[jtfanclub]

Echognome, on Aug 13 2008, 11:48 AM, said:

2. As of this moment, Q4 2007 is the only quarter with negative growth since Q3 2001.  Q1 2008 and Q2 2008 are currently at 0.9% and 1.9% growth respectively.  I understand that these numbers may be revised.  However, is this an indication of recession?  I'm asking not as an economist, but as a layperson.  You look at the trend:

2007 Q1 - 0.1% growth
2007 Q2 - 4.8% growth
2007 Q3 - 4.8% growth
2007 Q4 - (0.2%) shrinkage
2008 Q1 - 0.9% growth
2008 Q2 - 1.9% growth

I think a reasonable person looking at those numbers would hardly call it a panic.  Compare that to 1974-5 when we had 3 consecutive quarters of negative growth or 2008 Q2 where we had nearly a 8% shrinkage or the end of 1990 where we had two consecutive quarters.  You get the idea.

3. I was only refuting your bold statement.  You compared Bush's quote to "It's not an iceberg, it's only a piece of frozen water."  Now you tell me, what is more plausible by the figures.  Is it a recession or is it a slowdown?

It may take a couple of months, but I'd put money on that 1st Q 2008 will be adjusted to negative. The reason that 4th Q 07 was adjusted down so far was because of a serious miscalculation of inflation. That same error was made in the 1st quarter of 2008 (but fixed before the 2nd Q numbers came out).

It's a recession. Even if the inflation numbers are fudged to keep 1st Q positive, it's still a recession.

[P_Marlowe]

blackshoe, on Aug 13 2008, 11:13 AM, said:

"military garbage".

Tell you what. Let's abolish the military, give up all our weapons, and pray for peace.

How long do you think it will be before Chinese is the official language in this country?

I give it 50 years, max.

Rudyard Kipling, on "Tommy", said:

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
    Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
    But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
    The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
    O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

...

A german poem by Wilhelm Bush, "Armed Peace",
maybe you like it:

Unexpected on a hill met the fox with
the hedgehog once.
"Stop" cried the Fox, "You villain.
Did you not hear the degree of the
Lion King? Did he not say that there
shall be peace everywhere, and that
everyone who does not lay down his
weapons and armors, violates his will
and stands against him?
So in the name of his majesty give me
your hide."
The hedgehog said: "Not so fast, first let
your teeth be broken, than we can speak
further."
And after that, he rolled himself in his thick
hide and stands against the whole world,
armed, but a "Friedensheld" (hero of peace).

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: I am not against self defence, but Reagans
military garbage was not purly for self defence,
besides the technical feasibility was not really given.

[Echognome]

For what it's worth, I emailed a friend of mine who is a professor in macroeconomics. He says that the "official" determination is made by the NBER (which was good sourcing by Winston) despite the GDP figures coming from the BEA (as I mentioned). He said the reason for this is that production is not the only factor that makes up a recession, but that it's just part of the overall factors taken into consideration when determining whether there is officially a recession. He says that currently the NBER has not classified the downturn at the end of 2007 as a recession, but that he thinks it's just a matter of time.

All that being said, if the NBER has not classified it as a recession yet, is it fair to criticize Bush for not doing so either?

As an interesting aside, my friend told me he recently went to a conference and Jim Hamilton (a pretty well known econometrician out of UCSD) presented a paper on regional business cycles, and he was showing what happened state by state at the time of the previous recessions. States that typically had a large manufacturing sector typically went into a recession before even the official recession date, whilst others went in a lot later. So there is a lot of regional variability, and that's something else to take into consideration as well.

[jonottawa]

Who cares if current economic conditions meet somebody's technical definition of a recession or not? That's just more Repug distraction from the real issues with respect to the economy:

Bush inherited huge budget surpluses, virtually nonexistent inflation, miniscule interest rates, miniscule unemployment, rising living standards, reasonably steady rich/poor gap and a strong dollar.

