Talk:2007–2008 financial crisis

Clinton - Deregulation => Wasn't it Reagan?

I just read this article and it gave me the impression that it was Clinton who deregulated everything. But didn't deregulation start with Reagan? Who was a big fan of Milton Friedman??? And wasn't it Reagan who put Greenspan in power, notably because his predecessor was against the liberalization of the banking sector and against the introduction of new "innovative" banking methods?

Ein Deutscher aus Freiburg

No. The key deregulations that broke down the separation of banks from doing riskier investment, insurance and other activities was passed under Clinton. See Robert Rubin who has helped lead Citibank to where it is now. Reagan deregulated the airlines, but I don't think that has much to do with the current financial crisis. ChildofMidnight (talk) _Wasn't_it_Reagan?" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">17:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are wrong. One of the main reasons Greenspan followed Volcker was that Greenspan supported the regan-deregulations of the banking sector: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEEDA1339F930A35755C0A961948260

(VOLCKER OUT AFTER 8 YEARS AS FEDERAL RESERVE CHIEF; REAGAN CHOOSES GREENSPAN; NY Times June 3, 1987)

You should be able to find plenty of serious articles about this fact... And sorry again! Reagan did a lot against communism. And his "Reaganomics" worked great 20 years ago. But they probably should have been reformed in the meantime. Because the deregulations HE started lead to the massive destruction of American wealth&importance we can watch today. Ein Deutscher aus Freiburg

I won't put it in the article because its obviously a POV not shared by most people, but it really makes me sick to see people blaming the current mess on "deregulations" because they know, or at least should know that the financial industry is already the most heavily regulated industry (after healthcare, perhaps) in the world. It is the most extreme form of stupidity to blame the current crisis on a lack of regulations. Billions have been spent to adhere to those regulations, and still there is a crisis. "All of a sudden there is a crisis", and the thousands of civil servants on the lookout didn't see it happen. And what do you think is the problem? Not enough regulations! There seems to be something very strange with economics that doesn't exist for physics or whatever, people keep insisting that the facts are not really facts and that more regulations is the solution. LOOK AT THE FACTS. And stop your righteous "We don't want simple gravity. We need to invest in better gravity, one that helps us all instead of just the rich", "we want a better world", "we want to stop people from being selfish" or whatever catchphrase happens to sound good enough to believe. The mess we're in is created by regulations, and more regulations is obviously not the solution. I really don't understand your mindset. It may be a religious-like thing, but then again, God burying dinosaurs just to test our faith sounds pretty sane compared to blaming this crisis to a lack of regulations. I really, really do not understand your mindset. Joepnl (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree, regulations, now the ever present buzzword and mantra, were part of the problem (they encouraged off balance sheet operations for example). Those usually overcomplex and unappliable rules try to prevent ...past anomalies but are soon obsolete in case of new - therefore different - situations. We cannot count on them to bring solutions. I wrote something about that, but some censors (the same who bizarrely seem to accept fully that several articles be vandalized with the same copy and paste political spam) would consider that I cannot put a link that explain my arguments, even in a discussion page, so sorry not to give you that link. To sum it up, that article about overconfidence in economic regulation considers that governance based on a few common sense principles and above all on much anticipation, and exercized by a global authority (as finance is global), would be much more effective than a maze or regulations. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

