The experience of the '90s, whether it's the '94 peso crisis or the '97 crisis in Asia, the '98 crisis, even the 2001 crisis, is that we recovered pretty readily. There wasn't great consequence.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
A long-term crisis, after a certain point, no longer seems like a crisis. It seems like the way things are.
The 1990s felt like the 1990s in a real and good way.
The United States is the only power in history that became great by giving and not by taking. I think the crisis was when the United States had more money than ideas. Money doesn't produce money. Ideas produce money.
We have not recovered all that we lost in the Bush recession. That's why we need to continue to move forward.
In 2009, at the height of the global economic crisis, it was clear that we were seeing something new: the impacts of the crisis were flowing across borders at unprecedented velocity.
We have a lot of societal problems that we have to fix in the 1990s.
The lesson of history is that you do not get a sustained economic recovery as long as the financial system is in crisis.
This crisis exposed very significant problems in the financial systems of the United States and some other major economies. Innovation got too far out in front of the knowledge of risk.
The '90s were extremely diverse, almost like a laboratory of the new century. There was much experimenting around, in politics, economics, gender and family structures, and also in fashion. There was a cloud of possibilities which kept us all dizzy.
Historical experience shows that a crisis causes either a recovery or catastrophic consequences.