It's official; recession is over, but....

[Lucky... 0]

The 3 major components of the economy are:

- GDP

- Stock market

- Umemp

The market hit 10k, dropped a couple hundred but holding, and now the GDP is going to be ~ +3.0% they say, which is a 4% improvement from last quarter, an amazing jump and teh 2nd jump since Obama took office and applied his stimulus.

GDP 1st Q - -6.4

GDP 2nd Q - -1.0

GDP 3rd Q - +3.0 (projected)

So that's a 5.4% gain and a 4% gain consecutively, I think we can say Obama has handled the economy well so far. But the 3rd looming head is the unemp which has slowed, but is still climbing. I can't think of a recession ever that the unemp rate hasn't been the lagger, so this is typical, but when then that is fixed we're home safe. Hopefully all can be better and unemp < 5% within a year. If so, taking the worst economic times since the GD, so the 2nd worst economic times ever, fixing them in < 2 years would be enormous and probably lead to 400+ EV's in 2012 and certainly lead to a monsterous Congressional lead in the 2010 midterm.

Either way, hitting +3% is huge, a lot more than I expected.

[wmw999 2,588]

It's probably premature; we might be able to say in six months to a year that the recession is over. Just as it's impossible other than in retrospect to identify the beginning of a recession, I think it's probably impossible to identify the end of it realtime.

Housing is still not looking good, and housing rebound is normally a component of the end of recession.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[birdshit 0]

Lucky, you are all wrong.

Osama eats kittens and small children. He is what is wrong with this country! His liberal policies are gonna put us all in the poorhouse! He is just another tax-and-spend liberal!

.... and he is [gasp] black!

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

If so, taking the worst economic times since the GD, so the 2nd worst economic times ever, ...

Actually the 82/83 period had worse unemployment although not as sharp a stock market or Real GDP fall.

[futuredivot 0]

and yet a friend of mine lost his job yesterday-I'll wait to celebrate if you don't mind

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

It's probably premature; we might be able to say in six months to a year that the recession is over. Just as it's impossible other than in retrospect to identify the beginning of a recession, I think it's probably impossible to identify the end of it realtime.

Housing is still not looking good, and housing rebound is normally a component of the end of recession.

Wendy P.

For all technical purposes once we have 1 + GDP Q then it is over, but in realistic terms it isn't over until the indicators are somehwere near normal. Hopefully that will be within a year.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Lucky, you are all wrong.

Osama eats kittens and small children. He is what is wrong with this country! His liberal policies are gonna put us all in the poorhouse! He is just another tax-and-spend liberal!

.... and he is [gasp] black!

I know, I'm trying ot deceive the conservatives who, as we know, are the real Americans and the only ones who love this country. W/o them we would be spending rubbles.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

If so, taking the worst economic times since the GD, so the 2nd worst economic times ever, ...

Actually the 82/83 period had worse unemployment although not as sharp a stock market or Real GDP fall.

That was due to Reagan and the Fed chair contracting the money supply to halt inflation. Of course that was the elitist approach that hurt the poor and MC and drove unemp to 10.8%. A better approach is what Obama is doing, stimulating rather than punishing.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

and yet a friend of mine lost his job yesterday-I'll wait to celebrate if you don't mind

We'll hold our breath until he gets working again. These stats are based upon an acumulation, not an individual. My work is sporadic too, but that doesn't mean the economy isn't getting better as a whole.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

For all technical purposes once we have 1 + GDP Q then it is over, but in realistic terms it isn't over until the indicators are somehwere near normal. Hopefully that will be within a year.

Guess by that logic, the "Bush recession" that you keep yapping about didn't start until Q4 2008.

2008 GDP
Q1 14373.9
Q2 14497.8 (+)
Q3 14546.7 (+)
Q4 14347.3 (-)

2009 GDP
Q1 14178.0 (-)
Q2 14151.2 (-)

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

For all technical purposes once we have 1 + GDP Q then it is over, but in realistic terms it isn't over until the indicators are somehwere near normal. Hopefully that will be within a year.

Guess by that logic, the "Bush recession" that you keep yapping about didn't start until Q4 2008.

2008 GDP
Q1 14373.9
Q2 14497.8 (+)
Q3 14546.7 (+)
Q4 14347.3 (-)

2009 GDP
Q1 14178.0 (-)
Q2 14151.2 (-)

Don't forget to put a negative on Q1 of 2008 there skippy. That's right, the recession started the 3rd Q of 2008, I've never said different. But when Obama took office, 4 of the 5 previous quarters, counting the one he was currently in, were negative. The quarter he entered office under was the worst; -6.4. The next was -1.0, this will be projected at +3.0 so far.

Point out any misstating that I've done. BTW, the emboldened Q I illustrated in your post is incorrect. Are you using Real GDP? Probably not, I live in the "real world" so I use real GDP, how bout you?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

For all technical purposes once we have 1 + GDP Q then it is over, but in realistic terms it isn't over until the indicators are somehwere near normal. Hopefully that will be within a year.

Guess by that logic, the "Bush recession" that you keep yapping about didn't start until Q4 2008.

2008 GDP
Q1 14373.9
Q2 14497.8 (+)
Q3 14546.7 (+)
Q4 14347.3 (-)

2009 GDP
Q1 14178.0 (-)
Q2 14151.2 (-)

Don't forget to put a negative on Q1 of 2008 there skippy.

Sorry, skippy - Q1 '08 was higher than Q4 of '07.

Quote

That's right, the recession started the 3rd Q of 2008, I've never said different. But when Obama took office, 4 of the 5 previous quarters, counting the one he was currently in, were negative.

The numbers directly above don't agree with you, sorry.

Quote

The quarter he entered office under was the worst; -6.4. The next was -1.0, this will be projected at +3.0 so far.

I think I'll wait on the *official* word, thanks.

Quote

Point out any misstating that I've done.

I believe I've just done that, above.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Sorry, skippy - Q1 '08 was higher than Q4 of '07.

No, Skippy, this is why I'm here, to straighten out all the purveyors of misinformation from guys like you. Of course you don't cite your source, that wouldn't be Mikesque. Here's mine, the BEA:

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=1&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2007&LastYear=2009&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no

Now, let me make this simple:

2008 Q1 -0.7
2008 Q2 1.5
2008 Q3 -2.7
2008 Q4 -5.4
2009 Q1 -6.4
2009 Q2 -0.7
2009 Q3 3.0 (projected)

Again, the reliable number to use is the real GDP, as it adjusts for inflation and other variables. At the end of the Clinton years, there were 3 NEG GDP Q's, none were consecutive, but it showed a real porpousing of the economy. This was using a real GDP, but if you didn't use real GDp there was only 1 Q of neg GDP. Real GDP is the honest one to use. Lesson over.

Quote

The numbers directly above don't agree with you, sorry.

You're not using real GDP, that's the only honest way to do it.

Quote

I think I'll wait on the *official* word, thanks.

No prob, delay the unthinkable to you: A Dem that has once again started unfucking your president's mess, just as with Clinton.

Quote

I believe I've just done that, above.

No you haven't, you didn't use real GDP; I highly doubt you know / understand the difference.

[kallend 2,148]

Mike is correct. The NBER, not you, is the official arbiter of the beginning and end of recessions in the USA.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Mike is correct. The NBER, not you, is the official arbiter of the beginning and end of recessions in the USA.

He's not correct with his GDP numbers. Furthermore, I'm not claiming the recession is over in fact, just officially by way of the GDP.

Mike's numbers are not correct.

http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions_faq.html

In fact right here they state why they don't and I agree that using a mechanical number like the GDP doesn't reflect all facets of the economy.

So no, Mike isn't correct, he posted numbers that weren't REAL GDP numbers as the NBER and most legitimate economists use.

And if you read from the thread title to my statements in this thread you would see I don't make claim that the recession is over by saying it might be officially over, but not over in reality.

[mnealtx 0]

Q4 07 was 14337
Q1 08 was 14373

Last time I looked, 14373 was more than 14337

Quote

Lesson over

Indeed.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Q4 07 was 14337
Q1 08 was 14373

Last time I looked, 14373 was more than 14337

Quote

Lesson over

Indeed.

Because you refuse to use REAL GDP DATA. Hell, you won't even address it. You fucked up by not posting real GDP data and now you're trying to whitewash it. Here is the data with my source....oh, BTW, why not post your source?

Here, I think I need to make it easier with, let's say, pictures.

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm

So you can get out your crayons and draw pretty butterflies on the chart if you wish.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Q4 07 was 14337
Q1 08 was 14373

Last time I looked, 14373 was more than 14337

Quote

Lesson over

Indeed.

Because you refuse to use REAL GDP DATA. Hell, you won't even address it. You fucked up by not posting real GDP data and now you're trying to whitewash it. Here is the data with my source....oh, BTW, why not post your source?

Here, I think I need to make it easier with, let's say, pictures.

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm

So you can get out your crayons and draw pretty butterflies on the chart if you wish.

Mikeeee, where are ya? You did this too with the top 20% richest data, I posted asset worth and you posted income to attempt to impeach my data. Here you posted GDP other than REAL GDP, the standard. I don't think you're being dishonest, I sincerely think you don't understand the differences and just post the first thing that works.

[mnealtx 0]

I posted GDP data from the same place you did - it's not MY fault that you realized your mistake after the fact and then cherrypicked a specific datum to prove your point.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I posted GDP data from the same place you did - it's not MY fault that you realized your mistake after the fact and then cherrypicked a specific datum to prove your point.

Show me your source. Come on, show it. It's dishonest not to. Again, here's mine: http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm


I can't understand why you wouldn't post it.

If we say that your data is correct, then Clinton left a sweeeeet economy, not a sputtering one. IOW's, raw GDP that is not adjusted to be REAL GDP is misleading and not used by economists; you posted other than real GDP and now you won't cite your source, or was it from some rogue RW source?

I'M GONNA LAUGH MY ASS OFF IF YOU DON'T POST YOUR SOURCE.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Furthermore, I'm not claiming the recession is over in fact, just officially by way of the GDP.

Say what????

That is in complete opposition to the title you put on this thread as well as being a self-contradicting statement. But I'll give credit where credit is due: By using just 17 words you probably made one of the shortest self-contradictory statements ever and it could have been shorter yet by about 3 or 4 words.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[pincheck 0]

Try telling that to the other 499 workers in my place and me. When the company decided to close our plant down and move our equipment out to Ireland and New York. Would have been different if we where making a loss but just greed on the part of the private equity firm who bought us last year.

I hope it back fires on them, it will as to me the Irish plant is top heavy with people and will go through what we did over the last 3 years downsize a workforce due to new technology. Only thing is no one has told them yet and its doubtful they will see it coming !

o yeh and we are such professionals even in the 90 days notice period we are still breaking company production targets and achieving the highest quality standards in the company what a way to repay a loyal workforce

Billy-Sonic Haggis Flickr-Fun

[kallend 2,148]

Discuss GDP data as long as you wish. Recession start and end dates are not determined only by GDP.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Quote

For all technical purposes once we have 1 + GDP Q then it is over, but in realistic terms it isn't over until the indicators are somehwere near normal. Hopefully that will be within a year.

Guess by that logic, the "Bush recession" that you keep yapping about didn't start until Q4 2008.

2008 GDP
Q1 14373.9
Q2 14497.8 (+)
Q3 14546.7 (+)
Q4 14347.3 (-)

2009 GDP
Q1 14178.0 (-)
Q2 14151.2 (-)

I think we should team up Lucky with Billvon in order to make a recessionometer. (Have a good suggestion where to plug the cables though)

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Furthermore, I'm not claiming the recession is over

I think YOU did in YOUR title of the thread. Try again but no more back peddling.