Talk:Ben Bernanke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Georgia (U.S. state) Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Georgia (U.S. state) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles..
Start	rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
Top	rated as Top-importance on the importance scale

[edit] South of the Border

I added a reference to the famed amusement park, where Bernanke worked during his summers to put himself through college -- as anyone who's taken I-95 from Miami to the Jersey shore can tell you, this is a notable biographical detail! (On a more serious note, it's been mentioned in several biographical articles about Bernanke; I included the New York Times simply because it's the first google result of many.) signed, a friendly anonymouse!

--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.159.68.60 (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ohav Shalom

Would it be appropriate to include, parenthetically, the meaning in English of "Ohav Shalom" (the name of the synagogue)? If so, could someone confirm or deny that it does or does not mean "love of peace"? My Hebrew is a bit rough around the edges in any case and on top of that is not helped by seeing only the transliterated form of the name, so I'm not confident putting it into the article unless someone can confirm it. But it seems odd to me, in the English Language Wikipedia, to include the Hebrew name of the synagogue in the article sans any translation, since the Hebrew name won't mean anything to most English speakers. --Jonadab, 2007 Sep 27.

[edit] More info in Awards and fellowships

looking at his cv from princeton shows that he's gotten quite a few prestigious awards and fellowships. easy stuff for soemone who wants to make this article even better :)

http://www.princeton.edu/~bernanke/htmlcv.htm

TitaniumDreads 22:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This will sound, and perhaps it simply is a racist question to ask - but how many Reserve Chiefs have been Jewish. Again, I appreciate this might be an awful-sounding question, though I really just have in mind so called "over-representation" of Jewish Americans in certain fields... I read somewhere that many of the leaders of the IMF and World Bank are Jewish, and given their low numbers as a % of the population, if true, this sort of unusual representation strikes me as interesting. I can appreciate, however, that it might be too dangerous or loaded a question to ask. Still, I think it an honest question.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. In fact EVERY PERSON who has ever been on the board has been a Jew. This is NO more an "over-representation" than segregation was an "over-representation" of whites in the old South political and business hierachy. But, stating OBVIOUS facts is often "anti-semitic" in America, and especially here in wikipedia.

You can ask whatever you want, and lots of people have come up with lots of theories why Jews in the United States have been economically successful over the last 75 years or so, but I would caution you that the Ben Bernanke article would not be a good place to raise those questions -- Wikipedia is a reference work only, and the subject is simply not germane to this article. See WP:NOR for more information. --Afelton 21:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please clarify what is meant by "inflation hawks"?

An inflation hawk holds that the primary goal of monetary policy should be to prevent inflation rather than prompt growth. In practical terms, an inflation hawk would be quicker to pull the trigger on interest rate hikes as the economy heats up coming out of a recession. The effect might be to prematurely end the growth part of the cycle, but the hawks hold that it's a good idea because inflation is a worse ill than low growth or stagnation. So, for example, an inflation hawk isn't really bothered by the fact that wages have been essentially stagnant, or even declining. That's because wage increases are among the primary causes of inflation. And inflation is bad because it destroys the great value of money. So, the Hawk would say that yes, perhaps you aren't experiencing wage increases, but at least the money you have is still good for something. Some would argue even further that even if wages stagnate, real wages/buying power increase because of technology. The idea there is that if your wages stagnate, and you can only afford to buy $10 widgets for the 10 years, technology is making the widgets better, and you are therefore getting the widgets cheaper (or paying the same for a better widget), and that therefore even if your wage has remained the same, your real wage (buying power) has increased. While every economist agrees that inflation is a major problem, and its prevention should be one of the main goals of any monetary policy, "inflation hawks" are even stronger in this belief than most, and would be willing to make greater sacrifices to economic growth for the sake of preventing inflation. Binkymagnus 00:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Error in quotation

The citation from the Princeton Univ. Press is garbled. Whoever placed it, please fix it. 128.8.222.46 22:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

way to overreact, Afelton. the guy was asking a question, not submitting for your approval his conspiracy theory addition to the article. --B. Phillips 23:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is "Bernanke is Jewish, like Greenspan" included in this article? I can understand if it merely said "Bernanke is Jewish", but adding that he shares his ethnicity with Greenspan seems unnecessary. What's the point? Does the article on Harriet Miers say "Like Sandra Day O' Connor, Miers is a Christian female of North European descent."? I don't think so. the only reason to include the "Jewish like Greenspan" that is for conspiracy theorists to get agitated. I say, take that line out. (Appalachiangirl 00:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC))

I was trying to assume good faith on his part -- apologies if it didn't come across -- but articles related to the Federal Reserve are constantly subject to vandals referencing Zionist consipiracies to steal the nation's wealth and related junk. I just wanted to nip this discussion in the bud as in my opinion it's off-topic at best. You do have a point that the conspiracy theorists rarely ask before editing. --Afelton 01:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Like Greenspan, Bernanke is Jewish."

This line looks ridiculous, in this article --

"Like Greenspan, Bernanke is Jewish."

-- and it reflects badly on Wikipedia and makes it look ridiculous too.

Who cares whether an economist is Jewish or not? What color are his eyes? Does he wear wool or cotton sox? Is he right-handed or left-handed? Why not put some of these not-so-salient facts in the article too...

I suggest that the line be deleted. Any print encyclopedia editor would delete it, as being irrelevant, and so should Wikipedia.

--Kessler 00:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to take the line out and ask that "discussion" be used here by anyone who objects. Willing to bet that most commentary will agree with those made so far, that the line is irrelevant to the article.

--Kessler 00:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Oops, somebody beat me to it... :-)

--Kessler 00:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that saying "Like Greenspan,..." is irrelevant and ridiculous; but citing someone’s religion is totally legitimate and informative for a reference work. The Congressional Directory, published by the US government, sites religious affiliation of many members. So I don't buy the irrelevant argument. But is it TRUE that he is a Jew? I could find no reference to support that.

If anyone can support the claim that Bernanke is a Jew, I for one would appreciate that it be reflected in his Wikipedia entry.

His middle name is Shalom. Hello ?????????????????????????????????

It may not be -- see Discussion below -- Bernanke himself just says "Ben S."...

& please sign your entries... If you really want to discuss this the rest of us need to be able to identify you.

If someone wants to advertise that she herself, or he himself, is this or that religion I don't have much objection. I don't like religious proselytising, and I tend to discount the views of those who do it: members of Congress who wish to pander to and manipulate current religious hysterias, by claiming affiliations they've recently discovered, I definitely include in that last group.

I do object, though, to labeling people "Jew" because someone else figures their family name, or facial profile, or something they've said or written seems to indicate it -- that is what was done here -- and that is what is done, too often, in Europe and the Middle East, forming the basis for some of the most objectionable racism and religious persecution which took place in the last century. So I'd be careful.

If Ben Bernanke himself wants to be called a "Jew" then by all means I'd let him do so. But for others to do so to me seems dangerously close to racism and religious persecution. Either way, this man's religious affiliation does not seem germane to his profession as an economist, and I don't think needs inclusion here -- why not list the color of his eyes as well, as I said before... Sounds to me more like some simply want to conflate "Judaism" with "money-handling" with old images of "Shylock", rather than do the research or stick to the subject. So I'd leave religion out of this one: touchy subject, and irrelevant here.

I have a problem here with what I see as a blatant double standard: how can you accuse someone of racism while describing "Jew" as a religion? In almost every wikipedia article involving Jews, nobody cares to mention that Jews are an ethnic group that can be traced to Eastern Europe, and a clearly distinct race of people. In other words, an ethnic Jew can attend the Catholic church his whole life, or be an atheist like most Israelis, but remains a Jew by ethnicity. Can we at least clarify that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.164.27 (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

--Kessler 11:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that it is odd and perhaps anti-semitic (I'm not Jewish) that the Jewishness of Bernanke is so front and center here. Lots of comments on Bernanke and Greenspan's page about judaism, but when I look at the pages for previous fed res chairs (most of whom were not Jewish) do not identify their religious preferences or ethnicity at all. Would you start an article with "McCabe, a Scottish-American economist, was head of..."

