Misplaced Pages

Talk:2007–2008 financial crisis: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:22, 13 August 2011 editQuest for Truth (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,599 edits →Possibility of double-dip recession: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 04:10, 14 August 2011 edit undoSmallbones (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers59,709 edits →Possibility of double-dip recessionNext edit →
Line 251: Line 251:


As some media like '']'' have pointed out that, , and if they are right, should the double dip be considered as a single crisis or two separate crises? --] (]) 02:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC) As some media like '']'' have pointed out that, , and if they are right, should the double dip be considered as a single crisis or two separate crises? --] (]) 02:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

:Recessions and financial crises are two different things. ] (]) 04:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:10, 14 August 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2007–2008 financial crisis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBusiness High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEconomics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFinance & Investment High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFinance & Investment High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about the Financial crisis of 2007-2010, personal opinions regarding its causes, government handling of the crisis etc or anything else not related to improvement of the article. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Financial crisis of 2007-2010, personal opinions regarding its causes, government handling of the crisis etc or anything else not related to improvement of the article at the Reference desk.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2007–2008 financial crisis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

World map of GDP growth rates

I posted this on the talk page for the image but I'll post it here too. The map of world GDP growth rates shows Botswana's economy collapsing with Zimbabwe's economy slightly rising. I'm no economist but I do read the news; isn't Botswana the one with the relatively thriving economy while Zimbabwe is the one with the collapsing economy?

Right now Botswana is the country in southern Africa that is dark brown (i.e. decreased 8-10%) while Zimbabwe, to its immediate northeast, is green.

Zimbabwe gave up on its currency and adopted the greenback. That might have something to do with it, especially considering that "improvement" would be relative to previously rock-bottom (and digging). - Tenebris

Trimming External Links

I have trimmed the external links section per WP:EL. Please add links with care, making sure that they are allowed by a specific category detailed at WP:ELYES. For convenience of use as sources, I'm listing the links trimmed below. Note that some of these links don't qualify as reliable sources.

It's official

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Late-2000s financial crisis. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


Financial crisis (2007–present) → Financial crisis (2007-2008) — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I went to move this as discussed below, but I think it's move-protected because of the multiple moves of mid-january. I don't think there is any serious question now about moving it: there is an official report saying it ended in 2008, and no sources saying it went any longer. Smallbones (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The United States Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission dates the crisis to 2008. Actually they mention some events in 2007 so I think "Financial Crisis of 2007-2008" would be an acceptable title. The current title of "Financial crisis (2007–present)" is clearly improper at this point. Smallbones (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

  1. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Get the Report, accessed 2-14-2011.
  2. Financial Crisis Was Avoidable, Sewell Chan, New York Times, January 25, 2011, accessed 2-14-2011.

Interesting. In that case the stuff on the European sovereign debt crisis needs to be moved to another page. LK (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The obvious place to move it would be European sovereign debt crisis of 2010–present, but since it appears that this section is just a bad summary of that article, I think the result would just be to totally eliminate it. There are certainly neutral, fairly mechanical, ways to merge articles, i.e. search the larger article for the topic covered in the first sentence of the smaller section. If there is no mention, insert at the best point; if there is a mention .... Repeat with the 2nd sentence. If somebody else would like to do this - I'd prefer it. If nobody else does it by Monday, I'll do it. Smallbones (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Given the above, I propose changing the name of the article to "Late-2000s financial crisis" to follow the article on Late-2000s recession. LK (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

When does the Misplaced Pages become so US-centric and no WP:common sense? Obviously the focus of the report of the US Commission is the CAUSE of the financial crisis. Since the origin is indeed the US housing bubble, plus the only purpose of the Commission is to serve the US people, it is no wonder the report only mention what happens in the US and ignore the global consequences. It states clearly in the preface:

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission was created to “examine the causes of the current financial and economic crisis in the United States.” In this report, the Commission presents to the President, the Congress, and the American people the results of its examination and its conclusions as to the causes of the crisis.

The Commission is only responsible to the US, but Misplaced Pages should have a WP:global perspective. I would suggest that to create an article about the American financial crisis of 2008 to put those materials related to the US and keep this article cover all the global consequences.--HkQwerty (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It all comes down to reliable sources. There are reliable sources that i) date the crisis to 2007-2008, and ii) describe the crisis as mainly American (with albeit global impact). If you contend otherwise, kindly provide reliable sources that i) date the crisis otherwise, and distinguish an 'American financial crisis of 2008' from a 'Global financial crisis of 2007 to present'. My contention is that reliable sources identifies only one late 2000s financial crisis, and that the crisis officially dates from 2007 to 2008. LK (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit late following this up, but I'll move it following the above logic. Nothing has been added since the discussion started that changes any of this. Smallbones (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't care about the exact wording but I would strongly prefer a move to something along the lines of "2007-2008", because 2007-present is so misleading/inaccurate. bobrayner (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added another source under "Stabilization"

The only quirk is that they identify March, 2009 as the "nadir", which goes along with what the stock market has done. But maybe the title should be Financial crisis of 2007-2009

Smallbones (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Since there is some question as to whether it started in late-2007 or mid-2008, and whether it ended in late-2008 or mid-2009, I suggest that we rename to Late-2000s financial crisis. This also reflects the naming of the associated recession, the Late-2000s recession. LK (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
That's fine. Let's do it. What does it actually take to get it moved? Smallbones (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to post at WP:Requested moves, as there is clear consensus here that the move should proceed. I'm also going to make an edit protected request, as there's a ridiculously long backlog on the requested moves page. LK (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why not call this artcle the Global Financial Crisis?

