More economic good news! GDP rebounds 4%

[JimBowie1958]

Got it, instead we listen to ideologues like you...

Holy crap

.

lol, yeah, tellin ya

 

[candycorn]

Economy rebounds to 4% growth pace in Q2
After terrible start to the year, the U.S. economy bounces back - Jul. 30, 2014

New data released Wednesday show the U.S. economy bounced back in the spring, growing at a 4% annual pace in the second quarter. That was even better than the forecast of 3% growth, according to a consensus of economists surveyed by CNNMoney.

Consumer spending, which alone accounts for about two thirds of U.S. economic activity, strengthened, as did exports to foreign countries and business investments.

American consumers spent more money on long-lasting goods like autos and furniture, and businesses invested more in technology and industrial equipment. Both can be seen as good signs that households and companies are more optimistic and investing in the future.



Great to see the first quarter numbers were not a trend

Thank you Mr. President.

 

[KissMy]

How exactly are you claiming that works? What's the process that it's the statisticians (or economists) that are making a particular decision?

Dude here is some reading for you, if you really want to know.

Not Looking for Work: Why Labor Force Participation Has Fallen During the Recession

Obama Unemployment Magic Trick: Indefinitely Detain 4 Million People from Workforce - John Ransom - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page full

Making 9 Million Jobless "Vanish": How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics by Daniel Amerman

Heritage, THERE is a 'study' without bias or spin, lol

The ‘demographics’ story

Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

In a March report titled “Dispelling an Urban Legend,” Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002.


A smaller workforce means less growth

And what about the most recent downturn? Based on survey data, Maki found that about 35 percent of Americans who have dropped out of the labor force since the recession began in 2007 do want a job, but they have become too discouraged to fire off résumés. That’s a sign of a weak labor market. But the other 65 percent are people who have left the labor force and do not want a job

The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post

2008 was the soonest the first Boomers could get early retirement SS benefits. After the incredible jobs destruction Bush caused, they all started running to the early retirement exit from that economic disaster ASAP. Obama actually turned Bush's 8 years of jobs loss around, lowered inflation & strengthened the US dollar. Bush & Republicans destroyed the dollar causing inflation with the biggest government stimulus in history & lost 18 million jobs in the process. Obama has restored half those jobs Bush destroyed, saved what was left of the US dollar, economy & halted the soaring inflation.

The repubtards who caused the depression now have the nerve to say Obama is not fixing their disaster fast enough. Even their Heritage Foundation article Dimwit JimBowie links too says we are recovering, but says it is to slow. They dug the hole & keep digging while blaming others for not filling it back in fast enough.

 

[Siete]

Growth Rebound Stokes Fed Debate - WSJ

 

[JimBowie1958]

How exactly are you claiming that works? What's the process that it's the statisticians (or economists) that are making a particular decision?

Dude here is some reading for you, if you really want to know.

Not Looking for Work: Why Labor Force Participation Has Fallen During the Recession

Obama Unemployment Magic Trick: Indefinitely Detain 4 Million People from Workforce - John Ransom - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page full

Making 9 Million Jobless "Vanish": How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics by Daniel Amerman

Not what I asked. Try again. What is the PROCESS you are claiming (I'm not debating links, I'm talking to YOU), that people are removed? What exactly are the statisticians doing? Your links claim "manipulation" and tricks, but don't say what steps are taken or why they constitute "tricks" except that they give different numbers than the author wants.

To add on, since you dodged responsibility for defending your post, the implication is that these people should not have been removed and should still be counted in the labor force. Why?

Let me clarify something: Your links are mostly opinion and interpretation, not straight facts or data. Too many times I've seen someone post links like that to support their position, but then disclaim any responsibility for falsehoods or misinterpretations. Someone else's opinion that agrees with what you say is not actually evidence that your claim is correct.

They are the experts, not me, but as I understand it the Obama Regime has been too quick to count people as out of the labor pool even though they still want to work, but, since resumes cost money, they are not sending out resumes as frequently as the government thinks they should be to still count as 'looking for work'. Thus the work pool is decreased and the number of people counted as unemployed but want to work is reduced.

The unemployment number itself is a statistical fraud since is a survey, not an actual count of anything.

How the Government Measures Unemployment

Since you have a problem with my sources, maybe the Huffington Post article from an interview by a guy who used to help calculate the unemployment number will help you understand this.

The Official Unemployment Rate Is Wrong, Says Guy Who Used To Calculate It

Keith Hall, the former head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which produces the federal government's monthly jobs report, told New York Post columnist John Crudele that the official unemployment rate of 7.6 percent is wrong and might be too low by 3 percentage points, according to Crudele's column on Thursday.

Though Hall now works for the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank at George Mason University partially funded by the billionaire Koch Brothers (Charles Koch sits on its board), he is not suggesting that the BLS is cooking the books, as Jack Welch and other conservatives have suggested.

What he is saying is that the unemployment rate doesn't capture all of the people sitting on the sidelines in despair of finding a job. The employment-population ratio, the percentage of the working-age population actually working, sits at 58.7 percent, Hall notes, well below a peak of 63 percent before the recession and the lowest rate since the early 1980s. This suggests to Hall that there are a lot of people not showing up in the official unemployment rate.

I'd personally focus on the labor-force participation rate, which includes people working and looking for work. This has been at about 63 percent in recent years, well below the 66 percent that prevailed before the recession. That may not sound like a big difference, but that extra 3 percent would take the number of officially unemployed people up to about 18 million from 12 million.

If that doesn't allow you to figure this snarl of lies out then you are past my ability to remedy your affliction. Most likely it is self inflicted.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Dude here is some reading for you, if you really want to know.

Not Looking for Work: Why Labor Force Participation Has Fallen During the Recession

Obama Unemployment Magic Trick: Indefinitely Detain 4 Million People from Workforce - John Ransom - Townhall Finance Conservative Columnists and Financial Commentary - Page full

Making 9 Million Jobless "Vanish": How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics by Daniel Amerman

Heritage, THERE is a 'study' without bias or spin, lol

The ‘demographics’ story

Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

In a March report titled “Dispelling an Urban Legend,” Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002.


A smaller workforce means less growth

And what about the most recent downturn? Based on survey data, Maki found that about 35 percent of Americans who have dropped out of the labor force since the recession began in 2007 do want a job, but they have become too discouraged to fire off résumés. That’s a sign of a weak labor market. But the other 65 percent are people who have left the labor force and do not want a job

The incredible shrinking labor force - The Washington Post

2008 was the soonest the first Boomers could get early retirement SS benefits. After the incredible jobs destruction Bush caused, they all started running to the early retirement exit from that economic disaster ASAP. Obama actually turned Bush's 8 years of jobs loss around, lowered inflation & strengthened the US dollar. Bush & Republicans destroyed the dollar causing inflation with the biggest government stimulus in history & lost 18 million jobs in the process. Obama has restored half those jobs Bush destroyed, saved what was left of the US dollar, economy & halted the soaring inflation.

The repubtards who caused the depression now have the nerve to say Obama is not fixing their disaster fast enough. Even their Heritage Foundation article Dimwit JimBowie links too says we are recovering, but says it is to slow. They dug the hole & keep digging while blaming others for not filling it back in fast enough.

What a pack of lies.
The Democrats are as responsible for the 2008 crash as the GOP is.
Obama has not lowered inflation but has made it go up according to MIT, but they are likely Koch stooges too, right?
And employment of Native born Americans has gone DOWN by 127,000 jobs and only legal and illegal immigrants have gained almost 6 million jobs.
And QE is the biggest undermining to the value of the USD in its history, and Obama let it explode to $85 BILLION EACH MONTH. Were it not for OPEC taking payment only in USD, the US dollar would have collapse years ago.

You are a lying fool, but it is too easy for people to see through that kind of bullshit these days.

Lol, you lying ****.

 

[boedicca]

The 4% figure is bogus government manipulation of statistics.

No, it's not. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it wrong.

Shadowstats has a more accurate calculation of the change in GDP...and one that is consistent with what the majority of Americans are experiencing in their economic lives.

On what basis do you claim shadowstats is more accurate? All he does is take the published numbers and arbitrarily makes them bigger or smaller depending on which is worse. And nobody really experiences the GDP in their lives...that's individual vs aggregate.

The SGS-Alternate GDP reflects the inflation-adjusted, or real, year-to-year GDP change, adjusted for distortions in government inflation usage and methodological changes that have resulted in a built-in upside bias to official reporting.

Over the last 10 years, BLS shows an increase in average prices of about 27%. Shadowstats shows an increase of over 85% Do you really think it has been that high? He just adds on around 5% to the official number, but that adds up over time. Let's say he's just adding 4%/year (and I'm sure the average is higher) that would put BLS inflation at 88% since 1990 and shadowstats inflation at 270%. Which seems more accurate to you?

