Talk:Great Depression/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Semi-protection

Does this need semi-protection or is it adequately patrolled? The recent contribution list is mostly vandalism and undoing of the same. If it needs semi-protection, hop on over to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and ask. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, it's becoming a regular event. MrZaius^talk 12:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just asked for a longer protection period, ideally indefinite. I personally would like to take a hand at restructuring parts of this this article and having a useful conversation about it, but its hard to do when the entire history is just a massive list of IP reverts. Please share your frustrations on this talk page, I've linked it to my request.--Work permit (talk) 02:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Turning point and recovery

Can we add a link here from Howard Zinn's "A People's History of The United States" about "War is the health of the state"meaning making weapons helped end the GD? Here: http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnwarhea14.html Stars4change (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Another link that should be added to the recovery - In seven short years, under massive Keynesian spending, the U.S. went from the greatest depression it has ever known to the greatest economic boom it has ever known. The success of Keynesian economics was so resounding that almost all capitalist governments around the world adopted its policies http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Keynesianism.htm

Also.. to further back up Keynesian is the current Economic Climate that has validated that Freidmans monetary policy failure shows that Keynes was right all along...

Friedman’s claim that monetary policy could have prevented the Great Depression was an attempt to refute the analysis of John Maynard Keynes, who argued that monetary policy is ineffective under depression conditions and that fiscal policy — large-scale deficit spending by the government — is needed to fight mass unemployment. The failure of monetary policy in the current crisis shows that Keynes had it right the first time. And Keynesian thinking lies behind Mr. Obama’s plans to rescue the economy. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/opinion/05krugman.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.84.197 (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Turning point and recovery

In response to the "expand section" tag I made a start on re-making this section. To save time I refer readers to my "The Great Depression in Facts and Figures" Web site for more details, data, and especially references. I have no problem with importing all this into the Wiki page, but it's not something I'm going to be able to get to soon -- it would be a lot of work to do it right. Anyone else who wants to weigh in is welcome, but I hope we won't wander off into the muddle, uninformed speculation, and unsourced fantasy we see so much of at many points in this article and elsewhere relating to the Depression. Will O'Neil (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but some of the content was original research and some of it was based on your personal site that is not a reliable source. It is best to source content to reliable secondary sources. Also, please be aware of our guideline on external link spamming. Thanks. -- Vision Thing -- 22:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I reversed "Vision Thing"'s summary deletion of all my work without looking at this entry, for which I appologize, but I still strongly disagree with it in principle and think the reasons given are inapplicable. I cannot see that there is any "original research" in what I said — it is simply a good-faith attempt to very briefly summarize and contrast research published by recognized academic authorities in major journals. What is "original" about this? (I have done original research in this area but don't cite it as it is not prominent enough.) So far as I am aware, I have addressed all of the major currents of thought regarding the issues — something that certainly could not be said of the entry the Vision Thing reverted to. I have consulted with several academic economists with a spectrum of views to be sure.

The external link spamming guidelines are clear, and clearly don't apply to this case. The site in question is simply a place where readers can find more details and in particular a lot of citations. Why is it a good thing to deprive them of this? When I can find the time, and am not tied up fighting to keep what I've already written, I plan to import the citations to here. These include a lot of links to "personal" Web pages of academic authors who provide copies of their articles so that readers who lack access to expensive J-STOR or journal sites do not have to pay $30 or more for access. Will these be deleted as "external link spamming"? If so, it is hard to see much hope for Wikipedia.

If Vision Thing and others wish to make Wikpedia better rather than worse I would suggest spending the time making valuable changes rather than simply summarily destroying contributions on the grounds that they do not altogether agree with them. Will O'Neil (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are summarizing others people research you need to name your sources, and your website is not a reliable source. You are from some investment company and you seem to be using this and others articles to promote it. Such behavior is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. -- Vision Thing -- 12:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not from some investment company. And I do name my souces, or did before "Vision Thing" trashed my work. It's all a smokescreen of lies. I'm simply an independent scholar who thought it might be nice to clean up some of the terrible misinformation in this article. But I give up. I'm going to tell my academic friends that they are right, that the economics part of Wikipedia at least is captive to a cabal of obscurantists and idealogues who are too cowardly even to reveal who they are. I'm going to tell them that they are right to forbid their students to make any use whatever of Wikipedia, and I'm going to tell everyone I know that Wikpedia is to be treated with great suspicion, especially any part with "Vision Thing's" hoof marks anywhere in evidence. So be happy, you've done what you set out to do. Will O'Neil (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In a general article like this, for which reliable sources are abundant, you have used links to your personal website three times, and to an image which prominently displays your name once. If that is not self-promotion, I don't know what is. -- Vision Thing -- 11:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There are still some problems with this section:

• second and third paragraph have OR and POV problems – for example if you want to say that some view is a consensus one you need a reliable source to support that statement (see Wikipedia:RS#Consensus). I think it is better to introduce those claim by attributing them to specific authors. Importance of dollar devaluation is already covered, and I believe that Friedman and Schwartz had said something about importance of establishing FDIC.
• last paragraph reads like an essay

-- Vision Thing -- 13:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

1937 Recession and recovery issue

The summary as it is here is really bad -- full of unverifiable conjecture, some of it flatly wrong on the facts. I suppose that this reflects the main article, which I haven't time to look into. But if I or anyone else ever gets around to fixing the main article the summary will be an orphan of illegitimate parentage. So why include it?Will O'Neil (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I replaced this sub-section with a summary from one page in Maurice Lee's book headed "The Contraction, May 1937 - June 1938". Greensburger (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Union

Unless anyone has any objections, I'd like to go ahead and remove the below passage from the Soviet Union section. The reason being that neither the Ukrainian famine or the reduction in living standards were related to the Great Depression or had any bearing at all on it. Both were the result, directly or indirectly, of the Soviet industrialisation drive. Mentioning them here gives the false impression that they were a consequence of the the depression affecting the ROTW at the time (which also contradicts the first part of the section). See Davies et al, "The Economic Transformation of the Soviet Union"

In fact the source given for the the below (51) confirms that the decline in living standards was due to "problems in their own industrialization efforts"

"Unlike the previous similar famine in Russia, information about the Soviet famine of 1932–1933 was suppressed by the Soviet authorities until perestroika. In 1933 workers' real earnings sank to about one-tenth of the 1926 level.[51] Common and political prisoners in labor camps were forced to do unpaid labor, and communists and Komsomol members were frequently "mobilized" for various construction projects" GreatGodOm (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC) miss katie lol, the great depression is interesting............. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.168.68.3 (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It is really ridiculous.Of course the crisis in western countries had impact on the economy of USSR. USSR was an important exporter of agricultural products. And the fall in prices worsen the situation in USSR which was critical without world crisis.The industrialization in USSR was not what some people think it was. Before Stalin USSR(Russia) exported grain, after Stalin oil and between millions died of starvation.Celasson (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Why was this information on inequality removed?

Inequality of wealth and income

Marriner S. Eccles, who served as Franklin D. Roosevelt's Chairman of the Federal Reserve from November 1934 to February 1948, detailed what he believed caused the Depression in his memoirs, Beckoning Frontiers (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1951)[27]: As mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass consumption, in turn, implies a distribution of wealth -- not of existing wealth, but of wealth as it is currently produced -- to provide men with buying power equal to the amount of goods and services offered by the nation's economic machinery. [Emphasis in original.] Instead of achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by 1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. This served them as capital accumulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products that would justify a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in new plants. In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped. That is what happened to us in the twenties. We sustained high levels of employment in that period with the aid of an exceptional expansion of debt outside of the banking system. This debt was provided by the large growth of business savings as well as savings by individuals, particularly in the upper-income groups where taxes were relatively low. Private debt outside of the banking system increased about fifty per cent. This debt, which was at high interest rates, largely took the form of mortgage debt on housing, office, and hotel structures, consumer installment debt, brokers' loans, and foreign debt. The stimulation to spend by debt-creation of this sort was short-lived and could not be counted on to sustain high levels of employment for long periods of time. Had there been a better distribution of the current income from the national product -- in other words, had there been less savings by business and the higher-income groups and more income in the lower groups -- we should have had far greater stability in our economy. Had the six billion dollars, for instance, that were loaned by corporations and wealthy individuals for stock-market speculation been distributed to the public as lower prices or higher wages and with less profits to the corporations and the well-to-do, it would have prevented or greatly moderated the economic collapse that began at the end of 1929. The time came when there were no more poker chips to be loaned on credit. Debtors thereupon were forced to curtail their consumption in an effort to create a margin that could be applied to the reduction of outstanding debts. This naturally reduced the demand for goods of all kinds and brought on what seemed to be overproduction, but was in reality underconsumption when judged in terms of the real world instead of the money world. This, in turn, brought about a fall in prices and employment. Unemployment further decreased the consumption of goods, which further increased unemployment, thus closing the circle in a continuing decline of prices. Earnings began to disappear, requiring economies of all kinds in the wages, salaries, and time of those employed. And thus again the vicious circle of deflation was closed until one third of the entire working population was unemployed, with our national income reduced by fifty per cent, and with the aggregate debt burden greater than ever before, not in dollars, but measured by current values and income that represented the ability to pay. Fixed charges, such as taxes, railroad and other utility rates, insurance and interest charges, clung close to the 1929 level and required such a portion of the national income to meet them that the amount left for consumption of goods was not sufficient to support the population. This then, was my reading of what brought on the depression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slarabee (talk • contribs) 23:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Here is another quote on the topic

The greater the disparity in wealth between the very rich and everyone else, the more unstable an economy becomes. Our nation has now created a larger gap in the distribution of wealth than the massive chasm that helped fuel the Great Depression. In 1928, one year before the global economic collapse, the wealthiest .001% of the U.S. population owned 892 times more than 90% of the nation’s citizens. Today, the top .001% of the U.S. population owns 976 times more than the entire bottom 90%. This is not sustainable, and makes for a very volatile economy. It would appear that the American empire is about to crash. Source: EcoLocalizer 70.113.65.70 (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

A new Great Depression

I would suggest adding a topic in this article, about the possibility that many economists predict that we can be about to enter a new Great Depression. Realize that a part of the thinkers predicts that recovery will be soon, and others predict that it should last 5 to 10 years, which then it could be a called as a new Great Depression due to the similarly of changes. Maybe a list of those predictions and how the lifestyles change, would be interesting. At least this recession is already promising to last a few years if not more, in a quite more dramatic way than previous ones and with a powerful worldwide impact, unlike previous recessions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irpsit (talk • contribs) 05:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

While it might be worthwhile noting that many pundits are comparing the current crisis to the Great Depression, as it is the article refers to the specific historic depression of the early 20th C. Such a topic, as you're suggesting, already exists in Late_2000s_recession. Either that or wait a decade or two to see if this current crisis does indeed becaome the new 'Great Depression'... GreatGodOm (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It might not be the worst idea in the world to explicitly discuss the Depression as a benchmark, however. There hasn't been a recession in my lifetime that some talking-head hasn't tried to compare to it. MrZaius^talk 01:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact, John Rublowsky suggests "Indeed, there are critics who argue that our economy never did recover from the [Great] depression ." Current economic depression could be the result of the Great Depression, and therefore it would be a valuable discussion to sutdy the relationship between the current economic crisis and the Great Depression. Current one could be 'the New Great Depression.'—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bri bri000 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In time there may be a rename. What we now call World War I was, prior to WWII, referred to as "The World War". It's too early to say. Usage of the phrase "second great depression" in reliable sources is picking up. [1] At some point, we may be using the phrase "First Great Depression" about the 1929 one. But not yet. --John Nagle (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The unemployment rate in 1932

I was looking for a quick source for an unemployment percentage for a college paper. I figured I could use the link from the reference given on this page, which is #67 in the list of references. However, when I clicked on the link, which I believe is http://www.shambhala.com, it lead me to some meditation blah blah blah page that had absolutely nothing to do with the Depression. I believe the rate of unemployment listed should be removed unless another source can be found to match that data. Hrooftheday (talk) 06:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC) hrooftheday

Rjensen has provided the requested source reference. Greensburger (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Way I look at it, this is another form of a great depression. No jobs available, and very little income coming thru. How are we going to survive this one is to keep on trucking like how we are. In the right direction, and deal with what we have to deal with. Ironically, my parent's, were born in or around the great depression. Their health isn't very well at all, and they beleave that they will die during hard times. We all need to help and work with each other, to make sure that we all can survive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.117.69.20 (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Broken windows

"America's Great Depression ended in 1941 with America's entry into World War II."

That's absurd. It's an extreme example of Bastiat's broken window fallacy. The fact that people in the US were building bombs and bombers for destruction overseas did not bring prosperity to the US. How could it? Prosperity returned only after the soldiers did. Young men digging fox holes in North Africa and Europe did not improve the domestic economy. Ask my 90 year old mom. She used ration books to live hand-to-mouth while my father slept in the mud on Anzio Beach. Wanton destruction of goods and non-productive employment never have and never will bring prosperity. Perhaps the morons who dreamed up the Cash For Clunkers program read Wikipedia. If I sound disgusted, it's only because I am. Jive Dadson (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

not absurd at all. Bastiat ASSUMES people are fully employed at all times. But what if only 80% of the people are fully employed at time 1 and 100% at time 2. That represents a huge jump in output. Furthermore some libertarians (like Higgs) assume that collective goods--like winning a war--are unmeasurable and thus unimportant. Observers at the time and since are agreed the American people placed a very high value on winning the war. They had a high priority on giving US soldiers the best planes, tanks, ships, uniforms, doctors, etc. They also had jobs and paychecks and could buy steak instead of beans. That's prosperity.Rjensen (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

"Many economists"

The word "many" often poses problems in Wikipedia articles. How many is "many"? In the case of economists and their theories, the problem is that "many economists believe..." suggests that what follows represents a substantial portion of the academic and professional community.

So... my question is about the article saying "Many economists, exemplified by Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian, believe that the economy should very quickly have returned to normal except for continued depressing influences, and point the finger to the lack of downward flexibility in prices and wages, encouraged by Roosevelt Administration policies such as the National Industrial Recovery Act. Some economists have called attention to the expectations of reflation and rising nominal interest rates that Roosevelt's words and actions portended."

I know that this argument is often used by conservatives to argue that Roosevelt was not so much responsible for the recovery as responsible for prolonging it. How mainstream an idea is this? Is it one of the primary schools of thought or is it more of a fringe opinion? I am inclined to change "many economists" to "some economists" because (IMHO) "many economists" gives this POV undue weight.

However, economics is not my area of expertise so I wanted to check with other editors before proceeding.

--Richard (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

re: Cole and Ohanian: Absent a count of scholarly citations I think the correct term is "two" not "many". Rjensen (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I am also extremely concerned by this point. "Many" respectable economists, political scientists, sociologists and historians in fact believe that FDR prolonged the recession. It is my humble opinion that this point should be reflected in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.147.26 (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream view

Last I checked, the mainstream view of macro-economics is still the Keynesian view. Policy is to first present the mainstream view, and then other viewpoints with appropriate weights. As such, this article should present the mainstream view about the great depression. That the depression was caused by a drop in Aggregate Demand and that the New Deal and other 'pump priming' policies helped reduce the severity of the Great Depression.

The most important secondary view is that monetary factors contributed to the Depression much more than is commonly accepted. (See Friedman's A Monetary History of the United States). Other viewpoints need to be kept to less weight.

Attempts to skew this article away from the mainstream view are inappropriate and against policy. Even if you hold a fringe viewpoint, the onus is on you to learn the mainstream viewpoint and to try to make sure this article reflects what is commonly accepted by academic economists and economic historians.

LK (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should check again because prevailing view is that monetary factors caused the Depression while Keynesian view is secondary. It would be helpful if you would clearly say what you think is wrong with the current version of the article. -- Vision Thing -- 10:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you open some economics textbooks. I will add cites from the half dozen or so in my office. Regardless, both Keynesian and monetarist explanations are similar and are both in the mainstream. They of the same nature, using the same models, and are different only in emphasis. I'm happy to have a section labelled 'Mainstream explanation' with subsections on Keynes, monetarists, intl trade, etc. However, mainstream and heterodox explanations rejected by the academic community should NOT be confused. LK (talk) 13:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to introduce a section call 'Mainstream explanation' please do. However, stop providing false edit summaries and removing sourced content. -- Vision Thing -- 14:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I note that your 'explanation' of your reversion is "false edit summary". You are edit warring. Stop. LK (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Not only are you giving false edit summaries and removing sourced content by stealth, you are also misleading readers. There is nothing inherently Keynesian in 'Debt deflation' and 'Breakdown of international trade' explanations. -- Vision Thing -- 19:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I will be rewriting the section soon, referring to some economic history textbooks. What is there now is essentially OR and SYN. LK (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Good publicly accessible references:

• Times Topics: The Great Depression
• Encarta: Great Depression in the United States
• The Crash and the Great Depression
• Britannica Online: Great Depression
• St Louis Fed: Great Depression Curriculum

Current article gives more than good overview of the topic. If you plan to do a major rewrite, I suggest that you create a sandbox version of the article first. -- Vision Thing -- 11:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

LK, except for rearranging sections in illogical way (why should section "Turning point and recovery" be placed before section on causes of the Great Depression?) your main contribution to the article is section "WWII and recovery":

"The massive rearmament policies to counter the threat from Nazi Germany helped stimulate the economies of Europe in 1937-39. By 1937, unemployment in Britain had fallen to 1.5 million. The mobilization of manpower following the outbreak of war in 1939 finally ended unemployment. America's Great Depression ended in 1941 with America's entry into World War II. In the United States, the massive war spending doubled the GNP, either masking the effects of the Depression or essentially ending the Depression. Businessmen ignored the mounting national debt and heavy new taxes, redoubling their efforts for greater output to take advantage of generous government contracts. Productivity soared: most people worked overtime and gave up leisure activities to make money after so many hard years. People accepted rationing and price controls for the first time as a way of expressing their support for the war effort. Cost-plus pricing in munitions contracts guaranteed businesses a profit no matter how many mediocre workers they employed or how inefficient the techniques they used. The demand was for a vast quantity of war supplies as soon as possible, regardless of cost. Businesses hired every person in sight, even driving sound trucks up and down city streets begging people to apply for jobs. New workers were needed to replace the 11 million working-age men serving in the military. These events magnified the role of the federal government in the national economy. In 1929, federal expenditures accounted for only 3% of GNP. Between 1933 and 1939, federal expenditure tripled, and Roosevelt's critics charged that he was turning America into a socialist state. However, spending on the New Deal was far smaller than on the war effort."

Sentences "In 1929, federal expenditures accounted for only 3% of GNP. Between 1933 and 1939, federal expenditure tripled, and Roosevelt's critics charged that he was turning America into a socialist state." are already present in the article. Rest of the content is incoherent POV that is largely unsourced. You have sentence declaring that "America's Great Depression ended in 1941 with America's entry into World War II" and "In the United States, the massive war spending doubled the GNP, either masking the effects of the Depression or essentially ending the Depression" right next to each other. Which is true, America's GD ended in 1941 or we are not sure whether it ended in 1941 or later? Other sentences are neither here or there. You glorify US war effort while not making it clear what was connection between it and GD. -- Vision Thing -- 13:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

VT, the version that you keep reverting to contradicts major reliable sources about the topic. See the 5 publicly accessible sources that I listed above. Looking at the history, it appears that many of the contradictions to reliable sources were introduced by edits that you made. For example, you have constantly removed the commonly accepted fact that the Great depression lasted till around 1939, and that it was WWII spending that finally ended the effects of the great depression. This is well sourced and undisputed by major reliable sources. I'm trying to bring the article in line with commonly accepted views from reliable sources. Your edits keep on reverting to a POV version. I will keep on moving the article forward, improving, correcting and adding cites. I suggest to you, that you do not obstruct this process. If anyone else is reading here, and is interested, there is an ongoing discussion on this issue at the talk page of Wikiproject Economics. LK (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that "ending at different times in the 1930s or early 1940s for different countries" is more encompassing, but I guess there is no harm in adding 1939 to the lead. However, you are putting too much emphasis on WWII. According to Christina Romer, "currency devaluations and monetary expansion were the leading sources of recovery throughout the world" and "Fiscal policy played a relatively small role in stimulating recovery in the United States." (source is Britannica) So not only section on WWII is badly sourced and incoherent, it is also misleading. -- Vision Thing -- 19:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I glad you have acknowledged that "Debt deflation" and "Breakdown of international trade" are not Keynesian explanations. -- Vision Thing -- 19:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If you read Romer's paper you will see that her claim is that monetary factors were the main engine for recovery in the 1930's, as fiscal policies were too weak to actually much effect the economy, until the large increases in spending in WWII. LK (talk) 10:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

She says: "World War II played only a modest role in the recovery of the U.S. economy." -- Vision Thing -- 16:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It continues, "while the war was not the main impetus for the recovery in the United States, it played a role in completing the return to full employment." BTW, why do you think Cristina Romer wrote the entry in Britannica? I find no mention of her name on the entry. LK (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course it played a role in reducing unemployment, but it was "a modest role" so the WWII doesn't deserve its own subsection in the recovery section. It deserves a sentence or two in the main section and everything else is undue weight.

Christina Romer wrote section 'Economic history', and Richard H. Pells wrote section 'Culture and society in the Great Depression'. Both are signed under theirs sections. -- Vision Thing -- 10:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It would improve our interaction if you did not start every editing session by reverting to you version. I admit that I have been doing the same, but that started after you reverted me twice. LK (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Are recent changes justified, or should they be reverted?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have recently edited the article to better reflect the views of mainstream economists and economic historians. I was quickly reverted by Vision Thing who has been reverting most of my changes. I would like feedback on whether the changes make the article better, or if they should be continually reverted, as has been done. —lawrencekhoo (via posting script) 10:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My main objections to the current (your) version of the article are:

• illogical article structure (sections on turning point and recovery and gold standard should come after section on causes);
• Keynesian explanation has preference over Monetarist explanation;
• section 'WWII and recovery' is incoherent and misleading (see my objections in the section above);
• section 'Soviet Union' doesn't describe catastrophic situation in the country during GD;
• in section 'Roosevelt administration' it is implied that Roosevelt administration caused both Recession of 1937 and recovery from it while role of the Fed is not even mentioned even though scholars insist they played a pivotal role in the episode (this is a problem in both versions). -- Vision Thing -- 16:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• illogical article structure (sections on turning point and recovery and gold standard should come after section on causes): They form part of the Time line section at the top of the article. The sections 'Causes', 'Effects' and 'Political Consequences' follow.
• Keynesian explanation has preference over Monetarist explanation: This is standard textbook treatment.
• section 'WWII and recovery' is incoherent and misleading (see my objections in the section above): Standard view among economic historians that WWII had a big part to play in the recovery. Your removal of this was unwarranted.
• section 'Soviet Union' doesn't describe catastrophic situation in the country during GD: You are engaging in synthesis unless you can find articles that link the Great Depression to Stalin's progroms. The fact is, most economists thought that the USSR did pretty well compared to capitalist countries during the Great Depression. There was a very active communist movement in the US at that time as well (which the article doesn't adequately address).

LK (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• I see perfectly well where you have put them, but they don't belong there. It isn't logical to have explanation of what was behind recovery before explanations of the causes of the Great Depression.
• According to Romer, "The initial decline in U.S. output in the summer of 1929 is widely believed to have stemmed from tight U.S. monetary policy aimed at limiting stock market speculation."
• I will respond in the section above.
• You deleted sourced claims about famine in the Soviet Union, while leaving unsourced claim about how "the Great Depression seemed to validate the theory of Marxism", and your explanation is that you are removing synthesis?

-- Vision Thing -- 10:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

1. I am trying to build a timeline section, and those sections belong there. Causes and Effects are naturally separate. If you like, I'm not averse to either a) incorporating causes and effects into the time line, or b) removing all causes for recovery from timeline, and having Causes, Causes of Recovery, and Effects, sections.

2. Keep in mind, Romer is a neo-Keynesian. There is almost universal agreement that the great depression was caused by a drop in Aggregate Demand, a Keynesian concept. Drop in AD can be caused primarily by monetary factors (LM) or drops in spending (IS) The jury is still out on which was more important. Textbooks favour both factors acting in concert. The section causes needs to be rearranged according to standard textbook treatment. I am seriously dissatisfied with it now. eg Keynesian is not structural. I will get around to it. It will probably emphasize the Agreegate Demand explanation vs others, with monetarist being part of agreegate demand.

3. The effect of WWII spending on GD is very well sourced, it should not be removed based on your reading of Romer's article.

4. Any source that does not refer to the Great Depression is prima facie synthesis, feel free to remove the section about Marxism becoming popular during the GD until a source is inserted, of which there are many. Just be prepared to have it reinserted when sourced.

LK (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC Comment: RFC Requesters should not comment within RFCs after making their Request. In a situation like this, it is reasonable for the other major position to briefly state its case as was done. You should both now be silent in this section of talk, as it is a Request for Comment from independent editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC Comment:

Article structure

Start; Causes; Turning point.

Size of section "Causes"

"Causes" should be no longer than the section Start. You have a main article you section cite as mains. Cut that down to three paragraphs max.

Explanation preference

Keynes takes priority as the standard explanation. Credible monetarist explanations are reactive adjustments to Keynesian critiques.

WWII and recovery

Not visible in the version of the article I read ; As of 10:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC) the version of WWII I read is the standard historical discussion of WWII & the great depression. Delete ¶beginning "Productivity soared" as its US specific (non-globalised), waffle, and doesn't account for the CIO strikes to 1941 or wildcats during the war. Cutting is better than correcting, as the para doesn't go towards the "Great Depression. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, do you mean the section should be kept except for above mentioned paragraph? LK (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, the section should be kept as it outlines a major conventional narrative. Given that "Causes" has its own main article, if space is an issue, enact my recommendation to trim "Causes" hard. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Globalise

This is horrifically US specific. Cut "causes" down and globalise sections such as start and recovery

Soviet Union

Any section claiming the Great Depression significantly influenced Soviet Economic development would be Fringe. The version of "effects" I saw adequately represents academic consensus over the nature of the debate.

Section "Roosevelt administration"

Should not exist. Globalise ; see treatment of the Great Depression in other countries. Have a Main Article title and hive it off into another article, or take your debate there. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

WWII provided a large number of economic incentives within Germany, the Soviet Union, Britain, the US, the Commonwealth, Japan, and imperial areas for profit and growth. The role of war in ensuring positive growth in all these economies, and war time booms, is fairly clear. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

However, this is still slanted towards America in terms of the causes and a disproportionate amount of information being devoted to the crisis in the US. I think it should be renamed. Soxwon (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have recently edited the article to better reflect the views of mainstream economists and economic historians.. End quote L.K. - That is pretty subjective and could run into problems as to weighting so called mainstream disproportionately, because it is assumed somehow to be a standard. There is no shortage of alternative interpretations that are not fringy in any way, and sourced and interesting, so caution is suggested as to editors claiming to be or who are expert editors, that well rounded and inclusive information as to point of view makes for the best presentation and most well rounded article. skip sievert (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As Skip and I are currently involved in a heated dispute on the WT:ECON page, this is not an impartial third party opinion. LK (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you refrain from judging my contribution to this and implying something that is not true? That is not good. You may consider something a heated dispute. I don't. Your opinion of what impartial is as to a third party opinion, is not really needed. - skip sievert (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the RfC is over and we're not getting any more comments. I suggest that we implement the suggestions made by Filefoo and Soxwon above. LK (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

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.

Propose freeze on edits till after RfC

Suggest we keep stable version, so that RfC is meaningful. VT, I've let you at the bat, and have only reinserted WWII sections, so that commenter has something to see. I have several objections to your edits, but am refraining from touching anything else. Suggest we freeze on this version so that RfC is responding to a particular version. I've contacted our RfC respondent to see if he could comment on WWII section. LK (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverted as non RS

{{cite book | title=Inside Secret Societies: What They Don't Want You to Know | author=Benson, Michael | publisher=Citadel | year=2005 | page=106 | url=http://books.google.com/books?id=pv62v43Yf00C}}
Book overview
In Secret Societies, readers will get inside information on: 
- The Freemasons--long considered the most mysterious of the major secret societies
- What really happens when the world's business elite meet for their annual ultra-secret meeting at California's infamous Bohemian Grove
- The Lion's Club--using secrecy in the name of public service
- Why Yale University's Skull & Bones is anything but a typical college fraternity
- The real purpose of the Committee of 300--and their stunning links to the New World Order
- How India's oldest criminal society, the Thugees, drew a deadly connection between religion and murder
- The mysterious history of the Knights Templar and their arch-nemeses, the Assassins
- And many more sizzling secrets
- Will captivate readers of phenomenal bestsellers like The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons. 

is not an appropriate source for social history of the Great Depression, per: WP:MILMOS#SOURCES which, in addition, the History team uses for its B-class sourcing. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats for sure. Funny conspiracy books are not r.s. - New World Order and Lizard heads? No way. skip sievert (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It says World War II instead of World War I

Can some one fix the mistake where it says World War II instead of World War I? Unknow6767 (talk) 11:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I checked all of the places where World War II is used and they are correct. The Depression (1930s) came after WW I (1910s) and before WW II (1940s). Greensburger (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No weight to conspriracy?

Pardon, but shouldn't there at least be a mention of it? As I understand it, alot (and by alot I mean ALOT) of 'crazies' believe this was engineered, and the fact that Bernanke and others agree with most of the conspiracy itself, just not the wording and conclusion, give them some weight - perhaps it should at least be mentioned? If they are right or wrong is up for debate, it's just quite alot of consensus. I have no scientific method study to back this up though, but the general consensus of conspiracy theorists (and I've come to this conclusion by checking major conspiracy sites with alot of hits like infowars et al) line up perfectly with Bernanke et al's conclusion except they (Bernanke) do not believe it was intentional. The key wording appears to be "intentional".

Something like, "the large majority of conspiracy theorists, regarding the great depression, believe this series of events was engineered and sustained by the FED purposefully to serve the wishes of their private owners" or something. I don't know.

130.243.214.113 (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought the Committee of 300 had planned it two hundred years in advance--Work permit (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Should add after third sentence: "In the U.S. it is dated from August 1929 through March 1933 (peak to trough; National Bureau of Economic Research)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheflin (talk • contribs) 20:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Under the heading "Turning Point and Recovery", in the last sentence, someone misspelled "have" with "hava".

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.74.62 (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Just a little thing, but would it be possible to edit the sentence: "Marx saw recession and depression as unavoidable under free-market capitalism as there are no restrictions on accumulations of capital other than the market itself." Marx saw recession and depression as unavoidable under capitalism full stop; he thought that State intervention could retard but not prevent it. The problem (Marx claimed) was the accumulation of capital itself (which implied a rising organic composition and thus a falling rate of profit), not whether that accumulation was controlled by the market or not. I'd suggest: "Marx saw recession and depression as unavoidable under capitalism as the rate of profit, which drives the capitalist economy, tends to fall. Marx claimed that only capital invested in labour produces profit (since only human labour can produce a value greater than its own). Thus, as the ratio between capital invested in the means of production and capital invested in labour grows over time, the rate of profit on the total capital declines." Told you it was just a little thing. Jamaber (talk) 14:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Hi, some readability suggestions for the introduction?

"Cities all around the world were hit hard, especially those dependent on heavy industry"

Maybe change to Cities worldwide were affected. Or delete the sentence altogether, as it's less concrete than its surrounding context. Or try converting it to a statement about heavy industry.

Also, when referring to countries as states in close to the context of America, it can get confusing.

"In some states, the desperate citizens turned toward nationalist demagogues—the most infamous being Adolf Hitler—setting the stage for World War II in 1939."

How about something like. In some, desperation enabled nationalist demagogues' rise to power - ... or In some, desperation of its peoples allowed nationalist demagogues' rise to power

"The decline in the US economy was the factor that pulled down most other countries at first, then internal weaknesses or strengths in each country made conditions worse or better."

How about, The decline in the US economy caused the initial downturn throughout most of world. [delete second half] As it goes on to detail the cause of global declines later. Else the statement bad or good things make things bad or worst leguisceeInsert non-formatted text here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimsonayala (talk • contribs) 01:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC) right - the NBER, the 'official' arbiter of business cycles (National Bureau of Economic Research) dates the depression from August 1929-March 1933 http://www.nber.org/cycles.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheflin (talk • contribs) 23:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Illegible Picture

The picture with the legend "US industrial production (1928–39)." is just a thin line and not legible (unless you go to the source: .) Please make it bigger. --62.203.195.166 (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

POV in "United States" section

The structure of the sequence of events in the "United States" section is POV. It deliberately creates the impression that Roosevelt's tax increases and spending cuts caused the market downturn. Since fiscal policies take some time to take hold, anything that happened immediately after these moves would be attributable to the depression itself, and the positive movement of the indicators in 1938 would if anything be attributable to Roosevelt's moves. Suggest cleanup of the section to remove POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.121.139.161 (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"The sudden and total collapse of US stock market prices"

The phrase "the sudden and total collapse of US stock market prices" is simply wrong. "Sudden" yes, but "total", no. If anything undergoes a "total" collapse, then it would be reduced to nothing. This was not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.201.226 (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Non-specific edits

Have edited syntax, etc. trying to avoid any changes to overall meaning, interpretations, etc. Clipjoint (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Not pure bias, strong evidence exists.

The view that Roosevelt's program was right for the economy yet did not go far enough has been illustrated by nobel prize wining economist Paul Krugman in http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/fiscal-fdr/ with GDP graph provided. GDP growth was greater than Hoover years, but still small. Eventually the small stimulus provided by the New Deal was dwarfed by an even larger government stimulus, the World War 2 economy. Here is another blog containing a graph of industrial production clearly showing a huge rise from 1933 to 1937 http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/even-more-on-nominal-wages/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickpalen (talk • contribs) 18:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote a blog some time ago that graphs unemployment from 1929 through 1941. Under Roosevelt unemployment came down every year except one. It declined from a high of 24.9% when he took office to just 9.9% in 1941. Since US entry into World War II did not take place until very late in that year, it is clear that had little to do with the unemployment rate that was already less than 10%. AsFields (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Pure bias

This paragraph in 'recovery' shows bias. Which economist says Roosevelt didn't do enough? He did too much. His policies exacerbated the problems. Roosevelt had us in the depression how long? He deserves 'zero' credit.

"The view among mainstream economists is that Roosevelt's New Deal policies either caused or accelerated the recovery, although his policies were never aggressive enough to bring the economy completely out of recession. Some economists have also called attention to the positive effects from expectations of reflation and rising nominal interest rates that Roosevelt's words and actions portended.[33][34] However, opposition from the new Conservative Coalition caused a rollback of the New Deal policies in early 1937, which caused a setback in the recovery.[35]"--69.154.19.21 (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe this paragraph is great and shows no bias. The economist says Rooselvelt didn't do enough. This economist is George W. Bush- worst president of the United States. Obama- the best, knows what to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.182.148 (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Gotta Love it

The Head of the Fed is used as a cite to bash the gold standard. This article states that the length and severity of the Great Depression can be reliably predicted by the time a country went off the gold standard. That is based on a quote from the head of the Fed.

In the US we had to get off the gold standard to save the Fed from itself. It had overprinted Federal Reserve notes in the 20's causing a bubble (Austrian School), and could not redeem them during the bank panics of the 30's because it did not have enough gold on hand and was therefore in danger of insolvency.

The length of the depression in the US was exacerbated by repeated tightenings of credit by the Fed even after the US and the Fed reneged on its obligations to convert paper to gold by way of the Roosevelt gold confiscation. In the late 30's the Fed tightened credit and caused a double dip (or a triple dip) to the US Great Depression. That tightening of credit in 1937 (4 years after the gold standard was dropped) "by the FED" had nothing to do with the gold standard and extended the Depression at least another 2 years years.

As an aside, economists who study the Great Depression should take up coin collecting. They would then be aware of the failure of the US government to mint coins in that period exacerbated the money shortages and panics of the early 30's. There are years where the US mint did not produce one single solitary silver coin of a given type (dimes quarters half dollars and dollars. For instance no half dollars were minted in 1930, 31 and 32 http://www.coincommunity.com/us_half_dollars/walking_liberty.asp Even worse no silver dollars were minted in 1929, 30, 31, 32 and 33 (a five year span) http://www.coincommunity.com/us_dollars/peace.asp No quarters were minted in 1931 with small runs in 1930 and 32, and no dimes were minted in 32 and 33 and small runs in 1930 and 31. These silver coins were what was common man used in his everyday life at the time. Using inflation tables its easy to confirm that a silver dollar had the purchasing power of about $15 current US paper dollar during the Great Depression.71.184.191.8 (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Literature section

I have recently removed a few recent titles from the literature section, and it has been reverted, so I think we can start a discussion here. This section contains some seminal works of fiction and best sellers, like The Grapes of Wrath, Of Mice and Men, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Blind Assassin. I feel we should limit this section to notable works, and not include books like David Taylor's Soul of a People: The WPA Writers' Project Uncovers Depression America, which is currently #197,516 in sales on Amazon.com. It's not a matter of it being a reliable source, but that it is undue weight to include this book in this section. I'm sure there are literally hundreds of books on the Great Depression, so I don't see why we should include every one, including those not notable enough to warrant an article on WP. Angryapathy (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Crobinson898, 2 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Latest edit by CNNG is vandalism. Another modified photograph. Request revert to previous version.

Crobinson898 (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Excessive human supply caused Great Depression

Increased automation of production and replacement of human workers with machines lead to excessive human supply. Unemployed workers could destroy system therefore government was forced to create useless jobs and go to war to destroy wealth of capitalists. Solution to Great Depression would be allowing corporations and wealthy people to own private armies and return of debtors' prisons(or other possible solution: being poor and unemployed would be a crime) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.53.143.203 (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Error in lead

At the top of the article, it says that international trade plunged from ½ to ⅔. ½=0.500, and ⅔=0.666..., and 0.500<0.666..., so I assume this would be an error, unless the scale for international trade would be backwards, or today's opposite/upside-down day...Please fix this error, as I do not know how to fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.14.81 (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC) I LOVE YOU GUYS!!!

il 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that it says it preceded World War Two, which makes no sense seeing as the second World War was 1939(or 1937)-1945. I think they I LOVE YOU GUYS!! JACOB CHAPMAN IS BEAST!@ ere meaning to say World War One, that should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael484 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

History of the Depression

I think the way the article is set up is messy. The start of the great depression is put first, then the cause, then the recovery. Could someone rearrange it? And put in a little more Information while your at it. Plus, the recovery part barely has anything. Most of the article has, e.g., Marxist point of view, "Austrian" point of view, and so on. Thank you if you did anything reader that is able to fix the article! J4Mii (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)J4Mii19:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Population decline

During the 1930s, millions of Americans disappeared, mortality rates climbed, and over 1 million farm families were evicted. Food supplies were destroyed.

the source is Russian--and if you're Russian the conditions described sound utopian compared to the USSR in the 1930s. But conditions were a bit different--the millions who disappeared, for example, were babies who were not born. (They were postponed until prosperity and reappear in the Baby Boom). Rjensen (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.216.221.124, 18 June 2011

Please change the name Ivan Kreuger to Ivar Kreuger, as that is/was his actual name

81.216.221.124 (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ^Avic_ennasis @ 17:30, 16 Sivan 5771 / 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Unemployment was less than 10% prior to US entry into the war.

The article states, "America's entry into the war in 1941 finally eliminated the last effects from the Great Depression and brought the unemployment rate down below 10%." In fact the average unemployment rate for all of 1941 was 9.9% according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics site: http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030124ar03p1.htm. While I cannot locate month by month data, it is clear that unemployment had fallen below 10% by the time of Pearl Harbor and US entry into the war in December of that year.

AsFields (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic sections

The sections sub Sweden and Thailand don't contain any actual economic information or insights, but are simply presentations of political side-effects of the Depression. The Swedish section appears to be more about their Social Democratic party than anything.

Although the section on Sweden does contain a link to Economy of Sweden, each of those two sections here is very thin on relevant information, and they appear to be stubs. Could they/can they be marked as such?

Or should they just be left as caveat lector?

--Polemyx (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

we should keep them--of course economics is not the only story. Rjensen (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Monetarist addition --- New York Fed loans to European Central Banks

I would like to get a reference to these loans made in the article, preferably in the Monetarist section. The material below can be used as the reference. It is from America's Great Depression by Murray N. Rothbard

These loans impacted both money supply (when the loaned gold left for Europe) and later confidence in the US dollar when the Europeans left the gold standard, and the Fed was looking to get paper money as a return on the gold it had loaned.

In 1931 the New York Fed had loaned European Banks over $150 million before they went off the gold standard. That's over 250 tons (at the then value of $20 to the troy ounce) and a substantial portion of Fed Assets of the time. These loans moved gold from the Fed to Europe reducing Fed gold stocks and reducing their ability to issue Fed Reserve notes, because of the 40% backing rule. A 2.5 multiplier based on the 40% backing means the US money supply dropped by over $375 Million due to these loans. The money multiplier due to fractional reserve banking makes this even worse (multiplier looks to be 10X from referenced material below). In comparison: Money pulled from banks in the bank panics of 1931 were $400 million and total US monetary gold at the time was around 4 billion, only a portion of which belonged to the Federal Reserve banks.

Today we'd call this the domino effect, debt contagion, or something similar. The Fed had bad debts which could have killed it and because its gold was never coming back from Europe it needed to either screw its own debtors or default. Default came when Roosevelt made owning gold illegal for US citizens relieving the Fed of its gold debts.

http://mises.org/rothbard/AGD/chapter10.asp

Throughout the European crisis, the Federal Reserve, particularly the New York Bank, tried its best to aid the European governments and to prop up unsound credit positions. In mid-July, the executive committee of the New York Bank had an all-day conference with the leaders of J.P.herefore loaned money to the Reichsbank to purchase German acceptances, and made special loans to other Central Banks to relieve frozen assets there. The New York Federal Reserve loaned, in 1931, $125 million to the Bank of England, $25 million to the German Reichsbank, and smaller amounts to Hungary and Austria. As a result, much frozen assets were shifted, to become burdens to the United States. The Federal Reserve also renewed foreign loans when borrowers failed to pay at maturity.

and

From the beginning of the depression until September, 1931, the monetary gold stock of the country had increased from $4 billion to $4.7 billion, as European monetary troubles induced people to send their gold to the United States. But the British crisis made men doubt the credit of the dollar for the first time, and hence by the end of December, America's monetary gold stock had fallen to $4.2 billion. The gold drain that began in September, 1931, and was to continue until July, 1932, reduced U.S. monetary gold stock from $4.7 billion to $3.6 billion. This was a testament to the gold-exchange standard that Great Britain had induced Europe to adopt in the 1920s.[4] Money in circulation also continued to increase sharply, in response to public fears about the banking structure as well as to regular seasonal demands. Money in circulation therefore rose by $400 million in these three months. Hence, the will of the public caused bank reserves to decline by $400 million in the latter half of 1931, and the money supply, as a consequence, fell by over four billion dollars in the same period. 71.184.188.254 (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Unemployment Chart

A more-detailed unemployment graph would be helpful. The existing one has poor resolution for the period of interest.--76.89.189.214 (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

there were no good unemployment statistics until late in the 1930s. Rjensen (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Even so, there are good sources that explain that the official unemployment figures drastically underestimated to true rate. In the early '30s many bosses parceled out work to as many part time workers as they could so that people wouldn't starve. Workers also would split work with their friends and relatives. This job rationing masked the true lack of work, which was catastrophic in a way that people today wouldn't even recognize. Speciate (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

we have much better statistics 1929-present on people actually working, including the number of hours they worked. There were NO "official unemployment figures" before about 1939 when the WPA & census began surveys that are still in use today. What we have are rough estimates by economic historians. Rjensen (talk) 21:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The unemployment rate in 1936 is listed at 11%, but no source is cited. Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates the correct rate was 17.0% (http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030124ar03p1.htm#37a). Suggest we change the value to 17%. CaroCogitatus (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

there was no official rate before 1939. There is an issue of including relief workers--WPA, CCC-- that brings the rate down to 11%. Rjensen (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Black Tuesday

Thursday or Tuesday? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.84.40.131 (talk) 11:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

please no red highlighting for "citation needed"

Noting that a citation is needed is definitely useful for those of you who are editing and maintaining a page. But for those of us who are just reading, the red highlighting makes it more difficult to read. Certainty keep the notes in there about when a citation is needed, but for the benefit of those of us reading, please remove the highlighting. Thanks.149.175.18.84 (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I cannot find a way to get rid of it either, for just my own viewing. 149.175.18.84 (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Grammar

Germany section, second paragraph should read "Repayment....was..." not "Repayment....were..."