GDP growth to hit 20-year high.

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
Yes, Heart. It would have been a little more stylish to label it as a prediction. Frankly, I hope the prediction comes true, even though it will probably mean reelecting a guy who will never get hemorrhoids because he's a perfect A$$hole. I happen to think that the U.S. has serious, serious structural problems but I look forward to seeing if the economy can be pumped up to make it look good for the next election. After all, that's what we did in California when we elected Gov. Davis.
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
Whoa, I take it back. Unless the subject was edited (which I doubt) it does say "to hit high." Heart 1, Wit 0. (Ultra keeps score.)
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Is it in inflation adjusted constant dollars?

It measure % growth, not dollar growth.

Yeah, but % growth in what? Total dollar GDP figure, or inflation adjusted GDP figure.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Is it in inflation adjusted constant dollars?

It measure % growth, not dollar growth.

Yeah, but % growth in what? Total dollar GDP figure, or inflation adjusted GDP figure.

% of total dollar gdp. This is really not a figure that works out in dollars.

4% growth today would dwarf 4% growth 20 years.

 

KenGr

Senior member
Aug 22, 2002
725
0
0
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
That would mark the strongest growth since a 7.4 percent gain in 1984,
Holy sh.... How'd they manage such high growth that year?

This was the acceleration of the recovery of the 80's. You'll find lots of reasons. The US finally came out of the oil embargo years and the stifling effects of the wage and price control experiements of the 70's. Of course, Reaganomics gets a nod from the Republican side. US industry was starting to see the first results of the changes in management in response to the Asian challenges of the 70's. When interest rates finally started to drop it all came together and the economy started to take off.


 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
This morning, we released our revised numbers:

GDP Revised Upward
"Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 8.2 percent in the third quarter of 2003, according to preliminary estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis."

Good news, for sure.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Moreover, the 3.3% Q2 figures were driven, in large part, by an exorbitant increase in government defense expenditures; for Q3, however, defense spending decreased, while at the same time GDP increased?makes the ?this is not real growth, just big defense spending growth? argument moot.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Is it in inflation adjusted constant dollars?

It measure % growth, not dollar growth.

Yeah, but % growth in what? Total dollar GDP figure, or inflation adjusted GDP figure.


'Real' GDP, not nominal GDP; 'real GDP' controls for inflation, nominal does not.

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
That would mark the strongest growth since a 7.4 percent gain in 1984,
Holy sh.... How'd they manage such high growth that year?

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
linky

sounds pretty good to me.

That's a poll and forecast. Call me when it happens.

Exactly, hope this isn't a "House of Cards".

 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Is it in inflation adjusted constant dollars?

It measure % growth, not dollar growth.

Yeah, but % growth in what? Total dollar GDP figure, or inflation adjusted GDP figure.

% of total dollar gdp. This is really not a figure that works out in dollars.

4% growth today would dwarf 4% growth 20 years.
Well then I suppose that settles it; changes in nominal GDP mean nothing(it could all be inflation after all), this needs to be in real GDP to have any meaning.
 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
Actually, inflation is quite meaningful. It indicates that demand for products is outstripping the ability to increase supply for them. In that case, we need to encourage more investment and less spending on finished products.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
Originally posted by: ViRGE
Well then I suppose that settles it; changes in nominal GDP mean nothing(it could all be inflation after all), this needs to be in real GDP to have any meaning.



GDP figures reported out of BEA ARE in terms of 'Real' GDP, not nominal. Further, changes in nominal GDP are equally important, so to say "changes in nominal GDP mean nothing" is absurd.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: ViRGE
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Is it in inflation adjusted constant dollars?

It measure % growth, not dollar growth.

Yeah, but % growth in what? Total dollar GDP figure, or inflation adjusted GDP figure.

% of total dollar gdp. This is really not a figure that works out in dollars.

4% growth today would dwarf 4% growth 20 years.
Well then I suppose that settles it; changes in nominal GDP mean nothing(it could all be inflation after all), this needs to be in real GDP to have any meaning.

No Virge, the AT Expert Economists swear by these things. The Country has been doing Fantastic since November 2001, where have you been?

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
GDP figures reported out of BEA ARE in terms of 'Real' GDP, not nominal. Further, changes in nominal GDP are equally important, so to say "changes in nominal GDP mean nothing" is absurd.

Welcome back:)

CkG
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Time to roll back the tax cuts and get into fiscally responsible mode. We got stimulus kicking in till 2010 for a recession that ended in 2003.
 

rjain

Golden Member
May 1, 2003
1,475
0
0
Dave, your foam is all over the floor. The emergence from recession is based on real GDP, anyway. (not like there's much of a difference during a recession, unless there is some major damage done to our mining and agricultural infrastructure.)
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Time to roll back the tax cuts and get into fiscally responsible mode. We got stimulus kicking in till 2010 for a recession that ended in 2003.

I thought the recession ended in 2001?
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Time to roll back the tax cuts and get into fiscally responsible mode. We got stimulus kicking in till 2010 for a recession that ended in 2003.

I thought the recession ended in 2001?

Whatever it is, it's over, and we need to get back to fiscal sanity.