This is the
talk page of a
redirect that has been
merged and now targets the page: • 2007–2008 financial crisis Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:2007–2008 financial crisis Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives:
This should be taken out of the prelude because there is no second source backing this up and even Kanjorski is unclear about the exact date.
House Representative Paul E. Kanjorski stated in a January 27, 2009 interview with CSPAN that there was an "electronic run on the banks" commencing at 11AM on September 11, 2008. According to Rep. Kanjorski, the Federal Reserve noted a tremendous withdrawal of $550 billion dollars from money market accounts in the U.S. within a two hour time-span. The Federal Reserve responded by releasing $105 billion dollars into the financial system to stem the tide and announced that FDIC would guarantee up to $250,000 in money market deposits. Representative Kanjorski claims that if these steps had not been taken, the U.S. would have lost all its wealth within twenty-four hours [1]. This timeline of events was told to policymakers by Secretary of the Treasury Paulson on September 15, 2008.
Kanjorski does not say Sept. 11 - he says "Wednesday" around the 15th of Sept 2008. It was most certainly Sept. 18 - which would fit to the JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE RESEARCH REPORT related: http://www.capitalismgonewild.com/2009/02/update-rep-kanjorski-on-550-billion.html.
Not part of the prelude to the financial crisis and nothing to do the the "magical date" as some may wish imho! It should be scrapped because as later stated in the article does back up Sept. 18 as the correct date with the same figures: "By the morning of September 18, money market sell orders from institutional investors totalled $0.5 trillion, out of a total market capitalization of $4 trillion, but a $105 billion liquidity injection from the Federal Reserve averted an immediate collapse." . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.233.194 ( talk) 21:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I am someone that is not capable of speaking fluidly in the terms that are thrown around by this article. I am a true Wikipedian though; I manage to get around to quite a few different areas of study.
I want to say that this article is popular, very popular. The page view statistics tool has been showing very high page requests for this article. I've seen requests on the order of 1500+ per day. Very impressive indeed.
What the article needs in the section linked above, I think, is some expansion on the definition of and the significance of the short selling restriction that is mentioned. I am curious as to what that is; the article sort of assumes a certain level of knowledge.
So, just a request for some expansion... Thanks again.
E_dog95' Hi ' 02:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Would everyone please remember that when updating this, or any article with breaking events to use past tense, otherwise tomorrow and for the rest of time your entry will be inaccurate. I've just quickly corrected the section on the RBS share crash Jan 09, because someone wrote that RBS shares fell "today" and "at the moment the share price is..." Of course this all happened days ago so the entry was already inaccurate. -- 86.162.53.75 ( talk) 11:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
This page is way too long, how about having a September, October, November, etc page(s),-- Levineps ( talk) 19:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that a few editors have placed the contents of this Wikinews article. Is this what we're attempting to do here? Duplicate content across projects? My understanding is that this probably is not our goal. The editors are not using the edit summary (to be frank about what they're doing) so I've tried communicating with them via their talk page.
I would like to hear from some of the regular editors about this matter please. E_dog95' Hi ' 09:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
51 million job losses sounds like China, alone. DOR (HK) ( talk) 08:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The other article is the basis of this action. My suggestion would be that this article focus on financial aspects and the other on economics. 72.228.150.44 ( talk) 15:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I have removed a link to a Knol article several times asking the IP editors to show their rationale for continuing to add the link to several articles without comment. As a user-generated site, Knol is not considered a reliable source, and there's no indication that the author of this article has any authority or notability. Flowanda | Talk 06:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
is there nothing significant that happened after the week of January 19, 2009? Does that mean the crisis is over? 64.195.130.114 ( talk) 01:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Does the Kanjorski interview in the first section, and the "Money market funds insurance and short sales prohibitions" section, refer to the same event? Merge perhaps? Or maybe even delete the Kanjorski quotes as they add little but a politician's off-the-cuff speculative drama of what might have happened. 88.112.63.253 ( talk) 11:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe the Kanjorski remarks and link #29 (Almost Armageddon) are wildly incorrect speculation. Felix Salmon of Portfolio.com squashes it with some evidence: http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2009/02/11/kanjorski-and-the-money-market-funds-the-facts . Can we remove the references to the "Almost Armageddon"?
