The Recovery Thread

[antagon]

rabbi, you've compared the hardly recession of 2000 with the latest. here:

just your size

 

[The Rabbi]

You dumb motherfucker. You think comparing one recession to another is invalid?
The exact point is that this recession is much worse because of Obama;s (and Bush's) actions to make it better. And the recovery will be much slower and less robust for the same reason.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I do not blame Bush for the economy, but for most Americans, it was not a pretty good eight years. It was good for the top 10%-20%, but not for everyone else.

For most Americans, wages were stagnant from 2001 through 2008 - even through 2006 - job growth off the bottom was the weakest on record, and nonfarm payrolls were negative for 40 of the 96 months Bush was President. Consumer and mortgage debt exploded, and a big reason was because people took on debt to sustain consumption they could not afford as incomes remained flat for the decade for most people.

During that time the unemployment rate averaged about 5%. Tell me again how that was worse than where we are today?
And please provide a link showing the majority of job creation is in the private sector. I haven't seen it.

Toro's statistics are pretty much on target though. But you know that old saw that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Statistics can be very useful in demonstrating raw numbers. They are usually less useful in explaining those same numbers.

What Toro left out of the equation is WHY 40 months of the Bush administartion were so abysmal, and anybody with a brain knows that it was mostly because of 9/11 plus the housing bubble burst. It would be as unfair to blame the 2009 recession on Obama.

But an honest analysis of the situation includes evaluation of whether policies are helping or hurting recovery from recession. Bush policies obviously helped. Obama policies obviously have not.

For me, it's as simple as that.

Economic recovery is weaker than it could be if the middle class purchasing power drops decade after decade. America is not primarily about business, in my estimation, it is about the wellbeing of American citizens.

 

[KissMy]

April 14 (UPI) -- Fewer U.S. homeowners were delinquent on mortgage loans in the first quarter than in the fourth quarter of 2009, two economic research groups said. In the first quarter, 6.57 percent of homeowners were 30 days or more behind on their payments, Moody's Economy.com and Equifax said. In the previous quarter, 6.6 percent of homeowners were at least a month behind on their mortgages, USA Today reported Wednesday. While only a small improvement, "It portends a peaking of the foreclosure crisis.

Foreclosures may still rise due to banks moving more efficiently at foreclosing on delinquent on mortgages. People have gone delinquent for 2 years now without being foreclosed on giving them extra cash to spend driving retail sales. Who knows what will happen when all these people finally get evicted & have to start paying rent or mortgages again.

According to the St. Louis Federal Reserve EM-Ratio the percent of the population employed is increasing. It is difficult to track using unemployment rates because numerous unemployed fall off the rolls at varying rates. It will take at least 10 years to get back to 2008 employment levels because we have lost a lot of jobs over the last 2 years, so we will feel like we are in a recession for a long time. Who knows what will happen when the government lays off the 1.2 million Census workers.

We now have the Baltic Dry Index up, Employment up, Stocks up, Oil demand up, Yield curve up, Dollar up, Leading Economic Indicators up, Durable Goods orders up, ISM index climbing to 59% & the PMI came in at 62.6 indicating expansion.

This recovery is slow & we are likely to have another crisis before we are recovered. I am keeping an eye on Oil & Copper prices to see if the Dollar weakens to much because comparing the Dollar to other falling currencies is a useless measure. I am also watching the mortgages delinquencies because the big wave of Alt-A Mortgages are upon us now. Also watching retail sales to see if spending drops when foreclosures pick-up & the size of the workforce all to forecast another downturn.

Our standard of living may never recover due to rising debt, taxes, utilities & commodity prices.

Most of the indicators in my post above have now turned the opposite direction. The recovery lasted only 4 month & now appears to be over. It cost a heck of a lot to finance that short period & will cost us dearly in the future. We may now be in for a double dip depression. Gold is soaring on pressures for more stimulus & continued low interest rates.

We now have the Baltic Dry Index down, Employment down, Stocks down, Oil demand falling, Yield curve falling, Dollar down, Leading Economic Indicators slowing, ISM index slowing, & the PMI slowing.

 

[antagon]

You dumb motherfucker. You think comparing one recession to another is invalid?
The exact point is that this recession is much worse because of Obama;s (and Bush's) actions to make it better. And the recovery will be much slower and less robust for the same reason.

you didn't like your shoes, rabbi?

this recession is much worse because, peak to trough, it was THIRTEEN TIMES DEEPER, dummy, and over twice as long. like a hack, you are comparing the slightest recession on record with the worst since the great depression.

c'mon, pick a pair and lace 'em up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You dumb motherfucker. You think comparing one recession to another is invalid?
The exact point is that this recession is much worse because of Obama;s (and Bush's) actions to make it better. And the recovery will be much slower and less robust for the same reason.

You describe yourself with that epithet, Rabbi, you pawn. The recession is going slower because of the massive fail of the Bush policies. Obama could have done some things better, like ignoring the far right wing of the GOP (just kick it in its collective ass), and move on.

Thank heavens your folks are out of office for a very long time to come.

 

[Care4all]

Toro's statistics are pretty much on target though. But you know that old saw that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Statistics can be very useful in demonstrating raw numbers. They are usually less useful in explaining those same numbers.

What Toro left out of the equation is WHY 40 months of the Bush administartion were so abysmal, and anybody with a brain knows that it was mostly because of 9/11 plus the housing bubble burst. It would be as unfair to blame the 2009 recession on Obama.

But an honest analysis of the situation includes evaluation of whether policies are helping or hurting recovery from recession. Bush policies obviously helped. Obama policies obviously have not.

For me, it's as simple as that.

But the Bush recession was only from March of 2001 to November of 2001....

Are you really suggesting that the $300 dollar rebate we got in aug/September got us out of a recession in one month or so?

I don't think that is feasible....?

Care, 9/11 happened September 2001. Are you really believing that the deep recession in the wake of that was over by November 2001? The worst job losses came in January and February 2002. By March and April 2002, with a steady hand by Homeland Securities and subsiding fears, we were beginning to recover but things were shaky the remainder of 2002. The tax reform in 2003 did give a good push to the economy beginning in 2004though and it rocked along quite decently until mid 2008.

That $300 rebate was absurd and symbolic and in no way was a practical economic stimulus. I don't ever object, however, when the government allows me to keep more of my own money as I believe I will generally use it for my benefit better than the government will use it on my behalf.

I KNOW it ended november of 2001, and that is NOT DEBATABLE, it is fact foxfyre? you can't change measures for such midstream, the numbers speak the facts...and the same numbers that are used to determine any and all recessions are consistent, and the recession was from March through November of 2001.....so, let's work off of that...k?

 

[Foxfyre]

But the Bush recession was only from March of 2001 to November of 2001....

Are you really suggesting that the $300 dollar rebate we got in aug/September got us out of a recession in one month or so?

I don't think that is feasible....?

Care, 9/11 happened September 2001. Are you really believing that the deep recession in the wake of that was over by November 2001? The worst job losses came in January and February 2002. By March and April 2002, with a steady hand by Homeland Securities and subsiding fears, we were beginning to recover but things were shaky the remainder of 2002. The tax reform in 2003 did give a good push to the economy beginning in 2004though and it rocked along quite decently until mid 2008.

That $300 rebate was absurd and symbolic and in no way was a practical economic stimulus. I don't ever object, however, when the government allows me to keep more of my own money as I believe I will generally use it for my benefit better than the government will use it on my behalf.

I KNOW it ended november of 2001, and that is NOT DEBATABLE, it is fact foxfyre? you can't change measures for such midstream, the numbers speak the facts...and the same numbers that are used to determine any and all recessions are consistent, and the recession was from March through November of 2001.....so, let's work off of that...k?

If you're using NBER stats, then yes, you are right and I will concede that this was their evaluation and the media dutifully printed it. However, working from memory, NBER subsequently admitted they had the start date of that recession as March 2001 and further analysis showed that the start date was several months earlier. I don't remember the exact date. They were also evaluating whether the late November end should be revised but I don't believe they ever did that.

But I'll concede that you can show sources that say that recession ended in November 2001. That despite we lost a net almost 3 million jobs that year, mostly due to 9/11, and the job loss continued with a net 350,000 or so jobs lost in 2002. Maybe technically we weren't in recession. But it sure felt like a recession to a whole lot of folks trying to do business. It did stabilize in 2002 and by 2003 we were doing much better.

Now NBER says this current recession ended I think April this year. Do you feel that this recession is over? People still under water on their mortgages and the hundreds of thousands still facing foreclosure don't think so. Nor do the many many folks filing new unemployment claims every week. But I suppose technically, using the raw data NBER uses, the recession is over.

 

[antagon]

recession and not recession is one thing. good economy and bad economy is another. aiming to criticize the accuracy of productivity measures, especially with some type of conspiratorial angle sounds ridiculous to me. built into that, consistently, is the association between other components of wider economic health and the narrower GDP metric which determines 'recession'.

i don't have doubts that the GDP might have expanded just like they said. it is likely to be revised later on; who knows? the US economy has shown that it could defy the burden of high unemployment since the reagan era in terms of productivity growth. other indices of econimic health tell a broader picture, and even these show that the economy overall has stopped shrinking and began expanding. it hasn't been convincing or strong. it is hard to say if it wont turn back for the red.

i think by isolating the employment situation or isolating the mortgage situation - two definite spots weakened by the contraction - one makes the statement that we have an employment or asset driven economy. these are co-factors, certainly, but these statements themselves are inaccurate. nevertheless, cynics, or dare i say pessimists, choose to look past other aspects of our economy which are leading the recovery, and focus on those aspects which took the biggest hit in the collapse. next, the comparison between the minor dip in the early 00s and the economic crisis we're struggling to recover from now, is absurd. it only indicates to me that the loudest critics of the recovery and the efforts behind it haven't considered the gravity of the downturn we'd undergone.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think it is so much 'pessimism' that raises eyebrows when the economists tell us that a recession is ended but the reality that the economy still sucks which, after all, is what 'recession' means to the average man or woman on the street. We have several USMB members who are currently out of work and have not been able to find work in their fields for weeks and months now. It's really difficult for them to feel like anything is getting better.

NBER says that recession is ended and we are in recovery from the date it sees the economy hitting the absolute bottom and determines that by GDP, personal income, and employment. But in the case of the 2001 recession, it didn't make the call that the recession was over in November 2001 until mid 2003. How useful was that to folks late in 2001? Not too useful for those still caught in an economy that was still staggering. And subsequently NBER also admitted they miscalculated the beginning of that recession and would be rethinking the end. But since they get to make the call, we go with what they tell us.

But re that 2001 'recovery' NBER also said that they weren't saying that economic conditions since November 2001 "have been favorable or that the economy has returned to operating at normal capacity. Rather, the committee determined only that the recession bottomed out and a recovery began in that month."

When it comes to recession, the Economic Policy Institute says the economy has to grow at least 3 to 3.5 percent to keep unemployment from rising. And I think it's like 4.5 percent for unemployment to drop a half percent. It noted that 'recovery' does not mean favorable conditions or that the economy has returned to normal. All 'a recession ending' means is that it stopped getting worse so it had to start getting better. Sometimes once things get bad enough, there is no way to go but up.

For example. If a normal economy is 100 and a recession bottomed out at 10, if it goes to 11 and then 12 and then 13, etc. we are technically not in a recession but we can be a long time getting back to 100. It continues to look and feel like recession for those experiencing it.

 

[antagon]

that's a great perspective on recession, fox. i wonder why some people have such high expectations of a recovery from such a deep contraction in light of these lessons. so much criticism is based on the expectation of clear sailing in a recovery, when most of the time, the economy on the street during the recovery phase is worse than the contraction itself. look at the great depression! for those trying to make a comparative analysis to downturns like 2001, which had no chronic catalyst equivalent to those which continue to work against this recovery, i think the expectations are even more far-fetched.

 

[Foxfyre]

that's a great perspective on recession, fox. i wonder why some people have such high expectations of a recovery from such a deep contraction in light of these lessons. so much criticism is based on the expectation of clear sailing in a recovery, when most of the time, the economy on the street during the recovery phase is worse than the contraction itself. look at the great depression! for those trying to make a comparative analysis to downturns like 2001, which had no chronic catalyst equivalent to those which continue to work against this recovery, i think the expectations are even more far-fetched.

Thanks Antagon. Every now and then I did pay attention in Ecnomics class.

But yes, there is always the technical jargon at odds with the realities for most people. But I didn't want Care to keep getting beat up when she was technically correct. (Especailly since I was one of the ones doing the beating.)

So if we're talking technical that's one thing.

If we're talking realities for most Americans, that's another.

 

[AVG-JOE]

During that time the unemployment rate averaged about 5%. Tell me again how that was worse than where we are today?
And please provide a link showing the majority of job creation is in the private sector. I haven't seen it.

Toro's statistics are pretty much on target though. But you know that old saw that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Statistics can be very useful in demonstrating raw numbers. They are usually less useful in explaining those same numbers.

What Toro left out of the equation is WHY 40 months of the Bush administartion were so abysmal, and anybody with a brain knows that it was mostly because of 9/11 plus the housing bubble burst. It would be as unfair to blame the 2009 recession on Obama.

But an honest analysis of the situation includes evaluation of whether policies are helping or hurting recovery from recession. Bush policies obviously helped. Obama policies obviously have not.

For me, it's as simple as that.

Economic recovery is weaker than it could be if the middle class purchasing power drops decade after decade. America is not primarily about business, in my estimation, it is about the wellbeing of American citizens.

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

Bummer. Good post.

 

[Toro]

37 graphs of the economy. Since this is the "recovery thread," I'm only going to post good ones.

http://blog.chart.ly/the-big-economic-picture-37-charts/

It should be noted that "end of recession" does not mean "operating at full capacity."

 

[Care4all]

Care, 9/11 happened September 2001. Are you really believing that the deep recession in the wake of that was over by November 2001? The worst job losses came in January and February 2002. By March and April 2002, with a steady hand by Homeland Securities and subsiding fears, we were beginning to recover but things were shaky the remainder of 2002. The tax reform in 2003 did give a good push to the economy beginning in 2004though and it rocked along quite decently until mid 2008.

That $300 rebate was absurd and symbolic and in no way was a practical economic stimulus. I don't ever object, however, when the government allows me to keep more of my own money as I believe I will generally use it for my benefit better than the government will use it on my behalf.

I KNOW it ended november of 2001, and that is NOT DEBATABLE, it is fact foxfyre? you can't change measures for such midstream, the numbers speak the facts...and the same numbers that are used to determine any and all recessions are consistent, and the recession was from March through November of 2001.....so, let's work off of that...k?

If you're using NBER stats, then yes, you are right and I will concede that this was their evaluation and the media dutifully printed it. However, working from memory, NBER subsequently admitted they had the start date of that recession as March 2001 and further analysis showed that the start date was several months earlier. I don't remember the exact date. They were also evaluating whether the late November end should be revised but I don't believe they ever did that.

But I'll concede that you can show sources that say that recession ended in November 2001. That despite we lost a net almost 3 million jobs that year, mostly due to 9/11, and the job loss continued with a net 350,000 or so jobs lost in 2002. Maybe technically we weren't in recession. But it sure felt like a recession to a whole lot of folks trying to do business. It did stabilize in 2002 and by 2003 we were doing much better.

Now NBER says this current recession ended I think April this year. Do you feel that this recession is over? People still under water on their mortgages and the hundreds of thousands still facing foreclosure don't think so. Nor do the many many folks filing new unemployment claims every week. But I suppose technically, using the raw data NBER uses, the recession is over.

so you admit i was correct on the recession period of president bush I see...

I never said nor implied the Bush recession recovery was all hunky dorey, did I? Did i ever say that we the people do not suffer, after recessions are over?

you didn't beat me up on this one girlfriend as you told antagon! I, was correct!

do you still stick by 'the bush policies helped us' while obama's have hurt us....?

yet at the same time say that it took years after bush's recession before nber could pin point the trough, and month upon month of rising unemployment in the recovery?

I don't think we ever recovered from the small bush recession completely, nor do i think we will from this one....at least not for some years to come....

Americans always amaze me though....when we fall, we pick up the pieces and try try again!

care

 

[Zander]

Why not post this one Toro?

 

[The Rabbi]

Graphs can be drawn to show almost anything. Amazing, isn't it.
The fact is that unemployment is high, private sector job creation sucks, and we have potential municipal and sovereign defaults to worry about.

 

[Toro]

Why not post this one Toro?

Because I'm not sure how relevant it is.

