5 ms·

So are we in a recession yet? I was told we were in a recession 6 months ago.

by tekla 3y ago

lvspiff 3y ago
To quote the great Fed Chairman "Its transitory"
1-6 3y ago
We've been gaslighted.
scrlk 3y ago
Depends where you are. Eurozone entered a technical recession (two consecutive quarters of declining GDP) in Q1 this year.
- laidoffamazon 3y ago
  BLS.gov is, of course, an American bureau
- SantalBlush 3y ago
  That is not a technical recession. The Eurozone uses a definition quite similar to the US definition [0]. It's like people commenting on the internet get all of their information from other internet comments, and refuse to read actual sources. This is not ambiguous, the current definition of recession has been established for decades. >Why doesn’t the Committee accept the two-quarter definition? >The Committee’s procedure for identifying turning points differs from the two-quarter rule in several ways. First, we do not identify economic activity solely with real GDP, but use a range of indicators, notably employment. Second, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, “a significant decline in activity.” [0] https://eabcn.org/dc/faq https://eabcn.org/dc/faq
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - scrlk 3y ago
    Thanks. The news articles I read last month regarding Eurozone technical recession mentioned Eurostat as their source. Eurostat themselves used the "2 quarters of declining GDP is a technical recession" line: "The GDP decrease in the euro area is the second consecutive quarterly contraction, which means that the euro area economy is in a technical recession." https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Eurostatistics_-_data_for_short-term_economic_analysis https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... All a bit confusing to the layman!
laidoffamazon 3y ago
We are not, and the H1 GDP growth was positive. Earliest for a recession call will be early 2024
toomuchtodo 3y ago
Labor? No. Corporate profits? Definitely. Can't really have a labor recession when demand for workers exceeds supply, but you'll absolutely see profits compressed. https://www.marketplace.org/2023/05/25/decline-in-corporate-profits-economy/ https://www.marketplace.org/2023/05/25/decline-in-corporate-... https://apnews.com/article/off-charts-earnings-shrinking-58f0072533767a9828e22e839e073efa https://apnews.com/article/off-charts-earnings-shrinking-58f... https://www.axios.com/2023/05/08/us-labor-shortage-older-workers https://www.axios.com/2023/05/08/us-labor-shortage-older-wor... https://www.businessinsider.com/baby-boomer-retirement-surge-spark-forever-labor-shortage-jobs-workers-2023-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/baby-boomer-retirement-surge... TLDR "Soft landing" accomplished (ie no material unemployment required to cool inflation to target). https://www.axios.com/2023/06/15/fed-rate-hikes-economy-soft-landing https://www.axios.com/2023/06/15/fed-rate-hikes-economy-soft... (commercial real estate and zombie enterprises still going to get hit hard with benchmark rate being held where it is, but that is a slow train wreck over the next 1-3 years as debt hits maturity walls)
- FollowingTheDao 3y ago
  Soft landing? No, they haven’t even come down to 10,000 feet and are nowhere near a runway. Where we are right now is an unhealthy stasis with inflation well above 2%. And low unemployment due to a disabled workforce. All they are doing is delaying the inevitable. If inflation is to go down anywhere near 2%, then the Fed has the raise rates.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Something to note is that the Fed didn't come up with 2%. They cribbed it off the bank of New Zealand two and a half decades ago. 2% might be untenable in a macro with a shrinking working force due to structural demographics (55+ participation is what is holding up US participation rate currently, and those people retire and die every day). The future is unable to repeat the past. 3-4% is probably more reasonable imho. Raising rates forever when you can't get to 2% because of fundamentals is unproductive. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/upshot/of-kiwis-and-currencies-how-a-2-inflation-target-became-global-economic-gospel.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/upshot/of-kiwis-and-curre... https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/24/business/inflation-federal-reserve-interest-rates.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/24/business/inflation-federa... https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-feds-want-2-percent-inflation/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-feds-want-2-per... https://seekingalpha.com/article/4531829-older-workers-propping-up-us-economy https://seekingalpha.com/article/4531829-older-workers-propp... > And high unemployment due to a disabled workforce Wut? Please prove this assertion wrt the use of the word "high." [1] That's arguably a call for stronger social safety nets [2], not more disabled employment. At least a lot of these folks are able to be on Medicare ("Half of all persons with a disability were age 65 and over, nearly three times larger than the share for those with no disability.") and Social Security. [1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/disabl.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/disabl.nr0.htm [2] https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/disability/ https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/disability/
ilikehurdles 3y ago
GDP has been growing for multiple quarters, the unemployment rate is 3.6%, and wages have been outpacing inflation for a while, and we’re hitting under 3% CPI. Core monthly CPI is at the lowest level since Feb 2021. While the other comment about “transitory” may have been sarcasm, it’s looking like the fed was right and inflation is coming under control. Where’s the hard landing? Where’s @jack’s hyperinflation? When will doomers stop being easy marks?

