Humanities desk
< August 28 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 30 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


August 29

Fighting inflation by printing less money?[edit]

To fighting inflation, instead of raising interest rates, can't we simply print less money? My understanding is that the Federal Reserve already has history of printing more money, why not less? I'm sure there's a good reason. I can't be the first one to think of this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather complicated, since "Fractional-reserve banking" means there's more effective money in the economy than issued by the government, and there are various measurements of how much money there is (M1, M2, M3 etc). See Money supply... AnonMoos (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, there is a lot more money than physical currency. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A commercial bank creates money when it grants a loan, while central banks can regulate how much they can lend (and thereby how much money they can create).[1][2] The limits imposed are usually more concerned with preventing bank failure than fighting inflation, but "money printing" (by a central bank) is a colloquial term for a form of what more formally is called "quantitative easing", specifically by purchasing securities on the open financial market and adding the amounts to the the bank reserves of commercial banks. Quantitative "squeezing" instead of easing may not be the best way to fight inflation; if the conditions are not right, it might lead to stagflation.  --Lambiam 09:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the Fed mostly prints money to exchange with banks to replace worn-out bills. If you go to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, you can buy a bag containing thousands of dollars - ground into near-dust confetti. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Physical currency, which is to say paper bills and coins (M0), is a minor and mostly insignificant portion of the money supply. The vast majority of money exists as ledger entries in the banking computer systems. --Jayron32 17:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1945-1991 Baltic maps[edit]

There is a bit of a recurring theme around State continuity of the Baltic states, with a ANI thread ongoing. One of the arguments being pushed is that there would have been a broad consensus on non-recognition of the integrations of the 3 Baltic SSRs into the Soviet Union. This really isn't my area of expertise, but the argument clashes with my own impressions of this time period. Engaging in some original research, I tried to go through some contemporary maps to see if there was any established practice to visually distinguish the Baltics from the rest of the Soviet Union,

...and so forth. My question is, are there examples of contemporary Cold War era maps that doesn't show the Baltics as integrated parts of the USSR? --Soman (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because of Welles Declaration I think at least some US maps of the Soviet Union didn't include them, though my quick search for such maps was inconclusive. Other countries that diplomatically recognized the Soviet Union after the Baltic annexation ostensibly did so with Baltic states included. Brandmeistertalk 21:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soman -- In the 1980s, I saw physical paper maps issued by the U.S. government; they didn't show the Baltics as separate independent states, but there was special boundary line marking, and notes on the map that the U.S. didn't recognize Soviet annexation... AnonMoos (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly, State Department maps have been referred in the discussions at times. So it would have looked like borders of Jammu-Kashmir or something similar. But it seems, from this very unscientific review, that this practice never reached outside of the government. It appears this practice was not implemented by commercial map makers in the US? --Soman (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maps arent't the only criteria regarding recognition. The three Baltic states maintained diplomatic representations in Washington, DC (and probably elsewhere) during the Cold War, and a number of Western countries had a standing policy that their ambassadors to the USSR would not travel to the three states in order not to give additional recognition to the annexation. The three were the first states whose independence from the USSR was recognized by Western countries after the failure of the August 1991 putsch in Moscow. When Canada did so on August 26, 1991, "External Affairs minister Barbara McDougall declared that Canada had never legally recognized the Soviet Union’s takeover of the Baltic countries after the Second World War, but had instead been waiting for them to reclaim their independence and “that day has come.” [3]. Xuxl (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also Vincas Balickas, Lithuania's recognised chargé d'affaires in London from 1967 to 1993. Alansplodge (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not implying that map-making is the sole criteria for diplomatic recognition, in fact it's a different issue. The point I'm trying to explore is if, in the Cold War era, if the diplomatic positioning of the U.S. government on the Baltic states had any wider cultural bearing in the Western world. The quote you bring up from Canada I think shows an attitude of certain opportunism, affirming the non-recognition of integration of Baltic SSRs in USSR in 1991. --Soman (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More