Wikipedia

Talk:2007–2008 financial crisis/Archive 2

< Talk:2007–2008 financial crisis
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Favonian in topic rename?
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Article Duplication?

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could someone please explain to me the difference between Financial crisis of 2007–2010 and Late-2000s recession? They seem to be duplicated articles to a large extent. 75.154.95.21 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC).

I agree that there is a great deal of overlap here. Some serious work would obviously be required to combine them. However, I'm not sure you can make much of an argument for having both articles. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Effects on the working class?

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Seems like all this article focuses on is the institutions with little or no mention of the dire effects this has had on the general population. Why is that?

Well, the sections on global and U.S. impact could certainly be expanded with more detailed unemployment figures or real wage figures, including number of people who dropped out of the workforce, etc. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Financial crisis of 2007-present

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion

Why not rename it to Financial crisis of 2007-present? That way, we don't have to keep renaming it every year that this thing drags on. Having an ending year makes it sound as though it's over. Tisane (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur. I would also recommend "Current financial crisis", and mention in the first paragraph that it has yet to have an "official" name. I know it lacks a degree of neutrality, but there are no good options; it could last another month or another decade. We also need a few bots doing cleanup. I just found this page through a link to "Global financial crisis of 2008-2009" (on the page Universal Studios Dubailand). There are currently around 30 pages redirecting to that version of the name. If the two dozen or so other possible redirects have similar numbers, there could be 1000 pages linking to alternate titles. samwaltz (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I also concur. We might even consider using the more broad "economic crisis of 2007-present", so as not to limit it to just the financials, as the the auto industry and energy industry are major parts of the overall scope.
Can we get a vote on this? --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The recession may or may not be over, but the financial crisis is over. Numerous sources attest to this. See this, this, this and this for example. Does anyone object to changing it back to 2007-2009? If so, can we have some sources please? Thanks LK (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Given the recent news and new indictments against Goldman Sachs, and the fact that the U.S. Congress has not yet passed any regulation that would address the failures that led to the crisis, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the crisis is ongoing. Just one opinion. Robert K S (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Last week[1] a member of the European Central Bank stated that "We may already have entered into the next phase of the crisis: a sovereign debt crisis following on the financial and economic crisis." Mporter (talk) 06:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I would be fine if we just renamed it the "World Financial Crisis". Once the dust settles, we can move it to a name with more 'historical' recognition. But in contemporary times the most appropriate name for it is just the "Global Financial Crisis" of the "World Financial Crisis". Can't think of any other events in history that bear a similar name. Colipon+(Talk) 01:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I would name it "2007", without a definite ending year, because there may or may not be one, now or ever. The crisis will be resolved slowly, and moving forward not backward, so there will be no point where one can say "everything is how it was before the crisis started, the crisis is now over". This is also similar to how publications are dated, only the first year. Rav0 (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Establishing Chronology of events

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The entire article covers only the causes and effects of the crisis. I personally think that adding the actual chronology of important events regarding the crisis would be relevant, at least starting from the collapse of the Lehman Brothers, if not Northern Rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.161.205 (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a separate article called subprime crisis impact timeline that has the timeline.Farcaster (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Advertising recession

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The financial crisis has been cited as the cause for the advertising recession that has hit all media, and, at least in the US, has even been helping to kill off members of weaker sectors like newspapers, magazines and television soap operas; and has been straining network television, which relies almost entirely on advertising to fund its big-budget scripted programming (hence more of cheaper reality programming, an experiment with NBC eliminating 10 pm dramas for Leno, etc.). I think this deserves its own section if not its own article. 72.244.206.31 (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

"Commodity bubble"?

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The main article was "Commodities boom". "Commodity bubble" is POV: unlike with housing, there was never, to my knowledge, any virtual consensus (belated or otherwise) in econ and/or finance about the price run-ups in commodities in this period owing largely (or even significantly) to speculative mania. OK, George Soros thought it was a bubble and said so. He's a great financier, but is he an energy supply economist? The von Mises Institute [2] is used as RS when it's pretty decidedly WP:FRINGE economics; to them, all market failures come down to that dastardly Federal Reserve Bank. If cited at all, the article should at least point out that this is the anti-fiat money, gold-bug wing of the Libertarians.

This whole section could use some work, but perhaps better: drop it entirely? It is very doubtfully part of the article anyway. After all, the article is about a global financial crisis starting in 2007, but what exactly what major financial crisis situations were fed by this commodity price behavior? Yakushima (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could someone with more knowledge of the subject and the page please go through and trim the External Links section? Per WP:EL and WP:NOT, we want only a small selection of the highest quality links, not a massive collection of what every random person has said about the crisis. I can do the editing myself, but I'd prefer a more experienced person here do it. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect pricing of risk

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I added a paragraph to the "Incorrect pricing of risk" section. I recently came across a journal article by Charles Calomiris at Columbia which provides a plausible answer to a question that continues to confuse me: why did so many smart, professional asset managers buy so many over-priced credit assets during the bubble? He argues it was a conflict of interest between asset managers and their clients. Bond Head (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation Missing

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the opening paragraph, the article states: "... declines in consumer wealth estimated in the hundreds of trillions of U.S. dollars..." but there is no citation for this. The same phrase appears on multiple iterations of this article. Is there a real source for this figure? If so, it should be included (and it is something I very much want to find).

Soulfulpsy (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Timeline needed

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article badly needs a simple timeline (like in history of Europe) with the dates of the major events at the top of the page. A concise history of the series of events is sorely lacking. Also, every section should link to a main article - or have major "seealso" topics. Would be great to see the editors of this (otherwise really good) page put that in. Wikidea 18:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Has this ended?

Latest comment: 13 years ago27 comments15 people in discussion

I think the title "Financial crisis of 2007–2010" clearly implies that this has ended. But I see no indication in this document that it has ended, or more importantly, how that was determined. I would suggest "2007-present", but I believe there is a policy against using the word "present" at all. So unless there is objection, I will plan to change the title to "Financial crisis beginning 2007". Darxus (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that this was recently discussed and resulted in changing the title from "2009" to "2010". This is still very misleading. I saw the title and thought "Did it end? How was that determined?" Darxus (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Darxus, I was going to suggest same thing and then noticed it had been done already time and time again.--JosephMifsud (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed it. Viriditas changed it back, stating "Financial crisis beginning 2007, is not standard or recommended." on my talk page. Where is the standard? WP:MOS#Longer_periods does not appear to include it. Darxus (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That's hardly a consensus considering JosephMifsud's account was created to "agree" with Darxus.[3] In any case, the current title is accurate and does not imply that anything has ended since 2010 is a new year. Financial crisis beginning 2007 is unprecedented. We don't have open-ended article titles. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I did not claim consensus (or create the JosephMifsud account). I asked where the standard is. Where is the standard? Darxus (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Range_of_years_which_has_not_ended Darxus (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Some people believe that the "Great Recession" has already ended due to GDP stats and the like. How come there is no reference in this article to show this? Several economists have said that since June 2009, it's already started to "look up" a bit. ★Dasani★ 01:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Please be respectful of other peoples opinion, just because you think so doesn't mean I believe so. South Bay (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not being disrespectful to you at all. I've not inserted my personal opinion to this page. Just sayin' that some economists think it's over already. Why is this not stated in the current article? Wikipedia seeks to provide a fair, unbiased sort of community that represents no specific point of view whatsoever, while managing to cover all aspects of the issue at hand. Don't take it so personally. ★Dasani★ 07:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this should be renamed to "Financial crisis of 2007– ", very much like the "1960 Bar" on the Vietnam Campaign Medal. Unless and until either this administration or the business leaders in the United States can figure out how to get un- and under-employment combined down under 5%, the recession lives on. Lowellt (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact is, few/no official agencies or governments have stated that the international financial crisis is over(at the very least there is no consensus). To put 2007-2010 is not only misleading, but puts a huge dent on the credibility of this article. It's like if someone wrote that the the War in Afghanistan ended in September. It's totally disingenuous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.176.2.223 (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree^^^^^^^^^^. Maybe to the fat cats on Wall Street it has ended, but to the average person, we are still very much in a depression. Lampsalot (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Calling an end to "crisis"

  • I am not going to weigh in on whether the recession is over, however I would suggest that a very clear deliniation be made between the ongoing Late-2000s recession and the Financial crisis that precipitated the recession. It is becoming increasingly clear that the financial crisis ended in 2009 when large bank failures came to an end, liquidity returned to the markets and the asset prices began to return to pre-crisis levels. The recession, however is ongoing. Almost by definition, I don't think you can have a 3-year long "crisis". When most politicians or reporters refer to the "worst financial crisis since the great depression" it is now used in a past tense. I think dating the end of the crisis phase to 2009 is appropriate. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 16:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't know why the article was moved to Financial crisis of 2007–2010. Coz the economic data show that all major countries, including US, Japan, EU , Russia, China and India are out of the recession. Yes, I admit the economy is still very terrible, but that is just what we "feel", the economic data should be the most authoritative. Currently there's no obvious economy growth doesn't mean it's still in the crisis or recession--1j1z2 (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it is almost certain that the financial crisis is over, but it would be nice if we could can get some reliable sources that state that as well. Does anyone have links to any newspapers, financial blogs or magazine articles that have stated that the crisis is over? LK (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
A quick google search brings up some articles that state that the financial crisis is over. If a kind soul could mine the search results and add it as appropriate to the article? Thanks, LK (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, as has sometimes been said, it's not over until it is over. There's still a lot of trouble in the financial system, and it still could fold up at any moment. It's best not to give the impression that it ended last year when it might have not, although it would be good to state that many believe that it is presently over. --Patricius Augustus (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • If there is another financial crisis in 2010 or 2011 wouldn't it make sense to have a separate article, distinct from this one relating to that crisis? I think it is pretty clear that the crisis is ended. If we have another crisis - it is not a big deal at that point to reconsider naming but at this point there is no reason to wait around for another crisis to decide on the name of this article. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 16:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • If there were a crisis this year, and if it is clear that it would be a continuation of the crisis we're talking about, then it would make sense to include it in this article, since it would be clearly an expression of the "2007-2009" crisis, and not a new crisis. This could happen, let's say, if the government prop-ups for the failed banks end up folding, and the banks fail. The crisis is not over in reality (or beneath the surface, if you will), it has just been masked and cushioned with a lot of bailouts and inflated money. There are also a lot of smaller, non-TARPed banks still failing, and this provides a window into what would have happened if the banks had not been bailed out. And in response to your point about waiting until another crisis, I do not advocate waiting until another crisis, I advocate until the crisis can be said to be over fundamentally, without inflation or bailouts or government support. It is at this point I would be on your side, and declare the crisis over. --Patricius Augustus (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The reasoning on calling the bounds of a biz cycle are fairly clear. Capitalist Accumulation assumes an ever increasing arc but one punctuated by these crises which are generally crises in Capitalism and not crises of Capitalism. The exception is the great Bear Market which was a Crisis (Marxian) and all other crises are measured against it. When the secular trend of equity share prices has a continually positive second derivative over sufficiently large subintervals after passing the low of the cycle and with an overall duration of the downturn comparable to the reference epochal and other cycles, then the crisis is considered over. The overall process can be based against a curve underlying the low points of the overall historical share price curve since 1929 (the implicit monotonically increasing secular arc of accumulation). 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Great Depression had two separate and distinct collapses, with a period of quasi-recovery in between. Does anyone here suggest that, because of that period in between, it be separated into two separate articles? With the benefit of hindsight and just a little historical perspective, we might be able to set end points for the current situation, dividing as necessary. Here and now, the citable sources are far too divided on everything except that GDP rose (barely) -- and not everyone agrees on that as a valid definition in any case. (It might have been more generally acceptable among experts - as it had been, before - were we not where we are now.) - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.99 (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Regulatory proposals

This section begins with Obama's proposals from June 2009, but does not include the more recent 'Volcker rule" proposals to restrict proprietary trading and other activities. Unless I there is a consensus against this, I will add that information to this section.Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This section seems seriously out of date, given the financial reform proposal being taken up by congress. Barring any serious objections, I'll try to get to this later this week and add some material about the proposed legislation. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
As financial reform legislation gets finalized in the U.S. Senate over the next week or so, we should prepare a summary of what gets passed for the Regulatory proposals section. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Within the next day I'll add something here on the passing of the bill - I figure a few quotes will be very useful here - maybe one from those satisfied, one from those opposing, and one from those saying it didn't go far enough. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

This section needs to be updated on what actually took place with the passing of the combined bill. I'll try to get back here when I have more time, but help here would be appreciated. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

A little US-centric

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

This article is a little US-centric. The global financial crisis was just that, global. For instance, Britain took quite a bashing, the United Arab Emirates (Dubai in particular) got utterly rolled over by the GFC while people places like Western Australia and Qatar basically blinked, yawned, and said, "was that it?!" and went back to work. There's plenty of evidence to this effect in the likes of the British, Qatari and Western Australian newspapers.

Also, although the GFC originated in the US, it spread worldwide owing to the interconnectivity of world markets and, in the British and Dubaian cases at least, because much of the same causes (lending money to people who can't pay you back to buy overvalued houses and those loans then wrapped up and sold to other people) were very, and independently, similar to those that occurred in the US.

So I'd suggest that this article be re-modelled a little. For instance, the secion on the "Congressional response" would be more appropriate in its own article entitled something like "US response to the GFC" or some such.

That said, good work all. It's a very difficult subject that does need documenting asap for posterity.

Cheers

Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.80.184.212 (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Being Irish myself I do not like to see that the article mainly centres on The US crisis when Ireland's economy was also raped by this Global financial crisis. Dylan (talk) 13:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Dito, consider Iceland, where it caused the fall of the government, this was (is?) a world-wide event.--N7bsn (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, this is partly true, but is partly warranted. Firstly, general consensus as far as I can tell is that the problem originated in the United States; this alone would call for a focus there. Secondly, the amount of money at stake with respect to the United States likely dwarfed other individual economies, possibly even the EU. Thirdly, the news coverage of American issues likely got wider global coverage, with only Greece, Iceland, and Ireland (all European) coming to mind, and not until after global coverage on the US. I think all those factors, as well as the sheer representation of Americans on Wikipedia, likely account for this. Only some of these factors can be discounted per standing Wikipedia rules, other American-centric issues should stand. Int21h (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe the article is mainly U.S. centric because there is an article named "2010 European sovereign debt crisis." Much of Europe's economic depression is mentioned there, which may contribute to a lack of European mention. As for other nations in the world, they may not be mentioned as they might not have been affected as much as the U.S., but if any information exists, feel free to add it. Gaandolf (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Page summary

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Page is too long, can a summary be added?203.26.177.2 (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate Page

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, this page appears to be a duplicate of Late-2000s_recession. How can this be resolved? ldvhl (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

2011 ??!! ?

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

I've left the following message at User talk:Stybn, who changed the title to 2007-2011. It clearly should be moved back to 2007-2010.

It's a bit early, and also a bit late, to call 2011 a financial crisis. Do you have a reliable source that we have been in a financial crisis in 2011? Of course not! It's only been 2011 for 10-15 hours, the markets haven't opened, and there are no news reports on the markets. I'll just note that the Dow has been up for 2 years in a row and that the recession was officially over more than a year ago. So would you move this back to Financial crisis of 2007-2010.

Smallbones (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've moved it back. StAnselm (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Is it WP:OR to determine the end of the financial crisis solely by the performance of the Dow? At the end of the article, it mentions a second wave is predicted between April to June 2011 with citation, which indicates the risks are still there. On the other hand, the article says nothing about when the financial crisis ended. --Quest for Truth (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just moved the article back again, as it was moved against the consensus of editors here on this talk page. Before anyone else moves it again, please support the move by providing reliable sources that refer to "Financial crisis of 2007–2011", or sources that state that the financial crisis that started in 2007 has continued into 2011. LK (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it OR in itself to claim that the crisis has ended when there are strong indicators of a weak economy to come? I would honestly prefer something like 2007-present. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, those against the move should also have the responsibility for providing sources that state that the financial crisis that started in 2007 has finished in 2010. In the article Great Depression, it says clearly when the Great Depression ended. It's very strange that the article mentions nothing about the end of the crisis when the title say the crisis is over.--Quest for Truth (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe it should read "Financial crisis of 2007-2011". The economy did not suddenly jump to normal standards when 2010 ended. There is nothing stating the economic crisis ended yet, so until we have reason to believe the crisis has ended, it should read 2011 instead of 2010. Gaandolf (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Until crisis is not officially announced to be over, it is still ongoing. That means it still exists, today, in 2011. So, there is no alternative to 2007-2011 title. --Rastko Pocesta (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This is really mixed up now. The talk page has 2010 and the article has 2011. Someone should have proposed a move that could be discussed properly. StAnselm (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Latest comment: 13 years ago17 comments11 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Financial_crisis_(2007–present). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Financial crisis of 2007–2010 → Financial crisis of 2007–2011 — Relisted. --rgpk (comment) 20:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC) — The crisis continues, apparently. This is a precedural nomination only, and I am neutral. --StAnselm (talk) 06:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Folks who want the 2011 in the title (including those who wanted it on New Years morning) must be looking at their WP:Crystal balls. Until somebody finds a reliable source - and I'll say a very reliable source such as the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, or the New York Times - that says the financial crisis continues in 2011, there's no way that we can say that there is a financial crisis in 2011. Please also distinguish between financial and economic crises - the recession is officially over. I don't know that there is an official body that declares dates on financial crises - but I suspect there isn't - so we'll just have to see what the WSJ and other RSs say. A financial crisis is essentially when the banking system and financial markets face collapse so it is difficult to summarize in a few numbers. But I haven't heard anybody saying recently that US banks or financial markets are facing collapse. Worldwide, of course, there is much variation, postive and negative. As JP Morgan said "the markets will continue to fluctuate." (as always). Some Dow Jones Industrial Averages (DJIA) that might be relevant
  • 1/05/07 12,398
  • 10/09/07 14,165 (high listed at [4]
  • 1/04/08 12,800
  • 1/02/09 9,035
  • 3/06/09 6,627 (recent low on the above site)
  • 1/08/10 10,618
  • 12/31/10 11,577
  • 1/07/11 11,685 about 11 am today.

