To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Early 1980s recession in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Treasury yield spreads
Inverted yield curve in late 1970s and early 1980s
  30 year minus 3 month
  10 year minus 2 year
  10 year minus 3 month
  10 year minus Federal funds rate
US unemployment rate, 1973–1993

The United States entered recession in January 1980 and returned to growth six months later in July 1980.[1] Although recovery took hold, the unemployment rate remained unchanged through the start of a second recession in July 1981.[2] The downturn ended 16 months later, in November 1982.[1] The economy entered a strong recovery and experienced a lengthy expansion through 1990.[3]

Principal causes of the 1980 recession included contractionary monetary policy undertaken by the Federal Reserve to combat double digit inflation and residual effects of the energy crisis.[4] Manufacturing and construction failed to recover before more aggressive inflation reducing policy was adopted by the Federal Reserve in 1981, causing a second downturn.[2][4] Due to their proximity and compounded effects, they are commonly referred to as the early 1980s recession, an example of a W-shaped or "double dip" recession; it remains the most recent example of such a recession in the United States.[5]

The recession marked a shift in policy from more traditional Keynesian economics to the adoption of neoliberal economic policies. This change was primarily achieved through tax reform and stronger monetary policy on the part of the Federal Reserve, with the strong recovery and long, stable period of growth that followed increasing the popularity of both concepts in political and academic circles.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    1 487 316
    2 532
    2 916 228
    2 184 718
    2 492 864
  • Ford, Carter, and the Economic Malaise: Crash Course US History #42
  • History of Economic Recessions in the United States: Stock Exchange (1991)
  • The Reagan Revolution: Crash Course US History #43
  • The Clinton Years, or the 1990s: Crash Course US History #45
  • Growth, Cities, and Immigration: Crash Course US History #25

