Recession ended...

[Ellipzocore]

...officially in June of last year.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100920/bs_nm/us_usa_economy_nber

["User"]

Here's another one:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/21/business/la-fi-recession-over-20100921

Keep in mind these economists also said that this was the worse economic downtown since the Great Depression (which is a load of shit).  Back in the 60's and 70's you had 15% unemployment and very high interest rates (which make matters a HELL of a lot worse than the record low rates you see today) and I assure you if you talk to people who are 50 or over they will tell you that this recession is inferior to what they had to go through. >_>

Technically, most economists agree as a general rule of thumb that two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth constitutes a recession.  However, while technically number wise they might be correct, in practice it's obvious in this case that the effects of the recession are FAR from over in the U.S.

Btw Riccofox, I love your avatar. :)

[Guest Julius Quasar]

...officially in June of last year.

I personally find that to be a load of crap.  We had a recession in the early 2000's, and then it got REALLY bad in '08.  It's a double dip recession.  Economic recovery could take 3 to 5 years (from an optimistic point of view).

[DZComposer]

Here's another one:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/21/business/la-fi-recession-over-20100921

Keep in mind these economists also said that this was the worse economic downtown since the Great Depression (which is a load of shit).  Back in the 60's and 70's you had 15% unemployment and very high interest rates (which make matters a HELL of a lot worse than the record low rates you see today) and I assure you if you talk to people who are 50 or over they will tell you that this recession is inferior to what they had to go through. >_>

Technically, most economists agree as a general rule of thumb that two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth constitutes a recession.  However, while technically number wise they might be correct, in practice it's obvious in this case that the effects of the recession are FAR from over in the U.S.

Btw Riccofox, I love your avatar.

That was before they changed the unemployment metric to exclude the underemployed (part-time workers who want to work full-time) and the long-term unemployed. Counting those factors, I've seen estimates that unemployment may actually be close to 20% right now.

While, in a technical sense, the recession is over, we aren't really having an economic recovery. Most of our GDP growth in the past 30 years has been in financial instruments, and financial instruments are why GDP recovered. Once Wall Street got off of the floor, it went back to business as usual. Without a manufacturing base, I really don't see how we're going to have a sustainable recovery. The banking sector may be heading towards a hard lesson in you can't have a functioning economy based solely on financial services.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

That was before they changed the unemployment metric to exclude the underemployed (part-time workers who want to work full-time) and the long-term unemployed. Counting those factors, I've seen estimates that unemployment may actually be close to 20% right now.

Totally.  Our nation is screwed. 

[Kursed]

That was before they changed the unemployment metric to exclude the underemployed (part-time workers who want to work full-time) and the long-term unemployed. Counting those factors, I've seen estimates that unemployment may actually be close to 20% right now.

While, in a technical sense, the recession is over, we aren't really having an economic recovery. Most of our GDP growth in the past 30 years has been in financial instruments, and financial instruments are why GDP recovered. Once Wall Street got off of the floor, it went back to business as usual. Without a manufacturing base, I really don't see how we're going to have a sustainable recovery. The banking sector may be heading towards a hard lesson in you can't have a functioning economy based solely on financial services.

It's quiet obvious what's been happning with the nation in my town we're a major exporter of receational vehicles of all kinds and alot of the companies here have moved out and ontop of tthat we have alot of roads being redone with 'stimulus money that won't help us at all....I miss the Rv industry it's kinda cool to see.

[Star Fox Runner]

Well, technically, the Recession IS over, we just haven't recovered. So we're still in a low spot economically, so really, we're still in trouble.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

It's quiet obvious what's been happning with the nation in my town we're a major exporter of receational vehicles of all kinds and alot of the companies here have moved out and ontop of tthat we have alot of roads being redone with 'stimulus money that won't help us at all....I miss the Rv industry it's kinda cool to see.

I miss it too.

It was pretty cool huh?

Well, technically, the Recession IS over, we just haven't recovered. So we're still in a low spot economically, so really, we're still in trouble.

Just because a recession is "over" doesn't mean the economy will improve.  (Our recession is NOT over, IMO).  Hell, the early 2000's recession ended, yet we were all still broke, hell, if anything ANOTHER recession happened, in about '08 or so.  Recovery could take years.

[Showtime 1-1]

I thought the whole "recession over" guise is just a prompt for the banks to raise the interest rates again and start making some money.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

I thought the whole "recession over" guise is just a prompt for the banks to raise the interest rates again and start making some money.

^ There you go!

[Star Fox Runner]

I thought the whole "recession over" guise is just a prompt for the banks to raise the interest rates again and start making some money.

I wouldn't be surprised really!