Talk:Criticism of fractional-reserve banking

message: There is a documentary presented on Google Videos that is historical in presentation that I believe should be added to the artcle on Federal Reserve Banking. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6076118677860424204#
71.112.248.253 (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, not going to happen. Linking to the video is problematic as it has a high chance of being a copyright violation. There doesn't seem to be any endorsement from the homepage of the film itself to the Google Video version. It is also not the sort of thing the external links policy recommends linking to. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention the fact that the request doesn't state "Please change X to Y." – Ajltalk 23:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 71.112.248.253, 31 March 2011 

message: While I only have evidence of myself having proposed the challenge, contributions to references for other similar considerations is wanton, else this proposal will be discarded.
The proposal seeks to include a bullet to extrapolate upon the statement, "While there is no controversy over the fact that the commercial banking system expands the money supply, critics find it problematic that banks 'create money out of nothing.'"
** Ethics of Earnings from Fractional-Reserve Banking **
<insert name> has challenged that the earnings volume is excessive gratuity relative to the ethics of source entitlement, which represents a moral hazard of fiduciary trust by government and a disproportionate marginal revenue product according to moral expectation. 
GeMiJa (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Bullet on "Ethics of Earnings from Fractional-Reserve Banking" Within General Criticisms 

message: I majored in economics in college and the terms "mainstream" and "non-mainstream" were not used.  The preferred terminology of the academic community in economics is "orthodox" and "heterodox".  I believe these terms are far more neutral than those that are currently in use by this page.  I recommend editing the page to reflect this more neutral academic view.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.210.228.204 (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. --Namaste@? 19:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I also concur and will make the appropriate edits. 76.104.136.215 (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loaded terms. 

message: The article changed significantly since Dec. 2007, I've removed the NPOV template, please use  or better yet  for statements and detail issues here. This will help address them quickly. - RoyBoy 05:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV removed 

message: This page is about criticism of fractional reserve banking. As such, it seems unnecessary and even inappropriate to include criticisms of the criticisms of fractional reserve banking or statements that are pro-fractional reserve banking. I think these sections should be removed unless anyone can provide a logical argument why criticisms of the criticism of fractional reserve banking should be on this criticism page:
"There are individuals, even within such groups as the Austrian school, that reject the notion that fractional reserve banking is inherently destabilizing and that full-reserve banking is the appropriate solution. One such Austrian thinker, Steven Horwitz, argued that full-reserve banking would impose similar costs of price adjustments in reaction to growth (through a reduction in the overall price level) as would inflation, and hence offer no inherent advantages over fiat currencies and fractional reserve banking."
In addition to being poorly worded and containing grammatical errors, the above passage is off-topic and irrelevant as it is not a criticism of fractional reserve banking, which is the subject of this page.
"Hayek accepted that bank credit and fractional reserve banking — even if they contributed to business cycles — were necessary."
A statement about fractional reserve banking being "necessary" is not a criticism of fractional reserve banking and is therefore off-topic and should be removed.
"Pascal Salin argues that a full-reserve banking system should not be enforced legally, and dispute Murray Rothbard's characterization of fractional-reserve banking as a simple form of recursive embezzlement, and rather advocate the abolition of central banking, and suggest that free banking replace the current system. Austrian monetary theorist George Selgin has also argued in favor of fractional reserve banking."
Another off-topic passage. This is not a page about Austrian economists who argue in favor of fractional reserve banking; IT IS AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE CRITICISMS OF FRACTIONAL RESERVE BANKING.
76.104.136.215 (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-F.R.B. Statements and Criticisms of the criticism of fractional reserve banking? 

message: "Within the economics profession today, most criticisms are from heterodox economics such as those of the Austrian School.[4]"
This links to a blog. According to Identifying reliable sources, "...self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable....'Blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs." Blogs are not a RS for Wiki, and in this case, the blog is not a news outlet nor is "the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."
Additionally, the statement reads "most criticisms" made of fractional reserve banking "are from heterodox economics such as those of the Austrian School." The link to the blog does not support the statement that "most criticism" is from heterodox economics such as the Austrian School. The statement is made as an appeal to the majority logical fallacy to cast doubt on criticisms of F.R.B. It should be removed.
76.104.136.215 (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RS says: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Which certainly applies to Caplan. bobrayner (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsupported statement/Blog linked is not a RS 

message: I think that fractionalreserves.com should be added as "external link" from this page. I know it was removed from the main "fractional reserve banking" page because its not neutral, but in the context of a page about *criticisms* of fractional reserve banking, I think it is spot on. The sources of information are largely central bankers and monetary specialists -look at the resources page. The shorter articles have all been published on other sites previously (Renegadeeconomist.com, positivemoney.org.uk) . Just because it has one link to a book hardly makes it a "commercial" site. I know the site is my own, but is that relevant? How is this link fundamentally different to the James Robertson link? Please make any answers about the facts and logic, not personal sniping. Reissgo (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  fractionalreserves.com