As can be seen in the ranking of GDP of the 196 nations that we publish, the United States is the world’s top economy in terms of GDP. The GDP of the United States has decreased in absolute terms.
What was the GDP during the financial crisis of 2008?
The real gross domestic product (GDP) was only $15.3 trillion. The Troubled Asset Relief Program rescue averted a worsening of the financial crisis. The Dow plummeted to 7,552.29 in November after reaching a high of 14,164.53 on October 9, 2007. 5 As a result of the crisis, investors flocked to the dollar as a safe haven.
In 2009, what was the real GDP?
- According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ “second” estimate, real gross domestic product (the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States) increased at an annual rate of 5.9% in the fourth quarter of 2009 (that is, from the third to the fourth quarter). Real GDP climbed by 2.2 percent in the third quarter.
The fourth quarter had a 5.5 percent growth in real gross domestic purchases, compared to a 3.0 percent gain in the previous quarter.
What was the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) during the Great Recession?
The Great Recession lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, making it the longest downturn since World War II. The Great Recession was particularly painful in various ways, despite its short duration. From its peak in 2007Q4 to its bottom in 2009Q2, real gross domestic product (GDP) plummeted 4.3 percent, the greatest drop in the postwar era (based on data as of October 2013). The unemployment rate grew from 5% in December 2007 to 9.5 percent in June 2009, before peaking at 10% in October 2009.
The financial repercussions of the Great Recession were also disproportionate: home prices plummeted 30% on average from their peak in mid-2006 to mid-2009, while the S&P 500 index dropped 57% from its peak in October 2007 to its trough in March 2009. The net worth of US individuals and charity organizations dropped from around $69 trillion in 2007 to around $55 trillion in 2009.
As the financial crisis and recession worsened, worldwide policies aimed at reviving economic growth were enacted. Like many other countries, the United States enacted economic stimulus measures that included a variety of government expenditures and tax cuts. The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 were two of these projects.
The Federal Reserve’s response to the financial crisis varied over time and included a variety of unconventional approaches. Initially, the Federal Reserve used “conventional” policy actions by lowering the federal funds rate from 5.25 percent in September 2007 to a range of 0-0.25 percent in December 2008, with the majority of the drop taking place between January and March 2008 and September and December 2008. The significant drop in those periods represented a significant downgrading in the economic outlook, as well as increasing downside risks to output and inflation (including the risk of deflation).
By December 2008, the federal funds rate had reached its effective lower bound, and the FOMC had begun to utilize its policy statement to provide future guidance for the rate. The phrasing mentioned keeping the rate at historically low levels “for some time” and later “for an extended period” (Board of Governors 2008). (Board of Governors 2009a). The goal of this guidance was to provide monetary stimulus by lowering the term structure of interest rates, raising inflation expectations (or lowering the likelihood of deflation), and lowering real interest rates. With the sluggish and shaky recovery from the Great Recession, the forward guidance was tightened by adding more explicit conditionality on specific economic variables such as inflation “low rates of resource utilization, stable inflation expectations, and tame inflation trends” (Board of Governors 2009b). Following that, in August 2011, the explicit calendar guidance of “At least through mid-2013, the federal funds rate will remain at exceptionally low levels,” followed by economic-threshold-based guidance for raising the funds rate from its zero lower bound, with the thresholds based on the unemployment rate and inflationary conditions (Board of Governors 2012). This forward guidance is an extension of the Federal Reserve’s conventional approach of influencing the funds rate’s current and future direction.
The Fed pursued two more types of policy in addition to forward guidance “During the Great Recession, unorthodox” policy initiatives were taken. Credit easing programs, as explored in more detail in “Federal Reserve Credit Programs During the Meltdown,” were one set of unorthodox policies that aimed to facilitate credit flows and lower credit costs.
The large scale asset purchase (LSAP) programs were another set of non-traditional policies. The asset purchases were done with the federal funds rate near zero to help lower longer-term public and private borrowing rates. The Federal Reserve said in November 2008 that it would buy US agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and debt issued by housing-related US government agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan banks). 1 The asset selection was made in part to lower the cost and increase the availability of finance for home purchases. These purchases aided the housing market, which was at the heart of the crisis and recession, as well as improving broader financial conditions. The Fed initially planned to acquire up to $500 billion in agency MBS and $100 billion in agency debt, with the program being expanded in March 2009 and finished in 2010. The FOMC also announced a $300 billion program to buy longer-term Treasury securities in March 2009, which was completed in October 2009, just after the Great Recession ended, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. The Federal Reserve purchased approximately $1.75 trillion of longer-term assets under these programs and their expansions (commonly known as QE1), with the size of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet increasing by slightly less because some securities on the balance sheet were maturing at the same time.
However, real GDP is only a little over 4.5 percent above its prior peak as of this writing in 2013, and the jobless rate remains at 7.3 percent. With the federal funds rate at zero and the current recovery slow and sluggish, the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy plan has evolved in an attempt to stimulate the economy and meet its statutory mandate. The Fed has continued to change its communication policies and implement more LSAP programs since the end of the Great Recession, including a $600 billion Treasuries-only purchase program in 2010-11 (often known as QE2) and an outcome-based purchase program that began in September 2012. (in addition, there was a maturity extension program in 2011-12 where the Fed sold shorter-maturity Treasury securities and purchased longer-term Treasuries). Furthermore, the increasing attention on financial stability and regulatory reform, the economic consequences of the European sovereign debt crisis, and the restricted prospects for global growth in 2013 and 2014 reflect how the Great Recession’s fallout is still being felt today.
In 2020, what was the GDP?
Retail and wholesale trade industries led the increase in private inventory investment. The largest contributor to retail was inventory investment by automobile dealers. Increases in both products and services contributed to the increase in exports. Consumer products, industrial supplies and materials, and foods, feeds, and beverages were the biggest contributions to the growth in goods exports. Travel was the driving force behind the increase in service exports. The rise in PCE was mostly due to an increase in services, with health care, recreation, and transportation accounting for the majority of the increase. The increase in nonresidential fixed investment was mostly due to a rise in intellectual property items, which was partially offset by a drop in structures.
The reduction in federal spending was mostly due to lower defense spending on intermediate goods and services. State and local government spending fell as a result of lower consumption (driven by state and local government employee remuneration, particularly education) and gross investment (led by new educational structures). The rise in imports was primarily due to a rise in goods (led by non-food and non-automotive consumer goods, as well as capital goods).
After gaining 2.3 percent in the third quarter, real GDP increased by 6.9% in the fourth quarter. The fourth-quarter increase in real GDP was primarily due to an increase in exports, as well as increases in private inventory investment and PCE, as well as smaller decreases in residential fixed investment and federal government spending, which were partially offset by a decrease in state and local government spending. Imports have increased.
In the fourth quarter, current dollar GDP climbed 14.3% on an annual basis, or $790.1 billion, to $23.99 trillion. GDP climbed by 8.4%, or $461.3 billion, in the third quarter (table 1 and table 3).
In the fourth quarter, the price index for gross domestic purchases climbed 6.9%, compared to 5.6 percent in the third quarter (table 4). The PCE price index climbed by 6.5 percent, compared to a 5.3 percent gain in the previous quarter. The PCE price index grew 4.9 percent excluding food and energy expenses, compared to 4.6 percent overall.
Personal Income
In the fourth quarter, current-dollar personal income climbed by $106.3 billion, compared to $127.9 billion in the third quarter. Increases in compensation (driven by private earnings and salaries), personal income receipts on assets, and rental income partially offset a decline in personal current transfer receipts (particularly, government social assistance) (table 8). Following the end of pandemic-related unemployment programs, the fall in government social benefits was more than offset by a decrease in unemployment insurance.
