Editing Wall Street crash of 1929 (section)

==Academic debate==
There is a debate among economists and historians as to what role the crash played in subsequent economic, social, and political events. ''[[The Economist]]'' argued in a 1998 article that the Depression did not start with the stock market crash,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20110805095409/http://www.economist.com/node/165701?story_id=E1_TGVSDT"Economics focus: The Great Depression"], ''The Economist'' (September 17, 1998)</ref> nor was it clear at the time of the crash that a depression was starting. They asked, "Can a very serious Stock Exchange collapse produce a serious setback to industry when industrial production is for the most part in a healthy and balanced condition?" They argued that there must be some setback, but there was not yet sufficient evidence to prove that it would be long or would necessarily produce a general industrial depression.<ref name="Nov1929">[http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12327393 "Reactions of the Wall Street slump"], ''The Economist'' (November 23, 1929)</ref>

However, ''The Economist'' also cautioned that some bank failures were also to be expected and some banks may not have had any reserves left for financing commercial and industrial enterprises. It concluded that the position of the banks was the key to the situation, but what was going to happen could not have been foreseen.<ref name="Nov1929" />

[[Milton Friedman]] and [[Anna Schwartz]]'s ''[[A Monetary History of the United States]]'', argues that what made the "great contraction" so severe was not the downturn in the business cycle, [[protectionism]], or the 1929 stock market crash in themselves but the collapse of the banking system during three waves of panics from 1930 to 1933.<ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/12/panic-control/ "Panic control"] ''The Washington Times''</ref>