Talk:Great Depression

Good article

I briefly read this article and like most of it.

I am not so sure, but it seems to me I might have detected some "anti-keynesian" bias on it ?

Being a neo-keynesian myself I am not the most impartial person to judge. So I ask the other economists to verify if there is actulaly such a bias in the article and, if so, please remove it to make it "school of thought" neutral.

J. R. Campos 09:13, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

repeated sections

I've deleted what seems to be some repeated material. My apologies if I've deleted any material entirely. This sort of thing gives me a headache-Derek Hodges 17:10, 16 August 2008 (CDT)

Unfinished article

This article has long been left in a startlingly incomplete state. The reader would find it hard to discover the answers to even the most basic of questions: such as what happened to unemployment?, poverty?, bankruptcies?, bank failures?, stock prices?, production?. For an example of what is missing see [1].

Recent events are likely to increase interest in the subject, and - without attempting a direct comparison - it is now important to say enough about the sequence of events to indicate that it was not triggered either by the bursting of a real-estate bubble or by a banking crisis if, as I suspect it was not. This is a job for a historian rather than economist, but it would be a pity to leave it any longer.

I suggest moving much of the economic speculation about causation into a tutorials subpage and using the space for a straightforwatrd statement of what happened. (A lot of the other text could well go onto the related articles subpage, and the bibliograpy should now go onto the bibliography subpage).

Nick Gardner 09:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)