Unpopular opinion: Declaring the economy in or out if recession does not help anyone outside of propagandists and journalists. High corporate profits and high inflation. Those need to be addressed regardless of recession or not. If you call it one, they will use it as cause for even more layoffs and price hikes if you don't they will use it as reason to avoid measures to regulate their greed because afterall their greed is preventing a recession.
Truth is we will have to wait until 2023 or later to call this a recession.
My suspicion is this is all wallstreet's shenanigans. There is a growing labor rights movement and this climate makes it hard to pass any laws that support the movement. "Minimum wage caused low profits and an unrecoverable bear market" is the sentiment they want to spread (by they I mean the market makers and investment bankers of wallstreet).
"Declaring the economy in or out if recession does not help anyone outside of propagandists and journalists."
Correct. This is exactly why the people who are altering the definition are entirely propagandists (sometimes known as politicians) and journalists. In this case, they work in unison because they happen to be on the same team at the moment, so journalists are hoping and begging the government to change the definition so that it provides them sufficient cover so that they don't have to write on their front pages that the economy entered into a recession, which is obviously bad for the cause. It's the tacit "Help me help you!" situation. Their approach is that if the government says it, by journalists' standards (for the moment, of course) that's good enough by itself to validate it. Voila!
This is all stupid anyway. Call it anything you want at anytime, it doesn't change reality.
High corporate profits and high inflation are all a result of government's fiscal policies, though. The point is that this is not just because Wall Street has had a mood swing.
> My suspicion is this is all wallstreet's shenanigans. There is a growing labor rights movement and this climate makes it hard to pass any laws that support the movement. "Minimum wage caused low profits and an unrecoverable bear market" is the sentiment they want to spread (by they I mean the market makers and investment bankers of wallstreet).
Do you have any evidence from that? Personally, I'm pro-union, etc.; but what you wrote sounds like a bias-affirming conspiracy theory.
> My suspicion is this is all wallstreet's shenanigans. There is a growing labor rights movement and this climate makes it hard to pass any laws that support the movement.
Maybe in the current conditions it feels like just propagandizing.
But labor growing at 5-6% and core CPI growing at 5-6% and unemployment being historically low are numbers that are very important to the Fed (commodities inflation and oil is not that important or the Fed would have done something in 2011-2014).
They're likely to keep hiking rates until actual pain and a real recession is felt and those inflation numbers fall closer to 2% and unemployment rises sharply. They aren't just trying to propagandize in order to address the labor movement, to hit their stated goals and numbers they need to break its back with a recession. We're just not there yet.
Although maybe in the future they'll consider this a double-dip recession and we just hit the first dip.
1960Q2-1960Q3 - GDP grew, yet this is flagged as a recession.
1981Q3-1983Q1 - GPD grew consistently the entire time, yet this is one of the longer recessions on record.
1990Q3-1991Q2 - GDP only dropped for one quarter, then quickly rebounded, yet it is flagged as a long recession.
2020Q1-2020Q1 - This is flagged as recession, despite being less than a single quarter. By "two consecutive quarters definition, this recession started in 2019Q4 and lasted until 2021Q1. Yet the NBER doesn't flag it this way. If they were "playing politics," they would definitely have made this out to be a larger deal.
It's pretty clear the NBER has never relied entirely on GDP data to determine recessions. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many recessions with GDP growth.
In case anyone was curious, here are the numbers from the provided link around a couple of the time periods indicated:
> 1960Q2-1960Q3 - GDP grew, yet this is flagged as a recession.
1960-01-01: 542.648
1960-04-01: 541.08
1960-07-01: 545.604
1960-10-01: 540.197
1961-01-01: 545.018
> 2020Q1-2020Q1 - This is flagged as recession, despite being less than a single quarter. By "two consecutive quarters definition, this recession started in 2019Q4 and lasted until 2021Q1.
I agree with you, and it's not simply US vs non-US, but changing the definition just after 2 negative quarters in the US can be thought of a politically motivated change. Also only one of the two definitions is objective (the non-political one).
Last Sunday Wikipedia had a generic definition of recession. Then the second paragraph was changed so that the US would be in a recession under the definition. Then, as the title says "Wikipedia has blocked editing recession".
So it was made US-centric, in fact US current events centric, and now as the title says "Wikipedia has blocked editing".
This has been the definition everywhere for a while, UK and elsewhere. The fact that you are changing it now IS the most political you could ever make it. I am baffled that you could make this argument, YOU are us centric political saying this.
Despite knowing I shouldn't, I actually find this fight highly amusing in a black comedy kind of way.
