Talk:Panic of 1907/Archive 1

J.P. Morgan's Role in 1907 Crisis - Criticism should be acknowledged
Rather than focus on a massive conspiracy theory, criticism of JP Morgan should lie in the fact that Knickerbocker Trust resumed operations a short time after the crisis, and without losses to depositors. This is mentioned in Wicker (2000) and Banker's Magazine, Vol. 78 (1909). This suggests that Knickerbocker was indeed solvent, and allowing it to fail was improper. Thus, while Morgan should be given credit for doing much to save the banking system in the wake of Knickerbocker's failure, it is very possible that by allowing a solvent Knickerbocker to fail, he actually caused the crisis to be worse than it ultimately became. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.36.157 (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment
Hi Peeps, just a humble edit request. At the beginning of the section on "Economic Conditions," right after footnote 1, there's a sudden leap in timeframe from 1836 to 1906. I'm not an economic historian by any means, and find the link between the agrarian cycles of Andrew Jackson's time and the industrial economy of 1906 hard to understand. If it isn't, could there please be more of a bridge? If it is, why is that particular date (and reference) relevant at all? The rest of the article doesn't present nearly such a huge sweep. Pufferfyshe (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Puffer. The agrarian cycles continued to dominate banking into the early 1900s for the reason mentioned in the article.  Money flowed into the heartlands every fall to buy the harvest, sucking the coasts dry of money.  The industrial economy of 1906 didn't change when plants were harvested :)  The reason we mention Jackson is for historical context.  The U.S. had the same basic banking system from Jackson until this Panic, basically, changed it. --JayHenry (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the article would be improved by identifying the "schemers" in the second paragraph under Panic of 1907 when the scheme is first mentioned. As the reader above, the Andrew Jackson reference jumped out at me. The Second Bank of the US existed for a mere 20 years, the US had no central bank for the 71 years prior to the Panic of 1907 and for 7 another years after, and the Panic was resolved without a central bank. Seems like this information would fit better in a Central Banking or Federal Reserve topic instead of a topic where neither were in existence. Fafyrd (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Old question
To the authors of Panic 1907:

[NOTE: SHOULD THIS READ AUGUSTUS HEINZE, NOT OTTO HEINZE?]

I read with interest the existing article on this important and timely topic and noticed several (what I believe are) inaccuracies. Based on my reading of the many New York Times articles written at the time, I think the Heinze's bank was the Mercantile, not the Knickerbocker Trust. Heinze was later indicted for alleged violations of banking law relating to a loan he made from the Mercantile to himself to fund his brothers' firm's repurchase of United Copper Stock. (He was ultimately acquitted). One of the major trigger points of the panic was the inability of the Heinzes to purchase all of the shares of Copper stock which flooded the market in October 1907 after the Heinzes tried to corner the market in United Copper. I don't think Knickerbocker was a Heinze bank.

The Knickerbocker was implicated in the panic through Charles Morse. Morse was a speculator who was involved with the Heinzes in the so-called Copper Pool which at the time was trying to corner the United Copper market and squeeze out the short interest which it believed was driving the price down. When the Heinzes made their move to corner United Copper, Morse apparently dumped his shares into the market. The Heinzes couldn't find funds to purchase all of the stock dumped into the market and believing that Morse was a seller approached Morse to have him buy back his shares. As the panic unfolded, Morse, through his bank, the Bank of North America, made a deposit in the Knickerbocker Trust which then made a loan back to Morse. It was subsequently alleged that this transaction, as well as others Morse engaged in through the Bank of North America constituted violations of banking law by Morse.

As the panic unfolded, confidence in the New York banks and trust companies was drained and depositors feared for the safety of their deposits. When it came to light that the Knickerbocker, through its President, Charles Barney, had been transacting business with Morse, Barney resigned. A run on the Knickerbocker was begun and while it was initially expected that the New York banking community would support the trust, support did not materialize and the Knickerbocker failed. As the failure of additional trust companies loomed, JP Morgan and other banking leaders did ultimately step in and provide liquidity and total disaster was averted.

Unfortunately, it was too late for Barney. Humiliated by the failure of his bank, the Knickerbocker, Barney committed suicide. He was never accused of wrong-doing and both his estate and the Knickerbocker were found to have been solvent. Morse was indicted and ultimately convicted of violations of bank law and he served two years in Federal prison before his sentence was commuted by President Taft. Heinze was acquitted of wrong-doing in connection with the Mercantile Bank loan and spent the few remaining years of his life trying to reestablish his fortune.

Skipjen (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Skipjen, if you're reading this -- you are quite correct and I wish someone had spotted it earlier. This article was shockingly incorrect.  I'm working on fixing it! --JayHenry (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Fed
I deleted "relatively" from the first sentence of the article -- as in "the panic was a relatively serious economic downturn." It struck me as an unsupported subjective viewpoint, and also seemed to contradict information later in the article. (E.g., "the severity was such that Congress was moved to form the Federal Reserve Bank" -- I am paraphrasing here.) It's possible that this panic really was only "relatively" serious when compared to others, but I think it would be better to provide some real indication of the scope, rather than use a vague modifier like "relatively". For instance, X number of banks were forced to close, etc.

There are also two instances of "Panic" being capitalized where perhaps it shouldn't be. (One at the end of the first paragraph -- "the fourth Panic in 34 years" -- and another in the second paragraph where the event is referred to merely as "the Panic.") I was going to change both to lowercase, but there have already been edits on the case of those words so I let them be.

Finally, I wonder about the last sentence in the first paragraph (i.e., "the fourth Panic in 34 years"). The argument for inclusion is probably that it provides context -- this wasn't just one isolated panic. But the numbers used are odd. Why 34 years? Why the last four panics? Was the period before ~1870 especially quiet? Did Congress refer especially to these four panics when ordering the creation of the Federal Reserve? Would it suffice to say, "The Panic of 1907 was just one in a series of panics that swept Wall Street in the years following --some event-- or leading up to --some event--"? I don't know enough about this topic to make the edit myself, but that is a question I have as a reader. --Mbennardo 15:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I added another sentence to the end of the article about the creation of Federal Reserve Bank in response to the Panic of 1907. I think this closes the loop on the effect of the panic... The Fed was mentioned in the first paragraph, but never again. Perhaps this addition is outside the scope of the article, but since the article on the Federal Reserve Act mentions the Panic of 1907, it seemed to make sense to reciprocate.

--Mbennardo 15:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The intro of this article seems to be propaganda for central banks and Keynesianism. The "logic" seems to be that the crisis was caused by lack of a central bank, and so a central bank was needed. This is debatable at best. Hence, a tag for disputing of neutrality is added.

