Recession is over

[Show Me the Wire]

"From a technical perspective, the recession is very likely over at this point," Bernanke told a conference at the Brookings Institution. But "it's still going to feel like a very weak economy for some time," he added. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bernanke-declares-the-recession-over-2009-09-15

Now I want all those posters that misconstrued PA's remarks about the technical beginning of the recession to weigh in. Tell us how Bernanke is entirely wrong, with unemployment at a high and is predicted to stay at unacceptable levels in future years, foreclosures hitting all time highs with no end in sight, commercial real estate starting to slump, etc.

I only ask you bashers of PA's position about the technical beginning of the recession based on numbers and you know who you are, to hold fast to your own rules about reality and technicality. So do you agree with the Obama administration that the recession is over?

[ArlJim78]

you never know for sure until after the fact when the numbers come out. technically he is probably right. year on year i doubt that we are still contracting. We're not likely to take off either, there are still big drag parachutes slowing us down. the real problems have been swept under the rug.

[ddog]

I called this in a one liner about 10 days ago I think.

I said , I would go out on a limb and say This recession is over from a technical perspective.

However, It's still early and HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

I do not think there will be any type of recovery worth it's salt.

The last 10 years have actually been (for the most part) a slow moving lost decade.

We already were Japan in some respects, especially the further one falls down the class (that word again- this place has always been about it) structure, just with a much worse budget issue layered on top of a populace pushed to spend or charge all they have for the NOW.


ON a related topic, if you read the major speech on economics from bama that he just gave , he is clueless as to what he is doing or saying.


Do good now you banksters, be good boys or we will have to paddle you.

What a dufus clown he is.

To him doing good would be propping up all the fools and criminals that made/took risks that were known to be fraud and unsupportable when taken out.

What a fool.

Bush looks like Einstein compared to this guy. He is so far over his head. I guess we can survive him but he isn't helping.

If he would at least BE a socialist and bust a bunch of these corp criminals, he would be good for something. Sadly he is the worst of all things, a bought and paid for socialist clown.

[ArlJim78]

i would also just point out again, that everyone was predicting that growth would not return until 3rd or 4thQ 2009, before the stimulus! before any Obama administration actions. remember the stimulus was supposed to jump start things right away, back in February. thats how it was sold. it has nothing to do with the end of the recession.

[LottaKash]

Recession is "over" ?.....what a laugher.....:D

One might want to pass that one by, to all the people who are unemployed or out of their homes, as of now....Ask them, if that is true for them ?.....

Who is kidding who....?....Imo, it has just begun...:eek:

best,

[ddog]

ps -smtw

pa had problems with the definition i always thought that was why he was slow to come around ;)

peak to trough, the factors you mention are not determining normally.

This is different imo from the recent past.

We are much more of a dead credit nation now and thus the demand side will not come back as before.

The leverage and gross stupidity (imo) of forcing consumers to ride the credit bubble to try to convince ourselves that we were ok was dumb.

It made a bad deal much worse.

We had a chance when Bush came in to say, let's stop here and make sure we have the big surplus we project , but we wouldn't do it.

Set the country back at least 25 years if not more.

I would have said back then "go to work" , not "go shopping" if it were up to me.


There is a chance we hit a big wall next spring imo. We could take another leg down mid next year. I think they have goosed the market enough to get some of the suckers back in for now.

[Show Me the Wire]

Isn't technically a recession a contraction of economic growth (negative GDP) for two consecutive quarters?

[ddog]

Isn't technically a recession a contraction of economic growth for two consecutive quarters?


no, i do not think so, it's peak to trough, qtrs really don't factor, you can have non expansion or contraction and still be "in" or "out" of one.

[jballscalls]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ax7.LgudHi3A

says retail sales were up 2.7% in august, higher than forecasters thought

[Show Me the Wire]

Economic recession: A decline in economic activity (GDP) that persists for at least two quarters.

Most common definition by government economists, from my web search, which conforms with my memory of econ courses.

[Tom]

Also now officially over......jobs in America.

[fast4522]

I agree with Tom 100%, and add that these idiots want to nationalize 75% of this economy by taking over insurance, the Castro brothers will soon be going to Washington to get their high fives. Heck I don't want to give any ideas of what to do with Gitmo.

[Valuist]

So we're out now.....after billions and billions of stimulus. But what is the probability we go back into another recession next spring? Pretty strong, IMO.

[juanepstein]

well lets just hope israel doesnt strike iran.

[fast4522]

"well lets just hope israel doesnt strike iran."
It is not "if" but "when"

[ddog]

Economic recession: A decline in economic activity (GDP) that persists for at least two quarters.

Most common definition by government economists, from my web search, which conforms with my memory of econ courses.


most common and wrong.

that is not how the official callers decide.

And as to those econ course, who exactly did you attend those with?

Probably the same goofballs that couldn't see this train a coming.

I would not cite such idiots as gvt econs, they drove the bus off the cliff over and over and over and over.

Just as before, I am calling based on what I think I see NOW, they call based on revision upon revision many months after the fact.

SO to rely on the current headline nbrs is to be wrong since you have to try to guess at what the revisions will look like.

I will provide(AGAIN) some facts:

http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions_faq.html
FAQs

Q: The financial press often states the definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. How does that relate to the NBER's recession dating procedure?

A: Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them. As an example, the last recession, in 2001, did not include two consecutive quarters of decline. As of the date of the committee's meeting, the economy had not yet experienced two consecutive quarters of decline.

Q: Why doesn't the committee accept the two-quarter definition?

A: The committee's procedure for identifying turning points differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we do not identify economic activity solely with real GDP, but use a range of indicators. Second, we place considerable emphasis on monthly indicators in arriving at a monthly chronology. Third, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, "a significant decline in activity." Fourth, in examining the behavior of domestic production, we consider not only the conventional product-side GDP estimates, but also the conceptually equivalent income-side GDI estimates. The differences between these two sets of estimates were particularly evident in 2007 and 2008.

Q: Has the committee shifted toward a procedure that determines the dates of peaks and troughs mainly on the basis of employment?

A. We have not shifted toward employment. Rather, as our announcement explains, we found a clear signal in employment and a mixed one in the various measures of GDP, including especially real GDI, so we picked the peak month on the basis of the clear signal, as well as our consideration of output and other measures. In the two previous recessions, the peak and trough months of employment differed from the business cycle peak and trough months chosen by the committee. In some cases, the difference was only a month; in the case of the most recent recession, however, the trough in employment occurred 21 months after the November 2001 trough date chosen by the committee.

[ddog]

Also now officially over......jobs in America.


jobs in us have been over for at least 10 years.

As of this date we are even or minus job creation over the last 10 years.

as to the real wages it's even worse.

You can't run a consumer economy when the consumers are getting killed off over time faster and faster.

The bottom 50-60% is without a doubt worse off now than 15-30 years ago.

Obviously a great part of the horrible personal debt in this country was an attempt to replace wage growth to keep up. That always fails with epic results if practiced long enough. To have the productivity rates of the order we have had and not to have had commensurate rates of wage growth has killed off a big part of the golden goose.

[Show Me the Wire]

ddog:

So I take it you disagree with Bernanke, Also, I do understand your previous postings on this matter and you logic about what constitutes a recession. Actually, you were not one of the posters I had in mind when I asked the question regarding PA's techinical position when the recession technically officially started.

I

[ddog]

ddog:

So I take it you disagree with Bernanke, Also, I do understand your previous postings on this matter and you logic about what constitutes a recession. Actually, you were not one of the posters I had in mind when I asked the question regarding PA's techinical position when the recession technically officially started.

I


I must admit, that where Bernake is concerned I plead the Carter defense.
If he is for it I am agin it!

I have not looked at his recent horn blowing , but I will and if he says what I expect , I would have told him to be very careful, he was VERY VERY wrong about the current mess coming.

[JustRalph]

The recession will turn, but the jobs won't be there. Not unless someone pulls their head out of their ass and decides to cut taxes..........end of story. Recessions always turn over time........it is how well the economy comes back that really counts............

[dutchboy]

Isn't technically a recession a contraction of economic growth (negative GDP) for two consecutive quarters?

Correct definition of a recession is when your friend is out of work.

Correct definition of a depression is when you are out of work with a family and 500.00 dollars in the bank.

[Marshall Bennett]

We'll see how Obama deals with inflation . Will be blame it on Bush ?

[so.cal.fan]

http://www.krld.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=4022730

This is a fascinating interview......a forensic economist. Stuff you won't hear anywhere else.
Worth the time to listen to, if you are interested in our economy.

[juanepstein]

"well lets just hope israel doesnt strike iran."
It is not "if" but "when"

AP NewsBreak: Nuke agency says Iran can make bomb
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/world/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_re_eu/eu_iran_nuclear

[fast4522]

All the parts were in place, Bush cut the head off of the dog that wanted to lead the fundamentalists against us and Israel. Some say Bush lied, or this or that, fact is that it had to be done or he would have dwarfed Adolf Hitler. The fundamentalists mission is to finish what Hitler tried to do and the USA to boot. Forget all that, if you aim your car at any cop in this country what do you think 99% of them are going to do. When the choice is not there, someone has to put their head between their legs and kiss it goodbye.