> I agree with you, and it's not simply US vs non-US, but changing the definition just after 2 negative quarters in the US can be thought of a politically motiv

> I agree with you, and it's not simply US vs non-US, but changing the definition just after 2 negative quarters in the US can be thought of a politically motivated change. NBER in 2003: > Q:The financial press often states the definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. How does that relate to the NBER's recession dating procedure? > A: Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them. According to current data for 2001, the present recession falls into the general pattern, with three consecutive quarters of decline. Our procedure differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we use monthly indicators to arrive at a monthly chronology. Second, we use indicators subject to much less frequent revision. Third, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, "a significant decline in activity." * https://web.archive.org/web/20030206100218/http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html https://web.archive.org/web/20030206100218/http://www.nber.o... "Our procedure differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways."