Economy White House changes the definition of Recession

[Rygu]

Walmart down 10% after hours, it's official no recession.

People can't even afford to shop at Walmart right now, but that's a good thing.

 

[cincymma79]

I get confused as I think of historical discussions had when you were trying to convince everyone Presidents and policies had nothing to do with GDP





And now ill go back in time to you talking about how you define a recession when trying to blame the opposition
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/159949740/

 

[Jack V Savage]

Walmart down 10% after hours, it's official no recession.

People can't even afford to shop at Walmart right now, but that's a good thing.

The odds of an actual recession over the next year are a bit higher than usual now (probably somewhat less than 50/50), largely because we're in a tightening cycle, but no serious person would claim that we're currently in one.

 

[Jack V Savage]

“I said IF you define it as two consecutive quarters of negative growth. Not that I define it that way or that all economist define it that way!”

Why do you think I worded it that way, genius? Pretty clearly to show that it's a folksy, unofficial definition, no? And one bad quarter is enough, if it's bad enough.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Why do you think I worded it that way, genius? Pretty clearly to show that it's a folksy, unofficial definition, no? And one bad quarter is enough, if it's bad enough.

So a recession is simply whatever passes the smell test of the economists in power. Or, rather — whatever we say it is.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So a recession is simply whatever passes the smell test of the economists in power. Or, rather — whatever we say it is.

Well, there's a definition and a variety of metrics that they look at. Are you actually curious or are you just spouting partisan talking points?

Also, I note you still haven't admitted that there was no change in the definition. The kind of lack of integrity is unfathomable to me. I don't know how you guys can feel good about yourselves. Or maybe you don't, and that's why you act like that?

 

[Rob Battisti]

Well, there's a definition and a variety of metrics that they look at. Are you actually curious or are you just spouting partisan talking points?

Also, I note you still haven't admitted that there was no change in the definition. The kind of lack of integrity is unfathomable to me. I don't know how you guys can feel good about yourselves. Or maybe you don't, and that's why you act like that?

<{chips}>

I answered you twice.

I think it’s evident to everyone but you that the WH is trying to play us for suckers by going against commonly held definitions as to what a recession is. If you only could admit that — even in your own words — that the common definition is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth then we could talk.

In my “Hackish” response I even said I don’t think this recession will be that bad. I think it will be shorter and less impactful — hopefully than previous ones. It’s a game and a political game to suggest that a recession was never commonly defined was two consecutive negative growth quarters.

To think people will just say “oh, good!” And carry one is absurd.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I answered you twice.

I think it’s evident to everyone but you that the WH is trying to play us for suckers by going against commonly held definitions as to what a recession is.

But, as I demonstrated, the definition that people are howling about now was in effect in 2008 (and before). So how can anyone possibly claim that it was just changed? The matter is settled. The OP was a lie, and by repeating after you've seen the definition, you're lying also. There's no way to wiggle out of that.

If you only could admit that — even in your own words — that the common definition is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth then we could talk.

It's a common folk definition, but it's not the one the gov't or NBER uses. Nothing has changed. People just want to pretend that we're in a recession for partisan propaganda purposes. That's loathsome, but understandable. But the claim that the definition was changed is false and completely indefensible in light of the demonstrated fact that it hasn't changed.

 

[Rob Battisti]

You didn't ask for the definition, liar. If you had, I'd just post a link: https://www.bea.gov/help/glossary/recession.

Within that one is this:

https://www.nber.org/news/business-cycle-dating-committee-announcement-january-7-2008

The designation of a recession is the province of a committee of experts at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER),

Defined below.

A recession is 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.

So….

Seems pretty vague. So your position is because of the unemployment rate we’re not in a recession?

 

[Rygu]

Defined below.



So….

Seems pretty vague. So your position is because of the unemployment rate we’re not in a recession?

I wouldn't even bother with this guy. He's the type who would jump off a cliff before ever admitting that he is wrong. It's a personality type, and I wager he has few friends who enjoy his company.

 

[Rob Battisti]

I wouldn't even bother with this guy. He's the type who would jump off a cliff before ever admitting that he is wrong. It's a personality type, and I wager he has few friends who enjoy his company.

Which is why I made his signature actually admit he was wrong

 

[So Fresh]

I wouldn't even bother with this guy. He's the type who would jump off a cliff before ever admitting that he is wrong. It's a personality type, and I wager he has few friends who enjoy his company.

Did you already admit your thread was a lie? Maybe it’s time to change the name?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Defined below.

So….

Seems pretty vague. So your position is because of the unemployment rate we’re not in a recession?

Unemployment is a key metric. GDP obviously is, too. Industrial production is another. The thing is a few of them remain very strong. That can change in the future (again, we're tightening hard), but there's no credible way to claim that the data suggests we're currently in a recession.

 

[Snowblindlove]

I wouldn't even bother with this guy. He's the type who would jump off a cliff before ever admitting that he is wrong. It's a personality type, and I wager he has few friends who enjoy his company.

A soul destined for hell is one that defends evil and lies

 

[Rygu]

Did you already admit your thread was a lie? Maybe it’s time to change the name?

Except it wasn't a lie.

They changed/updated their own definition of recession a few days before Q2 GDP numbers come out.

That isn't a coincidence.

They are preparing to save face.

The Biden administration is horrendous just deal with it.

 

[ElKarlo]

Yes. And after getting inflation wrong, I'm seeing similar things of federal government not heeding the very obvious warnings signs. And the only reason I can think that they'd be ignoring them like this, is because they wish to keep up pretenses that things are fine so that it's not a bad look on the party in charge.

Money tightening effects in fall of 2021 would have been benefecial. The summer jump to 5% was a reaction to coming out of the covid hits. The jumps to 6% clearly on it's way to 7 should have been the sign to start acting. Waiting until it was 8.5% in March 2022 was a mistake.

This. I said that the fed needs to stop buying bonds in early summer 21. They reacted far too slow. The fed is a blunt instrument and Taka tone for its policies to take affect. This is then making excuses and covering imho. It was clear as day that inflation was coming over a year ago. Yet the fed and the admin pretended it was all ok and did nothing, save for saying it was transitory

 

[Jack V Savage]

Except it wasn't a lie.

They changed/updated their own definition of recession a few days before Q2 GDP numbers come out.

That isn't a coincidence.

They are preparing to save face.

The Biden administration is horrendous just deal with it.

But they didn't change or update their own definition ever. I already posted the 2008 definition (which wasn't new then). You're just straight up lying.

 

[deadon]

Walmart down 10% after hours, it's official no recession.

People can't even afford to shop at Walmart right now, but that's a good thing.

They will deny it even if his voters have to walk and eat bugs.

 

[Rygu]

But they didn't change or update their own definition ever. I already posted the 2008 definition (which wasn't new then). You're just straight up lying.

Again, why are they putting it on the WH website a few days before Q2 numbers come out?

 

[SBJJ]

I get confused as I think of historical discussions had when you were trying to convince everyone Presidents and policies had nothing to do with GDP





And now ill go back in time to you talking about how you define a recession when trying to blame the opposition
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/159949740/

Oh Jack. Must suck to be such a hack.