Drei Forscher der Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas haben in einem kurzen Forschungsbeitrag die gesamtwirtschaftlichen Kosten der Finanzkrisenfolgen geschätzt.
Dazu nehmen sie in ihrem Beitrag an, dass die Wirtschaftsleistung ohne die Krise dem Vorkrisentrend gefolgt wäre. (Was ich eine ziemlich heroische Annahme finde, weil es ja gerade in den USA zum Teil Entwicklungen gab, die nicht nachhaltig waren und es unklar ist, ob man einen notwendigen Strukturwandel ganz ohne Wachstumsverluste bewerkstelligen hätte können.)
Sie kommen zu Produktionsverlusten von insgesamt 6-14 Bill. US-Dollar.
"The $6 trillion to $14 trillion base estimate of lost output following the crisis depends on assumptions about the economy’s trend rate of growth and whether an oil-price shock in 2008 might have caused a mild recession anyway.This estimate of the aggregate cost of the crisis covers 2008 to 2023, when output is assumed to fully return to trend.Ultimately, there is no way to know for sure what path output would have followed or even if the financial crisis caused the output drop. The standard assumption is that trend growth would have continued at a pace similar to that in the preceding period.[...]The estimated gap between what GDP would have been absent the financial crisis and realized GDP is shown in Chart 2. The graphic also captures the possibility that an oil-shock recession would have occurred regardless of the crisis.The forecast (represented by the red line in Chart 2) provides a reasonable middle ground between the extremely unlikely, immediate return to trend and the uncertain, perpetual output loss implied by a continued modest pace of economic growth (represented by the blue line in Chart 2)."
Die Schlussfolgerung der Autoren:
"The 2007–09 meltdown produced a huge downshift in the path of economic output, consumption and financial wealth. The nation has borne additional costs arising from psychological consequences, skill atrophy from extended unemployment, a reduced set of economic opportunities and increased government intervention in the economy. Assuming the financial crisis is the root cause of all that dislocation, an estimate of the crisis’ overall cost must be weighed against the potential costs of policies intended to prevent similar episodes in the future.
We conservatively estimate the loss of national output as a result of the financial crisis and its aftermath at between $6 trillion and $14 trillion. The high end of this range is equal to nearly one year of U.S. output. Including broader and more-difficult-to-quantify measures that reflect the lingering trauma experienced by millions of Americans pushes these costs still higher—possibly to as much as two years’ worth of forgone consumption.
Given this range of estimates, the tepid economic recovery and the collateral damage sustained, it is crucial to implement effective policies that avoid future episodes whose magnitude could exceed even the staggering costs and consequences of the most recent financial crisis."
Ich glaube, dass das Produktionsniveau des Alternativszenarios in der Studie zu hoch angesetzt ist. Aber selbst, wenn man da eine gewisse Korrektur vornähme, kämme man zu sehr, sehr hohen Kosten der Krise.