- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Third and final number for the 3rd quarter GDP.
Posted on 12/21/17 at 8:58 am to 90proofprofessional
Posted on 12/21/17 at 8:58 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
You mean down from 3.3%. This is a downward revision.
You informed the board of the prior upgrade to 3.3% here: LINK
You're right.
0
Posted on 12/21/17 at 8:59 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
Couldn't be done for a single year? Who said that? The unrealistic thing about 3% real is averaging it over multiple years or a decade.
I meant per annum.
Posted on 12/21/17 at 9:01 am to GumboPot
quote:
I meant per annum.
Thx for the clarification. Would you back me up against that douche's claim of me moving the goalposts? Certainly understand if not.
Posted on 12/21/17 at 9:01 am to GumboPot
The villiage idiot will be along shortly to say that the perfect GDP is 2%
Posted on 12/21/17 at 9:15 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
Would you back me up against that douche's claim of me moving the goalposts? Certainly understand if not.
Well here ya go:
So there were quarters where GDP was above 3.0% under Obama however there were no years where the GDP was above 3.0%.
Posted on 12/21/17 at 9:23 am to GumboPot
Thanks for the attempt I guess, but that's not what i meant
ErrWhere seems to think that people are saying 3% for any year isn't possible anymore. I pointed out that no, AVERAGING 3% it isn't realistic now. This was described as me moving the goalposts, and it is not.
And I maintain that 3% average rate is not sustainable and won't be probably for decades, unless there is some major, major war or some other unforeseeable shock.
I guess I'll also point out that in order to average 3, the good years need to be far above 3, because averages include recessions that inevitably happen
ErrWhere seems to think that people are saying 3% for any year isn't possible anymore. I pointed out that no, AVERAGING 3% it isn't realistic now. This was described as me moving the goalposts, and it is not.
And I maintain that 3% average rate is not sustainable and won't be probably for decades, unless there is some major, major war or some other unforeseeable shock.
I guess I'll also point out that in order to average 3, the good years need to be far above 3, because averages include recessions that inevitably happen
Posted on 12/21/17 at 9:25 am to 90proofprofessional
When you think about it the calendar year GDP is kind of arbitrary. That is, if the GDP per year is above 3% from 2Q17 thru 1Q18 that is still 3% per annum just not 3% for the calendar year.
Again, 3% is important to pay for the just passed tax plan. As alluded to yesterday in a post I read by you, the tax plan passed yesterday is the dessert. When will we be forced to eat the vegetables?
Well according to Paul Ryan the vegetables come next year:
GOP will tackle Medicare, Medicaid, welfare in 2018, Ryan says
If we can get some entitlement reform with simultaneous good economic policy the potential for surpluses into the US Treasury are real.
Again, 3% is important to pay for the just passed tax plan. As alluded to yesterday in a post I read by you, the tax plan passed yesterday is the dessert. When will we be forced to eat the vegetables?
Well according to Paul Ryan the vegetables come next year:
GOP will tackle Medicare, Medicaid, welfare in 2018, Ryan says
If we can get some entitlement reform with simultaneous good economic policy the potential for surpluses into the US Treasury are real.
Posted on 12/21/17 at 9:26 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:Many many folks said Trump's reliance on 3% annual growth was unattainable, even as a one off. If Trump got it done year one, it would be a huge in-your-face to nearly every economist who appeared on TV discussing GDP over the last 2-3 years. Outside of Kudlow, I'm not sure I've heard any economist proposing 3.0% as attainable in the near future
3.0% is an important number because Trump critics said it couldn’t be done
Couldn't be done for a single year? Who said that?
Posted on 12/21/17 at 9:34 am to GumboPot
quote:
When you think about it the calendar year GDP is kind of arbitrary.
Well, yeah. But we need to have some kind of basis for comparison over time. I do like using the 10-year horizon because it's usually able to encapsulate the entire business cycle (expansions/recession/recovery/expansion) usually a few times and tell you how things are moving in the big picture, but shorter spans like years and even quarters are still useful.
And you are also correct to implicitly point out that although we don't have a calendar year of 3% by the end of Q12018 we could have seen 4 quarters of it, which I think actually would be an unambiguous improvement over how we did under Obama.
quote:
according to Paul Ryan the vegetables come next year:
Ryan is one of the only effective politicians I believe would actually make a credible attempt at that. But as I also said in that post, having given the carrot already makes the effort far less likely to get far. Unlike how it was for the tax-cutting bill, unprecedented leadership (political cover, policy specifics, and true dealmaking) would be required from the executive. I have no faith in that.
Posted on 12/21/17 at 9:35 am to GumboPot
Check out the advanced 2Q report from BEA. The 1Q print was revised down from 1.4% to 1.2%.
That leaves us with:
1Q: 1.2%
2Q: 3.1%
3Q: 3.2%
We would have to hit 4.5% in 4Q to get to 3% for the year.
LINK
That leaves us with:
1Q: 1.2%
2Q: 3.1%
3Q: 3.2%
We would have to hit 4.5% in 4Q to get to 3% for the year.
quote:
Real gross domestic product increased at an annual rate of 2.6 percent in the second quarter of 2017 (table 1), according to the "advance" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter, real GDP increased 1.2 percent (revised).
LINK
This post was edited on 12/21/17 at 9:36 am
Posted on 12/21/17 at 9:38 am to NC_Tigah
it just seems weird to apply the term "annual" to something when it happens one year (or in this case, MAY happen this year, but probably won't)
it seems hard to argue that's the correct interpretation, especially when 3% is thrown around specifically because it's an average over a very long period of time in the US
it seems hard to argue that's the correct interpretation, especially when 3% is thrown around specifically because it's an average over a very long period of time in the US
Posted on 12/21/17 at 9:47 am to 90proofprofessional
On a side note, we both know the data doesn't lie. I think the difference between us is how we present the data. I'm definitely a glass half full guy and cheer leader for Trump and the Republican Party because I see their economic policies MUCH better for the U.S. economy and thus for the American people. I'm almost Pollyanna until money is on the line then things get real and serious.
Your approach to the objective economic data is more glass half empty at worse and concerned at best. There's nothing wrong with that and is probably just a reflection of your personality but I don't believe you can sell the Republican brand as effectively with that approach. And I believe Republican policies are better for America which is the main objective.
Your approach to the objective economic data is more glass half empty at worse and concerned at best. There's nothing wrong with that and is probably just a reflection of your personality but I don't believe you can sell the Republican brand as effectively with that approach. And I believe Republican policies are better for America which is the main objective.
Posted on 12/21/17 at 9:51 am to GumboPot
quote:
I don't believe you can sell the Republican brand as effectively with that approach
well that's certainly true. my goal isn't to sell anything at all, except an real attempt at a sober assessment of things, i guess. i certainly try not to downplay genuine good news. on the contrary i try to ensure the appropriate level of "playing" for economic news.
i do advocate for my preferences, which ultimately are very similar to yours, but i guess from a more long-term perspective. if we oversell the benefits of our preferred tax policies in order to get short-term wins, it ultimately comes at the expense of the credibility of those policies' in the eyes of the public. that makes them less likely to survive over our lifetime
This post was edited on 12/21/17 at 9:53 am
Posted on 12/21/17 at 9:54 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:In that sense, many measures are odd, but as they've been historically recorded and relied on, they can be useful in gauging change. For example, Obama oversaw the first economy in US history not to exceed 3% annual growth once in an 8 yr term. That is a metric most can relate to.
it just seems weird to apply the term "annual" to something when it happens one year
Posted on 12/21/17 at 10:01 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
In that sense, many measures are odd
it is not the measure that is odd
the "odd" thing is applying "annual" for a single year's value, when in any other context annual means recurring on an annual basis
if that is how we have defined the goal of "reaching 3% growth" it is a far smaller achievement than it appears, especially when obama had a year of 2.9
Posted on 12/21/17 at 10:02 am to GumboPot
The absolute madman is going to reach 4% growth. Unbelievable.
Posted on 12/21/17 at 10:40 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
if we oversell the benefits of our preferred tax policies in order to get short-term wins, it ultimately comes at the expense of the credibility of those policies' in the eyes of the public. that makes them less likely to survive over our lifetime
I agree but it depends on your audience. In an academic/professional setting this is very true. However in a political setting were this stuff is only understood fully by way less than half the audience playing the cheerleader game is just as valuable because their vote equals one just like the informed vote and most people vote on emotion. That's why increasing voter enthusiasm is so important.
Posted on 12/21/17 at 11:02 am to GumboPot
quote:
However in a political setting were this stuff is only understood fully by way less than half the audience
i see that as the problem to be fixed, not exploited
Posted on 12/21/17 at 11:09 am to 90proofprofessional
The 3% that people say Obama didn't achieve relates specifically to calendar year real GDP growth.
He hit 3%+ on a quarterly basis a few times, and he hit 3%+ on average for a couple four quarter periods (that were not calendar years).
However, he is the only President not to achieve 3%+ Real GDP growth in any calendar year.
Of course, people may make the argument, "Yeah, but he did hit it over a four-quarter period." But that's like saying he's the skinniest guy at fat camp. Not hitting 3%+ any calendar year is a direct reflection of the fact that economic performance under Obama was poor compared to any other President and outright horrendous compared specifically to other post-recession periods.
He hit 3%+ on a quarterly basis a few times, and he hit 3%+ on average for a couple four quarter periods (that were not calendar years).
However, he is the only President not to achieve 3%+ Real GDP growth in any calendar year.
Of course, people may make the argument, "Yeah, but he did hit it over a four-quarter period." But that's like saying he's the skinniest guy at fat camp. Not hitting 3%+ any calendar year is a direct reflection of the fact that economic performance under Obama was poor compared to any other President and outright horrendous compared specifically to other post-recession periods.
Posted on 12/21/17 at 11:12 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
i see that as the problem to be fixed, not exploited
Knowing your audience is not exploitation.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News