Talk:Criticism of the Federal Reserve/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Lets try this again - is a chief Justice of the US Supreme Court an acceptable source?

No. really. Lets not keep on with this unproductive and disruptive nonsense.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry! But I decline to accept a forced closure of this issue. A Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court 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. 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. Is the opinion of a US Chief Justice of the Supreme Court acceptable to you guys, or is he "fringe"?71.174.137.244 (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC) Dear user at IP 71.174.137.244: Your post does not say who the "Chief Justice" is or what the source of your material is. However, the material you posted (without attribution) that begins with the phrase "The sense of the Convention which framed the Constitution....." appears to be from the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase in the "Legal Tender Cases," Knox v. Lee and Parker v. Davis, 79 U.S. 457 (1870). This material is not an example of Justice Chase making a critique of the Federal Reserve System. Indeed, that would be impossible. The Federal Reserve System was not even created until over forty years later. Again, I think you're proposing to insert your own Original Research into the mix. This is not an article about whether Congress has the power, under the Constitution, to make "notes" a "legal tender." A better use of your time would be to look for past court cases where someone actually argued that the Federal Reserve System (not some other banking system) was unconstitutional. I can tell you that there were such court cases in the past. (I haven't done an exhaustive search but, unfortunately, I suspect that you would find that no federal court has ruled the Federal Reserve System to be unconstitutional -- but that doesn't mean that someone didn't try to make kind of critique in a court case.) Aside from court cases, you could also look for instances where writers -- in previously published reliable sources -- have made critiques of the Federal Reserve System. Again: NOT critiques of banking, NOT critiques of the Congressional power to make notes legal tender, etc., etc. I repeat: critiques of the FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM itself. Focus on that. Famspear (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Side note: Although many citations to the Legal Tender Cases use the date "1870," the Supreme Court actually decided those cases on May 1, 1871. It was common back then for the Court to put the year in which the Court's session opened, rather than the actual date of decision. (The latter is the method used today.) Famspear (talk) Here's an example of how using the Salmon P. Chase material might work (if such a thing were allowed in Wikipedia): "1. In a dissenting opinion in a court case in May 1871, Salmon P. Chase argued that the founding fathers intended that Congress not have the power to make notes legal tender." "2. Salmon P. Chase died in 1873." "3. Forty years after the death of Chase, the Federal Reserve System was created, in 1913." "4. The Federal Reserve banks, which are part of the Federal Reserve System, issue paper money called Federal Reserve notes." "5. By enactment of a statute, Congress has made Federal Reserve notes legal tender for all debts, public and private." "5. According to Chase's theory, that action would be a violation of the Constitution." "6. Therefore, if Chase had still been alive in the 1900s, when Congress made Federal Reserve notes legal tender, he would have opposed and critiqued that action by Congress." "7. Therefore, Salmon P. Chase's statements in May of 1871 in the Legal Tender Cases constituted a critique of the Federal Reserve System -- even though he died long before the System was even created." This would be a classic example of prohibited Original Research. Famspear (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC) Ron Paul cited the same exact language from the Constitutional Convention when he states that in his opinion the Fed is unconstitutional. The Founding Fathers STRIPPED language from the US constitution which allowed the Federal government to issue paper money, which in fact they did, as the language was in the draft Constitution but not in the version released after the Convention, due to a certain vote to STRIP that language. The Constitution is what grants the Federal government its powers. If the power was stripped then the Federal government does not have that power. It does not matter if the person making the point has been dead 200, 100, 50 years or is still living. The point is that the Federal government was denied this power and it cannot transfer a power it does not have. Which brings up the other point, Congress cannot transfer that power even if it did have it. If transfer of power was allowed, the Congress could transfer the Presidents powers to itself, or its powers to the President. Do you understand that this is a breach of "separation of powers"? 71.174.137.244 (talk) 08:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC) Dear IP71.174.137.244: No, you didn't cite Ron Paul. You cited an unnamed Supreme Court justice, who turned out to be Salmon Chase. No, the Founding Fathers did not strip the Federal government of the power to issue paper money. And yes, it does matter whether the person you are trying to cite has been dead for 200, 100 or 50 years. Under Wikipedia rules, you simply cannot cite, as a source for criticism of the Federal Reserve System, someone who was not making a critique of the Federal Reserve System. No, the point is not that the Federal government was denied a power. You are here to edit Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. You are not here to pontificate about "separation of powers". And, by the way, the rest of us don't need lessons in constitutional law. Stick to reliable sources and stick to the basic rules: Neutral Point of View, Verifiability, and No Original Research. Famspear (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC) I am sorry to inform you that you are mistaken. The Founding Fathers did indeed strip the power to print paper money from both Congress the States during the Constitutional Convention. The US Supreme Court Justice above is none other then the guy who pushed through Congress a bill to issue the greenbacks that funded the Civil War. Later as a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court he states that this power (the power to issue paper money) had been stripped from Congress during the Constitutional Convention. You obviously KNOW things so how can lessons help you out? Unlike a certain Chief Justice you have yet to reach the point where the evidence irrefutably convinces you that you know Jack! ROTFLMAO!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.179.236 (talk • contribs) No, you're NOT "sorry to inform" me that I am mistaken. I am correct. You are wrong. The Founding Fathers did not "strip the power to print paper money" from Congress. I know more about the U.S. Constitution and the powers of Congress and the Federal Reserve System and banking than you do. Famspear (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC) I am not sure whether the IP is trolling or sincerely has his own version of truth that is immune to contradiction with explanation of the facts, our policies or indeed the arrow of time. Whatever the situation, it is clear that further attempts at discussion are pointless because nothing that is said is being listened to. Furthermore, I fear that we are placing our anonymous friend's health at risk. We have already caused him to laugh his arse off, which is a serious injury requiring intensive treatment by specialist arse doctors. Should he make a reappearance after returning from the hospital to have his arse reattached I suggest we do nothing that might impede his convalescence. If he continues as before, I suggest warnings for disruptive behaviour (POV pushing, incivility) would be more appropriate than further attempts to engage in discussion. I would hate for him to suffer an unnecessary relapse. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC) The comments by the person at IP71.184.179.236 again illustrate one reason why Wikipedia has its rule prohibiting Original Research. Hilariously, that person is taking the dissenting opinion of a Supreme Court justice (Salmon P. Chase) in a famous set of cases and is and trying to argue that Chase's dissenting opinion is somehow a legally correct statement of the power of Congress, under the Constitution, to authorize paper money. By definition, a dissenting opinion in a court case is a losing argument. This is a mistake that no first year law student would make after just a few days into the first semester of law school. Yet, our anonymous friend is trying to argue that the losing arguments in a Supreme Court case decided over a hundred years ago should somehow be treated as the winning arguments for purposes of Wikipedia. Further, no one has ever won a case in U.S. federal court using such an argument. If our anonymous friend at IP71.184.179.236 were to try to make this kind of argument in a court of law -- the argument that the Congress somehow has no constitutional power to authorize the printing of paper money -- he would be making a frivolous argument for which monetary penalties could be imposed on him. Famspear (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Strawman! You are attempting to change the issue from a losing position. The issue here is was there a vote during the Constitutional Convention to strip Congress of the power to issue paper money! Yes Dorothy! There was in fact such a vote! This is recognized by the guy who pushed Congress to issue "greenbacks" (the first US legal tender paper money) in the first place. He wised UP! Just be aware that unless all the parties chose to have the issue ruled on by judges, then the ruling "means nothing" as a judge has ZERO authority to rule on a property issue unless both parties chose to give up the right to trial by jury. 71.184.179.236 (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Sorry, but that's full bore, hair-on-fire, gibberish. No, the "issue" here -- which you yourself raised -- is whether Congress was "stripped" of the "power to print paper money." And, the answer is no. And your reference to a right of parties to have a "trial by jury" and the authority of judges to make rulings is also full bore, hair-on-fire, utter nonsense. First you tried to argue that you should be allowed to use, as an example of a criticism of the Federal Reserve System, a statement by someone who died many, many years before the System was even created. Then, you tried to argue that the dissenting opinion -- the losing argument in a court case -- is somehow support for the goofy idea that the Founding Fathers "stripped" the Congress of the power to issue paper money. Now, you are ranting yet more nonsense -- about the authority of judges to rule on "property" being somehow tied to someone giving up the right to trial by jury. Neither Wikipedia articles nor Wikipedia talk pages are the proper place to post random gibberish. I and