Obama is the King of Unemployment

Initial claims for unemployment have been at or above 400,000 for 90 percent of Obama's presidency. By contrast, George W. Bush spent 25 percent of his time in office with unemployment that bad. Change . . . you asked for it.

The Economy is NOT Improving: 3rd Estimate of Real GDP Falls to 1.8 Percent from 2.0 for Q3 2011

What a joke the news is today. GDP is revised down and all you hear on the news is Ho! Ho! Ho!

Q2 GDP was 1.3 percent, and Q1 0.4 percent, for an average growth rate in 2011 so far of barely 1.0 percent.

One percent. From 1930 to 2000 growth averaged 3.5 percent a year. That's the normal America, and it isn't anywhere in sight and hasn't been in over a decade.

If the economy were improving truly, GDP would be much in excess of 2.5 percent, the minimum growth needed to accomodate just the natural growth of the population. The last time we had such growth ended a year ago September, spurious as it was, consisting primarily of parasitical spending by government. It wasn't even tax money the government spent. It was borrowed money. For all that, 2010 growth overall was merely 3.0 percent, in 2009 -3.5 percent, in 2008 -0.3 percent.

The personal savings rate since September 2010 has fallen 30 percent.

The ratio of the number employed to the size of the population has fallen back dramatically to levels last seen in the 1970s and early 1980s.

The growth in employment in the post-war period has stalled with the stall in GDP:

Household net worth has fallen 12 percent since 2006, 85 percent of that from the housing collapse.

Without jobs there is no growth in the savings which form the foundation of housing wealth. Without housing wealth there is no middle class which consumes the products whose aggregate value comprises 70 percent of GDP. And hence no advance in GDP.

A rich man can smoke only so many cigars, a Christopher Hitchens only so many Rothmans.

Data here and here from The Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The Day The Jobs Stood Still: Obaamu Baracka Nikto

About 2 million fewer total non-farm workers are employed today than in January 2009, despite growth in the population.

Unemployment Under Obama is Over 8 Percent for 34 of 35 Months in Office

(source)

Obama Hasn't Had One Week of Initial Claims for Unemployment Below 375,000

By the only measure that counts: The seasonally-adjusted 4-week moving average.

LOOK IT UP: here.

The ONLY time it got that low was ONE week in February of 2011.

Every other single week has been HIGHER. In fact, I count just 13 weeks in the below 400,000 category for Pres. Obama, all of which have occurred in 2011. By contrast, Pres. George W. Bush had 318 weeks below 400,000.

Obama's entire presidency to date, nearly three years, is defined by doing NOTHING about unemployment at catastrophic levels: WORKERS COVERED BY UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE UNDER OBAMA HAVE DECLINED BY 8 MILLION.

President Obama is an unmitigated disaster to the American worker, who suffers silently because of Obama's policies.

The New Global Fascist Order Slashes Dollar Borrowing Costs, But Not For You

It's not fascism when WE do it.

As reported here:

The U.S. Federal Reserve slashed the cost of emergency dollar loans to foreign banks as the world’s major central banks took coordinated action to prevent Europe’s debt crisis from triggering a global liquidity crunch.

The moves were announced in statements issued simultaneously by the U.S. Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, the Bank of Canada and the Swiss National Bank. ...

“Global central banks are opening the spigots and the casualty has been the dollar,” said Kathleen Brooks, research director at Forex.com.

“The extension of the dollar swap lines essentially means that dollars will be available cheaply and on request for the next 15 months to Europe’s troubled financial sector, which will probably greedily eat them up after being starved of much-needed dollar funding since the summer.”

Meanwhile the US consumer's liquidity crisis continues apace:

hours worked remain flat year over year;

real wages have declined nearly 2 percent year over year;

housing values have declined $6.6 trillion since 2006;

owners' equity in real estate is down $6.9 trillion since 2005;

household net worth is down $5.55 trillion since 2006;

unprecedented unemployment above 8 percent has continued for 33 months straight;

the US dollar has declined 27 percent in value in ten years;

debt delinquency rates are running at 10 percent;

open credit accounts have declined by 23 percent since 2008;

the annual percentage rate on the average credit card is nearly 15 percent;

a three year new car loan will cost you nearly 4.5 percent;

a 30 year mortgage will cost you 4 percent, if you can get one;

and the bank pays you doodily squat on your savings.

But if you're a European bank, the US Federal Reserve is making a gift of loans at just 0.58 percent:

The new [dollar swap] pricing will be applied to operations starting on Dec. 5. Seven-day loans would carry an interest rate of about 0.58 percent, down from 1.08 percent, based on the current one- week OIS rate of 0.08 percent.


The bankers' bank has picked its winners again. And you aren't one of them.

Male Unemployment is 11.2 Million, Not 4.2 Million

So says Brett Arends, here:

Millions here are still out of work. The unemployment situation is far, far worse than the government is telling you. Forget the official jobless rate, 9%. It’s meaningless. Even the so-called “underemployment” rate doesn’t tell the full story. Consider this: According to the Labor Department, the number of men age 25 to 54 who are out of work is officially 4.2 million. The reality? Deep in the footnotes the Labor Department says there are 61.6 million men in America age 25 to 54, while just 46.7 million are in full-time work. That leaves 14.9 million left over. Another 3.7 million work part-time. Seven million aren’t accounted for at all.

Adam Davidson of NPR Wants to Increase Taxes on It, But What Really is The Middle Class?

In The New York Times, here, where he expansively defines the middle class as everyone making between $30K and $200K:

To solve our debt problems, we have to go to where the money is -- the middle class. People who earn between $30,000 and $200,000 a year make a total of around $5 trillion and pay less than 10 percent of that in taxes . . .. [M]ost economists acknowledge, and most politicians privately concede, that the middle class will have to give up some benefits . . . or it will have to pay more in taxes. Actually, it will probably have to do both.

It's a frequently repeated myth that the middle class includes many of the people in the top income quintile, that is, those making in excess of $100,000 per year, but it just isn't true no matter how often it gets repeated.

Richer men and women don't want to be called rich, of course, so they make believe they're just like the rest of us and call themselves middle class when they're anything but.

That this myth is getting repeated so often these days, however, and not just in liberal quarters like The New York Times but also in places like The Wall Street Journal, should make your antennae stand up.

I say this is all part of a softening-up operation to get the rubes ready for a big fat tax increase.

That uncomfortable feeling you get reading the article above might as well be because the author is using one of these to blow smoke up your rear end:

In all seriousness, though, the fact of the matter is that in 2010 there were 99.5 million wage earners making less than $40,000 a year, according to the latest information from Social Security, here. That's fully two thirds of all the wage earners in the country, and a long way from the earners in the top quintile.

The next tranche up from there, namely wage earners making between $40,000 and less than $80,000 a year, is really small by comparison, just under 35 million wage earners.

And fewer than 10 million wage earners inhabited the next level up in 2010, those who made between $80,000 and $120,000.

The $120,000 to $160,000 set is hardly a crowd by comparison, just over 3 million wage earners strong.

Between $160,000 and $200,000 there were 1.25 million people.

And beyond that: 1.75 million wage earners, making to infinity and beyond.

Asserting that middle class extends all the way up to $200,000 when nearly 90 percent make less than $80,000 a year is quite simply ridiculous. It's obvious that the middle is below $40,000 when the average wage of all 150 million workers in 2010 was $39,959. Worker number 75 million from the bottom made just $26,363.

A more meaningful metric for middle class is what kind of housing income can buy at that great dividing line of $40,000.

For example, when I bought my first real traditional home way back in the nineties, the seller's attorney congratulated us at closing by saying, "Welcome to the middle class." I might have said we'd never left it, seeing that we had been owners of other kinds of dwellings twice before, but the attitude represented the cultural consensus that single family home ownership with a lawn to cut defines the socio-economic middle. Being able to afford such a place has been synonymous with achieving the American dream since WWII, after a long period of economic upheaval which quite literally unsettled millions.

So who can afford what when it comes to housing today is an important measure for judging whether the American dream continues intact.

Consider that the median price of an existing single family home in the US stands at $165,400 in September 2011, according to the National Association of Realtors, here. The lowest median price is in the Midwest at $137,400, and the highest is in the Northeast at $229,400.

Assuming one can come up with the 20 percent down payment of $33,080, which is a tall order for someone making $40,000 a year in today's economy, $132,320 financed at 4 percent over 30 years means a principal and interest payment of $631 a month. Add $300 a month for taxes and insurance and the $931 monthly payment means, at a maximum percentage of income of 28 percent, income must be $3,325 a month, or $39,900 a year.

Another way to put this is that the maximum price of a home which can be afforded by a $40,000 income is the current median price of $165,400. Anything beyond that is out of reach.

So, for how many people is that out of reach?

Based on the numbers from Social Security above, for easily 66 percent of the workforce, or nearly 100 million workers who individually couldn't buy more home than the median priced home without more income. But of course many households have two earners who combine their incomes to do just that.

Nevertheless tax data from 2009 more than support the conclusion that a clear majority of Americans cannot afford housing at the median price level.

The latest information indicates that half of the country, nearly 69 million tax returns in 2009, had adjusted gross incomes of less than $32,396.

The next tranche up from there, consisting of 34.5 million more tax returns, takes us up to 75 percent of the whole country, and adjusted gross income of less than $66,193.

(And contrary to Mr. Davidson, the combined adjusted gross income of the first 75 percent of taxpayers is only $2.7 trillion. Of the first 50 percent, barely $1.1 trillion. The money is most definitely not in the middle. It's in the top 25 percent, with $5.2 trillion in AGI last year).

In other words, somewhere between 50 and 75 percent of the country would have to settle for housing which falls well below today's median price level if they had to buy today, despite the 16 percent decline in the median price from $198,100 reached in 2008.

Many who already own a home under these circumstances are desperately trying to keep theirs because they know their chances of being able to buy another one are not very good. Incomes are flat to declining and unemployment and underemployment are widespread. With home prices depressed, many who purchased during the bubble from 1998 to 2007 wouldn't walk away with enough from a sale for a down payment on another home. Some estimates put that number of underwater mortgage holders at 25 million, fully half of Americans with mortgages.

They dare not sell, because to do so is to leave the middle class.

Indeed, according to the Census Bureau here home ownership rates have fallen almost 4 percent from peak, back to 1998 levels.

And the liberals' solution to this middle class implosion is to raise their taxes.

It's not just crazy. It's mean, because increasing taxes on the real middle class will turn it into the working class, which, I gather, is the whole point of socialism.

The Easiest Mortgage Loan Bailout Program Would Let Taxpayers Do It Themselves

According to the Federal Reserve's latest Statistical Release in September, here, the current value of all residential mortgages outstanding is $9.935 trillion.

That's down 5.8 percent from the 2007 peak of $10.542 trillion.

It is estimated that half of all residential mortgages are effectively underwater, meaning homeowners, if they could sell under current conditions, would not make enough from the sale to have 10 percent down for the purchase of a new home. This situation traps people in their homes, keeping them from moving to  take employment or retirement elsewhere.

The easiest solution to this problem is to allow holders of 401K, IRA and similar retirement accounts to withdraw funds without penalty, and perhaps even without taxation, if expressly used for the purchase of a new home, or for retirement of an outstanding mortgage or home equity loan. If not a complete tax forgiveness, government could settle for a flat tax at a low rate on such withdrawals in order to stimulate activity and help solve problems associated with indebtedness.

Holders of IRAs already know only too well that there are few exceptions to withdrawals without penalty. Perhaps the most useful of these few exceptions at present has been withdrawals permitted in certain circumstances for health insurance premium expenditures. Some people who have lost their jobs and their insurance have found this provision particularly helpful during this most severe period of unemployment since the 1930s. It has enabled them to purchase their own health insurance for themselves and their families with the funds.

The provisions permitting such withdrawals should be expanded to permit use of these funds to buy homes elsewhere, or pay off existing mortgages, which would do more than anything government has tried to do to date to stimulate velocity in the housing market.

People have saved plenty of dough to do it, too: $18 trillion.

Here's recent testimony about this from the Investment Company Institute:

Americans currently have more than $18 trillion saved for retirement, with more than half of that amount in defined contribution (DC) plans and individual retirement accounts (IRAs). About half of DC plan and IRA assets are invested in mutual funds, which makes the mutual fund community especially attuned to the needs of retirement savers.

Of course, not all of this money may presently be in the direct control of the individual taxpayers themselves to do with what they please, but a significant portion in IRAs and defined contribution plans, over $9 trillion, might very well be, according to ICI's latest data:

The risk to the retirements of people going forward if they are allowed to liquidate some of these monies is very real, but so is the prospect of a stagnant market of underwater mortgages devolving into bankruptcy, or even precipitating severe economic depression.

People should at least be given the choice under the current circumstances, perhaps with a sunset provision expiring in five years in order to spread out the effect.

A tip of the hat to John Crudele of The New York Post, who continues to argue for this solution in his columns.

The Broadest Tax Base Which Can Possibly Be Imagined Implies a Tax Rate of 6.2%

Herman Cain's 999 Plan is focusing attention on the perennially perplexing problem of taxation for the American electorate in 2012. His plan has brought questions about broadening the tax base for tax reform front and center, including: What tax base is large enough to generate adequate federal revenues? and: What rate of taxation is fair?

Herman's big idea is to scrap the entire tax code and start over with three new bases taxed at the same low rate for a temporary period of time, eventually transitioning the country permanently to just one of these bases, taxed at a much higher single rate.

His scheme is quite conventional in that it looks to the existing traditional bases of taxation with which we have been familiar for decades: corporations and individuals.

What is new, however, is the national sales tax, the base for which was fairly sizable in 2008 at $10.1 trillion in personal consumption expenditures [PCE], and running at almost $10.8 trillion annualized through August 2011.

Currently the overwhelming burden of taxation falls on the individual filer whose personal income is taxed in order to provide Social Insurance and Federal revenues, which in 2011 are currently running at an annualized rate of $2.3 trillion, as shown here by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Corporations, excises and tariffs provide puny sums by comparison: less than $500 billion in 2008.

This means that in 2011, Herman Cain's ultimate idea of taxing consumption to replace current revenues of approximately $3 trillion would imply a national sales tax rate of 28 percent on $10.8 trillion in goods and services expenditures this year. That's a pretty hefty rate by comparison with present conditions.

Currently the personal income base on which we exact that $2.3 trillion in Social Insurance and Federal taxes is just over $13 trillion. This implies an overall tax rate of 18 percent. If personal income in that aggregate amount had to do all the pulling to generate the full $3 trillion in revenues, personal income would have to be taxed at a rate of 23 percent to do the same thing as the consumption tax. Not as high, but still much higher than the 9 percent Herman Cain has called for currently, if only temporarily, in deference to the God of the Bible who asked for just 10 percent from his chosen people.

By way of comparison, if there were some way to easily tax GDP, currently running at $15 trillion, the effective tax rate would have to be 20 percent.

So is there a tax base which is broader still, from which we can derive the necessary sums and get that rate even lower?

Given that people by definition receive income in consequence of the conduct of business of one kind or another (aside from gambling, prostitution and bank robbery), it seems reasonable to look at the size of the various tax bases available strictly from businesses, without whom none of the other tax bases would exist in the first place. If we really mean it when we say we want to tax income only once, we need to go to its source, and for nearly everyone in our society, that source is business.

Corporations in 2008 had total receipts of $28.5 trillion, 2.8 times the size of Herman Cain's PCE tax base. It would have taken a gross receipts tax of merely 10.5 percent on this sum to have generated $3 trillion in tax revenue in tax year 2008, a year when revenues were actually lower at $2.5 trillion. That implies a gross receipts tax of only 8.8 percent on corporations in 2008.

In such a world, there would be no more income taxes on individuals, no Social Security or Medicare taxes either, and no capital gains taxes nor taxes on investment income or savings of any kind, and government would not go wanting. Nor would business be constrained by other taxes and fees imposed on it if we were to throw out the current code and replace it with this simple levy.

But the base could be made broader still in order to lower the effective rate even more.

Add in partnerships, which had $5.9 trillion in total receipts in 2008. And S corporations, which had $6.1 trillion in total receipts in 2008. Both of these added to corporation total receipts yields a gargantuan tax base for 2008 of $40.5 trillion in gross receipts.

All of that could have been taxed at a mere 6.2 percent to meet the federal revenue of $2.5 trillion collected in 2008.

No more talk of a flat income tax, nor of a progressive income tax, nor of a consumption tax. No more compliance costs of $450 billion because of the current code. No more lost time equivalent to 3 million full time jobs.  Just one, low, simple, rate on business. That's it.

In addition to God, John Tamny might go for it, too:

"The answer as always is for the government to simply get out of the way. If it must tax corporations, its taxation should be blind in the way that justice is. A flat gross receipts tax would make all corporations equal before the IRS. That would ensure the most economic allocation of capital on the way to rational, market-driven growth."

Unemployment At or Above 9 Percent For 28 of Obama's 34 Months in Office

That's 82 percent of the time, most of which he has spent on more important matters, like interfering with your healthcare, campaigning for stimulus spending, campaigning, partying, campaigning, golfing and campaigning.

Did I mention he's spent a lot of time campaigning?

Before The Income Tax, Federal Tariffs and Real Estate Taxes Punished Farmers

From a helpful history of the estate tax from the IRS, here (emphases added), which is unaware of the significant federal revenue contributed by alcohol taxes (between 30 and 40 percent):

The War Revenue Act of 1898

Throughout the last half of the 19th century, the industrial revolution brought about profound changes in the U.S. economy. Industry replaced agriculture as the primary source of wealth and political power in the United States. Tariffs and real estate taxes had traditionally been the primary sources of Federal revenue, both of which fell disproportionately on farmers, leaving the wealth of industrialists relatively untouched. Many social reformers advocated taxes on the wealthy as a way of forcing the wealthy to pay their fair share, while opponents argued that such taxes would destroy incentives to accumulate wealth and stunt the growth of capital markets.

Against this backdrop, a Federal legacy tax was proposed in 1898 as a means to raise revenue for the Spanish-American War. Unlike the two previous Federal death taxes levied in times of war, the 1898 tax proposal provoked heated debate. Despite strong opposition, the legacy tax was made law. Although called a legacy tax, it was a duty on the estate itself, not on its beneficiaries, and served as a precursor to the present Federal estate tax. Tax rates ranged from 0.75 percent to 15 percent, depending both on the size of the estate and on the relationship of a legatee to the decedent. Only personal property was subject to taxation. A $10,000 exemption was provided to exclude small estates from the tax; bequests to the surviving spouse also were excluded. In 1901, certain gifts were exempted from tax, including gifts to charitable, religious, literary, and educational organizations and gifts to organizations dedicated to the encouragement of the arts and the prevention of cruelty to children. The end of the Spanish-American War came in 1902, and the tax was repealed later that year. Although short-lived, the tax raised about $14.1 million. [About 2.5 percent of the federal budget].

Rep. Newt Gingrich Gets Blame For Housing Legislation Which Led To Bubble

Rep. Newt Gingrich was instrumental in turning the American dream into the American nightmare.

Under Gingrich's leadership in the US House as Speaker he spearheaded the drive to turn our homes into a mere commodity which could be flipped over and over again free of capital gains tax. And as everyone now knows only too well, commodities go up, and commodities go down.

From his Wikipedia entry:

In 1997 President Clinton signed into effect the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which included the largest capital gains tax cut in U.S. history. Under the act, the profits on the sale of a personal residence ($500,000 for married couples, $250,000 for singles) were exempted if lived in for at least 2 years over the last 5. (This had previously been limited to a $125,000 once-in-a-lifetime exemption for those over 55.) There were also reductions in a number of other taxes on investment gains. Additionally, the act raised the value of inherited estates and gifts that could be sheltered from taxation. Gingrich has been credited with creating the agenda for the reduction in capital gains tax, especially in the "Contract with America", which set out to balance the budget and implement decreases in estate and capital gains tax. Some Republicans felt that the compromise reached with Clinton on the budget and tax act was inadequate, however Gingrich has stated that the tax cuts were a significant accomplishment for the Republican Congress in the face of opposition from the Clinton administration.


Look what happened to housing in 1997 after the legislation became law according to the Shiller index:

After four decades of relative price stability in real terms, the dramatic tax change Gingrich championed helped develop one of the most notable bubbles in American history, as well as a banking crisis and unemployment the likes of which we haven't seen since the 1930s.

Whether it's Herman Cain's 999 Plan or a Flat Income Tax, The Current Code Must Go

So says Steve Forbes, here, who reminds us why that is:

The federal income tax code and all its attendant rules and regulations -- almost 10 million words and rising.

The code has been changed 14,000 times since 1986; last year alone there were 500 changes. The cost of compliance is horrific. The IRS itself calculates that we spend more than 6 billion hours a year filling out tax forms, the equivalent of almost 3 million full-time jobs. The Tax Foundation calculates that by 2015 annual compliance will be costing the American people some $483 billion a year.

Herman Cain Has a 999 Plan. Obama Just Has a 9 Plan, as in Unemployment.

So says Joseph Curl, here.

Weekly Standard: Income Growth Has Slowed and Gone Negative in August?

See the figures, especially in Table 1 here, at the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

After reaching a peak in July, August personal income fell below that of July, but is still higher than personal income was in June, and January.

The Weekly Standard is making much of the steady decline in income growth so far in 2011 here, but without once mentioning the boost to incomes the temporary reduction in the payroll tax was supposed to supply.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics here, average weekly hours have been stagnant for a year, so income gains cannot be coming from more hours worked. In fact, all other things being equal, you would expect nominal income to remain the same. Which is to say, no one is getting much of a raise, but they still have jobs.

But here the BLS shows that average weekly earnings have increased 1.85 percent year over year in August 2011.

Hm.

Interestingly enough, the difference between a payroll tax of 6.25 percent on $100 of income and 4.25 percent on $100 of income is . . . $1.82 less tax, going straight into people's paychecks.

And after 7 months in 2011, using the seasonally adjusted annual numbers of the BEA, income is up 1.94 percent, including the downtick in August.

1.85, 1.82, 1.94 . . . looks like a pattern to me.

Nominal incomes are up slightly in consequence of the payroll tax cut. Otherwise, it's a stagnant income picture, just like the unemployment picture.

Unless of course you factor in CPI and discuss real incomes. But that's a whole other, and very real, problem.

Involuntary Part-Time Has Surged 10 Percent in September Since July 2011

As always, calculatedriskblog has the best charts, here:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics' recent data is shown here:

Misery Index Hits Highest Level in 28 Years

From a Herman Cain economic adviser here:

There is certainly more than enough misery to go around. With the unemployment rate at 9.1%, and the 12-month change in the CPI at 3.77%, the “misery index,” the sum of the two, in August was 12.87, its highest level since May, 1983.  And, last week’s report that the unemployment rate remained stuck at 9.1% in September means economic misery remains high.

Unemployed? Was Your Hope Justified?

Reuters' Mike Dolan Gets It Wrong On Depressions

The relevant passage from his story here on the recent debate about whether we've had, face, or are in a depression makes a real hash of it:

But search for a precise definition of economic depression and you'll be hard pressed to find anything more specific than it's more severe than typical business cycle recessions, tends to cross multiple countries and lasts much longer.

Anecdotal rules of thumb -- cited in The Economist magazine and elsewhere -- center on a peak to trough drop in real gross domestic product of more than 10 percent or recessions lasting more than three years.

On that measure, the 1929-1933 Great Depression in the United States qualifies with a 27 percent loss of GDP and a peak unemployment rate of some 25 percent. The shorter 1937 and 1945 downturns qualify on the GDP measure alone too.

"Hard pressed"? The most useful rule of thumb learned way back in my childhood is not even mentioned: back-to-back years with GDP declines, on the analogy of recessions, which are back-to-back quarters with GDP declines. String out a recession long enough with annual GDP failing to surpass a previous high and you have a depression.

People may have to disagree about such definitions, but not about the data behind the theory.

The GDP decline of the 1929 depression is not correctly represented by the writer. Nominal GDP in 1929 was $103.6 billion, falling to its nadir in 1933 to $56.4 billion, a 45.56 percent drop, not 27 percent as the author states. It took until 1941 to surpass 1929 GDP.

Nor did GDP decline from 1937 to 1938 by more than 10 percent. It declined by 6.3 percent, from $91.9 billion to $86.1 billion. But GDP in 1939 exceeded that achieved in 1937, technically not a depression within a depression because there weren't back-to-back years of GDP decline.

And the GDP decline between 1945 and 1946 was a measly 0.36 percent, falling to $222.2 billion from $223 billion. The $1.9 billion decline between 1948 and 1949 was only 0.71 percent.

Missing from the story are the real 10 percent or greater depressions in the 20th century apart from The Great one: the depression of 1907-1911, when nominal GDP fell by 11.1 percent; and the depression of 1920-1925, when GDP fell almost 17 percent. Prohibition, dontchaknow. The roaring '20s were really a lot shorter than ten years.

If the 2008-2009 depression will compare to anything, it will be to 1937-1938's 6.3 percent decline, or to 1913-1916 when GDP fell 6.6 percent. The problem is the numbers are still fluid. The numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis still show a nominal decline in one year only, 2009, of 1.8 percent from 2008, despite reports of larger nominal declines in 2008 from 2007 and in 2009 from 2008 in the neighborhood of 3.8 percent.

If it's pretty clear we've had at most only a very small depression, we're technically out of it in 2010 due to government spending. It's equally clear, however, that current GDP is so anemic in the aftermath that we may well repeat the episode.