And to show Williams is a liar, I can run through the math on his unemployment numbers to show just how far off he is. But somehow I don't think even that blatant demonstration would convince you.

Condolences on your economic and statistics illiteracy.

The Official Government GDP growth statistic is quarter over quarter. Last quarter's growth is exaggerated because the prior quarter declined by over 2%. The proper way to interpret GDP growth is to average the two quarters...which results in growth of less than 2%.

Obamanomics is an epic fail...but Useful Idiots such as yourself are duped due to your complete and utter inability to engage in critical thinking.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Economy rebounds to 4% growth pace in Q2
After terrible start to the year, the U.S. economy bounces back - Jul. 30, 2014

New data released Wednesday show the U.S. economy bounced back in the spring, growing at a 4% annual pace in the second quarter. That was even better than the forecast of 3% growth, according to a consensus of economists surveyed by CNNMoney.

Consumer spending, which alone accounts for about two thirds of U.S. economic activity, strengthened, as did exports to foreign countries and business investments.

American consumers spent more money on long-lasting goods like autos and furniture, and businesses invested more in technology and industrial equipment. Both can be seen as good signs that households and companies are more optimistic and investing in the future.



Great to see the first quarter numbers were not a trend

Thank you Mr. President.

Yeah, neoMarxists love it when the government uses statistical lies to sell their ideological nonsense.

 

[KissMy]

The 4% figure is bogus government manipulation of statistics.

No, it's not. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it wrong.


On what basis do you claim shadowstats is more accurate? All he does is take the published numbers and arbitrarily makes them bigger or smaller depending on which is worse. And nobody really experiences the GDP in their lives...that's individual vs aggregate.

The SGS-Alternate GDP reflects the inflation-adjusted, or real, year-to-year GDP change, adjusted for distortions in government inflation usage and methodological changes that have resulted in a built-in upside bias to official reporting.

Over the last 10 years, BLS shows an increase in average prices of about 27%. Shadowstats shows an increase of over 85% Do you really think it has been that high? He just adds on around 5% to the official number, but that adds up over time. Let's say he's just adding 4%/year (and I'm sure the average is higher) that would put BLS inflation at 88% since 1990 and shadowstats inflation at 270%. Which seems more accurate to you?

And to show Williams is a liar, I can run through the math on his unemployment numbers to show just how far off he is. But somehow I don't think even that blatant demonstration would convince you.

Condolences on your economic and statistics illiteracy.

The Official Government GDP growth statistic is quarter over quarter. Last quarter's growth is exaggerated because the prior quarter declined by over 2%. The proper way to interpret GDP growth is to average the two quarters...which results in growth of less than 2%.

Obamanomics is an epic fail...but Useful Idiots such as yourself are duped due to your complete and utter inability to engage in critical thinking.

How do you interpret 10 quarters (2.5 years) of negative GDP caused by Bush?

 

[edthecynic]

Keith Hall now works for the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank at George Mason University partially funded by the billionaire Koch Brothers (Charles Koch sits on its board)

What he is saying is that the unemployment rate doesn't capture all of the people sitting on the sidelines in despair of finding a job. ... that extra 3 percent would take the number of officially unemployed people up to about 18 million from 12 million.

If that doesn't allow you to figure this snarl of lies out then you are past my ability to remedy your affliction. Most likely it is self inflicted.

Unfortunately for liars like Hall, the BLS actually measures and reports the number of discouraged workers, which is less than 1 million and not the phony made up 6 million of Koch stooge Hall.

Employment Situation Summary

Among the marginally attached, there were 676,000 discouraged workers in June, a
decrease of 351,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.)
Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe
no jobs are available for them.

 

[candycorn]

Economy rebounds to 4% growth pace in Q2
After terrible start to the year, the U.S. economy bounces back - Jul. 30, 2014

New data released Wednesday show the U.S. economy bounced back in the spring, growing at a 4% annual pace in the second quarter. That was even better than the forecast of 3% growth, according to a consensus of economists surveyed by CNNMoney.

Consumer spending, which alone accounts for about two thirds of U.S. economic activity, strengthened, as did exports to foreign countries and business investments.

American consumers spent more money on long-lasting goods like autos and furniture, and businesses invested more in technology and industrial equipment. Both can be seen as good signs that households and companies are more optimistic and investing in the future.



Great to see the first quarter numbers were not a trend

Thank you Mr. President.

Yeah, neoMarxists love it when the government uses statistical lies to sell their ideological nonsense.

332-206
Statistical Fact.

