You just quoted the fact that the NBER defines when is is a recession: "The bureau considers a recession to have occurred when there has been an extended substantial, and widespread decline in aggregate economic activity—or, duration, depth, and diffusion. The bureau has not specified the breakpoints which distinguish recessions from milder slowdowns. Its experts depend rather on comparisons of current cyclical trends with what happened during previous business cycles, a process that involves some qualitative judgment and interpretation of cyclical trends."
Each economic environment may have specific factors that make it a recession or not, and there is not published any simple rule. There is no way you (or I) would be able to understand the nuance they consider - they even state it's based on each event so they can consider the many, many factors before calling one.
Since there is no rule as simple as the two quarter belief, the NYT article does not state such a simplistic rule. A complex rule would be beyond the readership of the NYT, so they would not write it out anyways.
If you really cared to learn, I suspect there's tons of papers, and likely even past meetings minutes, on how each one was decided. If you learn enough to understand those, then you might understand why there is such nuance.
Are we now in agreement that recessions in the US have not been defined according to a simple 2 quarter rule now? And that the NBER has historically been the group of experts that makes the determination? Or do you still disagree that is how it have been done for a long time now?
>Upon further research, it seems pretty shady.
Yes, you cannot remove the conspiracies from someone that really wants one. Your 5 minute research surely surpasses the quality of the rest of the entire profession.
> It's telling that you give them such credence.
I find experts more reliable than uneducated internet mobs.