Anyone who says otherwise is likely just doing so for political reasons, as it's also an election year here in the United States, but to do so they'd have to literally change the definition of recession (they're trying but it's not working).
But despite that not being how we've always determined recessions here, if you read the reply above, the user has literally invented a political conspiracy about their ignorance about economics. The layman's definition isn't right? It's more complicated than a one-liner on the news? No! It's a conspiracy!
This is EXACTLY how the propaganda is designed to affect them. Empower the ignorance such that layman's understanding is the only valid understanding, impugn the experts until economics is nothing more than an election year conspiracy.
For anyone interested in the truth of how recessions have been determined in the United States for the past sixty years, it's only about three paragraphs of information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bureau_of_Economic_Re...
You need only to glance at the markets to see the reality of the situation we are in.
The argument the WH made for us not being in a recession is that employment is high. That situation is quickly changing.
> The NBER uses a broader definition of a recession than commonly appears in the media. A definition of a recession commonly used in the media is two consecutive quarters of a shrinking gross domestic product (GDP). In contrast, the NBER defines a recession as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales". Business cycle dates are determined by the NBER dating committee. Typically, these dates correspond to peaks and troughs in real GDP, although not always so.
...
> Though not listed by the NBER, another factor in favor of this alternate definition is that a long term economic contraction may not always have two consecutive quarters of negative growth, as was the case in the recession following the bursting of the dot-com bubble.
There are ZERO changes or decision anyone can make (including policy) based on whoever's definition of recession is.
It's really weird that humans come up with these arbitrary definitions that doesn't matter but choose that hill to die on.
Thought experiment: Knowing and feeling all the economic news around you, what decision would you make if (or what decision should policy makers make)
a) we are in some arbitrary definition of Recession?
b) we are not in some arbitrary definition of Recession?
There really is none
Which we have right now. But don't trust objective observations of reality. Just Trust the Experts™ and call anyone who disagrees a conspiracy theorist.
> real GDP
> real income
real income is down ~1% since Sept 2020 or Sept 2021 [1]. hardly seems like a "significant decline".
> employment
employment has increased since Sept 2020 or Sept 2021 [2] and infact has been steadily increasing since April 2020.
> industrial production
industrial production has increased since Sept 2020 or Sept 2021 [3] and infact has been steadily increasing since April 2020.
> wholesale-retail sales
retail sales has increased since Sept 2020 or Sept 2021 [4] and infact has been steadily increasing since April 2020.
so 1 of 5 indicators shows significant decline, 1 shows minor decline, 3 show increase.
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RPI
[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PAYEMS
That there could and should be some more sophisticated, objective definition of a recession than “two years of GDP decline” isn’t in question. But, at least according to your own source, NBER fails to provide that definition and is commonly criticized for is subjectivity during political years.
1/5 indicators shows significant decline (real GDP) I'll give you. but 1/5 is slight decline (real income 1% down), the other 3 (employment, industrial production, retail sales) are up. this is based on data available from FRED, do you have data showing otherwise?
links at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33032470#33036403
It didn't have two quarters of real GDP growth, but it did have massive job losses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_Unit...
Looked at national review, can't even find an article about the subject; https://www.google.com/search?q=recession+site:nationalrevie...
Everyone was preoccupied with other questions mostly at that time, and a lot of the debate was if policy X was too costly economically, more so than "are we in a recession?"
My point is, if you are going to claim we are in a recession now, to be intellectually consistent, you also have to claim that 2020 wasn't one of the shortest and sharpest recessions ever in history...
I just looked and National Review even wrote this on the subject at the time - https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/recession-are-we-there... so maybe I need a better representative for the right and left to measure intellectual consistency.
IDK I'm not that interested in finding partisan hacks in the online debate on the subject. I will say just looking around, observing metrics and being told this isn't a recession the country is going through right now seems absurd.
Going off how much you have positioned yourself as an expert on economics and human psychology, I was expecting this to end with “Here is a link to my dissertation on this very issue!”
It is still pretty funny to see someone spend 80% of a post describing their acumen at spotting a social phenomenon (conspiracy theories and ignorance) only to follow it up with a wiki link about something wholly unrelated to ignorance or conspiracy theories.
For example, here’s a link to how to gather information: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
Seems more reasonable to let an economic term be governed by the consensus of economists over time.