Looks like the main financial crisis was in 2008 and early 2009, calling 2010 a financial crisis is a bit of a stretch, and 2011 is contradicted by the early data. Smallbones (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the DJIA is misleading, as 2010 had some heavy hitters, including the sovereign debt crises in Greece, Portugal, and Spain; those, I'm sure, fall under the financial crisis umbrella, not the recession one, and are definitely 2010. there have already been complaints on this talk page that this article is to U.S-centric and not enough on the worldwide crisis, and solely focusing on the financial crisis in the U.S is going to make the bias worse; we need a more worldwide focus.
Honestly the convention for articles that have no sure end in sight is to use the present label; that's the case for Post-invasion Iraq, 2003–present, War in Afghanistan (2001–present), and when the WGA was on strike. Attempts to move it to 2007-2008 before the strike was over were rebuffed. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think I agree with you - how about Financial crisis (2007–present)? StAnselm (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The European soverign debt crisis is not completely over. Until somebody finds a reliable source - and I'll say a very reliable source such as the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, or the New York Times - that says the financial crisis has ended, the best title for this article is Financial crisis (2007–present). --Quest for Truth (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Move to Financial crisis (2007–present) per conversation above. Now it appears in bold and everyone will see it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I have no objections to Financial crisis (2007–present), although I note that some sources have already made the claim that the crisis ended in 2010. I would oppose 'Financial crisis (2007-2011)' until reliable sources have appeared that state that it continues in 2011. LK (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we should move this to Late 2000s Financial Crisis or Financial crisis starting in 2007 as there is no evidence in the article that this financial crisis is continuing into 2011. There is a good case to be made that the crisis ended in mid 2009 or very, very early 2010. See, e.g. Time Magazine "More Quickly Than It Began, The Banking Crisis Is Over," Friday, Apr. 10, 2009 [5]. There is also a timeline at the St. Louis Fed, that starts in 2007 and continues to early-December 2010 (and may still be going) at [6], but all the recent entries are about wrapping up the details on TARP and similar items. The final TARP report included there gives a good general perspective, if few clear, pithy quotes, at [7]. But one quote says a lot: "I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took that program over, we made it more transparent and more accountable. And as a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we've recovered most of the money we spent on the banks.” ‐‐ President Obama, January 27, 2010. BTW, the cite we have in the lede about 2011, is from May 2009, and is grossly misleading there. The article might be summed up by "My analysis, however, suggests that there are many yellow weeds that may lead to a weak global growth recovery over 2010-11." Ten Risks to Global Growth. Hardly about a financial crisis in 2011. I'll likely put in a new section on the "End of the Financial Crisis" or more likely "Stabilization" - leaving out the major change between 2010 and 2007-early 2009 makes this a misleading article. I'll remove all the 2011 dates in the article, as they are simply not supported. And 2011 in the title - or even "present" would be out of line. Smallbones (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I would say that according to the sources you provided the US has probably got out of the crisis, but the article should be on a global perspective rather than US-centric. We cannot declare the financial crisis never exist and delete the article by citing how strong the economy and finance of China is. Similarly we cannot ignore other factors such as the ongoing European soverign debt crisis, no matter how well the finance of the US is.--Quest for Truth (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm getting tired of reverting people who are editing contrary to the MOS. As such, I'm going to be bold and move this to Late 2000s Financial Crisis as suggested above. Unless there are any objections? LK (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
As that could be ambiguous to the century or the decade, I suggest Financial crisis in the latter half of the first decade of the 2000s extending into the earlier half of the next decade. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The title "Late 2000s Financial Crisis" has some problems. Firstly, it should be "Late-2000s" as other articles like Late-2000s recession. Secondly, "financial crisis" should be in lowercase as the same in lead section. Thirdly, the title does not resolve the problem as people may still argue for titles like Late 2000s–early 2010s financial crisis.--Quest for Truth (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Until this discussion is finished, can we please follow the Manual of Style (MOS:LEAD), and have the lead sentence reflect the title of the article? LK (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Test of time

Please engage some thinking before changing the title. The title of an encyclopedic article should be a phrase that doesn't become obsolete next year. Same applies for content. No terms like 'recent' or 'present'. Kbrose (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That might be doable if we were a dead tree encyclopedia, but we cover things as they happen, and things often change. For example, the 26 November 2008 Mumbai attacks became the November 2008 Mumbai attacks before becoming the 2008 Mumbai attacks. as I said earlier, the article was the 2007 WGA strike until the next year. The December 2010 Queensland floods became the 2010–2011 Queensland floods after the year ended. The term (present) is the only term that will prevent constant moves after the current year is over. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
It is you who should engage in some thinking before criticizing attempts to change the title. It is not as if the title "Financial crisis of 2007–2010" is any better, which, given the present state of events, will most likely be obsolete in the near future. As for your point "The title of an encyclopedic article should be a phrase that doesn't become obsolete next year. Same applies for content. No terms like 'recent' or 'present'." a solution for this in English does not exist due to the sorry state of the English language. Also, please reconsider your talk page policy of deleting all the posts every month, and consider archiving.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 14:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rename to Financial crisis of 2007–2011 ?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Rename to Financial crisis of 2007–2011 ? 99.184.229.210 (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of PIGS as an Acronym

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not certain the use of PIGS as an acronym for Portugal Italy, Greece and Spain (in the 2010 European sovereign debt crisis section) is a wise choice. Even more so since any explanation of the acronym is buried in the foot-notes. I will put an explanation at the first use.--N7bsn (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the use of the PIGS acronym is completely out of place in any serious analysis. Its origins are sensationalistic and it carries a heavy load of prejudice; it's very imprecise, as it has been used to refer to different sets of countries (sometimes including Ireland or the UK, sometimes not); moreover, the economic and financial situations of the countries it refers to are very diverse, so including them all in the same (pejorative) sack is absolutely misguiding. I think every use of PIGS should be replaced by more accurate descriptions. --gonzy (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Second wave of the crisis section

Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

Wouldn't this violate WP:CRYSTAL since even though it's from a peer-reviewed journal, in the end it's still just a forecast and nothing more? I suggest it's either removed from the article or backed by more third-party references and media coverage. --112.203.56.87 (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Shall we delete articles like 2012 and 2014 Winter Olympics?--Quest for Truth (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
2012 and the 2014 Winter Olympics are actually scheduled to occur - the Olympics actually is in process, so there would be an article on it even on the odd chance that it is cancelled. The "gold crash" is not scheduled. More seriously, gold prices are believed to move inversely to financial crashes in other markets, i.e. when stock prices goes down, the gold price goes up. Forecasting a crash in gold prices, therefore, is like forecasting an anti-crisis. Even if the forecast is believable, it shouldn't go in an article about financial crisis. Smallbones (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Support every point made above by Smallbones.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 14:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Take a good look at 2012. Are the Solar eclipses on May 20, 2012 and November 13, 2012 really scheduled to occur? Future astronomical events are just forecast by human, unless you are the God who can schedule these events. Gold investors will lose money in a "gold crash" even though stock prices move inversely, and who knows such a crash won't have any consequence in other markets? Finally if you believe your analysis is true, please, instead of removing cited materials, enrich the article by adding your analysis with citation.--Quest for Truth (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Eclipse predictions are nowadays orders of magnitude more effective than economy predictions. 213.134.175.225 (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
How about predictions of numbers of hurricanes and storms as in 2011 Atlantic hurricane season? Verifiability is mroe important than accruacy.--Quest for Truth (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
It is better to represent this as a prediction and not an indicator of what the future entails. There is likely debate for and against there being a second-wave, so mention that. The article itself should clearly not make the case for either outcome.Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86 14:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

User Quest for Truth insists on keeping this section in, despite being against WP:CRYSTAL and the apparent consensus against it. I'll remove it one more time and ask him NOT to put it back unless he can get a consensus here to do so. Smallbones (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatever WP:CRYSTAL may say, it can't make us deny that interesting predictions have been made. While Wikipedia shouldn't be saying that something is going to happen (unless it's something pretty much certain, like the Olympics or an eclipse), it can certainly report the fact that predictions (if published in reliable sources) have been made. (And if there are conflicting predictions, report all of them, giving fair weight.)--Kotniski (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I also don't agree Smallbones' interpretation. The section should be removed only if it misleads the readers into thinking the second wave is pretty much certain to happen. I would rather make it more balanced by adding more from the conclusion part of the paper. --HkQwerty (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Request move to Late-2000s financial crisis

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

{{edit protected}}

derivatives bubble

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The term does not show up in this article, yet google gives 1.86 million hits on this. I'm not a financial expert but I find it strange, that wikipedia does not give any hits on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.206.169.104 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It's official

Latest comment: 13 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Late-2000s financial crisis. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


Financial crisis (2007–present) → Financial crisis (2007-2008) — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I went to move this as discussed below, but I think it's move-protected because of the multiple moves of mid-january. I don't think there is any serious question now about moving it: there is an official report saying it ended in 2008, and no sources saying it went any longer. Smallbones (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The United States Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission dates the crisis to 2008.[1][2] Actually they mention some events in 2007 so I think "Financial Crisis of 2007-2008" would be an acceptable title. The current title of "Financial crisis (2007–present)" is clearly improper at this point. Smallbones (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Get the Report, accessed 2-14-2011.
  2. ^ Financial Crisis Was Avoidable, Sewell Chan, New York Times, January 25, 2011, accessed 2-14-2011.

Interesting. In that case the stuff on the European sovereign debt crisis needs to be moved to another page. LK (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The obvious place to move it would be European sovereign debt crisis of 2010–present, but since it appears that this section is just a bad summary of that article, I think the result would just be to totally eliminate it. There are certainly neutral, fairly mechanical, ways to merge articles, i.e. search the larger article for the topic covered in the first sentence of the smaller section. If there is no mention, insert at the best point; if there is a mention .... Repeat with the 2nd sentence. If somebody else would like to do this - I'd prefer it. If nobody else does it by Monday, I'll do it. Smallbones (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Given the above, I propose changing the name of the article to "Late-2000s financial crisis" to follow the article on Late-2000s recession. LK (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

When does the Wikipedia become so US-centric and no WP:common sense? Obviously the focus of the report of the US Commission is the CAUSE of the financial crisis. Since the origin is indeed the US housing bubble, plus the only purpose of the Commission is to serve the US people, it is no wonder the report only mention what happens in the US and ignore the global consequences. It states clearly in the preface:

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission was created to “examine the causes of the current financial and economic crisis in the United States.” In this report, the Commission presents to the President, the Congress, and the American people the results of its examination and its conclusions as to the causes of the crisis.

The Commission is only responsible to the US, but Wikipedia should have a WP:global perspective. I would suggest that to create an article about the American financial crisis of 2008 to put those materials related to the US and keep this article cover all the global consequences.--HkQwerty (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It all comes down to reliable sources. There are reliable sources that i) date the crisis to 2007-2008, and ii) describe the crisis as mainly American (with albeit global impact). If you contend otherwise, kindly provide reliable sources that i) date the crisis otherwise, and distinguish an 'American financial crisis of 2008' from a 'Global financial crisis of 2007 to present'. My contention is that reliable sources identifies only one late 2000s financial crisis, and that the crisis officially dates from 2007 to 2008. LK (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit late following this up, but I'll move it following the above logic. Nothing has been added since the discussion started that changes any of this. Smallbones (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't care about the exact wording but I would strongly prefer a move to something along the lines of "2007-2008", because 2007-present is so misleading/inaccurate. bobrayner (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added another source under "Stabilization"

  • Norris, Floyd (March 10, 2011). "Crisis Is Over, but Where's the Fix?". New York Times. Retrieved March 10, 2011.