8 years of Bush's war crimes, mismanagement, corruption and class warfare (massive tax cuts for corporations and the rich) have led inexorably to huge deficits, rising unemployment, the return of significant inflation, collapsing infrastructure, an energy crisis, falling living standards for most, a massive and growing rich/poor gap and the collapse of the dollar. Oh, and did I mention that the first baby boomers turn 65 in 3 years?

8 years ago America was the undisputed superpower of the world. Today, America is in decline and China is in ascendancy. Mostly due to a stolen election 8 years ago. Everyone's talking about this election being the most important election of our lifetimes. Uh, no, you morans, the one in 2000 was. This one's a squabble over deck chairs on the Titanic.

[cherdano]

jonottawa, on Aug 13 2008, 02:16 PM, said:

Who cares if current economic conditions meet somebody's technical definition of a recession or not?

Yup. A more interesting figure would be the development of the average household income of of the lowest 20% or 50% of US households. Of course, measured after tax, and with a consumer price index whose weighting reflects the spending of these households.
(I don't know the figures. If anyone knows a source for such figures, say over the last 1 or 5 or 10 or 20 years, that would be great.)

[Winstonm]

Quote

All that being said, if the NBER has not classified it as a recession yet, is it fair to criticize Bush for not doing so either?

From your posts I've always believed you to be fair-minded. Perhaps you have not seen a video clip of this Bush statement, or perhaps you have and you saw it differently than did I, which is fine.

I wasn't really meaning to criticize what Bush said but the smug, aloof, defensive posture he used to semi-shame a reporter who used the word recession in a question.

My point is that there is reality, and then there is playing word games. The polls showed that a majority of Americans at that time of Bush's statement believed we were in recession, regardless of what this Commander-in-chief stated.


Same thing goes for the statistics (IMO) presented in that other thread - and that is the basis for the comparison, not literal deternmination of recession/non-recession.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Hey!

Why isn't anyone calling me "a very bright guy" and "wonderful, intelligent and very compassionate human being"?

Ken,

We feared any mention of your intellect and compassion would reduce ours to such low relative levels that our lives would be meaningless and our remaining years best spent in opium dens trying to forget the shame - (O.K., is he buying that...???)

[Echognome]

Winstonm, on Aug 13 2008, 03:24 PM, said:

From your posts I've always believed you to be fair-minded. Perhaps you have not seen a video clip of this Bush statement, or perhaps you have and you saw it differently than did I, which is fine.

Thanks. Although, it seemed like you were about to say something where the other shoe drops.

I haven't seen the video clip, just the written quote. It surprises me not at all that he would seem smug and aloof. That's one thing that always annoyed me about the guy. He always has the look of someone who knows something you don't know and is basking in his privvy to that secret. Well a cross between that and a fraternity guy who just has no interest at all in what you are saying.

Note I did give you credit for finding a legitimate source. I still don't think it's fair to criticize Bush for his statement at the time, but certainly I have no opinion on criticizing how he said it.

[Winstonm]

Echo -

I am not trying to beat on a dead issue here, but I can be a jerk (hardheaded?) when it comes to factual information - sorry, can't help it. At the same time, if someone shows me where my facts are wrong, I appreciate the help. But then, I am not seeking to prove an agenda, but only interested in what is real.

Just for accuracy sake: Recessions do not have to start with negative growth. In fact, 4 of the 11 U.S. recessions since WWII officially began wth positive GDP quarters.

Here is a good discussion by Barry Ritholtz, who is CEO of FushionIQ quant and is often on the financial t.v. shows as a guest.

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/200...ive-gdp-re.html

[Echognome]

Winstonm, on Aug 13 2008, 03:48 PM, said:

Just for accuracy sake: Recessions do not have to start with negative growth. In fact, 4 of the 11 U.S. recessions since WWII officially began wth positive GDP quarters.

Didn't I mention that point above?

Quote

He said the reason for this is that production is not the only factor that makes up a recession, but that it's just part of the overall factors taken into consideration when determining whether there is officially a recession.

