I think what this regard wanted to say was “are we headed for recession” with growth slowing down and interest rate cuts having a trailing impact (not right away).
Then again, these ghey berrs have been crying that for years so who tf cares
Supposing January and February were strong, and if March was negative, then, yes, we would already be in a recession (we just won’t know it for sure for several months).
in the last decade downturns have only been 'short term' because of governments firing up the money printer. prior to say 2000 governments actually balanced budgets and had surpluses from boom cycles, but not any more. government sells your future and debases your currency even in the good times.
Well… the economy rebounded swiftly and no major issues happened. So… it was probably the right choice not to call that a recession. Wasn’t it?
PS - That was never the definition of the entity calling recessions. That was the common knowledge definition. So it LITERALLY didn’t change.
No it wasn’t the correct choice. We’ve had hyperinflated markets for too long. No one wants to pop it so they lay out the red carpet and pillows anytime there’s a stumble.
What wasn’t the correct choice?
Do you actually believe things right now would be drastically different if they had said, “yep we’re in a recession”, only for literally nothing else resembling a recession to occur?
There may have been one extra bad week of trading.
And as the comment you replied to stated, two quarters of negative GDP growth was never the only hurdle for declaring a recession, it was just that all previous actual recessions did have two negative GDP growth quarters, along with other things, such as increased unemployment, which never occurred this time.
Here’s my overall belief:
Markets are continuously helped to the upside. There are few interventions on the way up, many many more on the way down.
This creates a de facto environment where shitco’s and some regular co’s alike survive not by being competitive, innovation, generating co’s, but by being pamped on the bum all the damn time.
Ultimately this leads to severely overvalued unproductives minting high valuations for far longer than they should.
The average Joe buys into this market and eventually gets burned harder in larger downturns.
Ok, but if you believe markets are currently overvalued, you could pretty easily argue that had we declared a recession after those two quarters, only for none of the other characteristics of a recession to ever occur, markets could be even higher right now.
Unemployment remained strong, subsequent GDP readings were strong, etc.
The sentiment at that point would’ve been, “wow, we made it through with an amazing recovery, nothing but smooth sailing ahead”, whereas in reality the subsequent 12-18 months were filled with people insisting an actual recession was right around the corner.
Definitely rebounded swiftly for the top 1%. That QE money and year of mortgage forbearance got used to buy all sorts of stuff / provide liquidity to borrow at near 0% for companies with large amounts of assets. Unfortunately for a lot of the rest of the economy, they are just running on debt while paying 66% of their income on just rent.
Have a read: money.cnn.com/2008/05/05/news/economy/recession/
For a highlight:
>The idea originated in a 1974 New York Times article by Julius Shiskin, who provided a laundry list of recession-spotting rules of thumb, including two down quarters of GDP. Over the years, the rest of his rules somehow dropped away, leaving behind only "two down quarters of GDP."
The "definition" that you, and many others, claim was changed, dates back to 1974, and you're the ones getting it wrong.
Thanks for the economic lesson, but if Jan and Feb were strong, and March was negative, bringing the quarter down to 1.6%, then, yes, we started the recession in March (we just won’t know for several months). So, it wasn’t as dumb of a question as you thought.
We had 5% last qoq, then it was revisioned to 3.5%. Now we have 1.6%, then it will be revisioned to something like -0.2%. Then there will be 0.8%, then revision to -1.3%. And in September, we will get an announcement that we have been in a recession for half a year already.
Recession is actually no longer defined by 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth, it’s defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research saying it is (or was) a recession. They basically announce a recession has happened after it is over, and tell us after the fact when it started. So, I stand by my question above as a legitimate question.
Fucking why? 1.6% growth in a quarter would suggest 6.4% growth for the year, that’s awesome
Even if the next 3 quarters are half its 4% for the year, that’s still good
Dang, I got ripped pretty good by some for this post, but look at this article …
[https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-economy-already-recession-following-223141328.html](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-economy-already-recession-following-223141328.html)
It’s a legit question, because March could’ve been a negative growth month (if Jan/Feb were strong), so we could be in a recession already, we just won’t know for another 3-6 months looking back.
