3.7 GDP Growth

[edthecynic]

OK here is the same annual graph showing columns instead of a line.

As you can clearly see the year ending in Q3 of 2010 was over 3% growth, the year ending in Q3 of 2014 was over 3% growth, the year ending in Q1 of 2015 was over 3% growth, and the year ending in Q2 of 2015 was over 3% growth.

Thank you.

As you can easily see, none of the calendar years top 3%. It was already obvious from the line chart once looking at it close enough. I referred to yearly growth, not annual quarterly growth, which is why I used the term "year".

The chart is a disaster when contrasting to times when America was great. This will continue, even if Trump is certainly a positive influence. The west is in decline.

Now you are just being stubborn, a "year" is 4 consecutive quarters, and my chart clearly shows 4 consecutive quarters of 3% growth.

A year is a year, and a quarter is a quarter. What you are showing is a quarter., which is why you have to specify "Q3 2015", and not "2015". Yes there were quarters with higher than 3% growth.

The Graph clearly says ANNUAL growth, and that is why I said the YEAR ending in Q3. You are using the same lying technique as protectionist.

Here is the quarterly graph for the same period and you can clearly see it is not the same as the annual graph with a quarter as high as 5.2%.

There are two types (or more) of quarterly graphs, neither of which is a yearly graph.

Yearly graph is of the form:

2010,
2011,
2012...

Again this is what I am referring to and what is generally referred to as well.

Now you are just outright lying in the face of the truth!
Look in the upper left of each graph for the title of each and you will see one is labeled ANNUAL, annual is not quarterly, it is the annual GDP ending with each quarter graphed. The one not labeled annual is each individual quarter.

 

[Faun]

OK here is the same annual graph showing columns instead of a line.

As you can clearly see the year ending in Q3 of 2010 was over 3% growth, the year ending in Q3 of 2014 was over 3% growth, the year ending in Q1 of 2015 was over 3% growth, and the year ending in Q2 of 2015 was over 3% growth.

Thank you.

As you can easily see, none of the calendar years top 3%. It was already obvious from the line chart once looking at it close enough. I referred to yearly growth, not annual quarterly growth, which is why I used the term "year".

The chart is a disaster when contrasting to times when America was great. This will continue, even if Trump is certainly a positive influence. The west is in decline.

Now you are just being stubborn, a "year" is 4 consecutive quarters, and my chart clearly shows 4 consecutive quarters of 3% growth.

A year is a year, and a quarter is a quarter. What you are showing is a quarter., which is why you have to specify "Q3 2015", and not "2015". Yes there were quarters with higher than 3% growth.

The Graph clearly says ANNUAL growth, and that is why I said the YEAR ending in Q3. You are using the same lying technique as protectionist.

Here is the quarterly graph for the same period and you can clearly see it is not the same as the annual graph with a quarter as high as 5.2%.

There are two types (or more) of quarterly graphs, neither of which is a yearly graph.

Yearly graph is of the form:

2010,
2011,
2012...

Again this is what I am referring to and what is generally referred to as well. Yes you could define year the way you did, but I do not use that definition as don't most people. What you are showing is quarterly growth the way economists would define it.

Sooo .... Trump's first year in office began on January 1st, 2017 then, right?

 

[Norman]

Thank you.

As you can easily see, none of the calendar years top 3%. It was already obvious from the line chart once looking at it close enough. I referred to yearly growth, not annual quarterly growth, which is why I used the term "year".

The chart is a disaster when contrasting to times when America was great. This will continue, even if Trump is certainly a positive influence. The west is in decline.

Now you are just being stubborn, a "year" is 4 consecutive quarters, and my chart clearly shows 4 consecutive quarters of 3% growth.

A year is a year, and a quarter is a quarter. What you are showing is a quarter., which is why you have to specify "Q3 2015", and not "2015". Yes there were quarters with higher than 3% growth.

The Graph clearly says ANNUAL growth, and that is why I said the YEAR ending in Q3. You are using the same lying technique as protectionist.

Here is the quarterly graph for the same period and you can clearly see it is not the same as the annual graph with a quarter as high as 5.2%.

There are two types (or more) of quarterly graphs, neither of which is a yearly graph.

