When the decade-long expansion in US housing market activity peaked in 2006, the Great Moderation came to an end, and residential development began to decline. Losses on mortgage-related financial assets began to burden global financial markets in 2007, and the US economy entered a recession in December 2007. Several prominent financial firms were in financial difficulties that year, and several financial markets were undergoing substantial upheaval. The Federal Reserve responded by providing liquidity and support through a variety of measures aimed at improving the functioning of financial markets and institutions and, as a result, limiting the damage to the US economy. 1 Nonetheless, the economic downturn deteriorated in the fall of 2008, eventually becoming severe and long enough to be dubbed “the Great Recession.” While the US economy reached bottom in the middle of 2009, the recovery in the years that followed was exceptionally slow in certain ways. In response to the severity of the downturn and the slow pace of recovery that followed, the Federal Reserve provided unprecedented monetary accommodation. Furthermore, the financial crisis prompted a slew of important banking and financial regulation reforms, as well as congressional legislation that had a substantial impact on the Federal Reserve.
Rise and Fall of the Housing Market
Following a long period of expansion in US house building, home prices, and housing loans, the recession and crisis struck. This boom began in the 1990s and accelerated in the mid-2000s, continuing unabated through the 2001 recession. Between 1998 and 2006, average home prices in the United States more than doubled, the largest increase in US history, with even bigger advances in other locations. During this time, home ownership increased from 64 percent in 1994 to 69 percent in 2005, while residential investment increased from around 4.5 percent of US GDP to nearly 6.5 percent. Employment in housing-related sectors contributed for almost 40% of net private sector job creation between 2001 and 2005.
The development of the housing market was accompanied by an increase in household mortgage borrowing in the United States. Household debt in the United States increased from 61 percent of GDP in 1998 to 97 percent in 2006. The rise in home mortgage debt appears to have been fueled by a number of causes. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) maintained a low federal funds rate after the 2001 recession, and some observers believe that by keeping interest rates low for a “long period” and only gradually increasing them after 2004, the Federal Reserve contributed to the expansion of housing market activity (Taylor 2007). Other researchers, on the other hand, believe that such variables can only explain for a small part of the rise in housing activity (Bernanke 2010). Furthermore, historically low interest rates may have been influenced by significant savings accumulations in some developing market economies, which acted to keep interest rates low globally (Bernanke 2005). Others attribute the surge in borrowing to the expansion of the mortgage-backed securities market. Borrowers who were deemed a bad credit risk in the past, maybe due to a poor credit history or an unwillingness to make a big down payment, found it difficult to get mortgages. However, during the early and mid-2000s, lenders offered high-risk, or “subprime,” mortgages, which were bundled into securities. As a result, there was a significant increase in access to housing financing, which helped to drive the ensuing surge in demand that drove up home prices across the country.
Effects on the Financial Sector
The extent to which home prices might eventually fall became a significant question for the pricing of mortgage-related securities after they peaked in early 2007, according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency House Price Index, because large declines in home prices were viewed as likely to lead to an increase in mortgage defaults and higher losses to holders of such securities. Large, nationwide drops in home prices were uncommon in US historical data, but the run-up in home prices was unique in terms of magnitude and extent. Between the first quarter of 2007 and the second quarter of 2011, property values declined by more than a fifth on average across the country. As financial market participants faced significant uncertainty regarding the frequency of losses on mortgage-related assets, this drop in home values contributed to the financial crisis of 2007-08. Money market investors became concerned of subprime mortgage exposures in August 2007, putting pressure on certain financial markets, particularly the market for asset-backed commercial paper (Covitz, Liang, and Suarez 2009). The investment bank Bear Stearns was bought by JPMorgan Chase with the help of the Federal Reserve in the spring of 2008. Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy in September, and the Federal Reserve aided AIG, a significant insurance and financial services firm, the next day. The Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation were all approached by Citigroup and Bank of America for assistance.
The Federal Reserve’s assistance to specific financial firms was hardly the only instance of central bank credit expansion in reaction to the crisis. The Federal Reserve also launched a slew of new lending programs to help a variety of financial institutions and markets. A credit facility for “primary dealers,” the broker-dealers that act as counterparties to the Fed’s open market operations, as well as lending programs for money market mutual funds and the commercial paper market, were among them. The Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF), which was launched in collaboration with the US Department of Treasury, was aimed to relieve credit conditions for families and enterprises by offering credit to US holders of high-quality asset-backed securities.
To avoid an increase in bank reserves that would drive the federal funds rate below its objective as banks attempted to lend out their excess reserves, the Federal Reserve initially funded the expansion of Federal Reserve credit by selling Treasury securities. The Federal Reserve, on the other hand, got the right to pay banks interest on their excess reserves in October 2008. This encouraged banks to keep their reserves rather than lending them out, reducing the need for the Federal Reserve to offset its increased lending with asset reductions.2
Effects on the Broader Economy
The housing industry was at the forefront of not only the financial crisis, but also the broader economic downturn. Residential construction jobs peaked in 2006, as did residential investment. The total economy peaked in December 2007, the start of the recession, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. The drop in general economic activity was slow at first, but it accelerated in the fall of 2008 when financial market stress reached a peak. The US GDP plummeted by 4.3 percent from peak to trough, making this the greatest recession since World War II. It was also the most time-consuming, spanning eighteen months. From less than 5% to 10%, the jobless rate has more than doubled.
