Talk:Federal Reserve

Term Deposit Facility

User:A. C. Santacruz tagged this section for excessive use of quotations. The section is mostly quotations, one of which spans four paragraphs. I condensed and paraphrased it, and this was reverted by User:Beauty School Dropout who called it "unhelpful" and said that "disputed topics" should be discussed. First, I was acting on someone else's request, which is the definition of "helpful." Second, I don't see a content dispute here. No concern about the neutrality or factual accuracy of the section has been raised. If someone wants to make a case for keeping the section as it was, they can do that here. Otherwise there is no dispute, only obstruction. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

IP, please do not attribute your edits to me. I do agree that the section was over-quoted heavily, but I am not accountable or responsible for how you respond to a clean-up tag that I place. I'll take a look later to see if I agree or not with your edit, and if not I'll propose some alternative phrasing. Let's all try to resolve this constructively without engaging in an edit war. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Kiwipete and Beauty School Dropout, I believe IP's summary is more encyclopedic than the previous version. If there are any things you believe they shouldn't have removed, I suggest we build upon IP's version. Feel free to discuss below. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It looked like page blanking to me. A. C. Santacruz I'm going to back out of this discussion and let more experienced and knowledgeable Wikipedians such as yourself decide the fate of this one. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Beauty School Dropout, that's fair. Your wikignoming is appreciated :) ! A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm with Beauty School Dropout on this one - I'm not a subject matter expert, just a pending changes reviewer, so I'll leave it to more knowledgeable people to resolve. I'll say this, though, to IP - I'm much more likely to revert anonymous changes than those done by registered users, so you might do yourself a favour and create an account. Cheers, Kiwipete (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Dual mandate (politics) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Reference [25] out of date.

Section in question: Although an instrument of the U.S. government, the Federal Reserve System considers itself "an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the president or by anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the board of governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms."

Section uses a reference to the FAQ website from 2015 that does not accurately represent the current consideration of the Fed. The Current FAQ website, which the reference points to, has no quote: "an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the president or by anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the board of governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms."

Rather, it states: "The Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., is an agency of the federal government and reports to and is directly accountable to the Congress. The Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress, which created the System in 1913 with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act. This central banking "system" has three important features: (1) a central governing board—the Federal Reserve Board of Governors; (2) a decentralized operating structure of 12 Federal Reserve Banks; and (3) a blend of public and private characteristics." 24.225.145.61 (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

An archived version appears to support the text: EvergreenFir (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Informed Citizenship

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 30 January 2025 and 23 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Drice555 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: ValeFV17.

— Assignment last updated by TBlack7205 (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Undue weight and NPOV with regards to gold standard

Hello everyone! Before make my edits, I would like to lay out the concerns I have, and how I think things should be fixed. Multiple times in this article, the idea that the removal of the gold standard has led to inflation and volatility. This is something contested. It's presented as fact. Two examples:

1. The shift from the gold standard to fiat currency has led to long-term inflation and financial instability, in the lede.

2. Another area of criticism is the Federal Reserve’s departure from the gold standard in 1971, which many argue has contributed to long-term inflationary pressures and a devaluation of the U.S. dollar. Ron Paul believes the Fed should be abolished and replaced with a return to the gold standard.[26] Advocates of Austrian economics, such as Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard, believe that the move to fiat currency destabilized the monetary system and undermined financial stability. This is not as bad, as it doesnt present the gold standard issue as fact -- still not great. We also run into concerns where the lede isn't really summarizing the text of the article here -- the lede presents gold standard leading to longterm inflation and instability as fact.

Here are sources supporting the fact that the gold standard argument is contested:,, ,, , , clearly a contested topic. There's also a ton of papers on this but that's a bit overkill, I think. The lede and later sections present the gold standard = bad viewpoint as the truth. That's basically my biggest concern. We can split the main claim into two parts as well -- the idea that the departing the gold standard has led to longterm inflation is a much more widely supported idea. The idea that it has led to instability is rejected by a majority of economists.

All of this to say, tldr: the article presents the viewpoint that leaving the gold standard led to inflation and instability as a fact, specifically in the lede. I want to change it to be more balanced.

Again, that part of the lede isn't even an accurate summary of the criticism section of the article, which is a whole other problem. Further, that sentence in the lede is sourced to an article summarizing Ron Paul's opinion -- not a neutral, at all person to be citing. Even worse, that article itself doesn't even embrace the idea that the gold standard was bad -- the sentence in the lede is a misrepresentation of the sources it cited. Here:.

