Talk:List of recessions in the United States

Notes

Most analysts predict continued growth

[Consumer Price Index up 0.6% in Oct]

[Retailers Post Mediocre Holiday Sales]

[Possibility of a Major Stock Market Crash Cannot Be Ignored]

Kstailey 19:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

What about 1946.... 1946-7 WAS Clearly a RECESSION!.. I'm not the one to go and edit pages just cause I do not agree with them, so I'll post this here.. I've been doing a lot of studying because I figured the Credit crunch of today is were much alike to the War economy of ww2 shutting down.. and that is clearly the case.... Only weeks after ww2.. There were huge layoffs, and troops came home to no jobs.. THere was negative GDP growth after incredible growth during the war years.. and it forced Truman to make to pass a lot of economic stimulus plans.. like hte G.I bill etc..

1945-6 or 7 whatever... should be in this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.118.192 (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

USA Recessions

Should this article be re-entitled List of USA Recessions? How about 1960-62? Was there a recession?

Renamed. Also, consensus appears to be that there was no recession during that period in the United States. Gary King (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

1953 Recession

Is the 1953 Recession for real? The paragraph, and the associated article The Recession of 1953, looks sensible, but was created by a user whose only other contribution to Wikipedia is a joke page. Rocksong 05:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've referenced the recession. Gary King (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

some other crisis in US?

• event of 1807 caused by the Embargo Act of 1807 passed by Thomas Jefferson. Textile industry benefited enormously. Shipping industry suffered.
  • Added. Gary King (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• event of 1812 caused by the war of 1812.
  • Get me a solid reference and I'll add it in. Gary King (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

These events boost the industrialization of the US. Jackzhp 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

the recession of the 1840s in europe was bad enough to cause the revolutions of 1848

could this be included?

Only american recessions

There appear to be no recessions from other countries. Eg, the recession in England during the Thatcher era.

There are a number of American ones, and we do need others, but the list is mostly of global recessions. Most likely the Thatcher downturn you are thinking of was part of the Early 1980s recession. That article needs work to cover more than just the United State. - SimonP 11:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. The article has now been moved to make it specific to the United States. PeterSymonds | talk 04:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Duration of recessions

As far as I know, NBER is the institution which establishes when recessions start and when they end. Duration of recessions on its page doesn't match with duration of recessions as listed here. -- Vision Thing -- 19:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment on the Duration of Recessions. I added a Web Citation (number 3), which provides these durations. It notes that Month the Recession Starts and then the Trough when the contraction ends (Trough) and growth begins again. Should I update this article to note the NBER durations or should we have two Duration Columns. I am not sure what the current duration column means (Peak to Peak?). ITBlair (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

contradictions on duration of crisis still exist, this should be deleted until sources are added or contradictions removed. (LVAustrian (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

Title "List of recessions in the United States" inappropriate

The title is simply appropriate.

NBER is the acknowledged authority that carefully tracks the cycles using economic data. This page uses judgement of wikipedia editors to define the recessions.

Recession is USA is a well defined term. This page may mislead the readers into thinking that this is an authoritative list. It is not.

It should be called a list of financial crises.--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with renaming it to 'Financial crises' is that this will greatly expand the scope of the article, which is not a good idea while it is still nominated as a WP:FL. It'd be better to keep the scope restricted and remove or add whatever items are necessary to make it complete rather than to expand the scope so greatly that every item will require much greater scrutiny. Gary King (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The information given does not confirm with official dates of US recessions. Something must be done to fix this.--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Late 1980s recession?

I see no mention of this. Timeshift (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably because it was a boomtime. Real year-on-year GDP growth averaged 3.6% in 1986-89, and never fell below 2.5% for even a single quarter.DOR (HK) (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the Crash of 1987? The way I understand it, at least some areas of the US (e.g. New England; Texas) were in recession as early as 1986. Better double check your facts. Shanoman (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There are no partial recessions in this article; each of the ones listed is big enough, or wide enough to cover the entire economy. Regional recessions might be a good topic for another article. But, in addition, stock market slumps downturns corrections realignments buying opportunities crashes are all about the financial markets, and not the real economy. This article is about the real economy, Main St, not Wall St. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

---

I'm concerned at the causes listed for the 2001 recession. Since the NBER says the recession was over before 9/11, it shouldn't be listed as a cause (i.e., an event preceeding recession). Totally inappropriate, except for its impact on the recovery. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That recession was not over before September 11. It ended in November. Moreover, an event that occurs during a recession can cause the recession to lengthen and thus reasonably be considered a cause for part of a recession. This is not just conjecture -- the NBER has addressed this question directly[1] From the NBER: "Before the attacks, it is possible that the decline in the economy would have been too mild to qualify as a recession. The attacks clearly deepened the contraction and may have been an important factor in turning the episode into a recession." --JayHenry (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"Recession" 2008?