In the lead, it says:
Obviously, the Fed was not trying to aggravate the crisis. Paying interest on reserves supplies the banks with additional capital (assets minus liabilities), enabling them to lend more money. Also, some extensions of credit should be avoided because they are too risky. Making it easier for the banks to do that is not a bad thing, but a good thing. JRSpriggs ( talk) 04:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I think is would be useful to have a section on the political impact of The Global Financial Crisis. The start might be President Obama's landslide (I believe he would have been narrowly elected if there was no crisis). DOR (HK) ( talk) 08:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
There are also other political repercussions you need to consider, like the recent events in Iceland and Latvia, both directly related to the financial crisis. Comrade Graham ( talk) 07:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the riots that happened in Greece in Dec 2008 should be mentioned in the article, as a result/side effect of the crisis. Here's the main article: 2008 civil unrest in Greece. What do you think? Fireleaf ( talk) 18:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Given how big/important this event is, or is likely to become, I find it suprising how only remedies/actions that have already taken place are listed. Surely there must be some high profile people who have proposed solutions, or perhaps economic research teams?
I would also point out that there was a the ascent of money special done on this cricis which does not appear to be referenced. 68.144.80.168 ( talk) 21:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Please do a better job. I use and edit wikipedia for years and I'm completely puzzled on what each topic is. (I can imagine the complete confusion of random visitors) -- AaThinker ( talk) 19:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Greece was not just about that teenager getting shot. France is having huge protests. Luxury cars are getting torched in Germany. British police are expecting more aggressive protests this year as well. It seems like these consequences/responses really ought to be mentioned somewhere in this article about the crisis.
http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/552544 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/23/police-civil-unrest-recession http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5559773.ece http://www.rferl.org/content/Russia_Riot_Police_Detain_100_At_Economic_Crisis_Protest/1362050.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsVVQJ5t31o&feature=related http://article.wn.com/view/2009/01/21/Riots_in_Eastern_Europe_as_Crisis_Bites/ -- Nihilozero ( talk) 09:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Have there been any political repercussions related to this crisis? Or are people in the streets unconcerned and not taking any political actions because of the situation? Have there been mass protests in France? Was there a huge general strike in Greece in late February? Were their riots in Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, and Iceland? Why is this a crisis and why are the overtly related political consequences removed from this article? -- Nihilozero ( talk) 18:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm bizarrely reproached original research because I tried to relativize and clarify an original research section which title "Political Instability related to the economic crisis" is an unreferenced generalization based on a political point of view. Seems to me that the solution, in the absence of reliable source to justify that generalization, is to remove the section, whence remove the original research. -- Pgreenfinch ( talk) 13:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Pgreenfinch, I have a few questions for you: 1)Do you suggest that the economic/financial crisis is not related at all to any political instability? 1a)Do you you see any connection between economic events and political events? 1b)Why is this a financial crisis actually a "crisis" and not just another economic period? 2)When several reputable sources produce pictures and videos of millions protesting in the streets because of the economic crisis... do you think that the sources are bad, the events staged, or that the people documented are only saying they're in the streets because of the economy (when the real reason might be something else)? 2a) Do you think economic hardship has ever historically been related to political instability? 3) When you make note of the size of the protests in Iceland, why do you simultaneously choose to overlook the much larger economic protests elsewhere (like in France, Ireland, or Greece)? 3a)When you speak of "the French trade union" having it's "spring rehearsal this week," do you think this shows some sort of bias on your behalf? 3b)Do you think the Trade Union's position on the economic crisis is not noteworthy? 4)When the CIA deems the economic crisis to potentially be a destabilizing force and starts giving the president a daily update about the related instability, do you think the CIA is joking or misinterpreting events? 4a)Even if the CIA is joking or demonstrating a bias in regard to this financial crisis, don't you think that in itself is noteworthy? 5) When you see the section titled "Political instability related to the economic crisis," do you interpret that to mean: "All political instability everywhere ever has been caused by this economic crisis?" It would be much appreciated if you responded to these questions as you have thus far avoided answering similar questions here and on another talk page. These pages do need a lot of work, but it seems to me (and apparently to others) that you are hindering that work by continuing to tamper with this section (when not adding other poorly written sections citing only your own work). I'd suggest, if you at all want to be taken seriously in good faith, that you answer the questions I've listed above. Otherwise... please go vandalize and troll elsewhere (and no, I don't mean my personal talk page again). -- Nihilozero ( talk) 10:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
(<---)Pgreenfinch, so long as you can not supply reliable sources for your position, nor convince even a single other person of your position (see Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#Global financial crisis of 2008–2009); the ball is clearly in your court. To twist the contents to your original research fringe position is not in the interest of Wikipedia nor its readers. Are you capable of considering the possibility you are wrong? WAS 4.250 ( talk) 03:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. This is my first trip to this talk page. I am a content editor, and I posted this at WP:Finance a few moments ago. I've tried to read this article a few times, but I can't get past the first couple sections. My complaints are summarized in the post: the structure does not allow for layman understanding, links to integral concepts are not explained, and articles are filled with insider jargon. Actually, links may be explained, but the jargon and writing is so confusing that I'm not getting it. I'm willing to make an analogy between these articles and medical articles because the language is so inaccessible that folks who do not have significant experience in economic issues will be lost.
I have some suggestions, because I think this article can get to GA. If the ongoing nature of the crisis prevents that, at least the article will be accessible if some changes are made.
I suggest the following:
Beginning with failures caused by bad debts and debt insurance investment trading (derivatives) large financial institutions clarification needed in the United States and Europe faced a credit crisis, deflation and sharp reductions in shipping. [2] [3] The impacts rapidly evolved and spread into a global shock resulting in a number of European bank failures and declines in various stock indexes, and large reductions in the market value of equities ( stock) [4] and commodities worldwide. [5] The credit crisis was exacerbated by Section 128 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 which allowed the Federal Reserve System (Fed) to pay interest on excess reserve requirement balances held on deposit from banks, clarification needed removing the longstanding incentive for banks to extend credit instead of hoard cash on deposit with the Fed. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] The crisis led to a liquidity problem and the de-leveraging of financial institutions clarification needed especially in the United States and Europe, which further accelerated the liquidity crisis, and a decrease in international shipping and commerce. World political leaders and national ministers of finance and central bank directors have coordinated their efforts [12] to reduce fears but the crisis is ongoing and continues to change, evolving at the close of October into a currency crisis with investors transferring vast capital resources into stronger currencies such as the yen, the dollar and the Swiss franc, clarification needed leading many emergent economies to seek aid from the International Monetary Fund. [13] [14] The crisis was triggered by the subprime mortgage crisis and is an acute phase of the financial crisis of 2007–2010.
These are my suggestions. I'm happy to discuss them. I'm willing to work with anyone who is familiar with the issues in the article, specifically stating where concepts should be clarified. I'll help with copy editing, WP:MOS issues, and anything else.
Thoughts? -- Moni3 ( talk) 13:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay maybe we should take this from the top. I had a stab at the section on "Development and causation". Here is what it reads like now:
Beginning with failures caused by bad debts and debt insurance, large financial institutions in the United States and Europe faced a credit crisis and a slowdown in economic activity. [15] [16] The impacts rapidly developed and spread into a global shock resulting in a number of European bank failures and declines in various stock indexes, and large reductions in the market value of equities [17] and commodities. [5] The credit crisis was exacerbated by Section 128 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 which allowed the Federal Reserve to pay interest on excess reserve requirement balances held on deposit from banks, removing the incentive for banks to extend credit instead of placing cash on deposit with the Fed. [18] [19] [20] [21] [10] [22] dubious – discuss Moreover, the de-leveraging of financial institutions further accelerated the liquidity crisis, and a decrease in international trade. World political leaders and national ministers of finance and central bank directors have coordinated their efforts [23] to reduce fears but the crisis is ongoing and continues to change, developing at the close of October into a currency crisis with investors transferring vast capital resources into stronger currencies such as the yen, the dollar and the Swiss franc, leading many emergent economies to seek aid from the International Monetary Fund. [13] [14]
I know it still sucks - there should be further refinements. Also, we didn't do justice to the full development and causation - but we should restrict the discussion in this section to the overuse of jargon. Btw, I agree with JRSpriggs that we shouldn't mention section 128 of the EESA in such a negative light - there are advantanges to paying interest on reserves. Zain Ebrahim ( talk) 09:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
This article is missing a discussion and resources (external links) for deep ethical reflection on the economic crisis--on the choices that led to the collapse, and on the values or worldview behind behind those choices. (Listening to Obama last night makes clear that a reflection on values is a critical piece for analyzing and understanding what has happened). Twice I've posted a link to the page Global Economic Crisis: Theological Responses and Resources. I should have done this via the discussion page; my apologies. It might seem odd that a "theologian" /"ethicist" should get involved in the dialogue; but economic models stemming from the Western hemisphere have always been steeped, one way or another (whether we like it or not), in Christian theological assumptions about the world or about the goals of human activity (eg., as steward/care-taker of resources), etc. The church/ western Christians are in someway complicit in what has happened. This needs to be examined. The church's own self-imposed role has also always (ideally) been to be a prophetic voice for justice, for the poor, for the integrity of creation, etc., and to encourage an appropriate or better political and economic models to meet those needs. ... This is not the place to preach: but the wikipedia article on the crisis will remain shallow without serious ethical reflection. My external page link provides one set of those voices/resources. I would encourage other colleagues in philosophy depts or from other religions to join in sharing the deep resources of their traditions. A few good links will start the process. The economists will not understand what has happened solely by the tools of their discipline, nor will they solve this crisis on their own. Neufast ( talk) 16:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Your response lacks an argument. I'm glad to engage a considered philosophical, ethical, historical --or theological-- response/reflection. Neufast ( talk) 01:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure that it is possible to understand this situation outside of any particular framework, or to understand the situation without asking which philosophical/ethical/theological framework or paradigm led individual actors to act as they did. Can you identify any economic model or agent that doesn't work with a framework of one sort or another? These few examples should suffice to make my point:
These are but a few examples of the point I'm making. Every "account of the factual situation" is only "clear" or "rational" if it employs a specific rationality, a specific framework or paradigm that allows one to connect the dots. And yes, then debates begin about the strengths and weaknesses of a particular telling of the story. A good encyclopedia article must be aware of this and a good encyclopedia article writer/contributer must also be self-aware and make explicit the implicit frameworks with which they are collecting, excluding, viewing and organizing "raw data". Neufast ( talk) 16:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
To WAS 4.250 ( talk · contribs): When you reverted ("revert unsourced changes") some changes by Pgreenfinch, you also reverted my edit "remove misleading attacks on section 128". Was that intentional? If so, then I would like to point out that the arguments against section 128 sound like conspiracy theories. And as I mentioned in Talk:Global financial crisis of 2008–2009#Interest on reserves: bad or good?, paying interest on reserves has some benefits. What is more, the alleged problem that it discourages purchases of commercial paper is ridiculous because as one can see from this list of interest rates, the Fed has never paid more than 1.00%/year on excess reserves. So surely, if a bank believed that the risk of default on some commercial paper was less than say 3.00%, then it should be willing to lend to them at any interest rate greater than 4.13% even under these conditions. That is hardly a prohibitive interest rate to charge businesses. JRSpriggs ( talk) 20:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this article should be called "economic crisis", because it encompasses something more than only financial, and this also helps to differentiate to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.14.27 ( talk) 18:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Since we don't KNOW when the crisis will end this article should be open ended on the end date. Darkwand ( talk) 01:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the article should be renamed to include 2007 as the first year of GFC. It really all began after the credit crunch in 2007, which triggled severe financial instability, ultimately resulting in a Global Recession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptor001 ( talk • contribs) 13:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be best if this article was merged into the other one. This one is shorter than the other one (Financial Crisis of 2007-09). Someone just has to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Super wiki editor ( talk • contribs) 15:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This article can be deleted. Farcaster ( talk) 05:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
we should think about thinking —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjun.jethwa ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no use in this article, just a spammage of links, and almost no essence. The sections direct you to the main article financial crisis of 2007-2009. Perhaps a merger should be considered. Ryanquek95 ( talk) 13:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
Telegraph-Evans-Pritchard-2007-07-25
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
This is the
talk page of a
redirect that has been
merged and now targets the page: • 2007–2008 financial crisis Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:2007–2008 financial crisis Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives:
This should be taken out of the prelude because there is no second source backing this up and even Kanjorski is unclear about the exact date.
