The Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research announced this afternoon that it had concluded that the country entered a recession in December 2007. The U.S. economy had been growing since November 2001.

The expansion lasted 73 months; the previous expansion of the 1990s lasted 120 months.

“A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in production, employment, real income, and other indicators,” the committee said in a news release.

The committee noted that after December the number of people employed started to decline. The country lost more than 1.2 million jobs in the first 10 months of the year. Additionally, manufacturing declined during that period.

While the recession started nearly a year ago, it takes the bureau normally six to 18 months to officially declare one -- to remove any doubt and so it can accurately declare a state date.

Today’s announcement wasn’t really a surprise to anybody. We have long known that 49 states were in or at risk of recession. And all the other telltale signs existed: shrinking GPD and mounting job losses.

The White House responded to the private group’s determination this way:

"As we’ve always said, NBER determines the start and end dates of business cycles, and they’ve done that,” said Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto. “But what’s important is what is being done about it. The most important things we can do for the economy right now are to return the financial and credit markets to normal, and to continue to make progress in housing, and that’s where we’ll continue to focus. Addressing these parts of the economy will help to return the economy to economic growth.”

It means we’re already a year in to the current down cycle, which makes this recession longer than the average post-World War II recession (10 months) and so-far the third worst since 1945 (Nov. 1973 and July 1981 recessions both lasted 16 months).

It also means the current Bush administration saw two official downturns. The last time that happened was during the first Reagan term (January 1980 and July 1981).

The average recession since 1854 has lasted 17 months, but since the turn of the last century we’ve seen a marked reduction in the length of down cycles. Since 1900, recessions have averaged 14 months; just 10 months in the post-WWII era.

The worst recession of the modern era: 43 months from August 1929 to March 1933. To best that milestone, the U.S. would have to be contracting through August 2011.

For more information on the bureau’s decision, check out the news release: http://www.nber.org/dec2008.html

If so, when you wake up Thanksgiving Day, you might want to spend a few minutes online at your favorite retailer’s Web site.

John Vincent, the founder of the BlackFriday.info, says that many retailers aren’t waiting for Black Friday -- the day after Thanksgiving when shoppers can find some of best discounts of the year --  to start offering big bargains. Instead, they’re posting Black Friday deals online a day early, on Thanksgiving Day itself, while their brick-and-mortar stores are closed.

“People [can] take advantage of the deals before these items sell out, and they can sleep in on  Black Friday,” Vincent said.

In the past, some deals have gone live as early as 1 a.m. ET on Thanksgiving morning, Vincent said. Generally, if a store is going to post bargains on Thanksgiving, he said, they will be up by 6 a.m.

Electronics retailer Circuit City, which is currently going through Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, confirmed to ABCNews.com that it will be among the retailers offering Black Friday discounts on  Thanksgiving Day. The retailer’s Web site, a Circuit City spokesman said, is generally updated at 5 a.m. ET.

Still, the bank is leveraged beyond belief ... and the fear of further massive write-downs has nervous sellers shrinking the company's market cap to just over $20 billion, down nearly $80 billion from a year ago. The stock is down more than 50 percent this week alone, closing at $3.77 a share Friday afternoon. Some analysts expect the stock to fall to $1.00 if not lower by as early as next week if the company doesn't come up with something drastic.

It's clear that Citi will not be allowed to fail. But here's where things get interesting. There are a few options for Citi, none of them are ideal.

Citi is made up of four major divisions and has more than $2 trillion in assets on its balance sheet, thus likely making it just too big for one bank to buy whole, not to mention U.S. regulatory issues getting in the way.

There was some chatter that the company could possibly be acquired by a large European bank like HSBC. But that's not likely.

There is also talk that the company could be broken apart, with various U.S. banks stepping in. Goldman Sachs was said to have led some discussions with Citi, leading to jokes on the street that a merger between the two would be called "Sachs in the Citi."

But no likely deal can be brokered between any banks without -- you guessed it -- your tax dollars.

In fact, a few people familiar with the story tell me that a very likely scenario will be that the government will step in and in effect, become Citi's largest shareholder.

