"And yes, we are in a recession."

No. We're not in a recession, despite your cheerleading for one:

The nation's semi-official recession arbiter, a group of economists at the nonprofit National Bureau of Economic Research, is still far from calling today's mess a recession under its definition. Continued economic expansion -- as measured by gross domestic product -- complicates deliberations for the NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee.

Here's the entire article from the WSJ. The economy certainly isn't good, but let's just stick to the facts, shall we?

Sorry. Here is the link to the WSJ article.

The WSJ article you linked to, Tom, was published on July 28 - before Commerce revised the 4Q '07 GDP to a decline of 0.2%.

So now, today, we have one quarter that has declined, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Gas price increases accelerated after 4Q '07, and the quarters which followed will show declines as well. Further downward revisions are highly likely also.

We're in a recession, you just won't find the Bush administration admitting it until after the November election.

It's part of that whole "lying to the American public" thing that they do so well...

Dick Nixon plunged us into a recession, and Republicans blamed it on Jimmy Carter.

George HW Bush plunged us into a recession, and Republicans blamed it on Bill Clinton.

George W Bush plunged us into a recession, and Republicans will blame Obama.

It's just more of the same... dodging responsibility and denying the obvious... Republican politics as usual.

Link

``We're in a recession,'' Allen Sinai, chief economist at Decision Economics Inc. in New York, said in a Bloomberg Television interview. ``It's going to widen, it's going to deepen.''

So, let me get this straight. You link to an article that describes exactly who defines a recession. The National Bureau of Economic Research. We agree on this. The entire economic industry agrees on this.

The National Bureau of Economic Research has not, as of yet, defined the current economic condition as, "a recession".

Despite that, you still label the current condition as a "recession".

Now that's wishful thinking. It's no wonder that nobody takes you seriously.

So let me get this straight.

You link to an article that's based on old information, and when I point out the folly of your ways and show you a different opinion than yours, based on current information, you engage in a personal attack rather than admit your error?

No wonder, you're a Republican.

Yes, we can be in a recession without an official declaration because the declaration that we're "in a recession" comes 6 months or more after the recession starts. They then look back, and pick the date that the recession started. Hint - it started 4Q '07, Tom.

By definition we are in a recession for many months before the recession is "declared"....

We're in a recession, now, Tom - even though it hasn't been declared, and probably won't be declared for some time now.

From the WSJ article that you linked to, Tom... did you even read it? I did.

In dating the 2001 economic downturn, the NBER committee's debate focused on how much emphasis to place on employment and GDP. It ultimately announced in November 2001 that the recession had started in March, when payrolls started declining. It made that call only after the government reported a GDP decline in the third quarter of 2001. (Later revisions showed that GDP declined during the first and third quarters of 2001.)"

Today's revision of 4Q '07 comes seven months after the fact.

The decision that we're in a recession comes long after the recession is started, and its then back-dated to an earlier time.

Get informed, Tom - it's an election year.

Based on 3-day OLD information. Are you serious, Lee? More to the point, you can't be seriously quibbling that .4% is somehow MORE of a definitive indicator of a recession and that it will now magically be enough of a change to fall under NBER's definition. In short, not a economic tipping point, no matter how much you'd like it to be so.

It's not that nobody takes you seriously, Lee; it's just that nobody takes you seriously when you're so obviously and disingenuously attempting to politicize and misrepresent an economic situation.

The WSJ article came out before the GDP was revised, and it the decline in GDP is the first decline. They'll probably wait until they get a second decline before declaring the recession, but it will then be backdated to the 4th quarter of 2007.

Sure I read it. Clue phone for you, this isn't 2001--it's 2008. It still doesn't change the fact that the NBER has NOT declared a recession yet. By the rough definition, we haven't gone through 2 quarters of a shrinking GDP yet. When that happens, then we can start agreeing about whether we're in a recession or not.

By your own admission, the NBER will not decide if we're in a recession for 6 months after it starts.

So, how dumb are you going to look in 6 months if the NBER decides this timeframe isn't a recession? All I'm saying is, we don't have enough information to make that declaration yet. The NBER agrees with me about the lack of having enough information. I can't help it this is an annoying little fact for you, or that this is the kind of thing that prevents people from taking you seriously. If that hurts your widdle feelings...too bad.

I'm also not saying the state of economy isn't fair game. It is. At any rate, you keep cheerleading for that recession declaration, though. Bad news for the country is good news for you.

Geez...

And after adding to your final response to Tom you UPDATE YOUR POST (oh the power you wield as Blue editor!) and then present a strawman argument of when a recession is officially announced when Tom never even brought that up!

Nice attempt at switching the subject away from your worthless argument.

