As we mark the 10th anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, there are still ongoing debates about the causes and consequences of the financial crisis, and whether the lessons needed to prepare for the next one have been absorbed. But looking ahead, the more relevant question is what actually will trigger the next global recession and crisis, and when.
The current global expansion will likely continue into next year, given that the US is running large fiscal deficits, China is pursuing loose fiscal and credit policies, and Europe remains on a recovery path. But by 2020, the conditions will be ripe for a financial crisis, followed by a global recession.
There are 10 reasons for this. First, the fiscal-stimulus policies that are currently pushing the annual US growth rate above its 2% potential are unsustainable. By 2020, the stimulus will run out, and a modest fiscal drag will pull growth from 3% to slightly below 2%.
Second ...
Some people here thing the "good times" will roll on forever. Nothing could be further from the truth. The way things are going, don't be surprised when the economy trips again into recession within the next 2/3 years.
Can't happen? You think this present low Unemployment Rate is going to last forever? You are not naive?
Then have a look at this article by respected economist N. Roubini, from here:
We are due a recession in 2020 – and we will lack the tools to fight it - excerpt:
Read on ... !
There have been as many as 47 recessions in the United States dating back to the Articles of Confederation, and although economists and historians dispute certain 19th-century recessions,[1] the consensus view among economists and historians is that "The cyclical volatility of GNP and unemployment was greater before the Great Depression than it has been since the end of World War II."[2] Cycles in the country's agricultural production, industrial production, consumption, business investment, and the health of the banking industry contribute to these declines. U.S. recessions have increasingly affected economies on a worldwide scale, especially as countries' economies become more intertwined.
Recessions happen all the time actually. List of recessions in the United States
And those are just the big ones. Small ones happen also. So while they are concerning, no one really expects them to not happen.
Trump hasn't drained the swamp, but he has drained our economic reserves by stimulating the economy to produce a bubble.
And here I thought the mantra was that the good economy that we have wasn't really Trumps, but Obama's. :lamo
So while they are concerning, no one really expects them to not happen.
Recessions happen all the time actually. List of recessions in the United States
And those are just the big ones. Small ones happen also. So while they are concerning, no one really expects them to not happen.
The issue is "What to do about them?". Not that they happen or how often.
And the Replicants have showed amply well that they don't give a damn about those who suffer the most from recessions, namely those who live typically below the 30/35K of annual revenue.
You don't seem to have a sense of history, so permit me to refresh your memory of what happened after the Great Recession (brought about by a REPLICANT POTUS):
*Upon entering office Obama spiked the skyrocketing unemployment rate at 10% with the 2009 ARRA-bill spending of $830B.
*Upon winning the majority of theHofR in the 2010 midterms, the Replicants refused all further spending claiming that it would "break the bank" and the budget would skyrocket. They WANTED unemployment to stay high in order to defeat Obama in 2011 elections. (Didn't work out that way, did it?)
*The result was that American Employment-to-population Ratio stagnated for FOUR LONG YEARS - from 2010 to 2014! - and no new jobs were created. See that history here from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
People like you don't like Economic History. It's too complicated.
But our economic history shows clearly what the Replicant Party is capable of doing for one and only one reason:
TOO KEEP POWER TO RUN THE COUNTRY THAT BEST SUITS THE RICH AND SUPER-RICH
Put that in your pipe and smoke it ... !
Oh look - the last great recession started December 2007 and finished June 2009.
Hmmm who was president when it started - dubya, and who was the president to get the country out of the recession? Yep President Obama.
But the republicans keep spreading the BS that President Obama was responsible for the great recession. To this day they STILL claim President Obama was responsible and trump should get the credit for the booming economy right now.
Just watch trump and the republicans blame the democrats when they cause the next great recession.
Dow Jones is down again today. And trump has tripled the deficit in just under 2 years!!!
And here I thought the mantra was that the good economy that we have wasn't really Trumps, but Obama's. :lamo
And here I thought the mantra was that the good economy that we have wasn't really Trumps, but Obama's. :lamo
The issue is "What to do about them?". Not that they happen or how often.
And the Replicants have showed amply well that they don't give a damn about those who suffer the most from recessions, namely those who live typically below the 30/35K of annual revenue.
You don't seem to have a sense of history, so permit me to refresh your memory of what happened after the Great Recession (brought about by a REPLICANT POTUS):
*Upon entering office Obama spiked the skyrocketing unemployment rate at 10% with the 2009 ARRA-bill spending of $830B.
*Upon winning the majority of theHofR in the 2010 midterms, the Replicants refused all further spending claiming that it would "break the bank" and the budget would skyrocket. They WANTED unemployment to stay high in order to defeat Obama in 2011 elections. (Didn't work out that way, did it?)
*The result was that American Employment-to-population Ratio stagnated for FOUR LONG YEARS - from 2010 to 2014! - and no new jobs were created. See that history here from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
People like you don't like Economic History. It's too complicated.
But our economic history shows clearly what the Replicant Party is capable of doing for one and only one reason:
TOO KEEP POWER TO RUN THE COUNTRY THAT BEST SUITS THE RICH AND SUPER-RICH
Put that in your pipe and smoke it ... !
Obama handed Trump a solid economy, which sailed smoothly through 2017.
Then in 2018 Trump took the economy by the short hairs and jerked it around, so yeah, now it's his.
But Democrats are responsible in that they resisted regulating the two biggest contributors to the crisis when it might have done some good back between 2002-2004 or so I think it was.
College and University Education
Enrollment
The number of students projected to attend American colleges and universities in fall 2018 is 19.9 million, which is higher than the enrollment of 15.3 million students in fall 2000, but lower than the enrollment peak of 21.0 million in fall 2010 (source). Total enrollment is expected to increase between fall 2018 and fall 2027 to 20.5 million.
What was going on in both the institutions you mention was over a multitude of different governments, both Dems and Replicants.
It was called "get rich quick and get out" for those who ran those agencies. They are long since gone. Some you will find on the links in southern Florida. By in large, rather dull people who were "in the right place at the right time". But, the entire lower-end of supporting easy purchases of housing became a game of "who gets in and out first".
Aside from all that, the issue remains: How do we allow those below the Poverty Threshold to own their own premises? By doubling the Minimum Wage, that's how. What will happen? Well, certainly not the end of "life as we know it". Some services/products will get more expensive, but nothing outa-sight.
And those earning less than $30K a year will learn to live decently. We take the money for the initiative OUT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET. And stop wasting it in "Toys for our boys".
There is no Major Conflict for which the US should be spending about half its Discretionary Budget on the DoD. (See here.) None. Zip. Nada!
It would be better spent elsewhere - matching mortgages for houses that puts people to work. Sending people (retraining some) with qualifications that the job-market is looking for in a post-secondary education that does not cost an arm-and-a-leg.
From here: National Center for Education Statistics
Just presume for a moment that all those kids (say 20 million) go to a state-school the cost of which is estimated at around $12K a school-year (9 months)*.
Still, the total annual outlay would be less than $240B a year for tuition. (Room&board is extra.) Or about 20% of the total Discretionary Budget.
The US government cannot afford that sum for making an investment in our youth?
Ya gotta be kidding ...
*And if the parents insist upon a private-school, allow them to accept the $12K per child and they can send their kids to wherever they damn well please. (It's silly because the school does NOT decide the person. It is the personal ability for achievement that decides a persons future - and income.)
And here I thought the mantra was that the good economy that we have wasn't really Trumps, but Obama's. :lamo
Trump hasn't drained the swamp, but he has drained our economic reserves by stimulating the economy to produce a bubble.
Only one problem with your analysis. While it is correct that it started under Bush he was only partially responsible. Republicans (like John McCain) actually tried to reign in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. But Democrats resisted it. Bush is responsible in that he started two wars and lowered taxes. But Democrats are responsible in that they resisted regulating the two biggest contributors to the crisis when it might have done some good back between 2002-2004 or so I think it was. Maxine Waters even stated quite explicitly, "We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac".
You totally ignored the statement you decided to quote.
Let me help you:
Here, this poster is obviously highlighting the fact that a GOP controlled government has grown deficits for the past two years, even though the unemployment rate is at historic lows. Obama has nothing to do with his point.
The results of the tax cut stimulus are Trump's. For better or worse.
Not that that I mind particularly, but you got my responses mixed up. My reply to Kal'Stang was:
You're wrong on that bold part. If simply raising the minimum wage was good enough then we should have only had to raise it once. Yet it has been raised multiple times because the same thing happens over and over...prices eventually get "outta-sight".
It's a never ending cycle. Raising the minimum wage, prices go up. Eventually those prices get outta range and we have the same problems occurring. More needs to be done than simply raising minimum wage. Cutting costs down would help. Part of those costs happen due to regulations, usually excessive regulations. So getting rid of unnecessary regulations would help.
And here I thought the mantra was that the good economy that we have wasn't really Trumps, but Obama's.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?