Talk:Recession

Added "Better reference" section

This article should use a few of the oldest references available for the definition of the term recession, preferably hard-copy textbooks on economics that cannot be electronically altered on a whim. I don't currently have access to such old books, but I've heard talk show commentators state that the definition of two successive quarters of declining GDP/GNP has been in use for at least half a century, i.e., since the 1970s, or earlier, well before the World Wide Web and eBooks. The attempt by the Biden mob in late July 2022 to redefine the term should not be respected, although it should be noted for what it is — an Orwellian redefinition to avoid objective evaluation of their poor performance. — Dave Wilcox (talk) 12:30, August 8, 2022 (EDT)

The NBER is the group tasked with defining when a recession begins and ends. Technically, there is some leeway in making that determination, because obviously the current recession did not begin on January 1, 2022. It could have started earlier in the fourth quarter of 2021, of even sometime after Jan 1st. Two consecutive quarters is a rule of thumb that confirms recession.

But yes, there is other criteria looked at, which is what Biden cronies are arguing, principally unemployment. In recent decades, unemployment of 5.7% is when members Congress begin panicking for their jobs and start talking of Stimulus. In the current case, unemployment is 3.6% (we'll leave aside a discussion of cooked numbers in UC stats & the CPI for now). So the question is, Is unemployment set to rise in the coming quarter or two? Amazon.com laid off 100,000 workers, and Wal Mart, the nation's largest employer is also laying off (both are related to supply chain issues. And China is considering supply chains sanctions in retaliation for Pelosi's provocation).

Not only is this a recession, it is purely a man-made, D.C. directed recession. RobS^{Ich bin ein breakfast taco} 12:58, August 8, 2022 (EDT)