5.7% GDP Growth for Fourth Quarter 2009

[Fear No Evil]

So the economy is fixed now?

 

[bamacre]

It's good growth but GDP growth is also based on government expenditures which have been through the roof bought on deficits.

Yup. It was true when Bush was in office and it's true now.

It's quite funny how the Dem's look so much like the Republicans of yesterday. "Hey, the wars are necessary," and "the economy is getting better." Edit: I forgot one, "It's called stimulus."

 

[wiretap]

I'm going to photocopy some money and put it in my wallet, then say I earned money.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Population grows at a rate of ~0.5% per year due to births and another ~0.5% per year due to immigration (legal and illegal). Thus, in all GDP numbers you need to realize that 1% of the growth is due to population change. I've been pushing for population change to be included in the official GDP number but no one would listen to a lowly person like me.

Inflation is no where near 4%. I don't know what you are smoking.

First, GDP already includes inflation adjustment. If inflation were really 4%, then the economy grew at 9.7% and inflation adjusted it is 5.7%. We all know that didn't happen. And you don't double count for inflation like you are implying.

Second, we know what the GDP is. Look here! The average price of a basket of goods over all of 2008 was 215.3 and the average price of the same basket of goods over all of 2009 was 214.5. Thus prices dropped by an average of 0.4%. Dropped, not gained. -0.4% not 4%. Look at that very bottom number on the right hand side: -0.4%.

But if you don't like that -0.4% measure, due to gas price spike, try this on for size. Try looking at Dec 2007 vs Dec 2009 (dates which EXCLUDE the peak in 2008). The average inflation in the two years was 1.4%. That 1.4% is the lowest since the 1960s. Inflation isn't 4%, inflation is quite low.

The cpi, and in fact all 'basket of goods' style indicators, are total bullshit. They're cherry picked items that in no way reflect real world necessity expenditure changes. I have yet to see a reasonable measure for actual inflation.

 

[ElFenix]

The cpi, and in fact all 'basket of goods' style indicators, are total bullshit. They're cherry picked items that in no way reflect real world necessity expenditure changes. I have yet to see a reasonable measure for actual inflation.

they're using scanner data from stores now. so they're actually tracking consumer habits.

 

[StageLeft]

..

 

[PrinceofWands]

they're using scanner data from stores now. so they're actually tracking consumer habits.

And how about fluctuations in tax rates like property taxes? Fees like auto tags and plates? Gasoline? Utilities? Medical? Required insurances? Real estate prices? Education expenses?

THOSE things are the cost of living as much, if not more, than food and consumables is. But basket accounting is all about consumption. If you want to know what the current rate of inflation is, THOSE things have to be figured in.

 

[ElFenix]

And how about fluctuations in tax rates like property taxes? Fees like auto tags and plates? Gasoline? Utilities? Medical? Required insurances? Real estate prices? Education expenses?

THOSE things are the cost of living as much, if not more, than food and consumables is. But basket accounting is all about consumption. If you want to know what the current rate of inflation is, THOSE things have to be figured in.

the CPI does measure a lot of those things.
changes in taxes, mostly no. changes in real estate prices, not directly.
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm#Question_7

the CPI is not a cost of living index and doesn't pretend to be.

 

[mumedina]

So the economy is fixed now?

Yes, everything is completely fixed now... there is nothing else to worry about. The government is here to take care of you and watch over you while you sleep. It will even tuck you in and give you a goodnight kiss on the forehead. It will whisper in your ear, "sweet dreams, my dear."

Pardon my cynicism, but I don't trust any report that the government puts out.

 

[PrinceofWands]

the CPI does measure a lot of those things.
changes in taxes, mostly no. changes in real estate prices, not directly.
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpifaq.htm#Question_7

the CPI is not a cost of living index and doesn't pretend to be.

Ok, did they revise it sometime in the last 10 years (when I took econ)? I don't remember a great deal of that being included, and that forming the basis of a discussion in class about it.

I'm off to study up on it, because my perception is obviously way off. Thanks for the info.

 

[Jhhnn]

Mega numbers, like GDP, are increasingly not useful, because they don't really say where growth is occurring, or who's the beneficiary.

Take, for example, the theoretical GDP of 100 people. in the first year, 99 of them get $1, 1 gets $100. GDP is $199. The next year, 99 of them still get $1, but the guy at the top gets $200. GDP is now $299, up 33%! Woo-Hoo! Average income jumped from $1.99 to $2.99!

Median income, however, remains unchanged at $1...

That's an extreme theoretical example, but illustrative of the kind of flimflam that can accompany generalized mega numbers. If we want to understand what's really happening, we need to look at it in a more granular fashion...

Growth in the stockmarket doesn't mean much if you're one of the 17% either un- or under- employed, and the price of real estate doesn't mean beans if you're living in a shelter...

 

[Wreckem]

So the economy is fixed now?

No. There will be serious problems in the next 18-24 months.

States are going to have to seriously slash their budgets during the next 2+ fiscal years. Thats going to cause the economy to stay at an extremely sluggish rate and unemployment to stay in the 9-10% range for an extended period of time.

 

[Hacp]

The economy is fixed. Horray. Wait, isn't unemployment at 10%? I guess thats just the new bar Obama set when he came into office. It averaged around 5.5 when Bush was president.

 

[Jhhnn]

The economy is fixed. Horray. Wait, isn't unemployment at 10%? I guess thats just the new bar Obama set when he came into office. It averaged around 5.5 when Bush was president.

How lame. Economic bubbles have negative consequences. We experienced the former under Bush, and are now experiencing the latter.

That bubble was formed quite knowingly and willfully, so as to be exploited ruthlessly by the financial elite and by the Bush Clan in their re-election bid. Or have we forgotten the "Ownership Society", and the fundamental deceptions underlying that pitch? have we forgotten regulators who saw it as their job to not regulate, to "cut red tape", making it possible for anybody dumb enough to sign the papers to get a home loan?

 

[StageLeft]

How lame. Economic bubbles have negative consequences. We experienced the former under Bush, and are now experiencing the latter.

That bubble was formed quite knowingly and willfully, so as to be exploited ruthlessly by the financial elite and by the Bush Clan in their re-election bid. Or have we forgotten the "Ownership Society", and the fundamental deceptions underlying that pitch? have we forgotten regulators who saw it as their job to not regulate, to "cut red tape", making it possible for anybody dumb enough to sign the papers to get a home loan?

Obama has done jaaaaaaaaaaack fvcking sh*t to hold the banks in check. But really this is bigger than him or Bush, it's been building for a while.

 

[Jhhnn]

Obama has done jaaaaaaaaaaack fvcking sh*t to hold the banks in check. But really this is bigger than him or Bush, it's been building for a while.

That's not much more insightful than Hacp's usual raving. Explain what Dems are supposed to do, given 41 firm Nyet! cloture votes in the Senate for any attempt they make to reform banking...

I suspect that there is a lot of behind the scenes stuff happening, like regulators actually regulating, but their actions are limited by statute...

You're right that it's been building for a long time, basically since the Reagan era, in a series of deregulatory moves that set the stage for the current imbroglio. Banking "self regulation" during the Bush years was just the culmination of those efforts, and Repubs won't allow that to be reversed when they have the strength to maintain the rather sick and twisted status quo... they worked hard and their backers spent a lot of money over a period of decades to have it just the way it is.

 

[Zebo]

LOL We've added trillions in transfer payments to the federal budget..you're not doing any better if you go to the bank and borrow $20,000 on your credit card.

 

[Zebo]

Mega numbers, like GDP, are increasingly not useful, because they don't really say where growth is occurring, or who's the beneficiary.

Take, for example, the theoretical GDP of 100 people. in the first year, 99 of them get $1, 1 gets $100. GDP is $199. The next year, 99 of them still get $1, but the guy at the top gets $200. GDP is now $299, up 33%! Woo-Hoo! Average income jumped from $1.99 to $2.99!

Median income, however, remains unchanged at $1...

That's an extreme theoretical example, but illustrative of the kind of flimflam that can accompany generalized mega numbers. If we want to understand what's really happening, we need to look at it in a more granular fashion...

Growth in the stockmarket doesn't mean much if you're one of the 17% either un- or under- employed, and the price of real estate doesn't mean beans if you're living in a shelter...

I will say we are recovering when sales tax receipts are going UP not DOWN every month in every state since 70% of out economy is consumer spending. Second when CMBS Delinquencies arnt hitting new records each month since that's our main form of production and I have three lots I'm paying property taxes on I wish to start on. Bottom line we all have matrices we rely on but it sure as hell isn't government borrowing more money.

 

[StageLeft]

That's not much more insightful than Hacp's usual raving. Explain what Dems are supposed to do, given 41 firm Nyet! cloture votes in the Senate for any attempt they make to reform banking...

I suspect that there is a lot of behind the scenes stuff happening, like regulators actually regulating, but their actions are limited by statute...

You're right that it's been building for a long time, basically since the Reagan era, in a series of deregulatory moves that set the stage for the current imbroglio. Banking "self regulation" during the Bush years was just the culmination of those efforts, and Repubs won't allow that to be reversed when they have the strength to maintain the rather sick and twisted status quo... they worked hard and their backers spent a lot of money over a period of decades to have it just the way it is.

As insightful as it needs to be. Obama has passed no major legislation to help curb another financial catastrophe, nor has he passed healthcare reform, nor has he substantially changed course in Iraq or Afghanistan, etc.

I suspect that there is a lot of behind the scenes stuff happening, like regulators actually regulating, but their actions are limited by statute...

Really, you're going to pin your hopes on suspicions of behind the scenes?

Obama is fvcking impotent. He had 60 votes at one point and still has a majority and can't get sh*t done, always some excuse. If he needs 60 votes to get anything done he's useless, most presidents don't have that and still get things done. Is it really any wonder all but the most brainwashed sycophants are disappointed in him? No, it's not.

In a time when most of the country hates the financial industry's portion of the responsibility in the recession and half of those would willingly take up pitchforks and torches he still cannot do anything. Either he's useless or he doesn't want to do anything. But then he filled his cabinet with bankers so what is one to expect.

 

[soccerballtux]

hard to not have 5% growth when you're blowing $1T down the drain.
In actuality, the growth should be much higher if the stimulus went to something wortwhile.

 

[mpo]

And how about fluctuations in tax rates like property taxes? Fees like auto tags and plates? Gasoline? Utilities? Medical? Required insurances? Real estate prices? Education expenses?

THOSE things are the cost of living as much, if not more, than food and consumables is. But basket accounting is all about consumption. If you want to know what the current rate of inflation is, THOSE things have to be figured in.

The American Community Survey, conducted annually by the US Census Bureau, tracks the following: employment, household income, mortgage/rent, property taxes, utility costs among other things.

 

[Jhhnn]

Obama is fvcking impotent. He had 60 votes at one point and still has a majority and can't get sh*t done, always some excuse. If he needs 60 votes to get anything done he's useless, most presidents don't have that and still get things done. Is it really any wonder all but the most brainwashed sycophants are disappointed in him? No, it's not.

Past presidents haven't had this kind of hellbent to filibuster opposition in the Senate, either, not since the era of civil rights legislation.

In many respects, we'd be better off politically if the economy had collapsed. At least the electorate would know who to blame, and it wouldn't be Dems. As it is, the people who are making it impossible to get anything done seek to exploit that in ways both twisted and profound, turning sentiment against the people who actually are making an effort to effect change- in banking, healthcare, you name it.

Frustrated? Yeh, well, join the club, but make an honest effort to direct it where it really belongs...

 

[Throckmorton]

As insightful as it needs to be. Obama has passed no major legislation to help curb another financial catastrophe, nor has he passed healthcare reform, nor has he substantially changed course in Iraq or Afghanistan, etc.

Really, you're going to pin your hopes on suspicions of behind the scenes?

Obama is fvcking impotent. He had 60 votes at one point and still has a majority and can't get sh*t done, always some excuse. If he needs 60 votes to get anything done he's useless, most presidents don't have that and still get things done. Is it really any wonder all but the most brainwashed sycophants are disappointed in him? No, it's not.

In a time when most of the country hates the financial industry's portion of the responsibility in the recession and half of those would willingly take up pitchforks and torches he still cannot do anything. Either he's useless or he doesn't want to do anything. But then he filled his cabinet with bankers so what is one to expect.

Obama never "had 60 votes". The supermajority is a myth. Do the math. 10 - 1 Leiberman who's a Republican - a bunch of blue dog democrats = no supermajority

 

[Genx87]

Obama never "had 60 votes". The supermajority is a myth. Do the math. 10 - 1 Leiberman who's a Republican - a bunch of blue dog democrats = no supermajority

How revealing. Bush had under 50 votes then using the revised democrat apology calculator.