A Recession is defined as ...... what again?

[sirs]

But there's no left leaning bias in the vast majority of MSM         

Why so many Americans believe we're in a recession
Are we in a recession?
Posted: October 25, 2007

Half of Americans think so, at least according to the new CNN opinion poll. The poll helpfully described the recession as "marked by a significant decline in economic activity." But what the CNN article describing the poll doesn't tell is that our economy is nowhere near a recession.

The government uses the National Bureau of Economic Research to define when recessions begin and end. This nonprofit Cambridge organization defines a recession as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP (Gross Domestic Product), real income, employment, industrial production and wholesale-retail sales." Most economists consider a recession two or more consecutive quarters of negative economic growth.

So, are we in a recession?

In September 2007, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said 110,000 new jobs were created. For each of the last three months, our economy has created an average of 97,000 new jobs. Since August 2003, the economy has created more than 8.1 million new jobs in 49 consecutive months of job growth.

The national unemployment rate is at 4.7 percent ? low by historical standards.

Since President Bush took office, real after-tax per capita personal income has increased more than 12.5 percent ? an average of $3,750 per person. More than 30 percent of the country's net worth has been added since the president's 2003 tax cuts.

Real wages have increased 2.2 percent during the 12 months ending in August 2007. This is much higher than the average growth rate during the '90s, and translates into an extra $1,266 for a two wage-earner family.

Exports have increased over 14.8 percent during the 12 months ending in July 2007, and the trade deficit has been reduced by $8.3 billion.

Real GDP grew at a strong 3.8 percent annual rate in the second quarter of 2007. The U.S. economy is in its sixth year of sustained economic growth, averaging 2.7 percent a year since the turnaround in 2001.

This year tax revenues grew by $161 billion to reach $2.568 trillion, the highest level ever recorded, and an increase of 6.7 percent. And that follows the 14.5 percent and 11.8 percent increase in revenues during the two prior years.

The federal deficit declined by $250 billion in the last three years. In February, the budget deficit for 2007 was projected to be $244 billion. But by September, the deficit was just $163 billion, or 1.3 percent of the economy. As a percentage of the economy, the deficit is now lower than the average of the last 40 years.

What, then, accounts for the pessimism? Well, take a look at the mainstream media.

Two professors, John Lott, economist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and Kevin A. Hassett, the Institute's director of economic policy studies, looked at newspaper articles on the economy. They wrote, "We found that newspaper headlines reporting economic news on unemployment, gross domestic product (GDP), retail sales and durable goods tended to be much more frequently negative when a Republican was in the White House. And this was true even after accounting for the economic numbers on which the stories were based and how those numbers were changing over time."

So bad economic news becomes less bad economic news with a Democrat sitting in the White House. With a Republican in the White House, however, good economic news becomes less good, and bad becomes even worse.

The Pew Center for Excellence in Journalism surveys journalists annually. Their report, "The State of the News Media 2007," found more than one-third (34 percent) of national journalists identified themselves as liberal, as compared to one-fifth (20 percent) of the general public. Only 7 percent of the national press self-identified as conservative, compared with 33 percent of the general public. The press and the public are widely divided on social issues and values, as well. For example, while 58 percent of Americans think belief in God is necessary to be moral, only 6 percent of national journalists agree.

The Pew Center report only covers what journalists admit about themselves. And while 59 percent of this pool of national reporters couldn't think of a single news organization that was liberal, a whopping 82 percent said they could think of conservative news coverage. Even so, 64 percent of national journalists admit that criticism about the blurring of reporting and commentary is valid.

Here's a typical example of how the media shapes moods. Support for the Iraq war increased from 22 to 30 percent ? a 36 percent increase ? right before Iraq operations commander Gen. David Petraeus testified before Congress. MSNBC described this as an "uptick." Meanwhile, a major paper described a 36 percent increase in home foreclosures as a "surge."

Court TV founder and media watchdog Steven Brill once said, "When it comes to arrogance, power and lack of accountability, journalists are probably the only people on the planet who make lawyers look good."


6th year of sustained economic growth

[Xavier_Onassis]

The fact is that statistics are bullcrap.

People think there is a recession because THEY are in one.

Productivity goes up every years and raises do not come close to keeping up.

There is major inflation in fuel and housing, and the assholes keep wishing that prices of houses would go UP, so the banks won't have to suffer for tricking people who could not pay into ARMs that rise to 14%.

[Amianthus]

There is major inflation in fuel and housing, and the assholes keep wishing that prices of houses would go UP, so the banks won't have to suffer for tricking people who could not pay into ARMs that rise to 14%.

How does a bank "trick" someone into signing a loan document that clearly lays out the interest rate caps?

[_JS]

I hate to add to anyone's conspiracy theory, but some of the statistics listed in the above article are blatantly false or to give the benefit of the doubt, misleading.

For example, let's take a look at the Real Earnings of Non-supervisory workers according to the BLS:
Link

We can see that the real earnings for these workers have fallen as often as they have risen. In April and May of 2007 there were two consecutive significant decreases.

You need to look at these and ask questions Sirs, whether you are on the left, right, center, or off the charts.

In September 2007, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said 110,000 new jobs were created.

What sector? Permanent or temporary? Is this seasonally adjusted?

Real wages have increased 2.2 percent during the 12 months ending in August 2007.

According to whom? Compared to what: last year? 1997? 2001? Predictions?

translates into an extra $1,266 for a two wage-earner family

That is not what it means at all and a lot of two wage-earning families will tell you so. No real economist would make such a claim either.

Exports have increased over 14.8 percent during the 12 months ending in July 2007, and the trade deficit has been reduced by $8.3 billion.

What does that mean for Americans? Do you think the dollar achieving parity with the Canadian dollar has something to do with this?

This year tax revenues grew by $161 billion to reach $2.568 trillion, the highest level ever recorded, and an increase of 6.7 percent.

Notice that now we've gone from real to nominal terms in one paragraph.

The federal deficit declined by $250 billion in the last three years.

According to whom? In real terms? Which deficit, the U.S. Government carries many debt loads.

What, then, accounts for the pessimism?

Always be careful of using macroeconomics then asking a micoeconomics question.


This, Sirs, is why critical thinking is so important. The above could have just as easily been written by a leftist editorial writer about a Democratic President. In fact, there probably were such articles. The author is throwing stats that are out of context and mostly meaningless to the average reader (but they sound impressive) and then asking a question that has little to do with the stats to make a conclusion he's already drawn a long time ago.

[Xavier_Onassis]

How does a bank "trick" someone into signing a loan document that clearly lays out the interest rate caps?
====================================================================
I bet they have tricked you. They trick everyone.

What is the maximum interest you have "agreed" to pay on your credit card?

I bet you have never closed on a house.

It is true people are stupid, but banks take advantage of this. At any house closing, the people that know the least about it are the buyers.

When I closed on my house, the previous owner tried to trick me into paying her for an overpayment on the taxes.

She had paid them once with a check, and they were paid again by the escrow. I knew I'd never see the money again, since I had not made the mistake and the money was not paid by me.

I told them I wasn't signing, and walked out and sat on the sidewalk for 30 minutes until she gave in. In the meantime, her lawyer, MY lawyer (worthless flakoid!) and my wife told me to go ahead and pay. I refused.

Eventually they gave in. But I bet most people wouldn't have done this.

When surrounded by people who tell you to sign a document written in 2 point type and gibberish, most people give in.

[Plane]

I hate to add to anyone's conspiracy theory, but some of the statistics listed in the above article are blatantly false or to give the benefit of the doubt, misleading.

For example, let's take a look at the Real Earnings of Non-supervisory workers according to the BLS:

How do these figures and sorces of figures compare to the data that was used to congradulate President Clinton for the state of the economy during his tenure?

[Amianthus]

I bet they have tricked you. They trick everyone.

Nope.

What is the maximum interest you have "agreed" to pay on your credit card?

Doesn't matter what the advertised or charged interest rate is; I rarely pay it.

I bet you have never closed on a house.

3 so far. If I decide to stay in NC, it will be 4. And every time, I read the set of documents in their entirety at closing. Docs in Maryland took the longest, Minnesota's were the shortest (only like a dozen pages). And every closing I had changes made because I always found something wrong.

[_JS]

I hate to add to anyone's conspiracy theory, but some of the statistics listed in the above article are blatantly false or to give the benefit of the doubt, misleading.

For example, let's take a look at the Real Earnings of Non-supervisory workers according to the BLS:

How do these figures and sorces of figures compare to the data that was used to congradulate President Clinton for the state of the economy during his tenure?

I'm not exactly sure. Some of the data above is not sourced and is somewhat suspect. I could probably draw up a comparison of apples to apples, and it would all have to use the same dollars (for whatever reason 1982 dollars is popular with the BLS nowadays).

I suspect that you're going to find that there are good and bad figures in both president's tenures. Yet, the sad fact is that these statistics never paint a complete picture. But your question is interesting...I might look into it if I have some time.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The fact that you had to insist on changes indicates that they TRIED to trick you, doesn't it?

If you tell a realtor that you can afford a  $X00,000 house, they insist on you telling them your income. If you do, they will insis that there are no houses in your price range, and they can get you a loan for half again or twice as much from some bank they know. That bank weas selected, not because they are honest of fast, or respect you, but because they give the Realtor a kickback.

If you have avoided getting ripped off, good for you. But you are an exception.

I find it very silly that when prices are too high for any normal person to afford, then they tell you you just have to live with it.

When prices start to fall, they wail, piss and moan about a housing "crisis", when all that is happening is that they are just trying to sell houses for more than the market will bear, and prices are falling to meet the amount available to buy them.

Real estate is far from being a good investment.

[_JS]

The more I look at this, the more difficult it really becomes.

Let's look at President Bush and the Real Gross Domestic Product just from 2003 to 2006. There are many factors involved in the GDP, some economic sectors will show great strength while others can fall. Just simply saying the GDP increased X% is truly meaningless.

For example, Private Domestic Investment (PDI) growth has decreased in real terms every year for the past three years. That is significant to a lot of people. Nonresidential PDI one component of that, has done rather well though. In fact in 2006 it grew by 7.4% in real terms! Nothing to sneeze at. On the other hand, Residential PDI went from 9.9% real growth in 2004, to 8.6% real growth in 2006, to a (4.2%) decrease in 2006! That's not good at all.

Similarly, exports and imports is an interesting component of the GDP. As many may know the dollar recently achieved parity with the Canadian Dollar (it has actually closed above the U.S. dollar recently...somewhere around $1.038). The loonie has not done so in nearly thirty-one years. Naturally, such a weak dollar is wonderful for exporting. It means that Canadians and Europeans can purchase more American goods and services for less money. The double-edged sword (or trade-off as econ folks say) is that it kills importers. This is seen in the GDP stats.

There has been real-term growth in Government spending at the Federal, State, and local level every year in this selection. There is debate as to what the entire effect of that is and of course, detail on the investments would have to be known to further that debate.

I know that some don't like complexities, but the truth is that with economics, that is exactly what you get. And still, none of this answers the question of how the various Americans are affected in different personal financial situations.

It does probably mean that Tee can enjopy an American vacation for a lot less money than usual.

[Amianthus]

The fact that you had to insist on changes indicates that they TRIED to trick you, doesn't it?

Yeah, because we know that there is no such thing as misunderstanding or simple human error.

[sirs]

I hate to add to anyone's conspiracy theory, but some of the statistics listed in the above article are blatantly false or to give the benefit of the doubt, misleading.  For example, let's take a look at the Real Earnings of Non-supervisory workers according to the BLS

How do these figures and sorces of figures compare to the data that was used to congradulate President Clinton for the state of the economy during his tenure?

I'm not exactly sure. ...I suspect that you're going to find that there are good and bad figures in both president's tenures. Yet, the sad fact is that these statistics never paint a complete picture. But your question is interesting...I might look into it if I have some time.

See, the thing here Js, is of course in every administration there will be postive and negative occurences within the economy.  The point being that when you take all these "complexities" and add them up, you can come to a reasonable conclusion on if the economy was working well under said President, or not.  Currently, in its totality the economy is running good, and largely has been for the last 6+yrs.  Arguably fantastic following the events of 911.  Yet, with all the +'s, polls demonstrate a perception that not only are things dire, but that we're actually in a recession, despite the FACTS to the contrary.  Point being how do so many come to that perception?  In this case, it's not that complex.  It's actually repetative in its insidious pervasiveness, and not nearly as subtle as it once was

[Xavier_Onassis]

YOu seem to fail to comprehend that even if the economy overall is better, the fact is that since the wealthy are chomping off an increasingly larger share of it, the middle classes and people below them are getting actually LESS, which would be the case if the entire economy were going downhill.

The rich are getting richer, and the middle class and the poor are getting poorer. Juniorbush has done all he can to encourage this (with his tax cuts on the inheritance tax, for example), and has done zilch to stop it.

[_JS]

See, the thing here Js, is of course in every administration there will be postive and negative occurences within the economy.  The point being that when you take all these "complexities" and add them up, you can come to a reasonable conclusion on if the economy was working well under said President, or not.  Currently, in its totality the economy is running good, and largely has been for the last 6+yrs.  Arguably fantastic following the events of 911.  Yet, with all the +'s, polls demonstrate a perception that not only are things dire, but that we're actually in a recession, despite the FACTS to the contrary.  Point being how do so many come to that perception?  In this case, it's not that complex.  It's actually repetative in its insidious pervasiveness, and not nearly as subtle as it once was

No, the problem Sirs is that you are using national statistics and then asking "why are you pessimistic?" to reach a conclusion you've already drawn.

OK. Let's look at some comparisons.

The first four years of President Clinton's administration were 1993-1997. The first four years of Bush's Administration were 2001 to 2004. Now, let's look at how the median income of families in constant U.S. dollars (2004) compared.

Real Median Family Incomes 1993 to 1997

Increase 9.37%

Real Median Family Incomes 2001 to 2004

Decrease -1.17%

Married Couple, Wife Working Real Median Income 1993 to 1997

Increase 8.02%

Married Couple, Wife Working Real Median Income 2001 to 2004

Increase 1.62%

Married Couple, Wife not Working Real Median Income 1993 to 1997

Increase 8.70%

Married Couple, Wife not Working Real Median Income 2001 to 2004

Decrease -2.98%

Female householder, no husband present Real Median Income 1993 to 1997

Increase 9.88%

Female householder, no husband present Real Median Income 2001 to 2004

Decrease -1.85%


And you wonder why people are pessimistic? Occam's Razor, you don't need any grand theory of "insidious" conspiracy. Now, one can certainly argue that Bush nor Clinton deserve the credit or blame for the economy under their tenure in office. Yet, you need to look deeper than GDP or trade deficits to see what is really happening. Most Americans are not exporters .

[Plane]

And you wonder why people are pessimistic? Occam's Razor, you don't need any grand theory of "insidious" conspiracy. Now, one can certainly argue that Bush nor Clinton deserve the credit or blame for the economy under their tenure in office. Yet, you need to look deeper than GDP or trade deficits to see what is really happening. Most Americans are not exporters .
[/quote]

Many Americans are exporters , Agriculture and entertainment products are our one and two exports and how many people are involved in Agriculture and entertainment?


The subject of the article was not accuracy but comparison of Major Media coverage.

Simular numbers got congradulations for Clinton as get condemnations or silence for Bush.

The Media is a Leftist partizen .