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.

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.

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)

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

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

Yes, this is an appropriate analogy. Famspear (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The silly idea that the Federal Reserve System is a "privately owned bank" is based in part on the false idea that because the privately-owned (non-governmental) member banks "own" something called "stock" in the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks, the member banks somehow "control" the Federal Reserve System in the same way that a person controls property that he owns.

A member bank's ownership of stock in a Federal Reserve bank does not give the member bank "control" over that Federal Reserve Bank -- nor does it give the member bank control over the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Further, the "ownership" of the stock is not the same as someone owning stock in a company like Microsoft or Ford Motor Company. Famspear (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

From the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit:

The Federal Reserve System, which was created by Congress in 1913 as this nation's central bank, is comprised of public and private entities organized on a regional basis with federal supervisory authority. The System includes a seven-member Board of Governors, the twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, the FOMC [Federal Open Market Committee], the Federal Advisory Council, and approximately 5,500 privately-owned member commercial banks. [ . . . ] The primary role of the System in the conduct of monetary policy is to facilitate the achievement of national economic goals through influence on the availability and cost of bank reserves, bank credit, and money. Three basic mechanisms employed by the System to implement monetary policy are open market operations, regulation of member bank borrowing from the Federal Reserve Banks, and establishment of member bank reserve requirements.....

--Riegle v. Federal Open Market Committee, 656 F.2d 873 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1082 (1981) (footnote omitted).

From an economics textbook:

The Federal Reserve System can be described as a pyramid having a private base, a mixed middle level and a public apex. At the apex stands the Board of Governors (frequently referred to as the Federal Reserve Board or FRB). [ . . .] At a level of equivalent authority to the Board itself, but in the "middle" of the public-private pyramid, stands the statutory Federal Open Market Committee. [ . . . ] The Reserve Banks are quasi-public institutions: their capital stock is subscribed by the member banks -- all national banks and about one-third of the state-chartered banks [ . . .] Off to the side stands the final element of the statutory organization, the Federal Advisory Council (FAC).

--Michael D. Reagan, "The Political Structure of the Federal Reserve System," American Political Science Review, Vol. 55 (March 1961), pp. 64-76, as reprinted in Money and Banking: Theory, Analysis, and Policy, pp. 151-152, ed. by S. Mittra (Random House, New York 1970).

More from the text:

[ . . . ] the "ownership" of the Reserve Banks by the commercial banks is symbolic; they do not exercise the proprietary control associated with the concept of ownership nor share, beyond the statutory dividend, in Reserve Bank "profits." [ . . .] Bank ownership and election at the base are therefore devoid of substantive significance, despite the superficial appearance of private bank control that the formal arrangement creates.

--Michael D. Reagan, "The Political Structure of the Federal Reserve System," American Political Science Review, Vol. 55 (March 1961), pp. 64-76, as reprinted in Money and Banking: Theory, Analysis, and Policy, p. 153, ed. by S. Mittra (Random House, New York 1970).

From Paul Horvitz, in another economics textbook:

[ . . . ] the member banks can exert some rights of ownership by electing some members of the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve Bank [applicable to those member banks]. For all practical purposes, however, member bank ownership of the Federal Reserve System is merely a fiction. The Federal Reserve Banks are not operated for the purpose of earning profits for their stockholders. The Federal Reserve System does earn a profit in the normal course of its operations, but these profits, above the 6% statutory dividend, do not belong to the member banks. All net earnings after expenses and dividends are paid to the Treasury.

-- Paul M. Horvitz, Monetary Policy and the Financial System, p. 293, Prentice-Hall, 3rd ed. (1974). (Horvitz received his Ph.D. from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and was Director of Research at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. He was an assistant professor of finance at Boston University. He also served as Associate Director of Research for the Office of Comptroller of the Currency, U.S. Department of the Treasury, and as Financial Economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.)

From the Congressional Research Service:

Because the regional Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned, and most of their directors are chosen by their stockholders, it is common to hear assertions that control of the Fed is in the hands of an elite. In particular, it has been rumored that control is in the hands of a very few people holding "class A stock" in the Fed.

