In “Redefining Recession”, The Economist discusses some of the difficulties in interpreting the “R” word. Since the article juxtaposed output gaps against the conventional NBER definition, I thought this would be a good time to update my post on output gaps, using the latest GDP data, CBO estimates, augmented with the latest WSJ survey of forecasters.

Figure 1 depicts in blue the output gap as defined by the August 28 GDP release and the September 9 CBO estimate of potential GDP. I’ve added the deviation from a quadratic time trend in red.

Figure 1: Actual output gap defined as deviation from CBO potential GDP (blue) and from quadratic in time (red); corresponding measures as implied by the September 2008 WSJ survey of forecasters, in teal and maroon, respectively. NBER defined recessions shaded gray. Source: BEA GDP release of 28 August; CBO Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update (September 2008), Table 2-2; WSJ survey of forecasters (September 2008); and NBER.

What this graph illustrates is that the rapid 3.3% growth recorded in 2008Q2 barely made a dent in the output gap. Using the WSJ mean forecasts from the September survey leads to the conclusion that the output gap will be nearly 3% (log terms) by 2009Q2, using the CBO measure of the output gap. It will be 4%, measured as a deviation from a quadratic in deterministic trend.

Technorati Tags: potential GDP,
recession, output gap,
full employment output, trend, and
forecasters.

Last 5 posts by Menzie Chinn

• Baselines, Counterfactuals and the Stimulus - November 21st, 2009
• China, the Renminbi, and Global Imbalances: A Quantitative View - November 20th, 2009
• GDP: Revisions and Forecasts - November 19th, 2009
• Assessing the Impact of Government Policy on Widget Consumption and Widget Sector Capital Usage - November 16th, 2009
• The Global Surface Temperature Anomaly - November 16th, 2009