Talk:Great Recession: Difference between revisions

This article was nominated for deletion on 28 February 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus..

Business C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:Pbneutral

Archives:

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

This comparison section is a bit confusing about what it is trying to show. In [*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Late_2000s_recession&diff=282160914&oldid=282080521] I didn't mean a joke by the placement, I was trying to fit it in the semi-chronological, attributed, casual comparison quote portion. What did the president know and when did he say it/know it. What he said on 2008-01-12 was "And I readily concede I chunked aside some of my free market principles when I was told by chief economic advisers that the situation we were facing could be worse than the Great Depression. So I've told some of my friends who've said -- you know, who have taken an ideological position on this issue, you know, "Why'd you do what you did? I said, "Well, if you were sitting there and heard that the depression could be greater than the Great Depression, I hope you would act too," which I did." -- It does read like a joke next to Lerner's No true Scotsman quote. Perhaps the attributed "casual comments" comparison should be chronological, or if they support specific themes of comparison, (unemployment, GDP, stock prices, imagery) they could be sorted into that. Drf5n (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The casual comparisons should be removed. The section was created by someone who thought we were heading into another great depression and wanted to let the world know about it. It was full of misquotes of the sources and out of context fear mongering. As you can see by the first few paragraphs (which I wrote to balance out what was initially there), there's not much to the comparison. If anything, the bare bones of the section should be kept. The rest can go; as there's no need to list every time someone mentioned the great depression in the past 8 months. Sorry I was short with you and the edit, but I thought your intent was different from what it now seems to be. About the order of comments, it was supposed to be in rough order of notability, but people kept shuffling it around. NJGW (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we change name of this article to "Great Recession". This has become the accepted term for the economic situation we are in.

Can you provide any sources suggesting that this has become the accepted term, or even a term that's been used by anyone at all? Ratemonth (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ratemonth, Paul Krugman used it in his blog recently, and I agree that it is the best name for the current crisis. It is easy to say, people know you what you mean when you say it, and it signifies both how this recession is (worst since great depression) and acknowledges how the Great Depression was still much worse. Carlitos (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term was coined by IMF and it has its usage, imo name is in check with strategy of fear and tension we're experiencing since 9/11, have fun with it. IMF warns of global "Great Recession" DawnisuponUS (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, do we have consensus? Is it now time to change the name of the article?Mwinog2777 (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a violation of wp:NEO. NJGW (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, I think you're misreading DawnisuponUS's comment. NJGW (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Against that change also, wp should not race to use the most sensational name! --Pgreenfinch (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know what to call it? It's still happening. Shouldn't historians decide afterwards what it will be called? I don't think we should be giving it a name like this until we know all the facts. In the mean time, since we have to name it something, it should be as technical as possible, not something attention-grabbing and catchy. Also, I can't help but notice that "The Great Recession" was a term used in a Kurt Vonnegut story called Harrison Bergeron, which takes place in a dystopian future. KenFehling (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to prematurely make up a new name, then I (jokingly) suggest the "Crisis of interventionism" (or "Crisis of fascism") by analogy with the Crisis of capitalism (which Marx predicted but never happened) and the Crisis of communism (which did happen). JRSpriggs (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway that "loaded" name has nothing to do in the sentence that introduces the topic, as if it was something crucial to understand it. Various appelations are thrown to the public, the article can mention it somewhere in the text, as comments by some pundits, either for explanatory or fore sensational / ideological purpose. It is not the job of wp to participate in that naming championship, the more usual and neutral the title and the intro, the better for an encyclopedical article. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for something like "Recession of 2007" to fix the event at its earliest start, to have a specific, informative tag, and have a relatively permanent name. Although I dislike the current Late 2000s name, "Great Recession" seems too fuzzy a tag for archival purposes. 70.186.213.119 (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What a way to downplay this event... No one's actually seen any changes in the world around them have they? Nice going everybody. Stevenmitchell (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Recession is an accepted term used by the media and most importantly BY ECONOMISTS. If there is in print respected and authoritative economists at the top of that field calling this recession "The Great Recession" then we MUST change the name of the article, because that name would then be a properly sourced and referenced name, whereas the current name of "Late-2000s recession" is a Wikipedia made-up name and is actually the name that is a violation of wp:neo since it doesnt exist in real-life, same for the name "Recession of 2007" that name does not exist in the real world and Wikipedia is not here to invent new terms/words. As for JRSpriggs, your comment was inflammatory and ridiculous and you need to read some history before you comment on what facism and communist are and how today's administration is compared to them, your anti-Obamaism is not wanted, nor helpful. A "crisis of Capitalism" is by its very definition ANY severe and sudden recession or depression, there has been MANY, NOT none like you claim. This Great Recession IS a crisis of Capitalism, capitalism by design is one of creative wealth AND destruction, it is the very definition of the economic cycle in a capitalist economy (and one that occurs less frequently, and less harshly in a socialist mixed economy).Camelbinky (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Camelbinky: My suggestion above in this section was a joke, in case you had not noticed. It was not intended as a criticism specifically of the Obama administration. (Although Obama is a poor president so far.) The system in the United States cannot properly be called laissez-faire capitalism and has not been such since at least as far back as the Theodore Roosevelt administration. It is more properly called interventionism, mixed economy, or (if you consider just the economic aspects) fascism, that is, government control of the economy disguised as private ownership. I was using "Crisis" in the sense of a final crisis which brings about the destruction of the system, that is, a revolution. We certainly have not yet had that for our system whatever you call it. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I marked the label of Great Recession as dubious because it is a neologism. I think that Wikipedia is actually propagating this term rather than reporting it's usage. The CNN source is the only one so far that comes close to fulfilling the requirement that: "A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing," but that article isn't fully about the term itself. Furthermore: "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material." A source is needed that states that this period (which still isn't even fully defined yet) is called the by reliable sources "great recession". So far we see it used in passing, as an emotion raising term. Not as a serious term by historians or economists.

