On 1/2/2012 2:46 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 13:20:59 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Jan 2, 11:02 am, Ed wrote:

If you've actually read the economic reports, including this one, you
know that equities and, to a lesser extent, the bond market, have been
reacting primarily to events in Europe. The US has slow but steady
growth; not so slow, actually, with growth reaching about the same
level as we typically have during good economic times:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDPC1


--
Ed Huntress

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?



Nothing is misleading about it at all, Ed. The statistics show just what
you said, we're growing, we're creating private sector jobs too. The
economy is clearly improving. Dan has been telling me for a while now
that when I tell him this I don't understand statistics. I've been
telling him he is only looking at the statistics that would indicate we
are not doing well. Like the unemployment rate. I told him that's a
lagging economic indicator but I don't think he knows what I mean.

The main thing is what is really happening. You see as I do that the
economy is moving in the right direction and things are better than they
were a couple of years ago. Dan seems intent on not believing that so
he's looking really hard for some proof things aren't any better. For
some reason he's not been very successful. All he has come up with is
unemployment is still pretty darn high. But that seems to satisfy his
need to think things are not getting better. Maybe you can penetrate his
thick head. You are better at citations than I am.

Hawke

On Jan 3, 8:42*pm, Hawke wrote:
Dan has been telling me for a while now
that when I tell him this I don't understand statistics. I've been
telling him he is only looking at the statistics that would indicate we
are not doing well. Like the unemployment rate. I told him that's a
lagging economic indicator but I don't think he knows what I mean.


Dream on.

The main thing is what is really happening. You see as I do that the
economy is moving in the right direction and things are better than they
were a couple of years ago. Dan seems intent on not believing that so
he's looking really hard for some proof things aren't any better. For
some reason he's not been very successful. All he has come up with is
unemployment is still pretty darn high. But that seems to satisfy his
need to think things are not getting better. Maybe you can penetrate his
thick head. You are better at citations than I am.

I only came up with one indicator because that is all it takes to
prove you made an incorrect statement. One more time , you said every
economic indicator which is not true.

Hawke