White House Redefines Recession
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2022, 20:01 last edited by
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2022, 21:34 last edited by
What horseshit.
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2022, 21:39 last edited by
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2022, 22:11 last edited by jon-nyc
Yes and no.
The UK uses that definition, but NBER (who for some reason gets to declare recessions in the US) has always used a more holistic approach. I always figured it was because they like being the gurus who get to define them, rather than have it formulaic.
So the WH isn’t really wrong.
IIRC both Bush administrations (under whom the last pre-Covid recessions occurred) pushed back on the formulaic definition too, pointing to NBER.
A simple check of Wikipedia will confirm this. Worry it was edited recently? Check an old version.
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2022, 22:14 last edited by
That snake oil ain't sellin'.
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2022, 22:17 last edited by
Every factual assertion in my post is objectively true. Cult boy.
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2022, 22:18 last edited by
My problem, Jon, is that all this administration seems to actually do is try to point the finger elsewhere. Covid? Trump's fault. Legislative failure? Manchin's fault. Inflation? Putin's fault.
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2022, 22:19 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
Every factual assertion in my post is objectively true. Cult boy.
You could have brought stone tablets down from the mountain.
It still ain't gonna fly.
-
My problem, Jon, is that all this administration seems to actually do is try to point the finger elsewhere. Covid? Trump's fault. Legislative failure? Manchin's fault. Inflation? Putin's fault.
wrote on 24 Jul 2022, 22:42 last edited by@Mik said in White House Redefines Recession:
My problem, Jon, is that all this administration seems to actually do is try to point the finger elsewhere. Covid? Trump's fault. Legislative failure? Manchin's fault. Inflation? Putin's fault.
True, that. Not sure if Biden was the first President to think of that trick. But true all the same.
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2022, 22:44 last edited by
And the truth is I don't really care whose fault things are. It could be his for that matter and I still don't really care. I care about what his administration plans to do to address the issues.
-
And the truth is I don't really care whose fault things are. It could be his for that matter and I still don't really care. I care about what his administration plans to do to address the issues.
wrote on 24 Jul 2022, 23:02 last edited by@Mik said in White House Redefines Recession:
And the truth is I don't really care whose fault things are. It could be his for that matter and I still don't really care. I care about what his administration plans to do to address the issues.
That's where I think you are different from the majority of Americans. If the economic news stays bad, I don't think they'll care about the Resident's Administrations plans as much as they'll just say throw the bum out.
As Jon says, the buck stops on the President's desk. Rightly or wrongly.
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2022, 23:08 last edited by
All you guys know that I'm no economic guru. And, because I'm not, I've always, for decades, assumed that the "two consecutive quarters of negative growth" was the definition of a recession. I'll have to look back and see where I got that terribly wrong impression.
How I've been misled.
Now, thanks to the White House, I learn that everything I through was wrong.
And, if I was wrong, what about the other jamokes like me who thought that same thing?
It's a sad thing to be ignorant, and kudos to the Biden administration for educating me and setting me on the right path of economic nomenclature.
-
Yes and no.
The UK uses that definition, but NBER (who for some reason gets to declare recessions in the US) has always used a more holistic approach. I always figured it was because they like being the gurus who get to define them, rather than have it formulaic.
So the WH isn’t really wrong.
IIRC both Bush administrations (under whom the last pre-Covid recessions occurred) pushed back on the formulaic definition too, pointing to NBER.
A simple check of Wikipedia will confirm this. Worry it was edited recently? Check an old version.
wrote on 25 Jul 2022, 12:50 last edited by@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
Yes and no.
The UK uses that definition, but NBER (who for some reason gets to declare recessions in the US) has always used a more holistic approach. I always figured it was because they like being the gurus who get to define them, rather than have it formulaic.
Looking up what "holilsic" approaches NBER uses to define a recession, they include.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/recession.asp
- "Economic decline spread over several months" (ie GDP)
- A decline in real wages
- A decline in employment
- A decline in wholesale- retail sales
- A decline in industrial production
I think at least 3 of those boxes are checked.
-
wrote on 25 Jul 2022, 22:57 last edited by
Just heard this: "The old adage in Washington is, 'If you're explaining, you're losing.'"
-
@Mik said in White House Redefines Recession:
And the truth is I don't really care whose fault things are. It could be his for that matter and I still don't really care. I care about what his administration plans to do to address the issues.
That's where I think you are different from the majority of Americans. If the economic news stays bad, I don't think they'll care about the Resident's Administrations plans as much as they'll just say throw the bum out.
As Jon says, the buck stops on the President's desk. Rightly or wrongly.
wrote on 26 Jul 2022, 00:18 last edited by@Jolly said in White House Redefines Recession:
As Jon says, the buck stops on the President's desk. Rightly or wrongly.
Just as the founders intended?
-
All you guys know that I'm no economic guru. And, because I'm not, I've always, for decades, assumed that the "two consecutive quarters of negative growth" was the definition of a recession. I'll have to look back and see where I got that terribly wrong impression.
How I've been misled.
Now, thanks to the White House, I learn that everything I through was wrong.
And, if I was wrong, what about the other jamokes like me who thought that same thing?
It's a sad thing to be ignorant, and kudos to the Biden administration for educating me and setting me on the right path of economic nomenclature.
wrote on 26 Jul 2022, 00:31 last edited by@George-K said in White House Redefines Recession:
All you guys know that I'm no economic guru. And, because I'm not, I've always, for decades, assumed that the "two consecutive quarters of negative growth" was the definition of a recession. I'll have to look back and see where I got that terribly wrong impression.
How I've been misled.
Now, thanks to the White House, I learn that everything I through was wrong.
And, if I was wrong, what about the other jamokes like me who thought that same thing?
It's a sad thing to be ignorant, and kudos to the Biden administration for educating me and setting me on the right path of economic nomenclature.
Two consecutive quarters of negative growth is two consecutive quarters of negative growth, no matter what you call it. The effects are still the same…
-
@Jolly said in White House Redefines Recession:
As Jon says, the buck stops on the President's desk. Rightly or wrongly.
Just as the founders intended?
wrote on 26 Jul 2022, 00:34 last edited by@xenon said in White House Redefines Recession:
@Jolly said in White House Redefines Recession:
As Jon says, the buck stops on the President's desk. Rightly or wrongly.
Just as the founders intended?
You tell me.
-
wrote on 26 Jul 2022, 00:38 last edited by jon-nyc
Unless I’m mistaken, this would be the first recession to start under a democratic administration since Truman. No living TNCR member has lived through a recession that started under a Democratic President.
The previous 11 recessions all started under GOP presidents.
But that’s irrelevant, since the president doesn’t effect these things. Right
Taiwan GirlHorace?Thank you for your attention to this matter.
-
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
Yes and no.
The UK uses that definition, but NBER (who for some reason gets to declare recessions in the US) has always used a more holistic approach. I always figured it was because they like being the gurus who get to define them, rather than have it formulaic.
Looking up what "holilsic" approaches NBER uses to define a recession, they include.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/recession.asp
- "Economic decline spread over several months" (ie GDP)
- A decline in real wages
- A decline in employment
- A decline in wholesale- retail sales
- A decline in industrial production
I think at least 3 of those boxes are checked.
wrote on 26 Jul 2022, 00:38 last edited by@George-K said in White House Redefines Recession:
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
Yes and no.
The UK uses that definition, but NBER (who for some reason gets to declare recessions in the US) has always used a more holistic approach. I always figured it was because they like being the gurus who get to define them, rather than have it formulaic.
Looking up what "holilsic" approaches NBER uses to define a recession, they include.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/recession.asp
- "Economic decline spread over several months" (ie GDP)
- A decline in real wages
- A decline in employment
- A decline in wholesale- retail sales
- A decline in industrial production
I think at least 3 of those boxes are checked.
I’m not sure about that.
*Wages are all over the place, but my bet is that they are likely up year over year…
*Employment levels are still high. Or, unemployment filings are still low…There are a lot of unfilled job postings out there, leading to more wage competition.
*A lot of retail sales are still trying to fill back orders… there may be fewer people making new purchase decisions now but it’s not necessarily being noticed as retailers are filling prior commitments.
