Just curious on your thoughts and opinions on this

Probably the materialistic 2000s culture would last a little longer, and the Tea Party would not have had as much fervor as they did.

This is probably related to what would happen if 9/11 and the elections of Bush Jr. wouldn't happen. I wouldn't be obsessed over the 2000s politically, since I was only a kid back in the decade. I really didn't gave a crap about what the people said on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC or whatever. Sure, I watched NY1 when I had Time Warner Cable before October of 2010, but that was it. It didn't really talk about politics or any bullsheesh like that.

Just curious on your thoughts and opinions on this


Love this topic by the way

Probably the materialistic 2000s culture would last a little longer, and the Tea Party would not have had as much fervor as they did.


After November 2008 there was a huge shift from the shocking economy pop that had bursted.
TRL went off the air, KB toys left,Sharper Image left, Walden Books left, Toonami went off the air (returned in 2012)
Lady Gaga made electropop a trend, American apparel became the 1# place to shop. A lot of thing changed right after this.
Esp Obama getting elected.

Like you said, the MATERIALISTIC classic 2000s atmosphere that was still lingering on its lasp gasp would have stayed all the way thru
2009 and a little bit of 2010. Things that would have stayed the same would be electropop,  Music was heading in this direction regardless.
The shift from classic 2000s vibe to the post  2009 vibe would have been more organic had the crash not happened.


Lets not forget why late 2000s electropop had an extra huge push, because people had no hope and wanted to feel good and escape life.

John McCain could have been elected in 2008.  Most people forget that Obama wasn't a sure thing until September 2008 when the stock market crashed.  I think politically we would be a little less polarized.  Right now there is a lot of anger on the right that stems from the Tea Party movement.  I don't think the Tea Party would have been as successful if not for the recession.

Culturally I think little would have changed.  We still would have had the electropop era.  Most of the trends pertaining millennials that came into their own in the 2010s got their start in the '00s.  Millennials were a very liberal generation even before the recession.  The only thing I think of that might be different is the materialistic culture of the mid '00s might have hung on a bit longer.  The shift from '00s to '10s would probably be seen as more of a gradual shift than the sudden one that happened in 2009.

It was likely driven by more than three decades of heavy borrowing and spending coupled with the start of peak oil after 2005. In which case, it was inevitable.

Maybe the late 2000s economy would have been better?

Is it bad that I still don't quite understand the recession. The only thing I can really recall about it is the fluctuating gas prices when my parents complained about it. But otherwise I didn't feel any sort of repercussions from it. We didn't lose jobs or property or anything, ate fairly well, bills were paid....etc.

Is it bad that I still don't quite understand the recession. The only thing I can really recall about it is the fluctuating gas prices when my parents complained about it. But otherwise I didn't feel any sort of repercussions from it. We didn't lose jobs or property or anything, ate fairly well, bills were paid....etc.


Well, the effects of the Recession depended heavily on your company, location, and class status.  Guessing that your parents were employed at well-to-do organizations or held high-ranking positions, they wouldn't have had much to complain about.  My family was the same.  As for so much of the rest of the world, however, especially younger generations, several people were laid off, had devastating pay cuts, or found it borderline impossible to find work due to the market's precariousness.  The setback ruined a ton of people's lives, or at least forced them to adapt to a completely new routine.

The recession was a mixed bag in my area. A lot of houses were foreclosed on and Main Street became a ghost town with a lot of fly by night shops opening and then closing a month later. On the other hand, our town's demographic became less retirees and more young college kids and young families over the years. personally, the recession lowered my tuition to college and was able to graduate without owing any loans. I was also able to save a lot of money.

Well, the effects of the Recession depended heavily on your company, location, and class status.  Guessing that your parents were employed at well-to-do organizations or held high-ranking positions, they wouldn't have had much to complain about.  My family was the same.  As for so much of the rest of the world, however, especially younger generations, several people were laid off, had devastating pay cuts, or found it borderline impossible to find work due to the market's precariousness.  The setback ruined a ton of people's lives, or at least forced them to adapt to a completely new routine.


Well maybe that was why. Both of my folks were retired. My mom had worked at a welding supply company until her illness put her out and daddy was a jack of all trades who worked for himself as he could do mechanic, carpenter, plumbing and electrical work himself. Literally the room I'm sitting in typing this right now was built and electrified by his own two hands. (the blue room you always see in the background of my pictures...) Mom got a steady pension from her job until the day she went on into Glory and daddy worked sporadically until about 6 months before he passed too.


The recession was a mixed bag in my area. A lot of houses were foreclosed on and Main Street became a ghost town with a lot of fly by night shops opening and then closing a month later. On the other hand, our town's demographic became less retirees and more young college kids and young families over the years. personally, the recession lowered my tuition to college and was able to graduate without owing any loans. I was also able to save a lot of money.


I recall this happening also. The one that stuck out to me was a few years ago, a Krispy Kreme came to Beaumont and I remember it was like a Star Wars film opening because people literally camped out in the parking lot to get donuts and stuff (Beaumont is chiefly a Dunkin Donuts/Shipley Donuts hub) and my dad and I got some donuts from there one time--and didn't like them. The next thing I know, Krispy Kreme was gone. The Starbucks that opened beside it is still going strong, but the KK building became a Krystal Burger, which I loved...then THAT closed too, and now it's a Which Wich, where I get my submarine sammies now. (They got a muffalata that's so good you need a cigarette after you eat it!) A lot of restaurants went under fast that I can recall.

Maybe the late 2000s economy would have been better?


I would have thought so.

Fallout from more than three decades of heavy borrowing and spending (see the chart in the article):

http://seekingalpha.com/article/164163-krugman-and-the-pied-pipers-of-debt

coupled with the petrodollar (oil price in dollars in exchange for armaments) which was needed because U.S. conventional oil production peaked a few years earlier and because the gold standard (the dollar fixed to a certain amount backed by gold) was dropped (because more dollars were needed to pay for war costs, in turn used to control natural resources, etc., in weaker countries). At the same time, world conventional production started peaking after 2005, prompting the use of bailouts to fuel consumer spending and support more expensive oil.

But after almost a decade, the effects of bailouts are now being seen with deflation and the threat of another global financial crash (which is why the price not only of oil but of other commodities crashed). Meanwhile, lower oil prices are weakening the industry:

"Oil Industry Needs Half a Trillion Dollars to Endure Price Slump"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-26/oil-industry-needs-to-find-half-a-trillion-dollars-to-survive

which means more bailouts will be needed, which increases the threat of more financial crises, while higher prices means more unemployment, inflation, etc.

Ultimately, it boils down to a lack of resources vs. a global economy which needs unlimited resources:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse