Economy White House changes the definition of Recession

Rygu said:
hgng.jpg
Click to expand...

I see Google hasn't changed their definition as of yet.
 
They didn't change the definition. They pointed out how the common parlance isn't the full story. The 2 consecutive quarters of decline is shorthand for a recession. Easy to grasp and apply, and often sufficient, but not the entirety of how it is determined.

Even the OP points this out with the definition saying "generally defined as...", which most readers should know means that it's not the entire definition.
 
Lol, these interviews are so embarassing. the CNN lady looks pissed that he is basically treating her and her audience as retards.



And then Yellen here simply sounds like a retard.




Both Yellen and the dude say the exact same thing though. That it is not up for the white house to decide a recession and no one definition, and that this regulatory board or whatever is the sole decider of a recession. How embarassing lol.
 
Rygu said:
hgng.jpg


1658714844526929.jpg




chapelle-charlie-murphy.gif
Click to expand...
Just a quick google would’ve prevented you from looking like a fool

In a 1974 The New York Times article, Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Julius Shiskin suggested several rules of thumb for defining a recession, one of which was two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.[6] In time, the other rules of thumb were forgotten.

In the United States, the Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is generally seen as the authority for dating US recessions. The NBER, a private economic research organization, defines an economic recession as: "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales".[7] Almost universally, academics, economists, policy makers, and businesses refer to the determination by the NBER for the precise dating of a recession's onset and end.

In the United Kingdom, recessions are generally defined as two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth, as measured by the seasonal adjusted quarter-on-quarter figures for real GDP.[4][5] The European Union does not use this definition, instead using a range of other criteria such as employment rate and the depth of decline in economic activity.[8]
​
Sadly you didn’t and here we are..
 
Can anyone find a time that the traditional definition of 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP was not in fact a recession?

Is there any other year that’s true to give some validity to this claim? Because otherwise they’re saying 2022 economy is a unicorn.

So Fresh said:
Just a quick google would’ve prevented you from looking like a fool

In a 1974 The New York Times article, Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics Julius Shiskin suggested several rules of thumb for defining a recession, one of which was two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.[6] In time, the other rules of thumb were forgotten.

In the United States, the Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) is generally seen as the authority for dating US recessions. The NBER, a private economic research organization, defines an economic recession as: "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales".[7] Almost universally, academics, economists, policy makers, and businesses refer to the determination by the NBER for the precise dating of a recession's onset and end.

In the United Kingdom, recessions are generally defined as two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth, as measured by the seasonal adjusted quarter-on-quarter figures for real GDP.[4][5] The European Union does not use this definition, instead using a range of other criteria such as employment rate and the depth of decline in economic activity.[8]
​
Sadly you didn’t and here we are..
Click to expand...
 
HockeyBjj said:
Can anyone find a time that the traditional definition of 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP was not in fact a recession?

Is there any other year that’s true to give some validity to this claim? Because otherwise they’re saying 2022 economy is a unicorn.
Click to expand...

They keep using misleading stats to deflect from the real situation.

"omg we created 8 million jobs or whatever, so we have a strong economy and thus cannot be in recession". Yea, but they LOST like 14-15 million jobs during the pandemic and attempting for force vaccine mandates. So they are still down millions of jobs.

And a lot of people who left the work force during that time, that had decent, respectable jobs... they don't want to come back to work at McDonalds, even if it is $16-18/hr.

To add to that, almost half of small businesses feel they are at risk of having to close for good due to rising costs/inflation, etc.

 
HockeyBjj said:
Can anyone find a time that the traditional definition of 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP was not in fact a recession?

Is there any other year that’s true to give some validity to this claim? Because otherwise they’re saying 2022 economy is a unicorn.
Click to expand...
We've had a recession with just one quarter of negative GDP growth. There's never been 2 consecutive periods of negative growth that wasn't a recession going back to 1947.

But that's different from saying that the WH is changing the definition. It's not the definition, it's just the rule of thumb. It's a good one, extremely reliable and predictive, but it's not the definition. The WH has the definition correct, whether or not they're right about it being a recession remains to be seen. NBER makes that call and I haven't seen them say it yet.
 
HockeyBjj said:
Can anyone find a time that the traditional definition of 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP was not in fact a recession?

Is there any other year that’s true to give some validity to this claim? Because otherwise they’re saying 2022 economy is a unicorn.
Click to expand...

Last time you made this stupid point, I asked you if we ever declared a recession when unemployment was 3.6% and falling. If not, you're also saying that 2022 is a unicorn if you're trying to declare a recession after a very minor retrenchment following a year of explosive economic growth.
 
White House is going to have to change the definition of stagflation because that's what appears America is heading into or already in.
 
Jack V Savage said:
Yeah, it's a pattern. You guys tell a blatant lie, and I point out what you're doing.
Click to expand...

you think it’s a lie that the White House is trying to skirt the fact we’re in a recession so they don’t look bad?
 
“Hey, things are pretty bad right now. GDP is down 2 quarters which has always been how a recession is defined. Milk bread and eggs are getting too expensive to purchase and it costs $100 to fill my tank up. I thought Biden was going to be honest with us and just tell us what is really happening. It’s upsetting to see the White House clearly trying to get ahead of the fact we’re in a recession by trying to convince us we’re not.”

The Left:

 
Rob Battisti said:
you think it’s a lie that the White House is trying to skirt the fact we’re in a recession so they don’t look bad?
Click to expand...

Well, we're not in a recession. And it's a lie that the WH changed the definition of recession. The definition has not been changed since the new administration took office. That's objectively true, and people who claim otherwise are either deliberately lying or mistaken (but then it's a simple matter of checking, and if they continue to assert it, they are lying). Generally, what you're claiming is not only false in fact, it's not plausible. Administrations have an interest in getting things right there because their call on it drives policy responses (for example, if we're a recession, we're going to look at monetary loosening--that's not happening because we're not, but it's something that would be good to know).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Economy The quiet recession - are we in it already?
2
Replies
31
Views
594
Crazy Source
Crazy Source

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,149
Messages
58,262,166
Members
175,984
Latest member
Omar Ahmed Lotfy

Share this page

Back
Top