Deinonychus antirrhopus

I can only think it's a Star Trek-ish exaggeration to avoid exposing valuable information on public channels.

"Hours would seem like days."

Narrative is more important than fact. The anti-Bush narrative is that the economy has been in a state of collapse since the moment that Bush took office. Indeed, the collapse began in anticipation of a possible Bush victory.

No amount of fact can counter this narrative.

Well since there are more then just the textbook + vs – growth definitions of recession the issue is not as cut and dried as you seem to make it. But your larger point is correct I think that the writer has mischaracterized the economic state as “recession” when by even the more broad definitions of the term it was short. So whether or not the write has an “agenda” is unclear and open for speculation, but I typically take the “never attribute to conspiracy what you can explain by ignorance” view. Now if you have an agenda to prove media bias you might think differently.

But after dumping over 600 billion in borrowed dollars into the economy, not to mention the fact that profit taking on homes seemed to prop things up. Not that that is necessarily bad, aft all we had a wild ride and to do some profit taking after making some dough in a bubble seems fair.

But doesn’t the growth seem a little tepid? After all what happens of the economy goes into to another dip (oil, war, a Kerry Administration), what do you do then? Lower taxes even more? And I guess why not since the only other answer is for the Feds to borrow more and just write everybody a check, but how that is substantially different from the Bush “tax cut” I can’t say.

Well since there are more then just the textbook + vs – growth definitions of recession the issue is not as cut and dried as you seem to make it.

Well isn't that a nice misleading claim. The NBER looks at a variety of time series and is considered to be the official determiner of when recessions start and end.

That being said, the only issue is when the recession started in that it is possible it started in 2000.

So whether or not the write has an “agenda” is unclear and open for speculation, but I typically take the “never attribute to conspiracy what you can explain by ignorance” view. Now if you have an agenda to prove media bias you might think differently.

Well considering I point to two possible explanations I think your statement above is misleading.

But after dumping over 600 billion in borrowed dollars into the economy, not to mention the fact that profit taking on homes seemed to prop things up. Not that that is necessarily bad, aft all we had a wild ride and to do some profit taking after making some dough in a bubble seems fair.

Let me see, you are claiming this economy is a bubble after the last bubble has already burst. Tell me Rick, do you think the economy is nothing but a sequence of bubbles with recessions being the period between bubbles.

But doesn’t the growth seem a little tepid?

No, if anything current growth is extremely strong looking at the last 25 years or so. Unemployment is weak relative to the extreme lows in 2000, but those were likely unsustainable.

After all what happens of the economy goes into to another dip (oil, war, a Kerry Administration), what do you do then? Lower taxes even more?

Well all the indicators are saying the economy is going to keep growing even with the rising energy prices. Will energy prices keep rising? No. They are cyclical just like the economy in general, and they will move lower eventually. Will the Kerry Administration result in a recession? Unlikely. Maybe they'll do something colossally stupid like raise everybody's taxes dramatically, but I doubt that would happen, especially with a Republican controlled House and/or Senate.

When the economy goes back into the recession again probably wont be for another year or two at the least...maybe longer. And it wont mean the end of the world, the U.S. or much else just like the last 10 recessions haven't meant that either.

So whether or not the write has an “agenda” is unclear and open for speculation, but I typically take the “never attribute to conspiracy what you can explain by ignorance” view. Now if you have an agenda to prove media bias you might think differently.

Well considering I point to two possible explanations I think your statement above is misleading.

What is misleading? I stated what I think and I stated what you might think IF you were trying to prove Media bias. If you're not then no harm, no foul.

Well since there are more then just the textbook + vs – growth definitions of recession the issue is not as cut and dried as you seem to make it.

Well isn't that a nice misleading claim. The NBER looks at a variety of time series and is considered to be the official determiner of when recessions start and end.

Well then you misunderstand me. I may be just uninformed, I always thought that the text book definition of recession was positive verses negative growth and groups like the NBER add other data other then just GDP growth to develop a definition recession that may be more accurate. So how is it that I’m trying to mislead, I’m simply pointing out, that there is more then one definition of recession. Of course if I'm wrong on that score, please feel free to disregard the statement as it was just a thought as to how this writer might be ignorant of the facts, which would tend to support the ingnorance over bias question.

But after dumping over 600 billion in borrowed dollars into the economy, not to mention the fact that profit taking on homes seemed to prop things up. Not that that is necessarily bad, aft all we had a wild ride and to do some profit taking after making some dough in a bubble seems fair.

Let me see, you are claiming this economy is a bubble after the last bubble has already burst. Tell me Rick, do you think the economy is nothing but a sequence of bubbles with recessions being the period between bubbles.

Not at all, please forgive my lack of clarity I was trying to point out that over 600 billion in borrowed dollars have been added to the economy by the federal government over the last two years, and that consumers have been taking money out of there homes to prop up economic activity. I would think that after that the economy should be going pretty good.

I asked if you didn’t think that the growth was tepid giving all that stimulus and you said no. Fair enough. Dumping 600 billion in borrowed dollars can’t be sustained so that will have to go away soon, no? Or are you in favor of half a trillion dollar deficits? I’m asking you the questions here I’m not trying to mislead?

I’m just trying to figure out what your primary beef with the article was, that he mischaracterized the length of the recession, their I agree. Then you offered the choice of media bias or ignorance, I simply stated what I thought it was (ignorance) and that IF you have an agenda to prove media biased you would think otherwise.

But you haven’t said one way or another so I was speculating, but in all fairness since you didn’t take a side, bias or ignorance, my speculation was fair game do you disagree?.

No amount of fact can counter this narrative.

I know, some vile troll named Guy Cabot (now reincarnated as JadeGold) attempted to argue this very thing with me, a year or two ago. Presumably with a straight face. The markets, they knew that SCOTUS was going to appoint Bush as President.

Rick,

When it comes to dating recession, I'd say the "text book" is the NBER.

I would think that after that the economy should be going pretty good.

And the economy is going pretty good. GDP is up, there are inflation fears and interest rates will likely start to creep back up. The only thing that looks bad is unemployment and this is relative to the end of the last expansion, which historically was abnormally low.

I asked if you didn’t think that the growth was tepid giving all that stimulus and you said no. Fair enough. Dumping 600 billion in borrowed dollars can’t be sustained so that will have to go away soon, no?

There is no sign of the economy slowing in the leading indicators. Eventually the economy will go into another recession, but the Presidents/government's control is pretty weak.

But you haven’t said one way or another so I was speculating, but in all fairness since you didn’t take a side, bias or ignorance, my speculation was fair game do you disagree?.

Considering the paper it is hard to say. Could be either one, or even both. I have written the author, so I'll wait to see what the response is.

OK but I have a "textbook" I mean an actual textbook from collage that defines a recession as a period of negative growth in GDP(and I’m not claiming that it's the last word on the issue by any means, also it was a million years ago). Now I will grant you that the NBER is the number that most people look at, and I was under then impression that the actual negative growth period was much shorter then what the NBER was calling the recession.

Good luck on your e-mail, I do that from time to time as well, I don't typically get answers.

Workers care not only if they have a job, but if their wages are keeping up with the cost of living, or growing at all in real terms, rather than falling. Simply having a job doesn't convince you the economy is good if that job's wages leave you further and further behind on your bills.

We have been in a wages recession for several years, AND STILL ARE, which accounts for both the general populace's impression that we're still in a recession, AND the columnist's incorrect statement.

What will it take to turn that around? A far lower unemployment rate than we have to date, by the evidence at hand.

What a load of baloney Sofla. An unemployment rate lower than what we currently have is actually the exception not the norm.

"Wages recession." Sha.

I'm really, really swayed by the fact that one can no longer dictate the terms of one's employment as a software engineer, first year out of college.

Steve, the WAGE GROWTH rate we are in is quite sub-par from the norm for recoveries, as you yourself just linked to (as a follow on in the Innumeracy post).

That's hilarious, sofla, to support your claim what do you do? ... You refer to a posting that shows you were wrong.

You crack me up.

Thanks, I'll be here all week!

I'm not talking about individual wages (which have shown gains, although not strong ones, compared to other recoveries). I'm instead referring to the aggregate national figure for salaries and wages.

The Bush administration's original figures for a fully recovered economy, and normal job growth, show a 7 million job deficit to their projections for where we'd be now. It would take far more than the middling to below-average rate of individual wage growth to make up for 7 million at zero salary, and indeed, we find the wage/salary component of the economy significantly down, as a percentage of gdp.