Care to gain a little perspective on the recession? Departing Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, Christina Romer gave these remarks to the National Press Club last week. Review Dr. Romer's speech and respond to the following:
1. Do you think the government did too little or too much to counteract the recession?
I think there wouldn't be a recession if the government would have stayed out of it to begin with!!!
ReplyDeleteMacro Economics
ReplyDeleteChenoa McElvain
Jill Harris
9/14/2010
In my opinion,
The government began by doing too little to counteract the recession. Due to a false sense of financial security, federal spending and lending was at an all time high. Although, the fear and reality of inflation was looming over the economy, it was distant and our government was in a sense of denial. The war in Iraq only further contributed to the obscene amount of government spending, worsening our financial state in 2008. When the economy began to collapse the government, to make up for the gap of doing too little, did too much. The counteracts put into position by our government to prevent the economy from collapsing pushed it only further into the financial disaster it is today.
On a side note, the actions taken by Obama to help those who are unemployed or financially suffering due to the economy’s current state have put us in a worse financial situation then we were to begin with. Although, cheaper healthcare, taxes and other reforms were created to help rebuild they are and are ethically desired they are simply draining the small financial backing we have. Now the US lies in trillions of dollars in debt. (One of our debt holders happens to be China the fastest up and coming superpower in the world).
Lori-there are many who agree with you (& of course many who disagree!) We will be exploring the role of government in the economy.
ReplyDeleteChenoa--lots of valid points! We will try to isolate some of the threads you mention as we go through our syllabus.
Bryce Douglas
ReplyDeleteMacroeconomics
With elections approaching in November, the economic recession evoking more emotion than critical analysis and the myriad of unknowns revolving about this crisis, it's difficult to not promptly criticize the conviction behind views that appropriate blame before detailing the decline.
It was very interesting how Christina Romer pointed out that once the recession started to get worse in our country, other countries' economic growth was negatively affected by this as well. There were in fact many countries which economic situations worsen at a faster pace than ours did (pg 4). This only proves that nowadays business is certainly globalized. Therefore every country should always try to make the best decisions which implies to analyze carefully their trades offs before making any moves and to align their self-interest with the social interest. Otherwise bad outcomes will affect the entire planet.
ReplyDeleteThe government has done as much as it can do in order to counteract the recession. After all, like Christina Romer points out: "policy making" and trying to get out of a recession is an extremely hard task to accomplish. It is a process that takes time and good economics that are making the right decisions. So i think that the government has done almost everything that they can do in order to turn things around. For instance, they did pass the Recovery Act which certainly stimulated the economy. However, the government has taken the pragmatic way out in order to solve our economic problems, which has proven to be beneficial or at least less harmful for Americans for the time being. The unemployment rate has decreased, (even though it is still high). But will pragmatic solutions will really positively affect us in the long run?
ReplyDeleteClaudia--I like the way you provided examples to back up your position. Great comments.
ReplyDeleteSpencer Dellhime
ReplyDeleteI believe that the government did too little. I think if they were to stop out sourcing jobs to different countries like India just because they will work for a cheaper price. I feel that people here would work for that same price instead of not working at all which would help people in the recession.
Seth King
ReplyDeletei think the actions takin by our government before this economic collapse is a prime example of too little too late. Following the collapse of the housing market and the number of bad loans given out, the economy was on the verge of collapsing right then, and yet the government was "surprised" by the economic downturn. Instead of partking in the proper studies necessary to moderate an economic disaster such as this one, they were simply happy with saving the money necessary for the reports and hoping that the crash wouldnt be too bad. If Romer's numbers are correct on her post crash policies, i truly feel that the government is on the right track. Now the proper actions are being taken to prevent another crash of this magnitude. Even though these crashes cant be stoppped, the best that the American people can hope for is that our government is prepared for the worst and can act in an economically sound and proper manner.
Chelsea Katsch
ReplyDeleteMacroeconomics
I believe that the government did too little to counteract this recession. I agree with Chenoa that there was too much "ego" and "feeling of security" in the American government. We continued to make excuses and look the other direction while the economy keep spiraling downward. By the time we were able to admit to a recession, it was too late. Now we are in this hole and it's going to take us a little while to get out of it.
On another note, during her statement Romer says that "Policymakers need to find the will to take the steps needed to finish the job and return the American economy to full health, and no one should be blocking essential actions for partisan reasons. " This sentence really stuck out to me - it's like she's telling our government "hey, do your job and fix this"; it's very interesting to me.