The only quirk is that they identify March, 2009 as the "nadir", which goes along with what the stock market has done. But maybe the title should be Financial crisis of 2007-2009

Smallbones (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Since there is some question as to whether it started in late-2007 or mid-2008, and whether it ended in late-2008 or mid-2009, I suggest that we rename to Late-2000s financial crisis. This also reflects the naming of the associated recession, the Late-2000s recession. LK (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
That's fine. Let's do it. What does it actually take to get it moved? Smallbones (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to post at WP:Requested moves, as there is clear consensus here that the move should proceed. I'm also going to make an edit protected request, as there's a ridiculously long backlog on the requested moves page. LK (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why not call this artcle the Global Financial Crisis?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I do not understand how this happened, but I recall this article being called the Financial Crisis of 2007-2008, which was fine since the financial crisis started around that time and we are still feeling its after effects. But even so why did this article change finally to the Late-2000's Financial Crisis? If you are concerned about what to call this crisis, thus this artcle, then call it simply the Global Financial Crisis because frankly that's the most commonly used term for the event. What is amusing to me is how searching for "Global Financial Crisis" on wikipedia brings me to this article. Therefore I don't see a problem. Xangel (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no current consensus to move - I would postpone the requested move until the RFC is finished. Regards, KiloT 21:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Late-2000s financial crisis → Financial crisis (2007–present) –

  • Recognizability – article titles are expected to be a recognizable name or description of the topic.
  • "Late 2000s" is not recognizable. Also notice above the comment Talk:Late-2000s_financial_crisis#Why_not_call_this_artcle_the_Global_Financial_Crisis.3F I do not understand how this happened, but I recall this article being called the Financial Crisis of 2007-2008, which was fine since the financial crisis started around that time and we are still feeling its after effects. But even so why did this article change finally to the Late-2000's Financial Crisis?
  • Naturalness – titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles). As part of this, a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Who in their right mind will start their search for Late-2000s financial crisis?
  • Precision – titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.
  • For this I would suggest the word 2007 be in title.
  • Conciseness – titles are expected to be shorter rather than longer.

--Obsolete.fax (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Also at the section above Talk:Financial crisis (2007–present)#It's_official the discussion was for Financial crisis (2007–present) → Financial crisis (2007-2008). --Obsolete.fax (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cause of the Recession

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The heading to this article attributed cause of the recession to liquidity. This is incorrect; lack of liquidity is an effect. No single cause was the problem, but rather multiple causes as laid out fairly well in the article: reduced interest rates, sub-prime lending, inaccurate pricing of risk, etc. I have corrected this. Gaytan (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC on page name

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

What is the appropriate title for this page. Should this page be named:

  • Late-2000s financial crisis (current)
  • 2007 financial crisis
  • Financial crisis (2007–2008)
  • Financial crisis (2007–2009)
  • Financial crisis (2007–2010)
  • Financial crisis (2007–present)
  • Global Financial Crisis

Previous discussions: 8 June 2011, 22 January 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrencekhoo (talk • contribs) 08:39, 8 June 2011

Discussion

  • This is one of those issues that is tough to define whether or not the financial crisis is over or still ongoing; I suppose only time will tell. I would think "Financial crisis (2007–2009)" would be the best choice given the arguments linked in those 2 sections. However, I wouldn't be surprised if renaming is brought up again as experts continue to weigh in on the global status of the economy.  Leef5  TALK | CONTRIBS 18:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Global financial crisis, because:
  • That's what it seems to mostly be referred to in the (Australian) media.
  • My (layman's) understanding is that it has global scope, and is not limited to a single country.
  • We probably don't need to the years in the title; so far as I am aware there's no ambiguity. There isn't/wasn't any other GFC - referred to as such - that we might confuse it with. (Note that Global financial crisis redirects with no {{About}} hatnote pointing to a disambiguation or any other page that the reader might have been looking for.)
Other comments: If the crisis is not global, but mostly limited to the US, the title should explicitly include "US". As a non-US reader, I'd like the title to tell me where this financial crisis was. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Top priority has to be eliminating the very confusing "Late 2000s" title. Thoughts on candidates:
Any of the titles that name a specific year-span would solve the "late 2000" ambiguity problem. To pick the best title, we should scrutinize the sources and see which is most commonly used. Unfortunately, most sources are just using vague, non-specific-year terminology and relying on the audience to infer that the present time is involved. So, counting source-usage may not be too helpful. I'd suggest Financial crisis (2007–2009) or Financial crisis (2007–2010) as the overall best. Ten or 20 years from now, historians will have adopted a standard name for the crisis, and the article can be renamed at that time. Until then, the current name is way too ambiguous and confusing, and should be changed. --Noleander (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I suppose Global Financial Crisis is acceptable, if we think that is how the majority of sources are referring to it. I'm 99% certain that the most common name will become something else in 10 to 30 years. But until then WP:COMMONNAME is appropriate, and trumps WP:Recentism. --Noleander (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Moved text erroneously inserted by 24.4.177.131 into quotation

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In this edit, 24.4.177.131 inserted a paragraph into a {{Quotation}} block. The quote is referenced so it is easy to verify that the extra text is not part of the quote. I've moved the new text so that it is immediately after, but outside of, the quote block. I don't know if this is actually the correct place for this text, but it clearly does not belong inside the quote block, and I figure it is better to include it here than not at all. No doubt someone else will move it somewhere more appropriate if needs be. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Why say the Financial Crisis has ended when that is in dispute?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In May of this year, a head of the European Central Bank told Reuters that the Financial Crisis is not over. Yet in this article it says it is unquestionably. Why not reflect the unsettled position that seems to be among banks in this area? I added this point and someone deleted it. I'm unsure why.

Here is the article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/02/ecb-trichet-idUSDEK00211720110502

"Quote (bolding mine) from http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/19/ecb-trichet-idUSL6E7HJ03G20110619
"KIEL (Germany), June 19 (Reuters) - European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet on Sunday raised concern about widening global imbalances after the financial crisis, calling them one of the main challenges for the global economy. Global imbalances were blamed for contributing to and aggravating the financial crisis and recession that struck the global economy in 2008 and 2009.

Clearly not everything has returned to the way it was before the financial crisis, but the crisis itself - as identified by many of the world's leading finance folks - including Trichet - is over, and has been for a couple of years. After-shocks? sure. Greece? related, but maybe from 2 or 3 steps distance. The financial system collapsing? (that's what people think will happen during a financial crisis) Nobody is saying that now. Smallbones (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Title is misleading

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The title "Late 2000s" means the years just before 3000. They are about a thousand years away. The title really refers to the recent past of the first decade of the 2000s. The article should be re-titled (possibly to "Early 2000s financial crisis"). 28 July 2011 99.88.38.22 (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If you think anybody is confused and thinks that this refers to the financial crisis that occurred in 2997-2999 rather than the one that occurred in 2007-2009, I suggest you go to WP:MOS to see how they deal with this "problem." Smallbones (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
No, that would be the late 2900s financial crisis. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Askar Akayev as a reliable source

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've reverted the "prediction" of a crash from Askar Akayev that supposedly was made for "July-August 2011." There's a couple of things wrong with including this prediction here

  • Akayev is just not a reliable source when it comes to the world financial system
  • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, see WP:NOT
  • This prediction was being made for April-June 2011. See [8] Anybody who gets to change their predictions at will can be 100% accurate, so why include any of them?

I've also deleted the commentary from the Slovak human rights lawyer. In a vague way he might be right, but is he considered to be a reliable source on this matter?

Do let me know if you object and we'll list the question at WP:RSN. Until then, it stays out.

Smallbones (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree Bond Head (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

About the predatory lending section

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Predatory lending" usually refers to what was historically called "usury", and its side phenomena. At least in common law it was very much different from the kind of bait-and-switch strategies which are outlined in the article. The latter would usually fall under legally actionable tort, as "fraud" or perhaps "embezzlement". But usually even after pointing that out to one of the "anti-usurists", I get told that "predatory lending is just bad and exploitative".

As such I think, the general connotation that private lenders were at significant fault for the ensuing crisis, and that their "predatory lending" was somehow a big part of the problem, is at doubt in at least three regards.

First, bait-and-switch might be fraud, so that the problem is actually with the police and/or the victim not prosecuting private corruption. Where are the numbers in both regards? Cite?

Second, the section suggests that the "victim" didn't know what he/she was doing when entering the agreement. This should be shown, somewhere. Cite?

Third, I'm not too sure this part merits a section at all. I've never seen credible statistics on how many of the eventual loans which failed came about because of aggressive lending. I *have* seen some which roundabout suggest this effect should have been minimal. So, where's the cite for effect, wrt this particular downturn?

The current cites don't address these issues at all. Decoy (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibility of double-dip recession

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

As some media like The Economist have pointed out that, "The odds of a double dip over the coming year are uncomfortably high, perhaps as high as 50%.", and if they are right, should the double dip be considered as a single crisis or two separate crises? --Quest for Truth (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Recessions and financial crises are two different things. Smallbones (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The 2007/8 crisis never ended, 2011 is a continuation. Here is how George Soros described it recently:

SPIEGEL: Is the current crisis even worse than the one in 2008?

Soros: This crisis is still the continuation of the same crisis. In 2008, the financial system collapsed and it had to be put on artificial life support. The authorities managed to save the system. But the imbalances that caused the crisis have not been removed.

SPIEGEL: What do you mean?

Soros: The method the authorities rightly chose three years ago was to substitute the credit of the state for the credit in the financial system that collapsed. After the failure of Lehman Brothers, the European financial ministers issued a declaration that no other systemically important financial institutions would be allowed to fail. That was the artificial life support; it was exactly the right decision.

