Because it was the subject of a NYT piece and later picked up at Reason?

Two sentences in the NYT piece, Two and a fragment in reason. Neither of which were actually addressed by your post.

I understand slow news days, but sometimes nothing is better than something.

Then why even write a post about the chart?

Because it was the subject of a NYT piece and later picked up at Reason?

And the point of the post was that, even if the chart was accurate, it likely didn't tell us anything about this particular recession.

Then why even write a post about the chart?

Thats just blatantly admitting to a straw man, non-factual basis for an argument.

Not at all. It's just an admission that a chart, even one published in a respectable venue (NYT), might not have all the data.

And the point of the post was that, even if the chart was accurate, it likely didn't tell us anything about this particular recession.

LOL...thats exactly what they are saying, but I'm still amused at the "can't vouch for the veracity of the end dates or the completeness of the data". Thats just blatantly admitting to a straw man, non-factual basis for an argument.

Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind
Cannot bear very much reality.
Time past and time future
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present.

It's like that saying, "It's always in the last place you look". Only some of you are advocating that we stop looking, because obviously looking is an ineffective way of finding things, because by the time you find it the search is over.

What I was thinking is that past events can give us possible shapes of things, without allowing us to know. We can know X is at least possible if X has happened before, but so might Y and Z, which have not yet been recorded. It's maybe a "history does not repeat but it rhymes" kind of thing.

An over-reliance on numeric methods results I think from looking too much for that repeat, and not the rhyme.

One of the ways we try to understand this economic environment is by looking for rhymes in history, but its an uncertain prospect. As soon as we begin we have champions for 1981 vs 1873 vs ...

As an example Steve Balmer picks "1837, 1873, and 1929. (I think Bill Gates said some pessimistic things at TED, so maybe they are on the same page.)

... but certainly I wouldn't pick one of those parallels and hang my hat (or my portfolio) on it.

That said, while this recession started in December 2007 (as we found out a year later) the expert consensus seems to be that we haven’t hit bottom yet, much less come out of it. I don’t have much confidence at all that the passage of a stimulus package is going to get the job done — much less that this specific stimulus is the right approach — but I’m pretty sure that it won’t come “too late” in the sense of the problem having already solved itself.

Smartest thing said on OTB lately, and much better than...well. Than some people's ridiculous economic notions.

One can either accept or reject past experience as a basis for arriving at conclusions about the recession.

It seems very hard for humans to take the 3rd course, and accept the uncertainty.

The third course is identical to the second course, which is rejecting past experience.

"Is that last an illegitimate question?"

No, not at all. Further, see odo's remarks.

Look, we have come off a truly extraordinary period of easy credit. I could go off on a 5 page polemic (which I previously have) but the origins are in the mid to late 90's, and came to a crescendo in the 2006-2007 time frame. Politics being what it is, so much focus is on the 2000's so people can blame Bush. Fine, I understand politics. But we should understand origins and reality, so we (I know, I'm naive) can avoid similar mistakes in the future.

Root causes, seminal events, occurred in the 90's - we can talk about that separately - and just gained momentum thereafter. And of course there are many facets to the problem that have contributed along the way. Wall Street, Greenspan blah, blah, blah

So that all said, no one should be surprised that after the blow off credit is more stingy, or more expensive today. But it is simply false that it is unavailable. Restricted, yes, unavailable, no.

The Great Deleveraging will take a while

The kicker is that they article's dateline is Tuesday, February 19, 2008. A while, indeed. We seem to be in almost the same stage.

Drew's comment makes sense, and as he says there might be some fuzzy lines in a deleveraging situation, with yesterday's good risk being tomorrow's bad. It really revolves around appropriate leverage (public, private, and individual) ... with an entire society and market still trying to figure out what is appropriate.

'nuff said

Hey, pull rank by all means. One reason I read this blog is that I'm outranked by a lot of folks here vis-a-vis a lot of the topics raised. As for hyprebole, ok, I'll give you that re me. But here's what I asked originally (with emendation):

It's hard to see how private businesses can compete for a resource (money) that's not available to them through the financial system. [And tightening credit markets imply that, right?] If that's the case, then how do you get a recovery underway except through government pump-priming? How does a recovery get off the ground if no credit is available the availability of credit is restrained by lenders?

Is that last an illegimate question?

I am generally hesitant to "pull rank" because it is a bit cheesy to just say "I know because I've been there" rather than argue on the merits.

Here's the "but." The past 18 years of my life I have either been a lender (6 years) or a user (12 years) of lending as an integral part of my business, which is private equity. LBO's.

As such I understand the ebbs and flows of the credit environment, and why credit is let or not. Currently, credit is more expensive. Covenant packages are tighter, but really only back in line with historical norms, after a period of lax standards. Also, loan to value standards have tightened, but again after a period of lax standards. Further, in relatively tight periods lenders will usually reduce tenor risk. No surprises. And no devastating consequences. The bottom line is that credit is available for creditworthy entities. Credit for uncreditworthy entities is what got us into this mess. So don't expect the same standards as the last dozen years.

One of the biggest issues in the lending community right now, and one of the greatest deterrents to credit extension - as a commentator on this boards has correctly noted - is the role of uncertainty. This is a cash flow lending, as opposed to collateral lending, concept. How do you believe, and therefore underwrite, the projections a borrower gives you? The answer is you can't. Hence, lender's posture. Skinny down.

Yes, that tightens the credit environment, but it does not turn it off. Lord knows, I'm prone to hyperbole. But you guys are simply way, way off the mark vis a vis reality.