2008 Financial Crisis: The Government Response financial crisis 2008

by wghhvcQADjhg



Have we fixed the problems that created the most recent boom and bust? How have government interventions in the economy altered the expectations of individuals moving forward? How does government debt affect the economy as a whole? These questions, along with many others, are answered by historian Stephen Davies.

See also  B.Com V Semester Accounting For Management-Chapter 3- Part-5 (മലയാളം ) financial accounting chapter 3

Watch more videos: .

Images related to the topic financial crisis 2008

2008 Financial Crisis: The Government Response

2008 Financial Crisis: The Government Response

Search related to the topic 2008 Financial Crisis: The Government Response

#Financial #Crisis #Government #Response
2008 Financial Crisis: The Government Response
financial crisis 2008
See all the latest ways to make money online: See more here
See all the latest ways to make money online: See more here

See also  Financial Analysis of Two Publicly Traded Companies financial analysis of a company

You may also like

34 comments

John Ellis Truman 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

The problem isn't the system but rather who controls them. A monetary policy if applied well can be immensely benefiting in combating inflation

Reply
Joe 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

What would be some risks that banks are taking now that they wouldn't take if there was no bailout options?

Reply
maleman julpax 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

Philippines has this protectionist economic policy where foreigners or foreign companies can own only up to 40% and Philippines sends 6k workers/day abroad;thus, the Philippines economic mystery. please make a case examples Philippines economic frauds.

Reply
Ian Moffet 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

Could you guys do a video explaining the 2008 recession, the causes and affects?

Reply
rd f 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

I've been wondering how the USA has been able to get away with its enormous debt problem for so long. Even Dick Cheney once said, "… Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." I believe what Reagan REALLY showed us is NOT that deficits don't matter, but that deficits don't matter as much, as long as there is spectacular growth of wealth, as there was during and after Reagan's era. Now that the Washington bureaucrats have strangled the economy's wealth growth to death, I believe we may finally have the chickens come home to roost, to use Obama's racist preacher's phrase. When the disaster comes, this will be great for power hungry politicians who will blame the markets in order to gain even more power. I fear for our future.

Reply
Ben F 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

Genius, just genius! You guys are the go to for economics videos!

Reply
CapitalismPrevails 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

Except it has flaws which got us here in the first place. How about adding amendments to remedy the problem.
Amendment 1. Ban government borrowing from foreign & central banks.
Amendment 2. Mandate a cut & dry 100% reserve monetary system(equity based) so people are more n touch w/ finance.
Amendment 3. Budget must be balanced in peacetime.
Amendment 4. Each congressman can be recalled by his/her party voters mid term & replaced by another party member to enhance accountability.

Reply
Ano Nymous 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

Greed made people spending money on Ponzi mortgage scheme and government helped to encourage them. Instead of letting the bubble spread and busts on those who made their choices including wealthy corporations and financial institutions government broke the balance by stepping in and saying their guarantee something… well u can see now they dont guarantee a damn nothing only that they will backup those who helped them to be elected – corporations!

Reply
Jason Gilliland 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

At least in a Ponzi scheme, you could refuse to invest. Social Security just takes your money anyway.

Reply
Systema Sephiroticum 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

Deepwater oil rigs are less than 1/100th of those currently stationed in the gulf, so why is the decision to drill between the state and the oil company, and not the population of the state who actually suffers when something goes wrong? Such resources should really be nationalized, but that's another story.

Reply
Systema Sephiroticum 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

Our core disagreement here, I think, is that you want our courts and our shareholders to be the arbiters, whereas I think we need to address our lack of transparency (or a functioning democracy, really) so that our regulators are actually accountable. I expect some actual public input into the decisions of oil companies working in U.S. territory.

Reply
Systema Sephiroticum 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

"the individual actors and those funding them are personally responsible, and leave the companies, the shareholders and the insurers to figure out what constitutes reasonable precaution" The shareholders of course opt for minimal precaution because, aside from a tiny PR hiccup (that cleans up after a couple months and would never affect an oil giant in the long term), they don't have to pay a fucking dime when anything goes wrong! Same deal the world over, be it Nicaragua, Nigeria or the US.

Reply
Systema Sephiroticum 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

when the risks are far greater, and there clearly has been no attempt to push the line in dealing with the concurrent disasters? Why not put an indefinite moratorium on deepwater drilling when a disaster clearly cannot be handled? What I don't understand is how content you are with the way things are currently, where everything is "resolved" in court and the shareholders have the ultimate say.

Reply
Systema Sephiroticum 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

Arctic marinelife populations and the everglades both are irreversibly damaged, all because we left environmental safety decisions to the so-called free market.

You can't blame "every conceivable technical and human error problem" when what went wrong not only happened during the Ixtoc spill in '79, but all the failed follow-up techniques to address Deepwater Horizon were the EXACT same as those attempted in Ixtoc.So why should a corporation be allowed to drill in deepwater when

Reply
Systema Sephiroticum 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

"'just sue BP' is the closest thing there's ever been to a functioning mode of environmental protection."

Sure, if you define "functioning protection" as a glacial legal system wherein the damage is long done before the court date is even reached, liability is estimated based on how much oil was spilled (encouraging wonton dumping of dispersants), and the recompense is piddly: the Exxon-Valdez damages were whittled down from 10 to 2-3 billion by the supreme court.

Reply
John Smith 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

Jesus christ someone get Obama to watch at least ONE of these videos.

Reply
Systema Sephiroticum 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

So your argument is that, due to FAILURE of regulation by corrupt government, we should avoid addressing issues of corruption and instead shun regulation: companies like BP should be able to dump millions of gallons of harmful dispersant into the water, should be able to drill anywhere they want regardless of risk, and should be able to evade any need for redress of public grievance. Don't try to claim the public should "just sue BP", you know it's not feasible in our so-called justice system.

