Slashdot Mirror
US Has Been In Recession Since December 2007
The National Bureau of Economic Research said Monday that the US has been in a recession since December 2007. The NBER is a private, nonprofit research organization of academic economists who determine business cycles. The stock market took a dip on the news that reached double-digit percentages for some tech stocks.
Recession pshaw!
The NumBER's a flaw.
A portfolio of duds
Requires the suds:
Burma Shave
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
A long-standing rule of thumb for "recession" is that it is defined as contraction in the GDP for at least two consecutive quarters (six months).
More info.
By that long-accepted definition of recession, the US is not even yet in a recession. The US GDP decreased for the first time in recent history only in the third (most recent) quarter, by 0.3%. In the second quarter -- earlier this year -- real GDP increased 2.8%.
But how long has the media been ceaselessly hammering it into our heads that we're in a recession, tolling the bells of doom and gloom? How many times have we heard the phrase, "In these tough economic times" inserted into nearly everything we see or hear? How long has the drumbeat of the "recession" been played, when we had nothing but positive growth reports, even in the midst of the sub-prime crisis?
Worse still, many people actually believe that whatever recession we'll end up having is exclusively the fault of only the current President, and can't look back to anything before the year 2000 for any blame whatsoever. The egregious irresponsibility of the sub-prime lending has a long and sordid history.
It is this kind of partisan willful ignorance on the part of many that has enabled the political agenda among some to drive the notion that the US is in a severe recession caused by the ineptness and reckless irresponsibility of the Bush administration, when the US had nothing but growth in the GDP until only a month ago. If you asked most people how long they thought the economy had been shrinking for negative, they'd probably say things like, "A year? Two years?"
Wrong.
Last quarter. And we just found out about it.
So we've heard talk, day after day, night after night, an incessant drilling into our heads that we're in a deep and severe recession -- one that may even now rival the Great Depression! -- creating panic and fear, causing people to pull investments and hold onto their wallets, change purchasing plans, in turn creating bleak forecasts for manufacturers and other business, which causes job loss, and then -- voilà!:
Is it any surprise we're going to have a recession on our hands?
Capitalistic systems only work when the participants have faith in the system -- when that faith collapses, for whatever reason, you get a recession. And that's a normal and accepted part of the cycle.
step aside intel 45 nanometer chipset, cloaking materials, telepathic controllers, and internet technology....its time for an economic recession story from the National Bureau of Economic Research.
you nerds can thank us later after you're done spending your way to patriotastic victory over the stock plunge and housing crisis.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Sure they are more accurate but they are mixing up precise esoteric terms with the 'generally understood' terms.
People understand what the general term means in terms of their daily lives and for them "recession" is bad. What started in 2007 it wasn't "bad" for the ordinary Joe - in fact a recovery might have occurred and we'd never have known about it. Now that it's the 2 quarters of negative growth thing, it's a real recession.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
but when these economists start retroactively applying the recession to previous time periods, thats just cruel and unusual punishment
why do we tolerate these economists? why don't we just lock them in a dungeon somewhere? what did we ever do to them to make them hurt our economy so bad?
maybe if some of us form a posse and tar and feather some economists these jerks will relent and make the economy good again
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It's sort of like a junkie being asked diagnostic questions like "Where does it hurt?" by a doctor who is prescribing him opiates.
Seastead this.
Since the only growing industries seem to have been weapons and war, it's only natural that when you take the influence of government debt out of the picture, the economy has been shrinking for a long time.
There are some people who think you can replace economic growth in the private sector with economic growth in the public sector and it's the same thing. That may be true in Soviet Russia, but in the free world, pork financed with debt is an inflationary measure that doesn't increase the actual size of the economy.
What's worse, this 3.4% growth in the economy financed by debt is going to cause a cascade plunge. Right now we're like a family using debt to pay off debt (the growth in the national debt is equal to the money spent maintaining the current debt). What always happens in cases like these is the debt supply runs out, and the family goes bankrupt. If you think we're seeing hard times today, just wait. Paying back this 10 trillion is going to send the US back to the stone age by comparison.
It's been a long time.
The system as it existed worked on faith. Not facts. Faith that an industry that produces nothing and adds no value can be the most significant industry nonetheless and make EVERYTHING else secondary. It is not the first time.
During the internet bubble, real businesses that produced real goods that real people bought with real money were considered to be worthless. The future was in... well pets.com and what not. Pipe dreams, ad based revenue. It became hard for ordinary businesses to even find investment because they didn't promise the sky.
Of course, you can't say that the financial industry is much the same, that all these speculators add nothing, are fluff. But that is what happened, we had the financial industry fluffing itself up by selling itself its own products over and over again. This whole mortage reselling would be similar to Ford and Chrysler (apologies if they are the same) buying each others cars over and over and counting that as total production. The financial industry obtained a far larger share of the total market then it really is supposed to have. It worked because everyone believed it, believed that Wall Street really is important. It isn't.
Then it collapsed, people did indeed loose fate. Somewhere someone burst the bubble. What we got now is not so much a reccesion, as a re-appreasal. We now got to decide what exactly the role of the financial industry is supposed to be. Is it a service industry to the rest of the industry (exactly like say a cleaning company is a service industry) or is everyone else in the service of the financial industry.
Do we want banks to be just banks, lend our money to others for a profit that they partly keep and partly give to us or speculators, driving up prices, investing only in their own profit margins rather then investing long term in other industries.
A few economists, even as high up as the world bank are daring to question the system right now. That perhaps we should see the bank again as it once was, a service to society rather then the controller of the entire economy. No longer should the financial industry have a 40% share of the economy but rather something closer to 4%, back to REAL industry that actually produces value being the motor again, not shoveling money around.
Frankly I been watching the developments with great intrest. Right now I think a LOT of goverments are showing their true colors, bailing out banks that were never trustworthy, never played by the rules to help out the rich who put their money in their high risk accounts at the cost of the working mans taxes.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
"They" have known the economy was in trouble for at LEAST a year and likely longer. But they knew one thing for sure -- if they announced or reported it as such, the economy's floor would have dropped out. So instead, the news and other outlets have been dropping hints and skirting the big picture by talking about failing elements of the economy hoping everyone will start to form their own conclusions. And every time the word recession was asked far beyond a year ago, the only answer was "not yet" and they kept hoping things would get better.
The Bush economic stimulus package worked to some degree. Many people horded it -- stuck it in the bank. Other people paid bills with it. But the over-all result was measurably positive... and the government did not commit trillions to making that effect. If that notorious $700bn were committed in the same way, we would see a HUGE rebound in the economy... instead, the money is given to banks to encourage them to do things they are unwilling to do... and what's worse, the government isn't getting the money back!
So they dropped triple-digit percentages? Did any of them drop more than 100%? I thought the whole point of shares was that you couldn't lose more than what your investment was?
So basically, you like to take your name off things when you're going to make a personal attack. Guess they call it AC for a reason.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
This year, like the previous year, and the year before that, I will definitely NOT shop my ass off for Christmas, nor will I stuff my face silly on Christmas, only to feel bloated the next day and have to diet so I can stomach New Year's eve binge (which, in case you didn't guess, I never do either).
Christmas, like Halloween, father/mother/grandma/grandpa days, are commercial inventions, fake joy and fake happiness destined to make you shell out your hard-earned money and, since the great Bank Robbery^H^H^H^Hbailout plan, supposedly help the economy recover.
Well, I paid my loans, I don't live on credit, I spend my money cautiously, even when there's no "crisis", so I fail to see why I must buy Christmas junk to support those who don't.
So, I'm assuming that the outfit that decided that present conditions constitute "recession" rather than something else is working from publicly available information, not some super-secret oracle. In that case, why would the markets react to their giving a label to a set of phenomena that were already present(and thus presumably reacted to)?
FFS you "rational actors", you'd better get your act together or I'm going to have to start paying attention to behavioral economists!
- "We don't believe we're going to have a recession though." [Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/08]
- "I think the experts will tell you we're not in a recession." [President Bush, 2/10/08]
- "The answer is, I don't think we are in a recession right now." [Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Edward Lazear, 2/11/08]
- "First of all, we're not in a recession." [President Bush, 4/22/08]
- "The data are pretty clear that we are not in a recession." [Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Edward Lazear, 5/7/08]
- "I don't think we are" in a recession. [Director of the National Economic Council Keith Hennesy, 6/3/08]
- "I think we have avoided a recession." [White House Budget Director Jim Nussle, 7/31/08]
- "I don't think anybody could tell you right now if we're in a recession or not" [Dana Perino, 10/7/08]
I refuse to participate in any recession.
As long as I work and earn, I will save and spend just as I always did. My family's economy won't be dictated to by some namby-pamby report by a bunch of gloom and doom busybodies.
Seriously.
If you practice fiscal responsibility (something the U.S. government seems unwilling to do, hence the current mess), work hard and consistently, keep your skills updated and always marketable, you'll stay out of trouble... or at least be nimble enough to make whatever moves are necessary to get out of trouble very quickly.
Some folks want to wail and gnash their teeth at the falling sky. Hey, whatever floats their boat.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
Well, I paid my loans, I don't live on credit, I spend my money cautiously, even when there's no "crisis"
You, sir, are a sucker.
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
"They" have known the economy was in trouble for at LEAST a year and likely longer. But they knew one thing for sure -- if they announced or reported it as such, the economy's floor would have dropped out. So instead, the news and other outlets have been dropping hints and skirting the big picture by talking about failing elements of the economy hoping everyone will start to form their own conclusions. And every time the word recession was asked far beyond a year ago, the only answer was "not yet" and they kept hoping things would get better.
The Bush economic stimulus package worked to some degree. ...
Huh? The April hand-out? As far as I've heard, it had almost no effect at all.
(it was too small and too untargeted to have any significant effect on the economy-- it essentially was a very small tax cut, primarily at the lower income levels. Might have prevented one or two bankrupcies, if it happened to hit somebody right on the razor's edge, but wasn't enough to save anybody's house.)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
As many "experts" have explained, right about the time we finally admit to the recession it usually is the start of the recovery.
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
Christmas, like Halloween, father/mother/grandma/grandpa days, are commercial inventions, fake joy and fake happiness destined to make you shell out your hard-earned money
Well, I agree with you that all those holidays have been made commercial (the recent death due to Black Friday shows only how much), there *is* actually a true meaning behind Christmas. Whether you celebrate it (or even believe in it) is up to you. But, some people (myself included) appreciate the holiday for that reason and try not to let the commercialism of the season get them down.
The news media has accurately predicted 23 of the last 2 recessions.
For the last few years, I have taken the stance that Christmas could do with a good Humbuggering, and have taken to actually saying, literally, "Humbug" whenever people start with the "Merry..." , "Happy,..." etcs and general ostentatious jolliness on December 1st!
For many years prior, my lack of delirious excitement and palpable enthusiasm, as well as overt cynicism about the commercialization and general over-selling of the holiday, had me labeled "miserable", "hopeless", "a grump" and in recent years "the grinch". The way I see it, "Humbug" is just giving the crowd what they want, and it has the added advantage that people no longer expect, nay, demand my mandatory jolliness throughout the "season".
I actually enjoy Christmas, but the way I see it, the holidays are from the 23rd to the 31st of December. None of this all winter madness. The bastards are not getting once once ounce of holiday cheer out of me outside of those dates, and inside of them, I'm spending most of the time asleep.
So in conclusion; Christmas!? HUMBUG!!!
May the Maths Be with you!
Even if GP wasn't referring to it, some of us like to celebrate the secular meaning of Christmas: peace on Earth and goodwill toward men. While I think we should practice these ideals EVERY day, it's nice to have a holiday that celebrates and reminds people of these things explicitly.
You don't have to get behind that; nobody's forcing you. But you shouldn't try to disparage those of us that DO find happiness through it. It's just not the Christmas spirit =)
Don't forget Mardi Gras that comes shortly after those....
Oh wait, you mean Mardi Gras isn't a NATIONAL holiday yet?!?!?
Goodness...if I lived in another state, I think I'd get to working on that one....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The value of money is subjective, so when the market as a whole starts to view something to be of lesser value, suddenly the value of that something is lower.
There is some intrinsic value in something like gold, which is shiny, heavy, and with good conductive properties, but mostly it's because people treat gold as a store of value. If other people don't want your gold buillon, you've just got a lump of shiny,heavy,conductive metal rather than the ability to buy hundred of thousands of dollars worth of products you want to have.
Same goes for the green paper, same goes for the stock number, and it even applies to houses. They're valuable in that they provide a place to live, but the housing bubble came from the growth of value far beyond the intrinsic value of the house as a place of living. It's not a business that grows and earns interest, it's just a place to live that people might want to buy in the future when you move out. Some return is possible because of increasing demand to live in that spot as population grows, but people believed in endless /high/ returns on a simple home.
Then they leveraged that imagined value to borrow and they used borrowed money as leverage to get more imagined value, which they used to borrow more, etc...and the numbers all went up. The imagined value got passed around through everone's hands while numbers soared, until eventually people started to wonder when to pull out before others realize these things aren't really worth that much...then the crash comes.
Now banks found that their asset's imagined value has collapsed, now they don't have the surplus of money they thought they had, so they cling to their reserves and fear lending it out so they can stay solvent when a client asks to make a withdrawal.
Tight times decreases loans, without loans, businesses have difficulty growing and functioning, and the crunch on everyone's savings has them reducing their spending, so businesses get fewer customers, reducing their purchases from supplier businesses, it all just loops continually throughout the economy. It's hard to see the exact end result or when it will all end.
Subprime lending has very little to do with the current recession. The default rate is only slightly higher than average. The real problems have to do with derivatives, naked shorting and other financial shenanigans that Washington has refused to regulate. When we repackage debt, and insurance on said debt, and resell both dozens of times over, even a slight increase in defaults will knock over the whole house of cards. When we allow people to sell stocks they don't even own, and haven't even borrowed as in regular shorting, nothing but chaos can ensue.
In short, it is not the poor, who were simply patsies, who caused this mess. It was, as always, the greedy rich. Blaming the poor and those who try to help them get a fair shake is simply despicable.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Yeah, there is a real meaning behind "Christmas": the entire population of the temperate Northern Hemisphere deluding themselves into thinking that cold and lack of daylight are somehow jolly!
In case nobody's told you, your savior was born in April or May.
Christmas is the day of the Mass of Christ, not Jesus's birthday. The Catholic Church chose the day to coincide with an existing holy period in pagan Europe, since people were already in the habit of celebrating that week. Nobody knows (or particularly cares) what the exact date was. Christian scriptures only hint at the year by recording stuff like who was king at the time.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Why is this a troll post?
Mod parent insightful.
I'm also a sucker. I similarly stayed out of debt, didn't take part in the dangerously overinflated housing market, used credit cards responsibly and generally lived within my means. Not that it was painful, I've got reasonable means as a software engineer. But I didn't join in the great-big-debt-party with everyone else.
Why am I a sucker? Because the government will now tax me to prop up people that did get too far in, that did take that dumbass high multiple on a house, that did get into debt. We can't have the people of the country actually paying for their actions, no. Rest assured, I really am a sucker for thinking that keeping my own finances in order was an advantage.
Per person it's 2884.48. For a family of 4, that works out to $11.5k, almost half the poverty line in the USA. For a lot of families, that sort of money would be enough to get high interest debts out of the way, increasing available income, and digging a lot of people out of the hole they've dug themselves into.
It's been a long time.
When it's so easy to game the numbers, why not redefine the numbers?
It's like looking at the people with $500k sub-prime mortgages and concluding they must be rich.
They're not rich at all. The sort of house you live in was once a good indicator of wealth, but then the metrics changed and you could get a massive mortgage by lying about your income, and suddenly the indicator become meaningless.
Similarly, the US government in the past 8 years has spent at a greater (inflation adjusted) rate than any time since WWII. That's a significant portion of the economy dominated by the federal Government borrowing money. It may not be the intended effect, but this has the effect of "gaming" the system in that increases in federal spending and borrowing offset a private-sector recession. Since this isn't Soviet Russia, the public sector can't simply offset the private sector like that.
It's been a long time.
I agree with your math, but it is the $700 billion figure is not accurate. Try $8.3 trillion thus far. That would move your figure to around $30,000 a head.
Yes, you are a sucker. But because you believe that welfare and the bailout are the main reason the government is taking your money.
Military spending eclipses any other program by 2 to 1. So, first, you should be complaining about the defense shield program, which won't work, the Iraq war, which didn't work, and all of the other investments in destruction that enrich corporations and their owners, and do nothing for the people that pay those taxes. To put it in perspective, you'd have to have a 500 billion dollar bailout every single year added together with health care, welfare, and other social services in order to match military spending. If we paid the average per capita that other nations do, we'd spend around 180 billion instead of 1000 billion.
If you didn't want higher taxes, I hope you didn't support the war. Taxes will go back to normal levels, because someone has to pay for the three billion dollars that are flushed down the toilet in Iraq every week, on top of all of the other idiotic military spending programs that are never criticized. Even talking about military spending is anti-American, but criticizing taxes that improve the lives of the taxed is considered patriotic. How's that for some cognitive dissonance.
So, in conclusion, I'll repeat something I heard quite a bit in 2003. If you don't want your taxes spent on programs that you don't want, just remember, this is America: love it or leave it.