Which has led to colorful reaction from some big wall street players. Most blame Citi itself for its current situation. Indeed, there have been calls for Citi to break up its divisions for a few years now.

And while many people defend CEO Vikram Pandit and say there was little he could do to turn the company around since stepping into the role last December, others are not so kind.

One source familiar with Pandit's career who asked that his name be withheld blames it all on the man in charge, and the board that supports him.

"The board and management teams are the worst in the history of American capitalism," the source said.

Why does he say this? Well Pandit's path to Citi is a rather unusual one. After being overlooked for the top job at Morgan Stanley, Pandit started his own hedge fund called Old Lane. Last year Citi bought the fund for $800 million -- and with it, brought Pandit into the Citi family (and gave him more than $150 million for the fund).

Within a few months, Pandit was running the company.

And the hedge fund went out of business. "Ask anyone inside or outside of the company..and they'll tell you, Pandit is commonly referred to as Vikram Bandit," the  source said.

The source goes on to tell me, "This idiot blew up this hedge fund and then the board puts him in charge of Citi. ... I wouldn't give Pandit a quarter to buy me a gumball."

Others compare the board at Citi to the U.S. auto industry -- "out of touch, out of time, and out of money."

And they suggest that any sort of government bailout should only come with requirements for major management reshuffling at Citi.

Not so, apparently, for U.S. banks.

Some four weeks after the U.S. Treasury Department invested $125 billion into nine major U.S. banks -- as part of the government’s $700 billion financial rescue plan -- stocks for some have seen breathtaking declines. Citigroup, which recently announced more than 50,000 layoffs and is rumored to be considering selling all or parts of its financial empire, has taken one of the most-publicized hits, with its share price tumbling more than 60 percent in the past month, while the others have seen less dramatic but still significant declines. (Click on the chart below for more information.)

While some banks'  stocks bounced back at least briefly today, they were still far from last month’s levels.

Why aren’t the government’s billions lifting the share prices of ailing financial firms? The Treasury Department’s decision to scrap its original rescue plan  --  buying up troubled assets from the banks -- has been eyed as one reason: The  banks may have more cash, but they still have bad assets, such as  mortgage-backed securities, on their books, and no one knows exactly how much they’re worth. Then there are also continually looming economic concerns, including low confidence in the banks themselves.

Not everyone, of course, is down on the banks. One of Citi’s biggest investors, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudia Arabia, recently announced he was increasing his stake in the firm. In a statement  Thursday, the prince said he believed the bank’s stock was “dramatically undervalued.”

Duke is currently an executive in Wal-Mart’s international division and spent the early part of his career with Federated and May Department Stores. Scott will remain with the company as chairman of the board.

“Wal-Mart is very well positioned in today's economy, growing market share and returns, and is more relevant to its customers than ever,” Duke said in a company news release announcing the change. “Our strategy is sound, and our management team is extremely capable. I am confident we will continue to deliver value to our shareholders, increase opportunity for our over 2 million associates, and help our 180 million customers around the world save money and live better.”

The surprise move ends Scott’s rather uneven tenure as CEO. He held that post since January 2000. Investors had been disappointed with the stock performance during his years at the helm. Scott also dealt with a few public missteps, attempting to move the discounter to higher-fashion brands, and publicly fighting with unions looking to organize the company’s massive work force.

Many people believe Duke’s selection is an indication that the company will be looking overseas for future growth. Duke leads Wal-Mart’s international efforts right now.

Duke joined Wal-Mart in 1995 and is the company’s top international executive today. He has served as president and CEO of Wal-Mart Stores Division (USA), executive vice president of administration, executive vice president of logistics, senior vice president of logistics, and senior vice president of distribution.

Duke has full operating responsibilities for all the company’s international operations, including Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Japan, Mexico, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico and the United Kingdom. He also has responsibility for Wal-Mart’s global procurement organization.

Before joining the company, Duke had 23 years’ experience in retailing with Federated Department Stores and May Department Stores.

