More economic good news! GDP rebounds 4%

[Synthaholic]

I'd love to see you document that.

He actually has a great point. The numbers get touted as great before they are correct, then later people hear lower numbers but still remember not so long ago "good numbers." Most people have no idea what the numbers mean or even that 4% being revised down means we never were at 4%... They simply see lets say 3% and remember a 4% and think, good!

Here's an excellent article about that exact issue....

From the initial estimate to the first revision, the average absolute change is a little over 0.50 percent. From the first to the second revision, it changes on average nearly a quarter percentage point.

What’s most astounding is how much GDP changes from the third “real time” estimate to its historical estimate as refined by annual and benchmark revisions: nearly 1.5 percentage points. To put that in context, the average quarterly growth rate since 1975 is 2.7 percent. So GDP numbers in real time are, at best, a dim reflection of the state of the economy.

The Messy Truth Behind GDP Data | FiveThirtyEight

Wingnuts quoting Nate Silver! Gotta love it.

 

[Synthaholic]

Look what happens when you elect a Bush!

Reagan really shit the bed, too.

 

[pinqy]

And yet we have proven our point. The GDP increase is not the final number and it got a boost from the redefinition of how they calculate the GDP, which also, btw includes government spending, so the more the Obama Regime prints money the better the economy does, supposedly.

One, you didn't show the changes had any substantial effect, nor that they mad the GDP less accurate. And are you seriously putting forward the idea that GDP should not include government spending????

Also it was demonstrated via MITs Billion Price Index that the US has had much higher levels of inflation than the Obama Regime admits to.

2% higher over 6 years is "much higher?" How can you champion both the BPI and shadowstats? The BPI has averaged maybe 1/2% higher/year, while shadowstats averages 3.5 to 4% higher. The BPI is not "much higher," and the discrepancy is easily explained by the big difference in the baskets.

And it has also been shown that these numbers are meaningless since we can have a lower unemployment rate and still have more people out of work and on welfare.

You're calling people who don't want to work "out of work." And remember, there was as much higher percentage of adults not working in the 40's, 50's, 60's, and most of the 70's.

We can have low inflation and still have sky-rocketing prices.

No, we can't. You might perceive prices as "sky-rocketing" but your definition with bread was actually LOWER than the CPI.

 

[JimBowie1958]

And yet we have proven our point. The GDP increase is not the final number and it got a boost from the redefinition of how they calculate the GDP, which also, btw includes government spending, so the more the Obama Regime prints money the better the economy does, supposedly.

One, you didn't show the changes had any substantial effect, nor that they mad the GDP less accurate. And are you seriously putting forward the idea that GDP should not include government spending????

Also it was demonstrated via MITs Billion Price Index that the US has had much higher levels of inflation than the Obama Regime admits to.

2% higher over 6 years is "much higher?" How can you champion both the BPI and shadowstats? The BPI has averaged maybe 1/2% higher/year, while shadowstats averages 3.5 to 4% higher. The BPI is not "much higher," and the discrepancy is easily explained by the big difference in the baskets.

And it has also been shown that these numbers are meaningless since we can have a lower unemployment rate and still have more people out of work and on welfare.

You're calling people who don't want to work "out of work." And remember, there was as much higher percentage of adults not working in the 40's, 50's, 60's, and most of the 70's.

We can have low inflation and still have sky-rocketing prices.

No, we can't. You might perceive prices as "sky-rocketing" but your definition with bread was actually LOWER than the CPI.

Whenever a calculation method is changed there obviously are differences or they wouldnt make the change. In this case the GDP came in way over even the most optimistic expectations.

Yes, 2% is much higher.

No, I am calling people who want to work but have given up as out of work, and they are.

We have low inflation but the price of gasoline at the pump has sky rocketed and food is way up as well since 2008. Your denials are absurd.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Why Reported Inflation Seems Different Than Reality [Archive] - Actuarial Outpost
Date of archived article 2012

According to John Williams:

“…the net effect was to reduce reported CPI on an annual, or year-over-year basis, by 2.7% from what it would have been based on the traditional weighting methodology. The results have been dramatic. The compounding effect since the early-1990s has reduced annual cost of living adjustments in social security by more than a third.”

But the manipulation of the data did not stop there. Aside from the weighting changes the BLS instituted a system of “hedonic” adjustments. Hedonics adjusts the prices of goods for the increased pleasure the consumer derives from them.

“That new washing machine you bought did not cost you 20% more than it would have cost you last year, because you got an offsetting 20% increase in the pleasure you derive from pushing its new electronic control buttons instead of turning that old noisy dial, according to the BLS.



When gasoline rises 10 cents per gallon because of a federally mandated gasoline additive, the increased gasoline cost does not contribute to inflation. Instead, the 10 cents is eliminated from the CPI because of the offsetting hedonic thrills the consumer gets from breathing cleaner air. The same principle applies to federally mandated safety features in automobiles. I have not attempted to quantify the effects of questionable quality adjustments to the CPI, but they are substantial.”

Lastly, there is "intervention analysis" in the seasonal adjustment process. Intervention analysis is critical to the highly volatile areas of food and energy. When a commodity, like gasoline, goes through periods of violent price swings the BLS steps in and uses “intervention analysis” to smooth out the volatility. As a result, sharply rising gasoline prices are never fully reflected in the reported headline inflation number. However, declining prices, which are never adjusted, do show an impact to reducing inflation.

The obvious problem with these manipulations is it changed the measure of inflation from a cost-of-living adjustment to a reduction-of-living adjustment. The original CPI calculation allowed individuals to understand the rate of return required on investments and incomes to maintain their current standard of living. However, by artificially suppressing the rate of inflation, the future standard of living is reduced to lower levels.
This sums up what I've been saying...inflation is actually around 15% right now...

Explanation of Mr Williams objections to CPI.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Looks like the Stock Market disagrees with the OP......

I get the feeling that the global banking industry is fearful of a no QE world where the banks might be allowed to actually fail, you know, like in the old days of free markets...

 

[pinqy]

And yet we have proven our point. The GDP increase is not the final number and it got a boost from the redefinition of how they calculate the GDP, which also, btw includes government spending, so the more the Obama Regime prints money the better the economy does, supposedly.

One, you didn't show the changes had any substantial effect, nor that they mad the GDP less accurate. And are you seriously putting forward the idea that GDP should not include government spending????

2% higher over 6 years is "much higher?" How can you champion both the BPI and shadowstats? The BPI has averaged maybe 1/2% higher/year, while shadowstats averages 3.5 to 4% higher. The BPI is not "much higher," and the discrepancy is easily explained by the big difference in the baskets.

You're calling people who don't want to work "out of work." And remember, there was as much higher percentage of adults not working in the 40's, 50's, 60's, and most of the 70's.

We can have low inflation and still have sky-rocketing prices.

No, we can't. You might perceive prices as "sky-rocketing" but your definition with bread was actually LOWER than the CPI.

Whenever a calculation method is changed there obviously are differences or they wouldnt make the change. In this case the GDP came in way over even the most optimistic expectations.

But you haven't shown it's do to changes or that the change is less accurate..

Yes, 2% is much higher.

after six years? And yet shadowstats is showing over 30% higher after 6 years. You can't claim both BPI and shadowstats are accurate.

No, I am calling people who want to work but have given up as out of work, and they are.

People who want to work but have "given up" are less than a million people.

 

[JimBowie1958]

One, you didn't show the changes had any substantial effect, nor that they mad the GDP less accurate. And are you seriously putting forward the idea that GDP should not include government spending????

2% higher over 6 years is "much higher?" How can you champion both the BPI and shadowstats? The BPI has averaged maybe 1/2% higher/year, while shadowstats averages 3.5 to 4% higher. The BPI is not "much higher," and the discrepancy is easily explained by the big difference in the baskets.

You're calling people who don't want to work "out of work." And remember, there was as much higher percentage of adults not working in the 40's, 50's, 60's, and most of the 70's.

No, we can't. You might perceive prices as "sky-rocketing" but your definition with bread was actually LOWER than the CPI.

Whenever a calculation method is changed there obviously are differences or they wouldnt make the change. In this case the GDP came in way over even the most optimistic expectations.

But you haven't shown it's do to changes or that the change is less accurate..

Yes, 2% is much higher.

after six years? And yet shadowstats is showing over 30% higher after 6 years. You can't claim both BPI and shadowstats are accurate.

No, I am calling people who want to work but have given up as out of work, and they are.

People who want to work but have "given up" are less than a million people.

I did show it and I am not going to do it again. Go back and read my first post with all the little linkies.

I am not claiming either BPI or Shadowstats are more accurate, but I am claiming that the government is publishing bullshit stats and the cost of living is far higher than the 1-2% they claim it is.

And there are far more than a million people who want to work but have given up, and no I am not going to search for you again.

Just go rah-rah-rah your dictator some more, you little cheer leader.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

retired and children are not included in the working age population...

BLS doesn't use a "working age population," they use the Adult Civilian Non-Institutional population: 16 years and older, no upper limit on age. Excludes military, prisoners, and those in institutions. The only retires, then, that it excludes are nursing home residents.

like i said the BLS doesn't include children but you're right about seniors.....it doesn't appear to limit the upper end like the OECD does...