others here have explained the Wikipedia rules to you. Get yourself a weblog. Famspear (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Let's try this again. Yes Dorothy! there was in fact a vote, during the Constitutional Convention, to strip language from the then draft version of the US Constitution, which allowed Congress to issue paper money. The stripping of the language from the draft Constitution stripped this power from Congress. This vote was referenced by certain Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as his chief objection to the greenbacks which he himself pushed through Congress. See http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp starting with "Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless."71.184.179.236 (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Re:Trial by Jury - a judge has ZERO authority to issue a ruling on a dispute over property unless both parties consent. What do you think "A RIGHT" to trial by jury means?71.184.179.236 (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Dear IP 71.184.179.236: Thank you for sharing that with us. No. There is no general rule of law in the United States that says that the authority of a judge to rule on a dispute over property is dependent on the "consent" of the parties to the dispute. And, obviously to everyone here except you, apparently, your post has no rationally conceivable connection with the purpose of this talk page. No, there was no vote in the Constitutional Convention that supposedly stripped, from Congress, the power to issue paper money. The powers of Congress are not based on your interpretation of something you read somewhere about what the Founding Fathers supposedly did or did not do at the Constitutional Convention. We have a legal system in this country, and that legal system is what we use to determine these sorts of things. These are not things for you to decide. These things are not decided in the talk pages of Wikipedia. At this point, your comments have gone past the point of teetering on the edge, and have fallen headlong into the wastebasket of hair-on-fire, nonsensical, incoherent gibberish. Please take a deep breath and think about what you are posting. Famspear (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC) The right to trial by jury in a dispute over property is part of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is part of the US Constitution. All judges are required to take an oath of office in order to even hold office. The oath is made upon "pain of perjury". Perjury is a FELONY. So a judge ruling on a dispute of a property dispute "without the permission of both parties" is violating his oath of office and committing a felony when he denies one (or both) parties this Constitutional protected "due process" right. You should be ASHAMED that you have no idea of this BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT that is (or at least was) taught in JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL as part of CIVICS class. I gave you language from a CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE US SUPREME COURT that this vote took place. I also gave you the text of that vote as recorded by a person who later became PRESIDENT of the United States. The link to that language is hosted at one of the top law schools of the United State YALE LAW SCHOOL and many other places. MADISON'S DEBATES are MADISON's recording of the proceedings of the CONSTUTUTIONAL CONVENTION. The full name being "Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787" http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp and http://teachingamericanhistory.org/convention/debates/ And Yes! Dorothy. There was in fact a vote during the Constitutional Convention to strip Congress of the power to issue paper money and Congress was in fact stripped of this power. The following is from the wiki article on that document "Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 was James Madison's record of the daily debates held by delegates at the Philadelphia Convention, which resulted in the drafting of the current United States Constitution. Madison's journal describing what delegates said remains valuable to historians, as it is one of historians' few sources of information on the proceedings in Independence Hall during the summer of 1787 (which despite the summer heat, had its windows shut so that those outside could not hear what was being said; delegates were forbidden to leak the proceedings to the public)."71.184.179.236 (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC) No. Under the Bill of rights, there is no general right to "trial by jury" in a dispute over "property." There is a provision called the Seventh Amendment in the Bill of Rights preserving the right to a trial by jury in "suits at common law." A suit at common law may or may not involve property rights. And a suit over property rights may or may not be a "suit at common law." For example, a suit based on a property right granted by a statute is not generally a "suit at common law." In a suit based on a property right provided by a statute, there would generally be no right to a "jury trial" under the Seventh Amendment. (The statute itself might or might not provide for a jury trial, but that is a separate concept.) To turn your verbiage right back around on you, perhaps YOU should be ashamed that you continue to post this kind of nonsense. And, no, there was no vote during the Constitutional Convention to strip Congress of the power to issue paper money -- and Congress was not stripped of this power. There was a "vote" -- but as already explained to you, that vote did not strip Congress of the power to issue paper money. In a set of cases called the Legal Tender Cases (pre-dating the creation of the Federal Reserve System by about forty-two years), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the U.S. Congress has the power, under the Constitution, to make treasury notes a legal tender for the payment of all debts. A dissenting opinion -- that the Congress had no power to authorize paper currency as legal tender because of a vote in the Constitutional Convention to remove certain language regarding the "power to emit bills of credit" from the draft of the Constitution -- was rejected. See Knox v. Lee and Parker v. Davis, 79 U.S. 457 (1871). AS YOU STILL FAIL TO GRASP, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT REJECTED THE ARGUMENT THAT THE VOTE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION TO WHICH YOU HAVE REFERRED SOMEHOW STRIPPED CONGRESS OF THE POWER TO AUTHORIZE PAPER CURRENCY. In these cases, the Court also held that a "unit of money" is not required, under the U.S. Constitution, to "possess intrinsic value" -- again rejecting arguments that Congress did not have the constitutional power to designate paper currency as legal tender. To the extent contrary thereto, the case of Hepburn v. Griswold, 75 U.S. 603 (1870), was overruled. In another case pre-dating the Federal Reserve System (by about twenty-nine years), the United States Supreme Court held that notes of the United States, issued in time of war, under acts of Congress declaring the notes to be legal tender in payment of private debts, and afterwards in time of peace redeemed and paid in gold coin at the U.S. Treasury, and then reissued under an act of Congress, can under the U.S. Constitution, be a legal tender in payment of such debts. Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884), at [1]). More from Juilliard v. Greenman: The power "to borrow money on the credit of the United States" is the power to raise money for the public use on a pledge of the public credit, and may be exercised to meet either present or anticipated expenses and liabilities of the government. It includes the power to issue, in return for the money borrowed, the obligations of the United States in any appropriate form, of stock, bonds, bills or notes [ . . . ] Congress has authority to issue these obligations in a form adapted to circulation from hand to hand in the ordinary transactions of commerce and business. In order to promote and facilitate such circulation, to adapt them to use as currency, and to make them more current in the market, it [the Congress] may provide for their redemption in coin or bonds, and may make them receivable in payment of debts to the government. --from Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 444-45 (1884). And: By the Constitution of the United States, the several States are prohibited from coining money, emitting bills of credit, or making anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts. But no intention can be inferred from this to deny to Congress either of these powers. [ . . . ] The States are prohibited from emitting bills of credit; but Congress, which is neither expressly authorized nor expressly forbidden to do so, has, as we have already seen, been held to have the power of emitting bills of credit, and of making every provision for their circulation as currency, short of giving them the quality of legal tender for private debts — even by those who have denied its authority to give them this quality. --from Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 446-48 (1884). And: Under the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, and to issue circulating notes for the money borrowed, its power [the power of Congress] to define the quality and force of those notes as currency is as broad as the like power over a metallic currency under the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof. Under the two powers, taken together, Congress is authorized to establish a national currency, either in coin or in paper, and to make that currency lawful money for all purposes, as regards the national government or private individuals. --from Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421, 448 (1884). Famspear (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Ironically, our friend states: that a "judge ruling on a dispute of a property dispute 'without the permission of both parties' is violating his oath of office and committing a felony when he denies one (or both) parties this Constitutional protected 'due process' right. You should be ASHAMED that you have no idea of this BASIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT that is (or at least was) taught in JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL as part of CIVICS class." That is absolute, utter nonsense, as I noted above. The idea that a judge ruling on a property dispute needs the "permission of both parties", etc., has NO CONCEIVABLE VALIDITY UNDER AMERICAN LAW. Our friend also wrote: "I gave you language from a CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE US SUPREME COURT that this vote took place." No. What you did was to claim that the VOTE THAT DID TAKE PLACE somehow stripped Congress of the power to print paper money. YOU WERE WRONG'. You still seem to be blissfully unaware THAT THE SUPREME COURT REJECTED THAT ARGUMENT BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE IN THE VERY CASE WHICH YOU YOURSELF QUOTED. I am, of course, referring to the cases I already cited: a group of cases called the "Legal Tender Cases". It takes a peculiar, idiosyncratic kind of "logic" to contend, as our friend is doing, that the LOSING argument in a U.S. Supreme Court case somehow supports a goofy, nonsensical claim about the power of Congress with respect to paper money, where the very case in question (as well as every subsequent federal court decision on the issue) REJECTS that losing argument. Famspear (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Common law refers to civil cases. The 7th states that the right to trial by jury shall be preserved in cases over $20. Any judge ruling on a case exceeding $20 without the permission (or over the objections) of of one (or both) parties is depriving one (or both) parties of a jury trial. That is a due process violation and a criminal act. A judge is required to take the oath of office (made upon pain of perjury) to uphold that Constitution and the Constitution included the 7th. Failure to uphold the Constitution is perjury of the oath of office. Perjury is a FELONY. In any case in Federal Court where the dispute is over $20, either or both parties can demand a jury trial for all or parts of the case. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_38 I am sorry that you are so ignorant of this most basic of rights. Yes! Dorothy. There was in fact a vote during the Constitutional Convention to strip language from a draft of the US Constitution allowing Congress to issue paper money and that language and therefore Congress was in fact stripped of that power based on that vote. That vote was cited by a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as his main objection to paper money. Neither Congress nor the Courts have any authority to give Congress a power it has been stripped of. Any such action is in violation ot he 10th Amendment.71.184.179.236 (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC) 10th Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to States respectively, or to the people." It should be obvious to just about about anyone that if Congress was stripped of a power, then this power "was not delegated" and that Congress does not have that power.71.184.179.236 (talk) 17 36, 7 May 2015 (UTC) No, the term "common law" does not refer to "civil cases." Some civil cases (i.e., "civil" in the sense of non-criminal cases) are suits at common law, but other civil cases are NOT suits at common law. For example, a suit under a statutory provision is not a "suit at common law." Example: A suit against the government for a Federal tax refund under the Internal Revenue Code is not a "suit at common law." No, a judge ruling on a case exceeding $20 without the permission (or over the objections) of one (or both) parties is not necessarily depriving one (or both) parties of a right to a jury trial. The Seventh Amendment covers only certain suits at common law -- and, specifically, only certain suits at common law where the common law provides for a right to a jury trial. Repeating the same discredited nonsense is not helping you here. Famspear (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Notice, everyone, that our anonymous friend at IP 71.184.179.236 still has not explained exactly why he believes suits over property and rights to jury trials relate to Criticism of the Federal Reserve. We just can't wait to hear him explain that one! Famspear (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC) I was pointing out that the Legal Tender Cases were ruling on property and that if ALL parties had not waived their rights to a jury trial then the ruling is null and void, and that the Justices making those ruling are in fact criminals (both the ones for paper money and the ones against paper money) violating their duties to provide a jury trial in those types of cases. Those cases however must involve over $20 for this to be true. Common Law refers to English Common Law. English Common Law is based on the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta is considered the #1 legal document of the English speaking world in part because it required jury trials for suits involving property against the government (the King) and because it required jury trails for criminal cases. Notice again that suits involving property made against the king are required to go to a jury trial. This does not change if common law is replaced with statutory law because this TYPE of case is grandfathered. I advise you to read Blackstones works on English Common Law. Book 1 Chapter 1 has a nice overview and makes the point that any judges ruling on a dispute over property mean JACK!71.184.179.236 (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC) And again. Yes Dorothy! There was a vote taken during the Constitutional Convention to strip language from the draft Constitution which allowed Congress to issue paper money. Before the vote that language was there and Congress had the power to issue paper money. After the vote, the language was NOT there and Congress had been stripped of that power. You have been provided with a link to that vote. You can check the current version of the Constitution and that language is not there because it had been stripped from that document. You can check a draft (before the Convention) of that same documenet and that language IS IN FACT in that draft. 71.184.179.236 (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Again, NO, Dorothy! Ah, you fell for the trap so quickly! Duhhhhh..... You're still arguing the same nonsense about that vote in the Constitutional Convention. Nothing is going to change, pal. The Court rulings are still there. And the courts have ruled against your argument. The decision in the Legal Tender Cases was a United States Supreme Court decision. That decision was not made at a "trial." When parties appeal to the United States Supreme Court, they are not entitled to a "jury trial." The trial has already been HELD. The appeal comes AFTER that. This is pretty basic stuff. Today, jury trials are not generally held by an appeals court (like the U.S. Supreme Court). Trials are held in trial courts. In most cases, the U.S. Supreme Court does not act as a "trial court." Further, under English common law, there was no right of action at common law against a sovereign (the king), enforceable by jury trial or otherwise. And, no, you most certainly do not "advise" me to read Blackstone's works on English common law. I'm the teacher here. You are not. And none of your hair-on-fire postings about the law are correct. And no, Blackstone does not make the point that "any judges [sic] ruling on a dispute over property means JACK". Famspear (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC) You are still not able to see what is before your eyes. I provided a link to the vote. All you have to do is read it. Recap of US history follows The Articles of Confederation included language allowing Congress to issue paper money (bills of credit) and this power was used to issue the Continental that funded the Revolutionary War. The draft of the Constitution included language also allowing Congress to issue paper money (again the bills of credit language). During the Convention a vote was taken to strip that power from Congress. That vote passed and the power was stripped. Again A link has been provided you to the language of that vote. All you have to do is read it. See http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp starting with "Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless." During the Convention another vote prohibited the states from issuing paper money (the prohibition against issiong bills of credit) and required them to make only gold and silver coin legal tender. That vote also passed. See Article I, Section 10, for that newly included language. While working to get the states to approve the revised Constitution one of the selling points was that it banned paper money. See Federalist 44 (I hope you know what that is since you claim to be a teacher) With the revised Constitution not getting enough support to be accepted by the requisite number of states, the Massachusetts Compromise was pushed, requiring that one of the first orders of business of the new Congress would be to put together a Bill of Rights. Among the multitude of issues The Bill of Rights addressed is power creep (the 10th Amendment) and also jury trials for civil cases. Neither Congress nor the Courts have any authority to give back to Congress a power it had been stripped of. One such power is the issuance of paper money. As a teacher, If you are unaware of ANY of the above you should bow your head in shame and slink out of the room. 19:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.179.236 (talk) No, ARE STILL REFUSING TO ACCEPT WHAT IS BEFORE YOUR EYES. The issue is not whether the vote you describe took place. The issue is: WHAT WAS THE LEGAL EFFECT OF THE VOTE. You have been arguing that the legal effect of the vote was to strip Congress of the power to authorize paper money. YOU ARE WRONG. The courts have ruled that the Congress DOES have that power. You keep repeating the same sources, and you keep asserting the same frivolous arguments. The sources contradict you. The law is what I say the law is -- not what you say the law is. The law is what the courts rule the law to be -- not what you, an anonymous contributor to Wikipedia, try to claim the law is. In Wikipedia, we use reliable, previously published third party sources -- not the untutored opinions of anonymous Wikipedia contributors. You are in no position to lecture me or anyone else on American constitutional law. Famspear (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC) "The law is what I say the law is" ???? You must be quite full of yourself if the law is what YOU say the law is. The effects of the vote are simple. Congress was stripped of the power to issue paper money. What part of that don't you understand? Considering that you can't understand that a vote to strip Congress of a power actually happened despite repeatedly pointing you to the language, you are in no position to lecture anyone on anything and are in dire need of help. 71.184.179.236 (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Repeating what a Chief Justice said 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. 