Final reading on Q2 GDP up 3.1%

[SonOfDaedalus]

I call fake news! GDP growth hit 3.5% WAY, WAY back in the 3rd quarter of 2016. Quarterly growth also exceeded 3% for two quarters in both 2013 and 2014.

https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2017/pdf/gdp4q16_3rd.pdf

Don't you get it? Now that Obama is not in office the economy is instantly good again. Trump has accomplished an astounding 8 month turn around by the sheer power of his personality to project economic optimism. Economists are baffled.

 

[Exquisitor]

Don't you get it? Now that Obama is not in office the economy is instantly good again. Trump has accomplished an astounding 8 month turn around by the sheer power of his personality to project economic optimism. Economists are baffled.

It's the opposition.

 

[Mycroft]

I reject your source. What the heck is business insider?? Never heard of them.

Welcome! Business Insider is a fast-growing business site with deep financial, media, tech, and other industry verticals. Launched in 2007 by former top-ranked Wall Street analyst Henry Blodget and DoubleClick executives Dwight Merriman and Kevin Ryan, the site is now the largest business news site on the web. Business Insider was acquired by German media company Axel Springer SE in September, 2015.

Welcome To Business Insider - Business Insider

Weinberg is a hack.

Okay...if you say so. His resume is pretty impressive, though. I guess you agree that he's wrong.

Fake news!

Also, too, he didn't say "impossible"

So...you've got all your bases covered, I see.

1. I never heard of them.
2. He's a hack.
3. Fake news.
4. Besides, he didn't say that.

Fact is, I was right...and this "economist" is wrong.

 

[katzgar]

I reject your source. What the heck is business insider?? Never heard of them. Weinberg is a hack. Fake news!

Also, too, he didn't say "impossible"

time to educate yourself and not look foolish... US economy: IMF cuts 2017 economic growth forecast for US - The Economic Times

 

[JasperL]

Okay...if you say so. His resume is pretty impressive, though. I guess you agree that he's wrong.



So...you've got all your bases covered, I see.

1. I never heard of them.
2. He's a hack.
3. Fake news.
4. Besides, he didn't say that.

Fact is, I was right...and this "economist" is wrong.

Last night I showed you a poll, which you rejected out of hand based on......nothing. Its point was to show that very few people in AZ supported the repeal, you have no evidence otherwise, but said you would reject ME if I relied on the best available evidence, which was that poll published in an AZ news source. I guess you missed the sarcasm there, but I was just holding your source to the same, "I reject your source if it doesn't confirm my viewpoint" standard you were using.

And Weinberg didn't claim a single quarter of 3% GDP growth was impossible. He said 3% growth was a stretch, and he's clearly and obviously referring to long term growth and the point was clear enough - tough to grow the economy at 3% when the labor force is growing at 1% and we're reducing immigration and plan on kicking out millions of workers. So your article from a fake news site (Weinberg's claims weren't footnoted....) didn't support the claim you made in your post.

 

[JasperL]

time to educate yourself and not look foolish... US economy: IMF cuts 2017 economic growth forecast for US - The Economic Times

That was kind of an inside 'joke' post. I'm making no claims about the potential long term growth rate of the U.S. economy. I don't expect growth to change much with Trump. A deficit funded tax cut, which seems to be the plan, is Keynesian stimulus and might work and give a short term boost but that alone seems unlikely to affect long term growth rates, which are driven by population and productivity growth rates. We're committing to lower population growth, and it's not clear to me where the long term drivers of increased productivity will come from. Robotics maybe?

 

[katzgar]

That was kind of an inside 'joke' post. I'm making no claims about the potential long term growth rate of the U.S. economy. I don't expect growth to change much with Trump. A deficit funded tax cut, which seems to be the plan, is Keynesian stimulus and might work and give a short term boost but that alone seems unlikely to affect long term growth rates, which are driven by population and productivity growth rates. We're committing to lower population growth, and it's not clear to me where the long term drivers of increased productivity will come from. Robotics maybe?

A decline in population as Boomers die also is a factor

 

[Mycroft]

Last night I showed you a poll, which you rejected out of hand based on......nothing. Its point was to show that very few people in AZ supported the repeal, you have no evidence otherwise, but said you would reject ME if I relied on the best available evidence, which was that poll published in an AZ news source. I guess you missed the sarcasm there, but I was just holding your source to the same, "I reject your source if it doesn't confirm my viewpoint" standard you were using.

And Weinberg didn't claim a single quarter of 3% GDP growth was impossible. He said 3% growth was a stretch, and he's clearly and obviously referring to long term growth and the point was clear enough - tough to grow the economy at 3% when the labor force is growing at 1% and we're reducing immigration and plan on kicking out millions of workers. So your article from a fake news site (Weinberg's claims weren't footnoted....) didn't support the claim you made in your post.

Wait...you seriously call a poll with no supporting data "the best available evidence"???

LOL!!

 

[JasperL]

Wait...you seriously call a poll with no supporting data "the best available evidence"???

LOL!!

It's possible that some other data would provide better insight into the popularity of the bill that was the subject of the poll, but you didn't produce another poll, didn't cite any alternative source at all, so, yes, objectively, a poll directly on the subject matter, from a source you have no reason to distrust or believe manipulates its polls, and when there is no other data is, in fact, "the best available evidence."

I'm curious, though, if that poll was NOT the best available evidence, what better evidence are you relying on for your conclusions? Cite please!

 

[humbolt]

If you understood anything about economics you would understand how absurd This Thread is

If you ever actually read anything of factual significance - including the government's own statements on the economy, and perhaps actually studied economics - you'd understand how full of BS you are. I'll leave it at that. Your, "Gosh, I'm so smart" schtick isn't convincing anyone except you.

 

[katzgar]

If you ever actually read anything of factual significance - including the government's own statements on the economy, and perhaps actually studied economics - you'd understand how full of BS you are. I'll leave it at that. Your, "Gosh, I'm so smart" schtick isn't convincing anyone except you.

When demonizing people is all you got demonizing people is all you got