It seems to me that the government did in fact take appropriate actions to counteract the recession. The economic downturn was one of gigantic proportion, and rectifying the issue obviously required an extremely comprehensive recovery plan. They did not attempt to take the easy road by investing all spending efforts into one area, but rather diluting the funds into several different ones to create a safety net for multiple economic sectors, while simultaneously building America up for a more stable and sustainable future. The recession was obviously a catastrophe for the American economy, and recent improvements in the situation indicate that federal actions are beginning to be successful in alleviating the effects while preventing another such crash in the future.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the government did do as much as they could to counteract the recession. It stated on page 6 that the President-Elect understood that it was irresponsible to be standing at the edge of a cliff wihtout the safety net that the additonal funds would provide.They also put forth $50 bilion of TARP funds to a range of progrms to help keep responsible home owners in their home. I believe that there was no way for the government to completely solve the recesssion problem quickly, but they didn react to immediately. They were able to get the GDP to rise even though it is not fast enough to get as many jobs as needed. The government obviously does not want their country to fail so I beleive that they are taking the recession very seriously and working their hardest.
ReplyDeleteCaitlin Chisolm
Gustavo Gutierrez
ReplyDeleteThrough history we see that humanity can not control the forces of the market. Humanity is controlled by the forces of the market. Economic bubbles are formed when humans want to gain control of the market and make tremendous amounts of capital in a short period of time. This recession was made by a real state bubble which lacked regulation from the government. Governmental intervention does not prevent recession or economical drops to occur but, governmental intervention does decrease the drop or the speed the recession occurs. The government did not take extreme measures to counteract the recession and in my view it could of done more. Once an economy stops there should be a response of creating new business for the promotion of a running economy. Governmental spending should of decrease in a foreign policy and increased in domestic affairs. Regulation and intervention need to be strong in times of recession.
Meghan Kloeber
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I believe the government has done too much. However, I do believe Romer has a valid point, such as that there is a decrease in demand and that is hurting the economy immensely. I believe Romer was correct when she stated that there needs to be an increase in spending and decrease in taxes. However, I do not believe the Healthcare changes will at all help with the increase in spending because people will not want to be spending when their taxes are being raised and there coverage is being taken away. I know personally that in the coming years I will not be getting the same coverage I currently have, which could harm my life. If you look at England, they have a social healthcare plan and in the last year they have had 270 deaths in the hospital due to their social healthcare because the standard of care has been lowered due to the budgets and the amount of people with inadequate coverage. Just because more people have health care does not mean that we should lower the coverage of the people that already have it, and actually work hard for it. That is a choice; I believe government should not have control over that. Also as Romer stated, there are increases in certain sectors but there are still decreases in other sectors, which does not mean we are improving. I believe we are heading for a “W” recession, meaning we will decrease again before all sectors begin to increase for the better.
I think it is too early to determine whether or not Obama's administration took the necessary actions in trying to drag America out of a recession that is both historically severe and misunderstood. The Government's attempts to stimulate the economy have certainly made progress for the time being. Whether or not Obama's attempts to immediately ease the economy will harm long term economic growth and recovery is still to be seen.
ReplyDeleteBased on Romer's thoughts the gov. did what they could to counteract the recession, but regardless of what action they take there is equal amounts of support and opposition so it is difficult to determine whether they did too much or too little.
ReplyDeleteHannah_Durette
ReplyDeleteI agree with the statement noted on page 10 that if policymakers, scholars, and private analysts can’t discuss design issues, baseline forecasts,etc then I dont know how we will ever become close to creating a managable policy that works.
(Lillian Hensleigh)
ReplyDeleteI have to preface everything I am about to say with the following: I am one of those moronic, self-interested people who do not pay attention to matters that lie outside my immediate field of vision, and the majority of my knowledge of economic and political on-goings comes directly from the few episodes of the Colbert Report that I actually manage to catch. Thus having said that, I can only base my thoughts on the question of whether our government did too little or too much to counteract the recession on what Romer discusses in her speech.
She spent a great deal of time explaining the hardships that governments face when dealing with economic crises because of their unpredictability. The fact that the recession is of a nature that we are unfamiliar with to begin with is what makes it a challenge for the government to act appropriately. I relate this problem to a middle-schooler attempting to solve a college calculus problem. A typical middle-schooler is not equipped with the skills/knowledge necessary to know how to even read a calculus problem let alone solve it; therefore anything they do in an attempt to solve it is ultimately a leap of faith. A leap of faith hopefully guided by some creative and analytical thinking. The best that a person in such a situation could do is to integrate, invent, and apply which is what I believe Romer is saying that the government is and has been doing (with the Recovery Act, the Financial Stability Plan, and the housing and health-care stuff-pardon my ineloquence!).
I agree with Chenoa about the government spending for the war. The costs are indeed too high, but I suppose that is the cost of war. I feel horrible for the people who are unempolyed during this recession, but I also feel like the government is doing its best to help everyone back on their feet again. It isn't like the government wants the recession to happen and everything that comes with it. Recessions are a natural part of economies and getting out of them is difficult. I don't know if the government is doing a good job or a bad job, I just think that they are doing the best job they can.
ReplyDeletemissy utama
Andrew Reed
ReplyDeleteMacro
I believe that the government did too much to counteract the recession. I think the Obama Administration just threw money at the problem instead of trying to fix anything. At a time when we have record debt we do not need to be throwing billions of dollars around. Corporations can now take just as many risky business decisions as they did before because they know if the economy goes belly up again, that the government will be there to rescue them which is wrong. History has shown that mass government intervention is not the solution. Most of the New Deal failed and it took a second New Deal to show any progress. The Obama administration needed to give more tax breaks to all business so that unemployment would not be as bad. I do believe that the Bush Administration did not do enough to counteract it before it even started. Clearly many top minds in this nation saw it coming and the Bush administration should have done something instead of avoiding it. I do believe in stronger regulations in the loan, housing, and banking industries.
Those of you above: great job on this first question. You are reading/listening to others and including others in your own response. It's always powerful to use examples to support positions. For this "test" question, I like what I'm reading and seeing so far...
ReplyDeleteHunter Novak
ReplyDeleteMacroeconomics
Having already experienced a Great Depression in our country nearly 80 years ago, along with other minor collapses, I feel the government should have done more to counteract this most recent recession. I feel this way because government intervention is generally expected to be superior to a hands-off approach. In my opinion the government should have found a more competent way to utilize government spending. Also, alluding to what Christina D. Romer wrote, "Policymakers should also take sensible actions to increase confidence," (Romer 13). Sometimes all a country needs is to have a little bit of confidence instilled in its people to hinder the possibility of a recession.
It is in my opinion that the government and President Obama did attempt to counteract this recession as soon as they could. However, the effort and plan was there to create a stimulus package to boost the economy has not quit “paid” off just yet; though its safe to say the economy would be much worse without it. The results of the stimulus package are just not up to the standards of the general public. That skepticism underscores the challenge Obama faces in trying to convince the public that the stimulus has helped turns the economy around. It also could complicate the administration's plans to overhaul the nation's health care system.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion...
ReplyDeleteMacroeconomic policy creation intertwines with the like of political economy and therefore is a multifaceted issue sensitive to historical perspective, social consequences (intended and unintended), as well as sheer economic indicators (GDP, unemployment, ect). The current recession’s all encompassing nature failed to be forecasted for the most part by economists. As a result, reaction was bereft of the scope of the problem as the extent to which economic downturn was unforeseen. In the midst of a bipartisan Congress, the $700 billion stimulus package itself is an anomaly. As Romer mentioned, by the time the stimulus package had passed the rise of unemployment merely served to adumbrate a far more colossal catastrophe than that for which the package had been designed. It would be just peachy to say “we should have done...”; however, one must acknowledge the lack of economic indicator’s dictating what was to come. Keynesian economic policy prevented a second Great Depression, but if one could traverse the landscape of time perhaps greater regulatory actions could have been taking on the process of packaging mortgages and selling them as securities, higher interest rates perhaps could have quelled overexpansion, and incentives for firms to stay staffed (in the form of tax cuts, deductions, grants, ect).
…But, that is a guess. Macroeconomics is a craps shoot, even when striving to break even.
