Most of the US economy is in a recession

2026-03-0822:01236247www.businessinsider.com

Wall Street veteran Jim Paulsen said tech is the only bright spot in the economy, comparing the bifurcation to the Mag 7 vs. the rest of the S&P 500.

A sign reads "AI changes everything" at an industry conference in Berlin, Germany, on March 04, 2026.
Sean Gallup/Getty Images

This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now.

  • Most of the US economy is in a recession, Jim Paulsen said in a recent post.
  • The veteran strategist explained that "new era" spending is propping up the wider economy.
  • Paulsen compared the bifurcation to the Mag 7 vs. the rest of the stock market.

The US economy has proven more resilient than many feared, but one Wall Street veteran says that a recession is only being held back by tech.

Jim Paulsen, a markets strategist with more than 40 years of experience on Wall Street, argued that most of the economy is already in a recession. Tech spending has an outsized influence on economic growth, bolstering the data while the "old" economy struggles.

"Technology may be the tail wagging the dog, but the rest is a recession by any other name," Paulsen wrote in a Thursday Substack post.

The 'old era economy' is in a recession

Real private GDP rose 2.3% in 2025, Paulsen said, but nearly all of this economic growth is tied to what he calls "new era" growth.

"Excluding new era investment, the other 89% of real private spending rose by only 1% with no job creation," the strategist wrote.

Real GDP is generally considered to be a good measure of economic growth, but in recent years, the metric has seen several distortions from factors like government spending, tax changes, and tariff-fueled supply and demand volatility. Focusing on private real GDP strips out some of these distortions.

"Do we really need to continue focusing mostly on inflation when 89% of the private economy is in a recession and the 11% which is booming — new era pursuits — are by their very nature 'disinflationary'?"

The 'new era' economy is booming, lifting GDP

The strategist focused on business spending on information processing equipment and intellectual property, using it as a measure of "new era" spending. This would include big tech's mega spending on AI.

Paulsen found that the new era subsection has grown nearly 2.5 times as fast as traditional private-sector spending. This gap has only widened in more recent years.

New era investment spending weight on real private GDP has grown since 1965

Weight of new era investment spending as a percent of real private GDP from 1965 to 2025 from Jim Paulsen.

New era investment spending has had a growing influence on real private GDP, Jim Paulsen's calculations show. Jim Paulsen's Substack PaulsenPerspectives

New-era private spending grew 14% in 2025, compared to 1% growth in private spending, excluding the tech-focused subset.

"Overall, new era pursuits have grown rapidly and their influence on the overall U.S. economy has become outsized relative to old era activities," Paulsen wrote.

New era and old economy gap mirrors Mag 7 and the other 493

Paulsen compared the widening gap to the stock market narrative of the Magnificent Seven vs. the other 493 stocks in the S&P 500.

The stock market lately has seen gains broaden, with AI disruption fears and the war in Iran supporting a broader rotation out of former tech leaders.

The dynamic between the new era economy vs. everything else shows deeper bifurcation.

"When the President, the Federal Reserve Chairman, economists, financial pundits, and journalists imply overall real GDP growth currently remains okay, it misses the fact that, similar to the stock market, although the aggregate growth number appears satisfactory, the great bulk of the economy — 89% -- is NOT doing okay!"

This dynamic could explain the mixed sentiment among economists as well as the discrepancy between the American public's negative view of the economy and what economic data signals.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By amazingamazing 2026-03-090:339 reply

    2023 - "The US is already in a 'rolling recession'": https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/recession-mi...

    2024 - vibe cession: https://www.businessinsider.com/consumers-pessimistic-on-eco...

    2025 - "a recession in 2025": https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/2025-stock-m...

    people just so desperately want the USA to be in a recession it seems.

    • By AngryData 2026-03-092:201 reply

      Or maybe it is in one, but neither the government nor wallstreet wants to admit it because it will kill their investment markets, kill political careers, and cause large shifts in voting patterns which threatens established parties and companies.

      When even big tech companies are starting to say it, the highest margin businesses with the highest paid workers, how do you imagine most other industries are and have been feeling?

      • By joe_mamba 2026-03-097:58

        Yeah I dislike this disingenuous and out of touch argument that "we're not in a recession because this random graph found is going up". More people can struggle to pay bills even if the DOW and S&P is up.

        Most people don't judge the economic situation based on graphs the TV shows them, they judge it based on how much month they have left at the end of the pay cheque and how easy can they get a new decent job when they get laid off.

        The economy != the stock market. I wish HN would get that, but since a lot of people here are asset millionaires, they're way too out of touch.

    • By SlinkyOnStairs 2026-03-091:076 reply

      > people just so desperately want the USA to be in a recession it seems.

      You've got it the wrong way around.

      People are desperate to explain why their experience of the economy; Which for most people is "not good", doesn't match the formal economic metrics and definitions of a "recession". Constant layoffs, horrible job market, even worse housing market, and the lingering inflation.

      The other half of this is of course, the bubble. Everyone knows AI is a bubble. Everyone knows that sometime soon, Nvidia & friends are going to come crashing down. AI may be the future, but people don't have the trillions of dollars burning holes in their pockets to justify these valuations. Even AI execs are openly admitting there's a bubble.

      So there's heightened interest in the economy minus AI; What are things going to look like without the bubble? How much is AI hype propping up the economic indicators, if not the economy as a whole?

      The alarm being that the answers are "bad" and "a lot" respectively. While direct AI investment spending has a limited effect, so much of the US' spending is driven by those whose money is from assets (the rich and the retired), that the stock market's soaring has an outsized impact. And when the bubble bursts, the stock market crashes, and that spending vanishes.

      • By YinglingHeavy 2026-03-091:453 reply

        Less: "its a bubble"

        More: "labor market and consumer spending is less meaningful than ever before"

        The masses are unable to truly internalize the latter.

        • By ludicrousdispla 2026-03-095:46

          I recently learned that in the US there are now more private equity/VC funds than there are McDonald's locations, which may indicate that the majority of consumer spending is irrelevant to the top 'n'%

          https://www.thedailyupside.com/advisor/investing-strategies/...

        • By AngryData 2026-03-095:15

          Less meaningful, or less represented? If you sell your foundation out beneath yourself, the entire structure might come down. No matter how valuable it is to sell that rebar out of the concrete now, or how many additions that money allows you to add on top, it is likely not a sound strategy long term.

        • By SlinkyOnStairs 2026-03-1016:50

          Those are two separate things that reinforce eachother.

          Having high amount of spending come from the asset wealth is by itself not immediately a problem. Having a bubble is by itself not immediately a problem.

          It's the combination of the two that's dangerous.

      • By ddxv 2026-03-091:27

        I upvoted the parent, read your comment, unvoted and upvoted yours. I think what you're saying describes how I feel exactly.

      • By AuryGlenz 2026-03-094:191 reply

        Question - has any previous bubble been so thoroughly called out as a bubble? The dotcom and 2008 real estate ones sure weren’t. Some people did, but not “everyone.”

        • By bulbar 2026-03-095:37

          Could be thanks to the Internet and that most of the adults today use Internet and have experienced a bubble before.

      • By reactordev 2026-03-091:19

        I go to bed dreaming of putting money in a 401k again…

      • By hshdhdhj4444 2026-03-099:45

        The Biden administration missed this completely.

        They looked at headline numbers and saw that everything was improving and couldn’t understand why people were behaving as if we were in a recession.

        The current situation is a lot worse. Everything isn’t improving. It’s improving but more slowly, flat or getting worse. So the administration is reduced to pointing to the only things that are improving (albeit more slowly). Hence the Attorneh General’s infamous response in her congressional hearing on the Epstein files, that the Dow was over 50k.

        Ultimately it comes down to the K shaped economy. The upper arm of the K is doing better than the lower arm is doing worse, so the average is a rise, but in reality the number of people in the lower arm is significantly greater than the number of people in the upper, hence the “vibecession”.

      • By tonyedgecombe 2026-03-096:52

        >People are desperate to explain why their experience of the economy ...

        Wasn't there some polling recently that showed that most people thought they were doing well themselves but that everybody else was suffering. Clearly that doesn't add up and it's largely down to the overly negative tone of the news media.