146.2.243.254 (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Seasonal interest rate fluctuations, liquidity crunches, and panics were a result of the National Banking system. There's no circular logic behind that, as it's spelled out in some detail in the article, and much more detail in the sources if you're interested in the topic. --JayHenry (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A lender of last resort (the Federal Reserve System or a central bank like the Bank of England) does not dampen banking panics (large scale withdrawal of deposits) and the lack of one was most certainly not a primary cause of the banking panic of 1907, as this article suggests. Bank runs continued before and after the creation of the United States' lender of last resort in 1913 and have occurred in England to the present day, most notably Nothern Rock. The Glass-Steagal Act, aka FDR's New Deal Banking Act of 1933, created the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) which insures deposits up to a specified amount. Deposit insurance dampens large scale deposit withdrawal. Fafyrd (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A lender of last resort can provide liquidity in a crunch and does indeed lessen the frequency and severity of banking panics. Remember there's a big difference between a liquidity crisis and a solvency crisis and 1907 wasn't particularly a solvency crisis.  I don't see how anyone could read the article to claim that a Central Bank could prevent all banking panics -- of course banking panics still occur (if preventing all panics is our standard then FDIC, IndyMac, anybody?).  The way the San Francisco earthquake sucked all the money out of the rest of the country is a pretty straightforward example of a situation that a central banking system could have made less severe.  I understand that it's awkward to say that the absence of something contributed to causing something else (although would it be terribly controversial to say that the absence of effective regulators contributed to causing our current economic crisis?) so I'm open to suggestions for better wording. --JayHenry (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't suggest that the FDIC prevents all bank runs but it has dampened runs significantly; a trade-off being a fractionally greater chance of systemic risk versus individual bank failures. Unlike a lender of last resort, the FDIC directly addresses large scale depositor withdrawal. I'm glad you agree: if we blame absences as primary causes, we could conceivably list the lack of the FDIC, the New Deal, FDR, computers, internet, various boards of regulation, credit cards, and the lack of Alan Greenspan, etc... I agree the financial impact of the San Francisco earthquake and the "hard money" standard of the time was part of the argument for a central bank's "elastic" currency. I suggest striking "and the absence of a statutory lender of last resort" as a primary cause and tidying up the sentence afterward. The Aftermath and Central Bank sections cover the creation of the Federal Reserve System well enough. Thanks. Fafyrd (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think you're right. I agree that these are the sorts of claim that are best explained with context and so it's better to do that in the lead than in the body.  You're right we could just as easily say the lack of an FDIC contributed to the crisis and it might be a worthwhile aside in the body that there was no deposit insurance at the time -- if the bank went under before your withdrawal it was tough luck for you.  I'm traveling right now, but I'll fix this in a few days if nobody else does it first. --JayHenry (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced?
This article has an "Unreferenced" template tag which says "This article does not cite any references or sources," but there are number of references at the bottom of the article. While it might be nice to have individual statements footnoted, I would hardly think this counts as unreferenced. 24.155.88.186 13:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC) SOrry but I couldn't afford to have refrences. There might be a chance to have those.

JP Morgan Criticism Section Missing
There's no section for the criticism of JP Morgan actually starting the rumor that lead to the panic of 1907. The 1907 crisis was also precipitated by a rumor by J/P. Morgan that the Knickerbocker Trust Company was insolvent, and then J.P. Morgan swoops in wit a capital infusion to save the day. this so-called panic became the justification for the Jekyll Island meeting to discuss the establishment of a new Fed bank.

As well it's not even mentioned that banks had the option to shore up their reserve rates. (So they actually had most of the money they said they had.) Instead this article seems to make creation of a central bank to alleviate the issue the only viable option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.199.4 (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm in the middle of an expansion and haven't gotten to the end yet. This will be included along with the Pujo hearings in the "Aftermath" section.  From the literature I've read, however, there's little historical evidence that Morgan did this deliberately, although the theory is certainly out there. --JayHenry (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I stuck an "underconstruction" tag on the article to show where things are at; pls feel free to remove it when you get to the end. tnx.  (and good work, party like it's 1907) Edward Vielmetti (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarification ?
what is 'float consolidations'? in: "obtained control of the Bank of North America and other banks to float consolidations and other schemes." Is it a bad phrase, or some economic term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.45.29 (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions
I have a few questions, although nervous exhaustion prevents me from gathering them all, for now. Here is one: The 1907 panic was the fourth experienced in the States in 34 years. Can you put this in context; is four a lot or not a lot. Ceoil sláinte 00:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it was meant to be a superlative, but four is sort of a lot. Depending on what you classify as a banking panic, we have had...(thinking) 4 in the last 30 odd years but <2 the 30 years before that and 1-2 the thirty years before that. Protonk (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean context; it needs to be qualified how often did runs occured at the time. This a small thing bty; I think the article is very strong otherwise. Ceoil  sláinte 01:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This was language from an old lead I think. I've been meaning to rewrite.  Historians seem to disagree about how many events should be considered bank panics. --05:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the Forbes quote under "Central bank" could be trimmed. Its verbose, and out of proportion. Ceoil  sláinte 05:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's kind of interesting to have a quote from one of the few famous contemporary business journalists, but it's quite long. I've just left it in there from the old version as I don't have that particular book and don't know the page number of the quote. I hate to drop it altogether, but without having it double checked might have to... Of course, it's probably a bit better suited for "history of the fed". --JayHenry (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Otto Heinze
Some sources about the Panic of 1907 are not very clear about the corner of United Copper. Although Augustus Heinze was associated, it was his brother Otto Heinze who led the failed corner. Bruner and Carr are both extremely detailed and extremely clear about this. --JayHenry (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Some present relevance
In which our readers note that occasionally Wikipedia does a better job summarizing a crisis than a magazine. :) Protonk (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice to hear we are not all just wasting our time ;-) Ceoil  sláinte 22:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

...And a very well chosen topical and interesting article to select as todays featured article! Well done! ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.71.186 (talk) 07:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Question
"Markets are closed for Election Day" (in the side box) The US presidential election was held on November 3, 1908 almost a year after the Panic of 1907. Therefore this could not possibly be the cause of calm returning to the markets in late 1907.


 * In some states, election day does not only refer to presidential elections. New York had local elections on November 5, 1907, this was election day, and the market was closed. --JayHenry (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

An entire market took place on the curb outside the New York Stock Exchange—this later became the American Stock Exchange—and was where the panic of 1907 began. (From an img caption) Badly explained: why 'entire' and although I get the jist I had to muddle it for a while before it made sence. Long captions are ok. Ceoil sláinte 23:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Mattisse|'s edit ; better, but still begs the question why and under what circumstances? The caption should stand on its own. Sorry to be pain the arse.  Ceoil  sláinte 23:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, one solution would be to remove the picture altogether. Another would be to give it a more global caption. The description on the image is: "Stock trading on the New York Curb Association market, with brokers and clients signalling from street to offices." It is such a great picture that it would be a shame to remove it. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No definatly dont remove it. I'm just interested in the back story.  Ceoil  sláinte 00:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This is contained in the text: "The stock closed at $30 on Tuesday and fell to $10 by Wednesday. Otto Heinze was ruined. The stock of United Copper was traded outside the hall of the New York Stock Exchange literally 'on the curb' (this curb market would later become the American Stock Exchange).  After the crash, The Wall Street Journal reported, 'Never has there been such wild scenes on the Curb, so say the oldest veterans of the outside market.'" &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 13:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Mattisse sorry the thick Paddy; but why outside the building? Was the stock "expelled"? Ceoil  sláinte 22:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently the American Stock Exchange was actually an outdoor market until 1921 when it moved indoors. It was located in 1907 on the curb outside the New York Stock Exchange building. (I don't think this article can ever be explained much more specifically than it is now. The more I read about the whole thing, the more complicated it becomes. Just explaining "antitrust law" - actually known as Competition law in Europe - as it pertains to this article seems like a huge task. It would be easier just to remove the phrase anti-trust crusading from the article for those not familiar with the history of American presidents.) &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 23:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Dont agree. Competition law is a basic concept to Europeans as we take monopoly seriously, and a short note explaining antitrust law in six or less words is not a big ask of anybody, yank or euro. Img captions should be self explaniatory and self contanined, otherwise they are just decoration. Ceoil  sláinte 00:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Antitrust law is Competition law. The article should be written with European terminology so no one is unduly mystified. "Antitrust" isn't in the caption. It is referred to regarding Theodore Roosevelt in the lede, and isn't necessary to the story. Either remove the trust-busting link, or use "antitrust law" with piping, since it redirects to Competition law anyway (being the same thing), so that no more complex explanation is  needed. Competition law is common knowledge to everyone. There is no point in repeating an explanation everyone knows, just because the terminology is not European.   &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Question
I can make sence of this: Not only had Morgan's bank survived, but the trust companies that were a growing rival to traditional banks were also badly damaged. Ceoil sláinte 13:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Reworked this a bit so hopefully it's clearer. In short the concern was: 'Morgan survived, his competitors were damaged, so was he being altruistic or taking advantage of a crisis?'  I've gone over a lot of the prose points.  I'm not as sure what to do about the sourcing objections, as they're not exactly grounded in policy or an understanding of what would and wouldn't be a controversial claim.  WP:CITE says "anything that is likely to be challenged"; but the de facto standard at FAC is, to the detriment of the encyclopedia, "anything that could possibly be challenged".  Grrr... --JayHenry (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Better now for sure. If you are unsure as to how to respond to the sourcing concerns, ask Awadewit directly. She is very approchable and very helpful. Ceoil  sláinte 15:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh don't get me wrong, I really love Awadewit and think she's almost the best thing on the project. And as much as I appreciate her efforts to raise standards on Wikipedia she's literally opposing an FAC because a single clause of a single sentence might not pass muster in an academic journal.  