I do not understand how this happened, but I recall this article being called the Financial Crisis of 2007-2008, which was fine since the financial crisis started around that time and we are still feeling its after effects. But even so why did this article change finally to the Late-2000's Financial Crisis? If you are concerned about what to call this crisis, thus this artcle, then call it simply the Global Financial Crisis because frankly that's the most commonly used term for the event. What is amusing to me is how searching for "Global Financial Crisis" on[REDACTED] brings me to this article. Therefore I don't see a problem. Xangel (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Subprime lending and GSEs

From the article:

In the early and mid-2000s, the Bush administration called numerous times for investigation into the safety and soundness of the GSEs and their swelling portfolio of subprime mortgages. On Sept. 10, 2003 the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing at the urging of the administration to assess safety and soundness issues and to review a recent report by OFHEO (Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight) that had uncovered accounting discrepancies within the two entities. The hearings never resulted in new legislation or formal investigation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as many of the committee members refused to accept the report and instead rebuked OFHEO for their attempt at regulation. Some believe this was an early warning to the systemic risk that the growing market in subprime mortgages posed to the U.S. financial system that went unheeded.

References "
  1. "Bush White House Archive". whitehouse.gov.
  2. "OFHEO Report on Systemic Risk" (PDF). fhfa.gov.
  3. "House Hearing on OFHEO Report". house.gov.
  4. (PDF). international-economy.com. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
"

I've tagged this text, which has been added to several crisis-related articles and is grossly misleading. I had previously removed it with an explanation in the edit summary but it has since been reinstated without any explanation. Let me flesh out the problems with it.

It uses primary sources, one of which is a list of White House talking points to advance an original argument that the WH, OFHEO concerns were an early warning of risks in subprime lending which Congress wrongly ignored. But the sources tend to deal with things like capital adequacy, management reforms, accounting errors, etc; not risks in subprime lending. The text also selectively omits to mention the pressure on the GSEs from Wall Street & mortgage originators as well as the Bush administration to continue to expand lending. It doesn't identify Peter Wallison, an American Enterprise Institute fellow who gets a disproportionate voice in this article, and instead weasel words his view. Finally, the whole emphasis on subprime lending backed by GSEs is misleading since most subprime loans were actually securitized by private investors.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no current consensus to move - I would postpone the requested move until the RFC is finished. Regards, KiloT 21:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Late-2000s financial crisis → Financial crisis (2007–present) –

  • Recognizability – article titles are expected to be a recognizable name or description of the topic.
  • "Late 2000s" is not recognizable. Also notice above the comment Talk:Late-2000s_financial_crisis#Why_not_call_this_artcle_the_Global_Financial_Crisis.3F I do not understand how this happened, but I recall this article being called the Financial Crisis of 2007-2008, which was fine since the financial crisis started around that time and we are still feeling its after effects. But even so why did this article change finally to the Late-2000's Financial Crisis?
  • Naturalness – titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles). As part of this, a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English.
  • Who in their right mind will start their search for Late-2000s financial crisis?
  • Precision – titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.
  • For this I would suggest the word 2007 be in title.
  • Conciseness – titles are expected to be shorter rather than longer.

--Obsolete.fax (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Also at the section above Talk:Financial crisis (2007–present)#It's_official the discussion was for Financial crisis (2007–present) → Financial crisis (2007-2008). --Obsolete.fax (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC on page name

What is the appropriate title for this page. Should this page be named:

  • Late-2000s financial crisis (current)
  • 2007 financial crisis
  • Financial crisis (2007–2008)
  • Financial crisis (2007–2009)
  • Financial crisis (2007–2010)
  • Financial crisis (2007–present)
  • Global Financial Crisis

Previous discussions: 8 June 2011, 22 January 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrencekhoo (talk • contribs) 08:39, 8 June 2011

Discussion

  • This is one of those issues that is tough to define whether or not the financial crisis is over or still ongoing; I suppose only time will tell. I would think "Financial crisis (2007–2009)" would be the best choice given the arguments linked in those 2 sections. However, I wouldn't be surprised if renaming is brought up again as experts continue to weigh in on the global status of the economy.  Leef5   18:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Global financial crisis, because:
  • That's what it seems to mostly be referred to in the (Australian) media.
  • My (layman's) understanding is that it has global scope, and is not limited to a single country.
  • We probably don't need to the years in the title; so far as I am aware there's no ambiguity. There isn't/wasn't any other GFC - referred to as such - that we might confuse it with. (Note that Global financial crisis redirects with no {{About}} hatnote pointing to a disambiguation or any other page that the reader might have been looking for.)
Other comments: If the crisis is not global, but mostly limited to the US, the title should explicitly include "US". As a non-US reader, I'd like the title to tell me where this financial crisis was. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Top priority has to be eliminating the very confusing "Late 2000s" title. Thoughts on candidates:
Any of the titles that name a specific year-span would solve the "late 2000" ambiguity problem. To pick the best title, we should scrutinize the sources and see which is most commonly used. Unfortunately, most sources are just using vague, non-specific-year terminology and relying on the audience to infer that the present time is involved. So, counting source-usage may not be too helpful. I'd suggest Financial crisis (2007–2009) or Financial crisis (2007–2010) as the overall best. Ten or 20 years from now, historians will have adopted a standard name for the crisis, and the article can be renamed at that time. Until then, the current name is way too ambiguous and confusing, and should be changed. --Noleander (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I suppose Global Financial Crisis is acceptable, if we think that is how the majority of sources are referring to it. I'm 99% certain that the most common name will become something else in 10 to 30 years. But until then WP:COMMONNAME is appropriate, and trumps WP:Recentism. --Noleander (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Cause of the Recession

The heading to this article attributed cause of the recession to liquidity. This is incorrect; lack of liquidity is an effect. No single cause was the problem, but rather multiple causes as laid out fairly well in the article: reduced interest rates, sub-prime lending, inaccurate pricing of risk, etc. I have corrected this. Gaytan (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Moved text erroneously inserted by 24.4.177.131 into quotation

In this edit, 24.4.177.131 inserted a paragraph into a {{Quotation}} block. The quote is referenced so it is easy to verify that the extra text is not part of the quote. I've moved the new text so that it is immediately after, but outside of, the quote block. I don't know if this is actually the correct place for this text, but it clearly does not belong inside the quote block, and I figure it is better to include it here than not at all. No doubt someone else will move it somewhere more appropriate if needs be. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Why say the Financial Crisis has ended when that is in dispute?

In May of this year, a head of the European Central Bank told Reuters that the Financial Crisis is not over. Yet in this article it says it is unquestionably. Why not reflect the unsettled position that seems to be among banks in this area? I added this point and someone deleted it. I'm unsure why.

Here is the article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/02/ecb-trichet-idUSDEK00211720110502

"Quote (bolding mine) from http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/19/ecb-trichet-idUSL6E7HJ03G20110619
"KIEL (Germany), June 19 (Reuters) - European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet on Sunday raised concern about widening global imbalances after the financial crisis, calling them one of the main challenges for the global economy. Global imbalances were blamed for contributing to and aggravating the financial crisis and recession that struck the global economy in 2008 and 2009.

Clearly not everything has returned to the way it was before the financial crisis, but the crisis itself - as identified by many of the world's leading finance folks - including Trichet - is over, and has been for a couple of years. After-shocks? sure. Greece? related, but maybe from 2 or 3 steps distance. The financial system collapsing? (that's what people think will happen during a financial crisis) Nobody is saying that now. Smallbones (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Title is misleading

The title "Late 2000s" means the years just before 3000. They are about a thousand years away. The title really refers to the recent past of the first decade of the 2000s. The article should be re-titled (possibly to "Early 2000s financial crisis"). 28 July 2011 99.88.38.22 (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If you think anybody is confused and thinks that this refers to the financial crisis that occurred in 2997-2999 rather than the one that occurred in 2007-2009, I suggest you go to WP:MOS to see how they deal with this "problem." Smallbones (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
No, that would be the late 2900s financial crisis. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Askar Akayev as a reliable source

I've reverted the "prediction" of a crash from Askar Akayev that supposedly was made for "July-August 2011." There's a couple of things wrong with including this prediction here

  • Akayev is just not a reliable source when it comes to the world financial system
  • Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball, see WP:NOT
  • This prediction was being made for April-June 2011. See Anybody who gets to change their predictions at will can be 100% accurate, so why include any of them?

I've also deleted the commentary from the Slovak human rights lawyer. In a vague way he might be right, but is he considered to be a reliable source on this matter?

Do let me know if you object and we'll list the question at WP:RSN. Until then, it stays out.

Smallbones (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree Bond Head (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibility of double-dip recession

As some media like The Economist have pointed out that, "The odds of a double dip over the coming year are uncomfortably high, perhaps as high as 50%.", and if they are right, should the double dip be considered as a single crisis or two separate crises? --Quest for Truth (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Recessions and financial crises are two different things. Smallbones (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:2007–2008 financial crisis: Difference between revisions Add topic