Talk:Panic of 1837
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on May 10, 2004.|
|This Wikipedia article has been mentioned by a media organisation:|
- 1 POV cause does not cite accurate source
- 2 Causes should be edited
- 3 Effects and Aftermath Page Needs to be Rewritten
- 4 Old talk page post
- 5 Wikisource the Shepard text
- 6 American Bias
- 7 Cartoon Useless
- 8 Speculation section removed
- 9 "British Central Bank"?
- 10 Needs Rewrite
- 11 Panic of 1837
- 12 Blatant POV
- 13 Explanation for edit
- 14 Significant POV of a single person
- 15 Capitalization of headings
POV cause does not cite accurate source
The following sentence is not properly sourced and is a distraction to the article: "It should be noted, however, that most mainstream academic economists in the United States do not accept all of the conclusions of the Austrian school." Seems evident the intent of this sentence is discredit the Jacksonin democrat theory. (What is the definition of a mainstream economist, anyway? Which specific 'mainstream' economist(s) does not accept the theory? And why does that matter here?). Furthermore, the cited material is relevant to the article but does not support the claim. This sentence should be omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Causes should be edited
Reference to Austrian School theory is little accepted outside of strident libertarian circles, and mention of such fringe theory puts the entire article in question. (Really, does EVERYTHING on the internet need comment from Ron Paul supporters?) The citation of Mexican bimetalism doesn't make sense -- wouldn't it have pushed gold out of circulation? That's what Greshem's Law says. Einsteingreco (talk) 06:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Effects and Aftermath Page Needs to be Rewritten
It seems that economists have made numerous mistakes in the aftermath of the Panic of 1837 by not correcting GNP numbers for deflation. I already posted a quote from economist and de facto historian Murray Rothbard that GNP, when corrected for deflation, actually increased from 1838 to 1843.
I saved the new edited version:
According to most historical accounts, the economy did not recover until 1843. Most economists also agree that there was a brief recovery from 1838 to 1839, which then ended as the Bank of England and Dutch creditors raised interest rates.  However, economic historian Peter Temin has argued that, when corrected for deflation, the economy actually grew after 1838. According to economist and historian Murray Rothbard, between 1839 and 1843, real consumption increased by 21 percent and real gross national product increased by 16 percent, despite the fact that real investment fell by 23 percent and the money supply shrank by 34 percent. Apparently, the economy was able to grow due to price flexibility, a result of minimum union control and no government intervention.
Old talk page post
Needs some vulgarity cleaning at the ends of the two major sections Paragraph one - I believe 'specie' is not (paper money) - this clouds the entire artoicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikisource the Shepard text
As I said, a text dump does not belong in an article, articles that were started from other sources notwithstanding -- this is ancillary and redundant material to say the least. (An article that needs a "narrative history" is not a good article.) More problematically, it violates WP:NPOV and WP:ATT (some of these claims will be impossible to properly source). It is better that we put this public-domain text on Wikisource, and cite it as a reference. -- Dhartung | Talk 21:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's also rubbish, from an economics POV. The author does not understand economics and his explanations are simply incorrect. This material does not belong in a wiki article. Toby Douglass 07:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Claiming a central bank would have alleviated the money supply contraction that lead to the Panic of 1837 is fallacy. It was the powerful Bank of England stock holders and their American lackeys retaliating against the Jackson administration for not renewing the charter of the privately held Second Bank of the United States that led to the panic through a massive and orchestrated restriction of the money supply.
The bank was formed in 1816. It was capitalized by the US government depositing 20% of the assets. The bank board members then lent themselves the funds to purchase the remaining 80% of the shares using fractional reserve banking. Thus with no cash investments, the bank directors began issuing treasury bonds, collecting the interest and manipulating the money supply to their advantage and the advantage of their English banking patrons such as Nathaniel Rothschild. Jackson fought against and ended the banks charter due to money supply manipulation and massive corruption.
Central banks have a proven economic history of money supply manipulation to enrich the private share holders of these organizations. The boom and bust "Business Cycles" that central banks are claimed to prevent are actually prevalent under central banking systems. They are almost always named in a deceitful manner to give the appearance of being a government institution, i.e. The Federal Reserve, The Bank of England, etc.UC-kid 16:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Seriously, is there any reason not to delete the Shepard text dump?Cromulant (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The financial crises occured in the Canadian colonies of Upper Canada and Lower Canada as well collapsing the meek banking system that was still in its infancy. It had financial effects which lie at the heart of the rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada in 1838. I would appreciate at least SOME mention of this. 126.96.36.199 16:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ditto the effect on Texas in its attempts to secure European loans. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The "Whig cartoon showing unemployment" is too hard to read and seems to lend nothing to the article. Maybe it's just my eyes? -188.8.131.52 19:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's readable if it's full size, but as it's shrunken down in the article, no one can read it. It does lend something to the article, however, because it exemplifies the Whig point of view at that time. Alexanderaltman (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's not just your eyes and even enlarged it's pretty illegible. Contra Alex above, it doesn't add the Whig POV since it doesn't seem to blame anyone (unless the New Era broadsheet and wall silhouette are supposed to add context, in which case they need clarification.) Atm, it is just an unemployed man with his complaining dependents.
