Associated Press Jumps the Recessionist Shark

We've spent a lot of screen space flogging the AP in the past for its resolute, data-blind insistence that the economy is in recession, but today they've graduated from mere spin and distortion to flat out self-parody.

They're now attempting to feed you the idea that, while the economy may not *recede* by any quantitative measure whatsoever, a recession is upon us nonetheless.

The economy will perform a neat trick this year, experts predict: fall into recession without contracting. That hasn't happened since the government began tracking quarterly growth of gross domestic product (GDP) in 1947.
...
While many believe a recession indicates a contraction in GDP, the National Bureau of Economic Research, known as the arbiter of recessions, merely looks for "a significant decline in economic activity" lasting more than a few months. It may appear in GDP, income or other measures.

There's a reason this has never happened before.  It's impossible by definition.  Yes, there's some debate about whether real quarterly GDP growth is the best single yardstick, but "recession" still requires contraction.  The article shields itself in the NBER's more ambiguous threshold of  "'a significant decline in economic activity' lasting more than a few months" as if that ousts contraction as an absolute requirement.

Not only does a decline in economic activity require economic contraction, but the two are semantically equivalent.

A decline in economic activity :⇔ economic contraction.

You don't have to use the two quarters of negative GDP growth as your criterion, but you do need to find contraction somehow.

The AP helpfully notes you can look for economic declines not only in GDP (i.e. output), but also in income or "other measures."

Output and income aren't quite semantic equivalents (though in theory they're equal).  Minor timing differences can lead to slight temporary accounting deviations between the two, but they measure the same thing: economic activity.  The thing which must decline for anyone's definition of a recession to met.

It's not clear what they mean by "other measures" but I think it's safe to assume they mean "whatever numbers we need to gin up once we get called out on this steaming load."

In suggesting that the economy can fall into recession (and presumably, by their gauge, already has) without ever receding, the AP hasn't just moved the goalposts.  They've picked up the ball, declared a new score, and gone home.

(HT: Ace)