Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/22/news/economy/bush_recession/index.htm?cnn=yes" target="_blank">http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/2...?cnn=yes</a> Of course, that's only because Bush can't spell recession; "slowdown" is much easier.
Originally Posted By alexbook He's not wrong. He called it a "slowdown." "Recession" has a technical meaning that economists and government officials use, and we may not actually be in one. It's easy to bash this President for so many things, but he's not wrong about this one, technically. >>The official definition of recession is when GDP growth is negative for two consecutive quarters or more. However, you can feel like you are in a recession before it has officially started because it is usually preceded by several quarters of slowing but positive growth.<< <a href="http://useconomy.about.com/od/grossdomesticproduct/f/Recession.htm" target="_blank">http://useconomy.about.com/od/...sion.htm</a> >>"We're not in a recession, we're in a slowdown," Bush said at a news conference[...]. Bush pointed out that the U.S. economy grew in the fourth quarter and that the statistics for the first quarter were not out yet. "But there's no question we're in a slowdown and people are concerned about it, obviously," he said.<< <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSWAT00938520080422" target="_blank">http://www.reuters.com/article...20080422</a>
Originally Posted By friendofdd I agree with you Alex. We may meet the criteria soon, but until we do, it is not a recession.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I agree with Alex. Economists can't agree on the "recession" question so I don't think Bush is automatically wrong. He may not be right...but he isn't necessarily wrong. I have yet to pay $4 a gallon for gas. I'm not about to say it won't happen, but I haven't been close to that yet.
Originally Posted By alexbook Just when I think the President may not be as bad I usually think he is, this happens (at the same press conference): >>President George W. Bush on Tuesday said he was concerned about record-high crude oil and gasoline prices, and said the United States needs to tap an Alaskan wildlife refuge to boost supply.<< <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSWAT00938420080422" target="_blank">http://www.reuters.com/article...20080422</a> Ugh.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 >>said the United States needs to tap an Alaskan wildlife refuge to boost supply.<< Typical short-term thinking. Never mind that we'll destroy the Alaskan environment and the oil there will only satisfy demand for a short time, but hey - let's push off a real solution to our energy crisis for another 20 years.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Tap it! This earth was made for Man...sure, we need to protect our earth, but right now Mankind, and our country, needs more sources of oil.
Originally Posted By utahjosh It IS short term thinking. We need short term solutions. We also need long term thinking and solutions.
Originally Posted By utahjosh The whole Alaskan environment is GIGANTIC....it is HUGE! A few spots to pump some oil won't destroy it.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << The official definition of recession is when GDP growth is negative for two consecutive quarters or more. >> So you have to wait 2 quarters to confirm you were in a recession to say you are in one? All the numbers that feed into GDP for the last quarter are essentially going to ensure a negative number. Prospects for the current quarter aren't looking much better. Of course, the government is doing its best to inflate ourselves out of recession.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 "It IS short term thinking. We need short term solutions." A short term solution would be to release some of our strategic reserves to bring down the price of gas AND at the same time pump some money into development of alternatives. And I mean BIG money - space program kind of money.
Originally Posted By DAR After reading Into the Wild and watching the film version and seeing Grizzly Man the only thing Alaska is good for is people dying in the wilderness up there.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder The thing is with Bush and the difference between slowdown and recession isn't that he's confused by the terms (although he likely is), but he's trying to put a spin on the economy and deny a recession is coming at all. Which is why he's an idiot.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I'm not sure putting a spin on it is a bad thing. Much of the economy is influenced by emotion rather than hard facts. Things like consumer confidence aren't helped by a continuous negative drumbeat. I don't think most of us want the economy to go in the dumper just to make this administration look worse. Anyone who isn't convinced by now never will be. There is a point at which all of us, regardless of political stripe, should have certain goals in common as everyone benefits. A healthy economy is one of those things.
Originally Posted By fkurucz Its easy to fudge the numbers regarding recessions. Just report an inflation # that is less than growth and voila! You have growth!
Originally Posted By friendofdd Regardless of thinking about the President, the criteria is still the same and must be met to be a recession. I haven't bothered researching this, but I wonder who has been in control of congress during each of our recessions.It is bound to be that either the republicans or the democrats have been there more times.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> This earth was made for Man << A dangerous notion. I'd rather think of our planet as being "on loan" to this generation. Soon enough our turn will be up and it will pass to following generations. The earth is not an inexhaustible resource to be exploited and plundered for profit. This may seem self-evident, but not everybody thinks so. Happy earth day everybody. The problem is not a lack of oil. The problem is that our dollar is weak against comparable currencies. Also factoring into the price rise is availability, which is being constrained by increasing demand from other nations, artificially created limitations on refining capacity, and even our own government's actions (read: bush administration) in increasing the strategic reserves to the tune of about 100 million barrels a year - which translates to increasing demand by 125,000 barrels a day. This of course drives up prices, and who doubts that the bush administration has an invested interest in benefiting oil companies?
