[Winstonm]

mike777, on Aug 12 2008, 05:27 PM, said:

"The financial situation of Russia was terrible as he
took over, and is not too bad now, they have work
to do, but currently it seems, that they are willing to
try to do the work.
The financial situation of the US was not too bad as
Bush took over, some would even say, it was brilliant.
... currently the financial situation is too bleak to find
words"



Wow too bleak for words......who knew the USA was that bad off. Sure I knew we had problems and lots of room for improvement but too bleak for words?


.....GDP2008...IND Production...UNEMPLOYMENT...3MONTH RATES..10YRATES..MKT
usa+1.4...........+.3....................5.5.......................2.2..................4.15.......-12.7
EURO+1.7.........-1.9...................7.2......................2.39.................3.38......-23
SPAIN+1.7.........-7.3..................9.9.....................4.96..................4.95.......-16.1
RUSSIA +7.5.......+.9...................6.2....................11.0.................6.67.......-13.4


Russia is rich in Natural resouces, Natural resources prices are up alot......If Putin gets the Economic credit for that, OK....

I wouldn't quote the U.S. "headline" statistics as proof of anything. Anyone who seriously cares about such matters understands that the headline numbers are seriously massaged and country-to-country comparisons cannot be made as the same methodologies are not used.

Sounds like you believe the George Bush line: "It's not a recession; it's an economic slowdown."

Right - it's not an iceberg; it's piece of frozen water.

[Echognome]

Winstonm, on Aug 12 2008, 03:36 PM, said:

Sounds like you believe the George Bush line: "It's not a recession; it's an economic slowdown."

I'm sorry to inform you, but Bush was entirely correct in his assertion.

Wikipedia said:

A recession is a contraction phase of the business cycle. A common rule of thumb is that a recession occurs when real gross domestic product (GDP) growth is negative for two or more consecutive quarters. In the USA, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) defines it more broadly as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."

At the time of Bush's quote, we didn't even have one quarter of negative growth. You may argue that the way economists measure recessions is wrong (since we are far off our recent economic growth rates, but we were not negative!), but that is aside from the point.

I'm certainly no supporter of Bush, but asking him the question was like showing him a banana and saying "is this purple?" and him saying "no it's yellow." Why any deal at all was made from this is beyond me.

[hrothgar]

Another good piece

http://www.slate.com/id/2197281/

[Winstonm]

Echognome, on Aug 12 2008, 06:43 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 12 2008, 03:36 PM, said:

Sounds like you believe the George Bush line: "It's not a recession; it's an economic slowdown."

I'm sorry to inform you, but Bush was entirely correct in his assertion.

Wikipedia said:

A recession is a contraction phase of the business cycle. A common rule of thumb is that a recession occurs when real gross domestic product (GDP) growth is negative for two or more consecutive quarters. In the USA, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) defines it more broadly as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."

Quote

At the time of Bush's quote, we didn't even have one quarter of negative growth. You may argue that the way economists measure recessions is wrong (since we are far off our recent economic growth rates, but we were not negative!), but that is aside from the point

At the time of Bush's quote, we didn't even have one quarter of negative growth. You may argue that the way economists measure recessions is wrong (since we are far off our recent economic growth rates, but we were not negative!), but that is aside from the point.

I'm certainly no supporter of Bush, but asking him the question was like showing him a banana and saying "is this purple?" and him saying "no it's yellow." Why any deal at all was made from this is beyond me.

I understand you are a microeconomist, but then you should know that it is the NBER who determines and dates recessions, and negative growth is not a requirement (although it is usually present). The NBER is a better resource to quote in this instance than our friend Wikipedia:

http://www.nber.org/...recessions.html

Quote

A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. A recession begins just after the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends as the economy reaches its trough. Between trough and peak, the economy is in an expansion. Expansion is the normal state of the economy; most recessions are brief and they have been rare in recent decades.

Quote

At the time of Bush's quote, we didn't even have one quarter of negative growth.  You may argue that the way economists measure recessions is wrong (since we are far off our recent economic growth rates, but we were not negative!), but that is aside from the point.

I'm a little disappointed in the comment - as you must know, there is no mandate from the NBER for any negative growth in the first place - and the second place is the headline numbers you are going by are the initial numbers (which you being an economist must also know) and subject to revisions.

As you see, negative growth has no bearing on the timing of a recessions start, and Q4 2007 was revised downward from +0.6% to -0.2% (and that's not even the fnal revision).

