I know that you are not making it up. I was just saying that it is jumping to conclusions that we are in a recession. Yes I did read the article but that was from almost 2 months ago.
You're going to take the White House's mouthpiece as opposed to the information in the article?
No way!
I can only think that you must be a conservative, though even they are now saying that we are in recession.
The administration has every reason to thy to pretend a recession is not here for as long as it can, and then to pretend it's as minor as possible.
His statement is worthless. The President was saying that there wasn't even a slowdown until Feldstein said we were in a recession. Then he said we were in a slowdown.
We're in a presidential election year, as you know. To admit that we are in one of the worst, if not the worst, recession since WW II would put McCain in a bad position. He would have to explain, again and again, how he supports the president's economic position when we were in serious economic trouble.
It will happen anyway, but they want to put it off as long as possible.
It's strange, though, that you would brush Greenspan's remarks away, where he is at least, somewhat independent today, but post the presidents mouthpiece to support yourself, when you know that anything he says is purely political.
I assume that's a last ditch attempt.
remember, as the article pointed out, Feldstein heads the Council that decides these matters. With the rest of the article in tow, its obvious that a recession is exactly what we are in, whether the "official" numbers yet say so.
They did their own survey, 2 months later than the one you cite (when we all agree things have probably only gotten worse), and came up with "about half" of economists that think a recession has begun. Now, I didn't go around searching the web for references, but if I did, I'm sure I could find someone else who did a survey of economists that found 30% as well. Economists don't exactly just live in a dorm where they can all be surveyed in one fell swoop - like political surveys, it's easy to get the result you are looking for by carefully picking your sample of respondents.
That's why the semantics of it all matter - recession is a technical term with a very specific meaning, and it means economic contraction of two or more quarters. As someone else pointed out, it can only be declared retroactively. But recession can't include periods of time where the economy expanded, as it did last quarter. We'll know what happened this quarter in a month or two. So, quit being so insufferable and just acknowledge that what you're arguing is just your opinion, not fact.
And if I look around, I'll likely find that 90% of economists think we're in recession. What's the point?
The fact is that Feldstein is one of the most respected economists here today. He heads the council that decides these matters. He has all the information he needs, as do the people he works with.
I'm inclined to go with what I've read there, and in other places. The evidence is clear.
I'm no more happy about it than you are, despite your jokes about me here. But, it is what it is.
Recessions don't have to be declared retroactively. Only the beginning has to be declared that way. Recessions last for 8 months or so, and often longer. once it becomes obvious that a recession is taking place, it can be declared officially.
What Feldstein, and other powerful voices are saying, is that a recession is taking place, but that the "official" analysis hasn't recognized that as yet.
All you seem to be doing is saying that if it isn't official, it isn't taking place. That's not reality.
So, if we are in recession, unofficially, but that isn't acknowledged officially until some time later, we aren't really IN recession?
Because that's what you are stating.
Feldstein, and others, disagree. I think I'll go with what they say for now.
The studios have been announcing that all new releases will be released in both DVD and BD. Remember that HD-DVD just died. Give them a chance to rev up. We will have a much better picture mid summer, when current production, and production soon to be released, will be out on disk. While the "war" was on, releases were slow in coming.
Since no one expected the sudden departure of HD-DVD, plans are still in a jumble. The studios that were not producing BD at all have to start from scratch.
I think it's pretty good that movie sales have gone to where they have with the limited number of films available as it is. Something like iTunes and its movie sales. With a small selection, it's difficult to achieve much.
No one is arguing that Blu-ray will succeed. It just isn't going the direction that is, or as, expected.
For all the reasons posted, Blu-ray has a difficult road to go. One of the most important considerations is the fact that BD2 is coming and there are a lot waiting for it to arrive before manufactures will gear up production or consumers will buy.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't purchase a Blu-ray player, recorder or driver until it (BD2) is settled. The price is not an issue with me, it's just that I learned to be more patient.
Remember, it was Sony with Betamax that all the pros endorsed. Still the preferred format, although I have a D-VHS and a S-VHS camera (heck even a Teac open reel with EE Tapes) that produce super video, and now all collecting dust. That and I got married which ended my penchant to jump on the train that hadn't even got to the station.
Right now, with the economy is such, Blu-ray is a frivolous luxury, not the inexpensive commodity that many computer users have become accustomed to.
Do they still define it as a fall in gross domestic product for two successive quarters?
The article tells it the way it is. "Generally" that's the way it's defined. They need some official way to do that, so two quarters of negative growth (I hate that term), is what they decided upon. It could have been one quarter, or three. It's not an objective number. It was just thought of as being long enough to give a good idea.
It's a good thing that only one side of the debate has any political motivation, isn't it?
Actually, I'm not doing this politically. i'm being realistic.
I voted for Nixon twice. Carter once, Reagan twice, but then Democratic, as the Republican party swung so far to the religious right. But that has no effect on my economic outlook, which has always been somewhat on the conservative side, and still is. But I'm not a "conservative", as they now define themselves. I just find it amazing that anyone today can use the administration as a backup for their own thoughts, knowing what this particular one has done.
I could easily move back. it depends.
but this administration has been a disaster for everyone. That's why the latest polls give him a 27% popularity—the lowest ever, since polls have been taken. Also they give him the lowest number for handling the economy ever, though I forget the number offhand.
I'm not alone in this either. I don't have to be political about it. It's staring us in the face.
But I can only think that someone who can only find a Presidential spokesman, for that's what that guy is, as their source of information in a discussion, must agree with the position. and who does, these days, other than "conservatives?
You are still missing my point. I said the term recession is being used incorrectly.
There has been no official report of negative economic growth.
Have I, even once, said that there has been an official statement as to that fact? No, not once!
But, that doesn't mean that we are not in one. As you say, it takes two quarters before an official statement can come out, by tradition, and that's all it is.
Have I, even once, said that there has been an official statement as to that fact? No, not once!
But, that doesn't mean that we are not in one. As you say, it takes two quarters before an official statement can come out, by tradition, and that's all it is.
The best minds think we are in one, and I agree.
Just thought you'd like to know what the majority of economists think this year will look like:
"Even without the confirmation of a down quarter, about half of the economists polled last month by the Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey said they believe the U.S. economy has already slipped into recession or will do so this year.
The majority said they don’t expect the downturn to be especially deep or last very long. The consensus forecast calls for the GDP to eke out a 0.1 percent advance in each of the first two quarters of this year before picking up speed in the second half and ending the year with modest 1.4 percent growth. That is down from earlier consensus forecasts of 1.5 percent in March and 2.6 percent last September, when the Federal Reserve first began to cut interest rates."
Woo boy! That DOES sound like the worst recession since WWII, you're so right!
"That’s not the view of Americans consumers, most of whom see the economic glass as less than half full, according to the latest survey of consumer sentiment. Americans are gloomier about the economy than at any time since the early 1980s, when the economy was emerging from a decade of weak economic growth and rampant inflation. Nearly nine in 10 consumers think the economy is in recession, according to the Reuters/University of Michigan survey."
So you fit in with the majority of American consumers, who have been whipped up into a fearful frenzy. The experts, thankfully, are a little more level headed.
"Some economists are at a loss to explain that level of pessimism given that, so far, the data indicate the economy isn't in such bad shape."
Blame it on daily news stories about how bad things are.
"
“While there’s no question the economy is struggling, just how anyone could confuse the current environment with the worst economy since the Great Depression is baffling to say the least,” said Wachovia chief economist John Silvia."
Just thought you'd like to know what the majority of economists think this year will look like:
"Even without the confirmation of a down quarter, about half of the economists polled last month by the Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey said they believe the U.S. economy has already slipped into recession or will do so this year.
The majority said they don’t expect the downturn to be especially deep or last very long. The consensus forecast calls for the GDP to eke out a 0.1 percent advance in each of the first two quarters of this year before picking up speed in the second half and ending the year with modest 1.4 percent growth. That is down from earlier consensus forecasts of 1.5 percent in March and 2.6 percent last September, when the Federal Reserve first began to cut interest rates."
Woo boy! That DOES sound like the worst recession since WWII, you're so right!
"That’s not the view of Americans consumers, most of whom see the economic glass as less than half full, according to the latest survey of consumer sentiment. Americans are gloomier about the economy than at any time since the early 1980s, when the economy was emerging from a decade of weak economic growth and rampant inflation. Nearly nine in 10 consumers think the economy is in recession, according to the Reuters/University of Michigan survey."
So you fit in with the majority of American consumers, who have been whipped up into a fearful frenzy. The experts, thankfully, are a little more level headed.
"Some economists are at a loss to explain that level of pessimism given that, so far, the data indicate the economy isn't in such bad shape."
Blame it on daily news stories about how bad things are.
"
“While there’s no question the economy is struggling, just how anyone could confuse the current environment with the worst economy since the Great Depression is baffling to say the least,” said Wachovia chief economist John Silvia."
Bah! Wachovia, what does that nut know!?
You seem to be confusing a few things here.
First, I notice that now you DO agree that we are in a recession, or so I see from the quote even you have now provided. so that's a turnaround. You were just denying it completely before.
We'll see who is right about how deep this will be, Feldstein, or John Silva. It looks as though Feldstein is in the better position to see what is occurring. It's not like the banks, and the rest of the financial community have had such a great record, have they?
Aren't they the ones who have gotten us into much of this mess?
Besides, you are confusing what these people say with me. I'm just going with what looks to be the most substantial evidence, as stated by the most respected person in that area of work, who, right now, happens to be Feldstein.
And, by the way, as far as Greenspan goes, I'm by no means a fan of his. We can get into a discussion about that.
But, what I find interesting is that even though he is being blamed for much of our woes, he is risking his legacy, which he is very concerned about, by even admitting that we are in a recession. One would think that he would do what he has always done, which is to ignore the signs. So if even he thinks this, it means something.
First, I notice that now you DO agree that we are in a recession, or so I see from the quote even you have now provided. so that's a turnaround. You were just denying it completely before.
etc etc etc
Besides, you are confusing what these people say with me.
Kinda like what you just did?
Here is what I say: we are not in a recession now because a recession is two quarters in a row of negative growth. In 6 months from now we may look back and say that May's growth was negative, but neither you nor I know that. MY opinion (write that down, so in the future you don't again forget what MY opinion is) is that we are not currently in one. I posted that article to show you "what the majority of economists think this year will look like" (notice how I said very clearly that I was posting another's words, not my own?).
Now, you said "First, I notice that now you DO agree that we are in a recession"
The quote from that article, which was formed by a poll of economists, was "about half of the economists polled last month by the Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey said they believe the U.S. economy has already slipped into recession or will do so this year."
I thought that was pretty clear, but I guess not. You see, you think a poll showing that 70% of economists believe we are in a recession is the final word. I think it's interesting that another poll of "economists" can only get to "about half" by including those who think that no recession has yet begun, but it will later this year.
See? You're too focused on your own pessimism to even read what's posted for your perusal. What a waste of time.
Here is what I say: we are not in a recession now because a recession is two quarters in a row of negative growth. In 6 months from now we may look back and say that May's growth was negative, but neither you nor I know that. MY opinion (write that down, so in the future you don't again forget what MY opinion is) is that we are not currently in one. I posted that article to show you "what the majority of economists think this year will look like" (notice how I said very clearly that I was posting another's words, not my own?).
Now, you said "First, I notice that now you DO agree that we are in a recession"
The quote from that article, which was formed by a poll of economists, was "about half of the economists polled last month by the Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey said they believe the U.S. economy has already slipped into recession or will do so this year."
I thought that was pretty clear, but I guess not. You see, you think a poll showing that 70% of economists believe we are in a recession is the final word. I think it's interesting that another poll of "economists" can only get to "about half" by including those who think that no recession has yet begun, but it will later this year.
See? You're too focused on your own pessimism to even read what's posted for your perusal. What a waste of time.
Ok, so if you stop thinking that this is my position, rather than what I've been reading, I'll grant the same to you.
But it seems clear that even there, given, no doubt, that the exact same group of economists weren't polled, that there is considerable consensus that we are in a recession.
I don't understand why you are so hung up on this definition.
If there are even just "about half of the economists polled last month by the Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey said they believe the U.S. economy has already slipped into recession...", why are you so afraid to use the word?
Do you think that economists are allowed to say "recession" under these circumstances, but that we are not allowed to do so"
I don't understand why you are so hung up on this definition.
I really don't understand.
Because words have meaning, and technical words like recession have specific meaning, and you're using the wrong word. You do see that we are taking opposite sides of this right? So while you say I am hung up on the definition, you are exactly as hung up on it. If you weren't, you'd say 'fine, you're right, all I was saying is that the economy isn't booming right now.'
I'm saying a recession is two quarters of negative growth. I don't think you disagree with that, do you? You're just saying that the recession has already started, and I'm saying that it hasn't, and it may very well not happen at all.
There's no doubt that the economy is "not good" right now. The reason that 90% of consumers, compared to "about half" of economists, think that the economy is in recession now is because everyone keeps saying "that word"
Because words have meaning, and technical words like recession have specific meaning, and you're using the wrong word. You do see that we are taking opposite sides of this right? So while you say I am hung up on the definition, you are exactly as hung up on it. I'm saying a recession is two quarters of negative growth. I don't think you disagree with that, do you? You're just saying that the recession has already started, and I'm saying that it hasn't, and it may very well not happen at all.
There's no doubt that the economy is "not good" right now. The reason that 90% of consumers, compared to "about half" of economists, think that the economy is in recession now is because everyone keeps saying "that word"
But, you're gliding past my question.
I asked you why it's ok for all of these economists, including some of the most highly placed ones, to use the word recession right now, when you say we can't?
Are we supposed to assume that guys like Feldstein, Greenspan, Mark Zandi, and others, don't understand the meaning of the word? Are we supposed to think that they don't understand English?
As they are saying that we are in a recession, I would think that, while you may disagree with them, you would at least admit that the word is usable here.
Are you saying that you know better than they do as to whether the word is appropriate now?
Mind you, i'm not even saying that there is a recession for the purpose of this question, just asking whether you can say that they know what the word means, and whether they are using it correctly.
If you don't think they are, you are saying that you understand it better than they do? Is that what you're telling all of us here?
I asked you why it's ok for all of these economists, including some of the most highly placed ones, to use the word recession right now, when you say we can't?
Are we supposed to assume that guys like Feldstein, Greenspan, Mark Zandi, and others, don't understand the meaning of the word? Are we supposed to think that they don't understand English?
No, they just don't have anyone standing up in the crowd to challenge them. They are not in a debate or a discussion, they are making speeches.
Quote:
As they are saying that we are in a recession, I would think that, while you may disagree with them, you would at least admit that the word is usable here.
Sure it's usable - like you could say "the pale recession that Greenspan just invented is really scary" or "Zandi thinks that a recession is already started."
Quote:
Are you saying that you know better than they do as to whether the word is appropriate now?
Sure, if that's what you want me to say. I can almost feel your hands trembling over the keyboard in fury and rage.
Quote:
Mind you, i'm not even saying that there is a recession for the purpose of this question, just asking whether you can say that they know what the word means, and whether they are using it correctly.
Of course they know what it means, but no they are not using it correctly.
Quote:
If you don't think they are, you are saying that you understand it better than they do? Is that what you're telling all of us here?
Of course not, they understand the technical definition, but they are choosing to call what we're in now, a recession. But it's not. It's a throwaway term for them, meaning "bad economic times", and fools like you are taking it as gospel.
OK, I'm closing this thread. You can keep on talking, but you'll be talking to yourself. I can't imagine how someone can be such a pain in the butt.
No, they just don't have anyone standing up in the crowd to challenge them. They are not in a debate or a discussion, they are making speeches.
Sure it's usable - like you could say "the pale recession that Greenspan just invented is really scary" or "Zandi thinks that a recession is already started."
Sure, if that's what you want me to say. I can almost feel your hands trembling over the keyboard in fury and rage.
Of course they know what it means, but no they are not using it correctly.
Of course not, they understand the technical definition, but they are choosing to call what we're in now, a recession. But it's not. It's a throwaway term for them, meaning "bad economic times", and fools like you are taking it as gospel.
OK, I'm closing this thread. You can keep on talking, but you'll be talking to yourself. I can't imagine how someone can be such a pain in the butt.
You're not closing any thread. You're losing the argument, and you can't bear to have it happen.
And by the way, you're the pain. You were the one who responded and started this.
Well I never thought when I made my first comment there would be this big of an argument over a simple definition of recession.
Has there been any negative economic growth? I don't want any long posts about how a bunch of economists and a 2 month old article are talking about a recession without evidence, just answer the question.
Comments
I know that you are not making it up. I was just saying that it is jumping to conclusions that we are in a recession. Yes I did read the article but that was from almost 2 months ago.
The latest word is.....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1210...googlenews_wsj
You're going to take the White House's mouthpiece as opposed to the information in the article?
No way!
I can only think that you must be a conservative, though even they are now saying that we are in recession.
The administration has every reason to thy to pretend a recession is not here for as long as it can, and then to pretend it's as minor as possible.
His statement is worthless. The President was saying that there wasn't even a slowdown until Feldstein said we were in a recession. Then he said we were in a slowdown.
We're in a presidential election year, as you know. To admit that we are in one of the worst, if not the worst, recession since WW II would put McCain in a bad position. He would have to explain, again and again, how he supports the president's economic position when we were in serious economic trouble.
It will happen anyway, but they want to put it off as long as possible.
It's strange, though, that you would brush Greenspan's remarks away, where he is at least, somewhat independent today, but post the presidents mouthpiece to support yourself, when you know that anything he says is purely political.
I assume that's a last ditch attempt.
remember, as the article pointed out, Feldstein heads the Council that decides these matters. With the rest of the article in tow, its obvious that a recession is exactly what we are in, whether the "official" numbers yet say so.
Don't think you're making it up, I just think you're selectively choosing your evidence to support the worldview that you already have.
For instance, this morning I opened up an article on MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24489814/
They did their own survey, 2 months later than the one you cite (when we all agree things have probably only gotten worse), and came up with "about half" of economists that think a recession has begun. Now, I didn't go around searching the web for references, but if I did, I'm sure I could find someone else who did a survey of economists that found 30% as well. Economists don't exactly just live in a dorm where they can all be surveyed in one fell swoop - like political surveys, it's easy to get the result you are looking for by carefully picking your sample of respondents.
That's why the semantics of it all matter - recession is a technical term with a very specific meaning, and it means economic contraction of two or more quarters. As someone else pointed out, it can only be declared retroactively. But recession can't include periods of time where the economy expanded, as it did last quarter. We'll know what happened this quarter in a month or two. So, quit being so insufferable and just acknowledge that what you're arguing is just your opinion, not fact.
And if I look around, I'll likely find that 90% of economists think we're in recession. What's the point?
The fact is that Feldstein is one of the most respected economists here today. He heads the council that decides these matters. He has all the information he needs, as do the people he works with.
I'm inclined to go with what I've read there, and in other places. The evidence is clear.
I'm no more happy about it than you are, despite your jokes about me here. But, it is what it is.
Recessions don't have to be declared retroactively. Only the beginning has to be declared that way. Recessions last for 8 months or so, and often longer. once it becomes obvious that a recession is taking place, it can be declared officially.
What Feldstein, and other powerful voices are saying, is that a recession is taking place, but that the "official" analysis hasn't recognized that as yet.
All you seem to be doing is saying that if it isn't official, it isn't taking place. That's not reality.
So, if we are in recession, unofficially, but that isn't acknowledged officially until some time later, we aren't really IN recession?
Because that's what you are stating.
Feldstein, and others, disagree. I think I'll go with what they say for now.
And if I look around, I'll likely find that 90% of economists think we're in recession.
Do they still define it as a fall in gross domestic product for two successive quarters?
The administration has every reason to thy to pretend a recession is not here for as long as it can, and then to pretend it's as minor as possible.
It's a good thing that only one side of the debate has any political motivation, isn't it?
The studios have been announcing that all new releases will be released in both DVD and BD. Remember that HD-DVD just died. Give them a chance to rev up. We will have a much better picture mid summer, when current production, and production soon to be released, will be out on disk. While the "war" was on, releases were slow in coming.
Since no one expected the sudden departure of HD-DVD, plans are still in a jumble. The studios that were not producing BD at all have to start from scratch.
I think it's pretty good that movie sales have gone to where they have with the limited number of films available as it is. Something like iTunes and its movie sales. With a small selection, it's difficult to achieve much.
No one is arguing that Blu-ray will succeed. It just isn't going the direction that is, or as, expected.
For all the reasons posted, Blu-ray has a difficult road to go. One of the most important considerations is the fact that BD2 is coming and there are a lot waiting for it to arrive before manufactures will gear up production or consumers will buy.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't purchase a Blu-ray player, recorder or driver until it (BD2) is settled. The price is not an issue with me, it's just that I learned to be more patient.
Remember, it was Sony with Betamax that all the pros endorsed. Still the preferred format, although I have a D-VHS and a S-VHS camera (heck even a Teac open reel with EE Tapes) that produce super video, and now all collecting dust. That and I got married which ended my penchant to jump on the train that hadn't even got to the station.
Right now, with the economy is such, Blu-ray is a frivolous luxury, not the inexpensive commodity that many computer users have become accustomed to.
Do they still define it as a fall in gross domestic product for two successive quarters?
The article tells it the way it is. "Generally" that's the way it's defined. They need some official way to do that, so two quarters of negative growth (I hate that term), is what they decided upon. It could have been one quarter, or three. It's not an objective number. It was just thought of as being long enough to give a good idea.
It's a good thing that only one side of the debate has any political motivation, isn't it?
Actually, I'm not doing this politically. i'm being realistic.
I voted for Nixon twice. Carter once, Reagan twice, but then Democratic, as the Republican party swung so far to the religious right. But that has no effect on my economic outlook, which has always been somewhat on the conservative side, and still is. But I'm not a "conservative", as they now define themselves. I just find it amazing that anyone today can use the administration as a backup for their own thoughts, knowing what this particular one has done.
I could easily move back. it depends.
but this administration has been a disaster for everyone. That's why the latest polls give him a 27% popularity—the lowest ever, since polls have been taken. Also they give him the lowest number for handling the economy ever, though I forget the number offhand.
I'm not alone in this either. I don't have to be political about it. It's staring us in the face.
But I can only think that someone who can only find a Presidential spokesman, for that's what that guy is, as their source of information in a discussion, must agree with the position. and who does, these days, other than "conservatives?
There has been no official report of negative economic growth.
You are still missing my point. I said the term recession is being used incorrectly.
There has been no official report of negative economic growth.
Have I, even once, said that there has been an official statement as to that fact? No, not once!
But, that doesn't mean that we are not in one. As you say, it takes two quarters before an official statement can come out, by tradition, and that's all it is.
The best minds think we are in one, and I agree.
Have I, even once, said that there has been an official statement as to that fact? No, not once!
But, that doesn't mean that we are not in one. As you say, it takes two quarters before an official statement can come out, by tradition, and that's all it is.
The best minds think we are in one, and I agree.
Just thought you'd like to know what the majority of economists think this year will look like:
"Even without the confirmation of a down quarter, about half of the economists polled last month by the Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey said they believe the U.S. economy has already slipped into recession or will do so this year.
The majority said they don’t expect the downturn to be especially deep or last very long. The consensus forecast calls for the GDP to eke out a 0.1 percent advance in each of the first two quarters of this year before picking up speed in the second half and ending the year with modest 1.4 percent growth. That is down from earlier consensus forecasts of 1.5 percent in March and 2.6 percent last September, when the Federal Reserve first began to cut interest rates."
Woo boy! That DOES sound like the worst recession since WWII, you're so right!
"That’s not the view of Americans consumers, most of whom see the economic glass as less than half full, according to the latest survey of consumer sentiment. Americans are gloomier about the economy than at any time since the early 1980s, when the economy was emerging from a decade of weak economic growth and rampant inflation. Nearly nine in 10 consumers think the economy is in recession, according to the Reuters/University of Michigan survey."
So you fit in with the majority of American consumers, who have been whipped up into a fearful frenzy. The experts, thankfully, are a little more level headed.
"Some economists are at a loss to explain that level of pessimism given that, so far, the data indicate the economy isn't in such bad shape."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24489814/
Blame it on daily news stories about how bad things are.
"
“While there’s no question the economy is struggling, just how anyone could confuse the current environment with the worst economy since the Great Depression is baffling to say the least,” said Wachovia chief economist John Silvia."
Bah! Wachovia, what does that nut know!?
Just thought you'd like to know what the majority of economists think this year will look like:
"Even without the confirmation of a down quarter, about half of the economists polled last month by the Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey said they believe the U.S. economy has already slipped into recession or will do so this year.
The majority said they don’t expect the downturn to be especially deep or last very long. The consensus forecast calls for the GDP to eke out a 0.1 percent advance in each of the first two quarters of this year before picking up speed in the second half and ending the year with modest 1.4 percent growth. That is down from earlier consensus forecasts of 1.5 percent in March and 2.6 percent last September, when the Federal Reserve first began to cut interest rates."
Woo boy! That DOES sound like the worst recession since WWII, you're so right!
"That’s not the view of Americans consumers, most of whom see the economic glass as less than half full, according to the latest survey of consumer sentiment. Americans are gloomier about the economy than at any time since the early 1980s, when the economy was emerging from a decade of weak economic growth and rampant inflation. Nearly nine in 10 consumers think the economy is in recession, according to the Reuters/University of Michigan survey."
So you fit in with the majority of American consumers, who have been whipped up into a fearful frenzy. The experts, thankfully, are a little more level headed.
"Some economists are at a loss to explain that level of pessimism given that, so far, the data indicate the economy isn't in such bad shape."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24489814/
Blame it on daily news stories about how bad things are.
"
“While there’s no question the economy is struggling, just how anyone could confuse the current environment with the worst economy since the Great Depression is baffling to say the least,” said Wachovia chief economist John Silvia."
Bah! Wachovia, what does that nut know!?
You seem to be confusing a few things here.
First, I notice that now you DO agree that we are in a recession, or so I see from the quote even you have now provided. so that's a turnaround. You were just denying it completely before.
We'll see who is right about how deep this will be, Feldstein, or John Silva. It looks as though Feldstein is in the better position to see what is occurring. It's not like the banks, and the rest of the financial community have had such a great record, have they?
Aren't they the ones who have gotten us into much of this mess?
Besides, you are confusing what these people say with me. I'm just going with what looks to be the most substantial evidence, as stated by the most respected person in that area of work, who, right now, happens to be Feldstein.
And, by the way, as far as Greenspan goes, I'm by no means a fan of his. We can get into a discussion about that.
But, what I find interesting is that even though he is being blamed for much of our woes, he is risking his legacy, which he is very concerned about, by even admitting that we are in a recession. One would think that he would do what he has always done, which is to ignore the signs. So if even he thinks this, it means something.
First, I notice that now you DO agree that we are in a recession, or so I see from the quote even you have now provided. so that's a turnaround. You were just denying it completely before.
etc etc etc
Besides, you are confusing what these people say with me.
Kinda like what you just did?
Here is what I say: we are not in a recession now because a recession is two quarters in a row of negative growth. In 6 months from now we may look back and say that May's growth was negative, but neither you nor I know that. MY opinion (write that down, so in the future you don't again forget what MY opinion is) is that we are not currently in one. I posted that article to show you "what the majority of economists think this year will look like" (notice how I said very clearly that I was posting another's words, not my own?).
Now, you said "First, I notice that now you DO agree that we are in a recession"
The quote from that article, which was formed by a poll of economists, was "about half of the economists polled last month by the Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey said they believe the U.S. economy has already slipped into recession or will do so this year."
I thought that was pretty clear, but I guess not. You see, you think a poll showing that 70% of economists believe we are in a recession is the final word. I think it's interesting that another poll of "economists" can only get to "about half" by including those who think that no recession has yet begun, but it will later this year.
See? You're too focused on your own pessimism to even read what's posted for your perusal. What a waste of time.
Kinda like what you just did?
Here is what I say: we are not in a recession now because a recession is two quarters in a row of negative growth. In 6 months from now we may look back and say that May's growth was negative, but neither you nor I know that. MY opinion (write that down, so in the future you don't again forget what MY opinion is) is that we are not currently in one. I posted that article to show you "what the majority of economists think this year will look like" (notice how I said very clearly that I was posting another's words, not my own?).
Now, you said "First, I notice that now you DO agree that we are in a recession"
The quote from that article, which was formed by a poll of economists, was "about half of the economists polled last month by the Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey said they believe the U.S. economy has already slipped into recession or will do so this year."
I thought that was pretty clear, but I guess not. You see, you think a poll showing that 70% of economists believe we are in a recession is the final word. I think it's interesting that another poll of "economists" can only get to "about half" by including those who think that no recession has yet begun, but it will later this year.
See? You're too focused on your own pessimism to even read what's posted for your perusal. What a waste of time.
Ok, so if you stop thinking that this is my position, rather than what I've been reading, I'll grant the same to you.
But it seems clear that even there, given, no doubt, that the exact same group of economists weren't polled, that there is considerable consensus that we are in a recession.
I don't understand why you are so hung up on this definition.
If there are even just "about half of the economists polled last month by the Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey said they believe the U.S. economy has already slipped into recession...", why are you so afraid to use the word?
Do you think that economists are allowed to say "recession" under these circumstances, but that we are not allowed to do so"
I really don't understand.
You are still missing my point. I said the term recession is being used incorrectly.
There has been no official report of negative economic growth.
I think you need to lighten up a little. Are the law school exams getting to you?
I don't understand why you are so hung up on this definition.
I really don't understand.
Because words have meaning, and technical words like recession have specific meaning, and you're using the wrong word. You do see that we are taking opposite sides of this right? So while you say I am hung up on the definition, you are exactly as hung up on it. If you weren't, you'd say 'fine, you're right, all I was saying is that the economy isn't booming right now.'
