Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

BEA GDP in constant $'s below - Bush GDP growth over 3 years= 1.9%/yr

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Economy Donate to DU
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-09-04 02:23 PM
Original message
BEA GDP in constant $'s below - Bush GDP growth over 3 years= 1.9%/yr
Edited on Wed Jun-09-04 02:25 PM by papau
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/gdplev.xls


1976 to and including 2001, BEA's GDP in constant 2000 dollars

4,540.9, 4,750.5, 5,015.0, 5,173.4 5161.7/4540.9 = Carter over 4 years = 3.3% compounded
5,161.7 , 5,291.7, 5,189.3, 5,423.8 Reagan
5,813.6 , 6,053.7, 6,263.6, 6,475.1 Reagan 6742.7/5161.7 = Reagan over 8 yrs = 3.4%
6,742.7 , 6,981.4, 7,112.5, 7,100.5 Bush 41 = 2.1% Reagan&Bush over 12 yrs= 3.0%
7,336.6 , 7,532.7, 7,835.5, 8,031.7 Clinton
8,328.9 , 8,703.5, 9,066.9, 9,470.3 Clinton over 8 years = 3.7%
9,817.0 , 9,866.6, 10,083.0 10,398.0 Bush over 3 years = 1.9%

NOTE.-NIPA national defense consumption expenditures and gross investment differs from DOD military outlays from the Monthly Treasury Statement primarily because of coverage and timing -The DOD series records all transactions on a checks-issued basis.

Checks issued means all checks are part of GDP? So check to US sub of Foreign company, passed on to overseas parent, with sales of overseas item for use in Iraq from overseas plant, counts as an addition to US GDP - or does the pass on to overseas parent count as an import and is thus deducted? I hope it is counted as an import so the numbers are at least a little legit!

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-09-04 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-09-04 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Other problem is 11 million so in debt that with new jobs paying 80% of
Edited on Wed Jun-09-04 02:37 PM by papau
old jobs - we may have one heck of a credit problem with a surge inbankruptcies !

http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/workreport.pdf

(snip)

NEW JOBS PAY LESS THAN JOBS RECENTLY LOST

The new jobs being created are not as good as the jobs we are losing. According to EPI, in nearly every state, higher paying jobs have been replaced by jobs in lower paying industries since the recession officially ended in November 2001. On average, industries that are adding jobs pay 21 percent less per year then industries that are shedding jobs. In fact, in nearly every state that has shown job gains, those gains have been in industries that pay less then the jobs lost.

In addition, all across the country, job creation since the end of the recession has been in industries that are less likely to provide health care coverage for employees. Across the country, industries adding jobs since the recession provide coverage to only 55 percent of their workers, compared to industries that have shed jobs, which provide insurance to 68 percent of their workers.

Through the end of April 2004, 35 states still have fewer jobs then when the recession first began, and in 49 states, job creation simply has not kept pace with the increase in working age population. In 42 states, unemployment rates were higher at the end of April 2004 then they were before the recession began

<snip>Consumer debt is at an all-time high. According to the Federal Reserve, in 2003 U.S. consumer debt topped $2 trillion for the first time. At the same time, personal savings has dropped 40 percent over the last decade. Household bankruptcies set a record in 2003 at 1.6 million and experts believe the number will be even higher in 2004. In addition, an estimated 11 million families are carrying enough debt that they are at high risk of bankruptcy. Ninety percent of these families are in the middle class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-09-04 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-09-04 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I think Frodo is not pro-Bush - but pro the number calculators - as am
Edited on Wed Jun-09-04 03:04 PM by papau
I - he just accepts that the "big picture" that comes out of gov has not been played with - and I was too close to the game in the Reagan years to ever believe that idea!

The gov workers are good folks - and know what they are doing - but they do not determine the presentation - nor do they approve the selection of possible stat adjustments that are eventually approved for use.

And thanks for asking how I am - for the record this ia a very nice day!

I hope all is well with you!

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-10-04 12:20 AM
Response to Original message
5. I get different numbers looking at my BEA docs
only for the bush years.

I get all the same numbers for everything else except 2001-present, where I have an average of 2.54% GDP growth, which is still below the post WWII average, maybe its just late and I'm missing something though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-17-04 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. BEA growth depends on where you start and annual to annual, or quarterly a
Edited on Thu Jun-17-04 03:39 PM by papau
BEA growth depends on where you start and annual to annual, or quarterly annualized to quarterly annualized.

I can get close to your number, but I still get 1.9% over 2001, 2002, and 2003.....9,817.0 , 9,866.6, 10,083.0 10,398.0 Bush over 3 years = 1.9%

The 3 year growth is 10398/9817 -1.059183

The 3rd root of 1.059183 is 1.019

but using qtrly rates annualized, 3/30/01 to 3/30/04 is 2.7% ...

If we use constant dollar quarterly numbers and begin by ratioing first quarter 04 GDP to 1st qtr 01 GDP =10716/9882.2 we get 1.27358 as the 3 year growth rate -thats as high as I can get over 3 yrs.

I get close to your number if I do a 13 quarter annual rate from 2000 q4 to 2004 q1 = 1.083771 and 4/13=.307692, so rate = 1.0251

but I question the truth of these numbers as Gov spending has been the GDP growth item - and the split between GNP and GDP does not seem to reflect the amount of money being spent overseas and not actually getting into our economy.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Feb 07th 2025, 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Economy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC