On Jan 2, 5:46*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:


The chart may be accurate, but it is misleading. *Really ought to be
graphed on semilog paper. *You can change the scale to semilog.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...rt_type=line&s[1][id]=GDPC1&log_scales=Left

I don't see that much difference in the shape, Dan. Whether on a
linear or a logarithmic scale, the trends look about the same. If
you're concerned about differences in the rates of growth at widely
different periods, then I could see where you might prefer it. But the
point here is that growth in GDP is again climbing, and at rates
similar to what is "normal" in our economy. For example, the rate is
about the same as it was 2000 - 2008.

What is the "misleading" part?

--
Ed Huntress

The part that I think is misleading is that it looks like the growth
in GDP was much less back in about 1950 when in fact it is a tad lower
now. Not a big deal, but it is better to use a graph that shows rate
of change rather than a chart that shows absolute magnitude.
Especially when you are talking about the rate of change.

If you poke around on that site, you will see an option to show the
rate of growth in percentages. Which would be neat to look at. But I
can not get that to work.

The economy is growing and at a rate similar to " normal ". What
seems to be a bit different is that we seemed to have a bit of no
growth between the end of the recession and before going to the "
normal " rate.

I am pretty optimistic about the economy. With the housing market as
it is, it is surprising that the growth is back to normal. Which to
me says a lot of the economy must be doing real well to have the GDP
growth looking normal.

Dan

wrote in message
...

wrote:

an option to show the rate of growth in percentages. Which would be neat
to look at.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...tes/gdp-growth

On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 19:19:14 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Jan 2, 5:46*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:


The chart may be accurate, but it is misleading. *Really ought to be
graphed on semilog paper. *You can change the scale to semilog.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...rt_type=line&s[1][id]=GDPC1&log_scales=Left

I don't see that much difference in the shape, Dan. Whether on a
linear or a logarithmic scale, the trends look about the same. If
you're concerned about differences in the rates of growth at widely
different periods, then I could see where you might prefer it. But the
point here is that growth in GDP is again climbing, and at rates
similar to what is "normal" in our economy. For example, the rate is
about the same as it was 2000 - 2008.

What is the "misleading" part?

--
Ed Huntress

The part that I think is misleading is that it looks like the growth
in GDP was much less back in about 1950 when in fact it is a tad lower
now. Not a big deal, but it is better to use a graph that shows rate
of change rather than a chart that shows absolute magnitude.
Especially when you are talking about the rate of change.

If you poke around on that site, you will see an option to show the
rate of growth in percentages. Which would be neat to look at. But I
can not get that to work.

The economy is growing and at a rate similar to " normal ". What
seems to be a bit different is that we seemed to have a bit of no
growth between the end of the recession and before going to the "
normal " rate.

I am pretty optimistic about the economy. With the housing market as
it is, it is surprising that the growth is back to normal. Which to
me says a lot of the economy must be doing real well to have the GDP
growth looking normal.

Dan



What I find fascinating..is the unemployment rate, both U3 and U6..are
not getting any better.

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

" wrote:

The part that I think is misleading is that it looks like the growth
in GDP was much less back in about 1950 when in fact it is a tad lower
now. Not a big deal, but it is better to use a graph that shows rate
of change rather than a chart that shows absolute magnitude.
Especially when you are talking about the rate of change.

The slope of the log based trend line changed around 1980 and
then changed again more dramatically Round 1999.


If you poke around on that site, you will see an option to show the
rate of growth in percentages. Which would be neat to look at. But I
can not get that to work.

You can't get it to show percent change on GDP because you chose
a log scale. Displaying percent change as a log scale would make
little sense. There is a way to get percent change of a
log scale, but that doesn't make much sense either.
If you want to look at percent change you should go back to
displaying a linear scale.


The economy is growing and at a rate similar to " normal ". What
seems to be a bit different is that we seemed to have a bit of no
growth between the end of the recession and before going to the "
normal " rate.

The economy is not growing similar to what it did prior to about 1983.
From WW2 until the mid 1980's the economy rebounded back from a
recession with a V shaped recovery of greater than 5% growth.
Those bursts of growth quickly wiped out the losses of the recession

Since 1983 the economy has atruggled to muster bounce back
to 3% real annual GDP growth after a recession.

http://tinyurl.com/6sqbqsr

There is a good argument to be made that the economy has
been in a depression since 1999. The only thing keeping it
afloat is a massive private sector stimulus ($24 trillion borrowed
in the decade before the crash). And then after the 2008 crash
private borrowing ended.

Now private sector borrowing is as dead as a dodo bird and when
the govt also stops borrowing it will be all over but the shouting.

The US economy is going to fall back into a depression as soon
as an effort is made to balance the budget. The politicians in
Washington understand this and the only way they will move to
a balanced budget is if they can get the public to
demand it so that the politicians can wash their hands of the
blame for the result.

"jim" wrote
... There is a good argument to be made that the economy has
been in a depression since 1999. The only thing keeping it
afloat is a massive private sector stimulus ($24 trillion borrowed
in the decade before the crash). And then after the 2008 crash
private borrowing ended.

That one started with the oil price spike in June 99, and by October it was
already Bush's fault.

On 1/4/2012 10:29 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
wrote
... There is a good argument to be made that the economy has
been in a depression since 1999. The only thing keeping it
afloat is a massive private sector stimulus ($24 trillion borrowed
in the decade before the crash). And then after the 2008 crash
private borrowing ended.

That one started with the oil price spike in June 99, and by October it was
already Bush's fault.


I don't know of anyone who blames Bush for the price of oil. What he is
blamed for is the raft of terrible decisions he made that just about
destroyed the economy.

Hawke

Jim Wilkins wrote:

"jim" wrote
... There is a good argument to be made that the economy has
been in a depression since 1999. The only thing keeping it
afloat is a massive private sector stimulus ($24 trillion borrowed
in the decade before the crash). And then after the 2008 crash
private borrowing ended.

That one started with the oil price spike in June 99, and by October it was
already Bush's fault.

Not sure what you mean by "that one",
but from WW2 to 1999 real GDP growth averaged around 4% per year.
From 1999-2008 it has averaged about 2% even though during that period
the private sector borrowed on average 25% of GDP every year.

In the last 3 years net private sector borrowing has been less than
zero and real GDP growth has averaged about zero for those 3 years

On Jan 3, 11:02*pm, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:
wrote in message

...

wrote:

an option to show the rate of growth in percentages. *Which would be neat
to look at.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...tes/gdp-growth

Thanks.

Dan

On Jan 4, 1:23*pm, jim wrote:


You can't get it to show percent change on GDP because you chose
a log scale. Displaying percent change as a log scale would make
little sense. There is a way to get percent change of a
log scale, but that doesn't make much sense either.
If you want to look at percent change you should go back to
displaying a linear scale.


I thought I had gone back to a linear scale. But I just tried again
and was it worked. Thanks.

Dan



The economy is not growing similar to what it did prior to about 1983.
From WW2 until the mid 1980's the economy rebounded back from a
recession with a V shaped recovery of greater than 5% growth.
Those bursts of growth quickly wiped out the losses of the recession


There is a good argument to be made that the economy has
been in a depression since 1999. The only thing keeping it
afloat is a massive private sector stimulus ($24 trillion borrowed
in the decade before the crash). And then after the 2008 crash
*private borrowing ended.