House Representative Paul E. Kanjorski stated in a January 27, 2009 interview with CSPAN that there was an "electronic run on the banks" commencing at 11AM on September 11, 2008. According to Rep. Kanjorski, the Federal Reserve noted a tremendous withdrawal of $550 billion dollars from money market accounts in the U.S. within a two hour time-span. The Federal Reserve responded by releasing $105 billion dollars into the financial system to stem the tide and announced that FDIC would guarantee up to $250,000 in money market deposits. Representative Kanjorski claims that if these steps had not been taken, the U.S. would have lost all its wealth within twenty-four hours [1]. This timeline of events was told to policymakers by Secretary of the Treasury Paulson on September 15, 2008.
Kanjorski does not say Sept. 11 - he says "Wednesday" around the 15th of Sept 2008. It was most certainly Sept. 18 - which would fit to the JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE RESEARCH REPORT related: http://www.capitalismgonewild.com/2009/02/update-rep-kanjorski-on-550-billion.html.
Not part of the prelude to the financial crisis and nothing to do the the "magical date" as some may wish imho! It should be scrapped because as later stated in the article does back up Sept. 18 as the correct date with the same figures: "By the morning of September 18, money market sell orders from institutional investors totalled $0.5 trillion, out of a total market capitalization of $4 trillion, but a $105 billion liquidity injection from the Federal Reserve averted an immediate collapse." . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.234.233.194 ( talk) 21:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I am someone that is not capable of speaking fluidly in the terms that are thrown around by this article. I am a true Wikipedian though; I manage to get around to quite a few different areas of study.
I want to say that this article is popular, very popular. The page view statistics tool has been showing very high page requests for this article. I've seen requests on the order of 1500+ per day. Very impressive indeed.
What the article needs in the section linked above, I think, is some expansion on the definition of and the significance of the short selling restriction that is mentioned. I am curious as to what that is; the article sort of assumes a certain level of knowledge.
So, just a request for some expansion... Thanks again.
E_dog95' Hi ' 02:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Would everyone please remember that when updating this, or any article with breaking events to use past tense, otherwise tomorrow and for the rest of time your entry will be inaccurate. I've just quickly corrected the section on the RBS share crash Jan 09, because someone wrote that RBS shares fell "today" and "at the moment the share price is..." Of course this all happened days ago so the entry was already inaccurate. -- 86.162.53.75 ( talk) 11:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
This page is way too long, how about having a September, October, November, etc page(s),-- Levineps ( talk) 19:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that a few editors have placed the contents of this Wikinews article. Is this what we're attempting to do here? Duplicate content across projects? My understanding is that this probably is not our goal. The editors are not using the edit summary (to be frank about what they're doing) so I've tried communicating with them via their talk page.
I would like to hear from some of the regular editors about this matter please. E_dog95' Hi ' 09:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
51 million job losses sounds like China, alone. DOR (HK) ( talk) 08:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The other article is the basis of this action. My suggestion would be that this article focus on financial aspects and the other on economics. 72.228.150.44 ( talk) 15:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I have removed a link to a Knol article several times asking the IP editors to show their rationale for continuing to add the link to several articles without comment. As a user-generated site, Knol is not considered a reliable source, and there's no indication that the author of this article has any authority or notability. Flowanda | Talk 06:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
is there nothing significant that happened after the week of January 19, 2009? Does that mean the crisis is over? 64.195.130.114 ( talk) 01:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Does the Kanjorski interview in the first section, and the "Money market funds insurance and short sales prohibitions" section, refer to the same event? Merge perhaps? Or maybe even delete the Kanjorski quotes as they add little but a politician's off-the-cuff speculative drama of what might have happened. 88.112.63.253 ( talk) 11:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe the Kanjorski remarks and link #29 (Almost Armageddon) are wildly incorrect speculation. Felix Salmon of Portfolio.com squashes it with some evidence: http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2009/02/11/kanjorski-and-the-money-market-funds-the-facts . Can we remove the references to the "Almost Armageddon"?
