Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Was the 2008 Panic Preventable? (What if the Government had saved Lehman?)
Wahsington Post ^ | 09/14/2010 | Robert Samuelson

Posted on 09/13/2010 6:43:04 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

It's been two years since Lehman Brothers failed (Sept. 15, 2008), and we still can't conclusively answer this question: What if the government had saved Lehman? Its bankruptcy was pivotal. Until then, deteriorating housing and mortgage markets had triggered what seemed a serious -- but not unprecedented -- recession. Once Lehman failed, the economy went into a frenzied free fall. It's hard not to wonder whether some of the ensuing turmoil could have been avoided.

Consider what happened after Lehman:

-- Credit tightened. Banks wouldn't lend to each other, except at exorbitant interest rates. Rates on high-quality corporate bonds went from 7 percent in August to nearly 10 percent by October.

-- Stocks tanked. After its historical high of more than 14,000 in October 2007, the Dow Jones industrial average was still trading around 11,400 before the bankruptcy. By October, it was about 8,400; by March 2009, 6,600.

-- Consumer spending and business investment (on machinery, computers, buildings) -- together about four-fifths of the economy -- declined sharply. Already-depressed vehicle sales fell a third from August to February.

-- Employment collapsed. Five million payroll jobs disappeared in the eight months following Lehman's collapse. The unemployment rate went from 6.2 percent in September to 9.5 percent in June 2009.

Lehman's failure had dire consequences because it suggested that government had lost control. No one knew which financial institutions would be protected and which wouldn't; AIG soon received a massive loan. Uncertainty rose; panic followed.

(Excerpt) Read more at realclearmarkets.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2008; financialcrisis; lehman; panic

1 posted on 09/13/2010 6:43:07 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

what if the gov had stayed out of it...????


2 posted on 09/13/2010 6:44:19 AM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dalebert

What if Chuck Schumer hadn’t leaked the AIG information that started the whole domino effect?


3 posted on 09/13/2010 6:46:45 AM PDT by BelegStrongbow (St. Joseph, patron of fathers, pray for us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

My personal preference would have been to let them all go under if they were that stupid and insolvent.

No bailouts for anyone or anything.

Free markets and capitalism also allows entities to go bankrupt,

So the markets would have reacted badly. So what? They would have recovered eventually just like they did after 9/11.


4 posted on 09/13/2010 6:48:03 AM PDT by Ev Reeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dalebert

pod. post of the day!!!


5 posted on 09/13/2010 6:52:34 AM PDT by VaRepublican (I would propagate taglines but I don't know how. But bloggers do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If the Sept 2008 panic had been avoided, it is conceivable that McCain would be president — in which case the Second Great Depression, with unemployment rates in the mid 9 percent range, would be firmly hung around the neck of the GOP.


6 posted on 09/13/2010 6:54:06 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Things will change after the revolution, but not before.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The question was already answered in what the government did in early 2008. They bailed out everyone and everything with a pulse and were rewarded with a giant inflationary bubble. It had two effects: it strangled the real economy with expensive producer inputs and created speculation which rippled through the banks when the bubble popped. A Lehman bailout would have done it all over again and postponed the needed deleveraging and made it worse than it actually was in 2008.


7 posted on 09/13/2010 6:54:43 AM PDT by palmer (Cooperating with Obama = helping him extend the depression and implement socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Keep in mind that Lehman was a foreign company with most investments outside the USA. I don’t think the American people would think much of bailing them out when european banks did not.


8 posted on 09/13/2010 6:56:03 AM PDT by edcoil (Man can do the most amazing things if they have the most amazing things to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

If they were going to spend this much money on bailouts, anyway, they might as well have saved Lehman. Better still would have been to let the other bad actors fail and the gamblers take their losses. But the gamblers own far too many US Senators to subject themselves to market discipline like the rest of us...


9 posted on 09/13/2010 6:56:26 AM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ( "The right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended." - Rowan Atkinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

Here’s an interesting question -— WHAT IF GOVERNMENT HAD ALLOWED *ALL* OF THESE COMPANIES TO JUST FAIL?

NO BAILOUTS, NO TAX PAYER SUBSIDIES, etc.

Would the economy be worse off? Would there MORE people laid off and out of jobs ?

Put yourself in Bush and Paulson’s shoes, what would you have done ?

I’d like to hear people’s explanations regarding what they believe should have been done...


10 posted on 09/13/2010 7:01:20 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves

Or at least let them take their fair hits by not bailing out the bad AIG contracts.


11 posted on 09/13/2010 7:01:59 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I would be for just letting the whole group of them fail, no handouts, no bailouts, no taxpayer funded relief, just let them go under or declare bankruptcy.

Sure the markets would have tanked temporarily but the government would still be functioning under Bush. The markets would eventually have corrected themselves and all the bad players would have been dkushed out of the game.

“Life is tough but its even tougher if you’re stupid.” - John Wayne


12 posted on 09/13/2010 7:15:41 AM PDT by Ev Reeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
Or at least let them take their fair hits by not bailing out the bad AIG contracts.

I agree with you on that... Giving those financial institutions holding bad AIG contracts 100% on the dollar was crazy and clearly a bail-out of the worst speculation on Wall Street (and around the globe). If people wonder how Goldman could be back to making multi-billions per quarter shortly after the meltdown, they should go back and look at this "pay-off".

13 posted on 09/13/2010 7:50:40 AM PDT by ReleaseTheHounds ("The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ReleaseTheHounds

Yep. Went to foreign banks like UBS, too.


14 posted on 09/13/2010 8:14:19 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson