Talk:Ben Bernanke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Economics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Repetitious edits[edit]

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

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

bernanke's government salary[edit]

How much salary is paid to Bernanke from the fed? Where can I find the answer? (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Fat&Happy (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Bernanke's Thesis and Feynman[edit]

Richard Feynman should have read Bernanke's thesis. See -- OE, Jan 2010

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

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

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

Song by Lemon Demon.[edit]

Lemon Demon has a song about Ben Bernanke on Yuoutube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

Brad DeLong reference (citation 51)[edit]

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

Recent edit[edit]

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

Since no one has commented, I filed a dispute (Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests). Hopefully someone will come by, so we can get a third opinion.--Dark Charles (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that the NYT is using the term "student" in precisely the meaning of "a follower" rather than someone who has merely studied Keynes. The article later describes him as "no laissez-faire ideologue". I can't really see the POV and SYNTH in this either, it is merely reinforcing the Bloomberg quote already in the article. I don't know whether or not this is giving undue weight to this view by having two quotes, I am not competent to judge, but if so that should be easy enough to resolve. A compromise could be to edit down to a single summarising sentence while keeping both references. SpinningSpark 17:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It says "a student if not necessarily a devotee of the British economist John Maynard Keynes", so it seems to me like "devotee"="follower" and "student"="some one who has studied the issue".
The reason why I think it's synthesis is that the sentence above says more-or-less: Probably free-market economist. And the edit says Keynesian economist which is only relevant if we're lead to conclude not free-market economist (I think the unspoken premise is either free-market or Keynesian economist). This seems, to me, the obvious intent because of the "however", which suggest a contrast to the prior statement.
I think it's a loose POV because the lead in WP:POV says that articles should only contain quotes from people who are considered experts in their field. While a journalist is an expert on the news, I don't think they're experts on making distinctions between economic fields.
Anyway, unless you want to continue discussing the issue, WP:CON applies so either you or the other editor can change it back.--Dark Charles (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The article makes it quite clear that Bernanke is a follower of Keynesian economics. We all know it anyway, Dark Charles. If that quote is insignificant, than the quote calling him a "libertarian-republican" is also broad, arbitrary, and extremely insignificant. I am not saying this because I am a libertarian, I am not a libertarian. But it's obvious to anyone who follows Bernanke, that Bernanke does not follow anything even close to libertarian or austro-libertarian economics.JackD523 06:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the quote itself wasn't useful, because all mainstream economics builds upon Keynesian ideas. For instance, Milton Friedman thought that flooding the market with cash during a recession was good policy too, though Monetarism and Keynesian economics are considered unique. I don't object to the content so much as the meaningfulness and how the quote was used. In fact, if you go back to what I actually changed, I left the Bloomberg stuff even though it was being used to make the same point.
As far as the libertarian Republican thing, I didn't look at the source and I don't buy the claim either, but if the source is good and the information from the source isn't being used to argue a point not in the source, then it's fair to throw it in as long as every one can agree. Are you recommending changes? I don't mind helping.--Dark Charles (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

strange tone in adult life section[edit]

