Skip to main content

Recession in real terms

Talk of a US recession is heating up again, and this time it seems people are taking the prospect of a slowdown more seriously.

In fact, most observers seem to have dropped the infantile "r-word" code and are now using the full word "recession". This is a grown-up step for them.

But while the mainstream is only now just catching on to the idea of an "impending" recession, there are some, like Jim Rogers and Marc Faber, who say the US is already in a recession and probably has been for some time.

The problem in identifying the true onset of a recession is that the data which most people use to measure economic growth has been manipulated. Governments routinely massage the data to make things appear better than they actually are.

So, you have unrealistic inflation numbers (especially in view of rampant money supply creation worldwide) and false GDP numbers. As a result, no one relying on fudged data can accurately assess the onset of recession or periods of true economic growth.

Here's how Marc Faber summed it up in a recent interview.

"Well, personally, I think that the US, if you measure economic statistics properly –and the government is lying blatantly – the US went into recession 3 months ago. And I’m saying the government is lying blatantly, because they take nominal GDP and then they fiddle around with inflation figures. I mean none of your listeners have an inflation rate of less than 5 to 6% per annum. You just can’t exclude food and energy prices and healthcare costs from the CPI, from the cost-of-living increases.

So nominally the US economy may still be growing, but inflation adjusted –in other words, in real terms – we’re already in a recession. And most US households, except for the super rich, are today no better off than they were five or seven years ago. Their income gains have all been eaten up by cost increases by inflation."

As Frank Barbera and Peter Schiff pointed out in a recent Financial Sense Newshour broadcast, any argument about whether or not a recession is coming is silly, as economic data from privately gathered sources is totally consistent with recession. Compare this with government data which understates inflation and overstates GDP.

Meanwhile, the banks are acting like they know what's coming. As the Financial Times reports, leading US banks like Citigroup and Merrill Lynch have taken a "$21 billion bail out" from foreign investors.

Follow the money; they're taking these cash infusions because they need to shore up their balance sheets to survive a recession and any further shocks to the financial system.

"Vikram Pandit, Citi's new chief executive, said the size of the fundraising was intended to ensure that the bank remained well capitalised even in the face of a serious US downturn. "There is no doubt we're in the midst of a very challenging environment," he said."

So as I see it, that's where we're headed. What are your thoughts?

If you'd like to know more, check out the links to the recent FSN broadcast and listen to the interview with Marc Faber, if you haven't already. See you Friday.

Popular posts from this blog

The Dot-Com Bubble in 1 Chart: InfoSpace

With all the recent talk of a new bubble in the making, thanks in part to the Yellen Fed's continued easy money stance, I thought it'd be instructive to revisit our previous stock market bubble - in one quick chart.

So here's what a real stock market bubble looks like. 

Here's what a bubble *really* looks like. InfoSpace in 1999-2001. $QQQ$BCORpic.twitter.com/xjsMk433H7
— David Shvartsman (@FinanceTrends) February 24, 2015
For those of you who are a little too young to recall it, this is a chart of InfoSpace at the height of the Nasdaq dot-com bubble in 1999-2001. This fallen angel soared to fantastic heights only to plummet back down to earth as the bubble, and InfoSpace's shady business plan, turned to rubble.

As detailed in our post, "Round trip stocks: Momentum booms and busts", InfoSpace rocketed from under $100 a share to over $1,300 a share in less than six months. 

In a pattern common to many parabolic shooting stars, the stock soon peaked and began a…

New! Finance Trends now at FinanceTrendsLetter.com

Update for our readers: Finance Trends has a new URL! 

Please bookmark our new web address at Financetrendsletter.com

Readers sticking with RSS updates should point your feed readers to our new Finance Trends feedburner.  



Thank you to all of our loyal readers who have been with us since the early days. Exciting stuff to come in the weeks ahead!

As a quick reminder, you can subscribe to our free email list to receive the Finance Trends Newsletter. You'll receive email updates about once every 4-8 weeks (about 2-3 times per quarter). 

Stay up to date with our real-time insights and updates on Twitter.

Moneyball: How the Red Sox Win Championships

Welcome, readers. To get the first look at brand new posts (like the following piece) and to receive our exclusive email list updates, please subscribe to the Finance Trends Newsletter.

The Boston Red Sox won their fourth World Series titleof the 21st century this week.

Having won their first Series in 86 years back in 2004, the last decade-plus has marked a very strong return to form for one of baseball's oldest big league clubs. So how did they do it?

Quick background: in late 2002, team owner and hedge fund manager,John W. Henry(with his partners)bought the Boston Red Sox and its historic Fenway Park for a reported sum of $695 million.

Henry and Co. quickly set out to find their ideal General Manager (GM) to help turn around their newly acquired, ailing ship.

This brings us to one of my favorite scenes from the 2011 film, Moneyball, in which John W. Henry (played by Arliss Howard) attempts to woo Oakland A's GM Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) over to Boston with an excellent job off…