"It still doesn't change the fact that the NBER has NOT declared a recession yet"

I didn't say they had, but the fact that they haven't declared it yet doesn't mean we're not in a recession now. The last time they declared a recession, at the time they declared it they indicated it started 6 months before the declaration...

By your own admission, the NBER will not decide if we're in a recession for 6 months after it starts."

Yes, at least six months. We're in a recession for 6 months or more before NBER declares it. We're in a recession now, and they will declare it at some point in the future.

"So, how dumb are you going to look in 6 months if the NBER decides this timeframe isn't a recession?"

Unlike most Republicans I know, if I'm wrong I'll admit it. Will you?

"The NBER agrees with me about the lack of having enough information."

Nice try, lol. The NBER has declared that we're not in a recession, now have they?

"At any rate, you keep cheerleading for that recession declaration, though. Bad news for the country is good news for you."

Whatever...

"and then present a strawman argument of when a recession is officially announced when Tom never even brought that up!"

It's not a strawman argument. It's the whole argument Tom is making - that they haven't declared we're in a recession therefore we're not in a recession.

I say we are. Others agree. The declaration will come somewhere down the road, as it always does...

"They'll probably wait until they get a second decline before declaring the recession, but it will then be backdated to the 4th quarter of 2007."

LOL! No kidding. There was at least one other time in 2007 that the 2nd decline was expected, but never happened. That's why the NBER waits to gather enough information before making their findings known.

"That's why the NBER waits to gather enough information before making their findings known."

Yes, declaring we're in a recession is bad news, and they wait to give you the bad news until after they have more evidence.

But that's irrelevant to the fact that we're in a recession long before they declare we're in a recession, now isn't it?

I say we are. Others agree.

Just because others agree, doesn't make you right or wrong. I'm sure I could find economists who think we're not in a recession right now. That's not the freaking point.

You declared we were in a recession and block quoted a portion of a link, as if that was proof we're in one. In fact, there's no proof of anything, other than the economy isn't very good right now. The body you cite as authoritative in declaring recessions, the NBER, as determining a recession hasn't done it yet.

My argument is that it's your opinion we're in a recession, and nobody knows whether we're in a recession or not. Because we don't have enough information to declare one.

The economy hasn't even met the rough criteria of a recession yet.

That's an undeniable fact.

"But that's irrelevant to the fact that we're in a recession long before they declare we're in a recession, now isn't it?"

Once again, YOU DON'T KNOW THAT YET. That's your OPINION.

Stick to the facts, Lee. The economy sucks right now. Whether we are in a recession or not is open to interpretation until the NBER declares it as such.

"My argument is that it's your opinion we're in a recession, and nobody knows whether we're in a recession or not. Because we don't have enough information to declare one."

And my point is that not having enough information for NBER to declare it -- which is the basis for your defense that we're not in a recession - doesn't mean we're not in a recession right now.

In fact, the fact that today the 4th quarter 2007 GNP was revised downward showing a decline in that quarter indicates strongly that we're in a recession. Much of the gasoline price rises came after December, 2007.

I know it's bad news for Republicans, especially given the history of recession under Republican presidents, and the fact that a Democrat has been brought in to fix the Republican mess for the last 30+ years.

It's like declaring that it's not raining outside because the National Weather Service hasn't told you it's raining, Tom. You apparently choose to ignore the evidence that it is raining and want to wait for the declaration six months from now that it rained on July 31, 2008 - because that suits your political purpose.

You apparently choose to ignore the evidence that it is raining and want to wait for the declaration six months from now that it rained on July 31, 2008 - because that suits your political purpose."

ROTFLMAO! Project much?

You're presuming the economy won't recover. I presume I don't know what's going to happen. What do you know that hundreds of thousands of economists don't know? Are you going to set up you're own Psychic Hotline sometime today?

I also told you many times in this discussion the economy isn't doing well and have never brought politics into the discussion. As far as I'm concerned, if we're in a recession, that's the way it is--so be it. I could care less what the political ramifications are, because I know who the presidential candidates are. Neither of them represent me well at all. And it also looks to me like the Dems will make gains in either the House and Senate whether there's a recession or not, according to the polls. That's just the way it is.

I've always called it as it is in this discussion. It's obvious the way you've represented yourself that you're the one with the political axe to grind. Your cheerleading for a recession and your giddy anticipation of the NBER's findings is obviously politically motivated.

You've definitely made your point to me. I'm convinced of your motivations. If it's your opinion we're in a recession, fine. Thankfully, your opinion doesn't change reality.

Lol...

Project much?

You're presuming the economy won't recover."

I didn't say that -- We'll recover from this recession. I have a lot of confidence in President Obama (now that's projecting).

