James Brumley

If It Looks, Walks and Quacks Like a Recession...

Let's see....where to begin? How about the beginning?

WakeUp, yeah - the unemployment figures may be meaningless and 'tweaked' for optimism. However, that's not new. We just have no feasible way to know just how trumped the historic numbers were as well. That's why I said (though not emphatically enough) the absolute level of unemployment means nothing to me or you. The only thing I have any faith in is the direction of the trend. (e.g. if unemployment rises from 5% to 6%, it's the same effect as rising from 10% to 12%.)

Gordon, I don't know that the GDP is fraudulent, but I do know it's worthless to investors. So, fraudulent or not, I don't even care. As for a BLS investigation, I don't see it happenin'.

Old Style, well said. I still feel a recession will be minimized, as the Fed only seems interested in short-term patches (3 to 12 months). Should the recession last longer? Yes, I think so. A good, long, normal recession would burn off a lot of excess...a much needed does of good medicine. I suspect we'll only get the short-term fix though.

Will Rahal, thanks for the chart. Good stuff.

If It Looks, Walks and Quacks Like a Recession...

Big Fat Meanie,

Yep, the unemployment analysis is a whole 'nother ball of wax. I didn't touch on it here, but I have observed that there is no 'ideal' unemployment. The only thing that matters (to investors) is the direction of the trend. (e.g. the unemployment rate falling from 18% to 17% is good for stocks, even if still astronomically high by historical measures).

As for the 5% rate now being more of a real burden than say 5% from the 80's, while I never thought about that, I think I agree. Good point. Maybe I'll be able to cross reference unemployment and debt in a future commentary. Thanks for bringing it up.

Hooligan,

I hear that. The more they tinker, the worse it seems to get.