NEW YORK (AP) — Most business economists think the U.S. economy could avoid a recession next year, even if the job market ends up weakening under the weight of high interest rates, according to a survey released Monday.
Only 24% of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics said they see a recession in 2024 as more likely than not. The 38 surveyed economists come from such organizations as Morgan Stanley, the University of Arkansas and Nationwide.
Such predictions imply the belief that the Federal Reserve can pull off the delicate balancing act of slowing the economy just enough through high interest rates to get inflation under control, without snuffing out its growth completely.
…
High rates work to slow inflation by making borrowing more expensive and hurting prices for stocks and other investments. The combination typically slows spending and starves inflation of its fuel. So far, the job market has remained remarkably solid despite high interest rates, and the unemployment rate sat at a low 3.9% in October.
I don’t know why we let the economists define our terms. Be like doctors redefining illness to only being one disease and announcing that they cured all illnesses
No, that would be like people re-defining all sickness to be a cold, and then getting annoyed when their doctors tell them that Chlamydia is not, in fact, a cold and won’t be cured by time and Tylenol.
No I had it right the first time, but thanks for your “help”. I know what YOU economists did and don’t need you to explain your version of events.
… No, you fucked it up both times
If you think professionals defining the terms of their profession is outrageous, graduating high school is gonna drop a brick on your head
Nope.
Lol, aight bud, you keep going on thinking you invent definitions of words used by people in jobs you dont work
That will get you as far as a fly pisses, but dont let that stop ya
Even economists don’t like to use the exact same metrics and parameters to “define” a recession every time. And most importantly, a significant portion like to do it after the fact. Because saying something like “a lack of growth for x consecutive quarters”, etc, doesn’t cover all possibilities.
Cue all the people that think a single definition they learned about is the only one that exists and should exist for no discernable practical reason.
“I dunno why we let doctors define all our illnesses.” Yeah it might be cause they are more informed on the nuance of their work to know what defined the terms
Shocks me the confidence some folk have about topics theyve never studied
Apples and oranges. Economics has always struggled with mathematical rigor because it’s a highly dynamic system with too many variables that are impossible to control if only to study well, so our understanding of it and how to shape it is still growing. Most importantly, it doesn’t have the same level of certainty in its claims from a scientific perspective as a panel of doctors would have in discussing illnesses. There’s also the difference in political stakes. The economy is doing the same no matter whether you are able to affix a label on it or not (that many economists won’t want to decide on until it’s behind us). We’re just arguing on whether we get to use that label, when most people in the U.S. are struggling. They’re focusing on what affects them, whereas economists are also looking at a bigger range of other factors, including how businesses and the higher classes are faring. This is where the divide comes from. At the end of the day, you’re not going to convince most people they aren’t in pain, because they are, based on metrics they don’t care about.
TIL I am an economist