Dallas Fed Respondent Sums It Up: “Anyone Saying We’re Not In Recession Is Peddling Fiction”

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: Gryphon66

The technical definition is 4 consecutive quarters (a year) or more of negative GDP growth.

I think 2 quarters not 4 is the most common definition although it varies.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: Gryphon66

The technical definition is 4 consecutive quarters (a year) or more of negative GDP growth.

I think 2 quarters not 4 is the most common definition although it varies.

Excellent.

Now, has American GDP declined or risen for the last two quarters?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: Gryphon66

The technical definition is 4 consecutive quarters (a year) or more of negative GDP growth.

I think 2 quarters not 4 is the most common definition although it varies.

Excellent.

Now, has American GDP declined or risen for the last two quarters?

I believe GDP increased (all be it slightly) q3 & q4 2015. GDP figures can be revised historically however unlikely to put into negative figures. Q1 figures aren't available yet (happy to be corrected if wrong).

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: Gryphon66

The technical definition is 4 consecutive quarters (a year) or more of negative GDP growth.

I think 2 quarters not 4 is the most common definition although it varies.

Excellent.

Now, has American GDP declined or risen for the last two quarters?

I believe GDP increased (all be it slightly) q3 & q4 2015. GDP figures can be revised historically however unlikely to put into negative figures. Q1 figures aren't available yet (happy to be corrected if wrong).

Right, so, as far as we know by the generally accepted measures ... no recession at the current moment.

Would you chime in on the "information" provided in the OP ... you seem to know what you're talking about.

Looks like good ol' blogosphere malarky to me, but I'd value your take on it.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Not overly familiar with the source for the OP however it is certainly incorrect to say the US is in recession.
Journalists often use recession to mean economy not doing well enough ( with ' well enough' defined as I don't support the current government).
Economics terms are as often misused by laymen as any other science.
I will not wait with bated breath for multiple posts telling me economics isn't a real science.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Gryphon66

Not overly familiar with the source for the OP however it is certainly incorrect to say the US is in recession.
Journalists often use recession to mean economy not doing well enough ( with ' well enough' defined as I don't support the current government).
Economics terms are as often misused by laymen as any other science.
I will not wait with bated breath for multiple posts telling me economics isn't a real science.

Well-stated all round.

Very refreshing; thank you.

Well...

If the amount of people in the total workforce has declined at a rate similar to the decline in unemployment I can extrapolate from that data that the corresponding deduction in unemployement is due to the fact that less people are participating in the workforce and not that more people have found full time jobs.

Let's start there.

So people take in information differently. Some people have a high need for "facts" and "statistics". Other people are less inclined to taking in this data as is, understanding that all data can be shaped to fit a narrative, or agenda. There are countless examples where all the good work of many people is at final count corrupted by a few or single entity. Not only this, the way in which data is presented, perhaps using seemingly equivalent terminology, and appearing as the same to laymen, may in fact mean a different thing. Legalese, economic double speak... jargon. Imagine a generation operating under one set of assumptions, and definitions of terms, differing drastically from the next generation operating under new assumptions, and shifts of definitions within their respective field of study. This isn't a trend without reason, but perhaps not with the best intent of the people's interest.

I understand both sides. The need to properly qualify terms, & assess facts, while still holding that all information will in one way or another fit a narrative and agenda. Propaganda is a reality, and it's incredibly naive to believe that any government or branch of statistics is immune to it's influences.

Is the economy worse at times than is presented? Absolutely. Is the economy better than is sometimes presented? True as well. Which narrative... skew are you following, and why, exactly?

As for now, the economy seems better than the alternative news channels are generally saying, and worse than official statistics would like to sell. The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle.

originally posted by: onequestion
Well...

If the amount of people in the total workforce has declined at a rate similar to the decline in unemployment I can extrapolate from that data that the corresponding deduction in unemployement is due to the fact that less people are participating in the workforce and not that more people have found full time jobs.

Let's start there.

Where's your data?

Link it and we can start there.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Dude, why are you engaging this guy? He knows nothing of economics... he makes a bunch of baseless assertions but has no clue about macroeconomics. You're feeding his ego. You don't see that?? He's here to troll and pat himself on the back. Please don't respond to him.

a reply to: ScepticScot
Yes, it varies, but with revisions it's the rule of thumb that 4 quarters qualify as a legit recession. My first job was with Kansas City Federal reserve. Seasonally adjusted estimates of agriculture returns are a big data set they study regularly and those numbers lag; 4 quarters of negative growth qualifies in the mind of policy makers.

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: Gryphon66

Dude, why are you engaging this guy? He knows nothing of economics... he makes a bunch of baseless assertions but has no clue about macroeconomics. You're feeding his ego. You don't see that?? He's here to troll and pat himself on the back. Please don't respond to him.

Dude, why do you care what Onequestion or myself is doing here?

What you think of anyone's knowledge of economics is irrelevant and not the topic.

If you can counter what anyone says based on facts ... do it. We're here to discuss evidence ... not each other.

a reply to: Gryphon66
What do you wanna know? I'll tell it to you. What would you like countered with facts? Ask me.


ETA: Never mind. You know about as much as him. It's futile. You 2 keep tripping over yourselves. It's comical.

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: Gryphon66
What do you wanna know? I'll tell it to you. What would you like countered with facts? Ask me.

I'll take you up on that.

Does the graph/data in the OP link have any real meaning? Do you understand it's source (besides of course, that post).

I'd almost go as far as saying it was manufactured by the author of the blog post ... I just really hadn't take the time to prove that.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: onequestion
Well...

If the amount of people in the total workforce has declined at a rate similar to the decline in unemployment I can extrapolate from that data that the corresponding deduction in unemployement is due to the fact that less people are participating in the workforce and not that more people have found full time jobs.

Let's start there.

Where's your data?

Link it and we can start there.

My data is on page 1 with links and graphs to the BLS.

According to the genius who's got a PhD but can't stay on topic coming out of a recession would mean that there are 4 quarters of economic growth.

If I base my analysis on the labor force participation rate rather than the unemployement number than we haven't come out of a recession since 2006.

a reply to: Gryphon66

There is a lot of unlinked data out there.

The ageing population in Japan and the US mess up participation rate data.
This causes misinterpretation for all kinds of statistics not just unemployment.
I am not sure there is any universally accepted data concerning the impact of ageing populations on things like tax deferred IRA participation, health care benefit utilization etc.

Just one elephant in the room so to speak.

a reply to: onequestion

Hey genius, the economy hasn't been in recession since 2010. And as I showed you on page one, the labor participation rate has steadily increased since October of 2015. Nice try, but you've been DEAD wrong since you typed your first post. Come on, bring some numbers that back and not contradict your baseless assertions.

a reply to: Cauliflower

The only other voice of reason in this thread. Good points. I like Yellin and I can't remember off-hand your earlier question about the summit. Sorry. I'll go back and read again and answer.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I understand the Onequestion suggested that the labor participation rate has "steadily declined since 2006" only to attempt to convince him the graph shows the exact opposite (since 10-15 till 4/16 the rate has increased). Anymore? I'm locked and loaded.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Well said.