Reply
Systema Sephiroticum 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

Insufficient is your word, not mine, and not an apt descriptor for the LACK of regulation (dead man's switch) we saw with the BP spill. It seems you'd prefer there were no regulators–you don't trust the government, so you're vesting full trust in corporations to do the right thing when their actions are determined by shareholders rather than any of the people their policies affect. Is a collection of private tyrannies motivated by greed better than a regulatory agency representing the public?

Reply
Systema Sephiroticum 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

How does anything you're saying contradict anything that I've been saying?" I guess I could pick out this part–"If you believe that even more power would have prevented that incident" The core of our discussion thus far is that little to no power has been exercised at all to resist or regulate these scoundrels. I expect regulators to regulate. The BP spill showcases not a failure of the concept of regulation, but rather, a testament to the current lack thereof. See blowout preventer example.

Reply
Systema Sephiroticum 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

"the BP incident happened even though there were controls in place." This actually isn't true–devices such as the "dead man's switch" which are required in Brazil and across europe were made unnecessary in deregulatory efforts during the Bush administration. It should be noted how friendly BP's relationship is with this administration–the coast guard even enforced BP's rules to keep journalists away from affected areas by threat of several years' jailtime or $40,000+ penalties..

Reply
Systema Sephiroticum 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

are being observed in sealife. Why don't we default to looking into the toxicity of chemicals like corexit before we drop millions of gallons of them into the ocean?
Regulation is needed because industry, as we have seen, will NOT act in the common good. If corporations like BP are people, they're psychopaths, and society needs to be protected from them.

Reply
Systema Sephiroticum 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

the dispersant Corexit, which is itself destructive but makes a death-sludge of sorts when mixed with oil, to hide the oil footprint to which they're accountable for damages. The FDA was never even required to see if this item's safe for humans because such an investigation would need to be requested by the entity that makes the chemical to begin with, as if that would ever happen. Now infant mortality and cancer rates are up all along the coastline, and hideous mutations

Reply
Systema Sephiroticum 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

I don't agree that the corruption of regulators is an example of why regulation doesn't work. The failure of regulation is what got us into this mess to begin with. Instead of doing away with regulation and allowing a private company to destroy our natural resources, why don't we the people have the power to disallow a revolving door between regulatory bodies and industry?
What more power is there, you ask? For one, a huge amount of the damage to the environment was the usage of

Reply
Systema Sephiroticum 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

"We still have a political class that is involved in manipulating the system to its own ends." Wow, what a humorous inversion of reality. Rather, we have a system that manipulates our political infrastructure to its own ends. A government is at worst only a vehicle for the whims of private industry at the expense of all else. A government is at best our collective will against moneyed interests that wish to exploit us. But the way you present things, unregulated industry is our best friend. BS.

Reply
daPlumber702 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

@LORDNARCISSUS even in Boeing's case there are arguments to be made that they would have done what they did anyway without any subsidies/help from the government. And an even better argument to be made that if they didn't it would be because there would have been another better company to do it first and Boeing just wouldn't have been needed then. The same argument could be made for most things down to roads.. though I would give that smaller roads/upkeep might be needed. might.

Reply
Poptart 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

@rogerthetaxdodger if you increase government spending, you decrease consumption due to an increase in taxes. However, in reality government just borrows more and doesn't increase taxes… so, yes, in effect increasing G would increase GDP. It works because Government debt is like free money … They can borrow almost as much as they want and ignore the future time bomb when it would have to be paid back.

Reply
Poptart 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

@daPlumber702 that was sarcasm about the farming subsidies. However, I think that spending such as what the US did for Boeing helped get their foot in the airline industry. I am cautious to say that ALL spending is ineffective. However, about 99% of it probably is.

Reply
daPlumber702 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

@LORDNARCISSUS

I'm not sure if I got your comment right nor not. (Sarcasm is a hell of a thing over the interwebs) but if you were sincere about the farming subsidies then you can apply that to just about anything. Keynes was just plain wrong. He failed to understand that no one will spend another person's money as carefully as they will spend their own. NO ONE.

Reply
Poptart 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

@daPlumber702 Ur right! I think the only time this works is exactly when that moron goes out and puts the money in an industry that has a high barrier to entry and it is a first mover. This is investment in innovation for key industries and it would create jobs for us. However, the reality is that money is put into things such as farming subsidies?! because that of course, makes everyone better off. not.

Reply
daPlumber702 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

@MartyrofCake go get yourself 100 dollars, or rubles or whatever you use.. Give it to the first guy you see on the street, and tell him to go spend it somewhere. If it makes you richer, his spending your hundred dollars.. then yeah, Keynes was correct. However if you're living in the real world, and all you've done is given away 100 bucks then fuck, I guess the guy was a moron huh?

Reply
qingyuan li 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

@13lackLight ? what was that for? read my 2nd comment?

Reply
TacticalCitySlicker 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

The Treasury does have a "Money Tree" it's called the FED, but he fed can't create more "wealth" which is the important distinction.

Reply
Sam Hamilton 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

One trillion dollars = spending one million dollars per day for 2700 YEARS – WITH MONEY LEFT OVER!!!

The debt deal is a joke, the federal government is an out of control Leviathan and it's time to crash the system and start over.

The new starting point? The Constitution. It's an incredible document that's been ignored for way too long.

Reply
kopackjm 25/09/2021 - 2:30 PM

@thekswervedirt lol. NEVAR!!!

Reply

Leave a Comment