Federal Reserve's control of money supply

Federal Reserve

The project is important enough to be worthwhile, and simple enough to tackle in a semester. This is an argumentative paper, clearly. I do not know if that is acceptable but make sure that it is.

The lit review is not complete. The review needs to match the works cited with in-text citations. As it stands, there is no way to tell what ideas came from what source. In addition, the lit review has significant gaps, such as those arguing in favor of current central bank structure. There is little discussion in this lit review of this counter view, and there is also no suggestion of what might actually be better than the current system.

The sources are not all academic. The Cato sources have to go. There are major issues using think tanks as sources because of their built-in biases. Cato's view on the central bank starts with a conclusion and then work backwards to support that conclusion. Academic research draws its conclusions last. Examiner.com is also basically a blog and should not be used. It is worth mentioning that VoxEU is also a blog, but its authors are all high-level economists. It is a good source, but if possible those authors will have academic papers on the same subject that should be used. The Eichengreen source is fine -- it's a journal and he's a real economist. Primary sources are good for background, but I wouldn't necessarily use the Fed as a source for the same reasons as I wouldn't use the Cato Institute.

3.

The hypothesis is not testable. It is a rhetorical question. The essay can be structured to answer that question, but it will not be a research essay.

4.

The methodology is not sound. Providing background information is not part of the methodology. The test with the groups of three is not a valid test and the opinions of random people are not relevant unless you are specifically studying the opinions of random people. If you are studying the issue of moral rightness, then the paper needs to be rhetorical in style, and should incorporate research into the underlying philosophies (i.e. use Mill, Friedman, etc. To support your argument).

5.

Validity and reliability have not been addressed in this paper at all. There is no empirical test being proposed for the paper. The a priori conclusion of the paper, in the absence of research, begs serious questions about the validity of this research. If you think you already know the answer, why ask the question?

6.

In terms of style, the proposal sounds disjointed, and the giant paragraphs do not help. Ideas are somewhat developed, however. There are some minor grammar/spelling errors, such as capitalizing 'gold standard' and 'fiat money.' Slang phrases like "blown away" should be avoided. Avoid first person if possible. Citations need to be improved dramatically, using proper APA style. The lack of proofreading is apparent. The style needs to be tighter as well, to improve professionalism. Stick to the facts.

7.

There are not nearly enough citations in the body of the work. Use APA style in the reference page for consistency.

8.

The report thus far does not demonstrate critical and unbiased thinking. The conclusions already exist before the research has been conducted, which creates bias. That there are people in America who know little about the central bank is also not a surprise. The conclusions should be drawn directly from the research and the research needs to be thorough, unbiased, and focused. Better sources will help here -- there are credible views on both sides of this argument. My advice is to find them and use them.