The key phrase here is "The method the authorities rightly chose three years ago was to substitute the credit of the state for the credit in the financial system that collapsed." The burden was shifted from the private to the public sphere. We currently see a global banking crisis, a currency crisis and a sovereign debt crisis - all related to the the decisions made 3 years ago. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

wipeout of actual 08 financial crisis history

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

as the financial crisis of 2008 (and cont. to later) occurred, there was on wiki an article chronicling the real time events (under "Investment bankers") which as repeatedly wiped out and morphed into the present off the point article which is monotone textbook recital; the original was a listing of 200 years of leading investment bankers followed by further listing of major aspects/departments of top investment banking firms and that included markets discussion, which then chronicled the 2008 crisis as it occurred and all this was written by the only guru who stopped the 2008 financial crisis and who was to date the only person who understood what occurred ... but the nonsensical wiki admin reviewers , understanding zero ab any of it wiped all that out - written at chinon and jackson hole this 21 august of year of our Lord 20011, tie rell joanz , reel Fed Chairman Sr 69.121.221.97 (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Subprime lending and GSEs

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

From the article:

In the early and mid-2000s, the Bush administration called numerous times[1] for investigation into the safety and soundness of the GSEs and their swelling portfolio of subprime mortgages. On Sept. 10, 2003 the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing at the urging of the administration to assess safety and soundness issues and to review a recent report by OFHEO (Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight) that had uncovered accounting discrepancies within the two entities.[2] The hearings never resulted in new legislation or formal investigation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as many of the committee members refused to accept the report and instead rebuked OFHEO for their attempt at regulation.[3] Some believe this was an early warning to the systemic risk that the growing market in subprime mortgages posed to the U.S. financial system that went unheeded.[4]

References
"
  1. ^ "Bush White House Archive". whitehouse.gov.
  2. ^ "OFHEO Report on Systemic Risk" (PDF). fhfa.gov.
  3. ^ "House Hearing on OFHEO Report". house.gov.
  4. ^ "Attempts at Regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac" (PDF). international-economy.com.
"

I've tagged this text, which has been added to several crisis-related articles and is grossly misleading. I had previously removed it with an explanation in the edit summary but it has since been reinstated without any explanation. Let me flesh out the problems with it.

It uses primary sources, one of which is a list of White House talking points to advance an original argument that the WH, OFHEO concerns were an early warning of risks in subprime lending which Congress wrongly ignored. But the sources tend to deal with things like capital adequacy, management reforms, accounting errors, etc; not risks in subprime lending. The text also selectively omits to mention the pressure on the GSEs from Wall Street & mortgage originators as well as the Bush administration to continue to expand lending. It doesn't identify Peter Wallison, an American Enterprise Institute fellow who gets a disproportionate voice in this article, and instead weasel words his view. Finally, the whole emphasis on subprime lending backed by GSEs is misleading since most subprime loans were actually securitized by private investors.[9]

--Not seeing what your problem here is. Were there attempts during the Bush admin to put regulations on the GSE's? Yes. About 3 or 4. Were there accounting discrepancies? Yes. Did that report show that the GSE's would be at risk? Yes. It showed very weak internal controls. It also forced Fannie Mae to stop buying home loans as investments. If their accounting books are cooked, how trustworthy could they be? Also why are you complaining about using White House talking points when you are refuting them using Fed Reserve talking points? They have an interest is making the GSE's look as good as possible. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaggs (talk • contribs) 00:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Refusal to Include the Term "Great Recession", or even "Recession" in the Article Title is Ridiculous

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The term "Great Recession", or "Recession", is used frequently in the media, including major newspapers and news magazines. But not here. This is also why the number of Wikipedia editors is declining sharply in recent years, because individual articles end up getting dominated by stubborn, inflexible little groups with axes to grind. Perhaps its good, though. This article doesn't search in any significant way on Google, under "Great Recession" or even "Recession", likely due to the stubborn, entrenched insistence on an obscure title that doesn't match the way most people refer to the subject. Just deserts.

69.171.160.11 (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What about Late-2000s recession? What exactly are you talking about? --125.253.96.70 (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Added Us only tag

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This article should be global in nature but it is heavily US centric. Almost every section contains information from a US point of view while the crisis' impact around the world is contained in a few paragraphs. Globalizing this article should be a priority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.73.65 (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to add a documented global perspective. Please don't just complain, just do it! Smallbones (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm removing the tag. It's widely accepted that the financial crisis was started in the US, caused by the US financial sector, so it is only natural that the article centers around events in the US. The article does have sections on the global effects of the financial crisis. If you don't think these sections cover the global impact are adequately, you should specify in what way would like to see them expanded.TheFreeloader (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

File:2008 Top1percentUSA.png Nominated for Deletion

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  An image used in this article, File:2008 Top1percentUSA.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Regulatory proposals and long-term responses Out of Date

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Section Late-2000s_financial_crisis#Regulatory_proposals_and_long-term_responses is out of date. It makes references to the reconciliation of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010 as current. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.181.84 (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Resource Scientific American, Wall Street, Global financial system

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

A Formula for Economic Calamity; Despite the lessons of the 2008 collapse, Wall Street is betting our future on flimsy science by David H. Freedman SciAm October 26, 2011 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Excerpts ...

The market crash of 2008 that plunged the world into the economic recession from which it is still reeling had many causes. One of them was mathematics.

The financial world is not alone, of course, in depending on mathematical models that aren’t always reliable for decision-making guid­ance. Scientists struggle with models in many fields ... in which the phenomena they describe are very complex, or information is hard to come by, or, as is the case with financial models, both. But in no area of human activity is so much faith placed in such flimsy science as finance.

99.181.138.228 (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
This may be useful in other wp locations too. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Financial modeling? 99.109.125.146 (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Should the title ['name'] remain "Financial crisis of 2007–2010"?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Now, the title of this article (even though it is just a re-direct to Late-2000s financial crisis), is "Financial crisis of 2007–2010". Is that the way it should be? Did the event (or, era) (or whatever it was) stop or "end" itself, during 2010? Or is it still going? Should the name perhaps be changed to "Financial crisis of 2007–the present"? ...and then later changed to "Financial crisis of 2007–20xx" once this thing (whatever it is) ends?

I don't know the answers. I am just asking some questions. Thank you! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

social effects?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Very little mention of the impact this financial crisis had on the lives of the working class? Businesses, corporations, GNP, market shares, etc were not the only things affected. I think the writers of this article are missing a key subject - THE PEOPLE!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.5.140 (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

China potential WSJ resource

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Stage Set for China to Launch Stimulus 10.December.2011 by Bob Davis and Aaron Back, excerpt ...

With growth slowing and inflation becoming less of a problem, China's Communist Party leadership indicated it was ready to stimulate the economy further, underlining a challenge facing not just Beijing but other emerging markets as well. China's Politburo, the party's top decision-making body, said China would "fine-tune policies in light of changes in economic development," according to the state-run Xinhua News agency. The Politburo statement said China would also maintain its current "prudent" monetary policy and an "active" fiscal policy, without elaborating on those terms.

99.181.141.143 (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

World map of GDP growth rates

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I posted this on the talk page for the image but I'll post it here too. The map of world GDP growth rates shows Botswana's economy collapsing with Zimbabwe's economy slightly rising. I'm no economist but I do read the news; isn't Botswana the one with the relatively thriving economy while Zimbabwe is the one with the collapsing economy?

Right now Botswana is the country in southern Africa that is dark brown (i.e. decreased 8-10%) while Zimbabwe, to its immediate northeast, is green.

Zimbabwe gave up on its currency and adopted the greenback. That might have something to do with it, especially considering that "improvement" would be relative to previously rock-bottom (and digging). - Tenebris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.142 (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have trimmed the external links section per WP:EL. Please add links with care, making sure that they are allowed by a specific category detailed at WP:ELYES. For convenience of use as sources, I'm listing the links trimmed below. Note that some of these links don't qualify as reliable sources.

"Late-2000s" is not a good name for this article

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments9 people in discussion

The title for this article is undoubtedly wrong. "Late-2000s" is completely imprecise.

Firstly, what period does this refer to - it could be 2900 to 3000 for example. Secondly, let's suppose it means the latter part of the first decade, like 2005 to 2010 - then it excludes the current year, when the crisis is very much still ongoing.

I think Mike Schwartz comments above about the previous title for this article are completely correct - this article should be called "Financial Crisis of 2007-Present".

(Paulbotha23 (talk) 09:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC))

Absolutely. The current title is ambiguous, as it could be (and I did initially) read as referring to the late part of the millennium, rather than the decade. Ironically, you could just as easily call this the "Early-2000s financial crisis" for the same reason. There must be a less ambiguous name.
—SterlingNorth (talk) 10:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised the name isn't "Global Financial Crisis," as that, or GFC, are the most common terms I've heard it referred to, yet neither of these terms are even mentioned on the page (outside the refs). Google gives 12 million hits for "global financial crisis" (with quotes) compared to the term used at the top of the article, "great recession," which nets 4 million. DrHacky (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Ability to find in a search is extremely important, so if someone knows how to change the title then go ahead. I forgot how or I would do it. It is very simple to do.Phmoreno (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I would also call it Global Financial Crisis. We never had a global financial crisis before, and the current crisis is often refereed to as such. If anyone has a doubt, do a disambiguate page, but I vote to call this GFC as many above. --Wikijasmin (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. 113.203.142.160 (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely! I also think the name, even now, is incredibly pretentious. The article on the Great Depression is not called "late 1920s to late 1930s financial slowdown," it's called the Great Depression. Why can't this article be named the Global Financial Crisis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.13.238 (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that the 2007–2012 global financial crisis page should be renamed global financial crisis, after all it'snot over yet so this smaks of recentism.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
See (long and dirty) discussion below :) SPat talk 15:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I believe this is out of date. "The U.S. Senate passed a regulatory reform bill in May 2010, following the House which passed a bill in December 2009. These bills must now be reconciled. " 72.187.98.128 (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Role of Credit Ratings Agencies & Litigation

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think that this article should include the significant role the credit ratings agencies played in facilitating the markets for derivatives, CDOs and CDSs. Without their consistent Triple A ratings the investment banks and their investors would have been forced to do much greater risk assessments, which may have mitigated the crisis.

I also think it would be relevant to document the litigation that resulted from the crisis, and in a general sense what that process has contributed to a sense of culpability. Have the courts aportioned responsibility/blame through litigation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.14.13 (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Name Change

Latest comment: 12 years ago15 comments8 people in discussion

I am happy that the name changed to 2008-2012 Global Financial Crisis. It's a step in the right direction. However, in my view the crisis started already in 2007. Even the article describes events that already happens in 2007 (e.g. the collapse of Northern Rock in the UK occurred in 2007). Literally, we could debate for ages if the crisis started in 2007, 2008, or in 2006 - but there is not a precise date, as well the crisis might not end in 2012.

