no 9-11 attack and bush tax cut what are effect on the 2008 recession

many structural issues contributed to 2008 recession exp ultra low interest rate and financial deregulation and housing bubble

al gore win in Florida because socialist Monica Moorehead of the workers world party don't run in Florida. Monica had 1800 vote in 2000 election Florida. in OTL gore lost Florida by 537 votes.

what if 2008 recession came earlier in 2006-2007?
 
Around 2000, I worked for a chain of furniture stores. The whole philosophy was "Sell, Baby, Sell!" Sell any way you can. Sure, there was some rules of ethics, but the only thing you'd really get in trouble for was not meeting your numbers.

I suspect it's the same in selling mortgages, especially once a profitable re-sale market developed.

======

But Al Gore is not that likely to re-visit a Clinton era "success" of de-regulating financial markets.
 
The effect would be minimal. All of the structural issues that created the crisis had fallen into place by the 2000 election. This would be the Glass-Steagall repeal, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, the surpluses in Asia and the Middle East, the appointment of Alan Greenspan as Federal Reserve Chairman and thus his interest rate policies, and demographic shifts that meant banks had to loan mortgages to credit risks in order to have raw materials for derivatives.

Gore as POTUS doesn't change any of that.
 
But we don't have deficits as big from the Bush tax cuts, and thus can run more Keynesian economics in response. Which in my book is very much is the best medicine for a serious downturn.

Including tax cuts after the crisis when a Republican is most likely elected in 2008!
 

Deleted member 1487

The effect would be minimal. All of the structural issues that created the crisis had fallen into place by the 2000 election. This would be the Glass-Steagall repeal, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, the surpluses in Asia and the Middle East, the appointment of Alan Greenspan as Federal Reserve Chairman and thus his interest rate policies, and demographic shifts that meant banks had to loan mortgages to credit risks in order to have raw materials for derivatives.

Gore as POTUS doesn't change any of that.
While that is true I think you're leaving out the huge impact the Bush SEC had on Wall Street, plus of course the flood of extra investment cash that came with the tax cuts (and will again if Trump gets his).
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877320,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/business/worldbusiness/20iht-prexy.4.16321064.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7814704.stm


No Iraq, no Bush regulatory system and spending push, and no tax cuts keep the extra investment money and stock price boom down so the bubble doesn't happen nearly as much. What could happen is a mortibund economy unless Gore invests in infrastructure spending or something worthwhile.
 

Hunter W.

Banned
I am horrified to think of a Republican President's response to the 2008 recession and housing collapse, it could ultimately end up with a Democrat winning in 2012 considering the Tea-Party movement etc etc.
We must also ask will the prosperity and economic boom in the 1990's continue on into the 21'st century because the U.S. did have a surplus from 1999 - 2002 when George W. Bush launched the United States into a every expanding debt hole.
 
While that is true I think you're leaving out the huge impact the Bush SEC had on Wall Street, plus of course the flood of extra investment cash that came with the tax cuts (and will again if Trump gets his).
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877320,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/business/worldbusiness/20iht-prexy.4.16321064.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7814704.stm


No Iraq, no Bush regulatory system and spending push, and no tax cuts keep the extra investment money and stock price boom down so the bubble doesn't happen nearly as much. What could happen is a mortibund economy unless Gore invests in infrastructure spending or something worthwhile.

Bush technically responsible because things happened on his watch, but the actual behaviors described there in terms of pushing mortgages on poor and minority families began under Clinton (I would reread that BBC article in particular). There's no reason to believe Gore would have acted any differently if he had been elected.

The key deregulation measures that muzzled the SEC were the Glass-Steagall Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. The Glass-Steagall Act broke down the preexisting walls of separation between insurance companies, investment banks, and commercial banks and led to excessive leveraging that ended up short-circuiting Lehman and Bear when their short-term loan sources dried up. The CFMA removed the SEC's ability to treat credit default swaps and other instruments as securities, which sharply limited their ability to regulate them.

Both of those were signed into law by Bill Clinton with bipartisan support.

One of the things worth considering is that there was tremendous political pressure on Washington to push home ownership and easy credit because wages were stagnant during the 2000s, so low interest rates, NINJA loans, and no-questions mortgages were a way to fill in for that. I don't see any reason why Gore's policies would make wages grow more. In the scenario you posit (a mortibund economy unless Gore stimulates through infrastructure spending or whatever), the pressure would actually be much greater on him to push those things than it was on Bush.

