On 6 Mar 2006 at 18:00, Greg Sevart wrote:
> >> But that was very possibly just a cyclical event destined to be > >> short lived. > > > > No, it was a predicted reaction. > > > > Predicted, 'eh? Clearly, with your magical powers of absolute economic > analysis, you should have succeeded Greenspan. Give me a break. "Magical powers" ? Given the historical track record of failed RightWing policies, it was a slam dunk. > >> 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. > We're still here, didn't fall into a depression Care to set the bar any lower ? > and things are improving (albeit slowly) Where ? > ...but you're right, I might be biased by the fact that I recieved a > double-digit raise last year. I did write that you were in a "distinct minority", didn't I ? > Economy be damned, competence still wins. How ? The overwhelming majority of the vast majority of workers whose wages went backwards over the last five years are competent as well. > >> 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. > > Yeah, because a slump doesn't always mean a true recession until > significantly more data is collected for subsequent time periods. No, because there is a time lag until the data is released preliminarily, then revised, then revised again, and again, over time. > >> 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. > > > > No, I'm sorry, it is you that is clearly wrong. According to a source > that YOU first cited, the NBER: > > "Q: The NBER has dated the beginning of the recession in March 2001. > Does this mean that the attacks of September 11 did not have a role in > causing the recession? > > A. No. Before the attacks, it is possible that the decline in the > economy would have been too mild to qualify as a recession. The > attacks clearly deepened the contraction and may have been an > important factor in turning the episode into a recession." (from the > recession announcement in November of 2001, > http://www.nber.org/cycles/november2001/) A) You did not contend, as the NBER does, that 9/11 just "deepened" the recession, you stated: "I think it is pretty clear that the reason why real wages haven't increased since 2001 is because of the economic recession kicked off by 9/11." Dead wrong on both counts. B) The NBER thought the recession was "mild", because they incorrectly assumed the recession ended in November of 2001, as they were relying upon the false data released by this administration. They accepted that GDP went positive in the 4th QTR 2001, as that's the number the administration released. However, as was explained by Erika Miller, a correspondent for Nightly Business Report, on February 28th, 2001: "GDP rose at a 1.4 percent rate in the fourth quarter. Another factor was strong government spending, the result of the war in Afghanistan and counter-terrorism efforts. It's interesting to note that without the government's increase, GDP would have been negative..." The same happened with the 1st QTR of 2002. From Gretchen Morgenson, a financial writer for the New York Times, appearing on the May 6th broadcast of the 'Lehrer News Hour': "the 5.8 percent GDP growth in the first quarter was really largely a function of government spending and an increase in inventory buildup at corporations." The administration stopped releasing the separate data after that (for obvious reasons). They have been counting military spending as GDP to give the appearance that the national private-sector economy is performing well, to this day. The administration also killed off a Labor Department program that tracked mass layoffs by U.S. companies over a year ago, and is presently proposing to eliminate a Census Bureau survey on the economic well-being of U.S. residents. The Bushies don't care for reality when it's negative. Vince
