By April 2026, it is projected that there is a probability of ***** percent that the United States will fall into another economic recession. This reflects a significant decrease from the projection of the preceding month.

The Long Depression was, by a large margin, the longest-lasting recession in U.S. history. It began in the U.S. with the Panic of 1873, and lasted for over five years. This depression was the largest in a series of recessions at the turn of the 20th century, which proved to be a period of overall stagnation as the U.S. financial markets failed to keep pace with industrialization and changes in monetary policy. Great Depression The Great Depression, however, is widely considered to have been the most severe recession in U.S. history. Following the Wall Street Crash in 1929, the country's economy collapsed, wages fell and a quarter of the workforce was unemployed. It would take almost four years for recovery to begin. Additionally, U.S. expansion and integration in international markets allowed the depression to become a global event, which became a major catalyst in the build up to the Second World War. Decreasing severity When comparing recessions before and after the Great Depression, they have generally become shorter and less frequent over time. Only three recessions in the latter period have lasted more than one year. Additionally, while there were 12 recessions between 1880 and 1920, there were only six recessions between 1980 and 2020. The most severe recession in recent years was the financial crisis of 2007 (known as the Great Recession), where irresponsible lending policies and lack of government regulation allowed for a property bubble to develop and become detached from the economy over time, this eventually became untenable and the bubble burst. Although the causes of both the Great Depression and Great Recession were similar in many aspects, economists have been able to use historical evidence to try and predict, prevent, or limit the impact of future recessions.

Graph and download economic data for Dates of U.S. recessions as inferred by GDP-based recession indicator (JHDUSRGDPBR) from Q4 1967 to Q4 2024 about recession indicators, GDP, and USA.

United States Recession Probability data was reported at 14.120 % in Oct 2019. This records a decrease from the previous number of 14.505 % for Sep 2019. United States Recession Probability data is updated monthly, averaging 7.668 % from Jan 1960 (Median) to Oct 2019, with 718 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 95.405 % in Dec 1981 and a record low of 0.080 % in Sep 1983. United States Recession Probability data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.S021: Recession Probability.

We analyze the ups and downs in economic growth in recent decades by constructing a model with recurrent bubbles, crashes, and endogenous growth. Once realized, bubbles crowd in investment and stimulate economic growth, but expectation about future bubbles crowds out investment and reduces economic growth. We identify bubbly episodes by estimating the model using the U.S. data. Counterfactual simulations suggest that the IT and housing bubbles not only caused economic booms but also lifted U.S. GDP by almost 2 percentage points permanently, but the economy could have grown even faster if people had believed that asset bubbles would never arise.

From the Summer of 2007 until the end of 2009 (at least), the world was gripped by a series of economic crises commonly known as the Global Financial Crisis (2007-2008) and the Great Recession (2008-2009). The financial crisis was triggered by the collapse of the U.S. housing market, which caused panic on Wall Street, the center of global finance in New York. Due to the outsized nature of the U.S. economy compared to other countries and particularly the centrality of U.S. finance for the world economy, the crisis spread quickly to other countries, affecting most regions across the globe. By 2009, global GDP growth was in negative territory, with international credit markets frozen, international trade contracting, and tens of millions of workers being made unemployed.

Global similarities, global differences

Since the 1980s, the world economy had entered a period of integration and globalization. This process particularly accelerated after the collapse of the Soviet Union ended the Cold War (1947-1991). This was the period of the 'Washington Consensus', whereby the U.S. and international institutions such as the World Bank and IMF promoted policies of economic liberalization across the globe. This increasing interdependence and openness to the global economy meant that when the crisis hit in 2007, many countries experienced the same issues. This is particularly evident in the synchronization of the recessions in the most advanced economies of the G7. Nevertheless, the aggregate global GDP number masks the important regional differences which occurred during the recession. While the more advanced economies of North America, Western Europe, and Japan were all hit hard, along with countries who are reliant on them for trade or finance, large emerging economies such as India and China bucked this trend. In particular, China's huge fiscal stimulus in 2008-2009 likely did much to prevent the global economy from sliding further into a depression. In 2009, while the United States' GDP sank to -2.6 percent, China's GDP, as reported by national authorities, was almost 10 percent.

On October 29, 1929, the U.S. experienced the most devastating stock market crash in it's history. The Wall Street Crash of 1929 set in motion the Great Depression, which lasted for twelve years and affected virtually all industrialized countries. In the United States, GDP fell to it's lowest recorded level of just 57 billion U.S dollars in 1933, before rising again shortly before the Second World War. After the war, GDP fluctuated, but it increased gradually until the Great Recession in 2008. Real GDP Real GDP allows us to compare GDP over time, by adjusting all figures for inflation. In this case, all numbers have been adjusted to the value of the US dollar in FY2012. While GDP rose every year between 1946 and 2008, when this is adjusted for inflation it can see that the real GDP dropped at least once in every decade except the 1960s and 2010s. The Great Recession Apart from the Great Depression, and immediately after WWII, there have been two times where both GDP and real GDP dropped together. The first was during the Great Recession, which lasted from December 2007 until June 2009 in the US, although its impact was felt for years after this. After the collapse of the financial sector in the US, the government famously bailed out some of the country's largest banking and lending institutions. Since recovery began in late 2009, US GDP has grown year-on-year, and reached 21.4 trillion dollars in 2019. The coronavirus pandemic and the associated lockdowns then saw GDP fall again, for the first time in a decade. As economic recovery from the pandemic has been compounded by supply chain issues, inflation, and rising global geopolitical instability, it remains to be seen what the future holds for the U.S. economy.

The Global Financial Crisis of 2008-09 was a period of severe macroeconomic instability for the United States and the global economy more generally. The crisis was precipitated by the collapse of a number of financial institutions who were deeply involved in the U.S. mortgage market and associated credit markets. Beginning in the Summer of 2007, a number of banks began to report issues with increasing mortgage delinquencies and the problem of not being able to accurately price derivatives contracts which were based on bundles of these U.S. residential mortgages. By the end of 2008, U.S. financial institutions had begun to fail due to their exposure to the housing market, leading to one of the deepest recessions in the history of the United States and to extensive government bailouts of the financial sector.

Subprime and the collapse of the U.S. mortgage market

The early 2000s had seen explosive growth in the U.S. mortgage market, as credit became cheaper due to the Federal Reserve's decision to lower interest rates in the aftermath of the 2001 'Dot Com' Crash, as well as because of the increasing globalization of financial flows which directed funds into U.S. financial markets. Lower mortgage rates gave incentive to financial institutions to begin lending to riskier borrowers, using so-called 'subprime' loans. These were loans to borrowers with poor credit scores, who would not have met the requirements for a conventional mortgage loan. In order to hedge against the risk of these riskier loans, financial institutions began to use complex financial instruments known as derivatives, which bundled mortgage loans together and allowed the risk of default to be sold on to willing investors. This practice was supposed to remove the risk from these loans, by effectively allowing credit institutions to buy insurance against delinquencies. Due to the fraudulent practices of credit ratings agencies, however, the price of these contacts did not reflect the real risk of the loans involved. As the reality of the inability of the borrowers to repay began to kick in during 2007, the financial markets which traded these derivatives came under increasing stress and eventually led to a 'sudden stop' in trading and credit intermediation during 2008.

Market Panic and The Great Recession

As borrowers failed to make repayments, this had a knock-on effect among financial institutions who were highly leveraged with financial instruments based on the mortgage market. Lehman Brothers, one of the world's largest investment banks, failed on September 15th 2008, causing widespread panic in financial markets. Due to the fear of an unprecedented collapse in the financial sector which would have untold consequences for the wider economy, the U.S. government and central bank, The Fed, intervened the following day to bailout the United States' largest insurance company, AIG, and to backstop financial markets. The crisis prompted a deep recession, known colloquially as The Great Recession, drawing parallels between this period and The Great Depression. The collapse of credit intermediation in the economy lead to further issues in the real economy, as business were increasingly unable to pay back loans and were forced to lay off staff, driving unemployment to a high of almost 10 percent in 2010. While there has been criticism of the U.S. government's actions to bailout the financial institutions involved, the actions of the government and the Fed are seen by many as having prevented the crisis from spiraling into a depression of the magnitude of The Great Depression.

The Great Recession was a period of economic contraction which came in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2008. The recession was triggered by the collapse of the U.S. housing market and subsequent bankruptcies among Wall Street financial institutions, the most significant of which being the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history. These economic convulsions caused consumer confidence, measured by the Consumer Confidence Index (CCI), to drop sharply in 2007 and the beginning of 2008. How does the Consumer Confidence Index work? The CCI measures household's expectation of their future economic situation and, consequently, their likely future spending and savings decisions. A score of 100 in the index would indicate a neutral economic outlook, with consumers neither being optimistic nor pessimistic about the near future. Scores below 100 are then more pessimistic, while scores above 100 indicate optimism about the economy. Consumer confidence can have a self-fulfilling effect on the economy, as when consumers are pessimistic about the economy, they tend to save and postpone spending, contracting aggregate demand and causing the economy to slow down. Conversely, when consumers are optimistic and willing to spend, this can have a reinforcing effect as wages and employment may rise when consumers spend more. CCI and the Great Recession As the reality of the trouble which the U.S. financial sector was in set in over 2007, consumer confidence dropped sharply from being slightly positive, to being deeply pessimistic by the Summer of 2008. While confidence began to slowly rebound up until September 2008, with the panic caused by Lehman's bankruptcy and the freezing of new credit creation, the CCI plummeted once more, reaching its lowest point during the recession in February 2008. The U.S. government stepped in to prevent the bankruptcy of AIG in 2008, promising to do the same for any future possible failures in the financial system. This 'backstopping' policy, whereby the government assured that the economy would not be allowed to fall further into crisis, along with the Federal Reserve's unconventional monetary policies used to restart the economy, contributed to a rebound in consumer confidence in 2009 and 2010. In spite of this, consumers still remained pessimistic about the economy.

Comprehensive data on Goldman Sachs legal settlements totaling $12+ billion from 2009-2024

Graph and download economic data for Real Gross Domestic Product: Construction (23) in the United States (USCONSTRQGSP) from Q1 2005 to Q4 2024 about GSP, private industries, construction, private, real, industry, GDP, and USA.

