Hacker News Reader

Comment by knapcio | Hacker News Reader

Just posting this as I think it may be useful to gain some perspective for this type of articles. An article from 2000 indicating soft landing: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB969020894934426807

View on HN

Because they papered over the landing with newly created dollars — which isn’t really happening this time because they beat that horse to near death.

Plus you have a lot more going on this time around which isn’t really helping with an orderly landing.

I do not know what may or may not happen as if I knew, I’d become very rich. My point here is that the article from 2000 indicates soft landing when the landing definitely was not soft at that time. Just wanted to show the value of such articles.

Outside of tech it was relatively soft

Well, apart from the US:

1. In Japan, the crisis resulted in a prolonged period of economic stagnation, known as the "Lost Decade," which lasted from the early 1990s to the early 2000s. The country had already been struggling with a banking crisis and a property market crash, and the dot-com bubble burst only made things worse.

2. In Europe, the crisis led to a slowdown in economic growth, particularly in Germany, which was heavily dependent on exports. The country was hit by declining demand from the United States, which was one of its biggest trading partners.

3. In emerging market economies, the crisis led to a decline in investment flows and a slowdown in economic growth. Countries like Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina were particularly affected, as they were heavily dependent on foreign investment to finance their economic growth.

Overall, IMO the 2000 crisis had rather a significant impact on the global economy, leading to a decline in economic growth in many countries. I wouldn't call it "soft landing".

The 2000 dotcom crash resulted the "Lost Decade," which lasted from the early 1990s to the early 2000s? Are we talking about the same thing?

I used the word "prolonged"

There's mixed perspectives on this because in aggregate top line terms it was relatively soft but in distributional terms both the 2001 recession and the subsequent expansion up to the Great Recession were abysmal for all but a very narrow slice at the top (which—on a higher level than the particular housing-related financial shell games that get the most focus, whuch really were just one of the ways the underlying dysfunction was papered over with debt—is pretty much the main cause of the Great Recession.)

>the 2001 recession ...was abysmal for all but a very narrow slice at the top

On what are you basing this conclusion?

And they were right, the 2001 recession was so soft some economists don't even consider it to actually be a recession.

Outside of the tech bubble it was pretty much business as usual.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com