[pgrote]

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.

[kevstev]

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.

[NovemberWhiskey]

>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.

[chrisco255]

> 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.

[pgrote]

>That's not how recessions work.

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.

I hope that helps explain my thoughts.