Recession

[bush_cheney2004]

Sure, if you're a headline reading, detail avoiding, government stats believing, kind of person then it doesn't look so bad.

Adjust the numbers for a few things though:

Why? Because you say so? Lets' see...do I go with the usual government propaganda about economic performance in both good times and bad, or rely on a voice in the wilderness? Do I lean towards a Forbes article and other economic news or invent my own spin for identical political mileage?

Nah...the headline is absolutely correct as is. Spin it any way you want.

[msj]

Why? Because you say so? Lets' see...do I go with the usual government propaganda about economic performance in both good times and bad, or rely on a voice in the wilderness? Do I lean towards a Forbes article and other economic news or invent my own spin for identical political mileage?

Nah...the headline is absolutely correct as is. Spin it any way you want.

Well, Warren Buffett knows the difference between headline spin and reality:

Becky: Hey Warren, we've been talking this morning about whether or not we're in a recession at this point. The last we talked with you was a couple of months ago, and you said it looked by any sort of relevant manner, if you're trying to measure this, by any sort of real estimate it looked like we're in a recession. But there are some people who are saying, yeah, it doesn't look like a recession to them. We've got GDP this week. Do you still stand by that idea that it looks like we're in a recession?

Buffett: Yeah. I think we're in a recession. I mean, a recession is defined in a certain way by the National Bureau of Economic Research, but I think it's defined by the man in the street a little differently than whether there have been two quarters of reported (negative) GDP growth. And incidentally, when GDP growth is below 1% a year it's really falling on a per capita basis because our population increases about one percent. So even though the National Bureau uses an absolute figure, it's up one-tenth they don't count that as a recessionary quarter, but the GDP per capita has gone down in a quarter where the gain is half a percent or something of the sort. We are in a recession, unless you want to stick strictly to the technical definition, which I really don't think has much meaning to the fellow who has lost his job or is facing a money-market fund that isn't paying him out, or whatever it might be.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, Warren Buffett knows the difference between headline spin and reality:

No, Mr. Buffet, who wouldn't know a jobless "man on the street" even if he was bitten on the ass, restated the technical definition of a recession.

Reality = No Recession (yet)

Historical GDP per capita...see if you can find the "reality recessions":

http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/economics-...riable-638.html

[msj]

No, Mr. Buffet, who wouldn't know a jobless "man on the street" even if he was bitten on the ass, restated the technical definition of a recession.

Reality = No Recession (yet)

Historical GDP per capita...see if you can find the "reality recessions":

http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/economics-...riable-638.html

Nice link - some good historical data. You do realize we are talking about December 2007 and the first quarter of 2008 and not 2005 and prior years at this part of the discussion? Oh yeah, nice way to dodge the issue of quarterly declines by linking to annual data.

You can go on all you want about the technical definition of a recession, which, as was already demonstrated several pages prior, to be an economic decline over many months (as opposed to the two consecutive rule).

In a matter of months the NBER will have more data and will state that the US is/was in a recession since they have to wait for the "advance" readings to become the final readings.

In fact, the NBER's own Feldstein had already gone on record (April 7) as saying that he believes the US is already in recession even if the Q1 GDP came in as positive. It is a "misleading" number.

Of course, one would have to understand why it is a misleading number but when the government tells you 2+2 = 5 and you believe it (and make no doubt BC2004, you swallow it hook, line and sinker), well, how can you argue with that?

Edited May 2, 2008 by msj

[bush_cheney2004]

Nice link - some good historical data. You do realize we are talking about December 2007 and the first quarter of 2008 and not 2005 and prior years at this part of the discussion? Oh yeah, nice way to dodge the issue of quarterly declines by linking to annual data.

Not a dodge at all....I just wanted to see if your silly ass voodoo math would hold up for the past. It doesn't. I don't see a single year of declining GDP per capita going back to 1960. Surely we had a recession or two, eh?

You can go on all you want about the technical definition of a recession, which, as was already demonstrated several pages prior, to be an economic decline over many months (as opposed to the two consecutive rule).

Please revisit 5th grade math....decline does not necessarily make for NEGATIVE economic growth. Sorry, you lose.

In a matter of months the NBER will have more data and will state that the US is/was in a recession since they have to wait for the "advance" readings to become the final readings.

Maybe yes...maybe no...which was the point of the Forbe's piece. Instead, you invented a coniption fit about deception that wasn't there at all.

Edited May 2, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[msj]

Not a dodge at all....I just wanted to see if your silly ass voodoo math would hold up for the past. It doesn't. I don't see a single year of declining GDP per capita going back to 1960. Surely we had a recession or two, eh?

Of course there were recessions during that time.

Either the data that you linked to is faulty or you are unable to appreciate that if a technical definition of a recession occurs (whether it is 2 quarters or several months of economic decline - with decline here meant to represent negative real growth) and it straddles two years (say, Q4 in 1980 and Q1 in 1981) then, clearly, a year may still end up positive overall when you are looking at Q1 to Q4 for 1980 and Q1 to Q4 for 1981.

Why? Because the other quarters may be enough to lift the annual data to positive growth.

Please revisit 5th grade math....decline does not necessarily make for NEGATIVE economic growth. Sorry, you lose.

This is not math - it is semantics.

Maybe yes...maybe no...which was the point of the Forbe's piece. Instead, you invented a coniption fit about deception that wasn't there at all.

I'm the one who has linked to real substantial articles with real criticisms of how data is measured and/or on how one can interpret (or, in your case, spin) the data.

The deception is there for all to see: but somehow I'm not surprised someone whose handle is "bush_cheney2004" is going to buy into whatever the government tells him to believe....

But how about Ronald Reagan? To quote from August1991 (see post 251):

When it comes to economic stats of the sort, I always prefer real GDP per capita. Or, to finish on a partisan note, I also like Ronald Reagan's famous question twice asked: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

As I have already linked to back in post 242 and 259, the answer is: about the same, maybe a little worse.

Now we have annualized GDP growth of 0.6% and population growth of 1+% so even August1991 must recognize that the US is heading into a recession if not in one, at least by his reasonable definition quoted above.

[bush_cheney2004]

Of course there were recessions during that time.

Indeed..but I am open minded..perhaps we should measure GDP per capita per week or hour? Surely at some instant in time we will detect a RECESSION!

This is not math - it is semantics.

That's what they always say when confronted by a different view.

I'm the one who has linked to real substantial articles with real criticisms of how data is measured and/or on how one can interpret (or, in your case, spin) the data.

Cool...your spin vs. my spin...either way, no recession (yet).

Now we have annualized GDP growth of 0.6% and population growth of 1+% so even August1991 must recognize that the US is heading into a recession if not in one, at least by his reasonable definition quoted above.

Again, I refer you to the technical definition of a "recession", not your vivid imagination.

[msj]

Indeed..but I am open minded..perhaps we should measure GDP per capita per week or hour? Surely at some instant in time we will detect a RECESSION!

That's what they always say when confronted by a different view.

Cool...your spin vs. my spin...either way, no recession (yet).

Again, I refer you to the technical definition of a "recession", not your vivid imagination.

Okay, this is getting ridiculous.

I already know what the techinical definition of a recession is.

August1991 and I already had a nice chat about that earlier in this thread. I linked to the NBER information and it is up there for anyone to see.

Part of that discussion was the point that whether it is two quarters or several months of real economic decline (all semantics aside) it doesn't really matter when GDP growth is less than population growth.

Have you actually given this concept any thought?

No, I'm serious. At least demonstrate that you can comprehend this concept.

Do you really think that just because the conventional advance estimates of GDP show no recession that everything is honky dory for people when real GDP growth is below population growth?

I mean, really?

[bush_cheney2004]

Do you really think that just because the conventional advance estimates of GDP show no recession that everything is honky dory for people when real GDP growth is below population growth?

I mean, really?

I think that the customary advance estimates are as they have always been, and deserve no more scrutiny or voodoo math spin compared to prior advance estimates. These will be adjusted up or down same as before.

Real GDP "growth" (what we are actually discussing), is not the same metric as GDP pre capita, and in any event, I have demonstrated the historical performance in the USA on an annual basis despite actual recessions, not the one you allege to exist right now.

"Hunky dory for people"? You must be joking....using your logic, even when the "people" were happy campers we had negative economic growth because of positive population growth.

[msj]

Indeed..but I am open minded..perhaps we should measure GDP per capita per week or hour? Surely at some instant in time we will detect a RECESSION!

Perhaps we should look at real GDP per capita with inflation adjusted 2002 US dollars - see page 12

Compare the early 70's and the early 80's with the link your provided and it will be obvious to all who lived through the 73/74 and 80/81/82 recessions that my link above is more accurate and reliable than the one you provided.

In fact, you can play with this handy calculator to compare whatever years you would like (but note that it is based on 2000 USD): measuring worth

[msj]

I think that the customary advance estimates are as they have always been, and deserve no more scrutiny or voodoo math spin compared to prior advance estimates. These will be adjusted up or down same as before.

Real GDP "growth" (what we are actually discussing), is not the same metric as GDP pre capita, and in any event, I have demonstrated the historical performance in the USA on an annual basis despite actual recessions, not the one you allege to exist right now.

"Hunky dory for people"? You must be joking....using your logic, even when the "people" were happy campers we had negative economic growth because of positive population growth.

1) You haven't demonstrated much else with the exception that you can link to nonsense websites (or at least a website that provides GDP per capita in "current US dollars" which obviously is code for nominal rather than inflation adjusted GDP per capita).

2) Not sure what you mean by "even when the "people" were happy campers we had negative economic growth because of positive population growth."

We can still have positive economic real growth over all but negative real growth per capita - Q4 2007 and Q4 2008 are examples.

Have you linked to any stats showing a correlation between negative real per capita GDP and happiness?

I did post this back in post 259 which, while not explicitly asking about being "happy campers," it certainly implies a growing negative sentiment that one would expect with real GDP per capita declines.

[bush_cheney2004]

Perhaps we should look at real GDP per capita with inflation adjusted 2002 US dollars - see page 12

Oh great....now we are off on another tangent called "real GDP per employed person-hour worked". By this measure....perhaps Haiti has the highest rating, compared to those overworked, overproductive Americans!

Compare the early 70's and the early 80's with the link your provided and it will be obvious to all who lived through the 73/74 and 80/81/82 recessions that my link above is more accurate and reliable than the one you provided.

Attempts to highlight the poor and bedraggled masses are noted.....however, the numbers just don't give a damn. Links are free...no points for accuracy or reliability.

Please demonstrate that the US economy is in a recession if you really can....no voodoo please.

[msj]

Oh great....now we are off on another tangent called "real GDP per employed person-hour worked". By this measure....perhaps Haiti has the highest rating, compared to those overworked, overproductive Americans!

Attempts to highlight the poor and bedraggled masses are noted.....however, the numbers just don't give a damn. Links are free...no points for accuracy or reliability.

There's a surprise. Puts up a bogus link and then backs away when its inaccuracy is pointed out.

[Edited to add: not surprised you would try and focus on the "real GDP per employed person" which is on page 11 while ignoring the real GDP per capita on page 12 as I indicated in my post (and by page numbers I mean the ones on the right hand side which should be obvious). Your dishonesty in this discussion is most telling....]

Please demonstrate that the US economy is in a recession if you really can....no voodoo please.

I already have - real GDP growth is less than population growth.

By any reasonable person's definition that is a recession.

That is not voodoo. It is simple logic.

As already stated, given how inaccurate GDP and inflation measurements are, the US is already in a recession since the stats tend to underestimate inflation and, therefore, over estimate real GDP.

But hey, I never have believed everything my nanny state has told me....

Edited May 4, 2008 by msj

[bush_cheney2004]

....By any reasonable person's definition that is a recession.

That is not voodoo. It is simple logic.

Fine...you have nothing to really add to the previous voodoo. Having lived through several recessions, I can patiently wait for the usual analysis sans voodoo, just as we always have. Government propaganda is so...ummm....official!

[msj]

Well, the link isn't up yet but John Mauldin provides some insight into the GDP numbers. [Edit - article is now up]

He shows how Q4 2007 and Q1 2008 were both negative depending on which inflation numbers you use (and he does this by taking conventional government inflation numbers).

Last week I suggested that this week's release of the GDP would be slightly positive, as the BEA would have a much lower number for inflation than our common experience suggests to be the case in the real world. It turns out my cynicism was well justified.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) of the Department of Commerce publishes the GDP statistics. They tell us the US economy grew by 0.6% in each of the last two quarters. They come by that number by taking the nominal or “current dollar” measure of the economy and subtracting their figure for inflation, which gives us “real GDP,” or after-inflation GDP.

Nominal GDP in the fourth quarter grew by 3%. In the first quarter it was 3.2%. They figure that inflation was 2.4% in the fourth quarter and 2.6% this quarter, giving us the slightly positive growth numbers.

There are several government agencies which track inflation. And in fairness, inflation in an economy as large as that of the US is a very tricky thing to measure. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is done by another division of the Department of Commerce, the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Let's look at what they calculate inflation to be since last August, in the following table.

Consumer Price Index

Mar 08 Feb 08 Jan 08 Dec 07 Nov 07 Oct 07 Sep 07 Aug 07

CPI 213.3 212.6 212.5 211.7 210.9 209.1 208.5 207.7

% chg mo. ago 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.0

% chg yr. ago 4.0 4.1 4.4 4.1 4.4 3.5 2.8 1.9

% chg 3 mo. annualized 3.1 3.1 6.8 6.2 6.3 2.6 2.5 2.0

Note the string of five consecutive months of 4%-plus inflation, and that the average for the 4th quarter was 4%, while for the first quarter of 2008 it was over 4.1%. Never mind whether that is the right number or whether there are problems with how they calculate it – that is a story for another letter. The key here is that if the BEA used the BLS number (remember, both groups are in the same Department of Commerce), it would show the economy shrinking by 1% in the 4th quarter and by almost 1% in the first quarter. That is not what the happy-talk analysts are saying.

But let's use the Fed's favorite measure of inflation, personal consumption expenditures, or PCE. The PCE has been about one-third less than the CPI since about 1992. The difference is in the way they are calculated. The CPI uses a weighted average of expenditures over several years. As I understand it, the PCE tracks changes in relative expenditures from one quarter to the next, assuming that consumers change their habits as prices rise and fall. In simplistic terms, if steak gets expensive, we substitute with hamburger or chicken. One index tracks those changes over years and the other (PCE) does it over quarters. Also, the PCE only tracks personal consumption and not imports or inventories.

If we use the PCE numbers (yet another measure using Commerce Department data), inflation was about 3.3% for both quarters, which would mean negative growth quarters by a few tenths of a percent. That would also mean two quarters of negative growth and a recession.

I bolded sections to make it easier for those who prefer to skim rather than read in detail.

Interesting that the Fed methodology would indicate that the Fed thinks the US is in a recession.

Anyway, he also talks about what the NBER defines as the criteria necessary to call a recession which is explained at the NBER's website:

Q: The financial press often states the definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. How does that relate to the NBER's recession dating procedure?

A: Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them. Our procedure differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we consider the depth as well as the duration of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, "a significant decline in economic activity." Second, we use a broader array of indicators than just real GDP. One reason for this is that the GDP data are subject to considerable revision. Third, we use monthly indicators to arrive at a monthly chronology.

Interesting stuff, all semantics aside....

Edited May 4, 2008 by msj

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Well, the link isn't up yet but John Mauldin provides some insight into the GDP numbers. [Edit - article is now up]

He shows how Q4 2007 and Q1 2008 were both negative depending on which inflation numbers you use (and he does this by taking conventional government inflation numbers).

I bolded sections to make it easier for those who prefer to skim rather than read in detail.

Interesting that the Fed methodology would indicate that the Fed thinks the US is in a recession.

Anyway, he also talks about what the NBER defines as the criteria necessary to call a recession which is explained at the NBER's website:

Interesting stuff, all semantics aside....

Those numbers are nice to read, but they simply don't address the national debt issue. The government is in deficit financing mode and the debt is stacking up rather dramatically. Much government spending goes directly to the military industrial complex which is wholly financed through the tax dollars paid into the government revenue stream. This particular sector employees huge numbers of Americans both directly and indirectly. If you deduct the amount of economic activity within this sector and deduct the tax revenues received by the government from that sector from the current set of figures, the picture changes in dramatic fashion. When you start to look into this you will be amazed by what you find. America is forced to remain on a war footing in order to keep their economy going because any changes in the military industrial complex will have severe impact on the economy. So get used to it folks America is at war, and they must remain at war in order for the nation to survive as a viable economic entity. Recession or not, depression or not, the government will continue to pile up debt that will in the end determine the national political direction chosen by its leadership.

Recession is not an issue to be downplayed, but it is not the issue of greatest importance in the United States at the present time either.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... America is forced to remain on a war footing in order to keep their economy going because any changes in the military industrial complex will have severe impact on the economy. So get used to it folks America is at war, and they must remain at war in order for the nation to survive as a viable economic entity. Recession or not, depression or not, the government will continue to pile up debt that will in the end determine the national political direction chosen by its leadership....

I have already demonstrated in an older thread that the US federal budget, and certainly state budgets dedicate far more funding allocations to social programs and entitlements. Accordingly, those programs also undermine balancing the national debt to an even greater degree. Contrary to your assertion, the US "military industrial complex" was severely impacted by the so called "peace dividend" of the 1990's....yet the budget was nearly balanced (depending on how you count Social Security). The US budget was also balanced at the height of spending for the Vietnam War (1969).

Edited May 5, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[August1991]

Those numbers are nice to read, but they simply don't address the national debt issue. The government is in deficit financing mode and the debt is stacking up rather dramatically.

By historical standards, the US federal government debt is not large now. If we consider the debt of all American governments (state, local - US public sector debt), it's even less significant.

The US federal government has the power to tap into at any moment the ability to generate wealth of the American people. For this reason, the US federal government borrows at the lowest interest rate of any entity on the planet and foreigners absolutely love US federal government paper.

Sorry, US government debt just isn't an issue - although I'd like to see President McCain cut spending.

He shows how Q4 2007 and Q1 2008 were both negative depending on which inflation numbers you use (and he does this by taking conventional government inflation numbers).

On a per capita real basis, US GDP growth was negative in two quarters. Fine. msj, you've got your "recession" and you're right.

But who cares?

This is not a recession like 1982 and it's not a recession like the mid-1970s. I don't see Bush giving silly press conferences with WIN buttons or talking about wage and price controls. It's nothing at all like 1929.

msj, with your endless bleating about the CPI and how it's all wrong (and to put this in a framework of the impending doom that you seem to desire), you sound like a French general in 1937 who feels the Maginot Line is not strong enough and the French general staff has wrongly estimated the strength of the German army around Stuttgart. IOW msj, you're fighting the last war. You're missing the whole point.

Edited May 5, 2008 by August1991

[msj]

On a per capita real basis, US GDP growth was negative in two quarters. Fine. msj, you've got your "recession" and you're right.

But who cares?

This is not a recession like 1982 and it's not a recession like the mid-1970s. I don't see Bush giving silly press conferences with WIN buttons or talking about wage and price controls. It's nothing at all like 1929.

msj, with your endless bleating about the CPI and how it's all wrong (and to put this in a framework of the impending doom that you seem to desire), you sound like a French general in 1937 who feels the Maginot Line is not strong enough and the French general staff has wrongly estimated the strength of the German army around Stuttgart. IOW msj, you're fighting the last war. You're missing the whole point.

Don't be such a sore loser, August.

I have not put anything, personally, in the framework of impending doom. We are just talking about a recession by which its magnitude is undetermined at this point.

Yes, I have linked to some economists who are predicting doom (which I disagree with in terms of degree - I agree with John Mauldin's muddle through thesis).

I like to present many sides of the argument - yourself and others ably presented the many faces of the "bull" side (I mean "bull" as in optimistic rather than "bull sh!t") while I presented the bearish side (which has varying degrees from "relatively mild, muddle through recession" to "severe L shaped recession").

As far as this being some old war - it isn't.

Fighting for accuracy should never be considered old fashioned.

I do not understand why you have been so adamant in fighting against transparency in government statistics - clearly the more reliable, relevant, and accurate we can make the statistics then we all (politicians, public servants, private business, regular joe six-packs etc) can make better decisions going forward.

As for Bush, well, he's a lame duck so who cares what he does or says. I prefer to see what McCain, Clinton and Obama have to say but that's a topic for another thread....

Edited May 5, 2008 by msj

[msj]

This is not a recession like 1982 and it's not a recession like the mid-1970s. I don't see Bush giving silly press conferences with WIN buttons or talking about wage and price controls. It's nothing at all like 1929.

While Bush isn't being silly I see that McCain and Clinton are: Gas Tax Redux.

Pretty minor issue, but lets hope it isn't the start of more silliness.

But history does have a tendency to rhyme....

[msj]

Barry Ritholtz at the Big Picture has a good article about official recessions: Recessions Often Begin With Positive GDP Data

I can't help but agree with this quote:

The data so overwhelmingly proves that Recession can and often do begin with positive GDP, that one suspects the people making opposite arguments must never have actually reviewed any GDP data beyond the most recent headline.

[Mad_Michael]

Yes, that's a very good point. Actual GDP figures are usually 'adjusted' downwards eight months or a year after the 'preliminary' numbers come out.

And the most recent 'preliminary' numbers show that the last quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008 the US economy was growing at a miniscule rate (under 0.5% on an annualized basis). With later revisions/adjustments, these two quarters could easily show zero or negative numbers which would define a recession as having occured.

[msj]

Yes, that's a very good point. Actual GDP figures are usually 'adjusted' downwards eight months or a year after the 'preliminary' numbers come out.

And the most recent 'preliminary' numbers show that the last quarter of 2007 and the first quarter of 2008 the US economy was growing at a miniscule rate (under 0.5% on an annualized basis). With later revisions/adjustments, these two quarters could easily show zero or negative numbers which would define a recession as having occured.

Its more complicated than that.

We get GDP numbers on a quarterly basis. But the NBER looks at the monthly numbers (and a bunch of other indicators) to come up with their official recession call.

As Martin Feldstein writes in Misleading growth statistics give false comfort (you may have to register to read it):

Prepositions matter. The recent government report that US gross domestic product increased 0.6 per cent in the first quarter was very misleading. It implied that economic activity was rising in January, February and March. But the increase actually refers to the rise from the average level in the fourth quarter of 2007 to the average level in the first quarter. Monthly data since January indicate that economic activity and GDP have been declining since the start of this year.

Private sector payroll employment peaked last November and has fallen five months in a row, shedding more than 300,000 jobs. Industrial production was lower in March than in December and January. Real personal income net of taxes and transfers is also lower than in January. Real retail sales have fallen since the start of the year. Private housing starts are down 13 per cent in just the two months since January and 36 per cent from a year ago.

Although the government does not provide monthly estimates of GDP, Macroeconomic Advisers, a private forecaster, constructs them using the same conceptual approach as the government uses for its quarterly estimates. The company estimates real GDP based on the price level of the year 2000. Its most recent estimates (revised figures to be published this month) show that real GDP rose from an annual $11,649bn last October to $11,701bn in December and $11,777bn in January but fell to $11,686bn in March, a decline of about $100bn in two months. Although GDP declined during the first quarter, the average of the monthly figures in the first quarter ($11,711bn) is higher than the average of the monthly figures for the final quarter of 2007 ($11,675bn).

Martin Feldstein also happens to be the President of the NBER and an economist at Harvard University (which probably makes him some kind of "liberal," I'm sure. )

Edited May 9, 2008 by msj

[jdobbin]

Interesting article on how men are facing some of the worst in job cuts thus far south of the border.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24524554/

They eat from the same dishes and sleep in the same beds, but they seem to be operating in two different economies. From last November through this April, American women aged 20 and up gained nearly 300,000 jobs, according to the household survey of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. At the same time, American men lost nearly 700,000 jobs. You might even say American men are in recession, and American women are not.

What's going on? Simply put, men have the misfortune of being concentrated in the two sectors that are doing the worst — manufacturing and construction. Women are concentrated in sectors that are still growing, such as education and health care.

I wonder what the break down in Canada is for job losses in say...Ontario.

[msj]

Interesting article on how men are facing some of the worst in job cuts thus far south of the border.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24524554/

I wonder what the break down in Canada is for job losses in say...Ontario.

Didn't Canada have negative GDP in February? I thought it was -0.2%.

If so, then I'm sure it was nasty in Ontario.