Talk:Fractional-reserve banking/Archive 11
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
Time to change which theory gets prominence?
Goodbye to e-x-t-e-n-d-e-d OR debate, soapbox and tail-chase. Any new thread should stick to RS content and weight |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
There are two competing theories about how the monetary system works presented on the main page. The "money multiplier" theory and the "endogenous money" theory. Up until now the "money multiplier" model has been presented prominently with the "endogenous money" scarcely mentioned or being presented as "alternative" or "heterodox". There have been many peer reviewed papers suggesting that the endogenous money theory is the one that actually corresponds to reality, but as some wiki editors pointed out (perhaps rightly) have been in rather small journals and have been paid little attention by the mainstream. However this all changed at the start of 2014 when McLeay et al published "Money creation in the modern economy" in the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, arguably the most authoritative journal on the workings of the monetary system that exists. This paper has since had 230 citations. Correct me if I'm wrong but I do not know of any academic papers that have challenged the paper and defended the money multiplier. At what point should wikipedia acknowledge that the endogenous money theory has become the new consensus? Now perhaps? Indeed former Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada, William R White seems to think the consensus changed already, when in 2002 he said: "Some decades ago, the academic literature would have emphasised the importance of the reserves supplied by the central bank to the banking system, and the implications (via the money multiplier) for the growth of money and credit. Today, it is more broadly understood that no industrial country conducts policy in this way under normal circumstances." Oh, and before anyone reminds me that I have brought up this issue before, I should just point out that things have since changed. There has now been a high profile, much referenced, paper in the public domain for the best part of three years. This was not the case last time.
Given their previous resistance to this change, I had better ping @Lawrencekhoo: and @SPECIFICO: for their comments. Reissgo (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I have never seen a textbook that says that banks routinely make loans by actually physically paying out the money the banks have previously received as deposits. Perhaps editor Reissgo has cited sources that claim that numerous texts more or less do this. Reissgo some other editor may have provided such citations on this or other talk pages. My college text was by Paul M. Horvitz, entitled Monetary Policy and the Financial System (Prentice-Hall, 3rd ed. 1974). I am at work and I don't have the Horvitz text with me right now, but I recall that the Horvitz text makes the same sort of comment that Friedman made about the fact that even many bankers do not fully understand how certain aspects of banking work. However, Horvitz certainly does not make the preposterous claim that banks in the United States routinely make loans by having customers leave the banks with bags of currency and coin. In all my years of training in college and law school, and in all my years as a bank auditor, I never once heard or read of any banker or academic making the claim that Reissgo seems to think people are making about the money multiplier effect. The money multiplier is not a way to describe how banks routinely make loans. I would be astonished to find a reputable college text that claims that banks routinely make loans by having customers walk out of the bank lobby with huge bags of currency and coin. Instead, the money multiplier is a description of a mathematical relationship regarding the effect of certain things that can happen in the banking system. Where an author uses the money multiplier to describe a particular effect, this does not mean that the author is trying to describe a routine, actual, physical process. A while back, I explained this with the analogy of driving a car. The way that banks routinely make loans (debit loan receivable, credit deposit liability) is analogous to the way a driver uses the accelerator pedal, brake, steering wheel, etc., to drive a car, while the money multiplier effect is analogous to the mathematical relationship that describers the distance a car might travel if a given amount of pressure on the accelerator is applied for a given period of time. And, by the way, that does not mean that there are no other forces acting on the car. If the car is repeatedly bumping an immovable brick wall, then applying pressure to the accelerator might simply cause the wheels to spin, without the car going the distance it would otherwise go. So, in addition to NOT being a way to describe how banks actually routinely make loans, the money multiplier ALSO is NOT the ONLY description of the mathematical relationships inherent in banking. Again, maybe the citations to these weird texts have already been posted, but if so I think it would be helpful if someone re-posted them. I would like to see citations to the specific academic texts that actually claim