Talk:Great Depression/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Requested move

Proposal  :	Great Depression/Archive 2 → Great Depression
Rationale :	The Great Depression is not of 1929 but lasted for an decade, so the title is incorrect. I believe an editor has confused the Great Depression with the Wall Street Crash of 1929.
Proposer :	nirvana2013 14:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey and discussion

Please add  * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "~~~~".

• Support per nom. David Kernow 18:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Teryx 00:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move (cancelled)

• Great Depression of 1929 → Great Depression in the United States — Rationale: This article focuses on the impacts of the Great Depression on the United States. By moving this article, the title would better reflect the article's current focus. In addition, this move makes the article fit better with similar articles describing the impacts of the Great Depression on other countries of the world. — Talk:Great Depression of 1929 — Teryx 08:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

the long causal analysis applies to the entire world, and people studying world economy need it. Rjensen 09:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The article will still exist, but in a different place. If you are concerned, a new article could be created to describe how the Great Depression affected the whole world. The causes of the depression could be discussed there with a focus on representing a world view. Teryx 17:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• As the requestor - I have cancelled this move request Teryx 23:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as requestor. Teryx 08:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support I believe this article should be separated into two articles. One focusing on world impact and one focusing on the US. -michael 18:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary. This article just needs to be expanded to include more info from other countries (see Great Depression (disambiguation)). A few of the large sections in the middle could be moved into their own articles (e.g. the Responses section) or trimmed if they already have Main articles (e.g. the section on the New Deal). There's probably too many pics already (and those graphs in the middle are unnecessarily huge). Similarly, the East Asian financial crisis started with Thailand before spreading to the rest of Asia, then Russia, then impacted the rest of the world. Most people in the US already don't understand it was a global phenomenon -- no point reinforcing a their Great Depression vs our Great Depression mindset. Ewlyahoocom 16:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Definite Oppose. Per above. The Great Depression had consequences worldwide and some of you want to change it to the US???? This is definitely not a wise move. If content concerning other countries has not been yet used, it is utterly ridiculous to consider the crisis country by country, although it is clear that we absolutely need specific articles for the CONSEQUENCES of the crisis in each country. But the Great Depression itself is a globalized event, indeed, it wouldn't have happened that way if the world wasn't already globalized at that term. As a sidenote — although history doesn't work with "if" — if there hadn't been the Wall Street Crash of 1929, there would have been no fascism, no Adolf Hitler and probably no World War II. Does that makes it clear? There wouldn't either have been planned economy in Europe and social-democracy in European countries. Open up your eyes! The only true thing in that proposition is that we do have to create specific articles, and although I have few economic competences, I will do my best to start up a Great Depression in France as soon as I can, translating it from French Wiki. This proposition amaze and stuns me! Tazmaniacs 20:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: Of course different specific articles must address the issue in each country or continent (Latin America, etc.), but a main article (this one, which has got the general name) should have a RESUME of the crisis worldwide, with a little section dedicated to political events and all. See Wikipedia:Guide to layout : we can make resume of each countries in specific sections : Wikipedia:Guide to layout#If a section is a summary of another article. Does that makes sense? Tazmaniacs 20:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

See Great Depression. which covers worldwide (I don't understand, the talk page of Great Depression seems to redirect here, it confused me - it must have been moved or what...) Tazmaniacs 20:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you misread the proposal which was NOT to rename this article to "Great Depression in the US." The proposal is that, instead of a US centric article entitled "Great Depression," there be two articles. One, focusing on worldwide effects (including the US), called "Great Depression," and one focusing solely on the effects in the US, entitled "Great Depression in the US." -michael 21:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

edit: I mis-spoke. The proposal is indeed to rename the article, but this would *allow* us to create two separate articles, as per above. There definitely needs to be less of a US focus in an article called "Great Depression." There should also be a "Great Depression in the US" to contain the US centric information.

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Meanwhile I created subsections for specific countries in the main article. This should remain the main article, whether its named "Great Depression" or "Great Depression of 1929". It DEFINITELY can't treat only the US history. Tazmaniacs 20:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks everyone. With the recent changes to the article, I think it is starting to better reflect a worldwide view. When I put in the request, it had focused almost entirely on the US situation, which didn't seem appropriate for an article titled "Great Depression of 1929". I have cancelled the move request. Teryx 23:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: Just to clarify, while I think there is more work to be done to make the article more representative, I think we can do it without moving the page. Teryx 23:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV discussion

It's only a paragraph, but the first paragraph in the "responses" section seems rather biased against Herbert Hoover. A suggested replacement might be "Herbert Hoover disregarded this advice. As time went on after this short chat, the depression began to get worse." Discuss, please. Cheesy 18:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It's rather difficult to adopt a neutral POV about Hoover. Perhaps it might be easier just to remove all references to the man? Ewlyahoocom 16:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

What aspect of that section do you specifically dispute? If you do not dispute the facts mentioned, and instead think it is not NPOV by omission, why don't you add in the relevant extra information to correct it? -michael 19:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe the arguement about Captialism is an opinion only. In any case, Sources need to be sited. Also I am amazed at how the republicans go to great lengths to attempt to reconstruct history to make Hoover look good. in my opinion, Hoover can very well be described as the one man who caused the Depression.Magnum Serpentine

Examination of the policies of Hoover and Roosevelt show that Hoover attempted government intervention to stimulate economic activity and Roosevelt merely consolidated and renamed these attempts. Regardless of who implemented them they worsened, not bettered, the depression. Forty years of increased meddling in the economy by the Government precipitated the depression, and hamfisted attempts to fix it made it worse. It then was left to resorting the War Time Economy to pull it out, what with extreme rationing etc. Good Times. Unfortunately we have learned little about how an unfettered economy works, with slight ebbs and flows. Huge spikes either way have always come as a response to artificial meddling by the Government. And we have been on the longest (generally) upswing yet, but it will correct. And all we have had to have is a $47 Trillion accrual basis debt and maintaining dollar diplomacy to make it all "work". Good Days ahead.

unsectioned material

I definitely think the section about the New Deal needs to be changed. I changed it recently but it was reverted because it had not been discussed beforehand. It paints the New Deal as a total success, while most modern-day experts on the subject consider it a failure.

This discussion is being dominated by economists, who have no experience or training in credit analysis, loan management, pricing of money. We need more input from other fields.

Not all economists agree that the new deal policies were the reason that the depression ended. I would like to reference you to Milton Friedman's Monetary History of the United States for the relevant discussion.

This complaint is factually inaccurate, since neither the article nor its sub-article endorse Keynesianism. Removing tag. Stirling Newberry 23:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a heavily Keynesian take on the Great Depression. Someone should present the Austrian take on the event. Government caused it, prolounged it, and did little to actually improve things. Read Murray Rothbard's "The Great Depression." Gobstomper 23:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"(which is similar to what the Austrian School would recommend" is missing a closing paren.

==Work by Rangerdude==NFTL "Reserve and the Money Supply" will need NPOVing and additional work. I lack the energy to do it myself, bogged down by too many other problems. 172 22:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The whole article does need work doesn't it. I was hoping it could be dealt with by a few edits. But it does need a more thorough redrafting to get the material to work together. Stirling Newberry 23:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're quite right. One of the particular recent changes that bothers me is the insertion of "one theory holds" toward the beginning of each subsection on the origins, which can give someone the impression that these explanations are mutually exclusive. [1] 172 00:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm knee deep in the Social Security (United States) morrass, which is about to get much uglier. Stirling Newberry 01:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page has some very good information in the "causes of the depression" part (they are consistent with scholarly opinions), but it has very little information on life during the depression and public policy during the depression (of either the U.S. or other countries) though we might be able to use some of the information from Herbert Hoover. As I learn about this era in history, i'll try to contribute to it some. Bonus Onus 22:32, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well versions seem to have more information about that, including the following contribution of my own which was deleted. "The Stock Market Crash did not plunge all Americans into instant poverty. Indeed, about one third of the population was seriously hurt by 1932. The other two thirds (who were employed) suffered from reduced job security, money and in some cases reduced hours of work but due to reduced prices gained in real wages. It may be true that more workers gained economically from the depression than suffered but this is not known. However the depth of the suffering was far more acute than the height of the benefits with extreme poverty and even serious malnutrition. Moreover even those that benefitted were unsure of what they had and feared disaster at any time." The same article had statistical information including GNP, CPI, money supply etc. for 1929-40 which is now missing from the article.

Any treatment of the GD which doesn't mention the beneficiaries of it is one-sided and ultimately misleading.

I agree with Bonus Onus, this article needs more on the life during the Depression as well as the Depression's meaning on today's world economy. Also, we need to keep an eye out on it since someone was defacing the article. I fixed it, but the person kept changing it as I fixed it. It seems to have stopped now, but never hurts to check it out every once in a while. Tranka The depression also affected people's attitudes for decades afterwards. People who went through it reportedly took less chances changing jobs, kept money under the mattress etc. in some cases for the rest of their lives.

I cleaned up the US/New Deal section somewhat and tried to remove the POV. Interested readers should read the New Deal areticle with more depth--this one has to cover the whole world. Rjensen 19:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Section Edited

I cleaned up some of the grammar and mechanics in the 'movies' portion of the Daily Life Section. 71.97.31.93

Vandalism

So far no one has seemed to noticed that a vandal has removed a huge chunck of this article. [2] This article really needs a rewrite. 172 20:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RVd, 26 Aug 2005. Didn't take long at all.

Vandalism corrected, 31 Jan 2006.

Ryan?

Looking back at the history I see alot of vandalism from a guy who calls himself "Riyan". I just deleted from the beginning, a sentence that said "Ryan strikes again!!!!!!!"

Anyone else notice this guy before?

More vandalism

The word "titties" in solid caps has been inserted in various places in the article, in an obvious act of vandalism. This should be fixed.

I'm not sure if this is the Ryan you are referring to, but there is a piece of text at the end of the first paragraph that says, "THE WOMEN IN THE PICTURE IS ON ACID!!!!! And ethan is a cry baby and ryans is a baby tooo" This should be removed. Bophamony 19:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a clean up tag to the article as much of it's content has to do with the US which should be in the Great Depression in the United States article. In the opening it states that the Great Depression was a massive global economic recession and the article should reflect more of those world-wide happenings. Zhatt 17:37, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I've just reverted these edits by an anonymous user. I'm no economist but these seem to be POV - at one end (the laissez faire end) of the spectrum of economic theory. --Spondoolicks 12:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Good work. As an economic historian, my conclusion is that the edit had "Randroid" written all over it. Unfortunately, I don't think those edits were the only instances of similar POV finding its way in the article in recent months. 172 | Talk 13:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I had always understood that the cause of the great depression was that people had started living on loans more and more, displaying a limitless trust in the future (I don't have the money now, but things will continue to improve, so later I will be able to pay it back). But if somehow this communal trust is tarnished (is that the word?) the whole card-house collapses. So this is sort of the opposite of a self-fulfilling prophecy. It was self-fulfilled, but the opposite of what was prophecied. Even if this is not true, it's certainly worth a mention because I assume I'm not the only one who heard this. If it's an 'urban myth' that needs to be pointed out. DirkvdM 04:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Credit played a part in it, but the other aspect was that industry was living on a diet of inflated share prices in the market and credit. From the consumer standpoint, at no other point in American history (up to that point) was the amount of consumer credit owed greater than it was in the 20's. The stock market crash happened because people got greedy and stupid - they didn't think that goodtimes would ever stop. Sound like an era that we through during the internet economy??? Stu 22:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The fx of "surplus bubbles" & deflation, resulting in economic crash & totalitarianism, are described in a startlingly prescient SF novel The Iron Heel by Jack London (Y, Call of the Wild). Trekphiler 01:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It's been reapeated a numerous amount of time the stock market crash caused the great depression but i would say that the stock market crash was only but another symptom of the great depression. The real cause was how people would use loans to buy other loans so that they would be "legal millionaires" and use their banks as back up to buy stock which in turn was worthless. And much of the stock wouldn't have even crashed if this fact was never put light onto since all the stock holders grew scared and started withdrawing all their investements thus sucking all of the money they could from the stock market (even more money then was really there). Well I'm just a kid so feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.

Precipitating a war with Japan?

This quote here bothers me just a little:

"In truth Roosevelt had foreseen from early in his Presidency that only a solution to the international trade problem would finally end the depression, and that the New Deal was, to no small extent, a "holding action". He contemplated precipitating a war with Japan early on, in hopes of dealing with the problem early."

Anybody have a source for this? It seems pretty arbitrary and speculative to me.

• • Without any source material to back it up, I find the claim doubtfull, at best. Stu 22:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Though that quote indeed has no direct evidence, the idea that a war would boost global and United States economy was prevalent, and fiscally obvious. Also, through Roosevelt's actions prewar, we can tell that he was building for the new war. The history books will tell you that we knew nothing about Pearl Harbor, when in fact we knew that the Japanese would strike by air...we just didn't know where. We assumed that they would attack major ports in San Francisco, but the Hawaiin Islands were a prime and simple target; we were caught with our pants down, yes, but Roosevelt had already started making a belt. He began massive air and sea buildup pre-pearl harbor in 1938, and began a vigalant recruiting program within the newly renovated Army Air Core, as he knew that in a war in europe, the only way we would be able to project our power would to have superior mobility and defense. So in conclusion, no, we don't have exact proof or quotes on that...but the circumstancial evidence is there, and pretty convincing.

207.166.55.253 Kristopher Sandoval, jackandmeg2001@comcast.net

"we knew that the Japanese would strike by air...we just didn't know where. We assumed that they would attack major ports in San Francisco"? Nonsense. The Japanese were expected to strike in Thailand (where a task force had been sighted), or the Soviet Union (where the Kwantung Army had been itching for a fight since 1937), or (just maybe) the Philippines (where the U.S. had been building up #s B-17s, unintentionally making a valuable target). San Francisco was never considered a target (except by racist California pols who arranged the unconscionable removals...). Nobody in DC expected a Japanese air attack; the war was expected to begin by subversion & sabotage, which is precisely why all the aircraft were clustered at AAF bases in HI--to prevent it. Get your facts straight. Trekphiler 01:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

A side note-- I keep wondering how Japan, Germany, Italy came out of a depression quickly enough to get their economies to the point they could build massive armies and build the necessary industrial manufacturing capabilities to engage in war while the rest of the world was mired deep in a depression. If I read all the information correctly, the entire world was in a terrible depression in 1931-32 but by 1938, Germany and Japan were sufficiently rebuilt to embark on major war interprises??? Are we leaving some information out??? Howalarp 19:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible Vandal

Someone has added a heading "this is all a big fattie lie". Someone with the capability should remove that.

Already did. Thanks! --Nlu 02:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hoover Tax Hikes

In 1932 Hoover raised taxes at the lower end from 1.5% to 4%, and at the upper end from 25% to 63%.

Isn't this significant? Surely the huge increase in tax rates would hav affected the economy, and the ability of the people to buy things. Shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere??

Octothorn 04:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

For an article that still attributes the recovery to war spending, I don't have much faith that the tax hikes will be included anytime soon. --Jayson Virissimo 05:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

If anybody cares, the suicide rate in the Grt Depr, contrary to pop myth, didn't change. Trekphiler 01:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Car Biz

HI The lo-lev companies like Chevy had problems because Joe Avg had no $. The top ones, like Duesenberg, too, because such expensive toys were too much even for the Vanderbilts. Middle rank lux cars, like LaSalle, folded up because they were too hi for J.A. & too cheap for Getty. Caddy & Lincoln, tho, prospered... Trekphiler 02:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Causes and cures

I added a summery section on causes and cures. Rjensen 23:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

missing :what is the depression

could someone with some facts add a section as what constituted the depression, in the US and elsewhere. Facts like: unemployment rose by xx%, putting nn people out of work; nn businesses closed representing nn% of the businesses; wholesale prices dropped by nn%; retaiil prices dropped by nn%; stock indexes dropped by $xx and nn percent. Do such facts exist or was there just so much nonsense, like the Fed Reserve and others thinking there was inflation (price rise), not deflation (price drop)

Perhaps some simple tables and charts could show these results year by year from the last 1920s to the mid 1940s.

What we have is an article about the causes, and results and reactions, and everything else, but little on what was the DEPRESSION THING itself.

Thanks Hmains 04:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• On Jude Wanniski: On The Stock Market Boom and Crash of 1929 Revisited Eugene N. White The Journal of Economic Perspectives > Vol. 4, No. 2 (Spring, 1990), pp. 67-83

Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0895-3309%28199021%294%3A2%3C67%3ATSMBAC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R shows that he's wrong on Smoot Hawley. Rjensen 04:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

the great depression

was a greeat time for whore houses!

HELP

WHERE WAS THE MONEY SENT DURING THE GREAT DEPPRESSION? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.126.189.54 (talk • contribs) .

Uh, that's a vague question -- I don't understand what you're asking, and I don't think others would as well. In any case, these questions should probably go to Wikipedia:Reference desk. --Nlu (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand the question - "Why did everyone suddenly get poor?" yes? I'll have a go. The federal reserve and the stockmarket was being used as a big money machine. The fed was printing money unrestrained, and the extra printed money (which was without commensurate productivity from the market, just someone turning a printer handle) went into "gambling" on the stockmarket. At some point the game is lost, and all money and shares come to reflect their actual value - in many cases virtually zilch. The money didn't go somewhere, a lot of it was an illusion from the start, and the market eventually reacted to reflect true value. Borrowed money had been spent on shares many of which dropped to zero value. 60.226.32.151 20:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

What happened was: there was more and more money going into the economy, but the stocks (in a nutshell) did not rise, so that when people came to collect, the stocks were worth zero, zilch, nowt, and nothing. That meant that people couldn't lower prices for people suffering from it so no-one could buy much and so everyone became poor. (I know that sounded unprofessional but I couldn't think of any way to put it) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.4.12.76 (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

statistics

I have found the following US statstics in an (old) Economics textbook (inside front cover). Can someone determine if this is 'fair use'? Does anyone have any better statistics for the US? Anyone have GDP instead of GNP? Thanks Hmains 18:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

US economic statistics

Statistic	1929	1933	1937	1939	1940	1942
Real Gross National Product (GNP) (1)	181.8	126.6	183.5	189.3	205.8	266.9
Consumer Price Index (2)	73.3	55.3	61.4	59.4	59.9	69.7
Index of Industrial Production (2)	59	37	61	58	67	106
Money Supply (in billions)	26.4	19.8	29.6	36.2	42.2	62.8
Unemployment (in millions)	1.6	12.8	7.7	9.5	8.1	2.7
Unemployment (% of civilian work force)	3.2	24.9	14.3	17.2	14.6	4.7

(1) in 1954 dollars (2) 1947-49 = 100

Source: Campbell R. McConnell, Economics: Principles, Problems and Policies, 2nd edition, McGraw-Hill 1963

• Facts cannot be copyright. Indeed, these are government numbers in the first place. But it doesn't help anyone to use 1954 dollars. Use better data at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/hist.html Rjensen 00:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Reference only contains government spending/receipt info. Thanks anyway Hmains 18:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The chart leaves out the Roosevelt recession. We need to have all the years listed. It's not as if there's a space problem. RJII 22:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

OK I used 1938 instead of 1939 Rjensen 23:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Leading up to the Great Depression

I propose a section at the start of the article called "Leading up to the Great Depression." In that, we can discuss all the conditions prior to the crisis, and prior to the market crash. I know there is a myth going around that it was caused by laissez-faire but it's easily shown that it was far from a laissez-faire situation. The section won't be asserting a cause of the Depression, but simply relaying of the facts about the economic environment leading up to it. If no one else starts it, I will. RJII 03:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

How does that proposal differ from causes of the great depression?

Rjensen 10:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The 1920s were surely the most business-owner-dominated, government-hands-off period of American history--whether one wants to call that laissez-faire or not may depend on the ideological agenda of the writer. The 'causes' article is almost all ideological argument. It would be nice to have have a section of the Great Depression article that provides the facts of the situation leading up to the Great Depression--such as the US farm depression that had essentially existed since the end of World War I; the tariff rates; consumer buying power, wages, business and government investment, etc. Thanks Hmains 18:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you want to use either the CAUSES article that covers all of that now, or perhaps the ECON HIST of US article on 1920s. Note Great Depression article is worldwide in scope, so you have to cover history of 1920s in Europe, Asia etc Rjensen 18:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

America

Asia was also hit by the Great Depression due to its dependence on the export of raw materials with Europe and America, predominantly rubber and tin for the automotive industry. Asian trade fell sharply as America and Europe were gripped by the depression. Firms in Asia responded by cutting their workforce and reducing wages.

Spelling error under "International Effects."

Semi-protection

I've requested this page to be protected against anon and brand-new account editors due to the amount of anon vandalism (now carried out; thank you Voice of All).

To keep life simpler, I propose that when reverting vandalism, we revert back to the last good version with original edits. In the following hypothetical situation, we have

• 15:15, 30 March 2009 GoodEditor Reverted vandalism back to NiceWriter's version
• 15:14, 30 March 2009 (Anon vandal)
• 15:13, 30 March 2009 NiceWriter Reverted vandalism back to GoodOldAlf's version
• 15:12, 30 March 2009 (Anon vandal)
• 15:11, 30 March 2009 GoodOldAlf Original new contribution
• 15:10, 30 March 2009.... yadda

We can see that GoodEditor's reversion to NiceWriter's version is (in theory) just a reversion to the "last known good and original" version by GoodOldAlf; so I propose that GoodEditor should simply revert to GoodOldAlf's anyway (doing a quick diff check) and mark it as such.

Although in theory there's nothing wrong with "chaining", it's more error prone if someone in the chain slips up and lets vandalism through; the vandalised version becomes accepted as the "good" version, and the vandalism becomes embedded. Also, chaining makes things a pain to keep track of. Better just revert back to the good version they're supposedly the same as anyway.

Of course, if there are any good edits (either anon or not), these should stay in- even if they are inadvertantly placed on top of a vandalised version (in which case, one of us should diff it, and filter out the vandalism only).

Fourohfour 16:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Too US-centric?

We need more info on Germany, and the shockwaves of the rise of Hitler (+Todt, Schlacht) (contrast with Roosevelt and New Deal). Ill look into the Weimar article- tagged for now. Ksenon 14:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)NOTHING

Yeah; I read somewhere that Hitler promised good jobs with good pay, or something, and people were so desperate that they believed him. His ideas lead him to become the infamous dictator that we all know about today.

This article is INCREDIBLY us-focussed, I'm trying to read about the effect of the market crash in Canada and I've got... um, the rates of the DJIA.... it's not helping. It really doesn't help that 92% americans edit wiki... so we " minorities " don't really get anything useful, because a world view generally, nowadays, means the States' view...

Hitler rose to power because, in desperate times, people tend to fall victim to the smooth talking extremist parties. His Nazi party promised higher wages.... and his ubermarks (that's definitely not the name, but they were worth one million marks) really helped the economy bustle.... Actually, Hitler really did clean up Germany... and the rest of the world.... the Second World War brought on tons of war industry... tons of cash. either way. GLOBAL ARTICLES, PEOPLE.Talflick 02:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the causes section?

It just disappeared. jonathan southers wishes he could have been around durring these times that way his fealthy rich uncle could have paid for there needs.

Title Change

I hope no one minds the sudden change from Great Depression to Great Depression of 1929. I think it will make it easier in terms of linking, redirects and getting indexed on Google. --Uncle Ed 15:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

timeline

can y'all make a timeline for students who need to know important info and faster thanks.

why don't you do it, you may accidentally learn the "important info" in the meanwhile?...

hey, maybe the english language, too :]

Causes

• What is the significance of the ideas presented at http://www.amatecon.com/gd/gdcandc.html to the Great Depression article? Can you summarize them on the talk page, or something? --Uncle Ed 18:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Is the key point that "there were a number of policies enacted over the next few years that, from both a free market and a Keynesian perspective, would do nothing to help America recover and do everything to exacerbate the depression"? If so, simply add this to the article (if it's common knowledge or self-evident). Otherwise, please source it to someone (other than your honorable self) and THEN add it to the article, explaining why that source felt that way. --Uncle Ed 18:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Move page from the Great Depression of 1929 to Great Depression

Is this title fundamentally incorrect? The Great Depression lasted from 1929 through to the end on the 1930's and into the early 1940's (World War II started to intervene in 1939), not just 1929. There was a Wall Street Crash of 1929, but although they are linked, to call the Depression something of 1929 in my opinion is wrong. Just a side note the Dow Jones did not come back to pre-1929 until 1955! [3] nirvana2013 09:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

it's the most convenient title. The scholars listed date its beginning in 1929. Rjensen 09:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is the article, not just called the Great Depression, as it used to be and as it is commonly referred to as? This currently diverts to the article anyway. If there is another great depression (which no doubt there will be) , the article can be retitled the First Great Depression if and when further clarification is required (for example the first World War was known as the "war to end all wars" at the time, not World War I). The Great Depression is not something that is defined by a specific year, but by a period of 10 to 20 years. The article is titled incorrectly. nirvana2013 11:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Unless a case can be made that we need to disambiguate from other Great Depressions (1873-5, for example), the shorter form is preferable. Easier to type, to link, to find....Septentrionalis 19:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this should be moved back to simply Great Depression. In many countries the depression did no even start until after 1929. - SimonP 22:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 08:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction/Redundancy

There are two sections in this article that are both reduntant and contradictory:

"Between 1939 and 1944 (the peak of wartime production), the nation's total output almost doubled."

and

"Between 1939 and 1944 (the peak of wartime production), the nation's output more than doubled."

Salvor Hardin 09:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. Good job. Salvor Hardin 09:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

U.S. History Project

I am a 7th grade student-teacher in Virginia and my students recently finished a unit on the Great Depression. As part of the unit my students completed a group research project that covered several different aspects of the Depression in the United States. Each group was asssigned a topic and asked to produce a one page research essay, a photo spread for their topic and a works cited page. In addition I let everyone know that I had planned to post excerpts of their work on this website. At first no one really knew what Wikipedia was but I after I gave each class a brief tour of the site the students liked the idea of getting their work out to the public. Wikipedia is a great learning tool in that it gives us the opportunity to openly talk about history and to tell the stories of events as we know them. I am so proud of my students for wanting to get their stories about the Great Depression out to the world and I hope that you will enjoy reading through the excerpts I have posted. More importantly I hope other teachers will use Wikipedia in a similar manner so that students can see just how important they are in how we remeber history. Students used a variety of encyclopedias, biographies, and internet resources to compelte this assignment. I verified the information in each paper to confirm that each of the following excerpts was written in my students' own words. However, if anyone sees somehting I missed please fel free to post and let me know so I can fix the issue immediately.

Period #2: Dust Bowl But, what was the Dust Bowl? How did all that shit appear out of nowhere? The Dust Bowl was a long period of time of destructive wind and dust storms that struck the U.S. in the 1930s. The soil was so dry from a very long drought. When hard winds came, winds picked up the loose dirt and took the dirt with it. The “dust storms” hit cities and anywhere it blew damaging and destroying everything in its path. The TVA arranged young men to plant trees to hold the soil down. The AAA arranged people to plant crops. Congress was concerned with this destructive dust disaster. After the Dust Bowl, congress approved the Great Plains program to restore several million acres of wheat land to grass in 1956.

Eleanor Roosevelt Eleanor Roosevelt was Franklin’s first lady in white house. She was a big part of Franklin D Roosevelt campaign and she did a lot of things for the United States by herself. One thing she did was she helped nurses take care of the sick and injured soldiers. She was also she helped Franklin with different things like soup kitchens. She helped Franklin hide his polio disease where he couldn’t walk and could hardly stand up to give a speech.

Escapism Escapism, when looking at this word you might wonder what it means, it means the tendency to escape from daily reality or routine by indulging in daydreaming, fantasy, or entertainment. To get away and try and escape their worries, people went to drive-in movies or went to baseball games and, football games. One sports star from the Great Depression that helped people forget their worries was Jacobus Francis Thorpe, a gold medallist in the pentathlon and decathlon. He also played football, and Major League baseball; he was one of the best Olympic people. Then he went to star in pro football. His accomplishments helped people forget their worries because he was active in a lot of sport and outside actives.

FDR FDR was viewed in many different ways by many different people. Some of whom supported FDR were progressives, liberals, the poor and unemployed ,urban workers, and African Americans. These particular groups of people supported FDR because to them he was a hero and after all he helped them out of the Great Depression by setting up programs that helped people to get back to work to make money. These programs were called ABC reforms.But on the other hand FDR drew fire from liberal Critics. This group of people disliked Roosevelt because they wanted a more active government. They thought he wasn’t handeling the Great Depression like he should because first they accused President Roosevelt of “soaking the rich” to pay for his programs. Then they accused him of trying to pack the court and ruin the system of checks and blances.

Hoover The Bonus Army incident was formed by, WW1 jobless Veterans who were promised by Congress to get a $1,000 bonus in 1945. They wanted the bonus right away in 1932 because of the Depression. They camped in front of the White House. It included 20,000 Veterans. Congress and Hoover turned the Veterans down. Some Veterans left, but a lot stayed (2,000) and were joined by their families. Hoover called in the police and the Veterans still didn’t go away. Hoover reacted by calling in the U.S. Army and they brought in tanks, machine guns, and cavalry troops led by Douglas MacArthur and his aide Dwight D. Eisenhower, which they burned the Veteran’s camp. Hoover opposed the bonus because he didn’t believe it was financially sound. A local newspaper called it “The Tensest Day in the capital since the War.”

Period #4 Dust Bowl The Dust Bowl was the name given to the area of the southern Great Plains that was severely damaged by droughts and dust storms during the 1930’s. It occurred in Western Kansas, Oklahoma, Northern Texas, Eastern Colorado and New Mexico. It was caused from when people cleared farmland for wheat farming this made soil loose then soil was blown causing the Dust Bowl. The New Deal programs finally brought relief to victims of the Dust Bowl. In addition to helping migrants, the federal government taught farmers in the Dust Bowl new conversation measures to preserve their land. Rains eventually fell, but true prosperity did not return to America until factories agreed up production for World War Two.

Eleanor Roosevelt Eleanor Roosevelt was the hardest working first lady ever. She single handedly took on the role of the president when FDR couldn’t. Before Eleanor Roosevelt came to Washington D.C., the first ladies just helped their husband’s campaign. Eleanor changed all that by starting press conferences, lectures, radio broadcasts, a daily news column called “ My Day”, and never shirked off official duties. She was FDR’s eyes and ears and always met the people with a smile. When Franklin was stricken with polio Eleanor was his representative, companion, and reporter who kept him aware of the issues by going undercover in the slums and in the public.

Escapism Connie Mack was a famous baseball player and the star catcher for the Washington Senators and the Pittsburgh Pirates one of his many famous quotes is ”Humanity is the keystone that holds nations and men together when that collapse the whole structure crumbles this is as true of baseball teams as any other pursuit in life”.

FDR FDR’s first job in politics was New York State Senator. He was elected as Senator in 1910. While Senator, he worked on soil conservation, state development of electric power, women’s suffrage, and workmen’s compensation. He also set a maximum workweek of 54 hours for boys ages 16-21.

Hoover Hoover was a proud man; he loved his country and the people who lived there. He attempted to persuade Americans that the depression would be over as fast as it started. His role in the great depression varied between helping Americans while they struggled to make it through the depression, or to hesitate and wait for a few years before attempting to help America. Hoover proposed the public works, which gave unemployed men and women jobs, the government approved and soon people were involved in public works programs. Though people received low wages, they worked to put food on the table, and a roof over there heads.

Period #6 Dust Bowl The Dust Bowl was an area of land that was in very high drought and had high winds. The Dust Bowl covered most of the mid-west United States including, Montana, North and South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico. The Dust Bowl was caused by drought and the farmers of the mid-west used their technology (tractors, plows, and other tools) to dig up the ground for wheat farming and didn’t realize that the grass held the ground in place. Life in the Dust Bowl was tragic to a lot of people, mostly farmers. Farmers lost almost every bit of their money due to the drying up of their crops, and the damage to their homes and not being able to pay for it.

Eleanor Roosevelt Before Eleanor Roosevelt became first lady in 1933, the role of a first lady was primary to be a loyal, supportive wife. Also she was expected to be a symbol of home, family, and womanhood. A first lady was a political partner with her husband. Some of the ladies supported the presidency behind the scenes. Some of them use the title of first Ladies to effect change in their own right. Eleanor the first lady that actually had a political role during her husband’s presidency. She was one of the most active first ladies they have had.

Escapism James J. Braddock was born in New York to a poor Irish family. He was a boxer. He had a powerful right hand and a successful career. In 1926 he turned pro. He had victories over Jimmy Slaughter and Pete Latzo. When the stock market fell James didn't’ have a job. It was very hard for him to keep food on his table. He fought with a broken hand just to put food on the table for his family. In 1934 his luck changed. He was hired to work for The Lang Shore Men. He won against Corn Griffin and John Henry Lewis. He then set himself up to fight the heavy weight champ Max Bear. On June 13th, 1935 he went into the heavy weight championship of the world. He defeated Max Baer and won the heavy weight championship. James J. Braddock fought honorably in World War Two. James J. Braddock died on November 29th 1974.

FDR FDR’s presidency was great with few flaws. He seemed to bring a fresh approach to politics. He helped the American people regain faith in themselves. His impact on the depression was great, he right away got going and went to help the people. He had to help people work themselves through the depression. During the “New Deal” he had many programs(The AAA, PWA, TVA, SSA, and many more). The “New Deal” laws and regulations affected banking, stock market, industry, agriculture, public works, relief for the needy, and conservation of resources.

Hoover President Hoover thought that the American people were the most independent people in the human race, so much that he had no doubts about pulling through the depression. He had his own theory about the United States called “Rugged Individualism.” This played a major role in Hoover’s actions; this is why he didn’t react to this dilemma. He thought that the depression was only temporary and said “Relief was just around the corner!” Actually, it took him a total of two years to react.

Period #7

Dust Bowl The Dust Bowl all started when the new technology for farming was invented. The farmers would plow up the old crops and stir up the dry dirt. Then when the wind would blow there would be big dust storms. This was called the dust bowl. This lasted for at least ten years. This was called the dust bowl. The states that got hit the least were Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming and New Mexico. The states that got hit the worst were Texas, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Nebraska. Then state that got the most sever damage was Kansas.

Eleanor Roosevelt Eleanor’s time as first lady was different from her predecessors in that she was a distinguished public figure in her own right and also a humanitarian, diplomat, social reformer, and author. Her work in behalf of youth, blacks, the poor, women, and the United Nations were as important as her twelve years as first lady, establishing her as one of the most important women of the 20th century.

FDR Franklin D. Roosevelt was president for 13 years until his disease polio took him from us. Roosevelt’s accomplishments in various political accomplishments began with his election to the New York State senate as a democrat in 1910.It quickly gained the national limelight as the leaded of an upstate coalition that fought the NYCS democratic machine. It was a supporter of Woodrow Wilson’s candidacy as the democratic nominee in 1912. Resulted in his appointment to the post assistant secretary of the navy, which he held during War World 1.

Hoover Hoover thought that the American people were the strongest people around. He had a good reason for thinking that, we just helped Europe get out of the biggest war the world had ever seen. So the Stock Market crashed, these people could get themselves out of this right? Wrong, businesses were firing worker and because no one had any money to buy the surplus of goods that the farmers were producing, the economy didn’t have the money to get back on its feet. So why didn’t Hoover help? Well pretend you were Hoover and you didn’t know how bad it was going to get and that this was going to be the greatest depression the world had ever seen. Well Hoover figured that out a little to late to regain the trust of the American people.

Actually Hoover did intervene into the economy in many significant ways. Also many of FDR's programs actually prolonged the depression and were unconstitutional(and later declared so by the courts). You seem to think: Hoover=Bad Guy and FDR=Good Guy but the truth is much more complicated. --Jayson Virissimo 06:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This user seems to have gotten away with quite a bit of vandalism by being very subtle and simultaneously adding seemingly useful or valid information while vandalizing. As an excellent example of his vandalism, I point you to his edit of 0910 3 May 2006. In this edit, in addition to rewording several sections (for the worse, I might add), he added the sentence "The Great Deppression [sic] was very bad" at the bottom of the article. I strongly suggest all edits by this user be carefully studied and considered for reversion. -michael 17:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

RJensen generally makes informed, sourced contribution to articles. ""The Great Deppression [sic] was very bad" was added by 12.182.70.131 which RJensen reverted. It appeared on the next edit of RJensen, probably because of not being careful enough of using the latest revision. If anything, RJensen's work need to be studied and improved by including material of a different view point from high-quality sources. JonHarder 17:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I apologize for referring to his edits as vandalism. They still needed to be removed, however, as they were rambling and unnecessary. -michael 19:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I try to revert vandalism when I spot it but sometimes I miss some. (In this case I reverted back to an old version that contained some vandalism I failed to notice. Sorry.) If someone wants to improve on my work, why go right ahead. Rjensen 05:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope you will accept my sincere apology. I mistakenly thought the vandalism was your addition, and that you were subtly sneaking in vandalism along with legitimate edits. I realize I was quite mistaken, and should have reviewed the situation a little further before getting angry about it. -michael 19:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I had no idea it was this bad. :)

I see 453453535435% of the workforce was unemployed in 1933. That's... a lot. · rodii · 13:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see it was recent vandalism. Never mind, reverted. · rodii · 13:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Put it back. I got it from a reliable source--the Prozac website. Math Challenged 23:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

disputed statistics

there is no dispute about the statistics--they all come from standard sources. The problem is that some people have such a load of POV they refuse to believe them. And they seem unable to offer their own statistics. Rjensen 13:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to my deletion of the farm statistics, again I apologize. I was unable to confirm your source and assumed you had made it up, per my mistake about you being a vandal. If you would like to add it back in, feel free, although I would strongly recommend using a wiki table rather than the html table you previously used. Just to clarify- my problem with the statistics was not a POV thing; I honestly believed you were a vandal, and, being unable to confirm the source, assumed the worse. -michael 19:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

US article on featured candidate

Just to let you guys know, the United States article is on featured article candidates list, so you can cast your vote there- or not.--Ryz05 19:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Images in Migration Section

User:71.225.9.149 recently added several pictures to the Social trends: migration section. I think these pictures add quite a bit to that section, but their current placement interrupts the text. Can someone with more typesetting skills than me please arrange these pictures in a nicer way? -michael 18:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Farm statistics in the intro

Rjensen, I put the tag not because I do not believe you, but just because if no source is provided how I'm supposed to know it's not a joke someone inserted him? Statistics always need source, and also to be explained: you don't precise if they concern the US, from when to when, etc. Please add these precisions since you do seem to have the exact reference for it, either in the text or in the note for additionnal details. We should be careful about statistics, nothing else... Cheers, Tazmaniacs 16:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I added a footnote to two books with details. Rjensen 17:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice improvement. Could you tell if the statistics concerns only the US or are world-wide? Tazmaniacs 05:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Chronological mixup?

The first sentence reads: "The Great Depression was a worldwide economic downturn, starting in 1929 and lasting through most of the 1930s."

But then further down: "The Great Depression in East Asia was the due mainly to World War II."

World War II began in 1939. Are these two sentences referring to the same Great Depression? Typos 09:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

it was a mistake and I fixed it. Rjensen 09:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Autarky

In the section, "Trade Decline and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act", the use of the word "autarky" to describe German economic policy does not seem to mesh with the definition in the article autarky. Could someone explain? -- Beland 00:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

i tried to fix the autarky article. Rjensen 00:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

focus on economy

The article focuses almost entirely on the various theories of economic causes of the Depression, while discussing very little about its effects. Overall, it is not particularly helpful, and could use a massive editing job from a knowledgeable person. 69.180.48.104 01:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

offhand Keynes quote does not help explain the Great Depression

Keynes was himself unimpressed, saying "I had supposed the President was more literate, economically speaking." (TIME Magazine, March 29, 1999, [4])

This quote is POV-- it would not be used except to ridicule FDR. It tells us nothing about the Great Depression. So it should not be there. It was an offhand comment by keynes. (Who was notoroiusly difficult to understand. "Keynesian" theories that economists use were rewritten versions made by his students. Rjensen 15:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, well that's better than the previous explanation. But, I disagree. I don't have any opinion on FDR and the quote was added because it added context not to try and ridicule anybody. As to telling nothing about the subject, arguably the original FDR quote doesn't do that either! Still, it's interesting reading and I think that whole section should remain. I don't know whether Keynes was hard to understand or not but that should probably be discussed elsewhere, and it seems rather unfair to only give one side of the story for the meeting.

The point of the story is that nobody understook Keynes. Not FDR, not his own students.Rjensen 15:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to make a point about Keynes in the middle of a Great Depression article though; debate about how understandable he was don't belong here. All that matters is that Keynes tried to give advice, FDR said one thing, Keynes said another. Reader can draw their own conclusions or read the Keynes article for more info. Maybe the whole section should be removed?

I agree--the FDR & Keynes quotes are irrelevant here, in a section about macro models. So I dropped them. Rjensen 15:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Trade Decline and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act

"The British Empire promoted trade inside the Empire; Germany promoted economic autarky in which countries received benefits (or threats) for trading with Germany."

This sentence implies that Germany offered threats in exchange for trade. I think the edit should be more than a parenthetical jab. Also, I thought an autarky was a closed system in which trade with other countries was discouraged. If Germany used benefits or threats to stimulate trade it doesn't sound too much like an autarky. Kidigus 17:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Germany used very heavy handed threats--the Nazis were not nice businessmen. For example, you had to cancel deals with British & French companies to get their business. The goal was a closed system that revolved around Germany. Rjensen 17:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I dig, thanks. Can I add an edit that changes...

"The British Empire promoted trade inside the Empire; Germany promoted economic autarky in which countries received benefits (or threats) for trading with Germany."

to...

"The British Empire promoted trade inside the Empire; While Germany promoted economic autarky, it did attempt to stimulate trade through both trade benefits and threats."

or something along those lines? Kidigus 18:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That makes the Nazis sound like trade promoters. They were trying to build a closed economic system with satellites.Rjensen 18:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This is my problem with the sentence; It already makes the Germans sound like they promoted trade. It does so in a way that also says they offered "threats for trade". My edit is more of a grammatical edit, you may want to edit the historical facts since that seems to be your forte.Kidigus 19:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Economics POV?

"Hoover's "voluntary cooperation" failed, but his policies during his tenure proved that the government needed to take an active role in the economy if it was to recover from this depression." - Isn't that a matter of interpretation? One could easily argue that Roosevelt's policies did not help the US recover from the depression ... that instead the increase in production from World War II pushed the US out of the depression.

Shorten causes section

Since Wiki has a long article on the causes of the great depression, I shortened the section here. Rjensen 16:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree the causes section is way too long, especially given that they have their own page Causes of the Great Depression. Perhaps if the sub-section dividers were removed, so the Causes section became a large collection of paragraphs, then it would be easier to shrink the section to a paragraph or two that directs the reader to the Causes of the Great Depression page. -The Gomm 03:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

POV Headers

I've made a few changes to headers in the Causes section. Since the debate rages on about the causes of any economic depression, it seems prudent to portray that in the presentation. -- RayBirks 02:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism

Section on capitalism (written 10/10/2006) is entirely a radical ideological point of view. From a NPOV it should be edited or deleted or placed in the context of other ideological points of view. I added labeling. I think it should be delted.Sojournerpaul 04:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Pitures

If you need pictures, check out the Dear America series for "Christmas After All." There are some great pictures in the back in the historical note.

Vandalism?

The articel starts with, "The Great Depression was actually caused because of a shortage of money, because everyone was spending it on Marijuana."

That would be a heck of a case of "reefer madness", but I never heard this particular explanation in my college economics classes.

Seems to me if there so much spending on marijuana, the demand for munchies alone would have cured the Depression. (I could be wrong...) Cheech N. Chong 00:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many countries in the world.

This text is found under the heading "Suggested causes of depression":

" For example in our agricultural sector..."

In whose agricultural sector? There are alot of us out here in the rest of the world. Remember that sometimes "we" and "our" just don't apply.  ;)

Until there has been a good deal more contributed to this article, it will necessarily be USA centric, but that only makes it all the more necessary to delineate American information as such.

I also find it interesting that the suggestion to separate American content to its own article was opposed, yet the Canadian content is conspicuous by its absence.

No definition

Intro text doesn't contain a definition statement. Aarrgh. Ethan Mitchell 17:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Jeezum, that was fast. Ethan Mitchell 17:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations wanted

Removed a vandalism snipped written in plain HTML, which wanted to make the title say "It was a hard time". Despite that, I think the article needs some good citations from that time or from contemporaries of that time. -Mardus 02:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Japan suffering from depression?

From The Dark Valley , copyright 2000, by Piers Brendon: "Thus the Japanese, possessing few raw materials and reliant on international trade, were shattered by the Depression. Nowhere else did the economic crisis implode more viciously or explode more rapidly. It pervaded the life of the country and warped the psyche of its inhabitants. It emphasized the poverty and fragility of their existence in a land so bereft of raw materials, so reliant on foreign trade." "Farming families, whose average annual income was only 300 yen, found that their rice fetched a third less in 1930 than it had in 1929." "Worse still, owing to the increasing popularity of rayon as well as to the collapse of the American market, the price of their other main cash crop, the 'God-sent merchandise' of raw silk, fell by more than half." "So the plight of the farmers became a source of increasing rancour and strife inside Japan. The failure to improve conditions discredited not just the politicians but the democratic system that produced them and the capitalist system which sustained them."

As I happen to be reading this book, and seeing this passage, it appears to compare completely contradictory to what is written on the site. So I'm hoping this other side can be represented.

I agree. Also, why does Japan not have a section under the Effects heading? As a largely trade based country, I'd have thought that there'd be plenty to write about. - Charles Baynham 22:49, 4 February 2007

What's up with an uneditable note?

From the section titled "The New York Stock Market Crash":

"*(Note: all information on this website, is said to be accurate. Yet it may be subject to bias or opinion.)"

Why is a statement so "unofficial looking" in that section? Why shouldn't it be text in the wiki, editable like any other?

The page was locked due to repeated vandalism. As for your issue with the wording: it should be a bit different, I agree. MiG 17:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What is it?

In depth, detailed article about the impact of the great depression, but what was it exactly? What characterized it? To me, the first paragraph should be expandedand the rest moved.

Diodisegno 07:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)