I suggest to change the name to "Global Financial Crisis" at it is also called in the article several times and as it is commonly known to economists or the laymen. "Global Financial Crisis" already redirects to this article anyway. I know it requires a bit of courage to call it just "Global Financial Crisis", but in my view it would be the best name for the article.

Let us know your views. --Wikijasmin (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Other articles documenting ongoing events change the article title as the years go by (e.g. "2008–2012" becomes "2008–2013," etc..), and I think that should work well for the current title. I think it may be slightly early to call it just the "global financial crisis," especially when almost every economic crisis in modern history is global or arguably so. If a strong consensus develops for a move, or a strong media consensus develops around the name, then I think it's great, but I'd err on the side of caution for now. After all, titling something like the "Great Depression" has downsides in that it may introduce bias when first learning about the subject (as if it's the only "great" depression, or it's the largest depression of all time, arguably encouraging a certain deficit in common interest related to the Depression of 1873–79 and other similar events). 2007 may be a good year to use for the beginning of the crisis, though I thought 2008 might be the least controversial (in that the fewest number would argue the crisis had yet to begin in 2008). I think addressing the relative ambiguity of when the crisis actually began would make a great addition to the article ("economists x and y place the beginning of the crisis in 2007, and some suggest strain was apparent related to z in mid-2006" etc..). --Xaliqen (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with 2008-2012 Global Financial Crisis. 113.203.142.160 (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I may be a bit behind on this, but what set of criteria are we using to determine whether the crisis has ended? I feel that going by sources could be a bit tricky, because I think you will always have a number of people saying "the economy is in trouble" at any given point of time. Again, I'm probably being very naïve about this, and my apologies if this has already been fought over elsewhere. SPat talk 16:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I think you are right. There is a number of people who would say that the crisis already ended in the US, while others would say that it still goes on (in particular in Europe). However, there is probably even a separate article on the European sovereign debt crisis. Thus, it's not clear if the crises ended or not, or if it transformed into a different crisis (that goes under a different Wikipedia title).
Furthermore, why do we assume that the crisis will ever end? Maybe this will be like a Japanese style depression that will go on forever (see Lost Decade (Japan)). I wonder who actually determined here that the global financial crisis started in 2008, because in my understanding it started all in 2007.
However, if the policy is to update the years of ongoing events on a rolling basis - I am fine with it. Although, am I the only one who things the crisis stared in 2007? --Wikijasmin (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm a complete outsider in this field, but let me just add my $0.02:

The way I see it, the "financial crisis" started around the time of the crash of Bear Sterns (summer '08), Lehman Bros. and Merrill Lynch (fall '08). I'm assuming there exist some measures of stability of financial institutions (banks etc.), and I would say that these would mark the end of the financial crisis. My guess is that with this reasoning, the financial crisis ended in 2011.

I think that the financial troubles of 2007 are pretty much described in the subprime mortgage crisis article (including, say, the collapse of Northern Rock). Further, the current financial problems seem to be localized to Europe (as covered in European sovereign-debt crisis), and even if they do lead to a global crisis, that crisis would be distinct from the subject of this article.

To summarize, I propose we mark a clear distinction between the following three articles

I'd like to hear what y'all think about this. Best, SPat talk 15:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I think if you consider that the Global Financial Crisis was preceded by Subrime mortgage crisis then the year 2008 might be a good start. I initially considered that the Global Financial Crisis started with the subprime crisis (i.e. that it was a part of it), but if you keep it separate that is fine too.
I also wonder why we do not use the years for the Subprime mortgage crisis' nor the European sovereign-debt crisis, but for the Global Financial Crisis we need to add the years 2008-2012. As with the other two crisis, it is not perfectly clear when it started and when it ended.
I am sure some people would say that the Global Financial Crisis is still ongoing, while I do understand your point that it ended in 2011. Same some people would say that the sub-prime crisis was the first period of the Global Financial Crisis, while I also understand the other argument that the financial crisis actually started with the collapse of Bear Sterns. --Wikijasmin (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see the RFCs on this from last year at [10] (can find the archives!)

There are 3 problems with the "2012" title

  • The financial system is not in crisis - nobody thinks it's in imminent danger of collapse, which is what a financial crisis is - not at all the same thing as a recession.
  • Some pretty good sources that say it was over in 2009 or 2010 - see the stabilization section
  • This can be fairly political - so I'm sure you can find some politician somewhere who says that there is a crisis, but we need real economic or financial reliable sources that say that we are in a financial crisis - and I just don't think that they are there.

So ultimately you need to "Get a source." We should just move it back to the old title, and call an RfC if anybody disagrees. Smallbones (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at the previous discussions and RfCs and they all seem to be inconclusive at best. I tried a quick search of my favorite sources (Wall Street Journal, Al Jazeera, New York Times, The Guardian,...) and the overall impression confirms my original idea: that everything after 2011 is included under "European sovereign debt crisis". In particular, see this Guardian article:
It's also perhaps appropriate to rename European sovereign debt crisis to (say) 2011-2012 sovereign debt crisis in order to include problems in Washington in that article. I did not find many sources to settle the 2007 v. 2008 starting issue. Secondly, I feel that it's probably not a great idea to rely on mainstream sources (such as my Guardian ref. above) to decide this issue. It would be very helpful if someone could suggest any reputed academic review articles which discuss the extent of the crisis. (To give an analogy, if this were in my field - Physics, I would rely on Nature and Science as sources, rather than main stream media OR the primary academic papers)
To summarize, I am certain that the "-2012" should not be there in the title, but I'd like to see more sources/opinions. As I said earlier, my vote is for 2008-2011 global financial crisis. Meanwhile, I request all editors to please not move the article until we have a consensus. Once we do agree on a consensus title, we should probably get it move-protected.
Sorry for the long post, SPat talk 17:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that there is a need for sources to settle the issue, that there may not be a consensus among the sources, and that there isn't a consensus here ... yet. My vote is for the "intersection of all sets" ... i.e. "Global Financial Crisis." I'm sure someday with hindsight there will be a common name given to the crisis but right now everyone seems to know that we are talking about the recent financial crisis. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I've asked for comments on WT:Economics and WT:Finance. I hope the experts there have something to say. SPat talk 16:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

-Seems like a scope issue, not a time-date issue- If we are talking about this being a global crisisBold text, then it's very much on-going except the battleground has moved from Wall Street to Europe (Greece, Spain, Ireland, etc.). It that case, the article about it being over should be qualified to being over in the US not as a whole. If we are talking about only the U.S. then yes, it is over but then the article should be changed to U.S. Financial Crisis. Right now it's a bit of both and should be corrected. Moreover, even if you change it to the U.S. financial crisis then any day now you might wake up to it continuing because it seems the underlying causes of the crisis have not been addressed and Europe going into a financial freefall will take Wall Street with it (since they are its lenders). Also, see required viewing below.

--Daniel E Romero (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

But scope translates to time-period in history. First we must get from the sources what they define as "crisis". That tells us scope and period. If the financial problems started in '06 or '07 but didn't reach crisis proportions until 2008, that might be an argument for 2008 as the crisis year. Note that our second paragraph reads " Although there have been aftershocks, the financial crisis itself ended sometime between late-2008 and mid-2009." If this article is merely about the financial crisis or private banking crisis, it might be called "Global Financial Crisis 2008" with little loss of accuracy. The following recession was an economic crisis caused by the financial crisis.
The subsequent global government debt crisis was caused by a drop in tax receipts (and increase in spending) that comes with recession.But if the scope is narrow (break down in private banking and credit) the subsequent recession and government debt might be relegated to other articles or added at the end in a aftermath section with links to other articles.
Thus, the question is what do the best sources define as crisis both in scope and depth? I would think that this has to be decided with editors of other articles on finance and economics (as SPat talk suggests). Jason from nyc (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The decline started in late 2007. Thats when the housing bubble burst. MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no trouble with that assertion but I believe we should use and reference common terminology instead of original research. And we should reach some consensus. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Name Change (Dissent)

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I am unhappy with this name change. The world economy grew by 5.3% in 2010 and 3.9% in 2011, and is projected at 3.5% in 2012 according to the IMF. This is 13.2% total growth. The vast majority of countries shared in this growth. There is little question that the vast majority of humanity is better off in 2012 than in 2009. In no sense has the 'world economy' been in 'recession' or 'crisis' throughout this entire period. Media attention in the West has disproportionately focused on a few places of the world (southern Europe, the UK/US) that either are still in recession or are experiencing slow job growth. Rather than a singular event, this is really separate, discrete events that have very little if anything to do with each other. For example, the troubles of Greece are rooted in its adoption of the Euro; it was not caused by US subprime mortgages. The BRIC nations and Africa have grown steadily during this period and been little affected by Greece's woes, and so on. To try to create a single narrative based on the US housing market and asset some global recession lasting into 2012 is completely absurd, IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.45.73.51 (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Your argument has merit, but I believe that not only are these disparate events linked together (if not by a single cause, then by knock-on effects such as the interdependence of financial markets, and the fact that slowdowns in developed economies mean less demand for exports from BRIC nations, etc.) but moreover that the World economy is still fragile. In recession? No. In crisis? Possibly. There are still events that could cause major disruption if not dealt with, the EU sovereign debt crisis among them. The fact that economic growth continues does not mean "crisis averted". Recent articles like "IMF cuts global growth forecast as emerging economies slow" that say things such as "emerging market nations, long a global bright spot, [are] being dragged down by the economic turmoil in Europe" make it clear that events in developed nations impact the economies of developing ones, and that the world economy is not currently on a sure footing. For example this article mentions "a slowdown not only in China, the world's second-largest economy, but anemic growth across the BRIC grouping of major emerging economies". Fleetham (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
He/She has a very good point. Your point is valid also but if we take "links" as a reason for inclusion we'll never end. Each phase of the business cycle leads to the next. The article has become bloated. We need a discussion to break down history. This might be: banking crisis of 2008, recession of 2009, sovereign debt crisis, etc. The fact that one leads to the next doesn't mean we should have a super-article with all of economic history. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, links are a reason for inclusion. Fleetham (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Move article to "Global Financial Crisis"