Still not quite sure how I want to fix this. I was planning on using sources more neutral than Ron and Rand Paul for the gold standard criticisms section, and moderating the language in the lede and in the criticism section. "A minority of economists believe that departing the gold standard led to instability." or something to that effect. Open to suggestions, going to think and research more before editing. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Prior to this edit, those statements where attributed and far more nuanced than an absolute in Wikipedia's voice. I would support a return to what was there earlier as a starting point. Ravensfire (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I could agree with saying some economists or giving an example of specific economist such as... taking that out of wikivoice may help solve the problem AadamentAardvark (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Pinging significant editors of this article: @Analoguni:, @GoldRingChip:,@Økonom:, @Dark Charles:, @Gjb0zWxOb:, @JohnFromPinckney:, @Rjensen:, @Wikideas1:, @CZmarlin: and @Dawkin Verbier:. Thoughts? AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Total money supply contracted -10.28% in October 1929 and continued to contract for the next few years during Herbert Hoover's presidency

From what I think I know about it, trying to adhere to the gold standard was the cause of the Great Depression, instead of trying to adjust the gold convertibility rate they did deflation to try and get prices back to pre WWI levels, Roy A. Young a conservative is probably most to blame for it.

In the 1970s the inflation was from supply side constraints, mainly the Closure of the Suez Canal (1967–1975), and under the Bretton Woods system everything was mostly flat, pegged currencies, oil was flat, gold was flat, everything started to float as the Bretton Woods system was failing. Then we got floating exchange rates and the Oil embargo 1973 caused everything to float and gold had to float with it. In my opinion the government should care more about people than it does about adhering to gold. Wikideas1 (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree that there is an NPOV problem, and I agree with User:Ravensfire that it would be an improvement if the mentioned statements were returned to their apperance before the edit as a starting-point. Økonom (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

"everything started to float as the Bretton Woods system was failing." I am not that certain about the sequence of the events. While the Breton Woods system was not formally abolished until 1976, it was rendered inoperative by the Nixon shock (1971) and the conversion of the U.S. dollar into a fiat currency. "By 1973, the floating exchange rate regime de facto replaced the Bretton Woods system for other global currencies." The system already had serious problems during the administration of Lyndon Johnson: "Reinforcing the relative decline in U.S. power and the dissatisfaction of Europe and Japan with the [Bretton Woods] system was the continuing decline of the dollar—the foundation that had underpinned the post-1945 global trading system. The Vietnam War and the refusal of the administration of U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson to pay for it and his Great Society programs through taxation resulted in an increased dollar outflow to pay for the military expenditures and rampant inflation, which led to the deterioration of the U.S. balance of trade position. In the late 1960s, the dollar was overvalued with its current trading position, while the German Mark and the yen were undervalued; and, naturally, the Germans and the Japanese had no desire to revalue and thereby make their exports more expensive, whereas the U.S. sought to maintain its international credibility by avoiding devaluation." Who knew that the Vietnam War could destabilize the global trading system? The war was not as inconsequential as typically presented. Dimadick (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me, but I can be of no help. I'm an ignoramus on both the gold standard and the Fed, generally, and the topics under discussion here, while vaguely interesting, are over my head. I hope you find a good balance though. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 10:43, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

While I understand the arguments made I have to disagree with the narrative that the lede and criticism section should be moderated or marginalized. The sources presented above including, Hoover, Cato, and the former chair Ben Bernanke aren't necessarily reliable or objective sources on this topic. Faster and longer-term inflation can be proven by the numbers. I could concede that if instability isn't defined that could be contested. The federal reserve especially in recent years has been in the news more from the criticisms its received than the actual work its doing because of how controversial it can be. I hardly can see how toning this down is an objective or reasonable move based off recent events.AadamentAardvark (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

My concern was more that the broader sentiment “leaving gold standard = bad” is presented as fact in the lede and criticism section, not that the whole criticism section should be toned down. I included the Hoover and Cato sources to show that across the political spectrum of economists, there is agreement that leaving the gold standard wasn’t a bad thing AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

