White House Redefines Recession
-
What horseshit.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
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.
"You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
-Cormac McCarthy -
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.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
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.
@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.
-
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.
@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.
-
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.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
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.
@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.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@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.
-
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.
@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…
The Brad
-
@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?
@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.
-
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?"You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
-Cormac McCarthy -
@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.
@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.
-
@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…
@LuFins-Dad said in White House Redefines Recession:
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…
"Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What’s Montague? It is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself."I get Jon's point as to what the "official" definition would be according to NERB. My question stands, however: Why is yesterday the first time I heard the "revised" definition? Yeah, it was "revised" a long time ago, but I never heard it until yesterday.
