Talk:Economic depression

message: I've redirected this; the content was essentially identical to Recession
(User:The Land, 19:37, 22 January 2006
:I think this was probably the best route, why was this undone? Is there a reason not to redo this? Pdbailey (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  A recession is different from a depression.  The definitions I remember is two quarters of negative real GDP for a recession, and worse than -10% real GDP is a depression, so an extreme recession.  I can't find anything that I would consider an authoritative source for those definitions though, but I'll keep looking.  I'll see if I can find my old macroeconomics textbook.  NBER uses a different definition of "recession", and states no definition of "depression". Chris Gore (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: redirected to recession

message: I'm concerned about the definition. Depression, to my mind, is down, deflating, destruction. Deflation, not hyperinflation. Perhaps the only way to really get at the definition is through examples ("I know it when I see it"). DOR (HK) (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with depression sounding like deflating, but one should also look at what it is that is deflating. If for instance demand deflates, leaving an excess of supply, then the supplier could inflate his selling price in order to try to make the same profit out of the sale of less supply. A form of this is what is happening in Zimbabwe: Zimbabwe is in an abject depression, but basic necessities cost billions of Zim dollars, because the Zimbabwean government is printing ever increasing denominations of money (riding the inflation wave). Especially before Mugabe instituted price control there was enough supply of many necessities and some commodities on supermarket shelves, but the inflation caused by Mugabe printing paper money out of thin air led to sellers raising prices on commodities in order to try to get the same profit out of less commodities being sold. On necessities the demand stayed the same but in that case the inflation is more due to the value of the Zim dollar being divided by the amount of paper money being printed. Nowadays fuel coupons (fuel standard) are being used as an alternate currency to paper money (air standard) and it would be easier to see the difference between the inflationary effect on the price of commodities and the inflationary effect on the price of necessities if measured from the fuel standard base. I saw an article about Zim dollars being auctioned on Ebay for much more than their monetary value, but I seriously doubt whether any trade is going to happen in Zimbabwe any time soon based on the curiosity value, or even potential future value, of Zim dollars. Already I read that South African Rand is being used as currency part of the time in some places. I doubt whether the Zimbabwean people are easily going to arbitrarily decide to let go of whatever is printed on the Zim dollar note and start using Zim dollar notes as arbitrary value coupons. The deflation in the Zim dollar note that you probably are thinking about would be if the Zimbabwean people would arbitrarily totally let go of the Zim dollar as a unit of currency, which could theoretically lead to the Zim dollar having a chance to 'rest and recuperate', leading to symbolic reduction in prices, but for such a situation I would try to find an even more intense name, like for instance total economic meltdown. Obviously this scenario that I depicted above is oversimplified.77.87.16.6 (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: concerned about definition

message: I am not an economist. However, averaging the list of "recessions (and depressions)", would it be valid to say that, on average, this (possible) "next" (hyperinflationary) rec/depr-ession will last approximately 4.65 years? (which takes us to August of 2011 of the next Presidential election cycle. Hmmmmmm.) Also,is the hyperinflationary adjective valid in this situation?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 22:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The typical US post-WWII recession lasted 3 quarters, not 4.65 years. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple Projection 

message: The impression I have is that depressions are simply what recessions were called before the Great Depression. After that, a new term was invented to avoid scaring people. Horatio (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In a few decades, both ordinary people and scholars (in any relevant field) will probably see the '30s depression and the current period of downturn, low growth, financial woes and steep unemployment (in most of Europe, and in the US/Canada) as pretty much equal. It would just be too embarrassing for too many top-tier agents, institutions and states if it were already identified as a depression. 83.254.151.33 (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Depression is the same as recession? 

