Talk:Global financial crisis of 2008–2009

Untitled

Archives:

• Archive 1

Prelude to crisis conspiracy - 550 billion run on banks on Sept 11 2008 unverified

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 . 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)

Global_financial_crisis_of_2008–2009#Money_market_funds_insurance_and_short_sales_prohibitions

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)

Use of tense for breaking events

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)

split article by month

This page is way too long, how about having a September, October, November, etc page(s),--Levineps (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You have my support. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Global_economy_could_lose_up_to_51_million_jobs_this_year.2C_says_UN_agency

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)

I just noticed that an IP added 5K of text that is purely news, like from an agency web site. I agree with you that this is not the goal, and such additions should be reverted IMO. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

51 million job losses sounds like China, alone. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge/Focus proposal

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)

Knol article removal

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)

Nothing happened?

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)

Yes. A miracle occurred when Barack Obama was inaugurated on January 20 — all problems, including the economic crisis, immediately ceased. (Sarcasm) JRSpriggs (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate?

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"?

Interest on reserves: bad or good?

In the lead, it says:

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, removing the longstanding incentive for banks to extend credit instead of hoard cash on deposit with the Fed.

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)

Political impact

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)

I agree that it would be a very useful improvement to acknowledge the political consequences but would we find sources? Some googling indicates that there definitely are sources out there but we should be careful not to let our own speculations interfere. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:42, 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)

Greek Riots, Dec 2008

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)

I totally agree that ALL the riots and protests happening in response to this crisis NEED to be included in this article. It's sort of what makes it a crisis as opposed to merely an economic speedbump. Without mentioning these protests (info linked below) this article only presents the position of the governments/economists/bankers without a balance of the people's perspective. This crisis is more than merely numbers on a chart and dollars lost. It is a politically and socially destabilizing phenomenon. The actual responses by people in the streets need to be included in addition to the bureaucratic paper-pushing responses mentioned already. --Nihilozero (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

no section of proposed remedies/actions

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)

Rightists have suggested: (1) stop all the interventions that caused the problem; (2) stop all the leftist "remedies" which will only make the problem worse; (3) cut government spending; and (4) cut taxes across the board. Endure the pain and get it over with quickly, then start growing again. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This whole family of articles ("2007-2009") is a complete mess

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)

I agree, which is why I have proposed some ideas for streamlining on the Financial crisis of 2007-2009 talk page. This is also why I believe some of the same information needs to be presented in similar articles. As I've noted... the searches for "Greater Depression," the "Great Recession" and "Depression 2.0" all redirect to different articles. This could be quite confusing for casual users and could cause them to miss critical information they are looking for (if they find one article but not the other OR if they don't want to read both). For reasons I've stated in the other talk page, I now believe that most of this information should be placed under the "Great Recession" title unless (or until) the crisis becomes a formally bona fide "depression" (at which point the information could be placed under "Greater Depression" or "Depression 2.0"). --Nihilozero (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it as an excuse for invading several articles with the same POV political thesis, to confuse the financial side and the economic side, and now to invent a "great recession" semantic. All this is a contribution to the mess you denounce. Why don't you try, to avoid that mix-up, to put your so cute political interpretation in a stand-alone article. Of course you will have a problem as it is an original work with very few meat to chew, in which nothing holds together and which relation with other articles on the crisis is quite flimsy. Of course also, It will run the risk to be deleted in one month time, which luckily would clarify things, but I would not understand that you would not take the risk if you are so sure of yourself. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Look Pgreenfinch, you are the king of biased POV as you create sections of meaningless gibberish and then cite only your own editorial in them. In any case... just because I've posted somewhere doesn't mean you have to continuously highlight your inability to see the connection between major economic protests, political instability, and the financial crisis. Myself and others have went over this with you in another talk section and I find it impossible to believe that you still don't understand the obvious connection. These sections do need to be better organized and streamlined but I doubt you really have the interest or ability to truly help in that regard. And, by the way, I did not invent the "Great Recession" as a descriptive title for the current economic situation -- it's an increasingly common phrase that you are simply ignorant about. --Nihilozero (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that you did not answer about the motive of your serial copy and paste. Maybe you find it a bit embarrassing. In fact your only reaction, insulting as usual, was that I should not express my opinion in discussion pages and give links that make it more clear. Now, except saying that things are "obvious" and that two or three people share your political views and side with you, do you have any rational argument to justify your generalization, which is your problem of course, and your invasive method to spread it in several articles, which is wikepedia's problem? Btw, if I don't understand your reductive thesis, did it not cross your mind that it might be because it could be, well, how do you say it, oh yes, "gibberish? --Pgreenfinch (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What about the Riots in Europe?

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)

Unrest maybe, but to talk about the "Riots in Europe" is an abusive generalization and media stereotype. But maybe that Europe be ablaze is your whishful thinking ;-) --Pgreenfinch (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.14.27 (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

What qualifies this as a crisis?

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)

Still with your agenda to bundle any unrest into a general world wide "political crisis" and invade any article in which you decide it is related to, so as to put each time the wikipedia stamp on that original thesis? Are you going to link the recent unrest in the French Antilles to the financial crisis, not to blatant local issues? Will you attribute the counter demonstration that will take place in April against the NATO summit to the collapse of Lehman brothers? Can't you keep a sense of proportion? Never heard of the attributional bias? Of reductionism? --Pgreenfinch (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see that your invasive political manipulation goes on. Now you salted 3 articles with the same POV, how many do you aim at? I suggested one in your discussion page, and your humorless reaction was telltale. This fanciful section is based on the same shallow "evidences" and total lack of rational links to put a medley of quite disparate and limited events together as a widespread global phenomenom. This done after accusing me of all evils so as to cover it up, a not unusual activist method. The only victims are truth and wikipedia. The good side is that it will reveal to some readers, how facts can be framed and twisted. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is the original research?

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)

Every claim in that section is backed by the references provided. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I see your answer as a diversion from the real issue, which is that those claims do not match the generalization expressed by the section title. This title, btw, is unexplained as there is no consistent introduction in that section (you removed arbitrarily the one I gave instead or trying to build one). It is also not referenced, just because it is based on a gross original research. I would not discuss isolated references (there would be much to say about their interpretation), but what is blatant is that the arbitrary grouping under such a title as a general phenomenom is itself not referenced. Sorry to repeat it but until now nobody could answer me on that point.

You know, I can write a completely fanciful and inconsistent article in which each word would be referenced, but it will still be fanciful and inconsistent. That oversourcing can be used to cover inconsistancy is nothing new. I'm surprised you don't grasp that.

Well, if it is not possible to give a introduction that states the rationale for that collection of events that are

• limited (Iceland has 300 000 inhabitants...)
• isolated (what about all those places without notable unrest? Why not a section about "political stability" with an overwhelming quantity of claims to support it?)
• disparate
• and for some, misrepresented (French civil servant protests in the streets are as a ritual as wine tasting...), but that is not the main point,

the best is to remove that problematic section. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Now I see that you added a US secret service speculation about possible unrests. Sorry that I don't take speculative opinions of secret services (that did not show in the past their wisdom), about the rest of the world as if they were entitled to tell its fate. I'm amazed that you can consider it as an introduction, and even more as a serious and reliable reference (just look at what WP consider as a reliable source). As for the rather hollow BW article... Anyway I didn't see the word "projected" instability in the section title. This is becoming a joke to make such a hotchpotch with that section. Why not remove it to make that article worthy of Wikipedia ! --Pgreenfinch (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth from someone who is not an expert in these things by any measure, those citations seem directly related to the claim in question and seem to come from reputable sources. Censoring them and calling the section original research seems completely unreasonable. If you feel that the situation is being unfairly presented (a position I might be sympathetic to), then I'd encourage you to find evidence that contends with the claims being made, rather than unilaterally pushing for wholesale deletion. Additionally, I'd like to clarify that pointing out "all those places without notable unrest" would NOT be convincing or even related information. That would be analogous to claiming that a hypothetical rise in crime is negligible because of all the people yet untouched by it. What would be related and convincing is evidence from reputable sources that refute claims of increasing global unrest. The point is that the claim itself must be addressed. -- Hinotori^{(talk)|(ctrb)} 07:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I would not comment on the selective choice of American based sources on events that took place in other lands. This is a bit strange, but is not the main issue. The main issue, and I didn't get any serious answers about it, is that as long as the title generalizes things, I cannot agree with the use of isolated events to justify either the title wording or the censorship of a balancing statement that would just say that there is no general political instability. Again the only change of gvt that took place was in a 300 OOO inh country. As the usual French trade union ritual (it will have its Spring rehearsal this week)... The source to "refute" is that nowhere except in wikipedia you hear about such current general political instability, which is the original research. Btw, I don't understand what you mean by "increasing global unrest"? The "global" world would just add to the non squitur generalization. Also, the issue would be the same about crime if the title was a generalization. This section is original research and political manipulation, period. Even if there is some progress, and it was due to my intervention, from the way it started by announcing Europe ablaze with riots which was not innocent. But the spirit unluckily stays the same. And the addition of crystal ball speculations, without changing the title accordingly ("theories and projections about political instability..." for example), does not make it better--Pgreenfinch (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Forbes says:"The recent wave of popular unrest was not confined to Eastern Europe. Ireland, Iceland, France, the U.K. and Greece also experienced street protests, but many Eastern European governments seem more vulnerable as they have limited policy options to address the crisis and little or no room for fiscal stimulus due to budgetary or financing constrains. Deeply unpopular austerity measures, including slashed public wages, tax hikes and curbs on social spending will keep fanning public discontent in the Baltic states, Hungary and Romania. Dissatisfaction linked to the economic woes will be amplified in the countries where governments have been weakened by high-profile corruption and fraud scandals (Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria)." - http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/25/eastern-europe-eu-banks-euro-opinions-columnists_nouriel_roubini.html - Further, the governments of Iceland, Latvia, and Belgium have already fallen since this crisis hit last fall. Apparently you consider everything but your own opinion to be worthless. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, those "seems" and "will" from Forbes. Do you plan to change the title into "Forbes interpretation about..." ? As for my opinion, I still only see yours in that section. So please avoid giving lessons. The day you decide not to vandalize any more anything I write for balance, instead of adding as you do, a pile of diverse interpretations (mostly from American origin and showing a distrust about the rest of the world), which make the section all the time more messy and one-sided, maybe this discussion will have some sense. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions for Pgreenfinch

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)

All those questions ask for my opinions and feelings (do you see, do you think, do you suggest... Why should I?), about some generalities about crises, and about some events or comments. I find that delightful as you want the section to stick to your own opinion. I don't want to disappoint you, even if, believe me, I appreciate that you care for my feelings, opinions, and visions, but they are not the point. The point is that nothing warrants a general title about political instability, and nothing warrants that this section take a one sided political stance. The only troll is that politically oriented section and its title, and the only things vandalized are those I tried to add to bring some balance. It is a bit staggering that you consider anything that could make the title and the text a bit more neutral should be demonized and suppressed. Btw, I understood perfectly that your talk page is so sacred that any hint, even expressed on the light side, that your invasion of three different articles with the same POV / OR is a bit ...amusing, makes you touchy. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not surprising that you want to skirt the issues of the posed questions. I think that really punctuates how (intentionally?) obtuse and unwilling you have been to clarify your obstructive and time-wasting vandalism. It's still a little hard to believe that you honestly don't see the connection between reputably cited incidents of widespread political instability related to the economic crisis and a section in the article about exactly that. Your logic is backwards and your reasoning is full of holes. You'll also note that the withering questions, even as you've re-presented them, are not entirely about your opinion/feelings. "Do you see?", for example, is about observable fact. And asking about why you would or would not think a source is credible is the most basic thing having to do with the very nature of editing wikipedia. It's practically WHY there is a talk page. This encyclopedia is about presenting what's noteworthy and verifiable. Myself and others have presented specific items which we feel are noteworthy and verifiable but you refuse to respond when directly asked why you think these specific things aren't notable and verified. I get the feeling you just want to cause some trouble and get some attention. And you have succeeded at that. If you can't or won't answer direct questions about your editing processes then please go away as you're just being a nuisance. The questions above stand. --76.201.159.15 (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2009 --Nihilozero (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, IP, or Nihil, or whoever, I leave you with your feelings and insults and your attempts to divert the attention with a personal rant. This section is an unbalanced (and nihilist?) POV, a one-sided dramatization on a major topic, the world political stability or instability. It puts the reliability of wikipedia gravely at stake for reasons I amply detailed. Your attempt to evade the real debate about that issue is a bit pitiful, but as you don't have much arguments I understand your method to personalize things . Sorry to bring you back to basics, but the responsibility is on people who wrote this section, not on the one that tries to bring at least some sense and balance to it. Have a nice day. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In other words... you don't have a leg to stand on and you can't support your position by directly answering a few questions about it. If only you honestly would be so kind as to actually stop trolling/vandalizing these pages. Alas... you don't really seem to feel the need to support your edits with fact or common sense and I highly suspect that we haven't seen the last of your vandalism yet. Thanks for proving my point so far though... g'nite. --Nihilozero (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Your interpretation, anyway if you are happy with it... To me it seems the good all trick to grill somebody under a strong lamp and to trap and drown the debate into side points and personal aspects. This just allows you to keep on denying the real issue, to which you did not answer. This is my point since the beginning, that the generalization this section presents is perverse in its construction and self-defeating for wikipedia in its consequences. Not buying it, sorry, it cannot be forced into my throat and I don't see why it should forced into the throats of the readers. Now, if you don't want to do the least thing to bring a better product line on the shelf, you know, some balanced diet, to discuss with you has no sense, however curious and amused I am by your attempts to deviate the debate. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I know you keep suggesting that only the mass protesting and instability has been mentioned (if you even acknowledge those events yet), but when there is a major hurricane you don't add in a section about where it's sunny (as most people are probably capable of correctly assuming such places still exist without that "balance" point). What you are supposed to do is... note the path of the hurricane, it's strength, the damage it did, and the other repercussions related to it. But again... I think your grasp of English may not be that great and this is why you are overlooking words like "related" and why you seem to believe that protests and riots need to include extreme amounts of bloodshed. Maybe people don't want to know about the related instability on the German language wikipedia and you can work on restricting the information there. Perhaps you have other reasons for not wanting the heavily cited instability mentioned. But I guess we'll never know because you won't even answer basic questions posed by another editor about what you think is wrong with including this information. Are you happy to be getting all this attention while still not making your case? --76.201.159.15 (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"Related = being connected either logically or causally or by shared characteristics". That is why I proposed instead the more neutral "seen as related", as the connection between all those events, and between them and a common cause, is not too obvious, and more a point of view. Sorry, but I know what logic is about, and I can see when it is distorted. But the most important thing, that you still don't want to see, is the generalization of political instability that the title supposes. I didn't read "instabilities" but instability", and I have some sense of grammar too. Anyway, thanks for your weather forecast (but check your barometer, this world is quite resilient and not in a political hurricane), the speculations about what I think, and the idea that German is among the languages I'm fluent in. I'm proud of this attribution, but I will disappoint you as my German is just enough to ask for "ein Kaffee une eine Schwartzwaldtorte, Bitte". Now, what about leaving the small talk and the linguistic courses, getting back to ground level, and stopping your obstruction to any amendment to that one-sided text? --Pgreenfinch (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