o o o o o Pgreenfinch, Joepnl, and anyone else who argues that deregulation was NOT a causal factor are either extremely ignorant, or outright lying to advance a neo-liberal economic agenda. I covered many of the hearings in the House Banking Committee in 1989 to 1993, when Henry Gonzalez was chairman, and the issues of financial derivatives and off-balance sheet liabilities were being considered. I saw how the money center banks were able to stifle and sabotage meaningful regulation time and time again. I heard then SEC-head Richard Breeden, under intense and heated questioning from Chairman Gonzalez, defend a hands-off approach to financial "innovation." I repeat, Pgreenfinch, Joepnl, and anyone else who argues that deregulation was NOT a causal factor are either extremely ignorant, or outright lying. o o o o o —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.8.227 (talk) _Wasn't_it_Reagan?" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">05:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I am very sorry, but one really gets the impression that this article was written by some guys from the banking sector. Because yes, DEREGULATIONS IN THE BANKING SECTOR STARTED WITH REAGAN. And it is very difficult to ignore this fact, espescially when all major medias are reporting about it right now." the financial industry is already the most heavily regulated industry"=> Never heard about Madoff and the many others? This sounds like "Out of space" to me??? Ein Deutscher aus Freiburg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.176.242.9 (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Madoff? Isn't that a perfect example of regulations that haven't worked? And yes, you could see that from the moon. Ponzi schemes have been illegal for ages in case you didn't notice. I guess you are proposing a new law, "this time Ponzi Schemes are really forbidden"? No that's not good enough. "This time Ponzi schemes are really, really forbidden, except of course when it's called social security, in which case everyone has to take part." Joepnl (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. How could the banking system be so overregulated, when the old "ponzy Scheme" trick can still destroy so much wealth in your country? And then how can you pretend that there has been overregulation in the US? I would also like to mention, that our German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrück explained to the US&UK governments long before the crisis that it would be urgent to implement more regulation. In hindsight he was absolutely right. Anyway, yes DEREGULATIONS IN THE BANKING SECTOR STARTED WITH REAGAN:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEEDA1339F930A35755C0A961948260

=> "The main philosophical difference between Mr. Volcker, a Democrat, and Mr. Greenspan, a Republican, appears to be in their views of the structure and regulation of the banking system. Mr. Volcker has tended to resist deregulation of banks while Mr. Greenspan is more favorably disposed to it."

Sincerely, this "Financial crisis of 2007–2009" article is extremely unbalanced. Obviously some banking-people or others are trying to influence this article in order to fight more regulations. And in order to blame Clinton and the Democrats for all the problems. Ein Deutscher aus Freiburg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.176.217.174 (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah come on, what Madoff did was ALREADY forbidden, there was no "missing regulation". This information is one click away Madoff Securities LLC was investigated at least 8 times in 16 years by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and other regulatory authorities.[80] , but you just don't want to read anything, because it wouldn't fit into your "more regulations is all we need" world view. It is the SEC that failed in the Madoff case, NOT a lack of regulations. If regulation works, you will want more regulation. If it fails you see it as proof we need more of it. Stop your stupid heads I win, tail you lose game. Joepnl (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Reagan may not have deregulated everything; the deregulation ideology moved into view and action with Thatcher before Reagan. This ideology was sponsored by rich and powerful people as well as organisations in Britain, Europe, and the US which are described in Brian Crozier's book 'Free Agent'. There was a whole international network that worked for freedon but meant deregulation and small government.

I am not sure how helpul it is to fingerpoint who did what first; the ideological underpinning from Thatcherism/Reaganomics, which was the same thing in green as we would have said in German, is where the fault lies.

I agree. One may argue that that deregulation started with Reagan & Thatcher but their successors continued that trend, and I think it is fair to say that deregulation was ocurring right up until the point that the wheels fell off. Also, financial deregulation was a key goal of almost every country between 1980 and 2007. The European Union had a common passport that allowed many types of financial organisation to operate in multiple members states, pretty much every nation except North Korea opened its markets more.

Although British and then European deregulation was led by the Thatcher administration, US deregulation began under Carter. Banks were increasingly finding loopholes to Glass Steagall, and no serious attempt was made to stop them. I do not know if this was a formal policy, or simply that so many things went wrong under Carter (oil crises, Israel, inflation, etc that they may simply have not had the energy to do anything.

In any case, there were several changes of government in every nation that deregulated, none chose to roll it back, regardless of political philosophy, except for some changes in regulation of consumer finance. Ironically, some of those improvements in the rights of consumers turned out to make things worse, some even assert that this was a primary cause of the crisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DominicConnor (talk • contribs) _Wasn't_it_Reagan?" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">20:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It is often said, that the crisis confirmed Marx with his prediction that capitalism must ultimately implode. Let's use another German phrase which Marx, a native German speaker, might have had in mind to enhance our understanding: Capitalism will saw off the branch on which it is sitting.

