Jump to content

Talk:Bretton Woods Conference/Archives/2013

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Open markets

Open Markets?!?! Is anyone else here aware that the IMF charter for one expressly encourages member nations to use capital controls to alleviate balance of payment difficulties? The source would be the original charter for pete's sake! I think it is absolutely a horrendous mistake to say that the conference supported open markets. The correct statement would be that the conference encouraged open trade arrangements, and more over expressly discouraged open capital movements in favor of an imbedded liberal financial system. Further proof would be the very slow move to capital account convertability in almost all of the member nations. Some took decades! 71.171.110.131 03:12, 14 August 2007(UTC)

From nge

I strongly agree that this article should be merged into the Bretton Woods system, article. Not only is that article more complete, doing so would more logically mirror the disambarcation page. Lastly, I think most people looking for information about the conference are really interested in the outcome of the conference, which was the system.--Nikehrlich 00:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. I was wondering why this article was so short. Lagringa 10:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

From VfD

This seemed to run out of steam when it was removed from VfD, although all the right decisions had already been made IMO. Done now, still needs a refactor of Bretton Woods Conference IMO. Andrewa 19:41, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I redirected this article to Bretton Woods system#The design of the Bretton Woods system, now a more complete article? 172 11:48, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I redirected the article. If anyone disagrees with this change, I won't mind it if the redirect is reverted. Any advice for dealing with the overlap another way will be appreciated. 172 17:10, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'll take off the merge tag, since the question seemed to be decided a couple of years ago (with no new comments). AS of this date, I would vote KEEP, but the Bretton Woods Systemis certainly duplicative as it stands. I'll suggest that the Bretton Woods Conference pretty much stick to the conference (i.e. the start of the system) and the system pretty much stick to the next 20+ years that the system operated. Conceptually they are quite differnt things.Smallbones 09:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidate Dab Entries

Make your case under the item below, if you think you know a sense of Bretton Woods that could definitely become an article. (If it is already mentioned in section headed "Bar" of an article Foo, something along the lines of the versions after "--OR--" could apply instead.

  • Bretton-Woods (band), Brazilian --OR-- Bretton-Woods, Brazilian band based in Bar in Foo state
    • The original form (in an edit now reverted) was "A brazilian folkie singers. Bretton-Woods rock the world." Is there evidence of the world realizing it is being, uh, rocked? --Jerzy•t 22:34, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

Number of allies

How many Allies of World War II were there? 44, as claimed in Bretton Woods system, or 45, as claimed in United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference? --Art Carlson 15:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Last line

There must be a missing something. The last line of the article is a run on.

  1. International Trade Organizationen:Bretton Woods system

BBerryhill 03:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Fun fact

Sometime over the duration of the conference in the mountainous lands of New Hampshire, Chinese representatives decided to get a little exercise and take a hike. A local farmer spotted them and thought the Japanese had re-invaded. He took the law into his own hands and made a citizen’s arrest. Needless to say the Chinese were not very happy.

This seems somewhat dubious and irrelevant. At the very least it needs a citation, but I think it's trivia and shouldn't be included. Thoughts? -FrankTobia (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Renaming article

The article was previously renamed from Bretton Woods Conference to United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference. According to Wikipedia naming conventions it is clear that the name which most people are going to recognize is the name that should be used (at least this holds for an entity such as this). Google searches confirm that the Bretton Woods Conference is by far the most common name applied to these proceedings. Unless somebody wants to have a discussion about it I'll move the article to its previous name in a few days. __meco (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd support that for the same reason you stated. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 19:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I support the move. Since ALL media, historians, economists, economic and history books referr to it as the Bretton Woods Conference its a no brainer.

Fun fact II

This conference is called a United Nations conference and took place in 1944. The United Nations on the other hand was founded in 1945. Interesting. Perhaps the Ministry of Truth has made a clerical error. 88.148.208.105 (talk) 07:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Not quite - the term "United Nations" was originally used to refer to the allied nations fighting in WW2, afterwards expanded to include many more nations in the formal body called the United Nations. Scartboy (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Amazing

Amazing. When it comes to Gaza, (the Gaza "War") you (wiki admins) base the article title on google hits and "common usage" , but when it comes to the Bretton Woods conference it get's "hidden" under the guise of being accurate. When did John Kenneth Galbraith and others ever refer to it as anything other than the Bretton Woods conference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.37.78 (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bretton_Woods_Conference/Archives/2013&oldid=1136578179"