That's not grounded in WP:WIAFA.  You know, I don't live on a university campus.  I don't have access to ILL.  I have a killer day job (especially right now) I don't have time to hang out at libraries; I buy these books.  She's not stupid; she knows what she's saying.  She thinks WP:WIAFA is too lenient.  She thinks FAs should be at academic journal standards.  But seriously, a single clause?  How am I not going to be irked by this?   --JayHenry (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahem. I feel like there has been some misunderstanding here. When I read the article, this sentence - "Although Morgan lost $21 million in the panic, and the significance of the role he played in staving off worse disaster is undisputed, he became the focus of intense scrutiny and criticism" - was sourced only to Strouse (a very questionable source). Now, however, a new sentence - "The significance of the role Morgan played in staving off worse disaster is undisputed, but he became the focus of intense scrutiny and criticism" - is sourced to three sources (two of which are extremely reliable). I specifically asked at the FAC whether this sentence could be supported by peer-reviewed sources because it is a major statement underlying this section - apparently it can. I'm not sure why this was not made clear at the FAC. I have no problems with this at all - I only had problems with such an important sentence being sourced to a questionable opinion piece rather than a peer-reviewed source. That has now been rectified. Awadewit (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit, I'm curious why you think Strouse is a questionable source? I haven't gotten to it yet, but it seems to be a well-reviewed biography. --Robertknyc (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article wasn't quoting from the biography - it was quoting from an opinion piece of some sort in the Washington Post. I would have had no problems with the biography. Awadewit (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As opposed to those hacks on the news staff at The Washington Post, I'm certain the editors at Random House employed forensic accountants from PricewaterhouseCoopers to go over the ledgers of JP Morgan's companies in 1907. Of course not.  Even in the biography the issue rests with the scholar's own integrity and accuracy.  The other clauses in this sentence are tautologically contained in the other sources.  The entire panic section described Morgan's role in tremendous detail; the remainder of the article describes the scrutiny and criticism in some detail as well.  The article would be written from an outrageous POV, to describe Morgan's role in such detail, if it were in fact held to be insignificant!  This is basic context.  So, yes, you literally opposed because a single clause was not more reliably sourced than to a J.P. Morgan scholar, writing about J.P. Morgan, in the Washington Post Outlook section.  I'm surprised you don't understand how someone might consider this taking things a wee bit far. --JayHenry (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"Others aren't as positive on Morgan..."
In, I wonder if the opposing viewpoint on Morgan is a significant one that should be mentioned in this article? See paragraph beginning "Others aren't as positive on Morgan..." JayHenry&#39;s Attorney (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see now that alternative views on Morgan's role are mentioned under "Pujo Committee". That's probably sufficient. Good article! (Yes Jay, I'll stop using this account name now, as it's probably getting on yer nerves.) JayHenry&#39;s Attorney (talk) 09:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought about this too, but other than the claims that Morgan helped spread rumors to damage the Trusts, I haven't seen the support behind the claims. (I included what I saw.)  There's a curious conspiracy-theory literature behind the Federal Reserve.  And of course it's a continuum, from advocates of aggressive interest rate adjustment, to those who think the reserve should focus solely on inflation and not also employment, to critics of its dependence and independence, to critics of central banking period, to those who believe the system is too insular, that it is anti-competitive, that the "money trust" never went away, that it quietly manipulates the entire world using mechanisms nobody understands, and finally and sickeningly, the unending Protocols-inspired anti-Semitic cabal theories. --JayHenry (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh... In case anyone thought I was exaggerating Talk:Panic of 1907/Archive 1. --JayHenry (talk) 03:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In light of today's Crisis
Is there a reason why this article is featured today exactly 101 years after J.P. Morgan infusion to the market? SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The system for placing featured articles on the main page, WP:TFAR, rewards extra points for anniversaries. It's mostly just a coincidence.  Myself and several other editors finished working on this article a few weeks ago (I started working on it before the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy).  Since it was so timely, it was quickly featured. --JayHenry (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Historical lies perpetuation
Don't let be fooled by all these official lies perpetuated.

It's clear that bankers then leaded by J.P. Morgan forced and used this crisis as one more flawed justification to create the nefarious Federal Reserve System in 1913.

Watch the Zeitgeist: Addendum, the movie : | Find here as well as it’s replies.

Open Your Eyes Fellows! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.181.13 (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

_______________ Yes, dear producers of this article, why other contemporary views are not tolerated ? Why was the addition below quickly removed ? Only Wall Street party-line allowed ?

Others on the 1907 Money Panic

--Nt351, March 30, 2009.
 * Senator LaFollette, in the Senate on March 17, 1908, the causes and the story of the 1907 money panic.
 * Gustavus Myers, History of the Great American Fortunes, the chapter on John P. Morgan and his saving the nation in the 1907 money panic.

Should mention that the cure was worse than the disease
Since the article goes to great lengths to show that these events were the alleged justification for creation of the Federal Reserve System, allegedly to prevent such catastrophes, isn't it relevant in aftermath to point out that the next Panic to occur after the Fed's creation, the Great Depression, was far worse and longer-lasting than any of its predecessors? As the stock chart indicates, the index dropped about 50% during this incident, vs. 90% during the 1929-1930's era. The article mentions the Fed as the proposed cure, so its failure to prevent, and perhaps exacerbate, such situations is notable.

Also, with all due respect to the time and effort put into the stock market chart, please note that such charts are generally put in log scale (logarithmic on the left axis) to offset the overly-dramatic visual effects of compounding over time. Regards, Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh. It wouldn't be helpful to place a graph that goes from 50-130 on a log scale.


 * also, this article isn't the place to argue the fed's role in the great depression. The discussion of the impact of central banking is important, but tangential to this article on an event in history. Protonk (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Graphs of the stock market over decades might be put in log scale. But there's no "overly-dramatic visual effects of compounding" when you're only looking at a period of 2-3 years.  Just think about how compounding works... --JayHenry (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This article reeks of bias and praise towards Morgan, and it is peculiarly apologetic in the defense of the idea of a central banking system and, more specifically, the Federal Reserve. If one understands Austrian economics, this article reads like a really poor joke, at best. The introduction is nothing short of pure propaganda. Read it for yourself and try to keep a straight face.


 * The panic would have deepened if not for the intervention of financier J. P. Morgan, who pledged large sums of his own money, and convinced other New York bankers to do the same, to shore up the banking system. At the time, the United States did not have a central bank to inject liquidity back into the market.


 * I cannot believe this is allowed on Wikipedia. I could have sworn Wikipedia was one of the few remaining bastions for truth and unbiased/unfiltered information to combat what people take for granted in the "mainstream" world of information and education.
 * I don't want to be too rude, but that is what happened. How are we to have this article without noting the record.  We can't go back in time and make JPM not lend millions of his own money and canvass bankers and industrialists to do the same. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point, Mr. Protonk :) According to the Austrian School, central banks are what cause crashes.  It's their whole business cycle theory.  For our little Austrian friend's world not to explode he has to pretend that the entire event never even happened.  The cognitive dissonance is very difficult for him.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.166.47.147 (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You know, I'm actually not completely averse to mentioning the Austrian critique of what main stream economists believe happened, but it must be coherent. We need something more coherent than "central bank = bad" therefore POV.  It's perfectly consonant for central banks to be bad in general, but to help in some cases, for example.  And at any rate, this article is a historical account that explains what events led to the banks creation, and doesn't really take a stance at all about general merits of manipulation of the money supply.  Judging from what was cited as an example of our not "understanding" (in fact, I think you meant adhering to) Austrian economics, I suspect, you might not really know yourself. --JayHenry (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Error in the feature article
The figure legend reads: """ A swarm gathers on Wall Street during the bank panic in October 1000101010 to eat pancakes. Federal Hall, with its statue of Adolf Hitler is seen on the right. """

This is obviously wrong. Adolf Hitler was a complete nobody in 1907.

