Why There Will Be No 'Double-Dip' Recession

"Some economists are so attached to the notion of growth that they can’t let go of that word, so they refer to recession as a time of 'negative growth.'" ~ Eckhart Tolle

What is a double-dip recession?  The last recession ended in June of 2009, which means the current recovery is more than two years old now. Following the logic of economists still calling for a double-dip, why not call it a triple-dip or something more logical like a secular cycle beginning in March of 2000?  If and when we enter a new recession it won't be a double-dip; it will simply be a new recession.

I can see the reasoning of Investopedia's definition of double-dip recession, which is "When gross domestic product (GDP) growth slides back to negative after a quarter or two of positive growth."  However, assuming this quarter ends positive, the US Economy will have had nine quarters of positive growth.  That's not a double-dip recession by their definition.  (By the way, isn't all growth positive?  And why do economists use the term "negative growth?"  That's like saying, "cheeseburger without the cheese."  But I digress...)

I can also understand the reasoning of naming what may become a double-dip recession based upon the lagging employment and housing sectors of the economy.  It "feels" as if the previous recession never ended.  So one may reasonably say that any new recession that occurs after short-lived growth, and due to various economic challenges, such as layoffs, corporate cutbacks, and poor consumer confidence, arising from the previous recession, may be called a double-dip recession.  I can see the reasoning of the name but I still don't like it...

"He that knows he has no other than particular ideas will not puzzle himself in vain to find out and conceive the abstract idea annexed to any name.  And he that knows names do not always stand for ideas will spare himself the labor of looking for ideas where there are none to be had." ~ George Berkeley

Please accept my apologies for the mild symantic rant but I do not see any good use of logic or practicality of naming two recessions in relative proximity to eachother a double-dip recession.  This would be like naming two separate scoops of ice cream several inches apart a double-dip ice cream.  Even my 6-year old understands this logic.  Essentially, a double-dip ice cream consists of two scoops combined to form one oddly shaped scoop. 

If a recession occurs in the near future, it will be a new recession, distinct from its predecessor.  Therefore, we have two recessions in proximity--not one recession with a catchy name:  There will be no double-dip recession.

I do need to remember, however, that double-dip recession is simply a term generally accepted by economists and mainstream media, which makes the term conventional.  Ahhh, now I know my problem with the term--it's conventional!

What are your thoughts?

-------------------------------------------------

Related:

Contrarian View: V-Shaped Recovery

Are You an Imbecile, A Pointer or Neither?

Master (or Be Masterd By) Language

Comments

[Barry]

Point taken. Humans like to put labels on things Adam West's bat-cave comes to mind. Your post made me realize that perhaps there is no accurate label for what we are experiencing.A bubble lead up to this .The long term unemployed with mouths to feed will sneer at the recovery argument as will some of the self employed . The academics will pull out charts and models and point to a statistical recovery I would suggest they look over their shoulders and ask the people cleaning the office How ya doin... no really what is it like to be you? Some are breezing through this unaware of what is happening around them.I have friends in both situations . What do you label something so complex as this I do not know .I do however think the flim-flam man that is trying to sell the remain calm everything is just fine idea is going to have to start dancing really really fast.

[Leone]

I couldn't agree more.
I have often tried to argue (invainly) that what we have gone through in the last 2/3 years was a credit recession. Most probablly in 2012, we will face an economic recession. The two being distinctly different from one another.....

[Kent @ The Financial Philosopher]

Barry and Leone:

As difficult as it may be for human beings, I believe the best route is to resist the temptation to label things as they are occurring.

As humans we have a desire to categorize and label things to help us understand them--we give them a name. However the name can often distracts from the idea.

Perhaps, allowing ourselves to be the humans that we are, we can have some balance. We may label, categorize and name things but it may be better to wait until we have sufficient information to do so.

With regard to "double-dip," I believe the mistake made in naming it this way is that we may fail to understand it because we lump it together with something else that occurred in the past (or is arguably still occurring).

"All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse." ~ Benjamin Franklin

[Greg]

The reason they call it Negative growth is in economic calculations, growth is a result meaning a change in quantity over time, which can be either positive or negative. The media should always say "positive growth" or "negative growth" rather than "growth" or "recession."

example: In physical calculations for velocity, a car doesn't experience acceleration and deceleration, it experiences positive accelerations and negative accelerations, with acceleration being a term for "change in velocity over time"

Also, a recession refers to having negative growth in less than 6 consecutive quarters, as to where a depression is more than 6 consecutive quarters of negative growth.

[Kent Thune]

Greg,

So in economic speak, all movement is "growth?" Following your example of the car, what is the term for "reverse?" Perhaps it is difficult for some to wrap their minds around the idea of negative growth. It seems to be a misnomer like jumbo shrimp, although most can still intuitively "know" what it means without getting into the semantics of it.

Thanks for adding your knowledge to the conversation...

Kent