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development defines the employment rate as the employment-to-population ratio. The employment-population ratio is many American economists' favorite gauge of the American jobs picture[citation needed]. According to Paul Ashworth, chief North American economist for Capital Economics, "The employment population ratio is the best measure of labor market conditions."[1] This is a statistical ratio that measures the proportion of the country's working-age population (ages 15 to 64 in most OECD countries) that is employed. This includes people that have stopped looking for work.[2] The International Labour Organization states that a person is considered employed if they have worked at least 1 hour in "gainful" employment in the most recent week.[3]
Employment-to-population ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

nevertheless according to BLS we have about 248 million civilian noninstitutional population...
yet seniors 65+ not working are only about 24 million....

Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age
Table A-6. Employment status of the civilian population by sex, age, and disability status, not seasonally adjusted

even accounting for 'early' retirements how can boomers be blamed for non-recovery of this precipitous drop in employment (as some seem to want to)....?

 

[EconChick]

Looks like the Stock Market disagrees with the OP......

I get the feeling that the global banking industry is fearful of a no QE world where the banks might be allowed to actually fail, you know, like in the old days of free markets...

SNAP!

Love that quote. Well said, JB.

 

[Dad2three]

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

Holy crap

.

Why don't you like FACTS baked with empirical data and history?'

 

[boedicca]

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

Holy crap

.

Why don't you like FACTS baked with empirical data and history?'

You wouldn't recognize a FACT even if it reached around and gave you an Atomic Wedgie.

 

[Dad2three]

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

Lol, yes, even the Washington Post would say that the Obama Regime is counting 35% more out of the labor pool than is justified and you think that supports your claims instead of mine?

roflmao you are too stupid for words.

Weird, 10+ MILLION PRIVATE sector jobs created since hitting Bush's bottom March 2010, and 2/3rds of those out of the labor force NOT for reasons you posit, and Dubya lost 1.2+ million PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years, not counting the 4+ million lost in 2009 BECAUSE of Dubya policies, but Obama's the failure??? lol

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

 

[Toro]

The economy is getting better, there's no doubt about that.

On Thursday, claims for unemployment insurance in the last week came in slightly better than expected, at 302,000, while the prior week's figure was revised down to 279,000, a 14-year low.

Junk Bonds Sink on Fears Rally Will End as Economy Picks Up - WSJ

 

[Mac1958]

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

Holy crap

.

Why don't you like FACTS baked with empirical data and history?'

I just thought it was amusing that you - a hardcore partisan ideologue, a True Believer of the first order - would call someone else an ideologue. The irony is just yummy.

And, as a hardcore partisan ideologue, the facts and empirical data you provide may well be accurate, but they will always paint only one side of the picture. You can be depended upon to ignore and avoid and deny all mitigating and contrary data, and to put an intense spin on all of it, top to bottom. An unreliable resource, indeed.

But you're capable of being funny, as your "ideologue" post indicates, so that's good.

.

 

[Dad2three]

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.

" 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), "

Yes, lets put credibility in him, after all Mercatus and AEI are the driving force behind the right wing drive to push the MYTH that a world wide credit bubble was related to 70+ years of affordable housing goals *shaking head*

 

[Dad2three]

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 ****.

Sure, Dems were in charge of regulators when the FBI warned in 2004 of an EPIDEMIC of mortgage fraud that could rival the S&L crisis, they fought all 50 states that wanted to reign in 'predatory lenders' in 2003, by invoking a civil war era rule saying feds rule on those guys and they allowed the 5 investment banks to triple leverage which flooded the market with cheap money in 2004. Oh wait, no that was Dubya. HMM


http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html

 

[boedicca]

Dad2three is TMN in drag...

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades


Even excluding the 2008 recession, however, Bush presided over a weak period for the U.S. economy. For example, for the first seven years of the Bush administration, gross domestic product grew at a paltry 2.1 percent annual rate.


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

 

[Dad2three]

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?

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

REALLY? What happened except ramped up spending?



"9/11 - have you heard of it?"


That thing where Dubya and comp ignored 40+ warnings and NEVER had a high level meeting on it? Even as Richard Clark and the CIA BEGGED them to take it seriously?



" The Federal Reserve - have you heard of it?"

AND? Clinton have a problem with them? Reagan?


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


You meant Jan 2007, NOW a bill that changed Dubya's policies PLEASE before 2009? lol



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

MORE nonsense. WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST. One Dubya ignored regulator warnings on and cheered on!


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up



•The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

•Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.


•Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.



Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture



Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html