Re: So it's between "probably" and "might?" <G>
No. It's a 'could be' and a 'won't know for sure for a while yet'....
The Fed - and several other economic prognosticators - have suggested that after this past summer's relatively 'high' growth numbers (subject to multiple 'official revisions' yet to come, of course... :-), the final Q. of 2007 may show growth slowed down to "1% (annualized) or less" --- practically unmeasurable, given the inherent measurement error in the stats.
That explicitly encompasses the possibility that the national economy may post negative growth for the Q. or, if not for the last Q. of '07, the trend might produce such results in 1st. Q. 2008.
After all... does anyone really imagine that the ongoing year-long thus far housing construction slowdown (to 20 year lows...), the sub-prime and Jumbo mortgage collapse that hit mid-summer (lows not seen since early 1980s), the expansion of same to the unplumbed depths of the S.I.V. holdings of the world's banks (mark-to-market downgrades just now beginning to hit), and the morphing of the previous three into (what we are just now seeing in the world's corporate debt markets) a Trillion dollar plus dry-up of credit availability will --- all together --- not have a SIGNIFICANT impact upon the real economy?
I think most thoughtful observers would suggest not... (and, does anyone really believe the Bureau of Labor's recent "job growth numbers" which --- to look at just October --- assumed, but did not actually 'count', some 80,000 additional jobs from the 'seasonally favorable housing construction surge'?????????
(That's the problem with trend-following and relying on PAST year's average numbers to project this year's numbers, I guess. :-)
So... to sum... "don't know yet", and "won't know for sure for a while", but the recession odds are (reliably, IMO) placed at around 40% or so (maybe a bit higher...) by numerous observers.
We will see, of course. Many things are still fluid, not locked-in stone. |
