Experts say the recession has ended. They just don't know when.

These people need to get out of their offices more.
http://www.wsbtv.com/nationalnews/23121840/detail.html

The end date is still pending??......what the hell kind of answer is that? Perhaps they were thinking that the asteroid that passed close to earth was going to change course and actually hit the earth....then they would have had their end date. I swear,sometimes I think stories are printed just to take up news space

The experts are all idiots and have no clue what is going on. Here is a nice little article about what is going on in Ocala. This is perfectly normal these days.

http://www.ocala.com/article/20100514/ARTICLES/100519764/1402/NEWS?Title=Woman-85-ousted-from-her-home-

GonzoFL wrote:The end date is still pending??......what the hell kind of answer is that? Perhaps they were thinking that the asteroid that passed close to earth was going to change course and actually hit the earth....then they would have had their end date. I swear,sometimes I think stories are printed just to take up news space

lol @ asteroid Gonzo, and yeah your right, I think they just are printing way too much "filler" as of late

This is ugly

http://www.clickorlando.com/jobs/23752759/detail.html

sc4ram wrote:This is ugly

http://www.clickorlando.com/jobs/23752759/detail.html

OMG!!! Wtf is this.....

The problem is with the definition of what the word "is" is. Just kidding, but really it seems to be this inane definition that economists usually use to define what is "officially" called a recession. There are variations, but a lot of it has to do with the fluctuations in the GDP and the fact that the people who are most focused on these numbers are those on Wall Street. The fact that unemployment is unflappable is of some concern to those people for the long run (fewer customers in the stores), but really of minor immediate concern compared to all the other factors that make or don't make them money.

To those on Main Street this definition of recession that is always referred to in the news is of absolutely and ridiculously no importance for at least several years, unless maybe some of those unemployed still have a lot of stock investments that they haven't secured in other ways. Talk of the recession ending, when most of that refers to GDP in this now totally global economy where most big corporations could pull out of here tomorrow and move their businesses to China or South America or Africa or whereever and still not have to worry about us left here to starve, is like talking about the possibility of life in other galaxies--theoretically interesting maybe, but of no immediate use whatsoever!

Wow, beam me up Nancy-

I believe the official definition of a recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, and conversely a recovery is 2 quarters of growth. (which we have achieved) .

Its been the yardstick for decades, I think it is what it is, it least the yard stick has been consistant.

The trick here is the economy has to produce ~150,000 jobs a month to keep up with new workers comming into the work force, (which is about what it was doing this decade before the housing bubble popped) . There has been so much downsizing that even if we get a robust recovery, it will take a decade to re-employ these people.

Corporations will only move operations off shore if it is a good deal for the share holders (since Im a share holder and former corporate puke I reconize that this has benefits) . For example, my former industry (semiconductors) moved most of its low skilled assembly operations off shore in the late 70s and early 80s (as a engineer I was involved in moving a lot of this stuff to Asia). Good thing, because it was the only thing that allowed the industry to compete with Japan, (we wouldnt have a US semiconductor industry today if they hadnt reduced their costs)

Im not sure if you saw one of my posts on another thread, but it showed that as of 2009 by volume, the US was the largest manufacturer in the world.


Like somebody once said, if your neghbor looses their job its a recession , if you loose your job its a depression.

The Prez is going to have a hard time convicing people that we are in a recovery if rampent downsizing is going on.

It all depends on which part of the country and economy you make a living. In west central Florida residential construction, it began in early to mid 2006. By early 2007 companies, including mine, began cutting back and going out of business. And no-one was hiring. It only got worse from then on. It's still bad now, with 75-80% of construction companies still gone. That's a four year stretch in this neck of the woods. And I'm sure we're not alone in that regard.

sc4ram--

I don't see where your post contradicts anything I said in the post above.

You post:
"I believe the official definition of a recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, and conversely a recovery is 2 quarters of growth. (which we have achieved)"

Exactly, that's what I'm pointing out, that the definition of a recession is in conflict with what the general public regards personally as a recession economy for them as individuals. I'm not suggesting we change the technical definition that economists use, but that economists, the press, and the government could do a better job of understanding this discrepancy.

In the past the word "recession" in terms of personal finances was more closely related to overall GDP, but now with corporations more concerned with their global businesses as a whole, the term is much less relevant to an out-of-work American than it was in years past, and most Americans don't seem to understand exactly what that definition is. Whenever the government states that the recession is "over," the public outcry is that they are lying. What we have here is a failure to communicate! And yet it's more than that. What we have here is a failure to acknowledge that the definition needs to be replaced by a more direct approach to the real problems that loom if we keep talking only about the GDP, as if it were the only and most important measure.

Yes, of course the GDP figure is important; I'd hate to think what things would be like if it hadn't started improving, if the steps taken last year had not stopped the bleeding (no matter how distasteful much of that was), or, just evolved on their own, whatever one's personal opinion about that. But the GDP could get to a steady plateau of growth rate and stability and still leave millions of Americans without a future. I really don't think any honest CEO would deny that.

And actually, there are some economists who acknowledge what I posted, and they've even come up with some suggestions for better wording and definitions that would include unemployment as a major factor. Sorry, I don't have the links right now, but the general idea was some sort of "misery index" that would reflect more closely what average Americans are going through, as opposed to those who can still rely on investments or stock trades.

sorry Nancy that my post didnt have the pavolian (argumentative) reaction you were looking for (lol). I read a editorial recently that postulated that generally companies are not hiring because they dont need anybody. (they have leaned out , cost cut and added efficiencies in the downturn that when there is a uptick in sales they can effectively take that to the bottom line without adding headcount. ) With the uncertainty that I mentioned there isnt much incentive for companies to immediately hire in a upturn when they can succeed without doing that. .

Construction has been devistated because it is the first victim of the bursting of the housing bubble, I read recently that in some places in south florida that condos are so overbuilt they are selling for less than cars (with that kind of over supply as the Snickers commercial says "this is going to take a while".

Im sure we could come up with a misery index (Jimmy Carter had one which contributed to his eventual demise). The problem with that applied today is it wouldnt fit with the President Obama template/narrative that we are in the "summer of recovery' due to the virtues of the "stimulus package'. Publishing stats to the contrary distorts the message.

no summer of recovery in Camden

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/15/jobless-millions-death-american-dream

sc4ram wrote:sorry Nancy that my post didnt have the pavolian (argumentative) reaction you were looking for (lol). I read a editorial recently that postulated that generally companies are not hiring because they dont need anybody. (they have leaned out , cost cut and added efficiencies in the downturn that when there is a uptick in sales they can effectively take that to the bottom line without adding headcount. ) With the uncertainty that I mentioned there isnt much incentive for companies to immediately hire in a upturn when they can succeed without doing that. .

Construction has been devistated because it is the first victim of the bursting of the housing bubble, I read recently that in some places in south florida that condos are so overbuilt they are selling for less than cars (with that kind of over supply as the Snickers commercial says "this is going to take a while".

Im sure we could come up with a misery index (Jimmy Carter had one which contributed to his eventual demise). The problem with that applied today is it wouldnt fit with the President Obama template/narrative that we are in the "summer of recovery' due to the virtues of the "stimulus package'. Publishing stats to the contrary distorts the message.

Hmm..somehow the phrase "Wow, beam me up, Nancy" would seem to be a preface to a contrary argument. But then just call me an overly-sensitive flower child (which would be about as far off the mark as possible in my case).

Regarding what you call Obama's "template/narrative that we are in a 'summer of recovery'"--I haven't seen that kind of narrative in any of the rhetoric coming from anywhere, other that what seems to be postulated as if that were the case by the right. The White House and all Dems had hoped this would be the "summer of recovery" but I haven't seen anyone at all actually saying that, again, other than those who would try to put words into their mouths.

Sure, they are talking about some accomplishments, like the ARRA, which gave ALL of us EB last year, in case everyone forgot. And the "loophole" you assumed I found in my taxes was actually a combination of the Earned Income credit (for poor folks, that's been around for a while), plus the "Making Work Pay" credit --that tax cut aimed at salaried workers and the working poor that was in effect last year, which many seem to have forgotten about. But I didn't forget that when it saved me a few hundred survival dollars when I finally did my taxes last month.

From what I've seen, they are trying to point out accomplishments (which I agree is a lousy strategy if that is all they are talking about--it's always about "what have you done for me lately" in an election year, not what you did last year!) But they are being careful to add there's a long way to go yet. It's primarily the Repub rant that claims Obama says the recession is over and everything is supposed to be rosy. You have to actually listen to both sides to notice that.

Well Nancy, I said beam me up in reference to your thought that a statiistical recoverey was conceived in outer space (or something to that effect) .

In a tax system where they tell you what you owe "except" for deductions, credits, contributions , and exemptions, I subconciously call those loop holes. Given Im sure we both have paid a lot of taxes into the Feds (especiall if you count SSi and Medicare) , Im always glad when a tax payer gets some of their money back (at the end of the day its OUR money to being with, not theirs) . My point was that any "credit" like the ones you mentioned are only temporary . (You cant plan on getting it next year for example) . [reminds me of EUC extensions] Therefore it doesnt contribute to economic certainty (in a uncertain environment where there are automatic tax increases scheduled to go into effect in 2011 if Congress does not act and they dont seem to be in a hurry)

Im not complaining but I didnt have any earned income, so I received none of these "stimulus" credits.

Id like to think that I look at both sides of a issue (usually) , but I distinctly remember a Recovery Summer tag line, I just looked @ the White House website and there it is : http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/administration-officials-continue-travel-across-country-holding-recovery-summer-eve

If you read the syrupy announcment its a cross country campaign. (The report I saw said it was supposed to be driven by VP Bite-me (I mean Mr. Biden)

Of course this has been drowned out by the Presidents new "build a Mosque @ Ground Zero campaign". (That should help him in the midterms). Im sorry, but they said Pres Bush was stupid , Im starting to conclude that this guy doesnt have a clue. Sen Reid even is running away from him. I was up @ the Capital in June, Im glad I got a good look at it cause I think its going to get a big enema come November.

What irks me about the PR aspect is their #2 fall back line (next to blame Bush) is that they "saved jobs". To some poor person out of a job this is meaningless, its also not tangable or proveable and sounds like Teleprompter speak.
I think its stating the obvious that these guys cant go out and create a misery index after being in office 17 months because it conflicts with their message (if you cut thru it its basically things would be worse without us) , What really irks me is that the admin's allies in the media have starting coining the phrase "the new normal" (ie high unemployment and slow or no growth will be the norm for the forseeable future and we should get used to it) . Treasury Sec Timmy Giethner is out there saying the US will not lead the world in economic growth in the future. (which is not what Im paying him for )

If a Repub admin tried that narritive they would get pooped on pretty good.

And so it goes..................................

Oh, I see what you're referring to now, the Recovery Act summer projects. Somehow still, these things are viewed differently from different eyes. Visiting sites that show progress from the Recovery Act is hardly the same thing as claiming the Recession is over. And there were, in spite of some of the fogginess surrounding the issue, quite a few jobs created (yes, also "saved") by these projects, ask any of those guys on the construction sites. But I agree, it seems like a drop in the bucket, especially to those who never got one of those jobs.

We do agree on some of the basics here, but I couldn't disagree more about the mosque thing, and there's no such "campaign," just a comment at a dinner with Muslim guests. Try alternating watching Fox with a few nights of NBC, it might help in seeing the obvious word wars going on in the media.

Is no one remembering at all that there were a bunch of Muslims incinerated in those towers along with Christians, Jews, and who knows how many representatives from other religions and cultures as well? Do we really want to slap the moderate Muslims in the face and push them toward sympathy with our real enemies? I say if the community center they want to build turns out to be a terrorist recruiting center, then we can burn it to the ground, but until there's any evidence whatsoever of that, seems to me, what's next--no German clubs next door to temples? No temples built in a Jehovah's Witness neighborhood? No Buddhists mixing with Baptists? C'mon! How much more basic a tenet of our Constitution can there be than the right to worship.

I too have a different take on the Mosque thing. (Actually i get news from multiple sources , have a look at the Health Care thread) . The President said one thing at his dinner, then when everybody up-chucked he walked it back by saying he wouldnt comment on the "wisdom" of building it there. Even the savior (the Hon Gov Dean) said it should be built somewhere else (has he become a mind numbed robot stuge of Fox news as well?) Sen Reid is opposed as well. (I can name several other leftys that are opposed to this )

MANY of the families of the victims of the twin tower attacks would strongly prefer that the Mosque be built somewhere else. (I dont know of anyone who is arguing that it not be built at all) . We would (if not us the remaining WWII vets) be outraged if a Shintu shrine was to be built next to the Arizona Memorial @ Pearl Harbor, or a NAZI skin head headquarters were to be built near the Hallucost museam. [Im not comparing Islam to Facsists or NAZIs but the 9-11 perpetrators committed their acts in the name if Islam, the coat factory site received damage from the landing gear of one of the airplanes]. Add to this the lead Imam of the project said that the US brought 9-11 on itself, and is a advocate of establishing Sharia Law in the US, and historically Islamic nations have been known to build Mosques on the rubble of their vanguished enemies, its easy for me to conclude that this location is inapproproate (although its private property and I wouldnt contest that they may well have to legal right to build)

All the Prez had to do is say , Im all for your Mosque, you have the right to build it , but PLEASE consider the disrespect it will show to the victims of the twin towers to build it there. If he had said that this thing would of gone away a week ago.

Which brings me to the next point of irony, I find it amusing to see all of the Libs advocating this under the heading of property rights (which as a property owner I happen to be a big advocate of). Unfortuantely in many respects our property rights have been taken away in this country. There is a Greek Orthodox church in the same neighborhood that has not been given a permit to rebuild. (where is the advocacy for this ?) Whenever a Nativity scene goes up some where over the holidays the lights havent warmed up by the time the ACLU files a lawsuit against it. I just read in Kansas where there have been small Crosses installed by the side of the road on the sites where Highway Patrol officers have been killed, a lawsuit has been filed to declare them illegal. There was a Cross erected in 1934 in the Movhave Desert to honor WWI veterns, the ACLU filed a lawsuit to have it taken down in 2004. There has been organized pressure on business to prevent their employees from saying "Merry Christmas" in the check out line to customers. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in 2005 in Kelo v. New London, that New London could comdem a non-blighted neighborhood not for the "public good" but for a developer that wanted the jucy real estate that several beautiful privately owned Victorian homes were on.(they tore the houses down and stopped the project when the economy slowed) Where was the shouting from the rooftops about rights when all of this stuff was going on? If I didnt know better Id say the Libs doing all of the talking here just dont like the USA and like pooping on it. Its also a stupid position to take politically . This issue is dynomite .

Who'd a thunk it?


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-20/u-s-recession-ended-in-june-2009-was-longest-since-wwii-nber-panel-says.html


Couldnt resist adding this quote from Rush Limbaugh:

Great news, folks. The recession has been over for a year! That's right. "[T]he U.S. recession that started in December 2007 ended in June 2009, making it the longest slump since World War II, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research," which is a group out there that studies recessions. So what they haven't told us is when the depression began. If the recession ended in June of 2009, what the hell are we in now? So does somebody want to say it has improved since June of 2009? What do these people think this election is going to be all about? It's really stunning. The effort here to recast reality for the sake of the Democrats by the Democrat media complex is stunning to behold, even as wide open and visible as it is.