Jump to content

Talk:Great Recession/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Move requests

Per a request at WP:AN/RFC this requested move is closed as moved to "Great Recession". Despite vociferous opposition, including two other suggested move titles, from one user, the vast majority concluded that "Great Recession" was a better title than the present one. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move number 4

2008–2012 global recession → Great Recession – "Great Recession" generates 4,310,000 Google hits while the current title "2008–2012 global recession" gets 587,000, and these are largely mirrors and references to this article. The dates given in the title are unsupported. Google scholar shows 2 hits for the current title: One refers to this article and the other displays the text. "Great Recession" gets 16,900 hits.[1] NBER, which provides the generally accepted dating for US business cycles, dates the recession from 2007 to 2009 (in the US not global).[2] This article title implies the recession did not start until 2008. Dating the "global" recession through 2012 is also not back with sources, and, doing very basic OR on my part, it's clear that global output resumed in 2009.[3] Instead of getting bogged down in dating the recession, we should just go with the commonly used "Great Recession." Right now we have WP:OR in the title, and we're ignoring the commonly used name in favor of a term that no academics (and few others) are using.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I still maintain that it is OR. No source is given for a continuous, global recession from 2008 to 2012, so it is OR to have a title that declares that there has been one. The fact that no one else uses this phrase isn't crucial, but it just goes to show that we've gotten off base.--Bkwillwm (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
That is not an OR problem of the title, your problem is with the existence/contents of the article. The current title merely describes the article. -- 70.24.186.245 (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with the contents or existence of this article. I do have a problem with saying that there was a "global recession" from 2008 to 2012 when absolutely no sources support this. The recession started in some countries and 2007 and global economic output only declined from 2008 to 2009. There's no support for saying a global recession has been sustained through 2012.--Bkwillwm (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Support clearly there is a name for the recession, most other labels attached to it has been descriptive rather than a name. -- 70.24.186.245 (talk) 06:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support based on the google scholar search done above this appears to be the name that is being given for the recession. Also a google news search shows that most articles use the phrase "great recession" not the current articles title. Guest2625 (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The target is a trendy term that is not specific enough for readers who are not already familiar with the subject. Better to add a little description so that the subject of the article is obvious from its title and URL address. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Do you have an alternative to propose? I'm all for a hypothetical descriptive title, but I haven't seen anyone propose an actual descriptive title with support in reliable sources. Right now we have dates that are factually wrong, and I'd rather have a "trendy term" than a factual error for an article title.--Bkwillwm (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support per WP:TITLE, which reads in part, "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." This is a no-brainer. The news media consistently calls it the Great Recession. We violate Wikipedia policy not to move (rename) the article accordingly. --Art Smart Chart/Heart 09:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The currently article title needs to be changed because it is false (as a descriptive title), there is/was simply no global recession over that period (see sections further up). If "great recession" is common in scholarly literature, then it might be an appropriate alternative.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Europe is frequently noted as being in recession, so this would be the double-dip recession. Though you could say that there's never been a global recession in the entire period, since China didn't go into recession. -- 70.24.186.245 (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
      • There's already an article for that: Euro crisis.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
      • The article is about the global recession and not the Euro-Recession and even within the Euro domain some countries are in recession others not. The total of the Euro countries grew in the year 2008,2010,2011 and shrank in 2009 and 2012 (see [4]). So let me reiterate there is no such thing as global recession 2008-12 and there is no such thing as a Euro recession 2008-12 either. There plenty of problem and dangers and you might argue for (global) 2008-12 financial crisis. Those are related but different things and the claimed recession is simply fiction. The article needs to pay attention to using the technically correct terms and should avoid mixing various informations in an undifferentiated manner by providing a false reference frame.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
        • If the entire globe didn't go into recession (and it didn't) then per your own arguments, it wasn't global either. Remember China, and other places did not go into recession during this time frame. What are you using to qualify the word "global"? If the recession ends when the last major economy comes out of recession, then with that double dip in Europe, the recession is still on. If the recession ends when the first major economy comes out of it, then there was never a global recession, since China didn't go into recession. -- 70.24.186.245 (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
          Not sure what you're getting at here. I'm arguing the current name of the article is false (due to the time frame and/or the characterization as global).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Important note - Many sources say that the Great Recession refer to the events that occurred in 2007–2009. NPR clearly says that the Great Recession occured between for "18 months (December 2007 to June 2009)". [5]. There's a related discussion going on at Talk:Financial crisis of 2007–2008#Requested move: Recession of 2007–2009. What sources like these are telling us is that the Recession of 2007–2009 is the same thing as the Great Recession. We can move this article instead to "Recession of 2007–2009" rather than move Financial crisis of 2007–2008.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
This is becoming a mess. Both articles need to be coordinated and the authors of both need to collaborate.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand the desire for a descriptive, but don't blow off "Great Recession" as a neologism. The IMF has several publications that use the term[6], well known economists like Blinder and Zandi[7], and media like the Atlantic[8], Forbes[9], and New York Times opining historians who pretend they are economists[10] also have used the term. The recession is still a relatively recent historic event, so there is no absolutely dominant term, but "Great Recession" seems to be the most prevalent term. Any descriptive term will be problematic, because we most likely have to date the global recession, which so far has led us to a factually wrong, OR article title. Why mess with problematic descriptive naming when there is a perfectly good term that is widely used?--Bkwillwm (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support "Great Recession" is by far the best choice; the obvious choice; of course it is a neologism. 16,900 gscholar hits, a very large number for a recent event, and in many titles of scholarly articles, and more than any other choice I've tried after eliminating false positives (by date). It is the most common term in scholarly literature for the subject of the article. Delimiting dates in the title has OR problems as stated above, and any choice is disputable. During the Great Depression, there were ups & downs, periods of strong growth or new recessions in various countries. In the USA there was the Recession of 1937–1938. But Great Depression usually refers to the overally economic situation of 1929 & the 30s, irrespective of times which did not fit technical definitions, and that is how the now standard term "Great Recession" is used also.John Z (talk) 07:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support renaming this article "Great Recession". Current article title "2008-2012 global recession" is wholly inadequate and quite misleading. Recession is a technical term which, of course, not the entire "globe" experienced, or experienced in this period - some went into recession, others into depression, while others were in recovery, and some even in boom. And its use of dating makes it even worse, as the recession phase did not last "2008 to 2012" for practically any country, much less the "globe". "Great Recession" is a popular appelation and conveniently imprecise. It does not suggest dates, it does not suggest countries or range, and while it absconds with a specific cycle phase term, here it is not used as a regular noun ("recession") but as part of a new proper name ("Great Recession", with capital R and the term "Great"). (economically-speaking most affected countries experienced a "depression" at some point in this period, but the proper name "Great Depression" was already taken). So "Great Recession" works much better - it is looser, sufficiently imprecise to be roughly correct (rather than the current article title, which is precisely wrong) and sufficiently popular to be recognizable. Walrasiad (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The article's former name was Late-2000s recession. It was changed to the current title due to frequent complaints that the recession (and associated continued slower economic growth compared to the last decades) were and are still ongoing in 2011–2012 in many economies globally. As a single, recognizable, consistent and precise term, "The Great Recession" appears to be a term frequently used by many influential publications. For example, Google has indexed 10K pages using the term on Economist.com, 8.8K pages on NYTimes.com and 3.3K pages on Forbes.com. Though BBC seems to avoid the term. But overall, the term is picking up. Also note that it is not necessarily sensible to limit ourselves to the technical definition of the term "recession", because many economies, even if not technically shrinking, are still experiencing a continued period of sluggish growth, which to most people is recession. --hydrox (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Descriptive titles will almost always best fit an article related to history, and such titles should encompass an international perspective if it's an article addressing international concerns. 'Great recession' is a non-descriptive emotional title, similar to 'Great depression.' Apart from an unsubstantiated connection between the two made via both word-choice and assonance, there is no guarantee this is a decided historical name for this event. If or when such a name is decided (maybe twenty years from now), it will be appropriate to include such an emotionally-charged title. As it stands, however, a title including approximate dates reflects at least an attempt at objectivity. Descriptive titles allow one to understand the rough outline of an article before delving in, and make an attempt to separate any coloring of that event with charged language. --2601:9:6C00:E:50FF:F3:A87B:BD9 (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I've brought this up a few times, but I'll bring it up again. Do you have a a descriptive title to propose? I think preferring a descriptive term is perfectly reasonable, but no one has submitted a proposal for sourced date for the global recession. I think "Great Recession" is perfectly consistent with our naming policies while there are big problems with the other proposals. We could keep the current, factually inaccurate, OR title, or we could pretend that only the US matters and use the US dates and pretend these apply globally.--Bkwillwm (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am withdrawing this proposal in favor of the first "New proposal", which is to change the title of this article to Recession of 2007–2009 -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

(*o*) Oh...I see the problem. The term "Recession of 2007–2009" is kinda U.S. specific. It's definitely more often used in the context of the U.S. situation. And most of the content in this article is about global stuff. What we could do is rename this article "Global effects of the recession of 2007–2009", and remove the "Great Recession" from the lede (because that term is often used in the context of the U.S. as well). We can then later move "Financial crisis of 2007–2008" to "Recession"2007–2008", and add some U.S.-specific info about the recession to that article.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's the problem. There is not a single comprehensive article about the recession that occurred in the U.S.. The current 2008–2012 global recession covers the global effects of the recession, while Financial crisis of 2007–2008 covers the financial crisis aspect of the recession that lasted from 2007 to 2008. We could make a new article, but I think the best solution in this case is to add content about the U.S. recession to the Financial crisis of 2007–2008 article, and move that to "Recession of 2007–2009". Then we can move this article to "Global effects of the recession of 2007–2009". -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't think that's a good idea. The "Recession of 2007-09" is a US-specific event. The "global effects" of a US-specific event would imply an article primarily about other countries. You're right in that there probably should be an article on the US-specific event. But this isn't it - it's an international shell. But I definitely and strenouosly oppose trying to make the financial crisis article (which is a different specific event) into a recession article. It is important in itself and should not be hijacked to that end. (note: keep in mind there are many respectable economists who don't believe those two events are related). Until such an article is created, this one is poorly and misleadingly-titled. The "Great Recession" is IMO the best current solution for the current article. It is sufficiently recognizable, does not necessarily imply US-specific, it doesn't imply a precise time, it doesn't imply a precise phase. Better to be roughly right than precisely wrong.
Finally, if past experience is any guide, the "Great Recession", which is gaining popularity, seems most likely to be the one recorded in the history books. Something this big will require a big label to sit alongside the "Long Depression", the "Great Contraction", the "Great Depression", etc. in economic history books. It's not a sure thing, but I'd bet quite strongly on it. Walrasiad (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Look. We can not rename this article to "Great Recession" for the same reasons why we can not rename it to "Recession of 2007-09". The terms are synonymous and both are used to refer primarily the events in the U.S. from 2007 to 2009. Here's the evidence: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. If we have to make a new article for "Recession of 2007–2009". That's fine. However, for this article, which is about the global effects, "Global effects of the recession of 2007–2009" is probably the most appropriate name. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, how many times do we need to go over this? The "Financial crisis of 2007–2008" is part of the "Recession of 2007-09". They are not two independent events. I have shown plenty of sources already. The financial crisis article contains a lot of negative effects on the economy already. All we have to do is add a little more content to that article about the job losses and other stuff, and we can easily turn it into an article for the "Recession of 2007-09". -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The term "Recession of 2007-09" follows NBER dating for the US business cycle. The term "Great Recession" implies no dates nor countries. You can apply to the US. Just as it is applied to the UK (e.g. [17], [18] etc.). You're not straightjacketed. Over-precision makes error. Financial crisis is a financial activity, i.e. money, lending, bonds, etc. A "recession" refers to "real" economic activity, i.e. GDP, output, unemployment, etc. They're related to each other as cooking is related to fire. You don't and shouldn't conflate an article about fire into an article about cooking, and vice-versa. And I'm rather serious about economists not being in agrement on this. There's an entire very prominent school of thought, "Real Business Cycle theory", which includes several recent Nobel Prize winners, which denies the connection. And there are several more (e.g. Austrians, Marxians, etc.) who argued the recession was caused by something else. While I happen to disagree with them, and it seems you do too, I know them sufficiently well to know they would blow a gasket at such a suggestion. And to reiterate: all economists - and here I speak for all schools of thought - view them as two different "events", even if one caused the other. Wall Street Crash is not the same event as the Great Depression. Walrasiad (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am opposed to any title changed based on the idea that the recent financial crisis and recession are the same thing. If you don't don't think there is a difference between the two, why don't you start by proposing a merger of financial crisis and recession? "Great Recession" is still the best option we have. It is used to refer to the recession globally. See examples referring to the British economy[19], from an ECB member[20] (Who, btw states, "Then we had financial crisis which led to great recession."), from a journal with an article titled "The Great Recession and China's Policy Toward Asian Regionalism" [21], and in 2009 the "IMF warns of global 'Great Recession'" [22].--Bkwillwm (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Enough OR, stick to the sources

