Recession to Depression: how close are we?

[Overboard]

Times and money are tight..We all know this right, But How close are we to slipping From being in a Recession to a depression?. Do you think it can happen or are we all ready there and just don't know it yet? :hmmm:

I realise only time will tell but i can't help but feel helpless.

[SUBMAN1]

Recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP. Even though we are officially in a recession, 2008 still had growth of 1.25% GDP, so all the news doom and gloom was wrong.

So to answer your depression question - that takes a drop of 10% GDP. So you tell me? Are you listening to economists that tell you we are in a depression? If so, they need to go back to school. Maybe they have their money in bear market funds and they are trying to push the price of stock down to make money. That is my second guess.

By your statement above, I can see that alarmism sells easily with you.

-S

[Overboard]

Recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP. Even though we are officially in a recession, 2008 still had growth of 1.25% GDP, so all the news doom and gloom was wrong.

So to answer your depression question - that takes a drop of 10% GDP. So you tell me? Are you listening to economists that tell you we are in a depression? If so, they need to go back to school. Maybe they have their money in bear market funds and they are trying to push the price of stock down to make money. That is my second guess.

By your statement above, I can see that alarmism sells easily with you.

-S

No alarm bells going off as of yet, But the thought did cross my mind today mainly because of co-workers talking about it-Hence the question.

[breadcatcher101]

President Truman was once asked what the difference was between a recession and a depression.

He said a recession was when your neighbor lost his job and a depression was when you lost yours.

Makes a lot of sense when you think about it.

I would say things would have to get twice as bad as now with unemployment around 20% and the Dow around 5000.

It is bad now but I remember worse times.

[Overboard]

President Truman was once asked what the difference was between a recession and a depression.

He said a recession was when your neighbor lost his job and a depression was when you lost yours.

Makes a lot of sense when you think about it.

I would say things would have to get twice as bad as now with unemployment around 20% and the Dow around 5000.

It is bad now but I remember worse times.

What you said is very uplifting and thank you very much for your well thought out reply :up: God bless.

[Zachstar]

Recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP. Even though we are officially in a recession, 2008 still had growth of 1.25% GDP, so all the news doom and gloom was wrong.

So to answer your depression question - that takes a drop of 10% GDP. So you tell me? Are you listening to economists that tell you we are in a depression? If so, they need to go back to school. Maybe they have their money in bear market funds and they are trying to push the price of stock down to make money. That is my second guess.

By your statement above, I can see that alarmism sells easily with you.

-S

Subman you can tell your view without that crap at the end. Take a hike!

[Skybird]

Just to add some alarmism concerning that Truman quote:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/06/news/economy/jobs_january/


Employers slashed another 598,000 jobs off of U.S. payrolls in January, taking the unemployment rate up to 7.6%, according to the latest government reading on the nation's battered labor market.

The latest job loss is the worst since December 1974, and brings job losses to 1.8 million in just the last three months, or half of the 3.6 million jobs that have been lost since the beginning of 2008.

The loss since November is the biggest 3-month drop since immediately after the end of World War II, when the defense industry was shutting down for conversion to civilian production.

January's job loss was also worse than the forecast of a loss of 540,000 jobs from economists surveyed by Briefing.com
The rise in the unemployment rate also was worse than the 7.5% rate economists expected. The unemployment rate is now at its highest level since September, 1992.

As bad as the unemployment rate was, it only tells part of the story for people struggling to find jobs. Friday's report also showed that 2.6 million people have now been out of work for more than six months, the most long-term unemployed since 1983.

And that number only counts those still looking for work. The so-called underemployment rate, which includes those who have stopped looking for work and people working only part-time that want full-time positions, climbed to 13.9% from 13.5% in December. That is the highest rate for this measure since the Labor Department first started tracking it in 1994.


I think there is a reason why they already call it the worst economic crisis since the great fall in the 1920s. And quite some officials point out that it already is worse.

However, it will become worse this year. AIG just illustrated that end of good news is not in sight: with 100 billion lost, they just marked the highest loss of a single company in the history of economic recordings.

What is worrying is that more and more of the real system key nodes reveal how deep they are in trouble, like AIG in America or HRE in Germany. If any of these key players falls, they pull a whole rat tail of others down with them. HRE in Germany falling, for example, would mean the total collapse of Germany's national infrastructure construction and the breakdown of all national services associated with that.

Once we see such key players falling, the real fun begins. Compared to that, GM and Lehmann are just funny entertainment for the interruption in the main program.

If anything is to be learned form current times, then how deeply sick and unhealthy the economic structures are that have been risen in the past. There is little reason to be proud of them or sell them as a success story. More realistic assessment obviously would be to call them rightout dumb and stupid.

[Overboard]

Just to add some alarmism concerning that Truman quote:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/06/news/economy/jobs_january/


Employers slashed another 598,000 jobs off of U.S. payrolls in January, taking the unemployment rate up to 7.6%, according to the latest government reading on the nation's battered labor market.

The latest job loss is the worst since December 1974, and brings job losses to 1.8 million in just the last three months, or half of the 3.6 million jobs that have been lost since the beginning of 2008.

The loss since November is the biggest 3-month drop since immediately after the end of World War II, when the defense industry was shutting down for conversion to civilian production.

January's job loss was also worse than the forecast of a loss of 540,000 jobs from economists surveyed by Briefing.com
The rise in the unemployment rate also was worse than the 7.5% rate economists expected. The unemployment rate is now at its highest level since September, 1992.

As bad as the unemployment rate was, it only tells part of the story for people struggling to find jobs. Friday's report also showed that 2.6 million people have now been out of work for more than six months, the most long-term unemployed since 1983.

And that number only counts those still looking for work. The so-called underemployment rate, which includes those who have stopped looking for work and people working only part-time that want full-time positions, climbed to 13.9% from 13.5% in December. That is the highest rate for this measure since the Labor Department first started tracking it in 1994.


I think there is a reason why they already call it the worst economic crisis since the great fall in the 1920s. And quite some officials point out that it already is worse.

However, it will become worse this year. AIG just illustrated that end of good news is not in sight: with 100 billion lost, they just marked the highest loss of a single company in the history of economic recordings.

What is worrying is that more and more of the real system key nodes reveal how deep they are in trouble, like AIG in America or HRE in Germany. If any of these key players falls, they pull a whole rat tail of others down with them. HRE in Germany falling, for example, would mean the total collapse of Germany's national infrastructure construction and the breakdown of all national services associated with that.

Once we see such key players falling, the real fun begins. Compared to that, GM and Lehmann are just funny entertainment for the interruption in the main program.

If anything is to be learned form current times, then how deeply sick and unhealthy the economic structures are that have been risen in the past. There is little reason to be proud of them or sell them as a success story. More realistic assessment obviously would be to call them rightout dumb and stupid.

