Well I never thought when I made my first comment there would be this big of an argument over a simple definition of recession.
Has there been any negative economic growth? I don't want any long posts about how a bunch of economists and a 2 month old article are talking about a recession without evidence, just answer the question.
The article I posted had this;
Quote:
Also yesterday, Macroeconomic Advisers, a St. Louis consulting firm run by several former Federal Reserve officials, said the US economy barely grew in January and predicted it declined by 0.7 percent in February.
There are no later figures out yet, unless you can find some.
I thought you read the article.
The reason why they say "predicted" is for the same reason why I say that the numbers first released aren't often correct, and are usually called "preliminary, or "predictions", etc, until a couple of months later, when they revise them.
I am not in law school but this was exam week. The tests did not seem to be getting to me, I only had three, but you never know.
This argument over recession has been getting to me more than the tests though. Some people just can't seen to understand what I am trying to say.
Now I will probably get some nasty replies from melgross but oh well. I am starting to think that he is a hopeless case and I am just wasting my time.
Just because I don't agree with what you're saying could easily mean that you are the hopeless case.
I notice that both you and your friend cameronj have felt it necessary to sink to calling me names in order to bolster your weak arguments.
If you want some evidence from the NBER itself (I'm assuming you know what that means, and who they are), they have it on their home page
Quote:
The NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. Rather, a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.
I am not in law school but this was exam week. The tests did not seem to be getting to me, I only had three, but you never know.
This argument over recession has been getting to me more than the tests though. Some people just can't seen to understand what I am trying to say.
Now I will probably get some nasty replies from melgross but oh well. I am starting to think that he is a hopeless case and I am just wasting my time.
I understand what you're trying to say. Understanding is not the same as agreeing. While you are right, my point is that I see it as unnecessary pedantry.
My interpretation is that just calling it a recession now is shorthand for "we're probably now entering what we will see as a recession in six months" because they believe that's the most likely way it's going to work.
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the difference between technical and layman usage of terms.
For instance, there is a technical definition of the word "solution" in regard to the mixing of substances. However, almost nobody uses the term in a purely technical context. Loosely using it to refer to any mixture of liquids is generally considered correct.
The same can be said for the term "recession". To most people, it simply means a period of time when people are not doing well financially.
This exact phenomenon is true in everything from body piercing to neurology. Hint, not all "piercing" is technically "piercing". But what's the point in making this distinction in most contexts? Communication is not always best accomplished with strict technical definitions. At times, strict usage actually obscures the topic at hand, rather than leading to more effective communication.
I know this doesn't sit well with technically minded geeks who abhor gray areas, who hate ambiguity. But until another suitable term comes into common usage, using "recession" in a loose sense is the only logical thing to do.
When someone says "we're in a recession", they mean that people are doing bad financially, not that there have been two consecutive quarters of blah blah blah. The real argument is about the state of our economy, not about a single metric to which a technical definition is tied.
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the difference between technical and layman usage of terms.
For instance, there is a technical definition of the word "solution" in regard to the mixing of substances. However, almost nobody uses the term in a purely technical context. Loosely using it to refer to any mixture of liquids is generally considered correct.
The same can be said for the term "recession". To most people, it simply means a period of time when people are not doing well financially.
This exact phenomenon is true in everything from body piercing to neurology. Hint, not all "piercing" is technically "piercing". But what's the point in making this distinction in most contexts? Communication is not always best accomplished with strict technical definitions. At times, strict usage actually obscures the topic at hand, rather than leading to more effective communication.
I know this doesn't sit well with technically minded geeks who abhor gray areas, who hate ambiguity. But until another suitable term comes into common usage, using "recession" in a loose sense is the only logical thing to do.
When someone says "we're in a recession", they mean that people are doing bad financially, not that there have been two consecutive quarters of blah blah blah. The real argument is about the state of our economy, not about a single isolated metric to which a technical definition is tied.
That's basically true, the body that decides whether we have had an "official" recession doesn't use the term two quarters of negitive, or declining GDP. They specifically say that they don't use that metric, so I don't know what this argument is all about. I pointed this out in my above post, which links directly to their web site. So if you want to be correct about this, you must defer to them, as they are the ones who decide.
There has never been an official definition of recession. It's true that writers, who are themselves not working economists, or professors in universities teaching economics, often use that definition, but those who do work in the field are more cautious. There are plenty of reasons for that.
I wish you had said in the beginning that you thought a recession was just a few months of an economy that was not doing the best, if you had we would have had nothing to argue about. I would have agreed that the national economy is not doing the best.
Quote:
I notice that both you and your friend cameronj have felt it necessary to sink to calling me names in order to bolster your weak arguments.
If you thought I was calling you names, I did not mean to. I was just trying to get a straight answer.
I guess some people are not as picky about definitions as I am. I was not trying to be mean or belligerent I was just trying to clarify something that is not able to be clarified because too many people have too many different opinions.
I hope this ends this, this has gone on way too long.
I wish you had said in the beginning that you thought a recession was just a few months of an economy that was not doing the best, if you had we would have had nothing to argue about. I would have agreed that the national economy is not doing the best.
If you thought I was calling you names, I did not mean to. I was just trying to get a straight answer.
I guess some people are not as picky about definitions as I am. I was not trying to be mean or belligerent I was just trying to clarify something that is not able to be clarified because too many people have too many different opinions.
I hope this ends this, this has gone on way too long.
No hard feelings?
I never hold it against anyone for disagreeing with me, even if they do get past a point I'm happy with.
Comments
Well I never thought when I made my first comment there would be this big of an argument over a simple definition of recession.
Has there been any negative economic growth? I don't want any long posts about how a bunch of economists and a 2 month old article are talking about a recession without evidence, just answer the question.
The article I posted had this;
Also yesterday, Macroeconomic Advisers, a St. Louis consulting firm run by several former Federal Reserve officials, said the US economy barely grew in January and predicted it declined by 0.7 percent in February.
There are no later figures out yet, unless you can find some.
I thought you read the article.
The reason why they say "predicted" is for the same reason why I say that the numbers first released aren't often correct, and are usually called "preliminary, or "predictions", etc, until a couple of months later, when they revise them.
But, that's the best out now with actual numbers.
I am not in law school but this was exam week. The tests did not seem to be getting to me, I only had three, but you never know.
This argument over recession has been getting to me more than the tests though. Some people just can't seen to understand what I am trying to say.
Now I will probably get some nasty replies from melgross but oh well. I am starting to think that he is a hopeless case and I am just wasting my time.
Just because I don't agree with what you're saying could easily mean that you are the hopeless case.
I notice that both you and your friend cameronj have felt it necessary to sink to calling me names in order to bolster your weak arguments.
If you want some evidence from the NBER itself (I'm assuming you know what that means, and who they are), they have it on their home page
The NBER does not define a recession in terms of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. Rather, a recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales.
For your amusement:
http://www.nber.org/cycles.html
I have more if you're interested.
I am not in law school but this was exam week. The tests did not seem to be getting to me, I only had three, but you never know.
This argument over recession has been getting to me more than the tests though. Some people just can't seen to understand what I am trying to say.
Now I will probably get some nasty replies from melgross but oh well. I am starting to think that he is a hopeless case and I am just wasting my time.
I understand what you're trying to say. Understanding is not the same as agreeing. While you are right, my point is that I see it as unnecessary pedantry.
My interpretation is that just calling it a recession now is shorthand for "we're probably now entering what we will see as a recession in six months" because they believe that's the most likely way it's going to work.
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the difference between technical and layman usage of terms.
For instance, there is a technical definition of the word "solution" in regard to the mixing of substances. However, almost nobody uses the term in a purely technical context. Loosely using it to refer to any mixture of liquids is generally considered correct.
The same can be said for the term "recession". To most people, it simply means a period of time when people are not doing well financially.
This exact phenomenon is true in everything from body piercing to neurology. Hint, not all "piercing" is technically "piercing". But what's the point in making this distinction in most contexts? Communication is not always best accomplished with strict technical definitions. At times, strict usage actually obscures the topic at hand, rather than leading to more effective communication.
I know this doesn't sit well with technically minded geeks who abhor gray areas, who hate ambiguity. But until another suitable term comes into common usage, using "recession" in a loose sense is the only logical thing to do.
When someone says "we're in a recession", they mean that people are doing bad financially, not that there have been two consecutive quarters of blah blah blah. The real argument is about the state of our economy, not about a single metric to which a technical definition is tied.
Regarding whether we are in a recession...
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the difference between technical and layman usage of terms.
For instance, there is a technical definition of the word "solution" in regard to the mixing of substances. However, almost nobody uses the term in a purely technical context. Loosely using it to refer to any mixture of liquids is generally considered correct.
The same can be said for the term "recession". To most people, it simply means a period of time when people are not doing well financially.
This exact phenomenon is true in everything from body piercing to neurology. Hint, not all "piercing" is technically "piercing". But what's the point in making this distinction in most contexts? Communication is not always best accomplished with strict technical definitions. At times, strict usage actually obscures the topic at hand, rather than leading to more effective communication.
I know this doesn't sit well with technically minded geeks who abhor gray areas, who hate ambiguity. But until another suitable term comes into common usage, using "recession" in a loose sense is the only logical thing to do.
When someone says "we're in a recession", they mean that people are doing bad financially, not that there have been two consecutive quarters of blah blah blah. The real argument is about the state of our economy, not about a single isolated metric to which a technical definition is tied.
That's basically true, the body that decides whether we have had an "official" recession doesn't use the term two quarters of negitive, or declining GDP. They specifically say that they don't use that metric, so I don't know what this argument is all about. I pointed this out in my above post, which links directly to their web site. So if you want to be correct about this, you must defer to them, as they are the ones who decide.
There has never been an official definition of recession. It's true that writers, who are themselves not working economists, or professors in universities teaching economics, often use that definition, but those who do work in the field are more cautious. There are plenty of reasons for that.
I notice that both you and your friend cameronj have felt it necessary to sink to calling me names in order to bolster your weak arguments.
If you thought I was calling you names, I did not mean to. I was just trying to get a straight answer.
I guess some people are not as picky about definitions as I am. I was not trying to be mean or belligerent I was just trying to clarify something that is not able to be clarified because too many people have too many different opinions.
I hope this ends this, this has gone on way too long.
No hard feelings?
I wish you had said in the beginning that you thought a recession was just a few months of an economy that was not doing the best, if you had we would have had nothing to argue about. I would have agreed that the national economy is not doing the best.
If you thought I was calling you names, I did not mean to. I was just trying to get a straight answer.
I guess some people are not as picky about definitions as I am. I was not trying to be mean or belligerent I was just trying to clarify something that is not able to be clarified because too many people have too many different opinions.
I hope this ends this, this has gone on way too long.
No hard feelings?
I never hold it against anyone for disagreeing with me, even if they do get past a point I'm happy with.
I'm not one to hold grudges.
No hard feelings.