MJAnderson
Premium Member
We are not currently in a recession nor have we been. A recession is a measurable event, not just a feeling.
OT - When does a recession become a depression?
- Thread starter Genetics
- Start date
We are not currently in a recession nor have we been. A recession is a measurable event, not just a feeling.
serpentman
part time superhero
By definition, I believe a recession is 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP. Therefore, technically, we are not in one or if we are, we are only possibly 1 qtr into one (hindsite will tell for sure). However, because of the criteria, one can't really tell if one is in a recession until either after the fact or in the case of a prolonged recession, it is well on its way. With that being said, if we are not currently, I believe we will be in one in the near future. Also to further complicate things, we really haven't seen the fallout of the inflationary pressure of crude, etc. yet. Granted prices have gone up, but I don't think consumer goods truly reflect the high raw material costs we have seen over the past several months.
QuagmireMan
New member
it passed!
Aqua Keepers
New member
A recession is a depression. Well, it sure makes me depressed.
serpentman
part time superhero
Curious to see what it does in the House. For appearance sake it looks like the exact same bill with a higher price tag for additional concessions.
Personally, I think if they were to suspend or lower capital gains taxes, it would further encourage private capital investments. However, thats just me.
Personally, I think if they were to suspend or lower capital gains taxes, it would further encourage private capital investments. However, thats just me.
hollback
Team RC
Some of these ad-ons are just crazy IMO:
Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility.
Sec. 325. Extension and modification of duty suspension on wool products; wool research fund; wool duty refunds.
Sec. 502. Provisions related to film and television productions.
Sec. 503. Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.
Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility.
Sec. 325. Extension and modification of duty suspension on wool products; wool research fund; wool duty refunds.
Sec. 502. Provisions related to film and television productions.
Sec. 503. Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children.
MarineFishGuy
Capn Jack Sparrow
MJAnderson and Serpentman
The often cited "definition" of a recession is in fact not a full measure of a recession.
A recession is based on Economic Productivity, Job Loss/Creation, as well as GDP.
If you refer to my previous post you will see a more thorough explanation.
When you consider all of the factors it is clear we are in a recession heading toward a depression.
For example, car sales are down and manufacturers are scaling back production of new automobiles. Jobs are being lost faster than they are being created. If you discount the "Stimulus Package" (as noted) the last quarter of GDP was actually negative.
Not to mention GDP numbers are often revised later on (end of year or after) as companies restate earnings and revise forecasts.
PORK is Right! To the tune of 110 billion additional dollars (over the original 700 billion).
The House bill was a modest 110 pages, the Senate bill has swelled to 450 pages.
As Jason noted, many of those pages are filled with laughable additions in an effort to appeal to Republicans who originally voted no. However they also risk alienating many more Democrats because they did not "Fund" the new additions.
The Blue Dog democrats (49 moderate hawks) are outraged at the additions and 23 of them originally voted yes.
For all our our sakes I hope the house votes this down.
I have seen many articles say the losses from loan defaults (~$200 billion) would be far less than the cost of the bailout.
I wish I had time to read all 450 pages, however that would likely be more depressing than the state of the economy itself.
The Wooden Arrow provision was included to help Boy Scouts who were being taxed by the original law but not originally intended to be covered. It is a good correction, just not as part of this bill.
The often cited "definition" of a recession is in fact not a full measure of a recession.
A recession is based on Economic Productivity, Job Loss/Creation, as well as GDP.
If you refer to my previous post you will see a more thorough explanation.
When you consider all of the factors it is clear we are in a recession heading toward a depression.
For example, car sales are down and manufacturers are scaling back production of new automobiles. Jobs are being lost faster than they are being created. If you discount the "Stimulus Package" (as noted) the last quarter of GDP was actually negative.
Not to mention GDP numbers are often revised later on (end of year or after) as companies restate earnings and revise forecasts.
PORK is Right! To the tune of 110 billion additional dollars (over the original 700 billion).
The House bill was a modest 110 pages, the Senate bill has swelled to 450 pages.
As Jason noted, many of those pages are filled with laughable additions in an effort to appeal to Republicans who originally voted no. However they also risk alienating many more Democrats because they did not "Fund" the new additions.
The Blue Dog democrats (49 moderate hawks) are outraged at the additions and 23 of them originally voted yes.
For all our our sakes I hope the house votes this down.
I have seen many articles say the losses from loan defaults (~$200 billion) would be far less than the cost of the bailout.
I wish I had time to read all 450 pages, however that would likely be more depressing than the state of the economy itself.
The Wooden Arrow provision was included to help Boy Scouts who were being taxed by the original law but not originally intended to be covered. It is a good correction, just not as part of this bill.
Please correct me if I'm wrong... and I'm sure someone will 
But I don't think the bill really grew that much. I was under the impression that what the Senate did was add the bill from the House to a bill they were already voting on and had already planned on passing. Yeah the bill grew in size but much of that can be attributed to what the Senate planned on voting on anyways. I don't know for a fact but that may be where things like the arrows come into play. I am under the impression that because the original bill was based in finance that the Senate could not originally bring it up for a vote, it had to be an amendment to a bill they were already voting on.
Bill
But I don't think the bill really grew that much. I was under the impression that what the Senate did was add the bill from the House to a bill they were already voting on and had already planned on passing. Yeah the bill grew in size but much of that can be attributed to what the Senate planned on voting on anyways. I don't know for a fact but that may be where things like the arrows come into play. I am under the impression that because the original bill was based in finance that the Senate could not originally bring it up for a vote, it had to be an amendment to a bill they were already voting on.
Bill
MJAnderson
Premium Member
It may be clear to you, but it's not 'official':
But the economists who officially designate a recession in the United States do not rely on the GDP alone. By general agreement, the official determination of recession is left to the Business Cycle Dating Committee at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). The NBER is not a government agency; it is a private organization that works to further understanding of the economy. This non-profit, non-partisan organization employs hundreds of economy experts (university professors, mostly) to analyze and report on the U.S. economy.
Among other things, NBER economists keep track of the nation's business cycles -- the courses of expansion and contraction in the economy. The Business Cycle Dating Committee decides whether or not the economy is in recession based on several monthly indicators. The GDP is not the most important factor to the NBER economists. They give more weight to personal income, the national employment rate, sales in manufacturing and trade, and industrial production.
So we haven't had 2 quarters of economic decline, nor have we had a 'pervasive' slowdown in the economy. By nobody's estimation are we IN a recession. I think the most recent estimates for GDP growth this year is still around 1.6%, mainly due to exports.
But the economists who officially designate a recession in the United States do not rely on the GDP alone. By general agreement, the official determination of recession is left to the Business Cycle Dating Committee at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). The NBER is not a government agency; it is a private organization that works to further understanding of the economy. This non-profit, non-partisan organization employs hundreds of economy experts (university professors, mostly) to analyze and report on the U.S. economy.
Among other things, NBER economists keep track of the nation's business cycles -- the courses of expansion and contraction in the economy. The Business Cycle Dating Committee decides whether or not the economy is in recession based on several monthly indicators. The GDP is not the most important factor to the NBER economists. They give more weight to personal income, the national employment rate, sales in manufacturing and trade, and industrial production.
So we haven't had 2 quarters of economic decline, nor have we had a 'pervasive' slowdown in the economy. By nobody's estimation are we IN a recession. I think the most recent estimates for GDP growth this year is still around 1.6%, mainly due to exports.
MJAnderson
Premium Member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=13469993#post13469993 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by vance.110
Please correct me if I'm wrong... and I'm sure someone will
But I don't think the bill really grew that much. I was under the impression that what the Senate did was add the bill from the House to a bill they were already voting on and had already planned on passing. Yeah the bill grew in size but much of that can be attributed to what the Senate planned on voting on anyways. I don't know for a fact but that may be where things like the arrows come into play. I am under the impression that because the original bill was based in finance that the Senate could not originally bring it up for a vote, it had to be an amendment to a bill they were already voting on.
Bill
Correct. It's a administrative issue. PLEASE, if you don't understand, aren't willing to actually read beyond the headline or can't do some research to found out the truth, PLEASE stop getting your news from FOX.