The FOMC cut its federal funds rate objective from 4.5 percent at the end of 2007 to 2 percent at the start of September 2008 in response to worsening economic conditions. The FOMC hastened its interest rate decreases as the financial crisis and economic contraction worsened in the fall of 2008, bringing the rate to its effective floor a target range of 0 to 25 basis points by the end of the year. The Federal Reserve also launched the first of several large-scale asset purchase (LSAP) programs in November 2008, purchasing mortgage-backed assets and longer-term Treasury securities. These purchases were made with the goal of lowering long-term interest rates and improving financial conditions in general, hence boosting economic activity (Bernanke 2012).
Although the recession ended in June 2009, the economy remained poor. Economic growth was relatively mild in the first four years of the recovery, averaging around 2%, and unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment, remained at historically high levels. In the face of this sustained weakness, the Federal Reserve kept the federal funds rate goal at an unusually low level and looked for new measures to provide extra monetary accommodation. Additional LSAP programs, often known as quantitative easing, or QE, were among them. In its public pronouncements, the FOMC began conveying its goals for future policy settings more fully, including the situations in which very low interest rates were likely to be appropriate. For example, the committee stated in December 2012 that exceptionally low interest rates would likely remain appropriate at least as long as the unemployment rate remained above a threshold of 6.5 percent and inflation remained no more than a half percentage point above the committee’s longer-run goal of 2 percent. This “forward guidance” technique was meant to persuade the public that interest rates would remain low at least until specific economic conditions were met, exerting downward pressure on longer-term rates.
Effects on Financial Regulation
When the financial market upheaval calmed, the focus naturally shifted to financial sector changes, including supervision and regulation, in order to avoid such events in the future. To lessen the risk of financial difficulty, a number of solutions have been proposed or implemented. The amount of needed capital for traditional banks has increased significantly, with bigger increases for so-called “systemically essential” institutions (Bank for International Settlements 2011a;2011b). For the first time, liquidity criteria will legally limit the amount of maturity transformation that banks can perform (Bank for International Settlements 2013). As conditions worsen, regular stress testing will help both banks and regulators recognize risks and will require banks to spend earnings to create capital rather than pay dividends (Board of Governors 2011).
New provisions for the treatment of large financial institutions were included in the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. The Financial Stability Oversight Council, for example, has the authority to classify unconventional credit intermediaries as “Systemically Important Financial Institutions” (SIFIs), putting them under Federal Reserve supervision. The act also established the Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA), which authorizes the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to wind down specific institutions if their failure would pose a significant risk to the financial system. Another section of the legislation mandates that large financial institutions develop “living wills,” which are detailed plans outlining how the institution could be resolved under US bankruptcy law without endangering the financial system or requiring government assistance.
The financial crisis of 2008 and the accompanying recession, like the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Great Inflation of the 1970s, are important areas of research for economists and policymakers. While it may be years before the causes and ramifications of these events are fully known, the attempt to unravel them provides a valuable opportunity for the Federal Reserve and other agencies to acquire lessons that can be used to shape future policy.
What impact did the global financial crisis of 2008 have?
The crisis caused the Great Recession, which was the worst worldwide downturn since the Great Depression at the time. It was followed by the European debt crisis, which began with a deficit in Greece in late 2009, and the 20082011 Icelandic financial crisis, which saw all three of Iceland’s major banks fail and was the country’s largest economic collapse in history, proportionate to its size of GDP. It was one of the world’s five worst financial crises, with the global economy losing more than $2 trillion as a result. The proportion of home mortgage debt to GDP in the United States climbed from 46 percent in the 1990s to 73 percent in 2008, hitting $10.5 trillion. As home values climbed, a surge in cash out refinancings supported an increase in consumption that could no longer be sustained when home prices fell. Many financial institutions had investments whose value was based on home mortgages, such as mortgage-backed securities or credit derivatives intended to protect them against failure, and these investments had lost a large amount of value. From January 2007 to September 2009, the International Monetary Fund calculated that large US and European banks lost more than $1 trillion in toxic assets and bad loans.
In late 2008 and early 2009, stock and commodities prices plummeted due to a lack of investor trust in bank soundness and a reduction in credit availability. The crisis quickly grew into a global economic shock, resulting in the bankruptcy of major banks. Credit tightened and foreign trade fell during this time, causing economies around the world to stall. Evictions and foreclosures were common as housing markets weakened and unemployment rose. A number of businesses have failed. Household wealth in the United States decreased $11 trillion from its peak of $61.4 trillion in the second quarter of 2007, to $59.4 trillion by the end of the first quarter of 2009, leading in a drop in spending and ultimately a drop in corporate investment. In the fourth quarter of 2008, the United States’ real GDP fell by 8.4% from the previous quarter. In October 2009, the unemployment rate in the United States reached 11.0 percent, the highest since 1983 and about twice the pre-crisis rate. The average number of hours worked per week fell to 33, the lowest since the government began keeping track in 1964.