 

[pinqy]

"Ignoramus"

lol

Shadow Stats simply looks at what the numbers would look like had the FEds still used the old definitions and formulas from 1980 before the neocons under Reagan started jacking with them.

No, he doesn't. He adds on an arbitrary amount...usually 4-6% to the CPI-U. But, as I already pointed out, that would mean around 270% increase in prices since 1990 if he's correct. He's clearly not

I as referring to GDP calculations, not the CPI which is too complicated for any one person to calculate.

And the GDP uses the PCE which uses the same data as the CPI but is weighted differently.

MIT's Billion Price Index is based on total prices of all goods and does not reflect amount of purchase, as I understand it. The increase in oils price has far more impact than the drop in the price of retail prices via use of coupons.

Even so, they show inflation generally higher than the CPI does.

No, it's around the same....much closer to the CPI that Williams's fake calculations.

Williams defense of his methods:
Response to BLS Article on CPI Misconceptions

His chief complaint with the CPI is with use of Hedonic Regression and how it is used to fudge data. Hedonic regression supposedly counter-balances the higher cost of something by how much more functionality it has. If a bleeding edge PC costs $5000 today and was only $4000 two years ago, they balance that by looking at say a 50% increase in computing power, so the price you are paying for the computing power has actually gone down, though the price of the PC has gone up.

Not quite. First, hedonics isn't used for computers. Hedonic Quality Adjustment in the CPI
Second...It seems Mr. Williams is talking both sides of the issue...on the one hand he complains that the CPI should maintain a constant standard of living, but at the same time he complains about quality adjustments which are necessary to show a constant standard of living. If an item changes quality or size, how much of the price change is due to the quality change and how much is actual price change?

Hedonics is simply a method of quality adjustment when it can't be done directly. For example, a 5oz can of tuna sells for $1. Next month it goes down to 4.7oz but the price stays the same. BLS would calculate that as a 4.2% increase in price due to quality change. Or if the base model of a $20,000 car had a 4 cylinder engine, with a V6 as an option for an extra $1,000 and the next year the V6 is standard and the car sells for $22,000 do you ignore that it's not the same car? No. If you had bought it when the V6 was optional, it would have cost $21,000 and now it costs $22,000, so that's a 4.8% increase. But if a shirt goes from 92% cotton 8% polyester to 90% cotton 10% polyester, what's the drop in quality and how much is that worth? That's where the hedonic model enters where it looks at what the price differential between the different qualities is. Read up at Frequently Asked Questions about Hedonic Quality Adjustment in the CPI

Oh, and hedonic adjustments and other quality adjustments work both ways and adjust the price increase up if quality drops.

But anyone who has gone shopping and seen the price of bread go up from about $.45 in 1980 to $1.50 for wheat bread knows inflation is much higher than the CPI indicates.

How do you figure? $0.45 to $1.50 is an increase of 233% Going to the BLS database Bureau of Labor Statistics Data we use the U.S. city average, and for item "bread, other than white" not seasonally adjusted, and then look at the annual average, we see that the average index in 1980 was 85.9 (the base of 100 is the 1982-1984 average) and the average for 2013 was 342.154 That's an increase of 298.3%, far larger than your example. So how is 233% higher than 298%????

 

[pinqy]

They are the experts, not me, but as I understand it the Obama Regime has been too quick to count people as out of the labor pool even though they still want to work, but, since resumes cost money, they are not sending out resumes as frequently as the government thinks they should be to still count as 'looking for work'. Thus the work pool is decreased and the number of people counted as unemployed but want to work is reduced.

Ok, let me sift through that. Unemployed is defined as "they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed." Technical Note The 4 week requirement has been part of the definition since 1967, so what do you mean by "too quick?" Are you claiming that the BLS employees are using less than 4 weeks or that they should ignore the definition and allow longer than 4 weeks? What are you claiming BLS does to change "what should be?" Next, mailing a paper resume (does anyone actually do that anymore?) as a prohibitive cost making job search significantly less....that's what you're claiming? You honestly believe that so many people still mail a paper resume and the cost is so high that enough fewer people can mail out one a month so significantly drop the number of people searching?

But in any case...the following are active job search methods, any one of which just once in 4 weeks would make the person unmployed:

• Contacted public employment agency (for example, visited a job service)
• Contacted private employment agency (for example, called a recruiting or head-hunting agency)
• Contacted employer directly (for example, spoke to someone in a company's employment office about a job)
• Sent out resume or filled out applications (for example, mailed a job application)
• Contacted friends or relatives (for example, asked friends for job leads)
• Contacted school/college or university employment center (for example, visited a college placement office)
• Placed or answered ads (for example, responded to newspaper want ads)
• Checked union/professional registers (for example, placed name on nurses union register)
• Other Active (for example, bid on a contract or auditioned for a part in a play)

The unemployment number itself is a statistical fraud since is a survey, not an actual count of anything.

