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.

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
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

Early 2000s recession

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The early 2000s recession was a decline in economic activity which mainly occurred in developed countries. The recession affected the European Union during 2000 and 2001 and the United States from March to November 2001.[1] The UK, Canada and Australia avoided the recession, while Russia, a nation that did not experience prosperity during the 1990s, in fact began to recover from said situation.[citation needed] Japan's 1990s recession continued. This recession was predicted by economists, because the boom of the 1990s (accompanied by both low inflation and low unemployment) slowed in some parts of East Asia during the 1997 Asian financial crisis. The recession in industrialized countries was not as significant as either of the two previous worldwide recessions. Some economists in the United States object to characterizing it as a recession since there were no two consecutive quarters of negative growth.[citation needed]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    3 634 312
    108 347
    35 893
    2 343 081
    2 895
  • ✪ The Great Depression: Crash Course US History #33
  • ✪ I Found A New Recession Indicator That Says LOOK OUT BELOW
  • ✪ Economic History of the 20th Century: World War I, Great Depression, Keynesian Theory (1994)
  • ✪ Terrorism, War, and Bush 43: Crash Course US History #46
  • ✪ Understanding the International Economy: World Trade, World Bank (2002)


Hi, I'm John Green, this is Crash Course U.S. history and Herbert Hoover's here, which is never a good sign. Today we're gonna return to two of my favorite topics: economics and inaccurate naming conventions. That's right, we're gonna be talking about the Great Depression, which was only great if you enjoy, like, being a hobo or selling pencils. Now some of you might get a bit frustrated today because there's no real consensus about the Great Depression, and simple, declarative statements about it really say much more about you than they do about history. Why are you looking at me, Mr Green? I didn't say anything. I thought it. Because, Me From the Past, you always want things to fit into this simplistic narrative: she loves me, she loves me not, the Great Depression was caused by x or was caused by y. It's complicated! intro Many people tell you that the Great Depression started with the stock market crash in October 1929, but a) that isn't true and b) it leads people to mistake correlation with cause. What we think of as the Great Depression did begin AFTER the stock market crash, but not because of it. Like, as we saw last week, the underlying economic conditions in the U.S. before the stock market crash weren't all moonshine and rainbows. The 1920s featured large-scale domestic consumption of relatively new consumer products, which was good for American industry. But much of this consumption was fueled by credit and installment buying which, it turned out, was totally unsustainable. The thing about credit is that it works fine unless and until economic uncertainty increases at which point POW. That's a technical historian term, by the way. Meanwhile the agricultural sector suffered throughout the 1920s and farm prices kept dropping for two reasons. First, American farms had expanded enormously during World War I to provide food for all those soldiers, and second, the expansion led many farmers to mechanize their operations. As you'll know if you've ever bought a tractor, that mechanization was expensive, and so many farmers went into debt to finance their expansion. And then a combination of overproduction and low prices meant that often their farms were foreclosed upon . And other signs of economic weakness appeared throughout the decade. Like by 1925, the growth of car manufacturing slowed, along with residential construction. And, worst of all was what noted left wing radical Herbert Hoover labeled "an orgy of mad speculation" in the stock markets that began in 1927. By the way I'm kidding about him being a left wing radical. Just look at him. According to historian David Kennedy, "By 1929, commercial bankers were in the unusual position of loaning more money for stock market and real estate investments than for commercial ventures."[1] I wonder if we would ever find ourselves in that position again. Oh right we did in 2008. Anyway, it's tempting to see the stock market crash as the cause of the depression, possibly because it turns American economic history into morality play, but the truth is that the stock market crash and the depression were not the same thing. A lot of rich people lost money in the market, but what made the Great Depression the Great Depression was massive unemployment and accompanying hardship, and this didn't actually begin until, like, 1930 or 1931. The end of 1929 was actually okay. Unless you were a farmer. Or a stockbroker obviously. So what did actually cause the Depression? Well that's a big question and it's one that economists have struggled with ever since. They want to find out so they can keep it from ever happening again. No pressure, economists. Only 3% of Americans actually owned stock, and the markets recovered a lot of their value by 1930, although they did then go down again because, you know, there was a depression on. And even though big banks and corporations were buying a lot of stock, much of it was with borrowed money, known as margin buying, and all of that still was not nearly a big enough iceberg to sink the world's economy. But if I had to name a single cause of the Great Depression, it might be America's weak banking system. Alright. Let's go to the ThoughtBubble. Although the Federal Reserve system had been created in 1913, the vast majority of America's banks were small, individual institutions that had to rely on their own resources. When there was a panic and depositors rushed to take the money out of the bank -- like they do in the obscure arthouse movie Mary Poppins -- the bank went under if it didn't have enough money on reserve. So in 1930, a wave of bank failures began in Louisville that then spread to Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, and eventually Arkansas and North Carolina. As depositors lined up to take their money out before the banks went belly up, banks called in loans and sold assets. Ultimately this meant that credit froze up, which was what really destroyed the economy. A frozen credit system meant that less money was in circulation, and that led to deflation. Now you're probably thinking, "Big deal, deflation, can't be as bad as inflation right?" No. Deflation is much worse, as anyone who has ever slept on an air mattress knows. When prices drop, businesses cut costs, mainly by laying off workers. These workers then can't buy anything so inventories continue to build up and prices drop further. Banks weren't lending money, so employers couldn't borrow it to make payroll to pay their workers and more and more businesses went bankrupt leaving more and more workers unable to purchase the goods and services that would keep the businesses open. So if we have to lay the blame for the Great Depression on someone we can blame the banks, which isn't completely wrong, and it gives us a chance to shake our fists at Andrew Jackson whose distrust of central banking got us into this mess in the first place. That's probably too simple, but the Federal Reserve does deserve a good chunk of the blame for not rescuing the banks and not infusing money into the economy to combat this deflationary cycle. Thanks, Thoughtbubble. So, economics fans out there might be saying, "Why didn't the Hoover administration engage in some good old fashioned Keynesian pump priming?" The thinking there is that if governments do large-scale economic stimulus and a bunch of infrastructure projects, it can kind of create a bottom that stops the deflationary cycle. And that does often work, but unfortunately the Hoover Administration did not have a TARDIS. John Maynard Keynes' great work The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (he wasn't very good at titles) wasn't published until 1936, when the Depression was well under way. Venturing into the green nightmare of not-America for a moment, Herbert Hoover offered a global explanation in his memoirs for the global phenomenon that was the Great Depression. He claimed that its primary cause was World War One. And to be fair, the war did set the stage for a global economic disaster because of the web of debts and reparations that it created. Like, under the Versailles Treaty, Germany had to pay $33 billion in reparations mostly to France and Britain, which it couldn't pay without borrowing money from ... American banks. In addition the U.S. itself was owed $10 billion by Britain and France, some of which those countries paid back with German reparations. But then once American credit dried up, as it did in the wake of the stock market crash and the American bank failures, the economies of Germany, France, and Britain also fell off a cliff. And then with the largest non-U.S. industrial economies in total turmoil, fewer people abroad could buy American products, or French wine, or Brazilian coffee, and world trade came to a halt. And then when what the world really needed was more trade, America responded by raising tariffs to their highest levels ever with the Hawley Smoot tariff, a law that was as bad as it sounds. The idea of the high tariff was to protect American industry, but since Europe responded with their own high tariffs, that just meant that there were fewer buyers for American goods, less trade, fewer sales, and ultimately fewer jobs. So what did Hoover do? Not enough. It's important to remember that the American government is not just the President. Hoover couldn't always get Congress to do what he wanted but his political ineptitude was not particularly surprising because the first elected office that he ever held in his life was President of the United States. Like, let's take the foreign debt issue. Hoover proposed a moratorium on intergovernmental debt payments and he actually got Congress to go along with it, but it wasn't enough, mainly because the central bankers in Europe and America refused to let go of the gold standard, which would have allowed the governments to devalue their currency and pump needed money into their economies. And when Britain, rather heroically I might add, did abandon the gold standard in 1931 and stopped payments in gold, the U.S. did not follow suit, which meant that world financial markets froze up even further. Like this is a little bit complicated, but if you and I have always used Cheetos as currency to exchange goods and services and one day I announce that we can't do that anymore because it doesn't give us the flexibility that we need to pull ourselves out of this deflationary spiral. If I don't also agree to abandon Cheetos, then it's going to be a total disaster, which it was. And then, even worse, the Fed raised its discount rate, making credit even harder to come by. By the end of 1931, 2,294 American banks had failed, double the number that had gone under in 1930. Now, it's easy to criticize poor Herbert Hoover for not doing enough to stop the Great Depression, and he probably didn't do enough, but part of that is down to our knowledge of what happened afterward: the New Deal. That FDR at least tried to do something about the Depression makes us forget that when Hoover was president, orthodox political and economic theory counseled in favor of doing nothing. And at least Hoover didn't follow the advice of his treasury secretary who, according to Hoover anyway, argued that that the solution was to "liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate," which sounds like the worst milkshake ever. Instead, Hoover believed that the best course of action was to "use the powers of government to cushion the situation"[2] and in a White House meeting he persuaded a large number of industrialists to agree to maintain wage rates. He also got the Federal Farm Board to support agricultural production, and got Congressional approval for $140 million in new public works. Overall, he