Last U.S. recession started in 2001 or 2000?

[BTox]

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is re-evaluating the data and may come to the conclusion that the recession started in nov 2000 rather than previously calculated mar 2001. Apparently, political hay may be made if the former is the final determination, though it seems irrelevant to me, in neither case can it be attributed to Bush policy.

The National Bureau of Economic Research declared more than two years ago that the last recession began in March 2001, meaning that it fell on President Bush (news - web sites)'s watch. But the NBER committee assigned to determine recession dates is considering whether to make the date earlier, possibly as early as November 2000, when Bill Clinton was still president.

Such a change would be a stroke of good fortune for the Bush administration, which has long argued that the financial bubble of the late 1990s burst on President Clinton (news - web sites)'s watch and has therefore pointed to him for the blame. Mr. Bush's opponents, on the other hand, have fired back that the substantial job losses of the recession have occurred while Mr. Bush has been president. An earlier official recession date would give Republicans added ammunition for election-year stump speeches, though it wouldn't alter the facts of a grinding job-market downturn that was the most protracted since the Great Depression.

...

Since then, a new set of comprehensive revisions to GDP (news - web sites) data released by the Commerce Department (news - web sites)'s Bureau of Economic Analysis in December points to an earlier date. According to this data, GDP peaked during the fourth quarter of 2000. Inflation-adjusted consumer spending faltered in January of 2001. And nonfarm inventory investment turned down in December 2000, though it turned back up briefly in January.


Mr. Hall said "a reasonable look at the numbers" could lead one to conclude that a better date would be sometime between November 2000 and February 2001. However, he was careful to note that a decision hadn't been made on whether there would be a revision or what the new date would be.

Source: nber recession re-evaluation


PS For dullard "doesn't-know-what-a-recession-is" Ion:

Mr. Hall said a decision on the dates could come "in a matter of days." The recession officially ended in November 2001.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

What a meaningless change, except for equally meaningless sound bite bragging rights.

Neither Bush nor Clinton had much to do with the recession.

 

[WildCat]

The recession was caused by the tech bubble bursting as Greenspan said it would years earlier, then 9/11 really sent the economy spiraling downward.

The Dems running for president love to say how great the economy did under a Dem president, but Clinton believed in free trade. The protectionist trade policies favored by, IIRC, all the current Dem contenders would do great damage to the economy if implemented. As would a tax hike which some call for.

The best thing Clinton did for the economy was to leave it alone. Bush screwed up w/ the steel tariffs (though you won't see any of the Dem contenders criticizing him for that) and doesn't have the guts to go after farm subsidies which primarily benefit huge conglomerates.

 

[dsm]

More than anything else, it seems that Bush will have his butt saved on the economy by Alan Greenspan who was appointed (most recently) by Clinton...

...however...

WHERE'S THE JOBS?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Jobs are (say it with me) a lagging indicator.

Historically, employment follows the other economic figures into and out of a recession.

 

[hgc]

BTox, you bring very interesting data to the table. But, as they say, possession of nine tenths of the law. And people woke up to this recession during Bush's tenure, so it's going to have to belong to him.

Sorry.

 

[specious_reasons]

Jobs are (say it with me) a lagging indicator.

Historically, employment follows the other economic figures into and out of a recession.

How lagging? The recession has been "over" for 2 years.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

How lagging? The recession has been "over" for 2 years.

It has? I haven't been following the "official" pronouncements, but I thought the press was still discussing whether we had or had not left the recession during the first half of 2003.

Am I nuts, or wasn't that the case? (Despite the possibly obvious answer, this is not rhetorical)

Last summer, weren't people still saying Bush might be in trouble "if the economy has not turned around"? Now the recession was over in 2002? Either this cannot be correct or my memory is even less trustworthy than I heretofore believed.

N/A

 

[specious_reasons]

It has? I haven't been following the "official" pronouncements, but I thought the press was still discussing whether we had or had not left the recession during the first half of 2003.

