Unless we’re heading for a recession, why would the White House change the definition of recession?
(mobile.twitter.com)
✅ - TRUTH - ✅
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (4)
sorted by:
Did this actually happen? They’ve changed the definition? I heard the White House lady say (usually 2 quarters of negative growth constitutes a recession but even if we have two quarters of negative growth this is not a recession)
They are so stupid it’s painful. They say, a house fire will burn a house down. But this house fire is not actually a house fire and the house framing remains intact regardless of the rampant fire within.
It’s actually brilliant word smithing. There are no lies in the statement but the fact that people don’t understand the terms used makes them come to a conclusion that the writer is leading them towards while not saying.
They don’t say “two quarters of negative GDP” they say “two consecutive quarters of falling gdp”