Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: U.S. Officially Out of Recession
Cyber Nations Forums > Cyber Nations Community Structure > The Water Cooler > The Boiler Room
thedestro
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8331497.stm

QUOTE
US economy is growing once again

The US economy grew at an annual pace of 3.5% between July and September, its first expansion in more than a year.

The growth was helped by a substantial government spending plan, including a scrappage scheme to boost car sales.

The official figures indicate recession has ended, but some economists think there could be further setbacks.

The White House said it was "a welcome milestone", but stressed it would be some time before the economy made a full recovery.

Compared with the previous three months, the US economy grew by 0.9%. In the same period, and on the same measure, the UK economy unexpectedly stayed in recession after it shrank by 0.4%.

Japan, China, Germany and France have recently climbed out of recession.

Global good news

BBC chief economics correspondent Hugh Pym said the 3.5% annualised growth rate was better than had been expected by most commentators.

"The sheer scale of the stimulus in the US has made a big difference, it was much bigger in percentage terms than that in the UK," he said.

It is the first time US economy has last expanded since the second quarter of 2008, when it grew at an annual pace of 2.4%.

US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner stressed times were still hard for millions.

"Unemployment remains unacceptably high for every person out of work, for every family facing foreclosure, for every small business facing a credit crunch, the recession remains alive and acute," he said.

Official confirmation of whether the US is in or out of recession will come from the National Bureau of Economic Research, the agency which considers a number of factors in coming to its decision.

Numerous boosts

The figures from the Commerce Department showed that a number of factors helped to lift the economy during the third quarter.

Spending on durable manufactured products soared at an annualised rate of 22.3%, the highest quarterly amount since 2001, led primarily by the impact of the cash for clunkers scheme lifting car sales.

The housing market also improved, with spending on housing products up 23.4%, its largest quarterly jump in 23 years.

Analysts said this big leap was sparked by the government's $8,000 tax credit for first-time house buyers.

Meanwhile, total government spending was up 7.9%, as the wider stimulus spending continued to take effect.

In addition, exports were also up strongly, increasing 21.4%, the biggest rise since 1996.



"It's good to have the economy growing again," said Brian Bethune, economist at IHS Global Insight.

"But we don't think that rate of growth is sustainable because it is distorted by all the government stimulus.

"The challenge here is to get organic growth - growth that isn't helped by fiscal steroids."

Analysts cautious about the slow nature of the US economic recovery point to the fact that the unemployment rate currently stands at 9.8%, and that the labour market traditionally lags behind any wider economic recovery.

They also highlight the fact that the big car firms have already reported a sharp fall in September sales following the conclusion of the popular $3bn cash for clunkers scheme at the end of August.

"You can say that the recession is over, but it sure won't feel like that," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Centre for Economic Policy Research.

"There is a lot of downward momentum that isn't going to go."


It's about damn time. Of course we're not out in the clear yet, but people underestimate the potential of the economy. With this news, you can bet millions of wallet tight Americans will be letting loose.
Thorgrum
QUOTE
Meanwhile, total government spending was up 7.9%, as the wider stimulus spending continued to take effect.


QUOTE
"The sheer scale of the stimulus in the US has made a big difference, it was much bigger in percentage terms than that in the UK," he said.


Yes this is good news, but the article is a bit rosey, this growth is in large part due to government spending not a real great measure of economic health (IE in the U.S. its all about consumer spending).

Technically its growth, but the underlying reality is its growth via government stimulus spending, we have a ways to go.
Kzoppistan
I don't buy it,

QUOTE
The official figures indicate recession has ended


and that's why.
SoxNation
I'm not sure you can say we are officially out of a recession.


A technical beginning to a recession is 2 qtrs of negative growth, or "a significant decline in [the] economic activity spread across the country, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP growth, real personal income, employment (non-farm payrolls), industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."


Now in my opinion to have a recession end you need the reverse 2 qtrs of positive growth or "a significant increase in [the] economic activity spread across the country, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP growth, real personal income, employment (non-farm payrolls), industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."
SoxNation
also just wait, a whole other wave of ARM's are about to reset, and the home buyers credit is expiring, bye bye housing market.
bigwoody
QUOTE (Kzoppistan @ Oct 29 2009, 10:44 AM) *
I don't buy it,



and that's why.

The definition of a recession is a decline in GDP for 2+ consecutive quarters. Since we just had a growth period, we are technically out of the recession. There's nothing to "buy", its just how it is.

This is a good milestone, even if just a partial one. Of course, we also have to *stay* out of the recession to complete the recovery, however the fact that many other countries are coming out seems to indicate things are improving.
Arcturus Jefferson
QUOTE (thedestro @ Oct 29 2009, 11:37 AM) *
It's about damn time. Of course we're not out in the clear yet, but people underestimate the potential of the economy. With this news, you can bet millions of wallet tight Americans will be letting loose.

I'm glad we didn't learn any lessons from this, that would've been the real tragedy.
thedestro
QUOTE (Arcturus Jefferson @ Oct 29 2009, 11:47 AM) *
I'm glad we didn't learn any lessons from this, that would've been the real tragedy.


Fair point. But you can draw a line between out of control spending and paranoid-cut-all-bills, self-fulfilling prophecy type spending.
Arcturus Jefferson
We're not in any "danger" of either.
Thorgrum
QUOTE (thedestro @ Oct 29 2009, 03:51 PM) *
Fair point. But you can draw a line between responsible spending and paranoid-cut-all-bills, self-fulfilling prophecy type spending.


Yes you can do that, or you can be skeptical of the numbers based on the source.

as an example:

Remember the banks had toxic assets? well what happened to that buzz word? What happened was something called a change in the "mark to market" rules. Essentially the congress changed the law to allow for banks to list assets at a valuation they believed they could get, not what the market would bear. here is a nice link on it : http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/ja...anks_04-02.html

the result, record bank profits, but wait this was all before this wonderful growth projection this was months ago???? A link for that explination as well: http://www.economicshelp.org/2009/08/profits-of-banks.html

Point is, this number is skewed just like the bank profits after the accounting rule change. The government is spending money which is driving growth, hence it is not a good measure of economic health unless the government continues the spending trend.

Kzoppistan
QUOTE (bigwoody @ Oct 29 2009, 11:47 AM) *
The definition of a recession is a decline in GDP for 2+ consecutive quarters. Since we just had a growth period, we are technically out of the recession. There's nothing to "buy", its just how it is.

This is a good milestone, even if just a partial one. Of course, we also have to *stay* out of the recession to complete the recovery, however the fact that many other countries are coming out seems to indicate things are improving.


The "figures" do not often reflect the reality.
bigwoody
QUOTE (Kzoppistan @ Oct 29 2009, 11:04 AM) *
The "figures" do not often reflect the reality.

True, but the global recession is coming to an end, which will make our own long term recovery easier.
Shardoon
you heard it here first maybe . . .

but don't doubt the US Congressional Democrats will be beating this "recession" with a stick - to justify spending - for the next 4 years.
bigwoody
QUOTE (Shardoon @ Oct 29 2009, 11:07 AM) *
you heard it here first maybe . . .

but don't doubt the US Congressional Democrats will be beating this "recession" with a stick - to justify spending - for the next 4 years.

Given the choice between that and taking credit for pulling us promptly out of a recession, which path do you think they will take?

This shouldn't even be a question with the 2010 election looming.
Ivan V
QUOTE (bigwoody @ Oct 29 2009, 08:47 AM) *
The definition of a recession is a decline in GDP for 2+ consecutive quarters. Since we just had a growth period, we are technically out of the recession. There's nothing to "buy", its just how it is.


I'd still say we're in a recession, however. It will take a couple of more years for the economy to fully right itself back up.
Mussolandia
New home sales dropped 3.6% when the government yanked the life support off the market. That was yesterday. Auto sales also collapsed after the end of cash for clunkers.

This is just more debt-induced demand. You need at least two consecutive trimersters of growth to know the cycle has turned.
Lord GVChamp
Good news. Government spending accounted for a lot, but government spending actually decelerated this quarter, so the increase in GDP growth is not directly attributable to the government. Could still reflect the stimulus, because of multipliers, etc etc, but not DIRECTLY from government purchases.

The housing market has since gone a bit sour, though. The durable goods buying isn't sustainable and just reflects CARS. But there was general growth in spending, too, on various non-durables, and residential investment actually increased, which is a good sign, too. And no more accumulating inventories, yayz!


The question is whether this jump-starts investment by companies that have been sitting on the sidelines. My gut says they will finally be willing to put down some dollars in investment and make this thing more sustainable, but I can't really be sure.



Also, general inflation picked up, but core inflation actually dropped from last quarter. So still a ton of slack in the economy.


EDIT: also, for people "in the biz" so to speak, the NBER usually defines the starting and end points of recessions
Thorgrum
QUOTE (Lord GVChamp @ Oct 29 2009, 05:06 PM) *
Good news. Government spending accounted for a lot, but government spending actually decelerated this quarter, so the increase in GDP growth is not directly attributable to the government. Could still reflect the stimulus, because of multipliers, etc etc, but not DIRECTLY from government purchases.


thats a pretty bold paragraph above, it has decelerated this quarter, Q4, the report is Q3 when the clunkers program was extended and refitted with more simulus money. But I am willing to put that aside and be convinced, i'd love to see the source that helped you formulate your opinion.

Please?
SoxNation
QUOTE (Mussolandia @ Oct 29 2009, 12:55 PM) *
New home sales dropped 3.6% when the government yanked the life support off the market. That was yesterday. Auto sales also collapsed after the end of cash for clunkers.

This is just more debt-induced demand. You need at least two consecutive trimersters of growth to know the cycle has turned.



what do you mean that was yesterday? the home-buying credit runs till nov. 30th and may still be extended.
edikroma
Mission Accomplished?!

Lord GVChamp
QUOTE (Thorgrum @ Oct 29 2009, 12:14 PM) *
thats a pretty bold paragraph above, it has decelerated this quarter, Q4, the report is Q3 when the clunkers program was extended and refitted with more simulus money. But I am willing to put that aside and be convinced, i'd love to see the source that helped you formulate your opinion.

Please?

"The upturn in real GDP in the third quarter primarily reflected upturns in PCE, in private
inventory investment, in exports, and in residential fixed investment and a smaller decrease in
nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by an upturn in imports, a downturn in state and
local government spending, and a deceleration in federal government spending."
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/g...newsrelease.htm

CARS doesn't get directly included in Federal Government spending, to the best of my knowledge, and then are the multiplier effects of stimulus which also don't show up directly in federal government spending.
Thorgrum
QUOTE (Lord GVChamp @ Oct 29 2009, 07:03 PM) *
"The upturn in real GDP in the third quarter primarily reflected upturns in PCE, in private
inventory investment, in exports, and in residential fixed investment and a smaller decrease in
nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by an upturn in imports, a downturn in state and
local government spending, and a deceleration in federal government spending."
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/g...newsrelease.htm

CARS doesn't get directly included in Federal Government spending, to the best of my knowledge, and then are the multiplier effects of stimulus which also don't show up directly in federal government spending.


no they dont, but the rebates to dealers who sold the cars does. Thanks for the link Im going to read it after work, cheers !
Mussolandia
QUOTE (SoxNation @ Oct 29 2009, 06:18 PM) *
what do you mean that was yesterday? the home-buying credit runs till nov. 30th and may still be extended.


I mean the report came out yesterday and stocks dived.

The run up in stocks has basically been over for months. The Russell 3000, which is the index with greatest breadth, has been flat since August. Only a few large caps driving rallies the last three months.
Ethan Smith
ITT people who don't know jack about economics trying to put holes in a document that would not make sense to have holes in it.

Like, if the guys who made this document were untrustworthy then WOULD THEY EVER REPORT RECESSIONS EVER?
SoxNation
QUOTE (Ethan Smith @ Oct 29 2009, 04:56 PM) *
ITT people who don't know jack about economics trying to put holes in a document that would not make sense to have holes in it.

Like, if the guys who made this document were untrustworthy then WOULD THEY EVER REPORT RECESSIONS EVER?



well GVC is an eco major and I was an eco minor, so i think its hard to say that people ITT don't know jack about economics.
Magicman657
QUOTE (SoxNation @ Oct 29 2009, 07:49 PM) *
well GVC is an eco major and I was an eco minor, so i think its hard to say that people ITT don't know jack about economics.

And he said that it is definitely a good sign that while yes, it is partially government at work here, it's not directly due to that.
Ethan Smith
QUOTE (SoxNation @ Oct 29 2009, 11:49 PM) *
well GVC is an eco major and I was an eco minor, so i think its hard to say that people ITT don't know jack about economics.


No, I mean I agree with you guys, I wasn't saying you didn't know jack, I was just saying that the people trying to attack the document are showing ignorance of basic macroeconomics
NewPoseidon
QUOTE (edikroma @ Oct 29 2009, 01:45 PM) *
Mission Accomplished?!


Indeed. Obviously he's going to take credit for things that happen under his watch, but Obambi's plan to don a three piece suit and land a Lear jet on Wall Street to give a "mission accomplished" speech just like Bush is a bit too much PR for me. Whatever happened to "change" eh?

Why isn't anyone in the MSM pointing out the downside to this story? I mean, if the economy grew at 3.5% in spite of Obama's socialist policies, doesn't that mean it would've grown at about 35% if the policies hadn't been enacted? That's probably the greatest holocaust of lost opportunity in the history of the United States!!

SoxNation
QUOTE (NewPoseidon @ Oct 30 2009, 09:21 AM) *
Indeed. Obviously he's going to take credit for things that happen under his watch, but Obambi's plan to don a three piece suit and land a Lear jet on Wall Street to give a "mission accomplished" speech just like Bush is a bit too much PR for me. Whatever happened to "change" eh?

Why isn't anyone in the MSM pointing out the downside to this story? I mean, if the economy grew at 3.5% in spite of Obama's socialist policies, doesn't that mean it would've grown at about 35% if the policies hadn't been enacted? That's probably the greatest holocaust of lost opportunity in the history of the United States!!



ah yes the hardest thing to actually calculate and most often taken advantage of, what would have happened if but not for an enacted policy.

This is most often used in unemployment. Obama originally was going to create a bunch of jobs then he brilliantly starts saying he will create OR save jobs. Now he bandies about numbers of all these jobs saved, a very loose and hard to calculate number. We would have lost 1 million jobs, of course the other side of it is sure how about also in those unemployment numbers all the people who stopped looking for a job or went back to school to re-tool... they aren't counted either..

end rant of sorts lol.
Lord GVChamp
QUOTE (Magicman657 @ Oct 29 2009, 10:39 PM) *
And he said that it is definitely a good sign that while yes, it is partially government at work here, it's not directly due to that.

It's hard to completely cut the government out of this, but it's not JUST the government, is my point. Government support is a factor, and maybe a big one, but the fact that people are willing to go out and spend money is a good sign. The economy is still fragile and will need government support, but we've got a small fire burning, if that makes any sense. In particular, spending on non-durable goods. That went up 2%, and service spending went up 1.2% (annualized).

So now that there is some spending there, and the government can probably keep the economy humming for a while, more people are going to start moving in from off the sidelines and kick demand into high gear and the government can phase out stimulus measures.




And some people are right that it's not going to FEEL like economic boom times. There's a difference between a recession and a recessionary gap. Recessions are just when the economy is shrinking, and after you've been shrinking for so long it takes a while to get back to where you SHOULD be with normal economic growth.
Ethan Smith
What I actually think is best here is that our trade deficit is down 2% after the recession.
SoxNation
I'm going to miss the recession its been very good to me.
KainIIIC
Here's a pretty neat chart:



Huzzah! Direct spending will peak will likely peak into mid-2010, while tax cuts and relief will likely be a lot less, as with state aid. I do think if there is to be a second stimulus (maybe a smaller $300 billion or so), it should focus primarily on direct spending into transportation, infrastructure, and energy with a smaller transfer to states.
juslen
lol

Jobs continue to be lost at a minimum of 200k per month. Unemployment is expected to hit 10.5% and 8-10% unemployment is to be considered the new norm for the next 3 years or so.

People continue to lose their homes or they are barely scraping by and we havent even seen the commercial real estate market collapse yet (which it will)

On top of that.. federal deficits aren't expected to drop below 1 trillion any time soon and our federal debt is expected to reach 19 trillion within the next 8 years. (according to CBO estimates)

Lets also take note of the fact that the dollar continues to plummet in value and interest rates are at alarmingly low rates which means inflation is going to be a major problem in the upcoming years.

So now you tell me that GDP has risen over 3% and that the recession is over. Just because the government borrows and prints money and spends it on infrastructure and creates several hundred thousand jobs takes nothing away from the 3 million jobs which have been lost during the last 9 months.

The recession is not over. And next we have health care and cap and trade proposals being pushed through congress, expect taxes to increase and more jobs will be lost. Meanwhile.. over 20 million Americans are without a job and many more are working part time jobs for minimum wage just to scrape by.

And lets not forget all of the students in college right now who don't have any jobs to look forward to so they are simply extending their studies, putting them deeper in debt. Meanwhile.. thousands of student loans are on the brink of failure because not only can't students find work to pay for school/rent but their parents are also struggling to make ends meet.

People are digging into their savings, putting off retirement, trying to pay down as much debt as they can all while politicians wave sketchy numbers around and proclaim that the things are only going to get better.

Hope and change we can believe in right?
western skier
If we happen to be out of a recession, which we arent, you cant say that Obama got us out. Since not even 15% of the stimulus package has only been spent. Its called a "Bull" correction in the stock market, that if anything got us out of this.
KainIIIC
yes, Obama must be completely responsible for all our problems, completely disregarding every single action of the last 8 years. And yes, the recession is over by its technical definition.

edit:
QUOTE
Since not even 15% of the stimulus package has only been spent.


Well if you were to take that chart there I just posted, it'd show that 176.2 billion of a 787 billion stimulus has been spent as of the end of September, which would be 22.3%, well above your 15% market, and the last two quarters has accounted for 2.3% of our GDP over that period. This was exactly expected, and it's been talked about by the Whitehouse and economists that the main bulk of the direct spending stimulus will be mid-2010. Essentially, the stimulus reversed the trend of our economy, allowing it to bottom out, provide relief that also boosts consumer spending, pump money into spending projects and infrastructure, and infusing states with money so that they do not lay off hundreds of thousands of jobs. It's unfortunate that a large component of this stimulus consisted of those less useful business tax cuts.
Ethan Smith
QUOTE (juslen @ Nov 1 2009, 12:15 AM) *
So guyz unemployment is a lagging indicator


Ok?
juslen
QUOTE (Ethan Smith @ Oct 31 2009, 07:49 PM) *
Ok?



Please don't misquote me. If you have anything to counter my actual statements I would be happy to hear them.

I will repeat myself again, we are not out of the recession, do you agree or disagree?
Kenadian_2006
QUOTE (juslen @ Oct 31 2009, 09:15 PM) *
Please don't misquote me. If you have anything to counter my actual statements I would be happy to hear them.

I will repeat myself again, we are not out of the recession, do you agree or disagree?


Are you not technically out of a recession if growth is posted?
KainIIIC
QUOTE (juslen @ Oct 31 2009, 07:15 PM) *
Please don't misquote me. If you have anything to counter my actual statements I would be happy to hear them.

I will repeat myself again, we are not out of the recession, do you agree or disagree?


what reality do you come from exactly? Do you disagree with the technical definition of a recession or do you just refuse to believe anything coming from the government?
juslen
QUOTE (KainIIIC @ Oct 31 2009, 09:41 PM) *
what reality do you come from exactly? Do you disagree with the technical definition of a recession or do you just refuse to believe anything coming from the government?


You ever hear of the expression "we aren't out of the woods yet"

Just because you come upon a clearing and you can finally see the sky doesn't mean that you don't have to continue hiking to make it out of the woods to safety. wink.gif

QUOTE
Since trend or potential growth is difficult to measure, a practical alternative used by many economists is to identify a recession as occurring when the unemployment rate rises by more than a given amount over a specified period – for example, by more than (say) 1˝ or 2 percentage points in 12 months .

Such an approach has the additional advantage of making sense to people with no training in economics, who quite reasonably do not know what GDP is, and who will probably not be able to tell when it is declining, but who certainly recognize a rise in unemployment when they see it.

Defining a recession as any period during which the unemployment rises by more than 1˝ percentage points in 12 months accurately identifies all of the NBER-designated recessions in the US since 1945, without giving any ‘false signals’. source


QUOTE
The standard newspaper definition of a recession is a decline in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for two or more consecutive quarters.

This definition is unpopular with most economists for two main reasons. First, this definition does not take into consideration changes in other variables. For example this definition ignores any changes in the unemployment rate or consumer confidence. Second, by using quarterly data this definition makes it difficult to pinpoint when a recession begins or ends. This means that a recession that lasts ten months or less may go undetected. source


So you are basically throwing out the "Newspaper" definition of a recession and what constitutes as a recovery. The fact is.. A GDP growth (predominately in government) without improvements in employment or consumer confidence or an increase in home sales and retail sales you cannot claim that we are out of the recession.

These are multiple factors which go against your statements. We are not out of the recession.
JEB90
QUOTE (KainIIIC @ Oct 31 2009, 10:41 PM) *
what reality do you come from exactly? Do you disagree with the technical definition of a recession or do you just refuse to believe anything coming from the government?


Actually, I have an honest question: is there a "technical definition" of the end of a recession? I know there's a clear definition for the beginning of a recession (that many people disagree with, but that's another issue), but I don't know that I ever heard a definition for the end... wouldn't you logically need two quarters of positive growth?
Ethan Smith
QUOTE (juslen @ Nov 1 2009, 02:15 AM) *
Please don't misquote me. If you have anything to counter my actual statements I would be happy to hear them.

I will repeat myself again, we are not out of the recession, do you agree or disagree?


I completely disagree, and I think you don't know what you're talking about, because you used examples that have nothing to do with a recession (Unemployment is a lagging indicator, so you bringing it up as proof that we're still in a recession is asinine)
Ethan Smith
QUOTE (JEB90 @ Nov 1 2009, 05:21 AM) *
Actually, I have an honest question: is there a "technical definition" of the end of a recession? I know there's a clear definition for the beginning of a recession (that many people disagree with, but that's another issue), but I don't know that I ever heard a definition for the end... wouldn't you logically need two quarters of positive growth?


No, it's once the economy starts growing again. Most 'recessions' are really small (I mean this one is considered huge, and it was a year tops. The Great Depression was 36 months, and that was the longest period recorded). It'll take a while for unemployment and output to go to previous levels, but that's always true, and it isn't part of the 'recession'.
Lamuella
"we are out of the recession" and "everything is now fine" are not the same thing, and arguments for or against one are not necessarily arguments for or against another.

It is of course entirely possible to come out of one recession and go into another, as happened in the early eighties.
Lord GVChamp
QUOTE (Ethan Smith @ Oct 30 2009, 11:03 AM) *
What I actually think is best here is that our trade deficit is down 2% after the recession.

That's a slightly hopeful sign, but I am not sure how permanent that is going to be. China is still managing the Yuan/RMB, and consumer spending there may or may not start picking up. We could easily end up more or less right back where we started. Which wouldn't be TERRIBLE, as long as we use the free money China gives us to build infrastructure and businesses and productive things and not Margarita-machines.

QUOTE (KainIIIC @ Oct 31 2009, 05:52 PM) *
Here's a pretty neat chart:



Huzzah! Direct spending will peak will likely peak into mid-2010, while tax cuts and relief will likely be a lot less, as with state aid. I do think if there is to be a second stimulus (maybe a smaller $300 billion or so), it should focus primarily on direct spending into transportation, infrastructure, and energy with a smaller transfer to states.

Not sure how much more aid the states are going to need. They are still cutting spending, but I don't know the exact figures.

Also, if businesses keep on the sidelines, $300 billion is going to be a drop in the bucket. We are looking at an output gap of TRILLIONS over the next few years.

QUOTE (juslen @ Oct 31 2009, 07:15 PM) *
I will repeat myself again, we are not out of the recession, do you agree or disagree?

I disagree, but I am not holding that opinion religiously. We tend not to know these things till after the fact.

QUOTE (JEB90 @ Oct 31 2009, 10:21 PM) *
Actually, I have an honest question: is there a "technical definition" of the end of a recession? I know there's a clear definition for the beginning of a recession (that many people disagree with, but that's another issue), but I don't know that I ever heard a definition for the end... wouldn't you logically need two quarters of positive growth?

When it comes to recessions, the generally accepted determiner of the beginning and end is the National Bureau of Economic Research. They look at a whole bunch of things to see the general level of economic activity in the country, and not exclusively GDP growth. So, AFAIK, they don't hold to a hard and fast formula.

The "two quarters of negative growth" thing is just newspaper definition. For example, the current recession was determined to have started in December 2007. The economy technically kept growing through the first two quarters of 2008, leading to funny articles like this: http://useconomy.about.com/b/2008/04/30/st...emains-at-6.htm
So short answer: No, and there is no easy way to tell when a recession STARTS either.
Ethan Smith
Well, hopefully with China doing well and India doing better this year, we'll start to have large foreign markets to export cars/computers/other BS to.
KainIIIC
QUOTE (Lord GVChamp @ Nov 1 2009, 12:59 PM) *
Not sure how much more aid the states are going to need. They are still cutting spending, but I don't know the exact figures.

Also, if businesses keep on the sidelines, $300 billion is going to be a drop in the bucket. We are looking at an output gap of TRILLIONS over the next few years.

It would be for next budget for FY2010; revenues will still be down drastically from what they were in '07 and '08, though better than '09, and it may be wise to fill the remaining gap with infusion from a federal stimulus.

What it looks like we will need is to sustain extra growth and spending, prop up aggregate demand and consumer spending so that we do not dip back down into a W recession from a new round of foreclosures or the commercial real estate market. A $300-400 billion stimulus focusing primarily on employment spending to correct our imbalances in energy while keeping states from having to make tons of spending cuts or tax hikes (which could again dip us back down into recession).
Lord GVChamp
QUOTE (KainIIIC @ Nov 1 2009, 05:11 PM) *
It would be for next budget for FY2010; revenues will still be down drastically from what they were in '07 and '08, though better than '09, and it may be wise to fill the remaining gap with infusion from a federal stimulus.

What it looks like we will need is to sustain extra growth and spending, prop up aggregate demand and consumer spending so that we do not dip back down into a W recession from a new round of foreclosures or the commercial real estate market. A $300-400 billion stimulus focusing primarily on employment spending to correct our imbalances in energy while keeping states from having to make tons of spending cuts or tax hikes (which could again dip us back down into recession).

Even if we don't have a double dip, the economy is still growing too slowly to get back where it once was. 3.5% is not post-recession catch up growth, it's run-of-the-mill, boring growth. A smaller stimulus to offset any potential double dip is definitely needed too, but we still got that big output gap.




Also, this is WIN!
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=a3.t_GrxbL2U


Yay, Cit bankrupt too!


No idea what the implications of this are, though. Could be irrelevant, could be Market Collapse 2.0
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.