November 2, 2006
SOMETIMES BOOK LEARNIN' DOESN'T SEEM ENOUGH (via Bryan Francoeur):
U.S. Recession Warnings Grow Louder; Some Say It's Just Noise (Vince Golle and Carlos Torres, 11/02/06, Bloomberg)
Warnings of a U.S. recession are growing louder. Some economists say it's just noise.David Rosenberg, Merrill Lynch & Co.'s New York-based chief North American economist yesterday said the economy is ``on a knife's edge,'' ... [...]
Don't bet on it, say economists Steve Wieting at Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and John Shin at Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. A rout in real estate and auto production cutbacks are delivering a one-two punch to an economy that grew earlier this year at the fastest pace since 2003. Optimists say sustained spending by consumers and businesses will ensure the five-year- old expansion stays intact.
You can hardly blame economists who pine for a recession, particularly since any of them who graduated in the past twenty-four years have never gotten to experience one in their adult lives. After all, who'd want to be a volcanologist if no mountain ever blew its top? Posted by Orrin Judd at November 2, 2006 9:31 PM
A recession right now? This guy must have been in diapers in 1974-75, when things were really bad. Or 1982, when the overall usage of electricity actually dropped over that in 1981.
I would note that hedge fund managers are not the best observers.
Posted by: jim hamlen at November 2, 2006 10:02 PMThere was a mini-recession in 93-94.
Posted by: Sandy P at November 2, 2006 11:04 PMNo, there wasn't.
Posted by: oj at November 2, 2006 11:19 PMTo paraphrases an old '70's song...
"Tin grizzlies and Hoover's coming; theeconomy's down the drain!" I've heard it before!
Jim Rogers, is one of those who puts his faith in
PetroChina and other upstandingly ethical companies other than American
There was a very slight recession in 1991, not in 1993-94.
http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm
Real Gross Domestic Product: Percent Change from Preceding Year
1990 1.9
1991 -0.2
1992 3.3
1993 2.7
1994 4.0
1995 2.5
1996 3.7
1997 4.5
1998 4.2
1999 4.5
2000 3.7
2001 0.8
2002 1.6
2003 2.5
2004 3.9
2005 3.2
No, there wasn't. The bureau that dates such things has already said that by the time they amass all the data from that period--which takes years and years--it won't be considered a recession anymore.
Posted by: oj at November 3, 2006 10:58 AMThey've had 15 years. Until they officially change it, it's considered a recession.
Posted by: Brandon at November 3, 2006 11:30 AMNo, they've said it wasn't and they're already saying that '01-'02 isn't going to be.
Posted by: oj at November 3, 2006 2:11 PMBloomberg corrected this quote very shortly after it ran. I am startled you did not do so also.
Posted by: Jim Rogers at November 3, 2006 8:21 PM