Quoting and relying on the reported "headline" statistics is a disingineous whitewashing of reality - case in point being the "birth-death" model used to determine employment figures. And that was the point in bringing up this subject - going by headline numbers means little to nothing and proves absolutely nothing.

[mike777]

Winston pls stop

Once again you are making a strawman discussion


No one used the word recession but you. And now you destroy the strawman you have invented.

The actual discussion is over:


"... currently the financial situation is too bleak to find
words,"


"Wow too bleak for words......who knew the USA was that bad off. Sure I knew we had problems and lots of room for improvement but too bleak for words? "



If you have facts that the USA is in such a financial situation that is "too bleak for words" the entire point of the previous posts.........

OK

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Aug 12 2008, 10:21 PM, said:

Winston pls stop

Once again you are making a strawman discussion


No one used the word recession but you. And now you destroy the strawman you have invented.


"... currently the financial situation is too bleak to find
words,"


"Wow too bleak for words......who knew the USA was that bad off. Sure I knew we had problems and lots of room for improvement but too bleak for words? "



If you have facts that the USA is in such a financial situation that is "too bleak for words" the entire point of the previous posts.........

OK

Mike, my comments have no bearing on "the ecomony being too bleak for words" quote but instead are intended to refute your post using headline statitistics of dubious merit that do not make apples to apples comparisons among countries gdp, employment figures, and other similar figures due to methodology differences.

If you are going to refute the statements, play fair and use apples-to-apples statistical data.

[mike777]

Winston I know you are a wonderful, intelligent and very compassionate human being.

My numbers are from the Economist Magazine(non USA). They run these tables for years and years, every week, see last two pages of magazine.

Yes, I am using these "facts" to refute " USA financials.....to bleak for words"

IF you have better facts...OK.....

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Aug 12 2008, 10:44 PM, said:

Winston I know you are a wonderful, intelligent and very compassionate human being.

My numbers are from the Economist Magazine(non USA). They run these tables for years and years, every week, see last two pages of magazine.

Yes, I am using these "facts" to refute "  USA financials.....to bleak for words"

IF you have better facts...OK.....

Mike,

I know you are a very bright guy and have a good knowledge of financials - and I would be surprised to learn that you did not know that unless these kinds of comparisons employ similar (or even exact) methodologies any comparison has little significant meaning.

I'm not saying the U.S. economic condition is bleak - I just get tired of seeing the "sound byte" type headline numbers thrown about as meaningful.

With your knowledge, you should be able to present a better refutation of the claim is what I think.

[P_Marlowe]

mike777, on Aug 12 2008, 05:27 PM, said:

"The financial situation of Russia was terrible as he
took over, and is not too bad now, they have work
to do, but currently it seems, that they are willing to
try to do the work.
The financial situation of the US was not too bad as
Bush took over, some would even say, it was brilliant.
... currently the financial situation is too bleak to find
words"



Wow too bleak for words......who knew the USA was that bad off. Sure I knew we had problems and lots of room for improvement but too bleak for words? 


.....GDP2008...IND Production...UNEMPLOYMENT...3MONTH RATES..10YRATES..MKT
usa+1.4...........+.3....................5.5.......................2.2..................4.15.......-12.7
EURO+1.7.........-1.9...................7.2......................2.39.................3.38......-23
SPAIN+1.7.........-7.3..................9.9.....................4.96..................4.95.......-16.1
RUSSIA +7.5.......+.9...................6.2....................11.0.................6.67.......-13.4


Russia is rich in Natural resouces, Natural resources prices are up alot......If Putin gets the Economic credit for that, OK....

Ok, most likely my words were to hard.

But, if I recall it: the currently proposed US budget has the
largest deficit since ?
The average dept of the average american household
is how high?
The currenty crisis of the finacial sector is the result of
a stable american financial situation?

Regarding "Russia is rich in Natural resources, <thats why
they have money>":
True, but that was not my point argument.
My point was that 8 years ago the situation in the US and
Russia was different, they said the US was headed for zero
dept, and so on, in Russia the situation with regards to
economics and rule was chaos.

Now the US has amassed large depts / deficits, the economic
is headed for a long slow down (call it whatvever you want,
but it wont be over in 1 or 2 years), and I not going to point
out that the current administration changed some of the legal
cornerstones in the US, which occurred in Russia as well, just
that the legal system in Russia got strengthend.
The later does not mean that Russia reached the end of this
road, only that they have started to go down this road.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out, that Putin did a job stabilizing
and improving the state of the country he was responsible for,
I guess Bush had the same job.
Now, wo did a better job, and how big is the margin of difference?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mike777]

"Now, wo did a better job, and how big is the margin of difference?"

ok we look at alot of margins...fair enough..




you pick which margins and by how much.....