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.71.184.179.236 (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC) No, I say the law is what I say it is because I report on what the courts have actually ruled. I'm the teacher. I know the law. You do not. What the Chief Justice said was part of a LOSING argument in that case. We have been through this over and over. THE COURT RULED AGAINST THAT ARGUMENT. The law is what the courts rule the law to be -- NOT what YOU try to claim the law should be. No, the effects of the vote are not what you say they are. Your interpretation of someone else's interpretation of what the effect of a certain vote in the Constitutional Convention does not determine what American constitutional law actually is on that point -- and your interpretation is not reliable for purposes of Wikipedia. Yes, I am indeed in a position to lecture you. Indeed society has granted me a license to lecture you on what the law is. I have studied the law. You have not. No, I am not in need of "help." Again, you are engaging in personal attacks, in violation of Wikipedia policy. Famspear (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC) YUP! You are definitely full of yourself. Just be advised that the reputation of lawyers is lower then that of used car salesman. I advise you not to advertise the fact that you are one. An argument can even be made that Supreme Court Justices being the epitome of what makes a lawyer a lawyer are the worst of the lot. I am sorry to inform you that I do not need you interpretation of the law. I am fully aware that if a power is stripped from Congress then Congress no longer has that power. Anyone disputing this is acting to undermine the Constitution. I believe that as a lawyer you are under oath to uphold the US Constitution? (The Oath of a Attorney) and that a failure of this oath can get you disbarred. Also undermining the US Constitution is listed as treason in the US Constitution. Back to the point. Before you claimed that the vote had never taken place. Now you seem to have moved to the point of believing that the vote HAD taken place but means nothing. Is this correct? Please advise why you believe that a vote to strip a power from Congress means nothing, in light of 10th Amendment language stating that Congress does not have powers that are not delegated to it.71.184.179.236 (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC) NOPE. I said that no vote had ever taken place that stripped Congress of the power to authorize paper money. Go back and look at what I wrote. And, yes, you DO NEED me to interpret the law for you. Obviously. No, you're not "aware" of a lot of things about the law that you seem to think you are "aware" of -- for the simple reason that your beliefs about the law are incorrect. A vote to strip a power does not "mean nothing." I never said that a vote to strip a power "means nothing." What I am saying is that even if, as you contend, the INTENT of the members of the Continental Congress was to strip that power from Congress -- EVEN THAT FACT IS NOT ENOUGH TO DETERMINE THE LEGAL EFFECT AND MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION AS IT WAS FINALLY RATIFIED. That fact would be interesting and important, and it's something that a court might consider in interpreting the Constitution, but IT IS NOT ENOUGH BY ITSELF TO DETERMINE THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION. All you amateur legal "scholars" out there love to come up with alternate theories about what constitutional law is. You are wrong. You lack a basic understanding of how our legal system works. Regardless of your interpretation -- or my interpretation -- of what the law is, under our legal system the law is what the courts rule the law to be in actual court cases. There is no procedure in our legal system whereby you or I or anyone else who is not a judge deciding an actual case can magically go back and say "well the courts are wrong, and the Founding Fathers intended such and such, so what the Founding Fathers intended is the 'real' meaning." Our system of constitutional law does not work that way. Furthermore, Wikipedia does not work that way, either. You as a contributor to Wikipedia are engaging in what we here at Wikipedia call "Original Research." The meaning of that term here in Wikipedia is a somewhat special, more narrow meaning than an ordinary, every day meaning of the term. Here's an example of your flawed thought process. You stated that "undermining the US Constitution" is "listed" as "treason" in the U.S. Constitution. YOU ARE WRONG. The Constitution says NO SUCH THING. You are simply creating your own INTERPRETATION of something you may have read. Famspear (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC) The word “treason” appears seven times in the United States Constitution. It is defined only once, as follows: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. from U.S. Constit., Article III, section 3, clause 1. That definition obviously does not “list”, as one example of treason, the “undermining of the U.S. Constitution.” Yet, again, everyone sees THAT YOU ARE WRONG. Maybe the definition SHOULD say that, but it does not. Maybe “undermining the U.S. Constitution” should be included in the meaning of “levying War” or in the meaning of “adhering” to enemies, or in the meaning of “giving” enemies aid and comfort -- but if so, that would be for the legal system to decide, not for you to decide. Famspear (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Regarding our friend's apparent refusal to accept that under the American system, the Constitution means what the courts rule it to mean, I am reminding of an essay on tax protesters by legal commentator Daniel B. Evans. Mr. Evans states: I am often asked, “Why do you always assume that the courts are right and the tax protesters are wrong?” Or, “Couldn’t the courts be wrong about what the Constitution means?” Those questions demonstrate that the questioner doesn’t really understand what is meant by “law” or the “rule of law.” Law is not some kind of abstraction that floats in the air, free from any connection to people or events. “The law” is what legislatures, courts, and governments do, and the real test of what the law “is” shows in how the law is applied in actual cases. So when lawyers talk about what “the law” is, they are talking about how a judge will rule. Not how the judge should rule, or might rule, but will rule. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once explained, “the only definition of law for a lawyer’s purposes is something which the Court will enforce.” Letter to Sir Frederick Pollock, 7/3/1874. Or, more famously: “The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact and nothing more pretentious are what I mean by the law.” The Paths of the Law (1897). [ . . . ] The fact that some people believe that the law should be different that what courts have said it is doesn’t mean that the law is different from what the courts have said, but only that they should argue their positions within the political system and attempt to change the results. --by Daniel B. Evans, The Tax Protester FAQ. Hope that helps. Famspear (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Just out of Curiosity. Assuming you now acknowledge that the vote took place, and therefore accept that some body was stripped of something. What body was stripped and what were they stripped of? Here is something to help you. http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-anti-federalist-papers/first-draft-of-the-constitution-%28august-6%29.php Specifically Article VII Part 1 starting with "The Legislature of the United States shall have the power" .... To borrow money, and emit bills on the credit of the United States;. Have you ever heard of the term "Domestic Enemy"? In the US the source of power is the people. Anyone engages in unlawfully depriving the people of their retained powers and accruing it for himself or his group can be considered a "domestic enemy". Have you heard of the term "Usurpation of Power"? meaning to seize power from its rightful source? Do you know that usurpation of power falls under Treason? The rule of law required that if the Federal government does not have a power it needs to go get an Amendment. Something about the Constitution, which includes the 10th Amendment, being highest US law and any other law in conflict being unconstitutional and therefore null and void.71.184.179.236 (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC) No one ever denied that "a" vote took place. We've been through this over and over. What we disagree on is what KIND of vote took place. You insist that the vote "stripped" the Congress of the power to authorize paper money. I demonstrated that you are wrong. The rest of your rambling -- now you're going on about "domestic enemies" and "usurpations of powers" -- is simply too far removed from the subject of the article. We are not going to debate the legal definition of treason here. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss ways to improve the article. Famspear (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Well then! As previously pointed out a vote to strip something occured. What was stripped and from what was it stripped from? You claim to be a high falutin lawyer and a teacher as well. Rub those brain cells together and figure it out.71.184.179.236 (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Well then! As I previously pointed out, you've already received the answers to your questions. Rub those brain cells together and figure it out. Famspear (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC) I admire your dedication and your desire to educate but I do think that you are wasting your time here. There is a clear disconnect with reality that you can not hope to bridge with facts or logic. We have people who seemingly claim that the banknotes of their own nation are somehow illegal and yet, presumably, use them every day and would not pass by a $20 bill in the street thinking it only worthless scrap paper. This is not a viewpoint that requires to be engaged with seriously by economists although clearly it could be of some interest to psychologists and comedians. I propose that we just roll this discussion up. Anyway, rather than let this nonsense wind you up, why not look at a kitten who demonstrates the the appropriate level of seriousness these sorts of things deserve: http://www.rathergood.com/bullion --DanielRigal (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC) I personally admire his thick skull and ability to shamelessly deny what is in from of his face. He somehow seems to think that something other then the US Constitution was revised during the Constitutional Convention. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp starting with "Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless." Including "Mr. ELSEWORTH thought this a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made, were now fresh in the public mind and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By witholding the power from the new Governt. more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost any thing else. Paper money can in no case be necessary. Give the Government credit, and other resources will offer. The power may do harm, never good." also including "Mr. WILSON. It will have a most salutary influence on the credit of the U. States to remove the possibility of paper money. This expedient can never succeed whilst its mischiefs are remembered, and as long as it can be resorted to, it will be a bar to other resources." and ending with " On the motion for striking out N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN22]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.179.236 (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Pretend I'm stupid! What was stripped and from what was it stripped from? 71.184.179.236 (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to remind people that this is a talk page for discussing improvements to the article in line with Wikipedia policies. It is not a forum for airing your personal opinions, personal theories or personal grievances with the policies, other editors or indeed the facts of history. If this is reopened, in the same unproductive manner, then it is only going to get rolled up again and there may also be formal warnings for disruptive behaviour. Please, don't do it. There is nothing to be gained.

