What is a Recession?
In the newest installment of "Are we living in an Orwellian Dystopia?", the White House offered a glimpse into its proficiency in NewSpeak.
Words have power. Every time a word is spoken, the speaker is effectively performing mind control over the listener; no matter how hard the listener tries, the speaker effortlessly imprisons the listener into absorbing (and considering) the speaker’s assertions as if the thought originated in the listener’s head. This power can be used for good - there can be no “consensus” of thought, or agreement in any manner, without a shared, understood definition of what a word means. There must be context, mutually-understood by both the speaker and listener, to function in an enlightened society.
However, throughout the years, many individuals have identified the power held by words as a primary vector of control. Through manipulation of what’s understood to be true, by means of splicing, replacing, or redefining certain words, nefarious actors can effectively create “new truth,” even in the presence of blatant falsity.
When it comes to the creation of “new truth” in the presence of blatant falsity or contradiction, no actor (in the past 50 years) has demonstrated its proficiency in such matters as masterfully as the U.S. Government. Especially since 2020, we’ve seen countless examples of this phenomenon. Whether involving COVID-19 or treatments available, whether inflation is “transitory,” or even whether the U.S. has the authority under the Constitution to mandate a vaccine, the practice of obfuscating the truth has become a well-crafted tool to get the public to see things as the Government would like them to.
It should come as no surprise, in 2022, to see the Government unveiling its latest effort in the campaign to get the public to think and act as the Government would like. This time, however, the stakes are higher. Despite well-established definitions and criteria showing the existence of an economic recession, the Government is trying its best to rewrite those definitions in an attempt to quell the public’s fear.
In 1984, the main character Winston Smith, is tasked with rewriting history books, newspapers, and more, in order to effectively change the past. This way, the authoritarian regime is able to look forward towards its ultimate goals, without having to worry about getting the public on its side. According to 1984 author George Orwell himself, “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”
Now anyone who’s familiar with Orwell’s work is surely aware of his ability to accurately foresee into the future of tyrannical governments. The underlying premise of his quote (above) seems to get at the relationship between truth and control. In the absence of the public viewing the Government’s actions as proper, due to lack of an accepted truth, the public will likely be somewhat opposed to any governmental action purporting to be “right.” Rather than attempt to gain public opinion, which can be a menacingly difficult task, the obvious solution is to alter what is “true” in order to get the public on your side. For the untrained civilian, the alteration often goes completely unnoticed, leaving the public with no choice but to believe what the Government says is “true.”
The only difference, it seems, between 1984 and 2022, is the fact that we don’t have an intelligent narrator constantly informing us of what’s truly going on. However, in 2022, the U.S. Government is certainly performing its best impression of “Big Brother.”
A few days ago, the White House, according to their official website, changed the definition of “recession.” Why’d they do this, you might ask? Well, we’ll look into a few possible motives below. What’s apparent, though, is that in response to a growing concern amongst the public of impending economic downturn, evidenced by a recession, the best option of response available to the Government is to change the actual definition of a recession. Why waste time trying to soothe the public’s fear? Or, further, why waste time trying to assure the public that we aren’t in a recession, when the facts are on the public’s side? Surely, when you have no facts supporting your side of the argument, the clearest way to “win” is to change the definition of what you’re arguing about in the first place.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a recession is “a period of temporary economic decline during which trade and industrial activity are reduced, generally identified by a fall in GDP in two successive quarters.
Investopedia.com defines a recession as “a significant, widespread, and prolonged downturn in economic activity. Because recessions often last six months or more, one popular rule of thumb is that two consecutive quarters of decline in a country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) constitute a recession.”
According to Forbes.com, “in 1974, economist Julius Shiskin came up with a few rules of thumb to define a recession: The most popular was two consecutive quarters of declining GDP. A healthy economy expands over time, so two quarters in a row of contracting output suggests there are serious underlying problems, according to Shiskin. This definition of a recession became a common standard over the years.”
I’d like to direct your attention to the image above. Mainly, focus on the “that is neither the official definition nor the way economists evaluate the business cycle” part. Rather than quell concerns that what we’re currently experiencing is, in fact, a recession, the White House chose to cast doubt on what you know to be true. According to economist Julius Shiskin, the accepted definition of recession, as two consecutive quarters of declining GDP, is without-a-doubt the way that economists evaluate the business cycle.
The only way to evaluate whether we’re in a recession, based on the definitions above, is to see whether we’ve had two consecutive quarters of declining GDP.
In the first quarter of 2022, U.S. GDP fell 1.6%, aka a decline of 1.6% in GDP. In the second quarter of 2022, which ended within the past week, U.S. GDP fell 0.9%, aka a decline of 0.9% in GDP.
What’s that? Two consecutive quarters of declining GDP? If only I could find an accurate definition of recession so that I could properly determine whether I was currently in one!
For those who might require a visual representation, I give you the chart above. If you look to the far right of the graph, you’ll clearly notice a negative GDP for both Q1 and Q2 of 2022. According to the definition of a recession relied on by most economists, we are undoubtedly currently in one.
However, let’s look again at the White House’s definition of a recession, from above. The second part of the graphic, which states “it is unlikely that the decline in GDP in the first quarter of this year - even if followed by another GDP decline in the second quarter - indicates a recession.” should quell any worry you might have. Hoorah! According to the Government, we aren’t in a recession! How marvelous!? Despite the numerous economic indicators showing we’re in a recession, as well as the multitude of definitions for a recession which show the same, the Government says we aren’t! Isn’t that wonderful?! So, in a few months, when the economy has crumbled, and your family is struggling to find food, just remember: we’re not in a recession until Big Broth- I mean, the U.S. Government, says so.
Why would the Government want to prevent the public from believing that we’re currently in a recession? Well, the obvious answer relates to the federal reserve and its connection to our economy. (If you need a quick intro on this connection, I wrote an article on it a few weeks ago.) Essentially, all of the USD currently in circulation are nothing more than “play money.” The kiss of death in our economic system, at this point in time, would be a “run on banks” by the public. Basically, if the public grew doubtful of the U.S. financial system and subsequently decided to withdraw their money from banks, the collective withdrawal of money would lead to an economic cascade unlike anything seen since 1929. So the best way to prevent such action, it seems, would be to prevent the public from doubting the strength of the U.S. financial system. When a large majority of the public believes the U.S. is in a recession, due to the definition of a recession, what better way to “rectify” such “misinformation” than to change the definition of “recession?” If social media and mainstream media talking-heads promise that we aren’t in a “recession” per the term’s accepted definition, why would the public feel the need to withdraw their money from banks?
If I were in charge of altering what is known to be “true,” I’d do my best to break up consensus wherever possible. Aside from Government-sponsored news outlets or mediums, I’d aim to sow chaos and discord in any outlet heavily-relied upon by the public for accurate information.
*Wikipedia has entered the chat.*
Wikipedia, an online database containing virtually any and all knowledge a user could be searching for, is routinely maintained by accredited administrators. Anyone under the sun may edit or add to specific pages, but ultimately, the final determination comes down to whether administrators allow such alterations. In fact, Wikipedia’s administrators protect some pages from direct editing if they believe the pages are regularly subjected to “vandalism,” either through abusive language or blatant falsehoods.
Last week, the Wikipedia page for “Recession” was temporarily locked. This could be due to a variety of factors, such as conflicting definitions, unapproved alterations, or similar actions. However, due to the heightened level of activity on the page, Wikipedia’s administrators decided to lock the page so as to prevent any further alterations. The explanation for this could be harmless - maybe Wikipedia grew frustrated over an inundation of editors trying to make the same edit. Regardless, as an online encyclopedia dedicated to allowing free edits from anyone, the decision to lock down the “recession” page was puzzling to many. Why prevent public discourse on a topic obviously at the center of great debate? Further, whose decision was it to lock down the page? Did the decision to lock the page come internally, from Wikipedia’s administrators personally? Or, alternatively, did the command come from someone higher up the chain - possibly within the U.S. Government?
Now I’m not one to make assumptions without evidence. But, when faced with multiple pieces of evidence, a circumstantial leap (aka, an “inference”) is warranted under the circumstances. As you probably recall, a few months ago, the U.S. Government attempted to unveil the newest bureaucratic monstrosity: The Disinformation Governance Board. The Disinformation Governance Board (DGB) was an advisory board of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The DGB aimed to protect national security by cracking down on “misinformation, malformation, and disinformation that threatens the security of the homeland.” Fortunately for all of us, the DGB failed prior to gaining any actual authority.
To many, the Government’s attempt to create such an ambiguous agency served as the most startlingly-accurate comparison to 1984 yet. The DGB was seemingly stolen from Orwell’s masterpiece of dystopian literature; its goals and operations appeared to be a perfect replica of the “Ministry of Truth” as forewarned in 1984. Following the DGB’s proposed creation, many otherwise unsuspecting Americans finally woke up to the harsh reality that is: the government doesn’t want you to know the “truth” if it contradicts the popular narrative.
Not all truth is inconsistent with the Government’s goals - only truth that conflicts or contradicts the official, accepted narrative. As previously mentioned, the amount of items labeled “disinformation” has grown at a rapid pace since 2020. More often than not, these items relate to core tenets of the Government’s popular narrative. Rather than bolster the narrative, through inclusion of hard evidence to favor it, the Government would much rather stifle conflicting opinions and evidence through censorship. As we’ve seen, this censorship comes through direct action, via Government suppression of speech, or indirect action, through a seemingly coordinated approach of censorship via mainstream media and social media outlets. Direct suppression of speech by the Government likely triggers judicial review, as speech is fundamentally protected by the First Amendment. So, it seems, the easiest way to prevent people from saying “unpopular” things is having media outlets do the dirty work for you.
Now obviously, in lieu of evidence proving a coordinated effort to censor speech by the Government and media outlets, a statement claiming such as “fact” cannot be made. However, as recent history has shown, whenever the “narrative” contradicts information accepted as “fact” by the public, some puzzling events transpire. Fact-checkers and purported “experts” often rush to the forefront, fervently attempting to establish the “truth” as the narrative requires. When this doesn’t work, the best available solution seems to be to alter the definition of the words/topics at issue. After all, what better way to prove someone wrong than to pull the rug out from under them by telling them they’re incorrect from a definition stand-point? How can one claim to know the truth when the crux of their argument is eroded to nothingness in an instant? Without an agreed-upon basis for fact, so it seems, nothing can be determined to be factual at all.
If a random individual typing these thoughts out on a computer can identify the relationship between words and truth, you’d better believe the Government has already done so. In just the past few years, we’ve seen the Government man its proverbial battle stations to defend the popular narrative surrounding topics like vaccines, status as a woman, and now recessions. While the approach might change, the end goal remains the same: when facts aren’t on your side, the best course of action is to change the foundational basis of the argument altogether. What better way to do this than to change definitions at will to fit your intent?
As Rand Paul, while speaking out against the proposed DGB’s unveiling, said: “Do you know who the greatest propagator of disinformation in the history of the world is? The U.S. Government.”