I only claim.....result=less than "super horrilbe...double super horrible for most Americans.

[hrothgar]

Also worth reading

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/1...3264/622/566882

[kenberg]

Hey!

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

I can do compassionate.

If I can just say a word or two about who gets credit for what. History: Reagan did not defeat the Soviet Union and Clinton did not erase the deficits. Possibly these two gentlemen deserve credit, maybe considerable credit, for not screwing up a good opportunity. Current Events: We are powerless to stop the Russians from doing pretty much what they wish in Georgia (the subject of the current post). This has a lot to do with our economic and military strength. Regardless of technical definitions of recessions, I would say our current economic strength is less than I would hope for. And out military is in no position to take on another challenge. Not through their lack of ability, it's just that there are limits to what anyone can do.

These are the views of wonderful and bright me.

[Al_U_Card]

Hmmnnnn...Russia on the rise....along with the price of oil???? I wonder who the biggest exporter of oil in the world is?

Despite the recent repeal of individual liberties and freedoms, the US is still quite a ways ahead of most of the rest of the world (esp. China and Russia) in terms of your options in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It might be a good time to take a step back.....before McCain/Obama have to choose a Bush Crime Family stooge as their veep.

[P_Marlowe]

kenberg, on Aug 13 2008, 07:47 AM, said:

<snip>
If I can just say a word or two about who gets credit for what. History:  Reagan did not defeat the Soviet Union and Clinton did not erase the deficits. Possibly these two gentlemen deserve credit, maybe considerable credit, for not screwing up a good opportunity.
<snip>

Not screwing up things is quite often the hardest part
... the Republicans forced Clinton to do some household
consolidations, and Clinton did it, which was the right thing
to do, no matter what the reason.
Clinton failed to reform health care, a major goal he had,
my impression from afar was, that there was also an opportunity
during his time, but I am not 100% sure.

Regarding Regan: I think peoples views about Reagan are too rosy,
after Reagan left office the boom he created with high spending
(SDI and othe military garbage) and tax breakes ended.
... and the US economy tanked, the later being a major reason, why
Bush sen. did not get reelected, and of coures as a results of the
tanking economy and the former higfh spending, the US household
needed consolidation.

But of course Reagan met with Gorbatschow and the process did end
the cold war, and because he did it, he deserves some praise.

Doing the first step is not easy, and if the opportunity is there, you
should use it, see Israel and Palestine (Arafat and Rabin), unfortunately
Rabin got killed and the opportuniy passed away, South Africa
(Mandela and Botha).

With kind regards
Marlowe

[blackshoe]

"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.

[Echognome]

Winstonm, on Aug 12 2008, 07:02 PM, said:

As you see, negative growth has no bearing on the timing of a recessions start, and Q4 2007 was revised downward from +0.6% to -0.2% (and that's not even the fnal revision).

I'm not all that interested in debating the definition of what a recession is. But by your own statement here, there was a revision of the figures. I will repeat that when Bush made the statement there had been no negative growth (i.e. shrinking) of the economy. He said there was a slowdown. It's certainly a reasonable assertion to say that there's a slowdown and not a recession when there has been no negative growth. So is it fair to hang the guy for stating how things stood when he was asked the question?

I'm not a Bush supporter, but I think you're wrong to criticize him on this point.

[Echognome]

Winstonm, on Aug 12 2008, 07:02 PM, said:

As you see, negative growth has no bearing on the timing of a recessions start, and Q4 2007 was revised downward from +0.6% to -0.2% (and that's not even the fnal revision).

Quoting and relying on the reported "headline" statistics is a disingineous whitewashing of reality - case in point being the "birth-death" model used to determine employment figures. And that was the point in bringing up this subject - going by headline numbers means little to nothing and proves absolutely nothing.

I also wanted to add a couple of things.

1. The NBER is not whom I would consider any official body in terms of statistics for the government. If you want to look at GDP (which is what we use to determine growth), then why not go straight to the source that measures GDP for our country. That is the Bureau of Economic Analysis. According to the BEA, our growth in Q4 2007 was negative if you look at seasonally adjusted chained 2000 dollars. I understand that's a reasonable measure, since it accounts for real growth. So the real growth was -0.2% in Q4 2007. Again, not that Bush could have known that at the time.

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?

[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.