4 ms·

>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: "Ignora

>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.

Clubber 4y ago
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. It's pretty obvious that people are trying really hard to not call it a recession for pretty obvious reasons: midterms. To deny the 2 quarter rule of thumb never existed is pretty transparent to most people. Ask yourself this, why would someone want to change the definition on Wikipedia? Why now? 2+2=5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  >Seems the NBER was pretty wishy washy about it back then too. It's not wishy washy. It's nuanced, and takes experts to carefully assess. There is no simple check one of many indicators to some fixed threshold over all of time definition. I get you don't like the facts, so you use wishy-washy as your description. >why isn't it mentioned in 1974? Maybe the NYT dropped the ball. From the 1974 article: "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. For more than 50 years, the bureau has studied alternating periods of business expansion and contraction in order to chart their progress, identify cyclical peaks and troughs, and analyze causes of economic fluctuations." "In the nineteen‐twenties, when the bureau work, was getting under way, periods of decline were usually called depressions. As time went on and declines in economic activity became less severe, the term recession became more common. A more neutral term, contraction, is also sometimes used." So it's clearly mentioned. Are you even reading the articles? >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. Yes, if you ignore every other sentence in the article and pull one out of context that suits you, then yes, I can see how you got your beliefs. >to deny the 2 quarter rule of thumb never existed is pretty transparent to most people. To deny that the rule of thumb is not sufficient, has never been sufficient, and has always relied on a more nuanced assessment is simply spreading more ignorance for political reasons. I get that such ignorance works for a populace desiring outrage. To double down on it when presented with the facts is simply willful ignorance, an entire bigger level. There are many "rules of thumb," but pretty much zero of them capture the entire nuance needed for the item at hand, which is why they are rules of thumb. Rule of 72 for compound interest works, somewhat, as long as you stay near 7-10% interest. Chemical reaction speed doubling every 10 degrees Celsius works, as long as you stay near room temperature and pressure and don't hit certain odd cases. The ideal gas law works, but only again in special cases. 'i' before 'e' except after 'c' works, except when it doesn't. This is the same thing. Every rule of thumb is a rough idea, but never the final answer. 2 quarters may be a rule of thumb, but it is not a the definition. It's too coarse. Also, if you're going to post articles, please read them first.

Clubber 4y ago

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. It's pretty obvious that people are trying really hard to not call it a recession for pretty obvious reasons: midterms. To deny the 2 quarter rule of thumb never existed is pretty transparent to most people. Ask yourself this, why would someone want to change the definition on Wikipedia? Why now? 2+2=5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5

ChrisLomont 4y ago
>Seems the NBER was pretty wishy washy about it back then too. It's not wishy washy. It's nuanced, and takes experts to carefully assess. There is no simple check one of many indicators to some fixed threshold over all of time definition. I get you don't like the facts, so you use wishy-washy as your description. >why isn't it mentioned in 1974? Maybe the NYT dropped the ball. From the 1974 article: "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. For more than 50 years, the bureau has studied alternating periods of business expansion and contraction in order to chart their progress, identify cyclical peaks and troughs, and analyze causes of economic fluctuations." "In the nineteen‐twenties, when the bureau work, was getting under way, periods of decline were usually called depressions. As time went on and declines in economic activity became less severe, the term recession became more common. A more neutral term, contraction, is also sometimes used." So it's clearly mentioned. Are you even reading the articles? >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. Yes, if you ignore every other sentence in the article and pull one out of context that suits you, then yes, I can see how you got your beliefs. >to deny the 2 quarter rule of thumb never existed is pretty transparent to most people. To deny that the rule of thumb is not sufficient, has never been sufficient, and has always relied on a more nuanced assessment is simply spreading more ignorance for political reasons. I get that such ignorance works for a populace desiring outrage. To double down on it when presented with the facts is simply willful ignorance, an entire bigger level. There are many "rules of thumb," but pretty much zero of them capture the entire nuance needed for the item at hand, which is why they are rules of thumb. Rule of 72 for compound interest works, somewhat, as long as you stay near 7-10% interest. Chemical reaction speed doubling every 10 degrees Celsius works, as long as you stay near room temperature and pressure and don't hit certain odd cases. The ideal gas law works, but only again in special cases. 'i' before 'e' except after 'c' works, except when it doesn't. This is the same thing. Every rule of thumb is a rough idea, but never the final answer. 2 quarters may be a rule of thumb, but it is not a the definition. It's too coarse. Also, if you're going to post articles, please read them first.