What that tells me is that intra-bank lending has fallen. Much of the M3 created during the 00s was merely financial paper that circulated amongst the banks, which had little if any real value. M3 includes repos and other intra-bank lending. A collapse in the credit markets would intuitively lead to declines in monetary aggregates, particularly those traded amongst the leveraged financial sector. Since much of the shadow banking system was funded in the intra-bank lending market, and since the shadow banking system has imploded, one would expect M3 to fall.

Here is M2, which includes currency, reserves, savings and checking deposits, and money market accounts, which probably is more relevant to the real economy.

 

[Foxfyre]

I KNOW it ended november of 2001, and that is NOT DEBATABLE, it is fact foxfyre? you can't change measures for such midstream, the numbers speak the facts...and the same numbers that are used to determine any and all recessions are consistent, and the recession was from March through November of 2001.....so, let's work off of that...k?

If you're using NBER stats, then yes, you are right and I will concede that this was their evaluation and the media dutifully printed it. However, working from memory, NBER subsequently admitted they had the start date of that recession as March 2001 and further analysis showed that the start date was several months earlier. I don't remember the exact date. They were also evaluating whether the late November end should be revised but I don't believe they ever did that.

But I'll concede that you can show sources that say that recession ended in November 2001. That despite we lost a net almost 3 million jobs that year, mostly due to 9/11, and the job loss continued with a net 350,000 or so jobs lost in 2002. Maybe technically we weren't in recession. But it sure felt like a recession to a whole lot of folks trying to do business. It did stabilize in 2002 and by 2003 we were doing much better.

Now NBER says this current recession ended I think April this year. Do you feel that this recession is over? People still under water on their mortgages and the hundreds of thousands still facing foreclosure don't think so. Nor do the many many folks filing new unemployment claims every week. But I suppose technically, using the raw data NBER uses, the recession is over.

so you admit i was correct on the recession period of president bush I see...

I never said nor implied the Bush recession recovery was all hunky dorey, did I? Did i ever say that we the people do not suffer, after recessions are over?

you didn't beat me up on this one girlfriend as you told antagon! I, was correct!

do you still stick by 'the bush policies helped us' while obama's have hurt us....?

yet at the same time say that it took years after bush's recession before nber could pin point the trough, and month upon month of rising unemployment in the recovery?

I don't think we ever recovered from the small bush recession completely, nor do i think we will from this one....at least not for some years to come....

Americans always amaze me though....when we fall, we pick up the pieces and try try again!

care

I have never defended Bush in his expansion of government and entitlements or signing off on excess spending bills or on his veiled amnesty plans for illegals or his signing on with the environmental religion madness. Such policies hurt us when he did it. Such policies hurt us now that Obama is doing it.

But yes, Bush's firm hand in the wake of 9/11 and his tax policy did help and there are reams of information to support that. And, though I thought Bush managed several things incompetently, he did object to the excess spending such as earmarks after awhile and he was listening to the experts and warning Congress about the disaster building in the housing bubble all of which fell on mostly deaf ears.

I thought he was wrong to support TARP and I think Obama was wrong to support TARP plus most of the legislation he has pushed since.

 

[Zander]

Why not post this one Toro?

Because I'm not sure how relevant it is.

What that tells me is that intra-bank lending has fallen. Much of the M3 created during the 00s was merely financial paper that circulated amongst the banks, which had little if any real value. M3 includes repos and other intra-bank lending. A collapse in the credit markets would intuitively lead to declines in monetary aggregates, particularly those traded amongst the leveraged financial sector. Since much of the shadow banking system was funded in the intra-bank lending market, and since the shadow banking system has imploded, one would expect M3 to fall.

Here is M2, which includes currency, reserves, savings and checking deposits, and money market accounts, which probably is more relevant to the real economy.

I disagree, M3 offers a fuller view of the monetary picture, especially when we are experiencing deflation.

The Fed has created $1.5 Trillions of new money , central banks around the world have offered unlimited cost free credit. Governments are spending like mad. So we should be feeling inflation, right? Except we aren't. M3 is contracting at the fastest rate since the 1930's (9.3% annualized). The stock market is lower than it was 10 years ago. PPI and CPI have a zero rate of change. People are struggling to get anyone to part with a dollar. They can't get loans, they can't sell their houses and they can't land a job.