At least as of now. But at end 2003, there was. But not as of January 2002.
Figure 1: GDP as of 1/30/2002 (blue), as of 12/10/2003 (tan), as of 10/27/2022 (green), in Ch.2012$ in logs, 2001Q1=0. NBER defined peak-to-trough recession dates shaded gray. Source: BEA via ALFRED, BEA, NBER, and author’s calculations.
Note that ECRI dates and NBER dates are the same for this peak-to-trough episode.
Based on GDP, Jim Hamilton notes that by the Chauvet-Hamilton measure, as of 2022Q2, the US economy was not in recession. One commentator slavishly hews to the 2 quarter rule, based on the current statistics.
Did you have to remind of us of that rambling BS that started with
“Let me reiterate what I said:”
Let me remind people of what utter stupidity this was
1. H1 was a recession by the most commonly used standard
2. Nevertheless, the H1 downturn did not have some of the characteristics of many recessions, notably, unemployment did not rise
3. This sort of phenomena was last seen in 1945 when US defense spending collapsed, that is, a decline in GDP without a material decline in employment.
4. Thus, the H1 downturn plausibly could be explained by aggressively contractionary fiscal policy. Biden just yesterday crowed that he had reduced the budget deficit by $1.4 trillion in little over a year. That’s about 7% of GDP, so we might expect a contraction on the order of 4% of GDP (allowing for intervening, underlying GDP growth), and that’s about what we have seen.”
Fiscal policy has never been measured by the actual change in the deficit especially when most of the decline came from rising tax revenues from a strong recovery. E. Cary Brown’s 1954 classic explains why but even after all of our attempts to get Stevie to read it – he hasn’t.
He followed this with utter BS re monetary policy which only proves he makes up terms he has no clue what they mean. BTW – real GDP did fall in late 1945 and early 1946 but Stevie actually thinks we had a 1947 recession. We didn’t. I’m sorry but can we just skip his incessant BS as it is a total waste of time.
“so we might expect a contraction on the order of 4% of GDP (allowing for intervening, underlying GDP growth), and that’s about what we have seen.”
Real GDP barely budged over the 6-month period while potential output may have risen by 1%. So this 4% claim is beyond stupid. Then again – everything Stevie writes is beyond stupid.
” so we might expect a contraction on the order of 4% of GDP (allowing for intervening, underlying GDP growth), and that’s about what we have seen.”
Not to harp on Stevie’s claim here but do we really have a 4% output gap as he suggests. Let’s see real potential GDP (2012$) = $20.2 trillion as of 2022Q3 while real GDP = $20.0 trillion. You do the math!
OK I got 1/4 bottle of overly sweet adult drink left here. I just wanna say something, as a former pretend English teacher in Northeast China…….. Today’s “word of the day” is “slavishly”. , and I mean it in 0% sarcasm when I say I love that word so much,.
“One thing they don’t tell you about the bluez when you gott’em, you keep on fall’n cuz there ain’t no bottom.”
Such obsession with a few tenths of a percent of GDP!
I assume that there must be something serious motivating such attention to something that would otherwise appear to be a distinction without a real difference.
JohnH is now criticizing the obsession people like JohnH and his BFF Princeton Steve had for weeks over their bogus claims about some RECESSION?
Either there is some other JohnH posing under your name or you are the most two faced liar EVER.
Another classic misrepresentation by pg-ly.I was never rooting for a recession. But I have been entertained by those obsessed with proving that there had been no H1 recession, even though GDP was down for two quarters. What’s with all that fixation on a few tenths of a percent of GDP? I have yet to hear anyone address that bizarre fixation!
And I continue to be curious about intentional obliviousness to a worker’s recession. I mean, why doesn’t the fact that several indicators show median wages back to 2019 levels attract as much attention as a few tenths of a percent of GDP?
And I continue to be curious about economists denial about corporate America being a significant factor in inflation.
I do wish that pg-ly would get my concerns straight!
The real question is why do you insist on using this term that you have made up and absolutely nobody else uses, “worker recession”? There is no question that having real wages decline due to inflation is not a good thing and is certainly politically damaging to incumbents at election time, and if the GOP makes noticeable gains in the forthcoming election, it is clear that the damage to real incomes due to the highest inflation i 40 years will be the overwhelming reason for those victories. You may think you are adding to the impulse for those gains to occur by constantly using this madeup phrase “worker recession,” but nobody else is using it, and is fundamentally gibberish given that how the term “recession” relates to workers is through joblessness, and that is most definitely NOT what is going on right now.
BTW, with high amounts of early voting and some indicationsn that this is heavily favoring Dems in ways that may make the polls look overly skewed to the GOP, this may not turn out to be such a big gain election for them. It seems that abortion is a more motivating issue for getting people to the polls than is inflation. But, we shall see.
The only thing I can imagine that’s worse than Democrats winning is for Republicans to win. That’s why they call it a choice between the lesser of two evils.
Rosser and pgl can’t seem to get it through their thick skulls that I support NEITHER of the evils.
And for that nonsense about my being a recession cheerleader, that’s more BS concocted by piggly. However, I did find it immensely amusing to see to what lengths objective, impartial “scientists” would go to disprove two negative quarters being a recession…all for trivial partisan advantage.
Eff you. You can accuse pgl all you want of playing partisan games, but I play it straight here, and have on many occasions noted things that do not agree with or support what I want politically. Do not lie about me, JohnH. Maybe you do not, but you should know better.
You are the one who has been playing games with madeup terms that push a story that is exaggerated. Yes, we all know that a lot of the media has long made a big fuss about the two quarter “rule.” But it is not the rule, and we have all been compltetely accurate in noting that and noting the numerous reasons, especially involving employment, why the first two quarters will almost certinaly be judged not to have been a recession, when the official committee finally gets around to labeling them. You have just engaged in a lot of misleasing baloney with thiis lable you have pushed so relentlessly, for whatever reason.
Barkley – do you have a better word than “worker recession” to describe the phenomenon of a period of reduced real worker earnings? i have asked the question many times.
Apparently the welfare and wellbeing of the average American is not important enough for economists to give such a major phenomenon a name. You don’t seem to realize that that phenomenon is so important that it has become a major cause of discontent today, causing many to want to throw the bums (incumbents) out. Republicans have obviously seized on the opportunity. Yet the phenomenon remains nameless.
It id called “declining real incomes” or for the special worker part of it “declining real wages.” Why does it need some special name, especially a misleading one?
So, let us ask, since you seem so keen on GOP doing well on Tuesday, what will they demand to allow a debt ceiling increase if they take both houses of Congress in order to fight inflation? Will they support a law against “price gouging” or an excess profits tax or even an increase in antitrurst enforcement, the things you have been shooting your mouth off about here? If you believe that, there is a bridge in NYC I think we might offer you for sale.
More likely we shall see an inflationary effort to cut taxes on the rich, along with such thingks as approving the Keystone XL pipeline, which will probalby have zero effect on inflation, and maybe more drilling on public lands, which might in a few years, but not now. Sorry, but your apparent glee at the possible politicl outcomes that may happen look to be frustrated.
Oh, I know. They might end aid to Ukraine so Putin can win. Then maybe we shall se oil and natural gas prices come down somewhat. Oh goody.
“along with such thingks as approving the Keystone XL pipeline, which will probalby have zero effect on inflation”
Now, now. Hershel Walker has declared not approving this pipeline as the biggest threat to our democracy!
November 7, 2022 at 11:48 am
You made Johnny boy all MAD. Of course when he gets mad he writes the most pathetic whining.
Yes, I agree that Republicans will do bad things. No doubt. But you have to admit that Obama did bad things, too…like give banksters a ‘get out of jail free’ card while underwater mortgagees were hung out to dry.
Rosser quote; “[JohnH] seems so keen on GOP doing well on Tuesday.”
My response repeated: “Rosser and pgl can’t seem to get it through their thick skulls that I support NEITHER of the evils.”
Barkley, I commend you. Occasionally you stumble on truths: ” which will probalby have zero effect on inflation, and maybe more drilling on public lands, which might in a few years, but not now. ” These INITIAL BABY STEPS would start us on the path of energy supply creation versus the supply destruction path your party with Biden has the US pursuing.
Speaking of political outcomes, have you noticed how fast energy prices rose after Biden’s successful campaign was obvious. Have you noticed what an important factor to the economy is energy prices?
You and other liberals here are having a real tough time here answering these simple questions, because your POLICE IMPACT DENIAL won’t allow acceptance of their failed impacts. This is clearly a policy performance election,and yours are on trial.
Wow – you double down AND call people calling you out “liar”. Trump needs a new running mate and you have that “secret sauce”.
piggly–you can’t cite a quote where I cheered a recession. That’s just more of your BS.
What you can easily find are quotes where I was amused at the enormous amount of time and energy devoted to dispelling any notion of a recession. And I wondered repeatedly how “very serious” economists would react if there were three straight quarters of negative GDP, something that did not happen. But I did get to enjoy all the agitation and rationalizing that went on up to the end of August.
I suppose that in piggly’s black and white word, anyone doing anything but parroting Democratic talking points about the economy was ipso facto being in favor of a recession. No thinking allowed…only parroting.
Considering employment numbers, it makes you wonder why some folks (you) promote the idea of a recession over just a few tenths of a percentage of gdp. Why such a focus john, when the rest of the data says you are wrong? It’s because we dont like folks spinning false narratives for political gain. Which is what john is doing.
You are right but watch out. Johnny boy is now all angry. And when he gets angry – he comes up with the silliest whining I have ever seen.
Baffling: you are indeed obtuse. I have never promoted the idea that we were in an economic recession. And, yes, I understand that Democratic partisans who don’t like folks claiming that we were in a recession. They have gone to tremendous lengths (I call it an obsession or a fixation) to dispel the notion.
Of course, as George Lakoff has shown, people remember the word ‘recession’ when “experts” talk about whether we’re in a recession or not. So when economists try to dispel the notion of a recession, what gets reinforced is the word ‘recession!’
It has been delightful to watch.
A more professional, less partisan group of “scientists” would just look at the data and acknowledge that economic growth is so anemic that it’s too close to call about a recession, which is my stance. Then they would move on to important subjects, like Corporate America and inflation, declining real wages, rising inequality, etc.
“Baffling: you are indeed obtuse. I have never promoted the idea that we were in an economic recession.”
I told JohnH would whine. And yea – he will lie until the cows come home. That is what he do. An old adage – do not fee the trolls.
November 7, 2022 at 3:06 pm
You are still on this rant that it was Obama who gave sweetheart deals to mega banks back in 2008. Gee I did not realize Obama won the Presidential election in 2004! Now remind us how Cameron boosted UK real wages with his fiscal austerity again!
john, if you actually believe what you wrote then the word “recession” should not ever come out of your mouth. there should be absolutely no commentary from you on the subject. and yet there is. because as a russian troll, your job is to create confusion and doubt. especially about issues that, as you say, do not really exist.
“Speaking of political outcomes, have you noticed how fast energy prices rose after Biden’s successful campaign was obvious.”
CoRev to Barkley above. Gee CoRev did not do two things. One was to link to oil prices so I did:
Notice oil prices were still a mere $60 a barrel months after Biden was President. But I guess CoRev was into that stolen election Trumpian BS so it was not apparent that “Biden’s successful campaign was obvious much later.
Of course CoRev is free to change WTF he meant with that ambigious statement. That is what trolls do.
What a numbskull! After quoting the comment: “…have you noticed how fast energy prices rose after Biden’s successful campaign was obvious.” he then says: “Notice oil prices were still a mere $60 a barrel months after Biden was President.”
after Biden’s successful campaign was obvious would be immediately after the election when even his reference shows oil at $40 a barrel. That is
SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER than his quoted $60 a barrel. So, “…have you noticed how fast energy prices rose…” in just months after his election?
This is the commenter who made a big point re: the difference between median and mean. I did not say oil, but referenced the more generic energy.
Ole Bark, bark can not comment without lying. Why?