I'm trying to remember - on what date did "Dr." Dick Cheney utter the R-word?
Thanks for that overview of recent history Kash.
The lesson seems to be that the Fed and the MSM will not stampede the herd, no matter the appropriately stampedable conditions...and that is why we're tuning into you and not them.
Mostly.
Recessions are hard enough to discern that the Fed, with its intense interest and vast analytic staff, sometimes hikes rates past the starting date of recessions. Often, we find Greenspan on the record saying all is well past the date that is eventually established by NBER as the peak in output. The onset of recessions is not palpable. Recessions are identified in retrospect. As Kash says, we won't know for a while. When we know, the Fed will know.
Soft landings are frequently forecast,
but seldom achieved.
The Fed seldom wants to actually cause a recession, but they often seem to achieve that objective.
Moreover, is a soft landing the optimistic scenario? Recessions generally are self correcting developments that contain the seeds of the next recovery.
But once we slip into a soft landing what causes growth to rebound and what are the risks that a soft landing degenerates into long run stagnation?
We have had two soft landings, in 1967 and 1995. In 1967 guns & butter caused growth to resume and in 1995 it was the high tech boom.
So what would cause growth to rebound if we do slip into a soft landing? A massive military build -up to fight the war on terror?
A collapse of the dollar and a rebound in exports? If we are entering a recession it is with the federal deficit already at uncomfortably high levels. So can we count on expansionary fiscal policy in such an environment?
What is the definition of a soft landing? Is it growth going to zero, but not negative? I think I can picture a hard landing.
Does anyone believe that the Fed will hike again anytime soon? To me, the market is pricing in a 100 percent probability that the next move will be a cut.
CP,
The whole point to talking about "soft vs hard landing" seems to be that doing so leaves things vague. No definitions, please. Lots of people use "landing" now because it's so common, rather than for more insidious reasons, but personally, I it altogether.
..."I AVOID it altogether." Sorry, I was being vague.
kharris...so clever. More than too clever (ie "avoid" was avoided, but only temporarily and that band-aid "vague" was a miss, twas.)
The whole point to talking about "soft vs hard landing" seems to be that doing so leaves things vague.This is your mom talking that you will be alright (after your little moment of anxiety passes) [just as soon as we put you in the oxygen tent]. Consider "deep vs shallow plunge" or "minor vs major catastrophe", or "partial vs total annihilation".
Last time you had Bush talking down the economy every chance he got. Chances are, he doesn't do that this time. Also, we had a soft landing in '86, but see guns and butter.
The definitions are easy... soft landing is when you get laid off, hard landing is when I get laid off.
No wonder the fed isn't sweating it, when was the last time any of them got laid off?
The elephant in the room is the Housing Bubble. Nuf said.
Commenting by HaloScan
