Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   U.S. Treasury Secretary O'Neill: there was no Recession in 2001   ( divider line
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

2454 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Mar 2002 at 10:07 AM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

144 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

2002-03-05 10:09:12 AM  
These aren't the droids you're looking for...
2002-03-05 10:09:51 AM  
Tell that to my maxed out credit cards. Tool.
2002-03-05 10:10:28 AM  
Technically, he's probably right. A recession is defined by most economists as three consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. The news media, however, would have you believe we were in the worst recession since the Great Depression(thank you, Tom Brokaw). How quickly they forget Jimmy Carter's stagflation and interest rates . . .
2002-03-05 10:11:16 AM  
Damn, I guess my inability to find a job was all my fault.
2002-03-05 10:11:42 AM  
U.S. Treasury Secretary O'Neill: Big bad Bobby Byrd made me cry.
2002-03-05 10:13:39 AM  
What, me worry?

[image from too old to be available]
2002-03-05 10:14:22 AM  
He's right - I eat cat food because I like it.
2002-03-05 10:15:12 AM  
so i guess the majority of idiots at .com still have their billions tied to options on their worhtless company. i guess enron never filed for bankruptcy, i guess america's billionares did not shrink from 270 to 240, i guess eisner didn't lose 50% of his fortune and i guess i must be daydreaming when i hear colleauges of mine who have all the computing skills necessary not being able to find jobs.

gentlemen never believe the words that come out of an appointed official's mouth, they're just there to serve as props.
2002-03-05 10:15:43 AM  
*cough* *cough* BULLshiat!
2002-03-05 10:17:18 AM  
"It seems quite clear now that our economy never suffered a recession," O'Neill told a news conference.
Lay-offs? what lay-offs!
2002-03-05 10:17:54 AM  
Mulletron: that really doesn't mean their is/was a recession. It is defined as 2(3?) successive quarters of decline in GDP.

I think what you describe is just average run-of-the-mill shiatty luck.
2002-03-05 10:20:24 AM  
....What a dumbass!! Hell, nowadays, what took 6 months to achieve now can be done in half the time....and that includes the economy's recession......

Just woke up and now i'm pissed......
2002-03-05 10:20:31 AM  
Tell that to my stock market portfolio. I would have made more giving bj's for a dime.
2002-03-05 10:22:52 AM  
10cents for a hummer?? Damn, I'm a little short....

I mean...uh, er, eh... yeah! that too....
2002-03-05 10:23:03 AM  
He should stick to playing baseball.
2002-03-05 10:25:26 AM  
It's a semantic argument at best, then. Technically a recession or not, we've all suffered a pretty shiatty economy during that time.
2002-03-05 10:25:44 AM  
But, but, but Dubya told us we were in a recession!

2002-03-05 10:26:03 AM  
B. Jesus: you're kidding, right?
2002-03-05 10:26:50 AM  

Wrong its 2 quarters of negative growth.
2002-03-05 10:28:52 AM  
If all else fails a complete refusal to look facts in the face always does the trick
2002-03-05 10:29:45 AM  
9/10, you're correct....although in the last Bush administration, Clinton was desperate to have people believe that the bad times would only end if he were elected, so that figure was actually changed (by the media, which still uses this) to 2 consecutive quarters of declines. Of course, a review of history shows the recession ended just before the this kind of Orwellian game playing was just a precursor of bigger lies to come (I'm not pro-Republican...just a realist).

Now, the media, desperate for whatever crap they can find to smear people they don't like (new Bush), have decided the 2 quarter rule isn't enough and have turned to the "arbiters" of recession...who declared that it began last March. This, of course, is the "official" word, so it must be true, despite not matching standard economic sensibilities. Now, their declaration is the official word, so we have to live by it. But any economist of ANY intelligence would sit here and say 2 things after reviewing the data:
1. there hasn't been a real recession
2. if there was, it was the mildest one you've ever seen.

When is the last recession we've had that unemployment didn't top 6.5%? Or inflation go above 3%?
This "recession" is only a stock market recession.
2002-03-05 10:39:27 AM  
Bush's State of the Union speech told us that though we are in a recession with lots of Americans losing jobs, health insurance, savings and retirements, that he would soon correct that all by making substantial cuts in social programs which benefit such people, reduce the taxes on corporations and the wealthy, increase the military budget by a third, and expand the war in Afghanistan to include Iraq, Iran and North Korea!

