Special report: We're safer 10 years after financial crisis

Illustration: Rebecca Zisser/Axios

For millions of Americans, the 2008 financial crisis came out of the blue. On the theory that it's always calmest before the storm, could another financial crisis of that magnitude come at any moment? The answer, reassuringly, is no.

The bottom line: The stock market is frothy, and it's possible that entire industries like fracking could suffer widespread defaults. But when stocks and bonds go down rather than up, that's a market cycle, not a financial crisis.

Remember the stock-market crash of 2000? People lost money, but the broad economy only experienced a mild recession. And post-crisis safeguards have made a crisis much less likely than it was in 2008.

  • The financial crisis was a wake-up call to central banks in every country, which realized that their main job is bank supervision and crisis prevention, not setting interest rates.
  • Basel III, a global financial reform package in which the U.S. participated, forced all of the world's biggest banks to become much safer than they were before.
  • Dodd-Frank included beefed-up capital requirements that make it much harder for U.S. banks to take outsized risks. It also created the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which is charged with identifying and mitigating systemic risks.
  • We no longer have systemically-important investment banks, whereas there were five pre-crisis: Lehman Brothers (RIP); Bear Stearns, bought by JP Morgan; Merrill Lynch, bought by Bank of America; and Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, which became bank holding companies.

No regulatory regime is perfect, and crises still happen, as a glance at Turkey or Venezuela will attest. But very real progress has been made in terms of U.S. crisis prevention. Plus, American households are much less leveraged than they were pre-crisis, and the global liquidity glut is flowing into equity rather than into dubiously-rated synthetic debt obligations.

WeWork and Netflix might well go belly up. But if they do, they shouldn't take the rest of us down with them.

Sign up here for Felix Salmon's Sunday night Edge newsletter on the week ahead in markets and business.

Go deeper:

1. Read the full deep dive

2. The most urgent financial threats

3. When crisis hit, we fell far and fast

4. The financial crisis executives who got away

5. How the Great Recession fueled for-profit colleges

6. How the Great Recession teed off tech's long boom

7. The Great Recession Generation

8. The financial meltdown's green aftermath

9. The Great Recession's uneven recovery

10. What they're saying: Consequences of the financial crisis

What's next

New York Times endorses Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for president

Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Elizabeth Warrenand Sen. Amy Klobuchar at the December 2020 debatein Los Angeles. Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The New York Times editorial board has endorsed Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for president, in a decision announced on national television Sunday night.

Why it matters: The board writes in its editorial that its decision to endorse two candidates is a major break with convention that's intended to address the "realist" and "radical" models being presented to voters by the 2020 Democratic field.

Go deeperArrow59 mins ago - Media

What's next in the impeachment witness battle

Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Senators will almost certainly get to vote on whether or not to call impeachment witnesses. The resolution laying out the rules of the trial, which will be presented Tuesday, is expected to mandate that senators can take up-or-down votes on calling for witnesses and documents.

Yes, but: Those votes won't come until the House impeachment managers and President Trump's defense team deliver their opening arguments and field Senators' questions.

Inside Trump's impeachment strategy: The national security card

White House counsel Pat Cipollone and acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Trump officials say they feel especially bullish about one key argument against calling additional impeachment witnesses: It could compromise America's national security.

The big picture: People close to the president say their most compelling argument to persuade nervous Republican senators to vote against calling new witnesses is the claim that they're protecting national security.