Transcription

Hi, I’m John Green, this is Crash Course U.S. History and today we are going to talk about one of the most important periods in American history, the mid-to-late 1970s. Stan why is there nothing on the chalkboard? We can’t find a picture of Gerald Ford somewhere around here? Don’t worry Crash Course fans we got one. Thanks for your support through Subbable. It paid for this 90 cent Gerald Ford photograph. These really are the years where everything changed in the United States and amidst all that turmoil something wonderful was born. Mr. Green? Mr. Green? Strong with the force, this episode is. No, me from the past, Yoda doesn’t show up until Empire Strikes Back which came out in 1980. I’m referring of course to the fact that we were born! It’s the beginning of the John Green era! From here on out, almost everything we discuss will have happened in my lifetime. Or as most Crash Course viewers refer to it, “that century before I was born”. But it wasn’t just the birth of me and the death of Elvis, the late 1970s were truly a period of momentous change, and for most Americans it sucked. Intro So how Americans reacted to those no good very bad years really has shaped the world in which we find ourselves. The big story of the 1970s is economics. Twenty-five years of broad economic expansion and prosperity came to a grinding halt in the 1970s meaning the our party was over. And what did we get instead? Inflation and extremely slow growth. The worst hangover ever. Just kidding, the worst hangover was The Depression. The 2nd worst hangover was the 2008 recession, and then the 3rd worst hangover was Hangover Part III. It was the 4th worst hangover in American history. Narrowly beating out America’s 5th worst hangover the Hangover Part II. What happened to the American economy in the 1970s was the result both of long-term processes and unexpected shocks. The long-term process was the gradual decline of manufacturing in the U.S. in relation to competing manufacturing in the rest of the world. Part of this was due to American policy; after World War II, you’ll remember that we promoted the economic growth of Japan, Germany, South Korea and Taiwan, ignoring the tariffs that they set up to protect nascent industries, and effectively subsidizing them by providing for their defense. And not having to build nuclear arsenals of their own really allowed them to invest in their domestic economies. And then one day, a bunch of Toyotas and Mercedes showed up, and you could drive them up to like 40 thousand miles before they would break down and we were like, “wait a second”. In 1971, for the first time in the 20th century, America experienced an export trade deficit, importing more goods than it exported, which is the same problem that my aunt has with QVC. I mean, they hardly import anything from her. One reason for this deficit was because the dollar was linked to gold, making it a strong currency but also making American products more expensive abroad. So Nixon took the U.S. off the gold standard, hoping to make American goods cheaper overseas and reduce imports, but that didn’t really work. Because the U.S. was also competing against cheaper labor costs, and cheaper raw materials, and more productive economies. And in many cases this growing global competition put American firms that couldn’t compete out of business. This was especially true in manufacturing. In 1960, 38% of Americans worked in manufacturing. In 1980, it was 28%. Today, it’s nine. Not 9%, nine people. Stan wants me to tell you that was a joke. It actually is 9%. Unionized workers were hit particularly hard. In the 1940s and 1950s unions had won generous concessions from corporate employers including paid vacation, and health benefits, and especially pensions, which employers would agree to as a kind of deferred compensation so that they wouldn’t have to pay higher w ages to people while they were working. And this worked great, until people started to retire. So by 1970, competition led employers to either eliminate high-paying manufacturing jobs, or else to increase automation, or to shift workers to lower wage regions of the U.S. or even overseas. The American South benefitted from this trend because its anti-union stance was attractive to manufacturers. But then, non-union industries that were already in the South found that they had no way to find new workers so the only way to survive was to move production overseas. And also as industries moved production to the Sunbelt that increased the political influence of the region, and because the South and Southwest are generally conservative politically, the nation’s politics continued to move to the right. Meanwhile the northern industrial cities, particularly the Rust Belt of the Midwest, were becoming the empty urban playgrounds that we know and love today. Detroit and Chicago had lost half of their manufacturing jobs by 1980 and smaller cities fared even worse. As industry moved away, they found their tax bases dried up, and they were unable to provide even basic services to their citizens. I mean with the world of Wall Street fat cats this is hard to imagine today, but in 1975 New York City faced bankruptcy. In addition to these long term structural changes to the American economy and our demographics, the 1970s saw two oil shocks that sent the economy into a tailspin. In 1973, in response to Western support of Israel, Middle Eastern Arab states suspended oil exports to the U.S which led to the price of oil quadrupling. This resulted in long lines for gasoline, dramatically higher oil prices, and Americans deciding to purchase smaller, more fuel efficient cars, which is to say Japanese cars. Also, prices of everything else went up because oil is either used for the production of or transportation of just about everything. I mean with 70’s inflation, this 90 cent portrait of Gerald Ford would have cost at least $1.10. The paint that covers the green parts of not-America, oil based. The plastic that comprises the DVD’s of Crash Course World History, available now at DFTBA.com, oil based. Those were a fantastic bargain and they would have been way more expensive if the price of oil was higher. And then, in 1979, a second oil shock hit the United States after the Iranian revolution. Wait Stan, did we say 1979? We’ve got to put up a picture of Jimmy Carter. Bam! Sorry, Gerald Ford there’s a peanut farmer in town. So during the 1970s inflation soared to 10% a year and economic growth slowed to 2.4%, resulting in what came to be known as stagflation. Unemployment rose, and a new economic statistic was born: the misery index, the combination of unemployment and inflation. At the beginning of the decade it was 10.8, by 1980 it had doubled. If you’re looking for the roots of America’s contemporary economic inequality, the 1970s are a good milestone, since according to our old friend Eric Foner, “beginning in 1973, real wages essentially did not rise for twenty years.” [1] Americans got to experience the joy of two years of Gerald Ford before poor Jimmy Carter had a chance to fail at improving the economy. The only president never to have been elected even to the vice presidency, Gerald Ford was so insignificant to American history that we already replaced him on the chalkboard. One of Ford’s first acts was to pardon Nixon making him immune from prosecution for obstruction of justice. That very unpopular decision probably made it impossible for Ford to win in 1976. Coincidentally, WIN was the only memorable domestic program that Ford proposed. It stood for Whip Inflation Now and it was basically a plea for Americans to be better shoppers, spend less, and wear WIN buttons. Thirty-five years later Charlie Sheen would turn winning into an incredibly successful social media campaign, but sadly at the time there was no Twitter. Inflation did drop, but unemployment went up, especially during the recession of 1974-75 where it topped 9%. Now, Ford would have liked to cut taxes and reduce government