nearly doubled the federal public works expenditures between 1929 and 1931. It just wasn't nearly enough. Because what Hoover didn't allow was for the federal government to take over the situation completely. He relied primarily on private businesses and state and local governments to stimulate the economy, and that was insufficient. It's not surprising when you consider that in 1929 Federal expenditures accounted for 3% of our gross domestic product. Today it's more like 20%. So, it was just really hard to imagine the Federal government doing anything on such a large scale to address a national problem because it had never really done that much before. Hoover also hiked taxes as part of a plan to stabilize the banks by balancing the federal budget, providing confidence for foreign creditors, and stopping them from buying American gold. This would support bonds and also keep the federal government out of competition with private borrowers. The Revenue Act of 1932 passed Congress, but it didn't do much to stop the Depression. In fact, arguably it made it worse. Though ultimately, this dire situation forced Hoover into a truly radical move. In January 1932 he and Congress created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which was basically a federal bailout program that borrowed money to provide emergency loans to banks, building-and-loan societies, railroads, and agricultural corporations. The problem was that by 1932 bailing out the banks wasn't enough and the Great Depression started to take shape. By early 1932 well over 10 million people were out of work, 20% of the labor force. And in big cities the numbers were even worse, especially for people of color. Like, in Chicago, 4% of the population was African American, but they made up more than 16% of the unemployed. Although Hoover famously claimed that no one starved, which was a little bit let-them-eat-cake-y, people did search trash cans for food. And many Americans were forced to ask for relief. Hoover's response was to try to encourage private charity through the unfortunately acronymed President's Organization on Unemployment Relief. Or "POUR." New York City's government relief programs rose from $9 million in 1930 to $58 million in 1932, and private charitable giving did increase from $4.5 million to $21 million, and that sounds great until you realize that the total of $79 million that New York City spent on relief in 1932 was less than ONE MONTH's lost wages for the 800,000 people who were unemployed.[3] Oh, it's time for the Mystery Document? I hope it's a break from the unrelenting misery. Probably not. The rules here are simple. I guess the author of the Mystery Document and then usually fail and get shocked with the shock pen, which is a real shock pen no matter what you people say. Alright, what do we got here? "We sit looking at the floor. No one dares think of the coming winter. There are only a few more days of summer. Everyone is anxious to get work to lay up something for that long siege of bitter cold. But there is no work. Sitting in the room we all know it. This is why we don't talk; much. We look at the floor dreading to see that knowledge in each other's eyes. There is a kind of humiliation in it. We look away from each other. We look at the floor. It's too terrible to see this animal terror in each other's eyes." I mean, Stan, unemployment was 25% and this could be literally any of those people. I'm gonna guess that it's a woman, because men were usually on the road trying to find work while women would go to these offices to look. I - I mean it could be many - I have no idea. Ummm Janet Smith. Meridel Le Sueur? She's a good writer. Maybe we should hire her. AH! So, often at Crash Course we try to show how conventional wisdom about history isn't always correct. But in the case of the hardships experienced during the Great Depression, it really is. The pictures of Dorothea Lange and Walker Evans, and Steinbeck's description in Grapes of Wrath of Okies leaving the dust bowl in the usually vain hope of a better life in California, they tell the story better than I can. Thousands of Americans took to the road in search of work and thousands more stood in breadlines. There were shantytowns for the homeless called Hoovervilles, and there were protests, like the Bonus March on Washington by veterans seeking an early payment of a bonus due to them in 1945. A lot of the debate around the Great Depression revolves around the causes, while still more concerns the degree to which the federal government's eventual response, the New Deal, actually helped to end the Depression. Those questions are controversial because they're still relevant. We're still talking about how to regulate banking. We're still talking about what the government's role in economic policy should be and whether a strong federal government is ultimately good for an economy or bad for it. And how you feel about the government's role in the Great Depression is going to depend on how you feel about government in general. That said, we shouldn't let our ideological feelings about markets and governments and economics obscure the suffering that millions of Americans experienced during the Great Depression. For generations of Americans, it was one of the defining experiences of their lives. Thanks for watching. I'll see you next week. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller, written by Raoul Meyer, and made with the help of all of these nice people. And it is possible because of your support through Subbable. These videos are only possible because of the support Crash Course viewers give the show on a monthly basis through Subbable. There's a link in the video info if you'd like to join those subscribers. Cool perks and stuff, but mostly educational video available for free to everyone forever. Thank you for watching and supporting Crash Course and as we say in my hometown, don't forget to be awesome...I'm gonna hit the globe! Nailed it. ________________ [1] David Kennedy, Freedom From Fear: The American People in Depression and War 1929-1945. Oxford U. Press. P. 35 [2] P. 52 [3] Kennedy, D. Freedom From Fear p. 88


