That article states exactly what I did: "Ignorance about recessions has taken hold because of a simplistic idea that a recession is two successive quarterly declines in gross domestic product (GDP), a measure of the nation's output."
It states the 1974 rule was not two quarters, but over time people forgot to use the rest of the rules. So this completely backs up the "it is not simply 2 quarters" definitions.
>Here's one from 1998 using the 2 month definition.
That's not two month, and it's also not using GDP, which is what people keep wanting it to be. It states "commonly defined as two consecutive quarters of economic contraction" - what is contraction? Decline in many variables, which is what the NBER uses - GDP, and/or GNP, and/or labor markets, and/or sales/purchasing, .....
>Here's the NYT defining it the same way in 1974.
That article also explicitly states that the NBER defines the start and end: "Generally, the designation of recession periods and the beginning and ending dates established by the National Bureau of Economic. Research, a private research agency, are accepted, by both Government and private economists." It then goes on to say how NBER has managed this since the 1920s.
Did you even read those links you posted?
They pretty much back up that the NBER has been the arbiter of recessions in the US.
>politicians, their news allies and political operatives push whichever one is most convenient
Yes politicians do push things that are not true because people ignorant of the correct nuance follow their tribe. But that does not change the truth or underlying fact of the matter.