Talk:Causes of the Great Depression

message: I don't want to get in an ideology of economics discussion, but I think the "first was the austrian school...then the keynesian school" wording is arbitrary ordering that may be conflated with some theories being more important or coming earlier chronologically than others.  I would hold that, if anything is first in terms of importance and chronology, it's probably the Keynesian explanation--that's the kind of stuff published immediately during and following.  But really, the same sentences could keep their order, and remove "first" and "second," as in, "Economic thinkers of the Austrian School think..."  Why not try that approach?65.117.234.99 (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Second paragraph of the lead

message: Practically every entry here has been writen by economists and economic graduates, and reflect their biased way of looking at things. Not one for example, can see that (real) interest rates rose from 0,5% in 1929 to 12,5% in 1930 and 1931, a nearly 2400% increase, turning a recession into  a banking crisis and a repression. 
I have had this analysis taken out some 15 times, probably by some economists that do not want this huge mistake to become public. 
So lets have some sections for Financial Analysits, Sociologists, Realists, state their convictions than have this Economist monopoly of this debate. 
Wikipedia should be a pluralist view of world events.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.26.121.140 (talk) 11:37, August 22, 2007 (UTC) 
If you do not cite a reliable source for your unbelievable numbers, they will be deleted.  In addition to a reliable source, you must also show how the numbers were calculated and give reasons why they are valid.  If by "real" interest rates, you mean adjusted for falling prices and wages that made each dollar more valuable and hence each interest payment became a much greater burden than before, then explain this by showing how the calculation is done.  Greensburger (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: professional blindness ? 

message: OK, I have made a cut at improving this post. I know it needs work. The contents table no longer matches and the formatting needs help.
However the content added is much more accurate and a better reflection of the mainstreams of thought. I think that alot of the stuff in the last half is spurious and should be deleted.
A list of changes made:
Inequality theory moved to alternate explanations section – could be grouped with Marxists, but it certainly doesn’t belong in orthodox section
Deleted lack of diversification theory. I don’t know anyone who takes this theory seriously. The economy is always changing, industries grow and die constantly. There is nothing about this theory that couldn’t apply to many other times in history when we didn’t have a Depression
The Gold standard theory was mostly wrong and was reworked into a different part of the article
The section on the credit structure was deleted. This is not a real explanation. First of all, farmers have been deeply in debt at many other times and it is not a causal factor. More importantly, the Depression was a world wide phenomenon and nothing in this explanation could account for that.
The Austrian section of the article was re written. It was a very poor rendition of what Austrian economists have to say about the matter.
Most  of the political section was deleted, because – it is US centric; it is covered elsewhere; or it was not accurate
American recession of 1937 and recovery section was deleted. This doesn’t belong in a “Causes of the Depression” section
Reworked explanations section – Keynes, monetarism, gold standard
The cycle theories section should be cut – they are not serious explanations.
I think the New Deal section should go too, but I didn’t cut it.
sojournerpaul 8/26/2006
Previous notes: 8/24/2006
There are lots of problems with this page. Theories are grouped badly and some are inadequately explained. The priority also has a major point of view problem. You could organize the page 2 ways as I see it. Historically - where you start with the prevailing theories at the time, move into Keynesianism, which dominated till the 70's, then into monetarism, which prevailed as conventional wisdom till the last decade or two where you have to give precedence to the theories of Eichengreen and Bernanke. 
The other way would be to start with the current conventional wisdom and then go into alternate explanations ranked by general acceptance or historical influence. Current conventional wisdom would be best captured by Bernanke's Depression book.
If you are going for a neutral point of view, you have to give precedence to the most widely acclaimed depression theorist who is now Fed Chairman. To organize this article as it is now set up is highly partial to views that are beyond the pale and make mockery of the NPOV.
I will try to help if I have time.
sojournerpaul 8/24/2006
This page needs
1. Organization, many theories are presented without context - the monetarist, credit and structural models are not as far apart as all that - all center on different IS-LM models, and argue different effects were the important disequilibria.
2.Coverage of a wider range of theories, the lack of a unified orthodox theory has given rise to many other theories, including some that have an impact on mainstream economics, such as Schumpter.
3. Coverage of contemporary theories - after all, we need to understand what they though they were doing.
Stirling Newberry 12:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [Unspecified Title]

message: I added a fairly detailed summary of the Austrian Theory of Business Cycle, but I just noticed that there was already a small section dedicated to "Liberal Capitalist Critiques of Democracy".  But I don't think "Ideological Theories" is a good category.  Instead, the theories should probably be divided into different schools, such as the ones listed in the Macroeconomics article: Austrian economics, Keynesian economics, Monetarism, New classical economics, New Keynesian economics, Supply side economics and Welfare economics.  I'll take a crack at reorganizing the information.--Blah99 21:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oops 

message: I find something quite surprising. The description of the "excess surpluses" & the deflation fx on agriculture is strikingly like what Jack London (Y, Call of the Wild) describes as causitives in his 1912 SF novel The Iron Heel....  Trekphiler 01:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Futurism? 

message: Minor question... what's the point in dividing external sources into "World" and "USA"? I seriously propose removing this division. 199.111.230.195 03:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: All theories described in the article are nice but rather difficult to follow. I recommend reading The Way The World Works by Jude Wanniski, mainly chapter 7, which nicely describes and explains the market crash in 1929 and the preceeding years.
::Wanniski writes well but has not done much research. Economists and historians do not take him seriously. He has a contradiictory argument to the effect that businessmen wanted a higher tariff and when they thought they might get it panicked and sent the stock market crashing.  Rjensen 22:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Way The World Works 

message: I've read Murray Rothbard's book "America's Great Depression" and I would like to add a section on Austrian Economic Theory's explanation of The Great Depression. It will take a bit of time to put the information in a cogent and succinct form and welcome any feedback.
::Please incorporate it into the section that already exists on Austrian Economic Theory/Caused by too much government Rjensen 15:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austrian Economic Theory Section 

message: The job of Wiki is not to tell what caused the depression, it is to tell what economists and policy makers thought. Some ideas may be out of fashion in 2006 (like underconsumption and credit) but they have to be covered because they significantly influenced policy makers.  Likewise the discussion of the Causes is 50% political and the political models (left and right) have to be presented if people are to understand proposed solutions like the New Deal. Rjensen 18:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki does not make choices 

message: This page has enough factual inaccuracies to flunk an entire history class at once. The "New Dealers" section is absolutely incorrect, there is significant over-coverage of Austrianism, lies of omission (my favorite one being the new dealers wanting to raise taxes - Hoover and the Republicans wanted to "tax everybody for everything" to rebalance the budget...) And it wasn't just the left that blamed capitalism, future Republican nominee for President Alf Landon blamed "the profit motive" and hoped for sweeping dictatorial powers to be used to solve the economic crisis. 
The misstatement of FDR's views is particularly vile. Roosevelt and the New Dealers did not blame business, they blamed, in varying orders: 1. The break down of trade and confidence ("We have nothing to fear but fear itself" people, there is a reason why the quote is famous) 2. The failure of old methods of dealing with problems. 3. The maldistribution of buying power, which led to insufficient demand for manufactured goods. 4. The lack of a social safety net. 5. "Cut throat Competition" leading to downward spiralling of wages - not business in general, but a few bad apples in business. 6. Lack of regulation to protect shareholders (See the book written by two New Dealers The Modern Corporation and Private Property - what we would now call the "actor problem" 7. Over production of agricultural goods. 
Lies, half truths, uncited (because uncitable) oversimplifications... there is simply not a single section of this page which is not far, far, far, far below the quality required of wikipedia. The editors here should be ashamed of themselves for producing a biased, inaccurate and poorly worked out article which from one side to the other reads like a 5th grader's understanding of the subject in question.
It needs to be rolled back to some much previous version and reworked from there, this version is just about hopeless. Stirling Newberry 19:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where you're getting your history from, but FDR started attacking businessmen on day one beginning with his inauguration address: "Primarily this is because rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence, have admitted their failure, and have abdicated. Practices of the unscrupulous money changers stand indicted in the court of public opinion, rejected by the hearts and minds of men. True they have tried, but their efforts have been cast in the pattern of an outworn tradition. Faced by failure of credit they have proposed only the lending of more money. Stripped of the lure of profit by which to induce our people to follow their false leadership, they have resorted to exhortations, pleading tearfully for restored confidence. They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish. The money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. We may now restore that temple to the ancient truths. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit."  Roosevelt was a virulent anti-capitalist who tried to convert the US into a planned economy. He blamed the Depression on businessmen and their quest for profits. He fostered an anti-business climate that created further fear of investment. He even attacked the very self-interest foundation on which capitalism is based. He was truly an idiot. C-Liberal 19:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ignore Stirling, he has this desire to push a completely revisionist view on history. He forgets that his idols do indeed make mistakes. Obviously, the concept of NPOV constantly escapes him - just look at his talk page archives. T Turner 16:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: While this is an old post I could not help noticing that C-Liberal missed the fact that FDR was using a biblical reference to moneychangers or bankers as they are called today, not all business men.  LOL Oneeyedguide (talk) 04:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is complete garbage

message: This page still does have lots of problems. I stand by my efforts on the mainstream theories - I did my Masters thesis on theories of the depression and it was reviewed by teachers in the field. The underconsumption section and the politcal section got added back in. Neither, I think are appropriate. the underconsumption theory is not a mainstream theory. Just because two guys wrote about it doesn't mean it was ever generally accepted. Therefore, it should be moved to the alternate theories section, which I have done. 
I wont delete the political section, but some of the complaints are right -it is riddled with inaccuracies and has a US focus.It also does not really address CAUSES of the Depression. I wont delete it till there is some more discussion.
Sojourner paul 8/27/2006
::all inaccuracies should be identified and can be fixed. The underconsuption theory was indeed a mainstream interpretation at the time.  It decisively affected policy. That makes it important to know about. It continues to figure in history books.  And please don't use words like "garbage"--your professors would be upset at the crude language. Rjensen 03:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: who was "mainstream" at the time--I suggest Catchings and Foster, Means, and many others. Dorfman covers this very thoroughly. It's essential to avoid the "whiggish" interpretation that looks at precursors of contemporary theory, and ignores the forgotten economists whose ideas, Keynees famously pointed out, were actually determinative of policy decisions. Rjensen 04:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems remain

message: I think you need to make the words easier for kids to read
&&
Clarify things so that people actually KNOW what you are talking about.
I think u need to make the words a little more understandable for kids. I use wikipedia for assignments and projects all the time but PLEASE MAKE IT EASIER!!! {{unsigned|67.49.60
Hmmm? My one great question that has always remained with me is just this why is it that the generation that grew up from the 1890s on to after world war 2 and esspecially the so called children of the great depression wil not talk about it at all it is like some kind of social plauge or something is prohibting them ever talking about what happened to them having to grow up during that time period as the generations after them have and had no prtoblems talking about growing up in the 1950's and 1960's when the econmy grew in great leaps and bounds and there was to  much easy money but why will the peoples of my own parents generation not tlak about this time period it is really stupid that they are so hung up about this i have studied that time period and although ti was indeed a very bad time i am yet convined it was not so horrific as it is made out to today looking back at it from now anyway  more later on this but any of you wondering abou this like i am!
Jay!
I agree with the first post. It's way too hard to understand, especially for those of us who are doing reports and need references. This website is a comfort to us all, and come on, is it not here to help those of us who need it? While I am not suggesting you put every other word in slang, some of the larger sentences could be reduced and some of the larger words substituted for smaller, more coherent that my fellow youths and I can understand. Please do something! I would, myself, but I honestly just don't have the time, what with homework and projects that I use this website for. I speak for myself and others my age when I say thank you to all who make an effort towards this request.
~LadyFroggie
It is too long and too complicated. I understand that this is relative and depends upon the education level of the reader. However, the article could be better written as to accommodate a less educated audience without sacrificing the depth and detail that it now has. For example, it could have better summaries of each section. I understand that there is a lot of controversy about the causes of the great depression, but this article needs to be better categorized so that it not necessary to trudge through the intricacies of each argument in order to get a general understanding of the topic. Part of this would be reducing the use of economics jargon; I understand that using such jargon, it is possible to include a large amount of information in a short space, but the article becomes very difficult to read for the general public when such ideas are not restated using a less specialized lexicon. --macscam (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should be summarized more concisely and easier to understand 