United States

GDP growth of the US from 2000–2003. Note the lack of two consecutive negative quarters. The profile matches that of a U shaped recession with growth remaining weak from 2000-III to 2003-I.  Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product (annualized; seasonally adjusted);   Average GDP growth 1970–2009
GDP growth of the US from 2000–2003. Note the lack of two consecutive negative quarters. The profile matches that of a U shaped recession with growth remaining weak from 2000-III to 2003-I.
  Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product (annualized; seasonally adjusted);   Average GDP growth 1970–2009

After the relatively mild 1990 recession ended in early 1991, the country hit a belated unemployment rate peak of 7.8% in mid-1992. Job growth was initially muted by large layoffs among defense related industries.[2] However, payrolls accelerated in 1992 and experienced robust growth through 2000.[3]

Predictions that the bubble would burst emerged during the dot-com bubble in the late 1990s. Predictions about a future burst increased following the October 27, 1997 mini-crash, in the wake of the Asian crisis. This caused an uncertain economic climate during the first few months of 1998. However conditions improved, and the Federal Reserve raised interest rates six times between June 1999 and May 2000 in an effort to cool the economy to achieve a soft landing. The burst of the stock market bubble occurred in the form of the NASDAQ crash in March 2000. Growth in gross domestic product slowed considerably in the third quarter of 2000 to the lowest rate since a contraction in the first quarter of 1992.[4]

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began.[5] The expansion lasted exactly 10 years, the longest in the NBER's chronology.[6] According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which is the private, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization charged with determining economic recessions, the U.S. economy was in recession from March 2001 to November 2001,[7] a period of eight months at the beginning of President George W. Bush's term of office. However, economic conditions did not satisfy the common shorthand definition of recession, which is "a fall of a country's real gross domestic product in two or more successive quarters", and has led to some confusion about the procedure for determining the starting and ending dates of a recession.

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee (BCDC) uses monthly, rather than quarterly, indicators to determine peaks and troughs in business activity,[8] as can be seen by noting that starting and ending dates are given by month and year, not quarters. However, controversy over the precise dates of the recession led to the characterization of the recession as the "Clinton Recession" by Republicans, if it could be traced to the final term of President Bill Clinton. BCDC members suggested they would be open to revisiting the dates of the recession as newer and more definitive data became available.[9] In early 2004, NBER President Martin Feldstein said:

It is clear that the revised data have made our original March date for the start of the recession much too late. We are still waiting for additional monthly data before making a final judgment. Until we have the additional data, we cannot make a decision.[9]

However, the NBER has since confirmed that the recession started in March 2001.

From 2000 to 2001, the Federal Reserve, in a move to protect the economy from the overvalued stock market, made successive interest rate increases; while this may have initiated the readjustment, it is starkly contrasted with the severe, prolonged recession that would have occurred had the unsustainable growth continued unabated.[10] Using the stock market as an unofficial benchmark, a recession would have begun in March 2000 when the NASDAQ crashed following the collapse of the dot-com bubble. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was relatively unscathed by the NASDAQ's crash until the September 11, 2001 attacks, after which the DJIA suffered its worst one-day point loss and biggest one-week losses in history up to that point. The market rebounded, only to crash once more in the final two quarters of 2002. In the final three quarters of 2003, the market finally rebounded permanently, agreeing with the unemployment statistics that a recession defined in this way would have lasted from 2001 through 2003.

The Labor Department estimates that a net 1.735 million jobs were shed in 2001, with an additional net 508,000 lost during 2002. 2003 saw a small gain of a mere 105,000 jobs. Unemployment rose from 4.2% in February 2001 to 5.5% in November 2001, but did not peak until June 2003 at 6.3%, after which it declined to 5% by mid-2005.


Canada's economy is closely linked to that of the United States, and economic conditions south of the border tend to quickly make their way north. Canada's stock markets were especially hard hit by the collapse in high-tech stocks. For much of the 1990s the rapid rise of the TSX had almost wholly been attributed to two stocks: Nortel and BCE. Both companies were hard hit by the downturn, especially Nortel, which was forced to lay off much of its workforce. The events of September 11 also hurt the Canadian stock markets and were especially devastating to the already troubled airline sector.

However, in the wider economy, Canada was surprisingly unhurt by these events. While growth slowed, the economy never actually entered a recession. This was the first time that Canada had avoided following the United States into an economic downturn. The rate of job creation in Canada continued at the rapid pace of the 1990s. A number of explanations have been advanced to explain this. Canada was not as directly affected by 9/11 and the subsequent wars, and the downward pressure of these events was more muted. Canada's fiscal management during the period has been praised as the federal government continued to bring in large surpluses throughout this period, in sharp contrast to the United States. Unlike the United States no major tax cuts or major new expenditures were introduced. However, during this time, Canada did pursue an expansionary monetary policy in an effort to reduce the effects of a possible recession. Many provincial governments suffered greater problems with a number of them returning to deficits, which was blamed on the fiscal imbalance. 2003 saw elections in six Canadian provinces and in only one did the governing party not lose seats.


