4 ms·
Wikipedia Suspends Editing of Recession Page
- prepend 4y agoThis is so strange in that denying the definition of recession is just going to make things worse. I don’t like this trend of blatantly denying reality and wish there was a group of politicians trying to rationally present reality.
- kombucha13 4y agoBut recession means different things to different people. We have had 2 quarters of contraction but unemployment is low thus to a lot of people say we aren't in a recession but teetering close to it. Im of the mind that matters is conditions on the ground for regular people. Consumer spending remains high and unemployment remains low. Now that could change really quickly and if it does then I would be comfortable saying we are truly in a recession.
- prepend 4y agoRecession has always meant two quarters of declining gdp. Or at least since I studied economics back in the 90s. This seems bull-headed like claiming that inflation was only temporary a year ago. Using the wrong definition doesn’t help us any. It just makes people look stupid and/or detached from reality.
- kombucha13 4y agoThe NBER defines recession as: "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the market, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales". So make of that what you will
- robswc 4y agoI'm on the fence about this... It does seem a little ridiculous/embarrassing to rush to Wikipedia to change the definition just to try to not have it be named... the current page looks ok. If the NEBR truly defines recession in the US, then technically I guess its there call. That said the battle over where two down quarters == recession is just ridiculous... yea, that's pretty much always been the definition or idea. US politics shouldn't supersede that.