Will 2016 Be a Recession Year?

 

111015econ

In a new note, Goldman Sachs points out that the current economic expansion — beginning in July 2009 —  is now 76 months or 6-1/3 years old. So how should one think about its lifespan on the basis of past history, rather than what’s actually happening right now?

The typical US expansion, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, lasts just over three years with the longest (from 1991 to 2001) lasting 10 years. But as Goldman economist Zach Pandl adds, expansions since 1950 have gotten longer, now lasting around five years on average. This is true globally as well. And after examining both US and international business cycles, Pandl concludes:

Based on these historical business cycles, we can calculate the probability that an expansion will continue given a certain starting point—in the same way that one can derive survival probabilities from an actuarial table. When an expansion is just starting out, the odds that it will last more than six years — i.e. beyond the life the current US expansion — are only about 45%, based on data since 1950. However, the “mortality rate” of business cycles is fairly steady from one year to the next, with only a slight tendency to increase over time. Therefore, conditional on an expansion reaching six years of age, the odds that it can continue are still reasonably good. Again using data since 1950, we calculate that the unconditional odds that a six-year-old expansion will avoid recession for another four years—and mature into a 10-year-old expansion—are about 60%.

It’s important to stress that these figures represent unconditional probabilities—the equivalent of life expectancies without regard to physical health. That being said, we see the historical record as mildly encouraging, and the message broadly aligns with our judgmental view—we would put the odds of recession over the next year at about 10-15%. Although there are clearly some risks to the US economy—especially from developments abroad—we do not expect the expansion to expire of old age.

Again, this forecast is based on history, not analysis of current economic conditions. Think of it as a historical headwind.

But if history holds up, Democrats shouldn’t have to worry about an election year recession as happened to Jimmy Carter in 1980. (This assumes the election is a mandate of sorts on the Obama years.) But if Hillary Clinton wins — as betting markets suggest — she might not be so lucky heading into the 2020 campaign.

Published in Economics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 6 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    It depends. Will the Fed keep the magic punch bowl out of Zero interest, and go for QE4?  If not this faux recovery will tank faster then Hilary’s poll numbers….

    • #1
  2. Marion Evans Inactive
    Marion Evans
    @MarionEvans

    Nobody knows but everyone is telling.

    • #2
  3. Merina Smith Inactive
    Merina Smith
    @MerinaSmith

    Even if the economy is still expanding, I don’t think people feel like they are better off after the Obama years.  The percentage of those employed is way down, and I new college grads are having a hard time finding jobs and getting started on careers.  A continued expansion of Wall Street doesn’t do much for the vast majority of Americans right now from what I can see.  It mainly benefits those who are already well off. I consequently think Obama’s tenure is going to help us win the election even if the economy is doing OK.

    • #3
  4. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    The thing is that if you repress entrepreneurial activity, risk taking, and in general lower expectations, while pushing money toward existing large corporations you get inertial growth, and not the booms and busts that can come with new products, fads,  enthusiasms and new technologies.  Well we got it in oil in spite of the government’s repression.   Moreover, if you count government spending as output, then it looks even better.  It’s all bogus and part of it is the underreporting of inflation on the things people buy.   What we have is more  overhead, deteriorating capital that isn’t being counted, and slumping sales.   Of course, lets be clear, even when it’s not bogus, it’s not particularly meaningful.

    • #4
  5. CuriousKevmo Inactive
    CuriousKevmo
    @CuriousKevmo

    If Hillary Clinton wins in 2016 a recession by 2020 is going to be the least of our problems.

    • #5
  6. AIG Inactive
    AIG
    @AIG

    Merina Smith: I don’t think people feel like they are better off after the Obama years.  The percentage of those employed is way down, and I new college grads are having a hard time finding jobs and getting started on careers.  A continued expansion of Wall Street doesn’t do much for the vast majority of Americans right now from what I can see.  It mainly benefits those who are already well off.

    You sound like you should vote for Bernie Sanders then.

    I Walton: The thing is that if you repress entrepreneurial activity, risk taking, and in general lower expectations, while pushing money toward existing large corporations you get inertial growth, and not the booms and busts that can come with new products, fads,  enthusiasms and new technologies.  Well we got it in oil in spite of the government’s repression.

    First time oil industry followed a boom and bust cycle? Oh my.

    I Walton: Moreover, if you count government spending as output, then it looks even better.  It’s all bogus and part of it is the underreporting of inflation on the things people buy.

    Alternatively, it’s called macroeconomics.

    I Walton: What we have is more  overhead, deteriorating capital that isn’t being counted, and slumping sales.

    Where’s the data for these claims?

    • #6
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.