Is the Recession Over--Really Over?

We keep hearing from the White House, from Wall Street, and from the LameStreams how we are finally out of the recession, the longest and deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression.  Some might dispute that--both points.

The second one first.  Some folks who lived in the late '70s might disagree with the assessment that this was the worst economic recession since the '30s and '40s.  There was not only rampant unemployment, but also double-digit inflation.  Even those who kept their jobs (and in some areas, such as southeast Michigan, the unemployment figures were close to 20% for a while) saw skyrocketing prices.  Interest rates zoomed to more than 20%; imagine what that does to a mortgage payment!

But the first point is what has my attention.  We hear from the federal gov't that unemployment is below 7%.  Wall Street points to new Dow-Jones highs.  The LameStreams trumpet both.  But I have my doubts about this so-called "recovery," and always have.  First, the gov't has learned how to cook the books, that is, use numbers that are very distorted.  OK, let's just call them lies.  After all, what is a deliberate distortion?  The unemployment figures now used no longer count unemployed people if they are no longer looking for jobs, for whatever reason they quit trying.  (Have you seen the take-off of Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First," using the faux method of determining "unemployment?"  It's a riot.)  It also doesn't consider those who've had their hours or income cut and/or those who've had to pay more toward insurance premiums (including higher co-pays and deductibles).  This underemployment figure, many economists who don't drink Kool-Aid, is likely between 15 and 20%.  Besides, if we just look at the figure, 7% unemployment, it obscures the fact that more than 20 million Americans are out of work.  Which has a more dramatic impact, "7%" or "20 million?"  Yep, no sense in riling the masses.  Gee, who has an interest in persuading Americans that things are better?  Such optimism, whether or not grounded in reality, is politically great for the President (and politicians in general) and financially great for Wall Street that wants to see the rosiness continue to drive up the markets.

Let's look at some statistics.  In 2013, for the first time, the number of businesses that have tanked surpassed the number that were started.  Most of these are small businesses, where half or even up to 75% of all jobs are found.  And 2/3 of all good new jobs are found with small businesses.  But if small business are dying faster than they are starting......

We keep hearing how home foreclosures are falling, compared to the same points last year or the year before......  Well, of course they are!  It's not necessarily good news, certainly not an indication that the economy is better, if people are losing their homes at lower rates than the past few years.  There aren't as many homes susceptible to foreclosure!  They've already been lost!  That homes are still being lost seems to be a sign that things aren't much better, if at all.

Gross National Product (I think the economists now call it Gross Domestic Product, likely so that they can make slight changes in their textbooks and sell them as new editions.) is growing at a far slower rate than the experts have predicted.  The past two years' predictions of 3% or higher growth failed to materialize.  In fact, last year growth was 50% less than predicted.  Economists have forecast 3.5% or higher growth in GNP this year, but based on what--the ouija board?  For the first fiscal quarter of '14, US growth was .1%.  Yes, that's one-tenth of one percent!

I don't know where you live.  I have a relatively small subdivision for a neighborhood, certainly fewer than 40 homes.  In the past month alone, two people have lost their jobs.  Well, one was merely cut from 40 hours a week to 10.  I suppose she isn't counted as "unemployed."  And I wonder if the second is counted, as well.  He said, although losing his job a month or so ago, he still hasn't filed for unemployment.  (I don't know why; I didn't pry.)

And, I don't know about you and your spending habits, but I do the grocery shopping for our household. Since January, at least, food prices have skyrocketed, just zoomed.  (And the local grocery stores have discontinued double coupons, adding to the cost.)  A gallon of milk, on sale, is now $2.79 where the sales just a short while ago were $1.99/gallon.  Check the cost of meats, particularly beef.  I saw the Memorial Day Weekend Sale for ground beef at $2.99 a pound--and this week it's listed in the sale paper (Does that mean it's a sale item?) at $3.99 a pound.

I hear the President call some NBA owner's words, "shameful."  We all know the story; it's still, several weeks later, in the news practically daily.  Oh, all the so-called civil rights leaders have taken to the LameStreams their calls for the NBA to force the ding-a-ling to sell his team.  Didn't the players show some displeasure, such as wearing their jerseys inside out or wearing black armbands?  I'm not sure, but I am pretty sure none of these players were upset enough to refuse to play for this guy's team.  No sir, our "disgust" only goes so far; it doesn't reach to our pocketbooks our own pocketbooks!  Now where are the Sharptons, the Jackson, the Obamas, the Holders, etc. when it comes to our black children being shot and killed in American cities at alarming rates?  These are our babies!  Certainly not two or three days go by, at least in Detroit, where newspapers tell of yet another child who has been shot.  Where are these men?  Oh, they have time and energy to spout off about some jackass NBA owner, but not about kids getting shot and killed?  For that matter, has anyone heard Obama address the problem of fatherless families in the cities?  If he has, he must have been whispering.  Some leader that guy is, huh?