One more point about the CNN source, it's from today, and it has a ton of information from the last section of this article. It's very possible that the author just based a lot of that piece on this article, including the "great recession" part. We have to be very careful about this. NJGW (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted some raw numbers for job losses in the last several months. Any help for more numbers for the past would be good. (LAz17 (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)). I added Canada too. Figured why not? (LAz17 (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

A ref has been suggested on Steve Keen. He's an associate professor of economics that believes what are considered radical things about all of economics in general. Seems to me including him among all the Nobel laureates and major national news outlets is wp:UNDUE WEIGHT. Per wp:FRINGE, he should be mentioned at his own article, but not here. Also, this is a wp:PRIMARY source (Keen talking about his own data), rather than an economic expert discussing Keen, is not peer reviewed or over-seen by any type of editor, and the source cut out all the other views expressed at the conference used as a source. NJGW (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section below is referencing this issue. The text and source in question are:[1]. NJGW (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been advised by a bully who spends time on this article to take this issue to the talk page. I can't say I'm too pleased about this but that's not what we're here for.

I find that the content on the likelihood of a depression is not balanced. In economics there are at least two opinions on what causes depressions. The first cause is considered to be a very severe downturn of the economy. That is to say that if trade and employment and many other indicators rise or drop such and such it's a depression. The main comparison is of course the Great Depression. The point is then to compare as many contemporary indicators as possible with those of the Great Depression and try to determine whether or not a depression is ongoing or likely. In the end the mode of determining a depression is by doing relative comparisons.

The second cause is very different and quite frankly much simpler. Here the assumption is that a depression is caused by a severe deflation spiral. In such a scenario there wouldn't be enough currency in circulation to service outstanding debt. Default on debt would then make liquidity problems even worse causing more default on debt. This is also called the deflation spiral. The main indicators of a deflation spiral are not various economic indicators but simply defaults on debt.

The second cause is certainly far less common among economics but it's certainly not unheard of. I think the specific section would benefit from a more balanced reporting on how the likelihood of a depression is monitored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devijvers (talk • contribs) 00:39, 16 April 2009

This graphic seems to suggest that gold is the base, and anything beyond that is unsustainable. Hardly a NPOV. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added an overview with updates from the first quarter of 2009. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs a chart, how can that be done? I've seen that on other articles. (Bjorn Tipling (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I think the article needs a name change. I think it should be called "New Great Depression". THe economy is so bad that it is indeed a depression.

