I didn’t say that. Md said that. I said u need macro to get into finance. I’m guessing macro class is what he was talking about. At no point in any class, macro included, do they not teach the 2 qtr signal
As an econ major, this is simply not true. Macro 101 does not get into that level of specificity about American recessions.
Lol, I didn’t say it did. Go back and read the posts. The 2 qtr rule is such an elementary signal that I can’t tell u which class it’s taught in, was just always known as fact. He said macro as some sort of backing knowledge. I just responded to his macro claim. I was finance with math minor. I assure u that uf taught the 2 qtr signal.
LOL, this is what you said: "At no point in any class, macro included, do they not teach the 2 qtr signal" Can you tell me what that sentence means?
My bad. My point was that is the golden rule. My apologies, lol. They don’t teach recession signals in every single class. Your post is complete humor. I called him out for being full of fecal and your defense is they don’t teach that in macro. It’s such a simple, basic rule that it’s like trying to remember what grade you were in when u learned 1 +1. Let me ask you with ur ECONOMIC degree, am I wrong ?
Not really. It has been this way for a long time. Here is NBER's discussion of the issue: Business Cycle Dating Procedure: Frequently Asked Questions
Dear God bud, I just got done with a guy telling me they don’t teach that stuff in macro, which he’s Probly right, then macro guy comes back to the party spouting off stupid sht
I think the problem here is you're not very good at expressing yourself. When you were initially questioned about why they would teach you the definition of a recession in finance classes, you responded by saying 'need macro to get into finance'. So you brought in macroeconomics and implied that they taught the definition of US recessions in it. As for your question, I can tell you that they spend very little time, if any, in econ courses teaching that 2 quarters of negative GDP growth = recession. I don't know about finance courses, but I don't know why they would be wasting time in them talking about the definition of recessions.
I’m not sure why I’m still playing this game when you know I’m right you just go in circles not to admit it. Anyway, here goes “Not even sure why they would, given that the topic is Macroeconomics, not Finance.” thlis is what the good doctor posted. I responded u need macro to get to finance. I’m not sure why this is so difficult to follow. Just to be super clear at expressing myself, this is a very basic rule. And yes it definitely applies to finance.
Well your reply strongly implied that you got the 2 quarter neg GDP growth = recession thing from your prerequisite macro course. Because he questioned why you would be getting the recession definition in your finance courses and you replied that you had to take macro as part of your degree. Bottom line is, you're full of shit. They don't spend much, if any, time talking about the definition of a US recession in either finance or econ courses.
Wow. Please reread the post. Somewhere along the line you seem to be getting lost. For the final time, he stated it was macro not finance. I actually am usually full of sht just not on this one. A major part of finance is ratios beta and stock prediction. Im sorry if you disagree with that but that’s the actual classes I went to. It feels like I’m talking to my 16 yr old daughter right now.
Well it's just a shame then that your finance classes taught you an incorrect definition of a recession. Also, if you're waiting 2 quarters for that recession signal to predict stocks, I'm glad you're not my stock brocker.
it appears our present interest rates are about the same as the late 1990s. How prosperous was our country then?
