Talk:Economic crisis of 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 28 February 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus..


Contents

[edit] Questioning recession

A recession by definition is two consecutive quarters of economic contraction. There is as of now no recession of 2008. - anon

Though one may question whether there is a recession or not, the sources say otherwise. This discussion should be held on the article's AfD page. Truthanado (talk) 01:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Although "two consecutive quarters of economic contraction" is a commonly cited definition for recession, it is neither the only definition nor the one accepted by most economists [1]. I don't say this take sides as to whether or not the US is in a recession, but to correct a common misnomer. Anthony (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rename the article

This article should be renamed to a less speculative topic. The stock market saw its biggest opening year drop ever as I recall and the economic indicators all show a slowdown that much can be agreed. The fact some call it a recession or say it will lead to one is relevant. There's even talk of stagflation, which is a serious matter that hasn't come up in decades. I think this should be renamed to described the general economic crisis in the country. Some states are actually in a recession after all.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This article should be renamed to a more suitable title. Right now it's highly POV because whether it is a recession or not is disputed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
A rename was discussed in the article's AfD discussion and was rejected. We would need some new justification to rename it now. Truthanado (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Just curious. The article was recently renamed from Economic recession of 2008 to Economic crisis of 2008 because the recession has not technically occurred yet. When the recession does happen (i.e.-two successive quarters of negative growth), should the article be renamed back to what it was? Just wondering ... Truthanado (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GDP computation

a recession can only be seen in hindsight; however i do agree it is too early to start this article, even though i personally believe we've entered recession already, lets wait for the official word from our chiefs

by the time they officially call the recession the US will be halfway into a depression, this downturn is going to hit fast and hard, and its going to progress to worse alot faster than most people imagine

its a perfect storm of economic conditions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.81.102 (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Causes of the recession

We can't just list oil prices and the huge devaluation of the dollar as "causes" of the recession. These topics need to be discussed in detail. Why are oil prices going up? Is it because of volatility in one of the top oil-producing regions in the world partially caused by the Iraq War? Is it because the new supply of oil can't keep up with the new demand? Is it because crude oil is priced in dollars so that when the dollar devalues (partially due to excessive and sustained U.S. government budget deficits, huge increases in the money supply to fund them) the price of oil goes up? On the other hand, you have the price of wheat and corn going up thanks to the heavy investment by the U.S. government into ethanol for fuel. This has given farmers a huge incentive to produce corn leaving a reduction in the supply of wheat, while the price of both ethanol and wheat, and ultimately our taxes, go up.

The subprime mortgage crisis has also contributed heavily to the bursting of this housing bubble which is fundamentally very similar to the stock market collapse of 1929. Many people had put their entire savings into homes with the expectation of appreciation. A combination of extremely low interest rates and poor lending practices inflated the bubble that's very clearly and distinctly burst. So we have to ask ourselves: why were interest rates so low? Why were the lending practices so poor? Was it because of the moral hazard problem involved with the concept of the "lender of last resort" for banks? Was it too much government control of the interest rates? And now we are seeing the Federal Reserve potentially bailing out Bear Stearns making it seem like they are willing to let inflation run away with money supply increases if it means saving the banks that fail.

I think these topics need to be explored further on this page and then we can begin organizing the article. JHMM13(Disc) 04:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's my admittedly cynical take on all this. There's definitely greater demand for oil, and much of this is new demand from Asia. India and China grow prosperous from cheap exports as American CEOs strip-mine our economy under the guise of "free trade". And gas-guzzling SUVs aren't helping. Hybrids and alternate fuel vehicles will take the edge off, but this is going to be years away.
The Iraq war should have alleviated things somewhat at the supply end, now that Iraq is no longer embargoed. I'm not sure about the status of Libya presently, but removing their embargo should help. Of course, traditional supply/demand curves only work properly in free market economics. OPEC is a cartel, so all that goes out the window. I suspect price gouging is a major factor.
As for the banks, they should have been better regulated. The loan officers will issue loans to anyone they can; so long as they get their commission, why should they care? And the bank officers don't care either, because they know the federal government will bail them out with taxpayer money if things go south. And so it goes. Afalbrig (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dollar Value

Since the dollar value depreciated 18% in 2007 while the US GDP growth was only 2%, the economy has in fact already entered a recession. It is not too early for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iv1607 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two quarters of negative GDP growth

There can only be a recession after two quarters of negative GDP growth - that hasn't happened yet, this page is too early... TuckerResearch (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This was previously discussed here. Truthanado (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Even if it was previously discussed, the article itself is wrongly named, because as of right now, there is no official recession. "we have yet to see confirmation that the economy has entered even a mild recession, let alone a severe downturn. The U.S. economy grew very weakly in the fourth quarter of last year, but it still moved ahead. Since then, we’ve seen overall losses in employment — the freshest monthly government data you can look at. The exact definition varies a bit, but generally speaking you need two quarters of negative growth to call it a recession. By definition, then, we won’t be able to confirm a recession until July at the earliest."[1] according to this, until july of 2008, the ecenomic can't be called a recession. Onopearls (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.180.210 (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
There are reliable and verifiable sources cited in the article that call this a recession. Whether an individual agrees with that assessment or not is original research; as an encyclopedia, we must follow reliable cited information. This topic was discussed previously as described above, with the result being to not change the article. I still see no consensus on this rename and it was against Wikipedia policy for an editor to unilaterally rename this article without first obtaining consensus. I suggest we move the article back to its original name. Before doing that, and to avoid an edit war, further discussion is appreciated. Truthanado (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
While they are reliable and verifiable, this does not mean that it is accurate. If you read my source from a reliable and verifiable source, it clearly states that there is not a recession... yet. It appears that the creator of this article jumped the gun. I also never said that i did or did not agree, i stated clear facts, with a source for what i said. If i am not mistaken, an encyclopedia is supposed to state "factual" information. thanks Onopearls (talk
The new central bank chairman admits that US economy is likely to shrink this year.[2] At this rate, the nominal GDP is unlikely to reach $16 trillion by the end of this decade, as predicted earlier by IMF.Anwar (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the IMF says we have a financial and economic and governance crisis

"The IMF documents showed there's a 25 percent chance of a world recession because of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression" - http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a_L7vsEVUOVQ&refer=home

"The IMF is due to release its twice-yearly World Economic Outlook next week. Earlier in the week, the IMF cut its 2008 outlook for world economic growth for the second time this year -- a move that acknowledged housing and credit problems in the United States were exacting a heavy toll on the global economy. The IMF now expects global growth to slow to 3.7 percent this year, down from its January forecast of 4.1 percent. Brown said there was general agreement among the leaders on the need for new rules for disclosure and transparency for financial institutions. Brown is pressing for global, rather than national supervision of financial markets and for banks to come clean on the losses they have suffered due to the sub-prime crisis. Developing country leaders said rising food and energy prices were hitting poor countries hard." -http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSL0539983320080405?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] some opinions

"Asian stocks sank on Monday to their lowest since August 2007 [...] 'We are only at the beginning stages of a crisis. It's totally impossible to forecast the world economy. I think, maybe, a world economic crisis is just beginning,' South Korean President Lee Myung-bak said" - http://africa.reuters.com/business/news/usnBAN724418.html

OPEC President Chakib Khelil says the world economic crisis will last at least until the end of the year. - http://africa.reuters.com/business/news/usnBAN028503.html

"Is this crisis simply part of the regular ebb and flow of doing business in a capitalist system? Minimizing the problem in this way, one year after the eruption of the subprime debacle, is no longer appropriate. Bankers, who like to see themselves as the true masters of the global economy, have driven the global economy into a calamity that is spreading to become a fundamental crisis for the entire financial system. [...] After years of deregulation, what we need now is re-regulation." -Wolfgang Reuter at http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/mar2008/gb20080321_728917.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_global+business

WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Added globalise and NPOV tags

I have added {{globalise}} and {{NPOV}} tags to the article; it is unclear whether it is supposed to be about a US economic crisis, or an international one. --Snigbrook (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Article title

The title should be renamed to United States 2008 economic recession (crisis). Maybe financial crisis of 2008 or something like that. But there is no global recession, at least yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilcaman (talk • contribs) 09:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Crisis ≠ Recession. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Airline failures

In the last paragraph of the overview, the wording of the discussion of small airlines that have ceased operations or filed for bankruptcy seems to imply that it is listing these events in chronological order (which would make sense in this article), but the events in that paragraph are very clearly not in order. Is there a reason for this? Also, the comment at the top of this page is out of place and unhelpful. If you would like to dispute the existence of the economic crisis, make a thread in the body of the page and do it correctly. Oneforlogic (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed that ridiculous comment and placed it here for reference:
There is no recession or economic crisis, This is just a down point in the econ., it happens deal with it. This is one of the most bullshit pages in all of wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.43.34 (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Zain Ebrahim (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed the order issue; someone changed the price of oil and associated date without reading the whole paragraph. That paragraph is turning into a disorganized list, though, and should probably be shortened and summarized. Links to the pages on the specific airlines should still be included. If someone believes the airline issues are sufficiently important by themselves, creating another current-event article about them may be a good idea. Any thoughts? I'll go ahead and change that paragraph in about 24 hours if I don't hear anything. Oneforlogic (talk) 15:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that a large portion of the article is about the airline crisis and i think that it probably have it's own article all together, that way it could be a organized list Rump1234 (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources and rewriting

Ok, so the paragraph on the airlines is too convoluted and has too few sources for me to fix it without several hours of searching for sources and checking facts. I'm now of the opinion that the entire overview section needs more and more specific citations, too, especially considering that this is still a fairly controversial topic, so I've added the tag for it. Really, though, anyone who takes the time to do the fact checking should probably completely rewrite the relevant section of the article, paying more attention to self consistency and clear wording within sections. I'll go ahead and add that tag, too. Oneforlogic (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Economic crisis or Energy crisis?

Is this article about an energy crisis or an economic crisis? The title says Econ, but the first line of the lead says Energy. Most of the article talks about an Econ crisis, so I'm inclined to fix the first line to match. NJGW (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)