Iam Sorry but do you live in the U.S.?

[Skybird]

It doesn't matter that much. Events of this scale affect people inside the US - and outside as well. If AIG falls, it will be a major financial catastrophe for many German communties and towns who are locked in deals with AIG. The shape of the EU or American economy causes waves around all the globe. If HRE falls, you will feel it in the US as well. Not too mention the Münchner Rück.

If you think national strategies alone would provide solutions, you're in for some surprise. So do not make this a national dispute. It is not. We're all in this together.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I think there is a reason why they already call it the worst economic crisis since the great fall in the 1920s. And some officials point out that it already is worse.

However, it will become worse this year. AIG just illustrated that end of good news is not in sight: with 100 billion lost, they just marked the highest loss of a single company in the history of economic recordings.

What is worrying is that more and more of the real system key nodes reveal how deep they are in trouble, like AIG in America or HRE in Germany. If any of these key players falls, they pull a whole rat tail of others down with them. HRE in Germany falling, for example, would mean the total collapse of Germany's national infrastructure construction and the breakdown of all national services associated with that.

Once we see such key players falling, the real fun begins. Compared to that, GM and Lehmann are just funny entertainment for the interruption in the main program.

If anything is to be learned from current times, then how deeply sick and unhealthy the economic structures are that have been risen in the past. There is little reason to be proud of them or sell them as a success story. More realistic assessment obviously would be to call them rightout dumb and stupid.

Skybird is absolutely right. The economic structures of modern times have many flaws, and foremost amongst them is the omnipresent trend towards centralism.

Nations like the U.S. have always been a beacon to capital because of the economic freedoms allowed, but now that the state has decided to intervene and nationalize many key industries, it will suffer the same fate as every socialist nation. Worse yet, the world will be dragged down with it because so many weak socialist economies are dependant upon U.S. fiscal markets and the weakening fiat dollar.

Things are going to get bad, mark my words. Very bad. Maybe not this year, or the next, but very soon. The state's intervention and massive, unwise, expenditures are a perfect recipe for stagflation in today's economic environment. The excessive overhead incurred on businesses by over-regulation coupled with the inflation of currency brought on by borrowing and printing fiat currency can only lead to that end. Some economic schools disagree, but none have an empyrical example to point to.

At this point the best hope for the U.S. is that the rest of the world economy will buckle more quickly than ours, thereby placing us in a position to emerge once again as a world leader. Unfortunately the current administration is inadvertently hell-bent on expediting our economic demise.

All these lessons have been learned before. The state cannot be trusted with the wealth of the people. They always consume and destroy it and they always cause the economic and/or/and then military collapse of the nation. The modern crop of states is no exception, even if some of the withering plants have yet to die.
Economic freedom is paramount to the prosperity of any nation, period.

But don't take my word for it. Watch what the current administration does to the economy. Honestly, the economy may even "recover", somewhat, but the prices of goods and the labor required to obtain the capital to purchase them will increase, exponentially and contextually(in the fiscal sense).

America is rapidly becoming the newest experiment in centralist government. The results should be noted, for once.

[Overboard]

If the U.S. goes down then every body else will go down too, Kind of like the domino effect (so to speak)

[Overboard]

Dam What a ******up world we live in, Maby poeple around the world should help the U.S. instead of calling us names. (Help us help you)

[Skybird]

Dam What a ******up world we live in, Maby poeple around the world should help the U.S. instead of calling us names. (Help us help you)

It cannot be understood why you would deserve any help as long as you stick to a system that has produced the mess we all are in, and for which we already are paying. Just leaning back and saying: "let's close our eyes and then right through it", and afterwards business as before, that cannot be the solution. It is no name-calling per intention, but a necessary defining of the causes for the desaster, when one identifies the US ways of business to have been and still being the epicentre that both caused the turmoil and from where the shockwave spread around the globe.

The years of irresponsible national economic mismanagement, excessive focussing on short term profits only, deficits and mounting debts, living on tick, and creation of super-complex finance "products" by the US banks that nobody can see through anymore and that shuttled risks and losses around the globe just so that nobody would be responsible for them anymore, as well as the stubborn resistance to any measurements that would add back some transparency, respomnsibility and supervision to this wanted chaos, have presented all of us - not just the US citizens but but people of all the globe - the bill for these excesses. Further boosting of the crisis was done by growing excesses of a totally disconnected system of manager boni that motivated them to take risks that simply were hilarious, just so that they would maximise their own already unjustifiable stellar incomes. That way the greed of the few have spelled desaster for all the others. If there is any lesson to be learned, than this: the market does not regulate itself for the benefit of all, a system basing on egoism and declaring selfishness a virtue does not produce sufficient positive effects in quality and quantity that compensates the majority for the greed of the few. In other words: this very ideology - has failed.

So, if "helping the US" translates into: just giving money to the US efforts, directly and indirectly, so that it could return to the status of 2007 and before, then the answer is No - No, we do not want to help in that, and it seems neither China nor Europe is willing to assist in that plan anymore. If help for the US means to cooperate with the US to implement a reasonable minimum of superivison and transparency on financial markets, and implementing new rules for financial trading and transaction that are effective in achieving these goals, then the answer will be yes. Just totally liberal market philosphy that wants to rule out any monitoring and supervision in general - that is no longer negotiable. It is a failed system, it is the cause of the breakdown, and there is no reason to see it as the cure to the disease it has caused itself.




Lance,

it is strange that you point out that "Skybird is totally right" - when we totally disagree concerning what you wrote! :D :woot:Judging by what you said, we could not assess the situation and it's causes any more different, it seems.

[Aramike]

All these lessons have been learned before. The state cannot be trusted with the wealth of the people. They always consume and destroy it and they always cause the economic and/or/and then military collapse of the nation. The modern crop of states is no exception, even if some of the withering plants have yet to die.
Economic freedom is paramount to the prosperity of any nation, period.

But don't take my word for it. Watch what the current administration does to the economy. Honestly, the economy may even "recover", somewhat, but the prices of goods and the labor required to obtain the capital to purchase them will increase, exponentially and contextually(in the fiscal sense).You're absolutely correct. What I don't understand is the logic that people use to justify the government involvement. You hear them cite the scandal and corruption on Wall Street, but then their answer is to turn over the reigns to an equally scandalous and corrupt group - politicians. Except, politicians have a LOT more power to screw things up.

This is not to say that all politicians are corrupt, but neither are all Wall Street insiders. And Wall Street insiders can do far less harm than Capital Hill...

[UnderseaLcpl]

Lance,

it is strange that you point out that "Skybird is totally right" - when we totally disagree concerning what you wrote! :D :woot:Judging by what you said, we could not assess the situation and it's causes any more different, it seems.

