a vote took place August 16, 1787 on a motion to strike "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States" from enumerated powers of the legislature in a draft copy of the US Constitution. The vote passed 9 to 2.

1a. Is or is not the power to "emit bills of credit" a power listed in the early draft of the US Constitution Section VII Section 1 provided here?

• The phrase "To borrow money, and emit bills on the credit of the United States;" is listed under "The Legislature of the United States shall have the power to..."

1b. Is it not true that the power to "emit bills of credit" is a power NOT listed ANYWHERE in the final version of the US Constitution since that power was stripped/deleted from the list of enumerated powers?

• Obviously, "emit bills of credit" is not listed in the enumerated powers or elsewhere in the Constitution.

1c. Is the power to emit bills of credit the power that we today colloquially call the power to print money?

• More or less. For the purpose of this discussion; Yes.

2. Did or did not a vote take place stripping the power to emit bills of credit from the states? Is or is not that power prohibited to the states in the final version of the US Constitution?

• The is no doubt that Article I.10 "No State shall...emit Bills of Credit" prohibits the states from issuing bills of credit.

2a. Did or did not the states prior to the formation of the Federal government have the power to "emit bills of credit" and that they exercised that power during the Revolutionary War by emitting Continentals?

• The power of the states to "emit bills of credit" was virtually unlimited under the Articles of Confederation.

2b. In order to ban paper money aka bills of credit, does or does not one have to prohibit that power from ALL entities capable of exercising it?

• Yes. Typically one must prohibit something one wants prohibited.

3. Did or did not Madison campaign in favor of the US Constitution in Federalist 44, by stating [the following]?

The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice, of the power which has been the instrument of it. In addition to these persuasive considerations, it may be observed, that the same reasons which show the necessity of denying to the States the power of regulating coin, prove with equal force that they ought not to be at liberty to substitute a paper medium in the place of coin.

• The cherry-picked quote above excludes, as well as the first three paragraphs, the fact Madison is specifically discussing changes concerning the power of the several states...

A fifth class of provisions in favor of the federal authority consists of the following restrictions on the authority of the several States:

1. "No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of nobility."

The prohibition against treaties, alliances, and confederations makes a part of the existing articles of Union; and for reasons which need no explanation, is copied into the new Constitution. The prohibition of letters of marque is another part of the old system, but is somewhat extended in the new. According to the former, letters of marque could be granted by the States after a declaration of war; according to the latter, these licenses must be obtained, as well during war as previous to its declaration, from the government of the United States. This alteration is fully justified by the advantage of uniformity in all points which relate to foreign powers; and of immediate responsibility to the nation in all those for whose conduct the nation itself is to be responsible.

The right of coining money, which is here taken from the States, was left in their hands by the Confederation, as a concurrent right with that of Congress, under an exception in favor of the exclusive right of Congress to regulate the alloy and value. In this instance, also, the new provision is an improvement on the old. Whilst the alloy and value depended on the general authority, a right of coinage in the particular States could have no other effect than to multiply expensive mints and diversify the forms and weights of the circulating pieces. The latter inconveniency defeats one purpose for which the power was originally submitted to the federal head; and as far as the former might prevent an inconvenient remittance of gold and silver to the central mint for recoinage, the end can be as well attained by local mints established under the general authority.

—Madison, James (Friday, January 25, 1788), The Federalist No. 44, Restrictions on the Authority of the Several States {{citation}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)

• And yes, it is generally accepted that Madison was in favor of the Constitution.

4. You avoided any mention of the Supreme Court ruling upholding the ban on paper money, declaring the Civil War "greenback" unconstitutional.

• Here is a mention of the case...

In Hepburn v. Griswold^§, 75 U.S. (8 Wall) 603 (1869) the Supreme Court ruled parts of the Legal Tender Acts to be unconstitutional. This included issuance of United States Notes as a legal tender—the paper currency known as "greenbacks."

