I'm not entirely sure how this was modded informative since it's wrong. A recession happens whenever the National Bureau of Economic Research says it happens. Here is what they said and their reasons for calling the recession. In it you will note these tidbits:
Q: The financial press often states the definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. How does that relate to the NBER's recession dating procedure?
A: Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them. As an example, the last recession, in 2001, did not include two consecutive quarters of decline. As of the date of the committee's meeting, the economy had not yet experienced two consecutive quarters of decline.
Q: Why doesn't the committee accept the two-quarter definition?
A: The committee's procedure for identifying turning points differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we do not identify economic activity solely with real GDP, but use a range of indicators. Second, we place considerable emphasis on monthly indicators in arriving at a monthly chronology. Third, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, "a significant decline in activity." Fourth, in examining the behavior of domestic production, we consider not only the conventional product-side GDP estimates, but also the conceptually equivalent income-side GDI estimates. The differences between these two sets of estimates were particularly evident in 2007 and 2008.
Q: Isn't a recession a period of diminished economic activity?
A: It's more accurate to say that a recession--the way we use the word--is a period of diminishing activity rather than diminished (emphasis theirs) activity. We identify a month when the economy reached a peak of activity and a later month when the economy reached a trough. The time in between is a recession, a period when economic activity is contracting. The following period is an expansion.
Of course that neglects to mention that apparently Activision licensed the design (or at least something) from Gibson. So why would Gibson sue whenever it granted a license to Activision?
Eh, I think I meant to say mislead. You're right; it isn't deception, but I was misleading. I think it's a normal to assume that I would actually have coins in my pocket if I promised them in a non-gambling sort of way.
But anyways, I was trying (and hopefully succeeded!) in making a counterpoint to the parent: statements can be either true, false, or neither, and just because someone say something that isn't true, doesn't mean he is a liar.
You're either being truthful or you're not. You either have good intentions or you don't. Yes, the world *is* this black and white. The world *is* this simple. And you're either lying or you're not. Sometimes it's hard to determine, but it's one way or the other. Any amount of lying makes your whole statement untrue and therefore you're a liar.
I'm sorry but this view is too over simplistic. There are times when you can be both not truthful and not lying.
Say one day I have a kid and I make a deal with him. I tell him I'll give him all the coins I have that day in my pocket if he brings home all As on his report card. Report card day rolls around and he has all As and wants his money.
Now, let's say I don't have any coins to give him. Did I lie? No because I never said I would have coins in my pocket. I deceived him but didn't lie to him him. Now, if I had coins and still didn't give them to him, I would most definitely be lying.
My point is you can neither be telling the truth nor telling a lie. More often that not the truth is the best policy, but occassionally, especially with high performers with low-self esteem (or with a significant other), little white lies and other embellishments might just be the best policy.
I just look at the number of urban legends that get forwarded along. People still believe in that stuff, no matter if you point them out that they're wrong. A lot of people I know haven't developed a sense of skepticism. I think it probably tends from the older generations: Before the internet, there were generally fewer sources of information. Now, there are brazillions, and any Joe Sixpack can post something online about stuff that can appear reasonable, perhaps trying to pass off the Piñata Preservation Foundation (since every year, hundreds upon thousands of innocent Piñatas have been slaughtered for their yummy-yum insides) off as a real charity. Occassionally when I start that spiel, some people who don't know me actually believe it's a real charity. These aren't young kids either that would believe me.
Please excuse the digression. . . These people believe it's true since for so long they haven't had to have skepticism. Most news is fact checked. A lot of blogs and websites aren't. Usually if someone is egregiously wrong, a counter blog or website is put up. But how many non-skeptics would go out of their way to find them, especially if those sites agree with personal worldviews?
For me, it basically boils down to small town America dynamics at work with a lot greater population. People can be run out of town based on a rumour, and a lot of rumours tend to be outright wrong or at least great exaggerations. People like to get worked up about that kind of stuff apparently since it probably makes them feel like they're sticking it to the MAN (tm) or just nice vigilente justice.
Companies don't get profit from rising stock prices, nor really anything if they don't sell any stock. Once stock is out the window, the company isn't going to get more cash unless it sells more stock. So rising stock prices != more profit. It doesn't even mean more cash, unless the company sold stock at a higher rate.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not entirely sure how this was modded informative since it's wrong. A recession happens whenever the National Bureau of Economic Research says it happens. Here is what they said and their reasons for calling the recession. In it you will note these tidbits: Q: The financial press often states the definition of a recession as two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. How does that relate to the NBER's recession dating procedure? A: Most of the recessions identified by our procedures do consist of two or more quarters of declining real GDP, but not all of them. As an example, the last recession, in 2001, did not include two consecutive quarters of decline. As of the date of the committee's meeting, the economy had not yet experienced two consecutive quarters of decline. Q: Why doesn't the committee accept the two-quarter definition? A: The committee's procedure for identifying turning points differs from the two-quarter rule in a number of ways. First, we do not identify economic activity solely with real GDP, but use a range of indicators. Second, we place considerable emphasis on monthly indicators in arriving at a monthly chronology. Third, we consider the depth of the decline in economic activity. Recall that our definition includes the phrase, "a significant decline in activity." Fourth, in examining the behavior of domestic production, we consider not only the conventional product-side GDP estimates, but also the conceptually equivalent income-side GDI estimates. The differences between these two sets of estimates were particularly evident in 2007 and 2008. Q: Isn't a recession a period of diminished economic activity? A: It's more accurate to say that a recession--the way we use the word--is a period of diminishing activity rather than diminished (emphasis theirs) activity. We identify a month when the economy reached a peak of activity and a later month when the economy reached a trough. The time in between is a recession, a period when economic activity is contracting. The following period is an expansion.
Of course that neglects to mention that apparently Activision licensed the design (or at least something) from Gibson. So why would Gibson sue whenever it granted a license to Activision?
Last time I checked, Guild Wars isn't Play-to-Pay anymore than a regular video game...
Eh, I think I meant to say mislead. You're right; it isn't deception, but I was misleading. I think it's a normal to assume that I would actually have coins in my pocket if I promised them in a non-gambling sort of way.
But anyways, I was trying (and hopefully succeeded!) in making a counterpoint to the parent: statements can be either true, false, or neither, and just because someone say something that isn't true, doesn't mean he is a liar.
You're either being truthful or you're not. You either have good intentions or you don't. Yes, the world *is* this black and white. The world *is* this simple. And you're either lying or you're not. Sometimes it's hard to determine, but it's one way or the other. Any amount of lying makes your whole statement untrue and therefore you're a liar.
I'm sorry but this view is too over simplistic. There are times when you can be both not truthful and not lying.
Say one day I have a kid and I make a deal with him. I tell him I'll give him all the coins I have that day in my pocket if he brings home all As on his report card. Report card day rolls around and he has all As and wants his money.
Now, let's say I don't have any coins to give him. Did I lie? No because I never said I would have coins in my pocket. I deceived him but didn't lie to him him. Now, if I had coins and still didn't give them to him, I would most definitely be lying.
My point is you can neither be telling the truth nor telling a lie. More often that not the truth is the best policy, but occassionally, especially with high performers with low-self esteem (or with a significant other), little white lies and other embellishments might just be the best policy.
So with all these pirates running around, will the earth stop warming?
yes, from all of those Boys
I just look at the number of urban legends that get forwarded along. People still believe in that stuff, no matter if you point them out that they're wrong. A lot of people I know haven't developed a sense of skepticism. I think it probably tends from the older generations: Before the internet, there were generally fewer sources of information. Now, there are brazillions, and any Joe Sixpack can post something online about stuff that can appear reasonable, perhaps trying to pass off the Piñata Preservation Foundation (since every year, hundreds upon thousands of innocent Piñatas have been slaughtered for their yummy-yum insides) off as a real charity. Occassionally when I start that spiel, some people who don't know me actually believe it's a real charity. These aren't young kids either that would believe me.
Please excuse the digression. . . These people believe it's true since for so long they haven't had to have skepticism. Most news is fact checked. A lot of blogs and websites aren't. Usually if someone is egregiously wrong, a counter blog or website is put up. But how many non-skeptics would go out of their way to find them, especially if those sites agree with personal worldviews?
For me, it basically boils down to small town America dynamics at work with a lot greater population. People can be run out of town based on a rumour, and a lot of rumours tend to be outright wrong or at least great exaggerations. People like to get worked up about that kind of stuff apparently since it probably makes them feel like they're sticking it to the MAN (tm) or just nice vigilente justice.
Companies don't get profit from rising stock prices, nor really anything if they don't sell any stock. Once stock is out the window, the company isn't going to get more cash unless it sells more stock. So rising stock prices != more profit. It doesn't even mean more cash, unless the company sold stock at a higher rate.