djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 3, 2013 13:24:49 GMT -5
"Those who have been following the US debt to GDP ratio now that the US officially does not have a debt ceiling indefinitely, may have had the occasional panic attack seeing how this country’s leverage ratio is rapidly approaching that of a Troika case study of a PIIG in complete failure. And at 107% debt/GDP no explanations are necessary. Luckily, the official gatekeepers of America’s economic growth (with decimal point precision), the Bureau of Economic Analysis have a plan on how to make the US economy, which is now growing at an abysmal 1.5% annualized pace, or about 5 times slower than US debt growing at 7.5% annually, catch up: magically make up a number out of thin air, and add it to the total. And it literally is out of thin air: according to the FT the addition will constitute of a one-time addition of intangibles, amounting to 3% of total US GDP, or more than the size of Belgium at $500 billion, to the US economy." Read more at investmentwatchblog.com/when-gdp-wont-grow-change-the-way-you-calculate-it/#Sf6B61c2LxRPKBWG.99 It's a big accounting gimmick for the sole purpose of confusing folks into believing that things have improved more then they actually have. If enough people believe it it may help consumer confidience which could ultimately help our economy improve. Maybe the end justifies the means! it is an accounting gimmick that produces a 3% error. bfd? it doesn't invalidate anything. you just need to footnote it. any accountant knows this game.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 3, 2013 13:25:53 GMT -5
"GDP should measure real production (like building a factory) and what the U.S. government added here is not real production. It is a measure of spending in the economy and there are items in the GDP number that don't add real value to the economy (like writing books). Second, while the GDP number gets inflated upwards, all macroeconomic indicators that are based on the GDP number will be adjusted with it. For example, the debt to GDP, which is at 105% now (Chart 1), will drop 3% just because of this adjustment to the GDP number. This fictitious drop in debt to GDP will highlight that the U.S. improved its debt load, while it did not." In case you really didn"t read the whole thing. red herring. this thread (and the OP, i believe) didn't discuss public debt to GDP, only deficit to GDP.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Sept 3, 2013 13:28:05 GMT -5
No it does not only make a 3% error but it is your right to believe that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 3, 2013 13:36:46 GMT -5
No it does not only make a 3% error but it is your right to believe that. ad hominem. i am not "believing" anything that you are not posting. from your article: will drop 3% just because of this adjustment to the GDP numberwhat did i miss, rockon? what is the total error?
|
|
damnotagain
Well-Known Member
Joined: Oct 19, 2012 21:18:44 GMT -5
Posts: 1,211
|
Post by damnotagain on Sept 3, 2013 13:52:00 GMT -5
Calculating intangible assets , the new Math.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Sept 3, 2013 14:20:54 GMT -5
"Second, while the GDP number gets inflated upwards, all macroeconomic indicators that are based on the GDP number will be adjusted with it."
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 3, 2013 14:29:31 GMT -5
"Second, while the GDP number gets inflated upwards, all macroeconomic indicators that are based on the GDP number will be adjusted with it." this is another way of saying "the 3% error will impact the economic data", it doesn't say that the economic data will circle back and impact the GDP number. so again, how much beyond 3% is the error going to be. from this quote, i would assume that it would be 0% beyond 3%.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 3, 2013 14:31:36 GMT -5
Calculating intangible assets , the new Math. in CA, they stopped calculating the tangible worth, which made it look like CA was already bankrupt. that made a lot of conservatives really happy, but it was in no way accurate. the objective should always be to improve the accuracy of the data. does this do so, and if so, why would anyone complain about that?
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Sept 3, 2013 14:33:18 GMT -5
what did i miss, rockon? what is the total error?
Probably not what you missed but what you don't want to admit. No one honestly knows the total error without doing an actual comparison using the same formula. This administration like many before it manipulate numbers in an effort to show things that are not accurate. This is yet another example. Doing a comparison of anything on the day on person left office compared to another specific day is also a poor way to draw conclusions. The Republicans tried to do the same thing with gas prices during the last election cycle. Remember?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 3, 2013 14:39:29 GMT -5
what did i miss, rockon? what is the total error? Probably not what you missed but what you don't want to admit. what would that be?No one honestly knows the total error without doing an actual comparison using the same formula. that would not be difficult, at all- so i would presume that we will be doing that. there are also websites out there that are dedicated to providing statistics based on old formulae (like for unemployment and for money supply). in other words, if you want the comparable data, it is totally out there, and i have no problem whatsoever using it- in fact, i encourage it.This administration like many before it manipulate numbers in an effort to show things that are not accurate. sure. every admin does that. where have i ever claimed that anyone should just accept that?This is yet another example. Doing a comparison of anything on the day on person left office compared to another specific day is also a poor way to draw conclusions. The Republicans tried to do the same thing with gas prices during the last election cycle. Remember? of course. and i ignored it. but this is a way more serious indictment than gas price cherry picking. let me make sure i have it straight: you are claiming that the Obama administration is fudging the GDP numbers for WHAT reason?
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Sept 3, 2013 14:51:10 GMT -5
The Obama administration has in fact manipulated the GDP numbers, this is really not in question. The motive one can only speculate on. My take is that they want things to appear better then they are. What is your reason? Any objective comparision in terms of economic effect should probablly use the average during any administration not just cherry pick a point in time as this article you are defending did. Today the Bush administration would show around a 4% GDP/deficit record while Obama would show something over a 10% average. Now that would change the story wouldn't it?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 3, 2013 15:03:16 GMT -5
If you guys want to tear into a BS claim, make it "deficit 2% of GDP by 2015". That one's built solidly out of pixie dust and unicorn farts. Acknowledging it is a matter of fairness, since we happen to know that the far rosier predictions being made in 2007 while the economy was roaring away turned out to be pure bunkum. Or I suppose we could compare the rosiness of the 2007 predictions to the rosiness of the May 2013 ones and declare whoever was president during the rosier of the two to be the winner.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 3, 2013 15:14:56 GMT -5
The Obama administration has in fact manipulated the GDP numbers, this is really not in question. The motive one can only speculate on. My take is that they want things to appear better then they are. What is your reason? i don't pretend to know, but i would GUESS that their justification was to make it more accurate. my REASONING for this is that they started reporting a lot of "off budget" items (like our discretionary war spending) which inflated the deficit. that was absolutely contrary to their personal interest, but improved accuracy.
in this particular case, although it distorts the debt to GDP ratio it also REDUCES GDP GROWTH to inflate that figure. this is, of course, a negative. now, let me ask you: what do people pay MORE attention to: GDP growth or the ratio of debt to GDP?
Any objective comparision in terms of economic effect should probablly use the average during any administration not just cherry pick a point in time as this article you are defending did. Today the Bush administration would show around a 4% GDP/deficit record while Obama would show something over a 10% average. Now that would change the story wouldn't it? no, this year the statistics won't be impacted. they will be impacted for NEXT FY. and i don't think that the YOY comparisons will be impacted. ie, if the deficit is 3.5% next year, i don't think they are going to say it was actually 0.5%. i think they are going to say it is 3.4% (3.5% less 3% of 3.5%).
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 3, 2013 15:17:15 GMT -5
If you guys want to tear into a BS claim, make it "deficit 2% of GDP by 2015". That one's built solidly out of pixie dust and unicorn farts. first of all, it is 2016, not 2015. and no, it is not based on unicorn farts, it is based on projections, which, 3 years out, are not much more solid than unicorn farts. however, they are NOT meaningless.Acknowledging it is a matter of fairness, since we happen to know that the far rosier predictions being made in 2007 while the economy was roaring away turned out to be pure bunkum. Or I suppose we could compare the rosiness of the 2007 predictions to the rosiness of the May 2013 ones and declare whoever was president during the rosier of the two to be the winner. if you expect the kind of discontinuity that happened in 2008 to happen in 2013-2016, then you would be absolutely correct in making this analogy. i don't.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 3, 2013 15:29:19 GMT -5
If you guys want to tear into a BS claim, make it "deficit 2% of GDP by 2015". That one's built solidly out of pixie dust and unicorn farts. first of all, it is 2016, not 2015. and no, it is not based on unicorn farts, it is based on projections, which, 3 years out, are not much more solid than unicorn farts. however, they are NOT meaningless.Acknowledging it is a matter of fairness, since we happen to know that the far rosier predictions being made in 2007 while the economy was roaring away turned out to be pure bunkum. Or I suppose we could compare the rosiness of the 2007 predictions to the rosiness of the May 2013 ones and declare whoever was president during the rosier of the two to be the winner. if you expect the kind of discontinuity that happened in 2008 to happen in 2013-2016, then you would be absolutely correct in making this analogy. i don't. Surprises are fun. Then correct it in the OP.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 3, 2013 15:35:14 GMT -5
if you expect the kind of discontinuity that happened in 2008 to happen in 2013-2016, then you would be absolutely correct in making this analogy. i don't. Surprises are fun. i am not a big fan of surprises. that is where you will find my conservative streak.Then correct it in the OP. thanks, i will. edit: it turns out that the projections are for 2015 AND 2016. my bad.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:55:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2013 18:11:29 GMT -5
That article lists only two things Obama has actually done to better the economy: the auto bailout and raising taxes on the rich. the article didn't claim that taxes on the rich bettered the economy. so that would be one.It also mentions Obamacare, but there is no concrete story there to tell (yet). the article claims that Obamacare increased consumer confidence, but offered no evidence to support that.Just like Inwould not give any other President "ownership" of the state of the economy, I don't see any real reason to give it to Obama, either. And this article doesn't give any real reasons, either. if there are no reasons to give him credit, would you also agree that there is no reason to blame him? The article talked about raising taxes on the rich being one of the reasons that the deficit has come down. And the deficit is part of the economy. You're right, I can see how some increased confidence from Obamacare could have helped, but that's an extremely short-sighted view. As far as blaming him, I'm not sure what you mean. It is certainly possible that his policies have slowed the recovery and/or made the future more uncertain.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 3, 2013 19:20:55 GMT -5
