Dennis Gartman: The Recession Is Now Over
The recession has ended. In light of the spike in jobless claims AND in light of the recent upward turn in the Ratio of the Coincident to Lagging Indicators, we are making this statement as clearly and as unequivocally as we are able to make one. The recession is over. The worst of the economic news shall all soon be behind us.
Make no mistake about this, however, it will be months… even perhaps a year or more… before the NBER meets and officially decides that the recession has ended.
From today's "The Gartman Letter" (subscription required).
MP: See related post CD here on the typical 20-21 month lag for the NBER to report that a recession had officially ended, meaning that if the recession is now over, it might not be official until 2011.
39 Comments:
Really no surprise. Anyone listening to good ol' Anonymous here pretty much knew this already...no subscription necessary.
You're welcome.
Do you subscribe to this professor?
"The recession is over."
Ok. But based on what? I assume the article has some support for the statement that is not in this post.
How can the author so strongly state "clearly" and "unequivocally” yet provide only two "in light ofs" to convince us that this is anything other than wishful thinking? Likewise, lags in the past do not necessarily mean this recession will follow suit.
I hope the recession is over, but let’s see data that backs up these statements.
The NEBR will report "recession over" in August or September 2010just in time for the midterm Congressional elections. They will most likely cite the Obama administration's "successful economic policies."
As I, at least for now, retain the right to a secret vote, I too will voice this anonymously. Dennis Gartman is expressing a view consistent with that a hopeful northeast trained puppet would conclude (I don't know if he originates from the northeast, I mean that in a philosophical sense). Take a look at the Q/Q and Y/Y withholding taxes charts posted over at The Big Picture blog (Barry Ritholtz); "simply jaw dropping," 2009 Q1 = -20%. It will take time for the results of several decades of affirmative action (remember the crash started with the collapse of the AA-fueled housing market) to play out and real recovery to set in. My personal guess is 2-4 years before anything like real recovery starts, and that recovery will be constrained by Obama institutionalized socialism (gov't motors, gov't controlled banks, gov't allowed risk taking, enhanced union power if not national unionization, citizenship and full voting rights to the current crop of illegals with continuing legalization of the succeeding waves the legalization will inspire and cement the "change" permanently into American gov't and society, etc). The first sign of recovery will be loss of the filibuster-proof senate. That may occur with the 2010 elections; one can hope. Until then Katy bar the door, and pray for our children and grand children we sentenced to live in this brave new world and gov't control of essentially everything.
Aren't the coincident to lagging indicators coming out on Monday, July 20th? How is this known now?
The payroll chart on Ritholtz's site is garbage...old news and nothing new.
I like Gartman, but he's wrong. This won't end til bad debt is forced off balance sheets.
KJ, if you have any evidence to support your statement, "payroll chart on Ritholtz's site is garbage"; I'd like to review it. Thanks.
"
nothing new.
7/17/2009 12:56 PM
Blogger Audacity17 said...
I like Gartman, but he's wrong. This won't end til bad debt is forced off balance sheets.
7/17/2009 1:23 PM
"
As they continue, in effect, to cook the books thus they still have something to Hide, Dr. Shekel.
WRT to the Jobs Report:
A Labor Department analyst warned that the latest drops should not be interpreted as a sign that the outlook in the job market is improving.
"This big drop is not necessarily an indication of what is going on economically," the analyst said, adding that the seasonally adjusted numbers are really clouded by the timing of the layoffs in the automobile industry and other manufacturing sectors.
Within a week or two, the data should be more reflective of the true state of the labor market, the analyst said.
Should we not consider the guidance of the Labour Dept. on this issue?
Cutie/QT
Oooh, when you spell "labor" as "labour" I get giddy. Do the Canadians spell "color" as "colour?"
The recession? I hope it is over. Deficit spending, easy money---it seems to work.
Long-term costs? Yeah, we need to cut the deficit. I said the same thing 30 years ago, and the only Prezzy to even propose a balanced budget was Clinton. He ran surpluses.
So, who do you vote for?
I don't know.
House prices in Los Angeles have hit the bottom, and we are the largest, and one of the most troubled, housing markets in the country. That has got to be a good sign.
Some say a commercial mortgage meltdown coming (you know, all those minority office-building owners forced the banks to give them loans).
I don't think so. I think the mezzanine lenders get killed, but the commercial banks will do okay.
So, we are past the worst. All things must pass, even Bushonomics.
We will have mortgaged our children's future to the Chinese, but we can always emigrate there to solve the problem. Actually, Thailand is a nice place, and they like Americans. Sawadeekrup.
See you later.
1. I don't think Bush did anything to / for / around the economy. Greenspan and Bernanke did with their monetary policies and the Congress did with their treatment of Fannie and Freddie, but Bush didn't. He let other people do their thing. He wasn't a good president, but he certainly didn't cause this recession.
2. The media helped create this recession. Until they get on board and create an expansion, I expect more flat results.
Oops!
CNBC's Harwood Suggests Tax Cuts May Have Been More Stimulative
Benny,
Canadians can never seem to make up their minds whether to spell like the English or the Americans. It is rather silly since Canadians seem to copy the U.S. on policy...including profiligate spending. Sacre bleu!
Have to agree that the mother of all deficits makes one nostalgic for Bill Clinton. He did, however, have a strategic advantage, the line item veto, which was later declared to be unconstitutional.
Joe Biden on spending. Cringe.
I am also optimistic that we may be past the worst of the recession and the credit crunch. The shoes seem to have stopped falling which is a good sign but there is still a long way to go. Jumping on the jobs report without acknowledging the caveats seems to be a very superficial approach.
It seems the long term answer will be raising taxes rather than printing money.
Since the recession was backdated to the point where employment started dropping, will that be the measure of recovery? Or will they go back to GDP as the measure?
If only we knew the definition going in, we could really pick a point. If they're going to make up criteria after the fact, everyone can be right.
I continue my one man, world wide web campaign to dispel the Clinton surplus myth. Today is Carpe Diem's day.
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
This comment has been removed by the author.
> I like Gartman, but he's wrong. This won't end til bad debt is forced off balance sheets.
...You mean until we hang the bastards as an object lesson to the political class as to whose money it really is that they're spending...?
> the only Prezzy to even propose a balanced budget was Clinton. He ran surpluses.
No he did not you LYING sack of libtard S***.
Clinton's "surpluses" were nothing but an accounting trick which channeled Social Security "lockbox" moneys into the general revenue stream.
By any RATIONAL accounting system using GAAP, there was no "surplus" in any way, shape, or form. The government has continuously spent moneys it did not have for more than four decades, regardless of the party in power or the dominant party in Congress.
And you either know that, and are lying through your teeth, or are too ignorant of anything regarding the matter to be expressing an opinion.
So which are you, Benny? A lying SOB or an ignorant twit?
Given your chosen appellation, despite being a clear and blatant shill for libtard talking points, I think the former is the obvious answer.
>:-/
.
Audacity17:
Thx. I am too tired myself of this idiotic claim to keep pointing libtard parrots at the data. Glad to see someone else is doing it -- not because the libtards like Benny will ever see it or ack it, but because others reading do need to have a chance to see the facts, so that they'll learn not to ever trust Benny's lying ilk, and that anyone who parrots that claim should be immediately ignored forever after as either a liar or an ignorant fool.
OBloodyHell,
You once reminisced of "how good the Bush economy was." Remember? Oh yeah, you were "biting oxycontin with El Rushbo" that day! In case your special ed. mind forgot, the Bush economy generated 3 million net jobs vs. Clinton's 22 million. Gee... was that an accounting trick, too? Those liberal bastards! They should have just shut their mouths on the lead up to Iraq. Oh yeah, we all now know Iraq was the catalyst warhead on 9/11, we all now know it provided... ZERO hijackers?? It didn’t make any contributions whatsoever?? Goddamn libtard accounting tricks.
IIRC, the Clinton years ended in a recession we called "the dotcom bust."
Bush cut taxes twice. The first round was an income tax cut, which did little to help, but the "tax cuts for the rich" got that bubble inflating really good.
This comment has been removed by the author.
> You once reminisced of "how good the Bush economy was." Remember? Oh yeah, you were "biting oxycontin with El Rushbo" that day! In case your special ed. mind forgot, the Bush economy generated 3 million net jobs vs. Clinton's 22 million. Gee... was that an accounting trick, too? Those liberal bastards! They should have just shut their mouths on the lead up to Iraq. Oh yeah, we all now know Iraq was the catalyst warhead on 9/11, we all now know it provided... ZERO hijackers?? It didn’t make any contributions whatsoever?? Goddamn libtard accounting tricks.
