Stats Lie, says Public

[All-American]

See, I was of the understanding that a recession occurs when the economy shrinks rather than grows, and is over once the GDP is growing once again. But who likes to leave things objectively definable?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/...ex.html?hpt=T2

What the article really proves, then, is that most people either haven't heard the news or legitimately do not know what a recession is. I suspect the former is more to blame, but that the latter is ultimately the case as well.

[il Padrino Ute]

I'm guessing that the public looks at their own situation and asks themselves "Am I better off today than I was this time last year?", to decide if the recession is over.

It seems that the answer for most in this country is no.

[All-American]

I'm guessing that the public looks at their own situation and asks themselves "Am I better off today than I was this time last year?", to decide if the recession is over.

It seems that the answer for most in this country is no.

That's like asking yourself how hungry you are to determine whether your BMI is over 26. It's not a subjective question.

[Solon]

That's like asking yourself how hungry you are to determine whether your BMI is over 26. It's not a subjective question.

I once heard Rick Majerus say on the radio, "statistics are like bathing suits. They reveal as much as they conceal."

Boy do I miss the Fat Man.

[Guest]

See, I was of the understanding that a recession occurs when the economy shrinks rather than grows, and is over once the GDP is growing once again. But who likes to leave things objectively definable?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/...ex.html?hpt=T2

What the article really proves, then, is that most people either haven't heard the news or legitimately do not know what a recession is. I suspect the former is more to blame, but that the latter is ultimately the case as well.

This isn't an occasion to ding the general public on not knowing the NBER's definition of a recession. Even if GDP turned positive several quarters back, many of the real effects, on real people, are in the lagging indicators. For much of the nation if there is a double-dip, it will only be academic; all part of the same downturn.

We're probably still several years away from there being a general sense of recovery.

[Jacob]

It seems to me that the recession is not over just because we may have reached the bottom. Rather the recession continues intolerable we get back to where we were. Maybe that doesn't fit you definition, but it seems reasonable that people don't feel like a recession is over just because there is a trough in the cycle.

[doctorcoug]

I think the reason is that the American public is heavily swayed by news media, and large amounts of discussion about the end of a recession just hasn't happened.

[il Padrino Ute]

That's like asking yourself how hungry you are to determine whether your BMI is over 26. It's not a subjective question.

Perception is reality, no?

[Jacob]

What do the uneducated masses and Warren Buffett have in common? Both think we are still in a recession.

OMAHA, Neb. -- Billionaire Warren Buffett says the economy remains in a recession, by his definition.

''On any commonsense definition, the average American is below where he was before, or his family, in terms of real income, GDP," Buffett told CNBC in an interview aired Thursday. "We're still in a recession. And we're not gonna be out of it for a while, but we will get out of it.''

Then again, I'm not a big Buffett fan.

[Indy Coug]

Perception is reality, no?

Yes, it is.


Signed,

The Flat Earth Society

[Jarid in Cedar]

Yes, it is.


Signed,

The Flat Earth Society, Anorexia, and Bulemia

FIFY

[statman]

See, I was of the understanding that a recession occurs when the economy shrinks rather than grows, and is over once the GDP is growing once again. But who likes to leave things objectively definable?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/...ex.html?hpt=T2

What the article really proves, then, is that most people either haven't heard the news or legitimately do not know what a recession is. I suspect the former is more to blame, but that the latter is ultimately the case as well.

That's not actually how this recession was defined at all - not the "start" and not the "end."

If you're going by actual growth in GDP, the 2008 recession didn't start in Dec 2007 like they say - it didn't start until July 2008. Growth rates started declining in Dec 2007, there wasn't actual recession - negative growth - until the following July.

[UtahDan]

So if this year I make half of what I made last year, that is a recession. But If next year I make 1% more than this year the recession is over. Doesn't that sort of capture the disconnect?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I think the economy has to grow at something like a 3% annual rate to create enough jobs to keep up with population growth. I don't think we're at 3% right now. What the 9.6% unemployment rate doesn't show are the people that have stopped looking and the people that are underemployed. Supposedly those numbers are quite massive.

The Great Depression didn't see 10+ years of declines, there was a massive decline at the front, then anemic growth then minor dips again. The whole thing was the depression and no one thought the country was out of the depression until WWII.

[Jacob]

Good point. According to some, I guess the Great Depression was over by 1933. Forget the unemployment above 15% into the 1940s. There was GDP growth in 33.