The Huffington Post Economy
Log In | Sign Up | September 7, 2008
Sites Linking Here
Realtime conversations about
Economy
@brucethetaxguy Yep. Today it is offical. Though this will be good for the companies and economy as a whole long term. See my post on it
- savingtoinvest less than 1 minute ago
@WarrenWhitlock best place is definitely the restaurant... good for the economy that way, too!
- MichealSavoie about 5 minutes ago
I’m still sticking to my prediction that the US economy won’t fall into recession – however 2009 will be a full year of near-zero growth
- DarcyKelley about 20 minutes ago
Market will prob want to go up on fannie/freddie news. Don't think it will sustain. Economy still has problems. Not out of the woods yet.
- anthonydadlani about 22 minutes ago
@rachel872 We're different in a couple of ways -- one, we cover the global economy. Two, we're all about using big narratives to do that.
- planetmoney about 28 minutes ago

Links From Digg, Delicious, and Google Blogsearch

Economists May Not Call It Recession, But Job Stats Say Otherwise



Comments
37
Pending Comments
4
Post Comment

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)
- New peaceplumber See Profile I'm a Fan of peaceplumber permalink

The two economy's in America:

The one I live in were inflation is counted on food and energy.

And the one wall street and the GOP touts that do not count food and energy in to the inflation numbers.

Apples to oranges

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:01 PM on 09/07/2008
- wsblake See Profile I'm a Fan of wsblake permalink

and half of those on the unemployment lines come nov. will STILL vote for the republicans- the brainwashed and braindead will march in lockstep to their graves pledging "country first"

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:47 AM on 09/07/2008
- SonofLiberty1 See Profile I'm a Fan of SonofLiberty1 permalink

Most economists don't know didly squat!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:12 AM on 09/07/2008
- UnbiasView See Profile I'm a Fan of UnbiasView permalink

Go look up the definition to a recession and get back to me.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:25 AM on 09/07/2008
- New Viper See Profile I'm a Fan of Viper permalink

Repeat after me... during the BUSH/Repug years there has been no real growth!

The illusion of growth is caused by running up massive debts and devlauing the DOLLAR by half. The gains reflect converting dollars on the income and B/S to more Cheaper dollars... Currency transaltion Gains... inflation...

If the numbers are not converted back to 2000 buying power dollars given this unprecedented drop in the value of the dollar... the numbers are worthless... some one is deceiving you.

The stock Market after 8 years is flat.... thats bad ... at 8% per year avg growth in the Market, it s/b at 22,000. If you convert the 11,300 to 2000 buying power dollars the stock market is at 6,000!

Regards

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:02 AM on 09/07/2008
- wsblake See Profile I'm a Fan of wsblake permalink

unbiased,
any good economist will tell you that the traditional definition of a recession- two quarters of negative GDP- is no longer applicable in a globalized , postmodern economy. just becuase there was substantial coprorate growth even during bush years, does not mnean it translates into worthwhile jobs or better standards of living for americans- in fact quite the opposie has occurred

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:52 AM on 09/07/2008
- WorkingClass See Profile I'm a Fan of WorkingClass permalink

Two consecutive quarters of negative growth? What if the government reports lied? How would you know?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:28 AM on 09/07/2008
- TimmySlagle See Profile I'm a Fan of TimmySlagle permalink

Great point.

Political opponents so want a recession to pin on this President, they are willing to change the definition, just to make it fit.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:45 AM on 09/07/2008
- LaFilleEnRose See Profile I'm a Fan of LaFilleEnRose permalink

There should be no rescue of these failing financial support systems unless they are reformed back to their original missions. Originally they were bail outs/safety nets for lower income mortgage holders. They were a way to encourage banks to give mortgages to them with a promise of support if things went wrong. But then in recent years, they have supported all levels of mortgages...backing loans to the very rich as well. In doing that, it allowed banks to go haywire in their practices. No one was vetted clearly. No one. And the crash we are hearing is yet again, the need for taxes from the middle class to bail out the rich by propping up these organizations bad loans. I'm for keeping these organizations...but only if they are back to their original mandate.

Scream America! Scream!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:02 AM on 09/07/2008
- SandWedge See Profile I'm a Fan of SandWedge permalink

A banking collapse and financial scandals.

Remember the Keating 5? I don't think the public does, shouldn't the Obama campaign remind them? Do they really want to elect a guy involved in a major banking scandal?

    Reply