Its vandalism by trolls, not really much to see. Thanks for the note, I reverted it. Cheers! --Tom 18:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This has come up before and yes, it's anti-semitic in intent (the old "Jews control the economy" canard). It is of course relevant to mention his Jewishness in connection with his biography, since it played a significant part in his upbringing, but his ethnicity isn't a defining issue in the same way that it is for (for instance) Colin Powell. Bernanke is hardly the first Jewish banker, after all! -- ChrisO 19:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I decided that listing his religion in the upper right hand box was unnecessary, he is not a religious figure and all one needs to know about his religious views can be found in the biography section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.8.254 (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Helicopter Ben

If you really want to put this nickname in the article, that's fine, but can we keep all the stuff about his deflation speech in one paragraph? Thanks, Afelton 19:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wanted to keep the part about his name separate so that there is no bias, keep it isolated from other stuff, its pejorative and could be easily confused as POV. The deflation speech quote is where the origin of the name comes from, so its needed, as is some context what it means. Stbalbach 19:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

In the interests of objectivity -- a NYT op ed today [1] refers to the nickname "Helicopter Ben" Afelton 16:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I first came across the name in an internal memo distributed to employees of a well known Washington think tank by their senior bond market analyst and knew its only a matter of time for this name to become more widely known, it's what insiders are using and will quickly spread. Stbalbach 16:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inflation targeting

Shouldn't all this discussion be on a separate page, either as part of inflation or inflation targeting or something like that? Let's just say something wishy-washy (but truthful) such as "some of his public statements [example x y z] have been interpreted that he is a proponent of inflation targeting" and leave it at that. Afelton 19:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree to a point. I think that if are mentioning his view on inflation targeting, then we should have a few sentenced explaining that inflation targeting would be controversial, and why it is controversial, with a link to a more complete explanation. That seems to be the standard wikipedia practice. I certainly want this article to stay focused on Bernanke and not on economics, but I think a reader who comes here should get a feel for what Bernanke believes, and what outside observers think of those beliefs, without having to jump to a dozen other articles.

Put differently, if I knew nothing abour Bernanke, and nothing about economics, and I came to read this page, I'd like to learn just enough to feel like I was able to have a water cooler conversation of the man and his potential policies? -O^O

Right now, after the text was restored, we have "Such an action is controversial among those who hold that stable inflation is fundamentally incompatible with the mandate of the Federal Reserve to create stable prices, those who hold it reduces central bank transparancy [3], and those who believe that inflation targeting limits the flexibility of central banks."

First, US 12 Ch3 Sub 1 225a is titled "Maintenance of long run growth of monetary and credit aggregates" so indeed the goal of the Fed is to maximize growth. No economist on the planet will agree with the notion that inflation targeting is bad for stable prices, because _we will always have small amounts of inflation_. Stable prices do not mean prices that stay exactly the same. Inflation targeting will work to keep inflation low and thus prices stable.

Further, the notion that inflation targetting REDUCES transparency is silly (this Taiwanese article surely makes an interesting argument, but it is not the wide-spread NPOV that one would expect in an encyclopedia article). The entire goal of inflation targeting is to make monetary policy more transparent, predictable, and accountable.

We definitely need to mention that Dr Bernanke is interested in inflation-targeting, since it is his big thing and f.e. The Wall Street Journal is writing on it every day. And it is controversial, because f.e. Greenspan is against it.

But both of these reasons given are wrong, or at least not the "usual" reasons. The typical, NPOV reason that even Dr Bernanke would acknowledge is that inflation-targeting reduces the Fed's flexibility. It has benefits and possibly other detriments, but those should be mentioned elsewhere.

So I suggest restoring to my orignal text: "Such an action is controversial among some economists who believe that inflation targeting limits the flexibility of central banks." or something similar.

If we don't want to mention any cons whatsoever, that is acceptable too.

- Rlove 21:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Whoa Nelly! Thanks for looking at the title of 12 USC 225a, but I wonder if you actually read the mandate? ..goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates - stable prices are absolutely in there. Now whether or not this three-headed mandate is realistic is another question.

I'm not sure who endorse the opinion that we will "always have small amounts of inflation" as it is not generally true. For most of the history of the United States we had long periods of price stability, interrupted with brief periods of inflation or deflation. Typically, deflation corrected prices back to where they had been pre-inflation. Uncorrected inflation can be tied to a handful of key events, and our current period of persistant inflation is a recent phenomenon of the past four decades.

