America's Lost Decade

[kalm]

Abundant natural resources and a strong middle class we're responisble for our rise to economic power, net worth, and a high standard of living. We have been heading the other direction for at least the last decade and you can make a strong case for ever since Reaganomics became the plan.

So what have we learned, and what changes do you see occurring over the next few years?

Published on Saturday, January 2, 2010 by the Washington Post
Aughts Were a Lost Decade for U.S. Economy, Workers
by Neil Irwin

For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households. But since 2000, the story is starkly different.

The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth.

It was, according to a wide range of data, a lost decade for American workers. The decade began in a moment of triumphalism -- there was a current of thought among economists in 1999 that recessions were a thing of the past. By the end, there were two, bookends to a debt-driven expansion that was neither robust nor sustainable.

There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent. Economic output rose at its slowest rate of any decade since the 1930s as well.

Middle-income households made less in 2008, when adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999 -- and the number is sure to have declined further during a difficult 2009. The Aughts were the first decade of falling median incomes since figures were first compiled in the 1960s.

And the net worth of American households -- the value of their houses, retirement funds and other assets minus debts -- has also declined when adjusted for inflation, compared with sharp gains in every previous decade since data were initially collected in the 1950s.

"This was the first business cycle where a working-age household ended up worse at the end of it than the beginning, and this in spite of substantial growth in productivity, which should have been able to improve everyone's well-being," said Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank.

Question of timing
The miserable economic track record is, in part, a quirk of timing. The 1990s ended near the top of a stock market and investment bubble. Three months after champagne corks popped to celebrate the dawn of the year 2000, the market turned south, a recession soon following. The decade finished near the trough of a severe recession.

But beyond these dramatic ups and downs lies an even more sobering reality: long-term economic stagnation. The trillions of dollars that poured into housing investment and consumer spending in the first part of the decade distorted economic activity.

Capital was funneled to build mini-mansions in Sun Belt suburbs, many of which now sit empty, rather than toward industrial machines or other business investment that might generate economic output and jobs for years to come.

"The problem is that we mismanaged the macroeconomy, and that got us in big trouble," said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at IHS Global Insight. "The big bad thing that happened was that, in the U.S. and parts of Europe, we let housing bubbles get out of control. That came back to haunt us big-time."

The housing bubble both caused, and was enabled by, a boom in indebtedness. Total household debt rose 117 percent from 1999 to its peak in early 2008, according to Federal Reserve data, as Americans borrowed to buy ever more expensive homes and to support consumption more generally.

Consumers weren't the only ones. The same turn to debt played out in commercial real estate and at financial firms. It resulted in a corporate buyout boom that often produced little of lasting value. It is a truism of finance that for businesses, relying heavily on borrowed money makes the good times better but the bad times far worse. The same thing, as it turns out, could be said of the nation as a whole.

The first decade of the new century was an experiment in what happens when an economy comes to rely heavily on borrowed money.

"A big part of what happened this decade was that people engaged in excessively risky behavior without realizing the risks associated," said Karen Dynan, co-director of economic studies at the Brookings Institution. "It's true not just among consumers but among regulators, financial institutions, lenders, everyone."

The experiment has ended badly. While the stock market bubble that popped in 2000 caused only a mild recession, the housing and credit bubble has had a much greater punch -- driving the unemployment rate to a high, so far, of 10.2 percent, compared with a peak of 6.3 percent following the last such downturn.

The impact of the real estate crash has been broad. Among middle-income families, 69 percent owned a home in 2007, more than four times the proportion owning stocks. And as the housing meltdown cascaded through credit markets, the banking system was buffeted, rocking the whole financial system on which the world's economy rests.

With luck, lessons
Economists and policymakers will be chewing on the lessons of the Aughts for many years to come; the events of the past two years alone are enough to launch a thousand economics dissertations. If past periods of economic trauma are a guide, this research will yield a deeper understanding of how to manage the economy.

The Great Depression of the 1930s led to new insights about the impact a financial collapse can have. The primary lesson -- espoused by Ben S. Bernanke as an academic before acting on it as Fed chairman -- was "Don't let the financial system collapse."

The Great Inflation of the 1970s brought a rethinking of what drives inflation, such that economists now put a premium on maintaining the credibility of central banks and keeping inflation expectations in check.

The lessons of the Bubble Decade are still being formed. At the Federal Reserve, the major lesson that top officials have taken is that bank regulation shouldn't occur in a vacuum; rather than monitor how individual institutions are doing, bank supervisors should try to understand the risks and frailties that the banking system creates for the economy as a whole -- and manage those risks.

Fed leaders have been more skeptical of the idea that they should routinely raise interest rates to try to pop bubbles. "I can't rule out circumstances in which additional monetary policy actions specifically targeted at perceived asset price or credit imbalances and vulnerabilities" would be advisable, Fed Vice Chairman Donald L. Kohn said in a recent speech.

"But given the bluntness of monetary policy as a tool for addressing developments that could lead to financial instability, the side effects of using policy for this purpose, and other difficulties, such circumstances are likely to be very rare."

And the question of how Washington can prevent a recurrence is an overarching theme in the Obama administration's efforts to overhaul the financial system and support growth through investments in clean energy and other areas. "One of our challenges now," President Obama said in November, "is how do we get what I call a post-bubble growth model, one that is sustainable."

The financial crisis is, for all practical purposes, over, and forecasters are now generally expecting the job market to turn around early in 2010 and begin creating jobs. The task ahead for the next generation of economists is to figure out how, in a decade that began with such economic promise, things went so wrong.

© 2010 Washington Post

[89Hen]

TLDR

[93henfan]

*were

[Gil Dobie]

More automation, more unemployment, more wars, maybe even a civil war.

Unless Tulsi is elected, then we talk universal income and peace and prosperity.

[JohnStOnge]

The timing of the article, January 2010, was such that any averages they reported were greatly impacted by the severe economic downturn that had just transpired. For instance, there's a statement about net job growth. Well, as you can see from the data at https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/ces0000 ... w=net_1mth there were severe job LOSSES during the "Great Recession." That apparently was enough to cancel out job growth that occurred from 2000 until when the "Great Recession" started.

Like, you can't see backwards past January, 2009, at that page I linked but in January, 2009, the economy LOST 783,000 jobs. You can see that massive job losses continued for about 10 to 12 months after that. The "Great Recession" started in December, 2007, and I'm sure there were massive job losses between then and when the period represented by the data at the page started.

We had a "mixed" period from early 2010 through about October of that year. By October 2010 the situation had stabilized and we've had a pretty stable positive job creation rate ever since.

So if someone wrote an article about the CURRENT decade they would be talking about a net positive in terms of job creation.

[bluehenbillk]

Washington Post....Fake News

[mainejeff]

Washington Post....Fake News

Everything you don't like = Fake News.

[kalm]

The timing of the article, January 2010, was such that any averages they reported were greatly impacted by the severe economic downturn that had just transpired. For instance, there's a statement about net job growth. Well, as you can see from the data at https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/ces0000 ... w=net_1mth there were severe job LOSSES during the "Great Recession." That apparently was enough to cancel out job growth that occurred from 2000 until when the "Great Recession" started.

Like, you can't see backwards past January, 2009, at that page I linked but in January, 2009, the economy LOST 783,000 jobs. You can see that massive job losses continued for about 10 to 12 months after that. The "Great Recession" started in December, 2007, and I'm sure there were massive job losses between then and when the period represented by the data at the page started.

We had a "mixed" period from early 2010 through about October of that year. By October 2010 the situation had stabilized and we've had a pretty stable positive job creation rate ever since.

So if someone wrote an article about the CURRENT decade they would be talking about a net positive in terms of job creation.

Until the next bubble.

The article echoed most of this but is it clear that we've fixed the fundamentals, diminished the threat of future bubbles? Did we learn?

[CID1990]

The timing of the article, January 2010, was such that any averages they reported were greatly impacted by the severe economic downturn that had just transpired. For instance, there's a statement about net job growth. Well, as you can see from the data at https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/ces0000 ... w=net_1mth there were severe job LOSSES during the "Great Recession." That apparently was enough to cancel out job growth that occurred from 2000 until when the "Great Recession" started.

Like, you can't see backwards past January, 2009, at that page I linked but in January, 2009, the economy LOST 783,000 jobs. You can see that massive job losses continued for about 10 to 12 months after that. The "Great Recession" started in December, 2007, and I'm sure there were massive job losses between then and when the period represented by the data at the page started.

We had a "mixed" period from early 2010 through about October of that year. By October 2010 the situation had stabilized and we've had a pretty stable positive job creation rate ever since.

So if someone wrote an article about the CURRENT decade they would be talking about a net positive in terms of job creation.

Until the next bubble.

The article echoed most of this but is it clear that we've fixed the fundamentals, diminished the threat of future bubbles? Did we learn?

Just wait until AI gets set loose on the exchanges

The world is funny that way.. it keeps changing but people remain the same


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

This thread lay fallow for 9 years, until an obviously bored 89Hen revived it.

[CitadelGrad]

Until the next bubble.

The article echoed most of this but is it clear that we've fixed the fundamentals, diminished the threat of future bubbles? Did we learn?

Just wait until AI gets set loose on the exchanges

The world is funny that way.. it keeps changing but people remain the same


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AIgos have been directing most of the institutional trading for years. There aren't many traders left on Wall Street. AI is already being introduced.

[CID1990]

Just wait until AI gets set loose on the exchanges

The world is funny that way.. it keeps changing but people remain the same


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AIgos have been directing most of the institutional trading for years. There aren't many traders left on Wall Street. AI is already being introduced.

That’s true of course-

I’m talking about when actual AI starts doing its own thing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JoltinJoe]

The notion that Reaganomics failed or is responsible for the expanding divide between the fortunes of the uber rich and the middle class is false.

Reaganomics worked and spurred the most significant economic expansion of an economy in the history of the world. Reagan cut the highest marginal tax rates from 70% to 28%, and the investor class invested their tax savings into our economy, ending the malaise, stagflation, and high unemployment of the Carter years. Reagan won in a landslide in 1984 because he turned our economy around and got people back to work.

Here is the rub. In the early 1980s, when the investor class obtained these Reagan tax cuts, we lived in a far more insular time in which there was no inter-connected "global economy" to speak of. Handed a huge tax break, investors in the 1980s invested that money into US business and manufacturing -- which created a job boom. They had few alternatives to investing in the US economy.

Hand investors and businesses tax cuts today, they put that money to work in another country in which labor costs are dramatically lower. THIS is what is causing the decline of American manufacturing and of the American middle class.

The Trump tax cuts should have structured in way to compel that the tax savings be invested in the US.

[CID1990]

The notion that Reaganomics failed or is responsible for the expanding divide between the fortunes of the uber rich and the middle class is false.

Reaganomics worked and spurred the most significant economic expansion of an economy in the history of the world. Reagan cut the highest marginal tax rates from 70% to 28%, and the investor class invested their tax savings into our economy, ending the malaise, stagflation, and high unemployment of the Carter years. Reagan won in a landslide in 1984 because he turned our economy around and got people back to work.

Here is the rub. In the early 1980s, when the investor class obtained these Reagan tax cuts, we lived in a far more insular time in which there was no inter-connected "global economy" to speak of. Handed a huge tax break, investors in the 1980s invested that money into US business and manufacturing -- which created a job boom. They had few alternatives to investing in the US economy.

Hand investors and businesses tax cuts today, they put that money to work in another country in which labor costs are dramatically lower. THIS is what is causing the decline of American manufacturing and of the American middle class.

The Trump tax cuts should have structured in way to compel that the tax savings be invested in the US.

Dear Joe,

The reason this thread was fizzling on the launchpad was because nobody was responding to the painfully obvious Reagan troll.

Along with full on Das Kapital Marxists and Muslims with stone age garbage views, Reagan is one of klam’s major nervous tics.

Do better, Joe.

Love,

CID


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

The notion that Reaganomics failed or is responsible for the expanding divide between the fortunes of the uber rich and the middle class is false.

Reaganomics worked and spurred the most significant economic expansion of an economy in the history of the world. Reagan cut the highest marginal tax rates from 70% to 28%, and the investor class invested their tax savings into our economy, ending the malaise, stagflation, and high unemployment of the Carter years. Reagan won in a landslide in 1984 because he turned our economy around and got people back to work.

