[gorjusborg]

> the 2009 recession for the US, and our anemic response to it

From dictionary.com:

anemic: a lack of power, vigor, vitality, or colorfulness

Interesting that you'd characterize the response to 2008 financial crisis as 'lack(ing) power'. The response was unprecedented in scale and scope, at least in terms of intervention from the Federal Reserve. The bail-out of the automakers was also controversial due to its size and lack of precendent.

Or, are you referring to a lack of regulatory response?

[throw0101a]

> The response was unprecedented in scale and scope, at least in terms of intervention from the Federal Reserve. The bail-out of the automakers was also controversial due to its size and lack of precendent.

And all of that was anemic compared to what was needed. From January 2009:

> I see the following scenario: a weak stimulus plan, perhaps even weaker than what we’re talking about now, is crafted to win those extra GOP votes. The plan limits the rise in unemployment, but things are still pretty bad, with the rate peaking at something like 9 percent and coming down only slowly. And then Mitch McConnell says “See, government spending doesn’t work.”

* https://archive.nytimes.com/krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0...

The Fed's actions help on the 'back end' of things in the financial sector, but not on the 'front end' of things with regards to the real economy and jobs. Obama had a long slog to get unemployment down because of the lack of stimulus.

[nicky0]

Large in the quantity of money printed, but anaemic in the sense of it being a band-aid, maintainging ther status quo. It did nothing to address stuructural problems or course correct. It just set us up for the next crisis.