Two periods of negative GDP growth without a rise in unemployment is unprecedented, but that is largely the result of bullwhip effects of the pandemic which was unprecedented.
The actual recession is going to be substantially worse.
The people who argue that we're in a recession right now due to two quarters of negative GDP growth while discounting the fact that every other indicator of the economy has been pretty healthy up until recently just makes me think "tell me you were too young to remember 2008/2001/1992/1982/1980 without telling me you were too young to remember".
IDK it is probably pointless to argue about this with people who will double-down on the strict definition that they think they know. Wait for another 12-24 months and let me know if it feels and order of magnitude worse or not.
(Agreed, though, that CEOs are generally almost naive optimists and that when they're all pessimistic about the economy it can almost become a self-fulfilling prophecy)
That definition of recession is not codified.
The official definition is that we’re in a recession only after an octogenarian declares it (retroactively of course).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2...
Using the 2 quarters rule (something that has no official bearing) means that 2 of the last 3 recessions (2000 and 2020) weren't recessions.
Almost every situation in history of 1 0 1 is considered a recession but 2011, but that one wasn't considered one because Obama was president. however, every time that I know of, back to back shrinking quarters has always been a recession, as far as I know.
And it matches up, we all know its a recession now (except those who want to deny its one because of their political view). its a recession, you only look more wrong trying to deny the obvious.
Only two though-- Q2 was so sharp that everything after that was recovery.
It wouldn't be unusual for a major economic calamity to occur within a single quarter. Both Covid lock downs and the collapse of AIG/LB happened within a matter of weeks.
But that's not receding, that's has receded.
If your implied definition is slipping below the growth trend, then any '50% collapse' is going to ensure 'recession' (by this definition) for probably (or even hopefully) a long time.
A recession is past tense. One can speculate that we are in a recession, but it's not feasible to collect all the information necessary to make that determination in real time. The best one can do is say, "a recession started six months ago, and I think the situation is better/the same/worse."
Shift the quarter to begin in Feb and you'd only have 1Q of decline.
That is why the 2 quarters rule is stupid and why 2020 doesn't fit the rule.
It's just a rule of thumb, not some profound maxim of economics.
That said, you can apply the same to GP's suggestion of months, if the timescales are even shorter.
Begin using the data > Section 1 Domestic Product and Income > Table 1.1.5 Gross Domestic Product > Modify > First year 2016 (refresh table)
How convenient!
They are not. CEOs are generally optimistic. this is a very bad sign. 99.99999% of knowing what someone will do is what they say. people try to read way too much into other things, "what were they really thinking? how has that changed over time?" etc etc. sometimes you just have to snap out of it and LISTEN.
and what you hear is very bad, and far from 'useless'.
as far as whether we are heading into a recession or not, we are not. We are already in a recession. We've had 2 quarters of shrinking GDP. maybe we notch a positive quarter in between the next negative quarter, but its a recession. stop over thinking it.