Talk:List of recessions in the United States

Panic of 1792

Should the Panic of 1792 be included on here, or was it part of the broader Copper Coin Panic of 1788? There seems to be no mention of it, although there is a page dedicated to it which indicates it isn't one of the disputed crises. EconomicHisorianinTraining (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Notes

Most analysts predict continued growth

[Consumer Price Index up 0.6% in Oct]

[Retailers Post Mediocre Holiday Sales]

[Possibility of a Major Stock Market Crash Cannot Be Ignored]

Kstailey 19:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

What about 1946.... 1946-7 WAS Clearly a RECESSION!.. I'm not the one to go and edit pages just cause I do not agree with them, so I'll post this here.. I've been doing a lot of studying because I figured the Credit crunch of today is were much alike to the War economy of ww2 shutting down.. and that is clearly the case.... Only weeks after ww2.. There were huge layoffs, and troops came home to no jobs.. THere was negative GDP growth after incredible growth during the war years.. and it forced Truman to make to pass a lot of economic stimulus plans.. like hte G.I bill etc..

1945-6 or 7 whatever... should be in this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.118.192 (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of the "Characteristics" section of the Post World War I Recession seems unclear. I don't know what it is trying to say but don't know enough to edit it. This is my first foray into wikipedia so sorry if I'm doing this wrong.24.152.161.51 (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

USA Recessions

Should this article be re-entitled List of USA Recessions? How about 1960-62? Was there a recession?

Renamed. Also, consensus appears to be that there was no recession during that period in the United States. Gary King (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

1953 Recession

Is the 1953 Recession for real? The paragraph, and the associated article The Recession of 1953, looks sensible, but was created by a user whose only other contribution to Wikipedia is a joke page. Rocksong 05:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've referenced the recession. Gary King (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

some other crisis in US?

• event of 1807 caused by the Embargo Act of 1807 passed by Thomas Jefferson. Textile industry benefited enormously. Shipping industry suffered.
  • Added. Gary King (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• event of 1812 caused by the war of 1812.
  • Get me a solid reference and I'll add it in. Gary King (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

These events boost the industrialization of the US. Jackzhp 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

the recession of the 1840s in europe was bad enough to cause the revolutions of 1848

could this be included?

Only american recessions

There appear to be no recessions from other countries. Eg, the recession in England during the Thatcher era.

There are a number of American ones, and we do need others, but the list is mostly of global recessions. Most likely the Thatcher downturn you are thinking of was part of the Early 1980s recession. That article needs work to cover more than just the United State. - SimonP 11:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. The article has now been moved to make it specific to the United States. PeterSymonds | talk 04:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Duration of recessions

As far as I know, NBER is the institution which establishes when recessions start and when they end. Duration of recessions on its page doesn't match with duration of recessions as listed here. -- Vision Thing -- 19:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment on the Duration of Recessions. I added a Web Citation (number 3), which provides these durations. It notes that Month the Recession Starts and then the Trough when the contraction ends (Trough) and growth begins again. Should I update this article to note the NBER durations or should we have two Duration Columns. I am not sure what the current duration column means (Peak to Peak?). ITBlair (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

contradictions on duration of crisis still exist, this should be deleted until sources are added or contradictions removed. (LVAustrian (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

Title "List of recessions in the United States" inappropriate

The title is simply appropriate.

NBER is the acknowledged authority that carefully tracks the cycles using economic data. This page uses judgement of wikipedia editors to define the recessions.

Recession is USA is a well defined term. This page may mislead the readers into thinking that this is an authoritative list. It is not.

It should be called a list of financial crises.--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with renaming it to 'Financial crises' is that this will greatly expand the scope of the article, which is not a good idea while it is still nominated as a WP:FL. It'd be better to keep the scope restricted and remove or add whatever items are necessary to make it complete rather than to expand the scope so greatly that every item will require much greater scrutiny. Gary King (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The information given does not confirm with official dates of US recessions. Something must be done to fix this.--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Late 1980s recession?