We're not actually in a recession for sure yet, are we? By definition, we're not officially in one yet, because we haven't had two quarters of contracting GDP. We may have entered one, but we won't know for sure until GDP numbers come out. People have been saying since the 2nd quarter that we're in one, and we still had positive GDP growth in Q2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.233.6 (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you sure have alot of skeptics referring to the Reaganomics "boom" as nothing more than the "Great Ronald Reagan Recession" of 1982-87 for a large subsection of the USA, major cities & industrial areas were still in full-fledged decline from the 1960's and mid 1970's. In fact, the so-called war of poverty document in 1967 wrote about the nation's 3 poorest areas: the Mississippi Delta, the Ozarks and the Appalachians had been in "depression" since the 1930's. The state of California was constantly in recession and/or stagnated growth from 1987 to 95, perhaps the worst of any state or region, with the early 2000's high-tech bust and the 2003 California budget loss foreshadowed the current 2009 California budget lockdown. + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it appears that you're the first person in the history of the Internet to ever refer to the "Great Ronald Reagan recession"[2]. You have a valid point that different parts of the country experience the economy differently, but why decades of poverty in Appalachia for example would be blamed on Reagan is unclear. --JayHenry (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The chart was stolen

The chart was stolen from the following site: link title Please rewrite the chart and don't rely on simple copy+paste. Wikipedia does not tolerate plagiarism. 99.243.193.64 (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Just curious if you have evidence that Wikipedia copied the recession.org site, and not the other way around. Looking through the edit history, the table definitely does not "feel" like it was copied from another source, but gradually converged to its present form. So I'm inclined to say that Wikipedia probably did not plagiarize this content. If there is any evidence to the contrary, please present it. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Economic crisis of 2008

The economic crisis of 2008 is clearly a legitimate See also link for this article, even if not yet declared a recession. A POV-pushing IP address keeps removing the link from the section. Is there consensus to delete this link? It seems quite relevant. If someone came to this page expecting also to find information on the recent crisis, then the reader can find it in the see also section. I don't understand what the objection is here. Please explain rather than engage in an edit warring. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant to remove it from the table that purports to list specific recessions. I have no problem, and actually support the linking of it in the "See Also" section. It is clearly relevant.

I'd also suggest a section on how recessions are determined for this list - additionally, we should include a comparative list of those periods which conform to the classical two quarter definition of a recession. It would mae for a much more complete, balanced and informative entry on the subject. I have hacked in a section with links and verbatim quotes, I will also immediately revert it - it's only intention is to lay some possible groundwork for a future editor75.49.223.74 (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The 2008 "recession" lacks empirical evidence. Economics is not a field of prescription and recession has a clear economic definition. If an when a credible source confirms a recession, you can add it back to this page. Absent references, assuming that the US will face a recession currently has no basis in mainstream economic theory and thus this entry should be deleted.Downzero (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have edited it, I suggest you leave it until you can find a credible source to back your claims. 98.222.59.54 (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The definition of "recession" is 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth. This has not yet happened.

"The New Great Depression"?! Where did THAT come from? The last 12 months may qualify as a recession by some metrics but certainly not a depression. And GREAT? Gimme a break. Schnaz (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The last 12 months do not even qualify as a recession, much less a depression. As I stated before, this material should be deleted from the article as it is contrary to mainstream economic theory on what represents a recession.Downzero (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The economists seem to disagree with you on that. It is a very serious recession and was declared in early December and believed to be one by many economists months before that. Timmeh! 21:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Eichengreen, B. and K.H. O’Rourke. 2009. “A Tale of Two Depressions.” In progress. 74.96.8.55 (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see "Late 2000s recession" changed to "Panic of 2007". I think that would be historically consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekuntz (talk • contribs) 14:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Calling it the Panic of 2007 would not be appropriate. This is a challenge since there's no official name yet and it's not clear what term historians will coalesce around. I'm extremely skeptical this will be remembered as the Panic of 2007. The period of greatest panic was in 2008 following the Lehman Collapse, and most references to the "Panic of 2007" were written in 2007, and apply to a secondary mortgage market collapse that occurred before the recession itself began. I've noticed a growing number of commentators referring to this recession as "The Great Recession" (capital G, capital R), but I think it may be premature to call it that? --JayHenry (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

S&L Crisis

It seems that this chart makes no account of the S&L Crisis and resulting downturn beginning in 1987 and lasting through 1989.
Also consider this:
1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Comments moved here from article by SimonP (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As noted explicitly in the article, the standard dating for US recessions is performed by the NBER. The S&L Crisis was a factor of the 1990-91 recession, but did not cause one prior to that. --JayHenry (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Two sections (anyone watching?)

If anyone is watching this page and could weigh in, I'd appreciate it. At the FLC, someone suggested adding GDP data for recessions. I resisted since prior to WWII this data is annual and a bit controversial. However, what do people think of the idea of splitting the list into two sections post- and pre-WWII? Since WWII, the data in the US is very standardized and widely accepted, and it would be useful to compare not only GDP but other indicators as well. --JayHenry (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to split the list. Just create two sections in the list. This would be the best procedure. Read my reply on the FLC.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The Big Lie

We know that the US economy grew very rapidly in the 1800s. Yet an eyeball comparison of the "duration of recession" and "time since previous recession" in the period "free banking era to Great Depression" suggests that we were in recession nearly as often as we were in expansion. And the figures given for contraction of business activity are enormous. Put it all together, and you're suggesting that our economy grew at spectacular rates (such as 50%!) in the expansion years. This is an untrue representation, and it's particularly appalling given this page's status as a featured list. Is anybody listening, or do I need to take down the page? Jlcfa (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Useless Comparisons

This list uses different markers to compare economic downturns throughout history. How can one compare free banking era recessions to central bank era recessions without being given the appropriate criteria?

If the list is going to exist, it should at least compare the same exact metrics across the board, and not use revised metrics where it's simply more convenient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.208.76 (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think the existence of a lender of last resort changes the definition of a recession. there are certainly data and interpretation problems as we go older, but those aren't directly related to the existence of a central bank. Protonk (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)