Talk:Great Recession/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Change Name to "Great Recession"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* Indeed. It was like pulling teeth to get the "political instability related to the financial crisis" section to stick despite articles about, and video of, hundreds of thousands in the streets holding signs saying exactly that in so many words. Iceland, Greece, and... wait a minute... lo and behold, it's been removed again. Obviously there is no political instability related to the financial crisis. Everyone everywhere is calm cool and collected. It's not really effecting their lives or riling them up anywhere. So yeah... this section was removed despite several people contributing to the section and citing all sorts of protests which compelled special elections or more. And several people also thought it was obviously relevant. Anyway... my thought is that many editors are either partisan (and so they don't want to admit their tenuous grip on power) or they have business interests and want to pretend everything is fine to keep their 401k strong. They may just believe what the talking heads on cable news say. In any case... Late 2000's recession is a horrible name for this article. For a number of reasons. Not least of which is the fact that this is arguably worse than a recession depending on how you measure it or where you measure it from. --Nihilozero (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

There are a number of news articles referring to the "Great Recession" which could be cited.

The current title is way too dry. There is nothing in Wikipedia guidelines that says that you should make an article as boring as possible.

Cowebd (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that we change the name to the Great Recession. All you have to do is search google to find that every major news source and every respected economist has called this recession by that name. Additionally I doubt you'd find any economist who says that this recession hasn't been the deepest since the Great Depression.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Before reading Sparrowhawk64's suggestion to do a google search, I did just that. Hundreds of thousands of hits for the quoted term ("great recession") came up. Additionally, there are thousands of hits for the term in regard to currently listed google news items. More to the point though... if someone refers to "the great recession" in common discussion they hardly have to clarify about which recession they're talking about as it will be used in context. This is a common name for the current financial crisis/recession and wikipedia editors would be doing people a disservice by making a search for the "great recession" any more difficult to find. If people want information on the current situation what do editors expect them to search for?! Rather than make it some arbitrary title that people may not think of, why not call it what most already are actually calling it? I repeat my assertion that some editors may be partisan (and thus unwilling to admit the reality of the current economic situation) or they may only pay attention to the talking heads when they say there is no recession. Either way... I do not feel that is reflective of the general consensus when it comes to addressing the current economic downturn. Even if it is called other things... it seems a very safe bet that the "great recession" is what it's most commonly called. I understand that other recessions have been called the great recession, and that may have been accurate/appropriate at the time. SO... if this recession ends up being called something else, we can can change the name in the future, but, for now, we should call it what it is mostly called in everyday conversation and news articles -- the "great recession." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihilozero (talk • contribs) 06:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The current name ("Late-2000s recession") is very stupid. We are still in the early 2000s. 68.190.151.103 (talk) 06:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The fatal problem with the name "Great Recession" is that it's not specific; it has been used in nearly every recession since the at least the 1970s (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/great-recession-a-brief-etymology/). The current title might be dry, but so is economics. Count me in favor of specificity and against a pun that adds no value to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.56.10 (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest "Recession 2007-?" I think this is good because the ? shows that we don't know if it's ended or still continuing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.29.170 (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Dubious

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

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

You are not making the effort to look around. It took me 20 seconds to Google a number of articles by major media outlets with the title "Great Recession".

Cowebd (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Job Loss Raw Numbers

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

Casual comparisons

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

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

Steve Keen

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

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

Likelihood of depression and servicing of debt

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

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

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

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

The great asset bubble

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

Overview

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

Job Losses

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

New Great Depression

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: The unemployment rate in Canada is currently at 8.3%; not 100%. Therefore, there are STILL JOBS in Canada. GVnayR (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Even if it was a depression, Raymond Kurzweil says that recessions and depressions are only temporary. Give it 5-10 years and our economy will expand to a level like it never happeneed. GVnayR (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

GVnayR, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make. At best that seems like an opinion and I tend to doubt that people will forget the economic events of this era (starting with Enron & Worldcom, followed by the 9/11 attacks, and then heading right along towards the bailouts). In response to JRSpriggs, I'd suggest this may already be worse than the great depression in some respects but, perhaps, maybe you personally haven't felt the consequences as severely as some others? I don't know, I'm just speculating. In any case, I think some some conditions, in some locales for some people, may already prove to be worse. For example, if you consider the Great Depression to be a global economic phenomenon, then it should be worth noting that more people are starving and going hungry today (both in total numbers and per capita) than at any other point in history. This, if nothing else, should suggest a horrible economic condition overall. One could also point to domestic issues (in the United States) which would also suggest this is a more troubled time -- even if they don't necessarily have to do directly with economics per se. For example, the crime rate, the unprecedented prison population, and the widespread use of drugs could suggest that there are greater difficulties now in some areas than was experienced even during the Great Depression. --Nihilozero (talk) 05:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement about recessions and the economy came from Raymond Kurzweil's 2005 book The Singularity is Near. We must remember that all recessions and depressions come to an end. After all, they are only a test and not the final exam. GVnayR (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That said, some recessions last longer and hit harder than others. If one take a look at the situation in 1929 and now, there are hardly reasons to believe that this one will not be as though and lasting as that. Back then the U.S. industry was solid and the government exposition at the start of the crisis was inferior, and it allowed more room to act once they decided to. It can be hardly said the same about the situation in 2008. Right now (september '11), there are strong hints that the recession is not over. The recover provided by the stimulus package has mostly faded and the political situation almost guarantees that there will not be new interventions from the government(s, in Europe it is pretty much the same) to address the economy. Consumer confiance is diminishing again, job losses have reappeared and the overall prospects for the future are dim. 83.41.63.160 (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

"Late 2000s"

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

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

I think that's a good point. I think one could reasonably say that Christopher Columbus sailed across the Atlantic and committed genocide against the natives starting "in the late 1400s" (specifically, 1492), by which it would be silly to assume that a speaker meant "1407-1409." Matt2h (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Columbus anology makes the point well. The current title is not fitting what most people are calling the current economic downturn when they refer to it by a specific name. The "Great Recession" is the term currently being used en masse. Do a google news search (which aggregates news articles from all over) and you will see thousands of current articles making reference to the "Great Recession" and that's in addition to anyone else in the media or any common citizen with a lack of anything else to call it. Appropriately descriptive or not, that's what it's being called and that's what it should be called here so as to make the article easier to find when people are looking for information about the current economic situation. --Nihilozero (talk) 06:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with the Columbus anology. Yes, he did sail the ocean blue in 1492, and yes we would call that the late 1400s. But, when you're talking about 2000, 2001, 2002 etc., why do you say "the early 2000s"? If I would say "the late 1900s" would you think 1999? Probably not. Your average person refers to decades, not centuries. Heck for all we know, in 2100 they may say twenty-one hundred. Vlasktom (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with your 1900s example. 78.147.137.34 (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"If I would say "the late 1900s" would you think 1999?" Why yes, I would indeed think you were speaking of 1980 to 1999. I even did a search for "the late 1900s" and easily found several examples of that usage. It is a terribly ambiguous phrase and we should come up with a better title for the article. Because currently, the only reason why everyone understands is because there's no way for a 2000 to be "later" than right now.--Remurmur (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The article should be renamed!

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

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

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

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

We are actually in the early 2000's, I don't see why this article is titled to refer to something that would be taking place in, say, the year 2750 or later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.137.172 (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC) No - we are in the early twenty-first century, and 2009 would be the late 2000s, just how when we finally get to 2076, we will be in the late 2070s. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In that case, it must be accurate to say the Panic of 1907 occurred in the late 1900s. 68.190.151.103 (talk) 07:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible causes

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

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

Actually I think this has gone too far the other way: "The financial crisis has been linked to reckless and unsustainable lending practices compounded by government intervention" -What about deregulation causing reckless and unsustainable lending practices? Thats pretty POV currently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.234.144 (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Wired article about the Gaussian copula model

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

Ideas for renaming the article: Please list here

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

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

Proposals:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with the proposal to rename the "Great Recession" as per the references above.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Misleading image

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

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

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

To Cmadler: I disagree. Regarding your points:

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Semi-Protection

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

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

The Map is misleading

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

"Late 2000s" is ambiguous and misleading

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

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

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

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

This entire article sucks. There is no coherent structure, with instead a mishmash of different ideas and anaecdotes being stuck on one after the other. The Financial crisis of 2007–2010 which is exactly the same article, is better organised. Kransky (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Outside of Wikipedia (these articles on the recession and their talk pages), I have only seen the term "Great Recession" used once to refer to the current recession. That is not sufficient. JRSpriggs (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (Twice as of today. JRSpriggs (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC))(Thrice as of today. JRSpriggs (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

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

local banks in the US

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

Fanciful intro

There is no serious source that the recession was due only to the financial crisis. In fact there were many economic imbalances and people were overspending. Actually the lax monetary US policy (a factor neglected as well in the intro as in the article) contributed to both crises, the financial one and the economic one, and also to the dollar volatility, the energy/commodity bubble and the foreign trade deficit). All those factors with a common cause ended feeding one another. Another thing is that all those details about the financial crisis in the intro are redundant with the article on the financial crisis which is another topic. Wikipedia is supposed to be a serious and unbiased encyclopedia and should avoid reductive and stereotyped explanation of a complex phenomenon.--Pgreenfinch (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting and important question you raise. However, please note that Wikipedia articles require credible sources. Without citations, theories become nothing more than WP:OR. As for your claim that the intro is fanciful, let me note that it reflects the main text of the article. While it is true that many things were going on in the economy and economic policy, the sources cited mostly say that the financial crisis, in one way or the other, is the single most important cause of the recession. The signal causes were 1) the asset prices drops, which brought a negative wealth shock for household and firm demand, as well as thrusting banks into insolvency, and 2) the progressive slow-down in financial intermediation as the banking crisis deepened. Inter-bank lending actually ground to a halt. When credit dries up, so does credit-driven demand. The financial factors powerfully throttled down economic activity. If you have a credible source saying this recession is to some extent also due to other, more traditional business cycle elements (glut of manufactured goods, wage gap, etc) or policy setting (excessive lowering of policy interest rates or public deficits), then please introduce it in the article and judiciously reflect it in the intro. That said, be sure the reasoning of the causality is included. Just mentioning imbalances is not enough as you have attempted to do in your rewrite.Odin 85th gen (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That the whole article was fanciful, a parody of economic reasoning (and largely out of topic as not much is said about the economy) did not escape me. The idea that overspending (savings even became negative in the US) cannot be sustained and can only revert (if that is not "causality" what it is?) is not even mentioned. The other factors you cite and I cite, and that played their parts, are omitted also as if economic factors do not intervene in economic phenomena. All that makes the article irrelevant, as an exercize in tunnel vision or availability heuristic. There is not even the least precaution that would mention that the purely financial cause stated in the article for the event is an attempt at explanation made instinctively in the heat of the moment waiting for further analysis by historians. Not even a "would", a "maybe", a "seems to", a "is considered as" a "is interpreted as". What about an article about cooking that focuses on salt only? And I use here a rather simple allegory, as the economy is much more complex and multisided than cooking.

Btw, some bug intervened in the [13] version--Pgreenfinch (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A survey of Federal reserve FOMC satements in 2007 [14] reveals two things:

1) in its meetings from January 31, 2007 to August 7, 2007, the committee judged that “Overall, the economy seems likely to expand at a moderate pace over coming quarters... some inflation risks remain.”

