NCAAbbs

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2....WmgvOw1_g

And it's all thanks to the stimulus.

Funny how the MSM didn't bother to use the textbook definition to signal when the recession began, only for when it ended. Yep, no agenda there.

Um, I'm pretty sure that when the Commerce Department released numbers saying GDP was negative for however many quarters in a row, we were in a recession. There's a difference between the recession (which you can't tell you're in until you've been in it for a couple of quarters, but started at the beginning of 2008 or so) and the meltdown that happened last September

(10-29-2009 02:09 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]Um, I'm pretty sure that when the Commerce Department released numbers saying GDP was negative for however many quarters in a row, we were in a recession. There's a difference between the recession (which you can't tell you're in until you've been in it for a couple of quarters, but started at the beginning of 2008 or so) and the meltdown that happened last September

Yes, Sherlock, no one is disputing that, but if you've paid any attention at all, you would have heard the "recession" tag being thrown around well before those figures came out (as far back as '06), with absolutely no regard whatsoever to the textbook definition.

And, to be exact, it started Dec 2008.

Plus, next quarter, we get to look forward to vehicle output plummeting after being artificially raised this past quarter...



...as well as home sales probably falling off as the first time home buyer's credit expiring (which, by the way, has been shown to cost the taxpayers $43K per $8K credit).http://www.businessinsider.com/john-carn...yer-2009-9

If it weren't for the First Amendment, I would advocate a law banning liberals from commenting on anything to do with economics since they understand it about like a miniature dachsund understands theoretical physics.

(10-29-2009 07:33 PM)BatesUAB Wrote: [ -> ]If it weren't for the First Amendment, I would advocate a law banning liberals from commenting on anything to do with economics since they understand it about like a miniature dachsund understands theoretical physics.

And you would know since you have two mini dachsunds.

The recession began in Dec 2007 shortly after credit markets started going haywire during the summer of 2007 due to CDO and other asset-backed blowups.

One man's recession may be over while another man's recession may be still running. I can't recall any of our national recessions, Panics, or other economic reversals being resolved in a year or two. They have all taken several years to turn around for the majority of citizens. What makes this downturn different is that it is taking place in a modern global market place where jobs related to goods and services can be transported around the world electronically. Our workers have been threatened many times by "cheap labor" in neighboring geographic regions, but now with "jumbo freighter jets" and huge relatively fast containerized freighter ships, the whole world is a "neighboring region". This is a reality of the new century not so completely experienced before.

(10-30-2009 11:13 AM)Blazing Saddles Wrote: [ -> ]The recession began in Dec 2007 shortly after credit markets started going haywire during the summer of 2007 due to CDO and other asset-backed blowups.

Perfect example of using indicators that have nothing to do with the textbook definition of a recession to signal the start, while ignoring other indicators like (still) rising unemployment, consumer spending, etc. and proclaiming the recession is over and "Obama saved us!"

(10-30-2009 11:47 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-30-2009 11:13 AM)Blazing Saddles Wrote: [ -> ]The recession began in Dec 2007 shortly after credit markets started going haywire during the summer of 2007 due to CDO and other asset-backed blowups.

Perfect example of using indicators that have nothing to do with the textbook definition of a recession to signal the start, while ignoring other indicators like (still) rising unemployment, consumer spending, etc. and proclaiming the recession is over and "Obama saved us!"

Actually since unemployment is a lagging indicator, unemployment can continue to rise even if a country is out of a recession. Consumer spending numbers came out today and sucked. Market is getting hammered. Call it what you want but expansion and contraction are pretty easy to infer. Recession has been over but only because of massive amounts of stimulus money.

National Bureau of Economic Research

(10-29-2009 08:37 PM)dfarr Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-29-2009 07:33 PM)BatesUAB Wrote: [ -> ]If it weren't for the First Amendment, I would advocate a law banning liberals from commenting on anything to do with economics since they understand it about like a miniature dachsund understands theoretical physics.

And you would know since you have two mini dachsunds.

Are there names: Barney and Frank?

(10-29-2009 03:04 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]Plus, next quarter, we get to look forward to vehicle output plummeting after being artificially raised this past quarter...



...as well as home sales probably falling off as the first time home buyer's credit expiring (which, by the way, has been shown to cost the taxpayers $43K per $8K credit).http://www.businessinsider.com/john-carn...yer-2009-9

Congress is looking to extend the credit for first time homebuyers as well as all other homebuyers.

Bloomberg article

(10-30-2009 01:44 PM)Blazing Saddles Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-29-2009 03:04 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]Plus, next quarter, we get to look forward to vehicle output plummeting after being artificially raised this past quarter...



...as well as home sales probably falling off as the first time home buyer's credit expiring (which, by the way, has been shown to cost the taxpayers $43K per $8K credit).http://www.businessinsider.com/john-carn...yer-2009-9

Congress is looking to extend the credit for first time homebuyers as well as all other homebuyers.

Bloomberg article

They shouldn't, and this comes from a guy who got a credit the first time. I didn't buy because of the credit. I bought because 1) I was ready to buy 2) prices were very low and 3) interest rates were low. The $8k was just gravy and helped me afford some stuff that I wouldn't have done till I'm out of grad school.

One economic factor the nation has always been dedicated to support is home ownership. It is a given that the stability associated with home ownership is good for each community and the state and nation in which each community exists. We may err in regard to a particular home buyer, but even in foreclosure, the home still generally passes to another owner. I don't fully understand the preference for "first time buyers", but I suppose they want to keep people from "gaming" the system over and over. I bought my first home in 1965 and lived in it until 2003-- that's pretty stable.

(10-30-2009 05:06 PM)dfarr Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-30-2009 01:44 PM)Blazing Saddles Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-29-2009 03:04 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]Plus, next quarter, we get to look forward to vehicle output plummeting after being artificially raised this past quarter...



...as well as home sales probably falling off as the first time home buyer's credit expiring (which, by the way, has been shown to cost the taxpayers $43K per $8K credit).http://www.businessinsider.com/john-carn...yer-2009-9

Congress is looking to extend the credit for first time homebuyers as well as all other homebuyers.

Bloomberg article

They shouldn't, and this comes from a guy who got a credit the first time. I didn't buy because of the credit. I bought because 1) I was ready to buy 2) prices were very low and 3) interest rates were low. The $8k was just gravy and helped me afford some stuff that I wouldn't have done till I'm out of grad school.

I'll PM you my name and address so you can send me the $8K. Dfarr, I thought you had principles.

(11-03-2009 03:24 PM)Blazing Saddles Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-30-2009 05:06 PM)dfarr Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-30-2009 01:44 PM)Blazing Saddles Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-29-2009 03:04 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]Plus, next quarter, we get to look forward to vehicle output plummeting after being artificially raised this past quarter...



...as well as home sales probably falling off as the first time home buyer's credit expiring (which, by the way, has been shown to cost the taxpayers $43K per $8K credit).http://www.businessinsider.com/john-carn...yer-2009-9

Congress is looking to extend the credit for first time homebuyers as well as all other homebuyers.

Bloomberg article

They shouldn't, and this comes from a guy who got a credit the first time. I didn't buy because of the credit. I bought because 1) I was ready to buy 2) prices were very low and 3) interest rates were low. The $8k was just gravy and helped me afford some stuff that I wouldn't have done till I'm out of grad school.

I'll PM you my name and address so you can send me the $8K. Dfarr, I thought you had principles.

That's ok. I've already used some of it to stimulate the economy and I'm using the rest to help pay for grad school.