3 ms·

Widely agreed upon definition prior to 2022: https://www.forbes.com/sites/leonlabrecque/2019/03/25/what-is-a-recession-anyway/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/leo

Widely agreed upon definition prior to 2022: https://www.forbes.com/sites/leonlabrecque/2019/03/25/what-is-a-recession-anyway/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/leonlabrecque/2019/03/25/what-i... https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/it-depends-what-the-definition-of-recession-is/ https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/it-depends-what-the-de... https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/21/fact-checking-president-trumps-remarks-economy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/21/fact-chec... Acknowledgement as the 'popular definition' by St Louis fed in 2009 which uses an even less generous definition than two quarters to define it: "“significant decline in economic activity spreading across the economy, lasting more than a few months.”" https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/pageone-economics/uploads/newsletter/2009/200902.pdf https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/pageone-economics/... Spin cycle: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/29/white-house-goes-on-offense-to-argue-that-the-us-is-not-in-a-recession-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/29/white-house-goes-on-offense-... https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/recession-biden-yellen-democrats-want-change-definition-cant-change-facts https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/recession-biden-yellen-d... https://fortune.com/2022/07/29/wikipedia-recession-definition-debate-partial-blocking-new-users/ https://fortune.com/2022/07/29/wikipedia-recession-definitio... https://dailycaller.com/2022/07/28/wikipedia-change-definition-recession/ https://dailycaller.com/2022/07/28/wikipedia-change-definiti...

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
This is not an econometric definition. (To the degree it is, the definition contains a free variable regarding the length of the downturn.) Doubting federal statistics or the Fed balance sheet because the White House spins the definition of a downturn is like doubting relativity because Pluto isn't a planet.
- corbulo 4y ago
  You're saying WH Admins have no influence over economic data collection by the federal government?
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > WH Admins have no influence over economic data collection by the federal government Less than you seem to think. The Fed, SSA, SBA, FDIC and CFPB are independent agencies. Many data are provided by private sources, e.g. ADP. And the statistical agencies, while legally dependent, are fiercely independent and competitive (i.e. when one starts being co-opted, the others publicly disagree). Moreover, there are hundreds of billions of private dollars which take these data seriously. Is every one of them is in on the conspiracy or duped?
    - corbulo 4y ago
      Neither. There's many many sources of economic data, the more money on the line the less reliant on any single source they will be (and the more likely collection will be done in house or contracted and kept private). The more money on the line the more incentive there is to control what will be said. What incentives do they have to make noise if the books are cooked? They would be inviting the ire of the people who regulate them. Simply because something is claimed independent does not mean it is immune to politics and human nature.
staticman2 4y ago
That 2009 link you provided by the St. Louis fed specifically states the fed does not use the popular definition. You just disproved your own claim. The government/ fed definition of recession has not changed since 2009. You claimed it changed in 2022. The 2009 link says "The committee considers a wide range of indicators with particular emphasis on payroll employment and several measures of domestic production and income, such as gross domestic product, gross domestic income, and industrial."
- corbulo 4y ago
  I directly acknowledge that in the comment you reply to. Pretty lame to cherrypick the links I provided. The st louis fed recognizes the popular definition. Its definition is even less favorable to the case laid out by Biden admin. There's a clear history of use and a clear change once it became politically convenient. It's completely laid out in the links I provided. Your dispute is with those sources not with me.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - staticman2 4y ago
    Vanguard's chief economist in December 2022 says a recession may occur mid 2023. https://investor.vanguard.com/investor-resources-education/news/inflation-receding-recession-looming https://investor.vanguard.com/investor-resources-education/n... Do you think they are also part of this vast conspiracy to trick you, or is it possible you are just confused and never understood economics or the definition of recession as well as you thought? Here's Fidelity in december 2012 "We do not believe that the US is in recession, but instead experiencing a late-cycle expansion, which has historically led to positive returns for stocks and bonds." https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/wealth-management-insights/thinking-on-economy https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/wealth-management-i... Is Fidelity also part of a vast conspiracy to trick you, or is it more plausible you just don't understand economics so well? Maybe the issue isn't so much that the definition has changed, as modern events have revealed you never understood the definition in the first place, or that 2009 paper you cited?

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

This is not an econometric definition. (To the degree it is, the definition contains a free variable regarding the length of the downturn.) Doubting federal statistics or the Fed balance sheet because the White House spins the definition of a downturn is like doubting relativity because Pluto isn't a planet.

corbulo 4y ago
You're saying WH Admins have no influence over economic data collection by the federal government?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > WH Admins have no influence over economic data collection by the federal government Less than you seem to think. The Fed, SSA, SBA, FDIC and CFPB are independent agencies. Many data are provided by private sources, e.g. ADP. And the statistical agencies, while legally dependent, are fiercely independent and competitive (i.e. when one starts being co-opted, the others publicly disagree). Moreover, there are hundreds of billions of private dollars which take these data seriously. Is every one of them is in on the conspiracy or duped?
  - corbulo 4y ago
    Neither. There's many many sources of economic data, the more money on the line the less reliant on any single source they will be (and the more likely collection will be done in house or contracted and kept private). The more money on the line the more incentive there is to control what will be said. What incentives do they have to make noise if the books are cooked? They would be inviting the ire of the people who regulate them. Simply because something is claimed independent does not mean it is immune to politics and human nature.

staticman2 4y ago

That 2009 link you provided by the St. Louis fed specifically states the fed does not use the popular definition. You just disproved your own claim. The government/ fed definition of recession has not changed since 2009. You claimed it changed in 2022. The 2009 link says "The committee considers a wide range of indicators with particular emphasis on payroll employment and several measures of domestic production and income, such as gross domestic product, gross domestic income, and industrial."

corbulo 4y ago
I directly acknowledge that in the comment you reply to. Pretty lame to cherrypick the links I provided. The st louis fed recognizes the popular definition. Its definition is even less favorable to the case laid out by Biden admin. There's a clear history of use and a clear change once it became politically convenient. It's completely laid out in the links I provided. Your dispute is with those sources not with me.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- staticman2 4y ago
  Vanguard's chief economist in December 2022 says a recession may occur mid 2023. https://investor.vanguard.com/investor-resources-education/news/inflation-receding-recession-looming https://investor.vanguard.com/investor-resources-education/n... Do you think they are also part of this vast conspiracy to trick you, or is it possible you are just confused and never understood economics or the definition of recession as well as you thought? Here's Fidelity in december 2012 "We do not believe that the US is in recession, but instead experiencing a late-cycle expansion, which has historically led to positive returns for stocks and bonds." https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/wealth-management-insights/thinking-on-economy https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/wealth-management-i... Is Fidelity also part of a vast conspiracy to trick you, or is it more plausible you just don't understand economics so well? Maybe the issue isn't so much that the definition has changed, as modern events have revealed you never understood the definition in the first place, or that 2009 paper you cited?