Conclusion: a concern over economic imbalances was not on the radar screen in the advent of the crisis.

2) in its unscheduled meeting statement on August 17, 2007, the committee judged “Financial market conditions have deteriorated, and tighter credit conditions and increased uncertainty have the potential to restrain economic growth going forward.” Further on September 18, 2007 the committee judged “Economic growth was moderate during the first half of the year, but the tightening of credit conditions has the potential to intensify the housing correction and to restrain economic growth more generally.”

Conclusion, the committee was singularily concerned with credit growth going forward.

With all due respect, until credibly shown in subsequent research, I suggest we go with the FMOC statements and citations already in the article as to the causes of this recession. Odin 85th gen (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bingo! That the Fed tried to hide the responsibility of its lax policy is no surprise. I won't call that a "serious" source. Well, I leave it like that, as an example among many that wikipedia prefers to stick to arguments of authority instead of doing its encyclopedic job of finding neutral and balanced presentations. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Don´t blame others if you can´t find credible sources. As they say, "put up or enroll at STFU" ;-) Odin 85th gen (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I blame what I consider to blame, please dont try the censorship mode. And anyway I'm not that interested to contribute much more to a close-minded institution, and I know that it is quixotic to hope that it will emerge from its ruts. Sorry to say, WP has become a depository of obsolete, narrow minded and platitude ridden "knowledge" and I don't have much hope that it will evolve.

Therefore I intervene only when I see some blatant excesses, like in this case which is about a phenomenon of first importance in which it is needed not to make reader gobble any current myth without exploring any other path, a topic in which the only approach by WP is obedience to the current guru's opinions.

Sorry to say, and I'm not "blaming" anybody in particular, this system of respect to "authorities" more than for using one's eyes and one's brain is really frightening and similar to what happened in some totalitarian states. An encyclopedia cannot be built on a dictatorship of what it reductively considers as knowledge. A wonderful initiative at the start is becoming a nightmare of conformity. Diderot and Condorcet would not recognize their grandson.

This is specifically crucial in an article about the main global event of those days. To focus on a narrow explanation is certainly not the best service given to those who want to explore seriously the topic. WP does not honor itself in sharing such one-sided manipulation. And to focus on one explanation will certainly not be the best way for deciders to contribute to solve the problem.

Luckily there are other more competitive online encyclopedia that are not drowned in undefendable bureaucratic rites and crowd pressure. If WP chose regression into an ocean of dogmas and trifles, if the quest for consistency or truth goes after obedience to groupthink, it is its problem. I have better things to do and I do better things, but in other places. I know that bureaucracies rarely question and reform themselves, usually they dwindle under the weight of inconsistency and ridicule. But in the encyclopedic knowledge world, luckily, competition exists and is growing by taking advantage of the disappointment of WP readers looking for knwoledge. Heard about survival of the fittest? Wishing you the best ;-) --Pgreenfinch (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Go write the fed a letter, if that's how you feel. This is Wikipedia, not a blog about totalitarianism or Diderot. Anyway, this article shouldn't just tell the wingnut Ron Paul version of events; I'll revert if that's how you want it to read. There are plenty of even credible sources who criticize lax monetary policy under Greenspan, anyway--just go find one of them, add it (without substituting what's already there), and let readers use their own judgement just this once.69.94.192.147 (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Why should I entertain a penpal relation with the Fed? Or any central bank (to congratulate the ECB for example, as it did not make the same mistakes). I precisely talk here about wikipedia that don't makes any valuation of what is written as long as it fits parrot-like arguments of authorities. As I said, there are other places, thank you, not just blogs but also other collaborative online encyclopedias, where authors are asked to use their brain instead of copy and paste. And precisely where readers can make their own judgement because not just one version is pushed down their throat. In this regard maybe we are thinking more or less the same. But technically, adding sources (on the fed policy or on economic imbalances or whatever), in an article already crumbling under oversourcing, does not give consistency, if to mention them among the causes is immediately censored so as to give only one interpretation to readers. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Be careful about rollbacks!

When doing a rollback, use the history to perform the rollback. I had to do a rollback of a rollback because Odin 85th gen did a cut and paste of the article text, not the article's code, and therefore destroyed lots of references during the rollback. Jesse Viviano (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the links. Have restored latest version of intro with all the links intact. Odin 85th gen (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

File:The Great Asset Bubble.svg

I'm confused by this diagram. Firstly there doesn't seem to be any explanation in the article about what it shows and secondly the numbers in the caption don't agree with the numbers in the diagram! Can anyone explain? Smartse (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the numbers do agree once you realize that the order is different. Match them by the index digit which appears to the left both in the diagram and the legend.

The point appears to be that the amount of bailout money is small compared to the assets which may be at risk. JRSpriggs (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Could this be made clear in the article by someone who understands the image? I still don't understand what the shapes numbers and codes are supposed to mean. Calvinballing (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead image should be replaced with a graph showing either unemployment, GDP or GDP growth, as that is the traditional way to identify recessions. Showing a lead of asset sizes is misleading. 144.214.42.116 (talk) 04:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Recession is not quite the right word?