    • By rich_sasha 2026-03-094:403 reply

      I find the "K-shaped" recovery a very compelling narrative. Some companies are going stratospheric, some are decaying, the average is +1% growth or so. So depending on where you are, you will see the economy as either booming or floundering.

      There's plenty of little nuggets like this to point to. US 2025 GDP ex AI investment was in a recession. US equity market ex tech does not outperform e.g. Europe. And so on.

      • By d2ou 2026-03-108:14

        Is there any report on the distribution of growth per firm ? (Interested for example by the median of firm growth). Could be a good evidence to support this inequal repartition of growth argument).

      • By tonyedgecombe 2026-03-096:492 reply

        I'm not sure that means much. Absent AI investors would have put their money somewhere else.

        • By rich_sasha 2026-03-098:40

          Depends where the money came from. If it's debt / optimistic raises based on great faith in AI, not necessarily. But agreed overall.

          The tech one is more compelling. The US equity market dominance has been driven by it's very successful tech business. Everything else is perhaps in a similar malaise to eg Europe.

        • By scoofy 2026-03-0917:58

          Imagine a consumer packaged goods fund that focuses on premium consumer packaged goods, like the kind of more cutesy stuff you may have seen on the shelves at places like Whole Foods. You would think that the fund is doing poorly because people have less money to spend in general. However, in a K-shaped recovery, the premium goods should actually over-perform the standard options, because the people who are on tight budgets and moving to the value options, well, they weren't really buying the premium items in the first place.

          Markets have an obscene number of variables to consider in any analysis. An industry can be doing both good and bad depending on what the product is, and who the customer is.

          At the end of the day, I continue to believe the Housing Theory of Everything thesis when it comes to the sense that people are on an economic treadmill where nothing ever gets better. And it helps describe the engine behind the K-shaped recovery. If we can fix the rent-seeking, we should be able to get back to a world where a rising tide lifts all boats.

          https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-every...

    • By awesome_dude 2026-03-090:51

      I don't think it's a /want/ per se - it's more of an overriding sense that that is where the economy is heading, or is, under the current set of economic policies.

      Nobody would care for a millisecond about the doomsayers if there wasn't some dread in their lives about what's happening.

    • By jmward01 2026-03-091:08

      Our public discourse is focused mainly on 'things are terrible because of the other person'. MAGA shows this since it is predicated purely on this concept. You can only make something great again if it isn't great now. The challenge is that yelling it just to make the other person look bad hides when it actually happens and makes avoiding it hard since you are taking the wrong actions at the wrong time.

      Even if we are in a recession, we need to start fostering looking towards the future. Not just trying to 'fix' things, but actually looking towards doing new big things. As John Green might say, there are two basic ways you can make the world better. You can decrease the suck or increase the awesome. I take this to imply that if you only decrease the suck then you can never be better than you were. It may be necessary but you also need to increase the awesome to keep growing and America hasn't been focused on the awesome for a while now. Let's increase the awesome even if there is suck still around.

    • By thrance 2026-03-0915:16

      At any given time, there are enough economists fearing a recession to write an article about it. Doesn't mean they're always wrong though, recessions do happen.

    • By duxup 2026-03-0912:55

      I think more so people saw past cycles as relatively predictable and sever since the mortgage crisis they are looking for bits of that expectation.

      Also ... doom and gloom gets more views.

    • By vld_chk 2026-03-090:53

      to be fair, it implies nothing about current state of the US economy and likelihood of recession now. Induction conclusion is not the one which suits the case.

