Not sure what you are smoking but not inhaling but Clinton did not create 20 Million of anything.
dailyrepublican.com on his first term.
Further:
It's official: Recession is over
Economists: End came in '01 despite continued job losses
By Robert Gavin, Globe Staff, 7/18/2003
The US economy emerged from recession nearly two years ago, even though it has been losing jobs ever since, according to the Cambridge-based group that officially dates US business cycles.
The National Bureau of Economic Research, the recognized authority on when recessions begin and end, announced yesterday that the recession that began in March 2001 ended eight months later in November of that year.
[NOTE: The accompanying graph clearly shows the slide beginning in March 2000!]
The group's Business Cycle Dating Committee based its conclusion largely on data that show that gross domestic product, which measures the nation's output of goods and services, has been growing steadily since the end of 2001 and is now greater than it was at the peak of the 1990s expansion.
The eight-month duration makes the 2001 recession among the briefest since World War II, but it has nonetheless been followed by one of the weakest recoveries, with the economy rebounding at about half the rate of previous upturns. Since the recession technically ended, the nation has lost nearly 1 million jobs.
Noting the weakness in labor markets, the bureau, in a statement, was quick to add: ''In determining that a trough occurred in November 2001, the committee did not conclude that economic conditions since that month have been favorable or that the economy has returned to operating at normal capacity. Rather, the committee determined only that the recession ended and recovery began in that month.''
That, of course, is little comfort to the 9.3 million who were still jobless in June, or the hundreds of thousands who have lost jobs during the recovery.
''If the economy isn't growing enough to give people work, what's the difference?'' said Mark D. Trachtenberg, 43, of Brighton, who was laid off from the state Department of Revenue in September and has been looking for work ever since. ''I have a hard time believing that it's ended.''
Trachtenberg's views underscore the differing perspectives on what constitutes a recession. While the public focuses on the job market, economists typically track the ups and downs of the economy according to output, with GDP as the broadest measure. Most economists agree that the economy, as measured by GDP, stopped contracting near the end of 2001 and has been recovering, albeit weakly and unevenly, for more than a year. As a rule of thumb, many analysts define a recession as two consecutive quarters of declining GDP.
While employment has traditionally followed increases in output, the time between a production turnaround and job growth has expanded in the last two recessions. During the so-called ''jobless recovery'' that followed the 1990-91 downturn, the economy went 13 months before employment growth resumed, according to Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo Banks in Minneapolis. This recovery -- now at 19 months and counting -- has gone jobless even longer.
Bureau economists, who consider several factors -- including GDP, employment, income, and sales in dating a recession -- said the opposite trajectories of output and jobs gave them pause in calling the end of the 2001 recession. Ultimately, the group said in its statement, it gave more weight to GDP, which has grown 4 percent since bottoming in the third quarter of 2001 and is 3.3 percent above its peak in the 1990s expansion.
Those economists said that productivity gains appear responsible for the growing divergence between output and jobs. Reaping the benefits of investments in technology and other improvements during the 1990s, and under increasing pressure from global competitors, businesses are getting more out of their current work force instead of hiring employees. The 2001 recession was remarkable in that unlike past contractions, when productivity typically flattens or falls, productivity grew at an annual rate of 3 percent, according to Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com, a West Chester, Pa., consulting firm.
In order for the economy to add jobs, output must grow faster than productivity, Zandi added. But since the recovery began, productivity has been growing at a 3.6 percent rate, about a percentage point faster than output.
Sohn, the Wells Fargo economist, said such economic changes, driven by technology and globalization, raise questions of whether output is indeed the best measure of the economy's health. Increasingly, he added, businesses, particularly manufacturers, are sending jobs overseas, rather than recalling laid-off workers.
''Can you have a recovery without jobs?'' he said. ''I would argue that employment has to stabilize first before you can even think about a recovery.''
Many economists, however, believe labor markets are beginning to stabilize, and that the economy, souped-up by historically low interest rates and a federal tax cut, will, in the second half of the year, grow fast enough to generate jobs, with a broad-based recovery taking hold next year.
Robert Gavin can be reached at rgavin@globe.com.
This story ran on page C1 of the Boston Globe on 7/18/2003. |