The economic crisis began in the United States and quickly extended throughout the world. Between 2000 and 2007, the United States accounted for more than a third of global consumption growth, and the rest of the world relied on the American consumer for demand. Corporate and institutional investors around the world owned toxic securities. Credit default swaps and other derivatives have also enhanced the interconnectedness of huge financial organizations. The de-leveraging of financial institutions, which occurred as assets were sold to pay back liabilities that could not be refinanced in frozen credit markets, intensified the solvency crisis and reduced foreign trade. Trade, commodity pricing, investment, and remittances sent by migrant workers all contributed to lower growth rates in emerging countries (example: Armenia). States with shaky political systems anticipated that, as a result of the crisis, investors from Western countries would withdraw their funds.
Governments and central banks, including the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, and the Bank of England, provided then-unprecedented trillions of dollars in bailouts and stimulus, including expansive fiscal and monetary policy, to offset the decline in consumption and lending capacity, avoid a further collapse, encourage lending, restore faith in the vital commercial paper markets, and avoid a repeat of the Great Recession. For a major sector of the economy, central banks shifted from being the “lender of last resort” to becoming the “lender of only resort.” The Fed was sometimes referred to as the “buyer of last resort.” These central banks bought government debt and distressed private assets from banks for $2.5 trillion in the fourth quarter of 2008. This was the world’s largest liquidity injection into the credit market, as well as the world’s largest monetary policy action. Following a strategy pioneered by the United Kingdom’s 2008 bank bailout package, governments across Europe and the United States guaranteed bank debt and generated capital for their national banking systems, ultimately purchasing $1.5 trillion in newly issued preferred stock in major banks. To combat the liquidity trap, the Federal Reserve produced large sums of new money at the time.
Trillions of dollars in loans, asset acquisitions, guarantees, and direct spending were used to bail out the financial system. The bailouts were accompanied by significant controversy, such as the AIG bonus payments scandal, which led to the development of a range of “decision making frameworks” to better balance opposing policy objectives during times of financial crisis. On the day that Royal Bank of Scotland was bailed out, Alistair Darling, the UK’s Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time of the crisis, stated in 2018 that Britain came within hours of “a breakdown of law and order.”
Instead of funding more domestic loans, several banks diverted part of the stimulus funds to more profitable ventures such as developing markets and foreign currency investments.
The DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was passed in the United States in July 2010 with the goal of “promoting financial stability in the United States.” Globally, the Basel III capital and liquidity criteria have been adopted. Since the 2008 financial crisis, consumer authorities in the United States have increased their oversight of credit card and mortgage lenders in attempt to prevent the anticompetitive activities that contributed to the catastrophe.
Why did the global recession of 2008 have such an impact?
The economic crisis was precipitated by the collapse of the housing market, which was fueled by low interest rates, cheap lending, poor regulation, and hazardous subprime mortgages. New financial laws and an aggressive Federal Reserve are two of the Great Recession’s legacies.
Who was affected by the Great Recession of 2008?
Rising unemployment, dropping property values, and the stock market decline all had an impact on those approaching retirement, either directly or indirectly. Furthermore, many elderly persons who were not directly impacted by the recession had children or other relatives who were. For many older persons, the recession’s financial difficulties resulted in changes in wealth and spending patterns, as well as physical and mental health issues with long-term effects.
How did the recession of 2008 effect ordinary people?
The recession spread as the financial crisis moved from the United States to other countries, particularly western Europe (where several big banks had extensively invested in American MBSs). Most developed countries experienced economic slowdowns of different severity (China, India, and Indonesia being prominent exceptions), and many of them responded with stimulus programs similar to the ARRA. The recession had major political ramifications in various nations. Iceland’s government disintegrated, and the country’s three largest banks were nationalized, as the country was particularly badly impacted by the financial crisis and experienced a severe recession. Latvia’s GDP dropped by more than 25% in 200809, and unemployment reached 22%. Latvia, like the other Baltic countries, was hit hard by the financial crisis. Meanwhile, sovereign debt problems erupted in Spain, Greece, Ireland, Italy, and Portugal, necessitating involvement by the European Union, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the implementation of draconian austerity measures. Recovery was slow and uneven in all of the countries affected by the Great Recession, and the broader social consequences of the downturnincluding lower fertility rates, historically high levels of student debt, and diminished job prospects among young adults in the United Stateswere expected to last for many years.
What is the relationship between the 2008 recession and the Great Depression?
The price level decreased by 22% and real GDP plummeted by 31% during the Great Depression, which lasted from 1929 to 1933. The price level climbed slowly during the 2008-2009 recession, and real GDP fell by less than 4%. For a variety of factors, the 2008-2009 recession was substantially milder than the Great Depression:
- Bank failures, a 25% reduction in the quantity of money, and Fed inaction culminated in a collapse of aggregate demand during the Great Depression. The sluggish adjustment of money pay rates and the price level resulted in massive drops in real GDP and employment.
