7 ms·

The EU has a similar committee to the NBER, which identifies EU business cycles. They also do not use the colloquial "2 quarters of decline in GDP" definition,

The EU has a similar committee to the NBER, which identifies EU business cycles. They also do not use the colloquial "2 quarters of decline in GDP" definition, though at least 2 quarters of decline is often seen in those recessions that they do identify. [0] >Most of the recessions identified by the Committee’s procedures consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but declining real GDP is not the only indicator used. As an example, the Committee has identified the period from the first quarter in 1980 to the third quarter in 1982 as a recession, even though real GDP was growing in some quarters during that episode and that real GDP was higher at the end of the recession than at the beginning. As another example, the Committee did not declare a recession for 2001 or 2003, even though the data at the time appeared to show a decline in economic activity (though not for two quarters). Subsequent data revisions have erased these declines. Those claiming a US media conspiracy to redefine the term "recession" have a political axe to grind, and nothing more. The NBER identifies recessions in the US, they have done it for a long time, and they will continue to do so. [0] https://eabcn.org/dc/faq https://eabcn.org/dc/faq

pavlov 4y ago
It’s shocking to me how many people in America are hoping for the national economy to do poorly so that their party could win the next election. This isn’t just limited to one tribe. The same doesn’t exist in Europe AFAICT. I don’t believe anybody is hoping that Putin would shut down the gas pipes for good so that their favorite politician could win an election next year.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- modriano 4y ago
  I don't think that's exactly right. I think everyone wants the economy to do well, but most people's ability to gauge the economy is very limited, so they defer to other information sources to tell them how the economy is doing even if they're personally doing fine [0]. If you look at employment over the past 20 years [1], you'll see that Obama took office when the economy was in freefall and after about 9 months the economy turned around and started growing steadily until someone let COVID run wild in the US, at which point the economy fell off a cliff. But the right wing media isn't going to (and never would) say Obama handed Trump a very strong economy and Trump was the first president to oversee a net loss of jobs in over 80 years. The right wing media also won't mention that Trump was all in on making the money printer go brr so that his reelection didn't also have to overcome an explosion of poverty in addition to explosions in death and unemployment. But the right wing media isn't interested it accurately describing reality; it's goal is to secure power for right wing politicians, and to have a shot of doing that in a democracy, right wing media has to conceal the inconvenient facts that show Democrats are actually better stewards of the economy, produce lower rates of violent crime, and are consistently better at delivering improvements to the net and median quality of life of residents of the US. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/15/business/economy/inflation-economy-polling.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/15/business/economy/inflatio... [1] https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/ces0000000001 https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/ces0000000001
- moate 4y ago
  You have your cause and effect backwards. People assume that "the other guy" is constantly doing all the bad stuff in the world and that "their guy" does all the good stuff. They're not hoping the economy tanks to win an election, they're hoping the electorate realizes "the other guy" tanked the economy and now their base will be energized/swing voters will move to their column. Also, if you don't believe anyone in Europe is rooting for collapses you seem to be ignoring Short positions or how capitalism works. Everywhere in the world, someone benefits from the people in power failing/bad things happening. This isn't an exceptionally American trait.
datadata 4y ago
The issue is that the definition of a recession is vague, subjective, and as a term has become so politically important. If the definition was objective, verifiable, etc, then there wouldn't be room for the idea of political manipulation. I wish that society would not place such high value on terms that are so murky. It encourages discourse where the truth is not important.
- treeman79 4y ago
  It’s been 2 quarters of negative growth for decades. You can find videos of every politician on both sides saying that.
  - datadata 4y ago
    Even if that were still true, the notion of real growth depends on correctly calculating inflation. That calculation has changed over the years, and is fairly subjective.
- trafficante 4y ago
  The whole “actually the terms we’ve used throughout your life aren’t correct and we’re going to pretend there’s nothing unusual about this sudden reversal” is wildly damaging to institutional credibility. I hold a BS in Econ and even I was shocked by how it was presented to the public. I figured there was a very good chance GDP would rebound for at least a quarter - and the political spin would be “Biden saves America from the Putin recession in record time” or something. None of those talking heads had a single clue that the “two declining quarters” definition was simply a useful shorthand and yet they all immediately hopped on the exact same script. Edit: in case it wasn’t clear, I 100% agree that we need more accurate definitions. So much needless harm is being done when the response to edge cases falling outside the colloquial understanding of a term is to quietly change dictionary definitions instead of educating the population.
  - vkou 4y ago
    How do you plan to educate the population about the technical definitions of non-trivial technical concepts - when I can make money/fame/political capital from diseducating them, by providing with simple, convenient, inflammatory, and wrong information? If your bar for solving a political problem is 'We must first make sure everyone speaks about it the way I want them to speak', you're never going to get there. In a union of ignorance and malice, it's very easy for thought leaders to deliberately misframe speech, as they are the ones who determine both what we are allowed to talk about, and how we are allowed to talk about it.
tristor 4y ago
I don't need someone "official" to tell me a recession is happening. It's rather self-evident for those who are observant. Thanks, though.
- SantalBlush 4y ago
  That's great, but I was specifically talking about recent discussions regarding the official definition. If you're not interested in that topic, then my comment wasn't for you.
PubliusMI 4y ago

pavlov 4y ago

It’s shocking to me how many people in America are hoping for the national economy to do poorly so that their party could win the next election. This isn’t just limited to one tribe. The same doesn’t exist in Europe AFAICT. I don’t believe anybody is hoping that Putin would shut down the gas pipes for good so that their favorite politician could win an election next year.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
modriano 4y ago
I don't think that's exactly right. I think everyone wants the economy to do well, but most people's ability to gauge the economy is very limited, so they defer to other information sources to tell them how the economy is doing even if they're personally doing fine [0]. If you look at employment over the past 20 years [1], you'll see that Obama took office when the economy was in freefall and after about 9 months the economy turned around and started growing steadily until someone let COVID run wild in the US, at which point the economy fell off a cliff. But the right wing media isn't going to (and never would) say Obama handed Trump a very strong economy and Trump was the first president to oversee a net loss of jobs in over 80 years. The right wing media also won't mention that Trump was all in on making the money printer go brr so that his reelection didn't also have to overcome an explosion of poverty in addition to explosions in death and unemployment. But the right wing media isn't interested it accurately describing reality; it's goal is to secure power for right wing politicians, and to have a shot of doing that in a democracy, right wing media has to conceal the inconvenient facts that show Democrats are actually better stewards of the economy, produce lower rates of violent crime, and are consistently better at delivering improvements to the net and median quality of life of residents of the US. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/15/business/economy/inflation-economy-polling.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/15/business/economy/inflatio... [1] https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/ces0000000001 https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/ces0000000001
moate 4y ago
You have your cause and effect backwards. People assume that "the other guy" is constantly doing all the bad stuff in the world and that "their guy" does all the good stuff. They're not hoping the economy tanks to win an election, they're hoping the electorate realizes "the other guy" tanked the economy and now their base will be energized/swing voters will move to their column. Also, if you don't believe anyone in Europe is rooting for collapses you seem to be ignoring Short positions or how capitalism works. Everywhere in the world, someone benefits from the people in power failing/bad things happening. This isn't an exceptionally American trait.

datadata 4y ago

The issue is that the definition of a recession is vague, subjective, and as a term has become so politically important. If the definition was objective, verifiable, etc, then there wouldn't be room for the idea of political manipulation. I wish that society would not place such high value on terms that are so murky. It encourages discourse where the truth is not important.

treeman79 4y ago
It’s been 2 quarters of negative growth for decades. You can find videos of every politician on both sides saying that.
- datadata 4y ago
  Even if that were still true, the notion of real growth depends on correctly calculating inflation. That calculation has changed over the years, and is fairly subjective.
trafficante 4y ago
The whole “actually the terms we’ve used throughout your life aren’t correct and we’re going to pretend there’s nothing unusual about this sudden reversal” is wildly damaging to institutional credibility. I hold a BS in Econ and even I was shocked by how it was presented to the public. I figured there was a very good chance GDP would rebound for at least a quarter - and the political spin would be “Biden saves America from the Putin recession in record time” or something. None of those talking heads had a single clue that the “two declining quarters” definition was simply a useful shorthand and yet they all immediately hopped on the exact same script. Edit: in case it wasn’t clear, I 100% agree that we need more accurate definitions. So much needless harm is being done when the response to edge cases falling outside the colloquial understanding of a term is to quietly change dictionary definitions instead of educating the population.
- vkou 4y ago
  How do you plan to educate the population about the technical definitions of non-trivial technical concepts - when I can make money/fame/political capital from diseducating them, by providing with simple, convenient, inflammatory, and wrong information? If your bar for solving a political problem is 'We must first make sure everyone speaks about it the way I want them to speak', you're never going to get there. In a union of ignorance and malice, it's very easy for thought leaders to deliberately misframe speech, as they are the ones who determine both what we are allowed to talk about, and how we are allowed to talk about it.

tristor 4y ago

I don't need someone "official" to tell me a recession is happening. It's rather self-evident for those who are observant. Thanks, though.

SantalBlush 4y ago
That's great, but I was specifically talking about recent discussions regarding the official definition. If you're not interested in that topic, then my comment wasn't for you.

PubliusMI 4y ago