How does that make it a fraud? And what's your alternative?

Since you have a problem with my sources, maybe the Huffington Post article from an interview by a guy who used to help calculate the unemployment number will help you understand this.

Ah, my old boss. Yes, I've met him a few times. Note he does NOT say any "tricks" or "fraud" occurs. He merely states the fairly common opinion that the U3 doesn't tell the whole story. It doesn't...no one claims it does.

What he is saying is that the unemployment rate doesn't capture all of the people sitting on the sidelines in despair of finding a job. The employment-population ratio, the percentage of the working-age population actually working, sits at 58.7 percent, Hall notes, well below a peak of 63 percent before the recession and the lowest rate since the early 1980s. This suggests to Hall that there are a lot of people not showing up in the official unemployment rate.

I'd personally focus on the labor-force participation rate, which includes people working and looking for work. This has been at about 63 percent in recent years, well below the 66 percent that prevailed before the recession. That may not sound like a big difference, but that extra 3 percent would take the number of officially unemployed people up to about 18 million from 12 million.

Nothing about "wrong" or fraudulent in what Dr. Hall actually says (calling it "wrong" is Crudele's statement, not Dr. Hall's). He says he'd focus more on the Labor Force Participation Rate. And he's right...at the time of the interview the effects of people leaving the labor force was strong enough that if you looked only at the official UE rate, you might have thought the overall picture was better than it really was.

So you haven't shown that anyone is actually DOING anything to make the rate less. Unless you mean sticking to the decades old definition.

 

[AceRothstein]

They are the experts, not me, but as I understand it the Obama Regime has been too quick to count people as out of the labor pool even though they still want to work, but, since resumes cost money, they are not sending out resumes as frequently as the government thinks they should be to still count as 'looking for work'.

You think people still send out hard copies of resumes when applying for a job. LOL

 

[pinqy]

Keith Hall now works for the Mercatus Center, a right-wing think tank at George Mason University partially funded by the billionaire Koch Brothers (Charles Koch sits on its board)

What he is saying is that the unemployment rate doesn't capture all of the people sitting on the sidelines in despair of finding a job. ... that extra 3 percent would take the number of officially unemployed people up to about 18 million from 12 million.

If that doesn't allow you to figure this snarl of lies out then you are past my ability to remedy your affliction. Most likely it is self inflicted.

Unfortunately for liars like Hall, the BLS actually measures and reports the number of discouraged workers, which is less than 1 million and not the phony made up 6 million of Koch stooge Hall.

Employment Situation Summary

Among the marginally attached, there were 676,000 discouraged workers in June, a
decrease of 351,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.)
Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work because they believe
no jobs are available for them.

You do realize that Keith Hall was the BLS Commissioner under G.W. Bush and Obama? He knows very well how things are calculated and what's included. John Crudele is the liar here. He says Dr. Hall says the numbers are wrong, but doesn't have a quote for that. Nor is there a quote of Dr. Hall saying discouraged are the only reason for the drop in the Labor Force (and keep in mind that interview was a couple of years ago when discouraged was a much higher number).
The UE rate is meant to measure the percent of people trying to work who are failing. That's it. But things can be a bit more complicated and even including discouraged or all marginally attached doesn't account for everything.

A person who takes an early retirement, where they would prefer to work, but prefer retirement to the hassle of looking for a job, would not identify as discouraged or marginally attached.

A student or stay-home spouse who wanted a job for extra money or something else to keep occupied who decides the labor market is too hard and the minimum wage job they'd get isn't worth it would also state they didn't want a job and so not show up as discouraged or marginally attached.

These groups are "loosely attached to the Labor Force" and are not measured because you can't measure them...it's too subjective. But you can see the effect in the Participation Rate and the employment-population ratio while you cannot see any direct reflection.

 

[pinqy]

The 4% figure is bogus government manipulation of statistics.

No, it's not. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it wrong.


On what basis do you claim shadowstats is more accurate? All he does is take the published numbers and arbitrarily makes them bigger or smaller depending on which is worse. And nobody really experiences the GDP in their lives...that's individual vs aggregate.

The SGS-Alternate GDP reflects the inflation-adjusted, or real, year-to-year GDP change, adjusted for distortions in government inflation usage and methodological changes that have resulted in a built-in upside bias to official reporting.

Over the last 10 years, BLS shows an increase in average prices of about 27%. Shadowstats shows an increase of over 85% Do you really think it has been that high? He just adds on around 5% to the official number, but that adds up over time. Let's say he's just adding 4%/year (and I'm sure the average is higher) that would put BLS inflation at 88% since 1990 and shadowstats inflation at 270%. Which seems more accurate to you?

And to show Williams is a liar, I can run through the math on his unemployment numbers to show just how far off he is. But somehow I don't think even that blatant demonstration would convince you.

Condolences on your economic and statistics illiteracy.

Should I turn in my degree and not include my 14 years at BLS on my resume?

The Official Government GDP growth statistic is quarter over quarter.

Yes, it's the annualized rate from the previous quarter. Though I have no idea what that has to do with what I was talking about since I was only talking about shadowstats' inflation numbers.

Last quarter's growth is exaggerated because the prior quarter declined by over 2%.

How does that make it exaggerated? It's still showing the change from that quarter.

Let's switch to the quantity indexes....

With 2009 as 100, in Q1 2014 the GDP was 109.799.
In Q2 it was 110.868.
So the quarterly change was 110.868/109.799 = 1.009736
To get the annualized rate, since there are 4 quarters in the year, we raise it to the 4th power, so 1.009736^4 = 1.0395.
Round that up to 1.04 and that's 4% growth.

Now if you want to look at the growth since Q4 2013, that's 110.868/110.386 = 1.004366 and the annualized change would be 1.04366^2 = .09% annualized growth since Q4 2013.

The proper way to interpret GDP growth is to average the two quarters...which results in growth of less than 2%.

Then that's not the quarter to quarter change. I'm baffled what you think averaging the change does or what that shows a change from.

 

[JimBowie1958]

lol, you leftists are so ******* silly.

If Bush was in office all these stats would be making you shriek FOUL! to the high heavens, but since it is YOUR whore in the White House all is rosey.

You are a bunch of fools.

Sit, then, in your cesspool and add to it for all I care. I have no more time to waste on your cretinous denialism.

When the collapse comes, God Willing, I will be ready. And when yhou knock on my door for help , the answer is 'Go **** yourself'

 

[candycorn]

lol, you leftists are so ******* silly.

If Bush was in office all these stats would be making you shriek FOUL! to the high heavens, but since it is YOUR whore in the White House all is rosey.

You are a bunch of fools.

Sit, then, in your cesspool and add to it for all I care. I have no more time to waste on your cretinous denialism.

When the collapse comes, God Willing, I will be ready. And when yhou knock on my door for help , the answer is 'God **** yourself'

Thats a relief...if the future of the nation is persons like you, I'd rather perish and remember the greatness, not the cockroaches that would tell people to "go **** yourself" during an emergency.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

USMB conservatives are truly ridiculous.

 

[boedicca]

No, it's not. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it wrong.


On what basis do you claim shadowstats is more accurate? All he does is take the published numbers and arbitrarily makes them bigger or smaller depending on which is worse. And nobody really experiences the GDP in their lives...that's individual vs aggregate.


Over the last 10 years, BLS shows an increase in average prices of about 27%. Shadowstats shows an increase of over 85% Do you really think it has been that high? He just adds on around 5% to the official number, but that adds up over time. Let's say he's just adding 4%/year (and I'm sure the average is higher) that would put BLS inflation at 88% since 1990 and shadowstats inflation at 270%. Which seems more accurate to you?

And to show Williams is a liar, I can run through the math on his unemployment numbers to show just how far off he is. But somehow I don't think even that blatant demonstration would convince you.

Condolences on your economic and statistics illiteracy.

The Official Government GDP growth statistic is quarter over quarter. Last quarter's growth is exaggerated because the prior quarter declined by over 2%. The proper way to interpret GDP growth is to average the two quarters...which results in growth of less than 2%.

Obamanomics is an epic fail...but Useful Idiots such as yourself are duped due to your complete and utter inability to engage in critical thinking.

How do you interpret 10 quarters (2.5 years) of negative GDP caused by Bush?

The DotCom-Y2K-Telecom crash - have you heard of it?

9/11 - have you heard of it?

The Federal Reserve - have you heard of it?

Democrat Control of Congress in 2006 - have you heard of it?

The CRA/Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac/Bankster Mortgage scam - have you heard of it?