- During the 2008 financial crisis, the Federal Reserve bailed out struggling financial institutions and quadrupled the monetary base, causing the money supply to rise. The expanding supply of money, when combined with greater government spending, restricted the fall in aggregate demand, resulting in lower decreases in employment and real GDP. (21)
The 20082009 Recession
Real GDP peaked at $15 trillion in 2008, with a price level of 99. Real GDP had declined to $14.3 trillion in the second quarter of 2009, while the price level had climbed to 100. In 2009, a recessionary void formed. The financial crisis, which began in 2007 and worsened in 2008, reduced the supply of loanable funds, resulting in a drop in investment. Construction investment, in particular, has plummeted. As a result of the worldwide economic downturn, demand for U.S. exports fell, and this component of aggregate demand fell as well. A huge injection of spending by the US government helped to soften the decline in aggregate demand, but it did not stop it from falling.
The supply of aggregates has also dropped. A decline in aggregate supply was caused by two causes in 2007: a spike in oil costs and a rise in the money wage rate. (21)
Who was the hardest hit by the financial crisis of 2008?
The crisis had an impact on all countries in some form, but some countries were hit more than others. A picture of financial devastation emerges as currency depreciation, stock market declines, and government bond spreads rise. These three indicators, considered combined, convey the impact of the crisis since they show financial weakness. Ukraine, Argentina, and Jamaica are the countries most hit by the crisis, according to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s International Economics Bulletin. Ireland, Russia, Mexico, Hungary, and the Baltic nations are among the other countries that have been severely affected. China, Japan, Brazil, India, Iran, Peru, and Australia, on the other hand, are “among the least affected.”
What is the economic consequence of the recession?
Traditional fiscal stimulus analysis focuses on the short-run effects of fiscal policy on GDP and employment creation in the near term. Economists, on the other hand, have long recognized that short-term economic situations can have long-term consequences. Job loss and declining finances, for example, can cause families to postpone or forego their children’s college education. Credit markets that are frozen and consumer spending that is down can stifle the growth of otherwise thriving small enterprises. Larger corporations may postpone or cut R&D spending.
In any of these scenarios, an economic downturn can result in “scarring,” or long-term damage to people’s financial positions and the economy as a whole. The parts that follow go through some of what is known about how recessions can cause long-term harm.
Economic damage
Higher unemployment, decreased salaries and incomes, and lost opportunities are all consequences of recessions. In the current slump, education, private capital investments, and economic opportunities are all likely to suffer, and the consequences will be long-lasting. While economies often experience quick growth during recovery periods (as idle capacity is put to use), the drag from long-term harm will keep the recovery from reaching its full potential.
Education
Many scholars have pointed out that educationor the acquisition of knowledgeis important “Human capitalalso known as “human capital”plays a crucial role in promoting economic growth. Delong, Golden, and Katz (2002), for example, assert that “Human capital has been the primary driver of America’s competitive advantage in twentieth-century economic expansion.” As a result, variables that result in fewer years of educational achievement for the country’s youth will have long-term effects.
Recessions can have a variety of effects on educational success. First, there is a large body of research on the importance of early childhood education (see, for example, Heckman (2006, 2007) and the studies mentioned therein). Because parental options and money drive schooling at this stage (pre-k or even younger), issues that diminish families’ resources will have an impact on the degree and quality of education offered to their children. Dahl and Lochner (2008), for example, indicate that household income has a direct impact on math and reading test scores.
Second, a variety of factors outside of the school environment influence educational attainment. Health services, for example, can remove barriers to educational attainment, from prenatal care to dental and optometric treatment. After-school and summer educational activities have an impact on academic progress and learning in the classroom. Forced housing dislocationsand, in the worst-case scenario, homelessnesshave a negative impact on educational outcomes. Economic downturns obviously affect all of these factors on educational performance. In 2008, 46.3 million individuals were without health insurance, with over 7 million children under the age of 18 being uninsured (U.S. Census 2009). We can expect even more children to struggle with their schooling as poverty (nearly 14 million children in 2008) and foreclosures (4.3 percent of home loans in the foreclosure process1) rise.
Finally, families who are trying to make ends meet are frequently pushed to postpone or abandon aspirations for further education. According to a recent survey of young adults, 20% of those aged 18 to 29 have dropped out or postponed education (Greenberg and Keating 2009). According to a survey performed in Colorado, a quarter of parents with children attending two-year colleges expected to send their children to four-year colleges before the recession (CollegeInvest 2009).
College attendance is costly if it is postponed or reduced. Not only does attending college lead to higher earnings, lower unemployment, and other personal benefits, but it also leads to a slew of social benefits, such as improved health outcomes, lower incarceration rates, higher volunteerism rates, and so on (see, for example, Baum and Pa-yea (2005) or Acemoglu and Angrist (2000)).
Opportunity
There’s no denying that recessions and high unemployment restrict economic opportunities for individuals and families. Individuals and the greater economy suffer losses as a result of job losses, income decreases, and increases in poverty.
To give just one example of missed opportunities, recent study has indicated that college graduates who enter the workforce during a recession earn less than those who enter during non-recessionary times. Surprisingly, the findings also imply that the income loss is not only transient, but also affects lifetime wages and career paths. “Taken together, the findings show that the labor market effects of graduating from college in a terrible economy are big, negative, and enduring,” writes Kahn (2009). She finds that each 1 percentage-point increase in the unemployment rate results in an initial wage loss of 6 to 7%, and that the wage loss is still 2.5 percent after 15 years.
Non-college graduates will most likely do badly. While unemployment has grown for all demographics throughout the recent crisis, individuals with less education and lower incomes face significantly greater rates than others.
Job loss
The unemployment rate has risen from 4.9 percent in December 2007 to 9.7 percent in August of this year during the current recession. About 15 million people are unemployed right now, more than double the level at the onset of the recession, with nearly one out of every six workers unemployed or underemployed. About 5 million individuals have been out of job for more than six months, making up the greatest percentage of the total workforce since 1948.
Losing one’s employment causes obvious challenges for most people and their families. Even once a new job is taken, the income loss can last for years (often at a lower salary).
Although the research on the effects of job loss is far too large to discuss here, Farber’s evidence is worth highlighting (2005). Farber concludes that job separation is costly, based on data from the Displaced Workers Survey from 2001 to 2003. 2 “In the most recent period (2001-03), approximately 35% of job losers were unemployed at the next survey date; approximately 13% of re-employed full-time job losers are working part-time; full-time job losers who find new full-time jobs earn about 13% less on average than they did on their previous job…”
Job loss has an impact on one’s mental health in addition to their income and earnings (see Murphy and Athanasou (1999) for a review of 16 earlier studies). It’s also worth noting that how one does during a recession is determined by a multitude of things. When compared to other age groups, older employees are disproportionately represented among the long-term unemployed.
Economic mobility
As previously stated, intergenerational mobility or the lack thereof can exacerbate the effects of recessions.
Through a variety of processes, poorer families can lead to less opportunities and lower economic results for their children, whether through nutrition, school attainment, or wealth access. As a result, a recession should not be viewed as a one-time occurrence that strains individuals and families for a few years. Economic downturns, on the other hand, will affect the future chances of all family members, including children, and will have long-term effects.
Private investment
Investments and R&D are two of the most obvious areas where recessions can stifle economic progress. Economists have long acknowledged the importance of investment and technology as driving forces behind economic growth. 4
Investment spending and the adoption of innovative technology can and do decline during recessions. At least four causes have contributed to this. First, a downturn in the economy will reduce demand for enterprises’ products as customers’ incomes fall, diminishing the return on investment. Second, enterprises’ ability to invest will be hampered by a lack of credit. Third, recessions are periods of greater uncertainty, which may cause businesses to cut down on spending “They may be less willing to experiment with new items and procedures because they are “core” products and production techniques. Finally, the relationship between human and physical capital must be considered. Technology is frequently integrated in new physical equipment: as output and employment decline, fewer fresh equipment purchases are made. As a result, workers are less able to put existing abilities to use, and there is less of a need to learn new ones “current employees to be “up-skilled,” or hire new employees with new skills.5
Figure C depicts non-residential investment growth during each of the last four recessions, as well as a more specialized category of equipment and software (thus excluding structures). Annualized quarterly non-residential investment averaged 4.7 percent from 1947 to 2009, whereas investment in equipment and software averaged 5.9 percent. Investment falls sharply during recessions, as shown in the graph. It also demonstrates the severity of the present slump, with total non-residential investment down 20% from its peak in the second quarter of 2009.
The repercussions of reduced investment levels are evident. Decreased levels of economic production in the future are a result of lower capital investment today. Poorer levels of physical investment can lead to lower productivity and, as a result, lower earnings. 6 The consequences will linger long after the present recession has officially ended.
Entrepreneurial activity: Business formation and expansion
Apart from the general drop in investment activity, recessions, particularly those with a credit crunch, such as the current one, can stifle small firm formation and entrepreneurial activity.
There are various ways that recessions might stifle the establishment and expansion of new businesses. To begin with, it is self-evident that new businesses require new clients. Because a slowing economy equals less overall spending, those considering starting a new firm may prefer to wait until demand returns to typical levels. Second, new businesses necessitate the addition of new debtors and investors. Lower wages and wealth levels may make it more difficult for new businesses to recruit individual investors, and credit limits may limit private bank financing.
“The credit freeze in the short-term funding market had a disastrous effect on the economy and small enterprises,” according to a recent analysis from the US Small Business Administration (SBA 2009). The usual production of products and services had virtually stalled by late 2008.” According to a study of loan officers, conditions for small-business commercial and industrial loans have been dramatically tightened.
Not only do recessions make it more difficult to establish a new firm, but they can also derail struggling new businesses. There could be a slew of new firms (and business models) popping up.
els) that might be successful in normal times but can’t because to a lack of demand or credit. In 2008, 43,500 businesses declared bankruptcy, up from 28,300 in 2007 and more than double the 19,700 that declared bankruptcy in 2006. (SBA 2009).
The influence of the recession can also be observed in the number of initial public offerings (IPOs). Firms use the funds earned from initial public offerings (IPOs) to grow their operations. There were just 21 operating company IPOs in 2008, down from an annual average of 163 the previous four years (Ritter 2009). 8 Furthermore, the median age of IPOs in 2008 was slightly greater than in previous years, indicating that the capital flood is going to the more established companies.
It’s tempting to believe that recessions just delay the establishment of new businesses, and that delayed plans will eventually be implemented. However, many new enterprises have a limited window of opportunity to get started. Furthermore, innovative new businesses frequently build on previous technological and innovation platforms. A delay in one business may cause delays in many others, causing a cascade effect across a wider variety of businesses.
What happened during the housing crisis of 2008?
- The enormous growth of the subprime mortgage market, which began in 1999, was the catalyst for the stock market and housing catastrophe of 2008.
- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government-sponsored mortgage lenders in the United States, made house loans available to customers with low credit scores and a higher chance of defaulting on their loans.
- These borrowers were dubbed “subprime borrowers” and were permitted to obtain adjustable-rate mortgages, which began with modest monthly payments but gradually increased over time.
- Financial firms packaged these subprime loans into mortgage-backed securities, which were marketed to major commercial investors (MBS).
What happened to the economy after 2008?
Many conservatives believe that our economy can only thrive if the federal government stays out of the way. Many progressives argue that in our free market system, the government must intervene at times to defend the public welfare and ensure broad-based economic growth. Today’s politics are defined by this discussion.
Americans of all political stripes should agree, however, that between 2008 and 2010, swift and decisive government action was required to avoid a second Great Depression and to aid our economy’s recovery from the biggest recession since the 1930s. After all, the evidence shows that between 2008 and 2010, three acts of Congress signed by two presidents led to the conclusion of the Great Recession of 20072009 and the ensuing economic recovery. Specifically:
- The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) of 2008 saved our financial system from near-certain collapse, sparing the United States’ financial system from tragedy.
- The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 averted a second Great Depression and ushered in a new era of economic development.
- By lowering the payroll tax and extending prolonged unemployment insurance benefits, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 bolstered the economy’s fragile recovery.
The top ten reasons why these three major government interventions in the economy were effective will be discussed in this column. But first, let’s go through why such government intervention was required in the first place.
Do you recall the circumstances in 2008? Our economy, job market, and Wall Street were all on the verge of collapsing. Between then and today, there was a strong economic contraction accompanied by large job losses and steep stock market losses, which was followed by slow, uneven, but nonetheless steady economic growth and labor and financial market recoveries. Federal government actions played a significant role in ensuring that the deep dive was not prolonged and that the recovery occurred sooner than it would have otherwise. The job market, the economy, and the financial markets are all showing signs of improvement. This is a tremendous improvement over the condition in 2008.
The Troubled Asset Relief Program of 2008, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 all contributed to the United States’ economic recovery. These three moves happened at a critical juncture in the economy’s development, when the economy was on the verge of significant damage unless policymakers took decisive, targeted, and swift action.
The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was established in October 2008 to allow the federal government to utilize $700 billion to help the banking system recover. During the last months of 2008, much of that money was spent infusing capital into failing banks, ensuring that our financial system would not collapse. In February 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was signed into law, enacting a package of tax cuts and expenditure initiatives totaling $787 billion that would last almost two years, through the end of 2010. The Recovery Act provided additional unemployment insurance and Social Security benefits almost immediately, but infrastructure funding did not begin until the summer of 2009. As the Recovery Act’s benefits expired in December 2010, Congress enacted fresh payroll tax cuts and provided extended unemployment insurance benefits.
The result: After each measure was passed, financial markets, the economy, and the labor market began to improve fast, and money began to flow into critical ailing markets. These three policy measures did exactly what they were supposed to do: policymakers intervened to prevent the economy from deteriorating.
To be true, if these policy initiatives had provided more bang for their money, they would have been more effective and efficient. More assistance for distressed homeowners may have been included in the Troubled Asset Relief Program. More infrastructure money might have been included in the Recovery Act, and payroll tax cuts and prolonged unemployment insurance benefits should have been separated from needless tax cuts for the wealthy. However, conservative hostility to more effective and efficient policy interventions made none of this additional assistance for our economy and workers conceivable.
Nonetheless, the Troubled Asset Relief Program averted the financial system’s collapse. While there are reasonable concerns about the program’s design, whether the benefits were distributed equally, and if the monies were spent as efficiently as possible in the long term, there’s little doubt that it benefited the economy. A new Great Depression was averted thanks to the Recovery Act. The payroll tax cuts and prolonged unemployment insurance benefits are still helping to boost the economy today.
Starting with the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the Recovery Act, and the most recent payroll tax cuts and extended unemployment insurance benefits, here’s a review of the 10 ways recent economic and financial data prove that each of these three policy initiatives succeeded as intended.