message: It seems that this item, and the item on the Long Depression 1873-1896, will attract increasing interest if we slip into something like a Depression in 2009. We see that the current problems are being identified as caused by systemic problems in the way money moves around. I, and quite a few others, believe that the current crisis was caused by Peak Oil and the resultant price spike. Indeed we can be sure that total world economic production will fall as oil production falls, since the lockstep relationship between the two is easy to see over the last 40 years. And the economic system is not well set up to handle a gradual decline. So something like the current crash is what one would expect. Since I'm arguing that the current crash is caused by real world changes, I wanted to know if one might see a similar link in previous Depressions. It seems to me that the Long Depression occurred at a time sometimes identified as the 2nd Industrial Revolution for the great changes taking place, and the Great Depression also took place at a time when there was a big change in the way things were done: with much of the economy switching from coal and horses to oil and motorized vehicles. When such changes happen there is a lot of capital, real physical stuff, that is rendered valueless. It is hard to do a smooth transition. Not surprising that you get a crash then recovery instead of a smooth transition. So my question to the experts is: Have any studies of the Great Depression suggested real underlying causes rather than just systemic problems with money? Is there anybody out there who thinks it might be true. I'm very worried that the unanimity about the Great Depression is going to make it hard to convince people that this time there are real underlying problems that need to be urgently addressed. Feel free to e-mail me.
Sma045 (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: relationship to the threatening 2009 depression

message: This appeared recently (August, perhaps?) in Newsweek, by Robert Samuelson: "Historians increasingly attribute the Depression to broad geopolitical upheavals. World War I shattered the existing global economic order. Dominated by Great Britain, it fostered vibrant trade and rested on the gold standard. (Under the gold standard, paper currencies could be converted into gold coins or bullion). The war also spawned huge international debts, reflecting German war reparations and large U.S. loans to Britain and France. It was impossible to reconstruct the prewar order. Britain was too weak, the gold standard was too constricting, and the debts were too heavy. But countries tried, because the prewar order had delivered prosperity . This futile effort brought on Depression. Only when economic hardship became unbearable were unrealistic goals (keeping the gold standard, repaying debts) abandoned. "
Discuss.--Forich (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been said Britain's desire to maintain the value of the pound after WW1, while holding to the gold standard, plus the connivance of senior Fed officers, played a role.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  02:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  interesting argument, by Robert Samuelson 

message: I believe that 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.
My 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 92.101.184.177 (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive human supply caused Great Depression 

message: 1. The Fed's inflationary policies.
2. The Smoot-Harley Act, high tariffs on imports.
3. Gov actions.
Additionally, although this mickey-mouse ignorant article is suppose to deal with causes, the big gov (New Deal agenda, started by Hoover) made the economy worse which created the Great Depression for a decade. It wasn't until post-WWII that prosperity grew. The war period does not count as recovery; far from it. Sure, GDP was higher, but 30%-50% (forget amount) for the war & more soldiers than the amount whom were previously unemployed does not cut it. See history & look at living standards.
Fairly soon after the stock crash, the economy started to recover, but gov spending & other intrusion [under Hoover] nixed that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.100.72 (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing causes 

message: "When Hoover was elected to president in 1928, he was a long-standing critic of free markets and small government. He had presided over "reconstruction" in Europe after WWI, the equivalent of "stimulus spending" in Keynesian terms. Rather than being "do-nothing", his administration immediately began expanding government spending, taxes, and regulation[37]. In fact, during his term Federal spending was effectively doubled[38].
Consistent with his pro-stimulus philosophy, Hoover effectively doubled Federal spending, possibly contributing to the economy's woes[2][3] 
Steven Horwitz, economist of the free banking branch of Austrian economics, blamed Hoover's spending, itself, for putting the "Great" in the depression:
Herbert Hoover deserves a good deal of blame for turning what would have most likely been a steep but short recession into a much deeper and eventually much longer Great Depression...he expanded the role of government significantly in order to fight the Depression...The result, unfortunately (but not surprisingly), was to fan the flames rather than successfully fighting the fire[39] 
David Weinberger contrasted this approach with the cutting of spending, taxes, and deficits (also seen in the chart at right) under Coolidge, which had dramatically stimulated the economy out of the depression that Wilson's massive Federal government had caused[40]. It's noteworthy that Hoover, as commerce secretary under Coolidge, had urged for increases in spending and regulation under Coolidge, much of the kind he later implemented, himself, in 1929[41].
 
This massive growth under Hoover is apparent even if adjusting for the declining revenue of Hoover's economic downturn, as noted by Randall G. Holcombe, who found that Federal spending as a percentage of GDP still increased, in fact did so more than under FDR[42]."
I don't care if you're for or against Austrian economics; the above quoted section attaches unverifiable and clearly biased labels to descriptions of Hoover, Coolidge, and the Federal Reserve in attempting to self-justify its slanted arguments, and as a whole makes virtually no attempt to present itself from a neutral point of view. Whoever wrote this clearly had a confirmation bias, and similarly failed to back up their claims with either detailed explanations or reliable sources. I don't see how something this slanted and unsubstantiated could satisfy Wikipedia's standards. It without a doubt needs to be either significantly re-written or removed altogether.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.153.191.120 (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absurdly biased

message: A recent addition to the section on the Gold Standard provides us with some good information.  However, it has been placed in the wrong section.  It belongs in the section on the Austrian explanation of the causes of the Depression.  The Austrian economists believe that an inflationary policy after WWI caused the Depression.  According to the gold standard theory, on the other hand, post-war deflationary pressures, especially in Europe, caused the depression.  We are allowed to disagree with either theory.  However, the information we provide in each section needs to be consistent with the theory that is being presented.  The paragraph that began "This had numerous consequences.  However what is of particular relevance is that. . . ." states the main point of this section and will need to be restored to the article.  The information that indicates that post-war policy was inflationary is out place in this section.
I understand that this section was confusing.  The main point was stated in the opening sentence, and after that it took so long for the writer to get to the main point that one could easily conclude that the Depression was being blamed on the inflationary policy during World War I.  However, if you read one of the early versions of this article (April 2005), the author's original intent is clearer (the title of the section was "Post-war deflationary pressures").
I rearranged the material so that the main point is summarized in the first paragraph.  The 1st half of this section is also in need of reliable references.  I placed two citation needed tags.  Others could move them or add more of them.JDefauw (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Gold Standard 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Causes of the Great Depression. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310163302/http://www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/echist/eh04/field-041006.pdf to http://www.econ.yale.edu/seminars/echist/eh04/field-041006.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217233238/http://www.ecommcode.com/hoover/ebooks/pdf/FULL/B1V3_Full.pdf to http://www.ecommcode.com/hoover/ebooks/pdf/FULL/B1V3_Full.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Causes of the Great Depression. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111026075949/http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whaples.work.hours.us to http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whaples.work.hours.us
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This does not fit. 
*JM Keynes did not promote national self-sufficiency: "Having sought to understand and to do full justice to the ideas which underlie the urge felt by so many countries to-day towards greater national self-sufficiency, we have to consider with care whether in practice we are not too easily discarding much of value which the nineteenth century achieved. In those countries where the advocates of national self sufficiency have attained power, it appears to my judgment that, without exception, many foolish things are being done. Mussolini, perhaps, is acquiring wisdom teeth. But Russia to-day exhibits the worst example which the world, perhaps, has ever seen, of administrative incompetence and of the sacrifice of almost everything that makes life worth living to wooden heads. Germany is at the mercy of unchained irresponsibles--though it is too soon to judge her. The Irish Free State, a unit much too small for a high degree of national self-sufficiency except at great economic cost, is discussing plans which might, if they were carried out, be ruinous.".
*A big majority of American Economic Historians agree that protectionism worsend the Great Depression . A statement to the opposite has to be presented carefully especially as a minority position and without creating straw man arguments. --Pass3456 (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No reply on his user talk page either: . --Pass3456 (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay from a [[Marine Le Pen]] fan 

message: Were not the Republicans in charge of the Federal Government from the end of the Civil War until FDR? How much responsibility do they have for the Crash?Tighelander (talk) 06:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Big parts of the problem, such as unemployment caused by electricity and internal combustion and slowing population growth, had nothing to do with politics.  The depression would not have been as great or lasted as long if the heavy burden of regulations had not been enacted.  Recovery started as soon as part of recovery act was declared unconstitutional.  Recovery was due to continued investment in new and existing technologies.Phmoreno (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Republicans