Duke graduated from Georgia Tech with a bachelor’s degree in industrial engineering. He serves on the board of directors of the U.S.-China Business Council as well as CIES-the Food Business Forum, and is on the executive board of Conservation International’s Center for Environmental Leadership in Business. Duke also serves on the University of Arkansas board of advisers.

Gas prices have fallen once again (for more information, click on the chart below, which includes new numbers from the Energy Information Administration) and crude oil closed at $54.95 a barrel yesterday –- down more than 40 percent from a year ago.

It’s good news, of course, for motorists but not for oil-rich countries that had gotten used to flying high on soaring energy prices. Can they actually do anything to reverse the downward trend (and ultimately trigger the return of pump pain)?

A couple of experts told me that, as of now, not really.

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will hold a Nov. 29 special session and there’s speculation that, despite statements to the contrary by OPEC’s president, the cartel will cut its oil production targets -– a move designed to boost price by lowering supply.

But the cartel likely won’t be successful because, for one thing, some members are notorious for not actually complying with production cuts announced by the organization, said Jim Ritterbusch, president of the oil trading advisory firm Ritterbusch and Associates.

“OPEC doesn’t seem to have enough broad-based support across the membership to offset the slippage in demand we’re seeing globally,” Ritterbusch said.

Cutting production means that, even if prices do rise, member countries will ultimately sell less oil.

“Most of them cheat and they don’t cut as much as they say they’re going to cut because they need the revenue,” Ritterbusch said.

That revenue has been increasingly hard to come by because of the continuing drop in global demand, said Phil Flynn, a senior energy trader at Alaron Trading Group.

“I don’t know if OPEC has the ability to cut production deep enough” to compensate for that decline, Flynn said.

Take, for instance, last month: the cartel announced it was cutting 1.5 million barrels from its daily production cap ... and prices still went down.

Once the economy –- and with it, demand -– rebounds, consumers could feel the impact of OPEC production cuts, Flynn said.

For now, he said, OPEC “can talk a good game," but that’s about it.

With reports by ABC News' Charles Herman.

No, Warren Buffett is not tied to Citi, but he is closely tied to GE and Goldman. This investor, it should be noted, is also one of Buffett's biggest fans. All praise for the man aside, his picks and his returns have seen better days. Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway has suffered major losses this year. The company recently reported a 77 percent drop in third-quarter net income, largely attributed to more than $1 billion on unrealized derivative losses and paid hurricane claims following hurricanes Gustav and Ike.

As for Buffet's own individual bets, well, they haven't paid off, either ... yet. Buffett invested a combined $8 billion in General Electric and Goldman Sachs, on terms only someone like Warren Buffett could pull off. They have yet to break even. Goldman's stock price since Buffett invested has gone from $125 to $75, and chatter, speculation and, yes, rumors on the street about GE's woes would make even the most bullish of investors think twice.

To his credit, Buffett has lived up to his nickname of "sage" during the current financial crisis. His voice, his rhetoric, his humor and his easy-to-understand logic have together made a welcome and reassuring voice for everyone from President-elect Barack Obama to the average man on the street. He's the toughest man to get an interview with these days, and his every word can move a stock. He's said this is the worst financial crisis he's seen in a long time, if ever.

So you can look at it from three different points of view. One, no one is perfect, and even the smartest investor in the world makes mistakes. Two, when he says he's a long-term investor, he really means LONG TERM. Or three, today's Buffett is more of a symbolic and iconic figure than a master stock picker. Buffett fans probably hope the second point of view is the right one, and while they'll likely accept the first one, I doubt they're ready to accept the third.

Read excerpts from Douglas Kass, a general partner of Seabreeze Partners Management, on why Buffett has "lost his groove" here.

That was the urgent pitch that the CEOs of the Big Three automakers –- General Motors, Ford and Chrysler -– made to officials on Capitol Hill yesterday, two Democratic sources who attended last night’s meetings tell ABC News.

Congress has already approved $25 billion in loans for energy-efficient technology for the automakers. Automakers have spoken publicly about wanting $25 billion in loan guarantees but now, sources say the Big Three are upping the ante with a request for $50 billion instead.

The sources say the car companies are looking for more than just loan guarantees. They also are looking for help in meeting pension obligations and have suggested an expensive new tax credit to be given to people who buy new cars.

"That's a lot of [expletive] money," one senior House Democrat told ABC News, but "they're in deep [expletive]."

How deep?

According to earnings information released today, General Motors lost $2.5 billion in the third quarter and spent $6.9 billion in reserves to stay afloat. Ford fared better, with a loss of $129 million, but it spent even more from its reserves: $7.7 billion.

Some say that if the companies continue burning through cash at this rate, they have only months to survive. A bankruptcy of even one of the companies would result in devastating job losses.

A government bailout, said auto industry analyst Rebecca Lindland of Global Insight, isn't about “just saving the Detroit Big Three…This is saving suppliers and this is saving dealerships."

“This is saving Main Street,” she said.

-- With reports from ABC News’ Alice Gomstyn and Charles Herman.

GM’s increasingly poor health appears to have put at least a temporary stop to talks with Chrysler, the country’s no. 3 automaker, about a possible merger.

To date, neither company has publicly admitted to the widely-reported talks and, in a press release today, GM did not refer to Chrysler by name. The company said instead that it had “set aside” considerations for a “strategic acquisition.”

“While the acquisition could potentially have provided significant benefits, the company has concluded that it is more important at the present time to focus on its immediate liquidity challenges,” GM said.

Concerns about the bankruptcy of a major U.S. automaker -- and, as a result, devastating job losses –- are mounting.

The earnings news comes a day after GM, Ford and Chrysler met with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ostensibly to discuss a government auto industry bailout. In GM’s earnings release today, CEO Rick Wagoner made a not-so-subtle reference to the importance of government help.

“The U.S. government’s actions to help stabilize the credit markets and eventually ease the credit crunch are an essential first step to the economy’s and the auto industry’s recovery, but further strong action is required,” he said.

When it comes to understanding why automakers are in the red, plummeting auto sales tell only part of the story.

GM, Ford and Chrysler have sought to save money by shutting down factories and cutting shifts at others, but they still have bills to pay, including the costs associated with keeping remaining plants running, explained veteran auto industry analyst Ron Harbour of the consulting firm Oliver Wyman.

It’s “a lot of fixed cost that you’re trying to spread over far fewer vehicles and trying to meet profitability is extremely difficult,” Harbour said.

Sometimes it doesn’t make sense to close down a plant completely, he said, because demand for the vehicle or vehicles produced by a particular plant might come back.

Take, for instance, the case of Ford’s F-150 full-size truck: In June, Ford cut one shift at its Dearborn, Mich. plant because of falling demand for trucks. But just last month, Ford announced it would add the shift back –- meaning jobs for 1,000 workers –- because it’s got high expectations for sales of the new 2009 F-150.

"We need an infusion [of cash] now," a senior auto executive told me today.

The meeting lasted for an hour and twenty minutes but no announcements were made.

Chrysler and GM are both scheduled to announce their earnings tomorrow, and the results are expected to be grim. Analysts have been speculating for months that one of Big Three was at risk of bankruptcy –- now some say it could happen before the end of the year.

Would more loans save them? That’s what the Big Three are asking for: Congress has already approved $25 billion in loans for developing fuel-efficient technology, but the money is tied up in red tape. Detroit wants that money freed up and another $25 billion in flexible credit to stay alive.

It’s a bailout that would be a tough sell in this lame-duck Congress, but the prospects of an automaker bankruptcy may scare lawmakers into action. The Big Three employ 240,000 people and support another 5 million jobs dependent on the auto industry. There are 14,000 dealerships in Congressional districts across the country, all hurting and many on the verge of bankruptcy.

There is precedent for a federal helping hand for the auto industry. In 1979, the federal government’s bailout of Chrysler cost $3.7 billion (when adjusted for inflation). While critics argue that that bailout ultimately weakened the auto industry, supporters point out that Chrysler ultimately repaid the loans with interest at a profit to the U.S. Treasury.

--With reports by ABC News' Dean Norland.