message: If this isn't defended, I'll delete it in a few days: A proposed definition for depression is a sustained recessionary period in which the population is forced to dispose of tangible assets to fund every day living, as was seen in the US and in Germany in the 1930s. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced

message: There is a bot attack from an IP address that changes:
Millennials to Snake People
Great Depression to Clutch Plague
Great Recession to Time of Shedding and Cold Rocks
Baby Boom to Thulsa Doom
Occupy Wall Street to Great Ape-Snake War
This is a bot that has been initiated by Eric Bailey, a graphic designer from Boston and dates back to around May of 2015.  I'm not sure if it makes the changes itself, or if it makes changes in real time with other changes people make, due to a Chrome/Safari/Firefox extension that Eric blames Google for allowing.  That's @ericwbailey on Twitter.  Not to get personal on the guy, but he's in his early thirties, into brewing and tech stuff, and is basically what you would call a hipster: Nathan Barley I'm going to repair the damage, but I don't know what technical solution can be put in place to stop users who have the extension (there are over 12,000 worldwide) from damaging pages quite innocently. I'll leave that to more responsible tech people.  This has irritated me so much I've edited for the first time in years.  Stevebritgimp (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot attack - anti millennial - Eric Bailey 

message: I would question the claim that New Zealand experienced a depression from 1974-1992. There were brief depressions in 1974 and 1982, but it was not a continuous depression for almost 20 years. Is there any reputable evidence for the claim?Royalcourtier (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Zealand depression 1974-1992 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Depression (economics). 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/20090406205415/http://www.politonomist.com/history-of-economic-recessions-00273/3/ to http://www.politonomist.com/history-of-economic-recessions-00273/3/
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) 23:14, 2 December 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: There are two sections on the US in 1837. I think their relationship should be cleared up.  I find it unclear as they now stand. 67.209.130.17 (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  1837 

message: This citation that GDP is expected to contract by 30% during the year of 2020.[18] is not accurate. Following the citation, that's an estimate of current quarter, not the year-- Big difference. GDP is not expected to be down 30% according to this source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:8c80:2c60:a97b:be8:551b:8085 (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Pandemic Depression (predicted) 

message: I don't think economic crises arise from simple virus spread, some economic problems maybe, it has to be a really bad epydemic like the known epydemies in history, but that is mainly before 20th century, that may cause serious economic crisis, also I am not sure what "pandemic" should imply to? It sounds to me as an excuse to make various populations sick, while epidemic has more the idea that while some may get sick other may not. I don't like the idea of "corona" virus being a "pandemic", I remember one similar name used before as "Virus Williams" but it was a joke back than, and indeed, without even the official announcing of such, a very bad economic outcome came? I don't understand why people do this, simply because they think it is funny to name such virus, and in result, some tsarists think they are healthy, and in fact according to them, sick should be communists, that is similar to tuberculosis that was announced during the WW2. Such medical "games" played with and to society on behalf of some tsarist groups, I don't like. Why is it the WHealthOrg repeats this with the filling of "strange humor"? Also I don't think that economists are to blame in the "war of ideologies" while such crises announced. I suppose economists are evn more on taking sides (Taking Sides (film)) than anyone else because they don't have much choice, and for this reason, I don't understand how a citizen of one country, where other economists are on obligation should blame an economist in a different group? In mine, economists respect eachother to some extend and I think, citizens should respect economists of other countries who try to addapt economic theories. --Economicreviewer2 (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic depressions in history 

message: Just a heads up, this article is not written with the greatest words in the most perfect order. The second sentence reads: "Economic depression maybe related to one specific country were there is some economic crisis that has worsened but most often reflexes historically the American Great Depression and similar economic status that may be recognized as existing at some country, several countries or even in many countries.". There are multiple grammatical problems with this, including the concatenation of "may" and "be" into "maybe" where it was not called for, as well as the use of "were" instead of "where". It should be "refers" not "reflexes". "Status" should be plural ("statuses"). You could say "in one or more countries" rather than "at some country, several countries or even in many countries" (note the preposition error...). Finally, aside from grammar, this definition is weird and confusing. Putting together the first bit I get: "some economic crisis" in "some country" that "has worsened" or it is an "economic status" that is "similar" to the American Great Depression that "may be recognized" in one or more countries. The first half makes no sense. The second half just says an economic crisis is a depression if some country recognizes it as such. If this is the point that is meant to be conveyed, you could reword to "An economic depression is an economic crisis that is recognized as particularly severe by one or more nations, such as the American Great Depression." 2600:6C51:797F:9A60:A8EE:E02C:DFF9:F726 (talk) 01:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction needs grammar review