This article is fairly well done, however, lost amongst the facts and figures is, the very obvious observation... the world is in financial chaos not previously seen, at least in our life time. To assign the word recession as a descriptor is more than inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.6.77 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that soon we will be calling it a depression, but right now most people are still just calling it a recession. Wikipedia's policy is to follow the common terminology rather than leading it. JRSpriggs (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If that's Wikipedia's policy, why isn't this article about the current economic situation called the "great recession?" --Nihilozero (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Raymond Kurzweil says that all recessions (and even depressions) end with time. Even the Great Depression back in the 1930s eventually ended. GVnayR (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Job losses in December 2008

According to the article, December 2008 saw 981,000 jobs lost. But every source I've found says that the jobs lost in Dec 08 were in the 500,000's. Can someone check on that? -MrMontag (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You're definitely right about that. I'm not really sure what's going on with these numbers, though. When we talk of job losses, do we mean increase in the number of unemployed? According to current BLS tables, that means an increase of 632,000 unemployed individuals. I'm going to put that number, and we'll see what people think.69.94.192.147 (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: I only changed December 2008, and no other month. I'm not totally clear that this increase in unemployed persons idea is right, because the seasonally-adjusted number from the statistics I cited shows, for instance, a decrease in the unemployed in July 2009. I'm just going to keep my 600,000 number, because I'm convinced it's closer to the truth, but hopefully someone will come up with a more standard way to present that information correctly.69.94.192.147 (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Name needs to be changed ASAP

It's 2010 and it's still going on - name is factually inaccurate. The best thing I can think of is to move the article to Great Recession, which is the only name there is that isn't appallingly clunky. Zazaban (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I, like yourself, do hold that the recession cannot be called over at this time. However, even if it were to continue into 2011, most of the recession would still be in the late 2000s, so I think this is the best name for a Wikipedia article (I call it personally the Depression of 2007-Present, but that would be too much original research for WP). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricius Augustus (talk • contribs) 12:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Worry no more, for we are not the only ones who think we are in a depression; a economic columnist for the Telegraph in the United Kingdom has used the word "depression" to describe our situation.

Look and see: [15]

Our worries are a little more justified than usual. 96.250.149.234 (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that this is the worst downturn since the Great Depression, I don't think it would be too inappropriate to call it the Great Recession. Tisane (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There could be some good news

I heard on the radio today (I think it was on The World at One on BBC Radio 4 that the economy of the United Kingdom is beginning to grow again, so the recession here could be near its end. We had better not get too hopeful though - things can change overnight in economics. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there an Organization behind the crisis in the world and in the USA? Do they have a hidden agenda behind the economic situation?

These are just speculation, not supported by concrete evidence. But the questions must be ask is there a certain group responsible or are our Governments so innate that they had not seen the early warning signs behind the Banks mishaps, the employment crisis, the over spending, the manufactoring of currencies that lacked backing, the evidence was to overwelming not to be notice. So where certain individuals warn off about address the impending situation or was it so different from the others that it was undetectable? I think not, no matter what you or I think about the people who are suppose to be in charge they are not that incompetant. There are agencies at work that can only susceed with a down economy and an unrest in the social, economic, and political instablity in the world governments. Thats my opinion. But there maybe a link to certain bodies that think the control the world's economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkstan4312 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is only speculation, then it is not suitable for inclusion into WP, and since this is not a forum for general discussion regarding the topic, only the article, I suggest that you not discuss it here, but somewhere else. It is a discussion worth having, but not here. --Patricius Augustus (talk) 12:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Recession Entrepreneurs - proposed removal

"Recession Entrepreneurs The term Recession Entrepreneurs was coined by JJ Ink in 2009, after they found that most of their marketing consulting clients were recession made entrepreneurs, those that had been laid off due to the economic downturn and had thus decided to use their savings and unemployment benefits to start their own business.[87] The recession has allowed many Recession Entrepreneurs to completely change course in their careers and pursue their dream jobs. Recessions are historically ripe with opportunity for innovation, allowing a unique opportunity for entrepreneurs.[88] "The recession has also injected life into a slew of small businesses that are thriving either in spite of or because of the economic downturn, giving new relevance to the old adage that one man's misfortune is another's opportunity."[89]

1. Does it look suspiciously like some sort of promotion?
2. I look into the so called citations used and found no specific mention of financial crisis and its effect on 'recession entrepreneurs'.
Therefore, I propose to remove it until better and independent sources can be found for who and when coined the term 'recession entrepreneurs' and its relation with the financial crisis. Now wiki (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism of the "Political instability related to the economic crisis" section

