Talk:Panic of 1873

Depression of 1873-79
The introduction of this article should be amended to deemphasize the 1870s depression. The severity of this depression appears to be myth, more than fact. Balke and Gordon (1989) and Davis (2004) show that negative GDP growth and falling industrial production definitely ended by 1875. Romer (1989) shows no evidence of a recession at all. Either way, the weight of the evidence suggests that the depression/recession of the 1870s (if there even was one) was shallow, short-lived, and ultimately not terribly damaging when compared with larger crises such as the Great Depression or the 2008 Financial crisis. US GDP returned to trend well within the decade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.36.157 (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Crime of 1873
As there is a section discussing Grant's contracting of the money supply, presumably by demonetizing silver, there should be a link to the Fourth Coinage Act/Crime of 1873. Additionally, these economic "hard times" led to the north's slackening on Reconstruction efforts, as well as creating Populism's base of discontent. 24.44.50.254 01:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Austrian School
I have excised the Austrian School section as in appropriate for the article as it currently stands. Should anyone care to pen a section on differing interpretations of this (and presumably other) panics, it can be restored. Eusebeus 15:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This section was restored at some point; I'm deleting it again, since Rothbard's interpretation is the only one mentioned and is -- as the original author of the paragraph obviously recognizes -- not widely accepted by economic historians. Davenoon (talk) 06:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not the original author, but I did edit it to give more appropriate context of that passage's weighting, although I have no argument with the idea that the section completely lacks the notability to be included, especially as it was originally written up. BigK HeX (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge Long Depression and Panic of 1873
I disagree, stock market crashes and depressions are different things, even if they are linked. Very few crashes are followed by a depression, so they are notable when they happen. Take the Black Monday (1987) crash, now believed to be just a correction in a long term bull run. nirvana2013 17:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Great Railroad Strike of 1877
This is alluded to in the current article, but should be described a bit more broadly and linked. Also, Grant was out by 1877, Hayes mobilized federal troops during the Great Strike.

Contradictions in article
(1) The Long Depression article makes no connective mention of the Panic of 1873; (2) the opening sentence of the article indicates depression lasted "until 1877" and the closing sentence says "the depression lifted in the spring of 1879."

==

Was Jay Gould involved?
I've read that Jay Gould was closely involved with this; can somebody either add this or state that it's not so? --NE2 23:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

New article as source
Here is an interesting article that discusses the Panic and the depression afterwards. Hopefully this information can be included in the article. The Real Great Depression: The depression of 1929 is the wrong model for the current economic crisis. Remember (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The Crime of 73
There are a few causes listed for the panic. But the only one that I can see that could have caused the panic is the coinage act 1873, which was referred to by the miners as 'The Crime of 73'. I can't see the relevance of the Vienna Stock Exchange crash. Can anybody elaborate on this? It seems that this article may need to be trimmed down a bit. Somebody needs to find a common denominator between the events in Europe and the events in North America otherwise I can't see the connection. The American Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War can hardly be considered as a common denominator. This article deals simultaneously with two contemporary but seemingly unrelated events on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean David Tombe (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Now the article seems to give the lower price of silver as the link or cause. Due to Germany demonetising silver, due (in part) to getting reparations from the Franco-Prussian war in gold. ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that this incident was actually a cause for the panic
I've removed this paragraph to the talk page for closer scrutiny.

''The outbreak of equine influenza in 1872 had a pervasive effect on the economy. Called the "Great Epizoötic", it had an effect on every aspect of American transportation. The whole street railway industry ground to a halt. Locomotives came to a halt as coal or wood could not be delivered to power them. Even the United States Army Cavalry was reduced to fighting the Western tribes on foot; their adversaries likewise found their mounts too sick to do battle. The outbreak forced men to pull wagons by hand, while trains and ships full of cargo sat unloaded, tram cars stood idle and deliveries of basic community essentials were no longer being made. ''

Do we have any evidence that this incident was in any way connected to the panic?

I've further removed this section to the talk page for closer scrutiny. Since when has a fire caused a major economic depression? Do we have proof that this fire was related to the crash of 73?

''Coming at the height of an extremely dry period, the Chicago fire of October 8-9, 1871, caused a loss of nearly $200 million in property in a blaze that overran four square miles. Its effect was compounded by simultaneous fires at Holland, Michigan; Manistee, Michigan; Port Huron, Michigan; and Peshtigo, Wisconsin. The lumbering industry boomed as Chicago rebuilt, but other sectors of the economy were disordered by the financial losses incurred in the series of fires. '' David Tombe (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it came with a reference - "Mayer, Harold M., and Wade, Richard C. (1969), Chicago: Growth of a Metropolis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press." pp. 106-117-124.  You should really check this before removing it. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. But it's mentioned in the article anyway in its own due proportion. In fact, the more that I think about it, the more it becomes obvious that Bismarck's role in silver demonetization would have vastly exceeded the role of any fire in Chicago. Did the source in question actually specifically state that the Chicago fire contributed towards the economic crash two years later? David Tombe (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The common link betwen the panic in the USA and the panic in Germany
Crosbiesmith, Regarding the citation tag that you inserted, I have provided a source which shows that Bismarck began silver demonetization immediately after he had received a payment from France following his victory in the Franco-Prussian war. That would have caused a depression in the international value of silver that would have ultimately lead to a crash in an era of over speculation. It would also have put pressure on the USA to adopt the gold standard, which they did in 1873. That in turn would have excacerbated the situation in the USA and led to a crash there also, especially as over speculation had been going on there too. In fact, here is a quote from reference 17 which I believe contains the whole story,

