Talk:Panic of 1819

Austrian school first?
Why should the Austrian school's view be the first view? They're far from being mainstream economics. 69.138.26.136 03:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the main work on this subject, as acknowledged by all economic historians, is by Rothbard, a member of the austrian school, it makes quite a bit of sense to give their views prominence. When (If) you find another monography on the subject written by a Keynesian....maybe then you can complain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.199.122.25 (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Austrian" economists explanations are not covered in economics textbooks, ergo they are not notable for every article in Wikipedia on economics. 69.138.26.136 03:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not "economics textbooks", ergo Austrian economists' explanations are very notable indeed for every article in Wikipedia on economics. Economics is not a religion, ergo we can't rely on the Holy Bible or the Qur'an. We can find the Truth, not by revelation but only by using our reason to analyze and compare different views. If the logic of the mainstream economics really is solid, its proponents shouldn't be worried about the fact that their view is introduced after the illogical nonsense. Actually, the "critics" section always succeeds in making the earlier opinions even a bit doubtable. By the way, Austrian theory is, far from being nonsense, logical and capable of explaining and predicting economic phenomena. Mainstream is not a synonym for unequivocal, nor for correct. (80.186.34.230 14:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC))
 * While that is true to an extent, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; we represent the general consensus, rather than trying to challenge it. In an encyclopedia, marginal viewpoints cannot be given equal footing with those that are more established in the field. There are indeed appropriate places to challenge the economic consensus, but Wikipedia is not one of them. --Aquillion 07:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Although you're not satisfied with the equal footing, please, don't liquidate the other candidates. The problem isn't the "marginal viewpoint" having too firm a footing but the mainstream viewpoint having one that is too fragile. It seems like a history lesson is most necessary. The Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle originated in the work of Ludwig von Mises and was developed by Friedrich von Hayek. The latter happened to share the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1974 with Gunnar Myrdal "for their pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena", i.e. among other things for the very theory you're calling "marginal viewpoint". What kind of encyclopaedia is not an appropriate place to represent the theories being awarded the Nobel Prize? 80.186.34.230 11:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, you are making the wrong arguments. Your opinions on the relative fragility of the viewpoints in question means exactly bunk.  Likewise, the fact that Ludwig von Mises won a Nobel Prize in Economics is an excellent reason to have an article on Mises, or specific articles devoted to his theories, but it is an exceptionally poor one to try and argue that his views should be given any prominence on articles outside of those.  There is only one thing that matters to even the slightest degree in terms of which economic theories should be covered where in Wikipedia, and that is the broad consensus of the economic community; in that regard, the Austrian school is generally considered marginal today, and its theories and speculations cannot be given equal footing with more commonly-accepted mainstream explanations. --Aquillion 07:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was immediately struck by the fact that the Austrian explanation was propounded first and true to my expectations here in the talk page the issue is being discussed. Conforming to their typical modus operandi it appears the Austrians are coming out on top by shouting the loudest.  But it just ain’t right.Tcolgan001 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

This kind of scuffles disgust me. There is no consensus in economy. It's not a kind of science where any kind of consensus like in physics, chemistry, biology or mathematics, could arise. But of course some people can't get over their own "Jihad". Present the facts or go kill yourself. E7th04sh (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Page cleanup

 * Removed apparent vandalism 'comment' from talk page; also removed an external link from the main page that would not function and was probably vandalism. -- RayBirks 16:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about the history of US economics, but it seems that this page needs much more description of what actually happened, so that theories about why it happened and what should have been done will make sense. AlexTiefling 12:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Closure of Second Bank of the United States
The article says: "Clyde Haulman, Professor of Economics at the College of William and Mary,[5] argue that the Panic was partly caused by a decision to close the Second Bank of the US."

The bank was not closed in 1819. The charter expired in 1836, after which the bank continued as a private bank, and it went bankrupt in 1841. So the "closure" (non-renewal of charter) could not have been a cause of the Panic of 1819. Cromulant (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Dont' "Panic" - just a rewrite
Improved lede to provide overview on economic and social impacts; eliminates superfluous discussion of 18th C. downturns. 36hourblock (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

History as simple as "1-2-3" - a primer
The “factors” described in the “Causes” section are said to have occurred during the War of 1812 (1812 – 1815). Is this what the editors meant to say?

“ 1.” - That US manufacturing increased during the Napoleonic Wars, including the War of 1812, is supported by Dangerfield (see sources in main article) – but why did this, of itself, lead to the “onset” of a financial crisis?

“2.” - Dangerfield agrees that government borrowing occurred during the War of 1812. But no mention is made in this edit that the government effort to “secure loans” was due to the fact that the Bank of the United States (BUS) no longer existed – it lost its charter in 1811, just before the war began. This also helps to explain the breathtaking proliferation of private (state-chartered) banking, as noted. The key conclusion that Dangerfield provides is not mentioned here, namely, that the drop in species led to a massive issue of unregulated bank note issue and an inflationary bubble – and the call for the revival of the BUS to control inflation. This development played a role in the onset of the Panic of 1819. (See Dangerfield)

“3.” – According to the editors, the US is said to have experienced inflation of commodity prices during the period 1812 – 1815, and “contributed to the onset” of the financial crisis. How did inflation during the war, in itself, lead to the Panic? What impact did the doubling in value of raw cotton during the war of 1812 have on the downturn in 1818 and 1819?

At the end of war, the editors write “the United States was free to start international trade again, especially with Great Britain, the nation’s biggest trading partner.”  What manufacturing markets existed in Great Britain when its warehouse were overflowing with their own manufactured goods? The Continental European market for manufactured goods had utterly collapsed – it could not afford these goods after the war. Even the trade with the West Indies was totally dominated by British shippers in the aftermath of the war (See Dangerfield).

The only significant European markets were agricultural ones – no mention is made of them in the rewrite. This would qualify as an “factor” because it provoked a land boom in West and South United States, and a vast increase in the issue of easy credit to purchase the cheap public lands. Here we have a central theme to begin to explain the “factors” that led to the Panic of 1819, according to Dangerfield.

History as simple as “1-2-3”? Not likely.

36hourblock (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed the following material from the article, source provided an an author named Wright:


 * "Under the mismanagement and failed leadership of the Bank’s first President, William Jones, the Second Bank “proceeded to run the economy into the ground by first extending far too much credit, then quickly restricting it. A financial panic ensued, followed by a steep recession that saw interest rates spike, farm produce prices plummet, and unemployment soar."


 * My sources (see article) do not consider William Jones in a position to "run the [United States] economy into the ground." In fact, according to Dangerfield "the Bank [under Jones] may even be considered, charatibly, as the victim of a private banking 'system'". (Source: Dangerfield, 1965, p. 87, see references in article).
 * I deleted this material, and provided a broader view based on my sources. 36hourblock (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The effect of the Tambora eruption on the global economy prior to the Panic
In the section entitled "Post-war European readjustments and the American economy: 1815 - 1818", please consider the following two statements:

"...European agriculture production, exhausted by years of warfare, was unable to feed its own population."

...and...

"Continental Europe, its agrarian output crippled by the recent war, offered new markets for American staple crops, particularly cotton, wheat, corn and tobacco."

My question here is: how much of that lowered agricultural production was the result of the war and how much was attributable to the eruption of the Indonesian volcano Tambora, that then resulted in the so-called 'Year Without a Summer'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

It seems to me that the devastation from war would need to be severe indeed if it devastated enough farmland to affect the prices of agricultural commodities to this extent.

Frunobulax (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Very Keynesian
It's a very Keynesian analysis. 108.28.145.40 (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)