I would like to float another cause for the crisis, which a scholar (I am not one) might explore. I once read a book called 'The Laundrymen' which described illegal money flows, from drugs, guns, and tax havens to fraudsters in the finance system. It said there somewhere that the illegal economy would be about the size of the legal economy, and if the illegal economy were taken out of the equation, the global finacial system would collapse.

Since Set. 11 we have a lot more monitoring of money movements. Is it not conceivable that this net has caught a sizable chunk of the illegal economy which caused the collapse of an already fragile system? This does not help us much in the current situation but the better we understand the causes, the better we can prepare to avoid another global crisis.

It is fascinating to read that they released the financial institutions from the net capital rule in 2004, and in no time at all they have indeed sawn off the branch on which they were sitting.

Can we build a monument for Hank Paulson to remind future generations how NOT to do it? 121.209.49.104 (talk) _Wasn't_it_Reagan?" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">01:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It is unclear if the practice of using ones own investment, rebundled and repurchased from third parties, as collateral for the hedge on that very investment comes from deregulation or lack of enforcement. Most would agree firms using such methods should at minimum be rated the worst rating. This has not been done in the US or Britain in the last few years. Free-marketers should recognize that deliberate collusion on faking the ratings was criminal conspiracy. Bureaucrats should recognize that the prior regulatory system was either not enforced, or that previous bureaucratic methods are to blame. One or the other must be true. Mydogtrouble (talk) _Wasn't_it_Reagan?" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">19:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The biggest issue I have with this article is this: It is written from a purely American (that is the United States of America) point of view and furthermore one that is anti-establishment. It puts the blame of the financial woes of wealthy and middleclass of the G20 squarely on America and its "crooked" or "stupid" financial institutions and government. It should be merged and it does not follow the proper policies here on Wiki: see Recentism [[1]]. In defense of my argument where is the financial crisis of 2001 or 1983? This is recent and slanted anti-establishment and full of both anti-American and European sentiment. The best place for this is under the year events for the 2000's decade or as a note in the year entry for 2008 or 2009. (Svenelven (talk) _Wasn't_it_Reagan?" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">17:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

Name

Is the crisis over? If not, then why does the title seem to suggest that? 60.240.41.159 (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not appear to be over yet. If an ending date is not specified then some people will complain that it implies that the crisis will go on forever (see the naming disputes about Late-2000s recession on its talk page). If and when it continues into 2010, then the article will be renamed. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The late-2000s recession ended in mid-2009. Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. The name is wrong. It implies, erroneously, that it both began in 2007 and ended in 2009. This is not only incorrect but contributes to moral hazard. This should be called The Global Financial Crisis as it is commonly known. Should it be one day deemed to be over, the title can be changed to "The Global Financial Crisis of ..." FrankSz (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Most users are aware that the recession is still in effect (seeing the high unemployment rates). I agree with JRSpriggs that the name could (and will) be changed on 1 January 2010 to "The Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2010." Nonamer98 (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

...or just "The Global Financial Crisis of 2007-(present)"?64.47.91.34 (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As of today, most developed economies are no longer in "crisis" mode, rather recovery mode. Technically the recession has ended in the US, UK, Germany, Japan, Australia and Canada and there was no recession in large major developing economies like Brazil and China. I think this should be reflected in the article. 208.12.121.254 (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• I agree and will move it. Racepacket (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Has this ended?

I think the title "Financial crisis of 2007–2010" clearly implies that this has ended. But I see no indication in this document that it has ended, or more importantly, how that was determined. I would suggest "2007-present", but I believe there is a policy against using the word "present" at all. So unless there is objection, I will plan to change the title to "Financial crisis beginning 2007". Darxus (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that this was recently discussed and resulted in changing the title from "2009" to "2010". This is still very misleading. I saw the title and thought "Did it end? How was that determined?" Darxus (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Darxus, I was going to suggest same thing and then noticed it had been done already time and time again.--JosephMifsud (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed it. Viriditas changed it back, stating "Financial crisis beginning 2007, is not standard or recommended." on my talk page. Where is the standard? WP:MOS#Longer_periods does not appear to include it. Darxus (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That's hardly a consensus considering JosephMifsud's account was created to "agree" with Darxus.[2] In any case, the current title is accurate and does not imply that anything has ended since 2010 is a new year. Financial crisis beginning 2007 is unprecedented. We don't have open-ended article titles. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not claim consensus (or create the JosephMifsud account). I asked where the standard is. Where is the standard? Darxus (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Range_of_years_which_has_not_ended Darxus (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Some people believe that the "Great Recession" has already ended due to GDP stats and the like. How come there is no reference in this article to show this? Several economists have said that since June 2009, it's already started to "look up" a bit. ★Dasani★ 01:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be respectful of other peoples opinion, just because you think so doesn't mean I believe so. South Bay (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not being disrespectful to you at all. I've not inserted my personal opinion to this page. Just sayin' that some economists think it's over already. Why is this not stated in the current article? Wikipedia seeks to provide a fair, unbiased sort of community that represents no specific point of view whatsoever, while managing to cover all aspects of the issue at hand. Don't take it so personally. ★Dasani★ 07:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Calling an end to "crisis"

• I am not going to weigh in on whether the recession is over, however I would suggest that a very clear deliniation be made between the ongoing Late-2000s recessionand the Financial crisis that precipitated the recession. It is becoming increasingly clear that the financial crisis ended in 2009 when large bank failures came to an end, liquidity returned to the markets and the asset prices began to return to pre-crisis levels. The recession, however is ongoing. Almost by definition, I don't think you can have a 3-year long "crisis". When most politicians or reporters refer to the "worst financial crisis since the great depression" it is now used in a past tense. I think dating the end of the crisis phase to 2009 is appropriate. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 16:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know why the article was moved to Financial crisis of 2007–2010. Coz the economic data show that all major countries, including US, Japan, EU , Russia, China and India are out of the recession. Yes, I admit the economy is still very terrible, but that is just what we "feel", the economic data should be the most authoritative. Currently there's no obvious economy growth doesn't mean it's still in the crisis or recession--1j1z2 (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is almost certain that the financial crisis is over, but it would be nice if we could can get some reliable sources that state that as well. Does anyone have links to any newspapers, financial blogs or magazine articles that have stated that the crisis is over? LK (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick google search brings up some articles that state that the financial crisis is over. If a kind soul could mine the search results and add it as appropriate to the article? Thanks, LK (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, as has sometimes been said, it's not over until it is over. There's still a lot of trouble in the financial system, and it still could fold up at any moment. It's best not to give the impression that it ended last year when it might have not, although it would be good to state that many believe that it is presently over. --Patricius Augustus (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• If there is another financial crisis in 2010 or 2011 wouldn't it make sense to have a separate article, distinct from this one relating to that crisis? I think it is pretty clear that the crisis is ended. If we have another crisis - it is not a big deal at that point to reconsider naming but at this point there is no reason to wait around for another crisis to decide on the name of this article. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 16:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• If there were a crisis this year, and if it is clear that it would be a continuation of the crisis we're talking about, then it would make sense to include it in this article, since it would be clearly an expression of the "2007-2009" crisis, and not a new crisis. This could happen, let's say, if the government prop-ups for the failed banks end up folding, and the banks fail. The crisis is not over in reality (or beneath the surface, if you will), it has just been masked and cushioned with a lot of bailouts and inflated money. There are also a lot of smaller, non-TARPed banks still failing, and this provides a window into what would have happened if the banks had not been bailed out. And in response to your point about waiting until another crisis, I do not advocate waiting until another crisis, I advocate until the crisis can be said to be over fundamentally, without inflation or bailouts or government support. It is at this point I would be on your side, and declare the crisis over. --Patricius Augustus (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• The reasoning on calling the bounds of a biz cycle are fairly clear. Capitalist Accumulation assumes an ever increasing arc but one punctuated by these crises which are generally crises in Capitalism and not crises of Capitalism. The exception is the great Bear Market which was a Crisis (Marxian) and all other crises are measured against it. When the secular trend of equity share prices has a continually positive second derivative over sufficiently large subintervals after passing the low of the cycle and with an overall duration of the downturn comparable to the reference epochal and other cycles, then the crisis is considered over. The overall process can be based against a curve underlying the low points of the overall historical share price curve since 1929 (the implicit monotonically increasing secular arc of accumulation). 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Great Depression had two separate and distinct collapses, with a period of quasi-recovery in between. Does anyone here suggest that, because of that period in between, it be separated into two separate articles? With the benefit of hindsight and just a little historical perspective, we might be able to set end points for the current situation, dividing as necessary. Here and now, the citable sources are far too divided on everything except that GDP rose (barely) -- and not everyone agrees on that as a valid definition in any case. (It might have been more generally acceptable among experts - as it had been, before - were we not where we are now.) - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.99 (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Regulatory proposals

This section begins with Obama's proposals from June 2009, but does not include the more recent 'Volcker rule" proposals to restrict proprietary trading and other activities. Unless I there is a consensus against this, I will add that information to this section.Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This section seems seriously out of date, given the financial reform proposal being taken up by congress. Barring any serious objections, I'll try to get to this later this week and add some material about the proposed legislation. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Added before or around Section 1.2

Somewhere in this whole discussion though there needs to be mention of the United States Legislature rejecting the option to make Mortgage Insurance (MI) tax deductible in the Late 1990’s as a possible/probable cause of the Crisis. The decision not to allow this deduction based on the “cost” in tax payer dollars is a major contributing factor to the Crisis. There is some date in there where they defeated a bill that would have moved MI to tax deductible and then did so in subsequent sessions as well until I believe 2008 when they now will allow it for a short time? The lack of a tax deduction paved the way for the infamous 80/10/10 mortgage because now you could get a mortgage with a blended interest rate that would have a payment less than a standard 90% Loan to Value (LTV) mortgage with Mortgage Insurance and the added interest would be tax deductible. This in turn provides the statistical basis for the 80/15/5 and finally by around 2002 the 80/20. Followed by the easing of credit requirements even on the 80/20’s until you could get an 80/20 No Income No Asset loan on a Non-Owner Occupied property that started to be available in late 2004 and early 2005. All in the name of the “tax benefit” and without regard on a loan by loan basis as to whether that the Loan would be repaid. The Mortgage Insurance industry began to run from even providing contract underwriting for these questionable products around late 2005 due to the perceived risk of even doing the underwriting on them and especially since they were not insuring them. Thus we lost the checks and balances system that had been in place since the 80’s with structured oversight in what was being offered in the mortgage arena for risky loans that were over 80% LTV.

Hopefully someone with a better grasp on how to write something worthy of Wikipedia could address this issue in a way that would make sense. Specturm (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Specturm

Unlikely. Many places around the world where even mortgage payments are not tax-deductible, even just on the other side of the 49th parallel, escaped the greater part of the collapse. Discussion of the financial vehicles themselves, independent of the tax question, is already in the article. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.180 (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

US centric

This is a very US centric article, which is a big problem being that this is a global phenomena. --TIAYN (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll concur especially as much of the US response was ultimately driven by the UK and the Eurozone. The section "Credit markets and the shadow banking system" fails to mention the actions of the UK treasury at all, which actually drove the global response, including that of the USA. The original US plan was only to purchase toxic assets under TARP and not to recapitalise the banks and issue loan guarantees, however they were forced down this road after the UK elected this path, as failure to do so would make the US banks non-competitive (no-one is going to lend money to a non-guaranteed US bank when there is a guaranteed UK/Euro alternative). Eurozone banks quickly followed the UK model, adding to the pressure on the US. 59.101.33.190 (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

DominicConnor (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)I agree, although it is hard to say that any given response was driven in any direction, objectively all we can say today is that event A happened before event B. This is because different players have varying speeds at which the can or will act, and given the politicisation of the situation governments/regulators are sticking to the line that they are "cooperating", so I'd favour phrasing as "the ECB did X, then the Fed did Y", unless there is evidence that X caused Y.

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep at least ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree auto archiving in order, but think 90 days more appropriate for cycle, didn't know you could set a min to leave unarchived. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Crisis to Crises

Although all the financial crises taking place around this time started around the same period, not all were stemming form the same cause, and they took place in multiple countries. Therefore I suggest the page's title be changed to "Financial crises of 2007-2010" Whalen207 (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You are most likely right, but I think the whole event has rolled into one in the press and public consciousness and is commonly referred to as a single crisis. Wikipeterproject (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a also a preference in the Wikipedia MOS for article titles to be in the singular. LK (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that would apply in this type of situation; see for instance September 11, 2001 attacks. Tisane (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

An extra controversy

Although the bad effects of the credit bubble are easy to see, I'd like to point out that in this period China, India and a few hundred million people scattered around the world, mostly in Asia moved from a state of abject poverty to a point where honest, smart people in the West see them as a threat as equals.

Where did the money for this come from ?

Sure they work cheap, (but not so cheap now), but the machines et al cost serious money, and the demand created by the credit bubble gave them a market. Making stuff without a market, doesn't work, you need both.

So, I assert that the credit bubble took a very large number of people out of poverty, maybe a whole billion, not out of charity, but if none of your children die of hunger, when you live you in a place that 20 years ago had horrific child mortality, you ain't going to care are you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DominicConnor (talk • contribs) 20:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Economy

Wow what a complete mess America has gotten in. How could so many thing go wrong? What were these greedy - incompentent people thinking? It serves them right but not us little ones who are paying dearly for these mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starb10 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

As a small business owner in the U.S. who benefitted from the economic strength of the late '80s until 2001, I see these recent recessionary years as a continuation of the recession of mid-2001, when we saw the Dow Jones Index lose about 30% over a few month period. The immediate drop-off in sales that I saw in my retail business starting in mid-2001 never recovered, it just spiralled downwards. I would be interested in seeing a paragraph tieing in these recent recessioary years with the economic downturn of mid-2001, if someone deems it a relevant point.76.28.99.174 (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Financial crisis of 2007-present

Why not rename it to Financial crisis of 2007-present? That way, we don't have to keep renaming it every year that this thing drags on. Having an ending year makes it sound as though it's over. Tisane (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur. I would also recommend "Current financial crisis", and mention in the first paragraph that it has yet to have an "official" name. I know it lacks a degree of neutrality, but there are no good options; it could last another month or another decade. We also need a few bots doing cleanup. I just found this page through a link to "Global financial crisis of 2008-2009" (on the page Universal Studios Dubailand). There are currently around 30 pages redirecting to that version of the name. If the two dozen or so other possible redirects have similar numbers, there could be 1000 pages linking to alternate titles. samwaltz (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I also concur. We might even consider using the more broad "economic crisis of 2007-present", so as not to limit it to just the financials, as the the auto industry and energy industry are major parts of the overall scope.

Can we get a vote on this? --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The recession may or may not be over, but the financial crisis is over. Numerous sources attest to this. See this, this, this and this for example. Does anyone object to changing it back to 2007-2009? If so, can we have some sources please? Thanks LK (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the recent news and new indictments against Goldman Sachs, and the fact that the U.S. Congress has not yet passed any regulation that would address the failures that led to the crisis, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the crisis is ongoing. Just one opinion. Robert K S (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Last week[3] a member of the European Central Bank stated that "We may already have entered into the next phase of the crisis: a sovereign debt crisis following on the financial and economic crisis." Mporter (talk) 06:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Financial crisis = recession?

Are the financial crisis and the recession one and the same? Because it sure feels like we're still in a recession. Tisane (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Article Duplication?

Could someone please explain to me the difference between Financial crisis of 2007–2010 and Late-2000s recession? They seem to be duplicated articles to a large extent. 75.154.95.21 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC).

I agree that there is a great deal of overlap here. Some serious work would obviously be required to combine them. However, I'm not sure you can make much of an argument for having both articles. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Effects on the working class?

Seems like all this article focuses on is the institutions with little or no mention of the dire effects this has had on the general population. Why is that?