Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So out of the loop. GDP is but one of a number of variables that are examined in determining the official start point of a recession. In this case, the official start point was without any doubt whatsoever December of 2007, because the National Bureau of Economic Research (the people who make the official call) said so.
Thats funny, I didnt see you posting to point out how the recession isnt over when the GDP increased last month. Why is that? Ahh, dont bother to answer because you only like the definition of words when they support your theories, but when they dont, definitions of words are meaningless..
United States BEA.. You know what I meant but to argue about something so petty is typical..
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
BEA prepares the estimates of the US National Income and Product Accounts, one part of which is GDP. BEA has nothing whatsoever to do with determining when a recession begins or ends. As noted above, those determinations are made by NBER. Here is their release concerning the start of the current recession...
I guess you can pretend that legal definition of a recession isnt Recession Law & Legal Definition If inflation-adjusted Gross Domestic Product (or, alternatively, the closely related measure called Gross National Product) declines for two successive quarters (i.e., six months in a row), a recession has begun, and when inflation-adjusted GDP subsequently rises for two consecutive quarters, the recession has ended and recovery is under way
Look back on the GDP chart and tell me when we had a decline in two successive quarters. Hint, it wasnt December 07..
No such thing happened. The transition staff (Romer and Bernstein) released a projection showing that unemployment would peak earlier and at a lower level with a stimulus package than without. Because the projection was done based on November 2008 data -- when unemployment was 6.7% -- the scale on a graph in that paper shows unemployment peaking at about 8% with a stimulus and at a little over 9% without. At the time, private sector analysts were projecting that 2009 unemployment would peak at between 8% and 8.25%. There was no promise, guaranty, or prediction of anything at all in that projection paper.
Whats terrible for Obama is the fact that videos exist of him complaining about 20,000 jobs lossed in one month and 260K under Bush for the YEAR.. He's now losing the every TWO WEEKS..
Whats terrible for Obama is the fact that videos exist of him complaining about 20,000 jobs lossed in one month and 260K under Bush for the YEAR.. He's now losing the every TWO WEEKS..
Guess that means there's no way we should ever trust anything that comes out of this administration then. Regardless of whom the actual mouthpiece may be, it will always just be explained away as a "projection", not a promise.
I guess that will be a problem for those who can't tell the difference between the two to begin with. For future reference, once of them tends to use a lot of econometrics. The other one doesn't. See if that helps...
I guess that will be a problem for those who can't tell the difference between the two to begin with. For future reference, once of them tends to use a lot of econometrics. The other one doesn't. See if that helps...
Shouldnt you be writing the next bill involving the taking away of another freedom of ours away or putting data together to explain how we should be paying even more taxes for less, and figuring out how to explain it so we should be happy about it?
I always assumed that was a 24 hour a day job for government employees.. all sitting around plotting the next one, just to see how far american citizens will go before we break?
Barrack has not clue, shows weakness, and lacks experince in every
category.
Take Bush's job losses of 20,000 for the month, and indeed Obama is breaking records. He's losing that every 30 or so hours..
He should be given an award allright.. Nobel Peace Prize I'm not sure would be the right one..
http://therealbarackobama.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/americanidolobama.jpg?w=432&h=293 (broken link)
At least he belongs to the right party... haha
Thats funny, I didnt see you posting to point out how the recession isnt over when the GDP increased last month. Why is that?
I don't think you saw me commenting one way or the other because the matter isn't resolved. NBER will make the call, but I suspect it will be a while yet in coming. So, maybe it's over and maybe it isn't. We'll have to wait and see. After all, they didn't announce their official finding that the recession began in December 2007 until December 2008.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Ahh, dont bother to answer because you only like the definition of words when they support your theories, but when they dont, definitions of words are meaningless..
I don't approve of people who don't know any better throwing around words that have a very specific contextual definition as if none of that mattered and any old defintion of their personal choosing will do. Using one definition of a word where another one is called for is a fallacy of equivocation. We see that quite a bit around here.
N.B. The Theory of Evolution is not just some theory.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
