Journal pudge's Journal: CNN Is Stupid, and Thinks You Are, Too 14
In an article today titled It's official: Recession since Dec. '07, CNN writer Chris Isidore tells us that it is now "official" that we are in a recession because the National Bureau of Economic Research says so.
And after all, he tells us, the NBER is "a private group of leading economists charged with dating the start and end of economic downturns." So therefore, it's official! Sounds good to me!
The word "official" necessarily implies some sort of authority; since we're talking about things the government's involved with it, it will imply to most people that it's an official government conclusion.
But it's not true. There is no such thing as an "official" recession. Or if there is, I've never seen it in the last decade of looking, and no one's been able to find it when I've asked, and certainly it's never been reported that I've been able to find. It's just blindly accepted that it's "official."
Now, I am not saying we're not in a recession. I think we are. I'm not convinced it started in December 2007 -- but then again, I also disagree with the NBER that the 2001 recession began in 2001, instead of 2000. But I am not finding fault with the NBER's analysis here, I am just noting the fact that there's nothing official about it.
That is, this is the NBER's official recognition of a recession, but it is "official" for no one but themselves. If a competing group of economists wanted to say the recession officially started in June 2008, that would be no less valid.
Isidore goes on to say, erroneously, that "Many people erroneously believe that a recession is defined by two consecutive quarters of economic activity declining." But there's nothing wrong with that at all. It is as valid as what the NBER says. It's less interesting, and less useful. But it's no less "official," because -- once again -- there is no such thing as an "official" recession.
It's like the claim that Pluto is not a planet. It's not official, and it's not true. What's true is that a group of scientists claimed for themselves that Pluto is no longer a planet. Their decision has no bearing on whether Pluto actually is a planet.
If you want to define "planet" in a way such that it includes Pluto, that is absolutely valid and reasonable. Just because a bunch of people you didn't elect or choose to represent you in any way get together and decide Pluto is not a planet, doesn't mean you have to accept it.
If you want to be a sheep and just accept what people tell you, fine. Or if you agree with the conclusions of others based on your own thoughts, also fine. But telling me I should agree just because someone says so? Not fine.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
moof (Score:1)
With good reason, given their and their cohorts' wild (prolly beyond even their wildest dreams) success during the election -- they have every reason to believe that those who are listening to them are basically stupid. Think about it, if you successfully sold someone ocean-view property in Kansas, woudn't you next try selling them the Golden Gate Bridge?
Translation: See, we told you Bush and Republicans are teh bad -- now aren't y
Re: (Score:2)
Charged by whom, or what?
Exactly. Most people blindly accept it without asking that question.
I don't care too much what the answer is, as long as we know WHY it is.
One gripe (Score:2)
When shredding organization A for its non-command of topic B, request you cite and alternative organization C that offers useful analysis on B.
Re: (Score:2)
How is that a gripe?
I am just saying that organization A is no more official than organization C.
Ich frage: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter!
Back to my gripe: (Score:2)
"It doesn't matter!" is the shift from clapping to waving for that lone hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Merely trashing A, with no mention of a preferred alternative C, is truly the sound of one hand clapping.
You did not understand my point.
The "alternative" was clearly stated: don't say NBER's dating is official, because it is not.
I am not trashing NBER. I am not trashing its dating of the recession. I am only saying it is not official.
OK (Score:2)
NBER's not an official source to make this call; whom would you proffer in NBER's stead?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't dispute your point, or that you clearly stated it.
But you're not understanding it, as evidenced here:
NBER's not an official source to make this call; whom would you proffer in NBER's stead?
That makes no sense in regard to anything I've said. My post is not about "shoulds" and "woulds," except that we should not call something official when it's not. I don't care whether we have an official recession-dater; I am just saying that we don't.
Still OK (Score:2)
That makes no sense in regard to anything I've said.
My point all along has been a tangential, stylistic one, outside the scope of anything you've said. So, I'll take the hit for an attempted thread hi-jack, and go lay by my dish.
Cheers, mate.
Re: (Score:2)
My point all along has been a tangential, stylistic one, outside the scope of anything you've said.
OK. Then let me say: I just don't care who would/should/could do it. :-) You're your kind of pedant, I'm mine!
Will Rogers (Score:2)
Depression-era humorist Will Rogers once quipped "A recession is when your neighbor's out of work. A depression is in YOU'RE out of work."
As to CNN being stupid, well DUH. They're journalists. And of course they think you're stupid - all stupid people think anyone who disagrees with them is stupid. CNN is as stupid as Fox, just a different brand of stupid.
Recession... (Score:3, Informative)
But it's not true. There is no such thing as an "official" recession.
In Australia, an official recession is when there are two quarters of negative growth - as defined by our Central Bank. The economy could be in recession right now (as in GDP reducing instead of expanding) but its not officially in recession until we have had two quarters of negative growth (growth being the expansion of GDP). Im not sure about the economic standards in the US, but thats what we use here.
So far it looks like Australia will avoid a recession. Our growth will be very very small, (in the order of 0 - 1%) which means in real terms the economy wont outgrow increases in population, but it wont be a contraction of enough size to warrant the "r" word. (Weve had some pretty major political history based around that word - so politicians will refuse to use it.)