Bill Cosby wrote:
Your entire argument is weak. We're basically being ask to take you word for it when you say the books are cooked.
Let's take the month of February for example. The fed reported inflation using PPI (Producer Price Index), a measure of wholesale prices that at its “core,” which reportedly strips out the volatile food and energy costs, showed a benign growth of 0.2 percent.
Headline numbers, which include the things we eat and drink and power our car with, showed an ugly 1.6 percent increase. But, of course, we’re not supposed to look at “headline” inflation, just the core numbers because they represent more constant cost patterns. But one index after another showed stunning surges, none more so than the gain in finished consumer foods. Those prices jumped 3.9 percent in February, the biggest gain in 37 years, going all the way back to the Nixon administration. Fresh and dry vegetables soared 48.7 percent in just one month.
Crude energy materials rose 0.9 percent in February and were up 17.8 percent over the past three months. The natural gas index jumped 7.6 percent in the month and intermediate energy goods rose 4.3 percent, the largest one-month gain since January 2010.
An added little gov't obfuscation when it comes to energy: The PPI measures prices at a fixed date just before the mid-point of the month, which in the case of February would have been before the huge run in oil that sent crude prices over $100 a barrel and gas at the pump to $3.50 a gallon.
But the gov't only wants to use "core" inflation in its statistics.
rayiner wrote:Again, the word "recession" implies shrinking GDP. We can be in a huge hole relative to 2007 (and we are, no doubt about that) and still not be in a recession.
No, it doesn't. There are numerous definitions of recession from numerous organizations. Some base it on the base year.
If this is the case, then since our economy has yet to recover to 2008 levels, we are still in recession and there was never a recovery.
THANK YOU. Exactly what I was saying before. The people who write the rules on what a recovery is and then insiting we are in one is as honest as the ABA writing the rules for employment reporting and then schools boasting 99% employment. It's a farce.
Just because the gov't spoon fed you one definition, that happens to be neatly included in your USA-indoctrination books I mean textbooks, doesn't mean it's the best or only definition. I think the gov'ts definitions are arbitrary and misleading. Just look at the economic indicators, to call this a recovery doesn't mean it's a recovery, it means we have a very playful and amusing definition of recovery.