Shtop Shtealing from my Store (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That name would be Original Research (also known as making stuff up), which isn't allowed. Ratemonth (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put the redirect by that name and all related redirects up for deletion per wp:NPOV and wp:RS. Please leave a comment: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_10#New_Great_Depression - NJGW (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are NO JOBS!!!!!!!!! Even people with 10+ years experience and MBA's are stocking shelves at Target. You need a BS degree just to be a barista. Entry-level jobs REQUIRE AT LEAST 3-5 years experience. College students are actually BUYING unpaid internships for $8000. There is something really, REALLY wrong. Job fairs are FLOODED, and you have anywhere from 250-800 people applying for every job. This is not original research; it's more like common knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shtop Shtealing from my Shtore (talk • contribs) 21:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wp:NOTBLOG and wp:NOTNEWS. The issues you are reporting are wp:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and more suitable for wikinews anyway. NJGW (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This recession may be bad enough to call it a depression, but most people are still calling it a recession and not a depression. Also, it is not yet as bad as the Great Depression and we have no way of knowing now whether it ever will be. Thus, OR issues aside, the name "New Great Depression" is inappropriate. By the way, you should have a shorter user name. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be the 2900s? 72.185.249.94 (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you saw "the late 1000s" would you really think they meant the 20th century?Ratemonth (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the article is not correct! Please, rename it to "Late 2000s recession" or "2007–2009 recession". Thanks! James Michael 1 (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 April 2009, Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) moved Late 2000s recession to Late-2000s recession. I do not know why. Perhaps you should ask him. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to undo Appleyard's change, but no one seemed to agree with me at the time so I gave up on it. Ratemonth (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is now 2009 and the recession is still quite visible in parts of the United Kingdom, so I applaud the new title, and think it makes more sense than calling it "Recession of 2008". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could we perhaps add government intervention as a possible cause for the recession to make it slightly more neutral? Some people believe that government legislation such as the Community Reinvestment Act(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act) caused risky creditor behavior. Thanks, 173.24.45.109 (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection Late-2000s recession#Other causes mentions "the Federal Reserve's expansionary monetary policy and the Community Reinvestment Act" as the main causes. Subsections Late-2000s recession#Government intervention as a cause and Late-2000s recession#Credit creation as a cause also point to government intervention as the cause. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the section about the Gaussian copula model and David Li to make it clear that the only source is one article published in Wired magazine. Frankly, if no one is able to find another, independent source for the claims made here I think this material should be removed. Certainly, mispricing of CDOs played an important role in the crisis, and the Gaussian copula model was an influential model (though not the only one) at the time of the CDO bubble. However, this section makes it seem like the global recession is all the fault of one man, David Li. If there were prominent economists or financial experts making that claim that would be one thing. But a single article published in a general audience magazine should not be given this much weight. By the way, the statement that Li proposed using the prices of credit default swaps to price mortgage backed securities is wrong. Li's paper never mentioned mortgage backed securities. In fact, it doesn't make sense to do that. Li was only talking about credit derivatives based on underlying corporate bonds. So far as I know, the Gaussian copula was never used for mortgage backs. In The Handbook of Mortgage-Backed Securities (Fabozzi et al, 2007), a standard reference in the industry, neither Li nor the Gaussian copula is even mentioned. Security Analyst (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's canvas some ideas. Above I saw Great Recession which I've not heard at all.

As far as I'm aware, most of the media currently calls it the global downturn, but perhaps we should link the name to the credit crunch, as that's what caused this recession. Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals:

• Great Recession
• Global Downturn 2008-
• Credit crunch recession
• Early 21st-Century Global Recession

• Too early What we want to call it is irrelevant. If there's a consensus of reliable sources (beyond the vague and non-specific "global downturn" phrase), then we can discuss that. Otherwise this discussion is premature. The current title is accurate and descriptive. NJGW (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there are a lot of folks who consider the start to have been in June 2007. NJGW (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Early 21st-Century Global Recession" has the advantage that it can't possibly need revising for 40 years.CouldOughta (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, I must respectfully disagree with NJGW: we won't reach the late 2000's for another 60 years or so, so we can't really call the current title "accurate." CouldOughta (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Recession seems to be a universal term for this situation. Just google it and you'll see reference after reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.181.161.250 (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take your pick: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10](etc, etc, etc, ad naseum). Also, see below. NJGW (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am boldly removing File:Finance-dowjones-chart1.jpg because it is misleading in several regards:

1. It uses 7,000 as the baseline, rather than 0.
2. It graphs the market value using a linear scale rather than the more widely-accepted logarithmic scale.
3. It arbitrarily begins with January 2006 (well before the recession began) and ends with November 2008 (somewhere in the middle of the recession).

Also, it seems that it would be preferable to have a corrected chart that doesn't advertise for a commercial site (World-Crisis.net). cmadler (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Cmadler: I disagree. Regarding your points:

1. I also find it irritating that the chart does not use 0 as its baseline. However, I have found that most charts of economic data do the same. Presumably this is to emphasize the details of interest and avoid wasting space on the chart; thus making the chart more readable, if slightly misleading.

2. In asking for a logarithmic scale rather than a linear scale, you are contradicting your first point. It is not even possible to place zero on a logarithmic scale.

3. Adding context by including a period before the recession for comparison is actually a good idea. Indeed, it might be better to go all the way back (to 2000?) to include a period before the boom which led to the recession. As for the ending, I would prefer it to end today, but then we would have to replace the chart with each passing day.

4. We must avoid Wikipedia:Plagiarism, so some such identification of the source is necessary for any chart. This one seems modest to me.

