User talk:WouNur

Fractional-reserve banking

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Before making tendentious edits at the article on Fractional-reserve banking, please read your source material again. Also, read the Wikipedia article and the related talk page carefully. Famspear (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The link you cited was not to an abstract of a paper, not to the language of the paper itself. The abstract states, in part:

In this paper it was found that banks combine what are effectively very different operations, namely deposit-taking and granting of loans under one roof, because in this way they can invent new money in the form of fictitious ‘customer deposits’ when purporting to engage in the act of ‘lending’.

Part of the problem is that this is the viewpoint of the person who wrote the abstract. It may or may not represent the view of the person who wrote the article itself.

Another part of the problem is that some people who are not trained in this subject do not understand that there is nothing "fictitious" about "inventing new money" in this way.

The abstract does seem to refer to the admittedly misleading standard terminology of banking, such as "making a deposit" and "making a withdrawal." However, bankers do not generally lie to a depositor about the nature of the transaction for making a deposit. And bankers do not generally lie to a borrower about the nature of the credit that the borrower is receiving.

Banks are not merely "purporting" to engage in "lending." Banks ARE lending when they debit the asset account on their books (e.g., loans receivable, etc.) and credit the liability account on their books (e.g., customer deposit liability, etc.).

The fact that the customer's deposit account does not consist of actual paper currency and coin is not a deep, dark secret that is being kept hidden. Famspear (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear WouNur: I just checked a PDF copy of the original source material, and it appears that the quote was indeed from the original source, not from the abstract. I apologize for my mistake.

Nevertheless, the idea that the way banks invent new money is somehow "fictitious" is a view presented in the source material. In Wikipedia, we can't take sides. So, perhaps the material can be re-introduced further down in the body of the article, and re-worked to clearly state that it is the opinion of the author, Richard A. Werner. Famspear (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the article is entitled "How do banks create money, and why can other firms not do the same? An explanation for the coexistence of lending and deposit-taking," by Richard A. Werner, Centre for Banking, Finance and Sustainable Development, Southampton Business School, University of Southampton, United Kingdom, published at 36 International Review of Financial Analysis pp. 71-77 (2014).

In the article, Werner makes statements like these:

The ‘lending’ bank records a new ‘customer deposit’ and informs the ‘borrower’ that funds have been ‘deposited’ in the borrower's account. Since neither the borrower nor the bank actually made a deposit at the bank—nor, in connection with this transaction, anyone else for that matter, it remains necessary to analyse the legal aspects of bank operations. In particular, the legality of the act of reclassifying bank liabilities (accounts payable) as fictitious customer deposits requires further, separate analysis. This is all the more so, since no law, statute or bank regulation actually grants banks the right (usually considered a sovereign prerogative) to create and allocate the money supply....

I don't know what Werner's educational background is, but it almost appears as though he believes he has "discovered" something about banking that is not routinely taught in school. Maybe it's not taught in schools in Britain? The article is from the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom. Perhaps his claim (that there is no law, etc., actually granting banks this "right" to create money) is true for the United Kingdom. I live in the United States.

I need to read the entire article later, but Werner is explaining concepts that are considered pretty basic stuff in a college course on money and banking in the United States. Famspear (talk) 22:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you are in any way connected to Richard A. Werner, you need to state so. It is Wikipedia policy that potential conflicts of interest need to be declared. Additionally, if you have edited Wikipedia before using another account, you need to clearly state so on your userpage. LK (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: [1], we've seen these kinds of comments over and over and over again in Wikipedia. There seems to be some sort of belief among certain people that economics texts -- or at least some economic texts -- do not teach the essentials of money creation with respect to banks. The essential is that banks create money when a loan is made by debiting an asset account (called "loan" or "loan receivable," etc., etc.) and crediting a liability account (the customer deposit account).

The point that seems to be missed is that economic texts DO TEACH THESE ESSENTIALS. And, these essentials are clearly explained in Wikipedia articles.

Perhaps Britain is different. And, of course, I have not read every textbook used in every economics course in every university in the world. But, in the United States, I believe it is safe to assume that these basics are usually taught in an economics course on money and banking. (The course I took when I was attending university was entitled "Money and Banking".) Famspear (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Example:

"Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits."

The point is that college and university textbooks in the USA clearly explain this. And nobody in his or right mind thinks that American banks routinely make loans by having the borrowers walk out of the bank building carrying huge bags of paper currency and coin. Bank lending creates deposits. That's a correct statement. It's not a secret. Famspear (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear WouNur: On another editor's talk page, you asserted that the "Federal Reserve" is a "privately-owned central bank."

In Wikipedia, we see this nonsense over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over gain.

You are wrong.

You are correct that it helps to be more precise. See my comments below.WouNur (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The "Federal Reserve" is a term referring to the U.S. Federal Reserve System. The SYSTEM has both "privately owned" parts and governmental entities. Wells Fargo Bank, for example, is a member bank and is "privately owned." By contrast, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is a U.S. governmental entity.

Actually, ownership and governance are two separate compartments of the U.S. Federal Reserve System. Shares of the U.S. Federal Reserve System are held by the member banks and NOT the U.S. Government. On these shares, a 6% dividend is guaranteed to be paid by the U.S. Government to the shareholders of the U.S. Federal Reserve System. You are correct in stating that Chairman of of the U.S. Federal Reserve System is a U.S. Presidential appointee. WouNur (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The Solar System consists of the Sun, some planets, some asteroids, some space dust, and so on. The fact that the Solar System contains asteroids DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE SOLAR SYSTEM IS AN ASTEROID. The fact that the Federal Reserve System contains some privately owned banks does not make the System a "privately owned bank." Famspear (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This is NOT an appropriate analogyWouNur (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello WouNur, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Money creation has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 15:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hello, I'm C.Fred. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Fractional-reserve banking, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. There is no source supporting your assertion of the notes being "fraudulent". That must be backed up with a source. —C.Fred (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Fractional reserve

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

This is to advise you that there's a very limited tolerance for disruptive editing on this and related articles. Please read WP:BRD. Kindly remove the text you reinserted and present your views on the talk page.

SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Other

If you don't like Werner's work, you may appreciate the Bank of England's, "Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money." http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf _____________________________________________________— Preceding unsigned comment added by WouNur (talk • contribs)

Dear WouNur: You're missing the point. The Wikipedia regulars here are familiar with how fractional reserve banking works. You need to review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Famspear (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is a good link: WP:FIVEPILLARS Famspear (talk) 16:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

And:

1. WP:NPOV;

2. WP:V;

3. WP:NOR.

Yours, Famspear (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. See [2]
SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)