6 thoughts on “New Paper: No, We Haven’t Been in a Recession since 2022”
pgl
Mitchell, Wesley Clair. Business cycles: The problem and its setting. No. 10. National Bureau of Economic Research, 1927.
I stand corrected as I have been noting that excellent 1946 paper. It is still true that BEA’s tracking of quarterly real GDP began in 1947. So when Antoni says his definition of a recession (two quarters in a row where real GDP fell by any amount) has been taught in textbooks for a hundred years (which would be going back to 1924), Antoni shows his utter ignorance of economic history.
Q: Why doesn’t the committee accept the two-quarter definition?
A: There are several reasons. First, we do not identify economic activity solely with real GDP, but consider a range of indicators. Second, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. The NBER definition includes the phrase, “a significant decline in economic activity.” Thus real GDP could decline by relatively small amounts in two consecutive quarters without warranting the determination that a peak had occurred. Third, our main focus is on the monthly chronology, which requires consideration of monthly indicators. Fourth, in examining the behavior of production on a quarterly basis, where real GDP data are available, we give equal weight to real GDI. The difference between GDP and GDI—called the “statistical discrepancy”—was particularly important in the recessions of 2001 and 2007–2009.
Now that is pretty thorough. And also rather devastating of the trash Antoni has been writing of late. In 2022 we did have a quarter where real GDP dipped a bit but to say this was a significant decline is both stupid and dishonest. Antonl’s best two qualities!
A very informative concise take down of their recent paper. My only concern is what’s going to happen if Trump becomes President. He has vowed to use the military to go after all of his critics and we know Antoni is lobbying for Kudlow’s old position as the head of the Council of Economic Liars!
I know, I know, I’ve harped on the unreliability of polls and models in this year’s election, so I’m being inconsistent in urging others to look at poll and model results. Here’s the thing – the political press, Nate Silver and all the rest, are these days talking about how Harris is losing momentum, going to lose the election, whatever, but polling averages mostly leave electoral vote models at Harris-226, Trump-219. That’s not exactly where they’ve been since Harris entered the race, but it’s close:
538 reports that in 100 simulations done by its model, Trump wins 51 times, Harris 49.
How is this the sea-change in election outlook blared in press coverage? When wiser heads have been warning for weeks that the amount of slop in polling and modeling means we don’t have a good idea who is in the lead, how do we know whether the lead has changed?
Open Letter by Climate Scientists to the Nordic Council of Ministers
Opening paragraph:
“We, the undersigned, are scientists working in the field of climate research and feel it is urgent to draw the attention of the Nordic Council of Ministers to the serious risk of a major ocean circulation change in the Atlantic. A string of scientific studies in the past few years suggests that this risk has so far been greatly underestimated. Such an ocean circulation change would have devastating and irreversible impacts especially for Nordic countries, but also for other parts of the world.”
The risk of a major ocean circulation change in has been greatly underestimated. So let’s not have any of that “who could have known?” stuff when the mower hits the manure.
Mitchell, Wesley Clair. Business cycles: The problem and its setting. No. 10. National Bureau of Economic Research, 1927.
I stand corrected as I have been noting that excellent 1946 paper. It is still true that BEA’s tracking of quarterly real GDP began in 1947. So when Antoni says his definition of a recession (two quarters in a row where real GDP fell by any amount) has been taught in textbooks for a hundred years (which would be going back to 1924), Antoni shows his utter ignorance of economic history.
Q: Why doesn’t the committee accept the two-quarter definition?
A: There are several reasons. First, we do not identify economic activity solely with real GDP, but consider a range of indicators. Second, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. The NBER definition includes the phrase, “a significant decline in economic activity.” Thus real GDP could decline by relatively small amounts in two consecutive quarters without warranting the determination that a peak had occurred. Third, our main focus is on the monthly chronology, which requires consideration of monthly indicators. Fourth, in examining the behavior of production on a quarterly basis, where real GDP data are available, we give equal weight to real GDI. The difference between GDP and GDI—called the “statistical discrepancy”—was particularly important in the recessions of 2001 and 2007–2009.
Now that is pretty thorough. And also rather devastating of the trash Antoni has been writing of late. In 2022 we did have a quarter where real GDP dipped a bit but to say this was a significant decline is both stupid and dishonest. Antonl’s best two qualities!
A very informative concise take down of their recent paper. My only concern is what’s going to happen if Trump becomes President. He has vowed to use the military to go after all of his critics and we know Antoni is lobbying for Kudlow’s old position as the head of the Council of Economic Liars!
Link busted, maybe?
I know, I know, I’ve harped on the unreliability of polls and models in this year’s election, so I’m being inconsistent in urging others to look at poll and model results. Here’s the thing – the political press, Nate Silver and all the rest, are these days talking about how Harris is losing momentum, going to lose the election, whatever, but polling averages mostly leave electoral vote models at Harris-226, Trump-219. That’s not exactly where they’ve been since Harris entered the race, but it’s close:
https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/electoral-college-map?game-id=2024-PG-CNN-ratings&game-view=map
https://www.270towin.com/
The one famous model which has changed to put Trump over the top at 246 electoral votes is ABC/538:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2024-Electoral-Interactive-Map
538 reports that in 100 simulations done by its model, Trump wins 51 times, Harris 49.
How is this the sea-change in election outlook blared in press coverage? When wiser heads have been warning for weeks that the amount of slop in polling and modeling means we don’t have a good idea who is in the lead, how do we know whether the lead has changed?
New Letter: We are so screwed
Open Letter by Climate Scientists to the Nordic Council of Ministers
Opening paragraph:
“We, the undersigned, are scientists working in the field of climate research and feel it is urgent to draw the attention of the Nordic Council of Ministers to the serious risk of a major ocean circulation change in the Atlantic. A string of scientific studies in the past few years suggests that this risk has so far been greatly underestimated. Such an ocean circulation change would have devastating and irreversible impacts especially for Nordic countries, but also for other parts of the world.”
https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-scientists-ocean-current-collapse-warning-amoc.html
The risk of a major ocean circulation change in has been greatly underestimated. So let’s not have any of that “who could have known?” stuff when the mower hits the manure.