regulation, but the Democratic Congress wouldn’t let him. So that’s Ford, probably best known today as the first president to be satirized on Saturday Night Live. Then, in 1976, we got a new president: Jimmy Carter. Now Jimmy Carter is generally considered by historians to have been a failure as president. Although, he is often seen as a really good ex-president. He tried to fight the inflation part of stagflation, but to do it he acted in some rather un-New Deal Democrat ways. He cut government spending, deregulated the trucking and airline industries, and he supported the Fed’s decision to raise interest rates. Oh, it’s time for the mystery document? The rules here are simple... I read the mystery document, I guess the author, and if I’m wrong I get shocked. Alright, let’s see what we’ve got today. “I want to speak to you first tonight about a subject even more serious than energy or inflation. I want to talk to you right now about a fundamental threat to American democracy. I do not mean our political and civil liberties. They will endure. And I do not refer to the outward strength of America, a nation that is at peace tonight everywhere in the world, with unmatched economic power and military might. The threat is nearly invisible in ordinary ways. It is a crisis of confidence. It is a crisis that strikes at the very heart and soul and spirit of our national will. We can see this crisis in the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation. The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and political fabric of America.” It’s Jimmy Carter’s “Crisis of Confidence” speech, my favorite speech ever made that also cost a president 20 points of approval rating. So Carter says that Americans have lost their ability to face the future and some of their can-do spirit. The rest of the speech talks about how Americans’ values are out of whack, how Americans are wasteful, and need a new more vibrant approach to the energy crisis. Let me tell you a lesson from history Jimmy Carter, you don’t get reelected by telling Americans how to do more with less. You get reelected by telling Americans, “more, more, always more, more for you. More. More. More. I promise.” The speech ultimately called for a renewal of spirit, but all people remember is the part where Jimmy Carter was criticizing them, and it’s gone down as a great example of Carter’s political ineptitude. Domestically, Carter paid lip-service to liberal ideas like energy conservation, even installing solar panels on the White House, but his bigger plan to solve the energy crises was investment in nuclear power. And nuclear power did grow, although never to the extent we saw in certain European countries, partly because of the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979 when radioactive vapor was released into the air. This of course spurred public fears of a nuclear meltdown and drove a huge anti-nuclear energy movement. But some of Carter’s more conservative policies did ultimately have an impact, like his support for deregulation of the airlines. Before airline deregulation, prices were fixed, so airlines had to compete by offering better service. Now, of course, flights are much cheaper and also so much more miserable. In many ways, Carter was more important as a foreign policy president, but as with his energy initiatives, he’s mostly remembered for his failures. Aiming to make Human Rights a cornerstone of America’s foreign policy, Jimmy Carter tried to turn away from the Cold War framework and focus instead on combatting 3rd world poverty and reducing the spread of nuclear weapons. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble. Carter’s notable changes included cutting off aid to Argentina during its “Dirty War” and signing a treaty in 1978 that would transfer the Panama Canal back to Panama. His greatest accomplishment was probably brokering the Camp David Accords. This historic peace agreement between Egypt and Israel has, as we all know, led to a lasting peace in the Middle East, just kidding, but it has been a step in the right direction and one that’s lasted. But the U.S. continued to support dictatorial regimes in Guatemala, the Philippines and South Korea. Carter’s most significant failure in terms of supporting international bad guys, though, is the Shah of Iran. Iran had oil and was a major buyer of American arms, but the Shah was really unpopular and our support of him fuelled anti-American sentiments in Iran. Those boiled over in the 1979 Iranian Revolution, especially after Carter allowed the Shah to get cancer treatments in America, which in turn prompted the storming of the American embassy in Tehran and the capture of 53 American hostages. The Iranian hostage crisis lasted 444 days and although Carter’s secretary of state did negotiate their release, it didn’t happen until the day Carter’s successor Ronald Reagan was inaugurated. The inability to free the hostages and the botched rescue attempt -- Affleck’s ARGO notwithstanding -- added to the impression that Carter was weak. Events in the Middle East also increased Cold War tensions especially after 1979, when the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Carter claimed that the invasion of Afghanistan was the greatest threat to freedom since World War II and proclaimed the Carter Doctrine, which was basically said that the U.S. would use force, if necessary, to protect its interests in the Persian Gulf region. In direct response to the Soviets, the U.S. put an embargo on grain shipments and organized the boycott of the 1980 Olympics in Moscow. Thanks for another dose of good news Thought Bubble. So despite focusing on Carter, I’ll again stress that the real story of the 1970s was the economy. High inflation and high unemployment had monumental effects in shaping America. And no president could have dealt with it effectively. Not Carter, not Gerald Ford, not anyone. The truth is, history isn’t about individuals. Oil shocks and inevitable systemic changes led to the poor economy and that weakened support for New Deal liberalism and increased the appeal of conservative ideas like lower taxes, reduced regulation, and cuts in social spending. All of which, for the record, started under the Democrat Jimmy Carter, not the Republican Ronald Reagan. More abstractly, the economic crisis of the 1970’s dealt a serious blow to the Keynesian consensus that Government action could actually solve macro-economic problems. I mean according to the economic theory that had prevailed for the previous 50 years, unemployment and inflation were supposed to be inversely proportional, the so-called Phillips Curve. When that relationship broke down and we had both high inflation and high unemployment it undermined the entire idea of government intervention. And that opened the door for a different way of thinking about economics that emphasized the economy as an aggregate of individual economic decisions. Now that might sound like a small thing, but whether you think of individual choices or governmental policies really make economies work or not work turns out to be pretty freaking important. And this has come to really shape the contemporary American political landscape especially when it comes to taxes. Which we’ll talk about more next week. Thanks for watching. Crash Course is made with all the help from these nice people and it exists because of your support through Subbable and also because so many of you are buying Crash Course World History on DVD. Thank you! Our mission here at Crash Course is to make educational content freely available to everyone forever and you can help us in that mission, if you’re able, by subscribing at Subbable. Subbable is a voluntary subscription platform where you can get amazing perks liked signed posters and lots of other stuff so check it out. Thank you for supporting Crash Course, thanks for watching, and as we say in my hometown, “don’t forget to be awesome.” ________________ [1] Foner. Give me Liberty ebook version p. 1097

Background

Percent annual change in the US Consumer Price Index, a measure of inflation, 1973–1992

Beginning in 1978, inflation began to intensify, reaching double-digit levels in 1979. The consumer price index rose considerably between 1978 and 1980. These increases were largely attributed to the oil price shocks of 1979 and 1980, although the core consumer price index which excludes energy and food also posted large increases.[6] Productivity, real gross national product, and personal income remained essentially unchanged during this period, while inflation continued to rise, a phenomenon known as stagflation.[4]

In order to combat rising inflation, recently appointed chairman of the Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker, elected to increase the federal funds rate. Following the October 6, 1979 meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, the federal funds rate increased gradually from 11.5% to an eventual peak of 17.6% in April 1980.[6] This caused an economic recession beginning in January 1980, and in March 1980, president Jimmy Carter created his own plan for credit controls and budget cuts to beat inflation.[7] In order to cooperate with these new priorities, the federal funds rate was lowered considerably from its April peak.[6]

1980

A recession occurred beginning in January 1980.[1] As a result of the increasing federal funds rate, credit became more difficult to obtain for car and home loans. This caused severe contractions in manufacturing and housing, which were dependent on the availability of consumer credit.[7] Most of the jobs lost during the recession centered around goods producing industries, while the service sector remained largely intact.

