My point is that it shouldn’t be a judgment, and it wouldn’t be if we stuck with the two quarters of contraction definition. Sure, a govt. can (and just did) institute programs to stimulate growth in a manner not productive in the long-term and end the recession as defined, but then they’d risk a double-dip recession — as I believe we are.

The NBER was looking at ambiguous data in the first half of 2008 when it made its call, which is why it shouldn’t have made it.

I don’t think that 2Q08 was terribly influenced by the rebates, because about half of it didn’t get into consumers’ hands until June or later, and many people didn’t spend it. And yes, it should have been a permanent tax cut instead.

As for the current recession, I don’t disagree with you about the NBER recession date of 4th quarter 2007. I think it was more like the summer of 2008, but the economists at the NBER were looking at a whole lot of underlying monthly series when they concluded the recession began in December 2007. I suspect the data they were looking may have been ambiguous and they made a judgment call based on those data, which is why we are questioning that dating.

But, all in all, I much prefer an independent, private entity make the call, whether it is right or wrong, than some political hack in the Administration. I would not put too much faith in the neutrality (or accuracy) of a government agency.

Finally, I think some might disagree with you about Bush manipulating the economy. In particular, the tax rebate he engineered in the second quarter of 2008 made it look like we would avoid a recession. Alas, it was a false signal. Some might say he was manipulating the economy. I would be more charitable and say he made a good faith effort to stave off the recession. In my opinion, Bush would have been better advised to have pushed for a permanent tax cut (and let the Democrats have to say no to it). BTW I think Obama should have done the same, but his political leanings and base simply will not allow him to do that.

I’ve shown before that NBER’s judgment is questionable. They even acknowledge in their own Dec. 2007 determination that some of the metrics they said convinced them of a recession peaked in 2Q08.

They may all be individually brilliant, but collectively they did what a committee usually does, which is come up with something screwy. No other country that I know of allows a bunch of people from on high to tell them when a recession took place.

If the NBER is intellectually honest and sticks to its own guidelines, such as they are, they will recognize the manipulation of GDP (something Bush 43 for all his faults was NOT engaged in), deeply discount its significance, and weigh heavily the continued steep fall in employment, the increased and I believe unprecedented (since the Depression) worker disengagement I cited in the column, and bigtime falling incomes. I’m betting that instead they’re going to let the “big” 3.5% number dissuade them from doing so, because of the very political pressure you believe they’re insulated from.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/29/boehner-gop-72-hours/

The party of I don’t know.

http://hyphenatedamericans.blogspot.com/2009/10/swine-flu-vaccine-update.html

The only thing I could think of is a line from JAWS:

“Sometimes that shark looks right into ya. Right into your eyes. And the thing about a shark is he’s got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll’s eyes. When he comes at ya, he doesn’t even seem to be livin’..”