Talk:Great Depression

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Economics (Rated B-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.
B-Class article 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.

Please clarify treadline in caption of image under 'Turning point and recovery'[edit]

The overall course of the Depression in the United States, as reflected in per-capita GDP (average income per person) shown in constant year 2000 dollars, plus some of the key events of the period.[1]


If I could edit this article, I would add [clarification needed (what is 'Full Normal GDP' (red dotted line))] to the caption of the image shown to the right.

More specifically, what assumptions go into that curve? It's clearly a line fit to some data... Which years does that data come from? Why are those years relevant? Please explain, thanks (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, let me add: how is a linear fit justified? Is economic growth linear? (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right. I don't think that "Full Normal GDP" is a commonly used term (someone please let me know if I'm wrong). Since the GDP in the chart is in constant year 2000 dollars, it can't be "GDP if it had kept up with inflation". One possibility is it may mean "How much the economy has to grow to keep the unemployment rate from falling". An explanation of this term should be provided for those of us who are non-specialists.Dulcimer music 04:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)JDefauw — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDefauw (talkcontribs)
Dotted red line = long term trend 1920-1970, as is now stated. Rjensen (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong name used in the Spain chapter[edit]

The prime minister of Spain from 1923 to 1930 was Miguel Primo de Rivera, not Jose Primo de Rivera. Please change! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moshes elizaveta (talkcontribs) 11:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Determining the start of the Great Depression[edit]

This section should emphasize that the Great Depression has a recognizable event that people generally point to as the start: the Wall Street Crash of 1929. (See "The Great Depression", New York Times.) Prior to that date there were various indicators of global financial instability:

  • 1928, first quarter, German recession "Great Depression",
  • March 25, 1929, the US mini crash
  • June 1929, the beginning of a US recession "Great Depression",
  • September 20, 1929, the London crash
  • October 24, 1929, Black Thursday in NYC
  • October 28, 1929, Black Monday in NYC
  • October 29, 1929, Black Tuesday in NYC
  • Early 1930: stringent financial measures adopted by the Fed rather than expansionary
  • June 1930: increased protectionist trade tariffs by US followed by retaliatory tariffs by others

Various authors have variously defined the start:

  • Professor Erich Rauchway of UC Davis says in The Great Depression and the New Deal: A Very Short Introduction, page 3:
    • "The Great Depression began in the late 1920s, not necessarily with the Great Crash of 1929 but around that time..."
  • Professor Hamilton Cravens of Iowa State U and OAH says in Great Depression: People and Perspectives, page xi:
    • "Most American historians would agree that the Great Depression spanned the years between the stock market crash of October 1929 and the Japanese attack on the U.S. Naval fleet at Pearl Harbor... The stock market crash of 1929 triggered the Great Depression."
  • Professor Robert S. McElvaine of Milsaps College says in The Great Depression: America 1929–1941 that there are various explanations of what started the Great Depression, varying by economic background of the observer. He says economist Professor Michael Bordo of Rutgers looks at "the contraction phase" as extending from August 1929 to March 1933. McElvaine dismisses political writer Amity Shlaes who contradicts the standard history of the Great Depression starting at the NY stock market crash. Throughout his book, McElvaine emphasizes the October 1929 crash as the defining moment of the start of the Great Depression.
  • In the The Great Depression in America: A Cultural Encyclopedia, the editors repeatedly trace the Great Depression to its start in late October 1929, the Wall Street Crash. Many entries are described in relation to the timing of the crash. They write that the Great Depression is "the subject of almost constant study since that Tuesday in October 1929 when the stock market crashed, signaling the end of one era and the onset of something new and unknown..."
  • History writer Steve Wiegand writes in Lessons from the Great Depression For Dummies, page 45:
    • The Great Depression may have started with the stock market crash in October 1929 (see Chapter 3) but the crash didn't shoulder all the blame."
  • Keynesian economist John Kenneth Galbraith wrote in 1955 in The Great Crash of 1929, page 168: "After the Great Crash came the Great Depression which lasted, with varying severity, for ten years." Galbraith says on page 71 that a group of conservative Harvard economists of the day forecast a recession "though assuredly not a depression" which was due some time in early or mid 1929. Galbraith writes that "by the summer of 1929, the setback had not appeared, at least in any very visible form", which made the economists admit their error. Galbraith describes how in March 1929 Paul Warburg warned against "a general depression involving the entire country" if stronger Federal Reserve restrictions were not set in place to stop "unrestrained speculation" in the market. On page 88 Galbraith says "According to the accepted view of events, by the autumn of 1929 the economy was well into a depression." He describes how industrial and factory production reached a peak in June 1929, but by October various indices were down. He writes "Until September or October of 1929 the decline in economic activity was very modest."
  • German historian Dietmar Rothermund says in The Global Impact of the Great Depression 1929–1939, page 48, that various financial risk factors had been building a shaky bubble, "but they were accentuated by the sudden crash of the stock market in October 1929 which undermined the world credit system and thus was the proximate cause of the depression."
  • Economics professor Nicholas Crafts of the University of Warwick writes in The Great Depression of the 1930s: Lessons for Today, page 189, that Galbraith traces the start of the Great Depression to the Wall Street Crash. Crafts notes that Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz challenged this "prevailing Keynesian view" in 1963. Crafts characterizes this debate as being about "illiquidity versus insolvency", with Friedman and Schwartz carrying the "illiquidity shock" side. Crafts says that the debate hinges on whether the observer uses aggregate or disaggregate data, with aggregate data favoring the illiquidity argument. Crafts thinks that the Friedman and Schwartz version "may well prevail." Crafts writes on page 157 that "it is quite common still for it to be asserted that the Great Depression was caused by the stock market crash of October 1929." He says on page 48 that he himself disagrees with this assessment, that "the Wall Street Crash played, at most, a minor role in the downturn". He blames instead stringent monetary policy and banking crises.
  • Economist Lionel Robbins, Baron Robbins, wrote in 1933 in The Great Depression that "the onset of the present crisis may perhaps be dated from the autumn of 1929." He goes on to describe economic factors that had been building since 1914.
  • Historian James S. Olson wrote in the Historical Dictionary of the Great Depression, 1929–1940, pages 135–136, that the US stock market "declined modestly in September [1929], but few traders or investors seemed concerned." He says the main panic came in late October. He writes: "Although economic historians do not look back on the Great Crash of 1929 as the sole cause of the Great Depression, they identify it as an important contributing factor..."
  • Economist Christian Saint-Étienne argues that the Great Depression would not have happened if the Federal Reserve had followed an expansionary policy in the months following the Wall Street Crash. The Great Depression, 1929–1938: Lessons for the 1980s, page 32. Saint-Étienne notes that NBER shows a peak of economic activity in August 1929 followed by a trough in March 1933. He says the available money in the US stayed relatively unchanged from January 1928 to April 1930, and only by March 1931 was the lack of money felt. Saint-Étienne traces the Great Depression to various tight-fisted government policies and tariffs starting in June 1930.
  • Economist historian Charles P. Kindleberger wrote in 1989 in The World in Depression, 1929–1939 that he disagrees with Friedman's 1963 analysis. Kindleberger says that the Great Depression was caused by a combination of economic factors which built a speculative bubble of unwarranted optimism in the US stock market which had lost touch with the reality of various downturns in business and production. He writes that if there is any stock market crash which can be blamed for causing the Great Depression, it is the US Wall Street Crash of October 1929. He writes on page 104 that the trading mania in the US stock market "may have contributed to a weakening of the business position, but the crash was less a cause of the depression than a signal of the need to pause and regroup."
  • Professors Thomas E. Hall and J. David Ferguson of Miami University of Ohia write in The Great Depression: An International Disaster of Perverse Economic Policies that there are several reasons to view the Wall Street Crash as having a strong causative effect on the subsequent Great Depression. 1) A decline of $20 billion in stock value hurt household budgets across the US. 2) Existing capital was reduced in value relative to new capital goods, which depressed industrial development. 3) The most important consequence of the crash was a massive reduction in market confidence—a psychological factor.

I hold that general mainstream thought accepts the Wall Street Crash of 1929 as the psychological turning point which signaled the end of the Roaring 20s and start of the Great Depression. Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Binksternet. The NBER series says that the HIGH POINT was in August 1929, with September and October indices slightly lower. That slight decline is not enough for a historian to date the GREAT depression. Something much more powerful was needed and the great majority of experts point to the stock market crash in October. Note that the slight slippage found in data that NBER later compiled was invisible at the time but the stock market was news worldwide and immediately affected calculations and confidence about the future. Rjensen (talk) 04:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Why do their have to be ideological crazies who troll on Wikipedia? Look, recessions start at declines from peaks--it's like car crashes, that start immediately following the last moment that there WASN'T an impact, not when the driver psychologically felt that he was in a crash. (For instance, NBER dates the start of the last recession at much earlier than what the public felt was a recession.) The official authority on US recessions dates the recession as starting in August. Output began declining in August. That's why economists consider the recession to have started in August. My entry notes the difference between what popular perception is and what economists say; your reverted version claims economists believe what the popular notion is, even though that's obviously false and your own quotes indicate that's false.

Still, you know what? Stay with your crazy little false story. Hey, what's misleading the public? Personally, I don't have the time or inclination to fight little ideological crazies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfirey (talkcontribs) 20:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Imagine a situation in which an agreed-upon peak indicator hit its top point several years before a depression, then generally leveled off at a comfortably profitable place for many months before starting a big slide downward. In this hypothetical situation, that top point would not be considered the start of a depression, because following the top point was many months of good economic times. Also, after the downward slide hits bottom and begins to trend upward, people would still be experiencing difficult times, so a depression does not stop the moment the bottom is reached. This shows the fallacy of dating the Great Depression from only this or that economic indicator, and these factors are argued by economists. The Great Depression is larger than that; it is made up of many economic and also psychological factors. Binksternet (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet says it well. The "car crash" that Tfirey is concerned with happened in late october 1929 when a lot of metal got bent out of shape....not in September when the first skid marks appeared Rjensen (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

turning point and recovery[edit]

in the second paragraph, either a clear distinction needs to be made between the "common view" and "consensus view". does common mean "majority view"? if so it comes close to contradicting itself. look: do most economists think the new deal was instrumental in recovery, or is the opposite the case. it's not hard to be clear here. in science (or academia) "consensus" is hard often hard to come by and we settle for "most commonly held position". saying there's no consensus on a topic in economics is redundant at best, confusing/misleading at worst. (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Section on Other depressions[edit]

This section is lacking and does not reference what was originally called the "Great Depression" and now is called the Long Depression. This Depression hit Europe in the late 1800's, and was long and severe there, but mostly missed the US.

Historians seem more then a bit confused on what happened in the US during this period. Some seem to think it was a period of slow growth full of panics, others that is was the most exceptional period of growth in US history. The US passed England as the #1 economic power during this time frame which supports the fast growth camp. (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

i noticed that the beginning sentence says the depression was the decade following WWII i think the author meant WWI considering WWII began during the Great Depression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

it was the decade BEFORE world war two (which started in 1939). Rjensen (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

UK - 'In the less industrial Midlands and Southern England'[edit]

The Midlands was a heavily industrialized area at the time. I think the key point was that it was industrially more diverse than the North and had 'modern industries', such as car manufacturing. Norvo (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Consider the conditions leading to WWI[edit] (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC) While the debate regarding the onset of the GD goes on, it would be correct to look at the prior decade to see the push for amassing fortunes and their exemption from taxation as a lead factor. (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC) I would also like to point out that the US supplying food to Europe kept farm prices artificially low, forcing farmers out of business. The money loaned to Europe encouraged speculation in the stock market, leading to the GD.

Is editing this article a class project?[edit]

This article has had several very substantive improvements in the past several months, from a wide and apparently unrelated group of editors, including many IPs. Is there a class or other coordinated project improving this article? EllenCT (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Real business cycle theorie[edit]

I cant find any sense in the headline "Real factors". All of the studies rely on the Real business cycle model (Snowden, Brian (Fall 2007). "The New Classical Counter-Revolution: False Path or Illuminating Complement?". Eastern Economic Journal. 33 (4): 541–562. Retrieved 2014-12-13 – via JSTOR. (subscription required (help)).  Temin, Peter (September 2008). "Review: Real Business Cycle Views of the Great Depression and Recent Events: A Review of Timothy J. Kehoe and Edward C. Prescott's "Great Depressions of the Twentieth Century"". Journal of Economic Literature. 46 (3): 669–684. Retrieved 2015-05-07 – via JSTOR. (subscription required (help)). ) therefore the precise and appropriate headline is "Real Business cycle theory hypothesis".
The text should present the clear story: the mentioned studies see the cause of the Great Depression in variations of total factor productivity caused by technology shocks. There is no room for demand variations or monetary shocks in that models.
It should be obvious that NPOV demands a presentation of the mainstream critic on that Real business cycle theorie studies. The deletion of sourced text without giving proper explanation on the talk page is pure vandalism anyway. --Pass3456 (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Estimate of the Number of Deaths of Hunger and Diseases caused by Hunger and Malnutrition During American Great Depression and Famine[edit]

This article omits very important social and humanistic aspect of the time it describes and discusses, the aspect essentially represented in my Subject/headline. Perhaps someone knows where the relevant figures can be found in the works of American historians or economists, which analyse that period of the US history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:D170:F900:99E7:9C83:4228:3060 (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

There was no increase in death rate
E.g.: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birch Alex (talkcontribs) 07:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Great Depression/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jonas Vinther (talk · contribs) 00:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello there! Thanks for improving this article and showing initiate by nominating it for GA-status. I'll get started with the review right away and highlight any serious problems that may be found. Should there be only some minor flaws here and there, I'll correct them myself and notify you about my changes. I'll do my absolute best to review this article as fast and thorough I possible can. Kind regards and good luck! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 00:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Okay, after a quick glance on the article, I'm quickly failing this nomination per Point #2 in the GA-criteria. I count well over 30 subsections completely unsourced. A single CN tag, or two, or three, would be okay, but whole sections and paragraphs are not. The article seems to be written at a good level of English and the images used seems appropriate. In short, the article could be a worthy GA-nom if all its content is properly sourced to reliable sources. Good luck. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 01:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Role of Women section[edit]

This section seems to be really out of place. We don't really talk about the effects on any specific group or subgroup. I really reads like someone copied it out of a high school research paper. I recommend removing it from this page, although it might find a place on one of the country specific Great Depression pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrVentureWasRight (talkcontribs) 21:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Who is this "we" that does not want to talk about women?? Obviously some narrow economist who Is unaware of the wealth of reliable sources on the great depression. Fact is the RS in many fields are publishing books and articles and chapters dealing with the experience of women in the Great Depression. In simple economic terms, since the job market was gender stratified, the employment situation for women was entirely different than for men. Perhaps the critic does not think that men should be studied either? or poor people? Are the political implications are allowed to be mentioned, about the social and intellectual dimensions? Movies? Family roles? Fertility? Try browsing: 1) "'An Old Order Is Passing': The Rise of Applied Learning in University‐Based Teacher Education during the Great Depression" D D'Amico - History of Education Quarterly 2015 2) "Population, Politics, and Unemployment Policy in the Great Depression" by M Cohen - Social Science History, 2014; 3) "The effects of the great recession on family structure and fertility" by A Cherlin, E Cumberworth, SP Morgan The ANNALS 2013 4) Mothers in the fatherland: Women, the family and Nazi politics by C Koonz - 2013 5) The little girl who fought the great depression: Shirley Temple and 1930s America by JF Kasson - 2014 -6) "Lessons from history: Surviving old age during The Great Depression in the United States" by SH Matthews, RE Dunkle - Journal of aging studies 2013 7) "Banking crises and mortality during the Great Depression: evidence from US urban populations, 1929–1937" D Stuckler, C Meissner, P Fishback, (2012) 8) To Work and to Wed Female Employment, Feminism, and the Great Depression by L Scharf - 1980; 9) "American Religion and the Great Depression" J Butler Church History, 2011; 10) "Women's work and economic crisis: some lessons of the Great Depression" by R Milkman - Review of Radical Political Economics 1976 - 11) "Surviving Tough Times: Saskatchewan Women Teachers in the Great Depression" by J Corman, C Ensslen - Saskatchewan History, 2012 etc etc. Rjensen (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
We is the Wikipedia community. Now, I didn't say we shouldn't talk about women. I said that it was tonally out of place in this article. We could have a section on the effects of various groups in the depression, but I suspect that would be highly dependent upon country and culture. We could also branch it off in to it's own page entirely. That could work, but there really isn't enough material here to make a good page. If you're interested in adding in more detail then making a page like 'Effects on Women in the Great Depression' could work well. DrVentureWasRight (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
The GD is important because of its impact on people. These people are all males?? I think not. Wiki reports what the RS say about the GD. The material is from an advanced scholarly study. Rjensen (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"2.1 Mainstream theoretical explanations" section[edit]

Is it just me, or does the "2.1 Mainstream theoretical explanations" seem terribly POV? While there are a few modifiers such as "he claimed" or "supporters of this theory believe," and most of it seems fairly NPOV, it seems like a lot of the sentences were pasted from another source entirely, something resembling a persuasive essay on the topic (it also includes emotional language such as "The Federal Reserve sat idly by" [paraphrased]). I haven't gone through the rest of the article, so I'm not sure if there are any other sections like this, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were.

I'd be more than happy to fix it up, but I'm an extremely new user and I'm not sure if I can just go in and change the passage around like that, or if that's an appropriate passage after all and I'm being overly sensitive to NPOV. Valentine Westing (I'm a newbie, please don't hurt me!) (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean we are supposed to write boring. "The Federal Reserve sat idly by" is simply a fact. Further more (almost) all economists and historians agree that the Federal Reserve should have taken measures. So it´s NPOV. --Pass3456 (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. But would a better, slightly less leading wording which still states that fact be acceptable? For example, that phrase could easily be worded as "the Federal Reserve did nothing" without losing meaning. Valentine Westing (I'm a newbie, please don't hurt me!) (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
If there is a better wording it surely would be acceptable. Still not overwhelmingly impressed by "the Federal Reserve did nothing" but then again it means the same. --Pass3456 (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Great Depression. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Great Depression. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

a "The" is needed[edit]

I believe we should rename the article The Great Depression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratto33 (talkcontribs) 18:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2016[edit]

Jimmy - I believe the depression acuually started in 1928. Please check your facts. (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done what you "believe" is not a verifiable, reliable source whereas the article quotes sources for:-
"The timing of the Great Depression varied across nations; however, in most countries it started in 1929 and lasted until the late 1930s" and
"Economic historians usually attribute the start of the Great Depression to the sudden devastating collapse of US stock market prices on October 29, 1929"
If you have alternative reliable siources, please cite them - Arjayay (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Turning Point and Recovery[edit]

This is a poorly written and poorly sourced section. The "common" view in academic economics, if there even is one, suggests that the New Deal had very little to do with the recovery, and possibly even worsened the depression. Romer (1992) is (one of) the most widely cited paper(s) on the subject. She shows that external monetary factors were the driving force behind the recovery from 1934-1937 in the form of international gold flows partially arising from political instability in Europe. The fiscal policy multipliers she estimates are extremely small, and the federal government never really spent very much in terms of pure fiscal stimulus anyway. The important New Deal policies were not heavy spending policies. They were structural policies that changed the nature of how businesses operated which several other papers show contributed to the delay in the recovery, and return of the depression in 1937-39.

Higgs (1997) shows that new private investment remained depressed through the entire period from 1930 until after World War 2. This indicates that the 1934-37 recovery was reutilization of excess capacity, and did not represent new growth. He suggests the reason for this was extreme pessimism arising from businesses and entrepreneurs in the face of Roosevelt and the New Dealers' anti-business rhetoric and an uncertain future regulatory environment. Investment growth and prosperity resumed after the war when the government demobilized, and a less hostile, less powerful President took over for Roosevelt.

Sumner (2015) points out that many New Deal policies (The National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the National Industrial Recovery Act, and others) prevented prices and wages from falling precisely when they needed to go down to accommodate a lower level of aggregate demand. The NIRA was particularly pernicious since it forced businesses to cartelize which caused them to raise the prices of their output at the costs of their consumers until it was declared unconstitutional. All of these policies very likely contributed to the return of the depression in 1937-39.

Romer, C., 1992, "What Ended the Great Depression?", Journal of Economic History, Vol. 52, No. 4

Higgs, R., 1997, "Regime Uncertainty: Why the Great Depression Lasted So Long and Why Prosperity Resumed after the War", The Independent Review, Vol. 1, No. 4.

Sumner, S., 2015, The Midas Paradox: Financial Markets, Government Policy Shocks, and the Great Depression, The Independent Institute. (talk) 05:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I Disagree. There is a (growing) consensus on the necessity of the New Deal banking and monetary policy.
Scott "Sumner’s most important evidence supports his arguments that, first, raising the price of gold in 1933 facilitated price inflation and rapid recovery after years of deflation ... The 1937-38 depression was caused by Treasury sterilization of gold inflows" [1] --Pass3456 (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Ben Bernanke told that in his view the efforts to halt the collapse of the banking system cleared the way for a natural recovery.
Christina Romer explained in "What Ended the Great Depression?: "I argue that the rapid rates of growth of real output in the mid- and late 1930s were largely due to conventional aggregate-demand stimulus, primarily in the form of monetary expansion. My calculations suggest that in the absence of these stimuli the economy would have remained depressed far longer and far more deeply than it actually did ... According to my calculations, real GNP would have been approximately 25 percent lower in 1937 and nearly 50 percent lower in 1942 than it actually was if the money supply had continued to grow at its historical average rate" ([2] p. 757-759). Romer points to the fact that the initial gold inflow in 1934 was stimulated by the Gold Reserve Act. Most of the continuing increases in the U.S. monetary gold stock throughout the later 1930s is then attributed to the political developments in Europe. It was crucial that the gold inflow had not been sterilized. And that happened because "Roosevelt believed that an unsterilized gold inflow would stimulate the economy through reflation." (p. 774)
Romer also confirmed [3] Gauti B. Eggertssons theses that an important key to recovery and to end the Great Depression was the successful management of public expectations (Great Expectations and the End of the Depression, see also Peter Temin, Lessons from the Great Depression, MIT Press, 1992, ISBN 9780262261197, p. 87-101). --Pass3456 (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2016[edit]

The link for References number 93 called the "Depression & WWII" has the worng link. The actual website is at: Luisluigi639 (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Primary source added to this article - Joseph Stalin[edit]

[4] and [5] and [6].

Appears to be a primary source to some website: "".

Further, appears to be same book as this [7], writings by Joseph Stalin.

Is this really a reliable source for the Great Depression ?

Could this be an attempt at a spam link to: "" ?

Do we really want to rely on WP:PRIMARY reference links like this instead of focusing on WP:SECONDARY sources for this article?

Sagecandor (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't see any value in the additional source. There is no page reference and it is only placed after a section head. The person wanting to add it needs to come here and explain what info the source is supporting and where in the source that info is. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your participation here on the talk page, North Shoreman. I agree with you it is just a bare link. No book title, missing author, missing page number, missing year of publication, missing any explanation whatsoever for why the asserted cite backs up that info and fails verification to allow future users to verify it. What step to take next regarding this? Sagecandor (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I've deleted it and invited the originator to come here for discussion. At this point he/she appears to be approaching a 3RR violation. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay I think I may have reverted twice myself and so that is yet another good reason to have talk page participation and why I'm refraining from making more edits at this point in time to this page. Sagecandor (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Stalin faked a lot of numbers. 1) Bullard 2000: "There is no person in authority, from Stalin down, who would not sign a hundred pages of false statistics and think nothing of it." 2) Skillen (2016) "Real facts, honest statistics, disappeared." 3) Marco Carynnyk, ‎et al (1988) "Stalin announced at the Seventeenth Party Congress in January 1934 that 89.8 million tons of grain had been produced in 1933. The State Statistical Commission has recently calculated that the true figure was 68.4 million tons." Rjensen (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Wow. That is very revealing information from those sources. Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
yet you cant back up your own claims Rjensen with these accusations against Stalin. Fact is that the Soviet Union wasnt effected by the global financial crisis and under his lead the Soviet Union became an industrialized nation this is common knowledge that you can find everywhere in the west.--Crossswords (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
even the Russians today agree Stalin faked a lot of numbers. Rjensen (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2017[edit]

Section about the effect of the Great Depression on different countries: Germany

"Hitler ran for the Presidency in 1932, and while he lost to the incumbent Hindenberg in the election [...]" It should be HindenBURG... (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Done However, please provide a reliable source with your request next time. --JustBerry (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


Kph — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)