Survey: Recession Over, Economists Say

(AP)  More than 80 percent of economists believe the recession is over and an expansion has begun, but they expect the recovery will be slow as worries over unemployment and high federal debt persist.

That consensus comes from leading forecasters in a survey by the National Association for Business Economics released Monday.

"The survey found that the vast majority of business economists believe that the recession has ended but that the economic recovery is likely to be more moderate than those typically experienced following steep declines," said NABE President-elect Lynn Reaser, chief economist at Point Loma Nazarene University.

The forecasters upgraded the economic outlook for the next several quarters, but cautioned that unemployment rates and the federal deficit are expected to remain high through the next year. Forecasters now expect the economy, as measured by gross domestic product, to advance at a 2.9 percent pace in the second half of the year, after falling for four straight quarters for the first time on records dating to 1947. They expect a 3 percent gain in 2010.

Still, the federal deficit has ballooned and the jobless rate is expected to lag behind, as employers remain cautious.

The unemployment rate rose to 9.8 percent in September from 9.7 percent, the Labor Department said earlier this month, the highest point in 26 years.

Forecasters expect the unemployment rate to continue to rise, to 10 percent in the first quarter of next year, before edging down to 9.5 percent by the end of 2010.

The recession, the worst since the 1930s, has eliminated a net total of 7.2 million jobs. More job cuts were announced last week. Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., which makes industrial and scientific equipment, said it will close a plant in Dubuque, Iowa, next year, costing 350 jobs.

Worries about unemployment are likely to continue to constrain household spending. Personal consumption spending likely began rising in the second half of this year, but is expected to remain low in 2010. Still, Americans aren't expected to save as much as they have in past decades. The savings rate is expected to be above the 2 percent average of the past four years, but below the 9 percent average in the 1970s and 1980s.

The housing recovery is one bright spot. Forecasters expect 2010 to be the first year since 2005 that the housing sector will contribute to overall growth. Home prices are expected to rise 2 percent in 2010, but panelists do not believe that will stifle the housing recovery.

Inflation is expected to remain low due to the weak labor market and other factors. Thus, the NABE panel - which consists of 44 economists surveyed Sept. 2 through Sept. 24 - expects the federal funds rate to remain at its current record low near zero until late next spring, before a gradual rise begins.

"The good news is that this deep and long recession appears to be over, and with improving credit markets, the U.S. economy can return to solid growth next year without worry about rising inflation," said Reaser.

[rhs648]

BeckieBest - That is so crazy. I own a successful publishing company. My customers are dependent on their consumers spending money and buying their products and services. Some of us are Republicans and some of us are Democrats. We want to see America succeed. We do not want the President to fail. However, we may not agree on the best approaches. There is a world of difference between not agreeing on the best approaches and wanting our country or our President to fail. Both Democrats and Republicans want a strong America and a strong economy. It is GOOD for business. Can you understand that or are you simply stuck somewhere?

[hungry1968-16]

by Marc_1986 October 12, 2009 4:42 PM EDT
@hungry

Exactly, more taxpayer money syphoned off into 'pork' projects. The Gov't covering up a stifled consumer market w/ short-term increases to Gov't spending. ARRA is a huge joke. Were those roads really worth the US going an additional $750 billion in debt for?






People were put back to work, we got new roads, and the unemployment funds from the states got a temporary break from numerous laid off people, AND the economy is improving.

Yeah it was worth it!!




Now tell me what your beloved conservatives did for the economy while they were in charge.

1 - tax breaks for the wealthy

2 - two unnecessary wars enriching politically connected "private contractors".

3 - many brand new schools and hospitals in IRAQ, fully stocked and supplied with AMERICAN taxpayers money

4 - (Please fill in here, what you believe America or her citizens got from the conservatives.)

[ffoulkes-2009]

"Ask not what your country can do for you...Ask what you can do for your country."

[hungry1968-16]

by Marc_1986 October 12, 2009 4:26 PM EDT
@hungry

Also, how can Bush manage to syphon funds to his 'cronies' that easily when Democrats controlled Congress when TARP was being written and voted on? The committees that were writing and voting on the bills were headed and controlled by Democrats.

Do you just blindly push everything on Bush? Are you too naive to see BOTH sides are to blame here?






Why do you instantly absolve ANY republican / conservative of ANY and ALL responsibility, for any and all actions that they did?

Congress gave the Treasury Secretary, Bush's mutt - Paulson, the ability to loan the money to banks, in an effort to free up their credit lines and get the toxic assets off their books, but it quickly turned into a giveaway for their buddies. Looking back, the democrats obviously realize what a disaster that was, and they obviously wish they would have done it differently. (That'll teach them to NEVER trust a republican again!!)


Here's some information for you; you obviously NEED IT desperately:

http://www.foxbusiness.com/search-results/m/26460898/tarp-watchdog-on-tax-dollars.htm

[hungry1968-16]

by Marc_1986 October 12, 2009 4:23 PM EDT
And you're claiming ARRA is a whole lot better?

My point being, if you're going to call TARP a failure, you have to call ARRA a failure as well because the result is the same.






ARRA has provided 4 new roads within 5 miles of my house, and over 40 total projects in my county.

TARP enriched the greedy bankers, investment houses, and mortgage brokers, and provided NOTHING to the American people.

Same result? Hardly. At least we got something for ARRA, and not just a smoking wallet.

[Marc_1986]

@hungry

Exactly, more taxpayer money syphoned off into 'pork' projects. The Gov't covering up a stifled consumer market w/ short-term increases to Gov't spending. ARRA is a huge joke. Were those roads really worth the US going an additional $750 billion in debt for?

And because I know you're going to bring up the fact that we haven't spent but 1/10 of it, the fact is that it is all going to be spent one way or another. Whether its during this administration, or tossed into a 'slush' fund and spent on some other useless program down the road.

[Orlandojon]

Economists are a dime a dozen. Until jobs return, the recession is not over...period!

[hungry1968-16]

by Marc_1986 October 12, 2009 4:11 PM EDT
@hungry

Your point?






The point being, that TARP wasn't nearly as effective as it could / should have been, because Bush and Paulson just tried to funnel as much money as they could to politically connected friends.

That's why Goldman Sachs, (Paulson's former employer), got BILLIONS, but we "don't know how much" they actually got.

Seems to me that if you're the Treasury Secretary, and you're GIVING away BILLIONS, you might want to mark it down somewhere. Unless of course you don't want the money to be found......

[Marc_1986]

And you're claiming ARRA is a whole lot better?

My point being, if you're going to call TARP a failure, you have to call ARRA a failure as well because the result is the same.

[Marc_1986]

@hungry

Also, how can Bush manage to syphon funds to his 'cronies' that easily when Democrats controlled Congress when TARP was being written and voted on? The committees that were writing and voting on the bills were headed and controlled by Democrats.

Do you just blindly push everything on Bush? Are you too naive to see BOTH sides are to blame here?

[renonv5]

y Dreadnut October 12, 2009 1:52 PM EDT
Are these the same economists who never even saw the recession coming?

EXACTLY!

[SHEETPAN]

I think your local bartender may have better insight than the Economists. They talk to all types of folks. Not just big business executives and stuffy academic types.

[hungry1968-16]

by Marc_1986 October 12, 2009 2:54 PM EDT
@bajajohn

So TARP signed by Bush had nothing to do with preventing economic apocalypse?







Bush's reasons for signing the TARP legislation, were a lot different than the democrats reasons for signing it.

[Marc_1986]

@hungry

Your point?

[sjc_1]

Bush signed TARP because he had to. Paulson waited way too long, asked for too much and had no conditions nor oversight. TARP was necessary, but came too late and was just shoved at the banks with no accountability. It was reckless to do what they did, it should have been handled much better and was not.

[pickaguitar1]

YES WE CAN!