So are we in a recession yet? I was told we were in a recession 6 months ago.

by tekla 3y ago

So are we in a recession yet? I was told we were in a recession 6 months ago.

lvspiff 3y ago

To quote the great Fed Chairman "Its transitory"

1-6 3y ago

We've been gaslighted.

scrlk 3y ago

Depends where you are. Eurozone entered a technical recession (two consecutive quarters of declining GDP) in Q1 this year.

laidoffamazon 3y ago
BLS.gov is, of course, an American bureau
SantalBlush 3y ago
That is not a technical recession. The Eurozone uses a definition quite similar to the US definition [0]. It's like people commenting on the internet get all of their information from other internet comments, and refuse to read actual sources. This is not ambiguous, the current definition of recession has been established for decades. >Why doesn’t the Committee accept the two-quarter definition? >The Committee’s procedure for identifying turning points differs from the two-quarter rule in several ways. First, we do not identify economic activity solely with real GDP, but use a range of indicators, notably employment. Second, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, “a significant decline in activity.” [0] https://eabcn.org/dc/faq https://eabcn.org/dc/faq
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- scrlk 3y ago
  Thanks. The news articles I read last month regarding Eurozone technical recession mentioned Eurostat as their source. Eurostat themselves used the "2 quarters of declining GDP is a technical recession" line: "The GDP decrease in the euro area is the second consecutive quarterly contraction, which means that the euro area economy is in a technical recession." https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Eurostatistics_-_data_for_short-term_economic_analysis https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... All a bit confusing to the layman!

laidoffamazon 3y ago

We are not, and the H1 GDP growth was positive. Earliest for a recession call will be early 2024

toomuchtodo 3y ago

Labor? No. Corporate profits? Definitely. Can't really have a labor recession when demand for workers exceeds supply, but you'll absolutely see profits compressed. https://www.marketplace.org/2023/05/25/decline-in-corporate-profits-economy/ https://www.marketplace.org/2023/05/25/decline-in-corporate-... https://apnews.com/article/off-charts-earnings-shrinking-58f0072533767a9828e22e839e073efa https://apnews.com/article/off-charts-earnings-shrinking-58f... https://www.axios.com/2023/05/08/us-labor-shortage-older-workers https://www.axios.com/2023/05/08/us-labor-shortage-older-wor... https://www.businessinsider.com/baby-boomer-retirement-surge-spark-forever-labor-shortage-jobs-workers-2023-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/baby-boomer-retirement-surge... TLDR "Soft landing" accomplished (ie no material unemployment required to cool inflation to target). https://www.axios.com/2023/06/15/fed-rate-hikes-economy-soft-landing https://www.axios.com/2023/06/15/fed-rate-hikes-economy-soft... (commercial real estate and zombie enterprises still going to get hit hard with benchmark rate being held where it is, but that is a slow train wreck over the next 1-3 years as debt hits maturity walls)

FollowingTheDao 3y ago
Soft landing? No, they haven’t even come down to 10,000 feet and are nowhere near a runway. Where we are right now is an unhealthy stasis with inflation well above 2%. And low unemployment due to a disabled workforce. All they are doing is delaying the inevitable. If inflation is to go down anywhere near 2%, then the Fed has the raise rates.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Something to note is that the Fed didn't come up with 2%. They cribbed it off the bank of New Zealand two and a half decades ago. 2% might be untenable in a macro with a shrinking working force due to structural demographics (55+ participation is what is holding up US participation rate currently, and those people retire and die every day). The future is unable to repeat the past. 3-4% is probably more reasonable imho. Raising rates forever when you can't get to 2% because of fundamentals is unproductive. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/upshot/of-kiwis-and-currencies-how-a-2-inflation-target-became-global-economic-gospel.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/upshot/of-kiwis-and-curre... https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/24/business/inflation-federal-reserve-interest-rates.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/24/business/inflation-federa... https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-feds-want-2-percent-inflation/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-feds-want-2-per... https://seekingalpha.com/article/4531829-older-workers-propping-up-us-economy https://seekingalpha.com/article/4531829-older-workers-propp... > And high unemployment due to a disabled workforce Wut? Please prove this assertion wrt the use of the word "high." [1] That's arguably a call for stronger social safety nets [2], not more disabled employment. At least a lot of these folks are able to be on Medicare ("Half of all persons with a disability were age 65 and over, nearly three times larger than the share for those with no disability.") and Social Security. [1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/disabl.nr0.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/disabl.nr0.htm [2] https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/disability/ https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/disability/

ilikehurdles 3y ago

GDP has been growing for multiple quarters, the unemployment rate is 3.6%, and wages have been outpacing inflation for a while, and we’re hitting under 3% CPI. Core monthly CPI is at the lowest level since Feb 2021. While the other comment about “transitory” may have been sarcasm, it’s looking like the fed was right and inflation is coming under control. Where’s the hard landing? Where’s @jack’s hyperinflation? When will doomers stop being easy marks?