But the effect of increased energy prices always lags - it takes time. Retailers start out by absorbing price increases from manufacturers, but eventually the price increases are passed on to the consumer and inflation increases.

All signs today point to that, not against it.

Gas prices are starting to come down in the past week or so. If that continues the price effect and lessening inflationary pressures of lower gasoline prices will lag behind the price decreases as the lower gasoline costs work their way through the manufacturing cycle.

The lag works both ways.

I didn't say that..."

You don't have to. Since a recession hasn't been declared (and we haven't seen 2 straight quarters of GDP reduction yet) and it won't be determined for 6 months from now whether it is or isn't one, you're implying that you are, in fact, presuming the economy won't recover in the next quarter.

As I asked before--if in 6 months the NBER does not declare a recession--how dumb are you going to look?

"you're implying that you are, in fact, presuming the economy won't recover in the next quarter."

That's one way to look at it. Another is to expect that there will be downward revisions indicating declines in the first, second and/or 3rd quarters of 2008.

But the "2 straight quarters" is not the benchmark of a recession, Tom. Where's Peter and his strawman detector when you need him....?

I refer again to the post and link above :

Many people wrongly believe that a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of GDP below zero. In fact, during the last recession of 2001 there never were two consecutive quarters of negative GDP.

The "two straight quarters" argument is a Republican fallacy used to fool the American public - just tell them that we haven't had two straight quarters, blah blah blah. I bet McCain is repeating the same lie right now... or will be soon.

"As I asked before--if in 6 months the NBER does not declare a recession--how dumb are you going to look?"

As dumb as you'll look when I'm proven right.

Link - this came out 1 hour ago.

The U.S. may now be in a ``very long'' recession that will drive the unemployment rate higher, with little that the Federal Reserve can do to help, said Harvard University Professor Martin Feldstein.

``I don't see recovery'' on the horizon, Feldstein, who headed the National Bureau of Economic Research [NBER] until June and serves on the group's recession-dating panel, said in an interview with Bloomberg Radio.

and...

``The little boost that we got from the tax rebates we will give up in the third and fourth quarters,'' Feldstein said. ``We're in for higher levels of unemployment and job losses.''

A ``typical'' U.S. recession lasts about 12 months, while the past two were about eight months, Feldstein said. This time, the slump may be longer, he indicated.

``If we do end up dating the recession as beginning at the end of last year, it could be a very long recession,'' he said.

LOL! Lots of "may's" and "if's" in those quotes. I wonder why? ;-)

"As dumb as you'll look when I'm proven right."

Au contraire.

Once again, I don't presume anything until all the facts are out. I recommend you do the same. You have a lot riding on the results since you aren't going to wait for all the facts to come out.

I don't.

"But the "2 straight quarters" is not the benchmark of a recession, Tom. Where's Peter and his strawman detector when you need him....?

Hey Adam Smith, that's NOT a strawman nor is it a 'Republican fallacy'; it's part of classic economic theory, Republican or otherwise.

And you can keep referring to your own post:

"Many people wrongly believe that a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of GDP below zero. In fact, during the last recession of 2001 there never were two consecutive quarters of negative GDP."

But conveniently never provided link so it and its source couldn't be analyzed or questioned. SOP.

Gasp!! Reuters is going off the "recession" playbook!! You better whip their asses into shape, Lee! ;-)

An emergency dose of government stimulus helped the economy grow at a 1.9 percent annual rate in the second quarter, a soft pace but enough to take it off a path perilously close to recession.

Yes, I've read all of it. They continue to describe the economy as it is--but even Reuters is using caution about calling this timeframe a recession. As they should.

As Peter F. said--stating economic theory is not a Republican fallacy. Are you saying classic economic theory is a fallacy, Lee?

To quote you, "You're a lying liar." I'll add, pants on fire. ;-)

FYI, here's the Reuter's article I forgot to link to. :-)

I know what your problem is, Lee. You can't ever admit you're wrong, and that nobody but partisan hacks like you are calling this a recession. Like I said, the economy is still bad, so buck up little liberal! There's still lots of bad news out there for you to be happy about! ;-)

From the same WSJ link I provided earlier:

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, before joining the central bank early this decade, served on the NBER committee when it declared the start of the 2001 recession. Mr. Bernanke told lawmakers in April that a recession is possible this year. Pressed at a House hearing this month about whether he thinks the U.S. is in recession now, he said: "I don't know. I'm quite confident that the people who officially will determine that don't know either."

And the WSJ article which you linked to was published before the downward revision. It's old news based on old information.

"As Peter F. said--stating economic theory is not a Republican fallacy. Are you saying classic economic theory is a fallacy, Lee?"

I'll call 'bullshit' on the "classic economic theory" - especially since in the most recent example of a recession, this "classic economic theory" was flat out wrong.