Connor Evans
(well of course I would loose everything I was typing :) )
ReplyDeleteAlyona Kostenkova
I found interesting what Spencer said about brining the jobs back to America. Honestly, I don't think that will sit well with the people. If you were unemployed, and you were offered the exact same job for like a dollar an hour would you take it? Those food stamps sound way more appealing to me, especially because the cost of living is so high here, your "new" job would feel like a waste of time. Having to choose between such low paying jobs, and maybe another source of income, such as prostitution or drugs, I think the latter will win hands down. Which of course is another reason we can't get rid of prostitution and brothels, there will always be those willing to pay for such services. I think people might also be afraid of accepting such low paying jobs. If the majority of people were on the same page, and were willing to work for such ridiculous wages, then i think it would be hard to get out of that. For you will have to hold on to your job, like in "The Jungle" because there will be thousands of other people to accept it if you are not happy with what you got. This is of course an extreme side, but it could happen if everyone was willing to work for such low wages. :)
Jessie Gunther
ReplyDeleteI believe our government has done too much to counteract this recession. Our government tends to just throw money into the economy, which is not always a bad thing. But the government created projects like Romer suggested (ex. electric grid, or a high-speed rail network) these projects would generate the jobs needed to cut back unemployment. Also the government should encourage spending, buying products, consuming goods, these thing would have a positive effect on the economy. Our government needs to do less and let the natural economic cycle occur.
the government has done too much to counteract the recession. in response to jordan, the $800 billion stimulus package did not positively affect the economy. stimulus checks were sent out to increase spending. spending did not go up because people were worried about tax increases. there was more saving than spending going on. the increase in an already extreme national debt has increased. and as Chenoa mentioned earlier a large sum is owed to china which could hurt the economy in the future. john taylor(economics prof. at stanford) says there is no evidence that stimulus helped the economy. he says the programs that they targeted were not helped. tody, many people in the government are still pushing for tax increases which would also have a negative affect on the economy. the government acted with too much force in the matter.
ReplyDeleteCara Swearingen
ReplyDeleteI think the government did what they thought was necessary at the time. I don’t think anyone could have predicted what was going to happen to the economy, or the extent that it did happen. Looking back now there are definitely things that they could have done better, but we know this because hindsight is always twenty-twenty. So I can say that I wish the government would have been proactive rather than reactive to the situation, but I didn’t expect that to be the case.
One comment that really stood out to me said something along the lines of “policy makers should take sensible actions.” Let me just take the time to say I hope they are taking sensible actions all of the time, even though it seems that is one of the most recurring reminders in this piece.
After reading this article and some of the comments that people have left, i too believe that in many ways the Obama administration attempted to find a quick fix to the recession by simply throwing money at our economic problems. Rather than actually investigating deeper as to what could be done to create a long term solution and create a more stable long term economy, we simply gave out a stimulus package looking for a quick fix. In Spencer's comment above i thought he had an interesting idea about putting an end to the outsourcing of jobs to other countries. I think that this is an interesting idea that could be very effective in decreasing the unemployment rates in today's economy and a direction in which the government could turn in their search for a solution to our economic problems. All in all i feel that the government could have done more to counteract the recession and could have taken more calcuated and direct steps to pull our economy out of such an economic crisis.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the government has and will continue to do everything it can to put an end to the recession. Christina Romer had some assuring points regarding just what Obama and his administration have done to neutralize the recession since he took office. By not blocking the release of the second tranche of TARP funds it was clear that Obama was willing to do what was necessary even if his actions were “deeply unpopular”. The task at hand is not a quick fix by any means, and I feel that the government is aiming for an answer that involves long term stability and steady recovery. Obama’s pragmatic approach is structured to improve the economy through “state fiscal relief and tax cuts for working families” (pg.5). It is clear that the economy is taking major strides in the right direction, however there is still much work to be done and I still feel that the pragmatic approach is the right approach.
ReplyDeleteI believe our government didn't do everything they could to stay out of the recession we are in now but now that we are in one they are doing everything they can to get us out of it. I think they are looking for a a more stable solution that will work in the long run, rather than a quick fix. I like how they are doing stuff that is targeting the people who are suffering the most from this recession and that is middle class Americans and small business owners by doing things such as giving middle class Americans tax cuts.
ReplyDeletei think the recession happened because the reforms we had put in after the great depression in order for that not to happen again were taken out. this was done during Clinton's presidency without his knowledge, i think the current government is doing a great job dealing with this, but there is only so much they can do.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the government did both to much, to little, and just the right amount with helping with the recession. I think the government did a great job with the acts that they put into order. The acts did help with some of the recession but not a ton to get us back on our feet. I think that the government did to little with the acts and should have tried a different approach to helping with the recession. The problem is the country has not gone thru a recession like this before so the government had no clue how to approach it. I think this is a learning experience for the government and everybody. I do think the government did not to do a good job with handing out money to the different companies and etc. I think in some places they made it worse and others they made it better. I believe that the government should help a little with the recession but mostly the economy needs to work itself out.
ReplyDeleteKathleen Porter
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jessie. The idea of the "invisible hand" should allow the government to step back a bit and allow personal interests to take over and make its own corrections. The inflation rate is a definite problem and if it raises any more we are looking at serious consequences (as mentioned in the beginning by Chenoa) such as the possiblity of taking a back seat to China's economy boom. The government attempted to take things into its own hands and deal with it in a very "straight forward" manner, but the outcome didn't go according to plan. I think that if the government were to step back a bit and let the cycle correct itself we would be better off in the long run. However, we do need to take note of how things became this way and in doing so learn what to stay clear of in the future.
Whether or not the government took the appropriate actions to end the recession is still up in the air, and is something only time will tell. the problem is that the government waited for far too long to take action against the recession. a panicked and hurriedly put together stimulus package was far too little too late. this recession was something that experts should have seen coming, and should have better planned for it.
ReplyDeleteAlyson Smith
ReplyDeleteThe government did everything within its power to counteract the recession. Many brilliant minds were put to the task of restoring our economy. However, there is only so much they can do; a lot of forces are out of their control. They can throw money at various companies all they want but it won’t increase demand, which is what the economy needs to start climbing again. As Christina Romer says, "the only surefire ways for policymakers to substantially increase aggregate demand in the short run are for the government to spend more and tax less."
In all honesty, I think the government has probably done too much, but everyone was very freaked out by the recession so it is understandable that they took very drastic measures to counter act it. I'm sure any administration would have done the same given circumstance. They were really just trying to avoid another depression so desperate times call for desperate measure. I agree with many when it is said that the government should encourage spending. I agree also that the government should have seen this coming and done something sooner.
ReplyDeleteI think the government did too much to counteract the recession. I believe this due to the words of Mr. Adam Smith and his thoughts on basic economic principles. The invisible hand which self-regulates the nature of the free market and how the economy is a cycle. Such as the Tea Party's opinions on how the government should not be so involved and the individual should bear much of the responsibility, I believe this statement in regards to the economy. The government tried bailing out the banks, even though it saved many large banks from failing, and putting the stimulus plan in to place set the country back, increased spending and put it in even more debt. It seems as though the government used a piece of gum to fix the dam rather than trying to reconstruct it.
ReplyDeleteT.J. Farley
ReplyDeleteAlthough there have been many positive attempts to control the current recession, I think the entire effort can be summed up in the first paragraph of page 8 of Romer's statement. The unemployment rate is still a very pressing issue, and has become quite unpredictable, as Romer has said herself. Although the attempts to fix the current recession are a step in the right direction, I believe bigger actions will need to taken in order to completely fix all the aspects of the recession.
I suppose that the government did too much to counteract the recession because they didn't leave up to their own expectations. For example, the paper said that $226 billion of additional temporary recovery measures in 2011 budget and congress has allocated funds to stop hiring teachers and pass the HIRE tax credit. (p.11) So it hurts the economy in the end.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it true that trade-offs exist for every decision? Does everyone see how this one economic concept/big idea is so powerful? As we move forward in our course, over and over again this idea of opportunity cost will be in the middle of our conversations.
ReplyDeleteDavid McCall
ReplyDeleteThe government is obligated to do everything within it's power to stabilize the American economy. I believe there should be more government oversight on where relief money goes and how it is spent. The American people are going to be cautious when it comes to spending their money. The people want to feel safe knowing their jobs are secure and the appropriate measures are taken to maintain interest rates and government spending. It's necessary for the government to be active during a recession because a problem as big as this one cannot be solved overnight.
I feel like the government is trying to regulate the market too much. It prevents the markets from regulating themselves, the basic idea if lassize faire. However in the private sectors where government has little involvement they are steadily increasing in their revenues and employment rates why? Because the government is not regulating them as heavily as the public sectors.