This is not going to be an article or Op-Ed about Michael Jordan. Since 2009 we've been in the longest bull-market in history, that's 11 years and counting. However a few metrics like the stock market P/E, the call to put ratio and of course the Shiller P/E suggest a great crash is coming in-between the levels of 1929 and the dot.com bubble. Mean reversion historically is inevitable and the Fed's printing money experiment could end in disaster for the stock market in late 2021 or 2022. You can read Jeremy Grantham's Last Dance article here. You are likely well aware of Michael Burry's predicament as well. It's easier for you just to skim through two related videos on this topic of a stock market crash. Michael Burry's Warning see this YouTube. Jeremy Grantham's Warning See this YouTube. Typically when there is a major event in the world, there is a crash and then a bear market and a recovery that takes many many months. In March, 2020 that's not what we saw since the Fed did some astonishing things that means a liquidity sloth and the risk of a major inflation event. The pandemic represented the quickest decline of at least 30% in the history of the benchmark S&P 500, but the recovery was not correlated to anything but Fed intervention. Since the pandemic clearly isn't disappearing and many sectors such as travel, business travel, tourism and supply chain disruptions appear significantly disrupted - the so-called economic recovery isn't so great. And there's this little problem at the heart of global capitalism today, the stock market just keeps going up. Crashes and corrections typically occur frequently in a normal market. But the Fed liquidity and irresponsible printing of money is creating a scenario where normal behavior isn't occurring on the markets. According to data provided by market analytics firm Yardeni Research, the benchmark index has undergone 38 declines of at least 10% since the beginning of 1950. Since March, 2020 we've barely seen a down month. September, 2020 was flat-ish. The S&P 500 has more than doubled since those lows. Look at the angle of the curve: The S&P 500 was 735 at the low in 2009, so in this bull market alone it has gone up 6x in valuation. That's not a normal cycle and it could mean we are due for an epic correction. I have to agree with the analysts who claim that the long, long bull market since 2009 has finally matured into a fully-fledged epic bubble. There is a complacency, buy-the dip frenzy and general meme environment to what BigTech can do in such an environment. The weight of Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft, Facebook, Nvidia and Tesla together in the S&P and Nasdaq is approach a ridiculous weighting. When these stocks are seen both as growth, value and companies with unbeatable moats the entire dynamics of the stock market begin to break down. Check out FANG during the pandemic. BigTech is Seen as Bullet-Proof me valuations and a hysterical speculative behavior leads to even higher highs, even as 2020 offered many younger people an on-ramp into investing for the first time. Some analysts at JP Morgan are even saying that until retail investors stop charging into stocks, markets probably don’t have too much to worry about. Hedge funds with payment for order flows can predict exactly how these retail investors are behaving and monetize them. PFOF might even have to be banned by the SEC. The risk-on market theoretically just keeps going up until the Fed raises interest rates, which could be in 2023! For some context, we're more than 1.4 years removed from the bear-market bottom of the coronavirus crash and haven't had even a 5% correction in nine months. This is the most over-priced the market has likely ever been. At the night of the dot-com bubble the S&P 500 was only 1,400. Today it is 4,500, not so many years after. Clearly something is not quite right if you look at history and the P/E ratios. A market pumped with liquidity produces higher earnings with historically low interest rates, it's an environment where dangerous things can occur. In late 1997, as the S&P 500 passed its previous 1929 peak of 21x earnings, that seemed like a lot, but nothing compared to today. For some context, the S&P 500 Shiller P/E closed last week at 38.58, which is nearly a two-decade high. It's also well over double the average Shiller P/E of 16.84, dating back 151 years. So the stock market is likely around 2x over-valued. Try to think rationally about what this means for valuations today and your favorite stock prices, what should they be in historical terms? The S&P 500 is up 31% in the past year. It will likely hit 5,000 before a correction given the amount of added liquidity to the system and the QE the Fed is using that's like a huge abuse of MMT, or Modern Monetary Theory. This has also lent to bubbles in the housing market, crypto and even commodities like Gold with long-term global GDP meeting many headwinds in the years ahead due to a demographic shift of an ageing population and significant technological automation. So if you think that stocks or equities or ETFs are the best place to put your money in 2022, you might want to think again. The crash of the OTC and small-cap market since February 2021 has been quite an indication of what a correction looks like. According to the Motley Fool what happens after major downturns in the market historically speaking? In each of the previous four instances that the S&P 500's Shiller P/E shot above and sustained 30, the index lost anywhere from 20% to 89% of its value. So what's what we too are due for, reversion to the mean will be realistically brutal after the Fed's hyper-extreme intervention has run its course. Of course what the Fed stimulus has really done is simply allowed the 1% to get a whole lot richer to the point of wealth inequality spiraling out of control in the decades ahead leading us likely to a dystopia in an unfair and unequal version of BigTech capitalism. This has also led to a trend of short squeeze to these tech stocks, as shown in recent years' data. Of course the Fed has to say that's its done all of these things for the people, employment numbers and the labor market. Women in the workplace have been set behind likely 15 years in social progress due to the pandemic and the Fed's response. While the 89% lost during the Great Depression would be virtually impossible today thanks to ongoing intervention from the Federal Reserve and Capitol Hill, a correction of 20% to 50% would be pretty fair and simply return the curve back to a normal trajectory as interest rates going back up eventually in the 2023 to 2025 period. It's very unlikely the market has taken Fed tapering into account (priced-in), since the euphoria of a can't miss market just keeps pushing the markets higher. But all good things must come to an end. Earlier this month, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics released inflation data from July. This report showed that the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers rose 5.2% over the past 12 months. While the Fed and economists promise us this inflation is temporary, others are not so certain. As you print so much money, the money you have is worth less and certain goods cost more. Wage gains in some industries cannot be taken back, they are permanent - in the service sector like restaurants, hospitality and travel that have been among the hardest hit. The pandemic has led to a paradigm shift in the future of work, and that too is not temporary. The Great Resignation means white collar jobs with be more WFM than ever before, with a new software revolution, different transport and energy behaviors and so forth. Climate change alone could slow down global GDP in the 21st century. How can inflation be temporary when so many trends don't appear to be temporary? Sure the price of lumber or used-cars could be temporary, but a global chip shortage is exasperating the automobile sector. The stock market isn't even behaving like it cares about anything other than the Fed, and its $billions of dollars of buying bonds each month. Some central banks will start to taper about December, 2021 (like the European). However Delta could further mutate into a variant that makes the first generation of vaccines less effective. Such a macro event could be enough to trigger the correction we've been speaking about. So stay safe, and keep your money safe. The Last Dance of the 2009 bull market could feel especially more painful because we've been spoiled for so long in the markets. We can barely remember what March, 2020 felt like. Some people sold their life savings simply due to scare tactics by the likes of Bill Ackman. His scare tactics on CNBC won him likely hundreds of millions as the stock market tanked. Hedge funds further gamed the Reddit and Gamestop movement, orchestrating them and leading the new retail investors into meme speculation and a whole bunch of other unsavory things like options trading at such scale we've never seen before. It's not just inflation and higher interest rates, it's how absurdly high valuations have become. Still correlation does not imply causation. Just because inflation has picked up, it doesn't guarantee that stocks will head lower. Nevertheless, weaker buying power associated with higher inflation can't be overlooked as a potential negative for the U.S. economy and equities. The current S&P500 10-year P/E Ratio is 38.7. This is 97% above the modern-era market average of 19.6, putting the current P/E 2.5 standard deviations above the modern-era average. This is just math, folks. History is saying the stock market is 2x its true value. So why and who would be full on the market or an asset class like crypto that is mostly speculative in nature to begin with? Study the following on a historical basis, and due your own due diligence as to the health of the markets: Debt-to-GDP ratio Call to put ratio

Between the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and the end of the Great Depression in the late 1930s, the Soviet Union saw the largest growth in its gross domestic product, growing by more than 70 percent between 1929 and 1937/8. The Great Depression began in 1929 in the United States, following the stock market crash in late October. The inter-connectedness of the global economy, particularly between North America and Europe, then came to the fore as the collapse of the U.S. economy exposed the instabilities of other industrialized countries. In contrast, the economic isolation of the Soviet Union and its detachment from the capitalist system meant that it was relatively shielded from these events. 1929-1932 The Soviet Union was one of just three countries listed that experienced GDP growth during the first three years of the Great Depression, with Bulgaria and Denmark being the other two. Bulgaria experienced the largest GDP growth over these three years, increasing by 27 percent, although it was also the only country to experience a decline in growth over the second period. The majority of other European countries saw their GDP growth fall in the depression's early years. However, none experienced the same level of decline as the United States, which dropped by 28 percent. 1932-1938 In the remaining years before the Second World War, all of the listed countries saw their GDP grow significantly, particularly Germany, the Soviet Union, and the United States. Coincidentally, these were the three most powerful nations during the Second World War. This recovery was primarily driven by industrialization, and, again, the U.S., USSR, and Germany all experienced the highest level of industrial growth between 1932 and 1938.

Workers’ compensation and other insurance funds businesses have experienced significant changes in recent years, largely driven by economic fluctuations and shifts in investment income. The crash of the US economy in 2020 due to pandemic-related restrictions placed immense pressure on the industry. Business formation plunged and unemployment soared, resulting in a diminished customer base for insurance funds and a steep drop in revenue. Regardless, the Federal Reserve's injection of liquidity into the financial system propelled stock prices upward, boosting investment income for insurance providers. This increase in investment income provided some relief for providers, enabling them to cover expenses and sustain profits despite revenue losses. The relaxation of COVID-19 restrictions spurred economic recovery in 2021, driving unemployment down and corporate profit up. This positive economic climate increased demand for insurance services and enhanced investment income due to robust stock market conditions. However, since 2022, inflation has wreaked havoc, causing businesses and organizations to slash investments in insurance funds amid soaring prices. More recently, rising interest rates have reduced downstream demand due to the emergence of recessionary fears, but revenue and profit have expanded because of growing returns on fixed-income products. Overall, revenue for workers’ compensation and other insurance funds has inched downward at a CAGR of 0.2% over the past five years, reaching $56.6 billion in 2025. This includes a 0.5% rise in revenue in that year. Looking ahead, providers are poised for moderate growth over the next five years. As the US economy stabilizes, with solid GDP growth and potential increases in business formation and employment, the customer base for insurance funds is likely to expand. These favorable economic conditions should bolster consumer confidence and investment in the stock market, leading to greater investment income for the industry. Nonetheless, larger players are expected to dominate, given their ability to invest in cutting-edge technologies like AI for predicting claim risks and optimizing business operations. Smaller providers may face intensified internal competition, prompting some to exit the market, while others could focus on niche offerings or invest in technological advancements to remain viable and competitive. Overall, revenue for workers’ compensation and other insurance funds is expected to expand at a CAGR of 1.3% over the next five years, reaching $60.3 billion in 2030.

This thesis explores the devastating economic consequences that a hypothetical World War III could have on the global economy. Unlike the previous world wars, this conflict would unfold in a highly globalized, digitally interconnected world—meaning the economic damage would be even more widespread and severe.Drawing from history, the paper analyzes past wars like World War I and II, highlighting how those events caused GDP contractions, hyperinflation, destruction of infrastructure, and long-term debt. It uses these precedents to build realistic scenarios for what could happen if WWIII breaks out today. The study models short-term disruptions like stock market crashes, currency collapse, and trade blockades; medium-term issues like mass unemployment and inflation; and long-term impacts such as technological regression and widespread economic stagnation.The thesis provides regional assessments as well—evaluating how countries like the U.S., China, and nations in Europe and the Global South would fare in different war scenarios, from limited conflicts to full-scale nuclear exchanges. It also discusses secondary effects like energy and food shortages, famine, and the collapse of consumer demand in non-essential sectors.Importantly, the paper doesn’t stop at doom and gloom. It outlines strategic policy responses such as emergency fiscal controls, global debt restructuring, a possible new Bretton Woods system, and a modern-day Marshall Plan to help rebuild economies post-war.In conclusion, the research emphasizes that preventing World War III is not just a matter of global peace, but an absolute economic necessity. Even the strongest economies could collapse, and recovery could take decades—if at all. The thesis serves as both a warning and a call for proactive international diplomacy, economic safeguards, and collective accountability.

With the collapse of the U.S. housing market and the subsequent financial crisis on Wall Street in 2007 and 2008, economies across the globe began to enter into deep recessions. What had started out as a crisis centered on the United States quickly became global in nature, as it became apparent that not only had the economies of other advanced countries (grouped together as the G7) become intimately tied to the U.S. financial system, but that many of them had experienced housing and asset price bubbles similar to that in the U.S.. The United Kingdom had experienced a huge inflation of housing prices since the 1990s, while Eurozone members (such as Germany, France and Italy) had financial sectors which had become involved in reckless lending to economies on the periphery of the EU, such as Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Other countries, such as Japan, were hit heavily due their export-led growth models which suffered from the decline in international trade. Unemployment during the Great Recession As business and consumer confidence crashed, credit markets froze, and international trade contracted, the unemployment rate in the most advanced economies shot up. While four to five percent is generally considered to be a healthy unemployment rate, nearing full employment in the economy (when any remaining unemployment is not related to a lack of consumer demand), many of these countries experienced rates at least double that, with unemployment in the United States peaking at almost 10 percent in 2010. In large countries, unemployment rates of this level meant millions or tens of millions of people being out of work, which led to political pressures to stimulate economies and create jobs. By 2012, many of these countries were seeing declining unemployment rates, however, in France and Italy rates of joblessness continued to increase as the Euro crisis took hold. These countries suffered from having a monetary policy which was too tight for their economies (due to the ECB controlling interest rates) and fiscal policy which was constrained by EU debt rules. Left with the option of deregulating their labor markets and pursuing austerity policies, their unemployment rates remained over 10 percent well into the 2010s. Differences in labor markets The differences in unemployment rates at the peak of the crisis (2009-2010) reflect not only the differences in how economies were affected by the downturn, but also the differing labor market institutions and programs in the various countries. Countries with more 'liberalized' labor markets, such as the United States and United Kingdom experienced sharp jumps in their unemployment rate due to the ease at which employers can lay off workers in these countries. When the crisis subsided in these countries, however, their unemployment rates quickly began to drop below those of the other countries, due to their more dynamic labor markets which make it easier to hire workers when the economy is doing well. On the other hand, countries with more 'coordinated' labor market institutions, such as Germany and Japan, experiences lower rates of unemployment during the crisis, as programs such as short-time work, job sharing, and wage restraint agreements were used to keep workers in their jobs. While these countries are less likely to experience spikes in unemployment during crises, the highly regulated nature of their labor markets mean that they are slower to add jobs during periods of economic prosperity.

Adding to national debt is an inevitable fact of being President of the United States. The extent to which debt rises under any sitting president depends not only on the policy and spending choices they have made, but also the choices made by presidents and congresses that have come before them. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush President Ronald Reagan increased the U.S. debt by around **** trillion U.S. dollars, or ****** percent. This is often attributed to "Reaganomics," in which Reagan implemented significant supply-side economic policies in which he reduced government regulation, cut taxes, and tightened the money supply. Spending increased under President George W. Bush in light of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. To finance the wars, President Bush chose to borrow the money, rather than use war bonds or increase taxes, unlike previous war-time presidents. Additionally, Bush introduced a number of tax cuts, and oversaw the beginning of the 2008 financial crisis. Barack Obama President Obama inherited both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the financial crisis. The Obama administration also did not increase taxes to pay for the wars, and additionally passed expensive legislation to kickstart the economy following the economic crash, as well as the Affordable Care Act in 2010. The ACA expanded healthcare coverage to cover more than ** million more Americans through programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Though controversial at the time, more than half of Americans have a favorable view of the ACA in 2023. Additionally, he signed legislation making the W. Bush-era tax cuts permanent.

Crash Cushions Crash Barriers Market Outlook

The global crash cushions crash barriers market size was valued at approximately USD 2.5 billion in 2023, with a projected growth to reach around USD 4.3 billion by 2032, reflecting a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 6.2% during the forecast period. The growth of this market is primarily driven by increasing vehicular traffic, stringent government regulations on road safety, and the rising need to minimize road accident fatalities and injuries.

One of the key growth factors driving the crash cushions crash barriers market is the continuous expansion of road networks across the globe. Increasing urbanization and rising automobile ownership necessitate extensive road infrastructure, which in turn, amplifies the demand for effective road safety measures. Governments and regulatory bodies are also placing greater emphasis on safety standards, compelling the adoption of advanced crash cushions and barriers. Furthermore, the focus on reducing road fatalities through improved road safety mechanisms is prompting significant investments in road infrastructure projects worldwide.

Technological advancements in materials and design are further contributing to market growth. Innovations such as energy-absorbing materials and modular designs that can be easily installed and maintained are enhancing the efficacy and appeal of crash cushions and barriers. These advancements not only improve safety outcomes but also offer cost benefits over traditional road safety solutions. Moreover, the integration of smart technologies, such as sensors and IoT, into crash barriers is creating new opportunities for enhancing real-time monitoring and maintenance, thus boosting market demand.

The increasing emphasis on sustainability is another significant growth driver. Many manufacturers are developing eco-friendly crash barriers and cushions that use recycled materials and have longer life spans. This trend aligns well with global sustainability goals and regulatory mandates aimed at reducing environmental impact. Additionally, the burgeoning need for crash barriers in emerging economies, driven by rapid infrastructure development, is expected to provide a substantial boost to the market.

In addition to these advancements, the incorporation of Guard Rail Padding is becoming increasingly significant in the realm of road safety. Guard Rail Padding serves as an essential component in enhancing the protective capabilities of crash barriers. By providing an additional layer of cushioning, it helps to absorb impact energy more effectively, thereby reducing the severity of accidents. This padding is particularly beneficial in high-risk areas such as sharp curves and busy intersections, where the likelihood of vehicular collisions is higher. The use of Guard Rail Padding not only improves safety outcomes but also aligns with the growing emphasis on sustainable and eco-friendly materials, as many of these paddings are made from recycled materials. As road safety standards continue to evolve, the integration of Guard Rail Padding into crash barrier systems is expected to become a standard practice, further driving market growth.

From a regional perspective, North America is anticipated to hold a dominant share in the crash cushions crash barriers market, driven by stringent safety regulations and substantial investments in road infrastructure. Europe follows closely, with significant investments in smart roadways and advanced safety systems. Meanwhile, the Asia Pacific region is poised for rapid growth due to increasing urbanization, rising vehicular populations, and extensive road construction projects in countries like China and India. Latin America and the Middle East & Africa are also expected to witness considerable market growth due to improving economic conditions and expanding road networks.

Product Type Analysis

The crash cushions segment is projected to see substantial growth during the forecast period, driven by their essential role in absorbing and dissipating the kinetic energy of colliding vehicles. These devices are crucial for preventing vehicles from impacting hazardous obstacles or other vehicles, thereby minimizing injuries and fatalities. The increasing adoption of crash cushions in urban and high-traffic areas is a significant growth factor. Additionally, technological advancements in energy-absorbing materials are enhancing the effectiveness and durability of crash cushions, making them a preferred choice f

Economic models that do not incorporate financial frictions only explain about 70 to 80 percent of the decline in world trade that occurred in the 2008-2009 crisis. We review evidence that shows financial factors also contributed to the great trade collapse and uncover two new stylized facts in support of it. First, we show that the prices of manufactured exports rose relative to domestic prices during the crisis. Second, we show that US seaborne exports and imports, which are likely to be more sensitive to trade finance problems, saw their prices rise relative to goods shipped by air or land.

Here is a concise and professional Zenodo dataset description based on your paper, suitable for use as the metadata summary:

Title:
Uncertainty Is Not What It Used to Be: EPU and the Collapse of Classical Risk Logic

Description:
This dataset accompanies the study "Regime-Contingent Uncertainty Pricing: Strategic Risk, Liquidity, and Political Shocks," which develops a theory of regime-dependent pricing of economic policy uncertainty (EPU) in U.S. equity markets. Using monthly data from 2009 to 2025, the analysis identifies nonlinear shifts in the EPU-return relationship during two major political-economic shocks: the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2025 U.S.–China Trade War. The study demonstrates that EPU effects on asset prices are not time-invariant but depend on macro-regime context, investor behavior, and liquidity conditions.

The repository includes:

• Monthly return data for SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY)

• U.S. Economic Policy Uncertainty Index (EPU) data

• Python scripts for data processing, OLS estimation, and Markov-switching modeling

• Figures and tables illustrating regime dynamics

• A complete README with replication instructions

Key Contributions:

• Demonstrates that financial market responses to EPU invert during structural crises (e.g., COVID-19) and revert during politically driven uncertainty (e.g., Trade War)

• Advances dynamic capabilities and institutional theory by modeling uncertainty sensitivity as regime-contingent

• Introduces the concept of "reactivated uncertainty sensitivity," emphasizing the return of classical risk pricing under renewed political stress

Keywords:
Economic Policy Uncertainty (EPU), regime switching, COVID-19, U.S.–China Trade War, Markov switching model, strategic foresight, uncertainty pricing, institutional theory

License:
CC BY 4.0 – Openly available for reuse and replication