Am I nuts, or wasn't that the case? (Despite the possibly obvious answer, this is not rhetorical)

Last summer, weren't people still saying Bush might be in trouble "if the economy has not turned around"? Now the recession was over in 2002? Either this cannot be correct or my memory is even less trustworthy than I heretofore believed.

N/A

I don't believe we're in as much disagreement as it seems,and your memory is probably fine. Such is what I get when I make sarcastic comments. I was referring to the quote on Btox's first post:

Mr. Hall said a decision on the dates could come "in a matter of days." The recession officially ended in November 2001.

So, the economy "got better" enough to stop calling it a recession 2 years ago. I think this shows how useless the definition of recession is.

Although my perception is tainted by the industry I work in, the recovery has been slow, and marked by continued job losses, that's why I think the press questioning if the recession is really over.

I think the members of the press who value *some* accuracy in business reporting, don't say we're still in recession, but use terms like "today's troubled economy."


Edited to fix gross grammar error

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I don't believe we're in as much disagreement as it seems,and your memory is probably fine. Such is what I get when I make sarcastic comments. I was referring to the quote on Btox's first post:

Ah. Got you -- Ok, I am up to speed.

I do agree that the jobs portion of the recovery has been slow -- but it always (IIRC) lags at least half a year after the main indicators and sometimes more.

I had not read closely enough to see that they declared the recession "over" at the end of 2001. While I think some/many leading indicators had definitely turned by then -- and that the end of the recession portion of the cycle was definitely visible -- I am not sure that I would have agreed with their assessment.

 

[SRW]

More than anything else, it seems that Bush will have his butt saved on the economy by Alan Greenspan who was appointed (most recently) by Clinton...

...however...

WHERE'S THE JOBS?

Well many of us who were ridding the tech industry down the tubes in 2000, were not to happy with Greenspan raising interest rates 8 times that year.

But as to where are the jobs? Sorry many of them disappeared and are simply not coming back. Also there has been a huge amount of misguided retraining. Especially in the tech area. Hospitals are screaming about nursing shortages yet nursing classes are being canceled for lack of attendance, while Tech classes have to turn people away, even though no one is going to hire them.

Also 9/11 is still being felt in the tourism and other related fields.

 

[BTox]

So, the economy "got better" enough to stop calling it a recession 2 years ago. I think this shows how useless the definition of recession is.

The definition of a recession is a minimum two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. GDP growth was positive 4Q01 and has continued to grow since, hence the end of the recession in 2001. Only recently (last two quarters) has GDP growth really accelerated, and over the same time period, job growth has been continuous as well, albeit not as robust as expected. Job growth is predicted to accelerate this year - we'll see.

 

[HarryKeogh]

i started losing all my money in the stock market in 2000 so i always equate 2000 with being the start of the recession.(i was one of the geniuses who bought AOL at 70 and sold at 20, of course i'm poor and only had like 8 shares but it still hurt!)

and i'm convinced recessions and times of prosperity are just cyclical and have less to do with who's in office than many people think.

 

[dsm]

and i'm convinced recessions and times of prosperity are just cyclical and have less to do with who's in office than many people think.

Sure, they can be cyclical, but what might the "man in office" have done to smooth the ups and downs for the American worker (and, as a consequence, American corporations)?

• Massive funding to infrastructure development jobs to try to get as many people as possible off of unemployment while jobs are not being generated elsewhere.
• Increased education funding -- particularly in retraining for the likely areas to be needed in the future.
• Do more to cut and/or eliminate illegal workers and short-term work visas (H1B) to spur employers to hire more permanent residents.
• Look into short and long term tariffs to spur domestic creation of goods and, thus, get more people employed.
• Work with other countries to "level the field" with respect to cost of goods and, thus, make sure their goods are not artificially cheap.
• And so on...

All these things should be done (or, at least, seriously discussed) when a recession begins to show its ugly head -- not when the signs are that the recession is (nearly) over and the "man in the office" needs something to show that he's "working on it".