    • By monero-xmr 2026-03-090:56

      [dead]

  • By dzonga 2026-03-090:167 reply

    that's pretty obvious to everyone in the US

    what's not obvious to most people - is how e.g other countries that are already struggling will get into deeper depths e.g UK where cost of energy was super high. UK is not bombing Iran, but their economy will cry more than the US

    what's not obvious is how a few oil Barrons will make so much money in the next few weeks e.g those in Texas - their great grand-children will never need to work. Defense contractors will also make out like bandits & those politically connected. While everyone else in the US losses.

    what's not obvious is the money pumped into A.I so far is about to go kaput (energy demands -- remember Qatar has started not honoring gas contracts - what's gas used to ? power turbines in power plants)

    if you're in the US/Netherlands you will be okay in terms of food, if you're in the UK, Middle East, Australia (food is about to become more expensive & tricky)

    if you're in Africa your government is about to con you through massive fuel prices at the pump

    • By donavanm 2026-03-090:383 reply

      > if you're in the UK, Middle East, Australia (food is about to become more expensive & tricky)

      Australias not in a terrible position. We produce ~50% of our NPK fertilizers used, and this is down primarily because were importing more from places with cheaper/distant environmental impact. Conversely, IIRC, UK and Ineos just shut down their significant last fertilizer plant and the north sea fields is its own thing.

      Similarly we have suitable local gas supply for the needed feedstock. And you can see the govt already starting to restrict (“reserve”) exports. Which, of course, will contribute to the global problem.

      AU as a whole is a commodity and food exporter. Of course global commodity squeezes make Everyone poorer, I believe ricardo. I dont see our local position being anywhere as fragile as europe and me, unless Im missing something.

      But I dont see AU being anywhere near as fragile as Sri Lanka circa 2022-23.

      • By stephen_g 2026-03-091:001 reply

        We are vulnerable in Australia though because we have to move food large distances from farms to cities and are unusually road-dependent for those kind of distances (most countries use much more freight rail). Large diesel price rises are going to be extremely painful for us.

        And electricity and manufacturing too, since we have no real gas reservation policy and the exporters were allowed to build enough capacity to export basically every single joule of gas that we produce (and they pay a fraction of the royalties that countries like Qatar rake in). So locals and local businesses pay very high prices so the gas companies can export most of our supply overseas...

        • By iso-logi 2026-03-091:242 reply

          Diesel price rising can be easily fixed though.

          The Government collects 51.6 cents per litre on Fuel and Diesel, they'd need to just temporarily cut back on some of their obscene fuel margins to keep everything within steady-state.

          The question is, will the Government do so?

          • By Xixi 2026-03-091:59

            But what if there's not enough diesel?

            That's what at stake here, with oil exports from the Middle East dwindling... Oil price might not even go up that much, or for that long, if the economy crashes hard enough.

      • By awesome_dude 2026-03-090:541 reply

        The Australians are currently pointing to diesel reserves or on hand in the farms is quite low, suggesting that mechanised cropping/transport of farm products is going to provide a pinch point.

        I have no idea if the reports are accurate, or an attempt to put the market into readiness for inflation.

        edit: Whether real or imagined, there is panic buying of petrol happening - this could lead to supply issues by itself.

        https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/1rohwzl/fuel_pan...

        • By Intermernet 2026-03-097:56

          As someone who has done physical work at the sites of Australian diesel reserves, they aren't designed to last that long.

          I do still feel we're better off than most. We can actually offset the price of fuel by reducing the government excise, and even subsidising it. We've done it before. 2 gulf wars, a global oil crisis, general middle east chaos? Australia has typically done better than most.

          Would still be good if we had an actual sovereign mineral fund and hadn't sold our gas rights to everyone else, but I suppose we have to live with the stupid shit the previous governments have done.

      • By mcdeltat 2026-03-094:59

        The cynic in me thinks we will be squeezed anyway because australian leaders apparently love to sell off everything to the global market with little concern for the residents. Why squeeze just domestic or just global when you can do both and collect even more profit?

    • By bigbadfeline 2026-03-090:47

      > UK where cost of energy was super high. UK is not bombing Iran, but their economy will cry more than the US.

      UK isn't exactly rich on energy resources, especially after the North Sea oil dried out. Living in a global economy, most oil is still priced in dollars - which the UK can't print - resulting in a tough energy market in the UK and many other places.

      Wars are the worst enemies of good life and economic development, it's profoundly revealing to watch how two of largest and richest countries in the world, with the absolute largest nuclear arsenals, are both engaged in the destruction of other countries - one for each... for now.

      Both of the attacked countries are fairly large and have significant impact on global prosperity and supply chains...

      This isn't a fairy tale.