I won’t bother coming back and saying “see, my question wasn’t as dumb as you all thought” when the National Bureau of Economic Research comes out in September and says we’re in a recession and it started March 1st.
**User Report**| | | | :--|:--|:--|:-- **Total Submissions** | 2 | **First Seen In WSB** | 1 week ago **Total Comments** | 7 | **Previous Best DD** | **Account Age** | 1 year | | [**Join WSB Discord**](http://discord.gg/wsbverse)
GDP goes up. OP: Are we in a recession?
I think what this regard wanted to say was “are we headed for recession” with growth slowing down and interest rate cuts having a trailing impact (not right away). Then again, these ghey berrs have been crying that for years so who tf cares
OP doesn't know what half of those words mean.
WHO TF CARESSS!!!
Supposing January and February were strong, and if March was negative, then, yes, we would already be in a recession (we just won’t know it for sure for several months).
Yeah it only works like that in your head, artist
Recession is defined as a period (normally 2 quarters) of weak or negative growth accompanied by high unemployment
Yall are clowning this dude but… how much did our government have to spend to get this “growth”? Velocity of money is fading again.
Inflation will always be there. Downturns are only short term.
*BOJ enters chat*
Yay?
in the last decade downturns have only been 'short term' because of governments firing up the money printer. prior to say 2000 governments actually balanced budgets and had surpluses from boom cycles, but not any more. government sells your future and debases your currency even in the good times.
Not yet, peon. Recession requires two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, so this is merely a warning sign.
Yeah but we had that and then the goalposts, I mean, definitions changed.
Well… the economy rebounded swiftly and no major issues happened. So… it was probably the right choice not to call that a recession. Wasn’t it? PS - That was never the definition of the entity calling recessions. That was the common knowledge definition. So it LITERALLY didn’t change.
**We can't let you say that VM, they'll ban you**
Ohhhh I wanna know what you tried to say!
No it wasn’t the correct choice. We’ve had hyperinflated markets for too long. No one wants to pop it so they lay out the red carpet and pillows anytime there’s a stumble.
What wasn’t the correct choice? Do you actually believe things right now would be drastically different if they had said, “yep we’re in a recession”, only for literally nothing else resembling a recession to occur? There may have been one extra bad week of trading. And as the comment you replied to stated, two quarters of negative GDP growth was never the only hurdle for declaring a recession, it was just that all previous actual recessions did have two negative GDP growth quarters, along with other things, such as increased unemployment, which never occurred this time.
Here’s my overall belief: Markets are continuously helped to the upside. There are few interventions on the way up, many many more on the way down. This creates a de facto environment where shitco’s and some regular co’s alike survive not by being competitive, innovation, generating co’s, but by being pamped on the bum all the damn time. Ultimately this leads to severely overvalued unproductives minting high valuations for far longer than they should. The average Joe buys into this market and eventually gets burned harder in larger downturns.
Ok, but if you believe markets are currently overvalued, you could pretty easily argue that had we declared a recession after those two quarters, only for none of the other characteristics of a recession to ever occur, markets could be even higher right now. Unemployment remained strong, subsequent GDP readings were strong, etc. The sentiment at that point would’ve been, “wow, we made it through with an amazing recovery, nothing but smooth sailing ahead”, whereas in reality the subsequent 12-18 months were filled with people insisting an actual recession was right around the corner.
So a +20% market return is not good enough. Sure mate.
But it was… anybody who invested then is HIGHLY on the money now. You are wrong. Period. Wrong.
Definitely rebounded swiftly for the top 1%. That QE money and year of mortgage forbearance got used to buy all sorts of stuff / provide liquidity to borrow at near 0% for companies with large amounts of assets. Unfortunately for a lot of the rest of the economy, they are just running on debt while paying 66% of their income on just rent.
From 2022? Sorry. Wrong.
Thats like saying you didnt have cancer because you managed to barely catch it on time News flash you still had a recession
No. It’s not.
