From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Economics (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

possible copyright violations, Great Depression text[edit]

I removed several sections from this page. Most of it was because text on the page included passages that seemed to be lifted entirely from [1] and [2], which I'm pretty sure are copyrighted materials ( has a copyright notice at the bottom of its pages, at the very least) and as such are possible copyright violations. In particular, information about 2 different definitions of what a recession is and information regarding how governments attempt to shift a nation's economy out of a recession was removed.

There was also a lengthy discussion about the Great Depression that was out of place on this page. This has been removed to here, and if anyone wants to place it in the correct location (I suggest merging it into Great Depression if it isn't simply duplicated information from there). It follows:

Housing bubble[edit]

Let's avoid a revert war. Votes, please, on whether the US housing bubble was a defining feature of this latest recession. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that there's an important relationship, but since the housing bubble preceded (and only partially overlapped) the period of recession (in the USA), and since the end of the bubble triggered economic problems that fed into the recession, I'd stay well away from any phrasing that implies a relationship where the recession is a "parent" and the housing bubble is a "child"! :-)
But shouldn't all this be covered in Late-2000s recession anyway? This Recession article covers recessions generally. To the extent that the US housing bubble is a defining feature of one particular recession, shouldn't it be explored in the article on that particular recession?
bobrayner (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree that it's a defining feature of the latest recession. As bobrayner points out, though, this article is not specifically about the latest recession, but about recessions in general. The recent US housing bubble is clearly not a defining feature of recessions in general. Even housing bubbles in general would not be; recessions in different times and places have had quite diverse features. --Avenue (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree with both bobrayner and Avenue per above. Any discussion of US housing bubble should be in Late-2000s recession, not in this article. LK (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it's appropriate to have a few sentences on the housing bubble and its relationship to the current recession. The current recession is a significant ones in terms of timing (recent/current) and scale (largest in years). Most people agree that the housing bubble played a significant role in the recession, not just in the US, but in those countries that invested in derivatives tied to US real estate. Also, many countries had their own housing bubble during the same time period (Ireland/Spain). It's completely appropriate to discuss the current recession and its most likely cause in an article about recessions in general. I really don't understand the agrument against this.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
This discussion was prompted by my removal of Category:Terms and concepts of the 2000s United States housing bubble (since renamed Category:United States housing bubble) from this article, and DOR (HK)'s reversion of that removal. Categories should generally only be applied where they reflect a defining feature of the article's topic. I'm arguing against this article remaining in that category, not against including a brief section on the 2000s bubble (which I agree seems appropriate). --Avenue (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary additions[edit]

I can't see what this has to do with the article: Economist Robert J. Shiller wrote that the term "...refers also to the sense of trust we have in each other, our sense of fairness in economic dealings, and our sense of the extent of corruption and bad faith. When animal spirits are on ebb, consumers do not want to spend and businesses do not want to make capital expenditures or hire people."< ref>WSJ-Robert Shiller-Animal Spirits Depend on Trust-January 2009</ ref> DOR (HK) (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Psychology is a significant influence or cause of recessions and how we get out of them. When folks are confident in the future, they spend. When they are worried, they save. I think the Shiller quote nicely captures the concept.Farcaster (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is a great quote for an article about behavioral economics, but this one is about recessions. Not really all that useful here, IMHO. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Merger Proposal[edit]

Contraction (economics) has almost no content and this page covers the exact same subject. Nothing to complicated to explain. LWG talk 02:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Definition section[edit]

"In the United Kingdom, recessions are generally defined as two successive quarters of positive growth" Positive growth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)