That's a fair perspective. I think it's reasonable to say the effects are mixed. But there are negative effects such as the loss of purchasing power and the Fed's ability to create moral hazard. So when the article talks about effects of the gold standard in the criticism section or the lede it may benefit from being more specific instead of wholesale criticism. So financial instability could be replaced by loss of purchasing power or the expansion of debt funded federal spending. Also including another sentence about why it was done, spurring economic growth and preventing gold from leaving the US could be reasonable. AadamentAardvark (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes. My goal here is to basically bring the lede and a section of the criticism section up to essentially what multiple reliable sources say; instead of an unqualified "leaving gold standard=bad idea," moving to a framing that presents that gold standard as a more complicated issue; while the historical departure from the gold standard is generally considered by sources to have been a good idea. I agree with most of what you said. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah that's reasonable. I'm open to seeing what you come up with. By 1971 how I've heard it explained is Nixon was the coroner looking over a dead system and that explanation makes sense to me. So I'm amenable to adding more context and qualifiers AadamentAardvark (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

I mean, the sources arguing that leaving the gold standard led to long-term inflation and financial instability are even worse - the sentence in the lead is, as far as I can tell, cited to two news articles that simply present it as Ron Paul's position (and, bluntly, Ron Paul's views are a minority, as are Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard, cited in the body.) I definitely don't think we can present that position as undisputed fact - not only is it a contested opinion, it's a minority view heavily associated with a single controversial school of thought. We can come up with ways to refine it further but stating it in the article voice is flatly unacceptable and the first thing to do is to end that as quickly as possible. --Aquillion (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

This seems to be an unnecessarily aggressive posture, the inflation numbers are clear. To respond to your second comment couching and dismissing this as one federal reserve decision decades ago is disingenuous. I could say the say for stimulus after 2008 or in 20 years the same after Covid stimulus. To say it's not a sufficiently mainstream position is literally just your opinion. If you want to argue it's a minority opinion that's one thing. But I can't get around that seems you're calling it marginal other than that's how you feel. But I'm happy to be proven wrong with secondary sources. Adding the attribution then saying well actually they don't even deserve the attribution so the criticism should be removed wholesale is a slick tactic but it I would ask to not to move forward on something like that without consensus AadamentAardvark (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I mean, it was reworded to the current version mere days ago; obviously there is no consensus to stating it in the article voice. Beyond that, there are currently only two sources criticizing the gold standard in those terms in the entire article. One is a news article that quotes Ron Paul in passing (a brief single-sentence aside in that source, though we could certainly find better sources indicating that Ron Paul thinks that) - which also cites actual economists disagreeing with him! That very source (the one source that was used for that statement previously that actually mentions the gold standard) obviously does not support treating it as uncontested fact. And the only other source, which I pulled in from further down the article, is Rothbard's Case Against the Fed; it's certainly usable for the positions of Austrian economics, but it is written from a plainly heterodox position (ie. Rothbard presents himself as an outsider challenging an economic consensus he disagrees with) and clearly cannot be used itself for such a sweeping statement of fact in the article voice. That's obviously not enough to put it in the article voice, especially given the sources above disputing it. If you think that it is a more common perspective, find more sources saying it. But I definitely object to your implicit assertion that it being in the article voice is somehow the default and that a consensus is needed to move away from it; as pointed out above, it was a WP:BOLD change made yesterday. --Aquillion (talk) 03:09, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Welp, you're reading into this a little too much unfortunately. I'm not opposing your attribution sentence or arguing it should be in wikivoice, but going from I'm going to add this attribution to well actually the attribution doesn't belong is a large leap. This leap then could easily be justified for other criticisms or other articles. There was also two removals from the gold standard once in 1933 and once in 1971. I'm very open to the idea that the removal in 1971 had to happen because of foreign moves at the time. There are multiple ways to qualify and reinterpret this without wholesale removing criticism. AadamentAardvark (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

100% agreed. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I added attribution to the Austrian school of economics for now (which is what it says in the body), since the sources clearly don't support putting it in the article voice, but honestly I would argue even with attribution the entire sentence is probably WP:UNDUE for the lead and should just be removed - it's not a sufficiently mainstream position to devote part of the lead to it, and it's marginal for this topic because it's effectively one economic school of thought's criticism about one action taken by the Federal Reserve decades ago. So I would argue for removing the sentence from the lead entirely (it is already covered in the body, of course, which is fine.) This is an article about the Federal Reserve, not about the Gold Standard or the Austrian School of Economics or what Ron Paul thinks; the lead should cover more general stuff about the Federal Reserve as a whole. --Aquillion (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

References