Reminds me of the fight over the Titanics last lifeboat.
Everyone knows its all broken, that already no one can pay their debts, millions are homeless and US interests have started their march to double digits.
But the most important thing right now is to scrape a few more moments believing there is hope by redefining the meaning of proper fked.
Things aren't "proper fucked" though. Supply chains were just too slow to recover to meet our demand. Lots of things were overpriced/overvalued. The economy is going to retract as a result. Things will cycle once more, and we can do it all over in another n decade(s).
> The editor discredited rumors that Wikipedia had removed mention of two quarters of negative GDP growth from its recession definition and said any screenshots implying so are outdated.
This article reports accurately (as far as I can tell) what different people are saying/tweeting about the issue, but stops short of confirming themselves whether or not the definitions were actually changed recently. Which is easily possible using the version history (maybe with a "according to the version history" disclaimer). Instead readers have to rely on the quote from the Wikipedia editor, which some people probably won't.
Relatedly, PolitiFact has partnered up with Facebook to “combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed”. They’ve recently flagged a video that used an online dictionary definition of “recession”:
Whether or not the U.S. is actually in a recession might still be up for debate. But I’d argue that it’s pretty clear what’s happening to the credibility of online “fact-checking” sources.
PolitiFact was three times as likely to rank statements from Republicans as “Pants on Fire,” and twice as likely to rank statements from Democrats as “Entirely True.”
Your post is technically true but misleading. They did flag a video that used an online dictionary definition of "recession." However, they didn't flag it for its definition. They flagged it for stating that the White House had changed its definition when it hadn't.
First 5 seconds of the video: "So the White House is now trying to protect Joe Biden by changing the definition of the word recession"
Content of the video: Uses siri's definition which states a recession is "...generally identified by a fall in GDP in two successive quarters." The poster ignores the 'generally' when comparing to the White House website which states that the two quarter definition is not official. Followed by a rap battle meme.
Obvious intent of video: Paints a narrative that the white house is changing definitions of words to fit their needs.
Title of the politifact article: "No, the White House didn’t change the definition of “recession” "
Content of the politifact article: The white house didn't change the definition of recession.
Reality: The White House didn't change the definition of recession.
Topics that are currently heavily debated/ in the news may lead to a low s/n ratio on wikipedia. Those topics temporarily can get locked; as one of a spectrum of measures that can be used to remedy these kinds of situation. It happens many times a day.
Love the dichotomy of the internet at play with this story. Over on r/conservative they're losing their minds over the fact that Wikipedia is changing the definition of "recession" on their site.
There's been a lot of redefinition recently. It's most definitely by design. The only thing to be argued is whether it is done so wrongfully or rightfully.
The UK government for example recently price-capped certain products that are used to measure inflation. At least this redefinition in the US is more public.
Ultimately, gate-keep the definition all you like. The cost of living has pushed the working class to the breaking point, it doesn't matter what you call that - the experience is most definitely real.
I don’t understand why this is being downvoted. I was literally told this by multiple people. Hell, even I have this feeling. I’m not even american and I know fact checking is done by liberals for liberals.
Last week I talked to an intern looking for a position and a programmer that had their job eliminated. That's two involuntary job hunters more than I've seen in a long time.
'Recession' is much better defined than 'depression'; I don't think people use dictionary-definitions to define their economic state just because the TV told them to.
Recessions in general see GDP down and unemployment up. Right now GDP is down but employment is also down. This could potentially prevent or limit the impact of the recessionary cycle where layoffs reduce demand which brings down profits and GDP. Additionally, corporate profits and cash reserves are high while low labor force participation and problems hiring are making layoffs undesirable. While consumer confidence is down economic demand remains high at least for now. All this shows the current economic situation to be extremely unusual and quite apart from previous recessions whether it gets labeled as such or not.
>Recessions in general see GDP down and unemployment up. Right now GDP is down but employment is also down...
I think you mean unemployment is also down? Also work force participation is currently high, not low.
But I get what you're saying, it's a very unusual situation. I think that's because this has nothing to do with the usual economic cycle. It's a very bouncy snap-back from the lockdown that's seen a boom in demand, a bust in supply, heavy stimulus. The feedback relationships between the economic indicators just aren't working as they usually do.
Personally I think this recession will be relatively short. As I said it's overcorrections from the snap back after the pandemic, but things will settle down. That doesn't mean there won't be pain, there will, but hopefully it will be fairly short term.
[+] [-] badrabbit|3 years ago|reply
Truth is we will have to wait until 2023 or later to call this a recession.
