>Look, I understand that the monthly data is trending higher. I understand
>that 4th quarter GDP was significantly positive. I also understand the
>desire to avoid catastrophism. But do you really mean that an "expansion has
>begun" in the conventional sense? From 1945-1991, the average "expansion"
>lasted 50 months. Do you really think it's feasible that there will now be
>over four years of unbroken expansion? If GDP growth averages 3.1 percent
>(not exactly blazing) through 2006, the current account deficit will reach
>6.5% of GDP! The private sector financial deficit will reach 8% percent of
>GDP! These numbers just don't happen in the normal course of economic
>events.
I have no idea what the future holds, but the present and recent past are acting like a cyclical trough. The US economy isn't springing back to life, but it is stirring, and leading indicators are perking up. The OECD's composite leading index is also perking up. It could last a few months or it could go for years. It could be like 91-92, stagnant periods but not formally recessionary. I don't know. I'm going to have leading index guru Lakshman Achuthan on the radio soon to talk about it. Check out their leading indexes at <http://www.businesscycle.com/data.asp>.
Doug