I hadn’t realized that Amity Shlaes is a “senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations.” I kind of wonder what it takes to get made a senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations. She’s got a bachelor’s degree in English and her columns once won a prize from a libertarian organization for some articles that “compared the failing economy of high-taxed and over-regulated US state of Maine to the success of the increasingly economically liberal Ireland; and showed that US workers benefit from taking responsibility for their own pensions.” That’s it.

I have a really, really, really hard time imagining the CFR doing something comparable for a liberal with so little in the way of relevant qualifications or track-record outside an ideological cocoon. Just saying. Where’s my fellowship?

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/12/qualifications_i_can_believe_in.php

This polyannish attitude that Gramm displays is the same line of reasoning that got us into this mess in the first place.

The fed is faced with the Devil’s bargain, Double Digit inflation or double digit interest rate. Or if we wait long enough, both. Apparently all we need to do is wish this economic turmoil away. Quick, everyone, clap your hands to save Tinkerbernake.

VJ, no, that is not what Barry said. Barry said that IS NOT a recession, and that a recession IS something else. What you are saying is not what he said: he did say the NBER’s definition is exclusively correct.

Barry is wrong.

“At some point (?) the NBER actually did become the official arbiter of when recessions began and ended.”

Nope. That never happened. Now, some departments, for some purposes, may officially recognize the NBER’s claims. But that does not make it official for me, for you, for Barry, or for Amity, or for every part of government.

“So far, they have accurately reported when recessions began …”

In your opinion, of course. I believe 2Q 2001 was much too late to mark the beginning of that recession. 1Q 2001 makes more sense, considering that is when we first had the significant GDP contraction, even if the lagging indicators didn’t show up until later.

“… and up until recently when they ended. I previously documented that they incorrectly called an end to the recession in the 3rd QTR 2001.”

It is not “incorrect.” It is an opinion. There is no correct or incorrect. For it to be “incorrect” there would have to be a set definition, and, of course, there is not.

And what is your opinion of when it ended?

winslow: so you do not listen to Obama or Kerry or Gore or … ? Maybe you don’t, but I just hope you’re being consistent.

“Barry: you are wrong.”

No he isn’t.

“‘Consecutive quarters of GDP decline’ is a perfectly reasonable definition … But that doesn’t make the definition wrong.”

No, but it doesn’t make it exclusive either. Both the NBER and Barry have pointed out that “two quarters of negative GDP” are not required to make a recession.

That’s all.

BTW:

“Granted, the NBER’s definition is widely respected and recognized, but it is not the only one, and it is not authoritative.”

At some point (?) the NBER actually did become the official arbiter of when recessions began and ended. So far, they have accurately reported when recessions began, and up until recently when they ended. I previously documented that they incorrectly called an end to the recession in the 3rd QTR 2001.
.

In an economy which is 70% consumption and thus entirely out of balance with production, this is a sign of deterioration, not health.

Only if the economic balance of consumption and production is moving toward balance can such expansion offer a sign of health, since increased consumption without a concomitantly balanced increase in production steadily deducts from net national wealth rather than adding to it. Which is to say that declining real capital must be steadily replaced by credit as the erosion continues even as the economy is “growing”.

Eventually, of course, the important question is who holds ultimate claim to national wealth. If claims on that wealth and its productive capacity are moving out of domestic hands, then the economy gradually becomes an engine for profit which increasingly benefits others than those who are domestically engaged in producing that added wealth.

The “normal expansion” of a persistently out-of-balance economy based on perpetual inflationary policies by its government eventually produces a sharecropper society for its people, particularly when inflationary expansion of that economy becomes its “normal state”.

In fact, there IS NO “actual definition” of a recession. The NBER provides only one of many.

Granted, the NBER’s definition is widely respected and recognized, but it is not the only one, and it is not authoritative. The term “economic recession” predated the NBER, and I don’t recall anyone giving the NBER a monopoly on the use of the term.

“Consecutive quarters of GDP decline” is a perfectly reasonable definition, though it has fallen out of favor with many people for obvious reasons (GDP, especially for large countries, doesn’t necessarily well-reflect the situation on the ground for most people). But that doesn’t make the definition wrong. And you cannot change or assert a definition by fiat. Language does not work that way, and neither does economics.

For someone who has such a significant background in the markets, it is sad that you make such a rookie mistake. Since you should know better, it makes me think you are being intentionally deceptive.

Of course, Obama back-tracked on NAFTA, FISA, public financing, Iraq, and I’ve already forgotten what else.

YEESH.
.