I know. I just thought it would be fun to hijack your argument and run the other way with it.:DL

I know we have trod this ground before but I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment that the market does not regulate itself.
The vast majority of the past century has been a period of effective self-regulation of the market. Free trade has generated wealth and prosperity consistently even as the strain of supporting the bloated state increases.
In the instances where the economy enters recession, it is working the way it is supposed to. That's part of the cycle. However, it never really gets a chance to work through recession like it should because the state always steps in and bungles the natural recovery process.

What you blame on the market is in fact the fault of the state. But I'm curious as to how you would prefer to see the problem addressed, and how you would effectively implement such a system.

[AVGWarhawk]

I would dare say we will not hit depression state. Continued recession? Yes, for at least a year. Let's face it, the stock market has crashed....the folks in DC will not call it that. Not after dumping in billions to 'prop-up' the markets:shifty: Right now what needs to be done is making these banks that took our money start making loans again. Consumer confidence needs to be gained.

[August]

My bank just yesterday pre-approved me for a house mortgage up to $250K.

[AVGWarhawk]

My bank just yesterday pre-approved me for a house mortgage up to $250K.
:up: Make it a 30 year FIXED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!

[Skybird]

Lance, you said the problem is caused by the state reuglating the market. But the state did not tell bankers to be greedy and do like they did - the market enocouraged them to be like that. The state did not tell banks to invent the many super-clever finance products that started to make risks accepatbale by starting to shuffling them around - the market enocuraged that, since it pormised short-termed profi. The state obeyed the market ideology that no transparency and no minimum monitoring of processes should be executed - not did the market systematically avoid and prevent these becasue the state told them to do so. and if the accievements of the past century that you hail, are only temporary and lead to a situation where they get easily reversed, and what had been built falls so easily apart again, then this obviously was no lasting achievement, and the the pormises by which this strategy lived, were false promises.

I do not know what to do now, since I even do not know if we can affect the situation anymore. It surely has formed it'S own inner dynamic. But I realise very clearly that simply ignoring what has happened and let domino-processes take place that could lead to national adminsitration themselves becoming incapable to act and functiona nymore, is a scenario that must be prevented.

Capitalism's willingness to sacrifice the economic survival of dozens of millions for the sake of hailing it'S own market-loiberal ideology, always has stunned me, and disgusted me - as has socialist'S willingness to pull every individual effort back into the swamp of mediocrity so that no individual shall be different from all others and all life and social community shall be a gris-en-gris in the name of "equality" and "solidarity". and like socialism does not cionvince when party elites form an parasite elite being more equal than equal, capitalism does not convince when it always sacrifices the weak and economic vulnerable by the millions, while the prfiteers of the system, top managers and bankers , fill their sacks with even more gold at their costs and make a living by letting others jump off the cliff. In the end, egoism just is this and never anything else: egoism. In the end, this is most elemental, merciless Social-Darwinism at it'S worst. I expect and demand every human culture and community worth tp be called human to strive for being better than this jungle-law-driven tyranny of the strongest. That'S why I subscribe to the original idea of what europpe calls "social market economy", and please note: it reads social market economy, and not "socialistic" market economy. I want as few rules as possible, but as many rules as needed, to form both the needed space to encourage private enterprise and creative invention by competition, but also to form guarantees that the striivng of the one cannot take poace at the cost of the many, and all community. That is niether ultra-liberalism, nor is it socialism. That is a capitalistic market economy that nevertheless accepts that social responsibility for the whole is not left to the individual interpretation and good will, but is a mandatory obligation everyone, every single citizen of a community, has to accept, and cannot escape to accept without giving up all rights and benefits of his citizenship and membership in this community. That'S what I understand as social market economy. and that'S why I am bitteerly enemy to both archaic capiatlaism and ultra-liberalism as well as socialism and communism. folr me capitalism is as bad and desastrous as communism, and in the end, both ironically and in different ways lead to the rise of monopolism. Which is the ultimate goal in capitalism, because a state of monopolism allows you to use the weakness of the other to maximise your personal selfish interest at his cost, and it is the ultimate goal of communism, because it means the monopole of power and legislation that allows you to prevent anybody being any different than all others. So while capitalism's monople means maximum selfishness, communism's monopole means maximum collectivism. Both systems are the same - and are totally different - at the same time.

I hope we would just be saved from both forms of madness.

If enouigh isnT enough, then it never will be enough. That simple. In how many cars can you drive at the same time? In how many palaces can you live simultaneously? How many million millions does it take to make you aware of how much a million already is? Ah, it's all gone crazy.

[Schroeder]

I never really understood why a lot of Americans are so much for free capitalism.

I mean free capitalism means that there is the big boss who can squeeze his employees out. Without interference from the state the employee is absolutely at the mercy of the boss (look at China for example there are lot of cases that I would call pure capitalism).
Without laws the boss can pay minimum wages that are only high enough to keep you barely alive. If you don't want to work for that, fine you can go. But there is no unemployment check, that would be socialism. You think your working environment is to dangerous or health threatening? You can go if you don't like it. But remember no unemployment check for you.

I don't know. Replace the boss with an aristocrat and we get exactly the same situation that most American ancestors fled from a few centuries ago.
Or am I missing a (some) point(s)?

[Aramike]

I never really understood why a lot of Americans are so much for free capitalism.It's because many of it don't look at it from the singular perspective that you are.I mean free capitalism means that there is the big boss who can squeeze his employees out. Free market capitalism also permits any one of those "squeezed" employees to become the "boss" should they choose to work to aquire marketable skills.Without interference from the state the employee is absolutely at the mercy of the boss (look at China for example there are lot of cases that I would call pure capitalism).That only holds true in the US should one choose the resign themselves to it.

I've had plenty of bosses in my life. The ones I didn't like, I fired (meaning I quit). I used my marketable talents to seek other employment. The free market allows me to do so.

Just because people choose to live at the whim of their boss, doesn't mean that they HAVE to.Without laws the boss can pay minimum wages that are only high enough to keep you barely alive. Not so much.

You're making the assumption that all labor and laborers are equal. If an employer wants efficient, effective workers than he will be unable to pay tiny wages. Other employers will swoop in and take on the better, more efficient employees and be more prosperous despite paying higher.

It is when third parties (such as government and unions) interfere with this process that the market doesn't work. Creating a minimum wage has a side-effect: it creates an artificial benchmark. Ultimately, it reduces employees to drones and the whim of the government/union. Employers become unable to reward excellence and therefore the bar is lowered. Why work harder for no reward?But there is no unemployment check, that would be socialism. You think your working environment is to dangerous or health threatening? You can go if you don't like it. But remember no unemployment check for you.So someone working 8 - 9 hours a day doesn't have time to find another job?

Yeah, right. More like, they are too lazy to do so.

