3 ms·

>That's like saying "Your physical health is defined by your BMI, case closed." No, it's like saying "Your BMI is defined by the following formula, case closed

>That's like saying "Your physical health is defined by your BMI, case closed." No, it's like saying "Your BMI is defined by the following formula, case closed". This is treated as a technical term by economists, with an actual definition. But it also has a more ambiguous colloquial use. Personally, I think the media should use a more quaint, wishy-washy term like "slowdown" and leave "recession" to the economists to define as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. >NBER has published work going back 40 years that demonstrates why a simplistic measurement of contraction duration is flawed.[1] Just like your physical health, economic health should really be measured holistically across different aspects. Or yeah sure, call it "economic health". Even better, throw a "holistic" in there and it will forever remain in the realm of the squishy soft sciences.

bumby 4y ago
>Or yeah sure, call it "economic health". Economic health was my term to point out where people get wrapped around the semantic axle and miss what's actually important. >This is treated as a technical term by economists, with an actual definition. To your point, NBER has their definition of "recession" that uses a myriad of metrics beyond just "GDP-growth-over-two-successive-quarters". From my perspective, that "holistic" measure is likely more accurate. Like it or not, economics is more social science than hard science. If recession isn't indicative of economic health, why do we bother to measure it in the first place? Put differently, if it's not a measure of economic health, why does the definition even matter?