[Winstonm]

Echognome, on Aug 13 2008, 07:38 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 13 2008, 03:48 PM, said:

Just for accuracy sake: Recessions do not have to start with negative growth.  In fact, 4 of the 11 U.S. recessions since WWII officially began wth positive GDP quarters.

Didn't I mention that point above?

Quote

He said the reason for this is that production is not the only factor that makes up a recession, but that it's just part of the overall factors taken into consideration when determining whether there is officially a recession.

I only posted this last time to clarify for posterity the misunderstanding about recessions - it is even repeated by the talking heads on t.v. - the 2 negative quarters being required and that is simply complete hogwash and untrue.

I'm tired of only 1/2 stories being told, of doctored headline numbers and political sloganeering.

It's not personal - I'm just fed up. Sorry....

[Echognome]

I understand. But at the same time, if the agency that determines whether there is a "recession" or not has not yet said it to be a recession and the president basically states the same thing, then it's really nothing to fault. I guess that is my point.

I take your point that the "rule of thumb" of two consecutive quarters of negative growth is not as accurate as a full study. However, since we are not involved with the full study, we ultimately have to rely on the work done by the NBER. Since they have not yet declared us to be in a recession, why would we expect the president to say we are. So maybe my analogy of asking whether a banana is purple is wrong. However, it is the case that if we are asked to make a judgment on whether something is X or Y and there's an official body that tells us whether it's X or Y, then I wouldn't criticize someone in authority going along with the official body's determination of whether it's X or Y! A better question might be why the reporter was even asking the president if we were in a recession. If the reporter wanted to know, why wouldn't he ask someone at the NBER? Why would he expect a different answer from the president unless he was testing whether the president even knew what the NBER was stating? In this case, Bush happened to be correct in stating what was coming from the NBER. So isn't it harsh to criticize him for it?

[Lobowolf]

jonottawa, on Aug 13 2008, 03:16 PM, said:

Who cares if current economic conditions meet somebody's technical definition of a recession or not? That's just more Repug distraction from the real issues with respect to the economy:

Bush inherited huge budget surpluses, virtually nonexistent inflation, miniscule interest rates, miniscule unemployment, rising living standards, reasonably steady rich/poor gap and a strong dollar.

8 years of Bush's war crimes, mismanagement, corruption and class warfare (massive tax cuts for corporations and the rich) have led inexorably to huge deficits, rising unemployment, the return of significant inflation, collapsing infrastructure, an energy crisis, falling living standards for most, a massive and growing rich/poor gap and the collapse of the dollar. Oh, and did I mention that the first baby boomers turn 65 in 3 years?

8 years ago America was the undisputed superpower of the world. Today, America is in decline and China is in ascendancy. Mostly due to a stolen election 8 years ago. Everyone's talking about this election being the most important election of our lifetimes. Uh, no, you morans, the one in 2000 was. This one's a squabble over deck chairs on the Titanic.

The economic turnaround started prior to January, 2001. It was hardly a sign of economic health that people were willing to pay several hundreds of dollars per share for companies that had no earnings, as long as they had a website. It was nice while it lasted, but it wasn't going to keep up irrespective of who won the 2000 election.
Similarly, unless you seriously posit that something Al Gore would have done would have prevented the 9-11 attacks, a fair share of the 21st-century negative economic conditions in the United States were going to happen one way or the other.
If 4.2% unemployment is miniscule, then 5.7% isn't all that horrible.
What do you think Gore would have done to prevent China's ascendancy or America's decline?
Depending on your thoughts on Global Warming, I could see the position that Gore could have done a lot to make a better country in 20 years, but as for the short term, I could more readily see a worse 2008 economy under Gore, had he committed massive amounts of federal funds (and imposed massive restrictions on businesses...you know, those entities that provide most of the jobs) in response to Global Warming. Particularly as money allocated to the budget stays allocated year to year, and the economy was well overdue for a cyclical contraction regardless of who sat in the White House.

[Winstonm]

Echognome, on Aug 13 2008, 08:26 PM, said:

I understand.  But at the same time, if the agency that determines whether there is a "recession" or not has not yet said it to be a recession and the president basically states the same thing, then it's really nothing to fault.  I guess that is my point.

I take your point that the "rule of thumb" of two consecutive quarters of negative growth is not as accurate as a full study.  However, since we are not involved with the full study, we ultimately have to rely on the work done by the NBER.  Since they have not yet declared us to be in a recession, why would we expect the president to say we are.  So maybe my analogy of asking whether a banana is purple is wrong.  However, it is the case that if we are asked to make a judgment on whether something is X or Y and there's an official body that tells us whether it's X or Y, then I wouldn't criticize someone in authority going along with the official body's determination of whether it's X or Y!  A better question might be why the reporter was even asking the president if we were in a recession.  If the reporter wanted to know, why wouldn't he ask someone at the NBER?  Why would he expect a different answer from the president unless he was testing whether the president even knew what the NBER was stating?  In this case, Bush happened to be correct in stating what was coming from the NBER.  So isn't it harsh to criticize him for it?

No real disagreement here.

Again, it gets back to the video of the exchange with Bush - perhaps I should not have used that exchange as it seems few are familiar with what transpired. Basically, a reporter started to ask Bush something along the lines of "Will this recession persist into the second half of the year" and before the poor fellow could get the entire question out Bush interrupted with, "It's not a recession; it's an economic slowdown."

Bush (IMO) was not trying for accuracy but simply having a kneejerk reaction to a negative about his "economy". (It's like he thought it is O.K. to have a natural and normal 'slowdown' but allowing it to be called a 'recession' would reflect on his economic policies and therefore on him.)

This would be in keeping with the Narcissistic Personality Disorder that a psychiatrist observed might be an explanation for Bush's peronalities and decisions.

source: http://www.dlmweb.com/news98.html

[Lobowolf]

Sounds like the kind of knee-jerk reaction one would have to a reporter's question as to whether he's stopped beating his wife, too. Whether or not we're in a recession, and if so, when it started, are open to reasonable dispute; however, the "R-Word" was thrown around long before it was even arguably appropriate, and it was done for political capital. I can't imagine a president in the last 50 years (except maybe Carter) in that position not immediately jumping in as yet another journalist made it a matter of record by the terms of the question that yes, it's a recession.

[jonottawa]

Lobowolf, on Aug 14 2008, 01:27 AM, said:

jonottawa, on Aug 13 2008, 03:16 PM, said:

Who cares if current economic conditions meet somebody's technical definition of a recession or not?  That's just more Repug distraction from the real issues with respect to the economy:

Bush inherited huge budget surpluses, virtually nonexistent inflation, miniscule interest rates, miniscule unemployment, rising living standards, reasonably steady rich/poor gap and a strong dollar.

8 years of Bush's war crimes, mismanagement, corruption and class warfare (massive tax cuts for corporations and the rich) have led inexorably to huge deficits, rising unemployment, the return of significant inflation, collapsing infrastructure, an energy crisis, falling living standards for most, a massive and growing rich/poor gap and the collapse of the dollar.  Oh, and did I mention that the first baby boomers turn 65 in 3 years?

8 years ago America was the undisputed superpower of the world.  Today, America is in decline and China is in ascendancy.  Mostly due to a stolen election 8 years ago.  Everyone's talking about this election being the most important election of our lifetimes.  Uh, no, you morans, the one in 2000 was.  This one's a squabble over deck chairs on the Titanic.