In the 1991 recession there were not 2 consecutive quarters.

Many people wrongly believe that a recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of GDP below zero. In fact, during the last recession of 2001 there never were two consecutive quarters of negative GDP.

So the "classic economic theory" you cling to was wrong in the most recent recession.

But you Republicans do cling to outdated, old, false theories as if you're lives depended on them. Even after they're proven to be wrong.

And the WSJ article which you linked to was published before the downward revision. It's old news based on old information."

Yeah, I'm sure Barnanke is going to rush right out 3 days later and declare this a recession based on this "new" information! LOL!!! Especially since the previous article I quoted--from Reuters--declared today based on today's information that the economy is "...off a path perilously close to recession"!!! ROTFLMAO!!! You're a laugh riot!!!

"I'll call 'bullshit' on the "classic economic theory" - especially since in the most recent example of a recession, this "classic economic theory" was flat out wrong."

You can call bullshit on it if you want. The fact is, in economicsit's used as a rule of thumb:

A recession is defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) as a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy and lasting more than a few months, and is normally visible in real gross domestic product (GDP), real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. A common rule of thumb is that a recession occurs when real GDP is negative for two or more consecutive quarters. The NBER however does not define a recession in these terms. An economy can be in a recession despite having a positive real GDP.

Keep in mind, a "rule of thumb" principle isn't foolproof. Hence the term "rule of thumb". There are exceptions to the rule; just not that many.

"But you Republicans do cling to outdated, old, false theories as if you're lives depended on them. Even after they're proven to be wrong."

Politics has nothing to do with this!!! I love the accidental comedy!!! Keep it coming!!!

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll call 'bullshit' on the "classic economic theory" - especially since in the most recent example of a recession, this "classic economic theory" was flat out wrong.

I going to call...

Bullshit

Bullshit

Bullshit (look, it even plays into your definition...just to show I'm man enough to acknowledge that, like all theories, the concept is debatable)

NBER Bullshit definition

Hence, why I said "a part of" classic economic theory. Furthermore, citing one example (and even other historical examples) of where the theory did not hold true does NOT mean that the theory itself is NOT valid as it is more often than not valid. If there were no variance, it would be called a "law"; but there IS variance, so it is called "theory", And you should know that since you seemingly think of yourself as the love child of Adam Smith.

So bullshit on you calling my "a part of classic economic theory" bullshit.

"Furthermore, citing one example (and even other historical examples) of where the theory did not hold true does NOT mean that the theory itself is NOT valid"

How about if I point out the last time your theory applied was over 30 years ago?

And then I'll point out that your rule was proven invalid and not applicable to the 1991 recession.

It's a new economy. It takes new thinking and new ideas to avoid making the same old mistakes. We learn from experience, and learn to recognize situations sooner and act accordingly -- well, some of us do anyway. Some seem so stuck in the past, and clingy....

Others recognize and pick up on the changes, and don't get stuck wallowing around with 30 year theories that have more recently proven false a full 15 years ago.

But you go ahead and cling to the benchmark that applied in the 1970s. It fits right with the geriatric mindset of John McSame.

Wow. Having a discussion with Lee is like talking to Yogi Berra. If only the Aflac Duck were here to express my reaction to Lee's comments and arguments today.

Oh wait!!! Thanks to the magic of YouTube, he is here!!!! Yay!!!!!

It figures -- you can count on a Republican to cry "fowl" after losing an argument... heh.

LOL!!

...and you can always count on Lee Ward to deny reality and invent his own to protect his fragile little psyche.

Oh yeah - thanks for the reminder. Let me try that again...

It figures -- you can count on a Republican to cry "fowl" after losing an argument... and then resort to ad hominem attacks.

I have to go now... my 8 year old nephew needs a ride over to Jay Tea's house so he can help Jay install software on his computer.

Thanks for the spar, Tom. It's obvious that your particular... uhm "enthusiasm" requires that you have the last word in order to get in one more ad hominem jab and insult, so feel free.

LOL!!!

Let me get this straight--you're crying over my light-hearted comment and "ad-hominem attack"? That's hi-larious. I guess you do have a fragile psyche. Hmmmm...you must've forgotten that you called me a LIAR in comment #22:

"I bet McCain is repeating the same lie right now... or will be soon."

Calling someone a liar is a fairly serious accusation, of which you were obviously proven wrong. Gee, by your own comments, I thought you were tougher than that. Gasp!! Another "ad-hominem attack"! Horrors!!

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!

Well it looks like even CNN Money realized it was completely wrong about "Many People Wrongly Believe A Recession..." because they have COMPLETELY pulled those two paragraphs:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/31/news/economy/gdp/index.htm?postversion=2008073110

Very interesting indeed.