<Hubbert Linearization Analysis of the Top Three Net Oil ExportersThe Oil DrumFortune: Are You Ready for $262/bbl Oil?>

124 comments on Economy grows at slowest pace in 3 years

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Oil CEO on January 28, 2006 - 4:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
We would have to analyze the occurence of recessions. 1990-1. 2000-2001. Currently you couldn't really say we were "due" for one until 2010. This is an economic subject of its own.

Personally, I have been expecting one for two years based purely on the price of oil. The fact that we haven't had one would lead one to re-appraise our analytical tools.

"What is different this time?"

We are in new territory.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on January 28, 2006 - 5:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The Clinton boom was an oddity.  Ordinarily, expansions don't last anywhere near that long.  That's probably why so many people thought it really was a "new economy."  Typically, cycles are much shorter than that.

As for why the economy has held up so well...I've heard two theories, both of which seem reasonable.  One is that the rise in price was gradual, not sudden like it was the last time we were in this territory.  So the economy had time to adjust.  

The other is that there's a difference between a supply shock and a demand shock.  According to this theory, what causes recessions are supply shocks - when suddenly, there's less oil than the economy is accustomed to.  What we've had until recently has been a demand shock - the world economy growing so fast that supply can't keep up with demand.  Since this is a result of healthy growth, it doesn't cause recession.  

According to the latter theory, Katrina could be trouble, because that actually reduced supply.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Oil CEO on January 28, 2006 - 5:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Roger that. Good points.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wkwillis on January 30, 2006 - 7:20am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I've noticed that the Fed has for the last twenty five years cut interest rates when a Republican president is going for reelection and afterwards, and raised them just before a Democrat is going for reelection and afterwards.
Despite this, or perhaps because of this, the economy does better under Democrats.
Is the Fed trying to get Republicans in the White House and it is actually aiding Democrats as a policy? Because it doesn't know what it's doing, or because it does?
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.