that the money multiplier is a description of the actual physical, routine process of making bank loans. I would be curious to see author, title, publication date, and quotes from the actual texts. Much heat has been generated over this issue on these talk pages, so perhaps such texts do exist. Famspear (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC) PS: Just as it is incorrect to claim that the money multiplier effect is an accurate way to describe how banks routinely make loans, it is just as incorrect to claim (as one editor has done on another talk page) that it is physically impossible for a bank to make a loan to one customer by using currency previously deposited by another customer. Obviously, it is physically possible. It's just not how things are usually done. Again, if this were the way things were routinely done (if the money multiplier were a description of a routine banking process), you would see people walking out of bank lobbies everywhere with loans in the form of bags of money. However, if such an aberration never occurred, there would be no need for the AICPA Audit Guide for bank auditors to have designated that practice as a weakness in internal control. In the United States, under the Federal Reserve System rules, bank reserves include (but are not limited to) the actual physical vault cash -- the actual paper currency and coin owned by the bank. A commercial bank can indeed make a loan using some of its reserves -- it's just that the practice is not routine, and it would be frowned upon by bank auditors. Famspear (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
PS: I do recall that someone, on one of these talk pages, had provided a link to a list of citations where various people claimed that various texts espoused the idea that the money multiplier is a description of how banks actually, physically, routinely create money in the form of deposit liabilities. It's just that I have never seen the various texts themselves. I'm not saying that the texts don't exist, and I'm not saying that the texts aren't making the erroneous claim that Reissgo (and apparently others) believe the texts are making. I'm just saying that I haven't seen the texts myself. It might be helpful -- before we try to "correct" a Wikipedia article that does not really seem to me to be making the objectionable claim that Reissgo seems to think the article is making -- to track down some more of the background for this whole "controversy." Famspear (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
If we can locate some of these texts that contain the supposedly misleading information about what the money multiplier is, we might find that the problem is really just imprecise use of language. In our every day speech and writing, we write and say things that are not denotatively correct, but which are connotatively correct in the sense that we are using the words we use. Example: We often say that such and such a health insurance policy covers this or that "pre-existing condition." Under the so-called Obamacare law in the United States, we often say that coverage of pre-existing conditions is now mandatory. Of course, denotatively, this is false -- or at least it is imprecise, if we think carefully about it. Technically, most health insurance policies do not "cover" a "condition," pre-existing or otherwise. Generally speaking, an insurance company is not going to pay benefits merely because you have a particular "condition." What the insurance company does is to pay the COSTS that you incur in connection with suffering from that condition. The insurance company pays some or all of your doctor bill, your hospital bill, your prescription drug bill, and so on. It's not the state of having the condition that is being "covered"; it's the actual COSTS you incur in connection with that condition that are covered. A few months ago, I actually heard a well-known radio commentator base an argument on the fallacy of his thinking that "coverage" of a pre-existing condition literally meant covering the condition itself, rather than the cost incurred because of that condition. (Of course, there are thousands of insurance companies, so perhaps there is are a few somewhere that literally pay you just for having a medical condition -- but the examples of that would be pretty rare.) Precision in language can be important. In economics, however, certain concepts about certain phenomena are taught in isolation -- to aid the student in grasping the concept, with the understanding that other phenomena will be explained later, in a later teaching, and that both the currently-taught concept and the later-to-be taught phenomena can have inter-related effects that will be explained later. Sometimes, the teacher may not be as precise in the use of language as he or she should be. Other times, however, the student should be expected to understand that a certain basic concept is being taught in isolation, and that the student should be able to overcome the teacher's imprecision in the use of language. Perhaps we might later find that some texts that explain the money multiplier are doing so in, shall we say, an "inartful" manner. Famspear (talk) 20:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear Reissgo: Thanks for providing an example of what I was asking about -- in this case, the Mankiw textbook. I believe this is an example of what I was discussing: a situation where a text is denotatively wrong. The Mankiw statement that a bank "keeps 10 percent of its deposits in reserve and loans out the rest" -- if taken literally -- is simply not a correct statement of the physical process of how banks generally and routinely make loans. So, if a student were to take the Mankiw statement literally, the student would definitely be misled. Mankiw apparently is trying to teach, but at best is not being precise in his use of the English language. Now, it might be that Mankiw does not realize that he's misleading the reader. If we were to ask Mankiw whether he is trying to say that bank customers routinely walk out of the bank with their loans in the form of actual bags of paper currency and coin, we would hope that Mankiw would say "no," and would come to realize that he has used the language in an imprecise way in his textbook. To your next point: You seem to be saying that because the central bank does not keep the amount of central bank money constant and because "the ceiling simply does not apply to the real world," that we should change the way the money multiplier is presented in the Wikipedia article. You seem to be saying that presenting the details on the money multiplier is like "discussing how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin" and, apparently you find the presentation objectionable for that reason. But articles and texts on economics are full of illustrations like this. Again, to use your own analogy, our awareness of the fact that some water is draining out of a bathtub should not prevent us from explaining, in mathematical terms, the effect of the water that is simultaneously flowing into the bathtub. Life is complicated, human interactions are complicated, and therefore the study of economics is complicated. The math of the money multiplier is analogous to the math of the water flowing into the bathtub. The math is not "wrong," and the money multiplier is not like "fairies dancing on the head of a pin." The money multiplier simply needs to be explained and understood in the context of the larger picture of how banking works. The fact that we might recognize that the central bank does not maintain the amount of central bank money at a constant level does not necessarily mean that the money multiplier -- where properly described in reasonably precise language -- is wrong. Just as a footnote: I cannot speak for Lawrence, but I am not claiming that the Bank of England paper is compatible with all "textbook stories" on banking. I am saying that the Bank of England paper -- at least as you have described it -- appears to be compatible with the textbook I studied in college. Famspear (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Bernie Sanders said, "Enough with the damned Bank of England already." SPECIFICO talk 13:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear Reissgo: What do you mean by "why not tell the story correctly in the first place?"? What specific verbiage in the article is "so blatantly wrong"? Please copy and paste it here on the talk page. Famspear (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC) PS: I'll help you out. At the beginning of this section, you state: "There are two competing theories about how the monetary system works presented on the main page. The "money multiplier" theory and the "endogenous money" theory." Except for your reference to the error in the Mankiw text, you have not (as far as I know) identified any place where the money multiplier concept has been presented incorrectly. Specfically, nowhere in this Wikipedia article is the Mankiw error present in any part of the brief discussion of the money multiplier. As this article is presently constructed, there are precisely eleven places where the term "money multiplier" is present. Please copy and paste the specific text using that term that you feel constitutes "not telling the story correctly." Thanks. Famspear (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
PS: Reissgo, the rest of us are not here to evaluate the Bank of England paper (by Michael McLeay, Amar Radia and Ryland Thomas). Indeed, the Bank of England paper is for the most part correct. Here are some excerpts:
That is essentially correct. Banks only rarely lend out their reserves. I have been through this with you over and over and over. People almost never borrow money by walking out of the bank with bags of paper currency and coin. Such a lending practice is specifically considered a weakness in internal control in the AICPA guidance for bank auditors.
That is essentially correct. Nothing in the Wikipedia description of the money multiplier materially contradicts that.
The authors are using the term "money multiplier" in a slightly different way than is described in the article. As described in the article, the money multiplier is a way of estimating the size of the money supply. The authors are not using the term that way. They are using the term to describe the misconception that some people have -- misconceptions perhaps made worse by comments such as those by Mankiw -- about how the system actually works.
Those are correct statements. The Wikipedia article is not materially inconsistent with those statements.
That may well be the case -- but the Wikipedia article description of the money multiplier is not materially inconsistent with that assertion. Famspear (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC) References Proposed addition RE: credit creationRessigo, I think the way forward, if you still want to change the article, is to suggest incremental changes to the presentation. I would support for example, a caveat in the money-multiplier section that the lending-relending process from a monetary injection (that the simple money multiplier model presents) does not usually happen in today's institutional framework. Instead a lowering of the interest rate causes banks to slowly increase credit creation. Also, it would not be remiss to include more discussion of how the Basel capital controls limits bank credit creation. However, I want to note that sources (like the BoE article you reference) that state that the simple money multiplier model is 'wrong' does not imply that the endogenous money view is right. In a sense, all models are 'wrong'. For example, the LM curve from the IS-LM model is wrong in today's institutional framework, where the supply of money is elastic. However, the IS-LM model is still a standard fixture of textbooks, and so it should remain in Keynesian economics page. As long as the money multiplier is a fixture of standard texts about the banking system, it should remain here. It is a standard fixture in texts because it is an illuminating model that helps readers to understand the way the banking system works. Although the institution framework is more complicated today, the money multiplier model helps readers understand how fractional reserve banking allows a larger supply of money, by illustrating what would happen in a simple fractional reserve banking system where there is a fixed supply of money. LK (talk) 03:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with SPECIFICO on this. Further, LK has now provided some revised language which appears to be quite an improvement. Famspear (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear Reissgo: In the Bank of England article, “Money creation in the modern economy” by Michael McLeay, Amar Radia and Ryland Thomas, the authors correctly point out that there is a flaw in the idea that “the central bank determines the quantity of loans and deposits in the economy by controlling the quantity of central bank money”. The authors refer to this idea as the “money multiplier approach.” That is not the same thing as the money multiplier as described in the Wikipedia article. I haven't had a chance to read the entire McLeay article yet, but in relevant part the points are as follows:
That is a correct statement. The article also states that one misconception is:
Neither of those statements support the assertions you are making, Reissgo. As used in the Wikipedia article, the term money multiplier has a different meaning. In Wikipedia, the term instead describes a mathematical formula for estimating the amount of the money supply based on the amount of commercial bank reserves, etc. Like it or not, Reissgo, the money multiplier -- as that term is used in the Wikipedia article and by Horvitz -- is indeed a way of estimating the amount of the money supply based on the amount of commercial bank reserves, etc. Again, I haven't read the entire McLeay article yet, but nothing I have seen in McLeay supports your position that the money multiplier has no predictive value (if you mean "predictive" in the limited sense of providing an estimate). Your "child's piggy bank" analogy is also wrong. Neither Wikipedia, or LK, nor Horvitz, nor I are saying that the money multiplier does what you seem to be claiming we are saying it does. To be a bit circular for the sake of emphasis: an estimate is an estimate. Famspear (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC) Reissgo -- WP:NOT
Dear Reissgo: Your edit looks good to me. Famspear (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC) PS: With respect to the money multiplier, what is often being calculated is generally an estimate -- i.e., an approximation of the amount of something -- but that's a minor point, I guess. Famspear (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear Reissgo: No, if by "perfectly precise" you mean exact -- to the maximum possible amount of actual dollar and penny (or pound or Euro, or whatever). Further, an economist knows that the money multiplier, in its simplest mathematical form, does not account for paper currency and coin held by the general public. The money multiplier cannot be a "perfectly precise" computation or exact prediction of the actual maximum possible amount of the money supply right down to the last dollar, etc. By definition, we are talking about a process of ratio analysis and computation of estimates or approximations -- not of something "precise" -- regardless of whether you are discussing A or B or C in your list. Famspear (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear Reissgo: I am saying that the money multiplier does not apply in the real world as anything other than an estimate of what it purports to measure: the size (or maximum possible size) of the money supply. I repeat what I wrote earlier: The money multiplier is not generally intended to be a computation of the exact amount of the money supply at a given time. It is used to compute an estimate of the maximum possible amount of the money supply at a given time. You cannot compute a "precise" amount where the ratio you are using is only an estimate. If, in a particular economy, you could come up with a ratio that is precise (i.e., is not an estimate), then I suppose you might be able to compute a "precise" maximum possible amount of the money supply in that particular economy, perhaps. In the United States, to compute what I might call (for purposes of discussion) the effective money multiplier (i.e., a ratio that would not be an estimate at all) would require a tremendous amount of detailed data from thousands of commercial banks, etc. Famspear (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC) PS: For new readers of this discussion, some background: the money multiplier as it is often presented, is a rounded figure, such as 2.6 or 3.1. In such a case, the multiplier is not the exact, precise multiplicative inverse of the reserve ratio or of anything else -- for the simply reason that that is no " the reserve