How To End The Recession In A Week

[Gaspar]

Gaspar apparently didn't know that.  



Gaspar, I cited the NBER's definition. They are the authoritative source on whether or not we are in a recession. They say we exited the recession earlier this year.

Really?  That's awesome!. . .and strange, because they state on their website, in the most recient memo.

The committee reviewed the most recent data for all indicators relevant to the determination of a possible date of the trough in economic activity marking the end of the recession that began in December 2007. The trough date would identify the end of contraction and the beginning of expansion. Although most indicators have turned up, the committee decided that the determination of the trough date on the basis of current data would be premature. Many indicators are quite preliminary at this time and will be revised in coming months. The committee acts only on the basis of actual indicators and does not rely on forecasts in making its determination of the dates of peaks and troughs in economic activity. The committee did review data relating to the date of the peak, previously determined to have occurred in December 2007, marking the onset of the recent recession.

I'm not seeing any info that they have changed their position.  Do you have an unpublished source?

[nathanm]

They have said that the recession ended, but that they can't yet say exactly when. Of course, no matter what they say, it's always subject to later revision.

[YoungTulsan]

They have said that the recession ended, but that they can't yet say exactly when. Of course, no matter what they say, it's always subject to later revision.

Yeah, the only "lagging indicators" I've seen this recession have been the revisions of the data that come along later.  Seems like a well planned out smokescreen to me.  Keeping in mind this began under Bush - They release the preliminary data to much press and attention, the markets react to this data as it is front and center of all attention.  Then, as weeks and months go by, the numbers are revised downward and downward.  Had the actual final number been published on day 1, it would have been devastating and shocking news that could put the markets in panic.  With these gradual revisions, people are eased into the prospect of economic doomsday rather than slapped in the face with it.

Some were saying in late 2007 that a recession had started.  The "forward looking" indicators of the stock market were not saying we were in a recession yet (Dow peaked over 14k in Q4 2007) - it was more of a sense people had of the real world and what the housing bubble was about to do to the economy.  How long after late 2007 was it that they finally admitted the recession started then?  I think it took about a year before they "revised" the data.  Due to the political climate at the time (Unpopular Bush in the White House) it was mainly Republicans trying to say we weren't in a recession and Democrats saying of course we were (with some exceptions).  Now it seems the opposite is the case, with Obama in office, that Republicans think we are still in a terrible recession and Democrats saying a recovery is well under way.   Funny how that works isn't it?

[nathanm]

Now it seems the opposite is the case, with Obama in office, that Republicans think we are still in a terrible recession and Democrats saying a recovery is well under way.   Funny how that works isn't it?

A recovery is not necessary to declare an end to a recession, only the lack of a continued drop in economic activity. So yeah, we may not be in a recession, but we're still in smile shape and nothing is being done about it between the Fed chairmen vacillating and there being no political support for another stimulus.

[guido911]

First off, the recession is actually over.

Treasury Secretary Geithner apparently didn't get that memo.

"Right now, the best thing the government can do...is help create the conditions for the private sector to start to invest in hiring again," he said. "Now, we've seen six months of positive job growth by the private sector.  That's pretty good," Geithner said. "Pretty good this early in a recession.

Emphasis added.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/07/treasury-secretary-private-job-growth-pretty-good.html

[Red Arrow]

These words you use. They have definitions.

No fair!  When I try to stick to definitions, I get told to loosen up a bit.

[runfromtulsa]

If any of you knew how to end the recession/depression in a week, you'd be President instead of living under a Bible.

It's like watching kindergartners solve the world's problems by arguing.  Quite funny actually, how shallow most Tulsans really are, having lived many other places.  Give them a religion and a dog and a green yard with a McMansion and they are happy, no matter how bad things get economically.

[Townsend]

Davaz has gone anti-religion apparently

[Hoss]

Davaz has gone anti-religion apparently

Oh no, not that jackass.  I smell a ban coming...

[Conan71]

It's almost got the arrogance of FOTD, er fotd, er Aox, er Rip Tout but the writing style is slightly different.

[waterboy]

Interesting take by real estate investor John Adams:

On Tuesday, modify the Garn-St. Germain Act to invalidate "due on sale" clauses used by federally chartered lenders to prevent buyers from taking over payments. This would allow thousands of owners to sell to buyers who are able to make the payments, but unable to meet new and more stringent underwriting criteria. Lenders should still be able to require reasonable credit and income standards, but assumption should be quick and easy, and at no cost.

(Making it easier to "assume" loans could make a huge difference- Conan's comment)

On Wednesday, change the tax code to encourage real estate investors. Eliminate all income taxes on profits derived on the sale of any home purchased as a bank-owned foreclosure, then renovated and resold within 12 months to an owner-occupant.
This would cause bank-owned homes to become much more attractive to private investors, who would rush to buy them as soon as they became available. They would then renovate them with private money rather than looking for a government handout. And it would help stabilize neighborhoods by eliminating vacant houses and substituting owner-occupants.

Just found this thread. This is a good example of simple thinking that ignores past history. After Tuesday and Wednesday you have just set the stage for another real estate/banking meltdown within a 10 year period.

Tuesday- Once you eliminate Due on Sale clauses, and reinstitute  "take up payments" you open the door to all kinds of fraud and a loss of confidence by owners of mortgages. The industry is already full of faked income, unlisted personal loans for downpayment, dual contracts etc. that exacerbated our problems. By making it easier to assume a loan you invite more of those practices. If they are qualified and bankers add fees as noted, what is the difference anyway? It artificially inflates prices. I remember looking for assumable loan homes when I searched for my first home because it avoided scrutiny by the lender. I would have paid a lot more purchase price to have found one. Truly, it would work quite well in stimulating the real estate industry, but would you want to own one of those mortgages?

Wednesday-the naivete of this one makes me think it comes from the banking industry who is patiently waiting for something to help salvage the loser properties they are impatiently holding on to. They want to shift their risk to someone, anyone rather than simply put them up for sale at their new values, take the loss, but make up for it on new loan fees. Real estate investors, except the ones on tv hawking their get rich with real estate schemes, don't like to use their own money for anything. They use leverage. Anyway, talk about a chance to grow more government....12 months, owner occupied, tax exempt...who has to administer that?

Then, those owners who aren't eligible for the tax giveaway have to defer their taxes because they were more prudent. I might be inclined to let my home go into foreclosure and let my brother in law buy it from the bank, remodel it, sell it back to me (on an assumption of loan of course), then split the profits. All for the chance to revive the real estate speculation industry? Wasn't that part of the problem?

[Conan71]

WB, I think he's actually advocating a "qualifying" assumption.  I believe the big glut of surplus property in the 1980's melt-down had a certain amount of non-qualifying assumptions as part of the problem.  Let's say those properties did wind up in the hands of people who were a bit less stable, if they manage to keep the home out of foreclosure for an additional year or two and keep the loan performing until the markets are a little more friendly, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Why all the cheer lately?  I've got a pair of rose colored glasses you can borrow. 

[Gaspar]

If any of you knew how to end the recession/depression in a week, you'd be President instead of living under a Bible.

It's like watching kindergartners solve the world's problems by arguing.  Quite funny actually, how shallow most Tulsans really are, having lived many other places.  Give them a religion and a dog and a green yard with a McMansion and they are happy, no matter how bad things get economically.

IT'S ALIVE!

[JeffM]

If any of you knew how to end the recession/depression in a week, you'd be President instead of living under a Bible.

It's like watching kindergartners solve the world's problems by arguing.  Quite funny actually, how shallow most Tulsans really are, having lived many other places.  Give them a religion and a dog and a green yard with a McMansion and they are happy, no matter how bad things get economically.

Howzitgoin, Davaz?  

Okay, since he snuck in, I'll throw the dog a bone....





Report: Unemployment High Because People Keep Blowing Their Job Interviews
July 29, 2010 | ISSUE 46•30
http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-unemployment-high-because-people-keep-blowi,17803/

[waterboy]

WB, I think he's actually advocating a "qualifying" assumption.  I believe the big glut of surplus property in the 1980's melt-down had a certain amount of non-qualifying assumptions as part of the problem.  Let's say those properties did wind up in the hands of people who were a bit less stable, if they manage to keep the home out of foreclosure for an additional year or two and keep the loan performing until the markets are a little more friendly, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Why all the cheer lately?  I've got a pair of rose colored glasses you can borrow. 

Is my cynicism hanging out? I just want to go back to the ugly to look at, but fun to live in 60's!