Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 52 of 52
Thanks Tree35Thanks

Thread: Trump's birthday gift to America - A booming economy

  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    10,049
    Thanks
    1669

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by Arkady View Post
    As you're now aware, each of the sources I posted debunked your point. The BEA, FRED, and all the news sites all agreed that 2017 real GDP growth was 2.3%. You just went out and did a mathematically invalid operation (doing an arithmetic average of four quarters of annualized growth to give you the annual growth figure), and came up with a nonsense answer.



    No, they're telling the truth: the GDP growth rate in 2017 was 2.3%. I even gave you the exact cell to find the answer in, in the BEA spreadsheet. Your home-brew calculation is the problem here, not the BEA's data.



    No, obviously, you can't. That's not how math works. Here, some simple math for you, to show your error. Say GDP grows by 10% first quarter, then shrinks 10% in the second quarter, grows 10% in the third quarter, then shrinks by 10% in the fourth quarter. How much has it changed?

    If you never made it past about 4th grade math, you might say it hasn't changed at all, since the arithmetic average of +10%, -10%, +10%, -10% is 0. But now do the actual math and see if that's where it comes out. Say you start at 100.

    Q0 100
    Q1 100+(10%*100)=110
    Q2 110-(10%*110)=99
    Q3 99+(10%*99)= 108.9
    Q4 108.9-(10%*108.9)= 98.01

    See, you didn't get 0 change. You got a decrease of 1.99%.

    The same basic thing plays out with alternating plus and minus annualized 10% change (which is about 2.4114% quarterly change)

    Q0 100
    Q1 100+(2.4114%*100)=102.4114
    Q2 102.4114-(2.4114%*102.4114)=99.9418515
    Q3 99.9418515+(2.4114%*99.9418515)= 102.3518493
    Q4 102.3518493-(2.4114%*102.3518493)= 99.88373681


    So, again, rather than the net-zero change you'd get if math worked the way you'd expected, you instead find a net decrease. You need a geometric average, not an arithmetic average.

    Geometric Average vs. Arithmetic Average: Which is Correct For Investment Returns? - Arbor Asset Allocation Model Portfolio (AAAMP) Value Blog



    I shared a Krugman column from the Bush era. If you now want to retreat and redefine your claim only to include things from the "mid GWB," fine, but you still haven't produced an example of his supposed screaming on the topic, whereas I did provide a Bush-era example of him downplaying the risk of deficits when Bush was president. As a general matter, Krugman believes in running deficits in hard economic times, and eliminating them in good economic times. The political party of the president doesn't enter into it, as you now realize (since you've seen that column from the Bush era arguing against the deficit scolds).



    What makes you think that? Or were you trying to pretend I'd said that? If so, why not just stick to what I've actually said, rather than devising straw men and attributing them to me?
    Are you familiar with significant digits?

    Sharing Krugman from Dec 1, 2008 when Obama had won the election you would consider GWB era? How about mid 2000s.

    I just went to the BEA, at the link it shows Real GDP at the end of 2016 at 16,851,400,000 and Real GDP at the end of 2017 at 17,286,500,000.

    Do you dispute those numbers? Is the BEA lying?

    That is a 2.58% increase. Would you say that 2.58% is the geometric annual average based on the beginning and ending numbers of 2017?

    https://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xlsx

    Are you disputing the DEA numbers? The total numbers for Real GDP are listed, it's easy to calculate the change.
    Last edited by Libertine; 5th July 2018 at 02:41 PM.

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    10,049
    Thanks
    1669

    From
    Banned
    Quote Originally Posted by BigLeRoy View Post
    More lies. EVERY Economic indicator?

    (1) The budget deficit is HIGHER, and hence so too is the national debt. That would be considered a BAD thing, not a good thing.

    (2) The trade deficit is MUCH higher, at its highest point in more than a decade, in fact, and Mr. Trump certainly considers that to be a bad thing, whether you do or not.

    (3) America's national saving is PLUMMETING.

    (4) Corporate debt is WAY up, and in fact at a record-high.

    (5) Consumer Confidence has actually FALLEN slightly since Mr. Trump took office, as per the University of Michigan Consumer Confidence Survey.

    I can probably dig up more negative indicators, but that's enough to expose your bullshit for now.
    1. The increase in the national debt was $1,400 billion in 2016, it was $666 billion in 2017, that is an improvement. Even if we hit $1,000 billion this year because of the short time effects of the tax cuts, it is still an improvement. Obama averaged over $1,000 billion annually. Debt as a % of GDP fell in 2017.

    2. Prosperity brings a higher trade deficit, it isn't a bad thing.

    3. Consumer debt has been increasing since 2012. Apparently consumers are feeling better about our economic future.

    4. You have posted that nominal corporate debt is up, which happens as the economy grows, is it up as a function of sales or market capitalization?

    5. Consumer confidence skyrocketed when Trump was elected and was higher in June than at any point of Obama's tenure.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Similar Threads

  1. The Economy is NOT Booming
    By Babba in forum Economics
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 5th March 2017, 04:43 AM
  2. The Colorado Economy Is BOOMING
    By BigLeRoy in forum Economics
    Replies: 139
    Last Post: 17th May 2016, 01:23 PM
  3. The Economy Is Booming
    By Mrs Behavin in forum Economics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 16th March 2006, 10:00 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed