Talk:Panic of 1819

message: Why should the Austrian school's view be the first view? They're far from being mainstream economics. 69.138.26.136 03:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Austrian" economists explanations are not covered in economics textbooks, ergo they are not notable for every article in Wikipedia on economics. 69.138.26.136 03:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not "economics textbooks", ergo Austrian economists' explanations are very notable indeed for every article in Wikipedia on economics. Economics is not a religion, ergo we can't rely on the Holy Bible or the Qur'an. We can find the Truth, not by revelation but only by using our reason to analyze and compare different views. If the logic of the mainstream economics really is solid, its proponents shouldn't be worried about the fact that their view is introduced after the illogical nonsense. Actually, the "critics" section always succeeds in making the earlier opinions even a bit doubtable. By the way, Austrian theory is, far from being nonsense, logical and capable of explaining and predicting economic phenomena. Mainstream is not a synonym for unequivocal, nor for correct. (80.186.34.230 14:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While that is true to an extent, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we represent the general consensus, rather than trying to challenge it.  In an encyclopedia, marginal viewpoints cannot be given equal footing with those that are more established in the field. There are indeed appropriate places to challenge the economic consensus, but Wikipedia is not one of them. --Aquillion 07:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although you're not satisfied with the equal footing, please, don't liquidate the other candidates. The problem isn't the "marginal viewpoint" having too firm a footing but the mainstream viewpoint having one that is too fragile. It seems like a history lesson is most necessary. The Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle originated in the work of Ludwig von Mises and was developed by Friedrich von Hayek. The latter happened to share the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1974 with Gunnar Myrdal "for their pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena", i.e. among other things for the very theory you're calling "marginal viewpoint". What kind of encyclopaedia is not an appropriate place to represent the theories being awarded the Nobel Prize? 80.186.34.230 11:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you are making the wrong arguments.  Your opinions on the relative fragility of the viewpoints in question means exactly bunk.  Likewise, the fact that Ludwig von Mises won a Nobel Prize in Economics is an excellent reason to have an article on Mises, or specific articles devoted to his theories, but it is an exceptionally poor one to try and argue that his views should be given any prominence on articles outside of those.  There is only one thing that matters to even the slightest degree in terms of which economic theories should be covered where in Wikipedia, and that is the broad consensus of the economic community; in that regard, the Austrian school is generally considered marginal today, and its theories and speculations cannot be given equal footing with more commonly-accepted mainstream explanations. --Aquillion 07:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I was immediately struck by the fact that the Austrian explanation was propounded first and true to my expectations here in the talk page the issue is being discussed.  Conforming to their typical modus operandi it appears the Austrians are coming out on top by shouting the loudest.  But it just ain’t right.Tcolgan001 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austrian school first? 

message: * Removed apparent vandalism 'comment' from talk page; also removed an external link from the main page that would not function and was probably vandalism. -- RayBirks 16:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page cleanup 

message: The article says: "Clyde Haulman, Professor of Economics at the College of William and Mary,[5] argue that the Panic was partly caused by a decision to close the Second Bank of the US."
The bank was not closed in 1819.  The charter expired in 1836, after which the bank continued as a private bank, and it went bankrupt in 1841.  So the "closure" (non-renewal of charter) could not have been a cause of the Panic of 1819.  Cromulant (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Closure of Second Bank of the United States

message: Improved lede to provide overview on economic and social impacts; eliminates superfluous discussion of 18th C. downturns.  36hourblock (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dont' "Panic" - just a rewrite 

message: In the section entitled "Post-war European readjustments and the American economy: 1815 - 1818", please consider the following two statements: 
"...European agriculture production, exhausted by years of warfare, was unable to feed its own population."
...and...
"Continental Europe, its agrarian output crippled by the recent war, offered new markets for American staple crops, particularly cotton, wheat, corn and tobacco."
My question here is: how much of that lowered agricultural production was the result of the war and how much was attributable to the eruption of the Indonesian volcano Tambora, that then resulted in the so-called 'Year Without a Summer'?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
It seems to me that the devastation from war would need to be severe indeed if it devastated enough farmland to affect the prices of agricultural commodities to this extent.
Frunobulax (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The effect of the Tambora eruption on the global economy prior to the Panic 

message: It's a very Keynesian analysis. 108.28.145.40 (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Keynesian