11 ms·

When I see predictions like this I think "awesome, no global recession coming in 2023". I have not done a study on this, but it seems like every prediction I c

• nextaccountic 4y ago
  > When I see predictions like this I think "awesome, no global recession coming in 2023" From now on, every recession can be blamed on journalists that refused to publish its prediction
• d0mine 4y ago
  It depends on the definition "global recession" Who says it is not already here?
  • smitty1e 4y ago
    Well, those pencil-whipping the definitions, for starters.
  • jokethrowaway 4y ago
    I'm sure we used to have one. Something to do with 3 quarters of negative growth
    • nuc1e0n 4y ago
      2 quarters
    • Izkata 4y ago
      Two quarters of negative growth has only ever been a rule-of-thumb that mostly matched, the official determination has been with the National Bureau of Economic Research for a long long time ( https://www.nber.org/ https://www.nber.org/ ). You can see on this graph that the rule-of-thumb didn't hold right at the beginning of the graph in 1947 when no recession was declared, nor in 2008 when it started with a single quarter, or even 2001 when it started with a positive quarter: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A191RL1Q225SBEA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A191RL1Q225SBEA
• shyn3 4y ago
  [flagged]
  • arshbot 4y ago
    Zanny Minton Beddoes (the writer of that piece) has a degree in economics from Oxford, a masters from Harvard, worked for the minister of finance Poland, and has worked for the economist for the last 30 years. She’s conducted surveys and covered policies across the world from South America to Moscow (all this per Wikipedia). I think she’s well qualified to provide opinion, not sure if I’ll take it - but that’s the point of an opinion piece. What have you done to qualify yourself for your job? Except write snarky, poorly written and ill contributing comments on this forum for the last decade?
  • stonogo 4y ago
    The author is an Oxford- and Harvard-trained economist with work experience at the national and international level. Your comment is ridiculous, whether or not this prediction proves out. The author is qualified to make it.
  • JDEW 4y ago
    This is probably a comment worth ignoring, but I still feel inclined to say that journalism is a cornerstone of democracy on which, love it or hate it, we in the west have chosen to build our societies on. So yes, it is important and certainly requires skill.
    • chiefalchemist 4y ago
      Yes. The Fourth Estate is a prerequisite for a democracy. However, what we have is a Politics Industrial Complex and the vast majority of the media is on the inside; as discussed during this episode: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/im-your-biggest-fan/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/im-your-biggest-fan/ You can't do true by-definition journalism from that position. Speaking of the definition of journalism, using this filter most of what gets passed off as journalism, isn't. https://kottke.org/20/01/jim-lehrers-rules-of-journalism-1 https://kottke.org/20/01/jim-lehrers-rules-of-journalism-1 The most important skill in today's "journalism" is reading off a teleprompter and/or parroting an established narrative. That is what's rewarded. That is we get what someone else pays them for, and too often it's not actual journalism.
• jagged-chisel 4y ago
  Seems like, so often, recessions are self-fulfilling prophecies. Unless it’s some journalist clanging their own bell.
  • imglorp 4y ago
    Or more likely, some analyst that would like to have a little buy-low opportunity tomorrow.
• snapcaster 4y ago
  +1 for mentioning the greatest casting duo of all time. Sad they moved on, hard for me to even guess how many hours i've spent with them on in background or foreground
  • brezelgoring 4y ago
    Until his retirement I didn't know he had a wife and 3 kids, good for him - I'm kinda jealous, I won't lie. Life has a way of catching up, I guess, I'm not sad he's not casting GSL anymore, I'm happy that he has done and will likely continue to do well. Secretly I hope his kids see his achievements and one decides to take the mantle later down the line. It'd be a first in history, a second-generation GSL caster.
• rafale 4y ago
  You know how journalists, for the sake of transparency, disclose holdings or interests when they cover a subject. There should be the reverse of that where they make a bet to show conviction in their beliefs. It would be a funny game. Most of them will bet $0.
  • leobg 4y ago
    This is a great idea!
• diogenescynic 4y ago
  I agree. Whenever the public/media assume something is definitely going to happen it seems like it always backfires. Another anecdote, I remember in 2020 there were all these articles with predictions about how 2021 would be the year of fintech... then all the fintech stocks imploded. It really does seem like following the herd is not the way to go.
