NBER declares US officially in recession since Dec. 2007

[Special K]

link

It looks like the NBER, the group of economists officially charged with determining recessions, has declared that the US has been in a recession since Dec. 2007. While this probably won't come as a surprise to anyone, I thought the second quarter of 2008 had positive growth due to the stimulus checks. Was that revised all the way into negative growth? I realize that consecutive quarters of economic contraction is not the only criteria for a recession, but for some reason I figured the beginning of 2008 was still showing positive GDP.

 

[First]

Recessions are determined by many other factors besides real GDP. Wages and jobs created are important, and certainly have been dismal the last 12 months (and frankly since Bush took office more or less). The bulk of the recession didn't really start until 6 months ago, and it was pretty obvious at that point. But between January and June? Yeah, probably a minor recessionary environment, certainly nothing like this one though.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Special K
link

It looks like the NBER, the group of economists officially charged with determining recessions, has declared that the US has been in a recession since Dec. 2007. While this probably won't come as a surprise to anyone, I thought the second quarter of 2008 had positive growth due to the stimulus checks. Was that revised all the way into negative growth? I realize that consecutive quarters of economic contraction is not the only criteria for a recession, but for some reason I figured the beginning of 2008 was still showing positive GDP.

Your link described the whole process. Negative GDP is only one of many signs of a recession. You can have a recession with positive GDP. In the last 4 quarters, 2 quarters have been negative GDP. The only real difference from the standard GDP recession myth is that the two quarters weren't back-to-back.

Jobs are down, housing is a disaster, banking is a bigger disaster, wages are down, GDP is fluctuating between negative and positive, and the stock market and corporate profits are down. I think only diehard extremists didn't think we are in a recession.

 

[StageLeft]

And Hannity blows his top.

I find their definition a relief. I know that early this year I thought the US was in/would be in a recession and I was positive that the "growth" from stimulus checks was a ridiculous joke, similar to calling Zimbabwe in a state of growth because its GDP has skyrocketed (hyperinflation FTL). Real-world, the US has been in a poor way and only a buffoon didn't see it.

Based on the chart to the right of that page, 12 months represents quite a long time already to have been in a recession.

On the other hand, this hasn't felt that bad to most of us (gas notwithstanding unemployment for now is still low).

 

[MiniDoom]

I hope this means it's almost over.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I hope this means it's almost over.

Not likely. Only two things we can do. Be patient and keep buying.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I hope this means it's almost over.

Not even close my friend. We'll be years getting out of this.

 

[MiniDoom]

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I hope this means it's almost over.

Not even close my friend. We'll be years getting out of this.

well, in that link it seems the longest recession was 16 months and usually when we realize we had one it's already over. So maybe 4 more months? Just being optimistic here.

 

[miketheidiot]

personally i think December 2007 might be a bit early, but then again my localitity is pretty isolated from national trends and hasn't seen a recession in my lifetime, so my gauging of this might not be the best.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: rdubbz420

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I hope this means it's almost over.

Not even close my friend. We'll be years getting out of this.

well, in that link it seems the longest recession was 16 months and usually when we realize we had one it's already over. So maybe 4 more months? Just being optimistic here.

This one is extra-special, though.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: rdubbz420

Originally posted by: boomerang

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I hope this means it's almost over.

Not even close my friend. We'll be years getting out of this.

well, in that link it seems the longest recession was 16 months and usually when we realize we had one it's already over. So maybe 4 more months? Just being optimistic here.

Nothing wrong with being optimistic. But previous recessions weren't concurrent with financial meltdowns on a global scale. The credit card debt crisis has yet to unfold. I've read that insurance companies are getting very concerned about meeting their obligations, specifically their annuity payments. No surprise as they've invested those monies in that same stock market that's in the toilet. I've heard rumblings of a coming meltdown in the commercial real estate market. Who knows what other problems are on the horizon that are just not being talked about at this time.

We're in a very, very deep pile of doo-doo. The powers that be are putting on a good show, but if you're paying attention, you know that their efforts are just not working very well. The reality is that there's only so much that can be done.

It's already been said that mass layoffs will start on Jan 1. Once the downward spiral starts it's very difficult to pull out of. Especially one of this magnitude.

This one is going to take your breath away. Both in its severity and length. The bad news is that its just barely started.

Edit: spelling

 

[DealMonkey]

Interesting. What does this say about the Bush Administration policies for the last 7-8 years? What does this say about modern two-term presidencies? Why do they seem to end on a recession? (I'm thinking Clinton and W here ... are there other examples?)

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Interesting. What does this say about the Bush Administration policies for the last 7-8 years? What does this say about modern two-term presidencies? Why do they seem to end on a recession? (I'm thinking Clinton and W here ... are there other examples?)

I'd say it is the cyclical nature of our economy and it is coincidence it typically ends towards a changing of the guard. We have a recession every 5-8 years. It is just something we need to get used to. Eventhough everybody seems to believe an economy can grow faster than inflation for an indefinate period of time. It simply isnt true.

The late 1990's run up was the most unbelievable thing. We had low inflation and high output. Of course it all caught up to us eventually. But even the recession was pretty light all things considered(9-11, Enron collapse).

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Interesting. What does this say about the Bush Administration policies for the last 7-8 years? What does this say about modern two-term presidencies? Why do they seem to end on a recession? (I'm thinking Clinton and W here ... are there other examples?)

Well, technically, there was no recession during Clinton's terms. He started in Jan 1993, nearly two years after the Bush Sr. recession. He stopped in Jan 2001, two months before Bush Jr's first recession. Although, there is a good case that Clinton was lucky to have just missed the 2001 recession.

Bush Jr: recessions in both terms
Clinton: no recession
Bush Sr: recession in only term
Reagan: recession in first term
Carter: recession in only term
Ford: recession in only term (note, he started in that recession but it lasted for quite a while afterwards)
Nixon: recessions in both terms.
Johnson: no recession
Kennedy: recession in only term (note, he started in that recession and it ended days later)
Eisenhower: recession in both terms
Truman: recession in first term

So, you can say just about every president has had a recession. If I recall correctly all republican president have had one or more recessions. In fact, republicans have had recessions in nearly ALL terms (with only rare exceptions). The recent presidents without recessions during their terms are Clinton, Johnson, and Kennedy (if you discount his first week in office). I'll let you decide if that is a pattern.

 

[DealMonkey]

I see a pattern!

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Interesting. What does this say about the Bush Administration policies for the last 7-8 years? What does this say about modern two-term presidencies? Why do they seem to end on a recession? (I'm thinking Clinton and W here ... are there other examples?)

I'd say it is the cyclical nature of our economy and it is coincidence it typically ends towards a changing of the guard. We have a recession every 5-8 years. It is just something we need to get used to. Eventhough everybody seems to believe an economy can grow faster than inflation for an indefinate period of time. It simply isnt true.

The late 1990's run up was the most unbelievable thing. We had low inflation and high output. Of course it all caught up to us eventually. But even the recession was pretty light all things considered(9-11, Enron collapse).

Perhaps it points to a need for the fed to better throttle the economy on the way up? Perhaps there's too much political motivation to grow the economy and we end up growing it too fast?

 

[compuwiz1]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: rdubbz420
I hope this means it's almost over.

Not likely. Only two things we can do. Be patient and keep saving.

Fixed.

I'm hanging on to my money until I see evidence of economic change. No discretionary spending. I can live without new toys for awhile.

 

[Squisher]

I believe the state of Michigan has been in a recession for 5 years now using the same factors if you apply them to a single state.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Special K
link

It looks like the NBER, the group of economists officially charged with determining recessions, has declared that the US has been in a recession since Dec. 2007. While this probably won't come as a surprise to anyone, I thought the second quarter of 2008 had positive growth due to the stimulus checks. Was that revised all the way into negative growth? I realize that consecutive quarters of economic contraction is not the only criteria for a recession, but for some reason I figured the beginning of 2008 was still showing positive GDP.

Your link described the whole process. Negative GDP is only one of many signs of a recession. You can have a recession with positive GDP. In the last 4 quarters, 2 quarters have been negative GDP. The only real difference from the standard GDP recession myth is that the two quarters weren't back-to-back.

Jobs are down, housing is a disaster, banking is a bigger disaster, wages are down, GDP is fluctuating between negative and positive, and the stock market and corporate profits are down. I think only diehard extremists didn't think we are in a recession.

The link says it "decided to state" that the recession began last year. Does that imply that it's subjective?

 

[aldamon]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

I'm hanging on to my money until I see evidence of economic change. No discretionary spending. I can live without new toys for awhile.

Self-fulfilling prophecy?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Interesting. What does this say about the Bush Administration policies for the last 7-8 years? What does this say about modern two-term presidencies? Why do they seem to end on a recession? (I'm thinking Clinton and W here ... are there other examples?)

I'd say it is the cyclical nature of our economy and it is coincidence it typically ends towards a changing of the guard. We have a recession every 5-8 years. It is just something we need to get used to. Eventhough everybody seems to believe an economy can grow faster than inflation for an indefinate period of time. It simply isnt true.

The late 1990's run up was the most unbelievable thing. We had low inflation and high output. Of course it all caught up to us eventually. But even the recession was pretty light all things considered(9-11, Enron collapse).

Perhaps it points to a need for the fed to better throttle the economy on the way up? Perhaps there's too much political motivation to grow the economy and we end up growing it too fast?

The feds do throttle the economy somewhat via setting the fed rate provided inflation is accelerating due to a hot economy. But the problem obviously is we are setting the rate based on economic information that is months old. It is just a side effect of our economic system. We should really learn to live with it instead of losing our minds because it happens.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Interesting. What does this say about the Bush Administration policies for the last 7-8 years? What does this say about modern two-term presidencies? Why do they seem to end on a recession? (I'm thinking Clinton and W here ... are there other examples?)

Well, technically, there was no recession during Clinton's terms. He started in Jan 1993, nearly two years after the Bush Sr. recession. He stopped in Jan 2001, two months before Bush Jr's first recession. Although, there is a good case that Clinton was lucky to have just missed the 2001 recession.

Bush Jr: recessions in both terms
Clinton: no recession
Bush Sr: recession in only term
Reagan: recession in first term
Carter: recession in only term
Ford: recession in only term (note, he started in that recession but it lasted for quite a while afterwards)
Nixon: recessions in both terms.
Johnson: no recession
Kennedy: recession in only term (note, he started in that recession and it ended days later)
Eisenhower: recession in both terms
Truman: recession in first term

So, you can say just about every president has had a recession. If I recall correctly all republican president have had one or more recessions. In fact, republicans have had recessions in nearly ALL terms (with only rare exceptions). The recent presidents without recessions during their terms are Clinton, Johnson, and Kennedy (if you discount his first week in office). I'll let you decide if that is a pattern.

Clinton's economy was probably in a recession if you apply this studies economic litmus test. His last year in office saw up wild fluctuations of GDP growth and contraction and the market was coming down and people were starting to get laid off in the Summer of 2000.

Clinton was probably one of the luckiest presidents. Came in right off a recession and only saw the economy slowing in his last year but it didnt really tank until after he left office.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Roughly 20% of the country is always in a recession ...

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Roughly 20% of the country is lazy and unproductive ...

FIXED

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Special K
link

It looks like the NBER, the group of economists officially charged with determining recessions, has declared that the US has been in a recession since Dec. 2007.

I had this in my economy thread.

So how is it Obama's fault as Republicans say???