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.
@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.
-
@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.
And you would be wrong.
Again, though, today I would define Magatry more (though not exclusively) in psychological terms.
"You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
-Cormac McCarthy -
And you would be wrong.
Again, though, today I would define Magatry more (though not exclusively) in psychological terms.
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
And you would be wrong.
I can't access that board anymore.
You can search for this post, but you can't specify what I dodged? Are you not participating in this discussion in good faith? That would be shocking.
Education is extremely important.
-
And you would be wrong.
Again, though, today I would define Magatry more (though not exclusively) in psychological terms.
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
Again, though, today I would define Magatry more (though not exclusively) in psychological terms.
What would those psychological terms be? Is Magatry synonymous with Trumpism?
Obviously we are only discussing your personal definitions, since "common" definitions of these terms do not exist, except in tribes, and only then as base insults.
-
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
And you would be wrong.
I can't access that board anymore.
You can search for this post, but you can't specify what I dodged? Are you not participating in this discussion in good faith? That would be shocking.
@Horace said in White House Redefines Recession:
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
And you would be wrong.
I can't access that board anymore.
You can search for this post, but you can't specify what I dodged? Are you not participating in this discussion in good faith? That would be shocking.
I was able to log in. Yes, we had a good discussion, at least from my side. You didn't understand my points then, and you won't now, though. I made several good ones.
-
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:
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.
George - it’s nice that Reuters is being consistent.
-
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
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.
George - it’s nice that Reuters is being consistent.
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
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.
George - it’s nice that Reuters is being consistent.
With no sense of what they said two years ago....
No, we're not in a recession, Biden administration tells U.S. voters
The U.S. economy is plagued by inflation and suffering from fallout from Russia's war in Ukraine - but it's not in recession. That's the message from White House officials.
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, economic adviser Brian Deese and Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo have spoken out in recent days ahead of data on Thursday that may show that gross domestic product (GDP) shrank from April to June. The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta’s GDP forecast suggests a 1.6% decline. That would mark the second quarter of GDP decline in a row.
While a broad rule of thumb holds that two consecutive quarters of GDP drops signal a recession, the strong U.S. job market means this may be the rare moment when that is not enough for economists to declare the world’s largest economy in recession.
The White House pushback against recession talk is about more than semantics. Talking about recession can become a self-fulfilling prophecy as businesses and consumers, concerned that tougher times are ahead, cut back on spending and investment plans.
Semantics didn't apply to Japan, apparently.
-
One story was written by Reuters US, one by Reuters Japan. Could simply be that Japan (like, say, the UK) defines it as 2Q negative GDP growth.
@jon-nyc said in White House Redefines Recession:
One story was written by Reuters US, one by Reuters Japan. Could simply be that Japan (like, say, the UK) defines it as 2Q negative GDP growth.
Fair enough.
So, let's stay with one reporter. The economics reporter for Politico, Ben White:
"IOW, ignore what I said two years ago, it's 'vexing'."
My point is simple. You're right in that what defines a recession is more complex than simply two bad quarters, according to NEBR. Why haven't I been told that, until now?
Either Ben White is ignorant about what a recession is, or he was ignorant about what a recession is. In either case, how is it that he does economics for Politico?
-
https://morningconsult.com/2022/07/13/recession-outlook-us-economy-data/
If perception is reality in politics, 65% of Americans do not agree with the Resident or Jon.