In the lead, it says:
Obviously, the Fed was not trying to aggravate the crisis. Paying interest on reserves supplies the banks with additional capital (assets minus liabilities), enabling them to lend more money. Also, some extensions of credit should be avoided because they are too risky. Making it easier for the banks to do that is not a bad thing, but a good thing. JRSpriggs ( talk) 04:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I think is would be useful to have a section on the political impact of The Global Financial Crisis. The start might be President Obama's landslide (I believe he would have been narrowly elected if there was no crisis). DOR (HK) ( talk) 08:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
There are also other political repercussions you need to consider, like the recent events in Iceland and Latvia, both directly related to the financial crisis. Comrade Graham ( talk) 07:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the riots that happened in Greece in Dec 2008 should be mentioned in the article, as a result/side effect of the crisis. Here's the main article: 2008 civil unrest in Greece. What do you think? Fireleaf ( talk) 18:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Given how big/important this event is, or is likely to become, I find it suprising how only remedies/actions that have already taken place are listed. Surely there must be some high profile people who have proposed solutions, or perhaps economic research teams?
I would also point out that there was a the ascent of money special done on this cricis which does not appear to be referenced. 68.144.80.168 ( talk) 21:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Please do a better job. I use and edit wikipedia for years and I'm completely puzzled on what each topic is. (I can imagine the complete confusion of random visitors) -- AaThinker ( talk) 19:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Greece was not just about that teenager getting shot. France is having huge protests. Luxury cars are getting torched in Germany. British police are expecting more aggressive protests this year as well. It seems like these consequences/responses really ought to be mentioned somewhere in this article about the crisis.
http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/552544 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/23/police-civil-unrest-recession http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5559773.ece http://www.rferl.org/content/Russia_Riot_Police_Detain_100_At_Economic_Crisis_Protest/1362050.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsVVQJ5t31o&feature=related http://article.wn.com/view/2009/01/21/Riots_in_Eastern_Europe_as_Crisis_Bites/ -- Nihilozero ( talk) 09:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Have there been any political repercussions related to this crisis? Or are people in the streets unconcerned and not taking any political actions because of the situation? Have there been mass protests in France? Was there a huge general strike in Greece in late February? Were their riots in Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, and Iceland? Why is this a crisis and why are the overtly related political consequences removed from this article? -- Nihilozero ( talk) 18:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm bizarrely reproached original research because I tried to relativize and clarify an original research section which title "Political Instability related to the economic crisis" is an unreferenced generalization based on a political point of view. Seems to me that the solution, in the absence of reliable source to justify that generalization, is to remove the section, whence remove the original research. -- Pgreenfinch ( talk) 13:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Pgreenfinch, I have a few questions for you: 1)Do you suggest that the economic/financial crisis is not related at all to any political instability? 1a)Do you you see any connection between economic events and political events? 1b)Why is this a financial crisis actually a "crisis" and not just another economic period? 2)When several reputable sources produce pictures and videos of millions protesting in the streets because of the economic crisis... do you think that the sources are bad, the events staged, or that the people documented are only saying they're in the streets because of the economy (when the real reason might be something else)? 2a) Do you think economic hardship has ever historically been related to political instability? 3) When you make note of the size of the protests in Iceland, why do you simultaneously choose to overlook the much larger economic protests elsewhere (like in France, Ireland, or Greece)? 3a)When you speak of "the French trade union" having it's "spring rehearsal this week," do you think this shows some sort of bias on your behalf? 3b)Do you think the Trade Union's position on the economic crisis is not noteworthy? 4)When the CIA deems the economic crisis to potentially be a destabilizing force and starts giving the president a daily update about the related instability, do you think the CIA is joking or misinterpreting events? 4a)Even if the CIA is joking or demonstrating a bias in regard to this financial crisis, don't you think that in itself is noteworthy? 5) When you see the section titled "Political instability related to the economic crisis," do you interpret that to mean: "All political instability everywhere ever has been caused by this economic crisis?" It would be much appreciated if you responded to these questions as you have thus far avoided answering similar questions here and on another talk page. These pages do need a lot of work, but it seems to me (and apparently to others) that you are hindering that work by continuing to tamper with this section (when not adding other poorly written sections citing only your own work). I'd suggest, if you at all want to be taken seriously in good faith, that you answer the questions I've listed above. Otherwise... please go vandalize and troll elsewhere (and no, I don't mean my personal talk page again). -- Nihilozero ( talk) 10:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
(<---)Pgreenfinch, so long as you can not supply reliable sources for your position, nor convince even a single other person of your position (see Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#Global financial crisis of 2008–2009); the ball is clearly in your court. To twist the contents to your original research fringe position is not in the interest of Wikipedia nor its readers. Are you capable of considering the possibility you are wrong? WAS 4.250 ( talk) 03:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. This is my first trip to this talk page. I am a content editor, and I posted this at WP:Finance a few moments ago. I've tried to read this article a few times, but I can't get past the first couple sections. My complaints are summarized in the post: the structure does not allow for layman understanding, links to integral concepts are not explained, and articles are filled with insider jargon. Actually, links may be explained, but the jargon and writing is so confusing that I'm not getting it. I'm willing to make an analogy between these articles and medical articles because the language is so inaccessible that folks who do not have significant experience in economic issues will be lost.
I have some suggestions, because I think this article can get to GA. If the ongoing nature of the crisis prevents that, at least the article will be accessible if some changes are made.
I suggest the following:
Beginning with failures caused by bad debts and debt insurance investment trading (derivatives) large financial institutions clarification needed in the United States and Europe faced a credit crisis, deflation and sharp reductions in shipping. [2] [3] The impacts rapidly evolved and spread into a global shock resulting in a number of European bank failures and declines in various stock indexes, and large reductions in the market value of equities ( stock) [4] and commodities worldwide. [5] The credit crisis was exacerbated by Section 128 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 which allowed the Federal Reserve System (Fed) to pay interest on excess reserve requirement balances held on deposit from banks, clarification needed removing the longstanding incentive for banks to extend credit instead of hoard cash on deposit with the Fed. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] The crisis led to a liquidity problem and the de-leveraging of financial institutions clarification needed especially in the United States and Europe, which further accelerated the liquidity crisis, and a decrease in international shipping and commerce. World political leaders and national ministers of finance and central bank directors have coordinated their efforts [12] to reduce fears but the crisis is ongoing and continues to change, evolving at the close of October into a currency crisis with investors transferring vast capital resources into stronger currencies such as the yen, the dollar and the Swiss franc, clarification needed leading many emergent economies to seek aid from the International Monetary Fund. [13] [14] The crisis was triggered by the subprime mortgage crisis and is an acute phase of the financial crisis of 2007–2010.
These are my suggestions. I'm happy to discuss them. I'm willing to work with anyone who is familiar with the issues in the article, specifically stating where concepts should be clarified. I'll help with copy editing, WP:MOS issues, and anything else.
Thoughts? -- Moni3 ( talk) 13:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay maybe we should take this from the top. I had a stab at the section on "Development and causation". Here is what it reads like now:
Beginning with failures caused by bad debts and debt insurance, large financial institutions in the United States and Europe faced a credit crisis and a slowdown in economic activity. [15] [16] The impacts rapidly developed and spread into a global shock resulting in a number of European bank failures and declines in various stock indexes, and large reductions in the market value of equities [17] and commodities. [5] The credit crisis was exacerbated by Section 128 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 which allowed the Federal Reserve to pay interest on excess reserve requirement balances held on deposit from banks, removing the incentive for banks to extend credit instead of placing cash on deposit with the Fed. [18] [19] [20] [21] [10] [22] dubious – discuss Moreover, the de-leveraging of financial institutions further accelerated the liquidity crisis, and a decrease in international trade. World political leaders and national ministers of finance and central bank directors have coordinated their efforts [23] to reduce fears but the crisis is ongoing and continues to change, developing at the close of October into a currency crisis with investors transferring vast capital resources into stronger currencies such as the yen, the dollar and the Swiss franc, leading many emergent economies to seek aid from the International Monetary Fund. [13] [14]
I know it still sucks - there should be further refinements. Also, we didn't do justice to the full development and causation - but we should restrict the discussion in this section to the overuse of jargon. Btw, I agree with JRSpriggs that we shouldn't mention section 128 of the EESA in such a negative light - there are advantanges to paying interest on reserves. Zain Ebrahim ( talk) 09:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
This article is missing a discussion and resources (external links) for deep ethical reflection on the economic crisis--on the choices that led to the collapse, and on the values or worldview behind behind those choices. (Listening to Obama last night makes clear that a reflection on values is a critical piece for analyzing and understanding what has happened). Twice I've posted a link to the page Global Economic Crisis: Theological Responses and Resources. I should have done this via the discussion page; my apologies. It might seem odd that a "theologian" /"ethicist" should get involved in the dialogue; but economic models stemming from the Western hemisphere have always been steeped, one way or another (whether we like it or not), in Christian