Over the course of the recession, manufacturing shed 1.1 million jobs, with the recession posting a total loss of 1.3 million jobs, representing 1.2% of payrolls.[3] The automotive industry, already in a poor position due to weak sales in 1979, shed 310,000 jobs, representing 33% of that sector. Construction declined by a similar 300,000. Unemployment rose to a recession peak of 7.8% in June 1980, however, it changed very little through the end of the year, averaging 7.5% through the first quarter of 1981.[8]

The official end of the recession was established as of July 1980.[1] As interest rates dropped beginning in May, payrolls turned positive. Unemployment among auto workers rose from a low of 4.8% in 1979 to a record high of 24.7%, then fell to 17.4% by the end of the year. Construction unemployment rose to 16.3%, and also moderated near the end of the year.[8]

During the final quarter of 1980, there were doubts that the economy was in recovery, and instead was experiencing a temporary respite.[8] These concerns were fueled by poor performance in housing and auto sales in the final months of 1980, as well as a second wave of rising interest rates and stagnant unemployment rate.[8]

1981–1982

U.S. President Ronald Reagan gives a televised address from the Oval Office outlining his plan for tax reductions in July 1981.

As 1981 began, the Federal Reserve reported that there would be little or no economic growth in 1981, as interest rates were to continue rising in an attempt to reduce inflation.[9][10]

After failing to gain traction during the weak and brief recovery from the 1980 downturn, weakness in manufacturing and housing caused by rising interest rates began to have an expanded effect on related sectors beginning in mid-1981.[2] Job losses resumed, this time expanding to nearly all employment sectors through the end of 1982. Goods-producing sectors were hardest hit: 90% of all job losses in 1982 came from manufacturing, despite this sector making up only 30% of total non-farm employment. The machinery industry shed 400,000 jobs. Transportation equipment manufacturing fell by 180,000 jobs. Layoffs in electrical and electronics manufacturing exceeded 100,000. The mining sector shed 150,000 jobs, likely a result of high commodity prices and cratering demand from the recession. Construction shed a total of 385,000 jobs from July 1981 through December 1982. Non-durable goods manufacturing (e.g. textiles, rubber, apparel, plastics, tobacco, food, etc.), already under pressure since the mid-1970s, suffered some 365,000 job cuts.[11]

The unemployment rate for auto workers rose from just 3.8% in early-1978 to 24% by the end of 1982; construction worker unemployment peaked at 22% during the same time.[11]

The services sector, while not hit nearly as hard as manufacturing, shed 400,000 jobs during the recession, with sharp declines in transportation, utilities, state & local governments, and wholesale and retail trade. However, the finance, insurance, and real estate sector gained 35,000 jobs over the duration of the recession.[11]

The heavy losses in manufacturing and construction, contrasted with more minor losses in services, also affected the unemployment rates for men and women differently. While the increases in unemployment for both sexes were roughly equal during the recession of 1973-1975 recession, the unemployment rate for men increased 4.5 percentage points during the 1981-1982 recession, while women suffered a comparatively more mild 2.5 percentage point increase in joblessness. Between the fall of 1981 and the end of 1982, nearly 70% of the increase in unemployment came from men's unemployment.[11]

Unemployment had changed very little in the period between the end of the 1980 recession and the July 1981 start of the second, never dropping below 7.2%.[2] Unemployment rose to double digits for the first time since 1941 in September 1982, and stood at a postwar high of 10.8% by the end of the year.[11] The total increase in unemployment was 3.6%, which was less than the 1973–75 recession increase of 3.8%, yet still higher than the 2.9% average. Because the recession began with already elevated levels of unemployment, the increase easily pushed it higher than any other post-war recession.[11] Overall, the recession caused the loss of 2.9 million jobs, representing a 3.0% drop in payroll employment, the largest percentage decline since the 1957–1958 recession.[3] The number of underemployed workers (those who are working part-time but want full-time work) rose to the highest number ever recorded at that time since data collection began in 1955.[11]

Unemployment was particularly severe amongst teenagers and racial minorities: the unemployment rates for black Americans peaked at 20% in December 1982, compared to 15% for Latinos and 9.3% for white Americans. Teen unemployment hit 24%, and was particularly severe amongst black teenagers: for most of 1982, unemployment for black teenagers stayed at roughly 50%.

Ronald Reagan, who had assumed office in January 1981, brought his own economic plan to the table. In August 1981, the president signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, a three-year tax cut plan.[12] As the recession deepened in 1982, Reagan's approval rating also dropped. As a result, during the 1982 midterm elections, Republican gains made in the House of Representatives during the 1980 election were reversed.[13] However, control of the Senate was retained by the Republicans.

Recovery

In July 1983, the official end of the recession was announced as November 1982, with the employment trough occurring in December. At the time of the announcement, output and sales had already met or exceeded levels achieved before the recession began.[14] Through December 1983, nonfarm payrolls rose by 2.9 million and the unemployment rate fell by 2.5%.[15] The auto industry had posted losses of $187 million in the third quarter of 1982, which turned into a gain of $1.2 billion during the same period in 1983.[16] To prevent a new surge of inflation, interest and mortgage rates remained abnormally high throughout 1983, delaying a recovery in construction and housing.[16]

A comparative analysis of the first six quarters of post-war economic recoveries published in the August 1984 issue of the Monthly Labor Review indicated the 1983–1984 recovery was stronger than any post-war recovery since that of the 1953 recession.[17] As the third year of recovery drew to a close in 1985, payroll employment had grown by 10 million since the end of the recession.[18] Growth continued through July 1990, creating what was at the time the longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history.[3]

Impact

Although the economy recovered in 1983, the residual effects of high inflation and high interest rates had a profound impact on the savings and loans industry. Savings and loan associations were limited by interest rate ceilings. As a result of rising interest rates, many savings and loan institutions experienced frequent account withdrawals, as depositors moved their money to higher-earning accounts offered by commercial banks. The already struggling savings and loans industry posted large losses in 1981 and 1982.[19]

High mortgage rates eroded the value of mortgage-backed loans, the primary asset of savings and loan associations. These fixed-rate loans were sold at a loss in order to balance withdrawals. This asset liability mismatch was identified as the primary cause of the savings and loan crisis.[20]

Long-term effects

Although the U.S. macroeconomy recovered during the 1983-1990 economic expansion period, the early-1980s recession cast a long shadow over many parts of the United States, especially those reliant on heavy industry. For example, heavily industrialized Lake County, Indiana (home to major manufacturing cities such as Gary, East Chicago, and Hammond), did not recover its 1980 employment level until 1996. And as of 2010, the county's inflation-adjusted output has stubbornly remained 15-20% below its 1978 peak.[21] Other steel-producing regions, such as the south side of Chicago, the Mahoning Valley, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh, had been struggling since the onset of the 1973-75 recession, but it was the early-1980s recession that left deep and lasting damage to local economies. Mining communities in Minnesota's Iron Range, Wisconsin's Driftless Area, eastern Kentucky, and West Virginia were also devastated after years of struggle.

Although inflation subsided and interest rates began to decline starting in 1983, the Federal Reserve was still committed to a strong-dollar policy through the mid-1980s. This prevented a recovery in manufacturing by undermining the competitiveness of exports of American manufactured goods (particularly automobiles and steel). It was not until 1985 that the Reagan administration and the Federal Reserve took action to correct this when the U.S. signed the Plaza Accord with France, West Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom.[22] As the U.S. Dollar depreciated some 50% against these major currencies, this agreement (combined with voluntary export restrictions) did help American exports recover, particularly in the automotive sector: by the early-1990s, the number of vehicles assembled by Japanese automakers in U.S. plants exceeded the number of auto exports from Japan to the U.S., a trend that still continues into the 2010s. However, many of the auto manufacturing plants were set up in states with right-to-work laws, primarily in the South and West. The Rust Belt states, particularly the auto-making states of Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana, did not always reap the full benefits of this change.[23]

U.S. manufacturing employment peaked at 17.9 million in June 1979, before sharply declining by 2.8 million before bottoming out in January 1983. Although 1.2 million manufacturing jobs would be created during the 1983-1990 period, the 1979 peak would never be reached again.[24]