Nothing really unusual in that, standard GOP bullshiat, but the reaction to it went beyond the pale. No matter which TV network, it was one talking head right after another comparing Prez Game-boy to George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Teddy Roosevelt and even Franklin Roosevelt for Pete's sake!

"Liberal media", my ass!
2002-03-05 10:44:43 AM  
Yeah, he knows more than the National Bureau of Economic Research. And of course he's less biased.

2002-03-05 10:45:11 AM  
Administration: "La la la la la, I can't hear you, la la la la la."
2002-03-05 10:49:18 AM  

Anyone know why O'Neill is lying?
2002-03-05 10:50:15 AM  
Bush was first to trot out recession fear, if i recall correctly. during the campaign. It was in ref to clinton destroying the economy.
2002-03-05 10:52:21 AM  
In a Repub admin., does O'Niell need a reason to lie?

Call me crazy, but I distinctly heard our Celestial Leader, Dubya, say we were in a recession in his SOTU.
2002-03-05 10:55:41 AM  
Ok, so don't they compute the change in GDP at the end of a quarter, then go back a couple months later and revise the figure?

The shrinkage was really slight in q3 and q4. it is not surprising that it turns out there wasn't a recession.

politically, it's a good deal because al-Quaeda took alot of pride in tanking the US economy (OBL video 2)
2002-03-05 11:00:27 AM  
2 million out of work is all an illusion............

The Matrix has you........
2002-03-05 11:01:58 AM  
If there is no recession then why are there no jobs?
2002-03-05 11:02:40 AM  
I got laid off.
I dont know about the rest of the country, but my bank account is definitly in a recession. ;P
2002-03-05 11:03:15 AM  
Ironbar: it may be an illusion, but it is NOT a recession.

Recession is absolutely quantifiable. its not a feeling, it's not a collection of hard luck stories.

It is 2 conseq. quarters of economic(GDP) shrinkage. Period.
2002-03-05 11:04:08 AM  
there are plenty of jobs. maybe not where you are, but that would apply to a local recession not a national recession.

Sure, many internet related industries collapsed and the stock market took an asswhooping (NASDAQ), but that doesn't make it a recession.

(One reason we shouldn't move entirely to a service based economy)
2002-03-05 11:06:57 AM  
The NBER defines a recession as "a significant decline in activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, visible in industrial production, employment, real income, and wholesale-retail trade,"

the definition seems very subjective to me. According to this.. hes right! I mean what is signifigant anyway?
2002-03-05 11:09:21 AM  
The NBER's "definition" of recession is a bunch of loose guidelines that basicly mean "there's a recession if we feel like saying there is". Just like the last nearly-recession of 92, this has been a correction of mistakes. In 92 it was businesses paying down the ridiculous amounts of debt they took on in the late 80s, slowing things down while at the same time assuring that Clinton couldn't screw up the economy if he tried once they got done. This time around it's the dumbshiat stock investing from 97-2000 or so. had 12 consecutive quarters of geometrically increasing losses while at the same time having buy ratings for everyone and rapidly increasing stok prices over the same period. This is just stupid. If you invested in crap like that, you deserved to lose your shirt if you didn't get out quickly enough.
Losing a bunch of .coms that never deserved to be in business in the first place and having the millionaires they made lose their paper millions doesn't make a recession.
Oh, and in the clues for the clueless category: This country has some 270 million people in it. The fact that three of your best friends can't find work means squat. I made nearly 40% more in 2001 than I did in 2000, and I stand to make around 10% more this year. I had 3 8-10% raises within one year of each other. While it took me a month and a half to find a job after one layoff at the end of 2000, the next one (after picking the wrong offer) led to all of 2 weeks of looking at the beginning of 2001.
If we base it on MY anecdotal evidence, we're in the biggest boom in history.
2002-03-05 11:11:19 AM  
43%, you are correct sir.

During the campaign, Bush keeps saying that we were going to have a recession, no recession happens.

Bush gets elected, keeps saying that there is going to be a recession, recession finally starts.

Bush in his State of the Union Address says we're in big time recession, must cut taxes and what not to ward off recession.

Just over a month later Bush's Treasury Secretary says they were kidding, and there really was no recession...

2002-03-05 11:14:56 AM  
And in other news the Twin Towers were not attacked.
2002-03-05 11:15:32 AM  
O'Neil is correct. What we experinced was a business slow down in the high tech industry fueled by bad investments into companies with sock puppets running the show and from companies allowed to skirt the accounting laws by the SEC and the Clinton Administration. A real recession requires two or three consecutive business quarters with negative growth. The US, in 2001, still experienced growth in the economy but minor compared to crack-smoking economic bubble of the late 90s.

2001 was a minor correction in the market not unlike 1996 where unemployment was at about the same level -- 5.0% to 6.5%.
2002-03-05 11:18:35 AM  
Stating that we didn't have a recession may be true by economic definition, but many people have lost jobs. There are signs of economic slow down everywhere.

It's a play on, "I never had sexual relations with Monica"....ya, smoke another cigar.
2002-03-05 11:18:38 AM  
There was no recession.
George W Bush was elected President.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
2002-03-05 11:18:46 AM  
MacGabhain: People are coming back to school in droves because they can't find jobs. Enrollment is up and those that are graduating are going to grad school (because they can't find a job)...and these are engineers, computer scientists, and electrical engineers...

There are no jobs...
2002-03-05 11:19:18 AM  
My 2 cents: Where is the surplus? When W started out, there was the question fo what to do with the surplus. Now the surplus is gone. If it wasn't recession, who took it?
2002-03-05 11:23:55 AM  
When W started out, there was the question fo what to do with the surplus. Now the surplus is gone. If it wasn't recession, who took it?

Let me try one:

I have tree-fitty in my shoe.
My tree-fitty is gone.
Futurama got cancelled.
Who took my tree-fitty.
2002-03-05 11:24:08 AM  
Sorry Magullo, it was just there and I thought no-one would miss it.
2002-03-05 11:24:26 AM  
Toupsie, I like how you threw in Clinton and sock puppets. Bush = Recession or "a business slow down", whatever you choose to call it, it still sucks.

[image from too old to be available]
2002-03-05 11:26:45 AM  
by Corey Finkle & Scott Leva

WASHINGTON (AP) - George W. Bush disclosed Thursday a secret shadow government had been created shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. He then disclosed that many, if not all the mistakes thought to be made by the current administration since Sept. 11, were actually made by the shadow government.

According to Bush, the newly-enacted shadow government has been the driving force behind the national recession, the rise in unemployment, the fall of Enron and the failed diplomacy between Israel and the Palestinians.

"I realize many people blame my administration for a lot of recent problems," Bush said. "But I just want to assure the American people that we've recently discovered the real source of these problems and we promise to punish those responsible."

According to government officials, the new shadow government consists of 75 or more senior officials secretly living and working outside Washington in the case the nation's capital becomes crippled by terrorist attack

Such an operation was conceived as a Cold War precaution against nuclear attack during the Eisenhower administration but never used until now. It went into effect in the first hours after the terror attacks and has evolved over time, said senior government officials who provided details of the plan.

According to Bush, the shadow government began first interfering with his peace initiatives in the Middle East, undermining what Bush referred to as "a done deal where both sides promised to stop shooting at each other."

Bush went on to say that he suspected the animosity at US foreign policy by many Arab countries was a direct result of calls made from high ranking shadow government officials.

"Apparently they acted like bullies on the phone," said White House spokesman, Ari Fleisher. "They made all kinds of nasty accusations about our Iranian, Pakistani and Egyptian friends harboring terrorists and helping them smuggle weapons of mass destruction.

According to Fleisher, the infamous "axis of evil" speech was actually written by a shadow government official and not George W. Bush as was first reported by the media.

"Of course we were surprised to hear the President say such things," Fleisher said. "We had no intention to anger any of our friends, especially in Iran or North Korea. The speech was supposed to be just a draft copy."

According to Bush, many members of the shadow government also interfered in the Enron scandal several months before its collapse. By the time Bush was briefed on the matter, the company had filed for bankruptcy and it was too late.

"I do take full responsibility for assigning powerful roles to these people," Bush said. "But surely you can't blame my administration for irresponsible acts they did without our permission or knowledge. This clearly is isn't my fault."

Bush quickly addressed the future, urging the American people to continue to rally behind him. "I know you're upset. So am I. But America will prevail. I am still the leader of the greatest country in the land, and make no mistake about it, this interview is over
2002-03-05 11:36:44 AM  
It just depends upon what one's definition of recession IS.
2002-03-05 11:37:00 AM  
In a related story, there's that Rhodes Scholarship Bush turned down.
2002-03-05 11:37:16 AM  
Harmonia: HAHAHA that was hillarious! (that was a joke right?)
2002-03-05 11:38:41 AM  
I'm with the numbers here (9/10, 43%). As an economics major, I can tell you that by all definitions we didn't have a recession. You have to have 2 consecutive quarters of GDP decline at the very least.
Displayed 50 of 144 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.