Replies

"And Lott’s point is pretty well taken, as yet we have not had a quarter of negative growth during this election cycle."

I agree with that statement. I also agree with the general point Lott is trying to make. I just don't think he needs to revise history and claim a recession in 2000 when there was not.

Direct from the pages of the BEA: link

In general usage, the word recession connotes a marked slippage in economic activity. While gross domestic product (GDP) is the broadest measure of economic activity, the often-cited identification of a recession with two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth is not an official designation. The designation of a recession is the province of a committee of experts at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a private non-profit research organization that focuses on understanding the U.S. economy.

Since you are relying upon data from the BEA and they rely upon the NBER, is there a conclusion to be reached here? I cannot match your knowledge of this subject as you are a professional economist living and breathing this type of information while I am not, but I'm also not fully illiterate, do have post graduate degrees and can read. It seems to me that the reason an entity such as NBER has it's provenance is precisely so one has somewhere to look for answers. Whether they are East coast, West coast, ivy league or hillbilly doesn't matter as long as they are consistent and I know their bias. Personally I think they exist to keep bloggers from revising history.

I just don't want to wind up on Jeopardy some day and miss that econ daily double about the 2000 recession simply because an article from John Lott, Jr. stuck in my mind.

I also agree with your eyebrows rising over the strangeness of 1st qtr 2001 negative growth not being mentioned. However, I had a multi-day debate with my son's room mate in the summer of 2002 over this very subject and the data at the time didn't reflect Q1-2001 being negative. I'm sure that is a revision as I may not remember the exact numbers, but I certainly would have remembered a negative quarter as it would have simply killed my argument.

Since you are relying upon data from the BEA and they rely upon the NBER, is there a conclusion to be reached here?

I took notice of Lott's non-NBER recession dates too. I might have just pointed them out had other not already done so.

The NBER is just a group of people offering an opinion. I am sure the original idea was to have a non-partisan group end arguments between the administration and the party not in the White House on when we had a recession. In much of the past it was not that big a deal. Recessions or contraction were deep and long enough to leave little room for argument. Fortunately we have made progress in stabilizing the economy, but that leads to argument about was there a recession in periods like 2000-2001 or not.

Of course at one time the MSM prided themselves in objectivity. They have thrown that out the window. At one time American universities were proud not to be politicized like say those in South America, but alas that to is out the window. To me that means products of the academy like the NBER calls of recession are now more suspect than in the past. The people at the NBER live in an environment where they will be pestered less and treated better if they dont call a recession as having started in during the last half year of the Clinton administration. Economists study and believe people follow incentive and the NBER maybe was in this case. The NBER may have taken a baby step on that slippery slope that the MSM and much of the academy have slid well down before them. For the sake of my profession, I hope they correct this and maybe even go back and revise the dates of that recession.

I cannot match your knowledge of this subject as you are a professional economist living and breathing this type of information while I am not, but I'm also not fully illiterate, do have post graduate degrees and can read. It seems to me that the reason an entity such as NBER has it's provenance is precisely so one has somewhere to look for answers. Whether they are East coast, West coast, ivy league or hillbilly doesn't matter as long as they are consistent and I know their bias. Personally I think they exist to keep bloggers from revising history.

If I have an advantage in this, it is that I know everyone involved is just a person offering an opinion. John Lott is just a guy who was an attendee at two week seminar I once went to. The guys at the NBER are just guys too. They are just other people who went to grad school and became professional economist. [Heck I was once in a session at some economics meetings and in late wanders Milton Friedman who sat in the seat behind me, listen to a paper and left.] So I recognize they made a call and I recognize that Lott is differing with them as is his right. The data suggest neither can claim the other is completely all wet on their call.

I just don't want to wind up on Jeopardy some day and miss that econ daily double about the 2000 recession simply because an article from John Lott, Jr. stuck in my mind.

Alas the correct answer on Jeopardy is always the standard answer. So if the answer is He was the worst dictator of the 20th Century and they want Who was Adolph Hitler, it is does not matter if you or I or John Lott thinks it was Mao or Stalin. Sometime you can be more informed than Jeopardy or Trivial Pursuit, ie Althea Gibson.

I also agree with your eyebrows rising over the strangeness of 1st qtr 2001 negative growth not being mentioned. However, I had a multi-day debate with my son's room mate in the summer of 2002 over this very subject and the data at the time didn't reflect Q1-2001 being negative. I'm sure that is a revision as I may not remember the exact numbers, but I certainly would have remembered a negative quarter as it would have simply killed my argument.

As you know, there are revisions to the GDP growth data. I did check and find a contemporaneous source showing no negative GDP until 2001:Q3, 2000:Q3 and 2001:Q1 must be due to revisions. I wonder what will happen to the 0.6 percent from the 2007:Q4? BTW, in 2007:Q1 also came in at 0.6, yet 2007:Q2 and 2007:Q3 were strong growth quarters.