7 ms·

> To some, this is a recession Not "to some", two back-to-back negative GDP stats has been the definition of a recession for my entire life. Now suddenly it's

> To some, this is a recession Not "to some", two back-to-back negative GDP stats has been the definition of a recession for my entire life. Now suddenly it's questionable, because the current administration would like to shrug away its failures, and too many in the media are helping them do it. This ad-hoc re-definition of language to suit political purposes is scary and Orwellian.

citilife 4y ago
[flagged]
- jodrellblank 4y ago
  Nothing says Orwellian Dictatorship like change brought by a "30,000-strong petition", right? Nothing says Ministry of Truth more than "expanding the dictionary", based on "real world examples of use", eh? (Hint: newspeak was not adding more to the language, was not based on real usage, and was not influenced by public petitions). Or is this you redefining "Orwellian" and I've missed the joke?
  - kbutler 4y ago
    Orwellian newspeak definitely expanded the dictionary in doubleplusungood ways, including redefining existing terms to mean the opposite ("WAR IS PEACE, SLAVERY IS FREEDOM" - words are violence, silence is violence, facts are misinformation, racism is only whites oppressing people of color), and by crushing any opposing wrongthink and oldspeak thoughtcrime, the Ministry could easily gather "real world examples of use" and fill petitions with doubleplusgoodspeak doublethink petitioners as desired, whether Orwell described that process or not. But are we trending toward a Brave New World rather than Oceania?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ModernMech 4y ago
Has that been the definition, or has that just been your understanding, which may have been wrong? Has there really been a redefinition? I mean, if we just take Wikipedia as a gauge, they have defined it according to the NBER, dating back to 2008 [1]. A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. There does appear to be a recent, ad-hoc redefinition edit battle going on [2][3], but it's to redefine it as you are saying here rather than accepting what has been there for over a decade... apparently for the purpose of using it as a political cudgel [4]. Maybe not so Orwellian, just a misconception. [1] https://www.nber.org/news/business-cycle-dating-committee-announcement-january-7-2008 https://www.nber.org/news/business-cycle-dating-committee-an... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recession&diff=prev&oldid=1100952421 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recession&diff=pr... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Recession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Recession [4] https://twitter.com/RepublicanStudy/status/1551627975640190976 https://twitter.com/RepublicanStudy/status/15516279756401909...
- NeverFade 4y ago
  The NBER has called a recession every single time we had two back-to-back quarters of negative growth. The news media is known to aggressively jump to conclusions to produce headlines. It's a notable exception that they are so cautious all of a sudden about what is really a foregone conclusion.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    In those instances, were there also declines in real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales? In the current climate, are those things declining? Maybe the answer to those questions help explain the discrepancy.
    - NeverFade 4y ago
      Real earnings has been in a sharp decline since 2020, now mostly thanks to inflation: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q I don't have the time to link the other stats, but they're not so rosy either, except employment. One good stat and several bad ones is still a recession.
tootie 4y ago
That definition was only ever a rule of thumb. The fact is, you can't define it. It's like setting a temperature that is officially "cold". The current economic indicators are almost completely unprecedented in the growth is weak, inflation is very high and yet employment remains historically strong. As much as GDP represents the broadest indicator of economic health, if you're looking for a headline to apply to the masses, it's going to be when we see broad-based negative wealth effects in which case inflation and employment/wages are the most important indicators and they're flying in opposite directions right now. Declaring that this is or isn't a recession is essentially irrelevant. It's officially cold when you feel cold.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  What is a recession if not loss of buying power and material wellbeing? How is more people working for less pay a counterargument against recession.?
  - tootie 4y ago
    All things being equal, more people working is a an increase in buying power. The decreased buying power of wages is only negative relative to the amount people being paid a wage. Which itself is a function of both employment opportunity and size of the labor force. The recent rise in inflation is definitely correlated with a rise in wages albeit at a slightly lower rate resulting in a roughly 1% lag in the past year. If you map out wages paid per GDP you can get an idea of how much of a share of economic growth has been going to workers and it's a been a pretty solid, steady decline since 1970: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=Sfun https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=Sfun So, that sucks, but it doesn't make a useful definition of recession. This is the result of massive, global macroeconomic forces. It's basically a slow reset of the post-WWII global order.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Im not sure I follow your argument. >All things being equal, more people working is a an increase in buying power. This isnt an absolute. If you have 1 person working for $1/day and go to 2 people for $0.5/day, buying power hasn't changed. You can have more people working, and people working longer, for less and less material goods. I think any meaningful definition of economic growth/recession must address the fundamental question of is there more material goods and wellbeing in a country today than yesterday. I agree that the allocation of those goods is a separate question entirely. >This is the result of massive, global macroeconomic forces. It's basically a slow reset of the post-WWII global order. I think that what we are seeing is the start of a realization that part of historic GDP growth was actually a fiction, in that more tangible goods were not produced. This is why a small increase in wages sent inflation through the roof. In theory, US real GDP per capita has gone up 33% since 2000[1]. This looks fine on paper as long as the growth is just accumulating in a bank account. Once people actually try to consume more, it becomes obvious that there isn't 33% more stuff to buy.
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
Your conspiracy theory is laughable, primarily because "the current administration" doesn't have any control over the "official" marking of recessions, which is done by the National Bureau of Economic Research, which is a private, independent non-profit.
- djfobbz 4y ago
  Why does everything you personally don't agree with have to be a "conspiracy theory"? Seems like a trend these days!
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    The comment I am replying to is pretty clearly arguing that not calling the current situation a recession is due to the current administration not wanting to call it that: > Now suddenly it's questionable, because the current administration would like to shrug away its failures, and too many in the media are helping them do it. Whether or not I agree with the assessment of the current administration wanting to "shrug away its failures" has nothing to do with it. The parent comment was clearly arguing the theory, which is total bullshit on its face, that the reason it hasn't been officially designated a recession is because the administration doesn't want it to. The reason this theory is total bullshit is because it's pretty obvious the administration has no control over how the NBER marks recessions. I think it's fair to designate theories which are total bullshit on their faces as "conspiracy theories".
    - somenameforme 4y ago
      Imagine for a moment that a recession was something quite rare, but extremely desirable and good. But outside of that difference, all of the current state of the word's definition would remain. Do you honestly believe the current administration wouldn't be parading out that we're in a recession, along with all of the usual media making front page news of it? So we use the usual rule of thumb to claim it's a recession when it's a good thing, but instead try claim it's not a recession until a given think-tank says so when it's a bad thing.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> two back-to-back negative GDP stats has been the definition of a recession for my entire life. No, it hasn't, and two of the last three NBER-identified recessions have not met that definition. It has always been multidimensional, it's just that historically the other factors have always [0] pointed toward recession with two down quarters, and sometimes also without. Having strong employment, etc., despite two down quarters in GDP is a historical aberration. [0] EDIT: as another poster notes, not always—the 1947 non-recession being an example

citilife 4y ago

[flagged]

jodrellblank 4y ago
Nothing says Orwellian Dictatorship like change brought by a "30,000-strong petition", right? Nothing says Ministry of Truth more than "expanding the dictionary", based on "real world examples of use", eh? (Hint: newspeak was not adding more to the language, was not based on real usage, and was not influenced by public petitions). Or is this you redefining "Orwellian" and I've missed the joke?
- kbutler 4y ago
  Orwellian newspeak definitely expanded the dictionary in doubleplusungood ways, including redefining existing terms to mean the opposite ("WAR IS PEACE, SLAVERY IS FREEDOM" - words are violence, silence is violence, facts are misinformation, racism is only whites oppressing people of color), and by crushing any opposing wrongthink and oldspeak thoughtcrime, the Ministry could easily gather "real world examples of use" and fill petitions with doubleplusgoodspeak doublethink petitioners as desired, whether Orwell described that process or not. But are we trending toward a Brave New World rather than Oceania?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ModernMech 4y ago

Has that been the definition, or has that just been your understanding, which may have been wrong? Has there really been a redefinition? I mean, if we just take Wikipedia as a gauge, they have defined it according to the NBER, dating back to 2008 [1]. A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales. There does appear to be a recent, ad-hoc redefinition edit battle going on [2][3], but it's to redefine it as you are saying here rather than accepting what has been there for over a decade... apparently for the purpose of using it as a political cudgel [4]. Maybe not so Orwellian, just a misconception. [1] https://www.nber.org/news/business-cycle-dating-committee-announcement-january-7-2008 https://www.nber.org/news/business-cycle-dating-committee-an... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recession&diff=prev&oldid=1100952421 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recession&diff=pr... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Recession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Recession [4] https://twitter.com/RepublicanStudy/status/1551627975640190976 https://twitter.com/RepublicanStudy/status/15516279756401909...

NeverFade 4y ago
The NBER has called a recession every single time we had two back-to-back quarters of negative growth. The news media is known to aggressively jump to conclusions to produce headlines. It's a notable exception that they are so cautious all of a sudden about what is really a foregone conclusion.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  In those instances, were there also declines in real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales? In the current climate, are those things declining? Maybe the answer to those questions help explain the discrepancy.
  - NeverFade 4y ago
    Real earnings has been in a sharp decline since 2020, now mostly thanks to inflation: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q I don't have the time to link the other stats, but they're not so rosy either, except employment. One good stat and several bad ones is still a recession.

tootie 4y ago

That definition was only ever a rule of thumb. The fact is, you can't define it. It's like setting a temperature that is officially "cold". The current economic indicators are almost completely unprecedented in the growth is weak, inflation is very high and yet employment remains historically strong. As much as GDP represents the broadest indicator of economic health, if you're looking for a headline to apply to the masses, it's going to be when we see broad-based negative wealth effects in which case inflation and employment/wages are the most important indicators and they're flying in opposite directions right now. Declaring that this is or isn't a recession is essentially irrelevant. It's officially cold when you feel cold.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
What is a recession if not loss of buying power and material wellbeing? How is more people working for less pay a counterargument against recession.?
- tootie 4y ago
  All things being equal, more people working is a an increase in buying power. The decreased buying power of wages is only negative relative to the amount people being paid a wage. Which itself is a function of both employment opportunity and size of the labor force. The recent rise in inflation is definitely correlated with a rise in wages albeit at a slightly lower rate resulting in a roughly 1% lag in the past year. If you map out wages paid per GDP you can get an idea of how much of a share of economic growth has been going to workers and it's a been a pretty solid, steady decline since 1970: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=Sfun https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=Sfun So, that sucks, but it doesn't make a useful definition of recession. This is the result of massive, global macroeconomic forces. It's basically a slow reset of the post-WWII global order.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Im not sure I follow your argument. >All things being equal, more people working is a an increase in buying power. This isnt an absolute. If you have 1 person working for $1/day and go to 2 people for $0.5/day, buying power hasn't changed. You can have more people working, and people working longer, for less and less material goods. I think any meaningful definition of economic growth/recession must address the fundamental question of is there more material goods and wellbeing in a country today than yesterday. I agree that the allocation of those goods is a separate question entirely. >This is the result of massive, global macroeconomic forces. It's basically a slow reset of the post-WWII global order. I think that what we are seeing is the start of a realization that part of historic GDP growth was actually a fiction, in that more tangible goods were not produced. This is why a small increase in wages sent inflation through the roof. In theory, US real GDP per capita has gone up 33% since 2000[1]. This looks fine on paper as long as the growth is just accumulating in a bank account. Once people actually try to consume more, it becomes obvious that there isn't 33% more stuff to buy.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

Your conspiracy theory is laughable, primarily because "the current administration" doesn't have any control over the "official" marking of recessions, which is done by the National Bureau of Economic Research, which is a private, independent non-profit.

djfobbz 4y ago
Why does everything you personally don't agree with have to be a "conspiracy theory"? Seems like a trend these days!
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  The comment I am replying to is pretty clearly arguing that not calling the current situation a recession is due to the current administration not wanting to call it that: > Now suddenly it's questionable, because the current administration would like to shrug away its failures, and too many in the media are helping them do it. Whether or not I agree with the assessment of the current administration wanting to "shrug away its failures" has nothing to do with it. The parent comment was clearly arguing the theory, which is total bullshit on its face, that the reason it hasn't been officially designated a recession is because the administration doesn't want it to. The reason this theory is total bullshit is because it's pretty obvious the administration has no control over how the NBER marks recessions. I think it's fair to designate theories which are total bullshit on their faces as "conspiracy theories".
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    Imagine for a moment that a recession was something quite rare, but extremely desirable and good. But outside of that difference, all of the current state of the word's definition would remain. Do you honestly believe the current administration wouldn't be parading out that we're in a recession, along with all of the usual media making front page news of it? So we use the usual rule of thumb to claim it's a recession when it's a good thing, but instead try claim it's not a recession until a given think-tank says so when it's a bad thing.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> two back-to-back negative GDP stats has been the definition of a recession for my entire life. No, it hasn't, and two of the last three NBER-identified recessions have not met that definition. It has always been multidimensional, it's just that historically the other factors have always [0] pointed toward recession with two down quarters, and sometimes also without. Having strong employment, etc., despite two down quarters in GDP is a historical aberration. [0] EDIT: as another poster notes, not always—the 1947 non-recession being an example