So, more precisely, we don't know what a recession is anymore. Why do we need to change the definition of recession anyhow?
A recession is two negative back to back quarters. Always have been, always will be that way.
The only reason some snake-oil-salesmen on TV think, they need to change that, is, that the samesnake-oil-salesmen predicted the economy would fall of a cliff and take on depression like character. Now that this isn't happening they redefine recession.
Ridiculous.
I find the whole argument 'recession or not' futile. One should look for companies, that perform and dump those, who don't. Period.
The rest is simply a justification for the existence of financial TV.
-
So, more precisely, we don't know what a recession is anymore. Why do we need to change the definition of recession anyhow?
May 01 04:48 am
|Rating:
0
0
All Comments by JREwing »News That Moved Wednesday's Market [View article]
A recession is two negative back to back quarters. Always have been, always will be that way.
The only reason some snake-oil-salesmen on TV think, they need to change that, is, that the samesnake-oil-salesmen predicted the economy would fall of a cliff and take on depression like character. Now that this isn't happening they redefine recession.
Ridiculous.
I find the whole argument 'recession or not' futile. One should look for companies, that perform and dump those, who don't. Period.
The rest is simply a justification for the existence of financial TV.