[Beeker2211]

Originally Posted by beerbeer

The reason that the recession was the worst since the depression was OBAMA. He prolonged it with the failed stimulus and piling on repressive regulations. These regulations were all kinds of things that hamstrung businesses that had nothing to do mortgages. He hammered small businesses which are the job creators in our economy. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/econo...ve-regulations

Wow, the recession had a lot more issues than just the mortgage market. It took WWII to get out of the Depression, and yet no matter how many times he needs to be proven absolutely correct Keynes' words fall on deaf ears for some.

Originally Posted by beerbeer

BTW, that recession was caused by the housing bubble (not Bush) which was caused by Democrat polices starting with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) by Clinton. The CRA gave loans to people who couldn't afford them. And when Bush tried to fix it, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd stopped him. https://www.theatlantic.com/business...crisis/249903/

This was an insane right wing talking point that really deserved no airtime based on the numbers. The CRA backed loans had to remain with the writing institution that made the note, which kept the notes from being cut up and reformed with tranche securities. The CRA also had a much lower failure rate than the private sub-prime origination, with none of the secondary and tertiary risks that the CDOs had, while being a bigger part of the market in terms of end-consumer and for a much longer time than the CDO market (since the Carter Administration). Yes, some of the CRA underwriting guidelines were loosened, but that was fairly late to the game to try to get ahead of soaring and irrational housing prices nationwide. If you crunch the numbers it simply cannot make sense, and is in fact a shielding of responsibility of the big banks and mortgage clearinghouses that had insanely shoddy record-keeping without the thought that risk could, you know, turn bad.

Even still it wasn't too many poor people that caused the crash of the mortgage market, despite that being an easy (and easily debunked) talking point. Speculative developers were buying the NINJA loans at incredible speed and volume in the hopes that houses would sell before the readjustment. Once the housing inventory started to pile up in certain locales (looking at you, North Las Vegas) the ripple effect on the entirety of the liquidity for almost ALL credit products dried up nation wide quickly. It was a house of cards, the banks should've known it was a house of cards, but everyone was making huge amounts of funny money that they forgot that their profits are, in fact, tied to the every day mass economy.

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by NUHuskies01

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/obamas-final-numbers/

11M more jobs. Unemployment rate down to 4.8%. Home prices up 20%. Etc, etc, etc.

Look - you want to say it didnt happen, fine. But the idea that ANY president can come in and magically turn around an economy in a year by doing ANYTHING, you have no idea what you are talking about.

There is no magic wand, no stimulus, not cutting regulations that changes anything in a year. Finance and economies do not work that way.

The first year of a presidency is basically the 9th year of the guy before. No policies make change that quick. Personally, I would even go 2nd year, its hard to effect change on an economy, but based on the bills passed by this administration, sure, Trump can start taking credit.

But all I know is, national debt continues to rise, same as Obama, and while they complained about it forever under Obama, now that the Fed wants to raise interest rates (Please do!), we can no longer do that, so money stays cheap, just like under Clinton, just like under Obama.

I don’t agree with everything Obama did, but I totally agree. Trump is just experiencing the tail end of the Obama economy. A gift that was hard to screw up.

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by Stylo

I don’t agree with everything Obama did, but I totally agree. Trump is just experiencing the tail end of the Obama economy. A gift that was hard to screw up.

And Trump juiced the economy with massive deficit spending at a time where we probably should have been in a mild recession. When we do have the inevitable downturn, it's kind of worrying that it will be a very hard landing. The Fed is also obviously worried since they stopped raising interest rates.

[Stylo]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

And Trump juiced the economy with massive deficit spending at a time where we probably should have been in a mild recession. When we do have the inevitable downturn, it's kind of worrying that it will be a very hard landing. The Fed is also obviously worried since they stopped raising interest rates.

This boom bust pattern has been happening for decades. No one should be surprised when that happens.

[NUHuskies01]

Originally Posted by Stylo

This boom bust pattern has been happening for decades. No one should be surprised when that happens.

Agreed. Though one could maybe make an argument, that due to the slow growth had during the Obama years as the economy was rebuilt, we should not collapse as quickly this time.

Slow and steady wins the race over the time.

[BobNJ1960]

Wonder what decade Ct will experience the recovery in?

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Wonder what decade Ct will experience the recovery in?

With an unemployment rate of 4.4%, which is historically considered VERY low, I would say we have long recovered. As you can see in the chart in the link below, that rate is better than most of the rates since the Depression. It is your own opinion that we have not recovered. I disagree and the facts support me. Jay

https://www.thebalance.com/unemploym...y-year-3305506

[Stylo]

Increase in startup investments, particularly in New Haven:

https://www.registercitizen.com/busi...1-13753806.php

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by JayCT

With an unemployment rate of 4.4%, which is historically considered VERY low, I would say we have long recovered. As you can see in the chart in the link below, that rate is better than most of the rates since the Depression. It is your own opinion that we have not recovered. I disagree and the facts support me. Jay

https://www.thebalance.com/unemploym...y-year-3305506

You're just looking at the headline U3 number. Connecticut has a very bad U6. 8.9%. Massachusetts is 7%. Rhode Island is 7.4%. New Jersey is 7.7%. New York is 8.1%. New Hampshire and Vermont are in the 5's. It's another way of measuring the whole income and wealth stratification problem. The bottom half in Connecticut are doing worse than other states in the region.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

You're just looking at the headline U3 number. Connecticut has a very bad U6. 8.9%. Massachusetts is 7%. Rhode Island is 7.4%. New Jersey is 7.7%. New York is 8.1%. New Hampshire and Vermont are in the 5's. It's another way of measuring the whole income and wealth stratification problem. The bottom half in Connecticut are doing worse than other states in the region.

Source? Jay