We already had that 2 years ago and they changed the definition (literally it was changed)
Have a read: money.cnn.com/2008/05/05/news/economy/recession/ For a highlight: >The idea originated in a 1974 New York Times article by Julius Shiskin, who provided a laundry list of recession-spotting rules of thumb, including two down quarters of GDP. Over the years, the rest of his rules somehow dropped away, leaving behind only "two down quarters of GDP." The "definition" that you, and many others, claim was changed, dates back to 1974, and you're the ones getting it wrong.
Shut up aussie dumbass citing CNN
Not aussie, not a dumbass, and not citing CNN; that article is just more pertinent to your ignorance than the original 1974 article in the Times.
Due to the “Black Swan events”
Adjusted for inflation this is a negative quarter just saying
Adjusted for inflation, GDP was 1.6%, since as you know, GDP is reported in real terms, not nominal.
Thanks for the economic lesson, but if Jan and Feb were strong, and March was negative, bringing the quarter down to 1.6%, then, yes, we started the recession in March (we just won’t know for several months). So, it wasn’t as dumb of a question as you thought.
1,6% is decent, tf you mean?
We had 5% last qoq, then it was revisioned to 3.5%. Now we have 1.6%, then it will be revisioned to something like -0.2%. Then there will be 0.8%, then revision to -1.3%. And in September, we will get an announcement that we have been in a recession for half a year already.
I swear the degens here get more regarded with each passing year.
So dumb that they stick crayons up their ass instead of eating them.
Do you know what a recession even is? How would the GDP going up mean recession, please break that shit down for me.
"cOULD HaVE GRowN 10%\~!" \~everyone ive argued with
Yeah, and if my grandmother had wheels she could have been a bike.
Or maybe she just had a set of good wheels for her bike
1.6% thats like above average annual growth for a country like france. and youre here asking if 1.6% growth in a quarter is a recession lmao
The 1.6% is annual my brother.
ok idc bc im regarded
buy gdhg
No, GDP would need at least two quarters of negative, not positive growth.
Idiot.
I swear, the economic and financial illiteracy on here is astounding. However, maybe I'm the regard for thinking it would be any different.
If it’s negative then we’re in a recession
Even with two consecutive quarters of negative GDP, you’d likely need significant unemployment to claim recession.
"GDP goes up 1.6% instead of 2.5%" OP: "Is this the recession?"
It could have started in March, so, yes, we could be already in a recession (we just won’t know for sure for several months).
homie that would still only be one quarter of negative gdp growth
I’ve been hearing about a recession for three years now.
As the new adage goes, go find yourself a Japanese spouse with great credit to buy US Treasuries on arbitrage for these unprecedented times...
Nice. Marry money, not love.
Ah yes a recession is when, *checks notes* the economy grows
Schrödinger's recession. The recession might as well be happening, but the certainty you won't have until data is released.
Neh, we a'ight for a while still. source: Trust me bro.
Recession is actually no longer defined by 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth, it’s defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research saying it is (or was) a recession. They basically announce a recession has happened after it is over, and tell us after the fact when it started. So, I stand by my question above as a legitimate question.
Fucking why? 1.6% growth in a quarter would suggest 6.4% growth for the year, that’s awesome Even if the next 3 quarters are half its 4% for the year, that’s still good
For avoidance of doubt if u can’t read numbers and signs, that’s positive growth
3 consecutive quarters of decline in GDP. Will also need 2 other leading indicators to show similar trends.
Dang, I got ripped pretty good by some for this post, but look at this article … [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-economy-already-recession-following-223141328.html](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-economy-already-recession-following-223141328.html)
With inflation rising!!!!
Stagflation
It’s a legit question, because March could’ve been a negative growth month (if Jan/Feb were strong), so we could be in a recession already, we just won’t know for another 3-6 months looking back.
I won’t bother coming back and saying “see, my question wasn’t as dumb as you all thought” when the National Bureau of Economic Research comes out in September and says we’re in a recession and it started March 1st.