It is, of couse, necessary to have "growth of the monetary and credit aggregates" in a growing economy, or else we will suffer from price deflation. i.e. Congress has authorized the growth of monetary and credit aggregates in order to obtain maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate interest rates. At least they didn't ask for free ponys too, huh? (it's a joke). -O^O

I did read it. It lists a lot of things, indeed stable prices being one of them, but the overarching goal of the fed is balancing growth against inflation. A powerful economy always has some inflation -- in the (0,2) % range -- I am not talking about rampant inflation. Reasons to want a small amount of inflation are numerous (contracts, sticky prices, unemployment, etc.).

But all of this is irrelevant, really. I want the two points removed from the current article, because they are not the current concerns of academics or the financial community. No one believes that inflation targeting is "against the mandate of the Fed". It is a way of _limiting_ inflation. If anything, inflation targeting is a way to be hawkish on inflation. And the point about lack of transparency is very, very wrong: inflation targeting is a mechanism used to _increase_ transparency.

Rlove 23:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. You need to read them again, or be more specific in what sort of "growth" you are talking about. The Fed mandate has three, and only three, goals. Growth is not one of those goals. Growth of money and credit is a tool that the Fed is empowered with by the congress to reach those three (and only those three) goals. -O^O

Ok, remove them then - I won't put them back without additional sourcing. But I insist we keep text the explains that some see inflation targets as a way explicitly embracing the idea that some inflation is acceptable, and that this doesn't make inflation hawks happy.

Some notes (as much for me as anybody):

"Targeting is partly designed to prevent bankers from killing growth by being overly hawkish." - [2]

"Zero inflation, or close to zero depending on measurement error and other technical details, is as good as any other choice in promoting ultimate macroeconomic goals such as full employment and long-term economic growth." - http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/20050526/default.htm

This is an interesting way of putting it "Poole is a long-time advocate of inflation targeting. He has said zero inflation, properly measured, would be the best objective" - [3]

There is a contingent that holds zero inflation as a goal. If Bernanke is supporting an inflation target that is a range of positive numbers, then he clearly isn't in that camp. Striving for zero inflation also means accepting deflation as a risk, which Bernanke's comments have implied isn't his style.

Point being, inflation targets are certainly seen by some as being bad because the constrain the bank. But inflation targets are also certainly seen by another group as being bad because they are inherently inflationary (unless we are saying that the target is zero or a negative number, which isn't what Bernanke is saying, and it is silly to bring up). -O^O

So nice when Wikipedia editors discuss and then agree on a compromise! This is very-un-wiki behavior... I may have to start reverting to get an edit war going. Anyway, I think the current language is fine, thanks for hashing it out. Now, I think we should have a separate inflation targeting article, as the current inflation article is too long and doesn't really address targeting very much. Maybe over the weekend... Afelton 00:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statistically likely IQ

RLove: Your arbitrary exclusion of the reference to Bernanke's IQ and its rarity in the population is high-handed. It is a fact of potential interest to many, and serves to highlight one (of many) reasons he should seriously be considered for the position.

To include a reference in the body of the text would be pedantic and would destroy the flow of the article. Nonetheless, the conversion is well accepted in the high IQ universe and has been subjected to rigorous testing over the years.

The article is not simply a discussion of macroeconomics; it is a portrait of a man. The fact and insight I added contributes to that portrait.

But if you need the warm fuzzy of researching this conversion, I suggest you start with www.davidpbrown.co.uk. Further study on your part will serve only to confirm the accuracy of my addition.

I shan't bother to reinsert the addition. Your type would love to re-exert your power of "reversion". If you'd like to take it up at a more personal level, I am Donnernv@aol.com

His IQ is one thing, the correlation between SAT scores and what his IQ is statistically likely to be his quite another. Further, even if we acknowledge that that is interesting, I doubt the validity. Information besides economics is very interesting -- this is a bio, after all. But unsubstantiated correlated data is not a bio. This is a professional quality encyclopedia.

Another point: Should we start placing the correlated IQ after every mention of someone's SAT score? What about placing other correlated data, translated data, synonyms, equivalents, et cetera after every applicable value? Should we do that, too? Of course not. We could get into a never ending mess. Rlove 15:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I think "I doubt the validity" was pretty well discredited as a telling argument in a scientific inquiry after 1359 AD or so. You can bring youself up to speed by reading Frey and Detterman (2003) from Case Western Reserve or the excellent review article "Mostly About the SAT as an IQ Test" published in the September 1999 issue of Telicom, the Journal of the International Society of Philosophical Inquiry.

