Is a recession coming?

4,983 Views | 108 Replies | Last: 3 mo ago by Doc Holliday
tommie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/13/us-businesses-are-taking-down-job-listings-trumps-trade-war-grows/
tommie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/12/bank-of-america-raises-chance-of-a-recession-to-1-in-3-in-the-next-12-months.html
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yes. Recession, or recovery, is always coming.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Yes. Recession, or recovery, is always coming.
Yep

I predict an earthquake will happen in California and a hurricane will strike the Gulf Coast

Just don't ask me when
codyorr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Yes. Recession, or recovery, is always coming.

This is the longest "expansion" since the 1850s, but it's also one of the weaker ones. Maybe the slower pace of recovery is helping stall a recession? Or maybe the ever-looming recession has dampened the recovery.

Either way, you're right. A recession will happen eventually.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_economic_expansions_in_the_United_States
https://www.nber.org/cycles.html
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We are already running trillion dollar deficits right now while the economy is doing relatively well. What I'm worried about is how high that number could go in a recession, and how difficult that will make any of the usual countermeasures to employ. It also really sucks that we never got the >3% annual GDP growth we were promised (I still remember POTUS saying "no reason why we don't go to 4, 5, even 6%") when the tax cut package passed, but we sure did get the yawning deficits that all the experts predicted.
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

We are already running trillion dollar deficits right now while the economy is doing relatively well. What I'm worried about is how high that number could go in a recession, and how difficult that will make any of the usual countermeasures to employ. It also really sucks that we never got the >3% annual GDP growth we were promised (I still remember POTUS saying "no reason why we don't go to 4, 5, even 6%") when the tax cut package passed, but we sure did get the yawning deficits that all the experts predicted.
Almost 75% of the Federal budget goes to transfer payments, benefits, interest on the debt, etc. Gee, wonder why all those yawning deficits? But, you know, Medicare for all and free everything for all of our new neighbors thanks to open borders. I'm sure it will all work out 'cause Warren has a plan for it...
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

HuMcK said:

We are already running trillion dollar deficits right now while the economy is doing relatively well. What I'm worried about is how high that number could go in a recession, and how difficult that will make any of the usual countermeasures to employ. It also really sucks that we never got the >3% annual GDP growth we were promised (I still remember POTUS saying "no reason why we don't go to 4, 5, even 6%") when the tax cut package passed, but we sure did get the yawning deficits that all the experts predicted.
Almost 75% of the Federal budget goes to transfer payments, benefits, interest on the debt, etc. Gee, wonder why all those yawning deficits? But, you know, Medicare for all and free everything for all of our new neighbors thanks to open borders. I'm sure it will all work out 'cause Warren has a plan for it...
I can tell you right now without even looking it up that your 75% figure is wildly incorrect. For instance, in 2015 "defense" spending accounted for over 55% of the federal budget, and that number has only increased since (a few token spending outlays were cut, but defense spending was significantly increased from previous levels by the current Admin).
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

curtpenn said:

HuMcK said:

We are already running trillion dollar deficits right now while the economy is doing relatively well. What I'm worried about is how high that number could go in a recession, and how difficult that will make any of the usual countermeasures to employ. It also really sucks that we never got the >3% annual GDP growth we were promised (I still remember POTUS saying "no reason why we don't go to 4, 5, even 6%") when the tax cut package passed, but we sure did get the yawning deficits that all the experts predicted.
Almost 75% of the Federal budget goes to transfer payments, benefits, interest on the debt, etc. Gee, wonder why all those yawning deficits? But, you know, Medicare for all and free everything for all of our new neighbors thanks to open borders. I'm sure it will all work out 'cause Warren has a plan for it...
I can tell you right now without even looking it up that your 75% figure is wildly incorrect. For instance, in 2015 "defense" spending accounted for over 55% of the federal budget, and that number has only increased since (a few token spending outlays were cut, but defense spending was significantly increased from previous levels by the current Admin).
You should look it up. It may be incorrect, but is not wildly so.

On second thoughts, here. Read and learn.
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

In 2015, at least 70 percent of federal spending was on what was described as "transfer payments, benefits, interest on the debt, etc." (mandatory spending and interest on debt) when you add in additional spending in those categories from discretionary spending, you may well get to 75 percent or beyond. Military spending is a little over 15 percent.
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

curtpenn said:

HuMcK said:

We are already running trillion dollar deficits right now while the economy is doing relatively well. What I'm worried about is how high that number could go in a recession, and how difficult that will make any of the usual countermeasures to employ. It also really sucks that we never got the >3% annual GDP growth we were promised (I still remember POTUS saying "no reason why we don't go to 4, 5, even 6%") when the tax cut package passed, but we sure did get the yawning deficits that all the experts predicted.
Almost 75% of the Federal budget goes to transfer payments, benefits, interest on the debt, etc. Gee, wonder why all those yawning deficits? But, you know, Medicare for all and free everything for all of our new neighbors thanks to open borders. I'm sure it will all work out 'cause Warren has a plan for it...
I can tell you right now without even looking it up that your 75% figure is wildly incorrect. For instance, in 2015 "defense" spending accounted for over 55% of the federal budget, and that number has only increased since (a few token spending outlays were cut, but defense spending was significantly increased from previous levels by the current Admin).
Try again:



https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go
HuMcK
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

HuMcK said:

curtpenn said:

HuMcK said:

We are already running trillion dollar deficits right now while the economy is doing relatively well. What I'm worried about is how high that number could go in a recession, and how difficult that will make any of the usual countermeasures to employ. It also really sucks that we never got the >3% annual GDP growth we were promised (I still remember POTUS saying "no reason why we don't go to 4, 5, even 6%") when the tax cut package passed, but we sure did get the yawning deficits that all the experts predicted.
Almost 75% of the Federal budget goes to transfer payments, benefits, interest on the debt, etc. Gee, wonder why all those yawning deficits? But, you know, Medicare for all and free everything for all of our new neighbors thanks to open borders. I'm sure it will all work out 'cause Warren has a plan for it...
I can tell you right now without even looking it up that your 75% figure is wildly incorrect. For instance, in 2015 "defense" spending accounted for over 55% of the federal budget, and that number has only increased since (a few token spending outlays were cut, but defense spending was significantly increased from previous levels by the current Admin).
Try again:



https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go


My bad, the figure I recalled was percentage of discretionary spending. My original point still stands though, the tax cuts brought the predicted deficits but not the promised growth. I seem to remember they were supposed to be budget positive, wasn't that how they were sold? It would be interesting to see some kind of projection for what the numbers would look like under the old tax laws, I bet similar growth could have been achieved without wrecking the budget so hard.
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

curtpenn said:

HuMcK said:

curtpenn said:

HuMcK said:

We are already running trillion dollar deficits right now while the economy is doing relatively well. What I'm worried about is how high that number could go in a recession, and how difficult that will make any of the usual countermeasures to employ. It also really sucks that we never got the >3% annual GDP growth we were promised (I still remember POTUS saying "no reason why we don't go to 4, 5, even 6%") when the tax cut package passed, but we sure did get the yawning deficits that all the experts predicted.
Almost 75% of the Federal budget goes to transfer payments, benefits, interest on the debt, etc. Gee, wonder why all those yawning deficits? But, you know, Medicare for all and free everything for all of our new neighbors thanks to open borders. I'm sure it will all work out 'cause Warren has a plan for it...
I can tell you right now without even looking it up that your 75% figure is wildly incorrect. For instance, in 2015 "defense" spending accounted for over 55% of the federal budget, and that number has only increased since (a few token spending outlays were cut, but defense spending was significantly increased from previous levels by the current Admin).
Try again:



