Reply #28: It's More Intense Than That Papau [View All]

[ProfessorGAC]

The traditional (and foolish) definition of economic recession is inadequate and statistically valid.

The situation Clinton inherited was far more dire in '92 than merely 2Q of negative growth. The increase in the deficit was based upon gov't spending increases in the 80's, not increased Transfer Payments. Therefore, the entire real GDP was funded with debt!

This means that the negative growth, indexed to debt, really meant that we had 5 years(!) of unsustainable economic conditions.

That's the primary reason why i think this traditional definition is foolish. If one looks at these traditional measures, one could consider the first quarter of 43 already entering recession. But, indexed to debt, the rate of growth in 1Q2001 was superior to any quarter in the Reagan era. Not exactly poor economic health.

The original poster of this nonsense is a buffoon and is not to be taken seriously. He/she knows nothing of which he/she speaks.
The Professor