Create new account | My Profile | My Account | My Bookmarks | My Inbox | Help | Log in

Home Latest Threads Greatest Threads Forums & Groups My Subscriptions My Posts

DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Recession May Loom for Ne...

Wed May 11, 2016, 11:52 AM

Purveyor (29,876 posts)

Recession May Loom for Next U.S. President No Matter Who That Is

Talk about a poisoned chalice. No matter who is elected to the White House in November, the next president will probably face a recession.

The 83-month-old expansion is already the fourth-longest in more than 150 years and starting to show some signs of aging as corporate profits peak and wage pressures build. It also remains vulnerable to a shock because growth has been so feeble, averaging just about 2 percent since the last downturn ended in June 2009.

"If the next president is not going to have a recession, it will be a U.S. record," said Gad Levanon, chief economist for North America at the Conference Board in New York. "The longest expansion we ever had was 10 years," beginning in 1991.

The history of cyclical fluctuations suggests that the "odds are significantly better than 50-50 that we will have a recession within the next three years," according to former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers.

Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist for JPMorgan Chase & Co. in New York, puts the probability of a downturn during that time frame at about two in three.

more...

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-11/congrats-on-winning-the-white-house-here-s-your-recession

15 replies, 2003 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

15 replies	Author	Time	Post
Recession May Loom for Next U.S. President No Matter Who That Is (Original post)	Purveyor	May 2016	OP
Makes sense...	Peacetrain	May 2016	#1
I've been thinking about that a lot	Fresh_Start	May 2016	#2
The next President could be appointing 3 or more Supreme Court Justices,	pnwmom	May 2016	#13
it's worse than that	Albertoo	May 2016	#3
That is the problem, the Fed can't prime the pump by lowering interest rates as they are damned near	Purveyor	May 2016	#4
Oh, it won't be 'another' 2008, it's the same	Albertoo	May 2016	#7
Re 1929:	PETRUS	May 2016	#9
Keynes/WWII... one and the same is apparently not what the new studies say	Albertoo	May 2016	#10
What new studies?	PETRUS	May 2016	#11
I got it from a 'cloud'	Albertoo	May 2016	#12
I too read a fair bit of economics.	PETRUS	May 2016	#14
Well, you don't have to trust me, but..	Albertoo	May 2016	#15
no surprise here. the market's cyclical, and after the records highs, a pull back is def possible	just4lulzidk	May 2016	#5
Big recession and aggressive congress	Thirties Child	May 2016	#6
We do tend to over-emphasize what the Pres can do about the economy...	Wounded Bear	May 2016	#8

Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed May 11, 2016, 11:54 AM

Peacetrain (20,965 posts)

1. Makes sense...

Everything has a life span.. and back and forth.. and we are definitely over due

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed May 11, 2016, 11:57 AM

Fresh_Start (11,181 posts)

2. I've been thinking about that a lot

its not only our economy...but also that the global economy hasn't been contributing.

I wonder if the smartest thing to do would be to allow Trump to win...survive 4 miserable years...
but know that his voters will become even more disengaged or enraged with the GOP who once again let them down.

I hate the idea of any democrat being in office when we fall of the cliff again...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Fresh_Start (Reply #2)

Thu May 12, 2016, 02:50 AM

pnwmom (104,070 posts)

13. The next President could be appointing 3 or more Supreme Court Justices,

and their impact could be felt for decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed May 11, 2016, 12:02 PM

Albertoo (2,016 posts)

3. it's worse than that

because 2007-2008 was a massive hit (the Great Recession)
The stormy waters have been calmed for a while by pouring oil (tons of free money)
But the storm is smoldering under the oil, and the free money supply is drying out..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Albertoo (Reply #3)

Wed May 11, 2016, 12:04 PM

Purveyor (29,876 posts)

4. That is the problem, the Fed can't prime the pump by lowering interest rates as they are damned near

zero now.

No, a recession of the magnitude of the 2008 recession (it started around 2007 for us in Michigan) will be devastating.

The time is now to start planning accordingly if one hasn't already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Purveyor (Reply #4)

Wed May 11, 2016, 12:08 PM

Albertoo (2,016 posts)

7. Oh, it won't be 'another' 2008, it's the same

Like I said, all the free money pumped by the Fed and Draghi have bought time, but the downward cycle was kindled with no real fix.

On a gloomier note, what fixed 1929 was not really Keynes but WWII.
Seeing the rise in nationalism everywhere, I hate the comparison, but..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Albertoo (Reply #7)

Wed May 11, 2016, 12:42 PM

PETRUS (3,573 posts)

9. Re 1929:

Keynes/WWII... one and the same. WWII made expansive fiscal policy acceptable (or imperative, even). There's nothing special about wartime spending except that our elected representatives aren't so reluctant with the purse strings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to PETRUS (Reply #9)

Wed May 11, 2016, 09:36 PM

Albertoo (2,016 posts)

10. Keynes/WWII... one and the same is apparently not what the new studies say

I must confess to not having read into it, but the new consensus of economic historians seems to be that the New Deal wasn't working (yet?) when war broke. It seems the latest number crunching shows the uptick started with the war. Correlation or causation is more difficult to decide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Albertoo (Reply #10)

Wed May 11, 2016, 10:27 PM

PETRUS (3,573 posts)

11. What new studies?

The data is plain. Look at federal spending by year from 1930 to 1946 and it's perfectly plain what happened. Outlays went from a few percent of GDP to 10% in 1934 and stayed around 8-10% for a few years with deficits in the order of 4 or 5% of GDP (this is the New Deal in action), then outlays started going up in 1941 and peaked at 42% of GDP with deficits of 20% to almost 40% of GDP (this is WWII). WWII was the proximate cause for the increase in spending but the results were because of the spending, not the war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to PETRUS (Reply #11)

Wed May 11, 2016, 10:50 PM

Albertoo (2,016 posts)

12. I got it from a 'cloud'

I read a fair bit of economic papers from a rather wide spectrum of sources, and I notice in the new century increasingly frequent remarks "in passing" about studies that put in doubt the fact the New Deal solved the economic downturn (it's possible nothing could have)

However, this does not mean Keynes and Roosevelt were wrong: the crisis was so terrible it was essential to put people back to work and regain livelihoods. All I believe these studies say is that the New Deal cured the symptoms, but that it did not -and that any policy could not- cure a downturn which had been caused by massive prior mistakes (and the cyclical nature of the economy as we know it)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Albertoo (Reply #12)

Thu May 12, 2016, 08:21 PM

PETRUS (3,573 posts)

14. I too read a fair bit of economics.

This study sounds like bunk. (Of course, economic theory predicts a well-funded market for right wing claptrap.) The public spending related to WWII (way higher than the New Deal) produced an economic boom. If the government had decided on something closer to that kind of spending for the New Deal, with ample financial support for basic research and industrial mobilization, we would have had an economic boom sooner. That kind of stimulus won't work if the resources (labor, skills, raw materials) aren't available, but clearly they were.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to PETRUS (Reply #14)

Thu May 12, 2016, 08:29 PM

Albertoo (2,016 posts)

15. Well, you don't have to trust me, but..

..I am fairly good at picking 'clouds' and 'beams'

it's quite a bit of references I picked to a newly forming consensus on the New Deal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed May 11, 2016, 12:05 PM

just4lulzidk (60 posts)

5. no surprise here. the market's cyclical, and after the records highs, a pull back is def possible

and if that's the case, i just hope y'all aren't some of those folks out there who couldn't afford a few hundred dollars if an emergency ever struck

personally, if there's another recession, i'll be buying buying buying into the market

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed May 11, 2016, 12:08 PM

Thirties Child (542 posts)

6. Big recession and aggressive congress

Fwiw -- and it won't be worth anything to most of you -- I looked at an astrological chart for the inauguration. Whoever is elected is going to have to deal with an aggressive, ready-to-fight congress and major money problems. One may precipitate the other -- congress causing a major recession/depression.

Let the flames begin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Wed May 11, 2016, 12:18 PM

Wounded Bear (43,205 posts)

8. We do tend to over-emphasize what the Pres can do about the economy...

much of the 'slowness' of the recovery was due to Repub intransigence. I'm starting to think they want to lose this cycle so they'll have another Dem to blame the coming troubles on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

General Discussion (Forum)