Sure, that extra two hours of TV at night would be nice. But one doesn't have a "right" to be relaxed.I don't know. Replace the boss with an aristocrat and we get exactly the same situation that most American ancestors fled from a few centuries ago.
Or am I missing a (some) point(s)?I could go on forever about how government-regulated capitalism does not work.

I hope you re-examine your views on it.

[Schroeder]

Free market capitalism also permits any one of those "squeezed" employees to become the "boss" should they choose to work to aquire marketable skills. Only if you have enough money to start a business. In the free capitalism we had during the industrilization in Europe you didn't got enough income to even think about that.



Just because people choose to live at the whim of their boss, doesn't mean that they HAVE to.
Well, what if you don't have a choice because of a rather high unemployment rate? Then you have to take what you get. And the higher the unemployment rate the more power has your boss.


You're making the assumption that all labor and laborers are equal. If an employer wants efficient, effective workers than he will be unable to pay tiny wages. Other employers will swoop in and take on the better, more efficient employees and be more prosperous despite paying higher. In free capitalism the boss can simply fire you and replace you with someone who he thinks to be better. If the unemployment rate is high and there is no social security then you are desperate to take any job and the boss can decide how much you will earn.


It is when third parties (such as government and unions) interfere with this process that the market doesn't work.
Well look at China. There people have to work for minimum wages (even for their standards) and have no chance to improve it because every other boss pays more or less the same. The bosses are getting richer and the small worker has to think twice about what food to buy. So I think the free market doesn't work that well too.


Creating a minimum wage has a side-effect: it creates an artificial benchmark. Ultimately, it reduces employees to drones and the whim of the government/union. Employers become unable to reward excellence and therefore the bar is lowered. Why work harder for no reward? Why can't he reward better performance? He can always pay more. The minimum wages should only do one thing: Make sure that people can afford a humble living from their income and don't have to beg for food after working 12+ hours / day. It just shall prevent dumping wages so there should be a lot of room to reward good work.

So someone working 8 - 9 hours a day doesn't have time to find another job?
Ask the people in the car industry who just lost their jobs. Sometimes there are no other jobs available and you have to stick with what you have.

Yeah, right. More like, they are too lazy to do so.
Don't you think you are generalizing a bit here? But yes, there are of course parasites that have to be sorted out.



I hope you re-examine your views on it. Maybe you should try to be a little bit more critical yourself.:salute::cool:

[Skybird]

The prime fallacy in defence of capitalism is the theory of everyone being able to become a boss. But there is a problem. It implicitly is not possible to have a running economy that way, because if everybody would be a boss, nobody would be left to do the lower works, and if everybody would claim everything, than we would need as many universes in the cosmos as there are human egos on earth. Also, determination to make it to the top is a motivating precondition for acchieveing that, although some also are lucky and get there while doing nothing. But for everyone being successful, there must be many more "losers" on whose shoulders the winner can stand.

Again:


That is a capitalistic market economy that nevertheless accepts that social responsibility for the whole is not left to the individual interpretation and good will, but is a mandatory obligation everyone, every single citizen of a community, has to accept, and cannot escape to accept without giving up all rights and benefits of his citizenship and membership in this community.
If we do not stick to this and declare it an invalid principle, then we go back indeed to the barbary of the past. and we then must accept to relaise that we are so retarded that many socially organised higher developed animals, especially amongst mammals, still treat their "losers" more caring, than we would do under the premise of capitalism.

I you want to behave like the only man on earth, than you need to live on a planet where you indeed are the only man on earth. As long as you are notz alone, you are part of something bigger, and that means: your freedoms must accept limitations for the sake of the freedom of others, and you must accept certain social responsibilities. Because you are not alone in the world, and it is not all yours.

[August]

My bank just yesterday pre-approved me for a house mortgage up to $250K. :up: Make it a 30 year FIXED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!

Oh yeah definitely, that's what they approved me for.

[Aramike]

Only if you have enough money to start a business. In the free capitalism we had during the industrilization in Europe you didn't got enough income to even think about that.Wrong.

If you're a good manager, other companies will have use for your talents. Likewise, if you're a gifted computer programmer, other companies will pay premium for your services.

Same thing goes for any segment of the labor market. If you're educated and dedicated and good at what you do, alternatives will be available. It's the people who take the easy way out that find themselves slaved to a boss.

As for having enough money to start a business, that is also inaccurate. You simply need enough CREDIT to start a business, and that comes with a proper prospectus.Well, what if you don't have a choice because of a rather high unemployment rate? Then you have to take what you get. And the higher the unemployment rate the more power has your boss.That is indeed true, but only in a short-term sense. Economies are quite cyclical, and so are unemployment rates.

So one must be smart and pick their timing. Yet again, personal responsibility comes into play.In free capitalism the boss can simply fire you and replace you with someone who he thinks to be better.So? If you take the risk and bet your livelihood on a business, why should you NOT have the power to do what's in your best interests to succeed?

How do you expect anyone to take the risk and become an employer if they don't have this freedom? And, should you take it away, when there are less jobs who's to blame then?If the unemployment rate is high and there is no social security then you are desperate to take any job and the boss can decide how much you will earn.First of all, free-market capitalism and social welfare programs are two different things. No one's talking about completely eliminating social welfare (overhauling it, yes).

Secondly, if you're a well-trained, educated, dedicated worker, then by your own argument, employers will let someone go in order to hire you. Sucks to be the dunce, but it IS fair - the smart, hard-working guy EARNED that job.Well look at China. There people have to work for minimum wages (even for their standards) and have no chance to improve it because every other boss pays more or less the same. The bosses are getting richer and the small worker has to think twice about what food to buy. So I think the free market doesn't work that well too.You're nuts if you think China has a free market and can be used as an example to support an argument against free-markets...Why can't he reward better performance? He can always pay more.He can always pay more? How do you know?

Surely he can't do it without lowering his own gains.

So, you favor redistribution. Again, you run into the problem of who's going to want to take the risk to create jobs without a large potential for gain?The minimum wages should only do one thing: Make sure that people can afford a humble living from their income and don't have to beg for food after working 12+ hours / day. It just shall prevent dumping wages so there should be a lot of room to reward good work.Or, you could eliminate the minimum wage and companies who pay poorly will find them short workers due to those workers getting training so that they can make a living.Ask the people in the car industry who just lost their jobs. Sometimes there are no other jobs available and you have to stick with what you have.Again, that's cyclical and temporary.

Good policy isn't designed to accomodate the lowest common denominator.

At some point, the efficiency of car manufacturing and the demand for vehicles is going to result in less jobs. But it's foolish to create jobs just to employ people - thos causes recessions. Jobs must be productive (that's the key word).

It's almost like wanting people to get sick and hurt so that doctors can remain employed. Makes no sense, right?Don't you think you are generalizing a bit here? But yes, there are of course parasites that have to be sorted out.I am generalizing. But, generalizations aren't always wrong.

I do agree that the leeches must be sorted out. But I also think that many on the left believe that there are far fewer leeches than there really are.Maybe you should try to be a little bit more critical yourself.:salute::cool:I have, over and over again. I try to not take a view on something until I've examined both sides of the issue.

[Schroeder]

This is getting a quote-fest....
Wrong.

If you're a good manager, other companies will have use for your talents. Likewise, if you're a gifted computer programmer, other companies will pay premium for your services.
Only true for people who are gifted enough to study. If you are not that smart you have hardly a way to really distinguish yourself from the other hard working people around you. And since you are easily replaceable (there are times were everyone is eager to have a job) you accept to work for less than the others who in return are accepting lower offers again to be not fired themselves and so on.


As for having enough money to start a business, that is also inaccurate. You simply need enough CREDIT to start a business, and that comes with a proper prospectus. O.K.

That is indeed true, but only in a short-term sense. Economies are quite cyclical, and so are unemployment rates. In some countries they are always quite high so this generalization doesn't work, especially in times of globalization were lot's of jobs in labor intensive branches are transferred away.


So? If you take the risk and bet your livelihood on a business, why should you NOT have the power to do what's in your best interests to succeed? It would be best for his success if you were working for free. Again, if you are highly specialized, good for you. If you are not (and not everyone is able to do that) you are at his mercy because you can be replaced easily.


How do you expect anyone to take the risk and become an employer if they don't have this freedom? And, should you take it away, when there are less jobs who's to blame then?
He is expected to pay a decent wage not more but also not less. What good is a job if you can't make a living of it?

First of all, free-market capitalism and social welfare programs are two different things. No one's talking about completely eliminating social welfare (overhauling it, yes). But isn't that part of this hated socialism? To me it always sounded like this was contrary to the American Idea of free capitalism (if I have gotten that wrong all the better).

Secondly, if you're a well-trained, educated, dedicated worker, then by your own argument, employers will let someone go in order to hire you. Sucks to be the dunce, but it IS fair - the smart, hard-working guy EARNED that job. It is not just about working hard and being a dedicated worker. If you are replaceable, and I think most people who are doing manual labor are, then your only argument for you is a low wage. Lower than that what the others take because they are hard working dedicated workers too.
It seems you assume that everyone is able to be best of the class if he only tries hard enough.

You're nuts if you think China has a free market and can be used as an example to support an argument against free-markets...
China is communistic on paper only. They have the most brutal capitalism you can find on this planet.
He can always pay more? How do you know? If he can't even pay the minimum wages then the job was not be worth to be called a job anyway. Again minimum wages aren't meant to allow everyone to buy a Mercedes S-Class. They only guarantee that you have the minimum to sustain your life and not less.


Surely he can't do it without lowering his own gains.

So, you favor redistribution. Again, you run into the problem of who's going to want to take the risk to create jobs without a large potential for gain? I have the feeling I'm repeating myself but: The boss is not supposed to pay stellar incomes. It should only be enough to make a humble living with it and not less. So there is usually still a lot of profit to be made.
My main concern is about managers and bosses with pockets full of money who employ people who can't afford something proper to eat.


Or, you could eliminate the minimum wage and companies who pay poorly will find them short workers due to those workers getting training so that they can make a living. This does only work if there are many more jobs than potential workers. I think the situation has never been like that for the last decades.

Again, that's cyclical and temporary. Yes, but you need the job now. So you take what you can get and since a few thousand of your former colleagues are looking for a job too you better have something unique to offer or you will be forced to accept very low income, lower than what your competitors can stomach.


At some point, the efficiency of car manufacturing and the demand for vehicles is going to result in less jobs. But it's foolish to create jobs just to employ people - thos causes recessions. Jobs must be productive (that's the key word). Yes, but they must also sustain the worker.

It's almost like wanting people to get sick and hurt so that doctors can remain employed. Makes no sense, right? I don't get this comparison (hey it's 2:30 AM here:O:).




I do agree that the leeches must be sorted out. But I also think that many on the left believe that there are far fewer leeches than there really are. This is in fact a problem. But give people proper wages and they will be more willing to take a job than if being unable to make a living even though working 8+ hours a day.
I try to not take a view on something until I've examined both sides of the issue. That's what we are here for, aren't we.:yep:

Good night to you, I wanted to go to bed about an hour ago.:salute:

[CaptainHaplo]

In a free market - it doesn't take huge sums to start a business. A friend of mine, my neighbor actually - is a self employed plumber. He went to work 8 hours a day, on weekends he walked mall parking lots putting flyers on cars. A business license, a couple of hundred bucks in flyers, the same amount in common plumbing supplies - and his time is all he used to start with. He worked his normal job, then as business came in - he met the needs of his clients. Jobs after work, working weekends when others wouldn't, he ended up buying a big panel truck to haul everything in. Advertised right on the side - 23 hours a day, weekends too - and built enough business to quit his 9 to 5'er and run his own gig while making a living.

I work an 8 hour job, I have family - a wonderful woman and 2 kids - but I have had times where my weekends were spent between the family and building a server or fixing a couple of PC's on the side. I have had network calls at 2am on sunday mornings... Guess what - that meant no game time for me over the weekend - oh well. The extra few hundred in the bank, the word of mouth advertising of work well done, and its a start. I won't sacrifice my time with my family, but I sure can give up my own "game" time to help lay a foundation for future success.

No I don't rake in the dollars, I am not some fat boss cat getting rich off some shafted employee. Your view of a "free market" is woefully uninformed. Know why? You make it out like the free market is all about (and for) BIG BUSINESS. But its not - its actually about the little guy. Its what makes the little guy able to compete against BIG BUSINESS, and sometimes win. Its a fact that the free market enables the best economic jobs engine ever to run - the SMALL BUSINESS. Right now - small business - places that employ 1 - 50 employees - account for something like 80% of ALL the jobs in the US. If it were not for the free market - those jobs wouldn't exist.

Does there need to be some level of regulation - absolutely. But to bring up minimum wage - you know what that is for - its the MINIMUM your allowed to pay a totally UNSKILLED worker. Its actually aimed at stuff like teenagers just entering the job market, working at a burger joint part time for gas money. In a free market, YOU get to decide your value. If you learn skills, work hard, you become more valuable. You get educated, you find where you want to go and put YOURSELF there - by learning the necessary skills. If you have the skills - someone needs you - and is willing to pay you decently for it. Its your choice if you take the opportunities.

I worked in NJ a long time ago for a brief time. I was making about 35k more than I am now. I moved back here - knowing that my skills were not going to pay as well in this market as compared to there. I knew what I was doing - and made my choice. Do I scream about the lost 35k? No. Do I wish the local market would pay me that? Sure. But if I want to use the skills I have and be rewarded for it at a higher level, I have to go where that skill is in higher demand.

