ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
some people will look at the stock market going up and assume that everything is okay because their equity is going up. all the while, we print more and more money. It dilutes retirement savings and even worse, completely crushes all hopes for the next generation to do better than the previous one. by the time they realize it, it will be too late to matter. inflation numbers are presented differently every period to make it seem like things
So you just repeated your assertion without giving any evidence that it happened. What evidence do you have that the definition of recession changed? It reads the same today as it did when I took economics in college in the mid 2000s.
The upshot is this: it's a period of decline in economic activity. The "official" designation of when recessions occur, start, and end is done by a panel of economists, known as the National Bureau of Economic Research.
The NBER’s Business Cycle Dating Committee defines a recession as “a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in production, employment, real income, and other indicators. A recession begins when the economy reaches a peak of activity and ends when the economy reaches its trough.” Consistent with this definition, the Committee focuses on a comprehensive set of measures—including not only GDP, but also employment, income, sales, and industrial production—to analyze the trends in economic activity.
That was taken from an article that is clearly from the 2010s, found here: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fand....
All of that is still true today. So I have no idea why you think the definition or any part of the process has "changed."
edit: inspecting the document properties of the pdf version shows that the pdf was created in 2017.
So you just repeated your assertion without giving any evidence that it happened. What evidence do you have that the definition of recession changed? It reads the same today as it did when I took economics in college in the mid 2000s.
The upshot is this: it's a period of decline in economic activity. The "official" designation of when recessions occur, start, and end is done by a panel of economists, known as the National Bureau of Economic
so are we talking 2000 definition or 2017 (plandemic incoming) definition?
the definition I was taught in a top100 in the world economics department was 2 consecutive trimesters of negative economic growth. financial market commentators used that (and extended that to the definition of "profit recession" when sp500 profits went down for 2 consecutive quarters).
then Biden and Yellen governed and it was massaged.
but that doesn't matter now, that's a topic from 2022
I suggest you consult the NBER's FAQ page.
https://www.nber.org/research/business-c...
This committee has been doing this since 1978. You can read about their decision making process throughout the years on their website and in their FAQ, linked above.
You might be particularly interested in this part:
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.
Q: Why doesn't the committee accept the two-quarter definition?
A: There are several reasons. First, we do not identify economic activity solely with real GDP, but consider a range of indicators. Second, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. The NBER definition includes the phrase, “a significant decline in economic activity." Thus real GDP could decline by relatively small amounts in two consecutive quarters without warranting the determination that a peak had occurred. Third, our main focus is on the monthly chronology, which requires consideration of monthly indicators. Fourth, in examining the behavior of production on a quarterly basis, where real GDP data are available, we give equal weight to real GDI. The difference between GDP and GDI—called the “statistical discrepancy”—was particularly important in the recessions of 2001 and 2007–2009.
Suffice it to say, simple layman's definitions like "2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP" are not the definition, just a simplistic guideline that is easy for people to understand. The real decision is, and always has been, made by the NBER and uses a lot more indicators.
I guess I stand in the group that doesn't believe the chart or the people that change the definition of a recession in the middle of a recession...
Yes u obviously do .
When did the definition of recession changed and to what definition?
Real gdp growth
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1881...
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rec...
What Is a Recession?
A recession is a significant, widespread, and prolonged downturn in economic activity. A common rule of thumb is that two consecutive quarters of negative gross domestic product (GDP) growth indicate a recession.
It always the same and I know no one qualified that uses factors like sp500 or any things u think they uses .
So based on common knowledge and not on maga invention , no recession yet in the last 2 years .
Ps:but your welcom to post what you think they changed ……..
Yes u obviously do .
When did the definition of recession changed and to what definition?
Real gdp growth
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1881...
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rec...
It always the same and I know no one qualified that uses factors like sp500 or any things u think they uses .
So based on common knowledge and not on maga invention , no recession yet in th
They think 2 quarters of negative GDP means a recession, but that's simply a rough guideline used to explain what a recession is to laymen. The actual determination is made exclusively by the NBER and has been for almost 50 years, and takes a wide variety of indicators into account. Not a thing has changed, but they never understood the concept, just like they never understood what a vaccine is and so they think that definition has been changed, too.
I know that .
But even in general term , 2 negative consecutive quarter is a good proxy that still is valid .
Let’s keep it simple for those who aren’t expert aka vaccine definition too 😀
Like said previously, we know which camp he is .
I know that .
But even in general term , 2 negative consecutive quarter is a good proxy that still is valid .
Let’s keep it simple for those who aren’t expert aka vaccine definition too 😀
Like said previously, we know which camp he is .
Sure, you can point to the 2 consecutive quarters with a negative GDP growth that happened in 2022, but it wasn't a recession according to the NBER since it wasn't a large decline and other economic indicators were very positive. It truly doesn't matter whether it's termed a recession or not, except that they so badly need to say it was for their propaganda. Calling it a recession or not doesn't change a single thing about the economy. It's nothing but a semantic argument to try to justify their propaganda.
Certainly seems to be doing well to me.
Are you old enough to remember 1984 when Ronald Reagan won reelection in a landslide, partially because the economy was doing so well that everyone raved about it?
Currently inflation, unemployment, and mortgage interest numbers are all lower than they were in 1984.
Interest rates are far lower than they were then.
Certainly seems to be doing well to me.
Are you old enough to remember 1984 when Ronald Reagan won reelection in a landslide, partially because the economy was doing so well that everyone raved about it?
Currently inflation, unemployment, and mortgage interest numbers are all lower than they were in 1984.
Interest rates are far lower than they were then.
effectively the same as then
I guess I stand in the group that doesn't believe the chart or the people that change the definition of a recession in the middle of a recession...
I missed this, when did anyone try to change the definition of a recession? What do you think it is?
This is what I was taught in my college economics class in 1987, and it still seems to be the accepted definition:
A period of temporary economic decline during which trade and industrial activity are reduced, generally identified by a fall in GDP in two successive quarters.
I don't know the exact percentage increase, but the same interest rate in 1974 was about 9%.
I don't think this is particularly significant though. Interest rates were kept artificially low during both the Obama and Trump administrations, which was likely not a good thing for the economy in the long term.
Current interest rates are not that high from a historical standpoint. I bought a house at the age of 25 in 1994 when mortgage rates were a little over 8%, and no one then talked about how high the rates were.
A few years later I refinanced at about 6.5%, when everyone was excited about how low they were.
About 25 years ago I fixed a mortage at 8% for 5 years
My first instant access savings account (even longer ago) paid 15% interest
The average mortgage interest rate in the United States in 1984 was 13.88%.
Currently it is 7.57%, almost exactly half that figure.
You have to compare to the recent past to understand why 7.6 is terrible.
If you bought anytime before 2021 and refinanced at the smart time (which was very easy to do), not talking the perfect moment but any decent time, you are under 4%.
Which means if you sell and rebuy you can't buy the same value of housing, do you understand why yes? which means you are either locked where you are, or get hit by a gigantic financial blow
I missed this, when did anyone try to change the definition of a recession? What do you think it is?
This is what I was taught in my college economics class in 1987, and it still seems to be the accepted definition:
A period of temporary economic decline during which trade and industrial activity are reduced, generally identified by a fall in GDP in two successive quarters.
Biden admin in 2022
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said Thursday the U.S. economy is in a state of transition, not recession, despite two consecutive quarters of negative growth.
Biden admin in 2022
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said Thursday the U.S. economy is in a state of transition, not recession, despite two consecutive quarters of negative growth.
Lol, I didn't hear that.
But right now there is definitely no recession under any reasonable definition.
right now there might be something fairly new/unusual, which some analysts call "selective recession"
https://www.businessinsider.com/recessio...
A definition for that can be something like "50%+ of households are experiencing reduced real income"
You have to compare to the recent past to understand why 7.6 is terrible.
If you bought anytime before 2021 and refinanced at the smart time (which was very easy to do), not talking the perfect moment but any decent time, you are under 4%.
Which means if you sell and rebuy you can't buy the same value of housing, do you understand why yes? which means you are either locked where you are, or get hit by a gigantic financial blow
I can see why it makes people less likely to want to sell their house, and that kind of thing does result in some inefficiency. But the same thing would have been true in the early 1980s as well, when rates were jacked up for several years to combat inflation.
And in this case I the real problem is not that rates are unusually high now but that they were unusually low 5 to 10 years ago, which helped to cause real estate prices grow tremendously.
Even before the recent rate increases there were stories everywhere about how young people couldn't afford to buy a house, and more housing was being sold as investment properties.
Hopefully those investments will now be less profitable and the foreign investors will have to start selling some of them at a loss.
But regardless, this had to happen at some point, and it seems likely that this increased rate will not last nearly as long as when they were very high in the late 70s and early 80s.
And when rates start dropping in the next few years, people who buy houses now should be able to refinance at a lower rate. Maybe not at 4%, but likely at something like 6%, which was considered to be a very good rate in the 90s.