Obviously, this is not intended to put people off suggesting new items of criticism for inclusion but it has to be criticism that has verifiably and notably been made and been covered as such by reliable sources. It needs to be explicit criticism of the Federal Reserve, not of something else that might arguably be extensible to cover the federal reserve. That is where the forbidden element of original research comes in. These things matter a lot more than the actual sanity of the criticism. Paranoid claptrap can be eligible for inclusion if it is clearly notable paranoid claptrap while quite sensible criticisms will not be eligible for inclusion if they have not yet achieved notability.

Finally, I would like to remind people that bickering about economic theories is a perfectly legitimate thing to do on a great many web forums and in other places. If you want to argue the rights and wrongs of the Federal Reserve then please do, but please do it somewhere more appropriate than a Wikipedia article talk page. There even places you can go to start a Wiki of your own where you can do whatever you like and not have to obey any of our policies. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I would like to insert a section on the Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve. This issue is entangled and cannot be separated with the issue of Constitutionality of paper money. I have provided a link to a statement by a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that the during the Constitutional Convention a vote was taken to strip Congress of the power to issue paper money. The text of that vote shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the vote was in fact to strip Congress of that power. Famspear is in denial as he somehow has a religious conviction in the power of the US Supreme Court to grant Congress powers it does not have and in this case a power it was specifically stripped of. Now I can find comments by modern day objectors to the Federal reserve referencing this vote, and would like to include them. They keep getting deleted as per Famspear they are "fringe and goofy". I put in the comment by the Chief Justice to determine how much opposition there is to a comment made by o CHIEF JUSTICE of the US Supreme Court. THIS particular justice was the person who had previously pushed Congress to authorize the civil war greenbacks and who later as a CHIEF JUSTICE criticized his own actions as unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court by stating that the Civil War greenbacks could be issued and made legal tender went against 80-90 years of tradition and this decision was further an OVERTURNING of a the same issue and actually the same cases made a few years earlier. The difference this time was that President Grant, widely considered the most corrupt president of that century, had packed the Supreme Court with pro money Justices who reversed ( for the first time in US history) a US Supreme Court ruling.

