Kind of amazing how this administration isn’t getting the kind of ridicule that would be expected if the previous administration tried to deny a recession was happening according to the objective definition by including a subjective qualifier.
It's fairly obvious there are political bias in american media and always has been. If your party is hostile to increasing federal government or regulatory capture you will be under a microscope and even sacrifice some credibility to attack you, otherwise you can bumble around, redefine common terms, deflect and mislead and have the entirety of relevant and 'trusted' media sources run cover for you indefinitely.
Even just 15 years ago it was nowhere this overt or coordinated. The turning point seems to be shortly after JournoList and CabalList started when different independent media organizations began to collude to push a unified "narrative" rather than the truth.
They are basing it off facts. The NBER is the one who defines a recessions. They haven't done so (that I'm aware of) as of right now.
It might be that it will eventually be the case, but the arbitrator of this hasn't ruled on it.
Calling it a recession officially now would be the alternate fact.
Basically, it's like how someone can be guilty of something, but you still have to say "alleged" before referencing the crime.
Yes, you might have a million witnesses, but they aren't guilty until they are guilty.
And I'd much rather have a government that abides by these rules than not. Offhanded remarks based on willful disregard to order should not be encouraged.
That the definition of a recession has always been 2 quarters of negative GDP. The administration now believes there is nuance in the numbers, so what was the accepted definition in the past is no longer.
The fact the media on whole has decided it's ok to redefine a commonly accepted definition when the administration promotes it lends itself to the media being a mouthpiece for the administration.
I am willing to understand nuance and a changing definition, as I am sure there are parts of the economy people are learning to deal with. Gig workers, workers headed back from retirement and more. This doesn't even touch on the self fulfilling prophecy of hearing that the country is in a recession.
I am less willing to accept a change in a short timeframe and right before numbers are released.
I mean I hear you on "changing the definition" from the commonly accepted two quarters of declining GDP numbers- though that was never actually official, you are mistaken about that- the NBER is the "official" source and they declare it based on a range of factors that there is some subjectiveness to- its not a direct formula.
However, wouldn't you agree there is nuance here?
In Q4, GDP rose 6.9%, a number so big that we haven't seen that in decades- it appears around the early 1980s was the last time we saw those kinds of numbers. There has been a lot of whipsaw effects as we get out of covid- supply chains are all over the place, companies placing orders to get goods in to avoid snarls, only to now find that demand for goods, which boomed during the pandemic, has now eased as people have reverted to spending on going out and traveling, etc... There seems to be a lot of mismatch in supply and demand again.
The unemployment rate is at 3.6%- an astonishingly low number- these lows were last seen in the 1960s and 1970s.
On the flipside, inflation is high, gas prices are high and that hurts a lot of people- I live in a city, so this is mostly irrelevant and driven by forces out of anyone in the US govt's control.
There is evidence of some rockier times ahead, but when I think "recession" I think of a lot more pain than what we are currently experiencing.
>That the definition of a recession has always been 2 quarters of negative GDP.
Well, if you want to be specific, the NBER (which calls the game on what is a recession or not) defines it as "a significant decline in economic activity that is spread across the economy and that lasts more than a few months."
The "two quarters of declining real GDP" (GDP increased by 7.8% in nominal terms) is the pop-economics yardstick.
Are you aware we had a recession in 2001? And yet that managed to happen without having two consecutive quarters of negative GDP.
> This doesn't even touch on the self fulfilling prophecy of hearing that the country is in a recession.
That's not how recessions work. There is always people predicting a recession and always people predicting a turnaround or growth. It's quite simple, however, to engineer a recession when you raise interest rates for such a heavily indebted economy.
I am unsure the point you are making. My point was related to mindset and I should have clarified. If a group of people, normal non economic expert citizens, believe a recession is here they change their behavior. The media plays a part in amplifying it. At that point it doesn't matter what is happening at a macro economic level.
I am for introducing nuance to the judgement of a recession or not. I am not for doing it right before numbers are released the admin saying, "Well, there is nuance in the determination" before the numbers are released. At best all you are doing is introducing confusion to the non economic expert citizens and at worst you are attempting to gaslight people.
The news media is not nearly as objective as they claim to be. And, they exercise a considerable amount of discretion when it comes to either amplifying a potential controversy or downplaying it.
Yes, BBC isn't moderate just like NPR isn't moderate anymore. May be in the 20th century, BBC and NPR were neutral. But, that's clearly and indisputedly not true anymore. They're all left leaning.
Get used to it. We're back to the status quo (of incompetent media). In fact, it was the same for the previous admin, just in a different way.
The System doesn't like outsiders. If you haven't paid your dues, sucked up, kissed the ring, etc. then you're marginalized. Put another way, how would it look if someone with no experience was decently effective? Say about as effective as the current highly experienced (politician) that's POTUS?
I'm no fan of Don T, but given humam nature and The System, he was doomed to "fail" no matter what. As in, perception is reality (and most people now have a bias that isn't going to change).
It's worth adding - especially for the down voters - that prior to leaving The Daily Show, Jon Stewart was the most trusted source for news for a fair percentage of the population. The channel for TDS was on...Comedy Central.
Believing in the mainstream media is the adult equivalent of believing in Santa Claus.
Government forcing people out of their jobs and then allowing them to come back into the work force is not job growth in the sense of anything meaningful. So no it probably hasn't been seen before, but it's irrelevant, if I took your 10 dollars today and gave you back 8 dollars next week, your bank account isn't growing unless you only look at this weeks balance and choose to ignore the extremely recent past.
That doesn't make sense since employment is near capacity right now and the worker shortage is still very real. Mind you this is now long after all the covid benefits have dried up.
Employment is higher than it was before Covid and unemployment is down at around the same level. To put it in terms of your metaphor, the bank has given you back $10.10 or so for your $10.
But when you give back the $8, you just need to tell them that "bank account growth" only matters week to week. Boom, they're now $8 richer thanks to you!
According to many of Biden's economic advisers, it is.
For example:
"Of course economists have a technical definition of recession, which is two consecutive quarters of negative growth."
-- The head of Biden's National Economic Council, in a past life, apparently.
You can find many other examples in the past of his advisors defining a recession as two quarters of negative GDP. And you can find many examples in the past of the press defining a recession as two quarters of negative growth.
"two negative quarters in a row is a standard indicator for an economic recession."
Is this not the same thing as ‘alternate facts’?