The Great Recession Oral Histories
INTRODUCTION
History, although considered to involve past events, can also be attributed to events that have happened in recent past. Nevertheless, though the same forms the primary occurrences of a given society, it can be manipulated in certain ways. This can be, to hide truths, to portray some vices or even narrate events that happened in given society according to the source the history is being acquired. Diversity of sources history is collected from forms the primary root of the narrative and can vary from one source to another. Oral histories, for instance, differ from one person to another due to their perspectives. This is determined by the interaction between the narrator and the person conducting the interview.
The interview I do with my two interviewees, for instance, brings out the different oral narrator’s views of how the Great Recession that occurred in 2008 could have been handled to sustain an economic balance. It brings out the diverse oral histories on the effects brought out by the great recession and how it affected both; the American natives and the African-Americans.
However, the narrators bring out contradicting narratives on how the great recession affected the economy during this period. This leaves me in a dilemma on what transpired, what was realistic, and what was not. The reliance of this type of source to understand past events is, however, considered, although it can’t be compared with written history, as in most cases it recorded information cannot be easily altered. In the interview, the interviewees explain the debate they once had and of their two conflicting views that involved how the great recession could be handled to maintain a stable economy.
BODY
The great recession can be traced back to 2008, where the United States experienced the worst economic cascade in its history. Although President George W. Bush tried his best to rejuvenate the falling of the economy that had started in December 2007, by signing the economic stimulus Act into law, the financial crash was overwhelming. By the end of 2009, the rate of unemployment had gone down beyond reasonable, and lending institutions had gone into liquidation, disappearing with the low-income earner’s savings. Most American households were suffering since the United States economic standing fell from $69 trillion to $55 trillion in a span of 2 years that is from 2007-2009. My interview features two interviewees, John Mills and Fredrick Curter, who were grossly affected by the recession, and had a controversial argument on what brought in a global financial crisis. They both are to give opinions on what caused the economic crises and various ways that they thought were best on resolving the same. John Mills was born on 3rd January 1983 in the state of California, where he studied to the university level and graduated with a Masters in economics from Columbia University in New York. In 2005 he became one of the significant business economics analysts who is now based in California, his home state. Fredrick was born on 6th May 1975 and hails from Oregon State. He graduated in 1996 with a bachelor of law from Boston University and then moved to the United Kingdom, where he pursued economics and statistics. Heis currently based in Portland, Oregon, where he runs a law firm.
Fredrick starts by explaining how the great recession came to be and the root causes of the same. He pinpoints on the loans given to customers having poor credit histories. These loans were termed as high risk as they would amount to customer’s homes been taken by the banks if not paid. The shares of the United States steel that sold at high rates in the stock exchange would eventually go to a low of tariffs by the year 2008. There was also the factor of weak banking systems that was attributed to low farm-produce prices that were already looming. This led the farmers to withdraw the little money they had saved since it was the only remedy for survival. The overproduction of the industries still made the economy drown since the consumers could not consume what was produced due to the unstable economy.
Friedrich believed that to recover from the economic crash, it did not only call for disciplined and adequate spending but also called for the going back to the high production sustainability era. He also explains that the approval of the Troubled Asset Relief Program done by President Bush in 2008 was not adequate to curb the depression. The $700 billion funds that were offered to struggling companies would only remedy a few citizens in the United States. Where they would rejuvenate the remaining stock and also copy the methods that were applied in that period. However, certain critics criticized his view by dint that his only aim was to the liquidation of labor, stock, farmers, and other contributors to the growth of the economy. They suggested that spending of money would be of the essence to rejuvenate the companies that had been closed down due to the crisis. This would also help the sustenance of the economy that would, in turn, sustain elections that were to be conducted that year. Friedrich’s view revolved around avoiding the global financial, economic crisis, which was the avoiding of any vague unsustainable financial crisis at all costs. This would, in return, leave a financial depression, which would be hard for the government to recover.
John, on the other hand, through his general view, believed that the depression was just an elusive idea that John had. In his opinion, he explained that considerable financial deficits would be recovered by raising taxes and reducing spending. This would encourage a high level of activity, i.e., output and employment, depended on the level of spending power or demand. This would also be termed as “under-employment equilibrium.
John also affirms that no racial problems whatsoever were encountered between the African-Americans and the American Natives. However, “The Great Recession,” featured that both whites and blacks in the south endured crushing poverty. Nevertheless, African Americans were the most affected as pervasive racism also was used in the laying off of workers. However, this discrimination reduced after President Obama was sworn in as president in January 2009, this notwithstanding the financial hiccups that were there for him to evaluate.
Fredrick believed that if a country’s economic growth was shrinking, it was to be allowed to do so until it gets to a level of self-sufficiency or stability, but not cutting off government spending to show that the country was growing. He opined that the frequent signing of aid documents that requested funds only was creating instabilities in the deteriorating economy. The Stimulus Package that Obama signed after he got into power would still be misused. This would be instead of developing the infrastructure as was meant to like the very first one that was signed by President Bush before his exiting. He concluded that a government should control a business cycle and, thus, the economy and not the other way round.
The two interviewees had gone ahead and had indulged in a prior debate, where they had been trying to bring out the opposing opinions they had regarding the great recession. John wanted to steer the markets by saving to invest (capital structure). He blamed the people for failing to save, which in turn, brought forth the great recession of 2008 and caused the crisis therein. He explains how it affected the global financial standing, which was hard to recover from and gave a remedy, which was the boosting of aggregate demand.
Fredrick believed that the markets should be spending their money freely, though he blamed the crisis on the low-interest rates and also the customers who were not paying their loans. He also wanted the government to spend to facilitate growth and also advocated in having huge deficits, thus liquidation of money rather than it being stuck in banks.
I think their argument does not satisfactorily bring out the opinions propagated by the two interviewees. This is because it only brings out the aspect of the capital structure (saving to invest) by John and spending freely of government money to allow liquidation by Fredrick. The United States are great advocates of the free-spending of government resources to facilitate the rapid growth of the states. Thus John’s argument was what was being applied, although the depression continued till mid-2009 a bit of stability was felt economic wise.
Although the two scholars try to bring out their perspectives regarding the great depression, their different narrations and views raise questions. John’s opinion, for instance, brings out the aspect of saving money first to spend later. It could not have been easy to have saved enough to suffice the entire period since no American had predestined its occurrence. The crashing of the global economy was nothing that an individual could have handled since even most countries stopped trading with the United States as a This led to President Bush’s efforts to restore the same futile.
This henceforth leaves us grappling with the fact that John’s opinion could not have been applied, basing it from that angle. I henceforth would not have advocated on the saving first to invest later. This, however, might have been considered as an aspect of bringing rapid growth in the face of it, and thus a stable foundation. Fredrick’s opinion also had its issues as it was not easy for the governments to spend as it had also to maintain its economy from fully crashing, notwithstanding the great recession. Countries had withdrawn their trade relations with the United States and other countries generally. This not only created the global crisis but also made the countries isolate from each other.
Henceforth even if the government was ready to spend freely, it was bound by that factor and also the fact that its share capital had drastically deteriorated. Other countries that the United States could trade with were also grappling with their unstable economies. This is since not all governments are on the same financial standing, taking into consideration the aspect that some are developed, developing, and underdeveloped.
CONCLUSION
Finally, the great recession, as seen from the context, was not just a mere crisis that could have been solved by the argument, as explained by the two interviewees. The gross effects of the same made many European countries default on their national debts. This made the European Union offer a bailout to the nations. The fact that the effect had grown from a global perspective, that even the governing president at the time could not handle, shows that it needed more than ideas to curb it. The two interviewees only can evaluate the great recession from the face of it. Although they try to bring out some aspects that caused it, it still leaves us in a hiatus in regards to some prevalent issues. They only explain what caused the Great recession, from their point of understanding, and give diverse opinions on what should have been done to stop the crisis. However, they do not enlighten us on how the crisis was extinguished at the end of the year 2009. They also leave us unaware of what can be done in case the economy can be shaken again by other factors like pandemics.
Nevertheless, although it’s advisable to seek living historical experiences from oral narrators, it is also advisable to rely on recorded sources. This allows having valid information that can also be relied upon in resolving current occurrences. That, for instance, could have helped us in addressing the effects of the present pandemic that have dented all the economies worldwide, which are only recording losses.