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

Whitewashing history to cover for Bernanke[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • I am just following correct procedure, this is an article about living person and there are strict requirements for addition and your desired addition has been removed by multiple users because it is not in line with guidelines. You would do better by going and looking for a citation that supports that this had anything to do with Bernanke or at least a citation that includes his name. Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
As Off2riorob pointed out, the article is about Bernanke, and everything thing in it should be tied directly to him. This is something that belongs in the Federal Reserve System article, not here. This was pointed out in many of the revert comments. Your addition was Boldly made, but was Reverted. WP:BRD points that you would have then opened some discussion about it, which you did, finally, after multiple editors removed the material. Finally, please do not attack other editors, such as calling them a "vandal" because they disagree with your edit. Using that criteria, you'd have multiple editors calling you a vandal, which hasn't happened. Ravensfire (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I thought I reverted the M3 information too. At any rate, your source wasn't about Ben Bernanke. It was just about the Federal Reserve generally. Thus WP:OR. By the way, the information you're trying to put in is a better fit in the Criticism of the Federal Reserve article. However, even if you want to put your edit there, you'll have to find a different source because the one you're using is just a news report, and doesn't really treat it like a controversy.----Dark Charles 00:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You guys are amazing. You seem to only want to protect the status quo. Haven't you guys noticed that Bernanke was the chairman when the publishing of the m3 numbers ceased? Furthermore, the very section to which this controversy was added is titled "controversies as chairman" (and Ben was chairman when it was done). It laughable the lengths several of you will go to keep new information from being added. Using your logic, the controversies about the AIG bailout and Merril Lynch merger should also be removed since they aren't 100% about Ben Bernanke. Haven't you thought about it that way? If you refuse to allow the addition of new controversies while Ben is chairman, then you need to get rid of the section on the page about him that is titled "controversies as chairman." Seriously, why even HAVE a section on Ben Bernanke's page about controversies while he was chairman if you are not willing to allow controversies to be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Sources used in this article have to be about Ben Bernanke. It's WP:OR if the source doesn't mention Bernanke as the causal factor. If you can find sources in the article that don't mention Bernanke, then you can delete the corresponding content (but make sure you explain your deletion in the edit summary, however). Remember, even for simple things, if you have a source that says A implies B, and another source saying A is true, you can't even conclude B is true in the article unless you have another source that says so. Those are the rules. Your source didn't mention that the information was a controversy, much less say that it was Bernanke's fault. You need to find a source that does both of those things, before it's not WP:OR.--Dark Charles 05:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not against controversies being in the article. The problem is that the sources provided do not say that Bernanke was criticized for the ending of the M3. The sources do not even say that the Fed was criticized for the ending of the M3. Since the is a BLP anything contentious that is not adwquately sourced should be immediately removed and that is what is happening there. I will look closer at the other sections and see if the sourcing is adequate there. ~~ GB fan ~~ 05:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Also the burden is on the editor who adds or readds information to show with reliable sources that it belongs. The burden is not on the editors removing the information to show it doesn't belong. ~~ GB fan ~~ 06:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ending publication of the M3 money supply numbers[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

citation 25[edit]

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

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

Ron Paul in Controversies as Fed Chairman section[edit]

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

Congressman Ron Paul has said, referring to Bernanke: "There is something fishy about the head of the world’s most powerful government bureaucracy, one that is involved in a full-time counterfeiting operation to sustain monopolistic financial cartels, and the world’s most powerful central planner, who sets the price of money worldwide, proclaiming the glories of capitalism.”[42] (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Ron Paul's claims may be fringe, or demonstrably false, but truth isn't the only criterion for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. If a bunch of people take Ron Paul's claim seriously then I think it's worth a mention in this article, though we shouldn't give it undue weight. bobrayner (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems to be a criticism of the Federal reserve itself however, rather than being directed at Bernanke specifically Drsmoo (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of edits to controvesy section[edit]

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

"Despite recent denials from Bernanke, his quantitative easing (QE) policy may be responsible for the dramatic inflation in food and energy prices, partially responsible for social unrest in African and Middle East countries. The timing of QE1 and QE2 coincided with massive speculative positions in crude oil futures. "[1] Similar correlation exists with corn futures speculation and other food futures. The concern is that a sea of liquidity unleashed by the Federal Reserve is tunneled into destructive speculation rather than real improvement of US economy."

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

Hi, please don't create attacking headers , use discussion to find the reason - we have policies and guidelines and free speech as such is not available - if you want free speech I recommend you get yourself a blog - its very easy these days. - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Off2riorob, could you please explain why you do this rather than keeping deleting new entries? Thank you.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:46, February 10, 2011
I've returned the section heading to a neutral tone. Attacking others, as you are doing, is not acceptable. Ravensfire (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, please note that blogs are generally not considered reliable sources. Information, especially about a living person must be sourced to a RS. Your edit was not, hence the reverts. Ravensfire (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I see. I'm wasting my time here on wiki. Over and out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
If you don't understand the need for good sources, and why that blog doesn't qualify, then yes, you are wasting your time. We've linked several pages that explain the reasons for those requirements, you need to review them. Ravensfire (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

no controversy in the lead?[edit]

"One myth that’s out there is that what we’re doing is printing money. We’re not printing money." Bernake Dec/10

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

is there support for adding at least one controversy to the lede? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
no, not because it's controversial, but because it doesn't fit the scope of the lede. A singular comment on a specific situation does not belong in a general summary of a person and their career, unless that quote happens to be so famous it's more well known than the person. That is not the case here. I have no problem adding content like this to the article (though I always recommend keeping a pretty tight rein on POV.) but it's not lede material. (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Adult life[edit]

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


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

Religious Jew[edit]

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

Article is controversial to the point of wikipedia policies failure[edit]

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

Broken Footnote Link[edit]

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

Privately owned non-governmental central bank[edit]

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

Leaving as Fed chair: info needed[edit]

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

  1. ^ Oil Speculation Far Exceeds the Levels Reached in 2008 (2011-2-8) [1]