3 ms·

We should question that metric. Also, a little gaslighting. What I mean: if an administration doesn't like a given metric, it should get its replacement metric

by xbar 4y ago

We should question that metric. Also, a little gaslighting. What I mean: if an administration doesn't like a given metric, it should get its replacement metric identified and publicized in advance. It sure looks a lot like gaslighting when the world has an agreed upon metric and you say "just ignore that; look over here."

bandyaboot 4y ago
> What I mean: if an administration doesn't like a given metric, it should get its replacement metric identified and publicized in advance. That's assuming that they had a previously existing problem with the metric. But why would they, it's always been a fairly reliable rubber stamp. Economic indicators give consistent bad news for an extended period of time, then months later 2 quarters of GDP numbers have been released and the metric says "yep, that was/this is a recession". But the metric now kind of falls on its face in this strange situation of quite a lot of bad economic indicators paired with a strong jobs market. If we want to rigidly hold to the 2 quarters metric, then we're going to have to accept that "recession" means nothing larger about the economy than "2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth". It just becomes a short way of saying simply that.
shapefrog 4y ago
> What I mean: if an administration doesn't like a given metric, it should get its replacement metric identified and publicized in advance. The US definition of a recession was identified and publicized a very long time ago. The National Bureau of Economic Research has been putting dates on downturns since 1929 before there was such a thing as gross domestic product.
PuppyTailWags 4y ago
My understanding is that the world has two different agreed upon metrics. We have one definition that was a effectively a rule of thumb for the uneducated, unwashed masses. Then we have one that actual experts use when investigating actual policy that would affect those masses.
- bcassedy 4y ago
  This is correct. I believe some other countries do use this rule of thumb for their official purposes, but the US never has.

by xbar 4y ago

bandyaboot 4y ago

> What I mean: if an administration doesn't like a given metric, it should get its replacement metric identified and publicized in advance. That's assuming that they had a previously existing problem with the metric. But why would they, it's always been a fairly reliable rubber stamp. Economic indicators give consistent bad news for an extended period of time, then months later 2 quarters of GDP numbers have been released and the metric says "yep, that was/this is a recession". But the metric now kind of falls on its face in this strange situation of quite a lot of bad economic indicators paired with a strong jobs market. If we want to rigidly hold to the 2 quarters metric, then we're going to have to accept that "recession" means nothing larger about the economy than "2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth". It just becomes a short way of saying simply that.

shapefrog 4y ago

> What I mean: if an administration doesn't like a given metric, it should get its replacement metric identified and publicized in advance. The US definition of a recession was identified and publicized a very long time ago. The National Bureau of Economic Research has been putting dates on downturns since 1929 before there was such a thing as gross domestic product.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago

My understanding is that the world has two different agreed upon metrics. We have one definition that was a effectively a rule of thumb for the uneducated, unwashed masses. Then we have one that actual experts use when investigating actual policy that would affect those masses.

bcassedy 4y ago
This is correct. I believe some other countries do use this rule of thumb for their official purposes, but the US never has.