Talk:Great Depression in the United States

message: To improve the Great Depression article and give it more of a worldwide view, some material from that article is being spun off into seperate articles, such as this one.  Teryx 23:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Created

message: this website needs needs more things about the families im the american depression because some school kids need this information like me it is really helpful even if you dont think so it will help alot if someone updates this page amd put something on it like how the families felt and what they did to survive--217.42.173.168 19:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Families

message: Out of the resources, the list off in-print sources (physical(books)) in the article, which are the seminal works? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Generallimptoes (talk • contribs) 15:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Seminal works

message: It appears to me that this page is under attack, with quite a number of parts being removed for no reason I can see.  If you have a valid reason for removing large parts of this article, please say so here so we can decide if it is valid, otherwise we will just keep reverting this to fix it.  Fanra 03:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Under Attack?

message: October 29, 1929 was a Tuesday, not a Monday Fixed this as someone changed it to a Monday.  Easy to run any number of web page scripts that figure out day of the week for any date to show it was a Tuesday.  Fanra 05:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues with Dates

message: There should be a section giving a brief overview to the Dust Bowl with a link to that article.   —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cjtcook (talk • contribs) 07:05, 14 May 2007 
Cjtcook 07:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely should.  Done. MrZaiustalk 18:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inserted brief ref following mention of agriculture as dust-bowl conditions persisted in the agricultural heartland.... --Pawyilee (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dust Bowl 

message: This article is linked from the more general Great_Depression Under "Effects" yet the article does not contain a subtitle of Effects.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.21.196.64 (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Effects

message: Given that the Causes section already links to the causes of the Great Depression page, it probably does not need to discuss each explanation in such detail.  -Gomm 20:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't need to provide it in great detail, but for people using this website looking for a detailed article on the Causes of the Great Depression, it is a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.212.112 (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CAUSES section too long 

message: Capitalism and democracy seemed to have failed.  There was real danger that the US and the world would turn to something like fascism or communism.  Right?  I'm not sure: that's what I'm looking for, and I didn't find it in this article.  There should be something linking together the Bonus Army, Father Coughlin, Huey Long, and so on, either a section in this article or another article linked from here.  I shouldn't have had to use Google to find the article on the Bonus Army.  If I hadn't known there was a big protest called the something-or-other Army, I wouldn't have been able to find it at all. --dsws (talk) 05:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political and Social Effects 

message: What does a "Man Sleeping" in a fish market have to do with the great depression?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.106.64 (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd Picture 

message: Someone has compleatly destoyed this page. Please restore it!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.174.195 (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupid! 

message: :"The collapse of the US stock market in 1929 that led to a worldwide economic depression caused the Great Depression in the United States."
- 0 - I've hear differing opinions on the actual impact of the stock market crash, but surely it didn't cause the Great Depression. In any case, a statement like this requires citation. - 0 - Jeffrey ten Grotenhuis 04:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The cause of the great depression needs to be changed, because it was not just because of black tuesday. before the stock market crash, the economy was already going down hill. the reason for that was the end of world war I- there were less jobs, production decreased and agriculture competition increased. and that was in the beginning of the 1920s. although right after WWI ended, the economy did experience a mini-boom, because of consumerism and optimism. it decreased rapidly once other countries got back on their feet, and many became jobless. There should definitely be at least a statement saying this within the article. Mikela1292 (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Tuesday - the cause of th Great Depression? 

message: I forgot to give a description but I am sure anyone who sees the history would be able to tell why I edited them... anyway since this is my first time reverting vandalism I figured that I should probably leave a note in the discussion page. Sykko (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I just reverted some vandalism 

message: When the Great_Depression_in_the_United_States#Further_reading /* Further reading */ section grows to the point where it is considerably longer than any single section in the article, and nearly as long as the article itself, something is badly amiss. Anyone feel expert enough to weed out the chaffe here, or should we just cross the Rubicon and axe the section, hoping that the more deserving works will appear as real citations? MrZaiustalk 17:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reading/citation cleanup request 

message: Page appears under heavy attack.  I attempted to revert some vandalism but it didn't seem to take.  Please someone with knowledge of the page help keep this page solid.  I fear this page will be attacked due to the ongoing sitution and comparisons to the great depresion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.149.88.147 (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A link was destroyed and replaced with vandalism. I reverted it to the immediately previous edit. Perhaps this page should be made semi-protected? --75.48.1.141 (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack 

message: I'm trying to get the usage of a reference on economist opinion on the New Deal corrected to match the research. Please stop changing this back as it really does not have any validity in proving the size of the difference, just that there is one.  There are other references on this if you look for them.Oneeyedguide (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New Deal

message: Can anyone explain what this sentance from this section is trying to say? It doesn't seem to make any sense:
:They argued the New Deal had been very hostile to business expansion in 1935–37, had encouraged massive strikes which fiscal stimulus required to end the downturn of the Depression was, and it led, at the time, to fears that as soon as America demobilized, it would return to Depression conditions and industrial output would fall to its pre-war levels.
RFabian (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole section looks incomplete as if someone broomed parts they did not like.  This results in the above and other sentences not making sense.  Perhaps there is an earlier version that has the rest of the explanation.Oneeyedguide (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it seems clear that the section was skewed NPOV - conservative.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.175.125 (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a very conservative POV. Using Gary Dean Best's Pride Prejudice and Politics as fact about issues of the Great Depression on an encyclopedia is unbelievable. Presenting it as one theory is fine. His anti-Roosevelt, anti-New Deal stance isn't the standard of balanced historical inquiry. Really a shame we can't provide a more balanced analysis, There are several economic papers on the issue, I'll look to see what's out there. 71.53.78.218 (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recession of 1937 

message: Hello, one could argue that the 1930s "Golden Age" of Hollywood was a result of the Depression as studios cranked out stars and pictures esp. lavish as "escapist" entertainment...should this be addressed in the article? PatrickJ83 (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural effects? 

message: I am doing a research paper for school and using this as a source. Who can I give credit to for this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.164.230.17 (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:CITEWIKI. Agathman (talk) 03:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  who wrote this 

message: I deleted to section comparing today's recession to the depression. Its a small point and many other recessions have been compared to the depression it doesn't make sense to have it on this page. If anything it should be on a page about the current recession.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.101.169 (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New Great Depression 

message: Did anyone even bother to look at the statistics for the 20s? The economy grew rapidly, wages and standards of living went up greatly. In 1927, the Federal Reserve expanded credit access, creating a bubble and rapidly drew back the money scaring speculators who pulled there investments. A stock Market Crash and a run on the banks were the start but it all comes back to monetary policy. Whenever there is a massive expansion in the money supply a bubble is formed, it pops, and the economy goes into recession or depression. The regulation and interventionist policies of Hoover made the depression worse, and FDR  prolonged it with his New Deal policies. It wasn't until after the war ended and the production switched from manufacturing war machines to consumer goods did our economy recover.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.206.178 (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: well that's one theory--but it happened in Europe too at the same time, without a Federal Reserve. The assertion that "Federal Reserve expanded credit access, creating a bubble" needs a RS--it's not what Milton Friedman says. Rjensen (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It happened around the world in many developed nations.  One question I would have for this is why did this occur?  Perhaps the USD was the standard reserve currency after nations like the U.K. changed from commodity (gold) backed to fiat currency?  I'm not sure if that is accurate, but it's a thought on it (maybe more research for me later when I haven't had a 14 hour travel day) :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.235.57.178 (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less Regulation and mal Distribution of Wealth? 

message: Unemployment peaked about where it is now, started going down, and then against the advice of thousands of economists Hoover passed massive tariffs and the super-high unemployment rates followed.  (anyone have monthly data for greater resolution?). TheGoodLocust (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  High unemployment did not follow the stock market crash 

message: There isn't enough information for the recovery yet we have many for the cause.--Ericg33 (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So add it. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Recovery section needed. 