Yearly graph is of the form:

2010,
2011,
2012...

Again this is what I am referring to and what is generally referred to as well.

Now you are just outright lying in the face of the truth!
Look in the upper left of each graph for the title of each and you will see one is labeled ANNUAL, annual is not quarterly, it is the annual GDP ending with each quarter graphed. The one not labeled annual is each individual quarter.

No, annual is QUARTERLY data, which is WHY you have 4 different data points each year. It simply means it is calculated in contrast to the same quarter of last year.

In yearly data you have data point for each year only.

2011,
2012,
2013...

I am talking about that data when I say "year", not the quarterly annual data.

Here:

 

[Norman]

Thank you.

As you can easily see, none of the calendar years top 3%. It was already obvious from the line chart once looking at it close enough. I referred to yearly growth, not annual quarterly growth, which is why I used the term "year".

The chart is a disaster when contrasting to times when America was great. This will continue, even if Trump is certainly a positive influence. The west is in decline.

Now you are just being stubborn, a "year" is 4 consecutive quarters, and my chart clearly shows 4 consecutive quarters of 3% growth.

A year is a year, and a quarter is a quarter. What you are showing is a quarter., which is why you have to specify "Q3 2015", and not "2015". Yes there were quarters with higher than 3% growth.

The Graph clearly says ANNUAL growth, and that is why I said the YEAR ending in Q3. You are using the same lying technique as protectionist.

Here is the quarterly graph for the same period and you can clearly see it is not the same as the annual graph with a quarter as high as 5.2%.

There are two types (or more) of quarterly graphs, neither of which is a yearly graph.

Yearly graph is of the form:

2010,
2011,
2012...

Again this is what I am referring to and what is generally referred to as well. Yes you could define year the way you did, but I do not use that definition as don't most people. What you are showing is quarterly growth the way economists would define it.

Sooo .... Trump's first year in office began on January 1st, 2017 then, right?

What in the fuck are you talking about? Have you not embarrassed yourself enough yet?

I am talking about the year which I specified when it comes to GDP. I never said that Trump's term began according to that definition or that the same definition is usually used in politics. When referring to a year when it comes to presidential politics the definition is obviously different. Namely the president would start his year late January. If you made a yearly graph of presidents it would start from that date...

 

[edthecynic]

No, annual is QUARTERLY data, which is WHY you have 4 different data points each year. It simply means it is calculated in contrast to the same quarter of last year.

I double checked, and you are correct.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The alt right lies.

There will be a reckoning politically, socially, and economically for them before long, and their squeals are going to be sky high.

 

[Faun]

Now you are just being stubborn, a "year" is 4 consecutive quarters, and my chart clearly shows 4 consecutive quarters of 3% growth.

A year is a year, and a quarter is a quarter. What you are showing is a quarter., which is why you have to specify "Q3 2015", and not "2015". Yes there were quarters with higher than 3% growth.

The Graph clearly says ANNUAL growth, and that is why I said the YEAR ending in Q3. You are using the same lying technique as protectionist.

Here is the quarterly graph for the same period and you can clearly see it is not the same as the annual graph with a quarter as high as 5.2%.

There are two types (or more) of quarterly graphs, neither of which is a yearly graph.

Yearly graph is of the form:

2010,
2011,
2012...

Again this is what I am referring to and what is generally referred to as well. Yes you could define year the way you did, but I do not use that definition as don't most people. What you are showing is quarterly growth the way economists would define it.

Sooo .... Trump's first year in office began on January 1st, 2017 then, right?

What in the fuck are you talking about? Have you not embarrassed yourself enough yet?

I am talking about the year which I specified when it comes to GDP. I never said that Trump's term began according to that definition or that the same definition is usually used in politics. When referring to a year when it comes to presidential politics the definition is obviously different. Namely the president would start his year late January. If you made a yearly graph of presidents it would start from that date...

LOL

You're the one saying the definition of a year is that it starts on January 1st.

I'm merely highlighting what a flaming imbecile you are.

How do you measure your age in years? You start from January 1st from the year you were born?

 

[Faun]

Now you are just being stubborn, a "year" is 4 consecutive quarters, and my chart clearly shows 4 consecutive quarters of 3% growth.

A year is a year, and a quarter is a quarter. What you are showing is a quarter., which is why you have to specify "Q3 2015", and not "2015". Yes there were quarters with higher than 3% growth.

The Graph clearly says ANNUAL growth, and that is why I said the YEAR ending in Q3. You are using the same lying technique as protectionist.

Here is the quarterly graph for the same period and you can clearly see it is not the same as the annual graph with a quarter as high as 5.2%.

There are two types (or more) of quarterly graphs, neither of which is a yearly graph.

Yearly graph is of the form:

2010,
2011,
2012...

Again this is what I am referring to and what is generally referred to as well.

Now you are just outright lying in the face of the truth!
Look in the upper left of each graph for the title of each and you will see one is labeled ANNUAL, annual is not quarterly, it is the annual GDP ending with each quarter graphed. The one not labeled annual is each individual quarter.

No, annual is QUARTERLY data, which is WHY you have 4 different data points each year. It simply means it is calculated in contrast to the same quarter of last year.

Great, now show where that has anything to do with January 1st through December 31st other than when looking at the 4th quarter....

 

[Norman]

A year is a year, and a quarter is a quarter. What you are showing is a quarter., which is why you have to specify "Q3 2015", and not "2015". Yes there were quarters with higher than 3% growth.

The Graph clearly says ANNUAL growth, and that is why I said the YEAR ending in Q3. You are using the same lying technique as protectionist.

Here is the quarterly graph for the same period and you can clearly see it is not the same as the annual graph with a quarter as high as 5.2%.

There are two types (or more) of quarterly graphs, neither of which is a yearly graph.

Yearly graph is of the form:

2010,
2011,
2012...

Again this is what I am referring to and what is generally referred to as well.

Now you are just outright lying in the face of the truth!
Look in the upper left of each graph for the title of each and you will see one is labeled ANNUAL, annual is not quarterly, it is the annual GDP ending with each quarter graphed. The one not labeled annual is each individual quarter.

No, annual is QUARTERLY data, which is WHY you have 4 different data points each year. It simply means it is calculated in contrast to the same quarter of last year.

Great, now show where that has anything to do with January 1st through December 31st other than when looking at the 4th quarter....

I don't need to show you anything. Frankly, if you at this point still don't understand what I mean when I say Obama's terms didn't have a single year of 3% GDP growth, your IQ is simply too low to be possible to be communicated with in any sort of efficient manner.

Also I never talked about any "the" definition of a year. I simply outlined what I meant by year in the above context. The common definition in that context...

 

[Faun]

The Graph clearly says ANNUAL growth, and that is why I said the YEAR ending in Q3. You are using the same lying technique as protectionist.

Here is the quarterly graph for the same period and you can clearly see it is not the same as the annual graph with a quarter as high as 5.2%.

There are two types (or more) of quarterly graphs, neither of which is a yearly graph.

Yearly graph is of the form:

2010,
2011,
2012...

Again this is what I am referring to and what is generally referred to as well.

Now you are just outright lying in the face of the truth!
Look in the upper left of each graph for the title of each and you will see one is labeled ANNUAL, annual is not quarterly, it is the annual GDP ending with each quarter graphed. The one not labeled annual is each individual quarter.

No, annual is QUARTERLY data, which is WHY you have 4 different data points each year. It simply means it is calculated in contrast to the same quarter of last year.

Great, now show where that has anything to do with January 1st through December 31st other than when looking at the 4th quarter....

I don't need to show you anything. Frankly, if you at this point still don't understand what I mean when I say Obama didn't have a single year of 3% GDP growth, your IQ is simply too low to be possible to be communicated with in any sort of efficient manner.

You won't because you can't because there is no such correlation. Quarters measure movement from one quarter to the next and then they're annualized. That has absolutely nothing to do with a calendar year. String any 4 consecutive quarters together to get an annual increase or decrease.

This chart shows you're lying. Do so at your own peril.

 

[Norman]

There are two types (or more) of quarterly graphs, neither of which is a yearly graph.

Yearly graph is of the form:

2010,
2011,
2012...

Again this is what I am referring to and what is generally referred to as well.

Now you are just outright lying in the face of the truth!
Look in the upper left of each graph for the title of each and you will see one is labeled ANNUAL, annual is not quarterly, it is the annual GDP ending with each quarter graphed. The one not labeled annual is each individual quarter.

No, annual is QUARTERLY data, which is WHY you have 4 different data points each year. It simply means it is calculated in contrast to the same quarter of last year.

Great, now show where that has anything to do with January 1st through December 31st other than when looking at the 4th quarter....

I don't need to show you anything. Frankly, if you at this point still don't understand what I mean when I say Obama didn't have a single year of 3% GDP growth, your IQ is simply too low to be possible to be communicated with in any sort of efficient manner.

You won't because you can't because there is no such correlation. Quarters measure movement from one quarter to the next and then they're annualized. That has absolutely nothing to do with a calendar year. String any 4 consecutive quarters together to get an annual increase or decrease.

This chart shows you're lying. Do so at your own peril.

I am talking about YEARS, not annualized quarters. Further your graph says "annual" not "annualized". I explained the distinction of these ages ago, and both are obviously quarterly data.

You are so confused that it is barely understandable what you are even trying to say. Although at least it is clear it has nothing to do with my point. If you don't accept the commonly accepted definition of a year, which may not mean any 12 month period, but a specific one ie. "the year 2010, 2011...", that's your problem.

 

[Faun]

Now you are just outright lying in the face of the truth!
Look in the upper left of each graph for the title of each and you will see one is labeled ANNUAL, annual is not quarterly, it is the annual GDP ending with each quarter graphed. The one not labeled annual is each individual quarter.

No, annual is QUARTERLY data, which is WHY you have 4 different data points each year. It simply means it is calculated in contrast to the same quarter of last year.

Great, now show where that has anything to do with January 1st through December 31st other than when looking at the 4th quarter....

I don't need to show you anything. Frankly, if you at this point still don't understand what I mean when I say Obama didn't have a single year of 3% GDP growth, your IQ is simply too low to be possible to be communicated with in any sort of efficient manner.

You won't because you can't because there is no such correlation. Quarters measure movement from one quarter to the next and then they're annualized. That has absolutely nothing to do with a calendar year. String any 4 consecutive quarters together to get an annual increase or decrease.

This chart shows you're lying. Do so at your own peril.

I am talking about YEARS, not annualized quarters. Further your graph says "annual" not "annualized". I explained the distinction of these ages ago, and both are obviously quarterly data.

You are so confused that it is barely understandable what you are even trying to say. Although at least it is clear it has nothing to do with my point. If you don't accept the commonly accepted definition of a year, which may not mean any 12 month period, but a specific one, that's your problem.

Imbecile...again ... a single year IS 4 consecutive quarters. It matters not on which date it starts.

And I didn't say that chart showed annualized quarters. I said quarterly growth is annualized. But that chart didn't show that -- it showed annual growth. And it shows there was a year when GDP went over 3%.

 

[Norman]

No, annual is QUARTERLY data, which is WHY you have 4 different data points each year. It simply means it is calculated in contrast to the same quarter of last year.

Great, now show where that has anything to do with January 1st through December 31st other than when looking at the 4th quarter....

I don't need to show you anything. Frankly, if you at this point still don't understand what I mean when I say Obama didn't have a single year of 3% GDP growth, your IQ is simply too low to be possible to be communicated with in any sort of efficient manner.

You won't because you can't because there is no such correlation. Quarters measure movement from one quarter to the next and then they're annualized. That has absolutely nothing to do with a calendar year. String any 4 consecutive quarters together to get an annual increase or decrease.

This chart shows you're lying. Do so at your own peril.

I am talking about YEARS, not annualized quarters. Further your graph says "annual" not "annualized". I explained the distinction of these ages ago, and both are obviously quarterly data.

You are so confused that it is barely understandable what you are even trying to say. Although at least it is clear it has nothing to do with my point. If you don't accept the commonly accepted definition of a year, which may not mean any 12 month period, but a specific one, that's your problem.

Imbecile...again ... a single year IS 4 consecutive quarters. It matters not on which date it starts.

And I didn't say that chart showed annualized quarters. I said quarterly growth is annualized. But that chart didn't show that -- it showed annual growth. And it shows there was a year when GDP went over 3%.

Except when I just defined it not to be any 4 consecutive quarters, but an actual calendar year, as is commonly defined when talking about time series material.

Just how many times do I have to repeat myself?

Year 2008,, didn't have over 3 % growth...
Year 2009 didn't have that either...
...
And so didn't year 2016.
=> No year had over 3% gdp growth.

Anyway thanks for giving me a taste of what the future of America will be with the declining IQ levels. People won't be able to understand even basic concepts. It's rather ironic how your posts reveals why the GDP is declining, we can't sustain the GDP with populace that can't understand basic concepts.

 

[Faun]

Great, now show where that has anything to do with January 1st through December 31st other than when looking at the 4th quarter....

I don't need to show you anything. Frankly, if you at this point still don't understand what I mean when I say Obama didn't have a single year of 3% GDP growth, your IQ is simply too low to be possible to be communicated with in any sort of efficient manner.

You won't because you can't because there is no such correlation. Quarters measure movement from one quarter to the next and then they're annualized. That has absolutely nothing to do with a calendar year. String any 4 consecutive quarters together to get an annual increase or decrease.

This chart shows you're lying. Do so at your own peril.

I am talking about YEARS, not annualized quarters. Further your graph says "annual" not "annualized". I explained the distinction of these ages ago, and both are obviously quarterly data.

You are so confused that it is barely understandable what you are even trying to say. Although at least it is clear it has nothing to do with my point. If you don't accept the commonly accepted definition of a year, which may not mean any 12 month period, but a specific one, that's your problem.

Imbecile...again ... a single year IS 4 consecutive quarters. It matters not on which date it starts.

And I didn't say that chart showed annualized quarters. I said quarterly growth is annualized. But that chart didn't show that -- it showed annual growth. And it shows there was a year when GDP went over 3%.

Except when I just defined it not to be any 4 consecutive quarters, but an actual calendar year, as is commonly defined when talking about time series material.

Just how many times do I have to repeat myself?

Year 2008,, didn't have over 3 % growth...
Year 2009 didn't have that either...
...
And so didn't year 2016.
=> No year had over 3% gdp growth.

Anyway thanks for giving me a taste of what the future of America will be with the declining IQ levels. People won't be able to understand even basic concepts. It's rather ironic how your posts reveals why the GDP is declining, we can't sustain a GDP with populace that can't understand basic concepts.

Because I don't give a shit that you changed your bullshit comment from there was never a single year ... to ... there was never a single calendar year after you were shown to be the imbecile you are for making such a retarded comment. And of course you moved the goal posts ... your field goal attempt from your first kick was wide right.

 

[Norman]

I don't need to show you anything. Frankly, if you at this point still don't understand what I mean when I say Obama didn't have a single year of 3% GDP growth, your IQ is simply too low to be possible to be communicated with in any sort of efficient manner.

You won't because you can't because there is no such correlation. Quarters measure movement from one quarter to the next and then they're annualized. That has absolutely nothing to do with a calendar year. String any 4 consecutive quarters together to get an annual increase or decrease.

This chart shows you're lying. Do so at your own peril.

I am talking about YEARS, not annualized quarters. Further your graph says "annual" not "annualized". I explained the distinction of these ages ago, and both are obviously quarterly data.

You are so confused that it is barely understandable what you are even trying to say. Although at least it is clear it has nothing to do with my point. If you don't accept the commonly accepted definition of a year, which may not mean any 12 month period, but a specific one, that's your problem.

Imbecile...again ... a single year IS 4 consecutive quarters. It matters not on which date it starts.

And I didn't say that chart showed annualized quarters. I said quarterly growth is annualized. But that chart didn't show that -- it showed annual growth. And it shows there was a year when GDP went over 3%.

Except when I just defined it not to be any 4 consecutive quarters, but an actual calendar year, as is commonly defined when talking about time series material.

Just how many times do I have to repeat myself?

Year 2008,, didn't have over 3 % growth...
Year 2009 didn't have that either...
...
And so didn't year 2016.
=> No year had over 3% gdp growth.

Anyway thanks for giving me a taste of what the future of America will be with the declining IQ levels. People won't be able to understand even basic concepts. It's rather ironic how your posts reveals why the GDP is declining, we can't sustain a GDP with populace that can't understand basic concepts.

Because I don't give a shit that you changed your bullshit comment from there was never a single year ... to ... there was never a single calendar year after you were shown to be the imbecile you are for making such a retarded comment. And of course you moved the goal posts ... your field goal attempt from your first kick was wide right.

I never changed anything and stand by my comment 100%. The definition of the year I am using refers to the calendar year, it is implied in the way these terms are used. Every single person who ever took even the most basic of economics would understand the statement in exactly the intended purpose. This does not include you, obviously. After all, if it's defined that way in economics you couldn't count your age properly. Because you are dumb as hell...

If I talked to an accountant about years, the accountant would know that we are talking about fiscal years. The extra term isn't needed, that's only needed when communicating with morons such as yourself, who even argue with the dictionary.

Even politifact agrees, they are not dumb enough to engage in this game, because it's laughably stupid:

Did Obama never have a whole year of 3% economic growth?

"The past (Obama) administration was the first administration that never had a whole year of 3 percent growth."

They too bring up that you could not refer to calendar years, but that is nonetheless the intended and default meaning so... true. When economists refer to years, they by default assume yearly data. You don't have to do this, but by arguing that it's impossible and lying only makes you look like a moron.

The article also notes that the average of Reagan was higher than the best of Obama. That should give a clue how bad these numbers have become.

 

[protectionist]

The moron who thinks he is schooling someone while not knowing the basics strikes again.

Hey moron, annualized data IS quarterly data, which is why the data is changing multiple (four) times on any given year. Instead of comparing the growth to the same quarter of last year, it compares the growth with that of the last quarter.

This guy is the kind of moron that thankfully I don't have to deal with in my real life. The reason for his leftisim is squarely his loserdom. Attempting to teach others while being squarel clueless, I bet he is one of those smug liberal teachers.

It's ONLY you who doesn't understand what annualized or annual means, or can read (your own) graphs for that matter. Classic leftist projection of the day.

Of course you are absolutely correct, but in the world of leftist politics ANYTHING goes to PUSH leftwing politic into power, BAM (by any means necessary)

 

[protectionist]

Because I don't give a shit that you changed your bullshit comment from there was never a single year ... to ... there was never a single calendar year after you were shown to be the imbecile you are for making such a retarded comment. And of course you moved the goal posts ... your field goal attempt from your first kick was wide right.

How predictable to get a dopey post like this from somebody who has a FRAUDULENT video, that Hillary Clinton dishonestly used as TV ads in her pitiful campaign - (and this is even after I explained the discrepancy to this irresponsible, lying poster)

And not only does Fraudy Fauny use a fraudulent idea for his signature, but he's got Muslim-Brotherhood seditionist Robert Mueller for his avatar.

 

[protectionist]

Amazing that this thread is still active when more than enough information, including BEA graphs, answered all the questions 3 days ago. For crying out loud people, new important threads are opening up that demand our attention. This one is over.

2016 Obama's GDP went down. 2017 Trump brought it back up, and now even left-wing publications concede the US economy is BOOMING.

Sorry Democrats, Economists Say Trump, Not Obama, Should Be Credited For Booming Economy

Charles Gasparino writes in the left-wing New York Post.

"In fact, it’s safe to say that the current president, for all his temperamental flaws and petty insecurities, makes his tightly wound predecessor, Barack Obama, look like a raving madman when it comes to showing sense on economic growth. Armchair psychiatrists are having a field day diagnosing the president’s mental state from afar, especially after his increasingly bizarre tweeting, but the market says otherwise."

Trump’s Economy Booming

 

[protectionist]

The Obama administration mitigated a wall street disaster

Then we elected a wall streeter

Hillary was the big Wall Streeter.

Try checking the numbers before you post. Hillary got far more

$$$ ​

from globalist Wall St, than Bernie and Donald, combined. And even anti-Wall St Bernie got more from them than Trump.

 

[Dschrute3]

It is pretty funny that Hussein's sycophants used to cheer and boast about his paltry 1.2%. Now all of a sudden, 3.7% is absolutely 'appalling' to them. It says it all about them. Nuff said.