Talk:Wall Street crash of 1929

Unorthodox economic interpretation being presented as NPOV in opening remarks

"By 1929, the U.S. economy was showing signs of trouble; the agricultural sector was depressed due to overproduction and falling prices, forcing many farmers into debt, and consumer goods manufacturers also had unsellable output due to low wages and thus low purchasing power."

Surplus' of consumption goods is often linked to rising standards of living and a strong economy in orthodox economic history and contemporary theory (consider the alternative -- there is hardly any food, and it is extremely expensive: would this make an economy strong and accessible for the low-middle class masses?) Falling real prices are essentially a direct measure of productivity, so this is an oddly placed luddite perspective. At minimum it demands a citation or two.

In the same vein, 'low wages = no one can buy stuff' is in direct contrast to the preceding statement that consumer facing sectors were experiencing falling prices. If wages and prices fall concomitantly, purchasing power is unaltered. If prices are falling relatively faster than nominal wages are declining, the result is a real increase in wages and purchasing power. Think: If your income falls in half, but the price of everything falls by 4x, you can still purchase 2x as many goods and services than you could at the higher nominal wage.

Another internally inconsistent remark in this segment is that "Despite these trends, investors continued to buy shares in areas of the economy where output was declining." When, as noted, the earlier portion of this paragraph states the problem was hyper abundance caused by over production. A more competent economic historian with citations in hand needs to rewrite this entire opening segment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.245.59.9 (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I also question the section’s apparent reliance on a crisis theory view of capitalism—specifically the idea that large-scale depressions are an inherent and recurrent feature of capitalist systems, as implied by phrases like “business cycles which affect all capitalist economies.” This framing closely mirrors the Marxian theory of inevitable crises due to internal contradictions in capitalism.

While this may be a valid interpretive framework for some historians, it should not be presented as fact without citation, particularly given the extensive body of empirical and theoretical work—ranging from neoclassical to monetarist to Austrian—that disputes or offers alternative explanations for the Great Depression and business cycle dynamics.

Unless this section is revised to reflect a more neutral and sourced framing (or at least to acknowledge competing views), it risks presenting a contested ideological perspective as historical consensus. Follynomics (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 9 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved to Wall Street crash of 1929 per consensus. Some editors brought up a separate alternative proposal of whether it takes the primary topic of Wall Street crash, but that appears to be more contentious, so it may warrant a separate follow up RM if so desired by editors. (closed by non-admin page mover) Raladic (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

---

Wall Street Crash of 1929 → Template:No redirect – Per MOS:CAPS and WP:COMMONNAME. I see little support in reliable sources for capitalizing "Wall Street Crash" as a common name (which is the case for the alternate "Great Crash" or "Black Tuesday" names). "Wall Street crash" is just a simple descriptive title, like other entries in Category:Stock market crashes. — Goszei (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support: NGrams here appear to show capitalization is a majority, but not a consistent supermajority. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support per usual guidelines; not a proper name, not consistently capped in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support alternative Wall Street crash per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS and ngram evidence - not consistently capped in sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, this is the primary topic with Wall Street crash (both capitalisations) redirecting here. Per WP:OVERPRECISION, WP:CONCISE and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we should avoid the unnecessary over-precision in favour of the more concise title. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
• Question: Is this the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Wall Street crash, however capitalized? The target of that link (and of Wall Street Crash) is this article, despite the WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION in the current title. Ham II (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:U, you make a valid point with compelling consequences. This is clearly the PRIMARYTOPIC and consequently, it should take the more concise name of Wall Street crash. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. Sargdub (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support Wall Street crash of 1929 per nom. I would oppose moving this to just "Wall Street crash" regardless of capitalization, as it is not precise enough, and I don't think the title without the year meets WP:PRECISE (many major stock market crashes could be referred to as a "Wall Street crash"). – Epicgenius (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  As nom, I agree with this. — Goszei (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Theparties (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Tony (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.