In the fourth quarter, disposable personal income grew $14.1 billion, or 0.3 percent, compared to $36.7 billion, or 0.8 percent, in the third quarter. Real disposable personal income fell 5.8%, compared to a 4.3 percent drop in the previous quarter.
In the fourth quarter, personal savings totaled $1.34 trillion, compared to $1.72 trillion in the third quarter. In the fourth quarter, the personal saving rate (savings as a percentage of disposable personal income) was 7.4 percent, down from 9.5 percent in the third quarter.
GDP for 2021
In 2021, real GDP climbed 5.7 percent (from the 2020 annual level to the 2021 annual level), compared to a 3.4 percent fall in 2020. (table 1). In 2021, all major subcomponents of real GDP increased, led by PCE, nonresidential fixed investment, exports, residential fixed investment, and private inventory investment. Imports have risen (table 2).
PCE increased as both products and services increased in value. “Other” nondurable items (including games and toys as well as medications), apparel and footwear, and recreational goods and automobiles were the major contributors within goods. Food services and accommodations, as well as health care, were the most significant contributors to services. Increases in equipment (dominated by information processing equipment) and intellectual property items (driven by software as well as research and development) partially offset a reduction in structures in nonresidential fixed investment (widespread across most categories). The rise in exports was due to an increase in products (mostly non-automotive capital goods), which was somewhat offset by a drop in services (led by travel as well as royalties and license fees). The increase in residential fixed investment was primarily due to the development of new single-family homes. An increase in wholesale commerce led to an increase in private inventory investment (mainly in durable goods industries).
In 2021, current-dollar GDP expanded by 10.0 percent, or $2.10 trillion, to $22.99 trillion, compared to 2.2 percent, or $478.9 billion, in 2020. (tables 1 and 3).
In 2021, the price index for gross domestic purchases climbed by 3.9 percent, compared to 1.2 percent in 2020. (table 4). Similarly, the PCE price index grew 3.9 percent, compared to 1.2 percent in the previous quarter. The PCE price index climbed 3.3 percent excluding food and energy expenses, compared to 1.4 percent overall.
Real GDP rose 5.5 percent from the fourth quarter of 2020 to the fourth quarter of 2021 (table 6), compared to a 2.3 percent fall from the fourth quarter of 2019 to the fourth quarter of 2020.
From the fourth quarter of 2020 to the fourth quarter of 2021, the price index for gross domestic purchases grew 5.5 percent, compared to 1.4 percent from the fourth quarter of 2019 to the fourth quarter of 2020. The PCE price index climbed by 5.5 percent, compared to 1.2 percent for the year. The PCE price index increased 4.6 percent excluding food and energy, compared to 1.4 percent overall.
Source Data for the Advance Estimate
A Technical Note that is issued with the news release on BEA’s website contains information on the source data and major assumptions utilized in the advance estimate. Each version comes with a thorough “Key Source Data and Assumptions” file. Refer to the “Additional Details” section below for information on GDP updates.
What went wrong with the economy in 2008?
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 was the solution to the 2008 financial crisis?
1 Congress approved a $700 billion bank bailout in September 2008, which is now known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Obama proposed the $787 billion economic stimulus package in February 2009, which helped avert a global depression. The following is a timeline of key events during the Great Recession of 2008.
What happened to GDP since 2008?
According to new numbers released today by the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis, economic growth declined in most states and regions of the United States in 2008, while overall growth dropped. In 38 states, real GDP growth slowed, with contractions in construction, manufacturing, and finance and insurance stifling growth in several. 1 State-by-state growth in real GDP dropped from 2.0 percent in 2007 to 0.7 percent in 2008. 2
In 2007, what was the GDP?
As can be seen in the ranking of GDP of the 195 nations that we publish, the United States is the world’s largest economy in terms of GDP, with a total of $14,474,200 million in 2007. In comparison to 2006, the US GDP declined $658,600 million in absolute terms.
