It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: Gryphon66
The technical definition is 4 consecutive quarters (a year) or more of negative GDP growth.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: Gryphon66
The technical definition is 4 consecutive quarters (a year) or more of negative GDP growth.
I think 2 quarters not 4 is the most common definition although it varies.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: Gryphon66
The technical definition is 4 consecutive quarters (a year) or more of negative GDP growth.
I think 2 quarters not 4 is the most common definition although it varies.
Excellent.
Now, has American GDP declined or risen for the last two quarters?
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: Gryphon66
The technical definition is 4 consecutive quarters (a year) or more of negative GDP growth.
I think 2 quarters not 4 is the most common definition although it varies.
Excellent.
Now, has American GDP declined or risen for the last two quarters?
I believe GDP increased (all be it slightly) q3 & q4 2015. GDP figures can be revised historically however unlikely to put into negative figures. Q1 figures aren't available yet (happy to be corrected if wrong).
originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Gryphon66
Not overly familiar with the source for the OP however it is certainly incorrect to say the US is in recession.
Journalists often use recession to mean economy not doing well enough ( with ' well enough' defined as I don't support the current government).
Economics terms are as often misused by laymen as any other science.
I will not wait with bated breath for multiple posts telling me economics isn't a real science.
originally posted by: onequestion
Well...
If the amount of people in the total workforce has declined at a rate similar to the decline in unemployment I can extrapolate from that data that the corresponding deduction in unemployement is due to the fact that less people are participating in the workforce and not that more people have found full time jobs.
Let's start there.
originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: Gryphon66
Dude, why are you engaging this guy? He knows nothing of economics... he makes a bunch of baseless assertions but has no clue about macroeconomics. You're feeding his ego. You don't see that?? He's here to troll and pat himself on the back. Please don't respond to him.
originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
a reply to: Gryphon66
What do you wanna know? I'll tell it to you. What would you like countered with facts? Ask me.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: onequestion
Well...
If the amount of people in the total workforce has declined at a rate similar to the decline in unemployment I can extrapolate from that data that the corresponding deduction in unemployement is due to the fact that less people are participating in the workforce and not that more people have found full time jobs.
Let's start there.
Where's your data?
Link it and we can start there.