Phil Gramm: What recession?

The only people I see whining are the executives from Wall Street running to the government for bailouts.

 

Sort of hard to tell, isn't it? What with a national metric for inflation that includes neither the skyrocketing costs of food nor fuel, and an unemployment metric that no longer takes into account people who have actually given up looking for work. If we went back to the old standards of measuring these things, our current economy would actually bear a remarkable resemblance to that of the Jimmy Carter era. Which was, to hear the Republicans tell it, the very model of a "recession."

See Kevin Phillips' new book "Bad Money" for more.

 

What with a national metric for inflation that includes neither the skyrocketing costs of food nor fuel,

LOL - classic - the inflation number doesn't include oil or food. So if you don't eat, and don't drive a car, and don't heat your house in the winter, inflation is completely under control.

 

And, again, inflation has nothing to do with whether we are or aren't in a recession. In fact, to have inflation and recession (remember "staflation" under Jimmy Carter?) at the same time is incredibly unusual.

 

Define this 1% growth, Old Tony.

 

Sorry, o_t. Not historical any more. Just go to Google News and enter "stagflation." Here's an article from Forbes. This morning.

Ethanol and food ingredient maker Penford (nasdaq: PENX - news - people ) sunk 11.7%, or $1.66, to $12.51, in afternoon-trading after it posted 46.0% drop in earnings. The move was emblematic of the so-called "stagflation" enveloping the U.S. economy, which is the nasty combination of stagnant growth and inflation.

Stagflation became synonymous with the U.S. economy of the mid- and late-1970s. Back then it was high oil prices, labor contracts with inflation clauses, and good, old-fashioned low confidence. This time around stagflation's risen from economic weakness due to the housing and credit crises and inflation from spiking commodity prices.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/commodities/2008/07/10/penford-ethanol-food-markets-equity-cx_cg_0709markets20.html

 

http://useconomy.about.com/od/economicindicators/a/GDP-statistics.htm

We've yet to have one quarter of negative growth, and a recession isn't official until two consecutive quarters of negative growth. But keep trying.

 

Good ol' GDP. It's so fucking lame. Why do I bother on these threads?

 

OT is getting all technical on the definition of recession in order to defend the good ol' GOP at all costs.

As I mentioned in another discussion recently, I left sportswriting after 5 years and recently finished a bachelor's degree in Econ. I did a Q&A in March with a former professor who specializes in macroeconomics at one of the top Econ departments in the South for a newsletter I was writing for.

Here was his answer then to whether we're in a recession:

"We are more than likely in a recession, but whether the "official" definition of recession is met or not is not important. Everyone knows the economy is not doing well! Plus while GDP may have grown slightly, GDP per person has gone down since the 4th quarter last year. How long will the malaise last? I think recovery may come in the second half of 2009."

So, no, the official definition of a recession hasn't been met yet. But everybody besides Old Tony and Phil Gramm realize that the current fucked up state of the economy is more than just a mental thing.

 

Exactly. If I go burn $1,000 on my credit card, I've improved my personal GDP.

It's as stupid for Bush supporters to crow over as it was Clinton folks.

 

OK. I will.

You're hanging your argument on statistics that no longer measure anything real. Reset to the old standards of measurement (ca. 1979 or so), here's our current economy, expressed on each graph as the blue line.

GDP


Unemployment


Inflation


http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data

You can argue this all you want - and I haven't even mentioned that the Dow has lost 3000 points in 9 months - but there's a reason people believe the US economy is tanking. Because it is.

 

Currency devaluation
Deficit spending
Trade deficit
Dependency on foreign investment
Service-based economy
High consumer debt levels
Rising unemployment
Rising cost of necessities
Falling housing market
Falling equity market
Tightening credit market
Negative real interest rates
Rising bankruptcies
Negative wage growth
Zombie banks
War
Falling living standards
Crumbling infrastructure
Energy dependency
Little mass transit
Falling tax revenues
Unfunded safety net liabilities
Government leaders whose financial intelligence is on par with that of a Zimbabwean

But GDP is positive. Move along, folks. Nothing wrong here - and quit whining.