Second quarter GDP revised up to 2.5%. Jobless claims still near recovery lows. Second quarter profits top out at a record high $1.830 trillion.

Markle wrote:As you know, the GDP posted quarterly is NOT in chained dollars.  Come back when you wish to compare apples with apples.

Thank you.

Wrong again.  Stay on script, Markle!  Stay on script!  Speaking for yourself doesn't suit you on these forums! There must be some copy-and-paste blurb you could have responded with other than trying to post your own thoughts! That's dangerous, man!


http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp


Current dollar quarterly GDP % change:

2012q1 - 5.8
2012q2 - 3.0
2012q3 - 4.9
2012q4 - 1.6
2013q1 - 2.8
2013q2 - 3.2

2009 chained dollar GDP % change:

2012q1 - 3.7
2012q2 - 1.2
2012q3 - 2.8
2012q4 - 0.1
2013q1 - 1.1
2013q2 - 2.5

The recently reported GDP figure was 2.5%.  Which set of numbers were used, Markle?  Current or 2009 chained?

boards of FL wrote:

Markle wrote:As you know, the GDP posted quarterly is NOT in chained dollars.  Come back when you wish to compare apples with apples.

Thank you.

Wrong again.  Stay on script, Markle!  Stay on script!  Speaking for yourself doesn't suit you on these forums!  There must be some copy-and-paste blurb you could have responded with other than trying to post your own thoughts!  That's dangerous, man!


http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp


Current dollar quarterly GDP % change:

2012q1 - 5.8
2012q2 - 3.0
2012q3 - 4.9
2012q4 - 1.6
2013q1 - 2.8
2013q2 - 3.2

2009 chained dollar GDP % change:

2012q1 - 3.7
2012q2 - 1.2
2012q3 - 2.8
2012q4 - 0.1
2013q1 - 1.1
2013q2 - 2.5

The recently reported GDP figure was 2.5%.  Which set of numbers were used, Markle?  Current or 2009 chained?

You are 100% correct about the quarterly figures and I am wrong.

HOWEVER, my comparison of the GDP from 2003 and today concerning Paul Krugman's statements about growth and unemployment are 100% accurate.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:I read them and he counters you every time with facts.

Markle wrote:You are 100% correct about the quarterly figures and I am wrong.

There you go, PACEDOG. Are we good here?

Markle wrote:You are 100% correct about the quarterly figures and I am wrong.

HOWEVER, my comparison of the GDP from 2003 and today concerning Paul Krugman's statements about growth and unemployment are 100% accurate.

In what way is your comparison accurate?  Let's have a look at this and then see if you have anything in your copy-and-paste vault that is relevant.

Bush's situation:

2000q2 - 7.8
2000q3 - 0.5
2000q4 - 2.1
2001q1 - -1.1

Obama's situation:

2008q2 - 2.0
2008q3 - -2.0
2008q4 - -8.3
2009q1 - -5.4

Clearly Obama's situation was much much worse.  Bush employed deficit spending in his situation and oversaw a net loss in private sector jobs.  Obama employed deficit spending and has overseen the creation of millions of private sector jobs and was dealing with a much worse economy than Bush.  

Now you're giving me an opinion piece from your copy-and-paste vault from 2003 and telling me that it has any relevance to today's economy?  You're telling me that that opinion piece is just as relevant in the context of today's economy as it was in 2003?  How?  Can you elaborate on that?  Use the figures and the facts that I just gave you and see if you can hammer them into some theoretical explanation or framing that shows these two periods to be a "100% accurate comparison".

Well?

boards of FL wrote:Well?

crickets . . .