Until you do so, your comments will receive the weight they deserve. Your second paragraph simply contains straw men that have nothing to do with the precise subject at hand. Donnernv

No, the second paragraph is actually the key point. We don't put indirect information such as this in encyclopedias. If people want to see the link between SATs and IQs, that is an interesting bit of information to add (if properly referenced) to SAT -- which, btw, currently has a section on IQ that is not fully supportive of your claim. But, anyhow, we don't parenthetically add after every x the note "which implies y" whenever we have the evidence suggesting the correlation. Lots of data about Bernanke makes him statistically likely to possess all sorts of implications; we don't list that. See my point? It is not that your SAT <-> IQ link is not interesting, it is just not a direct piece of data about Bernanke and thus does not belong here. Rlove 04:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess I missed the memo that announced that you had been appointed the Grand Arbiter of all things Wikipedia. Who is the "we" to whom you refer in your second sentence? And if you are not, in fact, the Grand Arbiter, what is your justification for deciding what "we" will or not add?

Justify your assumed position. Now.

Donnernv

Please do not be so combative or commanding. I am not, in any way, a "Grand Arbiter" of Wikipedia. I am trying, unfortunately without much success, to make a nuanced and logical argument to you, in an effort to CONVINCE not DICTATE TO you of this position. This really is not the mountain it has been made to be; the issue is simply. My name, Robert, has certain statistical implications according to the book Freakonomics (seriously). But whenever I list my name, I don't write down those correlations. For a lot of reasons: it is just a correlation, for one. But the most important point is that the data is not directly related to ME. Every piece of data in the world has statistically-likely implications. They belong in articles about the data. Bernanke is a wonderful economist and he is going to get confirmed, no doubt. But unless we have proof of his actual IQ... Rlove 17:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

If the Israeli's had the oil it would be sold at a discount and there wouldn't be any terrorism.

[edit] First name

Is his given first name Bernard, or Benjamin, or just Ben?

--MZMcBride 03:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's how he says it, Bernanke himself... I'm a great believer in respecting an individual's personal expression, of this sort of preference: some parents give their kids pretty awful names...

"Ben S. Bernanke sworn in as fourteenth Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System..."

http://www.federalreserve.gov/

"Members of the Board of Governors -- Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman..."

http://www.federalreserve.gov/bios/

"Ben S. Bernanke (Ph. D., MIT, 1979), is the Howard Harrison and Gabrielle Snyder Beck Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at Princeton University and the Chairman of the Department of Economics..."

http://www.princeton.edu/~bernanke/

-- seems to me pretty clear that he wants to be called just plain "Ben".

I figure if Bernanke wanted to advertise his religion, or lack of it, or political preferences or eating Wheaties every morning or anything else, using his name, he'd have done so himself. He hasn't. So the rest of us would be just second-guessing to do so, and I think we shouldn't. We should let him speak for himself, on this, and from the above it appears to me that he has.

--Kessler 17:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean there is NO birth certificate ANYWHERE containing his full name? No school record ANYWHERE where is name is written in full? No government document he EVER signed using his full name? No interview with his parents where they say his full name? Very ODD, to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.164.27 (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ben S.

The name Ben Shalom appears to have been vandalism thrown in as follows:

(cur) (last) 17:45, 24 October 2005 GabrielRozenberg (shalom)

-- and never corrected. I've looked, and never found any website or bibliographic or other reference in which Bernanke himself has used anything other than "Ben S." -- if someone else does, please post that evidence here if you make the change, otherwise we'll just rv. it if that "Ben Shalom" pops up again.

--Kessler 16:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi - this wasn't vandalism. Not sure what my source was now but I think it was Reuters. Fair enough if you want to remove it until we can back it up properly - fine by me - but unless he's like Harry S. Truman the S must stand for something, and once we know what it is for certain, I think we should put it in in full. Given that it has never been corrected in the past four months, I think it's plausible that I got it right, but like I say, I've not got the source to hand. Perhaps someone else can help. Gabriel Rozenberg 00:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, that didn't take too long... Our source is the White House nomination itself. Seems pretty reliable to me.

[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/nominations/94.html]

On the basis of this reference, I'm going to reinstate Shalom. It's not the same as the question over Ben/Benjamin; Ben is clearly the first name he goes by, whereas S. is just an abbreviation for the middle name Shalom which he has. The Wikipedia convention is clearly to use the name in full at first mention; eg George W. Bush starts George Walker Bush, despite the fact he doesn't go around calling himself that on anything other than his passport. GabrielRozenberg 01:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

OK & agreed: he & they would have been careful, on that announcement. But now, does that mean he's "Jewish"? That was the original problem, here... I say no, that he isn't unless & until he says he is.

ps. On the Web there are plenty of websites & blogs etc. claiming that Bernanke is Jewish -- some to praise him, some to put him down -- and guess what a large number of them cite, this very Wikipedia article... So I think we have to be careful, about these things, & observe some standards... If a guy doesn't want his beliefs discussed, and doesn't discuss them, our own labeling of them is sheer & sometimes-dangerous speculation, I believe.

--Kessler 01:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bernanke's not a politician

Chairman Bernanke's not a politician. He is a public official, but his position as Chairman of the Fed is independent of the political process, sort of in the same way that a judge is. I removed from the group "Jewish-American politicians" because I thought that didn't make sense.

If that is true then how come he keeps feeding us the same load of garbage, he's telling us that with four dollar gas and rising unemployment the economy is doing great, now unless he knows of some secret new oil supplies being released or somethig I don't see how he can go on telling us that

[edit] "theory"

I do not understand (or like) the remark about "theory" at the end of the current article.

First, his academic work is not really theory. It is very empirical. So the claim is inaccurate.

Second, if the article is going to cite some objection to his appointment, can it be specific? That is, force a critic to be quoted in public? Right now the article is just reciting hearsay.

For the record, very, very few of the members of the Board of Governors are or have been "investors." The Fed is not supposed to be Wall Street, Incorporated. --66.108.95.115 21:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Career Controversy"

I agree with the theory post above - get some source for this or delete it. In addition, I don't think you can argue that the real life experience of some finance jockey constitutes preparation for determining the supply of money. All the Fed needs to know is how changes in the money supply affect the economy and the actions rational actors will take. The idea that he has no business experience and is thus unsuited is bull; I think his lack of business experience maybe reduces his initial credibility on Wall Street, and that's all.

I have removed the "Career Controversy" section because it was nothing but weasel words. The text I removed was:

Due to the fact that Bernanke has never actually worked in corporate America in his lifetime, investors and some economists argue that he is not suited for his position as Chairman of the Fed, fearing that his lack of real life economic experience makes him more likely to institute theoretically attractive but practically untested policies.

-- JHP 05:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German Pronunciation

Why is the German Pronunciation included? He's not German. Does he speak German and call himself that name in that language? Documenting the pronunciation of names in foreign languages might make an interesting article on its own, but I don't see how it's relevant here. As always, I'm happy for someone to show that I'm wrong. Ryanluck 16:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial statements

Shouldn't it be mentioned that Bernanke said something like how union decline has been bad? He said some other things in that speech. -Amit

[edit] Vandalism -- the removal of valid categories and a valid source

Please cease the vandalism of this page. The vandalism consists of the removal of a reference to Bernanke's childhood/familial faith (see [4]) and the removal of 5 valid categories including:

The removal of valid sources and categories from articles is considered vandalism, so please desist from removing factual information from Wikipedia. Thank you. --Wassermann 08:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

Let this article's edit history note the blatant censorship of valid, factual, relevant, and sourced information that is occurring on this page by User:Jayjg, User:Humus sapiens, User:Bishonen, User:King of Corsairs (possible sockpuppet?), and others. --Wassermann 07:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wassermann... Changes you wish to contest do not necessarily constitute Vandalism. "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." The fact that information is sourced does not mean that that information is relevant, useful, or in any way enriches an article. King of Corsairs 01:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems like too many editors are marching out of step with you. Sourced doesn't mean notable, and I don't see any relevance of his alleged Jewishness to his biography/career. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This dosen't make much sense. There are 100s if not 1,000s of bios that include folks in the above categories. Why is it importanty to keep this out of his bio? Thanks, --Tom 13:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it shouldn't be in those other articles. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#All or nothing is also relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wassermann, your persistent cries of "vandalism" and "censorship" are a violation of WP:CIVIL. Please review Humus Sapiens' comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I definitely don't think "vandalism" and "censorship" are appropriate words to use here. But it does raise an interesting point which I've been pondering with regard to some other biographical articles - how do you objectively define what is relevant to the biography? Rather than attempting to substitute our own judgment for that of reliable sources, I would suggest that the best approach would be to regard as relevant the information that is attested by the subject himself or by multiple reliable third-party sources (such as biographical profiles in reputable media outlets). For instance, if media outlets X, Y and Z all independently cite a particular biographical detail, it's reasonable to assume that the detail in question is notable. -- ChrisO 20:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name in Hebrew?

