Talk:Great Depression/Archive 3

The following phrase should be changed from:

International trade plunged by half to two-thirds.

to:

International trade plunged between a half and roughly two-thirds.

The Great Depression began in the ashes of World War I and was a result of the economic dislocation that occurred in first in Germany in 1919 and then throughout Europe in the 1920's. As the European economies began to fail and Russia turned to Communism the Great Depression deepened until the overly speculated US Stockmarket crashed. This article appears to be Americano-centric or xenophobic when it fails to discuss the global causes of the Great Depression. The US economy did crashed by itself and things would have been different. There were important factors in the World that lead all of the people of the planet to change their ways of governance and economic structure. This took place from 1919 to 1939. The US reaction saved our country from communism by adopting a very strong socialist approach instead. People don't understand these things because they have been brainwashed by capitalist rhetoric that is just as bad as Communist rhretoric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccalljo1 (talk • contribs)

The Great Depression began in the early 1930s. World War I ended in 1918. The above comment claims that the Great Depression began in the ashes of World War I and led to speculation in the 1920s, which of course is nonsense. Greensburger (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There should be some recognition that there were two distinct economic downturns during the period called The Great Depression. There was a 43 month economic contraction that ended March 1933 and a 13 month contraction that ended June 1937. Why not use these official National Bureau of Economic Research dates? Between and after theses contractions there was very robust growth. In 1936 and every year there after real gross domestic product (GDP) exceeded the 1929 High. In the 5 years 1933 through 1937 real GDP annualized growing 7.2%. While GDP had a full recovery by 1936 the number of non agricultural jobs did not fully recover until 1941. The stock market did not fully recover until after W.W.II. Between 1933 and 1937 the unemployment rate dropped from 25% to 11% before rising back to 20% in 1938. Even with the second downturn real GDP annualized growing 5.7% a year in the 7 years 1933 through 1939. This 5.7% rate of growth is faster than any 7 year period in the 1920s. While paying off debt in the 1930s may not have been as enjoyable as building it up in the 1920s the very strong growth following the major economic contraction from 1929 to 1933 should be accounted for in discussion of the Great Depression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 33jre1985 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Editors recently changed the "fell by 60 to 80 percent" w/the Cochran citation to 40-60%. Which is correct? What happened here/would someone please explain the change? Does anyone actually have access to the source, or do we need to move away from this apparently contentious statement altogether? MrZaius^talk 14:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Cochrane says down 56% (1929 to 1932) PAGE 15 Rjensen (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The change to 60-80 from 40-60 was made recently by an IP which included Other edits. A couple of the changes in this edit bordered on vandalism.--Work permit (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Farm prices hit a trough of 60% according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics--Work permit (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The section on causes in this article seems to be too long, given there is a main article specifically on the subject. Should we merge the detailed information on causes provided in this article into the main article Causes of the Great Depression, and provide just a short summary here?--Work permit (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

yes merge is a good idea. Rjensen (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Support merge and summary per WP:SUMMARY dissolve^talk 05:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support I think we definitely need to do something because they both fall under the "Great Depression" heading, and if someone is looking this information up they will want to know the causes. Perhaps if we provide a brief overview at the beginning of the article and then go into more depth under a specific "Causes" section. Cajones (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support The section on causes in the Great Homeless article, while important, is disproportionally large and needs reorganization. The differences between the "causes" section and "Causes of the Great Depression" article is also troubling, and a merger would address this. However, care should be taken in writing the new summary, for it is vital that the basic information is well covered for the casual reader. --Alex60466176 (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support! Definitely. It would help to keep the Great Depression article itself better in balance and eliminate confusion while giving the opportunity to confront and resolve inconsistencies. Of course, it will be important to ensure that the summary itself is in synch with the Causes article. -- Will O'Neil (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Negative! I think that it would lose something, besides where would u put the link to the causes? post to DCollins52's talk page ur opinion on this, im not signed in right now

24.110.2.116 (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is possible to provide just a short summary on causes of the Great Depression because of the complexity of the issue. Also, article isn't too long so I think there is no real need to remove most of the section. -- Vision Thing -- 21:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've begun by rearranging the article sections to mirror each other. --Work permit (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support Though somewhat late to see, I agree with the suggestion. Could also assist in rearranging and editing work if needed. Drop a message in my talk page if need be. --Eleman (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This Section appears to be very bias against The New Deal and provides no citations and appears to be inadequately researched. The New Deal in many people's schools of thought, economic veiwpoints, and political ideals was a sucess and prevented further economic ruin and absolute collapse of the American Economic System/Capitalist System and allowed America to improve its economic system by improving it and expanding it. The American Economic System from The New Deal forward has much more direct government involvement in the economy, more regulation on enterprise, and more social programs to help private individuals.--"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." Socrates, Ancient Greek philosopher in Athens, Greece (469 BC - 399 BC) (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

First, I disagree about bias in this section. It seems more than fair, with sufficient descriptions of the relevant, major reforms. If anything, the tone swings too favorably the other way. For example, "Encouraging unions that would raise wages, to increase the purchasing power of the working class." Uh-huh. Do unions really raise wages on average? Do they increase purchasing power? Did they do any of this in the thirties? And it makes it sound like FDR's plans were a strong success, particularly through his first term. Is this a general consensus too? Last I checked, the Depression lasted at least 12 years, and it was the war economy, not the New Deal, that put a stop to it. There might be a case to be made that the New Deal stopped things from getting worse, or that it gave hope, or that it forstalled the political upheaval faced by other countries. As for creating actual recovery, it was an abject failure.

P.S. Do you really need to explain who Socrates was and where he was from? Neestle (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That's just his (unusually long) automatically inserted signature. That said, there are plenty of reasons not to introduce an even cheerier tone with regard to the Keynesian policies praised above. There's plenty of prominent criticism around, and there's a better place for expansion. MrZaius^talk 02:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I do need to include in the signature who Socrates was and where he is from. This allows those who do not know about Socrates to maybe be inspired to research about him and his love of knowledge. That is what I believe causes the world to suffer is lack of knowledge. In regard to The New Deal it is quite obvious that the only comments received so far are from the conservative free enterprise school of thought which would have you believe that Roosevelt caused the depression to be worse than it would have been under a free market approach. "Let the Markets Work" is a false motto that the ultra-capitalist then and now try to force down the average American's throat. That is what caused the great depression; excesses in enterprise, grossly under-regulated markets, ignoring of the suffering and hardships economic and otherwise of the average individual, and a conservative government philosophy before Roosevelt that took a hands off approach to enterprise, the markets, and the needs of citizens that were not being met. I perhaps above went a little far in saying that the section on the new deal is very bias against the New Deal but bias does exist, mostly bias by omission. The section only explains some of the New Deal, but mentions a lot of it, and it only mentioned what Roosevelt did or hoped to do not the results of what the economy and condition of the average person was after the new deal went into effect. I realize that some then and now disagree with Roosevelt's approach to the economy and the criticism and praises of Roosevelt's New Deal from important people of the time and afterwards should be included here, perhaps in a section just underneath. There is some praises and criticism of broad economic philosophies but none really specifically focusing on The New Deal. The New Deal was so massive and transformative of America during the Depression that it deserves a much more well written section. A section that is better researched and one that includes adequate citations. I realize there is already a separate article on The New Deal, but being The New Deal is so much in the forefront in people's minds when they think of The Great Depression, it deserves more prominence then it currently has in this article. In closing though I have a progressive philosophy on political matters, I do not mean to suggest that I want this section to bend over backwards praising The New Deal. I only wish for a fuller and cited section on the New Deal . I do not feel I am educated enough on The New Deal to write this section, but feel a historian, professional or amateur, who is educated on The New Deal would be qualified to re-write this section or at least edit it with citations. If this is not done within a few months I will be willing to research extensively the New Deal from sources other then Wikipedia and update this section, but being I am busy with other matters I would wish to not have to be the one to do this. Sorry for the very long submission, and thanks for taking the time to read my concerns and rants.--"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." Socrates, Ancient Greek philosopher in Athens, Greece (469 BC - 399 BC) (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There are two separate entries "great depression" and "the great depression" should they be merged? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.240.184.222 (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

The business section is I point you to the current excerpt: "passage of the G.I. bill... --one of the best laws Congress has ever passed." There are more, less blatant examples as well. 65.68.75.175 03:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I chopped out most of the POV. Rjensen 03:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I will probably do 90% of this wrong, but this bugs me so much I need to have it looked into :)

The first sentence and the second paragraph on "Popular misconceptions" contradict each other: The first sentence reads,"The Great Depression was a worldwide economic downturn which started in October of 1929 and lasted through most of the 1930s." The first sentence of "Popular misconceptions" says the opposite and denies that. It reads,"There is a popular misconception that the Great Depression began immediately after the Stock Market Crash in October of 1929," and later states that,"In the autumn of 1930, the Stock Market began its steady decline and the Great Depression began in earnest."