Now the question I pose is, Is a Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court a reliable authority on what happened during the Constitutional Convention.

Some of the test of the vote follows http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp starting with "Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out "and emit bills on the credit of the U. States"-If the United States had credit such bills would be unnecessary: if they had not, unjust & useless." Including "Mr. ELSEWORTH thought this a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made, were now fresh in the public mind and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By witholding the power from the new Governt. more friends of influence would be gained to it than by almost any thing else. Paper money can in no case be necessary. Give the Government credit, and other resources will offer. The power may do harm, never good." also including "Mr. WILSON. It will have a most salutary influence on the credit of the U. States to remove the possibility of paper money. This expedient can never succeed whilst its mischiefs are remembered, and as long as it can be resorted to, it will be a bar to other resources." and ending with " On the motion for striking out N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. [FN23] N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN22]" 71.184.179.236 (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I followed the link you suggest. I didn't read any of it. Instead I searched it for the phrase "Federal Reserve". In fact neither of the words "federal" and "reserve" are found in it at all. It can not be directly relevant to this topic because it isn't even about this topic. You are blatantly and egregiously wasting our time.

You are entitled to get a blog of your own and make your arguments there. You are not entitled to chew up the resources of a charitable foundation for purposes that are not the purposes of that foundation. (For avoidance of doubt, the purpose here is to write an encyclopaedia based on reliable sources.) You need to stop now. This is your last warning from me before I roll out the automatic warning templates. Please stop. Maybe find some other article you can contribute to more constructively? --DanielRigal (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I have previously posted material by Ron Paul stating that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional because the power to print paper money was stripped from Congress during the Constitutional Convention. The material was deleted from the article as fringe, goofy, I don't want to hear it, the Supreme Court is God etc etc. I ma currently investigating whether a CHIEF JUSTICE of the US Supreme Court saying the same thing (that Congress was stripped of the power to issue paper money) is also goofy, fringe etc etc etc.

So! Is it?71.184.179.236 (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Painful Lack of Neutrality and Flawed Sourcing Logic

Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In how this article "REBUTTS" the "conspirators" or whatever, solely relying as evidence on the mere words of the Federal Reserve as an agency and the government behind it, I daresay, is not quite "scholastic"... The circular logic fallacy, the embarrassingly "unprofessional" pseudo-religious depth of credence assigned to the American government and its capacity to iterate superhuman truth (ad verecundiam), etc. - I mean, is this some sort of sick editorial in-joke or something...? The illogicality is ludicrous - quoting, in biased polemics Wikipedia is allegedly supposed to abstain from in its content, relying "pseudo-authoritatively" from the institution itself, its own journals, website, etc., the subject supposed to be presented in detachment as one entangled in "controversy", and then, voiding all reason, slavishly and pretending its own official organs and channels and representatives are oracles of inerrant, humanly infallible statements...nothing but pure droplets of Hyperborean truth from Heaven on high...is this serious? There is a gigantic polemical, defensive quotation from the Library of Congress as an organ of the American government about fallacious distinctions meant to confuse the common mind, apparently, instead of enlighten people and semantic false arguments and twisted language are supplied as the polemical "argumentation"... Complete joke here... Who ever argued mere atomistic individuals as modernly understood, owned anything here...? The distraction tactic of referring to an "elite" control is just diversionary silliness (attempting to give the impression no valid criticism or disagreement with the subject is possible; opposition is just schizophrenic conspiracy-dreaming), refuses to address the issue and "elite" sociological theory is not some fringe land of schizoid freakazoids, but a well-established branch of sociology (Pareto, Mosca, Mills, etc.!) - if through the perspective of "elite" thinking and elite-based human socio-political exercise, is how the topic is to be visualized... I have in my own hands, through a Freedom of Information Request, the government documents literally word-for-word detailing NOT "CLASS A STOCK" technically, rather, to be specific, "CLASS A STOCK-HOLDERS" or cognate entities... All stock is the same, true, but not all stock-holders - DUH! Then this quotation from the American government "polemicist" claims that simply because the small minority of important owners having "equal voting power" in terms of external board-oriented directorship, merely because so, in some unexplained, strange way, somehow this fact MEANS SOME THING... WHAT, WE DO NOT KNOW! This is laughable! The number of logical fallacies I could adduce, would be more time-consuming than my life permits. Cannot we go past the Ezra Pound people and beyond the pro-statist people alike (!) and try to be even-minded here, MY GOSH!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:F051:AB0F:3A76:DE48 (talk) 09:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Dear "2602:304:B34B:A940:F051:AB0F:3A76:DE48": No, you need to review Wikipedia rules and guidelines -- particularly those on the meaning of neutrality and those on what a reliable source is. No, you cannot adduce logical fallacies here. That's just empty rhetoric. No, there is nothing "laughable" in the article. No, there is nothing "ludicrous" about the article. By the way, terms like "statist" and "pro-statist" are standard terms, like "sheeple" and "elite", that some internet users employ when unable to come up with cogent, coherent analysis. The purpose of this talk page is to come up with specific ways to improve the article, not to make vague, unsupported complaints. Famspear (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC) PS: The line "I have in my own hands, through a Freedom of Information Request, the government documents...." is pretty funny, though. You obviously have cracked and exposed the pernicious, evil web of conspiratorial secrecy that surrounds the sinful machinations of the international bankster cartel elites, etc., etc. Famspear (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC) The Federal Reserve Act was written by bankers and presented to government officials at the Jekkyl Island meeting. The Act did not have enough of a following to get passed. Changes were made to it to make it more palatable. It still did not have enough of a following to pass. It finally passed during Congressional hearing with barely a quorum available to vote before the Christmas holiday of 1913. By some accounts it was planned that way so that most of those opposed to the Act would be home for the holiday and not in Washington. Wilson who had campaigned AGAINST the vote then signed it into law. By one account $50,000 in loans made to Wilson were forgiven in exchange for signing the Act into law. In today's debased dollars (thank you Federal Reserve money printing) $50,000 is equivalent to $1.5 million. One might call that amount a princely, nay nay a presidential sized bribe. Yup! It sure does sound like a evil plot of the international banker elites. "Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce." James A. Garfield, President of the United States - assassinated in 1881 "History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance." -- James Madison 71.174.140.130 (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC) Dear user at IP71.174.140.130: The material you posted is old, old, old, old material. Nothing new. You've been reading stuff that everyone has seen a thousand times. You've also helped me make my point: That there is a group of people who believe that they have cracked and exposed the "pernicious, evil web of conspiratorial secrecy that surrounds the sinful machinations of the international bankster cartel elites, etc." Let's stick to the purpose of this talk page: to discuss ways to improve the article (not to re-copy and re-paste the same old "hair on fire oh my gosh, it was a plot! it was a plot!" stuff). Look for reliable, previously published third party sources who have stated criticisms of the Federal Reserve System. Famspear (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC) PS: The quotes from Presidents Garfield and Madison are not "critiques of the Federal Reserve System." Yes, they are comments about those who "control the volume of money" and about "money changers," but those comments were not written about the Federal Reserve System in particular. Cherry-picking anti-banker quotes of comments made long before the Federal Reserve System was created would be an example of impermissible Original Research (as that term is used in Wikipedia). You may be able to find some legitimate, previously published, reliable material on criticism of the Federal Reserve System -- just focus on that task, and not the purported evils of banking -- or bankers -- in general. Famspear (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC) PS: The meeting at Jekyll (not "Jekkyl") Island was indeed kept a secret at the time it was held. The fact that the meeting was held is not a "secret" today. You can find information about the Jekyll Island meeting from reliable sources on the internet. Indeed, the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond and the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta are among the sources that have published information about the Jekyll Island conference. But what you need to focus on are reliable, previously published third party criticisms of the Federal Reserve System, not the hair-on-fire wailing and gnashing of teeth of anti-banker conspiracy theorists. Famspear (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC) PS: At the expense of appearing to belabor what should be obvious, the Jekyll Island meeting is already covered in this article, and in the article History of the Federal Reserve System. Famspear (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC) The FACT that the meeting was held and that the Federal Reserve Act was written by bankers were kept a secret is what lends credence to the conspiracy theory. While not all secrets involve conspiracies, all conspiracies involve secrets. Your comments on whether the material below on the Inflationary 70's would be welcome. Do you have an objection to including criticism of Fed policies that caused the worst economic episode during the last half of the 20th Century? That period is now considered the 3rd worst economic episode since the founding of the Federal Reserve. The two worst being the Great Depression and the Great Recession, both also largely (if not 100%) caused by Federal Reserve policies. Do you see any problem with using Federal Reserve sources for the material? Input to improve the material would be welcome.71.184.176.50 (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC) Dear user at IP71.184.176.50: Again, the Jekyll Island meeting is already covered in the articles I mentioned. So, the issue is not whether a conspiracy theory is credible or not. The proper question is not whether I (or any other Wikipedia editor) has an objection to including criticism of Fed policies that allegedly "caused the worst economic episode during the last half of the 20th Century". The whole purpose of the article is to present criticisms of the Fed. The title of the article tells us that. And, as a general proposition, material published by a component of the Federal Reserve System itself would probably be considered material from a reliable source for purposes of Wikipedia. The point that I think some newcomers here do not seem to grasp is that Wikipedia is not the proper place for editors (new or old) to present their own views or their own criticisms of the Federal Reserve System. Our task here is to find reliable, previously published third party critiques and to accurately summarize what those sources say. Famspear (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC) My response above was to your disparaging comment on Federal Reserve conspiracy theorists. As pointed out above sufficient evidence exists that the creation of the Federal Reserve was in fact a behind the scenes (hidden as in "a hidden conspiracy" ) action taken by bankers and their bought and paid for lackeys in Washington. definition: conspiracy - a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. Considering that the Federal Reserve has caused the Great Depression, the inflation of the 70's, and most recently the Great Recession (besides many other harmful acts) it has most certainly been harmful to the vast majority in the US. It's purpose was to let bankers print money and amass wealth from thin air, thereby enriching those bankers. Again please advise if you have any objection to including material on the Inflationary 70's or can I take your lukewarm response above to indicate that you do not object to material that the inflation of the 70's was caused by misguided Federal Reserve policies/priorities. Since you keep pushing the point that the article is for criticism of the Fed from reliable sources, why don't you include the material yourself? Criticism of the Fed by the Fed is as reliable as it gets.71.184.176.50 (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC) My view is that the material published by the Federal Reserve System Review is fine, as long as the material is accurately summarized, clearly labeled as the opinion of the applicable writer (Meltzer, etc.), and presented without Wikipedia itself impliedly or expressly taking a position as to whether the author's opinion is correct or not. The material can include a statement of a point of view, and indeed the source of the material can even be biased -- but that source's point of view must be presented by Wikipedia in a neutral manner. My disparaging comment on conspiracy theorists was directed, in part, at the attitudes of a few newcomers to Wikipedia from time to time, who are burdened with the false idea that they have "discovered" some sort of "Truth" about the "badness" of the Federal Reserve System, and that they just have to let the world know about it. Sometimes, the "Truth" that they believe they have found is already covered to some degree in the relevant articles, and the editors and readers of Wikipedia have already seen the material a thousand times. Often, newcomers do not realize that reading the talk page for the article, including the archived pages, if any, can save them a lot of time and consternation. Lines such as "I have in my own hands, through a Freedom of Information Request, the government documents...." are classic examples of this mistaken idea that the individual has "discovered" some sort of nefarious "Secret". If a new editor is coming to Wikipedia with the urgent feeling that he or she needs to expose The Truth about the badness of the Federal Reserve System, that individual is already on the wrong track. Famspear (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC) That is still a qualified wishy washy answer. Please check the source material from the links below and let me know if the material I propose for addition is an accurate neutral summary of the source document. The other source cited is authored by the head of economic research at the Atlanta Fed. Do you have any objections to this source or to the proposed material? On the Federal Reserve conspiracy theorists, while some may take it to extremes, there is no question that the Federal Reserve Act was written by bankers for their benefit. As there is no such thing as a free lunch, something that benefits the bankers, is detrimental to other groups. You can't gain a benefit from thin air, someone else has to pay, one way or another.71.184.176.50 (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "You can't gain a benefit from thin air" is your unsourced personal opinion (i.e. WP:OR) and is contrary to the main thrust of 20th and 21st Century economic thought. Superadditivity and the wealth-creating power of social, economic, and governmental institutions is understood by all but a tiny fringe of economic thinkers. WP must reflect the mainstream view as documented by reliable source references. SPECIFICO talk 18:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC) I am sorry to inform you that your unsourced opinion is a bunch of hocum clung to by those in power, and their unwitting tools, for the purpose of accumulating power. My opinion (sourced) matched that of Milton Friedman who stated that the Fed is a net negative, that he would like to see it abolished and that failing that, he would limit its money creation power to a unchanging as in "fixed" and low percentage. Since per Friedman it is a net negative, and since the Federal Reserve Banks have accumulated VAST wealth, that the rest of us got hosed. Last I checked when you are in a hole (negative impact on growth) and dig it deeper (transferring some of that reduced wealth created by the rest of us to the Fed) the rest of us are now in an even deeper hole. In economic terms you have to PRODUCE wealth, and the FED produces nothing but gets a share of what is produced at everyone elses expense.71.184.176.50 (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Dear IP 71.184.176.50: No, my answer is not a "qualified wishy washy answer." My answer is right on point. There is most certainly "a question" as to "who wrote the Federal Reserve Act." Regarding the statement that the Federal Reserve Act was "written by bankers for their personal benefit" and the verbiage that follows it, Wikipedia articles are not the proper place for soapboxing. You and I do not know who drafted the Federal Reserve Act. Generally, U.S. federal statutes are drafted by lawyers. Bankers -- as bankers as opposed to lawyers -- usually are not competent to draft statutes, whether those statutes deal with banking or anything else. It is certainly possible that bankers told whoever actually physically drafted the Act what the bankers wanted, and the drafters put it into legal language. It is certainly possible that the bankers who attended the Jekyll Island meeting actually physically drafted the actual text of the Federal Reserve Act. However, it is not your place to make these determinations, or to decide that "there is no question" about it. Look for reliable, previously published third party sources. If such a source makes the claim you are making, perhaps that can be added to the article -- with a clear indication that it is the source's opinion that there is "no question" about the issue, etc., etc. Famspear (talk) 21:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC) All sources I am aware of state that the Federal Reserve Act was presented by bankers at the 1910 Jekyll Island meeting to their government stooges, and only a few changes were made to that Act before it was voted into law in 1913. By at least one source the ONLY thing that was changed was the title. Re: the "stooges" description. Quote from one source "Aldrich, an archetype of his age, was a personal friend of Morgan, and Aldrich's daughter was married to John D. Rockefeller Jr." It is almost certain that a small group of top level bankers and top level government officials meeting at a expensive hunting lodge, are NOT going to be spending their time in from of a typewriter, typing up long documents. All researchers I am aware state that the Act was presented to the government officials by the bankers. QED: The Act was written by the bankers or at least their legal experts. We keep getting away from my request. From the above, you don't have objections to the sourced journal article. Do you have any objection to the other sourced article written by the head of economic research at the Atlanta Fed? and Do you object that the proposed addition does not jibe with the sourced material? The proposed addition is sorely on the inflation of the 70's,. Please concentrate on that fact and treat all other subjects as conversation for "shits and giggles". I have not proposed that material for addition and don't like getting abuse due to a misunderstanding.71.184.176.50 (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Other websites exist where you can bicker about politics, economics, conspiracies (and/or the healing power of cabbages and the bloody DaVinci Code for all I care) as much as you like without disrupting our work writing an encyclopaedia. Remember, we are here to write an encyclopaedia not argue about eachother's opinions. To be blunt, people need bring reliable sources, without imposing their own original research or synthesis on them, or they need to go and play somewhere else. Too much time is being wasted dealing with this nonsense which could be spent doing something productive. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Objections to the proposed material

