Jump to content

Talk:2007–2008 financial crisis: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎social effects?: new section
Line 132: Line 132:


I think Mike Schwartz above is completely correct - this article should be called Financial crisis of 2007–the present.
I think Mike Schwartz above is completely correct - this article should be called Financial crisis of 2007–the present.

== social effects? ==

Very little mention of the impact this financial crisis had on the lives of the working class? Businesses, corporations, GNP, market shares, etc were not the only things affected. I think the writers of this article are missing a key subject - THE PEOPLE!.

Revision as of 03:25, 11 December 2011

World map of GDP growth rates

I posted this on the talk page for the image but I'll post it here too. The map of world GDP growth rates shows Botswana's economy collapsing with Zimbabwe's economy slightly rising. I'm no economist but I do read the news; isn't Botswana the one with the relatively thriving economy while Zimbabwe is the one with the collapsing economy?

Right now Botswana is the country in southern Africa that is dark brown (i.e. decreased 8-10%) while Zimbabwe, to its immediate northeast, is green.

Zimbabwe gave up on its currency and adopted the greenback. That might have something to do with it, especially considering that "improvement" would be relative to previously rock-bottom (and digging). - Tenebris

I have trimmed the external links section per WP:EL. Please add links with care, making sure that they are allowed by a specific category detailed at WP:ELYES. For convenience of use as sources, I'm listing the links trimmed below. Note that some of these links don't qualify as reliable sources.

Subprime lending and GSEs

From the article:

In the early and mid-2000s, the Bush administration called numerous times[1] for investigation into the safety and soundness of the GSEs and their swelling portfolio of subprime mortgages. On Sept. 10, 2003 the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing at the urging of the administration to assess safety and soundness issues and to review a recent report by OFHEO (Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight) that had uncovered accounting discrepancies within the two entities.[2] The hearings never resulted in new legislation or formal investigation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as many of the committee members refused to accept the report and instead rebuked OFHEO for their attempt at regulation.[3] Some believe this was an early warning to the systemic risk that the growing market in subprime mortgages posed to the U.S. financial system that went unheeded.[4]

References
"
  1. ^ "Bush White House Archive". whitehouse.gov.
  2. ^ "OFHEO Report on Systemic Risk" (PDF). fhfa.gov.
  3. ^ "House Hearing on OFHEO Report". house.gov.
  4. ^ [www.international-economy.com/TIE_Su04_Wallison.pdf "Attempts at Regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"] (PDF). international-economy.com. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
"

I've tagged this text, which has been added to several crisis-related articles and is grossly misleading. I had previously removed it with an explanation in the edit summary but it has since been reinstated without any explanation. Let me flesh out the problems with it.

It uses primary sources, one of which is a list of White House talking points to advance an original argument that the WH, OFHEO concerns were an early warning of risks in subprime lending which Congress wrongly ignored. But the sources tend to deal with things like capital adequacy, management reforms, accounting errors, etc; not risks in subprime lending. The text also selectively omits to mention the pressure on the GSEs from Wall Street & mortgage originators as well as the Bush administration to continue to expand lending. It doesn't identify Peter Wallison, an American Enterprise Institute fellow who gets a disproportionate voice in this article, and instead weasel words his view. Finally, the whole emphasis on subprime lending backed by GSEs is misleading since most subprime loans were actually securitized by private investors.[1]

--Not seeing what your problem here is. Were there attempts during the Bush admin to put regulations on the GSE's? Yes. About 3 or 4. Were there accounting discrepancies? Yes. Did that report show that the GSE's would be at risk? Yes. It showed very weak internal controls. It also forced Fannie Mae to stop buying home loans as investments. If their accounting books are cooked, how trustworthy could they be? Also why are you complaining about using White House talking points when you are refuting them using Fed Reserve talking points? They have an interest is making the GSE's look as good as possible. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaggs (talk • contribs) 00:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added Us only tag

This article should be global in nature but it is heavily US centric. Almost every section contains information from a US point of view while the crisis' impact around the world is contained in a few paragraphs. Globalizing this article should be a priority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.73.65 (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add a documented global perspective. Please don't just complain, just do it! Smallbones (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing the tag. It's widely accepted that the financial crisis was started in the US, caused by the US financial sector, so it is only natural that the article centers around events in the US. The article does have sections on the global effects of the financial crisis. If you don't think these sections cover the global impact are adequately, you should specify in what way would like to see them expanded.TheFreeloader (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refusal to Include the Term "Great Recession", or even "Recession" in the Article Title is Ridiculous

The term "Great Recession", or "Recession", is used frequently in the media, including major newspapers and news magazines. But not here. This is also why the number of Wikipedia editors is declining sharply in recent years, because individual articles end up getting dominated by stubborn, inflexible little groups with axes to grind. Perhaps its good, though. This article doesn't search in any significant way on Google, under "Great Recession" or even "Recession", likely due to the stubborn, entrenched insistence on an obscure title that doesn't match the way most people refer to the subject. Just deserts.

69.171.160.11 (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about Late-2000s recession? What exactly are you talking about? --125.253.96.70 (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:2008 Top1percentUSA.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:2008 Top1percentUSA.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regulatory proposals and long-term responses Out of Date

The Section Late-2000s_financial_crisis#Regulatory_proposals_and_long-term_responses is out of date. It makes references to the reconciliation of the Dodd-Frank Act in 2010 as current. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.167.181.84 (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resource Scientific American, Wall Street, Global financial system

A Formula for Economic Calamity; Despite the lessons of the 2008 collapse, Wall Street is betting our future on flimsy science by David H. Freedman SciAm October 26, 2011 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpts ...

The market crash of 2008 that plunged the world into the economic recession from which it is still reeling had many causes. One of them was mathematics.

The financial world is not alone, of course, in depending on mathematical models that aren’t always reliable for decision-making guid­ance. Scientists struggle with models in many fields ... in which the phenomena they describe are very complex, or information is hard to come by, or, as is the case with financial models, both. But in no area of human activity is so much faith placed in such flimsy science as finance.

99.181.138.228 (talk) 04:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This may be useful in other wp locations too. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Financial modeling? 99.109.125.146 (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should the title ['name'] remain "Financial crisis of 2007–2010"?

Now, the title of this article (even though it is just a re-direct to Late-2000s financial crisis), is "Financial crisis of 2007–2010". Is that the way it should be? Did the event (or, era) (or whatever it was) stop or "end" itself, during 2010? Or is it still going? Should the name perhaps be changed to "Financial crisis of 2007–the present"? ...and then later changed to "Financial crisis of 2007–20xx" once this thing (whatever it is) ends?

I don't know the answers. I am just asking some questions. Thank you! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


My comments: 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.11.134.77 (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title for this article is undoubtedly wrong. "Late-2000s" is completely imprecise.

Firstly, what period does this refer to - it could be 2900 to 3000 for example. Secondly, let's suppose it means the latter part of the first decade, like 2005 to 2010 - then it excludes the current year, when the crisis is very much still ongoing.

I think Mike Schwartz above is completely correct - this article should be called Financial crisis of 2007–the present.

social effects?

Very little mention of the impact this financial crisis had on the lives of the working class? Businesses, corporations, GNP, market shares, etc were not the only things affected. I think the writers of this article are missing a key subject - THE PEOPLE!.

  1. ^ [2]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007–2008_financial_crisis&oldid=465228684"