theological assumptions about the world or about the goals of human activity (eg., as steward/care-taker of resources), etc. The church/ western Christians are in someway complicit in what has happened. This needs to be examined. The church's own self-imposed role has also always (ideally) been to be a prophetic voice for justice, for the poor, for the integrity of creation, etc., and to encourage an appropriate or better political and economic models to meet those needs. ... This is not the place to preach: but the wikipedia article on the crisis will remain shallow without serious ethical reflection. My external page link provides one set of those voices/resources. I would encourage other colleagues in philosophy depts or from other religions to join in sharing the deep resources of their traditions. A few good links will start the process. The economists will not understand what has happened solely by the tools of their discipline, nor will they solve this crisis on their own. Neufast ( talk) 16:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Your response lacks an argument. I'm glad to engage a considered philosophical, ethical, historical --or theological-- response/reflection. Neufast ( talk) 01:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure that it is possible to understand this situation outside of any particular framework, or to understand the situation without asking which philosophical/ethical/theological framework or paradigm led individual actors to act as they did. Can you identify any economic model or agent that doesn't work with a framework of one sort or another? These few examples should suffice to make my point:
These are but a few examples of the point I'm making. Every "account of the factual situation" is only "clear" or "rational" if it employs a specific rationality, a specific framework or paradigm that allows one to connect the dots. And yes, then debates begin about the strengths and weaknesses of a particular telling of the story. A good encyclopedia article must be aware of this and a good encyclopedia article writer/contributer must also be self-aware and make explicit the implicit frameworks with which they are collecting, excluding, viewing and organizing "raw data". Neufast ( talk) 16:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
To WAS 4.250 ( talk · contribs): When you reverted ("revert unsourced changes") some changes by Pgreenfinch, you also reverted my edit "remove misleading attacks on section 128". Was that intentional? If so, then I would like to point out that the arguments against section 128 sound like conspiracy theories. And as I mentioned in Talk:Global financial crisis of 2008–2009#Interest on reserves: bad or good?, paying interest on reserves has some benefits. What is more, the alleged problem that it discourages purchases of commercial paper is ridiculous because as one can see from this list of interest rates, the Fed has never paid more than 1.00%/year on excess reserves. So surely, if a bank believed that the risk of default on some commercial paper was less than say 3.00%, then it should be willing to lend to them at any interest rate greater than 4.13% even under these conditions. That is hardly a prohibitive interest rate to charge businesses. JRSpriggs ( talk) 20:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this article should be called "economic crisis", because it encompasses something more than only financial, and this also helps to differentiate to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.14.27 ( talk) 18:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Since we don't KNOW when the crisis will end this article should be open ended on the end date. Darkwand ( talk) 01:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the article should be renamed to include 2007 as the first year of GFC. It really all began after the credit crunch in 2007, which triggled severe financial instability, ultimately resulting in a Global Recession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptor001 ( talk • contribs) 13:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be best if this article was merged into the other one. This one is shorter than the other one (Financial Crisis of 2007-09). Someone just has to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Super wiki editor ( talk • contribs) 15:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This article can be deleted. Farcaster ( talk) 05:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
we should think about thinking —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjun.jethwa ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no use in this article, just a spammage of links, and almost no essence. The sections direct you to the main article financial crisis of 2007-2009. Perhaps a merger should be considered. Ryanquek95 ( talk) 13:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
Telegraph-Evans-Pritchard-2007-07-25
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)