- On the other hand, it is better than nothing, until a better cartoon, portraits of principle actors, or wildcat currency images are added. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Speculation section removed
The earlier version's explanation of land speculation helped convey the mechanics of the collapse. Why was it removed? it should be put back in. Right now, the article is simply uninformative -- a panic happened, Van Buren got blamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
"British Central Bank"?
The Causes section refers several times to the "British Central Bank". Is this the institution usually known as the Bank of England? If it is, why not give it its usual name? Maproom (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The theory that reserve rates remained relatively stable in the 1830s seems to ignore the fact that these rates were set by state governments and enforcement was very uneven. John Kenneth Galbraith described the resulting situation in "The Age of Uncertainty" (p. 184):
"The smaller local banks were to remain free from serious restraint in many of the states for a century. Once Biddle's hand had been lifted, these state banks exploded in number. To have a bank in the eighteen-thirties became, almost literally, a human right. Many were well managed. But for many the more remote the cross-roads, the deeper the forest, the more desolate the swamp, the more attractive the location. For a remote or obscure address diminished the likelihood that the notes issued by the bank would ever find their way back for collection. There was state regulation, but it was far from reliable. In Michigan, where the history is better than elsewhere, the banks were required to maintain a reserve of gold and silver against their notes. Boxes of coins were sent around through the forest just in front of the commissioners who were sent out to enforce the law. As an act of economy, a thin layer of gold was once found to be covering a thick deposit of broken glass. In conservative Massachusetts in these years a bank failed. Against notes of $500,000 outstanding, it had cash reserves of $86.48. By the time of the Civil War some 7000 different kinds of bank notes were in circulation in the United States; to these, numerous artists with access to a printing press had added another 5000 that were counterfeit. Legal or bonus, the purchasing power was often about the same, meaning null."
The article should be re-written to mention the lack of a stable currency following the collapse of the Second Bank of the United States. The theory that proliferation of dubious currency had no effect on the speculative bubble is unproven and should not be included.
Panic of 1837
It certainly gives the impression to me (formerly taught at the university level) of plagiarism with lengthy quotes in no way, at least directly, acknowledged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstraten (talk • contribs) 15:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
"Of course, the initial Government intervention in the market had been part of the cause of the problem ..." What do we mean, "Of course"? Is this a matter of natural law, like the sun rising in the east? If so, shouldn't it at least be cited? This really needs to be toned down, even if it involves adding weasel words. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
That entire phrase - not just the "of course" - reads like a Republican manifesto, especially in light of the 2008-2009 economic picture and government efforts to confront the situation. It might be that the writer means that the government's specie policy caused the problem, but that isn't what the sentence says. Unless someone can provide a credibly neutral source to support that statement, it ought to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Explanation for edit
Reading the article, I was struck by the mention of Mexican bimetallism and the citation of Gresham's law as an explanation for the flow of Mexican silver to the north, since Gresham's law would have predicted a northward flow of gold and, if anything, a southward flow of silver in response to bimetallism. Reading the text by Murray Rothbard cited in the article though, I learned that Mexico at the time did not adopt bimetallism (in the usual sense of a linked silver and gold standard) but instead issued debased copper coinage. Marco polo (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2012 (
Significant POV of a single person
_____________________________ This page has been edited by Stephen W. Campbell as mentioned below. Which does signify his special interest in this page. The reason why I am leaving this here is because this article could possibly have one man's strong opinion (For no self interest necessarily)
http://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/may-2014/improving-wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debasish Dey (talk • contribs) 14:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps without intent, Dey has pointed out an excellent example of what Wikipedia is all about. Because Mr. Campbell's contributions this article is in much better shape. Moreover, his openness about the way he went about it, is not simply what we would want from all editors, but is also an example of how to improve an article while also respecting other people's contributions. It is exactly because of this approach that I do not see any significant POV here. The other way around. The editor made sure his views will not overtake his editing, which is what we all should do. Historian (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Capitalization of headings
I just reverted what I assume was a good-faith effort at improving the article by capitalizing "Aftermath" in the subheading, "Effects and aftermath." The WP MoS requires sentence-style capitalization of headings. Yopienso (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Milton Friedman, and Anna J. Scwartz. A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960. pg. 10
- Dr. Peter Temin. The Jacksonian Economy. pg 155
- Murray Rothbard. History of Money and Banking. pg. 102. http://mises.org/books/historyofmoney.pdf
- ibid pg. 102