Recession Over? Not So Fast Says Economic Panel

A panel of academics that date the beginnings and ends of recessions isn't ready to declare just yet when this downturn ended.

The National Bureau of Economic Research said Monday that although most barometers show improvements in the economy, it would be "premature" to pinpoint the end of a recession based on economic data seen so far.

That assessment came after the group of academic economists met at its Cambridge, Mass., headquarters on Thursday to review mountains of economic data.

The panel looks at figures that make up the nation's gross domestic product, which measures the total value of goods and services produced within the United States. It also reviews incomes, employment and industrial activity.

The economists decided that many of the key economic indicators are "quite preliminary at this time and will be revised in coming months," NBER said. The government often changes its estimates of economic growth, job creation and other important barometers based on more complete information. The panel of academic economists was wary of making a declaration about the end of the recession when key government figures could still be changed.

NBER has already pinpointed the start date of the recession as December 2007. Many private economists believed the recession ended in June or July last year.

Economists Predict Bumpy Road in 2011

The economy started growing again in the second quarter of last year after a record four straight quarters of declines. The economy also has started to generate jobs again - albeit at a sluggish pace.

The NBER normally takes its time in declaring a recession has started or begun.

The NBER announced, for example, in December 2008 that the recession had actually started one year earlier - in December 2007.

Similarly, it declared in July 2003 that the 2001 recession was over. When did it actually end? Twenty months earlier - in November 2001.

Its determination is of interest to economic historians - and political leaders. Recessions that occur on their watch pose political risks.

In President George W. Bush's eight years in office, the United States fell into two recessions. The first started in March 2001 and ended that November. The second started in December 2007; its end date is pending the NBER's determination.

The timing of the NBER's decision likely means little to ordinary Americans now in the grip of a moderate economic recovery and weak jobs market.

Many will continue to struggle. Unemployment usually keeps rising well after a recession ends. After the 2001 recession, for instance, unemployment didn't peak until June 2003 - 19 months later.

[lakota2012]

patocc123: "I see as normal no data was presented on how Clinton's policies enabled the economic boom..."
---------------------



Why do conservitards have to have instant gratification from their ridiculous statements, and have no patience or are willing to do their own homework -- just parrot the usual FAUX NoNooz propaganda in the most partisan of ways?

I'm sure pat will attack FactCheck.org since it doesn't agree with her pre-conceived OPINION from the FAUX NoNooz bozos, but here's an answer to the question: "To what extent were Bill Clinton's policies responsible for economic growth in the 1990's?"


ANSWER: He deserves part of the credit, but many factors were at work.

What we can say with certainty is that Clinton served as president during the last eight years of a decade-long economic expansion that stands as the longest boom in U.S. history. Clinton saw a gain of nearly 21 million jobs during his tenure (January 1993 - January 2001).

Certainly Clinton deserves some credit for that remarkable economic growth, but just as certainly can't claim all the credit. How much he deserves is a matter of opinion that will probably be debated for years to come. By the time he left office, the economy was slowing rapidly and it slipped into recession in March 2001, just weeks after george w. bush was sworn in.

Clinton's major contribution was pushing through the 1993 budget bill, which began to reduce what had become a chronic string of federal deficits. republicans denounced it as "the largest tax increase in history," though in fact it was not a record and also contained some cuts in projected spending. republican representative newt gingrich predicted: "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit." BUT JUST THE OPPOSITE HAPPENED. Fears of inflation waned and interest rates fell, making money cheaper to borrow for homes, cars and investment. What had been a slow economic recovery (since March 1991) turned into a ROARING BOOM, bringing in so much unanticipated tax revenue from rising incomes and stock market gains that the government actually was running record surpluses by the time Clinton left office.

Clinton can also be given credit for reappointing alan greenspanas head of the Federal Reserve, where the economist was widely credited with a masterly performance in handling interest rates. This was an unusual move for a democratic president, since greenspan is a libertarian republican who had been a close economic advisor to republican presidents gerald ford and ronald reagan. greenspan and Clinton worked closely, and in 2007 greenspan praised Clinton's handling of the federal deficit and his support for liberalized trade, calling him "the best republican president we've had in a while."

www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/were_clintons_policies_responsible_for_the_1990s.html

[magnumdr]

Ression?, when all is said and done the only thing that will have changed is we all will be working for less money with fewer benefits. Corporate America win's again!

[patocc123]

I see as normal no data was presented on How Clinton's policies enabled the economic Boom that happened before and while he was in Office.

It had nothing to do with republicans or democrats.

I assume next economic data the same people will be bragging about Clinton and the balanced budget that brought our national debt down $0 dollars. But hey its a good talking point.

[soap-suds]

I believe the economists need to define some more economic measures; recession/depression do not cover everything. For instance I view what has happened recently as a "financial crisis" and the recession was a byproduct of that. A lot of people in this country knew we were in trouble before any economist finally proclaimed an official recession. Taking too much time to determine a diagnosis could result in the loss of the patient.

[AnnieDanny]

You're RIGHT about that!! I laughed whenever they quoted the economists. I'm in retail; they should have asked ME. Late in 2009, the economists decided the recession actually started in 2008 or Christmas 2007. That was a big fat DUH. I couldn't believe it when I read it. A year later, they figured it out.

[usaguy2010]

And out come the libs actually commenting that Obama is doing the job.. Let's see. Unemployment is at 10% much higher in a lot of the country. We're still loseing jobs at a rate of 400,000 a month. They hired 50,000 or so to do a part time census job and they tried to tell us they have created jobs. What? If anyone actually thinks that this administration has a clue then you must be clueless yourself. The slowing down of people losing jobs is only because employers actually need to keep some to remain in business. What you also don't see if employers see now that they can function with less employees and it will stay that way for a long time.

[lakota2012]

texass keith: "10% is just a BS number..."
--------------------------



Hey, the unemployment rate has been configured the same exact way for decades, so I imagine that the 10.8% during a full year of 10%-plus unemployment a full 2 & 1/2 years after "ronnie the rat" raygun gave us his "trickle-down economic lunacy was much higher as well.

Don't forget, or can you give us some more raygun smoke and mirror magic, but "ronnie the rat" was handed a 7% unemployment rate in Jan. 1981, and after it soared to almost 11%, it remained at 7% or higher for the majority of his tenure -- a full SIX YEARS after a recession that was not even close to the economic catastrophe of the bush/cheney Great Recession!

Absolute PROOF that republiCON economic lunacy hurts average Americans!

[lakota2012]

ohhcry: "the stock market graphs are great for the wealthy elites"
------------------------------

hotrod: "what was the Dow in 2007 when the Dems took control of the House....and what is it today when they control all three"
------------------------------





Nice re-writing of history by the usual conservitard republiCONS unable to acknowledge actual economic practices and who held the VETO pen.

First off, as the republiCONS have always spewed, the majority of Americans hold some form of stock, whether it is just a 401(k) for retirement -- certainly not just the wealthiest Americans.

Second, the first bushevik recession started in March 2001, THREE FULL months after the bush/cheney regime was selected by the SCOTUS.

Thirdly, you conservitards always give me quite a laugh when you try to justify a good or bad market as to whom is in "control" of the Congress -- especially when taxes were raised on the wealthiest Americans just before the republiCONS got the majority of the House in 1995, and those SAME BOZOS removed PAYGO in 2001 when the bushevik coup stormed the W.H.

Likewise, the slight Dem majority in Congress in 2007 never changed any economic policy while bushie still held the VET PEN, but when they built on their Congressional majority in 2009 as Obama was sworn in, the Stimulus Bill was passed a year ago, and after continuing the huge layoffs and plummeting stock market, the larger Dem majority saw the job loss hemorrhaging stop and the market has rebounded ever since!

Instead of trying to continuously re-write history, you republiCONS need to study it -- not only because those that fail to know and understand history are bound to repeat it like the failed "supply-side" economic lunacy -- but because the entire history of the stock market proves that Dem presidents have seen more than TWICE the increases in the markets that the conservitard republiCONS have!

As I stated the obvious FACT before, Clinton oversaw the largest economic expansion in our history where 22 million jobs were created and the DJIA INCREASED by 226% from Jan. 1992 to Jan. 2001. Then....the bush/cheney WARmongers introduced the huge expansion of the military/industrial complex of WAR profiteers like halli-cheney-burton and the blackwater thugs, as well as the very failed "trickle-down" economic lunacy we had already seen fail during the "ronnie the rat" raygun years where unemployment was over 10% a full 2 & 1/2 years after it was introduced, the republiCON majority got rid of PAYGO that had given Clinton a surplus that he had handed the busheviks, and we've seen larger and larger deficits ever since due to the GOP BORROW and SPEND machine, and much smaller federal revenue.

Sorry, but the FAUX NoNooz bozos can only spew political rhetoric in their LIES and DECEPTIONS on a daily basis, and then you sycophants can only parrot the same lousy propaganda with the usual catch phrases! The conservitard republiCON sickness is just a mental illness that gets worse!

[patocc123]

You talk about re-writing history then please tell me what policies created the IT Boom that clinton inherited. You can not because his administration had nothing to do with it. If Bush Sr had won well guess what he would of had nothing to do with it.

If your going to talk about history especially ones that most of us remember and was apart of at least be honest about it.

You are know better than the republicans. In fact I'm going to say worse cause at least I know most republicans are stupid. Democrats should know better but they do it anyways so to me thats worse.

[AnnieDanny]

Why does everybody think the President (any President) has so much influence on the economy? From what I can tell, the gas companies have a whole lot to do with it. The gas companies and Wall Street, when they drove up the price of oil to unbelievable highs, which affected the prices of absolutely everything because goods must be SHIPPED everywhere and there's no way to do that without using gas. And people must get to work but it was costing a fortune to drive anywhere. People were already hurting financially because of all this. And meanwhile the banks were playing all their games. The rich didn't believe there was a breaking point, but there was. Personally I think the price of gas was one of the primary triggers for this awful recession. And apparently the gas companies have CONTINUED to rake in huge profits. That's what I've heard. It seems that they profit no matter what happens. If FUEL is so basic to our economy and the well-being of our society, then why aren't there government controls on the price of gas? It seems to me, if we keep the gas prices stable we might keep the economy more stable. .... Beyond all that, I also think there's a huge problem with greed in this country. Nobody has any idea of what it means to have enough.

[wfw3536]

This country is really hurting with 20% of the folks either un or underemployed in our country. And one out five people are behind on their mortgage payments. The biggest problem is that both this administration and the press keep ignoring this. Too bad Obama wasted over a year on health care when we have so many people hurting. It is sad when you see folks not having a home to live in and basically being thrown out in the street. Just look in small towns and look at all of the business going out of business. How sad.

[consh8theusa]

Unemployment rates vary all the time, they go up and they go down, but health reform for ALL Americans is something that will be a point of pride for America a hundred years from today. It's great that Obama put first what was most important, the unemployment rate doesn't make much difference to a man whose son is dying because some insurance company dropped his coverage.

[tsigili]

Not by a long shot.