Here is the rub. In the early 1980s, when the investor class obtained these Reagan tax cuts, we lived in a far more insular time in which there was no inter-connected "global economy" to speak of. Handed a huge tax break, investors in the 1980s invested that money into US business and manufacturing -- which created a job boom. They had few alternatives to investing in the US economy.

Hand investors and businesses tax cuts today, they put that money to work in another country in which labor costs are dramatically lower. THIS is what is causing the decline of American manufacturing and of the American middle class.

The Trump tax cuts should have structured in way to compel that the tax savings be invested in the US.

Dear Joe,

The reason this thread was fizzling on the launchpad was because nobody was responding to the painfully obvious Reagan troll.

Along with full on Das Kapital Marxists and Muslims with stone age garbage views, Reagan is one of klam’s major nervous tics.

Do better, Joe.

Love,

CID


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reagan was gullible and a dullard. But he was one hell of a pitchman. So much so that he can still convince otherwise seemingly intelligent gentlemen such as yourselves that unregulated neo-liberalism can create perpetual growth and a thriving economy for all to this day (with a huge assist from Norquist’s Reagan Legacy Project). ...

Despite all evidence, current and past, to the contrary.

[UNI88]

Dear Joe,

The reason this thread was fizzling on the launchpad was because nobody was responding to the painfully obvious Reagan troll.

Along with full on Das Kapital Marxists and Muslims with stone age garbage views, Reagan is one of klam’s major nervous tics.

Do better, Joe.

Love,

CID


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reagan was gullible and a dullard. But he was one hell of a pitchman. So much so that he can still convince otherwise seemingly intelligent gentlemen such as yourselves that unregulated neo-liberalism can create perpetual growth and a thriving economy for all to this day (with a huge assist from Norquist’s Reagan Legacy Project). ...

Despite all evidence, current and past, to the contrary.

So how does that compare to the rehabilitation of socialism/communism by the left?

Even if you don't like him you have to admit that Reagan had some significant wins/accomplishments but socialism/communism has failed miserably.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Pwns]

Just wondering, is it still considered hip and progressive to oppose free trade deals or did Trump make it go out of style?

We haven't got any articles posted here in a while from the Robert Reichs or Paul Krugmans about how we need protectionism in a while.

[kalm]

Reagan was gullible and a dullard. But he was one hell of a pitchman. So much so that he can still convince otherwise seemingly intelligent gentlemen such as yourselves that unregulated neo-liberalism can create perpetual growth and a thriving economy for all to this day (with a huge assist from Norquist’s Reagan Legacy Project). ...

Despite all evidence, current and past, to the contrary.

So how does that compare to the rehabilitation of socialism/communism by the left?

Even if you don't like him you have to admit that Reagan had some significant wins/accomplishments but socialism/communism has failed miserably.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Of course Reagan did some good things. They all do. See Pwns post below.

Just wake me up when we’re approaching that commie cliff. Thx!

[UNI88]

So how does that compare to the rehabilitation of socialism/communism by the left?

Even if you don't like him you have to admit that Reagan had some significant wins/accomplishments but socialism/communism has failed miserably.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Of course Reagan did some good things. They all do. See Pwns post below.

Just wake me up when we’re approaching that commie cliff. Thx!

Look at the positions and statements of the current crop of Donk presidential candidates and influencers and compare them to the candidates from the past 10+ presidential elections. Open borders, free college, etc. - they've moved noticeably to the left in just 4 years.

[kalm]

Of course Reagan did some good things. They all do. See Pwns post below.

Just wake me up when we’re approaching that commie cliff. Thx!

Look at the positions and statements of the current crop of Donk presidential candidates and influencers and compare them to the candidates from the past 10+ presidential elections. Open borders, free college, etc. - they've moved noticeably to the left in just 4 years.

I personally disagree with open borders but there are many on the right (including businesses) who have enjoyed the cheap labor.

That aside, the gist of your argument strongly supports my views on Reagan. College tuition was often free from its inception. Teddy Roosevelt was talking about a Square Deal over 100 years ago. Monopolies used to be an important subject for both parties.