When you write "seen as related" it seems a bit redundant (since the protests about the crisis are, indeed, about the crisis -- and not merely seen as such). But the connection between all those events (and more ongoing events) is clear. The economic/financial crisis is pointedly mentioned by those participating in various protests and is distinctly noted by several major sources. As for the causality... a financial crisis leading to protest and political instability could hardly be easier to understand. Which is to say... this stuff is related to the economic crisis. No one is suggesting in this section, as I've tried to make clear, that the whole geo-political situation is a powder keg (your contrary POV is noted) and I don't think that's what people would gather from the section title. This is especially true since specific locales and events are cited. Instability does not need to be pluralized and the fact that these events mentioned ARE related to the crisis nullifies the need to preface them with "seen as." Beyond that... I don't really know how you can be helped. --Nihilozero (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

At this point of the debate, and taking into account what you said, if some formulation can be perceived, understood and/or interpreted in two (or more) different ways, depending on the reader, seems to me the only way to avoid confusion is to clarify in the title and / or the text - for example with a balanced introduction - what is really meant. It is a basis of communication in general as well as of wikipedia in particular. All the more as wikipedia works on a cooperative basis. The issue is not to help me, thanks for your care, but to help the readers. As you rejected all my inputs, the alternative to avoid a prolonged conflict is that you bring the needed improvements yourself. La balle est dans votre camp.--Pgreenfinch (talk) 16:47, 21 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)

Be consistent, WAS 4.250, As long as the article brings an inexistent way of presenting things, as a general phenomena, outside wikipedia, how can you ask for a source that contradicts that original thesis? To accumulate sources on partial events and speculations hides YOUR lack of source of a general phenomenon and general title. Even Nihil recognizes that it is not a general phenomenon. So what is the point of not accepting to mention it on the article? So that readers are not lead to the impression - due to the accumulations of those half baked reports and speculations - that it is something general? Sometimes I am told my English is not at the top, I understand your attempts to play on that, but does the word accumulation means something for you? And other words such as unbalanced? or even "red herrings" as decoy to hide that after all the political situation in this planet is rather stable compared to other periods. Maybe that is what should be noted, even if it is not spectacular and sensational news. Supposing of course it is the right article to deal with such political topics. But as three articles were invaded, another accumulation....--Pgreenfinch (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest Pgreenfinch, your use of the English language often leaves me scratching my head in wonder of which word or phrase you may actually have meant to use. That, combined with your lack of logic and common sense, makes me wonder at times if you are at all serious. In any case... your latest post reveals your own personal POV/bias. The section in question does not state otherwise, but you repeatedly promote the notion that "all the political situation in this planet is rather stable compared to other periods" -- which may or may not be true depending on what you are comparing the period to and depending on whom you ask. I doubt an Iraqi or somebody starving in Rwanda would tell you this is one of the most politically stable times. But that's not even the point. The point is that there IS unrest related to the current economic crisis and that unrest is manifesting itself in notable protest far and wide. It's almost absurd to imagine that you could have a serious economic crisis without protest and unrest. What this section does is point out the unrest related to the financial crisis. It's related because the people in the streets say they are dissatisfied with the governments economic policies (which have become rather connected and interdependent in modern times). And these protests are far and wide! Over 3 million people in France took to the street with major support and a large public sector strike even left 10% of France without electrical power. You can dismiss this, but obviously many people would find it noteworthy. --Nihilozero (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Man bites dog (journalism). That most people are not protesting is not noteworthy; it is the expected default. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, but what I think Pgreenfinch is missing is... that the millions of people who are protesting ARE noteworthy. He might try to call that POV, but several sources have covered these protests from several perspectives and the fact is that they ARE occurring and ARE related to the financial crisis. I'm sure you understand that, but it boggles one's brain how someone like Pgf can be so obtuse. --Nihilozero (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Insults again, when you lack arguments. You know, insults can boomerang, but I will not enter that game. Now, the fact that you try to interpret the protests and strikes, which are recurrent and very organized things by trade unions (even their counting of participans is ...organized), as a menace for the government is another example that your "political instability" theory is just that, a theory. France is a constitutional country with the normal alternance between parties and demonstrations do not change that in the least. Btw, even the periodic polls about voting intentions give stable figures for sarkozy, and he keeps leading. This shows that people in France, a country where political culture and political debates are traditionnaly intense, make a difference between social demands and political governance. Interesting - or I should say "noteworthy" - is (on another discussion page) your silence about your original research (hardly intelligible by the way) on what is a crisis. All this shows how embarrassed you are after I said that, seeing that you had rejected all of my attempts to bring balance to that section, it was therefore your job to make that neutralization. This would be much more positive, in a cooperative encyclopedia, than imposing relentlessly your thesis to readers. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have given some more discussion about what qualifies this as a "crisis" here: Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#Global financial crisis of 2008–2009, and I've included why banking executives and politicians may not see (or choose to see) it as such. I've also mentioned why, even if this is merely "theory" about instability (as you suggest), it is allowable because it cites notable individuals & institutions. The only reason I am embarrassed regarding this topic is that I have to deal with the likes of you, Pgf. --Nihilozero (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice of you to inform me about that rant. Anyway, I already replied about your - creative - considerations about "allowable" theory and opinion. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Article improvement

