Incorrect inferencing

There is a fairly decent article in The New York Times by Edmund Andrerws entitled "Greenspan Is Still Able to Move Markets" which discusses the communications snafus that erupted this week over what former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan did or didn't say and did or didn't mean. The article notes:

To be clear: Mr. Greenspan did not, as some analysts incorrectly inferred, predict that a recession was imminent. In fact, he said few forecasters anticipated one. But he did caution that the United States appears to be at the end of an expansion and that such times usually bring with them the seeds of a recession.

The disputes on this matter are truly fierce, will a full spectrum of inferrencing going on.

Overall, I thought the Times article was fairly decent, but they did commit one gaffe: they stated above that "the United States appears to be at the end of an expansion", when the quote from Greenspan was actually (according to notes reported in an AP article) "profit margins ... have begun to stabilize, which is an early sign we are in the later stages of a cycle." I'm sorry, but there is a huge difference between being "at the end" of an expansionand being "in the latter stages" (not even "the final stage.") Being "at the end" means by definition that a recession is imminent, and Greenspan did not say that or say anything from which a reasonable person could infer that conclusion.

My beef with Greenspan, or at least the snippets that have been published, is that he hasn't talked about the fact the the "early signs" of a soft landing (moderating growth) can look very similar to the early signs of a recession. Yes, the economy has slowed and will be growing at a relatatively slow pace over the coming year (say, less than 3.25% vs. 3.5% and higher), but has not contracted nor is it showing signs of an overall contraction.

I do recognize that some so-called "analysts" will "infer" different conclusions from the same "facts" and data. That's life.

-- Jack Krupansky