message: shouldn't this go to Great Depression?--Oursana (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: it would be duplication there.  it's here because the comparisons are important to Americans at the time and in the history books since. Rjensen (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph:Global comparison of severity 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Great Depression in the United States. 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/20090205005617/http://amhist.ist.unomaha.edu/lessons/Ruben%20Cano_Why%20did%20the%20Great%20Depression%20happen?_lesson_template_mps.doc to http://amhist.ist.unomaha.edu/lessons/Ruben%20Cano_Why%20did%20the%20Great%20Depression%20happen%3F_lesson_template_mps.doc
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) 14:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Under "Economic policies" in FDR article, the graph ("Unemployment rate in the US 1910–1960, with the years of the Great Depression (1929–1939) highlighted") shows a maximum unemployment rate of about 21%. Yet the text says that the rate was 25% when FDR took office, falling to 14.3% by 1937. 25% is greater than 21%, so the article seems self-contradictory. * The "Great Depression" article includes the same graph. This time, the text (under "Roosevelt's New Deal") says the unemployment rate fell from 25% to 9% in the 1933-1937 period. Again, the 25% rate seems self-contradictory, since the graph maxes out at 21%. In addition, the graph does not go below 15% until 1940, so the 9% rate in 1937 also seems self-contradictory. * Could someone with some expertise in unemployment rates take a look at this? I have no idea what the correct numbers are, but the articles seem self-contradictory. Or maybe I'm missing something. AAABBB222 (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it's a confusion among scholars--should people with paying jobs on relief agencies (FERA, CWA, WPA, CCC) be counted as "unemployed" (this gives a much higher rate) -- or since they work every day and get a $ paycheck every week they can be counted as employed.  Rjensen (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is reasonable that there is a confusion among scholars. However, the self-contradictions remain, without any compensating explanation in the article. In addition, as previously pointed out, the two articles contradict each other - 14.3% vs 9% rate in 1937 - and that is almost certainly not confusion among scholars. AAABBB222 (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unemployment rates in two articles seem self-contradictory 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Great Depression in the United States. 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/20130928064254/http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/Steindl.GD.Recovery to http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/Steindl.GD.Recovery
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527001429/http://kclibrary.lonestar.edu/decade30.html to http://kclibrary.lonestar.edu/decade30.html
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) 23:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The numbers are based on  Lebergott's estimates. These have two major problems and then a third interpretive problem when compared to modern unemployment numbers.
1) [this section doesn't apply here as this article, unlike the others, has the more correct, Darby adjusted Lebergott figures. The rest stands however] They exclude people directly employed in WPA and other New Deal programs. This is an issue Michael Darby covered over four decades ago an in article entitled ""Three-and-a-Half Million U.S. Employees Have Been Mislaid: Or, an Explanation of Unemployment, 1934-1941".
Now for certain purposes it may make sense to include WPA and other direct employment along with unemployed workers (notably, in estimating a reserve army of labor that is avalaible to be hired by private employers) but it is not the current methodological practice and it misleads lay readers in the understanding of the 1930s economic experience. At the very least, both numbers should be published side by side so that readers can get a more accurate sense of what was going on, as Professor Mathy (2018) does in this recent paper on long term unemployed during the 1930s. 
2) Even the Lebergott estimates as adjusted by Darby are misleading because they are not monthly series like we have today and are based on a number of estimation strategies that leads to "spurious volatility" and incorrect estimates, or at least, estimates that are at variance with modern methodologies. Professor Christina Romer (1986)showed this in a lot of detail. To quote her at length.
 "If the labor force were also procyclical in the 1900-1930 period,  then it is clear that Lebergott's labor force numbers are too high in recessions and too low in booms. This implies that the unemployment rate calculated as a residual is artificially high in recessions and artificially low in booms. Thus the historical unemployment rate is, by construction, more volatile than the truth [...] 
 "To estimate annual employment, Lebergott uses more complicated procedures. He estimates it as the sum of several component series on employment in various sectors and among various classes of workers. To form these component series he begins with basic data on employment in each sector in whatever base years are available. He then interpolates each employment series using some annual variable he believes to be related to employment in that sector. The most common interpolating variables are measures of output, fragments of employment data, and indexes of labor demand"
She goes onto explain the problems with this procedure. Meanwhile, we do have a number of estimates, the best of which is the National Industrial Conference Board monthly data as Mathy (2018) points out. These estimates continued after the war and thus we can compare them to official statistics and see how they are reasonably close. These numbers broadly conform to Lebergott's estimation strategy but, as Romer predicts, the unemployment rate is much lower than his estimates. In addition, we get to see month to month patterns we don't in Lebergott's data that qualitatively change our narrative from the era. 
3) The final issue is that this number, as low as it is, is still an overestimate of unemployment when we compare it to modern headline unemployment. Today's measure, U3, doesn't include "discouraged workers" i.e. workers who desire employment but have given up searching. Meanwhile, the methodology used for the 1930s number, previous to the the search concept of unemployment developed by the WPA in the late 1930s which is used today, does capture what we now consider discouraged workers on the idea that all able bodied males are supposed to be working. Thus the appropriate comparison for the unemployment rate is U5, not U3. When compared to U5, a different narrative emerges. For example, in June 2016 U5 was 6 percent while in June 2017, U5 was 5.4 percent. This suggests the economy, while not at full employment, was recovered from the great depression in 1937 before the recession of 1937-1938. The article should be updated to reflect the best avalaible data on the 1930s economic performance and the true meaning of the "Roosevelt Recession". See e.g. Card 2011. 
References
*Card, David. "Origins of the unemployment rate: the lasting legacy of measurement without theory." American Economic Review 101.3 (2011): 552-57.
*Darby, Michael R. "Three-and-a-half million US employees have been mislaid: or, an explanation of unemployment, 1934-1941." Journal of Political Economy 84.1 (1976): 1-16.
*Romer, Christina. "Spurious volatility in historical unemployment data." Journal of Political Economy 94.1 (1986): 1-37.
*Mathy, Gabriel P. "Hysteresis and persistent long-term unemployment: the American Beveridge Curve of the Great Depression and World War II." Cliometrica 12.1 (2018): 127-152.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan Tankus (talk • contribs) 20:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this needs revision. In the section titled "Effect On Urban Life/American Government Response/Politics During The Great Depression" it is stated "The most widely accepted estimates of unemployment rates for the Great Depression are those by Stanley Lebergott" which is misleading. It also does not state the reasons for the differences in the estimates. Thedoopster (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The government's policy was to create real jobs and it did so...so the people who took them were actually working at real jobs for real money. That makes them "employed." Rjensen (talk) 01:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with Discussion of Unemployment Rates 

message: — Assignment last updated by ZMB9 (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Historical Studies

message: — Assignment last updated by FluffyTeaPancakes (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: The History of Sexuality

message: — Assignment last updated by Heinzam (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Home as an Idea and a Place