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 through 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.
How did the United States emerge from the Great Recession?
Congress passed the Struggling Asset Relief Scheme (TARP) to empower the US Treasury to implement a major rescue program for troubled banks. The goal was to avoid a national and global economic meltdown. To end the recession, ARRA and the Economic Stimulus Plan were passed in 2009.
When did the economy recover from the 2008 financial crisis?
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.
What was the length of the US recession?
The concept of an average is simple: in a mathematical equation, you add up a lot of integers and divide them by the number of numbers in the equation. However, the average of anything often does not represent the complete story. What is the typical dog size? It depends if all of the dogs are of the same breed. Recessions are the same way, and as it turns out, no two are alike.
Of course, we can find an average, and the NBER reports that the average length of a recession since WWII has been roughly 11 months. However, mention it to someone who lived through the 2008 Great Recession, and they’ll remark “How I wish!” That’s why it’s difficult to forecast how long a recession will last or how severe it will be: each interruption has its own characteristics.
Recessions appear in a variety of forms, and the letters “V,” “U,” “W,” and “L” are frequently used to describe them. Here’s how they spell relief in several languages.
A stomach-churning downturn is followed by a significant rebound after striking the bottom in a V-shaped recession.
The trough of a U-shaped recession is less distinct. For a while, it bounces along the bottom, then gently climbs back up.
A W recession is also referred to as a “It’s a “double-dip” recession: it goes down, then back up, then down, then back up againhopefully for good this time.
An L recession is characterized by a precipitous decrease followed by…nothing for a long period. In fact, this is commonly referred to as a “despondency.”
If you guessed correctly, “Most people would agree that “V” is the most appealing. Survive a rapid plummet and come out stronger than ever.
At the present, economists can’t agree on the shape of things to come, and these differing perspectives demonstrate how difficult it is to compare recessions because their roots are so diverse.
Who profited from the financial crisis of 2008?
Warren Buffett declared in an op-ed piece in the New York Times in October 2008 that he was buying American stocks during the equity downturn brought on by the credit crisis. “Be scared when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful,” he says, explaining why he buys when there is blood on the streets.
During the credit crisis, Mr. Buffett was particularly adept. His purchases included $5 billion in perpetual preferred shares in Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS), which earned him a 10% interest rate and contained warrants to buy more Goldman shares. Goldman also had the option of repurchasing the securities at a 10% premium, which it recently revealed. He did the same with General Electric (NYSE:GE), purchasing $3 billion in perpetual preferred stock with a 10% interest rate and a three-year redemption option at a 10% premium. He also bought billions of dollars in convertible preferred stock in Swiss Re and Dow Chemical (NYSE:DOW), which all needed financing to get through the credit crisis. As a result, he has amassed billions of dollars while guiding these and other American businesses through a challenging moment. (Learn how he moved from selling soft drinks to acquiring businesses and amassing billions of dollars.) Warren Buffett: The Road to Riches is a good place to start.)
What caused the recession of the 1980s?
The 1981-82 recession was the greatest economic slump in the United States since the Great Depression, prior to the 2007-09 recession. Indeed, the over 11% unemployment rate attained in late 1982 remains the postwar era’s pinnacle (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis). During the 1981-82 recession, unemployment was widespread, but manufacturing, construction, and the auto industries were especially hard hit. Despite the fact that goods manufacturers accounted for only 30% of overall employment at the time, they lost 90% of their jobs in 1982. Manufacturing accounted for three-quarters of all job losses in the goods-producing sector, with unemployment rates of 22% and 24%, respectively, in the home building and auto manufacturing industries (Urquhart and Hewson 1983, 4-7).
The economy was already in poor health prior to the slump, with unemployment hovering at 7.5 percent following a recession in 1980. Tight monetary policy in an attempt to combat rising inflation sparked both the 1980 and 1981-82 recessions. During the 1960s and 1970s, economists and politicians thought that raising inflation would reduce unemployment, a tradeoff known as the Phillips Curve. In the 1970s, the Fed used a “stop-go” monetary strategy, in which it alternated between combating high unemployment and high inflation. The Fed cut interest rates during the “go” periods in order to loosen the money supply and reduce unemployment. When inflation rose during the “stop” periods, the Fed raised interest rates to lessen inflationary pressure. However, as inflation and unemployment rose concurrently in the mid-1970s, the Phillips Curve tradeoff proved unstable in the long run. While unemployment was on the decline towards the end of the decade, inflation remained high, hitting 11% in June 1979. (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis).
Because of his anti-inflation ideas, Paul Volcker was chosen chairman of the Federal Reserve in August 1979. He had previously served as president of the New York Fed, where he had expressed his displeasure with Fed actions that he believed contributed to rising inflation expectations. In terms of future economic stability, he believes that rising inflation should be the Fed’s top concern: “It is what is going to give us the most troubles and cause the biggest recession” (FOMC transcript 1979, 16). He also thought the Fed had a credibility problem when it comes to controlling inflation. The Fed had proved in the preceding decade that it did not place a high priority on maintaining low inflation, and the public’s belief that this conduct would continue would make it increasingly difficult for the Fed to drive inflation down. “Failure to continue the fight against inflation now would simply make any subsequent effort more difficult,” he said (Volcker 1981b).
Instead of focusing on interest rates, Volcker altered the Fed’s policy to aggressively target the money supply. He chose this strategy for two reasons. To begin with, rising inflation made it difficult to determine which interest rate targets were suitable. Due to the expectation of inflation, the nominal interest rates the Fed targeted could be relatively high, but the real interest rates (that is, the effective interest rates after adjusting for inflation) could still be quite low. Second, the new policy was intended to show the public that the Federal Reserve was serious about keeping inflation low. The anticipation of low inflation was significant, as present inflation is influenced in part by future inflation forecasts.
