Worst of the Recession is Behind Us

[catzmeow]

Say Forbes analysts:

The Most Intense Period Of The Recession Is Behind Us - Forbes.com

Despite this, hourly wages rose 0.3% in December and were up 3.7% from December 2007. With the Consumer Price Index (CPI) expected to decline by 1.2% in December (data released this Friday), real (or, inflation-adjusted) wages likely increased 1.5%. Moreover, those real wages are likely up 4.8% from a year-ago, the fastest increase since 1972.

In addition, the real purchasing power of workers' cash earnings (total hours multiplied by real hourly earnings) actually increased by about 0.3% in December, putting it about 0.1% ahead of where it was a year ago. In other words, declines in energy prices, as well as some other prices, have roughly offset the damage to consumer purchasing power caused by job cuts and fewer hours for the remaining workforce.

 

[Gaar]

They couldn't be more wrong.

 

[catzmeow]

How do you know?

 

[Skeptik]

They couldn't be more wrong.

Let's see... Forbes Magazine vs. some guy calling himself Gaar on an internet forum, which is more credible? That's a toughie.

Moreover, I want to believe what Forbes is saying. Wanting to believe something makes it true, doesn't it? Lots of people seem to apply that line of reasoning to a whole host of questions at any rate.

If Forbes is correct, if the economy has bottomed out and now is going to start upward once more, if we see prosperity by, say, the election of '12, can you imagine how much political capital the Obama administration will have?

Of course, that's a lot of ifs. Let's see what happens. We should know by this time next year, shouldn't we?

 

[Ravi]

Excellent. Democratic control of the country results in the end of Bush's economic meltdown.

 

[doeton]

Let's see... Forbes Magazine vs. some guy calling himself Gaar on an internet forum, which is more credible? That's a toughie.

given the subject matter matter i'm going with Gaar.

 

[Skeptik]

Excellent. Democratic control of the country results in the end of Bush's economic meltdown.

More like, the economic meltdown results in Democratic control of the country.

How much control does the president really have over the economy?

If the economy really turns around during Obama's term, the Obama supporters will say that it was his policies that did the trick, while his detractors will say that the president has little influence over the economy. If it doesn't, then the Obama supporters will say that the president doesn't have much influence over the economy, while his detractors will call it the "Obama Recession."

I'm pretty confident of that prediction, especially since the less credible voices are already calling it the Obama recession before he even takes office.

Now, let's see if you are willing to decide now, not knowing whether or not the Forbes report is accurate, not knowing whether the economy will be better, worse, or about the same in '12:

Just how much influence does the president have over the economy?

No fair waiting to see what happens.

 

[Ravi]

I was just joking, remembering a few weeks back when some of the right wing posters were insisting the daily dropping of the stock market was Obama's fault.

I'm sure the president's policies have some effect on the economy. How much depends on how successful the president is in implementing his (or one day, her) policy.

 

[Gaar]

How do you know?

We just lost the most amount of Jobs in any one month since World War II.

We will see the end when we start CREATING Jobs, not losing them in Record numbers.

 

[manifold]

Let's see... Forbes Magazine vs. some guy calling himself Gaar on an internet forum, which is more credible? That's a toughie.

Good one.

However, the high probability that some guy calling himself Gaar on an internet forum doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground has no correlation whatsoever to the prophetic accuracy of the Forbes article.

 

[Paulie]

All one need do is watch corporate media. You'll get one person saying it's over, another one saying the worst is yet to come, and another saying it'll be like this until 2011. And this will all be on the same program, let alone differences between the networks.

No one knows for sure, because first of all, the money isn't done being throw into the mess, and number two, economics can not be predicted that accurately. It could be over tomorrow (depending on your definition of over), or it could very well be the very beginning of a long depression.

Most likely, it'll be stagnant until the banks release the new money they're sitting on. When that happens, it'll be a rehash of what happened this past decade. Too much money chasing assets, prices going up, bubbles expanding, leading to another burst. That's about the only thing that's predictable, because it's the one thing that history proves will happen.

 

[auditor0007]

More like, the economic meltdown results in Democratic control of the country.

How much control does the president really have over the economy?

If the economy really turns around during Obama's term, the Obama supporters will say that it was his policies that did the trick, while his detractors will say that the president has little influence over the economy. If it doesn't, then the Obama supporters will say that the president doesn't have much influence over the economy, while his detractors will call it the "Obama Recession."

I'm pretty confident of that prediction, especially since the less credible voices are already calling it the Obama recession before he even takes office.

Now, let's see if you are willing to decide now, not knowing whether or not the Forbes report is accurate, not knowing whether the economy will be better, worse, or about the same in '12:

Just how much influence does the president have over the economy?

No fair waiting to see what happens.

When the economy is running fairly smooth, the President really doesn't have much to do with it. Rarely do the President's policies affect a downturn in the economy. However, Presidents do tend to lay out plans for recovery once things have gone bad. We are seeing this right now.

Here is what I find to be ironic. As much as so many people hate Bush and blame him for everything, Obama is continuing the policies Bush put into motion to try to turn things around. The $700 billion bailout is just the beginning. What Obama is proposing isn't very different from what Bush has proposed.

What so many people, especially Democrats, don't realize, is that Bush was much the moderate when it came to the economy. Other than his tax cuts, his ideas aren't much different from those of Obama. In fact, Obama is proposing more tax cuts, although his are not likely to be permanent. Of course, Bush's tax cuts could only prove to be as permanent as the next administration and Congress would allow.

To prove my point, the only people who are arguing against the Bush/Obama bailout are true conservatives who believe we should just let everything collapse and allow the market to correct itself.

As far as us having hit bottom, I tend to think not, only because the real estate meltdown has yet to come to an end, and there are still factors in that market that will get worse, as in the millions of ARM's that are due for interest rate increases. This will almost certainly continue the downward spiral in real estate values furthering the credit crunch, even with the government bailout. I can guess as well as any of the experts, because none of them can even agree, and my guess is that we won't see any signs of recovery until well into 2010 or maybe 2011, and once we do see signs of recovery, growth will likely be minimal rather than seeing a robust turnaround.

 

[roomy]

I think we have another 3/6 months of this downward spiral before it bottoms out and lasts a couple of years before we see any significant improvement.

 

[Gaar]

I think we have another 3/6 months of this downward spiral before it bottoms out and lasts a couple of years before we see any significant improvement.

Maybe up to a year on the downward part...

And how long depends on Obama.

If he does as FDR did, and as it looks like he is going to, then yes, we are going to be in this for years...

 

[roomy]

Maybe up to a year on the downward part...

And how long depends on Obama.

If he does as FDR did, and as it looks like he is going to, then yes, we are going to be in this for years...

We seem to agree that it hasn't bottomed out yet and is likely to take some time before it get any better, I am not going to argue about a matter of months.

 

[Skeptik]

Good one.

However, the high probability that some guy calling himself Gaar on an internet forum doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground has no correlation whatsoever to the prophetic accuracy of the Forbes article.

Unfortunately, that is true also.

The fact of the matter is that no one knows just how long the recession will last, nor how deep it will go.

 

[Tech_Esq]

We just lost the most amount of Jobs in any one month since World War II.

We will see the end when we start CREATING Jobs, not losing them in Record numbers.

I hate to point out the obvious, but we have more than doubled the population of the country since WWII. Therefore, one percentage point move in the employment numbers equals twice as many people. It's not hard to get to a raw number that is as large as something 60 years ago.

Combine that with the fact that we haven't had a severe recession since 1982 and I think you have your answer. We had a much smaller population even in 1982 than we do now.

 

[roomy]

I hate to point out the obvious, but we have more than doubled the population of the country since WWII. Therefore, one percentage point move in the employment numbers equals twice as many people. It's not hard to get to a raw number that is as large as something 60 years ago.

Combine that with the fact that we haven't had a severe recession since 1982 and I think you have your answer. We had a much smaller population even in 1982 than we do now.

Are you saying...What recession?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Are you saying...What recession?

Hmmm....let me check. No....no.....I think I'm saying that we're having the most severe recession since 1982 Thanks for checking though.

 

[roomy]

Hmmm....let me check. No....no.....I think I'm saying that we're having the most severe recession since 1982 Thanks for checking though.

I had to check because your post doesn't make sense to me, you seem to be saying the numbers are bigger because the population has grown therefore it is not as bad as in the past when the numbers were smaller