4 ms·

Your own wikipedia link references the standard - the standard used by the media and the traders that it's two quarters of negative GDP. NBER does tend to be co

Your own wikipedia link references the standard - the standard used by the media and the traders that it's two quarters of negative GDP. NBER does tend to be considered the official source.. and they tend to announce them about a year after they happen. NBER is important but "determiner of recession" is not quite their job role. You need only to glance at the markets to see the reality of the situation we are in. The argument the WH made for us not being in a recession is that employment is high. That situation is quickly changing.

karaterobot 4y ago
Be fair: the link references the standard, but does so in order to say that that's not how the NBER defines a recession. > The NBER uses a broader definition of a recession than commonly appears in the media. A definition of a recession commonly used in the media is two consecutive quarters of a shrinking gross domestic product (GDP). In contrast, the NBER defines a recession as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales". Business cycle dates are determined by the NBER dating committee. Typically, these dates correspond to peaks and troughs in real GDP, although not always so. ... > Though not listed by the NBER, another factor in favor of this alternate definition is that a long term economic contraction may not always have two consecutive quarters of negative growth, as was the case in the recession following the bursting of the dot-com bubble.
deltree7 4y ago
At the end of the day, the definition of Recession doesn't matter. There are ZERO changes or decision anyone can make (including policy) based on whoever's definition of recession is. It's really weird that humans come up with these arbitrary definitions that doesn't matter but choose that hill to die on. Thought experiment: Knowing and feeling all the economic news around you, what decision would you make if (or what decision should policy makers make) a) we are in some arbitrary definition of Recession? b) we are not in some arbitrary definition of Recession? There really is none

karaterobot 4y ago

Be fair: the link references the standard, but does so in order to say that that's not how the NBER defines a recession. > The NBER uses a broader definition of a recession than commonly appears in the media. A definition of a recession commonly used in the media is two consecutive quarters of a shrinking gross domestic product (GDP). In contrast, the NBER defines a recession as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales". Business cycle dates are determined by the NBER dating committee. Typically, these dates correspond to peaks and troughs in real GDP, although not always so. ... > Though not listed by the NBER, another factor in favor of this alternate definition is that a long term economic contraction may not always have two consecutive quarters of negative growth, as was the case in the recession following the bursting of the dot-com bubble.

deltree7 4y ago

At the end of the day, the definition of Recession doesn't matter. There are ZERO changes or decision anyone can make (including policy) based on whoever's definition of recession is. It's really weird that humans come up with these arbitrary definitions that doesn't matter but choose that hill to die on. Thought experiment: Knowing and feeling all the economic news around you, what decision would you make if (or what decision should policy makers make) a) we are in some arbitrary definition of Recession? b) we are not in some arbitrary definition of Recession? There really is none