Recession Ended June 2009

[CrusaderFrank]

So Obama inherited a recovery.

 

[Charles_Main]

So Obama inherited a recovery.

Ummm, lol

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Just in case you hadn’t realized it or that it doesn’t seem like it, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession ended in June of 2009. You see they got together and had a conference call yesterday and decided that last June the U.S. economy turned positive.

Never mind that the U.3 and U.6 unemployment rates were 9.4% and 16.4%, respectively, in May of 2009, supposedly the last month of the recession while last month’s U.3 and U.6 stood at 9.6% and 16.7%. Real Private Fixed Investment continues to sink. Consumer and business bankruptcy filings continue to climb. One in 8 people in America are receiving food stamps according to Reuters. And in three-quarters of U.S. cities foreclosure filings are on the rise.

NBER: Recession ended last June ? Mises Economics Blog

Just because some "experts" said it, doesn't make it so.

 

[Paulie]

I know that. My comment about the left was because they now seem to be willing to talk about what we have now as a recovery when with the same growth rates under Bush they called it a recession.

The trend does not lie we are heading toward negative growth again if nothing changes.

No harm, no foul. We do need better words. 1-2% GDP growth oughtta be a recession not a correction.

The recession IS the correction.

The correction is price levels retreating to equilibrium and stagnating growth, which is what makes it eventually become a recession.

 

[boedicca]

if you look at the chart you can plainly see where the Recession ended. You can see the Blip of Positive growth that 1 Trillion in spending bought and you can see that things are now slipping back into recession.

Funny that is exactly what many of us said would happen. The spending of the Stimulus was aimed at feel good short term growth. It failed to generate significant private sector growth which is more long term. The people who passed it were hoping it would generate a bigger blip and things would be better before this election, but they knew what they were doing would not spawn significant private sector growth. Or if they did not know that, they are fools.

That Blip of Growth was not due to the Stimulus, other than pulling forward some car and home sales.

When the recession hit, based upon past recoveries, the predictions were it would end in the second half of 2009. Once a bottom is formed, the subsequent growth is generally quite strong. This particular recovery was prematurely ended due to Obamanomics. The Constant Scolding and Threats aimed at the private sector have taken their toll. Hence, we have persistent unemployment (U3) of nearly 10%, with U6 at close to 17% (or nearly 22% if adjusted for methodology).

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

i think it makes the term double dip improper.

If we have another recession in the next few years you can still call it a double dip unless we get more than 2 quaters of positive growth between them. I think thats how the definition works anyway.

Did we have positive growth in the last 2 quaters.....it doesn't feel like it but my first post might explain my impressions .

According to the NBER we had almost 5 Qs of positive growth so far.

I was pretending to know less than I do about the definition of a recession.

We have had 2 quaters of positive growth after 18 months of negative, the recession was over when that happened.

A double dip is when you slide negative again after 2 quaters of positive growth, consecutive quaters. After 3 consecutive no more chance of a real double dip recession....that doesn't mean you wont get a media double dip (aka the media calling it that for ratings)

 

[boedicca]

We have had two, and now possibly three quarters of decelerating growth.

That's not good.

 

[Annie]

It doesn't feel over here in IL, not by a long shot. Businesses still shuttered and homes for sale.

 

[Charles_Main]

Sorry had the dates wrong when I posted the chart the last time

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Tem...0001.png?96a710e6-a959-4cdc-9012-4da20041f326

Note the Direction since January. Guess down is the right direction according to those calling this a recovery.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

So Obama inherited a recovery.

Now thats funny!!!!



Oh the beauty of that statement.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

We technically are not in a recession even with the downward trend on that graph. We are still currently experiencing positive GDP growth. Recessions have to do with GDP and not with the entire economy.

A recession happens, depending on who you use as the source, as 2-4 consecutive quaters of negative GDP growth. A recession ends when you have 2 conseecutive quaters of positive GDP growth.

This doesn't mean the economy is grand or that unemployment is getting any better, it only means our Gross Domestic Product is up. GDP is the total market values of goods and services produced by workers and capital within a nation's borders. So it does have to do with who is working but it also has to do with capital, which the fed has been pumping into the economy at an alarmingly unfunded rate.

Anyway just some 411 for my friends posting here.

 

[boedicca]

I understand the definition of a recession. My intent is to point out that sharply decelerating growth so shortly after the beginning of a recovery is: a) not good and b) historically "unusual" due to the hyper interference of the government.

 

[Mini 14]

I think it ended because the Dems got a new logo and a new slogan.

That logo is freaking awesome!!!!

And magical......

 

[Annie]

I understand the definition of a recession. My intent is to point out that sharply decelerating growth so shortly after the beginning of a recovery is: a) not good and b) historically "unusual" due to the hyper interference of the government.

I agree. Stock market up, way up today. Yet, unemployment is at a very unacceptable level, even officially.

I was at a sliding scale clinic today in a very wealthy county. There were more than 50 people there, some in very poor clothing, most not unless you count Ann Taylor '08 poor. Nope, these are folks that were middle class not so long ago. I'd bet nearly all had some college, most graduated.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I understand the definition of a recession. My intent is to point out that sharply decelerating growth so shortly after the beginning of a recovery is: a) not good and b) historically "unusual" due to the hyper interference of the government.

I agree. Stock market up, way up today. Yet, unemployment is at a very unacceptable level, even officially.

I was at a sliding scale clinic today in a very wealthy county. There were more than 50 people there, some in very poor clothing, most not unless you count Ann Taylor '08 poor. Nope, these are folks that were middle class not so long ago. I'd bet nearly all had some college, most graduated.

Things aren't good at all according to the indicators ladies. Hell George Soros is buying up gold like an economy is going to collapse or something.

 

[Charles_Main]

We technically are not in a recession even with the downward trend on that graph. We are still currently experiencing positive GDP growth. Recessions have to do with GDP and not with the entire economy.

Technically yes. However if you asked the left that same question in the last 2 years of Bush they would have said it is not just about the GDP as they were claiming we were in recession when we had positive growth.

As far as the trend, Yes I know we are not in a recession, My point is with the direction of the line being down, and all the other poor news about housing and foreclosures and poor Employment Numbers. It is not accurate to keep saying we are in a recovery. the recovery has clearly stalled and as of January 2010 we have been sliding toward recession again.

 

[loosecannon]

I know that. My comment about the left was because they now seem to be willing to talk about what we have now as a recovery when with the same growth rates under Bush they called it a recession.

The trend does not lie we are heading toward negative growth again if nothing changes.

No harm, no foul. We do need better words. 1-2% GDP growth oughtta be a recession not a correction.

The recession IS the correction.

The correction is price levels retreating to equilibrium and stagnating growth, which is what makes it eventually become a recession.

You misunderstood what I was saying.

While 1-2% GDP growth technically isn't a recession, in a world that requires 150,000 new jobs/month and 3% GDP growth to retain status, 0% GDP growth really isn't the magic threshold between a shrinking and a growing economy.

The magic threshold is somewhere close to 3% /anum GDP growth depending on fed interest rates and other variables.

When the money supply is not growing at x%/anum then you are in a true recessionary climate. Again a much more important threshold than 0% GDP growth.

0% GDP growth is arbitrary when discussing the true inertia of the economy.

 

[Toro]

We technically are not in a recession even with the downward trend on that graph. We are still currently experiencing positive GDP growth. Recessions have to do with GDP and not with the entire economy.

A recession happens, depending on who you use as the source, as 2-4 consecutive quaters of negative GDP growth. A recession ends when you have 2 conseecutive quaters of positive GDP growth.

This doesn't mean the economy is grand or that unemployment is getting any better, it only means our Gross Domestic Product is up. GDP is the total market values of goods and services produced by workers and capital within a nation's borders. So it does have to do with who is working but it also has to do with capital, which the fed has been pumping into the economy at an alarmingly unfunded rate.

Anyway just some 411 for my friends posting here.

The GDP is the entire economy.

Its also a widely held belief that a recession is two consecutive quarters of decline. That's actually not the case.

Q: The financial press often states the definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. How does that relate to the NBER's recession dating procedure?

A: Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them. In 2001, for example, the recession did not include two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. In the recession beginning in December 2007 and ending in June 2009, real GDP declined in the first, third, and fourth quarters of 2008 and in the first quarter of 2009. The committee places real Gross Domestic Income on an equal footing with real GDP; real GDI declined for six consecutive quarters in the recent recession.

Q: Why doesn't the committee accept the two-quarter definition?

A: The committee's procedure for identifying turning points differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we do not identify economic activity solely with real GDP and real GDI, but use a range of other indicators as well. Second, we place considerable emphasis on monthly indicators in arriving at a monthly chronology. Third, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, "a significant decline in activity." Fourth, in examining the behavior of domestic production, we consider not only the conventional product-side GDP estimates, but also the conceptually equivalent income-side GDI estimates. The differences between these two sets of estimates were particularly evident in the recessions of 2001 and 2007-2009.

The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Procedure: Frequently Asked Questions

 

[loosecannon]

The GDP is the entire economy.

that isn't what he meant. He meant that the economy has other aspects other than GDP. Like unemployment and wages and tax revenues and debt etc.

How can you measure economic growth on a static scale like pure GDP when GDP doesn't care if it's products are war, medical care, useless financial sector synthetics, or soilent green?

 

[Toro]

The GDP is the entire economy.

that isn't what he meant. He meant that the economy has other aspects other than GDP. Like unemployment and wages and tax revenues and debt etc.

ok

How can you measure economic growth on a static scale like pure GDP when GDP doesn't care if it's products are war, medical care, useless financial sector synthetics, or soilent green?

Because all it measures is output and income. It doesn't measure societal mores.