Economy
- Thread starter Kyle
- Start date
I would say President Gump, but then that would be a disservice to Forrest.
You knew they were talking out both sides of their mouths when they were saying AHEAD OF THE REPORT, that two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth was not necessarily a recession. Strange, because that is PRECISELY how it's been defined all my life, and many of those denying it now HAD, IN THE PAST, voiced that very definition. It's also been that the END of a recession occurs after four quarters of POSITIVE growth - which still remains to elude me, because the "Great Recession" was declared 'over' long before THAT occurred.
I get why they're reluctant to use the language - during Bush's last year, the economy tanked but picked up at the beginning of the campaign season. Everyone said hey, we're in a recession and the White House said nah, not happening - hey we had POSITIVE growth this last quarter. Then it tanked again for a YEAR.
The economists were saying what we all felt and knew - the economy was in big trouble.
Right now we're seeing something similar - the whole nation knows it's paying more for everything. Some prices ARE in fact falling, because consumer reaction to rapidly escalating prices has been to quickly pull back purchases. Some parts of the economy have seen MASSIVE increases in prices.
I still can't grasp why there are so many who think it's all corporations massively colluding to spike their prices just to screw the American consumer and line their pockets. No, the time to do THAT is when the economy is soaring. Because then, American consumers HAVE money to take. Many years ago, when I was in Addis Ababa in Ethiopia, it was revealed to us that there's very little robbery or property crime in the city - BECAUSE NO ONE HAS ANYTHING. You'd starve if you tried to make a living stealing from people. You don't collude to screw consumers when they're broke and their effective wage is FALLING.
I get why they're reluctant to use the language - during Bush's last year, the economy tanked but picked up at the beginning of the campaign season. Everyone said hey, we're in a recession and the White House said nah, not happening - hey we had POSITIVE growth this last quarter. Then it tanked again for a YEAR.
The economists were saying what we all felt and knew - the economy was in big trouble.
Right now we're seeing something similar - the whole nation knows it's paying more for everything. Some prices ARE in fact falling, because consumer reaction to rapidly escalating prices has been to quickly pull back purchases. Some parts of the economy have seen MASSIVE increases in prices.
I still can't grasp why there are so many who think it's all corporations massively colluding to spike their prices just to screw the American consumer and line their pockets. No, the time to do THAT is when the economy is soaring. Because then, American consumers HAVE money to take. Many years ago, when I was in Addis Ababa in Ethiopia, it was revealed to us that there's very little robbery or property crime in the city - BECAUSE NO ONE HAS ANYTHING. You'd starve if you tried to make a living stealing from people. You don't collude to screw consumers when they're broke and their effective wage is FALLING.
HemiHauler
Well-Known Member
Nope.
Current methodology has been in place since 2008.
LightRoasted
If I may ...
For your consideration ...
For reference, below is the saving time frames for somd.com which begins in 1996!
It's a BS made up article. Only started being saved in October 26, 2020 and supposedly created in 2008? Sure. In addition, I give no credence to a website that states "NBER periodicals and newsletters are not copyrighted and may be reproduced freely with appropriate attribution." Huh? Nothing is for free, except for propaganda. So an organization writes drivel, which can be used by any supposed MSM outlet, without the need to pay for it? This is how you know it is BS narrative changing gaslighting propaganda. It begins with ... "It has been reported from a reliable source ........."Nope.
Current methodology has been in place since 2008.
For reference, below is the saving time frames for somd.com which begins in 1996!
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
Covid and bad advice from Faucci ruined the Trump economy.
The democrats will not admit we are in a recession with an election only a couple of months away.
Inflation and higher prices are what the money giveaway's and fossil fuel cut backs by Biden has given us.
It isn't that hard to understand.
What is hard to understand is why Biden did this. He blamed it on the environment, but Saudi gas is just as hard on the environment as ours and yet he wants to buy their with our dollars instead of giving those dollars to American oil companies. And only God knows why he opened the Border.
HemiHauler
Well-Known Member
Nope.
Current methodology has been in place since 2008.
The general "two quarters negative, four quarters positive" rule of thumb has been the most commonly used indicator at least since Gerry Ford's administration (because that's the earliest I remember). There is also the fact that members of the current administration and the Democratic party have been quick to use that rule when it was the Republican party in charge. The NBER may be well known for their opinion on whether a national economy is in recession, but that metric has been fairly accurate for a long time.
I'm not disagreeing with you, per se. I recall several moments in the past where the people most likely to be BLAMED for one disputed that rule, and pointed to several economic indicators which defied the opinion - most notably, the period of time just before "the great recession" and the sub prime mortgage mess where we did NOT have two consecutive quarters of negative growth - but anyone with a paycheck or a stock portfolio kind of knew it. Kind of like engineers on the Titanic saying they're not going to hit - when it was already a foregone conclusion.