It would have ended up being the same.
 
...
One of the things worth considering is that there was tremendous political pressure on Washington to push home ownership and easy credit because wages were stagnant during the 2000s, so low interest rates, NINJA loans, and no-questions mortgages were a way to fill in for that. ....

My perspective is local, but I saw large numbers of middle class over buying & over leveraging their income/assests on housing in excess of their needs. Investment in single family homes as rentals or conversion to apartments in a overbuilt market was sucking income/assets into a sector that had little future due to over building. These were middle class Boomers & Gen X investing too large a portion of their income/assests in a relatively risky real-estate sector.
 
If 9/11 doesn't happen you just A.) Changed the entire 21st century, and B.) The recession doesn't happen to begin with because there's no war effort to support.
 
My perspective is local, but I saw large numbers of middle class over buying & over leveraging their income/assests on housing in excess of their needs. Investment in single family homes as rentals or conversion to apartments in a overbuilt market was sucking income/assets into a sector that had little future due to over building. These were middle class Boomers & Gen X investing too large a portion of their income/assests in a relatively risky real-estate sector.

That was an issue, too. Average people who didn't understand the market or didn't have good finances made a ton of irresponsible real estate purchases. The banks have the biggest responsibility because they never should have made the loans in the first place, but man, nobody was acting responsibly in the early-mid 2000s.
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7814704.stm

Page last updated 7 January 2009

" . . . And credit default swaps, those multi-billion-dollar bets on other people going bust, went virtually unregulated. . . "

" . . . The mortgage finance company Fannie Mae was also being used to fulfil its mission of helping low income homeowners . . . "
I guess I question BBC.

The first is probably pro forma regulation, rather than no regulation.

And for the second, Fannie Mae was probably required to show either numerical progress or good faith efforts, with this second pretty easy to show.
 
Last edited:
I am horrified to think of a Republican President's response to the 2008 recession and housing collapse, it could ultimately end up with a Democrat winning in 2012 considering the Tea-Party movement etc etc.
We must also ask will the prosperity and economic boom in the 1990's continue on into the 21'st century because the U.S. did have a surplus from 1999 - 2002 when George W. Bush launched the United States into a every expanding debt hole.

Actually, you'd be looking at a radically different history of the 2000s. As a Texan who remembers Bush's governorship, and who remembers a lot of the conservative reluctance about Bush's presidential run, with no 9/11, you'd see a radically different Republican Party than the Tea Party or the Populist Trump wing. "Compassionate Conservatism" I truly think was not a buzzword for W, and I think it was both pragmatism and ideals that would have led to a major realignment in American politics. Bush governed as a moderate in Texas, and there's a very good reason the Moderate-Liberal Texas Lieutenant Governor and chief power broker, Bob Bullock, endorsed and encouraged W's presidential run before his death.

The end result would have likely forced the libertarians out of the Republican party altogether, as it would become something akin to a more economically conservative version of European Christian Democracy. The voucher programs (very popular among minority communities at the turn of the century), prescription drug coverage, No Child Left Behind, immigration reform, and even the Social Security partial privitazation (which got very unfairly demonized, since it would have gone into the index fund based Federal Thrift Savings Program, not individual stocks). 9/11 threw everything off course, and it allowed the Democrats to become the Bigger Tent. Without a war to shift his focus, Bush would have been able to build a broad Economically Moderate/Socially Conservative Right-Center coalition, leaving the left and the libertarian right out in the cold.

The Housing crisis is a big one, and a bubble had been building for years. I remember reading articles basically back in 2004-05 to the effect that a bubble was coming in housing, but that we didn't know when or just how bad. FWIW, back in 2012-13, I was reading the same stuff about a Bubble in Student Loans.

He'd have been just as revolutionary to the Republican Party of the 2000s as Bill Clinton was to the Democratic Party of the 1990s.

The Tea Party is butterflied away from this, and it's instead a Liberty or Death party opposed to the economic and social programs. You might even see Trump or Jim Traficant (if he's not convicted) as the Democratic populist backlash/hijacker by 2016.
 
Last edited:
Top