That seems to be the official wingnut line in response to Phil Gramm's remarks, with the sole exception of what Sean Hannity said on his radio show and by now Hannity may have fallen into line. Last night, I listened to a bit of wingnut Greg Knapp's show and he also claimed that Foreclosure Phil was correct and today there's an op-ed in the WaPo by Amity Shlaes, "Phil Gramm Is Right." (h/t Atrios) Based on her past associations, she also seems to believe in the Free Market Fairy.
As usual, she is so intent on defending the Free Market Fairy that she make a factual error:
"A recession is two consecutive quarters in which the economy shrinks..."
This is NOT how the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) defines a recession:
Q: The financial press often states the definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. How does that relate to the NBER's recession dating procedure?
A:: Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them. According to current data for 2001, the present recession falls into the general pattern, with three consecutive quarters of decline. Our procedure differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we consider the depth as well as the duration of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, "a significant decline in economic activity." Second, we use a broader array of indicators than just real GDP. One reason for this is that the GDP data are subject to considerable revision. Third, we use monthly indicators to arrive at a monthly chronology.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment