GDP numbers come out tomorrow. Here's a chart that puts the crisis/recovery in perspective

[ProSense]

link

[rfranklin]

1. Jobs, jobs, jobs...without them there is no recovery...

and so far nothing dramatic has been done to create any. If we keep believing we can resuscitate the economy without consumer spending we are going to be sorely disappointed.

[JoePhilly]

57. Jobs chart provided here ....

http://www.ny.frb.org/research/directors_charts/ibcd_09.pdf

Take the chart in the upper right hand corner, and then draw a line down the page at March of 2009 since that is when the stimulus was passed.

Then compare the trend lines on either side.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. recovery(sic)

2-3% GDP quarters coming out of a staggering crisis are not a recovery.

We are supposed to be hitting 7-9% quarters, and a lot of them.

Total GDP growth for 2010 should be at least 7% to even begin to talk about recovery. Without those kind of numbers unemployment isn't going to do more than trail down to 8.5%-9% as a "new normal."

We were hitting numbers like that routinely coming out of 1981 and unemployment was STILL over 6% during Reagan's "morning in America" race in 1984

IMO

[ProSense]

3. Yes,

"2-3% GDP quarters coming out of a staggering crisis are not a recovery.

We are supposed to be hitting 7-9% quarters, and a lot of them."

It would have been a lot better if the chart could have shown a reverse from -6.25 percent to 7 percent or 9 percent.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. Krugman linked to some interesting materials a day or two ago about the persistence of unemployment

I was a paper talking about how the Friedman concept of natural level of employment may not be as stable as assumed, and that high unemployment deforms the economy and lowers the natural employment level.

In other words, you go into a bad slump with 4% unemployment as the level beyond which you spark a lot of inflation. But after the slump hitting 5% sparks the same inflation it would have taken 4% to trigger before.

This seems consistent with the way employment has become a tougher and tougher problem coming out of each downturn the last 20 years.

[ProSense]

7. There needs to be more stimulus

One thing Krugman does is continue to show that the stimulus was too small.

All fine and good, but that was the stimulus that got the support of enough Republicans to pass it. It was small, but it served to reverse a devastating trend. Now, as the chart shows, more needs to be done.

[jeanpalmer]

28. The history of the past 10 years

is that the economy requires more and more government spending to maintain employment levels. Government spending = stimulus. And yet where have increasing levels of deficit spending gotten us? Next years deficit/stimulus is projected to be $1.4 trillion. How much more is required? How about other innovative solutions from government instead of that broken record.

[jeanpalmer]

23. No one seems to want to know

why we have persistently high unemployment. What's the explanation? Instead, the government pursues easy money and deficit spending. Even though when we tried this solution the last time, we ended up with assorted bubbles, huge debt, and people being employed in non-productive endeavors like real estate speculation and financial "innovation." Can we expect a different result this time with the same medicine x10?

[DCBob]

4. and compare that to the GD..

There is no comparison despite Krugman and the other doomsayers.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. In fairness, though... the GD was a sharp break in a wild boom

The GD was much worse, no doubt. I am not suggesting equivalency! But not 8 times worse. More like something like 5 time worse.

The closest thing we could see today would be if we had gone from 1999 to 2009 as consecutive years.

The scariest thing about our current mess is that the economy had not been creating jobs throughout the whole Bush admin (or so I recall from DU!) and all Bush era GDP growth above 2.5% was entirely equity being taken out of real estate.

So things already kind of sucked before this thing started, thus less decline.

[DCBob]

8. Yes, true, but people should not use the term "depression" when describing what is happening now.

it's extremely misleading and only generates even further fear among the citizens.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. I agree. I prefer "Demand and employment crisis"...

"recession" doesn't cover it but "depression" is clearly wrong.

So far.

[DCBob]

11. Yes, so far.. it could definitely still happen.

"Demand and employment crisis" sounds good to me.