According to the "Popular misconceptions" paragraph the first sentence should read as follows: "The Great Depression was a worldwide economic downturn which started in Autumn of 1930 and lasted through most of the 1930s."

Shouldn't Autumn be capitalized in "Popular misconceptions" also?

Hey, this is Bfissa, and I just added the "Merge" tag to add merge with Causes of the Great Depression. I think that these two articles are too similar to be separate, and I know this article is long, but if we were to organize it well, I think that it would improve these articles to be the same. But that's what I think... could we maybe have a survey on it?

I'd like to see something in this about "...Lobbying in Washington all by itself reverberates around the world. The aerospace companies like Lockheed Martin shape the entire aviation industry of the world with their clout on defense contracts. Agricultural policy, including who gets food and who does not in the poorer parts of the world, is influenced mightily by heavy-handed lobbyists like Archer Daniels Midland. Health care everywhere is shaped by the hard-bought privileges of the pharmaceutical companies. Because of America's economic size and the reach of its corporations, every soft football of favor seeking and bribery inside the beltway is like an earthquake somewhere in the global south." From John Tirman's book "100 Ways America is Screwing up the World." Many other books I've read say the same things, & it shows America's power is worldwide, & affects all nations. Stars4change (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

you*Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support For reasons stated above. --Bfissa 20:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose we have two very long articles on distinct topics. One covers social and economic conditions all over the world for a decade, the other discusses many rather complex ideas in economic theory. Rjensen 08:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Rjensen. --Kimon^talk 15:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• support for reasons already stated.The juggsd86 19:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Quick Comment I don't feel that these articles are on very different topics, they are both fall under the category of "The Great Depression" and I think if they are on different parts of that, we should arrange them as such in the new article. --Bfissa 22:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Rjensen's reasoning --JohnCub 23:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeing how the overall view is "opposse", I withdraw my request and will remove the merge banners. --Bfissa 00:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support I think we definitely need to do something because they both fall under the "Great Depression" heading, and if someone is looking this information up they will want to know the causes. Perhaps if we provide a brief overview at the beginning of the article and then go into more depth under a specific "Causes" section. This issue needs revisited. Cajones (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The main article should have a summary of the Causes article and the Causes article should go into much greater detail. This is usual for Wikipedia articles that cannot describe every important point in detail without making the main article excessively long. Just as an article on automobiles should briefly describe engines, but not get into a lengthy description of all the technical minutia of internal combustion engines, ignition systems, and transmissions, etc. Greensburger (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Under 'effects' pretty much every country with a summary has a claim that the depression was particularly bad there. This can't possibly be true for every country... Also, the countries that don't have summaries need them. I'll try and get round to this myself, but if anyone else feels like it...

Do we really need to have a summary for every. single. country.? Even if we do, there should be a summary at the top of the effects collum that describes the general effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.174.11 (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure why there is a 'Responses in the US' section and nothing about responses anywhere else, especially considering that the New Deal was fairly mild reform compared to what happened in some other countries. Since there are already pages on the New Deal, recession of 1937 etc, I suggest drastic trimming of this section, and adding stuff on responses to the Depression in other countries. --Helenalex 05:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, 'effects' would probably work better as a summary, with links to the 'the depression in (country)' pages. Practically every country could be summed up as 'the government tried conventional economic remedies to deal with the collapse of the economy, these didn't work, unemployment reached critical levels, there was rioting and a rise in support for extreme left wing / right wing / left and right wing groups'. There's no reason why this couldn't be summed up in a paragraph or two, perhaps with examples from particular countries. --Helenalex 05:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think ideally the "Great Depression" text should be general and international in scope, while a new "the great depression in the United States" article should be created for specific topics like for example the New Deal and US federal reserve policy. And I agree that a more comparative text about the effects in the different countries would be helpful (focussing on similarities and differences among the affected countries). But there's not much material yet to base such a comparative text on, as most of the 'effects by country' texts are quite limited so far. --JJWitte 17 April 2007

Soviet Union: "Having removed itself from the capitalist world system both by choice and as a result of efforts of the capitalist powers to isolate it, the Great Depression had little effect on the Soviet Union." I believe that this sentence is gramatically incorrect when it comes to the subject. I guess it should be more on these lines - "HAVING removed ITSELF from the capitalist world system both by choice and as a result of efforts of the capitalist powers to isolate it, the SOVIET UNION suffered little impact of the Great Depression." [Capitalization only for illustration] 203.91.193.5 (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Raghuveer, 09 Jan 2009.

I see no changes at all in the two version you present, except for a manual of style violation.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm underwhelmed by the choice of pictures of the crises of the Great Depression. I hope you guys can search harder and do better, there must be tons of great shots out there.Rebyid 00:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to movie called "Money as Debt" which leads up to explaining the cause of the Great Depression in the almost exactly middle. Boldly, I might add, per policy here. But I expect it to be deleted. But I think it has merit. Can we discuss it's relevance. Nastajus 04:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, it's black tuesday. Not black thursday. it's kind of sad that it hadn't been discovered sooner.

Enter thoughts: "Money as Debt" topic should be considered at length, the importance of the ratio of Debt to Currency in circulation is a reliable key indicator of fiscal health, which the FED and the Government ignored in the late 20's as well as the past 10 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.196.26.10 (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed a link to "Depression furniture" on grounds that the furniture itself, although attractive, has nothing to add about the nature of the Great Depression. That it is a commercial link to an enterprise intended to sell antiques would not be troublesome if there were some educational value to it... but the main article is not one on styles of material goods popular during the time, including furniture.

Between 1908 and 1914 there were a lot of SCOTUS decisions, using the claim of corporate personhood, where minimum wage laws, workman's comp laws, utility regulation, and child labor laws were struck down. Unions were victims of violence. Is this not a common pattern in free-market conditions which eventually implode? Should they not be mentioned?Briholt 02:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There's been some more vandalism on the article (in the links area especially), so could someone more learned in things Wikipedia revert it somehow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.47.105 (talk) 02:49, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

The current version, as of 04:47, 15 October 2007, has been changed from the last version to read "Lurching Downward Into Crap", rather than "Lurching Downward". I tried to undo this, but I don't have the authority. So the person who made this edit has authority????? If this was the wikipedia article for "pedophilia" or "occult nazism" etc., this might be expected. But as it is, this really detracts from wikipedia's credibility. How can, or why is this happening to this article? 208.120.68.138 07:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC) JD

Thank you for posting here; you did exactly the right thing, and another editor fixed the problem (although it took a couple of hours). Yes, the article can't be edited by anonymous IP addresses (non-registered editors), because it's semi-protected (I added an icon to the top of the article, which makes that clearer). I've also posted a warning to the registered editor who vandalized the page.

There are a lot of benefits to being a registered editor, besides being able to revert vandalism on semi-protected pages; why don't you take a look at Wikipedia:Why create an account?. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The Headline of the banking section is a little too opinionated. Banks make money by giving loans to business. The banks obviously were worried about surviving themselves. Restictions on branch banking could be one reason banks did not give out loans to businesses. Allowing money to flow more freely between regions could have possibly reduced the domino effect of bank disasters. One could argue that restrictions on branch banking ultimately came from the banks themselves. The counter arguement would be that since we were employing "government intervention" measures in the first place; Banks inability or resistance to branch would have been a good place to intervene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newjohngalt (talk • contribs) 16:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed this paragraph? Considering the impressive display of economic thought that went into the rest of--and particularly the earlier sections of--this article, this ridiculous paragraph is less a smack in the face to earlier editors than just a complete mindfucking defy-nition of logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.85.210 (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Essentially it's true. Not the country bankers, but the top 7-8 bankers who ran the Federal Reserve pretty much caused it with their monetary policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.230.118 (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There are numerous problems with this section. It presents confusing a confusing discussion of the bank failures. It seems to imply that banks failed because people had borrowed money from banks to speculate on stocks in 1929. It is true, speculators did use bank loans, many of which went bad after the Crash. However I have seen no documented case of any bank in the U.S. failing as a result of unpaid loans lost on stocks in 1929. When the Bank of United States failed in Dec. 1930, the Boston Globe suggested that unpaid loans incurred by stock speculators was the primary cause of the collapse. This is untrue (see : Werner, M.R. Little Napoleons and Dummy Directors, Being the Narrative of the Bank of United States, N.Y.: Harper & Brothers, 1933.)