From the above, FAMSPEAR has no objections to the sourced journal article. Are there any objections to the other sourced article written by the head of economic research at the Atlanta Fed? and any objections as to whether the proposed language to be added does not jibe with the sourced material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.176.50 (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't edit the article without explicit consensus here or you may be blocked without further warning. SPECIFICO talk 18:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

You will notice that I am asking about objections for the proposed material. Do YOU have any objections to citing criticism of the Fed as a cause for the Inflation of the 70's, now the 3rd worst US economic misadventure after the founding of the Fed, after the Great Depression (caused by Fed policies) and the Great Recession (also caused by Fed policies).71.184.176.50 (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Major Problems

This article is titled as a criticism page, yet the vast majority of content is refutation of criticisms - the actual criticisms are briefly mentioned, and are then followed by lengthy quotes and arguments as to why those criticisms are wrong, rather than summarizing the critical arguments themselves. Point and counterpoint are fine, but this is hardly a "criticism" article. As it stands, it should be re-titled "Defense of the Federal Reserve". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.23.112.210 (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Specifically egregious is the "private ownership" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.23.112.210 (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no Wikipedia requirement that an article give equal weight, or equal space, to all viewpoints. Indeed, the very section you describe as "egregious" is a perfect example. There really is not much of any sort of reliable sourcing that says that the Federal Reserve System is "privately owned" (partly because the theory is utter nonsense). Yet, Wikipedia has been inundated with people posting that kind of nonsense. By contrast, the reliable data showing why the Federal Reserve System is NOT "privately owned" is more extensive.

Your basic premise seems to be that an article on Criticism of the Federal Reserve System should give more or less equal space to both the criticism and the refutation. That premise is flawed. Famspear (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Your basic premise seems to be that an article on Criticism of the Federal Reserve System should give more or less equal space to both the criticism and the refutation. That premise is flawed. Famspear (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: Famspear - I just visited this area and the Fed Res article, where this "Famspear" appears to be yet another self-appointed authority/referee who likes to bestow an assortment of rhetorical responses and, essentially, name-calling ("nonsense" "flawed" "garbage"), rather than merit-based ones. Actually, professional, credentialed, and truly authoritative critique of the Fed is ubiquitous, whether or not someone chooses to lord it over a Wikipedia article.

Once again, Wikipedia is simply not a reliable place to find accurate coverage; rather, it's more accurately just a large assortment of vested "article trolls" protecting their turf.

Wikibearwithme (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

No, Wikibearwithme, I do not "appear" be a "self-appointed authority/referee." This is a talk page for a Wikipedia article, and I am an editor here at Wikipedia.

Whether "professional, credentialed, and truly authoritative critique" of the Federal Reserve System happens to be "ubiquitous" or not is beside the point. The very purpose of the article "Criticism of the Federal Reserve" is to present critiques of the Federal Reserve System -- by following Wikipedia's rules, such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. One of the basic concepts of NPOV is that NPOV does not require giving equal weight to all opinions. That's not my rule; that's Wikipedia's rule.

No, using terms such as "nonsense" or "flawed" or "garbage" to describe written material is not "name-calling." Wikipedia has a rule against personal attacks (see WP:NPA). The gist of the rule is; make comments about the material, and not about your fellow editors. Referring to the written material itself as "nonsense" or "flawed" or "garbage" is not a personal attack against an editor or a source or anyone else, and it is not "name-calling," either.

You may want to review Wikipedia rules and guidelines. The purpose of this talk page is to afford editors a place to discuss ways to improve the article. That's what we're doing. Famspear (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Famspear, you are fabricating strawman arguments. I did not make any such statement that you were making "personal attacks," which appears to be your central thesis. The "name-calling" is precisely the rhetoric on which you rely, and is not identical to "personal attacks." Relying on such derogatory terms as "nonsense" "flawed" or "garbage" is nothing more than name-calling, particulary as it is used as a substitute for merit-based discussion.

If this terminology were your supported conclusion, then it could be considered a rhetorical fluorish, but not as the substance of your arguments.

Incessantly cutting-and-pasting various, vaguely topical, Wikipedia policy links is also another tired tactic that substitutes for actual merit-based responses.Wikibearwithme (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not fabricating strawman arguments. No, using terms such as "nonsense", "flawed" and "garbage" to describe the material is not name-calling.

No, citing to Wikipedia policies -- whether "cutting and pasting" or not -- is not a "tired tactic" that "substitutes for actual merit-based responses." Famspear (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criticism of the Federal Reserve. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141230115850/http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/98-856_20080319.pdf to http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/98-856_20080319.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Great Inflation of the 70's

I come back after 6 months and find not only, that the criticism that the Feds money policies caused the Inflation of the 1970's deleted yet again, but the article being protected.

The cites for that material were all from FEDERAL RESERVE websites and about as verifiable as you care to name.

As FRIEDMAN stated multiple times, the ONLY cause for a long term rise in the general price level, is money printing in excess of the growth of production. That is now generally accepted as Basic Economics 001

The Great Inflation

−

− According to Economist Allen H. Meltzer the "Great Inflation" from 1965 to 1984 was the climactic monetary event of the late 20th century and could have been mitigated or prevented by a change in monetary policy. Meltzer asserts that one of the reasons that monetary policy was not changed to reduce inflation was that Federal Reserve Chairman William McChesney Martin, and his staff did not have "a valid theory of inflation, or much of a theory at all" while the Federal Reserve Board under the following Chairman Arthur F. Burns was unwilling to tighten monetary policy when unemployment was in excess of 4.25 to 4.5% The inflationary era ended with the tight monetary policies of Chairman Paul Volcker.

−

− There is little debate about the cause. The origins of the Great Inflation were Federal Reserve policies that allowed for an excessive growth in the supply of money.

References