It's been over a year since I first added the aforementioned section. I made note of many protests, varying in intensity, some with hundreds of thousands taking to the streets, around the world, and cited the footage and commentary regarding said protests that clearly showed that the economic crisis was the primary reason. And I made note of government officials explicitly warning of the instability related to the the economic crisis. Others have made contributions to the section and supported the addition of this section while defending/restoring its place in this article despite constant removal by pgreenfinch. For that I am very thankful because I could no longer handle constantly undoing pgreenfinch's removal of the section (despite other contributions and much talk/discussion in favor of the section). However... although it is being defended and maintained in the article, somehow the dates mentioned in it have been altered (I'm not sure by whom) and pgreenfinch is now using this as an argument for it's removal. To me this seems like an intellectually dishonest argument and what you might call a backdoor attempt at removing it for specious reasons. But the fact remains that the section has been vandalized at some point (whether by design or not) so that even in its restored state it is not of the quality it should be. Unfortunately, I am not the most technically capable wikipedia editor and I can't find out when the changes were made and I'm not inclined to rewrite the whole thing with every edit that has been made -- especially in light of the persistent vandalism which occurs and the watchful maintenance required for the section. Therefore... I am reverting the section back to a point when the dates where correct and the points mentioned were cited. Some contributions may get lost although most of the section should still remain. Also... there have been other related events since this section was first introduced which are probably relevant (for example, the escalation of unrest in Greece). I would request that people watch this section of the article, make appropriate contributions and undo the incessant vandalism that occurs within it. Also, and equally important, is a suggestion that we remove the "Unbalanced scales" as this is just used as reason to continue tampering with the section in an unconstructive manner. The simple fact of the matter is that there is, pointedly and obviously, mentioned even from the highest levels of government to the protester in the street, political instability related to the economic. This is not conjecture... it's heavily cited, documented, and demonstrable fact -- like it or not, for better or worse. So I'm going to go ahead and restore it to a dated but accurate form and I encourage people to watch this section, make constructive updated contributions, and be wary of more vandalism. --Nihilozero (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who changed the dates, I suppose somebody who wanted to stress the idiocy of that section, but anyway that section is an insult to the encyclopedia. The minor events presented and the crazy interpretations and predictions by some media and agencies, which proved entirely false, do not amount to a real political instability due the global crisis. It was also a pretext to many ad'hominem insults against me (and I see that this libelling is going on) because I resisted that manipulation. This section is purely ideological and anti-European, fully out of topic, and a typical vandalism of this article. As for the suppression of the "Unbalanced scale" under a futile pretext, it can only be explained by some anti-neutrality agenda. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Btw, as for the present Greek aspects, the fact that that country mismanaged its public finance might need its own article, but has nothing to do with the present topic. To make such a relation would be another manipulation. That shows anyway in what state of mind that section was conceived. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Late-2000s recession → Early 21'st Century Economic Depression or a similar title of shorter length — 68.200.249.29 (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I rebuilt the timestamp and user info based on what I found in the article page history. Rejectwater (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment- I found this template on the article page and so moved it here. It has already been proposed in a discussion above that the article name be changed to Great Recession. Rejectwater (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• do not rename. There is nothing cited showing that proposed name is in official, economist, media or popular use. It looks like a WP invented here name. Really, no reason at all ia provided to justify any rename, let alone this one. Hmains (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I think Early 21st Century would be more accurate than Late-2000s, were it not, as stated in previous discussions, that there was the Early 2000s Recession. The bigger question (and in my opinion also the more controversial subject of the request) is whether to rename it from Recession to Depression. Now, there have already been plenty (mostly short) discussions on renaming, maybe it's a good time for a discussion to find a (more or less) consensus on what it should be called (for now...)? --Completefailure (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Firstly, I don't think it's good practice to put forward vague move suggestions like this. Secondly, it's far too early to say if the recession of the late 2000's is going to be the only recession of the early 21st century, or event the most serious. PatGallacher (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Canada has received the best economic growth in ten years. More than 400000 people are back to work since the beginning of this year. Therefore, it's not going to be recession and this economic slowdown will be over in about 1-3 years. GVnayR (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Name change is needed...

For many months, an increasing amount of people have been saying that we are in a depression; however, time and time again, this has been dismissed as original research.

We may do so no more, as an economic columnist has unblushingly used the word "depression" to describe our situation.

Look and see: [16]

The fact that this has happened should spur us to take a second look at a name change. 96.250.148.23 (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Dates for this recession.

I have not heard any news that this recession has ended, we are still loosing jobs and home prices have not really recovered too much, and some states are still strapped for money, so the date near the top of the article should be changed to "Current" or "on-going". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.167.112 (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

PIIGS map

I find the PIIGS map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PIIGS_Mk_4_map.png) extremely misleading. It's way too crowded and doesn't convey its message very well. At its current size it only starts to make sense once you open the map in full screen. And even then its intent is not quite clear to me. I suggest a rework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.25.16.249 (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor changes to intro / link to sovereign debt crisis

I have indicated the need for a citation after the final sentence of the introduction. Also in the same sentence, I changed "Unfortunately" to "Consequentially" to maintain neutrality of language. Apophenia90 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC).

2007 versus 2009

Several editors (always unregistered) have repeatedly changed the date that this recession began as January, 2009. Consensus among both government and public economists is that it began in December, 2007. One anonymous editor even went so far as as to delete references that verify December, 2007 as the correct date to enable making the date January, 2009. While I always try to assume good faith, I have to wonder if these editors wish to skew the date to imply that the recession began as a result of the inauguration of Barack Obama. If this continues, then perhaps there should be a period in which only registered or auto-confirmed users should be able to edit the article. AlaskaMike (talk) 07:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Where I come from, the recession didn't really got started until September 2008. Until then, everything was smooth sailing. I have a book that says that the American financial system would collapse between September and October of 2008 (and it was correct). GVnayR (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Countries most affected map

This map [17] is a joke right? Theres WAY too much information on it to even make it intelligible or meaningful to anyone looking at it. And how is it that it makes any sense to put country specific information on a map like "senegal has a tourism and tuna fishing boom" or poorly worded and vague descriptions like "badly drought hit" or "badly earthquake hit" that have nothing to do with the economic downturn. Not to mention the catchall "moderate to heavy economic decline", how is it possible to define what is moderate and what is heavy, in relation to what? How can these two things be put together in the same entry? This is just a sample, I could go on and on. I'm deleting this off the page because it adds nothing to the article and has no clear purpose for the page, if it is supposed to compliment the section "countries most affected" then it should be remade to focus on the countrys that were the most affected and not every country in the world. Every country was affected in some way, and many in the same way. A map is not required to explain a "global economic crisis".

174.114.87.236 (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Countries most affected section

This section needs to be re-written and updated with additional and newer sources. For one there is no mention made of greece or iceland which both faired very poorly in the downturn and have been the talk of the town as countries which faired the worst. This may be because their problems became public after the cited article was published. I would also dispute Japan being included as a country that did well because it has had long standing economic problems which were worsened by the recession. Also when it talks about countries that did comparitively well it doesn't mention Canada, which had many of its banking institutions move into the top 10 following bank collapses in the United States and was among the first countries to come out of recession.

