You're talk sense to idiocy, Jorj. It's hopeless.
St. Louis Fed data says there WAS no recession, using the classical "two quarters of negative GDP growth" method.
research.stlouisfed.org
The National Bureau of Economic Research, generally taken as the authority in these matters, says a peak of economic activity occurred in March 2001.
nber.org
Bush had been in office all of two months at that time. Blaming the resultant decline on him is totally absurd. AS may argue other economic policies of the Bush administration were mistaken, but a claim the recession is Bush's fault is absurd.
The stock market is a leading indicator for the economy; in fact, it is one of the values that go into the widely publicized leading indicator value that is released each month. ALL the major indices had peaked and started down before Clinton left office.
stockcharts.com[g,a]daclnnay[d19990101,20021231][p]&pref=G
stockcharts.com[g,a]daclnnay[d19990101,20021231][p]&pref=G
stockcharts.com[g,a]daclnnay[d19990101,20021231][p]&pref=G
stockcharts.com[g,a]daclnnay[d19990101,20021231][p]&pref=G
stockcharts.com[g,a]daclnnay[d19990101,20021231][p]&pref=G
I'm basically with you. There are cycles of varying and unpredictable length in economic activity. Presidents love to take credit for economic expansions; their detractors love to blame them for the contractions; neither is true. |
