09-16-2008, 05:04 PM
There appears to be conflicting definitions of what a recession is. The apparent answer is emotional and political. if you "feel or think" it's a recession, or the opposing Administration's party is in the Executive branch, or the jackpot--both--then it's recession as soon as you feel like it is (the day their side took office) and evidence to the contrary is dismissed automatically. Until the office changes hands, then we're required to join the cheerleading squad and be in denial, just like the other team was when it was their turn to screw things up. Then the next team's agency appointments gets to make the rules and spin the numbers their way.
The economy has been battered for years, but survived relatively stable in spite of a lot of pressure, longer than expected. During the early part of the oil price increases, inflation was slow, employment was stable, and each quarter reported low growth or stagnancy, but not negative growth, i.e., not a recession. Meanwhile, the warning signs were there. The home loan crisis was growing, increasing deficit spending, reckless criminality in financial institutions unchecked, about to come to light. Now we get to see it unravel, and see how far it'll go, how bad it'll get.
I don't agree with McCain's defensive characterization of it, or Obama's offensive characterization of it. but accept that they're necessary and predictable. Politics aside, It depends on how we view what fundamentals are, certain core elements. Productivity, unemployment, sheer size of the economy, prospects for recovery, etc., are some of the objective measures. Subjectively, it depends on how hard it hits your community, or your family.
In other developed democratic Western economies, inflation, stagnant earning power, and high unemployment are permanent, and no one expects it to be otherwise. In exchange for a quarter of their work force being permanently on welfare, those that are fortunate enough to be employed get guaranteed security and nice long vacations. Here we don't get lifetime health care, job security, and long vacations, but both good economic news and bad economic news are rarely permanent. And the rich guys always win.
The economy has been battered for years, but survived relatively stable in spite of a lot of pressure, longer than expected. During the early part of the oil price increases, inflation was slow, employment was stable, and each quarter reported low growth or stagnancy, but not negative growth, i.e., not a recession. Meanwhile, the warning signs were there. The home loan crisis was growing, increasing deficit spending, reckless criminality in financial institutions unchecked, about to come to light. Now we get to see it unravel, and see how far it'll go, how bad it'll get.
I don't agree with McCain's defensive characterization of it, or Obama's offensive characterization of it. but accept that they're necessary and predictable. Politics aside, It depends on how we view what fundamentals are, certain core elements. Productivity, unemployment, sheer size of the economy, prospects for recovery, etc., are some of the objective measures. Subjectively, it depends on how hard it hits your community, or your family.
In other developed democratic Western economies, inflation, stagnant earning power, and high unemployment are permanent, and no one expects it to be otherwise. In exchange for a quarter of their work force being permanently on welfare, those that are fortunate enough to be employed get guaranteed security and nice long vacations. Here we don't get lifetime health care, job security, and long vacations, but both good economic news and bad economic news are rarely permanent. And the rich guys always win.