Forums | MacLife

The technical definition of a recession most economists use is two consecutive quarters of negative growth in the nation's gross domestic product.

I didn't realize this was the technical definition that most economist used. I thought it was just a general definition that TV pundits used.

Last edited by mo' ron (2008-08-22 4:37 pm)

mo' ron wrote:

The technical definition of a recession most economists use is two consecutive quarters of negative growth in the nation's gross domestic product.

I didn't realize this was the technical definition that most economist used. I thought it was just a general definition that TV pundits used.

Nope, that is the economist's definition but there are some that use other criteria.

Buffet is despised for pointing out that the mega-rich often get away with paying a lower percentage of taxes than those who make far less.

Farmerkev wrote:

mo' ron wrote:

The technical definition of a recession most economists use is two consecutive quarters of negative growth in the nation's gross domestic product.

I didn't realize this was the technical definition that most economist used. I thought it was just a general definition that TV pundits used.

Nope, that is the economist's definition but there are some that use other criteria.

People arguing over definitions of recessions kind of reminds me of people arguing over what does and doesn't constitute "sex."

Nastier than supply and demand?

bratboy wrote:

Buffet is despised for pointing out that the mega-rich often get away with paying a lower percentage of taxes than those who make far less.

Maybe so, but he's right. When you are wealthy enough, your income is generally in the form of interest or dividends, not wages - so they pay the much lower capital gains rate rather than the usual rate.

However, if you tried to raise capital gains tax rates, you would hamper investment - which would likely end up harming the entire economy as a whole, including us wage slaves.

IOW - it's good to be rich; poor, not so much.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Buffett said the economy is in a recession because most Americans aren't doing as well today as before.

That's a reasonable definition. It's also wonderfully vague and unquantifiable. Where is the evidence that *most people*, which presumably means 50% plus one, are worse off in a measurable way?

I fully expect people to post evidence that some people are worse off, or that some average has fallen, but the distinct question is whether MOST people are worse off. Buffet's claim is very bold, when you think about it.

Last edited by freecat (2008-08-24 10:52 am)

freecat wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Buffett said the economy is in a recession because most Americans aren't doing as well today as before.

That's a reasonable definition. It's also wonderfully vague and unquantifiable. Where is the evidence that *most people*, which presumably means 50% plus one, are worse off in a measurable way?

I fully expect people to post evidence that some people are worse off, or that some average has fallen, but the distinct question is whether MOST people are worse off. Buffet's claim is very bold, when you think about it.

I think the anthropological definition is x units of labor required to acquire y amount of nutrition and z amount of housing.

I don't know if its actually true, but I'd have a hard not believing its true.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

So, um, why would posting a falling average not demonstrate that most people are worse off?

I was wondering the same thing.

I don't know what figures are being used here but averages don't show majority, you guys know that.

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

So, um, why would posting a falling average not demonstrate that most people are worse off?

I was wondering the same thing.

I don't know what figures are being used here but averages don't show majority, you guys know that.

If the majority is better off, but a minority is so much worse off that the averages show an overall decline, wouldn't that be sort of a problem too?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

So, um, why would posting a falling average not demonstrate that most people are worse off?

I was wondering the same thing.

If most = 50% + 1, then a falling average may not constitute a change for most. It may mean a major change for some (likely a substantial some, but still less than the majority).

Average of:
5, 5, 5, 5, 5 is 5

Average of:
5, 5, 5, 5, 0 is 4

Tallgeese wrote:

Average does not always mean arithmetic mean. For example, median household income is an oft-used "average" metric.

True. But "average" seems to be journalist-speak for mean... unless they actually say "median."

And no one really cares about the mode. Except pie a la mode. Mmmm.