''“There is but one enduring CAUSE OF THE FALL OF SILVER, and that is the cessation of the demand for it in the standard coinage of the mints in the Christian world. On the 23rd of November 1871, after Germany conquered France, and Bismarck exacted a thousand million dollars in gold indemnity, he commenced the execution of his scheme of new coinage in Germany, and on the 9th of July, 1873, was ordained by law the national gold standard with the gold mark as the unit of value. Before this the metallic currency of Germany was silver. She then commenced the coinage of gold, called in her silver in exchange at the ratio of 1:15.5 and threw her silver upon the market. Then Denmark, Norway and Sweden changed their currency to gold and threw their silver also upon the market, and the Netherlands did the same.” (pages 230-231)''

I would say from reading this that silver was the singular cause of the panics on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. I have definitely read somewhere in the past that the 1873 US coinage act was a consequence of Germany going unto the gold standard, following the Franco-Prussian war, but I would never be able to find that source again. I've tried google, but I can come up with nothing. So it looks like you may just have to remove the section if you are not satisfied with the quote above, and we'll just have to leave it at two parallel events with seemingly no common link. With the 1930's Great Depression it is easier to establish the common link because we all know that Germany had huge loans from the USA. David Tombe (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

repetition
This article mentions two separate times critics of discontinuing coining silver calling it "the crime of '73". There should be no reason to mention something like that more than once in the same article.

OK, It's been removed. David Tombe (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Economic growth statistics
These growth statistics are from Friedman's monetary history of the United States, whom Rothbard is citing. Last time I checked, Friedman is as "mainstream" as you can get; there's no reason to dismiss statistics that he has gathered. And it is not as if the Austrians are a "fringe" school; Heterodox, to be sure, but Mises is listed on the economics template as a famous economist and Hayek has won the nobel economics prize. Even many of Rothbard's papers, such as the panic of 1819, are widely cited. I will quote from the text to support this assrtion:

By some measures the 1880s was the most productive decade in our history. In their A Monetary History of the United States, 1867–1960, Professors Friedman and Schwartz quote R.W. Goldsmith on the subject: The highest decadal rate [of growth of real reproducible, tangible wealth per head from 1805 to 1950] for periods of about ten years was apparently reached in the eighties with approximately 3.8 percent.

As clear as you can get.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The current CITATION is for a fringe economist published through a company where the author was Vice President. Even worse, the text is not supported by the passage that you're referring to, due to a poor attempt at summarization. BigK HeX (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, the 1880's don't follow the 1870's. And as I said, I'm sure Friedman isn't exactly a "fringe economist". Even the Austrian School is referred to as a "heterdox school", not a fringe school.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You can refer to Friedman as often as you like, but I don't have to trust that a basically self-published source is reliably quoting Friedman. Trying to make some point about the 1880's and the 1870's is pretty asanine given that the text in question only makes vague, inspecific claims, failing to reflect the poor source.
 * We can argue "fringe" regarding Rothbard, but given your edit comments, it's pretty obvious you are only now gaining some small sense of the Austrian School's relation to the mainstream. BigK HeX (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Self-published? The source was published  after Rothbard's death. Unless his spirit was resurrected its hard for the source to be referred to as "self published". Also, the Austrian School may be heterodox, but its views are that of a significant minority and should be represented. On this particular issue, the Austrian view is reflecting that of the mainstream, notably that of the Chicago school; not a particularly radical view.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Germany and Austria section
The Germany and Austria section seems to be nearly gibberish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.102.112.242 (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. I can't make sense out of this section. It has been nibbled to death by individual edits. Can someone knowledgeable of this aspect of the discussion please take a look at how this section reads in its entirety and then refine it to make it more coherent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdamont (talk • contribs) 14:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Today there is still a lot of garbage to be removed. --Hors-la-loi (talk) 08:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

This section is still desperately in need of a rewrite.2602:306:CEAE:E60:7423:3C5D:1C2B:34E (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Deflation
The article mentions reduced money supply and higher interest rates but does not mention deflation. Can anyone say to what extent there was deflation and how this might have related to business failures and the pressure for the coinage act of 1873 and the free silver movement? - Rod57 (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Deflation didnt cause business failures. The 1870s were actually a time of prosperity and the Long Depression didnt occur.--Metallurgist (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

New research
New research (as well as a look at the on Long Depression indicates that this was actually a time of prosperity and not a depression at all. How can this be incorporated into the article? If sources that claim certain facts are proven wrong, are they to be removed? Sources:, , , .--Metallurgist (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Article organization
If the first major event in the Panic of 1873 was Black Friday (May 9), why does the U.S. section get more prominent coverage? Shouldn't this article be more chronological and start with the events in Germany and Austria? — howcheng  {chat} 20:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Nominate for GA/FA
Really great work on this article - I learned a lot. Would one of the editors move this through the GA / FA process so it can be featured on the front page? We really need more topics like this to be featured. Cheers, Lemurbaby (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The text must have deteriorated since your enthusiastic comment as it is now inadequate, garbled, ill-focused and parochial. --Hors-la-loi (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur with Hors-la-loi. PRRfan (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

"Wiener Krach" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wiener Krach. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Long, complex sentence fragment
"In Baltimore, Maryland where strikers set fire to buildings owned by B.& O. Railroads and an outnumbered militia guard division opened fire when they were surrounded by rioters, killing 10 and injuring 25 more leading to a days-long standoff at Camden Yards." This has several dependent clauses, but no independent subject or verb. After reading it a couple more times, I'm going to replace it with this: "In Baltimore, Maryland strikers set fire to buildings owned by B.& O. Railroads. When an outnumbered militia guard division was surrounded by rioters, they opened fire, killing 10 and injuring 25 more, and leading to a days-long standoff at Camden Yards." If you've got a way to improve on that, go for it. Dgndenver (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)