On 6 Mar 2006 at 14:27, Greg Sevart wrote:
> You're entirely missing the point. YES, the economy was slowing down. No, it wasn't just "slowing down", it went into recession in March of 2001, five moths before 9/11. > But that was very possibly just a cyclical event destined to be short > lived. No, it was a predicted reaction. * As reported by the private-sector Conference Board, Consumer Confidence plummeted by more than 10% in November 2000 (the largest drop in over 10 years, not seen since the last recession, eleven years earlier). * Consumer Confidence again plummeted by another 10% in December 2000 (again, the largest drop in over 10 years, not seen since the last recession, eleven years earlier). * A 20% drop in Consumer Confidence in less than 60 days is a massive shift in consumer sentiment, not seen in a post-WWII American economy, yet it continued to drop even further in January, February, and March. Given that Consumer Spending comprises more than seventy percent of the American economy, it's no surprise that the nation's economy finally sunk into recession in March of 2001. > 9/11 (and all actions as a result of) is the factor that pushed things > down so far and so fast Wrong. > and that's why it hasn't been easy to grow out of. Wrong. > Add to that the costs of war and the far-reaching impacts of Katrina > (especially as it relates to employment), and I think we're doing > pretty well. You are in a distinct minority of Americans, particulary given the dismal economic conditions. > With regard to the recession being declared in March of 2001, that > classification wasn't made until late November of 2001--after the > attacks. It's always made well after the fact. > It is very possible that the small decline would have never qualified > as an actual recession had the attacks never occurred. Wrong, and referring to the worst downturn since the Great Depression as a "small decline" is rather revealing. Vince