A free economy is about supply and demand. A higher demand for skill will result in a higher pay for that skill. Just like a demand for a higher quality of product or service will result in a supply of that higher quality product or service. If you can provide that higher product or skill - and you want the money - go where its in demand.

Employers will pay the minimum required to get the level of quality people they need. But - before you rake them over the coals for that - remember what each employee costs them in everything from payroll taxes, health insurance, workers comp insurance, unemployement insurance, 401k's, etc etc etc. Its more than about just what the worker gets to take home. If GOVERNMENT would stop having its hand in every pocket out there - then there would be more money to spread around to the employees. Would this or that company use it for that? Some would - some wouldnt. But you can bet those that did - would continue to be able to recruit the best talent - and further seperate themselves as elite business due to it.

[CaptainHaplo]

Schroeder,

There is a difference between a helping hand for an employee that lost their job due to no fault of their own (unemployment insurance) and a person who gets fired for not showing up, or always late, bad work, etc. Here at least, if you are fired/layed off due to business conditions - you can claim unemployment benefits. While not a full paycheck - it usually is 60% of what you were making, up to a certain monetary amount. That isn't socialism on its own. If you lose your job because your were a knucklehead - you get what you deserve - nothing.

As long as the person is looking for work, they initially have (usually) 22 weeks of unemployment to claim. Often this time is extended out to nearly a year. Often the person is offered retraining if they have been in a field that has suffered major losses - so they can find something else.

Its still up to the person to put themselves out there - to work to better themselves - so they can succeed. I have no problem with helping someone who stumbles through no fault of their own. I have a problem with it being mandated and it being for everyone - even those that refuse to do for themselves - which is called WELFARE.

[SUBMAN1]

No alarm bells going off as of yet, But the thought did cross my mind today mainly because of co-workers talking about it-Hence the question.

They should be ringing at least a little though. I think the Media has a lot to do with it however:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=148960

-S

[U-84]

from what i have been hearing and reading, if we are still in a recession by june or july, we are officially in a depression, but you know the government won't confirm this until several months into it.

[Aramike]

This is getting a quote-fest....Yeah, that's kind of my trademark.

I love "quote-fests" though - takes the context argument right out of it. :arrgh!:

I am enjoying this discussion, however. You are quite civil in your viewpoints.Only true for people who are gifted enough to study. If you are not that smart you have hardly a way to really distinguish yourself from the other hard working people around you. And since you are easily replaceable (there are times were everyone is eager to have a job) you accept to work for less than the others who in return are accepting lower offers again to be not fired themselves and so on.This is untrue. First off, I believe that everyone is "gifted" enough to study. Perhaps everyone is not disciplined enough, but again you run into personal responsibility.

That being said, "study" isn't the only recourse. There's also "practice" and "hard work". "Committment" also comes to mind.

If you're "unfortunate" enough to be able to display ANY of those marketable strengths (most people possess the ABILITY to show multiple traits), then Darwin seems to come into play. But, alas, we have social welfare to take care of those people.

The question is: how many are capable but unwilling?In some countries they are always quite high so this generalization doesn't work, especially in times of globalization were lot's of jobs in labor intensive branches are transferred away.You're right about this. In this case, you have to look at the reason that the idea of a cyclical econonmy isn't true. I bet you government policies have a lot to do with it.

In any case, keeping with our debate, please tell me which nation has a free-market capitalist (FMC) economy where the "generalization" doesn't work.

I think that you're falling in the trap of describing NON-FMC economies as an argument against PRO-FMC economies.

The premise just doesn't work. Apples and oranges...It would be best for his success if you were working for free.No it wouldn't ... because you wouldn't be working. That's FMC. Capitalism is not slavery.Again, if you are highly specialized, good for you. If you are not (and not everyone is able to do that) you are at his mercy because you can be replaced easily.Again, untrue. Being educated and specialized is only one trait of a workforce. Employers also look for other traits.He is expected to pay a decent wage not more but also not less. What good is a job if you can't make a living of it?SOMEONE is making a living off of it ... else they wouldn't be working.

The question is, what do you consider a "living"? Seems to be extremely subjective to me...

If no one could make a "living" off of the job, no one would be able to AFFORD to work it. Ergo, the employer would have to pay more to attract employees.

The problem comes in when one person doesn't find that the wages are what THEY CONSIDER to be a "living", while another person does. So, what defines a "living"? The government? Yeah, right. I prefer FMC's economics, as numbers can't be corrupted.But isn't that part of this hated socialism? To me it always sounded like this was contrary to the American Idea of free capitalism (if I have gotten that wrong all the better).I think you've gotten it wrong. Free Market Capitalism doesn't discount the need for a nation's welfare. It wouldn't do well for a capitalist society to have people dying in the streets, right?

We can be free, and capitalist all the while helping out our weakest. The problem arises when trying to separate the "weak" from the unwilling. What people like me wish to avoid is deciding that well, making the distinction is too hard so let's just give them all a means.It is not just about working hard and being a dedicated worker. If you are replaceable, and I think most people who are doing manual labor are, then your only argument for you is a low wage. Lower than that what the others take because they are hard working dedicated workers too.
It seems you assume that everyone is able to be best of the class if he only tries hard enough. I'm not making any assumptions ... you are.

If someone can take the job, and survive, than they are making a living. If they can't survive, then they are not working and therefore cannot take the job.

Sure, maybe a laborer is replaceable. But his replacement is either: (a) more skilled/dedicated/hard-working/efficient than he is; or, (b) makes less money than he does.

In the case if (b), that person who is making less money is obviously finding a way to make it into a "living", thereby invalidating the argument that one cannot make an argument at such a low wage.

Again, we run into "what is a living?".China is communistic on paper only. They have the most brutal capitalism you can find on this planet.I would research this a lot further, if I were you. The PRC economy is still heavily regulated, especially regarding international trade.

But, even more so, the poverty rate in the nation has declined 43% in 20 years due to their moving towards FMC economics. The Chinese are hardly an argument against FMC - rather, they are an example of what trending towards FMC can do for a nation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China If he can't even pay the minimum wages then the job was not be worth to be called a job anyway. Again minimum wages aren't meant to allow everyone to buy a Mercedes S-Class. They only guarantee that you have the minimum to sustain your life and not less.If he can't pay "livable" wage, he won't have an employee...