Is his name in Hebrew really necessary? I thought that was only for Israelis or rabbis (i.e. people who are often/primarily/traditionally referred to in that language or who spoke that language themselves). I mean, there's no Hebrew name for Einstein, Alan Greenspan, Madeline Albright etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.166.176 (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I took it out. Lots of people have Hebrew-derived names, but it doesn't make sense to put the Hebrew in for all those cases. Pfalstad 01:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If the name is in Hebrew (it's not derived from Hebrew it is actually Hebrew)-than, why not to write it down in Hebrew? And more, you should finish the discussion before you delete something which is not a vandalism, other wise-it's really don’t look good. How ever, the all issue is not of great importance.And oh, Einstein, Greenspan and Albright (which is not Jewish any way) are not a Hebrew names —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilisa (talk • contribs) 08:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] THE OBJECTIVE OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE ITSELF

It came as a surprise to me to find out that the Federal Reserve is not an actual government agency per se, just look it up in the phone book. It seems we are moving towards a zero or near zero interest rate policy. Japan seems to be a precursor to what will happen to the U.S. economy if this is the course taken, Mr. Bernanke’s “Helicopter Drop Policy”, should be thoroughly read by anyone viewing this page. Please view this compelling documentary for more information. My thoughts after viewing it was to pay off debt, live within your means buy Gold and consider who The Money Masters are. Documentary site: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&q=the+money+masters&total=612&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Edit I removed the final sentence - Ron Paul's criticism of Bernanke - because it seems to me inappropriate for a neutral encyclopedia article. Its inclusion would seem to me suitable only in a separate section on politicians' comments on the Fed chairman including politicians across the spectrum, or even presidential candidates in general. That MIGHT give the reader a fairer view of general political opinion. But the removed sentence by itself gave the reader - perhaps a neophyte or student - a misleading impression of the neutral/ consensus view of Bernanke. (It would be suitable in the entry on Paul, however.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brozhnik (talk • contribs) 04:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I put the Ron Paul clip in. I figured someone would probably remove it. There is quite a bit of opinion in this article. Given that not all opinion is elided, I think Bernanke comes off far too well. Many educated and intelligent people believe as I do that he is party to the ongoing destruction of the US economy, the decimation of the US middle class and savaging of the poor, all through reckless inflationary monetary policy and market intervention. Isn't that worth a passing mention? Jive Dadson (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bernanke Flinch

Does anyone have a source for this term? Wikipedia is the first I've heard of it.66.150.206.225 (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to come here to explain why I just REMOVED the sentence about the so-called "Bernanke Flinch." For one thing, as the above comment notes, it absolutely would have to be referenced to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Moreover, it would need to be much more specific. "Rogue Trader" is presumably a reference to Jerome Kerviel of the Societe Generale bank in France, but -- if that's what it means -- the idea that the effect of rapidly unwinding Kerviel's frauds had anything to do with Bernanke is highly unconvincing. (But the entry doesn't say anything specific- all the more reason it should go.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brozhnik (talk • contribs) 03:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Family members in Early Life...

4/13/2008: I edited some information in the Early Life section, relating to family members. This included removal of the erroneous information that David Bernanke is Ben's younger brother and Chair of Anatomy at Medical University of South Carolina. As the aforementioned David Bernanke, I feel comfortable to delete this information. I am actually Ben's cousin (4 years older, in fact), and I am Course Director of the medical gross anatomy course at Medical University of South Carolina, but certainly not the Chairman of the department. I also added some information about Ben's younger brother and sister (my other cousins...). There was a bit of mixup about his grandfathers, which will be further corrected as I confirm information with other bits of family. We DO have an interesting family history, with a lot of varied vocations among the several cousins... but this is certainly true for all families, I think. Does this information really need to be posted in Wiki ? I would appreciate some input on this question. Dbernanke (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.