The connection between the Crash, bank failures, and the Depression are still very murky. Friedman and Schwartz claimed that hoarding increased after the failure of the BUS, causing banks to become ever more conservative in their lending. While probably true (who has ever verified this? How can it be verified?) it is only one factor in the problem of why bank loans collapsed after 1929. The best sources (of which there are very few) on this question are by the National Industrial Conference Board, The Banking Situation in the United States( N.Y.: 1932) and The Availability of Bank Credit (N.Y.: 1932.) Panic1933 (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

although the Wall Street crash was huge it was not inevitable that it should lead to a lasting recession as few ordinary Americans bought shares. However there was another consideration. The world was gripped by deflation after 1929. In 1930 Heinrich Brüning, became chancellor of Germany. A former gunnery officer and fiscal expert of almost monastic habits, he had helped demobilised soldiers find work after the war. This led to Prussian Minister of Welfare and leader of the Christian trade unions, Adam Stegerwald, making him the unions’ chief executive. The lower ranks of the civil service were filled almost entirely by ex-servicemen. In 1930 Brüning told them that his chief aim as Chancellor was to liberate Germany from paying war reparations and foreign debt. In order to achieve this all wage and salary increases since 1927 would have to be eliminated and credit tightened in order to enable German exports to conquer foreign markets. Naturally as Germany was a strong country – the largest exporter in the world in 1931, with a mountain of cash in the Reichsbank – when she closed down her home market and diverted all her energies into exports her policy affected nations everywhere.86.167.183.54 (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.183.54 (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC) I thought that when the Nazi party was elected into power they got rid of the reparations in the Treaty of Versailles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.26.206 (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Same here, I may be wrong but remember that Germany never repaid the reparations. Codik 17:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Checked. Per Lausanne Conference of 1932 the reparations were suspended in 1932 (meaning that Germany repaid only 1/8th of the reparations). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codik (talk • contribs) 17:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

YES, exactly. and what gives with an entire section dedicated to Ben Barnanke's collosal lies claiming that leaving the gold standard was the reason they got out of the depression ?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.71.207.28 (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Please make changes to the Gold Standard section, technically the gold standard was removed in 1971 so the section makes no sense as the person above mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.12.16.7 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Didn't the immigration of Jews into Europe have part in the cause of the depression? 72.189.156.10 (talk) 01:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The political consequences of the Great Depression were that Hayek got the Nobel forty years or so later? WTF. Good thing this article doesn't waste space on tangential trivialities like the rise of Hitler and the "imperial presidency" in the US. --dsws (talk) 05:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is just a discussion placeholder. But it will soon be a current event. The financial markets are unstable as the credit crisis is expanding daily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.213.206 (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That sort of Chicken Little talk is foolish and insane if you look at any of the signs of what a "Great Depression" is. The foolishness of people seems to have no bounds. No part of the Western World is even NEAR a Depression. 69.245.80.218 (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. That said I have heard media coverage of economists making statements on how the current recession could become a depression. It might be worth noting- with sources, of course - in the "Other depressions" section. (BTW although my IP number looks similar, I am not connected to any of the IPs on this thread) 68.146.41.232 (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll eat those words soon enough. Fact is the overwhelming cause of the GD was speculation on the stock market and people buying on margin. It was when the brokerage houses made margin calls that things fell apart and 1/3 of the perceived wealth evaporated. Checks and balances were put in place to limit the amount people can go on margin since then by the SEC. But....remember all the advertisements in the 90's about taking a 2nd mortgage out on your house at 150% of it's value. That is ,in essence, going out on margin in real estate. The foreclosure notice is the margin call. This is happening RIGHT NOW. Remember all the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae hocus pocus of late? The sub-prime mortgage debacle? And don't even give me "Citation Needed" crap as all this is Q.E.D. for anyone with half a brain. And with as highly politicized as the term "Depression" is it won't be referred to as such until we are about 6 mos into one. Recession is an oversupply of goods. Depression is an under supply of money to purchase said goods. Mix Recession with a catastrophic monetary event such as failure of markets be they stock or real estate and you have the proper recipe for a Depression. 75.135.151.176 (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's scary. I wonder how long hospitals & doctors will survive when no one can afford them. Stars4change (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me "expounded" in the current context is incorrect and should be replaced with "exacerbated" or "compounded".

