- Joined
- Jun 10, 2009
- Messages
- 27,254
- Reaction score
- 9,350
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Go back and read the context for which the post was made.
Are you seriously trying to mitigate 4 years of failure by arguing the effects of the sub prime collapse were worse than first thought ?
Banks too big too fail are why our wise forefathers enacted the Glass-Steagall
Act after the Great Depression. Those that refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Go back and read the context for which the post was made.
Banks too big to fail is a manufactured concept to shift the blame from those who are truly to blame to those who were harmed bh mandated low income loans.
If it makes you happy to believe that,
carry on!
Its a bummer that so many of my fellow countrymen are so intellectually lazy that they would believe the narrative.
Ok, put the stats of both recessions side by side and let's take a look.....If you have the intellectual honesty to do such, you'd see that they are remarkably similar, that is up to the point where the two differing approaches, Reagan on the one side, and Obama on the other took over, then the picture is striking in the failure of one, and it ain't Reagan....
The early 1980s recession was a severe recession in the United States which began in July 1981 and ended in November 1982.[2][3] The primary cause of the recession was a contractionary monetary policy established by the Federal Reserve System to control high inflation.[4] In the wake of the 1973 oil crisis and the 1979 energy crisis, stagflation began to afflict the economy of the United States.
[edit]Unemployment
Unemployment had risen from 5.1% in January 1974 to a high of 9.0% in May 1975. Although it had gradually declined to 5.6% by May 1979, unemployment began rising again thereafter. It jumped sharply to 6.9% in April 1980 and to 7.5% in May 1980. A mild recession from January to July 1980 kept unemployment high, but despite economic recovery unemployment remained at historically high levels (about 7.5%) through the end of 1981.[5] In mid-1982, Rockford, Illinois had the highest unemployment of all Metro areas with 25%.[6] In September 1982, Michigan led the nation with 14.5%. Alabama was second with 14.3% and West Virginia was third with 14.0%. The Youngstown–Warren Metropolitan Area had an 18.7% rate, the highest of all Metro areas. Stamford, Connecticut had the lowest with 3.5% unemployment.[7]
The peak of the recession was in November and December 1982, when the nationwide unemployment rate was 10.8%, highest since The Great Depression. As of 2011, it is still the highest since the 1930s.[8] In November, West Virginia and Michigan had the highest unemployment with 16.4%. Alabama was in third with 15.3%. South Dakota had the lowest unemployment rate in the nation, with 5.6%. Flint, Michigan had the highest unemployment rate of all Metro areas with 23.4%.[9] In March 1983, West Virginia's unemployment rate hit 20.1%. In the Spring of 1983, thirty states had double digit unemployment rates. When Reagan won re-election in 1984, the latest unemployment numbers (August 1984) showed West Virginia still had the highest in the nation, 13.6%, with Mississippi in second with 11.1%, and Alabama in third with 10.9%.[10]
[edit]Inflation
Inflation, which had averaged 3.2% annually in the post-war period, had more than doubled after the 1973 oil shock to a 7.7% annual rate. Inflation reached 9.1% in 1975, the highest rate since 1947. Inflation declined to 5.8% the following year, but then edged higher. By 1979, inflation reached a startling 11.3% and in 1980 soared to 13.5%.[2][11] A brief recession occurred in 1980. Several key industries—including housing, steel manufacturing and automobile production—experienced a downturn from which they did not recover through the end of the next recession. Many of the economic sectors that supplied these basic industries were also hard-hit.[12] Each period of high unemployment was caused by the Federal Reserve, as it substantially increased interest rates to reduce high inflation; each time, once inflation fell and interest rates were lowered, unemployment slowly fell.[13]
Determined to wring inflation out of the economy, Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker slowed the rate of growth of the money supply and raised interest rates. The federal funds rate, which was about 11% in 1979, rose to 20% by June 1981. The prime interest rate, a highly important economic measure, eventually reached 21.5% in June 1982.[3][14]
[edit]Financial industry crisis
The recession had a severe effect on financial institutions such as savings and loans and banks.
[edit]Banks
The recession came at a particularly bad time for banks due to a recent wave of deregulation. The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA) had phased out a number of restrictions on banks' financial practices, broadened their lending powers, and raised the deposit insurance limit from $40,000 to $100,000 (raising the problem of moral hazard).[15] Banks rushed into real estate lending, speculative lending, and other ventures just as the economy soured.
By mid-1982, the number of bank failures was rising steadily. Bank failures reached a post-depression high of 42 as the recession and high interest rates took their toll.[16] By the end of the year, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) had spent $870 million to purchase bad loans in an effort to keep various banks afloat.[17]
In July 1982, Congress enacted the Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 (Garn–St. Germain), which further deregulated banks as well as deregulating savings and loans. The Garn–St. Germain act authorized banks to begin offering money market accounts in an attempt to encourage deposit in-flows, removed additional statutory restrictions in real estate lending, and relaxed loans-to-one-borrower limits. The legislation encouraged a rapid expansion in real estate lending at a time when the real estate market was collapsing, increased the unhealthy competition between banks and savings and loans, and encouraged overbuilding of branches.[15]
The recession affected the banking industry long after the economic downturn technically ended in November 1982. In 1983, another 50 banks failed—easily beating the Great Depression record of 43 failures set in 1940. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) listed another 540 banks as "problem banks" on the verge of failure.[17]
In 1984, the Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company, the nation's seventh-largest bank (with $45 billion in assets), failed. The FDIC had long known of Continental Illinois' problems. The bank had first approached failure in July 1982 when the Penn Square Bank, which had partnered with Continental Illinois in a number of high-risk lending ventures, collapsed. But federal regulators were reassured by Continental Illinois executives that steps were being taken to ensure the bank's financial security. After Continental Illinois' collapse, federal regulators were willing to let the bank fail in order to reduce moral hazard and encourage other banks to rein in some of their more risky lending practices. But members of Congress and the press felt Continental Illinois was "too big to fail." In May 1984, federal banking regulators were forced to offer a $4.5 billion rescue package to Continental Illinois.[15]
Continental Illinois may not have been "too big to fail," but its collapse could have caused the failure of some of the biggest banks in the United States. The American banking system had been significantly weakened by the severe recession and the effects of deregulation. Had other banks been forced to write off loans to Continental Illinois, institutions such as Manufacturer's Hanover Trust Company, Bank of America and perhaps Citicorp would have been insolvent.[18]
Early 1980s recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The idea that any great nation was brought to the brink of ruin by it's lower/"lazy" class is what is intellectually lazy and is so preposterous it could only be sold in America and have anyone actually buy into it...............
Well, Bloomberg seems to be taking some editorial liberty here, but take a look at this, and you tell me....
The data is from, Steven Landefeld, director of the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, hardly a left wing outfit!
Didn't say that it was, I was merely saying that everyone would like to believe that the tough times they are in at present, are the toughest....But when data is actually looked at objectively, that may not be the case.
The data shows this recession was the most severe. The chances were great we could have gone into another great depression. With the 1980 recession and the 2001 recession, not so much.
The idea that any great nation was brought to the brink of ruin by it's lower/"lazy"
class is what is intellectually lazy and is so preposterous it could only be sold in America and have anyone actually buy into it...............
To the contrary, the latest episode dwarfed Reagan's recession in peak to trough losses in employment, output, in addition to sitting on top a mountain of personal debt completely alien to the recovery of the 80's. Add in the structural damage wreaked upon the financial and housing industries and you'll find that in no manner were the two episodes of similar severity or origins.Ok, put the stats of both recessions side by side and let's take a look.....If you have the intellectual honesty to do such, you'd see that they are remarkably similar..
Good evening, Bonz.
I believe you have studied Roman history. What explanation do you give to explain the "bread and circuses," created by the elite for the masses, that preceded the eventual downfall of the Roman Empire? I'm not being snarky here, I am curious.
Stop right there...This is a lie, put forth through platitudinal talking points from the first Obama campaign, and carried forth by disingenuous liberals running cover for their President who has failed miserably to right the ship....
What data?
Lol....it's happening now. With 60 million idiots voting Obama back into office.
Or was that a good thing ?
What data?
Is it possible Republicans dont want Hagel in there as a political reason? Hagel has shown he doesnt have the same ideas about foreign policy as most republicans, so when he supports a policy republcans dont like all you will hear is Hagel this and that. The optics will mean lots of pushback for no gain and someone that appears to be tremendously incompetent to boot. The surge was the worst mistake since Vietnam? Apparently not since it worked and casualties actually went down. Thats hyperbolic, attention grabbing drama queen nonsense there. Hagel deserves to get some political slings and arrows from an outrageous comment like that.
The reast of your claptrap happens in both parties, party loyalty does tend to mean something in the pecking order and support you recieve from the party. Thats nothing new. Its also not limited to one side of the other.
Hagel has shown he doesnt have the same ideas about foreign policy as most republicans, so when he supports a policy republcans dont like all you will hear is Hagel this and that.
The surge was the worst mistake since Vietnam?
Hagel deserves to get some political slings and arrows from an outrageous comment like that.
The reast of your claptrap happens in both parties, party loyalty does tend to mean something in the pecking order and support you recieve from the party. Thats nothing new. Its also not limited to one side of the other.
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?