Talk:1973–1975 recession

US Centric
Very US centric. What can we say about the causes of the UK recession, and any recessions in Japan and the rest of Europe ? Rod57 (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So, one option would be to make this article focused on the recession in the United States, one option would be to rename it to something like "Global economy of the 1970s" to cover interrelated economic problems in the rest of the world, one option would be to have this focused on the economies of US/UK and rest of the world covered elsewhere. There's lots of options here.  Having an article about a US recession is one appropriate option and thus it would be US centric, like any article about a US event.  There are other options too.  I'm not sure what's best. --JayHenry (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Expansion to how it played out in other parts of the world, while labor intensive, would probably be best here. Otherwise should be moved to 1973-75 recession in United States or something similar.radek (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference 1 is a dead link
Any possibility of acquiring an updated or archived source of the reference in question? Eug.galeotti (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

did the USA print money?
Explanations for the Seventies recession used to be OPEC octupling the oil prices and the USA at the same time printing dollars to pay for Vietnam in arrears, but when I skim these articles I see no mention of this latter explanation. Can it please be explicitly refuted if it is not true or included if it is true (along with whose policy it was and when)?

Bias?
The section on the UK ends by describing how Margaret Thatcher, Conservative PM, apparently ended the recession by dealing with the two causes of the recession 'inflation and strikes' -- not sure it is correct to pin the recession on the strikes, this seems politically biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.116.114 (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, especially as the definition of recession - being at least two consecutive quarters of negative growth, had resolved before the end of the Callaghan government. Unemployment remained high, but you can't credit someone with fixing something that was remedied before they came into power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.171.194 (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)