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:

1. Start archiving the talk page.
2. Restructure the article to bring readers in where they associate the "beginning" of the crisis, which is probably when most people learned about it in the news. A Causes or Background section may be placed after the lead-in of the subprime mortgage crisis, which at first sight may seem illogical due to the jump in chronology, but most people will associate first a big announcement or event, then have explained to them what it means and why. I suggest a layout similar to this:

   • Lead
   • Explanation of when the news of this hit for laypeople: such as what CNN or USAToday would report on the front page instead of the finance section. Probably the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the bailouts of AIG and the sale of Merrill Lynch.
   • Background that should probably go back ten years
   • Further ramifications: political, globally financial, with attention to unemployment
   • Criticism from experts about how the situation was allowed to get this far
   • Commentary about the future from experts, if there are any left.

3. If a link is a significant related issue, such as the subprime mortgage crisis, it should be explained simply but thoroughly. Do not depend on links to explain major concepts.
4. The jargon in the article is overwhelming. I can't get through it. Below is an example of a paragraph in the article that is unclear to me in several ways:

   Beginning with failures caused by bad debts and debt insurance investment trading (derivatives) large financial institutions in the United States and Europe faced a credit crisis, deflation and sharp reductions in shipping. 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) and commodities worldwide. 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, removing the longstanding incentive for banks to extend credit instead of hoard cash on deposit with the Fed. The crisis led to a liquidity problem and the de-leveraging of financial institutions 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 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, leading many emergent economies to seek aid from the International Monetary Fund. The crisis was triggered by the subprime mortgage crisis and is an acute phase of the financial crisis of 2007–2010.

5. Some sections may require expanding so "insider" knowledge or terms known to those with a lot of experience in finance get it, while the rest of the population is confused. I think Jon Stewart tapped into a significant frustration in his skewering of Jim Cramer last night. People are angry because those in finance know what is going on and refuse to divulge the truth about the shady way fast money is made. I'm connecting that frustration to the language of Finance that is difficult to understand without experience. People are easily led and confused not only because the truth is not being divulged, but because the communication about the crisis keeps them from understanding it. Almost as if those in finance who have the money insist on speaking unclearly to confuse people deliberately. Consider me someone who has just been told they have a fatal disease by a doctor who uses words with 6 syllables in language only used in textbooks. I'm not stupid, I just need to be told simply what is happening in a language I use.
6. Don't make the article more distracting or difficult to read with more than three citations, such as the above sentence ending "deposit with the Fed". If multiple citations are required, choose the best three and place the rest in a footnote. I will be happy to show how this is done.
7. Expand the lead to summarize the important points. Probably 3 paragraphs.

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)

See Evolution and Introduction to evolution. Perhaps you would like to create Introduction to the global financial crisis of 2008–2009? WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

To Moni3: As I indicated in the talk section "Interest on reserves: bad or good?" above, I think the sentence on "Section 128" of the EESA is wrong. Indeed, that provision is very helpful rather than being part of the problem. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A significant difference between this article and Evolution requiring an introduction (similar to Virus and Introduction to virus) is that both are Featured Articles. This one is not. It could be, and that may require such professional language, but there are multiple compounding problems as it is now. I'm suggesting things that could be done to make it more readable and cohesive. I admit there are many things I don't understand about the finer points of finance, hence my inability to address Section 128's accuracy, but a good starting place is the structure of the article, its writing, then the finer points of the causes and effects of the crisis per experts in reliable sources. --Moni3 (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

4. Incomrehensible jargon

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. 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 and commodities. 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. 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 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.

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)

I used this paragraph as an example. It's near the top of the article, when readers need to be able to grasp simple concepts to allow them to move on to more detailed issues. It's possible entire sections may need to be expanded and rewritten, and I mean no disrespect to folks who have worked on the article already. I apologize if I come off that way.

Invite readers into the article by discussing large concepts they are somewhat familiar with. I suggest starting with the September section with a topic sentence that says, "News of the global financial crisis broke as a major story in September 2008, concentrating on the collapse of longtime financial giant Lehman Brothers the same week that the sale of AIG and Merrill Lynch were announced. The week before, government-sponsored home mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went into conservatorship. These announcements indicated the primary causes of the crisis were the subprime mortgage emergency in the United States that led to severe instability in global stock markets."

These should be expanded somewhat into a section to discuss how the subprime mortgage crisis impacted the stock market, and how the US government and world markets responded to it. Further down the article, finer points of finance issues should be introduced. The paragraph above should probably be expanded considerably to make all the financial concepts clear.

These are my lay understandings based on what I've read and absorbed. I may be off, which is why I'm not overhauling the article without discussion. --Moni3 (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ethical discussion is missing

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)

Complete POV, take this sh*t elsewhere wikipedia doesn't need it. --86.140.61.161 (talk) 18:57, 22 April 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)

There are two problems with discussing ethics in this situation:

1. Before a rational discussion of how ethics applies one must first have a clear understanding of the factual situation, i.e. the causes and the sequence of events. No agreement has been reached on this yet.
2. Each person brings his own ethical presuppositions with him. For example, a follower of Ayn Rand is not going to find a common basis for discussion with a follower of mullah Mohammed Omar. Thus ethical discussion between people from different philosophies will degenerate into a shouting (or shooting) match which is why we have WP:NPOV. JRSpriggs (talk) 03:13, 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:

1. Adam Smith’s model, e.g., gives an account of how the pursuit of self-interest, restrained by moral sympathy, can lead toward social harmony. According to Smith market economies need to have a moral or sympathetic base before the common good could be served by the pursuit of individual self-interest. You can’t talk about Smith and capitalism without a discussion about the moral ends that he had in view and which he clearly discussed.
2. John Locke’s understanding of property and work, and the relationship to income, is based on his understanding of the “state of nature” and what all have “in common”. These are by no-means neutral, and are the basis for his strong argument for slavery and for why natives lost rights to the land. His argument is always also theological: “God gave the world to men in common; but ... it cannot be supposed that he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated ... “ (Locke, _Second Treatise of Government, par. 26; Ethic of the State of Nature , par. 6, etc., etc. ). The basis for private appropriation of property is always philosophical/ethical/theological argument, whether we agree with it or not.
3. Max Weber, _The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism_ ... the title of this important classic speaks for itself
4. Karl Marx – Can anyone separate his theory from his discussion of the relationship of economics and justice? Those with a vague understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition will recognize the roots of this secularized account of justice.

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)

Dubious

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)

Financial crisis or Economic crisis?

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)

Shouldn't the article be named 2008- instead of given an end date of 2009?

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)

Global financial crisis of 2007-2009

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)

About the merger

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)

Delete this article

This article can be deleted.Farcaster (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

MAYBE

we should think about thinking —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjun.jethwa (talk • contribs) 22:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge the article

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)

I completely agree, this article should be deleted at once. Oreo Priest ^talk 23:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)