![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJFBup4RBYAVC89TUpKZ4rf-6o4U-JAB0hhnlph4mOP-y6uEauX1zpTAktrWAyZ8eo8GVAP5LmzcvtTop5FbYIEV8CztvmrV3BCbIj_aYNtHmpvuoG1rtHDlmvdK8XdFjbLGAIhVlYuxWX/s320/gdp-growth-since-1900.png)
In 2008-2009, however, we saw a new phenomenon: the shadow bank run, which this New York Times columnist argues will continue to happen in the 21st century. The so-called shadow banking system--involving instruments of short-term credit that are not guaranteed or subject to the same regulations as traditional banks--now accounts for more than $15 trillion in assets, up from $4 trillion in 1990. Along with the trillion-dollar derivatives market, the shadow banking system can accumulate an enormous amount of short-term risk--not just for investors but for the entire economy. A rush to withdraw from money market funds or a sudden pulling of credit between banks can cause a crash just like in 1893, 1907, or 1929.
The solution is not to extend government guarantees beyond traditional banks, since that would create the possibility of bailouts that would dwarf the ones that happened in '08-09. But we need to figure out some way to better protect short-term credit so that we will not enter into a new era of bank runs and boom-bust cycles. A volatile economy like the one we had from 1890 to 1930 tends to hit the middle class and working class the hardest, leading to increased poverty, more economic insecurity, and more demand for welfare programs. Needless to say, that would be bad.