Re: "1) Nothing official about it."
Right.
I know.
(That's what I said all along....)
Re: "2) - Parts of the government seem to be using it now, but traditionally government officials would use the 2 negative quarters definition.
You realize, (don't you?), that you have now changed your claim from what it was earlier?
NOW you are saying that the 'government' (what parts of the 'government' - as yet still unspecified by you... despite my asking. But, hey, no need to sweat the small stuff <g>), USED TO USE a 'two negative quarters' definition... but don't any longer.
PREVIOUSLY, of course, you were saying that this older definition was the "official government definition"... (which statement presumably would imply that it was a current 'government definition', not a bygone one....)
But, screw all that, no need to beat any sickly horses <g>... I'm more interested in the words you use for this 'older' (once 'official') definition.
Your say "2 negative [GNP] quarters".
That particular phrase probably needs to be just a bit more precise before we can actually know what you are saying!
1) The more 'modern' definitions mostly now all say something like "declining GNP..." as opposed to "negative GNP" --- so THAT MUCH is perfectly clear as to the intent of your preferred definition. (You mean actual "negative GNP numbers", not just "serious decline in GNP for two quarters" or "major downturn [GNP]", etc. Yep, that part is clear, you mean: "negative".
2) What ISN'T yet clear in your preferred definition (because you have not specified it yet) is whether you are referring to REAL GNP NUMBERS (i.e., inflation-adjusted) or merely the less accurate NOMINAL NUMBERS.
Because, in REAL inflation-adjusted terms, we have *just* posted an actual NEGATIVE Quarter, & there is every likelihood that --- (once they finally get finished with the revising that always goes on with economics stats... usually up to a year or two after the fact before they get the historical numbers right) --- we will perhaps note at least *two* consecutive quarters of 2008 that will have recorded actual NEGATIVE REAL GNP numbers.
As I say --- the most recent Q. (#3)is already in the bag for that. (So possibly #4 or #2 will meet that test and satisfy your preferred, and much more rigorous, definition when they finish correcting the numbers.
Of course... what hasn't happened yet in 2009 is still a great question mark! Could be "negative" quarters there as well....
=====================================================
The definitions I was able to glean, each increasing in rigorousness:
a) significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months.
b) significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting a minimum of two consecutive quarters.
c) a situation in which a country's (inflation-adjusted) real GDP shrinks for at least 2 consecutive quarters
d) a decline in the Gross Domestic Product (real or nominal...) for two or more consecutive quarters.
e) negative REAL GNP for two or more consecutive quarters
f) negative NOMINAL GNP for two or more consecutive quarters.
|
