NeedToUseYou
Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005 From: None of your business Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Taking the highest of the population growth rates given above (1.2%), and taking the report's published economic growth rates of the first two quarters as 1.9% and 0.9%, - hell, let's even throw in the negative 0.2% of the fourth quarter of last year - we have an economc growth rate of 2.6% over the last three quarters, compared to a 0.9% population growth (1.2 / 4 * 3 = 0.9). It does seem you are wrong here, I just read a large section of the report, and the method of computation is not the way you did it in this paragraph from the beginning of the thread, from which the whole debate started. Your math was to simply add all the numbers together and treat that as annualized growth, that is flawed according to the way they calculate the numbers. You went -0.2 +1.9+0.9= Annualized growth of 2.6 over last three quarters. This is wrong, it just is 100% wrong. Here are the numbers from the report, and you'll see that they do not compute it like you do, at all. QI QII QIII QIV Annual Growth Total from the report for 2007 (.1) (4.8) (4.8) (-.2) (2.0) Now, using your method we would simply add them together as such .1 + 4.8 + 4.8+ -.2 = 9.5% rate of annual growth, which would be remarkable but it isn't correct The actual quarterly numbers per the actual report are "Annualized already", and skewed for seasonal fluctuations. So, in summary, your method you used would result in about 4 times the Annual rate of growth than the report would show. Pretty much because they skew the numbers for other factors to so it's not a straight divide by 4(quarters). http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2008/txt/gdp208a.txt So to keep it simple we'll use the last four quarters growth, versus a 1.2% annual population growth. 4.8 -.2 .9 1.9 which using the rough imprecise method to get close but not the actual number. would be a annual rate of growth approximately of 1.85 annual rate of growth. Past annual growth rates(from report): 2004:3.6 2005:2.9 2006:2.8 2007: 2.0 However, the GDP growth of 1.85(approximate, me simply dividing by four, excludes seasonal adjustments they use) is greater than 1.2% annual population growth. http://www.forecasts.org/gdp.htm this site says it's about 1.88. So pretty close. (I checked about 10 other sites and they all agree). However, it is still shitty. Yeah, thanks for having this long thread, I'd never have read that damn thing otherwise. The economy is shit, according to the numbers.
|