Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday July 29 2019, @06:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the what's-in-your-wallet? dept.

A Recession Is Coming (Eventually). Here's Where You'll See It First:

Last week's report on second-quarter gross domestic product showed that the economy slowed last spring. It also came exactly 10 years since the Great Recession ended, making this officially the longest expansion in American history. (Well, probably. More on that in a second.) So perhaps it's no surprise that forecasters, investors and ordinary people are increasingly asking when the next downturn will arrive.

Economists often say that "expansions don't die of old age." That is, recessions are like coin flips — just because you get heads five times in a row doesn't mean your next flip is more likely to come up tails.

Still, another recession will come eventually. Fortunately, economic expansions, unlike coin-flip streaks, usually provide some hints about when they are nearing their end — if you know where to look. Below is a guide to some of the indicators that have historically done the best job of sounding the alarm.

[...] One caveat: Economists are notoriously terrible at forecasting recessions, especially more than a few months in advance. In fact, it's possible (though unlikely) that a recession has already begun, and we just don't know it yet.

"Historically, the best that forecasters have been able to do consistently is recognize that we're in a recession once we're in one," said Tara Sinclair, an economist at George Washington University. "The dream of an early warning system is still a dream that we're working on."

The article goes on to list and expand upon these indicators which are:

1: The Unemployment Rate
2: The Yield Curve
3: The ISM Manufacturing Index
4: Consumer Sentiment
5: Choose Your Favorite

Do you think the US economy is on the verge of a recession? What have you done, if anything, in preparation for the eventual downturn?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday July 30 2019, @09:52PM (7 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday July 30 2019, @09:52PM (#873279) Homepage
    Yeah, I didn't name-drop in my earlier post (about feedback systems), but indeed Keen is a bit of a nutcracker. Alas the world of economics has too may nuts for one person to effectively crack. When macroeconomists start including concepts like "banks" and "money" into their economic systems, part of the problem will be alleviated.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Z-A,z-a,01234 on Wednesday July 31 2019, @07:29AM (6 children)

    by Z-A,z-a,01234 (5873) on Wednesday July 31 2019, @07:29AM (#873464)

    Unfortunately the economists are like priests. They have a religion to protect and cannot really see the world.

    Take austerity for example, it clearly doesn't work, but they think it's the only way to get a country to be "competitive". Now "competitive" is a relative term, it is impossible for all to be "competitive". When some country is competitive, it follows that someone else is not. So the whole premise is flawed.

    Growth is another myth: you cannot grow forever, but economists routinely think so. read this and weep: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ [ucsd.edu]

    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday July 31 2019, @08:25AM (5 children)

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday July 31 2019, @08:25AM (#873469) Homepage
      That presentation of the falacies is good, but I'll see your 2012, and raise you 1969: https://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy.html
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday July 31 2019, @08:26AM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday July 31 2019, @08:26AM (#873470) Homepage
        inb4 "Malthus!"
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 2) by Z-A,z-a,01234 on Wednesday July 31 2019, @08:54AM (3 children)

        by Z-A,z-a,01234 (5873) on Wednesday July 31 2019, @08:54AM (#873472)

        The exponential function was known since the 1600s :)

        Regarding Malthus, Bartlett and population growth, Hans Grosling had a nice video explaining why it will eventually stop growing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E [youtube.com]
        Still, 12 billion humans will make it quite crowded.

        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday July 31 2019, @09:15AM (2 children)

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday July 31 2019, @09:15AM (#873475) Homepage
          I know of several of Grosling's presentations (well, let's be honest, he only ever seemed to have one), and they always struck me as a bit too idealistic. I've not seen that particular one yet, it looks longer and newer, so I'll put it on when I come back from lunch. I've been following WHO's regular population predictions for over 2 decades now, and they constantly fail to recognise that they repeatedly under-estimate. If their model was wrong 20 years ago, 15 years ago, 10 years ago, and 5 years ago, why on earth are they still using it now? Certainly, assuming we don't J we'll S, but - using the same data that the WHO and Grosling use(d) to reach their conclusions - I don't think we're as close to flattening out as they forecast.

          (Ditto IPCC and their repeated over-estimation.)
          --
          Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
          • (Score: 2) by Z-A,z-a,01234 on Wednesday July 31 2019, @09:48AM (1 child)

            by Z-A,z-a,01234 (5873) on Wednesday July 31 2019, @09:48AM (#873480)

            yeah, but the number of children per woman has constantly decreased. That is the most important part.

            • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday August 03 2019, @01:43PM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday August 03 2019, @01:43PM (#875118) Journal

              Proud to say me and my girlfriend will be contributing an average of 0.0 children to overpopulation! We may actually count for a negative number at some point since she's open to the idea of adoption.

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...