That’s collateral.
You want to buy a house.
You take a loan from the bank.
The bank asks you, “what if you don’t pay back?”
You say, “take my home and sell it”.
(Thread)
That’s collateral.
So a loan where the bank has collateral is considered safer for the bank.
The economy had just recovered from the tech bubble in 2000 where many banks had given out loans to businesses that had shut down.
They did so.
Banks made good money by selling these loans. There was a demand for it.
So they started giving out even more loans to supply the high demand.
Banks give out money to borrowers to buy a house.
Then, banks sell this mortgage to institutional investors.
So they again have money.
This money they lend out again.
Again, they sell this new mortgage to institutional investors.
And so does the price of houses.
But towards the end of 2007, many people start defaulting on their loans.
No big deal.
They start putting these houses up for sale.
More people default on their loans.
More houses come on sale.
Supply and demand kick in.
There are so many houses on sale and not enough buyers.
So house prices start falling.
More borrowers start defaulting on their loans. More houses come on sale. Houses continue to become so cheap, borrowers cannot recover their money.
Banks run out of money to lend.
With some industries slowing down, the economic cycle starts getting affected.
With that, comes job losses.
With job losses, comes reduced spending.
With reduced spending, comes a slowdown.
Right after the 2000 tech bubble, investors and the entire economic system was determined to avoid another tech bubble.
The US being such a major economy, this recession affected the entire globe.
The impact of such massive events is that people’s focus is on making sure the same doesn’t repeat.
That continued right from 2012 to 2020.
In 2020, the markets fell just as sharply.
It was caused by a pandemic - a threat nobody quite expected or saw coming.
The lesson for the investor is the same be it the tech bubble of 2000, the Great Recession of 2008, or the pandemic of 2020.
More from All
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x