Is that a tasteless joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.191.71.15 (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's vandalism. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 12:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Fiction Section
I have proposed adding the following section:

In Fiction
A novel by Owen Johnson, The Sixty-first Second, is built around the Panic of 1907, with J. P. Morgan appearing as "Gunther." The negotiation in the library concerning the Tennessee Coal and Iron Company is quite well done.

Ceoil has deleted it for the following reasons: "reason I reverted is because I think the fact is fairly trivial to the main text, and because I am in general not in favour of such "in litratuture" ot in "popular culture". A huge amout of very trivia associations are added each day, and my usual policy is shoot on sight."

On the contrary, fictional treatments of financial panics are important because (1) they show us how the financial panics and their participants were regarded at the time (Owen Johnson, writing in 1913, describes the participants in Social Darwinist terms), and (2) contemporaries who write novels about financial panics (and other events) often do so because they could say things in a novel that they cannot say in a non-fiction work because of libel laws. Zola's L'Argent, for example, is an essential depiction of the Eugene Bontoux crash, just as his Germinal is an essential depiction of the strike in the 1880s at Anzin, and a historian who writes about Bontoux or Anzin has to take into account Zola's interpretation, just as that historian would report the interpretations of nonfiction writers. Jmkleeberg (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * John, my reasons (at the time) were: tangental, does not add to the reader's understanding of the topic, and the section is likely to grow if allowed at all. But thats was just my openion and was (as I said) based on my general reaction to such sections. But I'm open to other openions. I think you have demonstrated above good reasons for inclusion; if you can develope the section with some of the insight above, I would be all for keeping, and in fact very pleased with the addition. Ceoil (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The revised version of the "In Fiction" section has now been added. Jmkleeberg (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The addition is very good and inciteful and quite interesting, but I think you have tried to break an egg with a sledgehammer, and shoe-horded a long treatment of 1 novel onto the broad page. I was hoping for a more general overview of the panic in fiction (which you seem to be more than capable of putting together). As it stands now, its probably better off in their own dedicated article; a section on this page should be very general about it's effect on lit, not an examination of any paticular work. Ceoil (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, there's two problems with this. Novels about financial panics are few and far between. There may be short stories about the Panic of 1907, but I doubt there's another novel. Even the Crash of 1873, which affected more countries and caused a deep depression, is treated in only a handful of novels, most notably Spielhagen's Sturmflut. The other problem is that this would take us across the border of WP:NOR. And I'm not about to do that, not least out of self-interest: if I'm going to go do significant original research, I'm not going to publish it first in Wikipedia. I'll publish it some place else so I can put it on my CV. Jmkleeberg (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ceoil that this contribution, while well intentioned, unbalances the article. It is a "featured article" and we expect featured articles to treat aspects of a topic in relation to their importance. This contribution should be reduced to one paragraph, in which the currently bold themes are detailed briefly. Perhaps one book quote at most. I'm surprised the main authors here haven't chimed in about this. I expect they're exercising some sort of disciplined eventualism. That makes me the Nowist. – Outriggr § 06:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Subjective valuation of lender of last resort
"Primary causes of the run include a retraction of market liquidity by a number of New York City banks, loss of confidence among depositors, and the absence of a statutory lender of last resort."

I'm curious as to whether other readers view 'absence of a statutory lender of last resort" as an implicitly subjective valuation of the necessity of regulations and of lenders of last resort. It seems that lenders of last resort are primarily a result of fractional-reserve banking, which doesn't necessarily have to be accepted as economic law.  Further, the absence of regulations did not prevent clearinghouses, private investments, etc. from slowing or ending panics prior to the Federal Reserve, so why must we accept the absence of a statutory lender of last resort as a cause?

