If people hadn’t been taking out home equity loans etc., their spending would not have decreased after the housing bubble ended and it would have had a minimal effect on the economy. People would continue paying the same interest payments on their mortgages regardless of whether they were “underwater”/”upside down”.

Unemployment remains the most important issue. And of course, despite the end of the housing bubble, fewer people now think that money and wealth should be more evenly distributed than thought so in 2007.

Job creation without government spending, inflation, or trade barriers: http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/

But I completely lose patience with the failure of government to investigate, prosecute, and hold accountable rampant mortgage and securities fraud. How can any economy recover when it remains riddled with dodgy accounting, bad loans on the books, and unprosecuted, rampant criminal conduct?

In addition to unprosecuted fraud, we seem to have politicians (in both parties) who cannot distinguish between economic parasitism and genuinely productive activities; they let themselves be bamboozled by the delusion that derivatives formulas and leverage somehow constitute legitimate economic activity (!).

Losing money is one thing.
Losing it to thieves and looters, while government stands by like a feckless, enabling toady is really beyond the pale.
Then watching Global Finance game the system by using tax havens, dodgy accounting, unlimited political contributions, high frequency trading, and unregulated insurance ‘swaps’ suggests that government is no match for Global Finance.

It used to be ‘It’s the economy, stupid.’
That should be updated to, “It’s the criminality, stupid. Along with the failure to distinguish between economic parasitism, as opposed to genuinely productive activity.”

This inability to distinguish between parasitism and productivity seems to be hamstringing any hopes of a sane, pragmatic policy discussion.

When the parasites are nibbling away at the host, and the host simply asks, “How’s your dinner? Am I yummy?” it is pretty difficult to be very enthusiastic about the long term.

In 1989, DB plans were still the predominant form of retirement benefit, so that actual median net worth (broadly defined) was significantly higher than the SCF figure. By 2010, DB plan benefits were much less common, so the adjustment to SCF median net worth to reflect DB plan benefits would be smaller in 2010 than it would have been in 1989.

But, they have affordable healthcare, education, child and senior care and a minimum wage of U.S. $15 plus an hour.

It’s not that we are poorer than Down Under, but most of the wealth here is hoarded by a very few.