References

  1. ^ a b c d "United States Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions". National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved 8 April 2011.
  2. ^ a b c d Bednarzik, Robert W.; Hewson, Marillyn A.; Urquhart, Michael A. (1982). "The Employment Situation in 1981: New Recession Takes its Toll" (PDF). Monthly Labor Review. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 105 (3): 3–14. Retrieved 8 April 2011.
  3. ^ a b c d Gardner, Jennifer M. (1994). "The 1990-1991 Recession: How Bad Was the Labor Market?" (PDF). Monthly Labor Review. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 117 (6): 3–11. Retrieved 6 April 2011.
  4. ^ a b c The Prospects for Economic Recovery (PDF). Congressional Budget Office (Report). February 1982. pp. 1–5. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-04-13. Retrieved 8 April 2011.
  5. ^ Aversa, Jeannine (2010-07-01). "A "Double Dip" Recession Defined". Huffpost Business. Archived from the original on 2012-04-26. Retrieved 8 April 2011.
  6. ^ a b c Walsh, Carl E. (December 3, 2004). "October 6, 1979" (PDF). FRBSF Economic Letter. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco: 1–4. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2006-02-23. Retrieved 8 April 2011. alternate url
  7. ^ a b "Carter vs. Inflation". Time. 1980. Archived from the original on May 7, 2008. Retrieved 8 April 2011.
  8. ^ a b c d Bednarzik, Robert W.; Westcott, Diane N. (1981). "Employment and Unemployment: A Report on 1980" (PDF). Monthly Labor Review. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 104 (2): 4–14. Retrieved 10 April 2011.
  9. ^ Rattner, Steven (January 5, 1981). "Federal Reserve Sees Little Growth in '81 With Continued High Rates". The New York Times.
  10. ^ Cowan, Edward (May 5, 1981). "Bank Lending Rate Set at Record 14% By Federal Reserve". The New York Times.
  11. ^ a b c d e f g Hewson, Marillyn A.; Urquhart, Michael A. (1983). "Unemployment Continued to Rise in 1982 as Recession Deepened" (PDF). Monthly Labor Review. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 106 (2): 3–12. Retrieved 10 April 2011.
  12. ^ Arthur Laffer (1 June 2004). "The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future". The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved 5 November 2010.
  13. ^ Roberts, Steven V. (November 4, 1982). "Democrats Regain Control in House". The New York Times.
  14. ^ "Recovery Began in November" (PDF). National Bureau of Economic Research (July 8, 1983). Retrieved 12 April 2011.
  15. ^ Becker, Eugene H.; Bowers, Norman (1984). "Employment and Unemployment Improvements Widespread in 1983" (PDF). Monthly Labor Review. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 107 (2): 3–14. Retrieved 12 April 2011.
  16. ^ a b Alexander, Charles P. (November 28, 1983). "A Lusty, Lopsided Recovery". Time. Archived from the original on December 22, 2008. Retrieved 13 April 2011.
  17. ^ Devens, Richard M. (1984). "Employment in the First Half: Robust Recovery Continues" (PDF). Monthly Labor Review. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 107 (8): 3–7. Retrieved 13 April 2011.
  18. ^ Shank, Susan E.; Getz, Patricia M. (1986). "Employment and Unemployment: Developments in 1985" (PDF). Monthly Labor Review. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 109 (2): 3–12. Retrieved 13 April 2011.
  19. ^ A History of the 1980s: Lessons for the Future. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 1997. ISBN 0-9661808-0-1.
  20. ^ Bodie, Zvi (2006). "On Asset-Liability Matching and Federal Deposit and Pension Insurance" (PDF). Review. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (July/August 2006): 323–330. Retrieved 10 April 2011.
  21. ^ "NORTHWEST INDIANA REGIONAL ANALYSIS: DEMOGRAPHICS, ECONOMY, ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION" (PDF). Cleveland State University. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 March 2016. Retrieved 19 October 2018.
  22. ^ Twomey, Brian. "The Plaza Accord: The World Intervenes In Currency Markets". Investopedia. Retrieved 19 October 2018.
  23. ^ Wiesenthal, Joe. "What Was The Plaza Accord, And What Does It Have To Do With Pressure On China To Revalue The Yuan?". Business Insider. Retrieved 19 October 2018.
  24. ^ "All Employees: Manufacturing". Federal Reserve. Retrieved 19 October 2018.

Further reading

External links

This page was last edited on 10 February 2024, at 22:59
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.