The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, default to keep. --Ezeu 17:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a paste of my thoughts as an economist on this issue, including a list of ommissions, errors and misleading insinuations. It is my belief this page will never be free of a measure of bias, and as such will lead to a consistent misrepresentation of the facts for every Wiki user.

Ultimately it is not the purpose of this encyclopedia to air misleading statements, errors, and arguements that are so narrow and unverified as to be redundant.

I also wish it suggest that while individual components of the article are factual, the phrasology, presentation, and arguments are not. All the facts can be found elsewhere in wikipedia, and thus we must question what purpose it serves to bring them together so poorly here to substantiate a fundamentally misleading argument.

For every user that reads this article and is entirely convinced due to a lack of economic education, wikipedia has failed. Here now are some of my specific thoughts:

In my opinion, the point about fiat money is largely a platitude, nor important in substantiating the theory.

Most if not all currencies are in the form of fiat money (whether they be convertible or not to a commodity). Even in the century from 1800 to 1900, Triffin identified that 95% of new money creation on the European continent was in the form of credit or fiat money - a period largely claimed to be dominated by the Gold or Bi-metallic standard and exchange rate stability.

The principle of accepting the value of fiat money is now engrained in our culture, and moreover backed up by the fact that the currency is "legal tender". I.e. it is illegal not to accept the money in settlement of a debt or other contract.

My point is, that this article is misleading in how it presents the link between the physical fiat money and its value as being weak, when in fact it very strong, nor would it be any stronger if it were convertible to a commodity.

If anything this article should focus on whether the currency is MIS-valued, or will receive a SHOCK to its value as a result of exogenous impacts. To play devil's advocate, if the dollar were freely convertible to gold or some other commodity, and the dollar took a hit in value (say to a fall in international reserve holdings), the dollar would still suffer. The economy would shift from the dollar to gold, in an exact parrellel of a shift from the dollar to another currency.

If we went even further to suggest that the US issue actual gold coins, the theory states that in order to maintain parity, the money supply must vary with the balance of payments. If gold is over-valued at the mint (i.e. there is a reduction in demand for the gold dollar, and the nominal value of gold is greater than that of the domestic currency exchange value) then you will still get a flight of capital from the US, and instead of a shift in currency values (since the gold price is essentially fixed) it would be prices of good that went through the roof instead.

Ultimately, this argument that the a currency is somehow flimsy, and more vulnerable as a result of being a fiat currency is ridiculous. No system of currency could protect against the shocks described in this article.

While the article credits the official reasons for the abandonment of the M3 measure, its insinuations are towards that of a modicum of duplicity. Not only is there a risk of this being defamatory, but it ignores the true nature of econometrics. Constantly our system of economic measures are being changed. A cursory glance of the statistics published in the economist will show the myriad of different money measures used across the Globe.

Specifically, correlation between movements in M2 and M3 for the last 6 years are almost 1 to 1. In fact, M2 moves slightly ahead of M3, so any shift in M3, can be slightly predicted by shifts in M2.

The loss of the M3 statistic is justifiable, and moreover is no hinderance to economists in that M2 is virtually a perfect proxy for M3.

A signification topic for debate among American economists is the issue of China's currency dealings. Greenspan himself has critisized China's maintainance of an undervalued currency versus the dollar.

How do they achieve this? By buying as many dollars as they can get their hands on, and selling their domestic currency. Ultimately....why would an administration hell bent on protecting its domestic currency from losing its value through a fall in foriegn holdings, so openly critisize and condemn the policy which results in the largest foriegn, non-utilised stock of dollars on the planet.

This theory is....largely, rubbish in my opinion, poorly argued, lacking in decent evidence, with extremely tenuous links and furthermore is incredibly short sighted.

It is unencyclopedic, and more importantly, actively misleading and should be removed. I should also point out that many developing nations peg to the dollar, or adopt a full or partial policy of dollarisation (i.e. using dollars as the domestic currency) and these policies are generally opposed by the US policy makers due to the inflationary impact.

....what I ask you to focus on, is that this article will never be anything more than a collection of disparate facts, widely accessible in properly constructed NPOV factual articles across wikipedia, laiden with bias, POV and misrepresentation of economic theory. What purpose then does it serve?

In my opinion, at the least, it does not serve the fact seaker. If nothing else, any impact is greatly exaggerated (an always will be). A study by Flood and Rose estimates the losses at 1/200th of GDP, in terms of lost seignorage.

Unclebob 11:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC) (London School of Economics BSc Econ Graduate....for what its worth)[reply]

• OK. But we have an article on creationism, too; so "The theory is whack," is an argument for pointing out that it is rejected by mainstream economists, not for deleting the article. A google search reveals that the only person who seems to use the term is the author of a book by the same name. Change to a discussion of it as a book, not a hypothesis. Encourage Unclebob to quote economists other than himself who criticize the basic ideas therein. --JChap 13:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some valid points there. However, this topic is so out of left field that there is little or no mainstream criticism of it - this it will be essentially impossible to provide a balanced view on the topic. What little evidence exists to disprove the theory and more over the uneconomic inferences drawn were listed in my critique above. Much of the theoretical analysis above is made on the basis of models created by "other" economists. I apologise if it was not wiktiquette or some such to suggest deletion, but you be hard pressed to find any other encyclopedia giving space to conspiracy theorist's ravings, based on inferences that are counter factual and counter theoretical. There is nothing counter factual about creationism, whereas the inferences in this article are, and will continue to be in order to serve the purpose of the conspiracy creators - long may their books sales continue.

Nevertheless...as a newbie, I'll graciously accept the will of the mob :p Unclebob 23:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly encourage you to contribute to the article, which is now crap. Focus on the book and refutations by mainstream economists. The theory itself isn't notable enough for inclusion. --JChap 00:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Why is this here? This belongs on the article's talk page in my opinion. You've come here with your opinions and when I look at the article I see other opinions. Bring this to the article's talk page and work out those opinions together into a comprehensive article. Metros232 13:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you acknowledging the page has failed to be NPOV? If not, can I put my "ravings" on the article? Unclebob 23:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Metros232. If there are no objections, I'd like to move this filibuster to the article discussion page. Filibusters tend to make me urge deletion regardless of actual validity of the argument. B.Wind 18:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, also note that there has already been a previous AfD discussing this article--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 18:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, AfD is not the forum for content complaints, per Metros232. Sandstein 20:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. The article seems perfectly fine. Just because you don't like what something has to say is not a reason to delete it. --UsaSatsui 22:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think its not fair to say I ever used the word "like" - my argument is the article is counter factual and counter theoretical. It is in essence misleading readers. Unclebob 23:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then should we delete controversial articles like evolution or God just because they might somehow "mislead" readers? Please note that keeping an article isn't judged by how factual or accepted the subject is, but by the notability of the subject. This discussion belongs on the article's talk page, not on AfD. --☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 23:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er....this isn't about controversy. Its not even about debate. Its about factual and theoretical errors, being consistentently represented as accurate because of the skewed nature of the public debate and seeming importance attached to that. Is it weight or quality of information that merits inclusion or exclusion in this encyclopedia? Is there not a parrellel here between this topic and the vested interests of the Congress editing of wikipedia pages for their purposes? Unclebob 23:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said above, the decision to keep or delete an article is not depended by how factual or accepted the subject is, but by the subject's notability. If the subject does have factual or theoretical errors, you can always mention it in the article (provided that you have some sort of citation to back it up).--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 00:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By that standard, this article should be deleted. There is nothing notable about the phrase petrodollar warfare; see the results of searches in my comments below.--csloat 22:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've read the article in full. The subject is notable, but the treatment of it is seriously flawed. It should be rewritten about the book. As it stands, it is just a collection of wacky conspiracy theories. Unclebob made a procedural misstep by bringing this here, but this should be forgiven a newbie. If we keep, we should support him rewriting this steamy pile of pony loaf. Where's a rouge admin when you need one? --JChap 00:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So, is there any redeemable content? If not, a delete is justified. --Mmx1 05:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and do-over, as content is inappropriate abstract of a book when it should be About the book, as that is the only significant citation. If God was simply a synopsis of the bible, it would be deleted and rewritten from scratch. That is what I feel is appropriate here. --Mmx1 05:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article should not have been brought to this discussion again. What is the agenda?--tequendamia 09:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep', appears of interest but perhaps does need clean up. --Mr magoo 17:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support a re-write of the article containing Unclebob's criticisms/rebuttal. In that way Wikipedia readers can learn to be more sceptical of such conspiracy theories and also maybe learn a bit about economics as well. --User: Jaganath 11:12 31 May 2006

In general I think the consensus is that the subject is sufficient ACTIVE, at least in the internet domain, to warrant inclusion. In one week from now (when I am liberated from exam considerations) I will re-write the article focusing on the claims of the theory, and a more full and cited criticism and theoretical de-bunking section. I apologise for not using the AfD properly...albeit I believe more effective discussion resulted than would have ever been possible in the discussion page :p. Feel free to Aye or Nay to this idea.

Furthermore, any recommendations as to what procedure would be used if some other "economist" attempted to re-assert the haphazard economics on a period basis, either by deleting the critcisms or by other means etc. would be appreciated. Unclebob 18:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, what is preeminent in Wiki is not truth, but verifiability. See WP:V Provide sources for all criticisms and debunking, and if another anon attemps to reassert uncited material contradicting what's cited, then it would be legitimate to remove that material. --Mmx1 20:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse what Mmx1 and Unclebob are saying. The funny thing about this article is that it combines sourced, verifiable statements with statements that include "reportedly" with no indication of who reported it. WP:CB articles are usually much easier to spot. --JChap 00:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or rewrite per Mmx1. Support User: Jaganath's comments re: rewrite. Armon 16:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per my comments from the last AfD on this: Non-notable. This seems like a vanity page to showcase someone's research (though it is so poorly written as to suggest it probably wasn't the work of the author showcased). As pointed out on its talk page, most of the google hits for this page point to advertisements for this guy's book or to blogs. On Lexis/Nexis I searched full text for all available dates for "petrodollar warfare" in major papers, then in all news transcripts, then in all wire reports, for all available dates, and did not come up with a single citation for an article mentioning that phrase. Not one. A search of EBSCOHost for academic journals found not a single use of the phrase. A google search of books mentioning the phrase returns nothing. The only results on Google scholar is a link to an essay by Clark posted to a site called "ratville times" and three other pieces that list Clark's book as a reference but do not use the phrase "petrodollar warfare." None of those four sources is from a peer reviewed article or even from an article published in print (as opposed to on websites). This looks like a vanity page for a young scholar. --csloat 19:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.