The recession lasted 18 months and just as we didn’t know there was a recession until we were well into it, we are now told it ended in June 2009.
I was thinking back to my post last July, Dennis Kneale Recovery in which I remarked that he had declared the bottom was behind us, and it would just take time before it was declared. As you can see, the recession lasted longer the the prior three, and it will take somemore time before we feel that we are in a vibrant recovery. a bit of patience.
I prefer John Mauldin’s notion of s statistical recovery (http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/12/john-mauldin-thoughts-on-the-statistical-recovery.html). Surely, the increased government spending raises GDP by definition, but are we better off just because this figure is higher? Is government spending effective when the consensus is that its net impact is neutral and that the impact of the likely consequential increase in taxes negative? Can we honestly say that the last 15 months have been recovery months? If so, never, ever has employment lagged so much to pick up.
And the bulls celebrated by a nice advance in stocks for the day. Did not know the market was backwards looking by about 14 months. And nobody has looked at the image below it appears.
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_nSTO-vZpSgc/TJhFxFaAa0I/AAAAAAAAJXI/FSBDfXA5GL4/s1600/Garden+Variety+Recession.png
Very interesting point Augustine. Perhaps there should be the added distinction of “slow” recovery. This acknowledges that there are some favorable trends confounded by negative data… Just an idea.