ReplyDeleteI think that we did do "too much" and I also think we could have changed and re-prioritized our focus of problems. This is why.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found most interesting about this article and the strongest point that needs to be recognized is that many decisions made by the U.S tend to be very pragmatic. Just after a month of the recession, we already jumped into big solutions, such as The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, without thinking ahead. As stated in the article, $90 billion was spent for clean energy. Initially we can think that clean energy means less money leaving the country for oil, renewable energy that will cost less and less money spent. But this could be counter intuitive. The consequence could be the loss of american energy jobs such as nuclear plants, coal mines, and oil companies. I believe creating jobs is the stimulus of our economy, taking jobs away does not help. Don't get me wrong, I am an environmental Science Major, but this doesn't mean I am going to have someone lose a job for every tree I save. Economics are intertwined with everything and must be considered when making a decision.
Going back to what a lot of people have said earlier, I believe that the invisible hand and the natural cycle of our economy exists. This being, we did do too much by bailing out banks and increasing spending and prices of necessary commodities. The economy will eventually solve itself out, but it won't come without a price, as America may not be at the top of the world very soon. This is why we need to evaluate what we need and act accordingly to keep people working and content. Instead of overacting and doing a hundred different things at once, we can focus on one large thing such as a high speed railroad network as mentioned in the article. California's prop 1b is promising to do this. It will save time lost from traffic, ease the horrible smog, and create jobs to build it and an entire new network of jobs when it is finished. Ideas and innovation like this is the way to go instead of throwing money at companies who don't need or deserve to be bailed out.
-Kevin Cornell
I agree with many of the comments saying we need to keep the jobs in the USA. Instead of exporting all jobs we should bring them back to the US and build more factories. That will cut down on the people who want to work but cannot find a job. I also think the government needs to step in and regulate welfare more. I have no problem with welfare but I personally feel there should be a drug test to stay on the program. These people are just sitting at home not working and just blowing their money. If the government actually tried to do something big it might change a thing or two for all of us.
ReplyDeleteJack
But doesn't opportunity cost measure differently for different people. In other words, might a trade-off that seems reasonable to one person be an unacceptable one to another. So thus, wouldn't this discrepancy between personal "tastes & preferences" mean that how people respond to the question above reflect (in an abstract way) not only their own opportunity costs, but also maybe even their economic status. Therefore, how we each judge the degree of the governments involvement is directly related to how we are personally impacted by the recession, which to me renders our opinions somewhat biased and (perhaps) meaningless?? I'm a bit confused on how on earth we can realistically answer the question fairly.
ReplyDeleteI think the government did the amount they could possibly do. Either way the people would not have been satisfied by the governments efforts. I blame the people if anything over the greed that we as a nation can not control. Maybe if we had not been living above our means, the recession could have ended a lot sooner.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, and as Romer stated, the government naturally did everything they saw fit to get us out of the recession. That being said, I think that the government didn't do enough. It is their job to manage the economy and so with unemployment rising, they still have more work to do.
ReplyDeleteI feel that if the president just sat back and did less, the same doubting fingers would just be pointing in the opposite direction, criticizing the government for not doing enough. We should realize that the President does not want to be in a recession either, and is probably doing everything that he possibly can to get us out of it.
I believe that the government and president Obama did take some positive steps toward recovering from the recession. However I do believe we should be a little more concerned with what will happen long term. I like how they are trying to help out the middle class by giving tax cuts, but i believe that we really need to be focusing on reducing the unemployment because as Romer said, it is still at an unacceptable level.
ReplyDeleteI think the government did all that they could to help with the recession. Some might argue that they spent money in areas we didn't need to, or put too much money into our war in Iraq, but the government can only control so much of our economy. Supply and demand was huge issue with our recession with the demand for things being so high and not enough to go around or a surplus of supplies that were being demanded in large amounts. I think the government did all they could to help with the recession when we look at long term repercussions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gustavo....
ReplyDeleteI feel Humanity is controlled by the market. For example, when the market crashed the economy flipped out. With the false loans banks were giving out to people who could not afford to pay off, i feel thats a good example of how people are controlled. Simply by the people thinking it was 'ok' to take these loans out and have the banks miscalculate the afordability to pay them off. The people were controlled, not so much controlled but eager (if you will) to purhase things, htat the economy knew could not be paid back as quickly.
I believe the Gov. did in fact do all they could to help with the recession there were just some aspects of it that they had no control over.
ReplyDelete--Oakford Gross