I'm saying a recession is two quarters of negative growth. I don't think you disagree with that, do you? You're just saying that the recession has already started, and I'm saying that it hasn't, and it may very well not happen at all.
There's no doubt that the economy is "not good" right now. The reason that 90% of consumers, compared to "about half" of economists, think that the economy is in recession now is because everyone keeps saying "that word"
Because words have meaning, and technical words like recession have specific meaning, and you're using the wrong word. You do see that we are taking opposite sides of this right? So while you say I am hung up on the definition, you are exactly as hung up on it. I'm saying a recession is two quarters of negative growth. I don't think you disagree with that, do you? You're just saying that the recession has already started, and I'm saying that it hasn't, and it may very well not happen at all.
There's no doubt that the economy is "not good" right now. The reason that 90% of consumers, compared to "about half" of economists, think that the economy is in recession now is because everyone keeps saying "that word"
But, you're gliding past my question.
I asked you why it's ok for all of these economists, including some of the most highly placed ones, to use the word recession right now, when you say we can't?
Are we supposed to assume that guys like Feldstein, Greenspan, Mark Zandi, and others, don't understand the meaning of the word? Are we supposed to think that they don't understand English?
As they are saying that we are in a recession, I would think that, while you may disagree with them, you would at least admit that the word is usable here.
Are you saying that you know better than they do as to whether the word is appropriate now?
Mind you, i'm not even saying that there is a recession for the purpose of this question, just asking whether you can say that they know what the word means, and whether they are using it correctly.
If you don't think they are, you are saying that you understand it better than they do? Is that what you're telling all of us here?
I asked you why it's ok for all of these economists, including some of the most highly placed ones, to use the word recession right now, when you say we can't?
Are we supposed to assume that guys like Feldstein, Greenspan, Mark Zandi, and others, don't understand the meaning of the word? Are we supposed to think that they don't understand English?
No, they just don't have anyone standing up in the crowd to challenge them. They are not in a debate or a discussion, they are making speeches.
As they are saying that we are in a recession, I would think that, while you may disagree with them, you would at least admit that the word is usable here.
Sure it's usable - like you could say "the pale recession that Greenspan just invented is really scary" or "Zandi thinks that a recession is already started."
Are you saying that you know better than they do as to whether the word is appropriate now?
Sure, if that's what you want me to say. I can almost feel your hands trembling over the keyboard in fury and rage.
Mind you, i'm not even saying that there is a recession for the purpose of this question, just asking whether you can say that they know what the word means, and whether they are using it correctly.
Of course they know what it means, but no they are not using it correctly.
If you don't think they are, you are saying that you understand it better than they do? Is that what you're telling all of us here?
Of course not, they understand the technical definition, but they are choosing to call what we're in now, a recession. But it's not. It's a throwaway term for them, meaning "bad economic times", and fools like you are taking it as gospel.
OK, I'm closing this thread. You can keep on talking, but you'll be talking to yourself. I can't imagine how someone can be such a pain in the butt.
No, they just don't have anyone standing up in the crowd to challenge them. They are not in a debate or a discussion, they are making speeches.
Sure it's usable - like you could say "the pale recession that Greenspan just invented is really scary" or "Zandi thinks that a recession is already started."
Sure, if that's what you want me to say. I can almost feel your hands trembling over the keyboard in fury and rage.
Of course they know what it means, but no they are not using it correctly.
Of course not, they understand the technical definition, but they are choosing to call what we're in now, a recession. But it's not. It's a throwaway term for them, meaning "bad economic times", and fools like you are taking it as gospel.
OK, I'm closing this thread. You can keep on talking, but you'll be talking to yourself. I can't imagine how someone can be such a pain in the butt.
You're not closing any thread. You're losing the argument, and you can't bear to have it happen.
And by the way, you're the pain. You were the one who responded and started this.
But fine, crawl away.
Has there been any negative economic growth? I don't want any long posts about how a bunch of economists and a 2 month old article are talking about a recession without evidence, just answer the question.
I think you need to lighten up a little. Are the law school exams getting to you?
I am not in law school but this was exam week. The tests did not seem to be getting to me, I only had three, but you never know.
This argument over recession has been getting to me more than the tests though. Some people just can't seen to understand what I am trying to say.
Now I will probably get some nasty replies from melgross but oh well. I am starting to think that he is a hopeless case and I am just wasting my time.