[Nick Danger]

I would say because there was no second dip recession in 2002. As a matter of fact, two of the three quarters which the Yale Economic Model is deeming "good news quarters" were the 1st and 3rd quarters of 2002

1st and 3rd quarter? What happened in the 2nd? And the 4th? Do we have a trend here of high growth, or is there sputtering going on?

I like constant-dollar numbers better, so we can watch GDP without also watching price movements mixed in.

Those look like this:

 2002 01  9655.3   6.544%   2.158%
 2002 02  9694.8   1.646%   3.077%
 2002 03  9858.1   6.910%   4.954%
 2002 04  9909.4   2.098%   4.271%
 

I don't understand what you're trying to do here. You already know that I know where to get these numbers. So why would you try to slip something like "1st and 3rd quarter" by us? Surely you must have anticipated that someone would know what the 2nd and 4th quarter numbers looked like as well. Selectively quoting two quarters that support your point, while pretending that the quarters in between -- which do not support your point -- do not exist, reeks of an attempt to mislead.

The entire series, going back to 1967, is here.

[AntiGuv]

Since a recession is by definition "two consecutive quarters of declining GDP" it is safe to conclude that there was no recession in 2002 no matter what happened in the 2nd and 4th quarters.

I don't understand what you're trying to do here. You already know that I know where to get these numbers. So why would you try to slip something like "1st and 3rd quarter" by us? Surely you must have anticipated that someone would know what the 2nd and 4th quarter numbers looked like as well.

I wrongly assumed that in your spectacular erudition and dazzling brilliance, you knew the definition of a recession. I apologize for my impertinence.

[AntiGuv]

Sorry, that was rude and I've been trying to get in touch with the kinder, gentler AntiGuv. See ya later.