Regards,

--Rick Read (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Rick Read (new registered user)

In the article it's written that October 29 is also known as Black Tuesday, but that was October 24. The right name is Black Thursday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.215.6.84 (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

…I would like to agree a little from the topic of Jews. I allways thought that the value of the economy was in fault mostly towards the depression. Great now I have to explain myself. Could a depression be caused by the "Most of One Thing and Not Enough of The Other". Help me out here, yes I enjoy saving my Money in a Box, no matter how big it is. I will continue to save money, is it because i'm not sure of something, Partly. Who else feels this way. If there is more and more people entering a Place, then there should be a recommendation of it. Here is where it get's scarce (A Recomendation Of It) Here is Ellis Island it is in fact the 1920's. Affiliation of Ellis Island and the rest of the land availability which now may consist of the United States. Assurity who is sure of what. Trust who is trusting who. The Value of Concept; Continue to vote. The soup line is only so big and or long; Big meaning in response, It is a big deal now the hole of it is recognized. The hole of a Country is in custom. Conservatively, start with ?, perhaps to gain trust. And for now what is missing $. $ is a tool unfortunately it is not used correctly.

An interseting word obolish-ment 4:05p.m.e.s.t. keep saving no-one else is at least there's nothing to show for it, though there is the form of economics. Here take my car and make some money with it and pay me later. Do not touch untrust worthy right from the get go. Baloni. It's only money just if when it's extremely new when making an airplane out of it try not to aim it in another's eye 4:09David George DeLancey (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

…Here is another form of Depression though usual, one would have to fend for themselves. Representation it's just the beginning and through time WOW WAR how the heck did. A look out. Alright lets. You there get out of here. Funny how that sounds, is that brit being considerate, perhaps when they achief mum we shall see another. That's something else there yes indeed it is mum.

Then all hell breaks loose, now theres extremely no means of control I say there we'll never recover it's abolishment I say and then after the resolves, I mean the revolution things start over again.

And in the distance. Say old chap what the devil ever happened. Well I say the formal was taken over. Say what. The Bloody government, yes yes indeed I see, well.

Then there's the effected much after within realization much of will discribe for fending and sorting through the well established Governs of the time and still no remorse.

Till next time for another fine episode. Ya I care delete if you want though I still care.6:28 P.M. E.S.T. 3-25-2008 22-15-20-5 forDavid George DeLancey (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The great depression. Where did all the money go. They tried to save it. They came and demolished it. The new deal was to reform it.

The State of New York at one time agreed to manufacture money, currency it and build a building. To do so is in relation of a controlled atmosphere to distribute to collect the hold.

A Form of Currency in the mid 1700's was just what it meant a Form.

When this was dimolished through the representatives of New York, which then carried the effect elsewhere through the representations of the newspaper that ended democracy's establishment. Democracy was an Idea an attempt and a thought within a people to conduct something of and with effort. Perhaps if it was even recognized as a democracy it was for the continuance of it and towards the republic. This then could of meant a people in form as of the republic has a democracy, representation of the sectioned people of New York. The Livingston and DeLancey Factions or Faction Feuds. and indefinitely over a Lotery for a College also arose a depression.

Meanwhile a representation became of a grouping, perhaps to decline their control in which was eventually truly noticed had become to much for Mr. Livingston. Rather in meant or not to some degree which by standard is a law the people were uniting to some other obedience. He rather not be effected of it nor realize what would conquer. Eventually the organized Sons Of Liberty were established through men of New York. It is set some how in history that the DeLancey Faction had amongst others set up and or organized the Sons of Liberty, perhaps to have some nuetral police ordinance of the area New York.

