Talk:Great Depression

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Rated B-Class, High-importance)

Business and economics portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

B

This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

[edit] Starvation

People became unemployed, businesses went bankrupt, banks collapsed, but not a single person starved? Is there any information on human impacts the Great Depression had? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.198.176 (talk) 06:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes there should be a lot said about this. But it gets deleted, according to this: http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/105255-0/ Also look at "The Orphan trains" to see children starving which is why they started the orphan trains, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Train Stars4change (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There's enormous amounts of material on life during the New Deal--and deaths--but not many reports of starvation. The orphans were well fed--they were sent to people who would adopt them (well before the 1930s). It turns out the "researcher" who claims there were 7 million deaths from starvation is a Russian who looks at the census data and notes that the population of 1940 was less 7 million less than it might have been according to prior growth trends. He assumed the missing people died of starvation. All other demographers say they were never born--lots of people postponed marriage and children. When prosperity returned the birth rate shot up again ("Baby Boom") and the 7 million were now born.Rjensen (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What about lies by omission by the corporate owned media? People with no income are starving, & I personally saw the homes of two widows not long ago, one with 3 children & the other with 5 children, and they had no food in their cupboards. That must be true for millions. What about that? Stars4change (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

See the Criticism section in the "Grapes of Wrath" article, and WP:TABOO_RESEARCH accessible via WP:TABOO_TABOO 86.101.109.156 (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Who's right?

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

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

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

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

[edit] Merge Cause section and provide brief summary?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] POV Discussion on 4.11.2 The New Deal

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Semi-protection

Does this need semi-protection or is it adequately patrolled? The recent contribution list is mostly vandalism and undoing of the same. If it needs semi-protection, hop on over to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and ask. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, it's becoming a regular event. MrZaius^talk 12:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just asked for a longer protection period, ideally indefinite. I personally would like to take a hand at restructuring parts of this this article and having a useful conversation about it, but its hard to do when the entire history is just a massive list of IP reverts. Please share your frustrations on this talk page, I've linked it to my request.--Work permit (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Turning point and recovery

In response to the "expand section" tag I made a start on re-making this section. To save time I refer readers to my "The Great Depression in Facts and Figures" Web site for more details, data, and especially references. I have no problem with importing all this into the Wiki page, but it's not something I'm going to be able to get to soon -- it would be a lot of work to do it right. Anyone else who wants to weigh in is welcome, but I hope we won't wander off into the muddle, uninformed speculation, and unsourced fantasy we see so much of at many points in this article and elsewhere relating to the Depression. Will O'Neil (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but some of the content was original research and some of it was based on your personal site that is not a reliable source. It is best to source content to reliable secondary sources. Also, please be aware of our guideline on external link spamming. Thanks. -- Vision Thing -- 22:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I reversed "Vision Thing"'s summary deletion of all my work without looking at this entry, for which I appologize, but I still strongly disagree with it in principle and think the reasons given are inapplicable. I cannot see that there is any "original research" in what I said — it is simply a good-faith attempt to very briefly summarize and contrast research published by recognized academic authorities in major journals. What is "original" about this? (I have done original research in this area but don't cite it as it is not prominent enough.) So far as I am aware, I have addressed all of the major currents of thought regarding the issues — something that certainly could not be said of the entry the Vision Thing reverted to. I have consulted with several academic economists with a spectrum of views to be sure.

The external link spamming guidelines are clear, and clearly don't apply to this case. The site in question is simply a place where readers can find more details and in particular a lot of citations. Why is it a good thing to deprive them of this? When I can find the time, and am not tied up fighting to keep what I've already written, I plan to import the citations to here. These include a lot of links to "personal" Web pages of academic authors who provide copies of their articles so that readers who lack access to expensive J-STOR or journal sites do not have to pay $30 or more for access. Will these be deleted as "external link spamming"? If so, it is hard to see much hope for Wikipedia.

If Vision Thing and others wish to make Wikpedia better rather than worse I would suggest spending the time making valuable changes rather than simply summarily destroying contributions on the grounds that they do not altogether agree with them. Will O'Neil (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are summarizing others people research you need to name your sources, and your website is not a reliable source. You are from some investment company and you seem to be using this and others articles to promote it. Such behavior is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. -- Vision Thing -- 12:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not from some investment company. And I do name my souces, or did before "Vision Thing" trashed my work. It's all a smokescreen of lies. I'm simply an independent scholar who thought it might be nice to clean up some of the terrible misinformation in this article. But I give up. I'm going to tell my academic friends that they are right, that the economics part of Wikipedia at least is captive to a cabal of obscurantists and idealogues who are too cowardly even to reveal who they are. I'm going to tell them that they are right to forbid their students to make any use whatever of Wikipedia, and I'm going to tell everyone I know that Wikpedia is to be treated with great suspicion, especially any part with "Vision Thing's" hoof marks anywhere in evidence. So be happy, you've done what you set out to do. Will O'Neil (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In a general article like this, for which reliable sources are abundant, you have used links to your personal website three times, and to an image which prominently displays your name once. If that is not self-promotion, I don't know what is. -- Vision Thing -- 11:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There are still some problems with this section:

second and third paragraph have OR and POV problems – for example if you want to say that some view is a consensus one you need a reliable source to support that statement (see Wikipedia:RS#Consensus). I think it is better to introduce those claim by attributing them to specific authors. Importance of dollar devaluation is already covered, and I believe that Friedman and Schwartz had said something about importance of establishing FDIC.
last paragraph reads like an essay

-- Vision Thing -- 13:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 1937 Recession and recovery issue

The summary as it is here is really bad -- full of unverifiable conjecture, some of it flatly wrong on the facts. I suppose that this reflects the main article, which I haven't time to look into. But if I or anyone else ever gets around to fixing the main article the summary will be an orphan of illegitimate parentage. So why include it?Will O'Neil (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I replaced this sub-section with a summary from one page in Maurice Lee's book headed "The Contraction, May 1937 - June 1938". Greensburger (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] All people & nations financially connected?

Did anyone ever mention that the Great Depression in the 1930's & today prove that all people & nations are connected financially? Because when more & more families lose jobs the chain reaction affects more people & more job cuts, so more can't sell anything, which continues to affect more companies & people, so it's the negative snowball affect. so all people & nations are connected. Also things "made in China" & sold in another country shows all nations are financially connected, doesn't it? But don't nations/people think & act like no one is connected financially? Stars4change (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

We prefer to provide factual information and let readers decide what the facts "prove". Moreover, you seem to be talking about people today in your last sentence; if so, that has absolutely no place in an article about a historical period more than 60 years ago. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Union

Unless anyone has any objections, I'd like to go ahead and remove the below passage from the Soviet Union section. The reason being that neither the Ukrainian famine or the reduction in living standards were related to the Great Depression or had any bearing at all on it. Both were the result, directly or indirectly, of the Soviet industrialisation drive. Mentioning them here gives the false impression that they were a consequence of the the depression affecting the ROTW at the time (which also contradicts the first part of the section). See Davies et al, "The Economic Transformation of the Soviet Union"

In fact the source given for the the below (51) confirms that the decline in living standards was due to "problems in their own industrialization efforts"

"Unlike the previous similar famine in Russia, information about the Soviet famine of 1932–1933 was suppressed by the Soviet authorities until perestroika. In 1933 workers' real earnings sank to about one-tenth of the 1926 level.[51] Common and political prisoners in labor camps were forced to do unpaid labor, and communists and Komsomol members were frequently "mobilized" for various construction projects" GreatGodOm (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC) miss katie lol, the great depression is interesting............. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.168.68.3 (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Why was this removed?

Inequality of wealth and income

Marriner S. Eccles, who served as Franklin D. Roosevelt's Chairman of the Federal Reserve from November 1934 to February 1948, detailed what he believed caused the Depression in his memoirs, Beckoning Frontiers (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1951)[27]: As mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass consumption, in turn, implies a distribution of wealth -- not of existing wealth, but of wealth as it is currently produced -- to provide men with buying power equal to the amount of goods and services offered by the nation's economic machinery. [Emphasis in original.] Instead of achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by 1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. This served them as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products that would justify a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in new plants. In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped. That is what happened to us in the twenties. We sustained high levels of employment in that period with the aid of an exceptional expansion of debt outside of the banking system. This debt was provided by the large growth of business savings as well as savings by individuals, particularly in the upper-income groups where taxes were relatively low. Private debt outside of the banking system increased about fifty per cent. This debt, which was at high interest rates, largely took the form of mortgage debt on housing, office, and hotel structures, consumer installment debt, brokers' loans, and foreign debt. The stimulation to spend by debt-creation of this sort was short-lived and could not be counted on to sustain high levels of employment for long periods of time. Had there been a better distribution of the current income from the national product -- in other words, had there been less savings by business and the higher-income groups and more income in the lower groups -- we should have had far greater stability in our economy. Had the six billion dollars, for instance, that were loaned by corporations and wealthy individuals for stock-market speculation been distributed to the public as lower prices or higher wages and with less profits to the corporations and the well-to-do, it would have prevented or greatly moderated the economic collapse that began at the end of 1929. The time came when there were no more poker chips to be loaned on credit. Debtors thereupon were forced to curtail their consumption in an effort to create a margin that could be applied to the reduction of outstanding debts. This naturally reduced the demand for goods of all kinds and brought on what seemed to be overproduction, but was in reality underconsumption when judged in terms of the real world instead of the money world. This, in turn, brought about a fall in prices and employment. Unemployment further decreased the consumption of goods, which further increased unemployment, thus closing the circle in a continuing decline of prices. Earnings began to disappear, requiring economies of all kinds in the wages, salaries, and time of those employed. And thus again the vicious circle of deflation was closed until one third of the entire working population was unemployed, with our national income reduced by fifty per cent, and with the aggregate debt burden greater than ever before, not in dollars, but measured by current values and income that represented the ability to pay. Fixed charges, such as taxes, railroad and other utility rates, insurance and interest charges, clung close to the 1929 level and required such a portion of the national income to meet them that the amount left for consumption of goods was not sufficient to support the population. This then, was my reading of what brought on the depression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slarabee (talk • contribs) 23:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A new Great Depression

I would suggest adding a topic in this article, about the possibility that many economists predict that we can be about to enter a new Great Depression. Realize that a part of the thinkers predicts that recovery will be soon, and others predict that it should last 5 to 10 years, which then it could be a called as a new Great Depression due to the similarly of changes. Maybe a list of those predictions and how the lifestyles change, would be interesting. At least this recession is already promising to last a few years if not more, in a quite more dramatic way than previous ones and with a powerful worldwide impact, unlike previous recessions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irpsit (talk • contribs) 05:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

While it might be worthwhile noting that many pundits are comparing the current crisis to the Great Depression, as it is the article refers to the specific historic depression of the early 20th C. Such a topic, as you're suggesting, already exists in Late_2000s_recession. Either that or wait a decade or two to see if this current crisis does indeed becaome the new 'Great Depression'... GreatGodOm (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It might not be the worst idea in the world to explicitly discuss the Depression as a benchmark, however. There hasn't been a recession in my lifetime that some talking-head hasn't tried to compare to it. MrZaius^talk 01:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact, John Rublowsky suggests "Indeed, there are critics who argue that our economy never did recover from the [Great] depression ." ^[1] Current economic depression could be the result of the Great Depression, and therefore it would be a valuable discussion to sutdy the relationship between the current economic crisis and the Great Depression. Current one could be 'the New Great Depression.'—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bri bri000 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In time there may be a rename. What we now call World War I was, prior to WWII, referred to as "The World War". It's too early to say. Usage of the phrase "second great depression" in reliable sources is picking up. [1] At some point, we may be using the phrase "First Great Depression" about the 1929 one. But not yet. --John Nagle (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The unemployment rate in 1932

I was looking for a quick source for an unemployment percentage for a college paper. I figured I could use the link from the reference given on this page, which is #67 in the list of references. However, when I clicked on the link, which I believe is http://www.shambhala.com, it lead me to some meditation blah blah blah page that had absolutely nothing to do with the Depression. I believe the rate of unemployment listed should be removed unless another source can be found to match that data. Hrooftheday (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC) hrooftheday

Rjensen has provided the requested source reference. Greensburger (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Way I look at it, this is another form of a great depression. No jobs available, and very little income coming thru. How are we going to survive this one is to keep on trucking like how we are. In the right direction, and deal with what we have to deal with. Ironically, my parent's, were born in or around the great depression. Their health isn't very well at all, and they beleave that they will die during hard times. We all need to help and work with each other, to make sure that we all can survive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.117.69.20 (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

[1]

Talk:Great Depression

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Starvation

[edit] Who's right?

[edit] Merge Cause section and provide brief summary?

[edit] POV Discussion on 4.11.2 The New Deal

[edit] Semi-protection

[edit] Turning point and recovery

[edit] 1937 Recession and recovery issue

[edit] All people & nations financially connected?

[edit] Soviet Union

[edit] A new Great Depression

[edit] The unemployment rate in 1932

Views

Personal tools

Navigation

Search

Interaction

Toolbox