I see no mention of this. Timeshift (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably because it was a boomtime. Real year-on-year GDP growth averaged 3.6% in 1986-89, and never fell below 2.5% for even a single quarter.DOR (HK) (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the Crash of 1987? The way I understand it, at least some areas of the US (e.g. New England; Texas) were in recession as early as 1986. Better double check your facts. Shanoman (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There are no partial recessions in this article; each of the ones listed is big enough, or wide enough to cover the entire economy. Regional recessions might be a good topic for another article. But, in addition, stock market slumps downturns corrections realignments buying opportunities crashes are all about the financial markets, and not the real economy. This article is about the real economy, Main St, not Wall St. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

---

I'm concerned at the causes listed for the 2001 recession. Since the NBER says the recession was over before 9/11, it shouldn't be listed as a cause (i.e., an event preceeding recession). Totally inappropriate, except for its impact on the recovery. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That recession was not over before September 11. It ended in November. Moreover, an event that occurs during a recession can cause the recession to lengthen and thus reasonably be considered a cause for part of a recession. This is not just conjecture -- the NBER has addressed this question directly[1] From the NBER: "Before the attacks, it is possible that the decline in the economy would have been too mild to qualify as a recession. The attacks clearly deepened the contraction and may have been an important factor in turning the episode into a recession." --JayHenry (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"Recession" 2008?

We're not actually in a recession for sure yet, are we? By definition, we're not officially in one yet, because we haven't had two quarters of contracting GDP. We may have entered one, but we won't know for sure until GDP numbers come out. People have been saying since the 2nd quarter that we're in one, and we still had positive GDP growth in Q2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.233.6 (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you sure have alot of skeptics referring to the Reaganomics "boom" as nothing more than the "Great Ronald Reagan Recession" of 1982-87 for a large subsection of the USA, major cities & industrial areas were still in full-fledged decline from the 1960's and mid 1970's. In fact, the so-called war of poverty document in 1967 wrote about the nation's 3 poorest areas: the Mississippi Delta, the Ozarks and the Appalachians had been in "depression" since the 1930's. The state of California was constantly in recession and/or stagnated growth from 1987 to 95, perhaps the worst of any state or region, with the early 2000's high-tech bust and the 2003 California budget loss foreshadowed the current 2009 California budget lockdown. + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 11:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it appears that you're the first person in the history of the Internet to ever refer to the "Great Ronald Reagan recession"[2]. You have a valid point that different parts of the country experience the economy differently, but why decades of poverty in Appalachia for example would be blamed on Reagan is unclear. --JayHenry (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The chart was stolen

The chart was stolen from the following site: link title Please rewrite the chart and don't rely on simple copy+paste. Wikipedia does not tolerate plagiarism. 99.243.193.64 (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Just curious if you have evidence that Wikipedia copied the recession.org site, and not the other way around. Looking through the edit history, the table definitely does not "feel" like it was copied from another source, but gradually converged to its present form. So I'm inclined to say that Wikipedia probably did not plagiarize this content. If there is any evidence to the contrary, please present it. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Economic crisis of 2008

The economic crisis of 2008 is clearly a legitimate See also link for this article, even if not yet declared a recession. A POV-pushing IP address keeps removing the link from the section. Is there consensus to delete this link? It seems quite relevant. If someone came to this page expecting also to find information on the recent crisis, then the reader can find it in the see also section. I don't understand what the objection is here. Please explain rather than engage in an edit warring. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant to remove it from the table that purports to list specific recessions. I have no problem, and actually support the linking of it in the "See Also" section. It is clearly relevant.

I'd also suggest a section on how recessions are determined for this list - additionally, we should include a comparative list of those periods which conform to the classical two quarter definition of a recession. It would mae for a much more complete, balanced and informative entry on the subject. I have hacked in a section with links and verbatim quotes, I will also immediately revert it - it's only intention is to lay some possible groundwork for a future editor75.49.223.74 (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The 2008 "recession" lacks empirical evidence. Economics is not a field of prescription and recession has a clear economic definition. If an when a credible source confirms a recession, you can add it back to this page. Absent references, assuming that the US will face a recession currently has no basis in mainstream economic theory and thus this entry should be deleted.Downzero (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have edited it, I suggest you leave it until you can find a credible source to back your claims. 98.222.59.54 (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The definition of "recession" is 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth. This has not yet happened.

"The New Great Depression"?! Where did THAT come from? The last 12 months may qualify as a recession by some metrics but certainly not a depression. And GREAT? Gimme a break. Schnaz (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The last 12 months do not even qualify as a recession, much less a depression. As I stated before, this material should be deleted from the article as it is contrary to mainstream economic theory on what represents a recession.Downzero (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The economists seem to disagree with you on that. It is a very serious recession and was declared in early December and believed to be one by many economists months before that. Timmeh! 21:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Eichengreen, B. and K.H. O’Rourke. 2009. “A Tale of Two Depressions.” In progress. 74.96.8.55 (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see "Late 2000s recession" changed to "Panic of 2007". I think that would be historically consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekuntz (talk • contribs) 14:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Calling it the Panic of 2007 would not be appropriate. This is a challenge since there's no official name yet and it's not clear what term historians will coalesce around. I'm extremely skeptical this will be remembered as the Panic of 2007. The period of greatest panic was in 2008 following the Lehman Collapse, and most references to the "Panic of 2007" were written in 2007, and apply to a secondary mortgage market collapse that occurred before the recession itself began. I've noticed a growing number of commentators referring to this recession as "The Great Recession" (capital G, capital R), but I think it may be premature to call it that? --JayHenry (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny. they called the 2009 Recession a Depression in other parts of the World... I remember being in London and reading headlines that the US is really in a Depression, just a different type than that of the 1930s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.215.86.48 (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

S&L Crisis

It seems that this chart makes no account of the S&L Crisis and resulting downturn beginning in 1987 and lasting through 1989.
Also consider this:
1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Comments moved here from article by SimonP (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As noted explicitly in the article, the standard dating for US recessions is performed by the NBER. The S&L Crisis was a factor of the 1990-91 recession, but did not cause one prior to that. --JayHenry (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Two sections (anyone watching?)

If anyone is watching this page and could weigh in, I'd appreciate it. At the FLC, someone suggested adding GDP data for recessions. I resisted since prior to WWII this data is annual and a bit controversial. However, what do people think of the idea of splitting the list into two sections post- and pre-WWII? Since WWII, the data in the US is very standardized and widely accepted, and it would be useful to compare not only GDP but other indicators as well. --JayHenry (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to split the list. Just create two sections in the list. This would be the best procedure. Read my reply on the FLC.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The Big Lie

We know that the US economy grew very rapidly in the 1800s. Yet an eyeball comparison of the "duration of recession" and "time since previous recession" in the period "free banking era to Great Depression" suggests that we were in recession nearly as often as we were in expansion. And the figures given for contraction of business activity are enormous. Put it all together, and you're suggesting that our economy grew at spectacular rates (such as 50%!) in the expansion years. This is an untrue representation, and it's particularly appalling given this page's status as a featured list. Is anybody listening, or do I need to take down the page? Jlcfa (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Useless Comparisons

This list uses different markers to compare economic downturns throughout history. How can one compare free banking era recessions to central bank era recessions without being given the appropriate criteria?

If the list is going to exist, it should at least compare the same exact metrics across the board, and not use revised metrics where it's simply more convenient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.208.76 (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think the existence of a lender of last resort changes the definition of a recession. there are certainly data and interpretation problems as we go older, but those aren't directly related to the existence of a central bank. Protonk (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Table sorting issues

I was trying to view the last table in order of "percent change in GDP" and the numbers are all sorts of wonky in the bottom half. What should be descending order is -2.7, -3.7, -3.2, -18.2, -5.1, -12.7, and -26.7. I looked at the coding and found that some of the numbers are entered into the sortable table incorrectly ('37, '58, and the late 2000s). I wanted to fix them but I didn't know which one was right. In looking through the talk page I noticed this seems to be a well written/edited article with a long history, so I figured somebody would know better than me which number is correct. I tried to figure out the first one on my own (because the '37-'38 recession is what led me to this list in the first place), but I got something completely different. :/ So yeah, any help? –MetallichickX (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Not Quite Dead Yet

The sentence "The crisis led to the failure or collapse of many of the United States' largest financial institutions: Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, Citi Bank and AIG" at least implies that all of these organizations suffered the same fate or at least that they suffered a fate that was different than that suffered by organizations not in the list. Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers are indeed gone; Fannie, Freddie, and AIG suffered but are still going; Citibank (note the single word spelling) had become Citigroup well before the time in question and it still does deposit my paycheck on a regular basis so it and I both believe that Citi is a going concern. Bear Stearns was sold to JPMC and Lehman Brothers is just plain dead so the list probably needs to separate the survivors from the others. More significantly, there were institutions that suddenly became banks so as to take part in the TARP program and that is a pretty significant item that I don't see mentioned. Docdave (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"Impacts on Different Groups"

I think the following should be removed:

"While recessions may be viewed as undesirable, some people benefit from them. Modern recessions tend to create monetary winners and losers by rapidly shifting assets. Recessions harm middle-class and lower earners the most, and upper earners may lose small businesses and have greater assets at risk. But wealthy individuals and cash-rich companies can benefit dramatically from the results of a recession by buying commercial properties at tremendous discounts and waiting just a few years for property values to return, multiplying their wealth. Large corporations benefit by eliminating or absorbing competitors and by trimming labor and other costs. The overall result is a transfer of assets from the general populace to the wealthy."

No citation, written informally, and sounds a lot like someone's opinion.

152.17.59.182 (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Also while this might be relevant on a general discussion about recessions, not so much on a list of recessions in the United States. 152.17.59.182 (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of recessions in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080925210636/http://www.nber.org/cycles.html to http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The second entry in the notes section is displaying incorrectly

displaying code: Cite error: Invalid

In addition, the following sentence can be added, with the same citation: Textile manufacturers in England and New England were particularly impacted by this recession.

}} Grisé (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not see any errors in Notes section. Ruslik_Zero 19:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Micro Depression

There are no sources for this term, it's literally just something whoever wrote the overly-lengthy section on covid made up. Someone needs to edit that beast down to size and remove the "internet expert" additions like 'micro depression', a black swan event isn't remotely comparable to the 2008 or 1929 recessions.173.66.17.167 (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Covid Recession Theory

Since there are no article hyperlink for Covid Recession Theory, It'd be best to change it back to Covid Recession — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40:801:3:39A0:1197:DEBF:1E00 (talk) 14:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I am the one who deleted (twice now) the covid recession speculation from the chart of recent US recessions. 99% of economists would say the speculation in that section is bunk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aithon (talk • contribs) 01:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Update Covid Recession duration

The Covid recession in US isn’t over yet.

Proof: https://www.reuters.com/business/is-it-over-yet-still-no-recession-end-date-us-economy-hums-along-2021-05-04/

Please comment evidence links below to prove that the Covid Recession ended on April 2020. Jackthekim (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

In the US the NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) is the official arbiter of when a recession begins and ends. The NBER concluded back in 2021 that the Covid recession lasted 2 months. https://www.nber.org/research/data/us-business-cycle-expansions-and-contractions 65.78.16.216 (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

[3]https://www.nber.org/news/business-cycle-dating-committee-announcement-july-19-2021 65.78.16.216 (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Covid Recession Ended in April 2020 US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.162.101.52 (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Covid Recession in 2020 is classified as recession according to NBER

Please do not delete the covid 2020 recession from table.

Business Cycle Dating Committee Announcement July 19, 2021

"...Nonetheless, the committee concluded that the unprecedented magnitude of the decline in employment and production, and its broad reach across the entire economy, warranted the designation of this episode as a recession, even though the downturn was briefer than earlier contractions. https://www.nber.org/news/business-cycle-dating-committee-announcement-july-19-2021 138.75.15.127 (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

NBER Business Cycle Dating:

The NBER's definition emphasizes that a recession involves a significant decline in economic activity that is spread across the economy and lasts more than a few months. In our interpretation of this definition, we treat the three criteria—depth, diffusion, and duration—as somewhat interchangeable. That is, while each criterion needs to be met individually to some degree, extreme conditions revealed by one criterion may partially offset weaker indications from another. For example, in the case of the February 2020 peak in economic activity, the committee concluded that the subsequent drop in activity had been so great and so widely diffused throughout the economy that, even if it proved to be quite brief, the downturn should be classified as a recession.

https://www.nber.org/research/business-cycle-dating

138.75.18.58 (talk)

Mention of 2022 GDP downturn?

While the current decline in GDP may not be a good suit for the table due to not being declared official by the NBER, it should at least receive a mention in the article, as it was a rare exception to the commonly referenced definition of a recession consisting of two quarters of declining economic growth; this rule only having two exceptions since WW2 and being a fair source of debate amongst the American political landscape. 24.220.61.241 (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support Although the NBER has not officially listed it as a recession, the conventional and nearly universal definition of a recession worldwide is two consecutive quarters of GDP decline. The GDP of the United States declined in both Q1 and Q2 2022.

• Support As this is two consecutive quarters of GDP decline is the common definiiton it should be noted in the article and I believe included in the table. Grahaml35 (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Sourced from the IMF: "Most commentators and analysts use, as a practical definition of recession, two consecutive quarters of decline in a country’s real (inflation adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP)—the value of all goods and services a country produces".

Sourced from Baird Private Wealth Management: "The textbook definition of recession is: two consecutive quarters of negative real (inflation adjusted) GDP." Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 00:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Maybe, but if added needs a noticeable asterisk next to it denoting that it is still developing and not accepted by everyone.--Mvqr (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Political motivation to remove NBER definition as commonly accepted

It's commonly accepted, not even slightly a question, heres the bank of england, the central bank of the united kingdoms definition of a recession. Its exactly the same definition as NBER, any edits to remove this will be reverted and users will be warned with an edit war warning Bank Of England's Definition Thanks 47.40.118.147 (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

It's extremely inappropriate to say that if anybody removes what you've added they'll be reverted and given an edit war warning. What part of this do you think is political? That wording hasn't been on this page before which is why it's to be left off until a talk page discussion concludes. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't even pretend like its not politically motivated by a certain US president. There was numerous attempts to remove NBER, so don't act like we can't see the edits from politically motivated editors. How about you stick to the topic at hand though? NBER's definition is commonly accepted by numerous countries, banks and common people until recently because a certain US president needs a certain party to look good for a Midterm election in less than 90 days away.

I sourced the Bank of England's offical website stating what a recession is, the bank of England is what most modern banks are based on. So please tell me how its NOT commonly accepted? 47.40.118.147 (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Please try to use WP:INDENTS.

Seriously? You're accusing me of attacking you? Remember to assume good faith of fellow editors because I still don't understand how you're trying to say my edits are politically motivated. If anything it sounds like you're the one politically motivated at the moment.

What gives you the idea that most modern banks look to based what they do and think off what the Bank of England says and does? Hey man im josh (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Quite literally wikipedias own page on the Bank of England says that. So guess you better go change that too? and again the main point is its not just the US that uses that definition as you can tell from the bank of englands website. Anyways you have yet to explain why its NOT commonly accepted, I would like an answer as to why not? And more importantly if you cannot find a reason why its not why are you continuing to edit war?[Wikipedia's lying too! ]