Hacker News Reader

Comment by cjpearson | Hacker News Reader

The "textbook definition" may be two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, but it's worth noting that NBER does not use that formula and instead looks at a variety of factors when determining periods of recession.

https://www.nber.org/business-cycle-dating-procedure-frequen...

View on HN

Exactly. We should 100% expect the same inflation narrative to be reused for recession:

In chronological order of what I expect the White House, Treasury, and Fed to say:

By most definitions we are not in a recession.

Our exports agree we are not in a recession.

We are in a recession by most definitions, but it is mild and transitory.

We are in a recession, but it is mild and transitory.

We are in a recession but it is transitory.

We are in a recession, but not a depression.

By most definitions we are not in a depression . . . and so on.

Ok, fine, we're in a depression. But here's 10 reasons why that's a Good Thing.

Ok fine, we're in a depression. But it's the millennials' fault.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/15/millennials-are-to-blame-for...

I thought it was because nobody wants to work.

Normally I dislike these kinds of quippy follow-up comments, but I think they're pretty prescient in this context. I'm tired of obviously bad things being presented with an 'and that's a good thing!' suffix.

Bernanke on the Great Depression: "Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."

https://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/2002/20021...

Do you know if Greenspan made any remarks explaining why he changed his mind about the gold standard[0] and embraced interest rate intervention?

[0]https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/...

Top 10 tricks to survive the depression and why it starts with block chain.

Nothing new, remember the news back in 2008: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c5/32/f3/c532f3a2a4dead26e234...

As late as July 2008, "Our economy has got very strong long-term fundamentals, solid fundamental. And you know, your policy-makers here, regulators, we're very vigilant." -Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson

This was 2 months after Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and RBS had a combined total 83 Billion loss/writedown.

Of course 2 months later, he and the Fed Reserve Board Chairman purpose a $700 Billion plan to stabilize the economy.

So, either they are lying through their teeth or asleep at the wheel.

*There is a better graphic that was on Reddit/Internet at the time that showed all the denials but I can't find it now.

I'm not sure why anyone is looking to the Fed, of all organizations, to telegraph a recession.

Out of all the possible announcements they could make, even if they were 100% certain the economy is headed for a downturn, the absolute worst would be "We expect a recession in the next 6 months."

Part of the Fed's job is to keep the economy balanced, and a huge part of that job is messaging and weighing the likely effect of the message vs the desired effect the Fed wants.

So they're not in the business of lying... but they're also not in the business of loudly trumpeting pessimism from the rooftops.

I think it is entirely accurate right now though that we aren't yet in a recession.

Interest rates are still low, the yield curve is only flirting with inversion and there hasn't been any negative employment numbers.

Which means that it is accurate to state that if we're going to hit a severe recession/depression (and I think the Fed is 100% telegraphing that they're going to cause one in order to depress wages) then the worst is still to come.

It is being a little bit too cynical to just wave this off as entirely propaganda to cover over the economic conditions.

And you missed all the talk of a "soft landing" followed by a "v-shaped recovery".

IOW: we've had 2 quarters of negative GDP growth and we're not even in a recession yet, so buckle up...

By the Sahm rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahm_Rule) we are not in a recession. Another way to look at it is that this would be the first recession ever to occur with unemployment rates are as low as they are.

NBER seems to emphasize changes in Real Personal Income and the unemployment rate when they identify recessions.

As they rightly should. That’s what most people intuitively think of as a recession.

Do periods of war, disease, and famine typically get noted by wether there is a recession? In many cases I suspect it would be assumed that there is one. Or does the increased spending from government’s combating crises usually gloss over the recession?

I believe when the entire global economy is wholly dependent on a single resource (oil) and that resource experiences even the slightest disturbance, whatever you believe is the cause of it, the most likely outcome is a global recession.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com