didn't the republicans want to blame the 2001-2003 recession on Clinton b.c of the whole lag thing.

2/4/2008 12:55:16 AM

^ Conveying information that a recession started during the term of a previous president, which was the case concerning the recession at issue, is not blaming that president. It is simply a statement of fact.

This statement of fact concerning the recession in question was also undoubtedly an attempt to avoid the very blame that I referred to. Weren't you paying attention?

2/4/2008 1:14:01 AM

Quote :

" Conveying information that a recession started during the term of a previous president, which was the case concerning the recession at issue, is not blaming that president. It is simply a statement of fact."

First off, the 2001 recession was blamed on Clinton in the same respect that the current potential recession is being blamed on Bush. The partisan hacks of the GOP in 2001 are no better or worse than today's partisan hacks of the Democrats. You can't defend Bush now, yet try to pass off criticism of Clinton in 2001 as a "statement of fact." That's just naive.

Secondly,

Quote :

"This statement of fact concerning the recession in question was also undoubtedly an attempt to avoid the very blame that I referred to. Weren't you paying attention?"

Stop being a condescending jackass. If you want some respect around here, take my advice: Stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you as a left-wing, hippie communist moron hell-bent on blaming everything wrong with America on George W. Bush.

2/4/2008 6:01:23 PM

Quote :

"Hey, if you want to talk economic slowdown in the United States, we can. Obviously, such has happened, and I think we'll see a continuation of the slowing down in various indices from Q1 '08 through possibly Q2 or Q3 '08."

My concern is something substantially worse than a slowdown. There are too many parallels to Japan in 1990 for me to be sanguine about this whole thing.

Quote :

"Some want to blame Bush for it all--even though presidents do not control the economy. I understand that presidents get the credit and the blame "

I am not a Bush supporter, I was for McCain in 2000 but am less enthusiastic this year. However, I don't think this has anything to do with Bush policies. This is completely a creation of the financial markets - a demon of our own design.

2/4/2008 6:23:56 PM

^^ TWW: The place to come for respect.

STFU.

^ Understood. We simply disagree--and we somehow manage to do so without being disagreeable. Others should take a lesson.

In any event, I have seen nothing you have presented or elsewhere that makes me think the U.S. economy is in for anything other than a slowdown. And you posted this:

Quote :

"I have seen a number of economists back off of recession calls in recent weeks but I remain concerned."

2/5/2008 2:41:05 AM

Demand Up at Factories in December
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: February 5, 2008

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Demand for products from factories in the United States rose in December by the largest amount in five months. The Commerce Department reported Monday that orders placed with factories rose 2.3 percent in December. That was an increase from the 1.7 percent gain in November and was the biggest rise since July. The performance in December was better than the 2 percent rise that economists forecast."

Quote :

"A more forward-looking report, released Friday, suggested manufacturing gained some ground in January."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/business/05econ.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin

Impressive.

2/5/2008 3:40:17 AM

^ thats due to the weak dollar, no?

2/5/2008 8:15:34 AM

ISM Non-Manufacturing Index out today. Not the best.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/23009011

2/5/2008 3:41:31 PM

^^ That's one of the benefits of a devalued dollar--it fuels demand for exports.

^ Not the worst either--see how that works?

2/5/2008 4:31:11 PM

By that definition, anything not as bad as 1929 is acceptable.

2/5/2008 4:35:03 PM

^ How ridiculous. The R-word cannot even be confidently used--though some are doing so--and you're ready to toss in the D-word?

Simmer down.

2/5/2008 4:58:05 PM

Hold on there young fella. I wasn't saying that we're nearing a depression. I was saying that by your logic, any information that wasn't the worst ever, really wasn't that bad.

I'd use a different D word referring to your arguments and that is desperate.

2/5/2008 5:00:03 PM

Hooksaw... in all honesty... did you even READ the article?

Quote :

"The Institute for Supply Management's index of non-manufacturing plummeted to 41.9 from 54.4 in December"

Ow...

Quote :

"its largest monthly decline on record and a far greater drop than Wall Street expected."

Double ow...

Quote :

"A Reuters poll of economists had produced a median expectation of a slip to 53.0.[/b]"

Good freaking lord... they predicted the index to slip 1%, and it plummeted 20%. Look, I know jack about the economy. I've already stated that for the record. But when you expect to lose 1% and instead lose 20%, that's a pretty big fucking loss.

I've got an idea. Hooksaw, you agree that a recession is probably either here or on its way, and we'll agree that George Bush is not in any direct or even significant way to blame for it....




....








































But we ARE allowed to hold Bush accountable for getting us into Iraq, fucking things up even worse than they were, not listening to Generals who called him out on it, choosing a VP that argued he was not a member of the executive OR legislative branch, the Patriot Act, supporting a bad idea in No Child Left Behind and then failing to even fund it properly, hiring an inept moron to be the head of FEMA, not accepting Rumsfeld's resignation, nominating his cleaning lady for the Supreme Court, doing nothing on illegal immigration, squandering the incredible international support granted to him after 9/11, and wasting public tax dollars on inane and utterly useless legislation like the Marriage amendment...


Deal?

[Edited on February 5, 2008 at 7:35 PM. Reason : e]

2/5/2008 7:33:20 PM

ahahah, nice.

2/5/2008 8:14:46 PM

^^^ Desperation? Hardly.

I think some here and in the media echo chamber are desperately seeking a recession so they can make the economy a central issue against Republicans in general and in this presidential election cycle. The bash-Bush-on-Iraq method isn't sticking anymore, so the Democrats need to move the focus to the economy--soon enough, however, the Democrats and many here will figure out that Bush isn't running this year.

Quote :

"^^ Hey, if you want to talk economic slowdown in the United States, we can. Obviously, such has happened, and I think we'll see a continuation of the slowing down in various indices from Q1 '08 through possibly Q2 or Q3 '08. My short list of problems with some of the naysayers here and elsewhere is as follows: 1. Some organizations and individuals are trying to change the generally accepted definition of 'recession,' which is two quarters or more of flat or negative growth in the GDP. It is neither helpful nor accurate to start screaming the R-word like a flap-jawed idiot every time U.S. markets correct or the economy slows a bit. 2. If the GDP continues to grow--even if it grows just a little--the U.S. economy is not in a recession. Deal with it. 3. Much of the howling about the current state of the U.S. economy--particularly by some here--is simply schadenfreude. Some want to blame Bush for it all--even though presidents do not control the economy. I understand that presidents get the credit and the blame (though Bush hasn't received much credit for things that have gone well), but the finger-pointing in question has little to do with reality and more to do with the pleasure derived from pinning the blame on Bush."

[Edited on February 5, 2008 at 8:24 PM. Reason : .]

2/5/2008 8:23:42 PM

Quote :

"I think some here and in the media echo chamber are desperately seeking a recession so they can make the economy a central issue against Republicans in general and in this presidential election cycle. "

How about you prove that there ISN'T a recession before accusing the Democrats/media of fear-mongering? If you can't, then it's not "political agendas" at work. It's cold hard fucking fact.

2/6/2008 1:54:05 AM

The economy is growing rapidly!
Ok, the economy is still growing well!
Ok, the economy is slowing down, but that's it! <--------------- after 9 pages
Ok, so it's a recession, but it won't last long!
Ok, so it's a pretty long recession, but at least its not a depression!
It's all president Hillary's fault.

[Edited on February 6, 2008 at 1:59 AM. Reason : .]

2/6/2008 1:58:48 AM

^^ and ^ Posts are so stupid.

It's not my burden to prove that there's no recession--but I've presented a great deal of evidence from top economists that say there isn't a recession and there isn't going to be one. Show me two or more quarters of flat or negative growth in GDP and we'll talk.

Keep hope alive, though, naysayers!

PS: Economic slowdown =/= Recession

FYI. Deal with it.

[Edited on February 6, 2008 at 2:37 AM. Reason : .]

2/6/2008 2:35:31 AM

Quote :

"Keep hope alive, though, naysayers! "

I resent being stereotyped as a naysayer. You think I enjoy the fact that the economy is down? Do you honestly believe my objective is scare everyone into thinking there is recession in order to bring down President Bush, the GOP, and the conservatives in general?

Let me set you straight for the last fucking time. I love my country and am just as worried as anyone that a recession is either here or on its way. I consider myself damned lucky to live here. That includes the rights we enjoy, the prosperity we have, and the security we're granted by the best military in the world. I take none of these facts lightly or for granted.

So when simple-minded shits like you try to argue I'm some kind of negative-nancy, liberal hack, Democrat apologist hell bent on bringing this fine country of ours down as a means of advancing my own political agenda.... it fucking PISSES ME OFF.

I looked at the damn data. I did my research. I bought a house recently for $25K less than it was listed only a few months ago. I also followed up on information posted by ksmith2. AND, for very logical reasons, I concluded a recession is very likely going to occur, if it isn't already.

So stop with the fucking name calling. If you're going to call me a pessimist, you have to prove I'm deliberately ignoring the reality of the situation. However, you never did address my post in which I demonstrated why I believe you're wrong. THEREFORE, the burden is on YOU to prove I'm wrong.

Either way, don't ever insinuate that I would put political agendas above the well-being of my country.

















Ever.





























Gahdamn cock monkey....

2/6/2008 12:27:03 PM

guys. No reason to get all upset over a 'recession'. They happen with pretty good frequency. Its not going to be the end of the world when we go into one. for this area, the last recession was probably the hardest this area will see in a long time in that it was driven by dot.com and high tech busts. We dont have that type of problem with that sector this time.

I am sick of hearing the news bitch about it, because they are scaring people into making whatever recession we get longer and worse.

2/6/2008 1:00:43 PM

Quote :

"guys. No reason to get all upset over a 'recession'. They happen with pretty good frequency. Its not going to be the end of the world when we go into one. for this area, the last recession was probably the hardest this area will see in a long time in that it was driven by dot.com and high tech busts. We dont have that type of problem with that sector this time. I am sick of hearing the news bitch about it, because they are scaring people into making whatever recession we get longer and worse."

The news b**** about what? I saw the subprime and Alt-A and "supposedly prime" debt thing and how overpriced housing was two-and-a-half years ago when I looked into buying a house. I saw what was going to happen and just stayed on the sidelines so I can profit after the crash (low interest rates from a panicking Fed and a desperate seller equals good for me). The news ignored how bad a deal real estate was til last spring, choosing to instead say nonsense like "real estate always goes up!" At least that statement is realized for its truth right now, even if it was way too late.

No. It's better we realize a recession is coming, that way we can go ahead and get the pain over with, so we go back to making our economy better sooner after the recession is over. Ignoring the elephant in the room and extending pain out longer has never worked for anyone.

That's why I applaud these new CEOs at places like Citigroup that are saying "screw deception and lies, I want all bad debts on the next financial statement". So what if it created the company's worst quarter in their whole history? It'll mean the company will go back to being a good business sooner, and that's good for you and me, and that's good for the American economy: honesty.



[Edited on February 6, 2008 at 2:05 PM. Reason : /]

2/6/2008 1:48:27 PM

I think you missed my point. My point is the recession isnt the worst thing in the world, it will come and go before you know it. Some people's lives are going to be affected by it, however, I doubt we will see unemployment reach the numbers we did in 2001. I think it will affect financial services the greatest, but the effect on other segments will be muted. The news is making people panic, and thats what I dont like.

2/6/2008 2:56:09 PM

Quote :

"I think you missed my point. My point is the recession isnt the worst thing in the world, it will come and go before you know it. Some people's lives are going to be affected by it, however, I doubt we will see unemployment reach the numbers we did in 2001. I think it will affect financial services the greatest, but the effect on other segments will be muted. The news is making people panic, and thats what I dont like."

We live in a 24/7 news cycle, conflict, blood, corruption, and drama = ratings. I saw every major news network create a race war over Hillary Clinton saying LBJ was good for civil rights.

There's a difference between panicking and just being smarter and tighter with your money, which is a good thing whether the economy is in good shape or bad shape.

[Edited on February 6, 2008 at 3:06 PM. Reason : /]

2/6/2008 3:05:15 PM

^x5 naysayer:

Quote :

"a person who habitually expresses negative or pessimistic views: Despite a general feeling that things were going well, a few naysayers tried to cast gloom."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/naysayer

Um. . .you felt the need to express all that just from me using "naysayer"? If you get that worked up about the word at issue, (1) you don't belong here, and (2) you have enough psychological baggage to make you a suitable case for treatment.

2/7/2008 1:55:13 AM

i hear this guy knows a thing or two about economics
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/03/news/economy/bc.ne.buffettletter.ap/index.htm

Quote :

"Billionaire Warren Buffett said Monday that the U.S. economy is essentially in a recession even if it hasn't met the technical definition of one yet. The technical definition of a recession most economists use is two consecutive quarters of negative growth in the nation's gross domestic product. "I would say, by any commonsense definition, we are in a recession," Buffett said on CNBC."

3/3/2008 11:36:54 AM

hooksaw disagrees with Buffet.

hooksaw took a class so he knows.

3/3/2008 11:40:04 AM

Quote :

"^^ I borrowed the sell-off and buyup thing from billionaire Warren Buffett. Sorry, professor, but I'll take his wisdom over yours any day."

hooksaw agrees with Buffet.

.... unless it damages his credibility in this thread

3/3/2008 11:57:25 AM

Buffett is incorrect. Recessions are defined by NBER using a large variety of data besides GDP. Buffet's criteria is one often used by economic journalists as a quick rule of thumb, but it is hardly a set rule that all economists have agreed upon.

You need to remember WB is not an economist.

That being said, I also think the US economy is headed for a recession. Though it has nothing to do with who is President.

3/3/2008 12:03:52 PM

^^ and ^ Um. . .I agree with some things that Buffett says and I disagree with some things he says--just as I do with any other person. I brought up Buffett simply to credit a source that I paraphrased.

And BusinessWeek's Chief Economist Mike Mandel said this weekend that he doesn't think the U.S. economy is headed for recession--it's likely headed for a soft landing. And Mandel went on to say that the majority of economists surveyed do not think the economy will go into recession either--but we are headed for a slowdown in growth. In any event, weigh economists' predictions as you will:

Quote :

"'I don't think we, as a profession, ever had an ability to forecast recessions,' said Jeffrey A. Frankel, professor of economics at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and a member of the National Bureau of Economic Research's Business Cycle Dating Committee, the official arbiter of recessions. 'It's hard enough to know when a recession has started, looking at it with hindsight."

Quote :

"The Economist reported that in March 2001 -- the month the last recession began -- 95 percent of American economists believed that there wouldn't be a recession. In February 2001, the 35 professional forecasters surveyed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia collectively predicted growth at an annual rate of 2.2 percent for the second quarter of 2001 and 3.3 percent for the third quarter./[quote] [quote]The complexity, dynamism and diversity of the United States economy also make forecasting recessions difficult. In small countries, which may depend on a single export, like oil, or where a natural disaster can wreak catastrophic results for the entire economy, it is comparatively easy to determine when and how one of these factors can cause a contraction, Mr. Frankel of Harvard said. But in the United States, whose overall economy has responded so well in recent years to a series of external shocks -- from 9/11 to Hurricane Katrina -- it's rarely sufficient to focus on a single factor. Christina Romer, professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, says economists can't predict recessions for the same reason stock market analysts can't accurately predict market crashes."

Quote :

"Macroeconomists have successfully predicted nine of the last five recessions."

-Yoram K. Bauman, economist, University of Washington

http://w4.stern.nyu.edu/news/news.cfm?doc_id=7059

BTW, it's Buffett--not "Buffet" (sic), you idiots.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=T1GVIcKvZSM&feature=related

[Edited on March 3, 2008 at 1:03 PM. Reason : .]

3/3/2008 1:00:18 PM

one thing thats good about the euro going so high is that it makes countries less likely to buy that airbus thing i think

3/3/2008 1:01:37 PM

The dollar has crashed versus the yen, which sucks because I'm going to Japan in April It used to be ~120yen per dollar, now it's about 102 and sinking steadily.

http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=JPY&amt=1000&t=1y

3/3/2008 1:06:19 PM

Falling dollar might mean our exports are cheaper for other countries to buy. No one ever seems to mention that this also means we can't buy as many imports though.

3/3/2008 1:11:36 PM

We have yet to see the same relative increase in import prices (ex energy) as the decline in the dollar. This is in some part due to foreign firms trying to maintain US market share by eating into profit margins. ^ This is probably why you don't read as much about decreased purchasing power of foreign goods. How long this will hold, however, is anyones guess

3/3/2008 10:16:21 PM

Quote :

"No one ever seems to mention that this also means we can't buy as many imports though. "

That just makes American products more competitive here, helping US businesses further.