https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go


My bad, the figure I recalled was percentage of discretionary spending. My original point still stands though, the tax cuts brought the predicted deficits but not the promised growth. I seem to remember they were supposed to be budget positive, wasn't that how they were sold? It would be interesting to see some kind of projection for what the numbers would look like under the old tax laws, I bet similar growth could have been achieved without wrecking the budget so hard.
What is this "discretionary spending" of which you speak? SMH... You do realize Federal tax receipts are at an all time high? Revenue isn't the problem. Spending is.
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yes, we will go into recession...we always do. They yield curve is close to inverting which most definitely signals a recession. These Tariffs are killing the economy. Trumps seriously blinked yesterday by not following through with "his tariff escalation". Trumps is looking at the stock market and the economy and he's figuring out he done screwed up. Economy goes in the tank, Trumps is done.
Johnny Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What's disgusting and reprehensible is the fact that so many on the left are literally rooting for a severe recession between now and election day 2020 because they know that's about the only way they have a prayer of defeating Trump. Forget the suffering and pain such a thing would cause many of their fellow citizens - they just want to seize power and the end justifies the means. Sickening.
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anyone rooting for a recession is foolish. I certainly don't. I have entirely too much at stake for that non-sense. I am merely pointing out that a recession seems much more likely. I also mentioned as just an aside, that if the market tanks, folks will not put up with the Trumps non-sense.
Forest Bueller
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Recession is unavoidable and we've been on a 10 year run, so it's also due.

Recessions since the end of WW2

1945
1949
1953
1958
1960-61
1969-70
1973-75
1980
1981-82
1990-91
2001
2007-09 great recession.

The longest span without a recession since WW2 is 10 years, so we can expect one sooner than later, it's simply part of the economic cycle.
MoneyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HuMcK said:

curtpenn said:

HuMcK said:

curtpenn said:

HuMcK said:

We are already running trillion dollar deficits right now while the economy is doing relatively well. What I'm worried about is how high that number could go in a recession, and how difficult that will make any of the usual countermeasures to employ. It also really sucks that we never got the >3% annual GDP growth we were promised (I still remember POTUS saying "no reason why we don't go to 4, 5, even 6%") when the tax cut package passed, but we sure did get the yawning deficits that all the experts predicted.
Almost 75% of the Federal budget goes to transfer payments, benefits, interest on the debt, etc. Gee, wonder why all those yawning deficits? But, you know, Medicare for all and free everything for all of our new neighbors thanks to open borders. I'm sure it will all work out 'cause Warren has a plan for it...
I can tell you right now without even looking it up that your 75% figure is wildly incorrect. For instance, in 2015 "defense" spending accounted for over 55% of the federal budget, and that number has only increased since (a few token spending outlays were cut, but defense spending was significantly increased from previous levels by the current Admin).
Try again:



https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go


My bad, the figure I recalled was percentage of discretionary spending. My original point still stands though, the tax cuts brought the predicted deficits but not the promised growth. I seem to remember they were supposed to be budget positive, wasn't that how they were sold? It would be interesting to see some kind of projection for what the numbers would look like under the old tax laws, I bet similar growth could have been achieved without wrecking the budget so hard.
You may want to compare the growth of "entitlements" under Obama vs Trump alongside your comparison of budget deficits. Welfare programs are notoriously difficult to repeal and are part of the reason that Trump has approved 2 obscene omnibus spending bills. Can't get rid of the ongoing payments from prior administration along with the need (or want) to increase defense spending back to pre-Obama levels. I'm not saying that Trump is clean in all of this but Obama's increase in welfare spending is a major long-term drag on the budget.

As others have said, tax receipts are actually higher. The deficit is not due to a loss in revenue, it's an increase in spending.

As to the growth comparison, feel free to set GDP growth under Trump alongside GDP growth under Obama. Then repeat with unemployment (broad or broken down into demographics) and wage growth. Obama presided over the longest, slowest recovery in history. It's difficult to argue that it wasn't partially if not largely due to regulation and tax policies.

Having said all of that, a common error is to attribute all of the growth or contraction to the President when that is not the only branch of government and, in some cases (or many), they are playing hand they were dealt by a previous administration or even cleaning up a mess from multiple administrations back. (Ex: Bush presided over a crash that was largely caused by Clinton's housing policy. Obama presided over a recovery that was both benefitted by the low starting point of that crash and hindered by the regulatory environment created by that crash.)
"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."

-Thomas Sowell
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I find it funny that for the last 3 years the entire time the market has gone up they never gave Trump credit but Dems tried to say it was because of Obama but the few times the market has fallen near 10% since 2016 they are quick to jump on and say it's #trumprecession and it's all his fault. Gotta love politics.
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Wall Street Journal editorial board claimed on Saturday that "Tax Revenues Are Higher," citing a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report that individual income tax receipts have increased by 7.9 percent since the same time last year. The suggestion of the piece is that despite massive tax cuts, revenue continues to rise. In reality, revenue has fallen since the enactment of the tax cuts.


While individual income tax receipts have increased in nominal dollars since last fiscal year, this statistic paints a misleading picture in a number of ways. Specifically, it ignores reductions in other sources of revenue, doesn't account for inflation, and relies in part on revenue raised by last year's tax code. Considering the entire tax code and focusing specifically on this tax year shows that total revenue has declined between 4 and 9 percent.

Whereas individual income tax revenue has risen by 7.9 percent in the first ten months of fiscal year 2018 compared to the first ten months of fiscal year 2017, corporate tax revenue has fallen by over 28 percent. In total, nominal revenue has increased by only 1 percent well below the rate of inflation

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/has-revenue-risen-2018
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tommie said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/12/bank-of-america-raises-chance-of-a-recession-to-1-in-3-in-the-next-12-months.html
Hmm. The article says the chance of a recession will grow to "greater than 30%" next year.


I looked up the Fed's numbers, and since 1973 a recession occurs when the average projection of one is above 74%

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/predicting-recession-probabilities-using-the-slope-of-the-yield-curve-20180301.htm

While a chance as low as 36% (in 2000Q1) projected a recession a year out on one occasion, in five quarters since 1999Q3 there were >30% chances of a recession which did not prove true.
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.R. said:

Anyone rooting for a recession is foolish. I certainly don't. I have entirely too much at stake for that non-sense. I am merely pointing out that a recession seems much more likely. I also mentioned as just an aside, that if the market tanks, folks will not put up with the Trumps non-sense.
Except on this board where you can already see any potential recession is already Obama's fault.
Forest Bueller
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.R. said:

Yes, we will go into recession...we always do. They yield curve is close to inverting which most definitely signals a recession. These Tariffs are killing the economy. Trumps seriously blinked yesterday by not following through with "his tariff escalation". Trumps is looking at the stock market and the economy and he's figuring out he done screwed up. Economy goes in the tank, Trumps is done.

The Dow fell 800 points Wednesday after the bond market, for the first time in over a decade, flashed a warning signal that has an eerily accurate track record for predicting recessions.

Here's what happened: The 10-year Treasury bond yield fell below 1.6% Wednesday morning, dropping just below the yield of the 2-year Treasury bond. It marked the first time since 2007 that 10-year bond yields fell below 2-year yields.

Someone else probably posted this but looks like it inverted, I had an investment guy talking about this stuff about 3 weeks ago now, looks like he was right.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:

J.R. said:

Anyone rooting for a recession is foolish. I certainly don't. I have entirely too much at stake for that non-sense. I am merely pointing out that a recession seems much more likely. I also mentioned as just an aside, that if the market tanks, folks will not put up with the Trumps non-sense.
Except on this board where you can already see any potential recession is already Obama's fault.
Funny, I don't see that. Links to the proof of that accusation, please.
xiledinok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.R. said:

Yes, we will go into recession...we always do. They yield curve is close to inverting which most definitely signals a recession. These Tariffs are killing the economy. Trumps seriously blinked yesterday by not following through with "his tariff escalation". Trumps is looking at the stock market and the economy and he's figuring out he done screwed up. Economy goes in the tank, Trumps is done.


It's going there. Get gold!
PartyBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.R. said:

Yes, we will go into recession...we always do. They yield curve is close to inverting which most definitely signals a recession. These Tariffs are killing the economy. Trumps seriously blinked yesterday by not following through with "his tariff escalation". Trumps is looking at the stock market and the economy and he's figuring out he done screwed up. Economy goes in the tank, Trumps is done.


Trump did cave yesterday. However China did not respond in kind with their own "nevermind forget what we said last week". To my knowledge they have not said ok we will be your biggest ag customer again. Trump started a trade war then backed off but the attacked country says fine call it off on your end we will still wage the war against you that you started.
codyorr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

tommie said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/12/bank-of-america-raises-chance-of-a-recession-to-1-in-3-in-the-next-12-months.html
Hmm. The article says the chance of a recession will grow to "greater than 30%" next year.


I looked up the Fed's numbers, and since 1973 a recession occurs when the average projection of one is above 74%

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/predicting-recession-probabilities-using-the-slope-of-the-yield-curve-20180301.htm

While a chance as low as 36% (in 2000Q1) projected a recession a year out on one occasion, in five quarters since 1999Q3 there were >30% chances of a recession which did not prove true.


I wonder what this note would look like with data from the last month.

Here's a similar analysis, but with a different model. The probability of a recession is similar to that of 5 of the last 8 recessions.

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/capital_markets/Prob_Rec.pdf
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
xiledinok said:

J.R. said:

Yes, we will go into recession...we always do. They yield curve is close to inverting which most definitely signals a recession. These Tariffs are killing the economy. Trumps seriously blinked yesterday by not following through with "his tariff escalation". Trumps is looking at the stock market and the economy and he's figuring out he done screwed up. Economy goes in the tank, Trumps is done.


It's going there. Get gold!


Absolutely....get gold
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PartyBear said:

J.R. said:

Yes, we will go into recession...we always do. They yield curve is close to inverting which most definitely signals a recession. These Tariffs are killing the economy. Trumps seriously blinked yesterday by not following through with "his tariff escalation". Trumps is looking at the stock market and the economy and he's figuring out he done screwed up. Economy goes in the tank, Trumps is done.


Trump did cave yesterday. However China did not respond in kind with their own "nevermind forget what we said last week". To my knowledge they have not said ok we will be your biggest ag customer again. Trump started a trade war then backed off but the attacked country says fine call it off on your end we will still wage the war against you that you started.
Trumps is in absolute panic mode. He took some ridiculous shots at the "independent FED" today via Twatter. He doesn't seem to understand that he is partly responsible for this because of his Tariff War. The business community is in the process of turning on him and his lack of economic knowledge. Farmers are getting crushed. Anyone need any Soybeans? Just ask Cisco how it working for them. Sales in China down 25% per their earnings call today. Furthermore, since Trumps blinked yesterday, why in the hell would Ghina want to give Trumps anything? Nah, they will just wait him out till 2020.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There is no country named 'Ghina'.

The rest of the post is not much better than malicious desperation.
codyorr
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Isn't Powell a Trump appointee (asked rhetorically)?

From CNBC:

"Today is an important milestone on the path to restoring economic opportunity to the American people," Trump said with Powell standing to his right and the prospective chairman's family nearby. The president said the Fed requires "strong, sound and steady leadership" and Powell "will provide exactly that type of leadership."

"He's strong, he's committed and he's smart, and if he is confirmed by the Senate, Jay will put his considerable talents and experience to work leading our nation's independent central bank," Trump added.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nice try, Fredo Jr.
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

There is no country named 'Ghina'.

The rest of the post is not much better than malicious desperation.
Obviously, you don't pay attention or have no sense of humor.....or both
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.R. said:

Oldbear83 said:

There is no country named 'Ghina'.

The rest of the post is not much better than malicious desperation.
Obviously, you don't pay attention or have no sense of humor.....or both
I have a great sense of humor, and obviously I pay better attention to details than do you.

You might want to try something intentionally funny next time.
codyorr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Nice try, Fredo Jr.

Does this mean you've moved on from calling people "son" when you don't like what they post?

P.S. Normally it takes TWO posts to get you to sink to the level of name-calling. You're slipping today, Oldbear!
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
codyorr said:

Oldbear83 said:

Nice try, Fredo Jr.

Does this mean you've moved on from calling people "son" when you don't like what they post?

P.S. Normally it takes TWO posts to get you to sink to the level of name-calling. You're slipping today, Oldbear!
Hey, the Cuomo's are a powerful rich family. I thought you'd enjoy the association.
Page 1 of 4
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.