By John Mauldin "The 2 consecutive quarters of GDP contraction is not the only metric for identifying recessions. According to the econo-geeks at the National Bureau of Economic Research, a recession is defined as a "significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months." Here's their specific language: " 'Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them. Our procedure differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we consider the depth as well as the duration of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, 'a significant decline in economic activity.' Second, we use a broader array of indicators than just real GDP. One reason for this is that the GDP data are subject to considerable revision. Third, we use monthly indicators to arrive at a monthly chronology.'" "Hence, if we follow what the people who actually determine what is and isn't a recession say about the matter, and not just limit our analysis to GDP, then it's pretty clear we are now experiencing an economic contraction." Real (inflation-adjusted) retail sales have been flat for the last six months. Incomes are stagnant. Consumer spending is showing every sign of slowing even more. Unemployment is rising (see more below). Consumer sentiment is at 25-year lows. You can count on it that the NBER will show a recession starting the fourth quarter of last year and continuing at the least through the first quarter of this year. This one could last another six months. I still think long and shallow with a very slow recovery. One last point. The US population grows by about 1% a year. Thus economic growth should increase by at least 1% for the US to stay even on a per capita basis. Thus, at least with regard to GDP per capita, the US is definitely in a recession. And if you use real-world inflation data, we are also in a mild recession.
I'm new here but it looks like little Johnny the Troll got into dad's elitetrader account. As far as recession/depression and predicting it, I have no idea but think that if we do have a big bad economic slowdown, it will take more time than 6 months to be 'written on the wall'.
Guru's....Yay-hoo's...whatever category of trader your 'EGO' calls home, remember that recession is a over used word to used describe the stock market when traders can no longer buy low and sell high consistently. Sooner or later it will descend and retract, to me, this is a normal circumstance.... 'When the market goes up maintain a bullish posture you make money'. 'When the market goes down maintain a bearish posture you make money'. You can't tell me that with the recent commodities markets exploding you could not recognize a rising market just by glancing at a chart.....You can't tell me the way real estate was boiling over that their was not going to be a credit crunch resulting in a slowing stock market. The writing is usually on the wall and ALWAYS makes itself obvious through price action in the charts. ,(Get yourself educated in technical analysis if you don't get it, take some of those commissions that your spending on a BROKER and buy a good book on the subject...might I suggest John J. Murphy's works ) My point here is I don't give a flying damn if the market moves up or the market moves down....as long as it keeps on moving....Because if it ever goes flatline sideways that is when you all can make claim to RECESSION !!!! or strait out DEPRESSION!!!! P.S. "I WAS RIGHT AND YOU WERE ALL IDIOTS"....dude if it wasn't for all these idiots,who in the hell would you make money from in these markets anyway.....chill out....'fa-get about it'
Hedgefndtrader You are a big dumb neanderthal. The best trades lose 60% to 70% of the time. They make all their money from the remaining 20 to 30 % of the trades. The fact that you say the best traders are always right prove that you are just a newbie trying to lose your first $10,000. I wonder how much do you still have left.
Soo, this is what ET has come to, a nickname fest without any content. If only Barron had listened to me (and others) suggesting to limit the number of nicks to 1 per IP, to disallow new nicks to post and to disallow low post-count nicks to start a new thread. When will he listen? When more than 10% of the threads are about other threads and the people and their nicks? 20%? 50? Isn't the fact that only this type of shitty audience is still attending proof enough that this is going the wrong way? Turning a 3star restaurant into a dirty KFC. So simple. Look at this drainhole full of vermin, unbelievable. Could have been a really good board. Too bad, bye, Ursa..
In all fairness, it has driven away that complete boob "hedgefundtrader2". I can honestly say, in this case, I'm all for the multiple nicks