PLYMCO_PILGRIM
Gold Member
Pretty funny that it ended before much of the stimulus had been spent if you ask me.
Thats because governmnet spending really doesn't help much.
Proof is in the pudding
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Pretty funny that it ended before much of the stimulus had been spent if you ask me.
So how did they cook GDP data, Neubarth?
I have been over this many times. This time I will just say that people should look for their selves. The constituent parts of GDP tabulate spending. Government spending qualifies and can take negative GDP and make it positive in a quarter with just a few billions spend in the right places. Go get the definition of GDP and you will see for yourself.
they aren't false numbers.
they aren't false numbers.
Your right they are the real numbers, its just those numbers have some government made filler in them which I described .
they aren't false numbers.
Your right they are the real numbers, its just those numbers have some government made filler in them which I described .
False is the wrong word. They are artificially inflated numbers.
Definition
Gross Domestic Product. The total market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year, equal to total consumer, investment and government spending, plus the value of exports, minus the value of imports.
Actually it is impossible not to cook the books to some degree, the question is whether the cooking was: done with malicious intent, due to incompetence or a reasonably well executed compromise. I tend to lean to well meaning incompetence in both the creation and use of GDP numbers as being the culprit. But Neubarth's argument goes back to the creation of the GDP=C+ (X-M) + I + G equation with C being consumption, X being exports, M being imports, I being net investment and G being government spending. Those aggregate variables hide a load of information.So they didn't cook the GDP data?
Actually it is impossible not to cook the books to some degree, the question is whether the cooking was: done with malicious intent, due to incompetence or a reasonably well executed compromise. I tend to lean to well meaning incompetence in both the creation and use of GDP numbers as being the culprit. But Neubarth's argument goes back to the creation of the GDP=C+ (X-M) + I + G equation with C being consumption, X being exports, M being imports, I being net investment and G being government spending. Those aggregate variables hide a load of information.So they didn't cook the GDP data?
True but it is impossible to avoid either deliberate error in accounting or reporting with such an unwieldy aggregate.Actually it is impossible not to cook the books to some degree, the question is whether the cooking was: done with malicious intent, due to incompetence or a reasonably well executed compromise. I tend to lean to well meaning incompetence in both the creation and use of GDP numbers as being the culprit. But Neubarth's argument goes back to the creation of the GDP=C+ (X-M) + I + G equation with C being consumption, X being exports, M being imports, I being net investment and G being government spending. Those aggregate variables hide a load of information.So they didn't cook the GDP data?
"Cook" implies wrongdoing. They are statistically sampling.
Not me I figure HTML is a transitional stage.anybody got a link to this alleged sampling?
See the part I made big. The government, by creating huge unfunded spending budgets by adding to the debt has artificially inflated GDP for years...however the accelerated rate of government spending over the last 2 years has had a greater impact on GDP than normal.Your right they are the real numbers, its just those numbers have some government made filler in them which I described .
False is the wrong word. They are artificially inflated numbers.
I can't understand the distinction that seems so compelling to a number of others.
GDP has always included government spending, deficit and otherwise as a central part of it's calculation.
Whatever the point is you failed to convey it or convince me.
GDP is what it is:
Definition
Gross Domestic Product. The total market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year, equal to total consumer, investment and government spending, plus the value of exports, minus the value of imports.
Read more: GDP Definition
I fully agree that is the wrong index to use to track our economic health. I wish there was another index that was more on point.
But we use recessions to define economic downturn and define those recessions according to GDP.
anybody got a link to this alleged sampling?
Nonsense denying limits of error much less the compounding of cumulative error is cooking the books. A flat statement of GDP is X is a deliberate lie intended to mislead.anybody got a link to this alleged sampling?
Hmmm it's been a few years since I studied the NIPAs (National Income and Products Accounts) that make up the GDP. BEA doesn't collect any data themselves, they get their info from other agencies. Most of the info on private consumption comes from BLS and Census. Government spending and receipts are admin data for Fed gov, not sure about the info for state and local. Import and Export are measured by Commerce department.
Accusations of "cooking the books" are just claims from people who either don't understand or disagree with the definitions and/or methodology. Of course definitions and methodologies are debatable and are debated all the time and changed once someone's argument becomes convincing, but only people who have no idea what they're talking about think there's only one possible correct definition/method for anything.