I was taught in college, in the early 70s that a recession was defined as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP put us in a recession. In the 80s, in graduate school, studying both classical and Keynesian economics, I learned the same definition.
With first quarter growth at -1.6% and second quarter growth at -1.6%, we are now in the classical definition of a recission.
I don't care what Joe or his Commerce dept says about it, we are inside the classical definition of a recession. He can spin it all he wants, and he can get over it. He's a lying sonofabitch anyway.
1 comment:
I learned the same definitions and also learned they are lagging indicators. In other words the recession started before the first quarter in order to enable the first and second quarters that make it obvious.
The other bad thing is this is GDP where government spending is part of the equation. This is where the idea of stimulus comes in. If the Govt spends enough to hide the drop in private or corporate spending we won't know we are in a recession, all it takes is a little borrowing or money printing.
Post a Comment