Taliesin

On a Disastrous Jobs Number, Recession is Obvious

Sooooo, with Japan, are you talking about the bombs we dropped on them? Because you KNOW that France has more nuclear power plants than anywhere else in the world, right? They love them. You also know that a nuclear power plant is, well, NOT the same as a bomb, right? I hate to assume you know these things, because when I factor that into your diatribe, you sound as though you don't really have a passing familiarity with logic. So perhaps you DIDN'T know that a nuclear power plant, like what is in use ALL OVER THE PLACE in your enlightened France, is nowhere near the same as a nuclear bomb. And perhaps you didn't know that it was the US that dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan, and it was not a nuclear power plant that we dropped. I hope you are now informed.

On a Disastrous Jobs Number, Recession is Obvious

Fastcad: Interesting how you cite France as a role-model. In one aspect, I would totally agree with you....nuclear power. France is the leader in nuclear power. You down with that?

On a Disastrous Jobs Number, Recession is Obvious

Fastcad: Interesting how you cite France as a role-model. In one aspect, I would totally agree with you....nuclear power. France is the leader in nuclear power. You down with that?

On a Disastrous Jobs Number, Recession is Obvious

Wilesmt: Contrary to YOUR belief, the 2 quarters of negative GDP growth is not merely popular belief:

2nd definition given by The Economist: www.economist.com/rese... (granted, there is also the first definition, which The Economist admits is hard to prove. Hence, the 2nd definition.)

Alan Deardorff, from the University of Michigan: www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/r.... (scroll down to find "recession".)

Dr. Paul M. Johnson from Auburn University: www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/depres... (Yes, I do know that the NBER is the definitive answer as to whether we're in a recession, but as Dr. Johnson states, the NBER rulings are really only useful to historians and economic theory-builders. Those of us who want to know what is going on NOW as opposed to a couple years ago can use the 2 negative growth quarter method, which is used by all professional economists.)

Good thing none of those sources are reliable or informed. They're probably just part of that "popular belief" thing you were talking about.

Ok, for those of us in the real world, we can't really make policy decisions based on what happened a couple years ago. Thus, 2 successive quarters of negative growth in the GDP is what will tell everyone but wilesmt whether we're in a recession. Wilesmt, however, will not know for a couple years yet. Let us know how it turns out.

On a Disastrous Jobs Number, Recession is Obvious

Exactly, Snak. I'm not saying that slow growth is awesome or anything. It's not fun. Higher unemployment is also not good. But what is pissing me off is when people cite high unemployment to "prove" that we're in a recession. It's sensationalism at its finest. 2 quarters of decline in the GDP. THAT is a recession. NOT a decline in growth. NOT high unemployment.

I'm not saying Bush is rad, either, and I'll be damned if I'm voting for McCain. I am voting for Ron Paul.

On a Disastrous Jobs Number, Recession is Obvious

Reality is not what you make of it, Jose. There are objective definitions for terms. If the objective definition of your term does not fit the fact, pick another term.