The macroeconomists have been howling from the rooftops for the past year or so. David Rosenberg, the guy who called the 2008 recession the earliest, said we're in the 7th inning back in April. He was also the first guy who went bullish in 2010. "Rosenberg pointed out that since 1950, there have been 13 cycles where the Federal Reserve tightened interest rates… and 10 of them ended in recession." It's been argued by a number of people that the Fed is wedded to the Phillips curve, which is basically a straight correlation plus a fudge factor. Just as many people argue that the Phillips curve is no longer applicable because of the structural unemployment caused by the last recession:. We're at about 102 months, depending on how you count.
What I've never been able to figure out, since the last recession, was when someone pointed out that growth numbers stack(1) and it's unrealistic to expect economies to just keep expanding and expanding without sliding back from time to time. You figure people would put into their financial models (whether they're investing or whatever) plans for what to do when the economy inevitably slides back. You know, to reduce hits to stock values, reduce layoffs, whatever. (1) At least, I think that's how I understand. For example, 5% of 100 is 105 and if that grows by 5%, then you get 110.25 and that .25 is the result of stacking.