What do you guys think? V-shaped, W-shaped, or L-shaped? Or create your own shape in your own alphabet… A handy guide: V-shaped recessions are formed by streams and rivers, U-shaped recessions are formed by glaciers, and L-shaped recessions are formed when anvils are dropped onto your economy (or CDOs, whatever).
I dunno about letters of the alphabet, but W shaped this one (along with AG).
Yeah, Joey, I guess 60 some months of economic expansion isn’t good enough. The opposition will always criticize.
You’re kidding right?
Why would I be kidding? We set some record over the last 5+ years as far as consecutive quarters of economic expansion. Recessions happen. Good times don’t last forever.
I vote for a G-shaped recession, followed by an 8-shaped recovery.
I’m thinking Nike swoosh. The v implies to quick and robust of a recovery. We will get through this but the macroeconomic picture looked much better during our downturn at the beginning of this decade.
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why would I be kidding? We set some record over > the last 5+ years as far as consecutive quarters > of economic expansion. Recessions happen. Good > times don’t last forever. Geez, shovel money into the economy and run up gigantic deficits…how would that affect the economy in the short-term? Fight a few wars besides…
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why would I be kidding? We set some record over > the last 5+ years as far as consecutive quarters > of economic expansion. Recessions happen. Good > times don’t last forever. Much of this expansion was built on false earnings that are now being exposed as assets are unwound. I’d wait until home prices and stop falling and loan defaults (of all kinds) stop rising before boasting about 60 months of economic expansion.
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yeah, Joey, I guess 60 some months of economic > expansion isn’t good enough. The opposition will > always criticize. The opposition? How do you mean? Maybe if you mean opposition to the political and economic hubris of your 60 month expansion.
How about LVLWWWL
what opposition?. the congress (both parties) approved all the huge spending practically unanimously
Chuckrox8 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How about LVLWWWL Haha nice one.
Yeah, neither party stands for small government…
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why would I be kidding? We set some record over > the last 5+ years as far as consecutive quarters > of economic expansion. Recessions happen. Good > times don’t last forever. Clinton still owns that record.
kevinf12 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yeah, neither party stands for small > government… Agree completely. Democratic socialism and economic fascism/corporatism amount to the same thing in the long run.
L but more like I____
“shovel money into the economy and run up gigantic deficits…how would that affect the economy in the short-term?” Um, are you studying the CFA? Those are STIMULATIVE measures! I don’t like Bush one bit but you are crazy if you blame him for this (or give Clinton credit for the 90’s) and don’t deserve the CFA.
The point is that the 60 months of growth wasn’t necessarily natural economic growth, but stimulated by expansionary monetary, fiscal, and tax policies. Finally, we run out of stimulant juice and now we might face an extra hard crash.
“we run out of stimulant juice and now we might face an extra hard crash.” But we might not too! Remember, the stimulus was given right after a horrible market crash and 9/11. What Bush did was appropriate considering the situation. Also, before this recent downturn, we had a couple years of very low deficits relative to GDP. If anyone overstimulated, it was Greenspan keeping rates too low too long. Again, I’m not a Bush fan, but I don’t think you can blame him for this downturn at all.