• adam_arthur 4y ago
  It’s fair to be skeptical of economic predictions, as yes, most end up being wrong. But in this case the Fed is quite clearly aiming to orchestrate a spike in the unemployment rate, and pretty much all of history is pointing towards the current macro setup ending with recession. By and large people tend to be overly optimistic that this time is different re economic cycles and monetary policy. E.g. Wall Street analysts predicted 10% earnings growth in 2008, and ended up being -70%.
  • gruez 4y ago
    >But in this case the Fed is quite clearly aiming to orchestrate a spike in the unemployment rate While this might be technically true in the sense that they're trying to fight inflation by tightening monetary policy, and that has the effect of slowing economic activity and driving up unemployment, I dislike the framing because it implies that the fed wants to high unemployment as some sort of end goal, as if they have some sort of diabolical agenda to oppress workers or whatever.
    • adam_arthur 4y ago
      They have to spike unemployment to lower wage pressures, thats it. The Fed has to do this because they vastly overstimulated. It was entirely avoidable if responsible policy had been pursued The people who make it into a bleeding heart kind of issue are largely misguided, and don’t understand the distinction between real and nominal. Real wages have been declining at the fastest pace in history yet they point to nominal numbers like its some victory
  • opportune 4y ago
    The Fed has a dual mandate. They do not actually want to raise the unemployment rate by itself, only insofar as with the very strong unemployment rates now, it gives them leeway to potentially increase it as they address their other mandate of taming inflation. Inflation in the US, contrary to popular belief, is already almost solved. Since July the MoM inflation per the FRED CPI rate is annualized at like 4%. Once the Fed feels like they have it under control they would not want to continue raising it just to increase unemployment.
• boh 4y ago
  Most recessions are identified after they've occurred, particularly on a global scale, since the evidence is rarely obvious. Not all countries, industries, states will be affected equally. It's completely possible the recession has already occurred and we're currently in the midst of it.
  • SantalBlush 4y ago
    While this is true, the statement "We don't know that we're not in a recession" is not evidence that we're in a recession. Looking at the evidence that we do currently have--GDP, unemployment, etc.--that evidence strongly suggests that we are not in one.
    • Izkata 4y ago
      The low unemployment rate indicates we're likely either in or about to start a recession. It generally doesn't spike until months after recessions begin: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE
      • dragonwriter 4y ago
        > The low unemployment rate indicates we’re likely either in or about to start a recession. Sure, I mean, we might only be ~4 years from a recession (see 1966). It's true that, as recession is defined roughly as the period of decline from an economic peak, they usually start during a period of low unemployment, but that doesn't mean low unemployment signals being in a recession. Most low unemployment periods are outside of recessions. > It generally doesn’t spike until months after recessions begin Every recession shown on that chart either begins simultaneously with or after sustained unemployment increases, I don’t see any where it lags significantly. There are several places where the low unemployment plateau before a recession is extended, and even a couple where an apparent low plateau is followed by another drop and another plateau.
        • Izkata 4y ago
          Take a look at the comment I was responding to, as well as some others on this page: It's a common misconception that the unemployment rate spikes (spikes, not fluctuates slightly higher) before recessions. It doesn't.
• hyperpape 4y ago
  > I have not done a study on this, but it seems like every prediction I come across is just wrong . Appealing to your sense of whether predictions are correct is a conversation starter at best. We can track forecasts and see how accurate they are. Anyway, here are two IMF working papers: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi0sNvL8qb8AhW-nHIEHQ6WCukQFnoECA8QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.imf.org%2F-%2Fmedia%2FFiles%2FPublications%2FWP%2F2018%2Fwp1839.ashx&usg=AOvVaw22s8YrVD-mMhuVS-3nQO_Z https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c... https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi0sNvL8qb8AhW-nHIEHQ6WCukQFnoECBwQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.imf.org%2F-%2Fmedia%2FFiles%2FPublications%2FWP%2F2021%2FEnglish%2Fwpiea2021216-print-pdf.ashx&usg=AOvVaw3okoCS38G6z5M3IphBcZEm https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...
• ddp26 4y ago
  Obligatory: predictions with (good) track records! https://www.metaculus.com/project/2018/ https://www.metaculus.com/project/2018/
• oliwarner 4y ago
  Major economies are already in deepening recessions. Major producers are starting the year with significant impairment from COVID and supply line pressures. The threat of Russia's aggression affecting other countries remains. Energy prices are still obscene in Europe. I hope things get better, but I think you'd be mad to plan for global growth this year.
  • hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
    > The threat of Russia's aggression affecting other countries remains. Like what countries exactly? They can't even hold the ground they conquered in the previous months in Ukraine. Armenia already asked Russia's help and they refused - it was effectively a fatal blow to CSTO and has far-reaching consequences to the way Russia is perceived among its current and former allies.
    • olonn 4y ago
      probably finland and other countries near russia
      • AnimalMuppet 4y ago
        Yeah, high-up Russian politicians have been talking about invading Finland or Poland or both. And if the GP says that they don't have the military strength to pull that off, well, they don't. But they don't have the military strength to defeat Ukraine, and yet the fighting goes on, in complete defiance of sanity. No, Russia can't (successfully) invade either place. That doesn't mean he won't try. If I were Finland or Poland, I'd be preparing hard right now.
        • hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
          The reason the war in Ukraine goes on is that Putin was misled. The original plan was to conquer Kiyv in a few days, kill Zelensky and others and install a puppet government. The whole "military operation" was just that. They had no plan B. I mean, they are trying to do their plan B now, with no hope of getting anywhere. But from Putin's POV in February it all made sense, and the fact that Ukraine repelled the initial attack surprised everybody, including the allies - and Ukrainians themselves. On the other hand, in Finland and Poland there is no similar plan A, only total war with NATO. It is not impossible, but from the geopolitical POV it makes no sense at all.
• wldcordeiro 4y ago
  I always assume the author or publication stands to gain from being right and is attempting to influence things for their preferred outcome.
• opportune 4y ago
  I am pretty into investing and for the past two years have been doing it almost solely on the basis of macro principles. Inflation in the last 6 months in the US, as measured by the Fed’s CPI, has been about 2%. All the higher inflation headlines are simply comparing the CPI 12 months ago to today, but the fact of the matter is ever since June/July CPI’s annualized inflation is already at roughly 4% or lower. The Fed may not raise interest rates more than 0.5% above where they are today. If they stop there, the recession risk is IMO minimal because employment metrics are still very strong. Almost all journalists do not know or understand this, which is why a lot are hand wringing that rates may need to raise much more from where they are today (to Volcker levels) to combat inflation, because from their perspective we have raised them so much only for inflation to have gone down by a third. What they don’t realize is we are already past the inflection point, and interest rate swaps aren’t pricing in much more increases. At least in the US, IMO the risk of a recession is minimal
  • lamontcg 4y ago
    Because unemployment is low that means that the Fed can't drop rates at all or else inflation will come back. And it is likely that if the Fed pauses rate hikes and the economy doesn't fall into recession that there will be another boom and high inflation again, which will kick off more rate hikes. This is the difference between short-term reactions of inflation to rates and long-term reactions. What the Fed needs to meet its goals is unemployment running at 6-8% so that there's slack in the labor market. Until that happens, inflation will persistently come back. That implies that the Fed must create a recession to increase unemployment before it meets its goals. And I suspect that it will be sufficient for the Fed to maintain rates at roughly where they are for 6-12 months in order to achieve a recession. We've spent way too long on cheap rates and there's too many zombie investments that require borrowing at stupidly low rates. When those loans adjust to higher rates and the borrowing costs of those entities double or triple (just like an ARM) those entities should all go under. You don't have to look past the vacancies in the malls and downtown cores of cities. my view of "everyone is probably wrong" is how much everyone is predicting a soft-landing or mild recession in the US (including the title article, which is a good gauge of the centrist position). Rates are already at a level where they should cause detonations in the US economy -- it will just take 6-12 months at these current levels (and historically recessions that followed rate hikes have happened after 6-12 months -- there are time delays in the system).
• 2devnull 4y ago
  Cool. Go long heavily leveraged and repost this thread next year to really show off. :)
  • diceduckmonk 4y ago
    Well, they can still be right but lose on that trade because of delta decay.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• EasyTiger_ 4y ago
  I’ve been reading since 2016 that there’s about to be a recession. The conclusion I’ve reached is some people REALLY want one.
• thenoblesunfish 4y ago
  By "like this" perhaps you mean something like "interesting". There's a bias towards good storytelling, especially in magazine articles that make their way to many eyed, like this one. Optimizing for a compelling read had to degrade the actual predictive value. How much, hard to say, and of course if you want anyone to pay attention you need to present it well. Bit, beware a well told story - it might be the rhetorical skill you're responding to, not any real expertise. (I'm looking at you, Oxford people :D :D)