Latest comment: 12 years ago38 comments16 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - Some rationale is warranted for the No Move decision. The arguments that Global financial crisis is vague and ambiguous are strong and supported by reliable sources. Google scholar discloses sources as early as 1897 that refer to “global financial crisis”. Ngram shows the phrase becoming prevalent in the 1960s. The fact that lots of sources refer to the current situation as a Global financial crisis is merely reflective of its “current event” status. We must remember that WP is a general encyclopedia that covers centuries of history and not a current events encyclopedia dominated by the latest news. However, the arguments that the present dates being used in the title may not be precise or accurate may be valid and as such warrant continued discussion on the talk page. Not so much as to what they should be in the title, but to ensure the article’s content is accurate and supported by sources. The current title leaves no doubt that the article is about the contemporary (on-going?) financial crisis and the article’s content support that. If the crisis started in 2007 and is indeed on-going in 2013, the current title will serve readers adequately for another 7 months. As with all contemporary, on-going events (especially one as global and complex as this is) there is always difficulty (even by learned scholars) in defining the boundaries. If the dates need changing, and reliable sourcing and consensus supports a new range of dates, I will move the article. It is now move protected. Mike Cline (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


2007–2012 global financial crisis → Global Financial Crisis – In my view, the less cumbersome, the less complex, and the more accessible an article name is, the better. In this case, there are two additional points to support the page move. The first is that no reader will reasonably confuse "Global Financial Crisis" with any other similar event in history, rendering the "year" prefix to the article redundant. The second is that the current "2007-2012" designation is unstable, as editors (and indeed, economists) cannot determine when the event started or ended, or whether it is still on-going. The only point of contention is whether or not we make the GFC a proper noun (i.e. capitalize all the initials). Colipon+(Talk) 00:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Are there any particularly convincing arguments about why this page shouldn't simply be called the "Global Financial Crisis"? I can't see it having dab issues with any other similar event in history, not to mention that there are obviously issues with determining which year it began and which year it ended, in addition to the scope of 'crisis'. It would make much more sense to just skip the year designation altogether. Colipon+(Talk) 03:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. While I agree also with Jason from NYC comments above, it might be easier to just call it Global Financial Crisis and maybe add a section on the precise date/scope being unclear because we are still very close from its happenings. Although this might be a loss of accuracy in the article. But it also seems we haven't been able to come to a consensus... --Daniel E Romero (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree as well. I feel that if/when anyone wants to dab this to "YYYY-YYYY global financial crisis", the burden of proof is on them to provide conclusive sources supporting the title. Does anyone know if we could get an admin to move-protect this once we do move it to the new title? P.S.: busy with finals this week - can't spend too much time over here... SPat talk 21:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose, it's too ambiguous, it's not a permanent name. During the 1970s people talked about "the recession", but the Wikipedia article is 1973–75 recession. Some kind of qualifier is needed. Fifteen years from now, people won't be calling it The Global Financial Crisis... unless it's still going on. I wasn't in favor of changing to the current title of "2007–2012 global financial crisis", but at least it has the advantage that it will remain valid for the next seven months or so, after which the issue can be revisited. Unless and until some simpler name catches on, maybe a once-a-year rename update is the least bad option. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. We should not pre-disambiguate this term, so far "the Global Financial Crisis" only refers to a single subject. We are not here to predict whether or not it will stay that way (see WP:CRYSTALBALL). I also agree with the proposer that there should be special reason to try avoid pre-disambiguating for this term, since that we thereby avoid having to make the contentious judgment of when the crisis started and ended.TheFreeloader (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I agree w/ the nom that the current title isn't perfect at all. However, the first argument is definitely not true, see for example Category:Financial crises and especially Wall Street crash of 1929 (it's most certainly not a coincidence that the year is in the title), which would also come to my mind when thinking of a "Global Financial Crisis". Furthermore, no matter how the article title is, "financial crisis" should most certainly be decapitalized. Concerning the year, I'd go with something like "2007–" or "2007–present", since that's true, but "2007–2012" implies that it ends this year, which may or may not turn out to actually happen. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
    • We've already established that the only other event of comparable magnitude that may have a run on this "GFC" name happened in the 1930s, and that event is known, unambiguously, as "the Great Depression". From a pragmatic standpoint, no one is going to confuse the two, or confuse the GFC with anything else in history. Thus that argument does not hold water. Colipon+(Talk) 16:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. There is no single dominant manner in the sources for referring to the financial crisis. Some refer to the 2008 bailout of the financial institutions as the crisis and the subsequent recession as post-crisis fallout. Others include the recession as part of the crisis. Still others include the EURO crisis and government debt explosion as a continuation--and others see it as separate. Our article says the crisis ended in 2009 (see paragraph two) which means the banking sector was stabilized at that point. Given a lack of consensus in the sources, I suggest a simple "Global Financial Crisis". Years from now a uniform manner of referring to the events may emerge at which time we can make one final change instead of the yearly changes we now make. Let's keep it simple and relatively uncontroversial. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I have been following this crisis very closely since 2008 and after numerous articles, documentaries, and talks on the subject, unlike the examples cited above, e.g. Wall street crash of 1929, it is not clear if this event has ended. Moreover, unlike the crash of 1929 example, this is a current event, we do not have the luxury of historical analysis to clearly distinguish when this ended. We are in the middle of it now, therefore, it would seem prudent to wait until we are clearly out of this mess and have time and distance to reflect back on it before assigning it a dating qualifier. I feel that often some of us want it to be over already and are all too happy to end the "2012" end mark, but it you hear what economists are saying like Paul Krugman and want documentaries like PBS' Money, Power and Wall Street, this is far, far from over and right now rather than curing the cause, we have only temporarily put on a stop on its symptoms with no way of knowing whether the issue will recur. Unless you really narrow the scope on this article it doesn't make sense to have a dating qualifier. --Daniel E Romero (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's not the one and only Global Financial Crisis. Renaming this article would be like naming an article "The Recession." There's sure to be more than one "global financial crisis" even if this happens to be the first. Besides, it goes against precedent; all the other articles of its ilk have dates attached. Fleetham (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
    • That is still basically WP:CRYSTALBALL, not to mention an implicit admission that this is the only event by widely known as the "Global Financial Crisis", further strengthening the case for the move. Colipon+(Talk) 01:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
    • It's just a general term not a proper noun. It's not forecasting to say "don't use general terms to refer to specific events." That's why every other article on recessions, bank panics, etc. have dates attached. A global financial crisis is something that happened and could happen again. The global financial crisis of 2007 onward is a specific event. Fleetham (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Just for reference, at present "Global Financial Crisis" redirects to our current article. There is no disambiguation page. There doesn't seem to be a need for disambiguation yet. Your concern for future contingencies is understandable. Still, GFC is less unstable than GFC 2007-2012. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Sources commonly refer to the crisis as the 'global financial crisis', per WP:COMMONNAME we should as well. In 1920, World War I was commonly referred to as the Great War; an encyclopaedia at that time would have referred to it as such. We can change the title of the article, if and when the name for this event changes. To try to pre-empt this change violates WP:CRYSTAL. LK (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Per WP:AT :"...the ideal article title will resemble titles for similar articles [and] precisely identify the subject," "Titles are often proper nouns," and "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." The current title better meets Wikipedia's WP:NAMINGCRITERIA: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency. Fleetham (talk) 09:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Also, I'm not sure why WP:CRYSTALBALL is being mentioned. That policy basically states, "don't write an article about an event that has yet to happen," which isn't the issue here. Could you or Colipon please explain its relevance here? Fleetham (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
      • There is more in WP:CRYSTALBALL than that, but the general gist of the policy is that we should not write Wikipedia based on our predictions of the future, we should observe how things are described at the moment by reliable sources and describe them the same way. And on WP:AT part, the current naming does not fit with criteria of Naturalness and Conciseness, Naturalness, as people would not normally call the financial crisis what the article currently is called, and Conciseness, as the current name is longer than it needs to be. WP:COMMONNAME is also a very important part of WP:AT, and the current title of this article is not the common name for this subject, barely any reliable sources use the current title to refer to the crisis.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
        • No argument about what it's commonly referred to as in newspapers, but those same articles would call any recession simply "the recession," and so WP:COMMONNAME isn't the most robust argument in this case.
        • Also, I think Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) is relevant here and also supports my don't use a common noun use a proper noun argument, as (although you may think differently) there is no "universally agreed-upon common name." It comes down to proving that such a thing exists. Fleetham (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
          • WP:NCE doesn't actually say anything about common nouns versus proper nouns, it just says that a term has to be a common name for it to be used, and as such WP:COMMONNAME still holds true. WP:NCE is just a guideline telling how make a title in case an unambiguous common name does not exist. I think it is clear that the "Global financial crisis" is the common name for this event, a quick search on any search engine will show you that it is very commonly used, just the common use of the shorthand "GFC" should indicate that it is becoming the common name of the event. And even if it wasn't the common name, I think the method WP:NCE sets out for finding a title for an article about an event still would lead us to this name. It says to first ask what happened, and where it happened, well it was a financial crisis and it happened globally, so it is the "Global financial crisis". Since this term, as I see it, isn't ambiguous, WP:NCE tells us to not put any further descriptors on the title. You have not actually shown yet that "global financial crisis" is used to any significant extent by reliable souces to refer to anything other or more general than the most recent financial crisis. I think the ball is in your court to show that it is.TheFreeloader (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, though I'm ambivalent about whether to give it capital letters. Global Financial Crisis (with or without capitals) is what it's called now, and what it's very likely to be called in the foreseeable future. I think the WP:CRYSTALBALL argument does hold, since although it might be called something else in ten or twenty years, that's not for us to prejudge (and it's certainly possible to move it whenever it does start being called something else...) I note that Global Financial Crisis already redirects here. At the very least the "–2012" part needs to go; I noticed that previously and thought it to be a little odd. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, almost every modern financial crisis is 'global,' attaching a date is both more precise and encyclopedic. Suggesting this is the global financial crisis makes it more difficult to discuss other crises in an efficient manner. If you talk to a historian about the 'global financial crisis' they wouldn't necessarily know what you're talking about. If, on the other hand, you mention the '2007-2012 global financial crisis,' everyone knows exactly what you're referring to. --Xaliqen (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
    • If that were the case, can you give another example of something that could be construed as an example of a "global financial crisis" and has been referred to as such by a large number of reputable sources? Colipon+(Talk) 23:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Sure, I'll spend the the time it takes to compile the list of sources you're asking for, just as soon as you prove 'global financial crisis' isn't ambiguous. If you want to use a generic title, the burden of proof is on you.--Xaliqen (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
        • A simply Google search for "Global financial crisis" in quotation marks - and you will find that all the references to such a name refers to the 2007-12 global financial crisis. Colipon+(Talk) 00:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
          • A simple Google search isn't enough to convince me we should use a generic term for a specific event. 'Global financial crisis' is a generic term. Furthermore, I don't see how Google, which favors recent events, is the best reference source for pre-2000s historic material. Here are several sources suggesting 'Global financial crisis' is a generic term that does not specifically refer to this particular event: [11] [12] [13] [14] Note the use of "a global financial crisis" in these articles, suggesting a generic term (especially when looking at the danger of future global financial crises). Note the following sources and their use of the term 'global financial crisis' predating 2007 (search within the article to find the term): [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] There is quite a lot of evidence suggesting this term is generic and not specific to this incident. --Xaliqen (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment:(Edit conflict with Colipon) I agree that the title "Global Financial Crisis" has a problem: namely it is too generic. However, as it stands, any title of the form "20XX-20YY global financial crisis" has a problem that we're unable to find almost any conclusive source that'll allow us to settle what XX and YY should be. In a sense, we have to choose the lesser evil here: violating WP:PRECISE via an ambiguous title, or violating WP:VERIFY by an unreferenced title. I think WP:VERIFY is the more sacred principle here.

I actually did try searching for sources that could declare starting/ending points of the crisis, but the only one I came up with was the Guardian article that I quoted above. As I said earlier, I would really like if someone could suggest reliable academic sources that would help us settle with a well defined scope for start/end time. (This isn't really my field so I don't know what are the best places to find this). For those who just joined this discussion proposal, you may find it helpful to go through the discussion on article scope right above this. Best, SPat talk 00:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that the title "Global Financial Crisis" would violate WP:PRECISE. The way I read the policy, it just says that if an article title isn't the primary topic for for a given title title, then it should be disambiguated. But this article is the primary topic for Global Financial Crisis, given that the namespace currently is a redirect to this article, and this article doesn't even have a hatnote. I think the current title is more of violation of WP:PRECISE, given that it more precise than it needs to be. There are no other Wikipedia articles competing for the title "Global Financial Crisis".TheFreeloader (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
My intermediate Economics text, Macroeconomics and the Financial System by Mankiw and Ball, refers to "The U.S. Financial Crisis of 2007-2009". Fleetham (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Have a look at the history of Global Financial Crisis. Do we want to be doing this forever? The current crisis is the current primary meaning, and there is no evidence that this will change. It hasn't changed for The Depression, and the proposed title is even more specific and likely to stick. Andrewa (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - financial crises are about banks and other financial institutions threatening to collapse en masse. By their very nature, they are fairly short term events. They are different from recessions. Please read the section on Stabilization - there are many sources that say they financial crisis was over in 2009. Is there a single reliable source that says directly that we are now in a financial crisis? Just noted Fleetham's comment above with " Macroeconomics and the Financial System by Mankiw and Ball, refers to "The U.S. Financial Crisis of 2007-2009" ". BTW, that was a direct challenge "Is there a single reliable source that says directly that we are now in a financial crisis?" Smallbones (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
That does not address this discussion, which is about the article move alone. Colipon+(Talk) 14:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
To spell it out, there have been lots of "Global financial crises". This article should be entitled "Financial crisis of 2007-2009" or similar. Smallbones (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, but there is a lot of dispute over those dates (see above) - whether the subjective belief that it ended in 2009 is true or not. There are many reliable sources that say it did not end in 2009. There are also RS that say it did not begin in 2007. Some say it ended in 2011, some say 2012. Perhaps some of the dates are more convincing than others, but we cannot pinpoint an exact date from these disparate opinions. Colipon+(Talk) 16:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Re:"subjective belief that it ended in 2009" - this is no more subjective than any other "fact" supported by reliable sources on Wikipedia, i.e. it is supported by an official government commission, a Presidential speech, TIME Magazine, and the New York Times. Not to mention the Economics text cited above. And common sense supports this as well - we are simply not in a financial crisis now - just look at the stock prices of banks in 2008 vs. now. BTW, that was a direct challenge "Is there a single reliable source that says directly that we are now in a financial crisis?" Smallbones (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Required viewing

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

PBS recently released a four-part documentary on Frontline about the financial crisis, where they interview many top heads of banks and other institutions to explain the how, why and ongoing effects of the Global Financial Crisis. After you watch this documentary you will likely reconsider any ideas that this is over. As discussed above by various people on the name change section - it's hard to pinpoint the exact start and end of the crisis. Here it is: http://video.pbs.org/video/2226666502 Hopefully, someone can enter some of this information into this article. --Daniel E Romero (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Late 2000's recession and this article

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am not an expert in this area, but is there any reason to have separate articles on the "Late 2000's recession" and the Global Financial Crisis? I find that the articles have a significant degree of overlap. While I can see why they would be separated (this article deals with financial aspects such as stock markets, liquidity, credit risk etc., while "Recession" deals with economic downturn in general), I am wondering if this is the best approach for our readership, who might end up on one article while looking for the other. Colipon+(Talk) 01:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that the Global Financial Crisis is definitely a separate phenomenon from the recession that began (in the US) in 2007. Clearly they are related and arguably one caused the other but I think they are distinct.Jreiss17 (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Role of International Monetary Fund in the Global Financial Crisis 2007-2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Just wondering did/would IMF help those economies in need and when? (122.126.109.222 (talk) 07:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC))

Plus, did the government of Greece received professional advices from American investment bankers (those headed to work for the White House afterward) to buy US private (banking and housing) debts before the crisis surfaced? Then US should be continually responsible for this global financial crisis. (122.126.109.222 (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC))

There's no doubt many people in the U.S. played a role in the global crisis (the U.S. as a country can hardly be responsible for anything, because it's a non-sentient idea). Historically, the evidence is already emerging that what was presented in the media at the time wasn't the whole story, but the people involved came from practically all countries around the world. Laying the responsibility on a particular group of people in a particular country is an overly-simplistic solution to a global problem. I'm sure we'll see this argument come up, though, seeing as how it's politically expedient to lay complex problems at one person's (or country's) feet. --Xaliqen (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree to imagine that in our age any other country's persons other than United States are resourceful enough to crackdown the world economy by its own selfish greed and in return devastated the economy of itself (United States). That is a failed trade-off in asymmetrical economic condition which is far less than expected by the Nobel Prize. (122.126.109.145 (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC))

Anyone who is interested about the step stone finding from Nobel Prize on Economic Sciences about the current 2007–2012 global financial crisis for the empirical research on cause and effect in the macro-economy, please refer to http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2011/advanced-economicsciences2011.pdf . (125.225.89.30 (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC))

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Somehow, in some articles, the article's title appears as a red link. Can it be repaired? 71.20.120.188 (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Which articles? It's possibly a typo (perhaps using title case). That can be fixed with redirects or simply changing the link. Which articles? bobrayner (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I added a new section to cover the conviction of the former Prime Minister of Iceland. Listening to the news, there is considerable remarking on how few if any criminal charges have been made against any private parties who caused the crisis. There have also been significant political consequences, arguably resulting in power changes in several countries and perhaps precipitating the Arab Spring. These would be good areas for more research on this topic, especially as the events become more historical than current. -- Beland (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I am afraid the crisis is still current (and worsening) largely to United States only such as United States federal government credit-rating downgrade, 2011. (125.225.88.31 (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC))

Our article is both incomplete and inferior as can be expected in a contemporary report of a major event in world history. As future scholarly work evaluates this matter more reliable and comprehensive information will become available. Day by day accounts drawn from the popular media are a poor substitute for the verdict of history. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Marxian Explication of the crisis missing

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

David Harvey and other marxian scholars point out that, globally, this crisis seems pretty much the embodyment of the classic capitalistic crisis, with the search of financial gains - that is the classic reaction of the capital to the lowering of industrial profitability - leading up to financial innovations that "patched" an unsustainable situation only for some time. The difference with past crisis is that the global market has allowed more room for "kynetic accumulation" and that the actual world discourage at least one of the classic capitalist way out of these crisis: war. It would be noce if someone - maybe, someone more scholarly proficient than me - incorporated these observations into the article. No matter that Marx is still a 4 letter word for many in the USA, he wasn't always wrong.

By the way, as USA, UE, Japan and China all hope to climb out of the crisis improving exports, one can't help but wonder who's going to import what... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.50.151.216 (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

World GDP

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Anyone who is interested on the History of World GDP please visit http://www.economist.com/node/16834943 . China was the predominant GDP owner until 1820. Industrial Revolution by the West that constructed the system of Capitalism (and Imperialism/New Imperialism to India and China) tilted the GDP growth to the West/Japan until year 2000. For details, see Historical Statistics of the World Economy 1-2008 compiled by Angus Maddison. (and The World Economy: Historical Statistics, most notably the [[23]] Contours of the World Economy 1-2030 AD Essays in Macro-Economic History (ISBN：0199227209) published by Oxford University Press) (125.225.88.190 (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

rename?

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, though, to paraphrase Captain Jack Sparrow, WP:RELTIME is more of a guideline. Favonian (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

2007–2012 global financial crisis → 2007–present global financial crisis – It is over half-way thru 2012 and there are continuing issues. 108.73.115.215 (talk) 06:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

IMF's update about the global financial crisis

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Current update from the International Monetary Fund, see http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2012/06/index.htm . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.42.79.81 (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ [24]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007–2008_financial_crisis/Archive_2&oldid=1142433303"