Talk:Boom and bust

What a load of bullsheet

Boom and bust had sweet fudge-all to do with credit before 1971 when the USA decided to decouple fiat money unilaterally from gold on behalf of the entire world. CapsicumChinense (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

English, please. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Gold standard

Irks me a bit that there's no mention of the gold standard approach in this article (no fractional reserves).

Marxism and Austrian School

There's no mention of the Austrian belief that it's caused by banking, and the article implies that Marx was a member of the Classical economists, which he certainly was not.

This article needs clean-up.

Response( 169.231.35.176 (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC) ): Speaking of Marx, notice Marx is not mentioned in this article. Was that a previous version? (End response 169.231.35.176 (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC) )

"Boom" section mistitled

The main section "Boom" is mistitled, since it contains details of both boom and bust. Minor point, I know, but one I can immediately fix. WikiReaderer 14:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC) both phrase "boom and bust" and economic cycle refer to the same phenomenon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.189.191 (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge

This article was proposed back in February (2008) for merger into economic cycles. I agree that there is little if anything of value in this article that is not already there, in far better form. However, in the United States at least, "boom and bust" stands for a much different concept than national or global economic cycles, so I have added a section to that effect. A boom/bust cycle is something that happens regionally (e.g. California gold rush, particular suburbs outside rapidly growing cities, vacation communities) or with respect to specific industries (mortgages, dot coms, oil), that become overheated due to some specific market problem, then quickly crash as people lose confidence. That is something distinct from the larger cycles, and that can and has been studied as a separate phenomenon.Wikidemo (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Very interesting comments, Wikidemo! My first reaction to the proposed merge was "Yes, of course," but you've changed my mind. I suggest that:

• Content in Boom and bust that is about economic cycles in general should mainly be moved to Business cycle, leaving just an outline in Boom and bust.
• Business cycle should point out the possibility of region- or industry-specific booms, and refer to Boom and bust. Philcha (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Yes please merge this to business cycle which is the standard term. The uses of 'boom and bust' quoted above are valid, but could be described in many other ways, and grouping them under one term makes little sense. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly this article should be merged with economic cycles and Business cycle. The phenomenon being discussed is the effect of the psychology of groups. It would also do well to reference Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. The fact that the phenomenon may occur at different scales is irrelevant, in the same way as a tornado, a depression and a hurricane are all manifestations of the same meteorological phenomenon. I have a respectable degree in economics and it occurred to me only years later that it was a social science and that money is essentially a figment of the imagination. Probelms arise when we think it's real. (Actually, problems arise in any case) MikeSy (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I too thought that a merger to Business cycle was warranted, but now that I see and concur with Wikidemo's points, I plan to trim this article, accordingly. Unschool 03:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! I get to the article, prepare to trim off the business cycle material, and find, nothing else!. I don't know what to do. All that is left here is mergeable to Business cycle, but we could use an article such as Wikidemo has proposed, that would cover the California gold rush, the Silicon Valley tech boom, etc. I think, for now, a merger (i.e., changing this to a redirect, is warranted. Since no one has acted upon Wikidemo's suggestion for over seven months, I think that this is warranted. Unschool 04:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've managed to keep the article, but it's not a preservation, it's bascially all-new, and I'd really appreciate someone else making something better out of it. Unschool 04:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"boom and bust", as referred to in this article, is a very different thing than the more general issue of business cycles. I think what you've created gets to the point, it's a specific issue of fast growth and unrealistic expectations, followed by a sharp crash. It refers to a single reversal, not a normal cyclic expansion and contraction. Wikidemon (talk) 07:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; I was just following your own recommendations. Still, this could use some work from somebody more knowledgeable than I. Unschool 07:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Unemployment

Rising unemployment during both boom and bust? Possibly a misconception on my part, however suspect either a typo in the article, or needs to be further clarified to ensure lack of reader confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregwaddington (talk • contribs) 22:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

The comments on Ireland are pure opinion and either need to be rewritten and properly cited or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.154.253 (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Natural resources boom/bust cycles

I did not think that it was opinion that the recognition of the availability of untapped natural resources, such as minerals, rubber or petroleum, spurred the boom part of some boom-bust cycles which were then halted by the exhaustion or constriction of those resources or the loss of market for those resources (for example the Amazon rubber boom/bust). However, at least one editor does think so, so here is the first citation. I will provide more when I have a little more time.Boom and bust populations in regional towns have oscillated due to the mining and logging extraction industries. The booms and busts are cyclic; property is worth nothing one day, a fortune the next, and nothing again the day after.Mayda, Chris (2013). A regional geography of the United States and Canada:Toward a sustainable futute. Lantham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 382. ISBN 978-0-7425-5689-8. I would also appreciate knowing what editors would like in terms of verification, as there is a great deal of material on natural resources boom/busts. --Bejnar (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is another quote: Historians and social commentators, with feelings ranging from indignation to nostalgia, have long cited these boom-and-bust cycles as central to the history of the American West. Clements, Eric L. (2003). After the Boom in Tombstone and Jerome, Arizona: Decline in Western Resource Towns. Reno. Nevada: University of Nevada Press. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-87417-571-4. --Bejnar (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Bejnar, I think the subject of the article has not been clearly defined. The body of the article appears to describe macroeconomic cycles caused by excessive expansion and subsequent contraction of credit. However, per the talk section above at Proposed Merge[1] that content may be redundant or better covered under a different article concerning economic cycles or business cycles. Now that I have read your comments, I think that I understand your point of view. The macroeconomic content in this article does not refer to what is colloquially known as "boom and bust" and the content which you cite (which I removed) refers to a different phenomenon -- local expansion and collapse driven by resource discoveries, technological developments, or other exogenous propagating factors -- which needs its own article. That having been said, I do not have the Wikipedia editing experience to know how to separate the macroeconomic content from this article and merge it with the Business Cycles article. If you care pursue that, I would try to contribute as best I can. Speaking as an economist, my initial concern was that local booms, require monetary and real economic investment. Then their busts have monetary and real economic consequences, including consequences outside the geographic region. From an economist's perspective any such phenomenon entails much of what should be covered in a fully developed Business Cycle article. For that reason, I am not the best editor to begin working on fleshing out the residual boom-bust article after any removal and merger of the Business Cycles content.

I hope that was clear. I appreciate your taking the time to clarify your position and to respond forthrightly to my concern. I do urge you to seek resolution on the separation/merger of articles as a first step. Thanks.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That is what I tried to do starting with the lead, which I thought would be non-controversial. I then planned to add a section on natural resource boom/bust. Unfortunately, my resident economist said he was not a microeconomist and refused to discuss, or even read the article, so I was generally ignoring the credit portion, although the actual process described for credit boom/bust has haunting similarities. There are disruptions in economies that are somewhat like boom/busts but are distinct. I'm thinking of the economic boom in Egypt when Mali gold first hit Cairo (via the Sahara) in the middle ages, which eventuated the devaluation of gold before the economy could stabilize. Question: What is colloquially known as "boom and bust"? --Bejnar (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Local and regional cycles

I did not think that it was opinion that boom-bust cycles could be local, national, regional or worldwide. However, at least one editor does, so please reference the above quote from Chris Mayda as a starter. I will provide more when I have a little more time. Is a list of local cycles, a list of national cycles, etc. sufficient to raise this issue above the level of opinion? --Bejnar (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)