Economy White House changes the definition of Recession

[Jack V Savage]

Still wondering how people are claiming the definition was recently changed when a 2008 link was posted showing that the definition was not changed (and note that it wasn't changed in 2008 either). Does literally no one have the integrity to just admit the OP is a lie?

 

[Dan O]

Should had visited Ukraine.
Holodomor and internal passports with citizens restriced to leave their areas....
Almost 4 m had died in Ukraine.

Papa Stalin was happy.

Why do you refuse to answer the basic question about where you’re from?

 

[Dan O]

But the NBER aren't politicians, and the accusation that they're acting in political interests is a serious and totally unfounded accusation. It's one of the clearest signs of the moral rot on the right these days that people are comfortable publicly making all kinds of outrageous and completely baseless accusations of people just because they're not rightists.

They dramatically influence the political landscape. The economy is literally one of the primary campaign items for both parties.

 

[Corona]

Lmao at these Jabronis. We’re not in a recession and inflation is fake news. Got a problem with that? Take it up with Russia ofc. We gotta focus on the real issues like jan 6 and some Fatt abbot/cancruz tweets.

 

[Scerpi]

The only reason you can think that economists might disagree with you is that they're scheming monsters who are conspiring to help the Evil Democrats? No other possibility that you can see?

No... They just had no idea what the fuck they were doing in 2021.

 

[cincymma79]

Still wondering how people are claiming the definition was recently changed when a 2008 link was posted showing that the definition was not changed (and note that it wasn't changed in 2008 either). Does literally no one have the integrity to just admit the OP is a lie?

Calm down mr there’s no inflation

 

[Rand M Arthur]

Well they changed the definition of racist, and of woman, and of healthcare, and of workers rights, and of freedom, and of unemployment, and of many other things.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, we've been far too worried about the footprints of Orwell and not nearly worried enough about the footprints of Huxley.

 

[So Fresh]

Since the goal post is moved someone should change the Thread title..

 

[Rygu]

Still wondering how people are claiming the definition was recently changed when a 2008 link was posted showing that the definition was not changed (and note that it wasn't changed in 2008 either). Does literally no one have the integrity to just admit the OP is a lie?

Then why did the White House put that on their website a few days ago, just a few days before GDP numbers are released for Q2?

 

[Jack V Savage]

They dramatically influence the political landscape. The economy is literally one of the primary campaign items for both parties.

Nevertheless, they are not politicians, and there is no evidence at all that they are giving bad analysis to try to help anyone, and it's preposterous to think they would. As I said, it's just part of the general pattern of rightists making crazy and ugly accusations of everyone they don't regard as being in their tribe.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Then why did the White House put that on their website a few days ago, just a few days before GDP numbers are released for Q2?

Probably as a response to people who are trying to change the definition.

 

[Rygu]

Probably as a response to people who are trying to change the definition.

Who is trying to change the definition?

 

[Rob Battisti]

Who is trying to change the definition?

Now it’s the people stating it’s 2 quarters of negative growth who are changing the definition

 

[Halifax]

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).

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

Generally, presidents have nothing to do with GDP growth. In a recession with interest rates as low as they can go, fiscal stimulus (which presidents can push) is a rare exception. Your general approach of presidents being directly responsible for growth numbers is monumentally stupid, though I don't even think you really believe it (I think it's just partisanship getting you to say it--just as you guys were asserting that initially strong stock-market growth was because of Trump, and then denied that Trump had anything to do with the subsequent mean reversion).

??? Did you read the link I posted? Do you think they went back in time?

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

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/

Not an economist. But I think if you define a recession as at least two straight quarters of negative GDP growth, it's very likely, and the extent of that negative growth is going to be massive. The Q2 decline will probably be the biggest ever recorded. That alone would fit a lot of definitions.

Don't know what the heck is going on with stocks lately. I am a stock analyst, but I don't have a good answer here. I'm still maxing out my 401k deduction

 

[Rob Battisti]

 

[Rygu]

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/

 

[Rob Battisti]

“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!”

 

[ferrisjso]

When the federal government spends more each year than it collects in tax revenues, it has three choices: It can raise taxes, print money, or borrow money. While these actions may benefit politicians, all three options are bad for average Americans

- Ron Paul

Learn MMT.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Now it’s the people stating it’s 2 quarters of negative growth who are changing the definition

Correct. I posted the NBER's definition from 2008. What is the point of lying when the facts have already been posted?

 

[Jack V Savage]

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

Presidents and fiscal policy don't have nothing to do with GDP. They generally only matter when we're trying to recover from a recession, though. If demand is constrained, we can boost it with the right policies. If it's not, there's not really anything anyone can do.

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/

Did you read the quote? Also, I'm "trying to blame the opposition?"