The Soviet Union's last year of economic growth was 1989, and throughout the 1990s, recession ensued in the Former Soviet Republics. In May 1998, following the 1997 crash of the East Asian economy, things began to get even worse in Russia. In August 1998, the value of the ruble fell 34% and people clamored to get their money out of banks (see 1998 Russian financial crisis). The government acted by dragging its feet on privatization programs. Russians responded to this situation with approval by electing the more pro-dirigist and less liberal Vladimir Putin as President in 2000. Putin proceeded to reassert the role of the federal government, and gave it power it had not seen since the Soviet era. State-run businesses were used to out-compete some of the more wealthy rivals of Putin. Putin's policies were popular with the Russian people, gaining him re-election in 2004. At the same time, the export-oriented Russian economy enjoyed considerable influx of foreign currency thanks to rising worldwide oil prices (from $15 per barrel in early 1999 to an average of $30 per barrel during Putin's first term). The early 2000s recession was avoided in Russia due to rebound in exports and, to some degree, a return to dirigisme.


Japan's recession, which started in the early 1990s, continued into the 2000s, with deflation being the main problem. Deflation began plaguing Japan in the fiscal year ending 1999, and by 2005 the yen had 103% of its 2000 buying power. The Bank of Japan attempted to cultivate inflation with high liquidity and a nominal 0% interest rate on loans. Other aspects of the Japanese economy were good during the early 2000s; unemployment remained relatively low, and China became somewhat dependent on the Japanese exports. The bear market, however, continued in Japan, despite the best efforts of the Bank.

European Union

The ECB prime rate is largely lowered starting from 2001.
The ECB prime rate is largely lowered starting from 2001.

Transition left the economy of the European Union in a cautiously optimistic state during the early 2000s. The most difficult years were 2000–2001, precipitating the worst years of the American recession. The European Union introduced a new currency on January 1, 1999. The euro, which was met with much anticipation, had its value immediately plummet, and it continued to be a weak currency throughout 2000 and 2001. Inflation struck the Eurozone for a few months in summer 2001 but the economy deflated within months. In 2002, the value of the euro began to rapidly rise (reaching parity with the US dollar on July 15, 2002). This hurt business for companies based in Europe, as the profits made abroad (especially in the Americas) had an unfavorable exchange rate.

France and Germany both entered recession towards the end of 2001, but in May 2002 both countries declared that their recessions had ended after a mere six months each. Both economies suffered from global tech crash with the ruling German party introducing the then unpopular austerity, tax cuts and labor reforms nicknamed Hartz concept to boost the German economy in wake of an economic slump that would persist until the mid-2000s with unemployment peaking in Early 2005 of 12.7%.[11] However, some European Union countries – including the United Kingdom – managed to delay sliding into recession until the late 2000s.[12]


  1. ^ "US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions". National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved June 16, 2019.
  2. ^ Hardone, Thomas; Herz, Diane; Mellor, Earl; Hipple, Steven (1993). "1992: Job Market in the Doldrums" (PDF). Monthly Labor Review. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 116 (2): 3–14. Retrieved 6 April 2011.
  3. ^ Martel, Jennifer L.; Langdon England, David S. (2001). "2000: The Job Market in 2000: Slowing Down as the Year Ended" (PDF). Monthly Labor Review. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 124 (2): 3–30. Retrieved 6 June 2011.
  4. ^ "Percent Change in Real Gross Domestic Product (Quarterly)". National Income and Product Accounts Table. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Retrieved June 6, 2011.
  5. ^ [1]
  6. ^ [2]
  7. ^ [3]
  8. ^, retrieved 8 April 2008
  9. ^ a b Henderson, Nell (January 22, 2004). Economists Say Recession Started in 2000. The Washington Post.
  10. ^ Ruddy, Christopher (January 31, 2006)Alan Greenspan's Real Legacy Archived 2009-12-01 at the Wayback Machine. Newsmax. Retrieved on July 8, 2009.
  11. ^ "Germany's recession ends". BBC News. May 23, 2002.
  12. ^ "UK in recession as economy slides". BBC News. January 23, 2009.
This page was last edited on 16 June 2019, at 20:22
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.