Now with possible helping through the organized brigades to establish transport and accommodations to other colonies then was the terming to set up correspondence. This would at the start be of course a committee formed at a coffee house. It was a liquor parlor. The conference to strong to be nominated well, perhaps became a committee.

The women of the gentry and area and or province or said colony and or town through time different meanings survive, did in fact demand the liquor house to be called a coffee house out of respect. And during this time was the more comfortable talent of Coffee House and then the Respect of the Gentelmen.

Till next time; 6:49 P.M. E.S.T.David George DeLancey (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)...reconstructed a little bit and corrected spelling, and will adjust in the future on why there was a great depression-9-16-2011_4:43 P.M. E.S.T.David George DeLancey (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the section about keynesian models and the gold standard was written by some ron paul advocates... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.47.135 (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

YES, exactly. and what gives with an entire section dedicated to Ben Barnanke's collosal lies claiming that leaving the gold standard was the reason they got out of the depression ?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.71.207.28 (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Please make changes to the Gold Standard section, technically the gold standard was removed in 1971 so the section makes no sense as the person above mentioned.

"The Great Depression(also known in the United States as the Great Slump)"

Okay, no, not really. I live in the US and I have only heard one person use the term "The Great Slump" to describe the Great Depression and that was my 5th grade history teacher telling us the "The Great Slump" was an alternative, but not widely used name, for The Great Depression. I'm going to rephrase that to say (Also known as "The Great Slump), m'kay? Broadway4life155 (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the reference to "Great Slump" from the intro. It's universally known as "The Great Depression". The parenthetical phrase you mention above had a footnote to an article that used the term "Slump" a couple of times - and it wasn't convincing because "Crash" and "Depression" were more used - but in any case there was no citation demonstrating that it's also known as "the Great Slump". Tempshill (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Where can i find infomation about the Great Depression of 1870's when Britain lost its monoply on trade... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.228.190 (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

How about right now????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.203.207.67 (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A request was made to replace a low-resolution image of a plot of real GDP. I have created and uploaded such a file. The SVG image is available here: Real GDP 1920-1940

The earlier JPG image is linked to several pages. I would be grateful if someone else could update these links to the SVG file.

Cassegrain (talk) 07:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Cassegrain

Under the Australia subheading it is stated that unemployment in Australia was 32% in 1932. In the Australian main article the figure is 29% for the same year. Could someone check this. My guess is that 32% is a typo as the year is 1932 and the correct figure is 29% but that assumption is not based on historical knowledge.61.68.129.120 (talk) 10:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Just had a look at the rest of the Australia main article and the correct figure is 29%. Could someone please change that.61.68.129.120 (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection - Never hurts to ask. Anyone got any arguments against a temporary semi-protection? MrZaius^talk 15:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In the opening paragraph, this article makes reference to the Great Depression being the most important economic downturn in world history. Really? Maybe the scope you're using to determine is a little too, uhm, narrow. Not to mention making a statement like "It is used as benchmark in the 21st century on how far an economy could possibly fall". Really? By who? Since when? How do you "use" a benchmark? Whose to say whether an economy "falls" or rather "reaches new heights of tumult!"? Wouldn't a stage in human history like, the aftermath of the Toba event qualify as a much, much more dire economic situation? Furthermore, "world history" or "recorded history"? World history could literally mean before the use of money, or even before the use of bartering or "value"/"worth" as a concept, so maybe we should say, "Second only to the Pre-cambrian era in making us realize we're all going to die and be remembered for our receipts, bank statements, and bills-in-need-of-paying. Or does "world history" mean "history of Anglo-Saxon people using green money"? If there's further language in here like this, I'd expect rewrites/deletes for all of it. Sigh. I give up. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

it's a pretty important downturn---this weeks media talk a lot about it!--, and no expert has made the case for downturn XYZ being more important, which is what is required to change the statement. Rjensen (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Me thinks someone just left out the word "modern" - I'll fix at least this one instance. MrZaius^talk 16:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Rjensen, it's a' pretty important downturn. And yeah, the media does talk a lot about it now. But we don't change a for the just because it's important. And we DEFINITELY don't make articles inaccurate just because it's a hot button issue. 24.3.14.157 (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So know we have to deal with futures in this and that (oil Houses etc) predicting prices and worthes seem this could be the culprit for unwarented price fluctuations that the consumer can not afford. And it seems that "just hold on a little while longer" is'nt going to work when we are losing jobs in this economy to overseas where capital figured in to our economy doesnt any more. our economy that which makes us fluid is being given away. Simple if we cant consume we cant produce and that means no one makes the money. Ive traded my 2 fill ups a week for a $1.47 bottomless cup of joe O.K. im going to say it we have to and are consolidating our country for survival with the bailouts and buyouts to be preserved for better days. if we dont take care of our marketvalue and our worth as leaders in the production market we wont see any turn around for a while. How much is right monitarily to get our production going strong in this country? Bill67.38.17.184 (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sections like "Debt" should be expanded or rewritten to contain sourced documentation demonstrating the impact of both private and public debt in the rest of the world. The Canada and South Africa articles, for a start, both imply the existence of sources that can be used for those ends. A focus on America may be warranted, but the complete absence of coverage of the rest of the world seems a touch odd. This issue may be present elsewhere in the article, as well. MrZaius^talk 04:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Two (similar) concepts which facilitate discussion and exposition of the Great Depression are cascade and interlocking. That processes run out of control, or are self feeding. And often salience is aggregate in nature - several elements combine or follow each other to produce an effect. Blablablob (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be cleaned up for accuracy. It greatly oversimplifies real world economics. Blablablob (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The unemployment problem was not solved until the post-World War II decontrolling of the command wartime economy in 1946. The advent of World War II, when about 12 million men were drafted into the army and taken out of the labor market, was not a true long-term "solution" to massive unemployment in the civilian marketplace, nor did it create real wealth for the masses with consumer goods. Multiple war goods production programs reduced unemployment technically to under 2% and brought in millions of new workers to the labor markets, but this was strictly for the purpose of making war goods (armaments), which only benefited the war-making sector of the economy.

economics is about what people wanted, and Americans REALLY wanted to win that war with minimal deaths. That means planes, tanks, ships, ammo. They worked very hard to do so, and produced more civilian goods for themselves in the process. The idea that people should instead have produced what some antiwar theorist believes is best for them is POV, as preached by a few libertarians like Higgs. Rjensen (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am presently providing (or trying to provide) references for the article on the Great Crash of 1929 and I came across this audio tidbit from Gordon on NPR. I am a new user so I did not include the tidbit in the Great Crash because I am not sophisticated enough to know whether it belongs in that article. But maybe it belongs here: The Great Crash did not cause the Great Depression "at all... The Crash and the Depression were effects of the same process that was going on in the economy."

click on the real media link at this webpage: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1065948

Best regards Johndoeemail (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's fine to have the Marxist POV mentioned, as it is indeed a major historical POV, but it really needs to be made comprhensible to the laymen as per wiki guidlines. As it is written the paragraph is steeped in jargon.

Third, there is the Marxist critique of political economy. This emphasizes contradictions within capital itself (which is viewed as a social relation involving the appropriation of surplus value) as giving rise to an inherently unbalanced dynamic of accumulation resulting in an overaccumulation of capital, culminating in periodic crises of devaluation of capital. The origin of crisis is thus located firmly in the sphere of production, though economic crisis can be aggravated by problems of disproportionality between spheres of production and the underconsumption of the masses.

Wha...wha...what? Brentt (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

FURTHER READING:

Suggest Add:

Uys, Errol Lincoln, Riding the Rails: Teenagers on the Move During the Great Depression (Routledge 2003) [1]

EXTERNAL LINKS

Suggest Add:

Great Depression Letters from Boxcar Boys and Girls [2]

Best regards ErrolU (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC) ErrolU

At the end of the first paragraph of this section the drought is referenced: "a severe drought ravaged the agricultural heartland of the USA beginning in the northern summer of 1930". This should link to the Wikipedia article on the "Dust Bowl". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.36.45.149 (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted this section to improper conduct. The language used is not appropriate to this article and therefore had to be removed: remarks such as 'its so gay' and 'oh yeah' were written within the section. -- Mike |talk 21:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

there seems to be at least a few vandal hits a day from anon ip's. The hits are so frequent, some reverts miss eariler hits (like the one I just fixed). Should we ask for semi-protection?--Work permit (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)