if there are no reasons to give him credit, would you also agree that there is no reason to blame him? The article talked about raising taxes on the rich being one of the reasons that the deficit has come down. And the deficit is part of the economy. ah ok, i was thinking "economic growth" rather than "economic issues".You're right, I can see how some increased confidence from Obamacare could have helped, but that's an extremely short-sighted view. As far as blaming him, I'm not sure what you mean. It is certainly possible that his policies have slowed the recovery and/or made the future more uncertain. i wasn't really talking about you. i was talking about this board, which spends a lot of time incinuating that Obama is responsible for the economy. and i really have no problem with that, as long as they go after Bush with equal fervor. but i am asking YOU if you DO blame him, because it would be inconsistent with your view that he is not responsible for the recovery.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Sept 3, 2013 20:17:06 GMT -5
i wasn't really talking about you. i was talking about this board, which spends a lot of time incinuating that Obama is responsible for the economy."
1) Actually if I'm not mistaken it was you that started this thread that insinuated that Obama is responsible for the improvement in the economy even though the factors used in the comparison have been manipulated during the time period covered and the data was clearly cherry picked by comparing the worst year that Bush was president against Obama's best year. 2) If you want to do an objective comparison one might start by comparing equal factors against equal time periods. In this case, if you only reviewed the sited factors it would make Bush look like an economic genius compared to Obama.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 3, 2013 20:27:18 GMT -5
i wasn't really talking about you. i was talking about this board, which spends a lot of time incinuating that Obama is responsible for the economy." 1) Actually if I'm not mistaken it was you that started this thread that insinuated that Obama is responsible for the improvement in the economy you are mistaken. i specifically said that i had no opinion on the position in the OP. edit: you can go back and rephrase your post in light of this fact. i will withhold comment until then.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:55:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2013 20:29:24 GMT -5
but i am asking YOU if you DO blame him, because it would be inconsistent with your view that he is not responsible for the recovery. My view is that a President doesn't "own" the state of the economy, not that he doesn't have an effect on it. And yes, I think his impact has been largely negative. And no, I don't say that about all Democrats. Although I honestly wasn't all that politically astute in the 90s, I'm pretty sure I would conclude that Clinton had a positive impact. I'd guess that most Presidents do.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 3, 2013 20:31:52 GMT -5
2) If you want to do an objective comparison one might start by comparing equal factors against equal time periods. In this case, if you only reviewed the sited factors it would make Bush look like an economic genius compared to Obama. i am all for objectivity. show me your stats that make Bush look like an economic genius.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 3, 2013 20:32:59 GMT -5
but i am asking YOU if you DO blame him, because it would be inconsistent with your view that he is not responsible for the recovery. My view is that a President doesn't "own" the state of the economy, not that he doesn't have an effect on it. And yes, I think his impact has been largely negative. And no, I don't say that about all Democrats. Although I honestly wasn't all that politically astute in the 90s, I'm pretty sure I would conclude that Clinton had a positive impact. I'd guess that most Presidents do. ok, fair enough, as usual. i will save my opinions for "dead thread" time. thanks for yours.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Sept 3, 2013 22:21:35 GMT -5
That article lists only two things Obama has actually done to better the economy: the auto bailout and raising taxes on the rich. the article didn't claim that taxes on the rich bettered the economy. so that would be one.It also mentions Obamacare, but there is no concrete story there to tell (yet). the article claims that Obamacare increased consumer confidence, but offered no evidence to support that.Just like Inwould not give any other President "ownership" of the state of the economy, I don't see any real reason to give it to Obama, either. And this article doesn't give any real reasons, either. if there are no reasons to give him credit, would you also agree that there is no reason to blame him? IMO most Presidents are either just lucky or unlucky for the most part when it comes to the economy. All those talking about how "booming" the economy was under Clinton often forget about the downturn that started at the end of his term and Bush gets the blame for all the bubbles bursting. Obama came in at what I hope was an economic low-point, it was bound to correct at some point. People blaming him for that or giving credit for it usually are pushing a political agenda.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Sept 4, 2013 7:00:10 GMT -5
i am all for objectivity. show me your stats that make Bush look like an economic genius. Bush was an economic disastour... as is Obama IMO. But a true comparisson based on the economic indicator from your link during the Bush administration years vs the Obama administration years would show that Bush years averaged around 4% while Obama's projection looks like he will average around 8%. It is also not mentioned in the OP that this is a very predictable trend that will virtually always happen as a country enters and recovers from a recession. Don't be a Jackass. You posted this OP and I gave you my comments. It's a very bad anaylisis.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Sept 4, 2013 7:05:44 GMT -5
IMO most Presidents are either just lucky or unlucky for the most part when it comes to the economy.
