>
> 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 ?
You used the word dismal, not me. To me, dismal implies a pretty extreme
state.
and things are improving (albeit slowly)
Where ?
Long-term unemployment decreased as of the most recently reported figures,
labor force participation is up (though down, for obvious reasons, since
Katrina) year-over-year, unemployment in general is down to 4.7% (from a
peak of 6.3% in June of 2003), and GDP has been positive for the last 17
quarters. Are all indicators pretty? No. But things aren't as bad now as
they were a couple years ago.
Economy be damned, competence still wins.
How ?
Seriously, dude. Tongue-in-cheek.
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.
Part of it is due to revised numbers, yes, but there IS a significant
element of analysis of subsequent periods to determine if a recession really
happened. Unless you subscribe to the
"2-successive-quarters-with-negative-GDP", in stark contrast to the more
holistic definition of the NBER.
>> 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.
The NBER did NOT say that 9/11 deepened the recession. They stated that 9/11
could be why what could have been a minor contraction fell into a recession
in the first place. The NBER's comments do not invalidate my original
comment, though I clearly spoke with more absolution than I should have.
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.
Again, the NBER never stated the _recession_ was mild. They stated that the
contraction was mild, and that 9/11 -may- have been the factor to push it
into a recession.
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..."
It is money going in to the economy. Is it somehow invalidated by the fact
that it came from the government?
The Bushies don't care for reality when it's negative.
This is the most revealing statement you've made thus far.