Loan tightening eased with the introduction of the Troubled Asset Relief Program
In the fourth quarter of 2008, a net high of 83.6 percent of senior loan officers said they were tightening lending conditions for commercial and industrial loans, up from 19.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2007. Throughout 2009, this ratio decreased steadily. The senior loan officer ratio is an oblique but informative indicator of how simple or difficult it is for firms and individuals to obtain a bank loan.
Similarly, in the fourth quarter of 2008, a net 69.2 percent of senior loan officers said they were tightening prime mortgage criteria, up from 40.8 percent in December 2007, before declining to 24.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009. After the Troubled Asset Relief Program stabilized the US financial sector, banks began to relax lending criteria. Following TARP, the business and mortgage credit markets became less tight.
Interest rates ease shortly after the Troubled Asset Relief Program is enacted
The risk premium, or the difference between the interest rate on risk-free U.S. Treasury bonds and the interest rate on mortgages, peaked at 2.2 percent in December 2010, up from 1.5 percent when the Great Recession began in December 2007. After money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program came into credit markets, the gap narrowed to 1.6 percent by January 2009. During normal economic times, this risk premium is normally approximately 1%.
Corporate bond risk premiums rose from 0.9 percent in December 2007 to 1.9 percent in December 2008, before decreasing to 1.6 percent in January 2009. The risk premium rose at first as lenders became concerned about the health of other banks, then declined as the Troubled Asset Relief Program stepped in to help struggling institutions. Because the program’s effectiveness reduced financial market risk, homeowners and businesses had to pay less for their loans.
The specter for deflation disappeared after the passage of the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the Recovery Act
Falling inflationary expectations have the potential to lead to deflation, or a downward spiral in prices. Deflation exacerbates a recession by causing firms and consumers to postpone big purchases in the hope of lower costs. In the fall of 2008 and winter of 2009, the United States’ economy was threatened by deflation; however, the adoption of the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the Recovery Act put people’s minds at ease.
Based on the difference between inflation-protected and noninflation-protected U.S. Treasury bonds, the predicted inflation rate for the next five years was -0.24 percent in December 2008, down from 2.2 percent in December 2007, indicating that deflation was a real concern among investors. The difference between Treasury Inflation Protected Securities and Treasury bonds of the same maturity is what determines the predicted inflation rate for that particular maturityin this case, five years. By May 2009, inflation predictions had surpassed 1% once more, and by December 2009, they had risen to 1.9 percent. Expected price rises of roughly 2% will encourage businesses to invest more and consumers to spend more than they would otherwise, while lesser price increases will cause them to hold off on their purchases.
Economic growth prospects brightened with the passage of the Recovery Act
Expectations for future economic growth are important for actual growth because businesses will invest more, banks will lend more, and consumers would spend more than they would otherwise if they believe the economy will improve more quickly. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office raised its growth forecasts for 2010the first full year following the Recovery Act’s enactmentfrom 1.5 percent to 2.9 percent in March 2009. And, sure enough, economic activity accelerated.
Three of the four quarters of 2008 saw the economy contract, and annual inflation-adjusted GDP growth in the first quarter of 2009 was -6.7 percent. However, once the Recovery Act was signed into law in the second quarter of 2009, our GDP only shrank by 0.7 percent in that quarter as government spending increased. The economy then increased by 1.7 percent and 3.8 percent in the third and fourth quarters of 2009, owing in large part to the tax cuts and expenditure measures approved under the Recovery Act starting to trickle into people’s and businesses’ pockets.
Job losses quickly abated due to Recovery Act spending
Job losses fell by 82.3 percent in the final three months of 2009, from an average of 780,000 per month in the first three months of 2009, when the law was passed, to 138,000 per month in the final three months of 2009. During the same time period, employment losses in the private sector fell by 83.2 percent, from 784,000 to 131,000 on average. The first quarter of 2009 was a clear turning point in the labor market, with the steepest employment losses of the Great Recession.
Personal disposable incomes started to rise again with help from the Recovery Act
People lost jobs in droves from the middle of 2008 to the first quarter of 2009, resulting in a drop in personal disposable after-tax income. Higher unemployment insurance benefits, bigger Social Security payments, and lower personal taxes, all of which were part of the Recovery Act, boosted personal disposable earnings in the second quarter of 2009. This provided immediate assistance to families in need.
Families ended up with more money in their pockets as a result of the new law’s immediate expenditure, despite job losses continuing at the same time. However, other Recovery Act provisions that took a bit longer to promote consumer spending aided in improving employment prospects by putting more money in people’s pockets.
Industrial production turned around with infrastructure spending spurred by the Recovery Act
From December 2007 to June 2009, industrial productionthe output of manufacturing and utilitiesdeclined steadily. When infrastructure expenditure from the Recovery Act began to pour into the economy in July 2009, industrial production began to grow again. After six months of sustained growth, industrial production was 3.7 percent higher in December 2009 than in June 2009.