174.114.87.236 (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right. Canada did fare well during the recession and I think that we had a better job of handling the economic downturn better than our American neighbors down south. This summer, Canada did very well in creating jobs but now people are losing jobs again because Canada has a shorter crop season than the U.S.. Believe it or not, job creation in our post-modern society is still dictated by the agriculutural growing season. GVnayR (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Austrian school??

Why we are quoting the Austrian school so extensively? It is heterodox, meaning fringe, meaning not something that wikipedia should be relying on. It isn't scientific or based on fact at all. 65.60.224.163 (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am an Austrian, but I havent read it in full yet. If this is true, I strongly support inclusion of mainstream and other views. A list of all causes and all solutions. Predictions. Everything. No school should be favored, unless proven (which none can). Metallurgist (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Company Faliures

This is VERY US0centric. Several high-profile faliures happened in the UK, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.20.21.226 (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Great Recession name change

Dont get worried! The name has gotten more usage since the discussion above over a year ago. It has been used by many media sources and economists. Is there any plan for when to make the change? Does it need a certain amount of academic materials using the term? Are we waiting for the next recession or next few to see if this one is the "great"? On the other hand, those might even be included in this. Just questions for us to consider. I am not really pushing either direction, although I do support the name change because it seems to have saturated and wont be reapplied elsewhere. --Metallurgist (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hope no one minds but per WP:BOLD I deleted most of the refs citing the "Great Recession" name. They were a bit extraneous and all went over the same material. And purely from a flow standpoint they'd begun to clutter up the page. The two remaining should suffice for the phrase. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate Page

Hi, this article appears to be a duplicate of Financial_crisis_of_2007–2010. How can this be resolved? ldvhl (talk) 11:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Answered below. — ¾-10 01:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Poland 1 Q in recession? When?

The information in the table suggest that Poland experienced 1 q of recession. It is in contradiction to the information given earlier, that Polish economy has actually avoided recession nor even contracted (which is true). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.157.112.59 (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Same article?

Is Financial crisis of 2007–2010 the same thing as this? 69.136.72.16 (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

They are (and should be) separate articles, because a financial crisis is related to, but not the same thing as, a recession (the former can be the spark that ignites the latter, or, to use another metaphor, the bug that keeps on causing the continuing illness). However, it is hard to keep two Wikipedia articles whose topics are so closely related from naturally content forking in many of the particulars of their content, because of the very nature of the "massively multiauthor" authorship. Unless a particular Wikipedian volunteers to spend a lot of time deforking them (but maintaining appropriate interlinking between them), the net result is forking. It's fairly harmless, though, and could always be fixed if anyone chooses to devote the time. — ¾-10 01:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Dun da da daaaaa!!! Miami

• http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/realestate/06haven.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2

• "My forecast," Mr. Hunter said, "is that the market will cool down greatly by the end of 2006" because "prices moved so high so rapidly, beyond what's supportable."

"That doesn't mean bubble and then terrible collapse," he said. "It's more of a transition back to reality, where developers don't sell out buildings in a weekend."

• While real estate prices in Miami-Dade County have risen by 15 to 20 percent annually in the last two years, downtown increases have been higher - "in the range of 30 percent," — Preceding unsigned comment added by B137 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 24 December 2010‎ (UTC)

Removed the Word "Problem" from the Article Opening Because it Was Both Poor Grammar and Poor Writing

The word "problem" in this context (using this word in describing the entire Great Recession) is both poor English and poor writing. First, the word "problem" is singular, and the Great Recession is not a singular event. Second, the word "problem" is far too vague and general for good article writing.

I have substituted the word "contraction" which, when coupled with the words "severe economic" is much more clear, sensible, and is also grammatically correct.

184.220.128.237 (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I just saw this talk page addition. I respect that you don't like the word choice "problem"; and maybe we can find a better replacement; but you're wrong that it's poor English, poor writing, or grammatically incorrect. The only valid criticism of it is that it's a vague understatement. But it was chosen because it was the only word that came to mind that encompassed both senses (economic science sense and layperson sense) and is a "regular word" (such that Strunk & White groupies might not attack any more high falutin' word). There isn't anything about it that's denotatively incorrect. I respect the argument that its connotation is too pedestrian. Like I said, another better choice may be identified. But "contraction" can't be it because it doesn't encompass the layperson sense quite correctly. The term Great Recession is used by laypeople analogously to the way they use Great Depression. It covers a span of time that, in terms of economic science, comprised several contractions and weak expansions. Thus the word "contraction" alone doesn't cover it. Thanks for discussing. Not married to the current wording, but any replacement needs to be as accurate and simple as what's now there. Thanks. — ¾-10 03:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

When can the vandalized (and subsequently removed) section about "Political instability related to the economic crisis" be restored?

Previously, this section was heavily discussed, approved, and had many people contributing to it. The section had many quality citations. One person didn't like it though, the section was vandalized (false dates were put in), and then it was removed. I grew tired of reverting the tireless changes made by the troll and gave up. But now, with the situations flaring up in Greece, Spain, and elsewhere... I think the section needs to be restored. As it is... the article makes it seem like the problem is merely with numbers and bank accounts and stock values. In actuality however... it is effecting the everyday lives of people around the world and many of them are taking to the streets (often clashing with the authorities) explicitly because of economic reasons. As it was previously... I believe this is still noteworthy in regard to this article about the recession. If some people will chime in with any support... I will try to update and rewrite the section. I just don't want to rewrite it if a tireless troll is going to outlast everyone else in terms of reversion. Nihilozero (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time at the moment to be an independent third-party verifier of your side of the story, but I know from experience elsewhere on WP that you're probably correct and the person who removed it was probably out of line. I say put it back in, and don't worry about modifying it to suit what seems to be, if not a troll or vandal, then a crank with a non-consensus deletionism push. Put it back in, and then we will force this person to defend deletions on a sentence-by-sentence basis. In cases that I have seen elsewhere, such people don't have defensible reasons underneath the aggressive bravado. It usually boils down only to something like WP:NOTPAPER (where they want it to be paper), WP:COI (where the COI is theirs), etc. They eventually figure out that they're not going to get away with unwarranted bullying in a particular case, and then they slink off to cause trouble elsewhere, without admitting that anyone else had any valid points. Which by itself is an indicator that they weren't arguing in good faith, although they would lie and say they were. Maybe you can tell by now that such behavior rubs me the wrong way! — ¾-10 03:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the section and updated it somewhat. I will be including a few more specifics about related occurrences in the U.S. and E.U. a little later. Nihilozero (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this section is that the connection it makes between unrest/instability and the recession is loose at best. The factors which led to Arab Spring, which gets the most treatment in this section, are complex and only partly economic, and even the economic factors are only partly related to the global recession. The unrest in developed countries has to do as much with countries over-extending themselves in terms of social promises as with the downturn. I agree that a discussion of political instability belongs in the article, but it needs to be more than an annotated list of uprisings and protests. Bond Head (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

2nd wave nonsense

Wikipedia is not a WP:Crystal Ball so I removed the prediction that there would soon be a second wave of the recession. It actually reminded me of something that was fought for long and hard at the Financial Crisis article. Section follows:

Predictions for a second wave of the financial crisis

The analysis of log-linear oscillations in the gold price dynamics for 2003–2010 conducted by Askar Akayev's research group in 2010 allowed them to forecast a possible start of the second wave of the global crisis in April – June 2011, when the "gold bubble" is likely to burst. The calculations should not be given the meaning of an accurate prediction of the events, because all calculations and estimates are based on the idea that all players will try to maximize profit just in this market, and will not believe in forecasts like this one. Also if a very large player, such as the Central Bank of China, intervenes with other goals such as politics, then the foundation upon which all such forecasts are based disappears. A variety of possibilities after the probable collapse of the "gold rush" are suggested. While the immediate market reaction will be negative due to huge losses or even bankruptcies of relevent participants and companies, it can also drive the investment to other markets, which will contribute to the production of new goods and services and accelerate the way out of the crisis, although it is advised not to rely on the optimistic scenario.

Looks pretty much to be the same stuff - except before the dates were given as April-June 2011 Well June isn't quite over with yet, but that prediction still looks like a real dud. Let's not put back in a warmed over dud into this article please.

Smallbones (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

HAha, nice job, but this prediction was right on. Have fun being wrong, SUCKER! -Transkar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transkar (talk • contribs) 09:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional (sub)Sections

1) There should be perhaps be a section with an explanation of why the economists believe the economy is no longer in a recession. What factors of the economy are they basing this on, etc.
2) There should be an explanation of why they can not compare the current job-losses with those of the Great Depression (not just saying "changes implemented over the years make it impossible to compare"). No mention is made that (at least in the US) once a person has been registered as unemployed (which means they actually went down and filed and were accepted) for a certain number of months that — even though they have not found a job yet — they are dropped from the numbers of unemployed. Mention should also be made to the polls which have been conducted to measure unemployment by poll which indicate unemployment rates in the 20s% and 30s% (although these are non-scientific statistical "guesstimations" — just the nature of these polls).
— al-Shimoni (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

South Africa section removed

I have removed the following text:

On February 11 (what year?), South Africa's Finance Minister Trevor Manuel said that "what started as a financial crisis might well become a second Great Depression."Breaking SA and World News, Sports, Business, Entertainment and more - TimesLIVE". Thetimes.co.za. 1970-01-01. Retrieved 2010-01-21.

Although it was no doubt added in good faith it has several problems: 1. No year is given, 2. The source cited is a dead link, 3. The date of the source is given as Jan. 1, 1970 which doesn't fit the criteria of this article (I'm aware it might be a typo for Jan. 1, 2010 but we should be certain). Given the great interest in the topic, the material posted should be as accurate and as current as possible, hence my decision to pull it and put it here so it can be repaired. 68.146.71.145 (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, as Trevor Manuel was Finance Minister from 1996 to September 2008, he must have said this before September 2008...Thomas Blomberg (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong name: This article is not about the recession, but about the financial crisis

Wikipedia needs to be accurate and needs to have long-term perspective. Please read the article about recession. Recession is an economic term, meaning a decline in GDP lasting for more than two quarters. Once the GDP becomes positive, the recession stops. The late 2000s recession stopped in most countries in 2009. However, there is a continued economic crisis in the world, with slow and unsteady growth, and that is what this article describes. Consequently, the article should either be about the 2007-2009 recession, or about the ongoing financial crisis.

The fact that many journalists, with little or no economic knowledge, like to name the ongoing economic problems "The Great Recession" (a tag that journalists have given every larger recession since the war) should not influence Wikipedia. This is not a recession anymore, and it's very doubtful if the 2007-2009 recession will be known as the Great Recession 80 years from now. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Your criticism is entirely along valid lines of thinking. But there are a few elements missing that explain why the problem is larger, more annoying, and more intractable than either a mere "journalists-fucked-up" or a mere "Wikipedia-fucked-up" explanation. A fuller explanation follows.

The trouble is less with journalists or Wikipedia than with the eternal contest between natural language versus controlled vocabulary. The former allows multiple senses for one word; the latter avoids this by using operational definitions to be more precise. It's not that the "true meaning" of the word "recession" is being corrupted by journalists, or by Wikipedia; rather, the word's broad layperson sense predates economists' narrower, operationally defined technical sense, and economists have never yet gotten laypeople to stop using the older, imprecise sense. It has happened with scores of words over the past two centuries that scientists or engineers evolved a narrower technical sense of an existing word. (By the way, when I looked into the operational-def details of "recession" recently, I found out that not even economists all convene on the same definition for the technical sense. The two-consecutive-quarters-of-negative-GDP-growth-rate idea is only one piece of it.) What we've seen (with, as you rightly pointed out, every larger recession since the war) is the contest that is stalemated between natural language and controlled vocabulary on this point.

The ironing out of the conflation of multiple senses under one name will most likely never happen until economists pick a new, simple name for one of the senses, and get others to use it in a natural, effortless kind of way. Only then will the populace acquiesce to keeping the two meanings differentiated by using different names to refer to them. Given what we know in the area of linguistic description and what we know about the limits of efficacy of linguistic prescription even when it's not misguided (which in this case I would say it's not—having precise, agreed-upon terminology *would* be an improvement)—given what we know about those, we can predict which types of nomenclatural revision will work and which will fail. But this linguistic part of the analysis is lost on most people, including most economists, and I expect no improvement on this particular case anytime soon. I also wrote a short, succinct pair of sentences that were included in the article's lede for a while that gave the reader a clue that the conflation of senses will not be resolved while the alternative is big clunky phrases. That's not how natural language dynamism happens in the wild. Rather, it will take someone who gives a short, simple name to one of the senses so that the other sense can have the name "recession" all to itself. But these sentences keep getting deleted by, to be unfortunately frank, people who are too ignorant to know any better but assume that they're "improving" the article via the deletion. Here are the sentences that were in the lede, doing no harm and trying to explain: "It is difficult to avoid the ambiguity between the two senses of "recession" at least partially because English currently offers no alternative differentiable labels except longer circumlocutions (e.g., "contraction phase of a business cycle" for the scientific sense; "a widely shared feeling of economic underperformance" for the layperson's sense)."

There's at least one other concept that has to be explicated here in order to handle the topic correctly: the principle that Wikipedia does not (and should not) attempt to revise, in any active fashion, either the natural language that it is written in (which will, by nature, tend to be filled with annoyances—conflated senses, ambiguous terms) or even the technical language of the sciences and engineering (in the places where its operational precision shows a weak spot). All Wikipedia can do is (1) stick to the WP:COMMONNAME policy; (2) lay out as clearly as possible what the problems/confusions are in language as it currently exists; (3) mention the work of anyone in WP:RS-land who has proposed to revise the nomenclature and straighten out the confusion; and (4) hope that after enough years of everyone reading Wikipedia (even the snobs who claim that they don't), consensus will begin to emerge among the populace, like, "Let's stop being stupid about this and just straighten it out." I wouldn't underestimate the potential for that to happen over the next 2 or 10 decades (not only with this particular annoyance but many others in life). But it'll take some time, though. In the meantime, we at Wikipedia can't force a logical solution onto the rest of the world (see WP:COMMONNAME in this instance); rather, we just have to go on the "if you build it they will come" principle. (Or as they used to call it, the "lead a horse to water and then sit around waiting for him to drink" principle.)

Thank God there are a fraction of people out there (such as yourself, for instance) at least trying to straighten out the BS. That's miles ahead of most people, who either don't know, don't care, or both! Regards, — ¾-10 13:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree this article is describing an ongoing financial crisis. The recession as officially measured ended in June 2009. What is being described is an ongoing economic crisis, and not a recession. Between the two articles there is a lot of bulk that should be ironed out into one neat article that describes different theories for the background/causes of the recession, as well as information following the end of the recession in June 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.135.173 (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Update?

This seems outdated. The recession is an ongoing crisis, and many are worried now that it may become a double dip recession. Why does this article seem to source everything from 2008-2009? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.70.234 (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Your question (a perfectly natural one that many readers would have) is answered by the existence of the thread above this one. It has to do with the different senses of the word "recession", and the fact that different people try to fight to use one sense to the exclusion of the other. Until economists offer revised nomenclature to be taken up (short, simple, differentiable labels), this annoyance will not go away. — ¾-10 14:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I should explain my comment above a bit more clearly. The main bulk of the content of the article treats of the economic metrics of the GDP contraction that started in 2007 and ended in 2009. From the technical view of the meaning of "recession", that is an event that is now in the past, so it's appropriate that this discussion is all about 2007 through 2009. However, because of the nomenclatural conflation, some people think that this article should be *only* about 2007-2009, whereas most others believe that it should be about the Great Recession in the layperson sense of that term, i.e., the ongoing period of economic underperformance. Wikipedia is stuck with this dumb argument because the wider world is still stuck with it (devoid of good-enough nomenclatural revision so far). If the world would get right nomenclaturally, the article would be something like the following, where "dip" is the hypothetical *different word* for the technical sense (GDP contraction): "The Great Recession is an ongoing period of economic underperformance that has included one dip to date. The dip happened in 2007 to 2009. Some observers are keeping an eye out for the onset of a second dip, which they predict is X% to Y% likely." Who knows what words might be chosen to straighten out the nomenclature. If not "dip" then something else. Nothing too long or weird-sounding if they want the general population to catch onto and adopt the revised lingo. Regards, — ¾-10 14:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Consideration of article from Feb 2007 of HSBC warning about bad debt

I found this page a while back whilst doing research for a university essay on the recession, and I am wondering if this might be potentially useful for this article, and if so, where it can be placed. BBC NEWS - Business - US housing slowdown knocks HSBC Thanks. Eug.galeotti (talk) 02:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

WSJ resource regarding the Economy of Italy

Italy Nears Tipping Point as Its Bond Yields Climb November 8, 2011 by Tom Lauricella, Matt Wirz and Stephen L. Bernard Wall Street Journal. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)