[TeleStraightShooter]

That definition of "recession" is recently invented one to fit a leftist political need.

Yet, as any economist knows, a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth

And I take issue with Lott's assertion of a 2000 recession

[JLS]

Yet, as any economist knows, a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth

Sorry but most economist know a recession in the US is when the NBER [National Bureau of Economic Research] calls a recession. The two consectutive quarters is a rule of thumb popularized by principles of economics textbooks.

[mnehring]

Ding Ding Ding... another winner.. the ‘recession’ in 2000 was, by calculated standards, not technically a recession as we never met the two consecutive quarters of negative growth. We did have multiple quarters of negative growth between 2000 and 2001, but they were not consecutive.

Don't tell that to 90% of the population who also thing getting money back on their taxes is also a good thing.

[dangus]

Lott is right.

I know the textbook definition is negative growth rates for two consecutive quarters. But by that definition, the economy could contract 99.9% in one quarter, then grow by 0.1% the next quarter, and that’s not a recession... even if it contracts in a third quarter by 99.9% again.

The point is that the contraction should last at least two quarters, so that a single fluke statistic doesn’t define a recession. And in the time period from Q1 2001 until Q3 2001, the economy shrank. Given the anemic growth in late 2000, it’s certain that the economy began to shrink within Q4. And an observation of monthly data confirms that.

Definitions are always generalizations. Saying there was no economic recession makes no more sense than saying that your parakeet is no longer a bird just because you plucked all its feathers.