ratio". At least in the United States, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in its Regulation D, prescribes a graduated, or progressive, rate schedule. As of the time of this writing (mid-November 2016), the Board of Governors actually prescribes three different reserve requirement rates (zero percent, three percent, and ten percent) that apply to various components or levels of what are called "Net Transaction Accounts". In the United States, there is no "one and only one" prescribed reserve ratio that applies to all commercial banks in the economy at any given time, so a computation using a money multiplier based on only one reserve ratio will, by definition not be precise; the computation will result in an estimate. To compute a "precise" effective money multiplier, for the entire American economy, you might at a minimum have to take into consideration the data from each of thousands of commercial banks separately, and with that data you would compute an effective reserve ratio and an effective money multiplier. To be accurate enough to calculate an exact, precise amount to the nearest dollar or even the nearest thousand dollars, the money multiplier you use would almost have to be a precise number, carried out to many, many decimal places. Perhaps the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or someone else is doing that, but that's what it would take. Famspear (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear Reissgo: No, you aren't baffled by my arguments at all. You're just bobbing and weaving -- in response to what I have clearly explained. Re-read your own comments. Then, read my response. You stated: "....the 1/RR equation is perfectly precise, it is not an estimate or approximation at all because what it is predicting is the *maximum* quantity, not the *observed* quantity." I pointed out that no, the money multiplier is an estimate. Therefore, any amount that is computed by multiplying that estimate by some other number is, by definition, only an estimate. This is true regardless of whether you are talking about your "A" version of the money multiplier, or your "B" version, or your "C" version, or any other version. A dollar amount (or a pound amount, or a Euro amount, etc.) computed based on an estimate will itself also be an estimate. The fact that a given version of the money multiplier might be "predicting" the maximum quantity of something (and not an "observed" quantity) does not change the fact that the money multiplier is an estimate and that the "maximum quantity" that will be computed thereby will also be an estimate. Generally, you cannot magically conjure an exact, precise amount of anything from a computation that involves a figure that is an estimate (such as a rounded off amount, in this case). What you will come up with is an estimate of the maximum quantity, etc. Famspear (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, that would be one example. When you use a money multiplier that was computed based on an effective reserve ratio which in turn is based on multiple reserve ratios, the money multiplier, when used in a formula, could result in a maximum obtainable money quantity that is an estimate (i.e., that is not the exact maximum amount). Further, you could envision a situation where a central bank computed a money multiplier from just one reserve ratio, but decided to either round or truncate the published version of the money multiplier. In that situation, the maximum obtainable money quantity computed from that money multiplier would be an estimate (not the exact maximum amount). In short, a computation using a factor that is either (A) based on an average of multiple numbers, or (B) based on a truncated figure, or (C) based on a rounded figure, or (D) some combination of the foregoing, that is multiplied by something to determine "some other amount", is generally going to result in that "some other amount" being an estimate. Famspear (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
|
More on money creation
The equivalent of excess reserves is loaned out, NOT the excess reserves themselves. Banks do this by issuing credit out of thin air, and it is how some banks can lend out money with a zero reserve requirements.
When the Federal Reserve creates money it eventually reaches the level of commercial banks, perpetuating this process of debt-money creation.
https://archive.org/details/NationalEconomyAndTheBankingSystemOfTheUnitedStates (PAGE 102)
Robert H. Hemphill (former credit manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta) explains it nicely:
If all bank loans were paid, no one would have a bank deposit, and there would not be a dollar of currency or coin in circulation. This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the commercial banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money, we are properous: If not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent monetary system. When one gets a complete grasp upon the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible-but there it is. It (the banking problem) is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it is widely understood and the defects remedied very soon.
--IntelligentName (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Demand deposits
Are referred to as "demand deposits" -- please undo this nonsense along with the rest of it. Use talk. Edit warring is not constructive. SPECIFICO talk 13:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
One textbook is not "many" textbooks
User Reissgo has located one example -- the Mankiw text -- where an aspect of the money multiplier is incorrectly described. There may well be other such texts as well. However, we cannot cite just the Mankiw text for the proposition that “many texts” contain the error.
On a related note: In their Bank of England article, “Money Creation in the Modern Economy”, writers Michael McLeay, Amar Radia and Ryland Thomas make this statement:
- “One common misconception is that banks act simply as intermediaries, lending out the deposits that savers place with them.”
But, where do McLeay, Radia and Thomas provide the evidence that this misconception is in fact “common”? Unless I missed it in their article, they did not do that. If the misconception cited by McLeay, Radia and Thomas is really so “common,” they should have cited specific examples of where the misconception is found (such as actual textbooks, etc.).
One error in the Mankiw text does not constitute evidence that “many textbooks” include the same error. (On a separate note, the aforementioned bald assertion by McLeay, Radia and Thomas probably would not constitute such evidence, either.)
Speaking of which: We could consider mentioning, in the Wikipedia article, that McLeay, Radia and Thomas assert that the misconception they describe happens to be “common”. After all, McLeay, Radia and Thomas are reliable sources. If we were to do that, however, we should stick to what the reliable sources actually say. Because McLeay, Radia and Thomas assert that the misconception is “common,” Wikipedia can report that those particular authors have taken that position. We would need to be clear that it is those three individuals making that assertion, not Wikipedia itself. Famspear (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Searching for multiple example of the ermmm, "Mankiw error" would be "original research" which is not allowed on wikipedia. Wikipedia is based on finding reliable sources for claims... so if McLeay et al say that many textbooks have the Mankiw-error then that's the end if it. Reissgo (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- See my comments above. McLeay et al don't say that many textbooks have the Mankiw-error. McLeay et al say that the misconception is "common." We can cite McLeay for what McLeay actually contends -- but to go beyond that is original research.
- No, searching for multiple, additional examples of the error that Mankiw made would not be original research as that term is used in Wikipedia. However, finding and citing such multiple examples -- and then adding a conclusion formulated by Wikipedia editors that those examples are erroneous -- could be original research -- IF we do that without citing to a reliable source that asserts what we are saying. Famspear (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@Famspear: I hadn't noticed that staff paper by the 3 BOE employees. It's not noteworthy and not academically reviewed so I deleted the content. SPECIFICO talk 22:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- Disagree, sources are noteworthy and the text is hardly controversial. We all agree there was an error, which in this business is certainly noteworthy. The sources are widely accepted and published. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Darkstar1st. Saying that a paper is not "academically reviewed" is not a substantial reason for deletion. Indeed, the vast majority of sources in Wikipedia are not "academically reviewed" (at least, not in the sense of peer-reviewed). And, I see no support for the idea that the paper is not "noteworthy". Famspear (talk) 12:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ladies and gentlemen, "noteworthy" has a defined meaning on WP. You think this is a top quality frequently cited mainstream paper? What about the millions of other staff articles written at the world's banks? Also belong in an encyclopedia? You are writing an encyclopedia. Please consider all the sourcing policies including POV and self published. SPECIFICO talk 12:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear SPECIFICO: I was responding to your use of the term "noteworthy." No, the term "noteworthy" does not have a defined meaning in WP:V or WP:NPOV or WP:NOR.
Further, to the best of my knowledge, there is no Wikipedia rule in WP:V or WP:NPOV or WP:NOR that says that an article has to be "noteworthy" (to use your as-yet undefined term) to be used as a source.
There is also no requirement that a source be a "top quality frequently cited mainstream paper." Many, many sources in Wikipedia are not "frequently" cited. Further, you have not defined what you mean by the term "top quality". Actually, there is no Wikipedia requirement that a source be "top quality," either.
So, what about the supposed "millions of other staff articles"? What's your point, exactly?
Regarding "POV": Sources are allowed to be biased, and sources are allowed to have a POV. In Wikipedia, neutral point of view does not mean that the source has to be neutral or unbiased.
The article in question is, I believe, "Money creation in the modern economy" by Michael McLeay, Amar Radia, and Ryland Thomas. As best I can tell, the article in question is not "self published." It apparently was published in the "Quarterly Bulletin" of the Bank of England in 2014, right on the web site of the Bank of England. See [3]. Famspear (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC) From WP:NPOV:
- "......Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source)."
That's the only place I have found that uses the term "noteworthy" -- but it does not define the term and it does not actually say that a source has to be noteworthy. It deals only with the subject of using certain kinds of expressions that may be flattering, disparaging, vague, etc. That's not the issue we're discussing here. Famspear (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Famspear, there is a definition of noteworthy, which is relevant to what content is allowed in articles, see WP:NOTEWORTHY. It basically says that one should stick to WP:RS and be careful not to give the readership the idea that a concept is more important than WP:DUE. There was at one point a push to try and delete any sources and the material they backed up) that were not widely regarded as The Best Sources Ever, see WP:MAINSTREAM for the remnant thereof, but that proposed sea-change was not adopted. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)