Talk:Panic of 1837
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. |
| B | rated as B-Class on the assessment scale |
| Mid | rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Economics WikiProject, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve economics-related articles.. |
| B | rated as B-Class on the assessment scale |
| Mid | rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale |
An event mentioned in this article is a May 10 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)
Needs some vulgarity cleaning at the ends of the two major sections
Contents |
[edit] Wikisource the Shepard text
As I said, a text dump does not belong in an article, articles that were started from other sources notwithstanding -- this is ancillary and redundant material to say the least. (An article that needs a "narrative history" is not a good article.) More problematically, it violates WP:NPOV and WP:ATT (some of these claims will be impossible to properly source). It is better that we put this public-domain text on Wikisource, and cite it as a reference. -- Dhartung | Talk 21:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's also rubbish, from an economics POV. The author does not understand economics and his explanations are simply incorrect. This material does not belong in a wiki article. Toby Douglass 07:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Claiming a central bank would have alleviated the money supply contraction that lead to the Panic of 1837 is fallacy. It was the powerful Bank of England stock holders and their American lackeys retaliating against the Jackson administration for not renewing the charter of the privately held Second Bank of the United States that led to the panic through a massive and orchestrated restriction of the money supply.
The bank was formed in 1816. It was capitalized by the US government depositing 20% of the assets. The bank board members then lent themselves the funds to purchase the remaining 80% of the shares using fractional reserve banking. Thus with no cash investments, the bank directors began issuing treasury bonds, collecting the interest and manipulating the money supply to their advantage and the advantage of their English banking patrons such as Nathaniel Rothschild. Jackson fought against and ended the banks charter due to money supply manipulation and massive corruption.
Central banks have a proven economic history of money supply manipulation to enrich the private share holders of these organizations. The boom and bust "Business Cycles" that central banks are claimed to prevent are actually prevalent under central banking systems. They are almost always named in a deceitful manner to give the appearance of being a government institution, i.e. The Federal Reserve, The Bank of England, etc.UC-kid 16:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] American Bias
The financial crises occured in the Canadian colonies of Upper Canada and Lower Canada as well collapsing the meek banking system that was still in its infancy. It had financial effects which lie at the heart of the rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada in 1838. I would appreciate at least SOME mention of this. 65.95.241.195 16:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cartoon Useless
The "Whig cartoon showing unemployment" is too hard to read and seems to lend nothing to the article. Maybe it's just my eyes?
65.169.210.66 19:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Speculation section removed
The earlier version's explanation of land speculation helped convey the mechanics of the collapse. Why was it removed? it should be put back in. Right now, the article is simply uninformative -- a panic happened, Van Buren got blamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.214.33 (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