That's why FMC works.I have the feeling I'm repeating myself but: The boss is not supposed to pay stellar incomes. It should only be enough to make a humble living with it and not less. So there is usually still a lot of profit to be made.
My main concern is about managers and bosses with pockets full of money who employ people who can't afford something proper to eat.What are the numbers you're basing this off of, because this seems like leftist talking-point rhetoric...This does only work if there are many more jobs than potential workers. I think the situation has never been like that for the last decades.This is true, in a global sense. Certainly not in the USA, as there have been MANY periods of more jobs than workers. The problem has been there were more jobs than QUALIFIED workers. But, referring to the global situation, there isn't a global FMC economy so the global circumstances are not an argument against FMC.

Again, we fall back on what qualifies as a "living" (hint: color TV does not).Yes, but you need the job now. So you take what you can get and since a few thousand of your former colleagues are looking for a job too you better have something unique to offer or you will be forced to accept very low income, lower than what your competitors can stomach.So you take the job now, and look for something better, later.

Again, we come back to what is a "living"? Is it what you make in a week? Six months? Ten years?

Sure, sometimes some people need a job right the hell now. But what good does it do to regulate those jobs when doing so brings the rest of the economy down in order to pay for them? For the people who can't make it under those rules, we have social wefare programs.

I'm going to put the following in bold, underlined, and in Italics because it is an urgent point: social welfare is NOT for those people who don't want to flip burgers at McDonalds ... it IS for those people who CAN'T!

Yes, but they must also sustain the worker.Again, what do you consider "sustain"?This is in fact a problem. But give people proper wages and they will be more willing to take a job than if being unable to make a living even though working 8+ hours a day.This is, again, very broad ... what is "proper"?

Moreso, how do you determine what proper is? FMC does that automatically...That's what we are here for, aren't we.:yep:

Good night to you, I wanted to go to bed about an hour ago.You too, bro...

[Schroeder]

I am enjoying this discussion, however. So do I, broadens the horizon to see the other point of view.

This is untrue. First off, I believe that everyone is "gifted" enough to study. Perhaps everyone is not disciplined enough, but again you run into personal responsibility. I think you are wrong here. I'm studying together with a girl who is not that fast in learning although she is trying really hard. She spends hour after hour trying to learn the stuff that has been taught but simply can't do it right without help from others. She is way more disciplined than I am yet she is making slower progress and I fear she would not be at that university of applied sciences (wow, what a name in English:D) without a lot of help from others anymore. So it is not always only a question of commitment.


That being said, "study" isn't the only recourse. There's also "practice" and "hard work". "Commitment" also comes to mind. Right, but in bad times with few jobs a lot of people will work hard and with lots of commitment so your only advantage might come from accepting income below what we call poverty border (The German definition of poverty is, that you can't buy vitally necessary goods... whatever that means exactely:O:).


If you're "unfortunate" enough to be able to display ANY of those marketable strengths (most people possess the ABILITY to show multiple traits), then Darwin seems to come into play. But, alas, we have social welfare to take care of those people.
I guess you meant "unfortunate enough NOT to...."?
For the rest: same here.


In any case, keeping with our debate, please tell me which nation has a free-market capitalist (FMC) economy where the "generalization" doesn't work.
Point.



The question is, what do you consider a "living"? Seems to be extremely subjective to me...

That is a good question.:D
I myself think that someone who is working hard for 8h / day should be able to pay a rent for a normal sized flat, buy healthy food and being able to buy decent clothes (I know, now we could start discussing what is a normal sized flat, healthy and decent clothing...).


If no one could make a "living" off of the job, no one would be able to AFFORD to work it. Ergo, the employer would have to pay more to attract employees.
Well, we have it here that the income of some people isn't enough to feed them and they have to get wellfare money from the state in addition to their income to get to the level of someone who only gets wellfare money. I think it can't be that you work for 8h and can't even afford to pay your rent with your income. At such cases the minimum wages are supposed to take effect. We don't have minimum wages here for every branch so some companies are paying dumping wages.

I think you've gotten it wrong. Free Market Capitalism doesn't discount the need for a nation's welfare. It wouldn't do well for a capitalist society to have people dying in the streets, right? It seems this is the main misunderstanding. I always thought that the American version of capitalism considered wellfare as sort of socialism that has to be avoided at all cost (a bit exaggerated, yes).


We can be free, and capitalist all the while helping out our weakest. The problem arises when trying to separate the "weak" from the unwilling.
Sounds pretty much like what we have here.



It seems you assume that everyone is able to be best of the class if he only tries hard enough.
I'm not making any assumptions ... you are.

Let me answer that with a quote from yours from your last post.
First off, I believe that everyone is "gifted" enough to study


Sure, maybe a laborer is replaceable. But his replacement is either: (a) more skilled/dedicated/hard-working/efficient than he is; or, (b) makes less money than he does.

In the case if (b), that person who is making less money is obviously finding a way to make it into a "living", thereby invalidating the argument that one cannot make an argument at such a low wage.
-----
I would research this a lot further, if I were you. The PRC economy is still heavily regulated, especially regarding international trade.
Yes, but there are also a lot of private enterprises, for example in the house building industry, that are pretty much abusing their workers. The can pick from a lot of people who come from the villages to the cities. Those people haven't had the chance to educate themselves or to develop unique abilities.



But, even more so, the poverty rate in the nation has declined 43% in 20 years due to their moving towards FMC economics. The Chinese are hardly an argument against FMC - rather, they are an example of what trending towards FMC can do for a nation.
I don't say that FMC is bad altogether, nor that any other form is perfect (the socialism of the Soviet Union or the German "Democratic" Republic was definitely FUBAR). It is just about fairness. IF the boss is making a hell of a profit then those who are the basis of that profit should be rewarded fairly (now we can discuss again what fairly is:D).

If he can't pay "livable" wage, he won't have an employee... If the employee is forced to work for almost nothing he will have one. But that is only the case if there are a lot of unemployed people.


That's why FMC works. So does our system... but they aren't that far from each other anyway....

What are the numbers you're basing this off of, because this seems like leftist talking-point rhetoric... I gave an example of that above (that were people had to get additional money to their income just to have the same as someone who is getting wellfare money only).

This is true, in a global sense. Certainly not in the USA, as there have been MANY periods of more jobs than workers. The problem has been there were more jobs than QUALIFIED workers.

We have the same problem here too. Not enough people with academic degrees.
A lot of other jobs were destroyed by automatization. So people without a degree are getting more and more desperate. This putts more pressure on them to accept pretty much every job no matter what the wages are.



Sure, sometimes some people need a job right the hell now. But what good does it do to regulate those jobs when doing so brings the rest of the economy down in order to pay for them? For the people who can't make it under those rules, we have social wellfare programs.
The minimum wages are to be set so low that they won't destroy the economy (and I think there are even exceptions for companies which really can't afford to pay so much).


I'm going to put the following in bold, underlined, and in Italics because it is an urgent point: social welfare is NOT for those people who don't want to flip burgers at McDonalds ... it IS for those people who CAN'T!
I fully agree.


I think we aren't that far apart from each other. What I want is social capitalism (free capitalism with a few more rules to protect employees from being abused). My main concerns with FMC are based on those horror scenarios we had here in Europe back in the time of the industrialization, where the bosses were swimming in money while the people almost starved.

[mookiemookie]

Recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP. Even though we are officially in a recession, 2008 still had growth of 1.25% GDP, so all the news doom and gloom was wrong.
Wrong, wrong, wrong...

A recession is NOT 2 quarters of negative GDP. The official arbiters of recessions, the NBER define it as

A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.

All of which we've seen. And when you look at the chart of GDP growth, I'd say there's plenty to doom and gloom about:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/q4-gdp-08.gif

Fourth quarter GDP was at an annualized -6.2%. The worst showing in a quarter century. And that's not doom and gloom? :rotfl:

[Aramike]

Wrong, wrong, wrong...

A recession is NOT 2 quarters of negative GDP. The official arbiters of recessions, the NBER define it asActually, he's not wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession

While there is no "official" definition of a recession, 2 quarters of negative GDP is typically considered the main indicator.

[mookiemookie]

Wrong, wrong, wrong...

A recession is NOT 2 quarters of negative GDP. The official arbiters of recessions, the NBER define it asActually, he's not wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession

While there is no "official" definition of a recession, 2 quarters of negative GDP is typically considered the main indicator.

The National Bureau of Economic Research is the official group that calls recessions. Their official definition is what I posted. In fact, the last two recessions that they've called have not been preceded by two quarters of negative GDP growth. While it would be easy to have a hard and fast simple rule for what constitutes a recession, in actuality it's a lot more nuanced.

[Aramike]

Wrong, wrong, wrong...

A recession is NOT 2 quarters of negative GDP. The official arbiters of recessions, the NBER define it asActually, he's not wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession

While there is no "official" definition of a recession, 2 quarters of negative GDP is typically considered the main indicator.

The National Bureau of Economic Research is the official group that calls recessions. Their official definition is what I posted. In fact, the last two recessions that they've called have not been preceded by two quarters of negative GDP growth. While it would be easy to have a hard and fast simple rule for what constitutes a recession, in actuality it's a lot more nuanced.Umm, no ... the National Bureau of Economic Research is pretty much just a "think tank", albeit a very good one. However, they don't "officially" call anything. And, it is widely known that their view on the definition of a recession is not traditional, although it is certainly more inclusive.

That doesn't mean that the traditional definition of a recession is wrong, as you claim.

[mookiemookie]

Umm, no ... the National Bureau of Economic Research is pretty much just a "think tank", albeit a very good one. However, they don't "officially" call anything. And, it is widely known that their view on the definition of a recession is not traditional, although it is certainly more inclusive.

That doesn't mean that the traditional definition of a recession is wrong, as you claim.
Yesterday, the fears were confirmed when the Cambridge-based National Bureau of Economic Research officially declared that the U.S. economy is in a recession, and has been for nearly a year.

The bureau’s seven-member Business Cycle Dating Committee, which is officially charged with determining when the U.S. is in a recession, announced yesterday that the last peak in economic activity occurred in December 2007, marking that month as the start of the current recession.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=525653

[Aramike]

Dude, read it a little closer:Yesterday, the fears were confirmed when the Cambridge-based National Bureau of Economic Research officially declared that the U.S. economy is in a recession, and has been for nearly a year.Just because it is THEIR "official" position does not mean it is THE "official" position.

Miller Lite may be the official beer of the Milwaukee Brewers, but it isn't THE "official" beer. Get it?The bureau’s seven-member Business Cycle Dating Committee, which is officially charged with determining when the U.S. is in a recession, Again, read it more closely, especially the part prior to your bold portion. Some organizations have "Fun Committees", who are "officially" charged with finding fun activities for their members ... it doesn't mean that they are THE official "Fun Committee".

In this case, that organization officially charged some of its members with determining the state of the economy ... it doesn't mean that such a determination is "official" outisde of those walls...

[mookiemookie]

Dude, read it a little closer:Yesterday, the fears were confirmed when the Cambridge-based National Bureau of Economic Research officially declared that the U.S. economy is in a recession, and has been for nearly a year.Just because it is THEIR "official" position does not mean it is THE "official" position.

Miller Lite may be the official beer of the Milwaukee Brewers, but it isn't THE "official" beer. Get it?The bureau’s seven-member Business Cycle Dating Committee, which is officially charged with determining when the U.S. is in a recession, Again, read it more closely, especially the part prior to your bold portion. Some organizations have "Fun Committees", who are "officially" charged with finding fun activities for their members ... it doesn't mean that they are THE official "Fun Committee".

In this case, that organization officially charged some of its members with determining the state of the economy ... it doesn't mean that such a determination is "official" outisde of those walls...

Uh, if it's official enough for the White House, I'd say that's about as official as it gets:

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said in response to the announcement, “As we’ve always said, NBER determines the start and end dates of business cycles, and they’ve done that.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/economy/nber-fell-recession-year/

[Aramike]

Dude, read it a little closer:Yesterday, the fears were confirmed when the Cambridge-based National Bureau of Economic Research officially declared that the U.S. economy is in a recession, and has been for nearly a year.Just because it is THEIR "official" position does not mean it is THE "official" position.

Miller Lite may be the official beer of the Milwaukee Brewers, but it isn't THE "official" beer. Get it?The bureau’s seven-member Business Cycle Dating Committee, which is officially charged with determining when the U.S. is in a recession, Again, read it more closely, especially the part prior to your bold portion. Some organizations have "Fun Committees", who are "officially" charged with finding fun activities for their members ... it doesn't mean that they are THE official "Fun Committee".

In this case, that organization officially charged some of its members with determining the state of the economy ... it doesn't mean that such a determination is "official" outisde of those walls...

Uh, if it's official enough for the White House, I'd say that's about as official as it gets:

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said in response to the announcement, “As we’ve always said, NBER determines the start and end dates of business cycles, and they’ve done that.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/economy/nber-fell-recession-year/Not really ... so the White House prefers that source. Doesn't mean that other sources or methodogies of determining a recession are wrong.

And, I'm not arguing that NBER isn't the authoritative source on economics - I actually believe that they are.

What I *AM* arguing is that YOU are wrong in stating that a two consecutive quarter drop in GDP isn't considered a "recession". In fact, the reason NBER broadened it view on what is a recession is due to the fact that not all recessions demonstrate a 2 consecutive quarter decline (such as the dot-com bubble in 2001). No one at NBER argues that a 2 quarter decline is NOT a recession - they are simply arguing that there are other forms of recession.

[Otto_Weddigen]

I am starting to stock up on food and would advise other people to do so,what are people going to do once it really hits?