100% Chance
100% Chance
Link to the original article:
You're viewing part of a thread.
I thought it would be clear that the National Board of Economic advisors wouldn't be working fir all nations.
The NBER declares recessions for the USA and they did not do so due to employment stats. The literature regarding this has been very clear about this point.
I thought it would be clear that the National Board of Economic advisors wouldn't be working fir all nations.
And I thought that it would be clear that if other nations have different ways to define a recession, then it would be obvious that your dispute is semantic in nature.
The NBER declares recessions for the USA
Right..... they declare when they believe the country has entered a recession. However, that self determination may not always be correct.
If the general population experiences the effects of a recession and the NBER doesn't agree, that doesn't mean we didn't experience a recession. It justeans that are economy has changed and things like employment numbers aren't as important as they used to be.
The literature regarding this has been very clear about this point.
Yes, but the literature and theory surrounding economic policy is wrong more often than not. I mean the entire premise of capitalism is built upon the fallacious assumption that it's possible to maintain perpetual growth.
I think people like to imagine that economics is more of a hard science, when in reality it is based on unreliable and enigmatic variables like public opinion.
Except it isn't because in context it is clear we are talking about the USA and the current day so NBER is the appropriate source and Im not being pedantic you just seem to be having troubles following the conversation and/or want to get involved in tangents.
As we cannot in any meaningful way determine when a recession is happening based on anecdotal experience it doesn't mean anything what individuals experience.
Recessions are specific instances and when you can easily get not just a job but one that pays more we are not in the conditions of a recession.
The original claim was that "they" changed the definition of recession. You are the one who is insisting that "they"= "we are talking about the USA and the current day"
They could imply the capitalist, the ruling class, the government, or even an organization like the NBER. Unless you are claiming that how we determine if a recession has occurred has remained unchanged throughout the history of capitalism, then your claim was a semantic dispute. If you are claiming that then you are just incorrect.
The article this whole thread is about discusses the chances for a recession in AMERICA, so Im not the only one saying they=American.
This isn't semantics. You have not been paying any attention to the subject at hand. Might I suggest you look at the title of the linked article?
The article this whole thread is about discusses the chances for a recession in AMERICA, so Im not the only one saying they=American.
Right..... But "they" doesn't imply a specific entity, nor does it specify a time.
The way we define a recession in America has changed over time, we only started utilizing the NBER for this in the 1960s.
They does apply to a specific entity since the discussion is overtly about America.
"They" changed the definition would mean the US government changed the definition and that is incorrect.
And now that I have explained 3rd grade English grammar to you regarding how pronouns work, I think we can stop here. You were not paying any attention to the subject at and kept losing the thread and then resorting to bs when this was pointed out.
"They" changed the definition would mean the US government changed the definition and that is incorrect.
Lol, if we are basing this on your assumption wouldn't "they" mean the NBER?
And if they meant either, wouldn't that still be correct given that the way they define a recession has adapted over time......again they made an extremely vague claim that did not include any specified descriptors, including time.
You were not paying any attention to the subject at and kept losing the thread and then resorting to bs when this was pointed out.
My original claim was that you were having a semantic dispute.... That's still my claim. Your issue is that you are stuck in an intentionality fallacy, where you have assumed the meaning of his statement and then rejected it for not being as specific as you would like.
now that I have explained 3rd grade English grammar
Lol, and you are still failing to understand that the specificity of a pronoun cannot be assumed by a person outside of a discourse. A person making a vague claim after reading an article is not specific enough to assume their meaning unless asked for further clarification.
OP has no idea who NBER was so "they" would be the government.
Do context clues exist in your first language?