My suspicion is this is all wallstreet's shenanigans. There is a growing labor rights movement and this climate makes it hard to pass any laws that support the movement. "Minimum wage caused low profits and an unrecoverable bear market" is the sentiment they want to spread (by they I mean the market makers and investment bankers of wallstreet).
[+] [-] bedhead|3 years ago|reply
Correct. This is exactly why the people who are altering the definition are entirely propagandists (sometimes known as politicians) and journalists. In this case, they work in unison because they happen to be on the same team at the moment, so journalists are hoping and begging the government to change the definition so that it provides them sufficient cover so that they don't have to write on their front pages that the economy entered into a recession, which is obviously bad for the cause. It's the tacit "Help me help you!" situation. Their approach is that if the government says it, by journalists' standards (for the moment, of course) that's good enough by itself to validate it. Voila!
This is all stupid anyway. Call it anything you want at anytime, it doesn't change reality.
[+] [-] throw93232|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gargs|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tablespoon|3 years ago|reply
Do you have any evidence from that? Personally, I'm pro-union, etc.; but what you wrote sounds like a bias-affirming conspiracy theory.
[+] [-] Lammy|3 years ago|reply
Why do you repeat yourself? Friendly reminder that Bohemian Club was founded by the San Francisco Chronicle editorial staff of the 1860s.
[+] [-] mc32|3 years ago|reply
Even Biden "declared" recessions before (in 2020) and people didn't start questioning him or any economist opining so.
But now we have opinions by economists getting 'fact checked". Oh, the irony if fact checkers would get downsized due to "uncertain economic times".
Any other administration but his and wed hear "We don't need an official pronouncement by the NBER to tell us we're in a recession!"
[+] [-] lamontcg|3 years ago|reply
Maybe in the current conditions it feels like just propagandizing.
But labor growing at 5-6% and core CPI growing at 5-6% and unemployment being historically low are numbers that are very important to the Fed (commodities inflation and oil is not that important or the Fed would have done something in 2011-2014).
They're likely to keep hiking rates until actual pain and a real recession is felt and those inflation numbers fall closer to 2% and unemployment rises sharply. They aren't just trying to propagandize in order to address the labor movement, to hit their stated goals and numbers they need to break its back with a recession. We're just not there yet.
Although maybe in the future they'll consider this a double-dip recession and we just hit the first dip.
[+] [-] refurb|3 years ago|reply
I'm sorry what? Profits now need to be reduced? That seem the opposite of economic growth.
[+] [-] cloutchaser|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] fennecfoxen|3 years ago|reply
Let’s go back to the Carter administration standard, then: The US economy is in a banana. Let’s hope it’s not a serious one.
[+] [-] marcosdumay|3 years ago|reply
It just doesn't filter through the bubble of propagandists and journalists that still mostly control our discourse. It's probably unpopular there.
[+] [-] mywittyname|3 years ago|reply
1960Q2-1960Q3 - GDP grew, yet this is flagged as a recession.
1981Q3-1983Q1 - GPD grew consistently the entire time, yet this is one of the longer recessions on record.
1990Q3-1991Q2 - GDP only dropped for one quarter, then quickly rebounded, yet it is flagged as a long recession.
2020Q1-2020Q1 - This is flagged as recession, despite being less than a single quarter. By "two consecutive quarters definition, this recession started in 2019Q4 and lasted until 2021Q1. Yet the NBER doesn't flag it this way. If they were "playing politics," they would definitely have made this out to be a larger deal.
It's pretty clear the NBER has never relied entirely on GDP data to determine recessions. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many recessions with GDP growth.
[+] [-] areyousure|3 years ago|reply
> 1960Q2-1960Q3 - GDP grew, yet this is flagged as a recession.
1960-01-01: 542.648
1960-04-01: 541.08
1960-07-01: 545.604
1960-10-01: 540.197
1961-01-01: 545.018
> 2020Q1-2020Q1 - This is flagged as recession, despite being less than a single quarter. By "two consecutive quarters definition, this recession started in 2019Q4 and lasted until 2021Q1.
2019-10-01: 21694.458
2020-01-01: 21481.367
2020-04-01: 19477.444
2020-07-01: 21138.574
2020-10-01: 21477.597
2021-01-01: 22038.226
[+] [-] gruez|3 years ago|reply
Check this out: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A939RX0Q048SBEA (adjusted for inflation, adjusted for population).
[+] [-] przemub|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xiphias2|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VictorPath|3 years ago|reply
So it was made US-centric, in fact US current events centric, and now as the title says "Wikipedia has blocked editing".
[+] [-] cloutchaser|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lukas099|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DarkmSparks|3 years ago|reply
Reminds me of the fight over the Titanics last lifeboat.
Everyone knows its all broken, that already no one can pay their debts, millions are homeless and US interests have started their march to double digits.
But the most important thing right now is to scrape a few more moments believing there is hope by redefining the meaning of proper fked.
[+] [-] epakai|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dubbel|3 years ago|reply
This article reports accurately (as far as I can tell) what different people are saying/tweeting about the issue, but stops short of confirming themselves whether or not the definitions were actually changed recently. Which is easily possible using the version history (maybe with a "according to the version history" disclaimer). Instead readers have to rely on the quote from the Wikipedia editor, which some people probably won't.
[+] [-] s1artibartfast|3 years ago|reply
This leaves people to make their own conclusions based on the priors.
[+] [-] jug|3 years ago|reply
(article title has this information but not the submission title)
I'd like to add that this is a common move Wikipedia does for "hot" articles to alleviate some moderation pressure.
[+] [-] mypastself|3 years ago|reply
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jul/27/instagram-...
Whether or not the U.S. is actually in a recession might still be up for debate. But I’d argue that it’s pretty clear what’s happening to the credibility of online “fact-checking” sources.
[+] [-] geraldwhen|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mellosouls|3 years ago|reply
Impartiality generally seems to be a very difficult subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact#Allegations_of_poli...
PolitiFact was three times as likely to rank statements from Republicans as “Pants on Fire,” and twice as likely to rank statements from Democrats as “Entirely True.”
[+] [-] lukas099|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] secondhandle|3 years ago|reply
First 5 seconds of the video: "So the White House is now trying to protect Joe Biden by changing the definition of the word recession"
Content of the video: Uses siri's definition which states a recession is "...generally identified by a fall in GDP in two successive quarters." The poster ignores the 'generally' when comparing to the White House website which states that the two quarter definition is not official. Followed by a rap battle meme.
Obvious intent of video: Paints a narrative that the white house is changing definitions of words to fit their needs.
Title of the politifact article: "No, the White House didn’t change the definition of “recession” "
Content of the politifact article: The white house didn't change the definition of recession.
Reality: The White House didn't change the definition of recession.
So what exactly is the credibility issue here?
[+] [-] d3nj4l|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rvz|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Kim_Bruning|3 years ago|reply
Topics that are currently heavily debated/ in the news may lead to a low s/n ratio on wikipedia. Those topics temporarily can get locked; as one of a spectrum of measures that can be used to remedy these kinds of situation. It happens many times a day.
[+] [-] bradhe|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nailer|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bArray|3 years ago|reply
The UK government for example recently price-capped certain products that are used to measure inflation. At least this redefinition in the US is more public.
Ultimately, gate-keep the definition all you like. The cost of living has pushed the working class to the breaking point, it doesn't matter what you call that - the experience is most definitely real.
[+] [-] trention|3 years ago|reply
>due to selection bias, those "services" and the people providing them end up being heavily on one side of the political spectrum
>deus ex machina (no, not really)
>wonder why people on the other side of the political spectrum refuse to trust your fact-checking "services"/media
[+] [-] throwawayacc2|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] silent_cal|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raptor99|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jesuslop|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] s1artibartfast|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RickJWagner|3 years ago|reply
I think a recession is here.
[+] [-] mbg721|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m0llusk|3 years ago|reply
Recessions in general see GDP down and unemployment up. Right now GDP is down but employment is also down. This could potentially prevent or limit the impact of the recessionary cycle where layoffs reduce demand which brings down profits and GDP. Additionally, corporate profits and cash reserves are high while low labor force participation and problems hiring are making layoffs undesirable. While consumer confidence is down economic demand remains high at least for now. All this shows the current economic situation to be extremely unusual and quite apart from previous recessions whether it gets labeled as such or not.
[+] [-] simonh|3 years ago|reply
I think you mean unemployment is also down? Also work force participation is currently high, not low.
But I get what you're saying, it's a very unusual situation. I think that's because this has nothing to do with the usual economic cycle. It's a very bouncy snap-back from the lockdown that's seen a boom in demand, a bust in supply, heavy stimulus. The feedback relationships between the economic indicators just aren't working as they usually do.
Personally I think this recession will be relatively short. As I said it's overcorrections from the snap back after the pandemic, but things will settle down. That doesn't mean there won't be pain, there will, but hopefully it will be fairly short term.
[+] [-] egberts1|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ligma123|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] realityking|3 years ago|reply