We are obliged to conclude that an act making mere promises to pay dollars a legal tender in payment of debts previously contracted, is not a means appropriate, plainly adapted, really calculated to carry into effect any express power vested in Congress, that such an act is inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution, and that it is prohibited by the Constitution.

—Hepburn v. Griswold, 75 U.S. (8 Wall) 603, 626 (1869)(Chief Justice Chase, Opinion of the Court)

^§ The holding in Hepburn v. Griswold was explicitly overruled by Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. (12 Wall) 457 (1870).

• What "ban on paper money" was upheld in Hepburn v. Griswold? Do you have a source for such a ban?

5. You avoided the later Supreme Court ruling reversing that ban after Grant added two pro-paper money justices, in which the dissenters (the people upholding the paper money ban in point (4) specifically mention the votes in points (1) and (2). [4]

• The Supreme Court did not "reverse" a "ban" on paper money. It overruled the holding of Hepburn v. Griswold...

But, without extending our remarks further, it will be seen that we hold the acts of Congress constitutional as applied to contracts made either before or after their passage. In so holding, we overrule so much of what was decided in Hepburn v. Griswold, [Footnote 18: 75 U. S. 8 Wall. 603] as ruled the acts unwarranted by the Constitution so far as they apply to contracts made before their enactment.

—Justice Strong, Opinion of the Court, Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. (12 Wall) 457, 553 (1870)

• Overruling is an explicit action with explicit results...

overrule, vb. (16c)

1. To rule against; to reject <the judge overruled all of the defendant's objections>.

2. (Of a court) to overturn or set aside (a precedent) by expressly deciding that it should no longer be controlling law <in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court overruled Plessy v. Ferguson>

—Garner, Bryan A. (2009). Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.). Thomson West. ISBN 9780314199492. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Overruling is an act of superior jurisdiction. A precedent overruled is definitely and formally deprived of all authority. It becomes null and void, like a repealed statute, and a new principle is authoritatively substituted for the old.

—Salmond, John (1947). Glanville L. Williams (ed.). Jurisprudence (10th ed.).

• The accusation of court "packing", with "two pro-paper money justices", by President Grant is just a lame, and not very original, attempt to vilify the Court, the Congress and the President...

It is vain, as a legal proposition, to meditate upon the appropriateness of the measures chosen by the Congress, for if they partake of this quality in any degree they are adequate.⁴⁷ To press further into the question would be to abandon the judicial forum and enter the legislative hall. The Court once went astray on this topic,⁴⁸ going into the necessity and suitability of the means, and, substituting the discretion of the bench for that of the legislature, found the Legal Tender Acts unconstitutional. The error was shortly righted,⁴⁹ but not without drawing down calumny^† and opprobrium^‡ upon the heads of the justices.⁵⁰ Thus to malign the reputations of the then incumbents is to villify[sic] despite rather than because of the facts.

During the Civil War decade the numerical constitution of the Supreme Court was in a state of flux.⁵¹ The change from eight to nine justices in 1869⁵² is not, therefore, to be looked upon as the solitary move of its kind with a sinister background, but rather as a final step in several endeavors to arrive at an ideal number. This is amply supported by the fact that the law making mandatory[sic] the enlarged bench was passed some months prior to the decision in Hepburn v. Griswold, and the appointments of Justices Strong and Bradley were made a few hours before the disclosure of the decision,⁵³ the reversal of which is asserted to have been the predominant reason for their selection.⁵⁴ It is therefore clear almost to the point of demonstration that the President did not "pack" the Supreme Court in order to secure a reversal of Hepburn v. Griswold, —equally manifest it is that learned and able justices were selected, who knew their rights and appreciated their duties while retaining the courage to assert and perform them in a way perhaps impolitic but nevertheless legitimate.

47. See McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U. S. 159, 207 (1819). In the present situation, the entire absence of suitability of the means to the end desired cannot be seriously maintained.

48. Hepburn v. Griswold, 75 U. S. 603 (1869). It is interesting to note that Chief Justice Chase, who wrote the opinion undertaking to prove the unnecessary nature of the Legal Tender Acts, was the Secretary of the Treasury who, after some early doubts, counseled President Lincoln to adopt them as indispensable measures.

49. Legal Tender Cases, 79 U. S. 457 (1871).

50. After the Legal Tender Acts were declared unconstitutional by a vote of five to three in the Hepburn Case, Mr. Justice Grier, a member of the majority, retired because of ill health. The Congress had shortly prior to that time increased the number of justices from eight to nine, and so two appointments became necessary. When these two voted in the Legal Tender Cases with the former minority, making it a five to four majority, defamatory charges were hurled with abandon.

51. The Act of March 3, 1863, enlarged the Court from nine members to ten, but the subsequent enactment of July 23, 1866, provided for a reduction to seven by prohibiting further appointments until the number was sufficiently diminished. Then followed the act in controversy, that of April 10, 1869, which took effect on the first Monday of the succeeding December. Since the Hepburn Case was not decided even in conference until November 27, 1869, the guiltlessness[sic] of the Congress is evident.

53. 6 Lewis, Great American Lawyers (1909) 359. There is no evidence of the egregious breach of ethics of disclosing the decision before it was read from the bench. Id. at 359-360.

54. A further manifestation of the innocence of the increment to this Court is that, prior to the ultimate selection of justices, Secretary of War Stanton and Attorney General Hoar were chosen by President Grant to fill the vacant posts. Mr. Stanton died before taking office and Mr. Hoar's appointment was refused confirmation by the Senate. With this disappears the last vestige of insidious plot attempted to be connected with the Strong-Bradley elevation to the Supreme Bench, since it could not have taken place without these almost unpredictable happenings.

—"The Satisfaction of Gold Clause Obligations by Legal Tender Paper". 4 Fordham L. Rev. 287–295. 294. 1935.

† "calumny, n.". Oxford English Dictionary (Second ed.). Oxford University Press. 1989; online version March 2012. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

1. False and malicious misrepresentation of the words or actions of others, calculated to injure their reputation; libellous detraction, slander.

2. A false charge or imputation, intended to damage another's reputation; a slanderous report.

‡ "opprobrium, n.". Oxford English Dictionary (Third ed.). Oxford University Press. June 2004; online version March 2012. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

1. An occasion, object, or cause of reproach, criticism, shame, or disgrace; shameful or disgraceful conduct. Now rare.

2. Disgrace or bad reputation arising from a person's shameful or dishonourable conduct; infamy; shame; reproach. Occas. a count noun: an imputation or expression of disapproval or contempt.

5a. For instance, does or does not this language appear in Legal Tender Cases?

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

• The language above appears here in the dissent written by Chief Justice Chase. A dissent has no (has in zero) legal weight and sets no precedent. The claim that "...the Convention regarded the power to make notes a legal tender as absolutely excluded from the Constitution" is the opinion of Justice Chase and his alone.

6. Your complaint was that primary sources cannot be used. That is 100% wrong and your objections do not show that you have learned anything. You have not addressed this issue. Please reread the policy and address the same. Your attempts to avoid this issue with specious arguments are not appreciated in the least.

• I do not believe I have ever stated "primary sources cannot be used". I would have been wrong if I did...

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.

• What I did say here is "...Interpretation of primary sources falls under WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH." in response to your claim here that "...US Constitutional Convention language designed to ban paper money and insure US stayed on a silver and gold coin standard." was supported by the notes of James Madison, Federalist 44 and US Supreme Court rulings. None of the sources provided support the claim without analysis, interpretation or synthesis. Using Madison's convention notes to report vote counts is perfectly acceptable. Using them to support the claim above is not. I would advise you to bring reliable secondary sources in support of your claims.

Done for now (although I'm sure I missed something). —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)