As explained, there is no stock in the system, only in each regional Bank. More important, individuals do not own stock in Federal Reserve Banks. The stock is held only by banks who are members of the system. Each bank holds stock proportionate to its capital. Ownership and membership are synonymous. Moreover, there is no such thing as "class A" stock. All stock is the same.

This stock, furthermore, does not carry with it the normal rights and privileges of ownership. Most significantly, member banks, in voting for the directors of the Federal Reserve Banks of which they are a member, do not get voting rights in proportion to the stock they hold. Instead, each member bank regardless of size gets one vote. Concentration of ownership of Federal Reserve Bank stock, therefore, is irrelevant to the issue of control of the system.

--G. Thomas Woodward, Economics Division, Congressional Research Service, Report No. 96-672 E, "Money and the Federal Reserve System: Myth and Reality," Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress (July 31, 1996) (italics in original).

From the Board of Governors:

Member banks must subscribe to stock in their regional Federal Reserve Bank in an amount equal to 6 percent of their capital and surplus, half of which must be paid in while the other half is subject to call by the Board of Governors. The holding of this stock, however, does not carry with it the control and financial interest conveyed to holders of common stock in for-profit organizations. It is merely a legal obligation of Federal Reserve membership, and the stock may not be sold or pledged as collateral for loans.

--from "The Federal Reserve System: Purposes and Functions," p. 12, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (9th ed. June 2005).

Hope this helps. Famspear (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

See my post above. Again, you're not saying anything new. Famspear (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

PS: ALL the members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System are appointed by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for terms of fourteen years. Further, a member of the Board may be removed by the President "for cause" (although I don't think that has ever happened). Famspear (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

PS: As you can see, there is no such thing as a "share of the Federal Reserve System." You are quite wrong. The shares held by the member banks are only shares in the applicable regional Federal Reserve bank -- and the "ownership" of THOSE shares does not connote control over the applicable regional Federal Reserve bank. Famspear (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

To understand ownership, not governance, the first question that needs to be answered is, "who receives the guaranteed 6% dividend"? The second question is, "6% of what?" Before commenting further, I will await your reply. WouNur (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not here to answer your questions. I'm here to teach you about Wikipedia, and about fractional-reserve banking. The question you need to ask yourself is: Is it important to know who receives the dividend, or what the dividend consists, of and if so, why? I will await your reply. Famspear (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Famspear, than may I suggest that you then teach me how to interact, rather than posting nonsense. For example, as stated above, "::PS: As you can see, there is no such thing as a "share of the Federal Reserve System." You are quite wrong. The shares held by the member banks are only shares in the applicable regional Federal Reserve bank -- and the "ownership" of THOSE shares does not connote control over the applicable regional Federal Reserve bank." WouNur (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The shares of the Federal Reserve System are held by the twelve district Federal Reserve Banks as described in the Federal Reserve Act, Section 5. Stock Issues; Increase and Decrease of Capital, Section 1. Amount of shares; increase and decrease of capital; surrender and cancellation of stockWouNur (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The Federal Reserve Act, Section 7. Division of Earnings, (a) Dividends And Surplus Funds Of Reserve Banks, states "After all necessary expenses of a Federal reserve bank have been paid or provided for, the stockholders of the bank shall be entitled to receive an annual dividend of 6 percent on paid-in capital stock." WouNur (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

More importantly, WikiPedia defines Fraud as "In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain." In "The Two Nations: A financial Study of English History", Christopher Hollis writes, "By 1672 they had developed quite a new technique. They had lent to their clients 'promises to pay' which they knew themselves unable to make good and were taking interest on them as if they were loans of cash. To me, this would appear to describe fraudulent behaviour. Am I wrong? WouNur (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question. You've copied and pasted from the statutes. And you've cited an example of what the writer, Mr. Hollis, contends is fraud from hundreds of years ago. Whoopee!

