Double-dip!

[city diehard]

I think I heard, briefly, of a triple dip on the horizon...

Need to end this recession first but who did you hear it from?

Ps - The voces in your head don't count.

Is this still one of those those technical recessions that isn't really a recession as such. Remember metalblue talking about it

Two consecutive quarters of negative growth clearly defines it as a recession.

 

[SWP's back]

Need to end this recession first but who did you hear it from?

Ps - The voces in your head don't count.

Is this still one of those those technical recessions that isn't really a recession as such. Remember metalblue talking about it

Two consecutive quarters of negative growth clearly defines it as a recession.

It's 3 quarters in a row to now actually but I don't think you follow the nuance of the term "technical recession".

Then again you referred to it as a depression...

 

[city diehard]

By highlighting his Nobel Prize I believe it gives my opinions, views more credibility, and obviously it strengthens your argument, nothing wrong with that, that's how you construct an argument, simple as.

Maybe in high school perhaps, but grown ups call it an argument from authority and it's fallacious, especially in economics where 100 economists will give you 100 different answers. That is not to say that you may not have a point, just you are going about making it in a very clumsy manner (and as you ended your last paragraph so beautifully, I shall do the same) end of.

Referencing to my age firstly doesn't somehow make your argument, what there is of it, better than mine, so trying to belittle me is beneath you even if others disagree. Utilising evidence and other peoples opinion, like people using articles, debates, opinions is way of strengthening your own. Your opinions have been influenced, you ego may not want to hear it, by others whether you like it or not and therefore to somehow not want to credit those people, or pass them off as your own is ludicrous. Moreover, to try and discredit a whole profession is little more than you taking a populist line and that you yourself are in a better position to exert your wisdom than some person who has spent the last 30 years studying about the subject is again just plain stupid. However, we will go with you, just because you say so.

 

[SWP's back]

Are you saying I have just rubbished economics and economists?

And where did I rubbish his views? I didn't, I simply said an argument from authority on a subject with no definitive answer is fallacious. I thought I made that clear.

 

[city diehard]

Is this still one of those those technical recessions that isn't really a recession as such. Remember metalblue talking about it

Two consecutive quarters of negative growth clearly defines it as a recession.

It's 3 quarters in a row to now actually but I don't think you follow the nuance of the term "technical recession".

Then again you referred to it as a depression...

A recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth, that is the definition of a recession whether it exceeds that time doesn't matter. I am fully aware it is still a recession. So to highlight that it is now three quarters, which I'm sure we are all aware of, does not need highlighting, maybe just keep it to yourself next time.<br /><br />-- Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:48 pm --<br /><br />

Are you suffering I have just rubbished economics and economists?

Despite the grammar being even below your standards, you actually haven't contended the substances of my previous arguments but the style, which is easier for you to mange. How about contending what I have actually argued? Not how I have constructed it, or is that to much of a task for you?

 

[SWP's back]

Two consecutive quarters of negative growth clearly defines it as a recession.

It's 3 quarters in a row to now actually but I don't think you follow the nuance of the term "technical recession".

Then again you referred to it as a depression...

A recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth, that is the definition of a recession whether it exceeds that time doesn't matter. I am fully aware it is still a recession. So to highlight that it is now three quarters, which I'm sure we are all aware of, does not need highlighting, maybe just keep it to yourself next time.

Still not understanding the term "technical recession" then?

And you stated "two consecutive quarters of negative growth clearly defines IT as...." why refer to the current recession if simply giving the definition.

Glad you're back to calling it a recession rather than depression now though. Glad to have helped educate you.

-- Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:52 pm --

Two consecutive quarters of negative growth clearly defines it as a recession.

It's 3 quarters in a row to now actually but I don't think you follow the nuance of the term "technical recession".

Then again you referred to it as a depression...

A recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth, that is the definition of a recession whether it exceeds that time doesn't matter. I am fully aware it is still a recession. So to highlight that it is now three quarters, which I'm sure we are all aware of, does not need highlighting, maybe just keep it to yourself next time.

-- Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:48 pm --

Are you suffering I have just rubbished economics and economists?

Despite the grammar being even below your standards, you actually haven't contended the substances of my previous arguments but the style, which is easier for you to mange. How about contending what I have actually argued? Not how I have constructed it, or is that to much of a task for you?

Ouch, there's some irony. (That and my mistake was spelling thanks to predictive rather than grammar but not to worry my little pedant)


Read the edit bum fluff. - I went on to say:

And where did I rubbish his views? I didn't, I simply said an argument from authority on a subject with no definitive answer is fallacious. I thought I made that clear.

 

[metalblue]

The numbers were a bit of a surprise but thats it...little point drawing anything from the last quarter or next quarter...what we forecast here for 2012? -0.2% to -0.5% growth? I'll get about as giddy at that as I would if it were +0.2% to +0.5%. We are bottom feeding at the minute. Employment is up (probably due to Olympics) construction down (perhaps partly due to end of Olympic and associated builds?) overall perhaps the olympics were clouding the numbers a little and making GDP better than perhaps it would have been and this is little more than a rebalance.

 

[city diehard]

It's 3 quarters in a row to now actually but I don't think you follow the nuance of the term "technical recession".

Then again you referred to it as a depression...

A recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth, that is the definition of a recession whether it exceeds that time doesn't matter. I am fully aware it is still a recession. So to highlight that it is now three quarters, which I'm sure we are all aware of, does not need highlighting, maybe just keep it to yourself next time.

Still not understanding the term "technical recession" then?

And you stated "two consecutive quarters of negative growth clearly defines IT as...." why refer to the current recession if simply giving the definition.

Glad you're back to calling it a recession rather than depression now though. Glad to have helped educate you.

This piece may enlighten you about labelling our current situation as a depression rather than a simple a recession which we know is two (or more) consecutive quarters of negative growth)

Krugman says he uses the term depression to describe today's economy because "it's qualitatively similar to the Great Depression." He tells NPR's Robert Siegel, "It is a sustained period of really lousy economic performance and an enormous amount of suffering."

Krugman worries that we're becoming accustomed to this reality. "We've kind of settled into the notion that this is the new normal," he says. "But it shouldn't be. And it's not something we should accept."

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.npr.org/2012/04/27/151473654/paul-krugmans-prescription-for-a-depression" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.npr.org/2012/04/27/151473654 ... depression</a>

There is not a clear definition of a depression, it is a normative concept and hence it's application to todays events splits opinion, that my view which I have garnered from reading Krugman and other works. However, your opinions are exclusively yours aren't they? You pass them off as your own because your ego can't deal with someone other than yourself taking credit for the opinion you have made.

 

[Anonymous]

stockport town centre was a shit hole before the recession, imagine what its like now

 

[city diehard]

It's 3 quarters in a row to now actually but I don't think you follow the nuance of the term "technical recession".

Then again you referred to it as a depression...

A recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth, that is the definition of a recession whether it exceeds that time doesn't matter. I am fully aware it is still a recession. So to highlight that it is now three quarters, which I'm sure we are all aware of, does not need highlighting, maybe just keep it to yourself next time.

Still not understanding the term "technical recession" then?

And you stated "two consecutive quarters of negative growth clearly defines IT as...." why refer to the current recession if simply giving the definition.

Glad you're back to calling it a recession rather than depression now though. Glad to have helped educate you.

-- Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:52 pm --

It's 3 quarters in a row to now actually but I don't think you follow the nuance of the term "technical recession".

Then again you referred to it as a depression...

A recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth, that is the definition of a recession whether it exceeds that time doesn't matter. I am fully aware it is still a recession. So to highlight that it is now three quarters, which I'm sure we are all aware of, does not need highlighting, maybe just keep it to yourself next time.

-- Mon Jul 30, 2012 4:48 pm --

Are you suffering I have just rubbished economics and economists?

Despite the grammar being even below your standards, you actually haven't contended the substances of my previous arguments but the style, which is easier for you to mange. How about contending what I have actually argued? Not how I have constructed it, or is that to much of a task for you?

Ouch, there's some irony. (That and my mistake was spelling thanks to predictive rather than grammar but not to worry my little pedant)


Read the edit bum fluff. - I went on to say:

And where did I rubbish his views? I didn't, I simply said an argument from authority on a subject with no definitive answer is fallacious. I thought I made that clear.

Why don't you argue the substance rather than the style of the argument? I reaIise I have periodically done it in one of my posts which I hope you can move on from and argue about the substance.

Very classy by the way.