A weak dollar always benefits US businesses, and correspondingly, the US economy.

3/3/2008 10:56:06 PM

"Bounce in the club when the heat is on, all night on the beach til the break of dawn. I'm going to Miami, welcome to Miami."

Quote :

""There is a very important phenomena that is occurring that has only been covered in an only "glancing" manner. Beyond the concept of "jingle mail" -- which suggests that folks who can pay their mortgages may just choose to walk away given the dramatic loss of equity due to housing's collapse -- consider the following: As a developer, I had stepped to the sidelines and rented beginning in 2005, because I was sure that housing was unsustainable and was bound to collapse; it took 2 more years for it occur. Nonetheless, as I have followed several of the homes that my wife and I were interested in a few years back, they are all on the market now. What is shocking, that in each and every case, I have been told by brokers and banks that the owners, have ceased paying their mortgages in some cases for nearly 2 years and have continued to occupy these homes. Now, these are homes in excess of $2,000,000 in the very best neighborhoods in South Florida. Brokers have added that these buyers further complicated things by putting huge home equity lines on top of their mortgages and now have no possibility of selling their homes for amounts needed to cover their accumulated debt. This may not seem like news, but understand what this means: There is currently an 8-10 month wait to get a court date to have a foreclosure filing heard in Dade and Broward counties. The bankers have non-performing loans on their books to the best heeled borrowers in multi-million dollar amounts with no immediate means for recovery; with a non-secured second mortgage in place, there is no possibility for a "short sale" that will satisfy all of the borrower's debt. They are reluctant to take a haircut knowing that they have the home equity debt still around their neck and are likely to frustrate any near-term sale. There is no clean way to sell the home that would guarantee "clean title" hence a foreclosure is the only means to separate the property from the dead-beat speculator/squattor. Banks do not want to spend the $50,000 required to take a home through a foreclosure and clear the title -- only to put the house back on the market for a deeper loss afterwards. Most likely, they have not revealed these owner occupied defaults to their shareholders, thanks to the sheer numbers of non-performing loans on their balance sheets, and the daunting task of foreclosing on all of them. This is the ultimate seizure and full stop of the market whereby everyone is standing in a stalemate. As one broker said to me, "these bums sitting in $3,000,000 homes overlooking the water are likely to be left alone by the banks for 2 years before the banks even get serious about foreclosure." So here is the difference between "walking away," these folks are doing anything but walking away, they are sitting on lounge chairs sipping martinis living cost free! (not to mention that they have ceased paying property taxes and insurance). I can only imagine what this market will look like in the coming years . . ." "

3/5/2008 8:46:37 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWksEJQEYVU
Armageddon - 1:43

3/5/2008 10:05:42 AM

Quote :

"Falling dollar might mean our exports are cheaper for other countries to buy."

What exports? Most if not all of our manufacturing jobs have been outsourced overseas.

And has anybody else noticed the increasing prices at the grocery store? It's not yet too expensive for me to eat decently, but I wonder what will become of the lower economic classes when even hot dogs and macaroni are beyond their spending power. I'm guessing that ramen's about to become very popular in this country.

3/5/2008 9:17:07 PM

^

Quote :

"Most if not all of our manufacturing jobs have been outsourced overseas."

What a joke--it's not even close to "most." Please produce anything legitimate to support your position--and you can't, in case you don't know this.

And don't forget to offset any losses with gains from outsourcing, such as cost savings and so on. Have you even considered some of these things?

3/6/2008 12:50:51 PM

^That's true. The often forgotten benefactor of free trade is the consumer, but because consumers are a disparate group, the same attention is not duly paid. Few news pundits mention the thousands of dollars a year Americans save through the purchase of less expensive goods. These savings, when aggregated, far exceed the costs of lost manufacturing jobs. Additionally, the net number of jobs in the US as a whole has increased, providing ample opportunity for displaced manufacturing workers to find new jobs.

Also, China, too, is losing manufacturing jobs. China has lost far more jobs in manufacturing than the US. We are simply becoming more productive and require fewer workers for the same level of output. It wasn't too long ago it took a third of the population to produce the nations food supply. Obviously, the millions of jobs lost to productivity in agriculture have provided far more benefits than costs.

^^Higher prices at the grocery store are largely a consequence of high demand for ethanol. As corn is used to feed livestock, higher prices of corn have resulted in higher prices of beef, poultry and milk. Additionally, as farmers of other crops (wheat, soy, ect) have switched to corn to take advantage of higher prices, supply of wheat, ect has decreased, resulting in higher prices for these crops as well. What we're left with is an across-the-board increase in food prices. This was widely seen coming by economists, but obviously not politicians.

[Edited on March 6, 2008 at 8:54 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2008 8:50:43 PM

We are progressing towards being beyond a reasonable doubt of a recession. The conversation now should be on the extent of the recession and the response necessary to battle it.

Quote :

" Payrolls Plunge by 63,000, Biggest Drop in Five Years U.S. ECONOMY, JOBS, NONFARM PAYROLLS, EMPLOYMENT By CNBC.comCNBC.com | 07 Mar 2008 | 08:33 AM ET U.S. employers cut payrolls for a second straight month during February, slashing 63,000 jobs for the biggest monthly job decline in nearly five years as the labor market weakened steadily, a government report on Friday showed. The Labor Department said last month's cut in jobs followed an upwardly revised loss of 22,000 jobs in January instead of 17,000 reported a month ago. In addition, it said that only 41,000 jobs were created in December, half the 82,000 originally reported. The back-to-back January and February job losses were the first consecutive monthly declines since May and June of 2003. The February jobs report was more bleak than expected. Economists surveyed by Reuters forecast 25,000 jobs would be added to payrolls last month. They had forecast that the unemployment rate would edge up to 5.0 percent. During February, the national unemployment rate eased to 4.8 percent from 4.9 percent in January, but that was because fewer people were in the labor force. The department said the number of people in the workforce fell by 450,000 in February. Job losses were widespread. Some 52,000 jobs were lost in the manufacturing industries, the largest decline since July 2003 when 92,000 jobs were cut. Construction businesses eliminated another 39,000 jobs on top of 25,000 that were cut in January, a reflection of the housing industry's deepening woes. The department said that since the housing boom peaked in September 2006, construction businesses have cut 331,000 jobs. One bright spot was that the government added 38,000 jobs in February on top of 4,000 new-hires in January. © 2008 CNBC.com URL: http://www.cnbc.com/id/23518353/"

3/7/2008 9:22:16 AM

Unemployment 'unexpectedly' shoots up
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJcGRsXmyltU&refer=home

My favorite quote is the first line: "the U.S. unexpectedly lost jobs in February "
Unexpected by whom? I fully expected it, and expect this trend to continue for a while.

"Economists had projected payrolls would rise by 23,000 "
ahahahaha, seriously?

That's a swing of 86K jobs (23K expected gain vs. 63K loss) in one month.

3/7/2008 10:59:23 AM

Quote :

"Higher prices at the grocery store are largely a consequence of high demand for ethanol. As corn is used to feed livestock, higher prices of corn have resulted in higher prices of beef, poultry and milk. Additionally, as farmers of other crops (wheat, soy, ect) have switched to corn to take advantage of higher prices, supply of wheat, ect has decreased, resulting in higher prices for these crops as well. What we're left with is an across-the-board increase in food prices. This was widely seen coming by economists, but obviously not politicians."

Yeah, I get all of that. And I'm sure that the rising price of gasoline has also contributed. I guess I was just asking if anyone was starting to notice. And I do genuinely wonder what will happen once people are unable to afford basic grocery items such as bread and milk.

3/7/2008 11:24:38 AM

Look how resilient the economy has been despite all these bad events in recent months. Most other economies would have completely tanked by now--they would not be talking recession; it would be more like severe depression. And that's what I'm trying to get some of you to admit/understand.

^^ You forgot this part:

Quote :

"'This is going to be a weak quarter,'' Edward Lazear, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said in a Bloomberg Television interview from Washington. He said the Bush administration expects 'close to a zero quarter' in terms of gross domestic product growth. 'I wouldn't say negative, that's still up for grabs,' he said."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a.ieJjy.S1mI&refer=home

You need two consecutive quarters of flat or negative growth. If that happens, I will concede there is a recession--but not before. In any event, even if there is a recession, I predict that we will pull out of it by Q4 '08.

3/7/2008 12:12:03 PM

nobody cares about your thoughts about how resilient our economy is. That's nothing more than a moral victory.

The rest of the folks in this thread want to discuss the problems that we're currently facing in the economy, not masturbate to fact that "hey at least we're not in a depression!"

3/7/2008 12:21:04 PM

^ I started this thread--I'll take it where the fuck I want. Stop riding my nuts, asshole.

3/7/2008 12:26:55 PM

Yeah, hooksaw. You've been touting the 'resiliency' line for awhile now. I don't really care if the economy is resilient right now because it's still tanking and tanking quickly. We had .6% growth last quarter and that is with Christmas. Now that the holiday season is over, housing continues to fall, oil prices are rising, food prices are rising, the auto industry continues to struggle... and so on and so on, I wouldn't be surprised to see -1% in this current quarter.

Someone called me stupid when I said several months ago that the failing housing market/credit market would remove hundreds of billions of dollars from the US economy. But it is now obvious that that is exactly what happened. People stopped spending because the equity of their houses went way down and now that money that they got loaned doesn't exist. One of the great aftereffects of this is that the value of the dollar continues to slide, raising prices on every import we have, including oil. That's why oil has been rallying the past couple weeks. Because they have to raise the price to account for the falling dollar. For everyone else, oil is probably cheaper because demand is actually declining, but because the dollar is sucking ass right now we have to pay more.

We are certainly losing ground on GDP right now. There's no question about it. Will it last 6 months so that we can officially call it a recession? Maybe. Right now it looks so, but it's so hard to predict these things. Maybe we'll miraculously pull out of this before July so that it's simply a bad period in economic history, but I really don't see that happening. Until the source of the problem (credit/housing) corrects itself, we're going to continue losing money at a time when we can least afford to. This will probably be one of the worst recessions we've seen in atleast 20 years.

BTW, the DOW will close below 12000 today for the first time in over 1.5 years. The capital market is starting dry up too.

[Edited on March 7, 2008 at 4:18 PM. Reason : ]

3/7/2008 4:10:20 PM

^
1. ".6% growth last quarter" is still growth.

2. "I wouldn't be surprised to see -1% in this current quarter." It takes two consecutive of negative--or zero--growth for there to be a recession.

3. Concerning housing, new products that have never existed before in the housing industry were tried these past few years--many were risky and ultimately failed. Some borrowers simply didn't bother to read the fine print in their loan applications, and others couldn't grasp the rather straightforward concept of ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGES.

Still, there's this:

Fed to Make $200 Billion Available To Lenders
Bank Seeks to Loosen Credit

Quote :

"The Fed said it will make $200 billion available to financial institutions in an effort to ease a crisis of confidence that is making it harder for families and businesses to borrow money."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030701225.html?sid%3DST2008030800132&sub=AR

4. Concerning oil prices, the experts that were predicting $5-a-gallon gas a couple of years ago were wrong then, too. Oil prices fluctuate and they will come down some again--just as they have in the past.

5. And the stimulus package has already been signed by the president and checks are coming out in May, I think. Though I don't fully agree with this move, it should certainly give the economy a boost--in addition to recent rate cuts.

6. Does it feel like a recession for some? Yes, I'm sure it does--but that's an entirely different issue altogether.

3/10/2008 5:03:18 AM

^ Why do you insist on making it so easy?

The VERY first paragraph of the story you posted:

Quote :

"The Federal Reserve took strong action yesterday to restore order to frazzled lending markets while a new report showing unexpected job losses underscored the toll that credit markets are taking on the economy. "

the next paragraph:

Quote :

"Mounting panic in the credit markets is making it harder for Americans to get mortgages and is increasing the rates they must pay on credit cards and auto loans. Even solid businesses are finding it difficult to raise money to expand."

and then the next:

Quote :

"The nation shed 63,000 jobs in February, the Labor Department reported, the second straight month of losses and the worst monthly decline since March 2003."

That doesn't sound impressive to me. Not that we should be surprised, markets and economies fluctuate, this isn't anything new.

3/10/2008 5:44:15 AM

^
1. Um. . .I included the link--I kind of assumed somebody would read it.

2. If the U.S. economy is not impressive, then why aren't we in a depression? I mean, look at all that has been happening and the economy still managed some growth.

3/10/2008 6:17:05 AM

Apparently you have a low threshold for "impressive".

3/10/2008 6:33:19 AM