GDP Hits 4.1 %! In Second Quarter

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Bailout/Infusion of Government funding are considered in determining the Gross Domestic Production. So to compare "apples and apples" one would have to extract from the computation the "bailout" and Federal spending to "boost" the economy that was injected in the first part of the Obaminable administration. What else can explain the spike between 2008 and 2009?

An example is Solyndra. The manufacture of solar panels based on the infusion of government money contributed to the GDP, just like the purchase of used clunkers in exchange for the acquisition of new units was added to the GDP.

Funny money and fake stats creating the illusion of a "good economy" ... much like the Clinton-Gore administration did in 2000 to cook the labor statistic books.

I believe that was the FED's QE (Quantitative Equality) in those spikes.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Bailout/Infusion of Government funding are considered in determining the Gross Domestic Production. So to compare "apples and apples" one would have to extract from the computation the "bailout" and Federal spending to "boost" the economy that was injected in the first part of the Obaminable administration. What else can explain the spike between 2008 and 2009?

An example is Solyndra. The manufacture of solar panels based on the infusion of government money contributed to the GDP, just like the purchase of used clunkers in exchange for the acquisition of new units was added to the GDP.

Funny money and fake stats creating the illusion of a "good economy" ... much like the Clinton-Gore administration did in 2000 to cook the labor statistic books.

Nonsense. GNP and GDP are calculated the same way under both Democrats and Republicans. Yes, government spending is a component. The equation is C + I + G. During recessions, G (govt spending) goes up to offset declines in C (consumption) and I (investment). That happens no matter who controls the White House or Congress. If it didn't happen, then we would suffer longer and deeper recessions. By the way, G normally fluctuates between 20-25% of total GDP. If you want to "extract" it from Obama's GDP you would logically have to do the same for Trump, whose numbers also benefit from federal spending currently running at $4.2 trillion a year.

I agree that much federal spending (and particularly the ARRA stimulus money that went to failed projects like Solyndra) is wasteful, but that is a qualitative rather than a quantitative critique.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I believe that was the FED's QE (Quantitative Equality) in those spikes.

You're conflating monetary and fiscal policy. Two different tools. And it is called Quantitative Easing, not Quantitative Equality.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by Muy Largo

I detest Bill Clinton. I find him to be as two-faced and phony as Donald Trump.
This isn't about Bill Clinton.
This isn't the most recent past president, either.
This is about the current president, and how he misleads, deceives, and wildly, recklessly exaggerates.
How can you feel comfortable with anything he says when so much of what he says is not true?
Where I live a man is judged to be as good as his word.
Trump's word is unreliable.

" Where I live a man is judged to be as good as his word " . Ya mean like YOUR election stealing Senator " Stuart Smiley " Franken ???? Who gets re-elected and sent back due to D.C by YOU dupes in Minnesota . How'd Jesse Ventura work out for y'all ? Oh yea, didn't he go on to sue a SEAL team member's WIDOW !!! ????? And didn't retail chain TARGET, headquartered in Minnesota, cave to the large muzzie population that you all have BAN the Salvation Army bell ringers in front of their stores a few years back ! ? Fuck Minnesota !!!!

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...r-3-gdp-growth

these are Obama's numbers, 4 times. only 2 times he has had 2 consecutive quarters over 4.1. some people have lost persepective on this and are nitpicking.



On average, he never got over 3% annually on gdp. He presided over a weak economy.

Yes, Obama presided over a weak economy. That is what he was handed by Bush (for whom I voted -- twice). Unemployment under Obama went from 10% to 4.6%. Employment grew in 75 straight months. DJIA went from around 6600 to around 18000. Trump was handed an economy in good condition and has improved it. One quarter of excellent GDP growth is somewhat meaningless. As I said in an earlier post -- great work. Let's see what happens for the rest of the year;

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-gdp-...ally-standard/

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You're conflating monetary and fiscal policy. Two different tools. And it is called Quantitative Easing, not Quantitative Equality.

lusty, I was being sarcastic. Obama was very much into re-distributive policies.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

lusty, I was being sarcastic. Obama was very much into re-distributive policies.

Stuck to Dick pics!

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Stuck to Dick pics!

in your fevered dreams. dickless!!!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Nonsense. GNP and GDP are calculated the same way under both Democrats and Republicans. Yes, government spending is a component.
...
I agree that much federal spending (and particularly the ARRA stimulus money that went to failed projects like Solyndra) is wasteful, but that is a qualitative rather than a quantitative critique.