Then Reagan comes along, convinces people that government is the problem, deregulates the crap out of our economy, slashes corporate and high end personal taxes while raising taxes on the middle class, and promotes "free trade". All under the guise of freedom and patriotism and all of which consolidated power and wealth further into the hands of large companies and uber rich. And he's so damn convincing that future administrations and congresses on both sides (all the way through Obama) maintain many of these policies at the expense of competition, domestic manufacturing, and working class.

Establishment Democrats who control the party are center right. Policy proposals that help out the middle class are indeed a move to the left AND back toward the center.

Unless you consider Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower commies.

[CID1990]

Look at the positions and statements of the current crop of Donk presidential candidates and influencers and compare them to the candidates from the past 10+ presidential elections. Open borders, free college, etc. - they've moved noticeably to the left in just 4 years.

I personally disagree with open borders but there are many on the right (including businesses) who have enjoyed the cheap labor.

That aside, the gist of your argument strongly supports my views on Reagan. College tuition was often free from its inception. Teddy Roosevelt was talking about a Square Deal over 100 years ago. Monopolies used to be an important subject for both parties.

Then Reagan comes along, convinces people that government is the problem, deregulates the crap out of our economy, slashes corporate and high end personal taxes while raising taxes on the middle class, and promotes "free trade". All under the guise of freedom and patriotism and all of which consolidated power and wealth further into the hands of large companies and uber rich. And he's so damn convincing that future administrations and congresses on both sides (all the way through Obama) maintain many of these policies at the expense of competition, domestic manufacturing, and working class.

Establishment Democrats who control the party are center right. Policy proposals that help out the middle class are indeed a move to the left AND back toward the center.

Unless you consider Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower commies.

I love the “Reagan comes along and convinces people people government is the problem” thing

Sort of like “Reagan comes along and convinces people carbon monoxide is the problem”

It isn’t exactly the hardest sell in the world

Hell, JSO could do it

[kalm]

I personally disagree with open borders but there are many on the right (including businesses) who have enjoyed the cheap labor.

That aside, the gist of your argument strongly supports my views on Reagan. College tuition was often free from its inception. Teddy Roosevelt was talking about a Square Deal over 100 years ago. Monopolies used to be an important subject for both parties.

Then Reagan comes along, convinces people that government is the problem, deregulates the crap out of our economy, slashes corporate and high end personal taxes while raising taxes on the middle class, and promotes "free trade". All under the guise of freedom and patriotism and all of which consolidated power and wealth further into the hands of large companies and uber rich. And he's so damn convincing that future administrations and congresses on both sides (all the way through Obama) maintain many of these policies at the expense of competition, domestic manufacturing, and working class.

Establishment Democrats who control the party are center right. Policy proposals that help out the middle class are indeed a move to the left AND back toward the center.

Unless you consider Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower commies.

I love the “Reagan comes along and convinces people people government is the problem” thing

Sort of like “Reagan comes along and convinces people carbon monoxide is the problem”

It isn’t exactly the hardest sell in the world

Hell, JSO could do it

No...it probably wasn’t at the time. But you don’t see conservatives 2019 quoting Nixon or GWB on the issue. Like I said...he was a hell of a pitchman.

[JohnStOnge]

I don't know if it's "the problem" but carbon monoxide is some pretty bad stuff.

[CID1990]

I love the “Reagan comes along and convinces people people government is the problem” thing

Sort of like “Reagan comes along and convinces people carbon monoxide is the problem”

It isn’t exactly the hardest sell in the world

Hell, JSO could do it

No...it probably wasn’t at the time. But you don’t see conservatives 2019 quoting Nixon or GWB on the issue. Like I said...he was a hell of a pitchman.

No, klam,

It doesn’t take a salesman to convince people of a basic truth


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

No...it probably wasn’t at the time. But you don’t see conservatives 2019 quoting Nixon or GWB on the issue. Like I said...he was a hell of a pitchman.

No, klam,

It doesn’t take a salesman to convince people of a basic truth

Didn't Reagan grow the Federal Government by something like 43%
That might not be exactly right but it was something staggering



Government is evil, oh wait... here's more money