For all you neoconsFollow

I am not so concerned about people agreeing on a technical terminology rather than actually understanding the correlations amongst the issues. It seems to me though that the organization charged with defining a universal and technical definition for a recession has done so, but under different qualifications than have been used in the past. Maybe the qualifications or definition for a recession have changed over the years? Not an expert myself, but I will rely on the experts opinion about what it should be classified as. This reminds me of the debate about whether 'google' is a verb. You can have whatever theory you want, but the most commonly recognized organizations that define common language terms for us have decided that it is a verb, so in order to communicate effectively with the populace and avoid a meaningless argument I will adhere to their definition.

This doesn't mean you cannot have a different theory about what a recession should be classified as, but I don't think it is really important whether we call it a recession or not, its important that we understand what is actually happening.



To use your example, it makes no difference what the vegetable is called, it makes all the difference how the vegetable will chemically react with your body and mind, where the vegetable came from and how it got to your plate, and what effect eating the vegetable will have on you and society immediately and in the long run if you continue to eat the vegetables.

The point being that NBER is declaring a recession (which is done after the fact by looking at trends over the past couple years), but the trends over the past couple years doesn't match the trends that they've used at any time in the past to declare a recession. So if "recession" means purely that the folks at NBER decided to call it a recession, then so be it. But let's be clear that we're essentially using a meaningless and circular definition.


No, let's be clear that clinging to a synthetic definition that ignores dozens of critical factors is a meaningless and circular endeavor.

Successive quarterly GDP growth is an idiotic technical definition for a word that's come to mean "broad economic downturn". It's on the order of you hosting a barbecue and me asking for a hamburger and you saying "Sure!" Then doing nothing for an hour. When I ask you how the hamburger's coming you declare "I didn't say when!! Oh dear, I'm a clever fellow!" Without the part where I render you unconscious. Largely because of our lack of proximity, I imagine.

I'd suggest referring to the former as "Technical Rescission." Just as when someone states they're feeling depressed they don't normally mean crushingly hopeless, can't get out of bed or eat; ie "Clinical Depression".



People associate specific assumptions with the word "Recession" when applied to an economy exactly because there are specific measurable economic factors at work.

Incorrect. Right wing talk show hosts cling to a hyper-technical definition created largely arbitrarily, because as a term of art "Depression" became too politically volatile.


If you toss out the measurements, and just label something a Recession anyway, should the same assumptions about what's going on apply?


That would be a travesty. Fortunately, it's actually several Nobel prize winning Economists using VASTLY MORE COMPLEX models to asses the state of the economy, not someone arbitrarily declaring something. That you don't understand the math doesn't make it less accurate. Harder for YOU PERSONALLY to understand, sure, but who gives a fuck? I'm frankly amazed you manage to make change.


If I don't like spinach but love green beans, and you label my green beans "spinach" and put them on a plate in front of me, should I refuse to eat them because I don't like spinach? That's sorta whats going on here...

No. If you say "I'm rich because I'm a millionaire!" and milk costs $1,000,000 per gallon and I point out that you're not rich at all because you're using an arbitrary standard that ignores many factors...that's sort of what's going on here.

You: "But I'm a millionaire!! Millionaire's are rich!"
Me" "You are a millionaire, it's true..."
You: "See! Rich!!"

Although to be honest, that hypothetical exchange paints in you the best possible light and assumes a level of reasoning you've never demonstrated here.



Edited, Dec 4th 2008 5:52pm by Smasharoo

That's why he writes checks for everything, silly.

Hahaha, I'd entirely forgotten that. If Nexa and I move to Frisco, will you periodically stop by and remind me of funny things, without ever revealing your true identity? Disguise would be required.

Wow. That's the kinda things that used to get politicians in trouble.

They've been blaming him since Nov. 4th. I remember watching the Daily Show, and John Stewart was commenting on and showing video and audio clips of all the pundits saying things like "We are in an Obama Depression" and how Obama's plans are ruining the economy, etc, etc.

It was pretty hillarious, like most of the stuff on the Daily Show. And while I know the Daily Show can't be used as 100% accurate facts, the quotes, videos, and audio clips were all real.

Mind you, people have been saying for the past year (if not longer) that things were hurting and that they were feeling it only to be told "It's not a recession because it doesn't meet our technical definition so you not being able to afford groceries doesn't count!!"

Funny that no one was so concerned with "what was going on inside" then, huh?

I don't think we can attribute recessions or boom periods to policy recently, because they tend to be driven by other events, like the net bubble, or the s and l crisis, or the subprime bubble. It's really rare that government itself causes those things, but they can increase or reduce the effect by how they react to it.

Like i can't honestly see how anyone could blame bush for the recession, because it blindsided him as much as anyone. i don't think many people at all were expecting a global credit crunch because of bad paper from housing. However if the bailout money prolongs it, you could blame him.

Obama..i don't know. He'd have to give up almost all of his pet projects to deal with this. You can't do something like a carbon tax, or increase spending without dealing with the impact on the taxpayers that pay for it. I'm torn..on the one hand, I don't see good in letting the market self-correct, because we would see a pretty large-scale decimation of american business. But on the other hand, someone i read made a point that too much government interference makes markets uncertain, and can only react to what the government does.

Isn't this kind of denial Neville Chamberlain's koolaid?

Not sure what you mean. What I've seen is a politically motivated ad campaign aimed at convincing the American people that the economy is doing poorly that has been non-stop for the entirety of the Bush administration. And now that the economy has finally actually taken a downturn, they're all patting themselves on the backs and pointing to all the articles they wrote over the past year or two and saying "See! We saw it coming!!!".

Yeah, we did see it coming, fuckstick. EVERYONE saw it coming who had more than infant's grasp of economics. Krugman won a Nobel Prize largely because he had the guts to state the obvious while many of his colleagues were cynically profiting on the gullibility of children like you.

Yeah. Must be the liberal media. Dumb ole people are too stupid to notice what their own checkbooks look like and whether they have a job making the same amount they did before and all that.

Ya know... like you blame everything on

Yet another reason to move away from "floating free markets."

Actually, the basis of those methods is pretty frequently:

* Buy property at auction (either foreclosure or, better, tax);
* Resell property for more than you paid.

Tax auctions are the better choice because it's entirely possible for properties to be up for auction because of a $50 unpaid property tax bill, and if people aren't paying attention for whatever reason, you can pick up the house for a small fraction of its resale value. (You won't generally be able to pick houses up for less than the tax bill, whereas with a foreclosure auction, it depends on how willing the bank is to eat a loss on the loan.)

Generally you'd take out a small loan ($30-50k) to cover the cost of the first one, and pay it off with the money you get from reselling the house.

So, really, they work as long as people are buying houses; and if you're selling for lower than market rate, pocketbooks unfreeze to get the "deal".

Exaggeration for effect. Realistically, there'd be a couple of extra zeroes on that figure before they went to that point.