Here is a chart comparing them:
The purple lines represent the first four quarters after the 1991 recession. Notice how they started out slowly for the first three quarters but jumped higher ain the fourth quarter after the recession. In comparison, notice the blue lines that represent the post 2001 quarter to quarter GDP growth which continually declined for three quarters after the recession ended. This recovery has printed strong numbers for the second and third quarters coming out of the recession and still printed a 2.4% in the fourth. By way of comparing the last three recession, here is a chart of the median rate of growth of the last three recoveries in he four quarters after the recession ended.
Note this recovery is printing a far stronger median growth rate than the other two recoveries four quarters in.
15 comments:
I have to say, there's something...unseemly about the way Swern so persistently leaps in to cry doom in pretty much every thread. There are plenty of bearish people I respect, but most of them don't seem so--how shall I put it--desperate to be proven right.
Keep up the factual analysis, Bonddad.
Swern is an ass. I've never seen someone who is so consistently wrong.
Swern is not alone. There are numerous pessimistic commentators, including such estimable figures as Krugman and Roubini. It is Bonddad whose position looks increasingly dubious.
Bonddad's deadpan chart analysis of what is a ridiculous low-volume computer-trading manipulated stock market is an insult to the intelligence of a high school student. Bonddad has a deep faith in the corrupted institutions that betrayed the marketplace and our nation, and this is his central error.
Dear Bob -
Where do you get this stuff?
"a ridiculous low-volume computer-trading manipulated stock market"
That's some of the best conspiracy theory arguments I've ever seen. Might I suggest tightening the tin-foil just a bit?
As for those deeply corrupted institutions, you love their numbers when they're negative, but state they are corrupted when positive.
As for Roubini and Krugman, you continually misquote them.
Here's what Roubini said:
"The likely scenario for advanced economies is a mediocre U-shaped recovery, even if we avoid a W-shaped double dip. In the US, annual growth was already below trend in the first half of 2010 (2.7% in the first quarter and estimated at a mediocre 2.2% in April-June). Growth is set to slow further, to 1.5% in the second half of this year and into 2011."
As for Krugman, first note he was quoting Goldman Sachs -- who you have been on a crusade against for the better part of a year. Now you are actually promoting their "corrupted and inherently dishonest" position because it agrees with you.
As for what was said, here is the quote:
"This slowdown is occurring just ahead of the loss of growth support from fiscal stimulus and the inventory cycle that we have been anticipating would occur at midyear. With the various headwinds to private-sector growth (excess vacant housing, state and local budget stresses, lack of lending, reluctance to hire) still firmly in place, we reaffirm our view that real GDP will grow at only a 1½% rate during the second half of 2010, and we worry that reacceleration in 2011 will not occur as now projected."
Interestingly enough -- both Roubini and Krugman's growth projections are \right in the middle of my projected growth rate in the fits and starts expansion. Obviously, you still haven't read it, have you?
Might I suggest therapy? You clearly have some major issues that haven't been resolved.
Spartacus --
What the hell is your problem? Bonddad keeps kicking your ass royally, yet you keep throwing something against the wall hoping it will stick. Have you ever thought how incredibly foolish you look in all this?
Spartacus -
You don't know what you're talking about and continually prove your own stupidity. Why don't you leave and find greener pastures?
"including such estimable figures as Krugman and Roubini."
No.. while they express some pessimism, bob LEAPS on a negative quote and extrapolates it as far as possible. All the while ignoring anything positive they have to say (in the same columns even).
Let's review:
Bonddad's position has been that all recessions are basically alike, and that this one would end in a predictable recovery. He keeps his eyes on the charts and has no interest in engaging issues of ethics and business malfeasance.
My position is that this is the mother of all recessions and that it differs not only in magnitude, but in character, featuring the failure of regulatory and marketplace discipline on an unprecedented scale.
There has been NO FUNDAMENTAL REMEDIATION of the problems that caused this collapse. Bonddad knows this, yet he keeps parroting sunshine predictions. He knows that the bad loans are still on the books and the bad boys are still in power.
In short, Bonddad's position is intellectually dishonest. He keeps talking up "recovery" using cherry-picked statistics, while keeping silent on the enormous persistent problems that are carrying our economy towards the abyss.
Bonddad's dishonesty also extends to printing only selected comments of his debating adversaries, thus serving up clay pigeons that he can neatly explode. I'm sure his idea of fair business transactions is quite similar to his idea of fair discourse.
Bob -
Let's review.
1.) You claimed that today's 2.4% increase in GDP signaled the recovery is slowing. I demonstrated that this recovery is increasing at a faster pace than the other two recoveries since 1990. I disproved your point, so you moved on.
2.) You claimed that famous economists agreed with your position. I proved you misquoted them. So you moved on.
3.) In case you missed it, this is an economics blog -- not an ethics blog. We deal with the economy -- economic numbers, trends and markets. We don't deal with law/ethics etc... That's beyond the scope of what we talk about and what I write about.
4.) Yesterday I wrote an article about the Beige Book and included a ton of information -- much like I did today with the GDP report. In addition, if you actually go back and research what I have written about over the last few years you will find a very complete picture that includes more information than you know what to do with. I don't think there's a major indicator I haven't covered in some detail. To accuse me of cherry picking is a nice ad hominum attack, but little substance,
Have all things gotten better? No. Again -- in case you missed it, I discussed the long-term structural unemployment situation last week. I've also called for more stimulus spending and the need for another WPA.
5.) Let's review your record, Mr. Swern. About a year ago, you spent about three weeks trying to tell me unemployment wasn't a lagging indicator. After I proved you wrong, you started talking about the employment report, but confused the household and establishment surveys. Then you said in June of 2009 that the market was about to crash, followed by a prediction that -- thanks to a close attorney friend --- the mortgage market was going to crash. And then you backed this up with an online resume that said you are deeply involved in Democratic politics and were a trusted economic adviser to higher ups in addition to having connections at major investment banks. For someone with a resume that impressive, you are incredibly illiterate.
There are two points to this. First, your public record indicates have you have no idea what you're talking about. Not only have you proven time and time again that you really don't know the first thing about economics, you are way too desperate to make a resume that sounds credible when it fact your public record indicates in a complete fabrication. And when someone demonstrates that you don't know the first thing about economics, you personally attack them. But the point still stands -- this is obviously not a field of knowledge you know anything about. Anybody who reads your "articles" (which are nothing more than cut and paste jobs from other sources) knows this.
Secondly, you're the boy who cried wolf. Everything is an imminent catastrophe of the highest order. We're one step away from falling off a cliff. According to you, we've been there for over a year. Yet, we've had four quarters of GDP growth, with increasing domestic investment, growing personal expenditures etc... In other words, the data completely undermines your continual calls for the end of the world. There is always a disaster just around the corner that only you can sniff out. Yet the disaster never emerges -- it's always almost here. Unfortunately, on the interest, there is always someone who will confirm your "imminent doom" call, so you will always have material to cut and paste that says, "we're screwed".
In short, Mr. Swern
1.) Your resume is a complete fabrication.
2.) You don't have any idea what you are talking about.
3.) It is you who cherry pick information by now overlooking a years worth of economic data that says the economy has rebounded and gotten better. I challenge you to point to one article you've written that says, here is a good numbers -- because there have been plenty in the last year.
Game, set and match to Bonddad.
Spartacus -
I read that the Loch Ness Monster caused the economic collapse. It must be true -- it was on the internet
"this is an economics blog -- not an ethics blog. We deal with the economy -- economic numbers, trends and markets. We don't deal with law/ethics etc... That's beyond the scope of what we talk about and what I write about."
This really says it all. Bonddad lives in a fairy tale land in which the epic corruption of the mortgage market fiasco had no significance; the cupidity of the derivatives dealers had no impact; the blindness and incompetence of the regulators had no meaning; the fraudulent actions of the bond rating agencies had no effect; and the questionable actions of the Federal Reserve had no bearing on the "economy."
I give you Bonddad, bean counter extraordinaire: an economic analyst for whom business corruption is irrelevant to the study of the economy. He makes friends and pleases people wherever he counts the beans, and he is always polite to those in power.
That's right. When there is nothing else left, Bob resorts to insults. Because that's all he's got.
bonddad, this is mildly amusing.
Spartacus Bob, got any predictions?
For instance, what's the third and fourth quarter GDP going to look like? Crash? Slow growth?? Slow negative growth?
And finally, Mr. Swern
"And when someone demonstrates that you don't know the first thing about economics, you personally attack them."
Need I say anymore?
Post a Comment