Bush says no. So what? He’s no better at predicting the future than anyone else. There is a formal definition of the thing: two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. We haven’t yet posted a negative quarter.
Now, setting aside all the shenanigans that comprise the broad makeup of our rather fascistic economy, by which I mean lip-service is given to the concept of "private" property but the State overseas and regulates virtually everything, do you know of many relationships amongst complex inputs and feedbacks that goes in one direction forever?
If you try to loose weight, do you expect every step on the scale to be less than before? If you’re building a business, do you expect any setbacks? Ever found you needed to change your approach in your personal finances because of problems, unforeseen difficulties, mistakes?
Recessions, whether caused by the State’s meddling in economics and markets, normal feedbacks from markets needed to adjust themselves to various factors including new technology, or simply self-fulfilling prophesy, it seems to me that what would be strange and dangerous is not to experience economic recession. We’re probably in for one, if I had to guess. The Democrats need it to ensure the election, and really all that’s needed is for people to believe they’re minutes away from standing in the soup line and that’ll probably be enough to set one in motion. Of course, whether we’re in really in for one or not, or even whether the economic conditions are bad for most people or not is entirely beside the point. There’s no honesty anywhere in the election process, or in the voters themselves. It’s an exercise in tribal ritual where everyone is on the warpath for the most plausible lies to believe and tell others, so as to most effectively promote their tribe and its leaders. It’s how facts get "utilized."
I suppose it’s "evolutionary" in a sense, in that it’s just as primitive as ever on principled grounds; only the trappings, glitter, and sophistication have changed.