In general, every representation of information has flaws. But remember that something substantially accurate is better than nothing. If you do not have a better chart with which to replace this one, then you should leave it in. JRSpriggs (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}} I noticed there is almost multiple edits everyday on the history page. Not only that, there are conflicts between editors whether the source is illegally sourced or not even though the info/edit is correct and proven. In addition, the current recession is given plenty of attention by the media in which many users may attempt to use the article to forward their own views whether the views are positive or negative reactions about the world-wide recession. As majority of the edits are from users with no accounts and seemingly the same editors again using the same or different IP address (based on the statements made on the history page), I proposed to semi-protect the article and encourage users to use the discussion page to discuss changes are necessary rather than making changes by the instance the editors simply did not like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AuCourantStory (talk • contribs)

Looking at the history, most of the edits do not seem to be vandalism so I'm not sure that protection is appropriate now. The article certainly needs taking in hand though (and reducing in size!). For future requests like this, please see WP:RFPP. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It uses different shades of red to mark countries in recession, and countries with economic slowdown. In my opinion it would be better to use different colour to mark countires with economic slowdown (for example yellow), since it would allow to present economic situation of the world more clearly. 87.205.254.3 (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I say "the late 1800s" every native speaker of English I know thinks I'm referring to the last 2-3 decades of the 1800s; that is, the years between about 1870 and 1899. This is because the two zeros in "1800" indicate that I'm truncating at the century level. However, when you say "Late 2000s" it's not clear whether I'm referring to the decade, the century, or the millenium. I could be referring to 2007-2009, or to 2070-2099, or to 2700-2999. The title of the article should be changed to "Recession of 2007-2009" or something similar. MarcusMaximus (talk) 07:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When it ends, we can do that. For now, the current title is the least wp:CRYSTAL violating and most technically accurate suggestion I have seen. As we approach the 2070s, there will be more cause for concern. NJGW (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There must be a clearer way to refer to the first decade of the 3rd millenium. How about leaving the end year blank, like when a person is still alive? For example, "Bill Clinton (1946 - )". Or how about "Recession starting in late 2007"? MarcusMaximus (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can come up with a better title that passes NPOV, wp:V, and wp:CRYSTAL, that would be very helpful, but so far this has been easier said than done. I don't think Recession of 2007 - is a good title, and Recession starting in late 2007 is both clumsy and has verifiability issues. In a year or two we can change the title to 2007-2010 recession, or 2008-2009 recession, or whatever. Until then, we are not technically being ambiguous as far as the naming convention rules dictate, in that centuries are titled "<number>th century (BC)" (e.g. 3rd century BC) and millennia as "<number>th millennium (BC)", (e.g. 2nd millennium). There is the unfortunate caveat about the first decade of a century, but the solution given at the MOS will not apply here until the point is moot anyway. NJGW (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This entire article sucks. There is no coherent structure, with instead a mishmash of different ideas and anaecdotes being stuck on one after the other. The Financial crisis of 2007–2009 which is exactly the same article, is better organised. Kransky (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article not called The Great Recession? This seems to be the most common emerging name. Per WP:COMMONAME it should be changed as it is widely used by such noted sources as TIME magazine, US News & World Report, the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Reuters, Forbes magazine etc. Copana2002 (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because "Every recession of the last several decades has, at some point or another, received this special designation"[11] NJGW (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of Wikipedia (these articles on the recession and their talk pages), I have only seen the term "Great Recession" used once to refer to the current recession. That is not sufficient. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (Twice as of today JRSpriggs (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

A simple Google news search brings up hundreds of RS articles that mention the term "the Great Recession" and several like this that actually discuss the term itself. Some economists are also using the term as well as TIME and Forbes. Copana2002 (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is an opinion piece by an arts writer.[12] The second is the premature opinion of one economist (see above how the same term has been used for "every recession of the last several decades") rather than a post hoc labeling by a consensus of economists (consider for example when the term "great depression" was officially accepted). Nancy Gibbs is also not an economist, and the Forbes piece never uses the term in the body of the article. The term gets thrown around, yes, but it's not the official name. It is mentioned in the lead, which for now is all we can really do using the sources available. NJGW (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely listing these sources because of JrSpriggs' phrase "I have only seen the term "Great Recession" used once to refer to the current recession.". Clearly, it is being used extensively, but is not yet an academically accepted term (and may never be). Also, I was referring to this article where an economist uses the term, not the one by Nancy Gibbs. Copana2002 (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change it to Early 21st century recession or something else less ambiguous than the current title. --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would refer to the Early 2000s recession. NJGW (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is any third party analysis being done of the continuing problems in local US banks, as shown by the number of FDIC takeovers showing up weekly in List of acquired or bankrupt United States banks in the late 2000s financial crisis? Is this a serious problem or of no particular economic consequence? Hmains (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]