Who says the recession is over, I just cant believe it anymore.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/can...Cx58UE2JD7wD6g

Never believed it in the first place.

The situation in dubai (here and here) is very worrying.

It's 'only' 80bn, but that is real money treated as an asset on banks balance sheets. That 80bn is potentially multiplied by a significant number when considered against a banks capital ratios and it's capacity to lend.

It's mainly UK banks (HSBC and RBS in particular) that are exposed to this crap, but it has the potential to hit everywhere imo.

Neither did I, I have seen no evidence what so ever, or spoken to anyone else thats thought otherwise...

Technically, the recession is probably over. The economy seems to be in the doldrums, neither growing or shrinking.

Even when the economy starts growing companies take up all their internal slack before they begin hiring again. Also, some companies that survive the recession fail during the recovery - they no longer have the cash flow to support increasing operations.

It can be up to a year from the end of a recession before the employment situation improves.

I refer the hon. gentleman to:

Definitions of recession on the Web:

* the state of the economy declines; a widespread decline in the GDP and employment and trade lasting from six months to a year
* recess: a small concavity

ergo the recession is NOT ended UNTIL the employment situation recovers/improves

I always thought a recession was defined by two down quarters of GDP. What do I know

The definition of recession is marketing spin. It's entirely arbitrary and was designed to make things look better than they are. GDP should be calculated net of the increase in government debt, but it isn't; debt is still counted as wealth.

A technical recession starts with 2 quarters of negative 'growth' and ends with a single quarter of actual growth. There is no agreed definition for a depression, and therefore we will never experience one ever again, at least in name.

That is one definition of a recession - and is more commonly used in the USA

Canada uses the "British" definition which is 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth.

http://www.sme-fdi.gc.ca/eic/site/sm...eng/01068.html

Hence the probably comment. However it is going to feel like a recession for a while for anyone looking for work.

I may be incorrect, but I believe the two quarters definition actually originated in the US. It's the one widely used by economists and governments (as they get to give good news as soon as one quarter goes into the black).

(The single quarter to be out of recession rule is why economists talk about 'double dip', by which they really mean the economy never actually recovered in the first place)

You could well be right. I know that at the moment the Americans use the prolonged period of reduced economic activity definition.

I prefer the 2 quarters definition because at least it is measurable and therefore less capable of being spun. Not that that stops the politicians from trying of course.