3 ms·

But people are changing the definition on wikipedia, that's why the editing in disabled for new accounts. Why? Because it's an election year in USA, recession

But people are changing the definition on wikipedia, that's why the editing in disabled for new accounts. Why? Because it's an election year in USA, recession is here, biden says it's not ( https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/biden-says-no-surprise-economy-slowing-down-economy-enters-technical-recession https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/biden-says-no-surprise-... ), and definitions "have to be changed" for bidens words to be "true". So, one side changes, the other side changes back, then again and again...

ChrisLomont 4y ago
>definitions "have to be changed" for bidens words to be "true" I think that's backwards from reality. The definition used in the US for decades (the NBER one, founded 1920) would say no recession yet. The naive, yet incorrect, definition some people want to change to (2 quarters) would make it a recession.
- Clubber 4y ago
  >The naive, yet incorrect, definition some people want to change to (2 quarters) would make it a recession. That's the standard used for as long as I remember, until it wasn't. It's called "moving the goalposts." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
  - ChrisLomont 4y ago
    >used for as long as I remember Not in the US. Your memory doesn't trump facts. Here's [1] a 1980s report on it. Here's [2] the Jul 31, 2002 Nevada Daily Mail newspaper, stating the same thing: "The National Bureau of Economic Research, the recognized arbiter of when recession begin and end,....." Here's [3] a 1983 news paper article explaining it again, same thing. Here's [4] the NBER on the 1970s recession. Here's [5] a modern Bloomberg article saying the same thing. Here's [6] the current NBER page with the definition. Here's [7] the same page from 2020 (saved at internet archive). Same definition then. Here [8] is the NBER definition from 1999, cached from their website as it was shown in 1999: "he NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GNP. Rather, a recession is a recurring period of decline in total output, income, employment, and trade, usually lasting from six months to a year, and marked by widespread contractions in many sectors of the economy." Where did you learn your standard, and when did you learn it? In fact, if you spend much time looking through old newspapers (the google link I gave you allows it) you can find that the NBER has been the arbiter for a long, long time. Do you still not believe this is how it's been done a long time? [1] https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c0688/c0688.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c0688/c0688.pdf [2] https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1908&dat=20020731&id=be0wAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Z-AFAAAAIBAJ&pg=999,1704573 https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1908&dat=20020731&id=... [3] https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=348&dat=19830711&id=HYgxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cUUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2319,1585106 https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=348&dat=19830711&id=H... [4] https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c9101/c9101.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c9101/c9101.pdf [5] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-12/no-us-recession-until-obscure-panel-of-eggheads-says-it-is-so https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-12/no-us-rec... [6] https://www.nber.org/business-cycle-dating-procedure-frequently-asked-questions https://www.nber.org/business-cycle-dating-procedure-frequen... [7] https://web.archive.org/web/20201101011155/https://www.nber.org/business-cycle-dating-procedure-frequently-asked-questions https://web.archive.org/web/20201101011155/https://www.nber.... [8] https://web.archive.org/web/19990221024645/http://nber.org/cycles.html https://web.archive.org/web/19990221024645/http://nber.org/c...
    - Clubber 4y ago
      >Where did you learn your standard, and when did you learn it? News. Probably during H.W. Bush. Here's an article from 2008 talking about the 2 quarter rule of thumb. Apparently it's been around since 1974. https://money.cnn.com/2008/05/05/news/economy/recession/ https://money.cnn.com/2008/05/05/news/economy/recession/ Here's one from 1998 using the 2 month definition. https://money.cnn.com/2001/09/28/economy/economy/index.htm https://money.cnn.com/2001/09/28/economy/economy/index.htm Here's the NYT defining it the same way in 1974. From the text: The bureau considers a recession to have occurred when there has been an ettended substantial, and widespread decline in aggregate economic activity—or, duration, depth, and diffusion. The bureau has not specified the breakpoints which distinguish recessions from milder slowdowns. Its experts depend rather on comparisons of current cyclical trends with what happened during previous business cycles, a process that involves some qualitative judgment and interpretation of cyclical trends. Seems the NBER was pretty wishy washy about it back then too. The bureau has not specified the breakpoints which distinguish recessions from milder slowdowns. If it's been around since the 1920s, why isn't it mentioned in 1974? Maybe the NYT dropped the ball. The NYT goes on to opine: A rough translation of the bureau's qualitative, definition of a recession into a quantitative one, that almost anyone can use, might run like this: In terms of duration—declines in real G.N.P. for 2 consecutive quarters; a decline in industrial production over a six‐month period. There's your 2 quarters boundaries, back in 1974. https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/01/archives/the-changing-business-cycle-points-op-view.html https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/01/archives/the-changing-bus... It's pretty evident that both have been around a long time and politicians, their news allies and political operatives push whichever one is most convenient. In today's case, the (current?) NBER definition means we aren't currently in a recession (yet), which benefits the current sitting president, briefly. FYI, I can't seem to find in your first link from 1983 where it actually defines a recession. Perhaps you can quote it. I stopped reading your links after the first one didn't seem to have any references to your claim, but I might have missed it. My eyes started to glaze over a bit, business cycles in 1980 is pretty dry reading.
      - ChrisLomont 4y ago
        >Here's an article from 2008 talking about the 2 quarter rule of thumb. Apparently it's been around since 1974. That article states exactly what I did: "Ignorance about recessions has taken hold because of a simplistic idea that a recession is two successive quarterly declines in gross domestic product (GDP), a measure of the nation's output." It states the 1974 rule was not two quarters, but over time people forgot to use the rest of the rules. So this completely backs up the "it is not simply 2 quarters" definitions. >Here's one from 1998 using the 2 month definition. That's not two month, and it's also not using GDP, which is what people keep wanting it to be. It states "commonly defined as two consecutive quarters of economic contraction" - what is contraction? Decline in many variables, which is what the NBER uses - GDP, and/or GNP, and/or labor markets, and/or sales/purchasing, ..... >Here's the NYT defining it the same way in 1974. That article also explicitly states that the NBER defines the start and end: "Generally, the designation of recession periods and the beginning and ending dates established by the National Bureau of Economic. Research, a private research agency, are accepted, by both Government and private economists." It then goes on to say how NBER has managed this since the 1920s. Did you even read those links you posted? They pretty much back up that the NBER has been the arbiter of recessions in the US. >politicians, their news allies and political operatives push whichever one is most convenient Yes politicians do push things that are not true because people ignorant of the correct nuance follow their tribe. But that does not change the truth or underlying fact of the matter.
notahacker 4y ago
You make this claim, but it's not supported by the edit history, which suggests relatively few changes to the actual text (most of it being standard Wikipedia nitpicking, not an edit war), a lot of bikeshedding about alternative wordings on the talk page few of which materially change the factual content and most of which places less emphasis on the NBER definition which Biden is using and Wikipedia always used, plus the unusual introduction of a Talk Page FAQ requesting people to read it before "hate posting" about Wikipedia editors conspiring to make the article more supportive to Biden...
throw0101a 4y ago
> and definitions "have to be changed" for bidens words to be "true". Two negative quarters has never been the definition in the US. 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." You'll probably find similar verbiage on NBER's site in 2022.

ChrisLomont 4y ago

>definitions "have to be changed" for bidens words to be "true" I think that's backwards from reality. The definition used in the US for decades (the NBER one, founded 1920) would say no recession yet. The naive, yet incorrect, definition some people want to change to (2 quarters) would make it a recession.

Clubber 4y ago
>The naive, yet incorrect, definition some people want to change to (2 quarters) would make it a recession. That's the standard used for as long as I remember, until it wasn't. It's called "moving the goalposts." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  >used for as long as I remember Not in the US. Your memory doesn't trump facts. Here's [1] a 1980s report on it. Here's [2] the Jul 31, 2002 Nevada Daily Mail newspaper, stating the same thing: "The National Bureau of Economic Research, the recognized arbiter of when recession begin and end,....." Here's [3] a 1983 news paper article explaining it again, same thing. Here's [4] the NBER on the 1970s recession. Here's [5] a modern Bloomberg article saying the same thing. Here's [6] the current NBER page with the definition. Here's [7] the same page from 2020 (saved at internet archive). Same definition then. Here [8] is the NBER definition from 1999, cached from their website as it was shown in 1999: "he NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GNP. Rather, a recession is a recurring period of decline in total output, income, employment, and trade, usually lasting from six months to a year, and marked by widespread contractions in many sectors of the economy." Where did you learn your standard, and when did you learn it? In fact, if you spend much time looking through old newspapers (the google link I gave you allows it) you can find that the NBER has been the arbiter for a long, long time. Do you still not believe this is how it's been done a long time? [1] https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c0688/c0688.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c0688/c0688.pdf [2] https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1908&dat=20020731&id=be0wAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Z-AFAAAAIBAJ&pg=999,1704573 https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1908&dat=20020731&id=... [3] https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=348&dat=19830711&id=HYgxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cUUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2319,1585106 https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=348&dat=19830711&id=H... [4] https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c9101/c9101.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c9101/c9101.pdf [5] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-12/no-us-recession-until-obscure-panel-of-eggheads-says-it-is-so https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-12/no-us-rec... [6] https://www.nber.org/business-cycle-dating-procedure-frequently-asked-questions https://www.nber.org/business-cycle-dating-procedure-frequen... [7] https://web.archive.org/web/20201101011155/https://www.nber.org/business-cycle-dating-procedure-frequently-asked-questions https://web.archive.org/web/20201101011155/https://www.nber.... [8] https://web.archive.org/web/19990221024645/http://nber.org/cycles.html https://web.archive.org/web/19990221024645/http://nber.org/c...
  - Clubber 4y ago
    >Where did you learn your standard, and when did you learn it? News. Probably during H.W. Bush. Here's an article from 2008 talking about the 2 quarter rule of thumb. Apparently it's been around since 1974. https://money.cnn.com/2008/05/05/news/economy/recession/ https://money.cnn.com/2008/05/05/news/economy/recession/ Here's one from 1998 using the 2 month definition. https://money.cnn.com/2001/09/28/economy/economy/index.htm https://money.cnn.com/2001/09/28/economy/economy/index.htm Here's the NYT defining it the same way in 1974. From the text: The bureau considers a recession to have occurred when there has been an ettended substantial, and widespread decline in aggregate economic activity—or, duration, depth, and diffusion. The bureau has not specified the breakpoints which distinguish recessions from milder slowdowns. Its experts depend rather on comparisons of current cyclical trends with what happened during previous business cycles, a process that involves some qualitative judgment and interpretation of cyclical trends. Seems the NBER was pretty wishy washy about it back then too. The bureau has not specified the breakpoints which distinguish recessions from milder slowdowns. If it's been around since the 1920s, why isn't it mentioned in 1974? Maybe the NYT dropped the ball. The NYT goes on to opine: A rough translation of the bureau's qualitative, definition of a recession into a quantitative one, that almost anyone can use, might run like this: In terms of duration—declines in real G.N.P. for 2 consecutive quarters; a decline in industrial production over a six‐month period. There's your 2 quarters boundaries, back in 1974. https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/01/archives/the-changing-business-cycle-points-op-view.html https://www.nytimes.com/1974/12/01/archives/the-changing-bus... It's pretty evident that both have been around a long time and politicians, their news allies and political operatives push whichever one is most convenient. In today's case, the (current?) NBER definition means we aren't currently in a recession (yet), which benefits the current sitting president, briefly. FYI, I can't seem to find in your first link from 1983 where it actually defines a recession. Perhaps you can quote it. I stopped reading your links after the first one didn't seem to have any references to your claim, but I might have missed it. My eyes started to glaze over a bit, business cycles in 1980 is pretty dry reading.
    - ChrisLomont 4y ago
      >Here's an article from 2008 talking about the 2 quarter rule of thumb. Apparently it's been around since 1974. That article states exactly what I did: "Ignorance about recessions has taken hold because of a simplistic idea that a recession is two successive quarterly declines in gross domestic product (GDP), a measure of the nation's output." It states the 1974 rule was not two quarters, but over time people forgot to use the rest of the rules. So this completely backs up the "it is not simply 2 quarters" definitions. >Here's one from 1998 using the 2 month definition. That's not two month, and it's also not using GDP, which is what people keep wanting it to be. It states "commonly defined as two consecutive quarters of economic contraction" - what is contraction? Decline in many variables, which is what the NBER uses - GDP, and/or GNP, and/or labor markets, and/or sales/purchasing, ..... >Here's the NYT defining it the same way in 1974. That article also explicitly states that the NBER defines the start and end: "Generally, the designation of recession periods and the beginning and ending dates established by the National Bureau of Economic. Research, a private research agency, are accepted, by both Government and private economists." It then goes on to say how NBER has managed this since the 1920s. Did you even read those links you posted? They pretty much back up that the NBER has been the arbiter of recessions in the US. >politicians, their news allies and political operatives push whichever one is most convenient Yes politicians do push things that are not true because people ignorant of the correct nuance follow their tribe. But that does not change the truth or underlying fact of the matter.

notahacker 4y ago

You make this claim, but it's not supported by the edit history, which suggests relatively few changes to the actual text (most of it being standard Wikipedia nitpicking, not an edit war), a lot of bikeshedding about alternative wordings on the talk page few of which materially change the factual content and most of which places less emphasis on the NBER definition which Biden is using and Wikipedia always used, plus the unusual introduction of a Talk Page FAQ requesting people to read it before "hate posting" about Wikipedia editors conspiring to make the article more supportive to Biden...

throw0101a 4y ago

> and definitions "have to be changed" for bidens words to be "true". Two negative quarters has never been the definition in the US. 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." You'll probably find similar verbiage on NBER's site in 2022.