I happen to agree with this for the most part but think the recent Democrats have been much smarter about the perception they leave with the public in the fact that they spend like lunatics for the first years and then reduce the spending levels in their final years so they can leave looking like they fixed things. No one really seems to notice or care about the averages or the mountain of debt left behind for the next generation to deal with.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Sept 4, 2013 7:12:03 GMT -5
1) Actually if I'm not mistaken it was you that started this thread that insinuated that Obama is responsible for the improvement in the economy you are mistaken. i specifically said that i had no opinion on the position in the OP.
edit: you can go back and rephrase your post in light of this fact. i will withhold comment until then.
No you actually may be mistaken. I said you started this thread. Correct? The article you posted insinuates that Obama is responsible for the improvement. Correct? Nothing about your opinion or position. Correct?
|
|
damnotagain
Well-Known Member
Joined: Oct 19, 2012 21:18:44 GMT -5
Posts: 1,211
|
Post by damnotagain on Sept 4, 2013 10:54:22 GMT -5
Even the BEA , admits the new math ..... " reflect updated international guidelines for national economic accounting—the United Nations’ System of National Accounts 2008 (SNA). It’s important that economic measures keep pace with a changing global economy and that GDP statistics from different countries use a common set of guidelines for comparability." It would seem that " US GDP " should reflect by definition US GDP, not the mandate that the United Nations uses according to the SNA accounting practices? Interesting to note how closely connected the NSA is to the Clinton Global Initiative , paris21 . All this time I thought the United Nations was useless. Implementing the changes is a great "idea" but it really does not reflect our current economy at all and real GDP. blog.bea.gov/2013/07/23/gdp_changes/
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2013 10:54:32 GMT -5
i am all for objectivity. show me your stats that make Bush look like an economic genius. Bush was an economic disastour... as is Obama IMO. But a true comparisson based on the economic indicator from your link during the Bush administration years vs the Obama administration years would show that Bush years averaged around 4% while Obama's projection looks like he will average around 8%. deficit spending? of course. this is the worst downturn since WW2. you don't get out of that without deficits, imo. what is Bush's excuse?
and you are only using ONE metric to measure their performance. how about employment? GDP growth? inflation? stock market?
It is also not mentioned in the OP that this is a very predictable trend that will virtually always happen as a country enters and recovers from a recession. agreed. the reason i posted this has nothing to do with how great Obama is. it has to do with how bad everyone thinks he is, compared to the reality: he is not really that bad, considering what he started with. the comparison gets even MORE favorable when you look at what most presidents start with, and what they did. i think that is what inspired the OP. but i really don't know. nor do i really care. i just find the mindset of most Americans to be bizarre in light of our circumstances. the US did rather well in this downturn.Don't be a Jackass. You posted this OP and I gave you my comments. It's a very bad anaylisis. i am not being a jackass. i am asking for a GOOD analysis. pony up, or piss off.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2013 10:55:49 GMT -5
IMO most Presidents are either just lucky or unlucky for the most part when it comes to the economy. I happen to agree with this for the most part but think the recent Democrats have been much smarter about the perception they leave with the public in the fact that they spend like lunatics for the first years and then reduce the spending levels in their final years so they can leave looking like they fixed things. No one really seems to notice or care about the averages or the mountain of debt left behind for the next generation to deal with. with the exception of Obama and Nixon, Republican presidents have had a FAR worse record on deficits since WW2 than Democrats.
|
|