[Juche]

10. The economy is recovering, all the benefits are going to corporate profits

Corporate profits are up dramatically, about a 60% improvement from 2008.





corporate cash reserves are up to nearly 2 trillion. If the stimulus, which hasn't been totally spent yet, created 3-4 million jobs with $800 billion then 2 trillion can go a lot further. But they aren't investing.



So corporations are doing great. Profits and cash reserves are at record highs. But there are no jobs for the rest of us.

[scheming daemons]

12. 4 straight quarters of growth .... following the Bush Recession.... Stimulus worked!

..

[depakid]

13. Here's a chart that actually puts things in meaningful perspective:

The percentage decline in employment in recessions since 1970:

[ProSense]

14. Yes,

that shows that this recession was one of the worst and a recovery, albeit slow, is underway. No different from what the OP chart shows.

[depakid]

16. Crowing about (likely to be revised downward) GDP numbers isn't going to get the Dems very far

and I distinctly recall Bush and the Republicans doing precisely the same things- and being met with similar, well founded criticism.

[ProSense]

17. The OP does no crowing, it shows a bottom and a recovery

People get so upset seeing anything that isn't presented in completely negative terms. My goodness, it's not meant as an afront. The information is what it is.

[DCBob]

18. Crowing about an imaginary depression isnt either..

imo.

[ProSense]

19. Well, there needs to be talk of an impending depression

to support the talk of a primary for an election two and a half years away.

[depakid]

20. Phil Gramm, is that you?

"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession."

http://hubpages.com/hub/Phil-Gramm-says-that-Americans-are-whiners

[ProSense]

21. What does that have to do with the fact that there is no depression? n/t

[paulk]

35. double post

[paulk]

36. for a lot of people there is a depression

the truth is that words like "recession" and "depression" and "recovery" really don't have much meaning in this economy to a whole lot of people - and the GDP is not much more than a measure of the rich getting richer.

For a more accurate "perspective" on the economy, Bob Herbert's NYT column on the recent Rockefeller Foundation study is worth reading -

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/opinion/27herbert.html?_r=1&ref=bobherbert

"Rampant joblessness and skyrocketing medical costs are among the biggest factors tearing at the very fabric of American economic life so painstakingly put together in the early post-World War II decades.

The analysis was done by a team of researchers led by Professor Jacob Hacker of Yale University. They created an economic security index, which measures the percentage of Americans who experience a decrease in their household income of 25 percent or more in one year without having the financial resources to offset that loss. (Major medical expenses were counted as a decrease in available income.)

The team’s findings were grim. Simply stated, more and more families are facing utter economic devastation: completely out of money, with their jobs, savings and retirement funds gone, and nowhere to turn for the next dollar.

Economic insecurity has been increasing for at least a generation and perhaps longer, with very dangerous levels being reached in this latest recession. Professor Hacker discussed the ominous trend lines in an interview."

[ProSense]

38. I read that a couple of days ago.

It's still not a depression.

Here's an article by Herbert that should also be read.

More details here.

[paulk]

40. "it's still not a depression"

and you still don't have clue fucking one about how to debate

[ProSense]

41. Evidently, you definitely do not. n/t

[paulk]

43. now there's a really clever reply

[ProSense]

45. Here's an even more clever reply

It wasn't a depression at the peak, and it isn't a depression now. Long-term economic pain has characterized a few periods in American history, and has been experienced by specific groups long before 2007.

[DCBob]

46. HA!.. hardly. By what criteria makes you think we are in a depression?

and feeling depressed does not count.

[paulk]

50. the point I made is that the terms don't fit the reality

we need to come up with a different way of describing what is going on - to just say that we are not in a depression is meaningless - because for millions of Americans we are in a depression.

And the GDP is not a particularly good criteria to use - the inequality in the distribution of wealth in this country distorts such measures - the top 5% own so much of our wealth that even small increases on one end of the spectrum can throw the whole balance off.

[DCBob]

56. I agree we need to change the terms as this is somewhat a unique case..

The problem is many are using the term "depression" when it clearly is not... and it only causes more fear among the citizenry when that term is used and could actually exacerbate the problem. No doubt we are in a serious economic funk but its not a depression.. yet.

[scheming daemons]

54. Actually... it was revised UPWARD for Q1... from +2.7 to +3.7

[DCBob]

15. That chart is a bit misleading in that its based on a "peak" value..

in our present case that peak value occured during the Bush era which was a bogus number based on a bogus "bubble" economy.

[depakid]

22. Much of the Clinton era economy was based on a bubble too

and that one rivalled tulip mania in its irrationality.

At least with real estate, you have something tangible that has an ostensible relationship with supply & demand.

[DCBob]

47. Bush era was worse.. it was actually a double bubble.. housing and stock market..

the chart is still misleading.

[scheming daemons]

52. That chart shows that Bush's recession was very severe... and it also shows

That it is beginning to uptick under Obama.

[Forkboy]

24. Walk down Main Street and show this graph to people and see how far it gets you.

[ProSense]

25. Thanks for joining the discussion.

It wasn't intended to be a field exercise.

[Forkboy]

26. I know, you just wanted people who suck up to your POV.

So sorry.

Or not.

[ProSense]

27. Tell you what,

if you have an interpretation of the data, please share it. Simply insulting people doesn't cut it.

[Forkboy]

29. My first post was my interpretation.

It seemed to agitate you though.

[ProSense]

30. Which was what:

that the data mean nothing to people on main street?

A lot of things don't mean anything to people on main street, but that doesn't preclude them being discussed. Now, care to discuss the data?

[Forkboy]

31. I was discussing the data.

I was discussing how everyday people might interpret this data. Does this concept frighten you? Are you worried that the everyday working slobs won't like this news? If so, why?

Perhaps they'll love you for it, and smother you in hugs and kisses, and you'll be the most popular thing on my block since sliced bread.

I say try it.

Then get back to me and tell me the results of your experiment and see if we've learned anything.

[ProSense]

32. "Does this concept frighten you?"

No, but what do you think about the data? What is your opinoin?

"Perhaps they'll love you for it, and smother you in hugs and kisses, and you'll be the most popular thing on my block since sliced bread. "

Wow, you really don't like me do you?

:rofl:

[Forkboy]

33. I think it does frighten you...a lot.

Hence the laughter and defensiveness.

Wow, you really don't like me do you?

Eh, you're ok. Not really much to go on. Not worthy of like or dislike, one way or the other. That's for people who make an impact. You don't really register, to be blunt. :shrug:

[ProSense]

34. You need

to get outside of your own head.

I walk down main street often, and can tell you the people are not scary.

[Forkboy]

37. LOL...they're my friends, they don't scare me at all.

Care to come visit and talk to them? You can tell them exactly what you're telling me. I live in Mass, when you're up for a visit I'll give you room and board for free (I'll even throw in a cool dinner or two). We can take a walk downtown and talk to these people in person. Up for it? I'm 100% serious.

If that's no good for you, I'll come visit you. Then we can visit your downtown and talk to people. What's your addy?

[ProSense]

39. "they're my friends"?

"Care to come visit and talk to them?"

You mean you live on the main street? The only one in America? Who knew?

[Forkboy]

42. An expected dodge, Prosense.

Yes, they are my friends. I know numerous homeless/unemployed people in my community, and talk to them fairly often. You're free to tell them how good things are. Does this idea scare you?

I'm totally serious in my invite. I have a spare room and I can cook a mean Pot Roast. I will give you room, board and meals for as long as you care to stay. All we have to do is take a walk downtown so you can discuss things with people. If your POV is as strong as you feel it is, what's the worry? This could be your chance to make me look like an idiot. Maybe you'll show them your blue links and graphs and they'll turn on me. It's your big chance, if only you wish to seize it....

If you're serious, PM me for details. I'm serious....are you?

[ProSense]

44. I'm not having a discussion with your friends. I'm having a discussion with you.

You are not the only person who knows people suffering and struggling, even to the point of being life threatening.

At the height of economic prosperity, people were suffering. Children are going hungry today, as they did yesterday and will tomorrow. I posted something about the President's goal to end hunger, and it was met with the same level of cynicism.

We are on a discussion board. If you don't want to discuss the chart, ignore the post. Don't try to lecture me on what life is really like, and how your reality makes you more qualified to interpret the information and gives you the right to determine it irrelevant.

[Forkboy]

48. Another expected dodge, Prosense.

Real folk seem to frighten you.

You are not the only person who knows people suffering and struggling, even to the point of being life threatening.

So what are the unemployed/homeless folks you know saying?

I posted something about the President's goal to end hunger, and it was met with the same level of cynicism.

Do you ever wonder why?

We are on a discussion board

No way!

If you don't want to discuss the chart, ignore the post.

Once again, my first post was directly related to the chart. You just didn't like the angle I chose. Why?

Don't try to lecture me on what life is really like

There was no lecture. Just an honest invite to talk to the people you say you care about. And again, that offer still stands.

and how your reality makes you more qualified to interpret the information and gives you the right to determine it irrelevant.

I wasn't. I was asking if you wanted to talk to the people who most certainly are qualified. It may be super relevant for all I know. Let's ask the people who need help the most. This concept seems to bother you a lot.

[ProSense]

53. "Another expected dodge, Prosense." Is this repetition as fact? Here

I posted something about the President's goal to end hunger, and it was met with the same level of cynicism.

"Do you ever wonder why?"

Callous? Simply unable to accept that the President isn't a the monster Bush? Have issues?

Could be any number of reasons.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[paulk]

51. since that graph isn't translating into jobs

I don't see what the "people on Main Street" have to be hopeful about - which is "Forkboy's" point, imo...

That the wealthy are recovering from our non recession/depression has meaning only if you subscribe to the trickle down model.

[ProSense]

55. Wait, people here aren't people on main street?

This whole concept is friggin laughable. Disappointment, hard times and cynicism don't change the facts of the data. People's situations may give them a different perception, but the fact that there is a recovery in progress doesn't change. The person on main street who got a job last week or yesterday would likely see this for what it is: an improving sitituation.

[paulk]

59. the main point I have been trying to make in this thread is that

the "facts of the data" aren't particularly relevant to the situation - I don't see the GDP as much of an indicator of how well the economy, especially the "main street" economy, is doing.

And if you do see it as relevant, it's not good news - as it's fallen from the first quarter and could be an indication that the "recovery" is faltering. Hopefully the Obama administration and the Dems in Congress will see it that way and push for a 2nd stimulus. A real stimulus this time - one that sets up a new WPA/CCC - even if the Republicans block it (and they will) - at least it would be a strong statement as to whose side the Democrats are on...

[ProSense]

60. Interesting,

And if you do see it as relevant, it's not good news - as it's fallen from the first quarter and could be an indication that the "recovery" is faltering. Hopefully the Obama administration and the Dems in Congress will see it that way and push for a 2nd stimulus. A real stimulus this time - one that sets up a new WPA/CCC - even if the Republicans block it (and they will) - at least it would be a strong statement as to whose side the Democrats are on...

The OP was about a trend, it said nothing about it being good news. Still, it is not bad news. No one is arguing that the recovery isn't slow or that additional stimulus isn't needed.

It was a real stimulus, and I would prefer a jobs bill that passes and actually creates jobs to something done to make a statement.

[paulk]

61. the republicans aren't going to let anything get done

so a statement in an election year would be a good strategy, imo.

It would also put the Obama admin on the record for a lot of people who think it supports Wall Street over Main Street.


ps - your link is a step in the right direction, but far more Fed money is needed. 250k jobs is a drop in the bucket, and $8/hr isn't a living wage. Also I think the emphesis on private hiring rather than direct public hiring is misguided. It really shows where the Obaba admin is coming from - pro business all the way.

[Clio the Leo]

58. So you mean we're EXACTLY where analysts predicted we'd be!!! I can climb down from my roof now? nt