3 ms·

> In the US, a recession is defined by NBER after the fact. This isn't true. There is no "official" declaration of recessions in the US by law. Yes, some fed

> In the US, a recession is defined by NBER after the fact. This isn't true. There is no "official" declaration of recessions in the US by law. Yes, some federal officials will reference NBER, but that's not the same thing. Bar far, the most common definition used worldwide is two quarters of negative growth -- and by that definition we're already in a recession. NBER itself has never not declared a recession after two quarters of negative growth. I think a lot of folks don't even know that NBER isn't a government organization. It's a private non-profit with a bunch of self-appointed academics that don't even publicly disclose their meeting notes or their criteria for what a recession is. People treat them like the Oracle of Delphi and it's very misplaced.

RC_ITR 4y ago
> In general usage, the word recession connotes a marked slippage in economic activity. While gross domestic product (GDP) is the broadest measure of economic activity, the often-cited identification of a recession with two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth is not an official designation. The designation of a recession is the province of a committee of experts at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a private non-profit research organization that focuses on understanding the U.S. economy. From: https://www.bea.gov/help/glossary/recession https://www.bea.gov/help/glossary/recession Do you not consider the BEA an official source? Because I have bad news for you about who tracks GDP if so. EDIT: and if you’re going to try to wriggle around with the “by law” part of your statement, there’s no legal definition of GDP. EDIT2: And, just to cut you off at the pass, here's the archive from 2019 with the same exact text: https://web.archive.org/web/20190831041001/https://www.bea.gov/help/glossary/recession https://web.archive.org/web/20190831041001/https://www.bea.g... EDIT3: Going for the trifecta, from 1960-2011, NBER had never not declared a recession after one quarter of decline. And in its history, only 1955/1957/2011/2014 break that rule! US GDP just doesn't decline very often in general! And as I've said in other comments this is the very first time that the effect is explained mostly by net exports.
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  Still, let's not pretend the narrative has been recently "adjusted". https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-appears-to-misunderstand-definition-of-recession-2019-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-appears-to-misundersta... "Recessions are generally defined as being six consecutive months of negative economic growth. By this definition, there is no such thing as a two-month recession." Obviously that is a very widely used and well accepted definition of recession including among experts and industry journalists. The idiotic thing is that's recently being claimed is that's not an "official" definition of recession, as though that makes any difference or makes someone incorrect for using the definition. A government's definition of a word gives it no more weight than anybody else's definition of that word, outside the duties of that government. Arguably the two-quarters rule is the preferred definition because it is more widely used and known. And let's be honest, that definition certainly would be put to use by its most fervent deniers today if there were different politicians in office.
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    >EDIT2: And, just to cut you off at the pass, here's the archive from 2019 with the same exact text: https://web.archive.org/web/20190831041001/https://www.bea.g https://web.archive.org/web/20190831041001/https://www.bea.g... Why did we have a recession in 2000 if that's the rule then? Does 2020 not count since it was 4 months? And what's your comment on the fact that this is the first 'recession' where the impact can be largely explained by net exports? Maybe the narrative changed because the conditions changed?
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      I think you're making this more difficult than it is. 1. Different people have different definitions of recession. Two quarters is probably the most widely used and known one, so it's perfectly valid to use, but not everyone may agree so you can see differences. 2. People have ulterior motives for calling a recession. Even the same dishonest person will use different definitions at different times according to who can be blamed or credited. And there are a lot of dishonest people in government and corporate media. So put all that aside. "The US is in recession." That's a perfectly reasonable statement that anybody can understand in context even those who have a slightly different definition where it doesn't fit.

RC_ITR 4y ago

> In general usage, the word recession connotes a marked slippage in economic activity. While gross domestic product (GDP) is the broadest measure of economic activity, the often-cited identification of a recession with two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth is not an official designation. The designation of a recession is the province of a committee of experts at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a private non-profit research organization that focuses on understanding the U.S. economy. From: https://www.bea.gov/help/glossary/recession https://www.bea.gov/help/glossary/recession Do you not consider the BEA an official source? Because I have bad news for you about who tracks GDP if so. EDIT: and if you’re going to try to wriggle around with the “by law” part of your statement, there’s no legal definition of GDP. EDIT2: And, just to cut you off at the pass, here's the archive from 2019 with the same exact text: https://web.archive.org/web/20190831041001/https://www.bea.gov/help/glossary/recession https://web.archive.org/web/20190831041001/https://www.bea.g... EDIT3: Going for the trifecta, from 1960-2011, NBER had never not declared a recession after one quarter of decline. And in its history, only 1955/1957/2011/2014 break that rule! US GDP just doesn't decline very often in general! And as I've said in other comments this is the very first time that the effect is explained mostly by net exports.

throwawaylinux 4y ago
Still, let's not pretend the narrative has been recently "adjusted". https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-appears-to-misunderstand-definition-of-recession-2019-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-appears-to-misundersta... "Recessions are generally defined as being six consecutive months of negative economic growth. By this definition, there is no such thing as a two-month recession." Obviously that is a very widely used and well accepted definition of recession including among experts and industry journalists. The idiotic thing is that's recently being claimed is that's not an "official" definition of recession, as though that makes any difference or makes someone incorrect for using the definition. A government's definition of a word gives it no more weight than anybody else's definition of that word, outside the duties of that government. Arguably the two-quarters rule is the preferred definition because it is more widely used and known. And let's be honest, that definition certainly would be put to use by its most fervent deniers today if there were different politicians in office.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  >EDIT2: And, just to cut you off at the pass, here's the archive from 2019 with the same exact text: https://web.archive.org/web/20190831041001/https://www.bea.g https://web.archive.org/web/20190831041001/https://www.bea.g... Why did we have a recession in 2000 if that's the rule then? Does 2020 not count since it was 4 months? And what's your comment on the fact that this is the first 'recession' where the impact can be largely explained by net exports? Maybe the narrative changed because the conditions changed?
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    I think you're making this more difficult than it is. 1. Different people have different definitions of recession. Two quarters is probably the most widely used and known one, so it's perfectly valid to use, but not everyone may agree so you can see differences. 2. People have ulterior motives for calling a recession. Even the same dishonest person will use different definitions at different times according to who can be blamed or credited. And there are a lot of dishonest people in government and corporate media. So put all that aside. "The US is in recession." That's a perfectly reasonable statement that anybody can understand in context even those who have a slightly different definition where it doesn't fit.