by kublikhan » Fri 16 Oct 2015, 23:43:22
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GregT', 'I')nteresting that they left out this part:
Before April 2009, the IMF argued that a global annual real GDP growth rate of 3.0 percent or less was "equivalent to a global recession".[3][4] By this measure, there were six global recessions since 1970: 1974–75,[5] 1980–83,[5] 1990–93,[6] 1998,[6] 2001–02,[6] and 2008–09.[7]
I believe that is an oversimplification. In the source wikipedia links to it mentions that even back then the IMF took many factors into consideration, not just GDP. Further, that date is wrong. On October 8, 2008 the IMF said they don't agree with the 3% figure. It wasn't always 3% either. Depending on who who is in charge sometimes they said 2.5%. And even then it was informal.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')nformally, past IMF chief economists have called global growth lower than either 3% or 2.5% — depending on who was the chief economist — a recession. But that didn’t pass muster with Olivier Blanchard, the IMF’s current chief economist, who on Oct. 8, 2008 said “it is not useful to use the word ‘recession’ when the world is growing at 3%.”
Now, IMF economists have cranked through the numbers and come up with a more precise way to measure global recessions: a decline in real per-capita world GDP, backed up by a look at other global macroeconomic indicators. Those indicators include industrial production, trade, capital flows, oil consumption and unemployment.