Talk:Depression (economics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Economics (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

redirected to recession[edit]

I've redirected this; the content was essentially identical to Recession (User:The Land, 19:37, 22 January 2006

I think this was probably the best route, why was this undone? Is there a reason not to redo this? Pdbailey (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
A recession is different from a depression. The definitions I remember is two quarters of negative real GDP for a recession, and worse than -10% real GDP is a depression, so an extreme recession. I can't find anything that I would consider an authoritative source for those definitions though, but I'll keep looking. I'll see if I can find my old macroeconomics textbook. NBER uses a different definition of "recession", and states no definition of "depression". Chris Gore (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

concerned about definition[edit]

I'm concerned about the definition. Depression, to my mind, is down, deflating, destruction. Deflation, not hyperinflation. Perhaps the only way to really get at the definition is through examples ("I know it when I see it"). DOR (HK) (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with depression sounding like deflating, but one should also look at what it is that is deflating. If for instance demand deflates, leaving an excess of supply, then the supplier could inflate his selling price in order to try to make the same profit out of the sale of less supply. A form of this is what is happening in Zimbabwe: Zimbabwe is in an abject depression, but basic necessities cost billions of Zim dollars, because the Zimbabwean government is printing ever increasing denominations of money (riding the inflation wave). Especially before Mugabe instituted price control there was enough supply of many necessities and some commodities on supermarket shelves, but the inflation caused by Mugabe printing paper money out of thin air led to sellers raising prices on commodities in order to try to get the same profit out of less commodities being sold. On necessities the demand stayed the same but in that case the inflation is more due to the value of the Zim dollar being divided by the amount of paper money being printed. Nowadays fuel coupons (fuel standard) are being used as an alternate currency to paper money (air standard) and it would be easier to see the difference between the inflationary effect on the price of commodities and the inflationary effect on the price of necessities if measured from the fuel standard base. I saw an article about Zim dollars being auctioned on Ebay for much more than their monetary value, but I seriously doubt whether any trade is going to happen in Zimbabwe any time soon based on the curiosity value, or even potential future value, of Zim dollars. Already I read that South African Rand is being used as currency part of the time in some places. I doubt whether the Zimbabwean people are easily going to arbitrarily decide to let go of whatever is printed on the Zim dollar note and start using Zim dollar notes as arbitrary value coupons. The deflation in the Zim dollar note that you probably are thinking about would be if the Zimbabwean people would arbitrarily totally let go of the Zim dollar as a unit of currency, which could theoretically lead to the Zim dollar having a chance to 'rest and recuperate', leading to symbolic reduction in prices, but for such a situation I would try to find an even more intense name, like for instance total economic meltdown. Obviously this scenario that I depicted above is oversimplified.77.87.16.6 (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Simple Projection[edit]

I am not an economist. However, averaging the list of "recessions (and depressions)", would it be valid to say that, on average, this (possible) "next" (hyperinflationary) rec/depr-ession will last approximately 4.65 years? (which takes us to August of 2011 of the next Presidential election cycle. Hmmmmmm.) Also,is the hyperinflationary adjective valid in this situation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The typical US post-WWII recession lasted 3 quarters, not 4.65 years. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Depression is the same as recession?[edit]

The impression I have is that depressions are simply what recessions were called before the Great Depression. After that, a new term was invented to avoid scaring people. Horatio (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The terminology evolved. In the 19th century there were "panics" and "bubbles" as well as specific names for economic distress. In the early part of the 20th century, along with better understanding of economics can a more standardized nomenclature. Of course my favorite is: "when the other guy is unemployed, its a recession, when I am unemployed its a depression". --Saltysailor (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried to source this before, but failed. Now, no less than The Economist (Jan 3, 2009: "Economic focus: Diagnosing depression") says it clearly: "Before the 1930s all economic downturns were commonly called depressions. The term 'recession' was coined later to avoid stirring up nasty memories." DOR (HK) (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In a few decades, both ordinary people and scholars (in any relevant field) will probably see the '30s depression and the current period of downturn, low growth, financial woes and steep unemployment (in most of Europe, and in the US/Canada) as pretty much equal. It would just be too embarrassing for too many top-tier agents, institutions and states if it were already identified as a depression. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced[edit]

If this isn't defended, I'll delete it in a few days: A proposed definition for depression is a sustained recessionary period in which the population is forced to dispose of tangible assets to fund every day living, as was seen in the US and in Germany in the 1930s. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There have been a lot of edits recently that are (also) unsourced, by nameless IP editor 140.80.159.76 DOR (HK) (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Also added was the phrase: "Stocks usually crash during an election." to one of the articles, without justification and it was not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.7.134 (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

External link question[edit]

NJGW removed the two links in an Austrian viewpoint. However, I do not understand why you labeled it as "Austrian POV pushing." Most of the references to the article use a Keynesian POV, suggesting that "government spending" cured the Great Depression. You cannot exclusively suggest economics as Keynesian.

I do not understand why you have a double standard of Keynesian economics over Austrian economics. You may have a conflict of interest on your advocacy of Keynesian economics. The two links have content from reliable sources, but you removed them, probably to reinforce your Keynesian POV.

If you want the article to look more neutural, perhaps you should include both the Keynesian and Austrian views on economic depressions in the external links section. This will get the external links section a more balanced POV. Anyway, it will look slanted towards a Keynesian POV if the links section includes only articles based on a Keynesian viewpoint. 72.94.48.210 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want to include sourced information in the article that explains this, then that's a good idea that will help the article. However, the links you provided violate wp:ELNO #1 (links should not be to sites that could simply be used as sources). NJGW (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, I understand how the first link violates ELNO. However, the second link does not violate it. The second link basically functions like a link directory that lists a series of articles, from an Austrian viewpoint. Therefore, we cannot use this as a source, so we could place it in the external links section. Correct?72.94.48.210 (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe this is the link you're talking about:
I think this may also be a problem with ELNO-1, as the flipside is wp:ELYES #3 ("Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues"). I don't want to get into a neutrality debate because I think both sides should be presented in the article, but I do think that this information could be integrated... so ELNO-1 applies. I also think that there are many tangent issues discussed at the link, so it skirts the boundaries of ELNO-13. What's your prospective 72.94? How do others feel about this? NJGW (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Current Depression?[edit]

At what point will we know the US or entire world is in a depression? There are already verifiable sources stating we are in a depression, but they ar in the minority. I guess my question is what would be considered "enough" sources to say we are currently in a depression? Then as such it would need to be listed in this article. TimL (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of wp:RS sources stating we are in a depression. If you are, feel free to supply them here to be evaluated by other editors. Remember that such sources should be notable enough that quoting them would not provide undue weight to a fringe or unpopular position. As for the question of when we'll know (ie when economists actually say we are in a depression) that will either be once sh#t has seriously hit the fan (compare today's situation to living conditions in the 30s and you'll see what I mean) or after the whole affair is over.
Finally, this is an article to discuss the concept of economic depressions. There are other articles about the current economic condition which are more suitable for the type of discussion you're interested in including. NJGW (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, the key will be prices: depressions have deflation; recessions do not. cf Japan 1990s, Hong Kong 2000s. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Since the current situation has not yet been definitively classified as a "depression" proper, in the "see also" section I've added an internal link to Financial crisis of 2007–2010 since some people might be looking for that information when they come to this page. --Nihilozero (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Unadapted link that focuses on financial aspects (albeit with some OT political views: see the that page's discussion). Changed to Late 2000s recession
I've heard mention that a GDP drop of 10% from peak separates recessions from depressions. But I don't have a reliable source for that. Anyone seen anything? LK (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Judge Richard Posner has called it a depression. Jim Cramer on CNBC called it a depression. Ben Beranke said that the financial crisis was more severe than the one that caused the Great Depression. The problem is that there is no hard and fast definition of an economic depression, am I right? You'll find academic economists calling it a depression if you look. At least, the 2008 crisis was more than a recession. Matt2h (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Economist Paul Krugman's latest book is titled End This Depression Now!. I haven't read it, but I can only assume from the title that in it he argues we are currently in a depression. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and add Michael Hudson, Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall (etc.) to that list. It's true that there is no universally accepted definition of depression. They used to be called "panics" and "depression" was a nicer term that displaced it. Now it seems "great recession" is being used instead. The term "depression" is banned from use by any government economists in the USA. It's a politically hot issue, and politicians do not want to be associated with a depression so there is great opposition to ever using the term--a semantics game. What I don't like about many commonly-espoused definitions is that they don't take into account (un)employment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.51.122.18 (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)