The dictionary definition of an economic “recession” is two consecutive quarters of negative annualized GDP growth. In addition, professional economists also would consider a two-quarter period of extremely weak growth, which is then bracketed by a negative quarter, to be a “recession,” even though, technically, the “two consecutive negative quarters” mantra would not have been met. For example, there’s no question in any economist’s mind that the country experienced a recession back in 1990, even though there was only a single quarter, that year, in which negative real GDP growth was posted.
Anyway, on to the real gist of this post:
We all heard the laments regarding the “Bush recession” from liberals, partisan Democrats, and the “mainstream media,” remember? And, of course, it was frustrating to have to sit there and take it. Bush inherited a rapidly-degenerating economy (that’s not a statement of fault, mind you; it’s just historical fact), and the complete bursting of the dot com bubble, in September 2000, made things even worse.
Well, as it turns out, there never was a recession under George W. Bush!
The BEA has completed its standard, comprehensive retrospective on the country’s macroeconomic data for the past few years. And the results, you ask?
Real GDP Growth (annualized):
Q1 - 2001 = (.50)
Q2 - 2001 = 1.2
Q3 - 2001 = (1.4)
Q4 - 2001 = 1.6
Q1 - 2002 = 3.4
Q2 - 2002 = 2.4
Q3 - 2002 = 2.6
Q4 - 2002 = .70
Q1 - 2003 = 1.9
Q2 - 2003 = 4.1
Q3 - 2003 = 7.4
Q4 - 2003 = 4.2
Q1 - 2004 = 4.5
Q2 - 2004 = 3.0
There’s no freakin’ recession there!
I’ll be waiting anxiously for the stream of corrections (or at least the explanatory “clarifications") from our “mainstream media” outlets. For obvious reasons, however, I won’t be holding my breath.
Note: Fact checkers proceed here.-- Jayson