The economic turnaround started prior to January, 2001. It was hardly a sign of economic health that people were willing to pay several hundreds of dollars per share for companies that had no earnings, as long as they had a website. It was nice while it lasted, but it wasn't going to keep up irrespective of who won the 2000 election.
Similarly, unless you seriously posit that something Al Gore would have done would have prevented the 9-11 attacks, a fair share of the 21st-century negative economic conditions in the United States were going to happen one way or the other.
If 4.2% unemployment is miniscule, then 5.7% isn't all that horrible.
What do you think Gore would have done to prevent China's ascendancy or America's decline?
Depending on your thoughts on Global Warming, I could see the position that Gore could have done a lot to make a better country in 20 years, but as for the short term, I could more readily see a worse 2008 economy under Gore, had he committed massive amounts of federal funds (and imposed massive restrictions on businesses...you know, those entities that provide most of the jobs) in response to Global Warming. Particularly as money allocated to the budget stays allocated year to year, and the economy was well overdue for a cyclical contraction regardless of who sat in the White House.

The tech bubble burst long before Bush took office.

Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq. Gore wouldn't have politicized the Justice Department. Gore wouldn't have cut the inheritance tax to zero or given a huge income tax break to rich folks. Gore wouldn't have let the oil companies write his energy policy. Obviously Gore wouldn't have let religious wingnuts dictate policy. He wouldn't have tried to create the 'common enemy' of 'islamic extremism' in order to distract the electorate from the important issues that affect their lives.

Gore would have acted as a rational check on the Repugs in congress and vice versa. Just like Clinton and the Repugs in the 90's.

Would 9/11 have happened with Gore in office? Maybe, maybe not.

Would have, could have, should have. The fact is we don't know. He certainly couldn't have done any worse than the cokehead/cultist/cheerleader in chief has done. You can argue that while Bush earns a 20% we'll never know if Gore would have gotten a 15%. But I suspect Gore would have been an 'average-plus' president and we'd be doing okay, if not great, still infinitely better placed than we are today, if they had counted the votes in Florida in 2000.

[P_Marlowe]

Lobowolf, on Aug 13 2008, 08:27 PM, said:

<snip>
What do you think Gore would have done to prevent <snip>
America's decline? <snip>

One thing: Available Money.

Bush said, we have an (assumed) tax surplus, the economy is
running fine, lets give it back to the peoble, ... sounds great.

The economy slowed down, the (assumed) tax breaks did not
materialize, does not matter, still go on with the tax break to get
the economy going again, ... sounds great again.

And of course Gore may not have gone to war against Irak, a war
who was unecessary and risks loosing some more important battles,
Afghanistan (and for that matter if you loose this war, you are going
to loose the battle in Paksitan, something really to worry about,
because Paksitan has nukes.)
As it is this unecessary war also costs lots of money, which is missing.

Dont you think, that there the propability, that the US may
be slightly better of now, is non zero?

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: If you have money available, you may even be able finance some
unnecessary changes due to global warming easing the burden of the peoble.

[kenberg]

In 200 the country was at peace with a thriving economy and Al Gore was vice president. Under these circumstances Al Gore should have won in a cakewalk if the Republicans had revived Abe Lincoln and put him on the ticket. The fact that the election came down to how some chads were hanging in Florida does not speak well of his political abilities. In one debate he practiced the art of sighing, in another he seemed to be trying to physically impose himself on Bush, in all he looked like an idiot. What the hell is a controlling legal authority? The cops? To be beaten by George Bush is a humiliation but you have to ask yourself how anyone with any talent at all, holding the hand he was dealt, could let it happen.

[Al_U_Card]

Before "W" I would have said that it made little real difference who the figurehead in the whitehouse was. Having seen him front for the last 7 years has been eye-opening to say the least.

Having made their power-play and gotten all the control they needed, only their political incontinence (Justice/CIA/FEMA/legislator peccadillos) has caused some hesitation in their advance towards total control.

They have looted the economy.
They have stripped your rights.
They have rigged the electoral process.
They control the media.

Is it too late for the people to wrest control back from this plutocracy to refresh and renew the democratic principles upon which the nation was purportedly founded? Only time will tell.

[Winstonm]

Excellent journalism - Non-U.S. source, of course.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas...4333715324.html