3 ms·
> "Excluding new era investment, the other 89% of real private spending rose by only 1% with no job creation," the strategist wrote. That isn’t what a recessio
by mr_00ff00 7mo ago
> "Excluding new era investment, the other 89% of real private spending rose by only 1% with no job creation," the strategist wrote.
That isn’t what a recession is
- _heimdall 7mo agoWe've been redefining recession recently, it may not matter much what the textbook definition is.
- ekjhgkejhgk 7mo agoWhat specifically has changed?
- andyferris 7mo agoI took that as maybe referring to Trump?
- gruez 7mo agoProbably referring to the "2 quarters of negative GDP" rule that was seemingly revoked under Biden.
- m-hodges 7mo agoIt wasn’t “revoked under Biden.” That implies the Biden administration (or any administration) gets to define this. They don’t. Recessions in the United States are generally demarcated by NBER.¹ ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bureau_of_Economic_Research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bureau_of_Economic_Re...
- gruez 7mo ago>It wasn’t “revoked under Biden.” That implies the Biden administration (or any administration) gets to define this. No, not any more than "the pandemic started under the Trump administration" implies that they caused the pandemic.
- m-hodges 7mo agoI just plainly disagree that a casual reader wouldn’t see the phrase “revoked under Biden” and believe it meant that Biden did the revoking.
- lovich 7mo ago[flagged]
- gruez 7mo ago>It does imply that because the Trump admin killed the group involved with preventing pandemics[1] No it doesn't, not without massively reading in between the lines. This is getting to absurd levels of nitpicking over wording, like "autistic people" vs "people with autism". >I assume you are being disingenuous by using that claim while also trying to smear the Biden admin. Two can play at this game. I assume you're being disingenuous by trying to put words in my mouth over tiny disagreements in wording.
- no-name-here 7mo agoThat was never such a "rule"; that was 1 of 4 considerations from a 1974 NY Times opinion piece, and those 4 considerations were in turn a simplification of the overall recession considerations, as the combined 4 items were intended to be more understandable by the general public than the actual items. Where had you heard that there was such a "rule"? (And as others pointed out, it's a private organization, not the government, that has set and evaluates recession criteria.)
- conductr 7mo agoRealizing that GDP growth can be achieved while average joe on Main Street is struggling. The billionaires doing well masks everyone else struggling to afford groceries. In general, people are kind of calling BS on what the definition should be because we are all collectively feeling that things are doing poorly but no one is quite willing to recognize it due to the definitional stuff.
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago> Realizing that GDP growth can be achieved while average joe on Main Street is struggling This is most GDP growth across human history until the Industrial Revolution with the exception of maybe a half dozen civilisations.
- alephnerd 7mo agoEven during the Industrial Revolution as well. And even the idealized vision of the 1950s-60s that is common on the Internet was itself a fantasy for a plurality of Americans until the Great Deal began sinking in. There was a period of slightly more income equality in the 1930s-1960s as Piketty [0] and Zucman [1] show, but this was also at the expense of racial and gender equality. The 1970s was probably the most equal period economically speaking as Zucman showed [1]. We should not strive to return to the 1950s - we should strive to be better than anytime previously. [0] - http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/Piketty2014FiguresTables.pdf http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/Piketty2014Fig... [1] - https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/SaezZucman14slides.pdf https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/SaezZucman14slides.pdf
- lovich 7mo agoWhat did your response have to do with your quote? We can have the most growth ever as a civilization and still have the common person lose out. The Industrial Revolution also famously had a lot of people pushed into impoverished situations while robber barons or the highland clearing lords won out, despite the GDP of those respective countries increasing.
- 7mo ago
- _heimdall 7mo agoHistorically, both politicians and yhe media considered two consecutive quarters of declining GDP. The Biden administration changed that, basically arguing that the definition is too narrow and they preferred to use a more broad set of indicators that just so happened to avoid calling a recession when they wanted to claim a strong economy.
- IAmBroom 7mo agoThe Biden administration argued for a change. They did not convince others. It's like saying "Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico" - no one but loyalists bought in. Economists continue to use the same definition as before, despite your attempt to blame Biden.
- tonyedgecombe 7mo agoIt does matter. It's best not to let politicians redefine the facts in their favour.
- doener 7mo agoRecessions without an external shock are rare. But you could say the rest of the economy is in stagnation. I‘m expecting real recession as soon as the LLM bubble begins to burst.
- buckle8017 7mo agoSeems like the definition changes to match whatever is happening when Trump is in office.
- SubiculumCode 7mo agoSince inflation is going up faster than 1%...seems like it to me.
- ultimatefan1 7mo ago“Real” means adjusted for inflation