PDA

View Full Version : The Recession Is Over! (Technically)


El Minion
07-16-2009, 06:23 PM
MONEYBOX

The Recession Is Over!
(http://www.slate.com/id/2222742/pagenum/all/)
What America's best economic forecaster is saying.
By Daniel Gross

Posted Tuesday, July 14, 2009, at 11:29 AM ET

Could our long national nightmare be over? The economic contraction, this Great Recession, began in December 2007, and there's no apparent end in sight. As the unemployment rate has spiked (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm), analysts have thrown cold water on Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's March sighting of "green shoots." (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/12/60minutes/main4862191.shtml) The stock market's spring rally has fizzled (http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EGSPC%23symbol=%5EGSPC;range=6m).

But in this season of doubt, I'm prepared to declare that the recession is really, most probably over. Why? Well, it's not because the economists surveyed (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124708099206913393.html) by the Wall Street Journal believe it'll end in this quarter. (These guys wouldn't know an economic inflection point if it hit them upside the head. All through 2008, when the economy was contracting, they projected growth for the year.)

No, two of the best and most objective forecasters, who are not connected to investment banks or to the CNBC noise machine, have recently called the upturn. Macroeconomic Advisers, the St. Louis-based consulting firm that compiles a monthly GDP index, reported to its clients Monday that while second-quarter GDP was tracking at negative 0.1 percent (recession), the third quarter was tracking at 2.4 percent growth.

The folks at the Economic Cycles Research Institute (http://www.businesscycle.com/) agree enthusiastically. It's not because they've detected green pea shoots in Central Park. Rather, it's because we've seen the three P's, says Lakshman Achuthan, managing director at ECRI, which has been studying business cycles for decades and was one of the few outfits to call the last two recessions with any degree of accuracy.

The economic data that get the most play in the news— unemployment, retail sales—are coincident or lagging indicators and historically have not revealed much about directional changes in the economy. ECRI's proprietary methodology breaks down indicators into a long-leading index, a weekly leading index, and a short-leading index. "We watch for turning points in the leading indexes to anticipate turning points in the business cycle and the overall economy," says Achuthan. It's tough to recognize transitions objectively "because so often our hopes and fears can get in the way." To prevent exuberance and despair from clouding vision, ECRI looks for the three P's: a pronounced rise in the leading indicators; one that persists for at least three months; and one that's pervasive, meaning a majority of indicators are moving in the same direction.

The long-leading index—which goes back to the 1920s and doesn't include stock prices but does include measures related to credit, housing, productivity, and profits—hits bottom and starts to climb about six months before a recession ends. The weekly leading index calls directional shifts about three to four months in advance. And the short-leading index, which includes stock prices and jobless claims, is typically the last to turn up.

All three are now flashing green. According to Achuthan, the long-leading index growth rate has been recovering since November 2008, the weekly leading index has been recovering since last December, and the short-leading index growth rate bottomed in February 2009. In sequence, each turned up, "and by April the three Ps had all been satisfied." Sure, corporate profits continue to disappoint, and the unemployment rate is climbing. But for ECRI, which navigates by relying exclusively on its instruments, that's only a part of their picture. They're the Spocks of the economic forecasting crowd—unemotional, uninvested in anything but the logic of what history and their dashboard tell them. "From our vantage point, every week and every month our call is getting stronger, not weaker, including over the last few weeks," says Achuthan. "The recession is ending somewhere this summer." In fact, it may already be over.

There's plenty of ground for skepticism, in part because the news flow is still quite negative, especially when it comes to corporate profits. ECRI's response? "Indicators are typically judged by their freshness, not their prescience. Since most market-moving numbers are coincident to short leaning, while corporate guidance is often lagging, it is no surprise that analysts do not discern any convincing evidence of an economic upturn."

Still, Achuthan warns that one of the most important indicators—employment—isn't showing recovery yet. The reason: The combination of deleveraging and the long-term decline of manufacturing is hindering job creation and destroying existing jobs. After the last recession ended in 2001, the service sector created jobs, but payroll employment continued to fall through 2003 because millions of jobs were lost in the manufacturing sector during the expansion. "We may see some echo of that in this recovery." But while employment is vital, payroll jobs growth alone doesn't make the difference between recession and expansion. "We've always felt that employment is very important, but it's a roughly coincident indicator," said Achuthan. "We would not expect the employment indicators to be mirroring anything we're seeing in the leading indicators." ECRI notes that job losses and unemployment claims are off their worst levels. "If we're right and the recession is over, the job market should improve by year's end."

Of course, improvement doesn't mean the sort of 1990s-vintage broad-based employment growth that boosts wages and expands benefits coverage. And without the tailwind of cheap money and a housing boom, it's difficult to see—as it always is at the beginning of expansions—what is going to produce large-scale jobs growth.

The recession is over! Let the jobless recovery begin!

Daniel Gross is the Moneybox columnist for Slate and the business columnist for Newsweek. You can e-mail him at moneybox@slate.com and follow him on Twitter. His latest book, Dumb Money: How Our Greatest Financial Minds Bankrupted the Nation, has just been published in paperback.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2222742/

El Minion
07-16-2009, 06:33 PM
MONEYBOX

The Recession Is Over!
(http://www.slate.com/id/2222742/pagenum/all/)
What America's best economic forecaster is saying.
By Daniel Gross

.......

Still, Achuthan warns that one of the most important indicators—employment—isn't showing recovery yet. The reason: The combination of deleveraging and the long-term decline of manufacturing is hindering job creation and destroying existing jobs. After the last recession ended in 2001, the service sector created jobs, but payroll employment continued to fall through 2003 because millions of jobs were lost in the manufacturing sector during the expansion. "We may see some echo of that in this recovery." But while employment is vital, payroll jobs growth alone doesn't make the difference between recession and expansion. "We've always felt that employment is very important, but it's a roughly coincident indicator," said Achuthan. "We would not expect the employment indicators to be mirroring anything we're seeing in the leading indicators." ECRI notes that job losses and unemployment claims are off their worst levels. "If we're right and the recession is over, the job market should improve by year's end."

......


5.08.2009

Hooray! The Second Derivative of the Unemployment Rate Improved!
(http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/horray-second-derivative-of.html)by Nate Silver @ 12:12 PM

A lot of people are excited today not because the unemployment rate is low (it's very high -- 8.9 percent), nor because the economy is adding jobs (it lost another 539,000 last month, according to statistics just released (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm) by the BLS), but merely because it's losing jobs less quickly. That is, the second derivative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative) of the employment rate -- the change in the rate of change -- has improved. This is what the situation looks like:

http://538host.com/reces0.PNG

The economy started losing jobs in January, 2008 and has continued to lose them ever since. The peak month for job losses -- so far -- was January 2009, in which 741,000 jobs were lost. The month at which the second derivative bottomed out -- the time when the rate of job losses was increasing the fastest -- came in November.

The $787 billion question, of course, is whether a decrease in the rate of job losses indeed portends a recovery, or whether such data is subject to false starts. Let's take a somewhat high-level view of the progress of the employment situation over the previous five recessions.

First, the recession of 1973-1975. The red bars indicate, by the way, when we were "officially" in a recession, according to the NBER (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html):

http://538host.com/reces5.PNG

This was, at first, a "jobless recession", the primary concern instead being the extremely high inflation rates triggered by (among other things) the oil crisis. The economy, however, began shedding jobs with a vengence in November 1974, with job losses peaking at 602,000 in December 1974 -- a rate that would be equivalent to about 1 million job losses given today's population. By January, 1975, however, it already looked like the worst was over, with job losses decreasing to 360,000, and indeed the economy had officially pulled out the recession by April and was adding jobs again shortly thereafter. Here, then, improvement in the second derivative does appear to have had some predictive powers. Next up, the recession of 1980:

http://538host.com/reces4.PNG

This was a short-lived and relatively orderly recession; an improvement in the second derivative in June 1980 was followed by the end of the recession two months later. It was, however, followed not long afterward by a much worse recession...

http://538host.com/reces3.PNG

Ah, the good ol' recession of 1981-82, the one to which the present one is most frequently compared. And note the presence of not one, not two, but three false starts. In February 1982, job losses slowed all the way down to just 6,000 jobs, but things got worse -- not better -- in March and April. Then in May, job losses slowed to 45,000, before accelerating again throughout the summer. Finally in August, job losses slowed from 343,000 to 158,000 before increasing again in September and October. This is the sort of example that should make us very cautious.

Next, the early 1990s recession:

http://538host.com/reces2.PNG

There is arguably a false start here in September 1990, when job losses slowed from 208,000 to 82,000, although the recession had barely even begun then. The job-loss situation also appeared to be getting a bit better in December, 1990, but the peak month for job losses in fact wouldn't come until two months later in February.

