>> Typically, a recession is defined by whether
>> friends/acquaintances lose their jobs. When we personally loose a job,
>> that's "depression."
>>Robert D. Manning
>>Rochester Institute of Technology
>
>I'd agree -- except I think the terms have shifted. Remember,
>"Depression" was orginally coined as a euphemism for "panic". (I know this
>because of reading some really bad early 20th century mysteries about a
>professional "swindler".)
>
> These days, the shift has occurred again. "Recession" is now used where
> "depression:" used to be; "downturn" is used where "recession" used to
> be. And "correction" is used where downturn used to be. ..
except that there's an "official" definition of a "recession" (two
quarters' worth of declining real GDP). (It should be noted, however, that
the NBER that makes these determinations is in no way "official," since
it's a non-governmental organization.) So in addition to the usual
euphemizing and neologismizing) mentioned above, there's been a bit of an
obsession with whether or not "we're" in an officially-defined recession.
But often forgotten is the fact that even without an official recession,
workers can be in a recession, since even a slowdown in real GDP causes
unemployment to rise. Indeed, Greenspan used to be striving for a "soft
landing," in which workers were to be screwed but his friends would do fine...
Yes, Hoover started to use the word "depression" since "crisis" and "panic"
sounded so bad. "Rolling readjustment" is a recent euphemism.
Apropos of nothing, I remember that I told pen-l's Brad deLong that it was
possible -- quite possible -- that a "soft landing" could become a
recession if and when the accelerator effect (the discouragement of real
fixed investment by slow or falling GDP) kicked in. He pooh-poohed me.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
