White House Redefines Recession
-
@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.
-
@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.
He has half a point. I very much remember the press sticking with the two quarter definition when both Bush administrations made the identical argument Biden is now.
What he’s missing, of course, is any commentary as to whether the right wing press went along with the GOP administration arguments at the time (hint: they did).
Does Mr Erickson think the RW press became propagandists in 90 and again in 2001? He’s oddly silent on that point.
"You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
-Cormac McCarthy -
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?@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
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?I'm sorry, I can't hear you over your deafeningly loud consistency of dissecting the veracity of all anti-Biden narratives.
Education is extremely important.
-
He has half a point. I very much remember the press sticking with the two quarter definition when both Bush administrations made the identical argument Biden is now.
What he’s missing, of course, is any commentary as to whether the right wing press went along with the GOP administration arguments at the time (hint: they did).
Does Mr Erickson think the RW press became propagandists in 90 and again in 2001? He’s oddly silent on that point.
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
What he’s missing, of course, is any commentary as to whether the right wing press went along with the GOP administration arguments at the time (hint: they did).
The "right wing press" is not the White House. I don't recall, and I'll be happy to be corrected , is any statements from the WH saying "nothing to see here, because the definition doesn't apply."
Does Mr Erickson think the RW press became propagandists in 90 and again in 2001? He’s oddly silent on that point.
AFIAK Erickson was 15 years old in 1990, and 26 in 2001. I doubt the WH definitions of economic terms were on his radar at those times. When I was those ages, I was more concerned about (cough) other things.
I suppose that, since he purports himself as a pundit, he should go back 32 and 21 years to examine the press, but to say he's "oddly" silent is a bit of a stretch.
By the way, was there a "RW press 32 years ago?
-
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
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?I'm sorry, I can't hear you over your deafeningly loud consistency of dissecting the veracity of all anti-Biden narratives.
@Horace said in White House Redefines Recession:
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
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?I'm sorry, I can't hear you over your deafeningly loud consistency of dissecting the veracity of all anti-Biden narratives.
Could it be just the hypocritical ones that pretend Biden pioneered the idea of sticking to the technical NBER definition when convenient?
After all, according to you I am Objective (tm)
-
@Horace said in White House Redefines Recession:
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
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?I'm sorry, I can't hear you over your deafeningly loud consistency of dissecting the veracity of all anti-Biden narratives.
Could it be just the hypocritical ones that pretend Biden pioneered the idea of sticking to the technical NBER definition when convenient?
After all, according to you I am Objective (tm)
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
@Horace said in White House Redefines Recession:
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
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?I'm sorry, I can't hear you over your deafeningly loud consistency of dissecting the veracity of all anti-Biden narratives.
Could it be just the hypocritical ones that pretend Biden pioneered the idea of sticking to the technical NBER definition when convenient?
I'm sure you're right. And I'm sure you're motivated to be right about these things when the political valence is in a certain direction.
After all, according to you I am Objective (tm)
I like how you attempt to gaslight the idea that I invented this absurd notion that you attempt to come off as a clear thinking objective person. The only reason you even react against the notion that you try to be that guy, is because I say you try to be that guy. You don't want me to be right about that, so in one post you'll obviously pose as an objective clear thinker on some random subject, and in the next get your shocked face on that I notice. If you couldn't gaslight, you wouldn't be able to shed much light at all.
-
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
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?I'm sorry, I can't hear you over your deafeningly loud consistency of dissecting the veracity of all anti-Biden narratives.
@Horace said in White House Redefines Recession:
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
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?I'm sorry, I can't hear you over your deafeningly loud consistency of dissecting the veracity of all anti-Biden narratives.
Oh, and feel free to correct me when one of my dissections comes up lacking. You can start in this thread if you’d like.
-
@Horace said in White House Redefines Recession:
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
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?I'm sorry, I can't hear you over your deafeningly loud consistency of dissecting the veracity of all anti-Biden narratives.
Oh, and feel free to correct me when one of my dissections comes up lacking. You can start in this thread if you’d like.
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
@Horace said in White House Redefines Recession:
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
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?I'm sorry, I can't hear you over your deafeningly loud consistency of dissecting the veracity of all anti-Biden narratives.
Oh, and feel free to correct me when one of my dissections comes up lacking.
One can provide correct observations always on the same side of an issue, and remain silent about similar observations for the other side.
But I do engage you specifically at times. And when you're unable to prevail, you retreat, with or without ad homs, depending on your mood.
-
Of those two options, how would you categorize your current rejoinder to me in this thread?
-
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
Of those two options, how would you categorize your current rejoinder to me in this thread?
As you please.
-
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
Heh. Maybe next time just retreat. It’s probably more dignified.
We're not even arguing about anything specific. There's nothing to retreat from. Like you retreated when multiple people asked you to define your epithet "Trumpist". (Not for the first time.)
-
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
Heh. Maybe next time just retreat. It’s probably more dignified.
We're not even arguing about anything specific. There's nothing to retreat from. Like you retreated when multiple people asked you to define your epithet "Trumpist". (Not for the first time.)
@Horace said in White House Redefines Recession:
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
Heh. Maybe next time just retreat. It’s probably more dignified.
We're not even arguing about anything specific. There's nothing to retreat from. Like you retreated when multiple people asked you to define your epithet "Trumpist". (Not for the first time.)
Nice dodge. Not unnoticed though.
I’ve defined that for you several times. The first time you came back with “well that’s not how most people define it”. After you Googled ‘autarky’. (For the record today I’d define it psychologically rather than based on policy).
-
@Horace said in White House Redefines Recession:
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
Heh. Maybe next time just retreat. It’s probably more dignified.
We're not even arguing about anything specific. There's nothing to retreat from. Like you retreated when multiple people asked you to define your epithet "Trumpist". (Not for the first time.)
Nice dodge. Not unnoticed though.
I’ve defined that for you several times. The first time you came back with “well that’s not how most people define it”. After you Googled ‘autarky’. (For the record today I’d define it psychologically rather than based on policy).
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
@Horace said in White House Redefines Recession:
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
Heh. Maybe next time just retreat. It’s probably more dignified.
We're not even arguing about anything specific. There's nothing to retreat from. Like you retreated when multiple people asked you to define your epithet "Trumpist". (Not for the first time.)
Nice dodge. Not unnoticed though.
Please specify what I "dodged".
I’ve defined that for you several times. The first time you came back with “well that’s not how most people define it”. After you Googled ‘autarky’. (For the record today I’d define it psychologically rather than based on policy).
I doubt I ever made a claim about how "most people" define "Trumpist". I have no clear idea how most people define it, other than the obvious definition of "Trump supporter". You make some handwavy attempt at distinguishing between someone who preferred him over Hillary, and a Trumpist. So a Trumpist is an "autarkist", that's nice. How does one distinguish an "autarkist"? The task before you, from which you retreated, and from which you will again retreat, was to lay out a set of beliefs such a person holds. I don't suspect many people go around laying claim to a belief in autarchy.