Finally, the recession of 2001:

http://538host.com/reces1.PNG

We have to include a lot of data here because employment didn't bottom out until June 2003 -- some 19 months after the recession had officially ended! Although the main period of job losses, from the summer of 2001 through the spring in 2002, proceeded in a relatively orderly fashion, there were still places where we could have been deceived. For instance, the economy began adding jobs in June 2002, but then lost them again for the next three consecutive months; a similar story took place in January 2003.

In sum, employment rate data is fairly stochastic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic), and if there is ample reason for optimism (and I believe there is), there is also ample reason for skepticism.

frerottenextelway
07-16-2009, 06:35 PM
Yeah. I read a version of this earlier. This piece is actually a couple days old, and there's been more good news since then. The market had a nice couple of rallies, manufacturing numbers began to look better, and the UER looks to be slowing down.

From today.

The US Department of Labor reported that initial jobless claims for the week ending July 11, 2009 dropped to its lowest level since January with 522,000 unemployed workers filing for jobless benefits for the first time.

frerottenextelway
07-16-2009, 06:40 PM
Nate rocks. Thanks for that.

watermock
07-17-2009, 12:00 AM
Good, then we don't need a 3rd stimulus, or a new expanded war. But we're gonna get them anyway./

All is well....

watermock
07-17-2009, 12:06 AM
The US Department of Labor reported that initial jobless claims for the week ending July 11, 2009 dropped to its lowest level since January with 522,000 unemployed workers filing for jobless benefits for the first time.


Only 522,000?

Light is at the end of the tunnel!

Look at the total unemployment rate then figure the underempoyed or hopeless.

12% soon.

Of course the actual rate is allready closer to 18%.

cutthemdown
07-17-2009, 01:18 AM
I'm not worried about if it will grow. We know now that this much contraction has occurred we will start to see growth. What people are worried about is how fast it grows. Will it be a slow crawl for another 3-4 quarters? or longer? Or do we have a boon on the horizon.

I doubt just marginal growth will be enough for Obama to pay for his programs. He needs better if he expects to pay for everything.

watermock
07-17-2009, 01:47 AM
<2% growth, 10% unemployment, 5 trillion federal deficiet in 3 years.

cutthemdown
07-17-2009, 01:52 AM
that would be a long 3 yrs.

I bet they are hoping for a lot more then that in a big house that is all painted white.

frerottenextelway
07-17-2009, 03:44 AM
I'm not worried about if it will grow.


And just imagine, 9 months ago we were almost a failed state.

Garcia Bronco
07-17-2009, 06:25 AM
LOL. Some of you guys are good for a laugh this morning.

El Guapo
07-17-2009, 08:42 AM
I, personally, do not believe that the recession is over -- or close to being over.

spdirty
07-17-2009, 08:44 AM
I wish it was over.

frerottenextelway
07-17-2009, 03:53 PM
I, personally, do not believe that the recession is over -- or close to being over.

Well, the word ''recession'' basically has 2 definitions.

By the literal definition, a recession is over once the country has a positive GDP (which is beginning to happen now).

By the layman - and more accurate imo - definition, it's loosely defined by wages and unemployment rate, which is going to be awhile.

epicSocialism4tw
07-17-2009, 08:27 PM
Slate is an msn.com concoction.

Its as biased as the Micheal Savage show.

frerottenextelway
07-17-2009, 08:35 PM
Slate is an msn.com concoction.

Its as biased as the Micheal Savage show.

What specific parts are wrong, and why?

epicSocialism4tw
07-17-2009, 11:03 PM
What specific parts are wrong, and why?

I just thought it was neccessary to understand the background of the company that pushed this article.

It declares something ridiculous, and its pertinent to know what kind of outfit would spit that stuff out and why.

Slate is a liberal editorial section.

frerottenextelway
07-17-2009, 11:12 PM
I just thought it was neccessary to understand the background of the company that pushed this article.

It declares something ridiculous, and its pertinent to know what kind of outfit would spit that stuff out and why.

Slate is a liberal editorial section.

I understand Slate is generally on the Left. I won't argue that.

But I'm missing the parts in this that are inaccurate and/or slanted.

This piece seems pretty down the middle to me, so again I ask, what do you disagree with, and why?