Hardly "nonsense"! But if it makes you feel "smarter," please continue to delude yourself. Gross National Product is based on PRODUCTION: services and commodities. That's why the use of the word "Product"!

My POINT (which you attempted to change) is not that it was wasteful (although some of it was, because it was handed out to friends of Obaminable who contributed to his campaign and election rather than being handed out based on merit), but that it is REFLECTED in the up tick of "PRODUCTION" in the U.S.

To compare apples and apples the Government Assistance has to be extracted from the PRODUCTION, which means the productivity created by the injection of taxpayer money has to be deducted.

Much as the job stats have to be adjusted to reflect actual earnings and actual work hours. In other words: two 20-hour jobs doesn't equal TWO JOBS for work force participation purposes.

BTW: Nor do I draw along party lines these days. Those concepts are in the process of shifting as a demographic indicator and no longer statistically significant.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...r-3-gdp-growth

these are Obama's numbers, 4 times. only 2 times he has had 2 consecutive quarters over 4.1. some people have lost persepective on this and are nitpicking.



On average, he never got over 3% annually on gdp. He presided over a weak economy.

Are these the new, revised numbers? I was reading where some federal govt agency recently REVISED Obama's GDP numbers upward and Trump's GDP numbers downward.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Yes, Obama presided over a weak economy. That is what he was handed by Bush (for whom I voted -- twice). Unemployment under Obama went from 10% to 4.6%. Employment grew in 75 straight months. DJIA went from around 6600 to around 18000. Trump was handed an economy in good condition and has improved it. One quarter of excellent GDP growth is somewhat meaningless. As I said in an earlier post -- great work. Let's see what happens for the rest of the year;

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-gdp-...ally-standard/

Obama didn't preside over a weak economy. He inherited the same economy every other President inherited. Yes, under Obama UE went down, but it's only because so many people dropped out of the workforce. If you recall Obama said that if he couldn't get UE below 8% he didn't deserve to be re-elected and the only reason he got below 8% was certain states didn't report their EU numbers that October 2012...or at least the Feds claimed they didn't.

The stock market argument is a joked because only during the last year was there a sudden plunge and that was because of the Dim induced housing bubble. Before the plunge the Dow was at 14K. Every Dim involved in revisionist history knows that. They also know Bush II was handed an economy that just went thru the internet bubble.

Now with President Trump, the market is around 25K, UE is low AND with a record number of people in the workforce. GDP is at 20 year highs. Food stamp numbers are dropping. His major problem is that he can't raise interest rates because he was handed 8 years of QE that has little to show for it.

But unlike Obama, President Trump ISN'T BITCHING ABOUT.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by lustylad

By the way, G normally fluctuates between 20-25% of total GDP.

LustyLad, As you already know - you’ve forgotten more about economics than I’ll ever know - the government spending as % of GDP you quoted, 20% to 25%, is federal spending. That number might climb towards 25% in a recession, as it did in 2009. Total government spending in the USA, including state and local government expenditures, as a % of GDP is currently around 38%. Just pointing this out for the benefit of those who think we should spend more on government.

I may be comparing apples to oranges though. Maybe some of the 38% would be expenditures that are double counted, say a social security payment that's spent again to buy goods and services? And so "G", after adjusting for that, is 20% to 25% of GDP and reflects all government expenditures (state, local, federal)?

[MT Pockets]

Originally Posted by Hotrod511

I guess that's why you call yourself Tiny because you seem to be a sad little man! Trump could create a cure for cancer and you would still find something to whine about lighten up man go get laid have another encounter write about it try not to be so negative

Your response to him shows what a Trumps ass kissing moron you are. He gave Trump props for things that worked and was respectful of the things he felt put us at risk. He also showed a vote of confidence that he would do as Clinton did and switch gears at an opportune time.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Every Dim involved in revisionist history knows that. They also know Bush II was handed an economy that just went thru the internet bubble.

Not BigTex ... and Hillary.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Maybe some of the 38% would be expenditures that are double counted, say a social security payment that's spent again to buy goods and services?

One is not "counting" the "purchase" one is counting the production, or the injection into the economy of goods and services. Theoretically, "social security" is not "new money" (therefore "new production") but a return on a prior investment into a fund that theoretically increased from earnings over the years it sat in the fund (as either a credit or a deposit).

BTW: All government payments are "expenditures" as opposed to "earnings"!

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Are these the new, revised numbers? I was reading where some federal govt agency recently REVISED Obama's GDP numbers upward and Trump's GDP numbers downward.

I don't know. the article was printed in january 2017.