    • By joe_mamba 2026-03-0911:161 reply

      >if you're in the US/Netherlands you will be okay in terms of food

      I don't get it. Why is Netherlands in the same boat as the US? Do they have some crazy oil reserves I don't know about?

      • By John23832 2026-03-0918:22

        They are a net food exporter.

    • By standardUser 2026-03-090:51

      This is one of likely many shocks that will reward those nations that are leading on cutting fossil fuel use - and punish the laggards.

    • By brandensilva 2026-03-096:20

      Even banks are backing out of AI data centers as the risk is too great. Tells you right away that they know the risk exceeds even their willingness to finance the wealthiest ambitions.

    • By PearlRiver 2026-03-092:311 reply

      Yeah in rich countries nobody is going to starve- at worst you'll have to shop at Aldi. In Africa the price of bread actually matters...

      • By joe_mamba 2026-03-0911:14

        >Yeah in rich countries nobody is going to starve- at worst you'll have to shop at Aldi.

        Except that people in rich countries expect a higher bar for their standard of living than just avoiding starvation given the amount of taxes they pay and how expensive life is.

        It's not like if you live in a wealthy country it's all sunshine and roses, you're subjected to continuous mass layoffs while still paying wealthy country levels of rent, and people here were already shopping at Lidl to stay afloat. If you keep squeezing them further, they'll just vote the most radical left/right wing candidate who promises to flip the monopoly board over and you don't want that. Telling them to eat (Lidl) cake is never gonna end up well.

    • By arrowsmith 2026-03-090:441 reply

      > UK where cost of energy was super high

      “Was”?

      • By orwin 2026-03-091:13

        Probably missing 'already', that's how I understood the sentence.

  • By mr_00ff00 2026-03-0823:154 reply

    > "Excluding new era investment, the other 89% of real private spending rose by only 1% with no job creation," the strategist wrote.

    That isn’t what a recession is

    • By _heimdall 2026-03-0823:352 reply

      We've been redefining recession recently, it may not matter much what the textbook definition is.

      • By tonyedgecombe 2026-03-097:29

        It does matter. It's best not to let politicians redefine the facts in their favour.

      • By ekjhgkejhgk 2026-03-0823:494 reply

        What specifically has changed?

        • By conductr 2026-03-090:023 reply

          Realizing that GDP growth can be achieved while average joe on Main Street is struggling. The billionaires doing well masks everyone else struggling to afford groceries.

          In general, people are kind of calling BS on what the definition should be because we are all collectively feeling that things are doing poorly but no one is quite willing to recognize it due to the definitional stuff.

          • By JumpCrisscross 2026-03-090:032 reply

            > Realizing that GDP growth can be achieved while average joe on Main Street is struggling

            This is most GDP growth across human history until the Industrial Revolution with the exception of maybe a half dozen civilisations.

            • By lovich 2026-03-090:392 reply

              What did your response have to do with your quote?

              We can have the most growth ever as a civilization and still have the common person lose out.

              The Industrial Revolution also famously had a lot of people pushed into impoverished situations while robber barons or the highland clearing lords won out, despite the GDP of those respective countries increasing.

              • By JumpCrisscross 2026-03-092:071 reply

                > What did your response have to do with your quote?

                The notion that growth can be unequal is not something that has changed. The anomaly was the post-WWII eventide regime.

                That doesn't mean there is anything natural about unequal growth. But if we want to return to that previous mode, we have to first understand what it was. And what it was was anomalous.

                • By lovich 2026-03-094:401 reply

                  So what was your point?

                  Someone called out that the common joe was doing worse off, you responded that gdp is higher than ever.

                  Are you making the claim that this is an acceptable state? Or are you making another claim?

                  • By JumpCrisscross 2026-03-096:001 reply

                    > What specifically has changed?

                    >> Realizing that GDP growth can be achieved while average joe on Main Street is struggling

                    Me: that’s not new. That didn’t change.

                    > that this is an acceptable state?

                    If we’re in a Cat 3 hurricane and someone complains about it being Cat 5, pointing out that’s wrong isn’t pro-hurricane.

                    • By lovich 2026-03-096:311 reply

                      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47303072

                      can you please look at this comment that you replied to at the beginning of this thread, and understand why I might be irate at your response.

                      I had multiple paragraphs typed out that I have deleted so I could have a real conversation.

                      Why do you think I responded to you the way I did?

                      • By JumpCrisscross 2026-03-0917:111 reply

                        > Why do you think I responded to you the way I did?

                        How is the rhethorical-question style working out?

                        I'm pointing out an ahistorical claim in the top post. You want to broaden the discussion without acknowledging that, and without actually saying anything, which isn't particularly interesting to engage on.

                        • By lovich 2026-03-0917:301 reply

                          You didn’t point out an ahistorical claim. They didn’t claim that GDP wasn’t growing. They said that it wasn’t helping the common man and you jumped in with an equivalent of “but the DOW is over 50k”

                          • By JumpCrisscross 2026-03-0918:301 reply

                            > They didn’t claim that GDP wasn’t growing. They said that it wasn’t helping the common man and you jumped in with an equivalent of “but the DOW is over 50k”

                            No, this is a ridiculous misreading. They said that "realizing that GDP growth can be achieved while average joe on Main Street is struggling" is "what changed." That is ahistorical. I may realize, today, that the sky is blue, but that's a personal discovery, not a general one. GDP growth amidst widespread poverty has been the default in most of human history; it isn't what changed.

                            Whether or not GDP is growing was never brought up by anyone except you.

                            • By lovich 2026-03-0918:44

                              That’s a reasonable position but none of it came across in your comment here

                              > This is most GDP growth across human history until the Industrial Revolution with the exception of maybe a half dozen civilisations.

                              And you literally used the phrase “GDP growth” and referenced how high it was so I don’t get why you’d say I was the one who brought it up.

              • By s1artibartfast 2026-03-091:381 reply

                The connection is that GDP/Recession has never been about mainstreet or average joe.

                Recession is usually bad for Joe and mainstreat, but the opposite is not implied. It is ignorant to think it is or was defined by the average experience.

                • By conductr 2026-03-091:462 reply

                  I feel it’s also ignorant to think it shouldn’t be defined by that experience. Our metrics have been misleading or we just need better ones and/or possibly a new word for how average joe talks about “recession”. A purely academic definition that has no basis in reality seems pointless to me.

                  • By s1artibartfast 2026-03-093:05

                    purely academic definistions have a tremendous number of purposes.

                    Just as it would be silly to define a countries military equipment production capacity by public sentiment, the same is true for purely financial GDP.

                    There are tons of metrics that can used to articulate how the economy feels for average joe. We have low consumer sentiment, lagging median income, GINI, opinion surveys, ect.

                    Using the word "recession" adds gravitas by claiming something that isnt true.

                  • By JumpCrisscross 2026-03-092:10

                    > it’s also ignorant to think it shouldn’t be defined by that experience

                    If defined rigorously, sure. But the literature is replete with measureas of downturns.

                    What more commonly comes up in online discussions is some dude with a vibe, which isn't particularly useful for talking about anything larger in scale than that one dude.

            • By alephnerd 2026-03-090:14

              Even during the Industrial Revolution as well. And even the idealized vision of the 1950s-60s that is common on the Internet was itself a fantasy for a plurality of Americans until the Great Deal began sinking in.

              There was a period of slightly more income equality in the 1930s-1960s as Piketty [0] and Zucman [1] show, but this was also at the expense of racial and gender equality.

              The 1970s was probably the most equal period economically speaking as Zucman showed [1].

              We should not strive to return to the 1950s - we should strive to be better than anytime previously.

              [0] - http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/Piketty2014Fig...

              [1] - https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/SaezZucman14slides.pdf

          • By compootr 2026-03-090:141 reply

            gdp isn't and will never be a measure for social wellbeing. it's just economic output :)

            • By conductr 2026-03-091:431 reply

              I think that’s what’s changed though, as GP asked, people want to define recession as closer to the social wellbeing than a metric like gdp that is divorced

              • By mr_00ff00 2026-03-093:001 reply

                Doesn’t this kinda create a problem though? Like a recession implies economic slowdown, but social wellbeing can decrease while the economy is fine.

                For example, a plague or severe weather might make the average person have a worse standard of living, but if the economy isn’t net affected, it seems wrong to say we are in a recession.

                • By conductr 2026-03-0919:02

                  Our vocabulary is too limited then. I know average people only use the word recession when things are compounding negative towards their personal finances / economics AND they feel like most people they know are dealing with the same. They don't claim it's a Katrina/Harvey/[any storm name] recession, they know the differences and that storm driven struggles are usually localized / temporary with a known amount of work to rebuild - average joe feels helpless in a macro-recession as it's only going to be solved in time and/or with help of politicians they don't trust.

                  Plagues are a weird example, because I can't think of any situation where a plague would not affect the economy - and it should effect it negatively. I think COVID effected it negatively, we just chose to have a financial long COVID and drag out what should have been a financial disaster without all the government programs. Instead of economic collapse and starvation, we chose to massively spend money knowing it would be paid in time through inflation and also knowing it wouldn't get reallocated in an even way as pre-COVID. (That's my take, I don't know if there's any validity to it but it's just my gut feeling.)

          • By ekjhgkejhgk 2026-03-098:38

            I asked what specifically has changed and you answered something else.

        • By _heimdall 2026-03-0911:561 reply

          Historically, both politicians and yhe media considered two consecutive quarters of declining GDP. The Biden administration changed that, basically arguing that the definition is too narrow and they preferred to use a more broad set of indicators that just so happened to avoid calling a recession when they wanted to claim a strong economy.

          • By IAmBroom 2026-03-0920:40

            The Biden administration argued for a change. They did not convince others. It's like saying "Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico" - no one but loyalists bought in.

            Economists continue to use the same definition as before, despite your attempt to blame Biden.

        • By andyferris 2026-03-0823:52

          I took that as maybe referring to Trump?

        • By gruez 2026-03-090:012 reply

          Probably referring to the "2 quarters of negative GDP" rule that was seemingly revoked under Biden.

          • By m-hodges 2026-03-090:141 reply

            It wasn’t “revoked under Biden.” That implies the Biden administration (or any administration) gets to define this. They don’t. Recessions in the United States are generally demarcated by NBER.¹

            ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bureau_of_Economic_Re...

            • By gruez 2026-03-090:262 reply

              >It wasn’t “revoked under Biden.” That implies the Biden administration (or any administration) gets to define this.

              No, not any more than "the pandemic started under the Trump administration" implies that they caused the pandemic.

              • By m-hodges 2026-03-090:28

                I just plainly disagree that a casual reader wouldn’t see the phrase “revoked under Biden” and believe it meant that Biden did the revoking.

              • By lovich 2026-03-090:361 reply

                [flagged]

                • By gruez 2026-03-090:43

                  >It does imply that because the Trump admin killed the group involved with preventing pandemics[1]

                  No it doesn't, not without massively reading in between the lines. This is getting to absurd levels of nitpicking over wording, like "autistic people" vs "people with autism".

                  >I assume you are being disingenuous by using that claim while also trying to smear the Biden admin.

                  Two can play at this game. I assume you're being disingenuous by trying to put words in my mouth over tiny disagreements in wording.

          • By no-name-here 2026-03-096:28

            That was never such a "rule"; that was 1 of 4 considerations from a 1974 NY Times opinion piece, and those 4 considerations were in turn a simplification of the overall recession considerations, as the combined 4 items were intended to be more understandable by the general public than the actual items.

            Where had you heard that there was such a "rule"?

            (And as others pointed out, it's a private organization, not the government, that has set and evaluates recession criteria.)

    • By doener 2026-03-0823:59

      Recessions without an external shock are rare. But you could say the rest of the economy is in stagnation. I‘m expecting real recession as soon as the LLM bubble begins to burst.

    • By buckle8017 2026-03-090:00

      Seems like the definition changes to match whatever is happening when Trump is in office.

    • By SubiculumCode 2026-03-090:021 reply

      Since inflation is going up faster than 1%...seems like it to me.

      • By ultimatefan1 2026-03-090:05

        “Real” means adjusted for inflation

HackerNews