Dont worry its getting better lol

**deathgodusmc** · 09-21-10, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

But would it have mattered if is one year or one month? It still started under Bush.

No i dont think it would have mattered what so ever. Some here would have blamed bush if it started with the same time frame under clinton.

**deathgodusmc** · 09-21-10, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by hawgballs

And economists are so apt to refer to Webster's to define/indicate that we are in a recession..........[/sarcasm]

Where would you be without google?

With the dictionary on my shelf. The same place i was before google. Where would you be?

**deathgodusmc** · 09-21-10, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

From Dictionary.com

Recession | Define Recession at Dictionary.com

1. the act of receding or withdrawing.

2. a receding part of a wall, building, etc.

3. a withdrawing procession, as at the end of a religious service.

4. Economics. a period of an economic contraction, sometimes limited in scope or duration.

You're insistence on the Webster's definition means that if GDP drops from 3% one year to 2% the next, the country is in recession. No economist in the world would agree with you. Stop being obtuse and just accept that you're wrong. Doing otherwise just undermines your credibility in any future discussions you have in these forums. In other words, people are just going to write you off as a wack job.

I am not saying the defintion is wrong i am saying that it is left out of websters and that i disagree with the process they use to determine the begining and end of recessions.

**WickedTribe** · 09-21-10, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

No i dont think it would have mattered what so ever. Some here would have blamed bush if it started with the same time frame under clinton.

But it didn't start under Clinton, did it?

**digital** · 09-21-10, 09:13 AM

I think you guys need to post less and get laid more.

Yall might be happier.

I'm troll man! Doo Doo! I'm troll man!

**Red_Lizard2** · 09-21-10, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Wrong. A recession is defined as negative economic growth for 2 consecutive quarters. That means that the economy is contracting, not merely slowing down. Don't attempt to redefine the word to match your current financial situation.

that was the former standard used starting around 1975, which has shifted now to the NBER (Who also are the ones in the article saying the recession ended last year)

**triggerhappy2005** · 09-21-10, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

I am not saying the defintion is wrong i am saying that it is left out of websters and that i disagree with the process they use to determine the begining and end of recessions.

Your opinion has nothing to do with it. It is factually correct to say that we are in a recession after passing through two quarters (3months each) of negative GDP growth. An end to a recession is determined by an increase in GDP (usually 1 or 2 quarters). All economists go by this rule. Stop attempting to make this your opinion vs my opinion nonsense. You're wrong, let it go.

**deathgodusmc** · 09-21-10, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by digital

I think you guys need to post less and get laid more.

Yall might be happier.

I'm troll man! Doo Doo! I'm troll man!

LOL

**deathgodusmc** · 09-21-10, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Your opinion has nothing to do with it. It is factually correct to say that we are in a recession after passing through two quarters (3months each) of negative GDP growth. An end to a recession is determined by an increase in GDP (usually 1 or 2 quarters). All economists go by this rule. Stop attempting to make this your opinion vs my opinion nonsense. You're wrong, let it go.

First off i did let it go. Pages ago i said i disagree with the method used. I did not say it was not the method being used but that i disagree with it like many other people. Second like i said before several times now in multiple threads now that many of the topics discussed in this section of the forum are primarily opinions on matters. That isn't nonsense it's reality.

Now we are talking about the very definition of a word. That does not lead much to opinion and is based more around factual meanings. What you are reffering to is correct it is the method that is used. However it was an ademdum to the very word being used. Websters has not updated and added this particular meaning to their list for what ever reason they saw fit to omit it for now.

**Consultant** · 09-21-10, 10:18 AM

Yeah, the fact is that the recession is "over" in that the actual measurable criteria indicate it's "end" has come. The GDP has stopped shrinking and started growing. Can't deny that.

There are also other facts - Unemployment is almost 10%. Alternate Unemployment Charts 22% if you count SGS.

We've roughly tripled the money supply recently.

The housing market is still in a correction phase. Housing Market Index - July 2007 | EconoIndicators

The recession might be mechanically over but elected officials will be answering for the lasting effects in upcoming election cycles.

The economy is a cycle & politicians can influence it but not control it.

I've pretty much given up on social issues and am voting this year based on fiscal issues. Here's how it goes...if you voted to spend money our government (local, state or federal) doesn't have, I am voting against you.