In 2021, what was the GDP?
In addition to updated fourth-quarter projections, today’s announcement includes revised third-quarter 2021 wages and salaries, personal taxes, and government social insurance contributions, all based on new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages program. Wages and wages climbed by $306.8 billion in the third quarter, up $27.7 billion from the previous estimate. With the addition of this new statistics, real gross domestic income is now anticipated to have climbed 6.4 percent in the third quarter, a 0.6 percentage point gain over the prior estimate.
In 2021, real GDP climbed by 5.7 percent, unchanged from the previous estimate (from the 2020 annual level to the 2021 annual level), compared to a 3.4 percent fall in 2020. (table 1). In 2021, all major components of real GDP increased, led by PCE, nonresidential fixed investment, exports, residential fixed investment, and private inventory investment. Imports have risen (table 2).
In 2021, current-dollar GDP climbed by 10.1 percent (revised), or $2.10 trillion, to $23.00 trillion, compared to 2.2 percent, or $478.9 billion, in 2020. (tables 1 and 3).
In 2021, the price index for gross domestic purchases climbed 3.9 percent, which was unchanged from the previous forecast, compared to 1.2 percent in 2020. (table 4). Similarly, the PCE price index grew 3.9 percent, which was unchanged from the previous estimate, compared to a 1.2 percent gain. With food and energy prices excluded, the PCE price index grew 3.3 percent, unchanged from the previous estimate, compared to 1.4 percent.
Real GDP grew 5.6 (revised) percent from the fourth quarter of 2020 to the fourth quarter of 2021 (table 6), compared to a fall of 2.3 percent from the fourth quarter of 2019 to the fourth quarter of 2020.
From the fourth quarter of 2020 to the fourth quarter of 2021, the price index for gross domestic purchases climbed 5.6 percent (revised), compared to 1.4 percent from the fourth quarter of 2019 to the fourth quarter of 2020. The PCE price index grew 5.5 percent, unchanged from the previous estimate, versus a 1.2 percent increase. The PCE price index grew 4.6 percent excluding food and energy, which was unchanged from the previous estimate, compared to 1.4 percent.
Since 2008, has the economy recovered?
Millions of jobs were lost during the Great Recession, and high unemployment persisted for years after the official end of the recession in June 2009. One of the most terrifying aspects of the recession is how deep it will go, which is why Congress approved and President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in January 2009. ARRA, sometimes known as “The Stimulus,” was a $800 billion package of tax cuts (approximately one-third) and spending programs (about two-thirds), with the principal impact stretched out over three years. Many economists thought that the stimulus was insufficient, while conservatives such as the Tea Party claimed that the emphasis should be budget reduction.
The number of jobs (“total non-farm payrolls,” which includes both private and government workers) peaked at 138.4 million in January 2008, then dropped to 129.7 million in February 2010, a drop of approximately 8.8 million jobs or 6.8%. It took until May 2014 for the number of jobs to return to where they were in January 2008. In comparison, the severe 1981-82 recession resulted in a 3.2 percent employment loss. It took until August 2015 for full-time employment to return to pre-crisis levels.
The unemployment rate (“U-3) increased from 4.7 percent before the recession in November 2008 to 10.0 percent in October 2009, before progressively dropping back to pre-recession levels by May 2016. One thing to consider is that before to the recession, the job count was artificially high and the unemployment rate was artificially low due to an unsustainable housing bubble, which had significantly expanded construction and other jobs. The unemployment rate was close to 6% in 2003, before to the huge increase of subprime lending in 2004-2006. The “U-6” measure of unemployment, which includes people who work part-time for economic reasons or are just weakly engaged to the labor force, went from 8.4% pre-crisis to 17.1% in October 2009. It took until May 2017 for it to return to pre-crisis levels.
Bloomberg maintains a “dashboard” of key labor-market metrics that depicts the labor market’s current degree of recovery.