3 ms·
Are you saying there can't be a standardized definition of "recession"? What your alluding to seems to indicate that the definition of "two quarters of negativ
by bumby 4y ago
Are you saying there can't be a standardized definition of "recession"?
What your alluding to seems to indicate that the definition of "two quarters of negative GDP growth" is incorrect (according to Yellen). It doesn't mean there can't be a more accurate definition.
That's where the kg analogy fits. There was one definition that is now considered incorrect by consensus.
- jeffbee 4y agoNo, I’m saying there is not one, and defining it strictly as two quarters of gdp decline removes much of the utility of the business cycle dating process.
- bumby 4y agoYellen seems to disagree, although she said the two quarters definition is too blunt and the "official" definition, the one used by NBER, takes a much more broad picture of the economy. "There's an organization called the National Bureau of Economic Research that looks at a broad range of data in deciding whether or not there is a recession. And most of the data that they look at right now continues to be strong. I would be amazed if the NBER would declare this period to be a recession, even if it happens to have two quarters of negative growth."[1] I think maybe you're conflating "standardized fact" with "objective fact." A kilogram is a standardized fact, even though the objective weight of the object may change. We agree there isn't an objective definition of a recession; I'm saying that despite that, there is a standardized definition. And it isn't "two consecutive quarters of negative growth." [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-july-24-2022-n1297457 https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-july-24-20...