Volcker’s initial efforts to reduce inflation and inflationary expectations were ineffective. The Carter administration’s credit-control scheme, which began in March 1980, triggered a severe recession (Schreft 1990). As unemployment rose, the Fed relented, reverting to the “stop-go” practices that the public had grown accustomed to. The Fed tightened the money supply further in late 1980 and early 1981, causing the federal funds rate to approach 20%. Long-term interest rates, despite this, have continued to grow. The ten-year Treasury bond rate surged from around 11% in October 1980 to more than 15% a year later, probably due to market expectations that the Fed would soften its restrictive monetary policy if unemployment soared (Goodfriend and King 2005). Volcker, on the other hand, was insistent that the Fed not back down this time: “We have set our course to control money and credit growth.” We intend to stay the course” (Volcker 1981a).
High interest rates put pressure on sectors of the economy that rely on borrowing, such as manufacturing and construction, and the economy officially entered a recession in the third quarter of 1981. Unemployment increased from 7.4% at the beginning of the recession to nearly 10% a year later. Volcker faced repeated calls from Congress to loosen monetary policy as the recession worsened, but he insisted that failing to lower long-run inflation expectations now would result in “more catastrophic economic situations over a much longer period of time” (Monetary Policy Report 1982, 67).
This perseverance paid off in the end. Inflation had dropped to 5% by October 1982, and long-term interest rates had begun to fall. The Fed permitted the federal funds rate to drop to 9%, and unemployment fell fast from over 11% at the end of 1982 to 8% a year later (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; Goodfriend and King 2005). Inflation was still a threat, and the Fed would have to deal with several “inflation scares” during the 1980s. However, Volcker’s and his successors’ dedication to actively pursue price stability helped ensure that the 1970s’ double-digit inflation did not reappear.
Is there going to be a recession in 2021?
Unfortunately, a worldwide economic recession in 2021 appears to be a foregone conclusion. The coronavirus has already wreaked havoc on businesses and economies around the world, and experts predict that the devastation will only get worse. Fortunately, there are methods to prepare for a downturn in the economy: live within your means.
Did Covid cause the downturn?
The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered a global economic recession known as the COVID-19 recession. In most nations, the recession began in February 2020.
The COVID-19 lockdowns and other safeguards implemented in early 2020 threw the world economy into crisis after a year of global economic downturn that saw stagnation in economic growth and consumer activity. Every advanced economy has slid into recession within seven months.
The 2020 stock market crash, which saw major indices plunge 20 to 30 percent in late February and March, was the first big harbinger of recession. Recovery began in early April 2020, and by late 2020, many market indexes had recovered or even established new highs.
Many countries had particularly high and rapid rises in unemployment during the recession. More than 10 million jobless cases have been submitted in the United States by October 2020, causing state-funded unemployment insurance computer systems and processes to become overwhelmed. In April 2020, the United Nations anticipated that worldwide unemployment would eliminate 6.7 percent of working hours in the second quarter of 2020, equating to 195 million full-time employees. Unemployment was predicted to reach around 10% in some countries, with higher unemployment rates in countries that were more badly affected by the pandemic. Remittances were also affected, worsening COVID-19 pandemic-related famines in developing countries.
In compared to the previous decade, the recession and the associated 2020 RussiaSaudi Arabia oil price war resulted in a decline in oil prices, the collapse of tourism, the hospitality business, and the energy industry, and a decrease in consumer activity. The worldwide energy crisis of 20212022 was fueled by a global rise in demand as the world emerged from the early stages of the pandemic’s early recession, mainly due to strong energy demand in Asia. Reactions to the buildup of the Russo-Ukrainian War, culminating in the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, aggravated the situation.
Who is responsible for the 2008 Great Recession?
The Lenders are the main perpetrators. The mortgage originators and lenders bear the brunt of the blame. That’s because they’re the ones that started the difficulties in the first place. After all, it was the lenders who made loans to persons with bad credit and a high chance of default. 7 This is why it happened.
In 1982, what happened to the economy?
The early 1980s recession was a severe economic downturn that hit most of the world between the beginning of 1980 and the beginning of 1983. It is largely regarded as the worst economic downturn since World War II. The 1979 energy crisis, which was mostly caused by the Iranian Revolution, which disrupted global oil supplies and caused dramatic increases in oil prices in 1979 and early 1980, was a major factor in the recession. The sharp increase in oil prices pushed already high inflation rates in several major advanced countries to new double-digit highs, prompting countries like the United States, Canada, West Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and Japan to tighten their monetary policies by raising interest rates to keep inflation under control. These G7 countries all experienced “double-dip” recessions, with small periods of economic contraction in 1980, followed by a brief period of expansion, and then a steeper, lengthier period of economic contraction beginning in 1981 and concluding in the final half of 1982 or early 1983. The majority of these countries experienced stagflation, which is defined as a condition in which interest rates and unemployment rates are both high.
While some countries had economic downturns in 1980 and/or 1981, the world’s broadest and sharpest decrease in economic activity, as well as the highest increase in unemployment, occurred in 1982, which the World Bank dubbed the “global recession of 1982.”
Even after big economies like the United States and Japan emerged from the recession relatively quickly, several countries remained in recession until 1983, and high unemployment afflicted most OECD countries until at least 1985. Long-term consequences of the early 1980s recession included the Latin American debt crisis, long-term slowdowns in the Caribbean and Sub-Saharan African countries, the US savings and loans crisis, and the widespread adoption of neoliberal economic policies throughout the 1990s.