What Could Have Been

A recent report shows how government intervention helped avert 'Great Depression 2.0.'

October 10, 2010
/ PRINT / ShareShare / Text Size +

Has government action hurt or helped the economic recovery?

With fast-approaching elections, critiques of the government’s response to the financial crisis are increasingly critical. These critiques are likely to shape election outcomes and will greatly influence future policy responses, the economic environment, and credit union operations.

Difficulties abroad (especially the European sovereign debt crisis) and challenges at home (a sputtering economic recovery) have cemented the view, for some, that the policy response to the Great Recession was a big mistake. Critics view the response as ineffective, misguided, or both. Extremely weak labor market growth makes it easier for detractors to argue that policy makers bailed out Wall Street and essentially ignored Main Street.

Another view considers how close to complete economic meltdown we were as the crisis grew. In a recent report, “How the Great Recession Was Brought to an End,” economists Alan Blinder of Princeton University (and a former Federal Reserve vice chairman) and Mark Zandi, of Moody’s Analytics, attempt to measure what “could have been.”

Blinder and Zandi find that the aggressive, bipartisan response to the financial crisis probably prevented a depression by significantly slowing the decline in gross domestic product (GDP), saving about 8.5 million jobs, and preventing the devastating effects of a deflationary spiral.

Policies including the government fiscal stimulus, bailouts of financial companies, bank stress tests, and the Fed’s purchase of mortgage-backed securities to lower interest rates probably averted “Great Depression 2.0,” Blinder and Zandi note.

Their analysis shows if the Bush and Obama administrations hadn’t acted, GDP would have been -7.4% in 2009 and -3.7% this year. Instead, the 2009 contraction was only -2.4%, and they suggest GDP will grow 2.9% in 2010.

The unemployment rate, they reckon, would have averaged 11.2% in 2009, 15.2% this year, and 16.3% in 2011, without the aggressive government response. Instead, the annual averages will remain below 10% in each of those years. Their modeling suggests that lacking government intervention, by the time employment hit bottom, 16.6 million U.S. jobs would have been lost—about twice as many as actually were lost.

The much-maligned $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) played a significant role in preventing a collapse of the U.S. financial system, they add. In addition to restoring stability to the financial system, TARP helped end the free fall in the auto and housing sectors. Blinder and Zandi estimate the cost to taxpayers will be a small fraction of the amount initially granted by Congress (probably less than $100 billion), with the bank-bailout portion of TARP likely to turn a profit.

The government’s equity investments in large banks were necessary to end panic and the recession, they add. And the Fed’s stress tests on big banks essentially ended the financial panic.

Collectively, the cost of these programs has been high. Government debt as a percentage of GDP is near modern-day highs, an issue that must be resolved. But attempts to solve that problem (either through higher tax rates or lower government spending) would be ill-advised at this point.

In fact, with the economy still weak, more government support might be needed. To keep the recovery on track, the Obama administration will attempt to extend former President Bush’s tax cuts for families making as much as $250,000 a year, while phasing in increases for those earning more.

Blinder and Zandi paint a grim but largely accurate picture of what could have happened without the substantial policy response during the crisis. But serious risks remain.

While depression has been averted, voters—many of whom continue to hunt for jobs—will play a big role in future policy response (or nonresponse). A vote for decreased government spending at this critical time could weaken the recovery. And it could slow the recent improvement of credit union operating results.

MIKE SCHENK is vice president, economics and statistics, for the Credit Union National Association. Contact him at 608-231-4228.

Nationalizing Entire Industries is Better than a Recession?

David Proffitt
October 18, 2010 2:29 pm
I cannot agree that government takeover of industries such as GM, Chrysler, etc. have stopped the recession. That is not nor was it ever the fucntion of the US government to have the power to do this. In the long run it will suppress growth and economic freedom even if it has helped in the short run. Cash for Clunkers, etc and the like are all economic childs play.

Was there merit in TARP, there is postive and negative examples that can be given. Nontheless, I cannot agree the stimlus package is an ingredient that has stopped the recession. The package was and is misspending for silly projects for every example that may have been justified. The stimulus was a pet projects christmas time all around the country that we has increased the debt and deficients to irrepairiable levels.

Has the recession stopped growing? I hope so but we are not out of it; we at barely off the bottom of the ocean floor. Can more govenment spending actually cause the economy grow again? It cannot not bring real growth for the most people.

I cannot agree witht the premise of this article and regret that CUNA supports it. I have heard no CEO's in credit unions support this theory. I know I don't.

Flag Comment as Offensive

Post a comment to this story


What's Popular

Popular Stories

Recent Discussion

Great article! Unfortunately, most employees don’t feel valued or appreciated by their supervisors or employers. In fact, research has shown that the predominant reason team members quit their jobs is because they don’t feel valued. This is in spite of the fact that employee recognition programs have proliferated in the workplace – over 90% of all organizations in the U.S. has some form of employee recognition activities in place. But most employee recognition programs are viewed with skepticism and cynicism – because they aren’t viewed as being genuine in their communication of appreciation. Getting the “employee of the month” award, receiving a certificate of recognition, or a “Way to go, team!” email just don’t get the job done. How do you communicate authentic appreciation? We have found people have different ways that they want to be shown appreciation, and if you don’t communicate in the language of appreciation important to them, you essentially “miss the mark”. Additionally, employees need to receive recognition more than once a year at their performance review. Otherwise, they view the praise as “going through the motions”. A third component of authentic appreciation is that the communication has to be about them personally – not the department, not their group, but something they did. Finally, they have to believe that you mean what you say. How you treat them has to match the words you use. If you are not sure how your team members want to be shown appreciation, the Motivating By Appreciation Inventory ( will identify the language of appreciation and specific actions preferred by each employee. You then can create a group profile for your team, so everyone knows how to encourage one another. Remember, employees want to know that they are valued for what they contribute to the success of the organization. And communicating authentic appreciation in the ways they desire it can make the difference between keeping your quality team members or having a negative work environment that everyone wants to leave. Paul White, Ph.D., is the co-author of The 5 Languages of Appreciation in the Workplace with Dr. Gary Chapman.

Your Say: Who should be Credit Union Magazine's 2014 CU Hero of the Year?

View Results Poll Archive