After-tax income grew more quickly following the payroll tax cut
In the first quarter of 2011, when the payroll tax cut and an extension of extended unemployment insurance benefits were granted, after-tax income increased by 1.3 percent, the quickest rate of growth since the second quarter of 2010. As the labor market continued to add new positions at a modest pace, the payroll tax cut put more money in people’s pockets. The new funds bolstered an economy that was still struggling to establish its feet, assisting in the expansion of jobs.
Job growth accelerated with the payroll tax cut
Indeed, during the first three months of 2011, the labor market added an average of 192,000 jobs each month, up from 154,000 jobs in the previous three months. The payroll tax cut gave a sluggish labor market some more impetus.
Household debt burdens fell more quickly with the payroll tax cut
Households had more money in their pockets, and they used some of it to pay down their crushing debts. In the first quarter of 2011, the ratio of total household debt to after-tax income declined 2.5 percentage points, more than twice as fast as in the fourth quarter of 2010 and quicker than in any other quarter of 2010.
These ten reasons why the federal government’s rapid and decisive action changed an impending second Great Depression into the difficult but steady economic recovery we are witnessing today are based on credible economic statistics. There is plenty of room for argument regarding the amount to which the government should be involved in the day-to-day operations of the economy, but there is no reason to doubt why our economy isn’t locked in a long-term depression like to the Great Depression of the 1930s. In this situation, well-intentioned government measures did exactly what they were designed to do.
Endnotes
The net percentage is the difference between the share of loan officers who say lending standards are tightening and the share who say lending standards are loosening. A positive number indicates that more loan officers tightened lending criteria than loosened them, whereas a negative number indicates that more loan officers softened loan standards. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Board of Governor “Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey on Bank Lending Practices,” Federal Reserve Board Docs, http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/snloansurvey/201205/fullreport.pdf.
Calculations are based on the following: “http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H15/, “H.15 ReleaseSelected Interest Rates.” The interest rates on conventional mortgages are shown below. Bond rates are for corporate bonds with a AAA rating.
The interest rate differential between nominal five-year US Treasury bonds and inflation-indexed five-year Treasury bonds is known as inflation expectations. Similar tendencies can be seen when comparing Treasury bonds of various maturities. Calculations are based on the following: “H.15 Interest RatesSelected Rates.”
New growth data for 2008 and 2009 was added by the Congressional Budget Office, indicating that the recession was worse than previously anticipated. Congressional Budget Office, “Budget and Economic Outlook” (2009); Congressional Budget Office, “A Preliminary Analysis of the President’s Budget and an Update on CBO’s Budget and Economic Outlook” (2009); Congressional Budget Office, “A Preliminary Analysis of the President’s Budget and an Update on CBO’s Budget and Economic Outlook” (2009). (2009). For 2010, the real inflation-adjusted economic growth rate was 3%. National Income and Product Accounts, Bureau of Economic Analysis (Department of Commerce, 2012). The brighter forecast for 2010 helped to offset a recession that was worse than expected. The CBO lowered the 2009 growth rate from -2.2 percent in January to -3 percent in March. However, the CBO forecasted a -1.5 percent growth rate from December 2008 to December 2009 in both January and March 2009. If the economy is predicted to enter a worse recession and then recover more swiftly in 2009, the changes from December to December can stay the same, even if total year growth rates fall. That is, the CBO predicted that the Recovery Act would add quickly to growth in the second half of 2009, offsetting a higher forecast fall in the first half. However, there are no quarterly growth predictions provided.
National Income and Product Accounts of the Bureau of Economic Analysis were used to compile this data.
Calculations based on Current Employment Statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (Department of Labor, 2011). Because monthly job changes are rather unpredictable, the bullet point shows three-month averages. However, monthly job changes follow the same pattern as quarterly averages.
Calculations based on Current Employment Statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Lower taxes and other forms of social spending had a greater impact on rising personal disposable incomes in the second quarter of 2009 than in the following quarters. In the following quarters, neither taxes nor other forms of social spending decreased. Instead, taxes remained low, and social spending remained high, with the exception of Social Security, health care, and unemployment insurance. Throughout the rest of 2009, as more people retired and claimed unemployment insurance benefits, Social Security and unemployment insurance payouts grew. Calculations based on National Income and Product Accounts from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Calculations are based on the following: “http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/default.htm, “Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization G-17.”
Calculations based on National Income and Product Accounts from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
What impact did the 2008 recession have on families?
The Great Recession resulted in large and long-term salary and employment declines. In 2011, the median actual household cash income declined from $57,357 to $52,690. At the height of the recession, 15.6 million people were unemployed. From 12.5 percent in 2007 to 15.1 percent in 2010, poverty has risen. What impact did this have on persons who were already poor? Was the social safety net effective? What about the recession’s non-economic effects on families?
We look at two UC Berkeley professors’ attempts to answer these problems. With a few significant exceptions, Hilary Hoynes, Professor of Economics and Public Policy, contends that the social safety net does safeguard disadvantaged communities for the most part. Increases in the unemployment rate during the Great Recession led to an increase in men’s controlling behavior and a fall in fertility rates among unmarried and young women, according to Daniel Schneider, Assistant Professor of Sociology.