^^ anytime you have market inefficiencies its damaging to the market as a whole.

Our market thrives on buyers AND sellers. The problems of a free market start when prices can't be agreed upon because of asymmetric information.

If no one is willing to lend because they can't price the risk associated, the whole market can fail.

That's why liquidity is key to keep things operating efficiently.

Quote :

"Ok, rallyduram is mistaken."

I'm not mistaken about anything in that post. If they want to keep those obsolete jobs then let them work for competitive wages. Otherwise, tell them to adapt and get a job that the market has decided will pay a competitive wage. Enough of this bullshit where people want to do what their daddy did.


[Edited on November 14, 2007 at 8:53 PM. Reason : a]

11/14/2007 8:50:09 PM

^^ You seem to be ignoring the fact that $223 billion dollars worth of equity is immediately lost at the moment. Not only that, but with the backlog of houses that are not being sold and also the ones being foreclosed on, there will be a much much lower number of new houses being built. That means that less people will be employed to build houses and also the value of the houses already built will decline further lowering the GDP (the primary factor in determining economic growth). Coupled with the loss of interest on loans, that is a lot of money that is being lost. Again, I don't want the economy to be bad because that sucks for everyone, but it's hard to ignore the realist part of my brain which is telling me this is a bad, bad situation.

With what LoneSnark said about recessions being a couple years behind catastrophic events, this puts a recession in the timeline of the Democratic president that will get elected, who will undoubtedly be blamed by Republicans for screwing the economy.

11/15/2007 1:07:32 AM

IMStoned, how much economics have you had? Your statements fall victim to many levels of fallacy.

First, that we have all the housing we need is a good thing, it means we do not need to spend any more labor or resources building houses. As such, all these workers and resources can be put to work providing what we do need more of, such as goods for export or commercial construction.

Since the workers that used to build houses are not being executed, simple relocated to other sectors of the economy, an arbitrary government statistic known as GDP will remain unaffected.

And yes, recessions still occur, but you twisted the meaning of my words. The 1991 recession had nothing to do with the financial crises of 1987 to 1989, since the financial crisis was completely over years before the recession began. Finally, the 1991 recession was a classic overproduction driven recession, it had nothing to do with financial markets and everything to do with product markets.

You see, all sectors of the economy are constantly in flux. At any given instant some sectors have built up inventories and are shedding workers while others have low inventories and are taking on more workers. As long as there are enough sectors growing fast enough to supplement the shrinking sectors then we do not have a recession. What happened in 1991 (and many other recessions before it) was a random confluence of unfortunance: most sectors found themselves with full warehouses at the same time, everyone had over-produced at the same time and was now trying to clear inventory at the same time. Since there were few hiring workers, for most workers that were laid off they stayed unemployed, causing consumption to fall slightly. This forms a negative feedback loop, or a recession, particularly once the investment markets notice.

Right now, in today's economy, inventories in many sectors are remarkably low. Similarly, there are many sectors that are growing as fast as they can find workers, particularly exporters. As long as this is true then we will not have the same type of recession as 1991 (and take my word for it, we are also not set up to suffer the same type of recession as we did in 2001).

[Edited on November 15, 2007 at 2:41 AM. Reason : sp]

11/15/2007 2:38:01 AM

Quote :

"Must be the Democratic congress"

11/15/2007 12:49:54 PM

Who's to blame for the mortgage mess?

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/WhosToBlameForTheMortgageMess.aspx?page=1

Note well that President Bush is nowhere on the list. That is all. . .for now.

11/19/2007 3:40:07 PM

Who said that he would be, or that he's responsible for subprime loans?

I just searched this thread for 'Bush' and 'administration'.

All but two mentions of Bush are by you, hooksaw.

Of the other two comments, one is more about you than about Bush. The other has to do with the price of war in Iraq.

Quote :

"who on this board?"

11/19/2007 4:04:59 PM

Bush did appoint Greenspan though. And even wiki will tell you ole print that money Al was criticized for being too supportive of Bushies policies. So.....

11/19/2007 5:06:34 PM

^ That's inaccurate.

Greenspan was appointed by Ronald Reagan and James Baker in 1987 after they pressured Volcker to step down.

Bush re-appointed Greenspan, but Bush didn't like Greenspan. Greenspan withstood Bush's pressures and pleas to cut rates before the 1992 election.

Greenspan thinks original Bush is an idiot. "I reappointed Greenspan, and he disappointed me" is a direct quote from George Bush.

11/19/2007 7:54:36 PM

^ Either way, it's still a Republican's fault though

11/19/2007 8:01:49 PM

Quote :

"^ That's inaccurate."

Yea, I figured one of you would make some sort of issue over appoint and re-appoint.

What I said wasn't inaccurate.

11/19/2007 8:33:23 PM

well the word appoint makes it sound as though Bush had a choice.

Bush would have had to replace Greenspan and it would have caused more uncertainty in the markets. A pretty risky move.

11/19/2007 8:38:32 PM

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Its-Comcast-TV-Rate-Hike-Season-Again-88493
http://consumerist.com/consumer/pricing/fios-tv-prices-are-going-up-325450.php

Nope, no inflation here folks.

Actually, thats a bit dishonest. I mean, it makes sense with extra competition in the phone/tv/internet space that prices will inevitably rise.

11/21/2007 2:04:42 PM

Wow, Chance, you know nothing about the pay TV industry, do you?

When you pay your cable bill you are not just paying for technicians to run the cable and maintain the service. Fuck no: you are paying TNT, Comedy Central, Disney, etc. etc. for their content. As such, just for TV entertainment to maintain a flat proportion of GDP your cable bill must increase year after year, even if inflation is zero, because John Stewart is demanding a higher pay package this year.

11/21/2007 2:29:16 PM

^ And then you have the NFL running ads destroying Time Warner cause they won't put the NFL Network on normal cable where Time Warner and hence every single one of its subscribers have to pay $6 extra for the channel to just watch 8 live NFL games per year.

[Edited on November 21, 2007 at 3:20 PM. Reason : /]

11/21/2007 3:15:38 PM

Dow closes up 300-plus as stocks extend rally
Hopes for lower interest rates outweigh economic concern

Quote :

"NEW YORK - Wall Street barreled higher Wednesday for the second day in a row, giving the Dow Jones industrial average its biggest two-day point gain in five years after a Federal Reserve official hinted that the central bank may lower interest rates again [emphasis added]. Investors’ renewed hopes for a rate cut added to their relief that companies that made losing bets on subprime mortgages, such as Citigroup Inc. and Freddie Mac, are coming up with ways to raise cash. The market was clearly optimistic that at least some of the damage from the months-long credit crisis was finally being mitigated."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3683270/

BTW, please don't offer a lecture about how a two-day rally doesn't equate to a booming economy--I said nothing of the sort. I am, however, trying to identify the vanguard of trends, and the market is clearly bullish right now.

The U.S economy is--in fact--impressive.

11/29/2007 4:10:17 AM

Not to be doomy and gloomy, but this comes after a couple of triple digit losses earlier last week. The market is down about 1000 points from it's high a couple months ago. The market is very volatile right now and I'd like to see some steady climbing instead of these huge ups and downs.

11/29/2007 4:59:26 AM

^ Fair enough.

11/29/2007 5:12:54 AM

I reject the premise of the location of this thread due to the fact that there is little if anything to actually debate and there is no intrigue nor enlightenment to be garnered here. If you want to express your obviously deep admiration for the Almighty Dollar then feel free to do so in a place befitting such like The Lounge. This thread is nothing more than a trap to try and dupe people into arguing against economic growth so they can be painted as hate-America moonbats whom obviously want us to fail. If you want to keep us apprised of all the glowing successes you feel our economy is having then by all means do so, but don't make this section into your personal blog.

11/29/2007 9:12:10 AM

If the economy is so strong, then why does it need an interest rate cut, all the way to 3% that is mentioned in some places? If it is so strong, why did Sears' profit plumment to 1 penny per share versus 1.27 per a year ago?

You may or may not know, but wild gyrations aren't a sign of a bull market, they are the sign of a bear.

11/29/2007 10:46:24 AM

our gdp is up like 4.9 percent

11/29/2007 12:08:20 PM

^^^ If that's so, I guess it worked on you, huh?

^^

Quote :

"The market was clearly optimistic that at least some of the damage from the months-long credit crisis was finally being mitigated."

Let your glass be half empty--to each his or her own.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AvS8IOV1XqQ

11/29/2007 1:00:33 PM

But you didn't answer my question. If the market is so strong, why does it need a rate cut. It has nothing to do with whether my glass is half full or not. It's an honest question that any rational thinker trying to look at all sides of an issue would ask.

Do you have an answer, or was that your answer?

11/29/2007 1:13:08 PM

^ The U.S. economy is a complex system. Adjustments of various kinds by the Fed are often needed to spur the economy or keep it from overheating. Do you work yourself into a lather when they sell securities at the Open Market Desk? Thought not.

[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 1:19 PM. Reason : .]

11/29/2007 1:18:37 PM

So you have no answer?

11/29/2007 1:24:46 PM

^ I gave it.

11/29/2007 1:36:07 PM

^^ Maybe he's trying to say that the economy is strong, but slowing, and that the rate cut is meant to keep it strong... or something.

11/29/2007 1:40:37 PM

Ok, so if this was your answer

Quote :

"Adjustments of various kinds by the Fed are often needed to spur the economy or keep it from overheating."

And if the government must make adjustments to spur or cool the economy, and the market is strong as you claim, why are there rumors of rate cuts?

11/29/2007 1:40:48 PM

I honestly can't get enough of LoneSnark.

Like whenever I need a smile or laugh I just read one of his posts.

11/29/2007 1:54:28 PM

^^

1. Try to focus.

2. Stop changing my words.

3. I have posted that the U.S. economy is both "impressive" and "resilient" and I have backed these positions up.

4. MSNBC, among a number of other entities, in the excerpt above said that the market is "optimistic." This supported my "bullish" comment.

Quote :

"The market was clearly optimistic that at least some of the damage from the months-long credit crisis was finally being mitigated."

5. Stop trolling.

[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 1:56 PM. Reason : .]

11/29/2007 1:55:24 PM

^ I don't think you're understanding chance's question.

He's asking, in your opinion, what is the purpose of a rate cut?

11/29/2007 2:06:02 PM

^ Um. . .does he need an interpreter? I understand the question and I've answered it--my way. In addition, I understand the issue better than he ever will.

Trolls get what I give--nothing more.

11/29/2007 2:08:39 PM

^ So not only do you make up your own definitions to words, you also make up your own questions to anser?

11/29/2007 2:19:45 PM

You did nothing of the sort

In fact, you did the TreeTwista thing, which is to give someone the position you think they have. The one you gave me was this:

Quote :

"Let your glass be half empty"

when I asked simple questions that any non kool aid drunk person would be interested to know.

Quote :

"Stop changing my words."

Who changed your words? I QUOTED you.

Quote :

"I have posted that the U.S. economy is both "impressive" and "resilient" and I have backed these positions up."

No sir, no you have not. Sadly, the link you provided above is apparently constantly updated. The words you quoted mention the market being up on a rate cut. That's evidence of a strong market, hopes of a rate cut? Your link (which will change soon) talks about jobless claims being up and profit down at Sears.

Quote :

"MSNBC, among a number of other entities, in the excerpt above said that the market is "optimistic." This supported my "bullish" comment."

The market was optimistic of a RATE cut. This implies the market is slowing, or heading for recession, or is a bear market.


I'll be honest, I don't know too much about economics, but I can at least interpret what I read accurately. You'll never be a LoneSnark.

11/29/2007 2:21:39 PM

^^ and ^ I've done nothing of the sort, troll. Please bore someone else now.

^

Quote :

"The market was clearly optimistic that at least some of the damage from the months-long credit crisis was finally being mitigated."

Wrong on all points. And since I have never wanted to be and I am not trying to be LoneSnark your assertion works out perfectly for me.

[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 2:25 PM. Reason : .]

11/29/2007 2:21:52 PM

Quote :

"bear market"

Wikipedia claims that bear markets are 20% drops over a period of a year. We've just recently hit 10% so I doubt we're in a bear market yet unless the downward trend continues for the next long while.

11/29/2007 2:31:07 PM

I'll tell you what I am impressed about in this economy:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3683270/

Quote :

"Stocks fluctuated Thursday as investors reacted to a jump in U.S. jobless claims and a profit drop at Sears ahead of a speech in the evening by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke."

Quote :

"But Thursday’s news injected a bit of uncertainty back into the market, and investors remained cautious before Bernanke’s comments at 7 p.m. to the Chamber of Commerce in Charlotte, N.C."

Quote :

"“The data’s weak, and says to us that the Fed needs to stay engaged here,” said Phil Orlando, chief equity market strategist at Federated Investors."

The data's weak!

Quote :

"The main culprit, of course, is the housing market. The Commerce Department said sales of new homes rose moderately in October, but prices fell sharply. Also, prior sales figures were revised downward."

Quote :

"Sears’ results came up far short of Wall Street’s expectations; analysts polled by Thomson Financial had forecast a profit of 50 cents per share. The stock fell $15.88, or 13.7 percent, to $100.46. Aeropostale Inc. dropped $2.11, or 7.5 percent, to $25.90 after the retailer’s third-quarter sales came in below analysts’ expectations and a SunTrust Robinson Humphrey analyst downgraded the stock, citing its price. Aeropostale said its quarterly profit rose 11 percent. The stock market’s two-day rebound followed Monday’s triple-digit drop in the Dow, which pushed the index to a level 10 percent off its October high — the measure of a downward correction. But while the advance was impressive, Wall Street’s performance since the summer has been highly erratic, with many triple-digit swings, and there were few if any predictions that stocks were now on a solidly upward path."

Impressive!

11/29/2007 2:32:16 PM

Economy Has Strong Showing in Summer (AP from four hours ago)

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The economy barreled ahead in the summer, growing at a 4.9 percent pace. The performance was the strongest in four years but isn't expected to last through the current quarter amid the housing slump and credit crunch. New-home sales edged up in October but sales activity still hovered near an 11-year low. The Commerce Department's new reading of the gross domestic product from July through September, released Thursday, was even better than the government's initial estimate of a brisk 3.9 percent growth rate for period. Stronger U.S. exports to overseas buyers and more inventory investment by businesses were the main reasons for the improvement. A second report from the department showed that new-home sales increased 1.7 percent in October from September. That left sales at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 728,000. Even with the nudge up, sales have plunged 23.5 percent over the last 12 months. In September alone, sales dropped to a pace of 716,000, the lowest since 1996."

Quote :

"In October sales rose in all parts of the country, except for the West, where they tumbled 15.7 percent from the prior month. The slight increase in monthly sales nationwide didn't change the grim housing outlook."

Quote :

"The upgraded GDP figure for the third quarter matched economists' forecasts. The strong showing suggested that the economy was resilient even as the housing market plunged deeper into turmoil and credit problems intensified. Federal Reserve officials and other economists — looking at fresher barometers of economic activity — have warned that the economy is in for a rough patch."

Quote :

"Consumers were somewhat subdued in the third quarter. Their spending grew at a 2.7 percent pace, up from a weak 1.4 percent growth rate in the second quarter but still considered somewhat lukewarm. Analysts expect consumers turned cautious in the current October-to-December period, a factor in forecasts of slower overall economic growth. Post-Thanksgiving retail sales were promising, however. A separate GDP-related gauge of inflation showed that 'core' prices — excluding food and energy — rose at a rate of 1.8 percent. That was the same as previously estimated but up from a 1.4 percent rate in second quarter. Still the inflation figure was within the Fed's comfort zone. Oil prices, which have been marching higher, have eased in recent days and are now hovering at above $90 a barrel. High energy prices can crimp spending by people and businesses on other things, putting another damper on economic growth. So far more expensive energy hasn't forced a widespread boost in the prices of lots of goods and services, which would spread inflation through the economy. But Fed officials — ever vigilant against inflation dangers — have said they'll keep a watchful eye on the situation."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jsanM66tszKz1zFq0LOG4XvWS7zAD8T7DHG00

^ See how that works? I can boldy, too. Note well the headline--and the AP is hardly a right-wing organization.

[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 3:30 PM. Reason : .]

11/29/2007 3:27:37 PM

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2007/11/29/gross-domestic-income-tells-different-story-than-gdp/

Gross Domestic Income Tells Different Story Than GDP

Quote :

" According to the latest gross domestic product revision, the U.S. economy swelled at nearly a 5% clip last quarter, almost double the economy’s noninflationary limit. Or did it? Gross domestic income – a lesser-known gauge that the Fed has highlighted in the past as perhaps a better alternative — increased less than 2% last quarter, well below the economy’s potential. The first estimate of GDI is released with the second GDP estimate because it incorporates data that isn’t available earlier. (See line 11 on this chart.) GDP counts economic activity based on expenditures, while GDI bases it on income. In theory, they should add up the same, though the often diverge — albeit not as much as they did last quarter. Earlier this year when the Fed was trying to reconcile slower GDP growth with still-strong labor markets, it noted that GDI “might better capture the pace of activity.” GDI was running hotter than GDP at the time. But the tables appear to have turned since early in the year. GDI has grown more slowly that GDP over the first three quarters of 2007 as a whole. The main difference between the two gauges last quarter was corporate profits, which GDI includes and GDP excludes. Corporate profits from current production fell last quarter. GDI also doesn’t explicitly include net exports and inventories, as GDP does. GDI, in contrast, relies more heavily on employee compensation data. But when there are differences, Fed officials may lean towards GDI, especially when it comes to signaling economic downturns. Fed economist Jeremy Nalewaik wrote in a March paper that GDI “has done a substantially better job recognizing the start of the last several recessions than has real-time GDP.” GDP-based models in Nalewaik’s study pegged odds for the past four NBER-defined recessions since 1980 at their starting points at 52%, 40%, 45% and, for the 2001 recession, just 23%. GDI-based measures, in contrast, signaled odds of 78%, 44%, 72% and, for 2001, 70%. –Brian Blackstone "

11/29/2007 3:51:22 PM

Quote :

"The strong showing suggested that the economy was resilient. . . ."

11/29/2007 3:59:17 PM

'was' being the key there. Glad you finally came around to my side.

11/29/2007 4:05:29 PM

^ Stop trolling, troll. (1) The report was about "summer," which you may not realize has come and gone; and (2) economic numbers for a given period--unless they're projections--are usually reviewed after the period has ended, which accounts for the past tense.

Quote :

"The Commerce Department's new reading of the gross domestic product from July through September, released Thursday, was even better than the government's initial estimate of a brisk 3.9 percent growth rate for period."

[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 4:57 PM. Reason : .]

11/29/2007 4:53:08 PM

Since you can't remember how we got here, I'll try and help you. You said this:

Quote :

"I am, however, trying to identify the vanguard of trends, and the market is clearly bullish right now. The U.S economy is--in fact--impressive."

The market is clearly NOT bullish, I posted information to back this claim. You just said you were talking about past data, data from the summer. How does this defend your claim that the market is clearly bullish right now? Answer - it doesn't.

Stop calling me a troll. It's getting real old here. I'm attempting to stay with you as you weave a logical black hole and try and show you where you are faltering. I have no interests in trolling some anonymous old guy on the wolf web. However, I am interested to see you bring something new and informative to this section, and not play word games and label everyone that responds a troll.

11/29/2007 4:58:55 PM

^ Just go back and look at the evidence I've posted, troll. But when it comes right down to it, I don't care at all what you think, troll. Okay, troll?

BTW, the report I posted includes economic information going all the way to October of this year, troll--summer's over by then, troll. I can't help it if you don't know when the seasons begin and end, troll.


[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 5:08 PM. Reason : .]

11/29/2007 5:02:49 PM

Hooksaw, drop the trolling BS. Chance actually has a decent counter-argument, and he posted a good source. You should take the time to address the disparity between the GDI and GDP, b/c honestly I've heard no good sentiments on the US markets right now. I've moved all my investments out of US real estate b/c of it. Hell, the CANADIAN dollar is worth more than a US dollar.

I think in this case you should re-evaluate your assessment of the economy...

12/1/2007 12:21:35 AM

Quote :

"I am, however, trying to identify the vanguard of trends, and the market is clearly bullish right now. The U.S economy is--in fact--impressive"

I wouldn't call the current market bullish. Even bear markets have rallies.

As for the overall economy, while of course the US economy is impressive, I think we are looking at a likely recession. In the absence of Fed action I think we would be looking at a rather large recession, perhaps, the largest since the Great Depression. I know that sounds rather strong, but the history of debt deflation is not pretty.

For those who have a bit of technical training I would point to http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/sympos/2007/PDF/2007.10.11.Leamer.pdf

Now Leamer, at least a while back, didn't think a recession was coming because he didn't think manufacturer could post the kind of job losses we need for a recession. However, I think that times have changed a bit and we could shed enough retail and financial jobs to produce a recession.

Moreover, it is important to note that in the modern economy it is possible to produce a recession without a significant rise in unemployment. Job shifiting could produce productivity losses large enough to create a recession.

12/1/2007 5:55:32 PM

^^ No, I won't. When someone is blatantly trolling me, I intend to point that out. Chance is an admitted troll, and the exchange there was more about trolling than any point he may have had.

^ The R-word gets tossed around a lot these days--the problem is that most people either don't know the actual definition of "recession" or they're trying to change that definition. Unless the US economy experiences two quarters or more of flat or negative GDP growth in 2008, a recession will not have happened. The Whitehouse and the Fed have similar growth predictions for the economy next year of about 1.8 percent and 2.5 percent.

An economic slowdown? Yes--somewhat. A recession? No--bank on it.

[Edited on December 2, 2007 at 4:13 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2007 4:11:17 AM

Quote :

"No, I won't. When someone is blatantly trolling me"

How am I blatantly trolling you, coward? I posted a piece about GDI maybe being a better indicator than the GDP, which would mean the economy isn't as strong as you say it is, and I asked your take on it, and you replied this:

Quote :

"(1) The report was about "summer," which you may not realize has come and gone; and (2) economic numbers for a given period--unless they're projections--are usually reviewed after the period has ended, which accounts for the past tense."

So...? So...? Would you like to comment on the economy now, rather than using the Summers numbers as your benchmark? Would you like to comment on any other indicator besides GDP? Barring all that, just stop pretending you know any more than I do about the economy, which is to say, not very much.

12/2/2007 10:59:36 AM

Quote :

"the problem is that most people either don't know the actual definition of "recession" or they're trying to change that definition."

Two quarters is a useful short hand but NBER defined recessions are determined by a committee after weighing a number of factors. When you see recession bars on chart you are almost certainly looking at NBER recessions.

When I use the word recession, I mean typically either a decline in output or sustained increases in output below increases in productivity. For example if the US economy grew at 1% for more than an 18 months I would consider that a recession.

The concept that I believe is important is that some macro-economic effect is preventing markets from clearing and leading to a decline in resource utilization.

12/2/2007 1:30:11 PM

^^

Quote :

"How am I blatantly trolling you, coward?"

Fuck you, motherfucker. Can you read?

Quote :

"Just go back and look at the evidence I've posted, troll. But when it comes right down to it, I don't care at all what you think, troll. Okay, troll? BTW, the report I posted includes economic information going all the way to October of this year, troll--summer's over by then, troll. I can't help it if you don't know when the seasons begin and end, troll. "

hooksaw

^ The definition that I listed is not shorthand; it is still the official definition of "recession" used by a great many economists, businesses, and the financial press, the NBER definition notwithstanding. The NBER analyses are useful, however, and their definition of "recession" is actually closer to the traditional definition than your post would lead one to believe:

Quote :

"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 [emphasis added]. But our procedure differs in a number of ways. First, we use monthly indicators to arrive at a monthly chronology. Second, we use indicators subject to much less frequent revision. Third, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, 'a significant decline in activity.' Q: Isn't a recession a period of diminished economic activity? A: It's more accurate to say that a recession, the way we use the word [emphasis added], is a period of diminishing activity rather than diminished activity. We identify a month when the economy reached a peak of activity and a later month when the economy reached a trough. The time in between is a recession, a period when the economy is contracting. The following period is an expansion. Economic activity is below normal or diminished for some part of the recession and for some part of the following expansion as well. Some call the period of diminished activity a slump."

http://www.nber.org/reporter/fall01/

As one can see, though, I think most economists and many others would differentiate a "slump" from a "recession."

12/3/2007 3:32:10 AM

ha. even the thread title is a joke

12/3/2007 3:43:35 AM