The roots of Fractional Reserve Banking are fraudulent. This fraud empowered goldsmiths to create the Bank of England, to finance slavery and to establish the banking practices of the United States. (See: Slavery and the Building of Britain, "Provincial banking emerged in the 18th century because of the need for credit in the long-distance Atlantic slave trade.") Lincoln abolished slavery by creating the American Monetary System, which used the Greenback to finance the Civil War. Although Lincoln won the war, he lost the American Monetary System to the British Monetary System. THIS is important...BECAUSE of how money is created today. Fractional Reserve Banking IS a Ponzi Scheme, it must perpetually grow debt exponentially. There is NEVER enough money in circulation to repay both outstanding principal and interest. THIS IS IMPORTANT...because the system collapses when debt fails to grow and the inflated money supply, since 2008, puts the U.S. at risk of not being able justify the exponential increase of debt. WouNur (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Focus on the concept of banking as it exists today. In order for today's process of money creation (by having the customer sign a note for a loan of a certain amount and by crediting the deposit account of the customer for the same amount) to be "fraudulent," there has to be some sort of misrepresentation made by the bank to the customer. Where is the fraud? Famspear (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hint: You don't seem to be grasping the concept. Owning shares -- or receiving a 6% dividend -- does not give the owner, the recipient, "control" over the applicable regional Federal Reserve bank. Go back and re-read the materials I posted above. Famspear (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I DO understand the governance structure. But who selects, elects and directs the politicians in power? Who finances elections? Think deeply about this one. WouNur (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Sir Francis Baring writes, "Very few foreigners have understood the Bank...They have always considered their notes as Government paper." WouNur (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

John Jay Knox, Controller of the Currency wrote, ""The History of banking...before the (civil) war will make plain to anyone that the note issuing privilege was much abused to the great detriment of individuals and the public. Banks were started for the sole purpose of foisting worthless notes upon a trusting public..." WouNur (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The foundations of a system as powerful as the one that creates money determines the structure of governance. That is why precision is important in this matter. WouNur (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

In June 1877, Peter Cooper wrote to Ulysses Grant, "The bankers will favour a course of special legislation to increase their power...They will never cease to ask for more, ...so long as there is more that can be wrung from the toiling masses of the American People." WouNur (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. You're ranting about the evil banking system. What a surprise.

"But who selects, elects and directs the politicians in power? Who finances elections? Think deeply about this one."

Oh, that's so deep. Thank you. We had no idea that we should be thinking about that. Thanks for opening our eyes. My Weltanschauung has expanded immensely. I have achieved total, cosmic consciousness, and I will now work to expose the Evil Banksters. Famspear (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to be sarcastic, but you're the umpteenth person to come here to Wikipedia with this agenda and begin editing banking-related articles. We've seen it all before.

Wikipedia is not the proper place to stand on a soapbox to rail against the Evil Banking System. Everyone has already heard what you're saying a hundred bazillion times. You haven't brought any new information to us.

Fraudulent activities regarding banks hundreds of years ago may be important from a historical standpoint. But you haven't identified any pervasive fraud regarding fractional reserve banking as it exists today.

In the quote you gave, where Mr. Hollis uses the term "cash," he is apparently using the term to mean, roughly, paper currency or current coin. So, his statement could be interpreted as meaning "They had lent to their clients 'promises to pay' which they knew themselves unable to make good and were taking interest on them as if they were loans of paper currency or current coins." He seems to believe that this would be "fraudulent," and you seem to agree with that.

In today's banking system, this could be fraudulent IF either of two situations existed.

Either, that the bank is unable to make good, and that the bank knows this, and that the bank made an express or implied false representation to the customer that the bank is able to make good. This might or might not be the case, depending on the situation with the bank. But, under today's system, the vast majority of banks are certainly able to make good on a customer's demand for liquidation of the deposit account -- unless there is a run on the bank. When the bank credits the deposit account, the bank is not making an express or implied representation that the bank can honor EVERY deposit if there is a run on the bank. (Set aside, for purposes of this illustration, a consideration of the FDIC insurance coverage.) What the bank is saying is: "we will honor YOUR demand, Mr. Customer."

Or, that the bank falsely tells the customers that the customers are receiving paper currency and current coin. Obviously, in the normal situation where the customer does not walk out of the bank lobby with a bag of paper currency, etc., this would not apply.

If the bank tells the customer: "we have credited your account for this amount," the customer does not usually walk out of the bank lobby with bags of paper currency and current coin. The customer obviously knows he doesn't have those bags of currency in his hand when he leaves the bank. And the bank has not said to the customer, "You are now walking out of the bank with bags of currency". So, there's nothing "fraudulent" here.

If there is fraud, then perhaps it could be if the bank has actually told the customer that the customer's "account" consists of an actual stack of paper or coin currency somewhere in the bank vault. Do banks ever tell the customer this?

Maybe some bank employee somewhere does. If it occurred, that could be fraud.

But, what if the customer just mistakenly assumes or believes, based on the terminology of banking ("deposit" and "withdrawal") that the bank somehow has stack of currency in the vault that "belongs" to that particular customer? Is that the bank's fault? Is the bank supposed to warn each customer that the customer's account really is just an account, and not a pile of currency?

Yes, the terminology of banking ("deposit", "withdrawal") can be sort of misleading, but that is not because TODAY'S bank is trying to mislead the customer. The terminology is a hangover from hundreds of years ago, in the situations about which Mr. Hollis wrote. Maybe we should use more descriptive terminology.

Anyone who would bother to learn how to read an audited financial statement and who would study the bank's balance sheet would see that the bank is not making a "misrepresentation." The bank is clearly showing the customer's "deposit" as a liability of the bank, not as a pile of currency in the vault "belonging" to the customer. Bank vault cash (paper currency, etc.) is owned by the BANK -- not by the customer. That's not a secret, and banks today are not telling the customer that there is pile of currency in the vault with the customer's name on it. Famspear (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

In short, the mere fact that the bank would not be able to honor EVERY depositor's demand if there were a gigantic run on the bank does not mean that the bank is engaging in fraud. THE BANK IS NOT TELLING THE CUSTOMERS THAT THE BANK COULD SURVIVE A BANK RUN. The bank is simply saying to a specific customer: "We, the bank, will honor YOUR demand."

The deposit account is shown as a GENERAL UNSECURED LIABILITY on the bank's books and financial statements. Every reasonable knowledgeable user of audited financial statements KNOWS that a bank that has current assets (such as vault cash and accounts with other banks) that are LESS than the total amount of demand deposit liabilities owed by that bank would not be able to survive a run on the bank. The bank is not making a misrepresentation about that. Famspear (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Evil is a word that you have chosen to describe a historical practice that you find disagreeable. WouNur (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears that you failed to accept the underlying truths of a system that threatens the very existence of the country you so attached to. My sympathies. WouNur (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That those who committed fraud, hundreds of years ago, were able to gain sufficient power to enact laws that protect their practice is as important as the Declaration of Independence. Would you agree? WouNur (talk)

Today's system is not fraudulent, despite its negative impact on the population, because those who committed the original fraud were able to gain power to enact laws that protect their behaviour. However, that does not negate the danger of such a system, which nearly collapsed the world's economy in 2008 for again committing acts that had once been made illegal, in this case by the Glass–Steagall Legislation...and had been repealed at the request of Alan Greenspan, the acting Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve. I do not believe that Alan Greenspan acted illegally when he requested that President Clinton repeal the Glass–Steagall Legislation...he simply acted in his best personal interest. Later, Alan Greenspan admitted that he had been mistaken to believe that the twelve Federal Reserve Banks would, by acting in their self-interest, prevent such catastrophic behaviour as that which created 2008 collapse of the world's monetary system. There was no evil. Just self-interest. However, the pattern of behaviour has been uninterrupted for over 170 years. Wikipedia should be about collaborative truth finding. I'm trying to expose it. WouNur (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No, you have no idea what I "accept" or "fail to accept."

Then please be clear. WouNur (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The laws in place today protect the practice of fractional reserve banking. But, you now have admitted -- after having read my explanation -- that today's system is not fraudulent.

No, your explanations have clarified little. In effect, the behaviour mimics that of economists who wish to steer the conversation away from the fraudulent nature of the origins of Fractional Reserve Banking. WouNur (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

So, you have moved on to disclose your agenda: your desire to "expose" the problems you have identified about the banking system. Famspear (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

My agenda is to help WikiPedia become a reference for how Fractional Reserve Banking truly works. An integral component to that is understanding how money is created, despite what economists at the leading schools want the public to believe. WouNur (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

And, no, I wasn't using the word "evil" to describe "a historical practice" I "find disagreeable." The reference was a parody of sorts. I was making fun of the use of the term "evil international banksters," or words to that effect, that are used by some people who rail about the banking system. Sorry if you didn't get the joke. Famspear (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

So, from what you are saying, parodies are how people communicate in Wikipedia. That is disappointing. There's no need to rail against the banking system. It is what it is. Let's simply be clear about what it is. WouNur (talk) 23:19, 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. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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)

Dear WouNur: Regarding your quote from the Bank of England: "Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money."

You've just helped me make my point. That's precisely how fractional-reserve banking works (i.e., that's how that part of the process works), and that's precisely how it's taught in universities in the United States. Now, you're admitting that the Bank of England teaches you (and everyone else) the same thing.

Please read the entire article on Fractional-reserve banking carefully. This basic concept is already explained -- and was already explained in the Wikipedia article long before you arrived at Wikipedia. It's also discussed on the talk page for the article. You have not discovered something new. Famspear (talk) 17:35, 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)

Edit warring at Fractional reserve banking

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:WouNur reported by User:SPECIFICO (Result: Blocked). It looks like you are here on Wikipedia to impart your own theory about banking. If it turns out that you are unable to edit neutrally a longer block may be needed. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

WouNur (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

If every time that I provide an explanation, it gets deleted (even when providing a factual proof, supporting references)...and the other person proposes nonsense, that I address with further factual statements, then what am I to do?

The foundations of Fractional-Reserve Banking are clear, yet misrepresented on the Wikipedia page. I've tried multiple times to change the text, have provided sources, have delivered proofs (all of which have been deleted)...why?

You may appreciate the following.

Facts* (1670s): 1) King Charles issued promissory notes in large denominations, 2) Goldsmiths purchased these promissory notes. 3) Goldsmiths issued 10 times these amounts in smaller denominations, offered as interest bearing debt. 4) When the population discovered the anomaly, not to use the word fraud, they united and asked for the goldsmiths to redeem their notes...and the goldsmiths were unable to and defaulted on their promisses to pay. 5) Yes, the goldsmiths were holding fractional reserves of the notes that they had issued. 6) The cover-up created the legal framework which allowed fractional-reserve banking to become legal and thrive...despite its origins.

Context*: "Yet suffering had been caused and there was blame to be awarded. But it was clear to one who properly understood what had happened that the bankers were far more deeply to blame than Charles. Charles, at the worst, was guilty of a somewhat slick exploitation of public stupidity. He did not deceive people about what he was doing; he confessed it frankly, possibly a little hoping that they would be too stupid to follow. But the bankers had been guilty of the far greater fault of giving promises which they knew themselves unable to redeem." ... "Men like Sir Dudley North, when they let the cat out of the bag, were revealing a trade secret." ... "Somebody was going to be blamed for the crisis of 1672 and, if it was not to be the bankers, the only alternative was that it should be the King. Therefore from now on they had two objects--the first, to weaken the monarchy politically so as to make sure that it did not strengthen itself financially--the second, so to confuse the public over the story of 1672 that they should think that it was the King and not the bankers who was responsible for their sufferings and thus to divert public attention from inquiry into what it was that they were doing." ... "The whole story can be read to-day in the great verse of John Dryden, the first man clearly to comprehend that necessary battle between monarchy and money-power with which all subsequent history has been filled."

• The Two Nations: A Financial Study of English History, by Christopher Hollis, Chapter 2 - The Failure of the Stuarts. Originally printed in 1935.

Hope this helps.

WouNur (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If your changes keep getting reverted, you should engage in discussion. If discussion results in no support of your position, you're supposed to back out of the issue. Edit warring is not a solution. Max Semenik (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Max Semenik (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Adding precision to Wikipedia

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

WouNur (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like Wikipedia to be accurate and very precise. The precisions that I have brought are well documented and referenced. As suggested I have opened discussions on the Talk page of the subjects requiring clarifications. That WikiPedia continuously eliminates the clarifications without rational explanations is surprising. The integrity of WikiPedia is determined by the willingness of the community to express what is known about a subject matter. I have not failed in this matter, and yet all of my detractors have failed to provide rational supporting arguments against the changes that I have proposed. There is no need to be an expert in the matter, simply capable of reading the material supported by VERY credible organizations. It is with great respect that you allow me to collaborate with other contributors. WouNur (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have been blocked indefinitely, and in all seriousness, an unblock request which argues that you are right and others are wrong isn't going to fly. PhilKnight (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.