Talk:Global recession

Comments

We added wikilinks for "developed country" and "developing country" on the page for easier access for readers. We felt that for someone who is not familiar with the global recession, this addition would be helpful. There were reliable sources. However, we found an incorrect citation for the IMF link, and we have added that in. Otherwise, great article and was an unbiased point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.82.167.73 (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I had expanded the article on Recession during Feb 2008 to April 2008 ([1].

There was a comment that the perspective given was US-centric.

Since one one has attempted to add a global perspective, I am starting this article Global Recession. I expect it to be a reasonable article in 3-6 months.

You are invited to add. I happen to be a analysis-model-data person. I hope some of you will help with the text part.--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest not merging the articles on recession and global recession. The global recession article needs to include issues related to coupling of economies and correlation among recessions in major countries.--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree, if it can be fleshed out into a full article, which you seem to be doing. We probably need a Wikipedia administrator to move it to the name "Global recession" directly over the top of the redirect that's currently there, though. --Closeapple (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

This article needs to have the title "Global recession" with a lower-case "r" because it's not a name. However, the target name has already had some minor activity: there was a very short stub, then redirects, then a cut-and-paste of Recession (twice), then redirects again. However, I believe that none of the activity under the target name is substantial enough to need preservation or credit. Theoretically an uncontroversial move, but I'm listing it as controversial just in case someone might dispute the usefulness of the blanked edits in the target. --Closeapple (talk) 07:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support This move looks pretty straight ofrward. The article is a general article about the topic. It is not a proper name as is "The Great Depression". --Bejnar (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it wouldn't have much to say. The fact that a global recession occurs on a larger scale doesn't sound like there could be much more to add to the article. HOWEVER, I am not an economist. If anybody who know what kind of differences exist between a non-global and a global recession, please say so. Rustyfence (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, but how do Rustyfence's comments about content relate to the change from a proper name "Global Recession" to a descriptive name "Global recession"? Is Rustyfence talking about the need for an article at all? I think that that would be a question for either a proposed merger with the Recession article or a complete AfD. --Bejnar (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Prevention and Way Out

I have placed almost similar comment for your article Recession.

I am not a financial expert, but used to view the world with my limited knowledge and unlimited passion. I believe, it is high time for us to think about some preventive measures to avoid frequent financial meltdowns, or we need to develop some mechanisms to automatic restructuring of markets (without war/armed conflicts) to avoid job cuts and related miseries. It may be a natural end of a capital based system, but it will be good, if we can do some thing to reduce its impact on us(whole world). I feel it is worth sharing my thoughts.

Basically, if we see the bottom line, avoiding all the financial terms, recession is the result of financial credibility loss. The financial world is driven by the fight for the survival and the fittest emerges as winners. As a result of this the wealth gets accumulated in limited points, even though regulatory authorities and taxation are in place. When the economy take measures like job cuts to save individual players or units to survive, it indirectly pumps more distrust and reduces the purchasing power of more people; in-turn adding more to the credibility loss.

It seems once the economy is recovered we can be more preventive. Governing bodies and/or regulators should be more vigil on the purchase power of common public. They should be more supportive, both for helping more people to attain purchasing power and for retaining the purchasing power once it is reached. This can be either by social security measures, or by automatic acquisition of a fixed percentage of shares of profit making institutions, if it controls a considerable meaningful amount of assets to the financial system, specifically for generating more jobs and supporting individuals with income below some bench marks.

It will be better to have little slowdown in profit making at good times to create a society with more purchasing power around than getting in to trouble in cycles (naming it as a cyclic unavoidable phenomenon to escape from the responsibility of tackling it!). Rather than terming such initiatives as protectionist/socialist and discarding such options, such inclusiveness will bring more continuality to the system.

Prevention is better than cure. A stitch in time saves nine. Planting a tree at good times will return its fruits at bad times (a Malayalam proverb; sampathu kalathu ka pathu nattal, aapathu kalathu ka pathu thinnam, means, If in good times 10 seeds are planted , at bad times 10 fruits can be eaten). Our world has a lot of proverbs/lessons to guide us, let us be optimistic.

While the world is going through an economic slowdown, the governing bodies should invest in the customers than investing in the producers/suppliers. It is being understood that suppliers are not able to create their respective customers, or failed to create a purchasing community for their products/services. So the immediate action of the states/authorities is to enable more people with financial security and thus providing them a mind set to involve in more purchases than financially aiding big corporate houses, which have accepted their failure in anticipating and/or preventing a meltdown. Right action can give right signals; right signals can bring joyful results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adeeb.in (talk • contribs) 09:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

While wikipedia does not propose a solution, potential solutions need to be addressed in the article. Or are recessions inevitable as a part of economic cyclicity? --Chakreshsinghai (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Definition of "global recession"

The opening paragraph of the article states, "A definition of a global recession is provided by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It considers a global recession to be occurring when the global growth rate moves below 3%."

An article in The Economist is cited. However, the article states, "The fund expects global growth, measured on the basis of purchasing-power parity (PPP), to come down to 3% in 2009, the slowest pace since 2002 and on the verge of what it considers to be a global recession. (The fund’s definition of global recession takes many factors into account, including the rate of population growth.)"

So let's take the Wikipedia statement sentence by sentence:

• "A definition of a global recession is provided by the International Monetary Fund (IMF)." It is? Where can we find this definition? According to The Economist, this definition "takes many factors into account," not just economic growth. Is the IMF's formula even available to the public? Or is it like the formula used by America's National Bureau of Economic Research and not readily available? I have seen no evidence to date that the IMF formula "is provided."

• "(The IMF) considers a global recession to be occurring when the global growth rate moves below 3%." This is not necessarily accurate, even according to the Economist article cited. As discussed, the IMF "takes many factors into account," not just growth.

I suggest that this alleged IMF "definition" be removed from the entry and, if possible, replaced with either (a) the actual IMF definition, if it can be found or (b) another authoritative definition. 99.141.79.168 (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

In reference to my post above, I have located a more authoritative source from the IMF and am updating the text accordingly. 99.141.79.168 (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The IMF source you listed does not provide a definition. It uses the phrase in passing, not as a defined concept. The other sources erroneously extrapolate a standard definition from that report (April 2008). See also:

• "In preparing the forthcoming April 2002 World Economic Outlook, we went through an exercise first of figuring out just what a global recession is (there is no commonly accepted definition) and then trying to decide whether we had just lived through one."[2]

• A recession of global dimensions? - a Fortune Magazine news article on the same subject that never uses the term "global recession.

• Global Recession Risk Grows as U.S. `Damage' Spreads - "global recession" and "worldwide recession" both used in the same way.

I think it's clear that this phrase is used in passing. This article was started by an editor worried about the US-centricness of recession. Rather than fix that article they started a new one. The should be merged. NJGW (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I feel the concept of global recession is a valid and relevant to current events however from a Wiki standpoint I have to agree with NJGW that in its current format the article title smacks of Original Research WP:OR

and may need to be modified if a more reliable reference cannot be found. --Keithbob (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Global GDP growth actually went negative in 2009. Surely that is worth noting? Fig (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No Reasons are Given?

Shouldn't this article explain why a global recession might happen? How about the one we're in right now? Otherwise, it would be like an article on "tooth decay" explaining that it is a hole that has formed in the tooth, without explaining the cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurolanis (talk • contribs) 18:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Don't have the time to do it myself, but hope another editor does. For the purpose of expanding the article - not only with reasons behind the latest global recession - but also a more detailed characteristic of how all the 4 post war global recessions developed, I can highly recommend doing this on basis of the 4 pages given in the 2009 IMF WEO reports box 1.1 (page 11-14). Danish Expert (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Details about how the recovery after the Great Recession (and the global recessions of 1975, 1982, 1991) took place respectively for Advanced Economies and Emerging Economies, would also be interesting to add as a subchapter in the article. I suggest you read and use this source for the suggested chapter: 2012 IMF WEO reports box 1.2 (page 38-42). Danish Expert (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

New definition of "Global recession" - and a source for the data

Just updated the lead with the fact, that IMF as per April 2009 changed their Global recession definition to:

• A decline in annual per‑capita real World GDP (purchasing power parity weighted), backed up by a decline or worsening for one or more of the seven other global macroeconomic indicators: Industrial production, trade, capital flows, oil consumption, unemployment rate, per‑capita investment, and per‑capita consumption.

Now I am searching for a source to show (in a special created wikitable/figure for the article) all historic values for the Annual per‑capita real World GDP (purchasing power parity weighted). This proved more difficult than I thought, because to my big surprise IMF does not publish this specific figure in their WEO reports. After searching the web, I found this database with figures for Annual per‑capita World GDP (purchasing power parity weighted): http://www.economywatch.com/economic-statistics/World-Average/GDP_Per_Capita_PPP_US_Dollars/. But the problem is the figures listed by this web-link are nominal and not real. So it is not good enough. Also found these two other data sources: Figure 1.6 of the 2011 WEO report and Economist graph, showing the development in quarterly real World GDP (as measured on basis of the 52 countries publishing this data - and representing 90% of the World GDP). These data in my point of view are also interesting, but only supplemental. In fact I have managed to transform this data series from "quarter on same quarter last year" figures to "quarter on quarter" figures, in order to apply the same recession definition analysis used by sovereign states, and found the real World GDP declined throughout the three quarters from Q3-2008 until Q1-2009. I think quarterly figures should also -at some point of time- be displayed by the article as supplemental figures.

The main data we need to display in the article first and foremost (as per IMFs "global recession" definition) are however the Annual per‑capita real World GDP (purchasing power parity weighted). If you have a link to a source for these figures, then please help and post it here at the talkpage. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 08:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps one way of getting access to the sought data would be to approach IMF with an email, asking for a link to the 1960-2010 data, which they printed by their presented graphs in the 2009 IMF WEO reports box 1.1 (page 11-14). I don't have time myself to do anymore data-search on this issue, so if you can help me push this issue closer to a solution, it would really be great. Danish Expert (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Global recession. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 06:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)