@Walrasiad: The amount of OR in your arguments is unacceptable. Should I remind you that WP's naming policy is WP:commonname? You have not provided any RS that distinguishes between "Great Recession" and "Recession of 2007-09". I have provided sources that clearly uses the terms synonymously. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

What in Walrasiad's post was OR? He pointed to articles talking about the "Great Recession" in UK just as you posted a bunch of links talking about the "Great Recession" in the US. None of the links you posted indicated that the "Great Recession" refers to the US recession to the exclusion of other countries. In fact, I think the links you posted only bolster the argument that "Great Recession" is the common name. The NYTimes blog you cite states "The “Great Recession” has taken hold. As a term, that is." (Albeit, the 2009 blog says that the term is often used with qualifications). I don't understand your argument at this point. Are you saying "Great Recession" is US specific because some US centric articles use the term? Why is it OR to point to the use of the term in non-US centric articles OR?--Bkwillwm (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
What he said after the UK sources was OR (we should use "Great Recession" because it's less precise?). If it's true that the "Great Recession" refers to a global recession, and not just a U.S. one, that still does not explain why it is better to use Great Recession rather than "Recession of 2007–2009" when the sources I cited clearly indicate that the Great Recession lasted from 2007 to 2009? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, in a US context, "Great Recession" is equivalent to "Recession of 2007-2009." "Great Recession" is also used in an international context, and no one has supplied sourced dates for the global recession. When you argue that the "Recession of 2007-2009" is synonymous with "Great Recession" you are ignoring the (US focused) context of your sources. No where is it stated that "Great Recession" applies exclusively to the US, and we've found sources that show frequent, international usage of the term. The 2007-2009 dating, however, is US specific, so "Great Recession" and "Recession of 2007-2009" are not equivalent in outside of US-only context.--Bkwillwm (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know, the vast majority of sources about the "Great Recession" uses the term to describe the events in the U.S., so per the common name policy, WP should too. Providing 2 sources with the usage of the term in the U.K. is not convincing enough. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
What's your evidence for making the claim "vast majority"? I supplied several citations beyond the two Walrasiad provided including usage by other UK sources, the IMF, and an ECB member. None of your sources state that the term applies to the US exclusively. You're still ignoring the US oriented context of your sources. The fact that a few US centric sources only discuss the "Great Recession" in a US context is not very good evidence to argue that "Great Recession" applies exclusively to the US.--Bkwillwm (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently there's two primary disagreements here:

  • (1) The scope of the term "Great Recession" and "Recession of 2007-2009" (U.S. specific, Western specific, or global)
  • (2) Whether or not the "Financial crisis of 2007–2008" is part of the "Recession of 2007-2009"?

Am I getting this correct? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, the dating for the current Financial crisis article is inaccurate. Look these sources [23][24][25][26]. They all say 2007–2009 financial crisis. According to ‎Bkwillwm, we should have one article that deals with the financial crisis between 2007 and 2009, and one article that deals with the recession between 2007 and 2009, when in reality both terms are used to describe the same larger event the occurred between 2007 and 2009. Part of the difference is just semantics. Yes, roughly speaking a financial crisis occurred during that time and a recession occurred during that time. Specifically the financial crisis led to the recession. I don't see why we can't have one article that describes the events that occurred between 2007 and 2009 that will include information about both the financial crisis and the recession that resulted. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
What are your positions on 1 or 2? My argument is that "Great Recession" can apply to both the US and global recession (As well as other country's recessions) while "recession of 2007-2009" applies only to the US. If you want to start a US only article United States recession of 2007-2009 is a great title. For the global recession, I think we have to use "Great Recession" because no one has supplied a sourced descriptive title, and the term is the most frequently used any way so should acceptable, if not preferred, by Wikipedia policies.
On 2, my main problem is when you or others try to treat the two as synonymous. The two are clearly related, but a financial crisis is not the same as a recession. Once again, do you think financial crisis and recession should be merged? You seem to be acknowledging that they are different, but still want a single article. You haven't explained why you think a single article would be better. Both are very notable events in their own right and there is plently of material to cover in each article. You already created a comphrensive article covering this topic (2007–2012 global economic crisis), so I don't know why you want would want further merging.--Bkwillwm (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Read the words in this source carefully: [27]. It states clearly that the "Great Recession" was a U.S. event that lasted from 2007 to 2009. What more do you want? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
First of all, about.com isn't a great source. Second, I'm not impressed by the fact that a US oriented article using the term "Great Recession" only discusses the US recession. I'll relink this Telegraph article where the IMF used the term in a global sense. The article is even titled "World now in grip of 'Great Recession' warns IMF."[28] Personally, I'll take the IMF and Telegraph over about.com.--Bkwillwm (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
If you don't like about.com, how about this scholarly paper:[29]. Again, it clearly uses that term to describe an U.S. event, an event that it clearly states that has ended. Don't you see? We can't change the title of this article to "Great Recession" because this article focuses too much on the global effects. If you want to prove me wrong, please Find some academic or research, or political sources that uses the term to describe a world wide event.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
The key point remains that when people are writing about the US and use "Great Recession" as a US specific term, it does not imply that "Great Recession" refers exclusively to the US. Similarly, many sources on the US economy use the term "Great Depression" and only discuss it in terms of the US economy. For example, the Blinder/Zandi article you link to refers to the "Great Depression" several times, but only refers to US specific aspects of the "Great Depression." This does not imply that "Great Depression" is used exclusively to refer to events in the US.--Bkwillwm (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I suppose we could use the Great Depression article as an article for this one. However, "the recession" is still used more commonly than "Great Recession". In fact according to this recent WSJ article: [30], the global recession is already over. It clearly says "The global economy risks skidding toward recession just three years after pulling out of the previous one, the International Monetary Fund warned". 2012 - 3 = 2009. The global recession ended in 2009. Therefore, I would support moving this article to Recession of 2007–2009, the second move proposal on this thread.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
The WSJ article refers to the global recession as the "2009 recession" and seems to be based on this IMF report[31], which also refers to a global 2009 recession (see page 38). If we go with a descriptive title for the global recession, then it looks like "2009 recession" would be grounded in a RS. I still favor "Great Recession," but "2009 recession" would be acceptable. There's still no support for a global recession starting in 2007. Why are you bringing up "the recession"? Do you think this would be a better article title? Should we change Barack Obama to The President because that's the "common" way to refer to him? These arguments are getting ridiculous.--Bkwillwm (talk) 00:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
WSJ is just a newspaper, not a dater of business cycles. The NBER is the dater of business cycles in the US. An alternative source more globally would be the OECD, and individual countries have their own daters. Everybody outside these agencies is just offering speculations. And while it is true that recession + depression part of the most recent cycle ended in 2009 in most big OECD countries by the official daters, it didn't in all, and reverberations continue of course, still in connection with it. And not only Greece, Portugal, Spain, etc. By the official British dater, the ONS, the UK slipped back into recession in 2011-12, and the OECD has announced the larger EU economies will probably be officially double-dipping back into recession this quarter. Whether all this is going to be considered part of the "Great Recession" that continues, or an entirely new thing, we will see, as events are still too recent. It seems to me premature for Wikipedia to declare a line through 2009 and call it a day. I frankly don't understand your keenness to avoid "Great Recession", when it is baldly staring us in the face and is conviently open-ended. Pardon my brusqueness, but your flurry of hastily submitted and hastily withdrawn proposals make it seem like you haven't really given this too much thought, and just seem intent on proposing anything, everything, to avoid the "Great Recession" title. Can you explain more fully your aversion to it? Walrasiad (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

@futuretrillionaire,

  • (1) We've given you examples already. Rather than clog other people's browsers with PDF downloads, just try a simple google search for "Great Recession" + UK, see what comes up. Or choose some other country. Heck, choose a bunch. Then come back here. Let me get you started. I'm avoiding PDFs since my browser gets cranky:
* UK: [32], [33], [34],
* Germany: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]
* Canada: [40], [41], [42]
* Italy: [43], [44], [45], [46]
* France: [47], [48], [49],
* Spain: [50], [51],
* Australia: [52],
* China: [53], [54], [55]
  • (2) Recessions =/= financial crisis. Recessions are to do with real output and unemployment. Financial crises are to do with money, banking, etc. They are not the same thing, they are not the same phenemona. We have had financial crises without recessions (e.g. 1987, 1998), we've had recessions without financial crises (e.g. 1981, 2001). Someone interested in researching one is not necessarily interested in the other. They're not the same economic fields, and usually not taught simultaneously, and the policies to address one are separate and distinct from the policies to adress the other. There is no need to treat them in the same article. Walrasiad (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


Requested move number 5

This is a new proposal suggested by FutureTrillionaire (talk)

2008–2012 global recession → Recession of 2007–2009

Light bulb iconB I think this is the best solution: moving this article to "Recession of 2007–2009", rather than moving "Financial crisis of 2007–2008" This article can be the "main article" for the recession that lasted from 2007 to 2009, and the financial crisis article can be just about the financial crisis component of it that lasted from 2007 to 2008. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support This article should be considered a sub-article of the 2008-2012 global recession (Great Recession) article. This is an article on the financial crisis involving the the freezing of the financial markets in 2008 which involved the decline in the stock market, run on the banks and money markets, take over by government of AIG and different banks in Britian, etc. Guest2625 (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a little bit confusing. The comment was moved from the talk page of the financial crisis article by another editor. Guest2625 (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. This still a bit problematic as well since a global recession from 2007-2009 didn't exist either (the Eurozone for instance still grew in 2008 but took a dip in 2009, Australia kept growing throughout, so was china iirc). It might help if we settle on scope for the various articles first. I.e. is the article supposed to cover the US or the global situation? Is it supposed to cover primarily the financial crisis/financial aspects or overall economic production? And which would be the appropriate time frames for those choices. Some coordination is needed here and we need to look at all the involved articles and not just at an individual one.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry there's already an article that covers the "global" situation: 2007–2012 global economic crisis, so moving "2008-2012 global recession" to "Recession of 2007–2009", even if the scope is affected, shouldn't be a problem. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Do you guys have any evidence to show that the "Great Recession" is used more often than simply "the recession". Many of the news articles I read didn't mention "Great Recession" at all. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
When I click this link, I get 15,500 news hits just in recent days. --Art Smart Chart/Heart 14:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I suppose you're waiting for me to provide the counter-results. Well, if you search Google News for articles about the 2007–2009 recession that don't mention "Great Recession" at all, this is what you get: [56] 88,900 results. Clearly much more than 15,500. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While admittedly a lot of this article deals with the US, and there deserves to be an article specifically about the 07-09 recession in the US, this article should remain global in focus, and contain links to country-specific articles. Vote still goes with "Great Recession" here. Walrasiad (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
But there is already an article for the global scope:2007–2012 global economic crisis. Having another one for the global scope is WP:forking -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Crisis can mean a lot of things - financial crisis, sovereign debt crisis, crises in particular industries and sectors, etc. I thought this article was specifically about the downturn in real economic activity of various countries, and the various fiscal and monetary policy responses to it. If not, if this is US-specific, then the non-US article content should be moved elsewhere before slapping on a US-specific title. Walrasiad (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Well the term Recession of 2007–2009" it's not exactly U.S. specific. The recession started in the U.S. and had global effects. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes crisis can mean a lot of things, but that's exactly why such title even if somewhat vague or overly flexible is at least correct, whereas the current title is simply as the 5 year global recession simply doesn't exist.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The 2007-2009 dating is US specific. "Great Recession" is the most prevalent term for this recession, and is used by the IMF, media, ECB members, and other to refer to the global recession that is discussed in this article.--Bkwillwm (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
    • If we do go the "descriptive" route, there's precedent for calling it the "2009 recession" based on a high profile IMF report (discussed below).[57] Reliable sources have not been provided to date the global recession from 2007 to 2009.--Bkwillwm (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Great Recession is still the best choice. (Agree with Bkwillwm and Walrasiad) 'Recession' and 'financial crisis' are not the same thing. We should have country-specific articles, and if there is enough coverage, articles about both the 'recession' and 'financial crisis'. This article is the world-wide recession article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FurrySings (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - I think Bkwillwm and Walrasiad sum up the argument quite well that this article should be renamed the Great Recession and kept separate from the financial crisis article. There has been given an extensive list of reliable sources indicating that the event is commonly called the Great Recession. Also, financial crisises and economic recessions are clearly two different things. The Stock Market Crash of 1929 and Great Depression are an example of this. Guest2625 (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Cherry picking examples of the use of the term is not a convincing argument. Let's face it. "Great Recession" is not that commonly used. Most news articles about the recession don't even mention the term. It's better to stick to a descriptive title. I can't see the big problem with "Recession of 2007–2009" in describing what happened in the world between 2007 and 2009. Along with the WSJ source, here's some more evidence:[58] [59][60]. These sources, including the one from the IMF, say that a global recession started in 2007 and has ended already. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we've done any more cherry picking than you have, especially given your three latest sources. The BBC states "How did the credit crunch at the end of 2007 become a full financial meltdown by the middle of 2008, and finally turn into a global recession?" It never gives dates for the recession. The IMF source is not very explicit and seems to be referring to the US recession not the global one (and other IMF sources limit the global recession to 2009). The only source that gives an explicit dating of 2007-2009 is a prof's power point presentation, which isn't usually considered a RS. When you're going to about.com, random power points, etc. to argue your point, don't accuse others of cherry picking.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I found the about.com source on List of recessions in the United States a featured list that interestingly calls the recession: Late-2000s recession -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • @futuretrillionaire, You accuse us of cherry picking, but you pick articles published in 2009? This is getting tiresome and ridiculous. I've wasted half my day replying to your flurry of half-baked proposals, only to see you turn around and try something else. Instead of hastily piling on and withdrawing proposals, why don't you take some time to reflect and settle upon what you actually would like to propose? Take the time to also do some more careful research, get it clear to yourself, before throwing up new proposals. At this stage, the RM is about the "Great Recession". I can't say I've understood your objections, as you haven't really articulated them, but chosen instead the path of new proposals to avoid it. It seems you are very averse to it, for reasons I have yet to understand. May I ask that you put them on pause, and actually explain here what exactly it is you find wrong with the proposed title? Walrasiad (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not not I have some grudge against the term "Great Recession". I'm disappointed too that the discussion has become this long. I'm not a big fan of long debates or arguments, and I too would like to end this sooner rather than later. My understanding of the topic changed as more users bring in more arguments. I admit I have gotten significantly confused at some points. However the situation is much simpler now. I don't think anybody, including me, wants to keep the current title, merge anything, or significantly alter the content of this article. The question now is which is a better alternative to the current title: "Great Recession" or "Recession of 2007–2009". I sincerely apologize if I caused you much frustration.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Doing a Google search test with "global" to focus on articles with at least a mention of something beyond the US bolsters the use of "Great Recession." Searching "Great Recession" + global gets million ghits while "2007-2009 recession" + global gets ghits. My main problem with the 2007-2009 dating, is that no one has provided any solid sources for this dating for the global recession. You have one Power Point presentation that explicitly provides this date, but there is no rationale or discussion for this dating in the document (and it's a random PPP). The only reliably sourced date is for a global "2009 recession" from the IMFs WEO. If we we're going to go the descriptive route we should probably go with that. ...Oh, Britannica is going with "Great Recession of 2008–2009"[61], so we could work with that.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
The main principle I try to base my arguments on is WP:commonname. Which term is more commonly used? However, I can see that the situation is complicated by the scope of both terms (U.S. or global). It seems that the supporters for "Great Recession" are saying that "Recession of 2007–2009" is more often used to refer to the U.S. recession, and that "Great Recession" is more often used to refer to the global recession. However the sources we have all collectively provided shows that different sources use the terms differently. Some sources use "Great Recession" to refer to the U.S. events and some used it to refer to global events. The same for the other term. At this point, I can live with this article being changed to "Great Recession" only if we add a etymology/terminology section to the article, explaining the origins, usage and scope of the term. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Some editors have stated that there is not a US-specific article regarding the US recession that occurred in recent years. This is false: 2007–2009 recession in the United States A likely reason for this article not being 'known' to some editors is the US-bias inherent in the article that is the subject of this talk page. Gfcvoice (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment On this page, there are headings for a "Requested move", "New proposal", "New new proposal" (now closed) and "Resumed disucussion concerning 2nd proposal". This discussion has the heading "Resumed disucussion concerning 2nd proposal". What is that second proposal? Is it the "New proposal"? Or something else? Gfcvoice (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
The 2nd proposal was to move the article to "Recession of 2007–2009".-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Determining the the dates for a descriptive title is a thorny issue. How do you guys interpret this statement form Heritage: The Great Global Recession began in the United States in December 2007 and will likely continue well into 2010 in many parts of the world. The global contagion began in March 2008 with the collapse of the investment house Bear Stearns. [62] (This was written in October 2009, after the official end of the U.S. recession)-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's very useful. It doesn't give us an end date, and the author is more concerned with financial contagion than global recession. There's no beginning point to the global recession offered. By the way, I was looking at the IMF's WEO and there are 48 mentions of a global "Great Recession." If the IMF is using it for their major annual report[63], I think we should too.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, how was the dates for the financial crisis article decided? I've found sources that said the financial crisis lasted from 2007 to 2009: [64][65][66][67]. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The dates for the financial crisis were based on a technicality. Basically, there was a no consensus to move to a new title but a consensus that the old one was bad, so it reverted to the first non-stub version of the article title, which had been from 2008.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Finally! Some one showed me a legitimate source on the matter that clearly uses the term to describe the global events. The IMF report looks very convincing. I formally change my vote to support for this move request. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean you'd support the move to "Great Recession." I think discussion has pretty much panned out here, so we should make a move to close if we've reached some consensus.--Bkwillwm (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to "Recession of 2007–2009". This is a US-centric term, and the article is global in scope. Many European countries (Greece, Spain, Italy and others) have not recovered by much, if at all, since 2009. Australia did not experience a recession during 2007 to 2009. If you wish to write about the US recession, then there is a separate and neglected article about that topic here: 2007–2009_recession_in_the_United_States Gfcvoice (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
We can't say the global recession is still ongoing because, per sources already mentioned, news from October states that the IMF said the world could slip into another recession, implying a previous one already ended.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
The IMF is just one source. I could show you various sources that state that the recession in Greece never ended, or sources that state that there was a minor improvement in economic activity in Spain after 2009 before another economic contraction shortly thereafter. The proposal to move this article to "Great Recession" makes more sense because it avoids these disagreements about dates.Gfcvoice (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify a couple of points:

  • There is no such thing as a "global recession". That is because there is no such thing as a "world business cycle". There is no economic statistic body that tracks or dates such a thing. What there are individual country business cycles, which are tracked and dated by different national agencies (e.g. NBER in the US, ONS in the UK, etc.) The term "global recession" is a rough manner of speech, a term invented by the newspaper press back in 2008, used to summarize the fact that a lot of major OECD countries were all experiencing a recession in their national cycle at roughly the same time. Many weren't, of course. Some were in recovery phase, others in boom phase, etc.
  • Because nobody tracks or dates the "world business cycle" (if such a beast exists at all), there is no official dates of when recession, depression, recovery or boom phases of such a cycle begin or end. Saying the "recession" "ended" in 2009 is just an informal way of summarizing the fact that the national recessions + depressions of several major OECD countries officially ended sometime during that year.
  • Not all ended. Recessions in many smaller OECD countries didn't end, but continued through 2010, 2011 and onwards (Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Iceland, etc.). Others double-dipped - slipped back into recession before recovery was completed - e.g. UK fell back into recession in 2011-12, big Eurozone countries are double-dipping as we speak.
  • Given the non-existence/informality of the "global cycle" concept, and the non-existence of any formal dating of it, the term "Great Recession" (without dates) has been used as a summary term for the many national recessions (plural) which have been happening across many countries (plural) since 2007.
  • The term "Great Recession" is relatively new, and some may feel it is too new for an article title. But keep in mind it normally takes a few years after an "event" for a single label to retrospectively take hold. e.g. the term "9/11" took some time to settle in to describe the terrorist attacks in the US in 2001, the "Gulf War" for the war to reverse the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991, etc. but they quickly became the conventional, recognizable label, and perfectly recognizable. People have taken time to settle on a label for the period of great economic contractions across many OECD countries in the late 2000s, which were called many things at the time. But the "Great Recession" has pretty much taken hold widely since 2009 or thereabouts as the label of choice, and is currently used routinely in academia, articles, books, government agencies and the press, perfectly recognizable without raising any eyebrows or surprise. It is pretty much certain it will be the label that will be set down in the history textbooks. Like other major multi-cycle terms, like the Great Contraction, the Long Depression, Gilded Age, Roaring Twenties and, of course, the Great Depression, the "Great Recession" has already entered the economic history lexicon. It won't likely be displaced by any other prospective label - no other candidates are visible on the horizon.
  • Given that "Great Recession" is already the label of choice, and that attempts to settle on a precise date runs into problems that (a) there is no existence nor official dating of a "world" business cycle and (b) different countries had different dates for their national cycles, "Great Recession", without any precise dates, is the best and safest solution at present. Walrasiad (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A date before the title. As to which date and the wording of the other parts of the title, that's something that should probably be discussed a bit more. The article is international in its scope, and we'd do well to remember that. In that context, putting an end-date of 2009 doesn't make sense when considering Europe. --2601:9:6C00:E:50FF:F3:A87B:BD9 (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Quick poll about the article title

The previous discussion about the article title has gotten too large and bogged down with discussion, proposal and counter proposals. I suggest a quick poll to clarify consensus. Please briefly note your support or opposition to the proposals below (add a proposed title if I missed any). --LK (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


Suggested title: 2008–2012 global recession

Suggested title: Recession of 2007–2009

  • Oppose move to "Recession of 2007–2009". This is a US-centric term, and the article is global in scope. Many European countries (Greece, Spain, Italy and others) have not recovered by much, if at all, since 2009. Australia did not experience a recession during 2007 to 2009. If you wish to write about the US recession, then there is a separate and neglected article about that topic here: 2007–2009_recession_in_the_United_States Gfcvoice (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with gfcvoice. This name would cause confusion between this article with the article on the US recession. 00:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggested title: Great Recession

  • Support It's the accepted name used in academia and news sources. LK (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for the reasons I already outlined above. Walrasiad (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support only well-arguable name in the above discussion. --hydrox (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support It's a single, recognizable, consistent and precise term, that appears frequently in many influential and reliable publications. FurrySings (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Most widely used term for the subject of this article. Used by the IMF, media, and academics. No alternative, "descriptive" term that refers to the global recession has been consistently used in sources.--Bkwillwm (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The title is non-specific and dramatic, and it doesn't convey any substantive information to the reader. It's not a widespread term and is used infreqeuntly at best by media organisations; it's far from a standard name in either academia or popular media. Discussion over the title already occurred several times and with more people involved than the present discussion. Furthermore, previous discussions arrived at a conclusion to revisit the issue next year. Next year isn't far off, so I don't see what the rush to (once again) rehash all of this is. A title with some kind of date at least informs the reader of the article's content without prior exposure. For all of the above reasons, I must voice my opposition to this title. --2601:9:6C00:E:9D87:30A4:C5C9:E6AD (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The obvious and popular choice, and it conveyes the right idea somewhat. Timeu (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The title is one that will be of use for only a limited period of time. What happens when we have another economic downturn in a few years to which the media start referring with exactly the same term? "Great Recession of 2008 - 2012" (or whatever range of years is finally chosen) would be better, I would suggest. SteveT (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggested title: Late 2000s global recession

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orphaned references in Great Recession

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Great Recession's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "FCIC Report-Conclusion-January 2011":

  • From Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis: Financial Inquiry Commission-Final Report-Retrieved February 2013
  • From Subprime mortgage crisis: Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (2011-01-25), The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report: Final Report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States, Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, retrieved 2012-06-04

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

FixedFarcaster (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Causes

I just made some changes to this section - not to remove anything but to add to it. I think it is wrong to assert that the two causes are Fed policy and the "practices of private financial institutions," without adding reference to the affordable housing controvery. Many people, including Nobel Laureates, jumped to the conclusion that Fannie and Freddie bought little or no subprime, and were not major factors in causing the crisis. They based these conclusions on the amounts of subprime reported (falsely) by these two GSEs. In December, 2011 the SEC charged 6 former Fannie/Freddie executives with securities fraud, and the SEC charges suggest massive holdings of substandard loans as of June 2008. Wallison and Pinto reviewed the charges and have estimated the amounts to be over $2 trillion. Also, a recently-published book[1] makes a very strong case against Fannie and Freddie for their 1995 automated underwriting and valuation systems, which became models for the entire lending industry. Research showed that loans were 65% more likely to be approved with the automated underwriting systems, and there is evidence suggesting that the systems were forced upon the entire industry. In addition, HUD produced a 100-page lending "Strategy" in 1995, and that strategy praised many of the horrible standards we later blamed private lenders for. Obviously, space did not allow me to get into the details; however, I felt it was important to at least note the existence of the controversy. Nicholas007 (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

On April 18, 2013 I made some additional changes to this section. First, I noted that the referenced opinion of the Financial Crisis Commission was supported by the 6 Democrats and none of the Republicans. I think this is important information, lest someone get the impression that the findings were bi-partisan. Also, I took the affordable housing reference out of the monetary policies section (doesn't make sense there?) and put it under "Ineffective or inappropriate regulation," below. I added the word "inappropriate" to the title because many would argue that governmental regulations were very effective, but also very destructive. I also added some elaboration to the affordable housing reference. Prior to my edits this entire article had one sentence devoted to the affordable housing argument (far too little in my judgment).Nicholas007 (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Joseph Fried, Who Really Drove the Economy Into the Ditch (New York: Algora Publishing, 2012)

Merge

  • Support

This page should be merged with Financial crisis of 2007–2008, no one talks about the crisis and the recession in a separate breath, they're one in the same. Charles Essie (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose - a financial crisis and a recession are two different things, recession is about the general economy, a financial crisis is about the health of the financial system, i.e. are the banks about to fold? Just one point - the financial crisis ended in 2008, whereas the global recession has spread unevenly at different times throughout most of the world. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Just one point - the financial crisis ended in 2008 Oh really? Where on Earth? --hydrox (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

We keep going back & forth between "Subprime Mortgage Crisis" and "Great Recession". The former is a primarily U.S. article with the latter attempting to be broader. I suggest we create a new sidebar for "Great Recession" and let it take the global aspects of the issue while we leave Subprime Mortgage Crisis as a primarily U.S. article. We might re-title the former to be "U.S. Subprime Mortgage Crisis".Farcaster (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, the "Causes of the U.S. Subprime Mortgage Crisis" article was somehow renamed as "Causes of the Great Recession". Was there a consensus debate somewhere on that?Farcaster (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a strong "Great Recession" contingent determined to force this phrase into the popular lexicon. They're not succeeding anywhere but on Wikipedia. But, I guess we'll have to live with it until there's enough will to change it (possibly never). --50.136.244.254 (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I hear the term used all the time on television news broadcasts. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Article name

None of those sources posted by DE in the above discussion, call it the "Great Recession", so this article still has a naming problem. bobrayner (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The naming of the article is another topic to discuss. On that regard, I however have to note that the data sources linked in my post above, are not suitable for extracting the most commonly contemporary name for the "2009 global recession". To settle such a historic name discussion, this should only be decided by the most commonly used name by the newest publications. For my own part, I happen to prefer Great Recession. Reading the previous name discussion here at the talkpage, I can see "Great Recession" was rather early (around Q1-2009) established as a common name for the event in the United States. Moreover this name make perfect sence by a historic point of view, as the by far two worst global recessions in the past century then has been named by Wikipedia as the Great Depression and Great Recession. Both names happen also to be correct by the economic technical term, as the first was indeed a depression and the latest only a recession. So the naming convention make sence. On the contrary, it does not make an equal amount of sence to call it the 2009 Global Recession (as IMF apparently prefer to call it), because as my statistical data show such name would be misleading in regards of when this event took place on a global scale, which really was from Q3-2008 until Q1-2009. This is why I prefer not to include a year timestamp in the name. By time, I also think more and more historic analyzing articles will start to call the event either the Great Recession or the Great Financial Recession. Danish Expert (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
On a sidenote I can mention, that we in Denmark currently only use the term Financial Crisis as name for our "Q3-2008 until Q2-2009 recession", and the term European Debt Crisis for our following two douple-dip recessions: "Q3-2011 until Q4-2011 recession" and "Q4-2012 until Q1-2013 recession". Nobody in Denmark currently use the term "Great Recession", and nobody in Denmark ever refer to a prolonged economic downturn period as a recession, unless it is technically indeed a recession as defined by the economic technical term, with declining qoq real GDP growth through minimum two consequtive quarters. What we do in Denmark, is that we call the latest years with a prolonged economic downturn period for the "European Debt Crisis", which then include both our two latest douple-dip recessions and the inbetween periods of low level positive real GDP growth. In Denmark there seems to be a common understanding, that the "European Debt Crisis" will technically only end once we manage to return to achieve a positive real GDP growth rate (y/y) of minimum 1.0%. This mean that 100 out of 100 Danish citizens -if being interviewed- will answer that Denmark currently is not in recession but that we still have an ongoing national economic crisis - which they will refer to as being caused by the "European Debt Crisis", and it is generally understood (as we are a small open economy) that our national economic crisis will end the moment the "European Debt Crisis" also ends. But this is only a Danish context, and in my point of view can not be used to set up an international naming convention, where naming perceptions most likely will differ for each country in the World. In example for a Greek context, they will most likely name the entire recession period from Q3-2008 until Q2-2014 as the "Great Recession", meaning that the length of the "Great Recession" really will differ on each national level, which also is a reason/argument to omit a specific year from the article name - as such a timestamp only would say when the event met the IMF criteria of being a global recession. All in all, this is why I prefer to continue naming the "2009 Global Recession" event, with the more international and most commonly used specific name: "Great Recession". Danish Expert (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
After reading through all IMF reports from the past five years, I can also inform IMF since April 2010 officially has named (and consistently referred to) the "2009 global recession", now as the "Great Recession". You can find proof of this in all of the below list of IMF WEO reports:
This further legitimates, that we continue to name it Great Recession at Wikipedia. Danish Expert (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Great Recession is an obscure title for this article

  • Only in the rarest of circumstances does popular media use the term "Great Recession." Therefore, the term's meaning is opaque to the majority of the potential readership of this article. In other words, the title is obscure and lacking in the clarity expected of Wikipedia's mission for common appeal. A title describing the actual content of the article might be more appropriate. --2601:9:6C00:3A:81D2:9C96:C759:57C (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
I was also surprised to see this article with this title. From a UK perspective, I don't recall seeing it called that in any normal newspaper or news broadcast. Warren (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The name needs to be changed back. "The Great Rescission" is a political phrase that originates with the Democratic party, a US political party, who used it as a trade-mark against President George Bush in an effort to attack him and his policies. It is not a proper term for the late 2000s rescission, not least of all because "Great" implies something far beyond the normal, which this most certainly was not. Historically speaking this was quite average in terms of length, and GDP% lost. The Recession of 1937 was far, far more devastating and yet it retains no such title as "Great". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.164.254 (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

2008- global recession?

Given that it's now a double dip recession shouldn't the article be renamed? JCDenton2052 (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Just in the U.K. Actually, I continue to like Great Recession. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Spreading though. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
the economy of the European Union as a whole contracted in the fourth quarter of 2011, according to Eurostat." http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/LN-022012/EN/LN-022012-EN.PDF User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The logic behind the current name is: should the recession continue beyond 2012, the article title would then change to match the present year (e.g. '2008-2013' & etc). --Xaliqen (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I would not dignify such reasoning as logic. Not that a definite name has emerged which we could use. Our title should be somewhat easy to find, which a name which changes annually is not. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe redirects solve the issue of finding the article. The problem, as I personally see it, is many of the best redirects are too generic for a title (a few of the current redirects will probably evolve into disambiguation pages at some point). The current title gets across the subject of the article better than others I can think of, and that may be a good yard-stick for articles of this kind. After all, 'global recession' (as one of the proposed alternate titles) is easy to remember but doesn't convey the article's subject such that someone outside of our contemporary context would know what you're talking about when saying just the title. --Xaliqen (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Our rescission lasted for 3 quarters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.164.254 (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Duration of the Great Recession

Today I have clarified in the lead, that the duration of the Great Recession was experienced differently by each country in the world. When assessed at the global level as a global recession, IMF has concluded it occurred throughout the 2009 calendar year, satisfying their "global recession criteria" of: A decline in annual per-capita real World GDP (Purchasing Power Parity weighted). Unfortunately the IMF criteria does not evaluate quarterly data but only asses annual data, because at the moment only some 52-60 countries representing 90% of the World GDP publish quarterly data. This mean that IMF's timestamp for the Great Recession carry a great level of inaccuracy.

In order to find some more accurate duration data for the Great Recession at the global level, we need to asses seasonal adjusted real GDP data on a quarterly level. My first search for such data resulted in this IMF source (data for 2000-10 and forecast data for 2011-12) and Economist source, both showing quarterly real World GDP change compared to last years similar quarter (based on 52 countries representing 90% of the World GDP). When I recalculated these data figures to quarter-on-quarter figures, which is the data entity we need to identify recession durations, these data revealed a direct quarter-on-quarter decline during the three quarters from Q3‑2008 until Q1‑2009. This timestamp more accurately mark when the Great Recession took place at the global level, although its important to emphasize the recalculation only returned GDP-change info as non seasonal adjusted data (which can be somewhat inaccurate, although seasonal fluctuations tends to decrease when you look upon the entire world - rather than isolated on a single nation). Unfortunately I could not find any sourced seasonal adjusted quarter-on-quarter data for "90% of the World GDP", so I left a "Citation needed" tag behind this info in the lead, and hope other editors can help dig up a source verifying my observation about the recession duration for "90% of the World GDP", is correct.

What I did manage to find however, was quarter-on-quarter data for seasonal adjusted PPP‑weighted real GDP of the G20‑zone, representing 85% of the World GDP. These data confirmed we had a direct quarter-on-quarter decline during the three quarters from Q3‑2008 until Q1‑2009 (-0.02% in Q3‑2008, -1.66% in Q4‑2008, -1.67% in Q1‑2009), which more accurately mark when the Great Recession took place at the global level.

The exact start and end-point for the Great Recession at the national levels, of course greatly differs from country to country, and some countries did not experience any recession at all. IMHO it is however important to include info in the lead about the exact duration of the Great Recession at the Global Level (measured by as precise data as possible). For this purpose the best data I could find, was the one presented for the G20‑zone, and this info has now been added to the lead. The most optimal source would of course be, if you can find a weblink to a database showing seasonal adjusted quarter‑on‑quarter percentage change figures for 90% of the "real World GDP" and "real World GDP per‑capita". If such source can not be found or do not exist, then I however suggest we continue using the G20‑zone data as best accessible indicator for the recession duration in the lead.

My own personal calculation by the way also show, that the end-quarter (last quarter of decline) for the global recession was Q1‑2009, both when looking at PPP-weighted "real World GDP" and PPP-weighted "real World GDP per-capita". So no matter if the national recession criteria definition or IMF per-capita definition is used, its a certainty the global recovery started in Q2‑2009. This mean that 2009 only comprised 1 "recession quarter" and 3 "recovery quarters", and thus 2009 overall was more of a "recovery year" rather than a "recession year". Only reason why IMF characterized 2009 as a "recession year", was due to the accumulated calculation effects - and the fact they only compared annual data rather than quarterly data. Overall the conclusion is: The Great Recession ended at the global level already in Q1‑2009. I hope other editors in the future can help dig up an additional data source for quarter-on-quarter changes of seasonal adjusted PPP-weighted real GDP per‑capita for the "estimated world" or G20zone, to back up my WP:OR finding that this figure also started to rise in Q2‑2009 (along with the seasonal adjusted q-o-q real GDP figures). If you find such a source, then please post the link here at the talkpage, and/or feel free to add this extra sourced info straight into the lead of the article. Danish Expert (talk) 12:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

That's nice work. bobrayner (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
For those of you who are interested to keep track on how the World Economy developed most recently, I can recommend to read the World GDP graph published after each quarter by the Economist source, depicting how the quarterly real World GDP changed compared to last years similar quarter (based on 54 countries representing 90% of the World GDP). In my post above I posted the link for the graph covering the period from Q1-1998 to Q1-2013. You can find a similar graph for the period from Q1-2007 to Q2-2013, and the latest graph covers data for the period from Q1-2009 to Q3-2013. Danish Expert (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Fed Notes

This article or similar material from other sources should be included in the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Iconic photograph?

Is there a photograph, iconic or otherwise, that we could put in the intro? Int21h (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

File:TED Spread.png User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate recession info

The entire article is infected with inaccurate recession info. Main problem is, that GDP data are getting revised uptil 12 months after the first figures get released, and the update of the article data has been insufficient. Today I have updated the article with a wikitable showing recession dates for all countries in the world, in the Timeline of effects section. All data in the wikitable is 100% accurate. I have no more time to help update this article, and thus hope some of you have time to help me go through the entire article and correct all country specific recession date info, so that it match the data listed in the table. Thanks in advance. Danish Expert (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The article throughout confuses the word "price" with the word "value" . "Price" is measured in a particular currency. "Value" is a measure of what the "price" will buy in that particular currency at a particular place and time. There is a further difficulty in that it is difficult to "value" currency as it varies with time and place making meaningful valuation very imprecise. Inflation, devaluation, speculation, and government interest manipulation in currency and many other things confound the problem. Does inflation include wages or just purchasing power in goods and services, or all these when converting "price" to "value"? If wages are depressed by economic conditions then I prefer purchasing power of goods and services as a better measure to convert "price" to "value". This is a very difficult problem, but ignoring it leads to some ridiculous conclusions and charts, especially if the method of adjustment conversion is not clearly stated. I do not have a convenient answer to this problem. The best option I can think of is some combination of currency exchange indexes and a very broad basket of commodity indexes. Not very good, but the best I can think of. Perhaps someone can think of something better. 146.115.171.24 (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Subject title

"Reaganomics Recession" would be a more informative title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.242.251.222 (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much anything would be a more informative (and better) title than "Great Recession." --Xaliqen (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any justification for not calling it what it is as the global financial crisis. I came here looking for an article on the GFC and I'm as confused as ever by the title --124.186.241.51 (talk) 11:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Recession/Archive_4&oldid=1136775838"