LightRoasted
If I may ...
For your consideration ...
Even in their "2008" FAQ they say, [bold for emphasis]
"Q: The financial press often states the definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. How does that relate to the NBER's recession dating procedure?
A: "Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them."Our procedure differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we consider the depth as well as the duration of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, "a significant decline in economic activity." Second, we use a broader array of indicators than just real GDP. One reason for this is that the GDP data are subject to considerable revision. Third, we use monthly indicators to arrive at a monthly chronology.
Then in 2021 they changed their question and the answer:
Q: The financial press often states the definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. How does that relate to the NBER's recession dates?
A: Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more consecutive quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them. In 2001, for example, the recession did not include two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. In the recession from the peak in December 2007 to the trough in June 2009, real GDP declined in the first, third, and fourth quarters of 2008 and in the first and second quarters of 2009. Real GDI declined for the final three quarters of 2001 and for five of the six quarters in the 2007–2009 recession.
So their "opinion" and methods, changes with the wind.
You think that regular people do not realize, feel the effects of, and don't see that they are losing financial ground due to a deteriorating economy? You may be slightly correct in your post, but are incorrect in its application using it only as a gotcha to gaslight the uninformed and gullible.
Regardless. You want everyone to take the word of one outlier group that no one has ever heard of before to that of which is observed everyday, and hasn't been the standard definition since, ever?
Even in their "2008" FAQ they say, [bold for emphasis]
"Q: The financial press often states the definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. How does that relate to the NBER's recession dating procedure?
A: "Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them."Our procedure differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we consider the depth as well as the duration of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, "a significant decline in economic activity." Second, we use a broader array of indicators than just real GDP. One reason for this is that the GDP data are subject to considerable revision. Third, we use monthly indicators to arrive at a monthly chronology.
Then in 2021 they changed their question and the answer:
Q: The financial press often states the definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. How does that relate to the NBER's recession dates?
A: Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more consecutive quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them. In 2001, for example, the recession did not include two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. In the recession from the peak in December 2007 to the trough in June 2009, real GDP declined in the first, third, and fourth quarters of 2008 and in the first and second quarters of 2009. Real GDI declined for the final three quarters of 2001 and for five of the six quarters in the 2007–2009 recession.
So their "opinion" and methods, changes with the wind.
You think that regular people do not realize, feel the effects of, and don't see that they are losing financial ground due to a deteriorating economy? You may be slightly correct in your post, but are incorrect in its application using it only as a gotcha to gaslight the uninformed and gullible.
Well Nancy's little stop over to check on her investments has brought out news that China will slowdown shipments to the US causing even more supply problems. Then on the news last night was a story about the Saudi's cutting oil production in the next couple of months. Maybe they felt a little insulted over the fist bump and not a hand shake . 
Sneakers
Just sneakin' around....
Just heard OPEC increased production by 100,000 barrels a day. Insignificant in the big scheme of things tho.
Joes desparate to have SOMETHING lower the gas prices, even by pennies, before the election.
Hessian
Well-Known Member
Tempted to call this stagflation...but that definition does not fit. We are in yet a different 'variant'...where millions LEAVE the workforce, creating hiring shortages (thus touted as a booming economy by the WH spokesthing)...
Meanwhile fuel prices cripple key industries...and force people to stop buying products...which will lead to a glut,...and priced must decline to luring in consumers.
In addition, the government prints Argentinian amounts of dollars and forces businesses to pay 15.00+/hour...creating ridiculous inflation.
The economy is actually like a foreign visitor walking into a remote health clinic with an infection from the Tse-Tse fly...and the few hospital staff available each prescribe diverse treatments based on a local shingles outbreak....the cures do not relate to the symptoms AT ALL.
So..recession? yes...but a weird variant that DC has NO CLUE how to handle...but they have figured out how to make it worse.
Meanwhile fuel prices cripple key industries...and force people to stop buying products...which will lead to a glut,...and priced must decline to luring in consumers.
In addition, the government prints Argentinian amounts of dollars and forces businesses to pay 15.00+/hour...creating ridiculous inflation.
The economy is actually like a foreign visitor walking into a remote health clinic with an infection from the Tse-Tse fly...and the few hospital staff available each prescribe diverse treatments based on a local shingles outbreak....the cures do not relate to the symptoms AT ALL.
So..recession? yes...but a weird variant that DC has NO CLUE how to handle...but they have figured out how to make it worse.
Please try again !Nope.
Current methodology has been in place since 2008.
The price of regular at Callaway Shell today (5 cents off Thursday) is $3.96/gal. Thank you Joe Biden!!!
:ducksandruns:
:ducksandruns:
BOP
Well-Known Member
Thanks for that, nonothing.