--Hyoomen (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't quite follow your argument. Fractional reserve banking is irrelevant. Banks expand the money supply every time they make a loan, whether they issue banknotes or not.  As to clearinghouses, etc., slowing down panics, that was tried in 1893 - and more than half the railroads of the United States ended up in bankruptcy as a result.  So that wasn't very successful.  The idea of lender of last resort comes from Bagehot's Lombard Street, and was based on the experience of the British nineteenth century panics, when Peel's Bank Act had to be suspended repeatedly.  The Bank of England successfully stopped a panic in 1890 during the Baring Bank Crisis by acting as lender of last resort.  The need for a lender of last resort is based on the experience of many panics, throughout the nineteenth century.  It's a major theme in Kindleberger's work.  Jmkleeberg (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The absence of a lender of last resort is not a "primary cause of the run". A subjective argument could be made that a lender of last resort, a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or other entities that were also absent could have ameliorated public monetary concerns and/or dampened a run. The reference to Andrew Jackson under Economic Conditions allowing a bank charter to expire 71 years prior also appears to promote an agenda, entity, or ideology and little, if any, connection to the Panic of 1907. The second national bank of the US existed for a mere 20 years and the Panic ended without a central bank intervention. Fafyrd (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism
Is it right to take so much from Carr/Bruner? I understand Wikipedia is furthering knowledge, but this article basically summarizes and takes everything of substance relating to its subject from one book. I would think that would bring up intellectual property, if not moral, issues. You can't just rework someone else's creation. There is appropriate referencing but still...at the very least more research, secondary if not primary, should be done so as not to over-rely on one source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.97.49.161 (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize for not seeing and responding to this sooner. The article draws on quite a few sources, but the reason I cited Bruner/Carr the most is because it's 1) by far the most authoritative 2) most recent 3) most comprehensive and detailed.  The intention here was quite the opposite of plagiarism (a charge which I don't even think holds water), rather than pass their work off as Wikipedia's own, the idea is to clearly steer readers to Bruner/Carr's most superior and authoritative text.  From the reaction on the talk page, I'd like to maybe create a section on alternate explanations that economists have for the crisis.  The problem here is that I don't know many non-mainstream studies of the panic, and so a lot of the criticism ends up of the "Central Bank = bad therefore Panic of 1907 article = incorrect".  I'd like to include the alternate perspective but we've not yet had an Austrian capable of articulating something coherent and I'm not sure what text to turn to. --JayHenry (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Austrian Economics
I removed a parenthetical comment regarding Austrian economics from the introductory paragraph. If anyone wants to add a new section analyzing the panic from a theoretical perspective, that's fine. But just because it's "cool" right now to be into Austrian economics on the internet doesn't mean that it should be interjected just anywhere, and certainly not in the introduction. I'd write it myself, but I'm admittedly biased in that I think the whole concept is garbage. Ferris0000 (talk) 13:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I support this decision. Good call, Ferris.  Someone recently noted that many of the adherents of Austrian economics are just as quick to cite the (often contradictory) Chicago school, so long as the policy implications are to their liking. --JayHenry (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Krugman
Paul Krugman linked the article. Regardless of what you think of Krugman, that's pretty nifty. --JayHenry (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool, speaks well of the work we've done here (even though I think Paul Krugman is...) --Robertknyc (talk) 07:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Bears
Don't you think that the choice of bears (instead of any other frightening thing, such as tigers, eagles, charging cavalery, etc. or even ... bulls ! ) in the image "Bears on wall street 1907" hints at some bearish (i.e. downward) influence on the market ? If my guess is correct, shouldn't we write that in a comment, for those not aware of market slang ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.23.175.65 (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"See also" section from the Panic of 1837
The Panic of 1837 has a nice "see also" section, reproduced below:


 * Panic of 1819
 * Panic of 1857
 * Panic of 1873
 * Panic of 1884
 * Panic of 1890
 * Panic of 1893
 * Panic of 1896
 * Panic of 1901
 * Panic of 1907
 * Panic of 1910-1911
 * The Great Depression

Would it make sense to add this? Genesis 1:3 (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)