2001 Recession Revised Away (There was no recession)

[tritsofme]

US 2001 Slump May Not Have Been Recession at All

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Not only was the U.S. recession in 2001 the shallowest on record, it may not have been one at all -- at least in the classic sense of two straight quarterly declines, new government data show.

In annual revisions to U.S. gross domestic product numbers released on Friday that could fuel a politically charged debate, the Commerce Department rewrote the history of the recent downturn by revising away a decline in the second quarter of 2001.

The new figures, which reflect more complete source data, show economic activity peaked in the second quarter of 2001, not the fourth quarter of 2000.

<snip>
http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/116084|top|07-30-2004::08:50|reuters.html

Looking at BEA data for 2001, Q1 showed -0.5%, Q2 showed +1.2%, Q3 showed -1.4%, and Q4 +1.6%.

A recession is generally defined as two or more quarters of negative growth, back to back.

[Union Thug]

1. You mean that one that was Clinton's fault?

Or do you mean the one that lost 3 million jobs?

[onehandle]

2. But...but chimpy said live on tv today......

...that the recession started under Clinton.

Now there was no recession?

Does Bush Ever tell the truth?

[Bandit]

3. So the "downturn" started second quarter of 2001 not 2000.

I guess that means it had nothing to do with Clinton at all.

[tritsofme]

11. There was a small contraction in Q3 2000.

of 0.5%. I've believe that's when the downturn started.

Q1 2000 had very anemic growth of 1%, we had a seemingly big ounceback in Q2 2000 with 6.4% growth, the small contraction as I mentioned in Q3, and anemic 2.1% growth in Q4, and we were sent back into a small contraction of 0.5% in Q1 2001, as I mentioned.

I don't blame Bush or Clinton for the slowdown or quasi-recession in 2001, because its just the natural turning of the business cycle.

I'll never forget the headline of the Chicago Tribune when Bush got his tax cut passed, one headline: Recession Officially Over; the next headline: Bush Tax Cuts Finally Pass.

[wuushew]

4. When have numbers ever been revised three years after the fact?

Did the Great Depression or Panick of 1837 also not happen according to the economists of 2004?

[tritsofme]

12. This is not unusual.

GDP numbers can be revised years after the fact to reflect the best data available.

[calimary]

5. Poo! Link doesn't work.

Thanks for posting this - I'd love to read more.

[tritsofme]

16. Link here:

http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/116084|top|07-30-2004::08:50|reuters.html

well it won't post for some reason. If you copy it into your browser, then it should work.

[gratuitous]

6. So if there was no recession . . .

Then Bush didn't need to cut taxes to pull us out of recession (yeah, like that's really why he did it), and we've emptied the Treasury into the pockets of his overrich friends for nothing.

Is my logic impeccable, or what?

[bluedog]

7. Money Line Says U.S. 2001: slump or recession

http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/30/news/economy/recession.reut/index.htm


The new figures, which reflect more complete source data, show economic activity peaked in the second quarter of 2001, not the fourth quarter of 2000.


Measured from the new peak, the economy shrank just 0.4 percent, keeping the recession as measured by GDP the mildest on record. The 1969-1970 recessionary period, in which the economy contracted 0.6 percent, comes in a close second.

The National Bureau of Economic Research, the unofficial but accepted arbiter of U.S. recessions, has said the downturn began in March 2001 and ended in November of that year.

However, the White House has argued that the economy peaked earlier and has contended President Bush inherited the recession from his predecessor, President Clinton.


http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/30/news/economy/recession.reut/index.htm

[yellowcanine]

8. In other words, the "slump" occured entirely on Bush's watch, then -

another Bush lie has just been refuted.

[tritsofme]

13. Just don't get too confident with that argument in debates

because there was a small retraction of GDP in Q3 2000.

[qanda]

9. Well, if there was no recession

That means it didn't start under Clinton.

[Demeter]

10. Can You Think of Two Positive Words that Mean a Negative?

Yeah, right.

[tom_paine]

14. The Sovietization of Imperial Amerika continues apace

I heard that the Soviet Ministry of Agriculture reported that there never was any hunger in the Old Soviet Union, too!

Totalitarian Scum, be they Left or be they Right, aren't really much different in their blackened cowardly hearts, are they?

[enki23]

15. yet, somehow, we managed to lose millions of jobs...

AND have hourly wages fall at the same time.

so then what does "economy" mean to us, exactly?

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. a question for economists

looking at the BEA press release for this (http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/gdpnewsrelease.htm) it says, in Table 1, that in 2003, the GDP growth for the year was 3.0%; and for its quarters (seasonally adjusted at annual rates) 1.9%, 4.1%, 7.4%, and 4.2%. But those last 4 figures average out to 4.4%.

Why don't those quarterly figures average out to the yearly figure?

[MGKrebs]

18. I'm having trouble with the link, so here's another:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=reutersEdge&storyID=5833646