You are such a grade-A moron. Let's fisk your little idiotic treatise:
1) You once reminisced of "how good the Bush economy was." Remember?
Thanks for citing me a link to a specific thing to defend... oh, right, you don't deal in actual facts, just random potshots at strawmen.
2) "biting oxycontin with El Rushbo"
Sorry, despite your idiotic assertion to the contrary, far fewer people spout "talking points" on the right than on the left, and most of those on the right who do utter the equivalent of a "talking point" do so because they can actually defend the point -- i.e., it resembles a leftist talking point in that it has many quoting it, but, unlike the left (and you), the right-leaners (which, being a libertarian, I am not) actually understand WHY the point is valid.
3) the Bush economy generated 3 million net jobs vs. Clinton's 22 million. Gee... was that an accounting trick, too?
Well, since Bush didn't create the downturn which was already under way as he took office, which was then exacerbated by 9/11, while this doesn't qualify as an "accounting trick" it can play one on TV. The entire net loss leading into about mid-2003 should be subtracted from your "22 million" figure, not Bush's -- both the causes at the heart of that, the recession and the 9/11 attack -- were direct results of Clinton policy failures. Just as Bush has to own the housing bubble, so, too, does Clinton have to own the tech-stock bubble which got passed off to Bush. Clinton got out of office just in time to dodge responsibility by your carefully limited, but blatantly inaccurate, argument.
...(continued)...
.
4) Oh yeah, we all now know Iraq was the catalyst warhead on 9/11, we all now know it provided... ZERO hijackers?? It didn’t make any contributions whatsoever??
Gawrsh, Ah Am Undone Bah Yor Masterfil Logik!!!!
Oh, wait:
First off -- WTF does THIS have to do with this discussion? I take it you want to try and associate the Iraq war as a proximate cause of the current economic downturn? What was that about "Libtard talking points" I was saying? Oh, yeah, please, please, by ALL means, go ahead and TRY that argument so I can rip you a new one. As big as that asshole of yours is, your stupid sh** output is clearly being suppressed. When I'm done you'll be able to crap out of both sides of your head at once.
Secondly, I'm not going to bother listing off the THIRTEEN different reasons for invading Iraq which Bush listed off in 2002 (IIRC). If you haven't grasped any of them by now, your skull is too thick to be penetrated by another repetition, and probably too thick to be penetrated with a jackhammer.
I will, however, point out several undebatable points of substantial relevance:
a) After we made the seriousness of our intentions clear, Mohamar Kadaffy could not fall over himself fast enough to make any nuclear aspirations public and make them vanish.
b) It was not just the presence of ABC weapons which were of concern, but the capacity, or potential capacity, for making and supplying them to terrorists which was of concern. Hans Blix (hardly a fan of the Bush Admin) is on record as citing that Saddam was within 90 days of Botulin and 180 days of Anthrax, in industrial quantities, once sanctions were lifted, something which they clearly were going to be in short order, given the billions of dollars in oil-for-food money Saddam was illegally misusing to bribe Euro and UN officials. Were Saddam in power, a widespread terrorist attack using one or both of those, would, as a virtual certainty, have happened in the USA by now.
...(continued)...
.
.
c) No successful terrorist attacks on US soil in almost *8* years. THAT is the Bush legacy. I got no problems with that. Perhaps you are of a different mind, no doubt being a fan of the reprehensible "Little Eichmann" PoV.
d) Of the 6 as-of-2000 known terrorist training camps in the world, not less than THREE were in Iraq. By invading Iraq, we cut the available camps in HALF. Not too shabby. And as to the applicability of that to 911, well, ONE of those camps had a complete airframe for training in plane takeovers. While there is no direct currently-known connection to the 911 hijackers and that training camp... it strains the credulity to think that they would not have taken advantage of that. Surmission, granted, but there are some things, "such as a trout in the milk", which lend credence to suspicions without legal grade proof.
e) Gosh, 31 million people not living in a ruthless dictatorship. Yeah, as a reason for doing things, that really, really sucks, don't it? Millions of wives and daughters who have no fear of Udey and Osay's rape rooms. Millions of husbands, brothers, and boyfriends who have no fear of being fed into an industrial meat grinder -- alive -- if they ticked off the wrong person. Yep, we really screwed the pooch taking care of that problem. I can see how you're objecting to such a worthless accomplishment.
f) The visible results in Iraq have certainly placed a great deal of stress on the dictatorships throughout the ME as their subjects have demanded democratic reform. It is a singularly revealing statement about Obama to realize that not only has that PoS snubbed both the people of Iran and the people of Honduras when it comes to their own desire for democratic rule, he's also zeroed the budget for encouraging democratic reform across the board. It would be hard to identify a PotUS who has screwed up his FP actions so thoroughly in his first six months in office.
... 'nuf said. I'm sure I could tear up your idiotic little diatribe with more facts-of-relevance, but anyone who doesn't grasp what a piece of sheer, unmitigated garbage your claims are by now isn't going to be dissuaded by any form of worthwhile reason.
O Bloody Hell:
In fact I am a libertarian, but I let the chips fall where they may. If Republicans do not even propose a balanced federal budget, I say so. If the Democrats want a stupid and expensive national health insurance system, I say so.
You seem to believe that makes me a liberal. The Agriculture Department is a huge waste of money, There, I guess that makes me liberal. But wait! I think HUD ought to be abolished. I guess I am a conservative,
I also believe in consumption taxes, and an elimination of taxes on personal or corporate income. Why tax productive behavior?
And get rid of the mortgage interest tax deduction--a nanny-state tax cut.
You see where our Department of Defense Secy, Gates, says he opposes funding for F-22s, but Congress is going ahead and funding the uneeded warplanes anyway? Pentagon waste--oh, I guess that makes me a libtard.
Mostly, O Bloody Hell, you hvae an asbestos sphincter, and need to cool it down. I have a different point of view than you. And try drinking some Sanka. Or have a beer. Blow some pot. Snort coke. Do something man, it ain't that serious what I believe, or you.
Audacity17,
Thanks for the link. Got to agree this looks like the usual politician's slight of hand.
Hey audacity17 your The Myth of the Clinton Surplus is interesting reading...
Thanks for that...
The anon @ 7/18/2009 9:33 AM chortling over the supposed upsides of the Clinton administration via a WSJ article was interesting...
Good info in fact and the biz journals tend to reflect the numbers in that WSJ article:
Job growth in states and D.C. under Bush and Clinton
bizjournals - October 6, 2008
by G. Scott Thomas
Job growth in top 100 metros under Bush and Clinton
bizjournals - October 6, 2008
by G. Scott Thomas
Not to worry though anon, Hopie-Changie is taking good care of wiping Clinton's numbers out...
OBloodyHell,
Oh my goodness! Panic alert! Panic attack! Take another baby blue. Are you in a relationship? Oh-oh, I sense crisis. Consult Mr. Limbaugh, who's been divorced three times.
Ok, I understand. You're a special ed. kid and you want the special ed. treatment. Therefore, we'll blame Clinton for the tech collapse (that bastard!) and toss him the 2.7 million jobs the 2001 recession shed. That means Bush now generated a mighty 5.7 million jobs vs. Clinton's paltry 19.3 million. You're so smart! But of course, by the same token, that means Bush needs to take responsibility for this recession and its job losses of 5.1 million (as of April), which nearly axe Bush's job gains. Opppsss.
A libertarian, huh? A libertarian who supported the invasion of Iraq? I didn't think you guys believed in government. Take deep breaths when trying to understand this: WAR IS A GOVERNMENT PROGRAM. BLOWING UP TOWNS AND PEOPLE'S LIMBS IS A FORM OF GOVERNMENT INTERVETION. You're about as libertarian as Hitler was pacifist.
Iraq PLAYED a part in 9/11? Not according to a fessed-up Cheney. You're getting dumber by the minute.
By the way you five-time fifth grade special ed. flunky, Iraq never had WMDs.
NONE,
NOTHING,
NADA.
You fell for a lie, just like the Germans fell for the burning of the Reichstag. But of course there isn't enough ritalin in the world to crack your brick head to understand that.
Oh, and this was Clinton's fault. Damn the blue stain. Good thing we had George "General Custard" Bush taking a month long sabbatical in August of 2001. "Oh, Condoleezza, why didn't you nudge me when I saw that important document?"
And invading Iraq has kept out terrorists for the countries for the past eight years? A country that had nothing to do with it? Great. Let's go invade Canada and we'll keep them out for 100 years! After all, you, supposedly a libertarian, and warhawks think alike!
And what does this have to do with the discussion? Because you retards sycophantically supported the dude and his warhawk effort. A simple $1 trillion mistake, the dismemberment of http://www.iraqbodycount.org/tens of thousands of Iraqi's lives, the loss of honor within the world's eyes, the forced-upon repeated tours of our military's service men (who were lied to). Iraqis don't live under a dictatorship (one we propped up?) Great, let's trade it in for another - one that's costed countless lives, blow the shit out of entire towns, shut down electricity and water. I, along with plenty of others, predicted this in the war's prelude DOWN TO THE TEE. Sure, Iraq is a great place to live: one of the three most dangerous countries in the world to live in. Go move there if you think it’s so great.
But you still don't understand this, do you? You could take all of the ritalin, stratterra, addrell and crystal meth in the world, and a caterpillar would still crawl past your prehistoric skull in the subject matter. George W. Bush, one of history's lowest-rated presidents (36), the most hated man (surpassing Osama Bin Ladin!) in the world.
Reality doesn't wait for flunkies...
1,
Hopie-Changie. I like that. I didn't vote for him, so I'm going to take that.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Hopie-Changie. I like that. I didn't vote for him, so I'm going to take that"...
Well I normally consider him the Manchurian Cretin...
You might want to consider your alternate sources if you are going to talk about the war on terror though...
The MSM in this country was thorougly fisked with regards to what they foisted off as reporting...
Interview With Sabah Khodada
Text: British Dossier Says Iraq Has 'Military Plans' for Use of WMD
1,
I gotta say the Hopie-Changie moniker is pure genius. You should get a writing gig…
The Sabah Khodada interview is interesting, but to the side, there is an editor’s note from 2005:
“More than two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, there has been no verification of Khodada's account of the activities at Salman Pak. In fact, U.S. officials have now concluded that Salman Pak was most likely used to train Iraqi counter-terrorism units in anti-hijacking techniques.... Since the original broadcast, Khodada has not publicly addressed questions that have been raised about his account of activities at Salman Pak.”
Ultimately, the British WMDs dossier, like the CIA report on “Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction,” has long been proven false.
We knew at one point Iraq had WMDs (we gave them the gear, after all... here's a pic of Rummey shaking Saddam's hand), but after the ass-kicking in Gulf War I, we mandated they clean themselves good of the stuff.
Here, Saddam explained his semi-recalcitrance to UN weapons inspectors: he felt Iran, not the US, was the bigger threat, and he was trying to bluff Iran into staying out. He figured he'd just get another bombing run from the US. He WOZ wrong...
Regardless, I’m in debt to you for Hopie-Changie. Now there's another WMD, MR. "I wanna be Lyndon B. Johnson the 2nd," instituting nanny-state programs and fighting two wars. Don't let anybody tell you that you're not a genius.
"has long been proven false"...
PBS?!?! PBS quit doing their homework or hadn't you noticed?...
You might want to consider the NGIC Report...
Why?
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
You really need to vet your sources better
Nice try though...
Robert Miller,
I think your argument is a fair one to make, but in contrast, you have to consider Bush's record. The listed skepticism of Clinton's surpluses is reasonable to question, but in contrast, it still stands far better than Bushes (then) record deficits, and Obama's current jaw-dropping frivolous behavior. Also, while you note the Republican-controlled Congress of the Clinton years, something some believe led to Clinton’s good fiscal record, remember, Bush also had a Republican-controlled Congress for six of his years in office, and he still ran up the (then) largest deficits in history, and had an anemic job creation in contrast to Clinton.
Clinton did lower taxes on lower- and middle-class income families. George increased the government exponentially through HomeLand Security, and through fighting two wars.
1,
The Sabah Khodada interview you cited was from PBS. Considering you didn't notice the editor's comment on the side, maybe you need to do your homework more thoroughly.
Did you read the second article? It says, "'The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s,' Maples said. 'Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended,' Chu added." Not exactly a threat. No proof of Saddam maintaining a WMDs program. I know it was pushed by Fox News, the Nazi News Network, though.
Was I suppose to find something relevant on NewsBusters.org about WMDs? I didn't see anything...
Sorry, about according to the CIA... :No WMDs.
Karl Rove: Wouldn't have invaded Iraq if we the truth of WMDs.
George W. Bush: Iraq didn't have WMDs, and it had nothing to do with 9/11.
Oh wait, here's a Middle Eastern country that provided 11 of the 9/11 hijackers. Saudi Arabia??
Either learn from the burning of the Reichstag, or let history repeat itself.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home