US GDP: Economy Growing Faster Than Thought

What does that mean.

that must mean Obama is doing better than we thought

nice to hear some good news for once

nice to hear some good news for once

sexyweapons

Praise godbama!

Better than nothing.

If I remember correctly, by next year the annualized GDP growth should be between 2 to 2.5% which is pretty average. Going to be much better than the E.U. for the near future, that's for sure.

It's not great, but it's something. It doesn't mean we're out of the woods yet, but the gloom and doom that the GOP is focusing on, just isn't there.

Good, maybe this quarter we'll hit 2%!!!

My only problem with GDP is that hospital income also reflects GDP in the same way that a business institution does. But when hospital income arises, isn't it that many people get sick? A good economy doesn't have so many sick people.carolB3256

When individuals get sick there is a loss in production (assuming that they have to take time off work and/or they work less productively) that will be represented as a fall in GDP, so partially cancelling out the gain in GDP from increased hospital service production.

Tell that to those unemployed and still looking for work...

You had 600 people apply for jobs at WALMART recently.

If you just switch things around a bit you get 7.1% and that's pretty damn good. Praise Obama!

Woohoo...

Good news I guess.....

Still a weak recovery though.

hmm.. i guess obama flipped the 1.7% growth switch in the oval office instead of the 1.5% one by mistake.. i don't see why he doesn't just flip the 5% one instead.. what and idiot.comp_atkins

Cause he's too busy vacationing.

GDP is no longer viable. The happiness index is absolutely the best way to measure well-being and productivity. Most of us smart economists know this already.

GDP is no longer viable. The happiness index is absolutely the best way to measure well-being and productivity. Most of us smart economists know this already.

lo_Pine

If by smart economists you mean 3rd world politicians then yeah.

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"]

GDP is no longer viable. The happiness index is absolutely the best way to measure well-being and productivity. Most of us smart economists know this already.

Storm_Marine

If by smart economists you mean 3rd world politicians then yeah.

The US economy grew at an annualised rate of 1.7% in the second quarter of the year, slightly faster than previously thought.seahorse123

[QUOTE="seahorse123"]The US economy grew at an annualised rate of 1.7% in the second quarter of the year, slightly faster than previously thought.KC_Hokie

How do you figure that? Population growth rate is under 1%.

That is still pretty bad-Sun_Tzu-

GDP is no longer viable. The happiness index is absolutely the best way to measure well-being and productivity. Most of us smart economists know this already.

lo_Pine

UHAHAHAHAPHAbfihweab gpihasHAHAHA

U r not economist

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="seahorse123"]The US economy grew at an annualised rate of 1.7% in the second quarter of the year, slightly faster than previously thought.Audacitron

How do you figure that? Population growth rate is under 1%.

Always good to hear some good news.

Is that real or nominal?chessmaster1989

Official BEA/Commerce releases are always in real $s.

4 Years and you people still don't get it there is no recovery and the world economy is slowing down the current economic model is dying.

4 Years and you people still don't get it there is no recovery and the world economy is slowing down the current economic model is dying.

4 Years and you people still don't get it there is no recovery and the world economy is slowing down the current economic model is dying.

4 Years and you people still don't get it there is no recovery.

[QUOTE="Audacitron"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]That's still awful. Not even high enough to keep up with population increase. KC_Hokie

How do you figure that? Population growth rate is under 1%.

There is no recovery the global economy is slowing down.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Audacitron"]

How do you figure that? Population growth rate is under 1%.

chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]You need between 2-2.25% GDP increase to keep up with population on average. A good example is last quarter....GDP increased 2% but unemployment went up.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] A single month of data isn't a good example of basically anything macro.chessmaster1989

Q2 2012 GPD was 2% increase and unemployment still went up. So in order to add jobs you need 2.3%+ GDP growth.

Slowest recovery since the great deppression maybe because there is no recovery and the stock market is proped up with stimulus money.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]A quarter is three months. GDP is measured quarterly. KC_Hokie

Q1 2012 GPD was 2% increase and unemployment still went up. So in order to add jobs you need 2.3%+ GDP growth.

Not true. There are more factors that go into GDP growth than employment (or vice versa), e.g. technology shocks (obviously more complicates since a technology shock will affect both GDP and employment, however it is plausible for a technology shock to increase GDP and reduce employment). Which is why I said basing off one quarter isn't a good idea.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]A quarter is three months. GDP is measured quarterly. KC_Hokie

Q2 2012 GPD was 2% increase and unemployment still went up. So in order to add jobs you need 2.3%+ GDP growth.

Not true. They are not directly related. Your relationship would only be true if all GDP was simply the result of labour/people, but of course that is not the case.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] Misread and thought you said month. A quarter of data still isn't that much info.chessmaster1989

Q1 2012 GPD was 2% increase and unemployment still went up. So in order to add jobs you need 2.3%+ GDP growth.

Not true. There are more factors that go into GDP growth than employment (or vice versa), e.g. technology shocks (obviously more complicates since a technology shock will affect both GDP and employment, however it is plausible for a technology shock to increase GDP and reduce employment). Which is why I said basing off one quarter isn't a good idea.

Growth Rate of GDP = Growth Rate of Population + Growth Rate of GDP per capita

Historically, you need 2-2.25% just to maintain the unemployment rate and 2.3%+ to increase employment.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Sure, but that's how GDP is officially measured. And you need 2-2.25% increased in GDP just to keep up with population.

Q1 2012 GPD was 2% increase and unemployment still went up. So in order to add jobs you need 2.3%+ GDP growth.

KC_Hokie

Not true. There are more factors that go into GDP growth than employment (or vice versa), e.g. technology shocks (obviously more complicates since a technology shock will affect both GDP and employment, however it is plausible for a technology shock to increase GDP and reduce employment). Which is why I said basing off one quarter isn't a good idea.

Growth Rate of GDP = Growth Rate of Population * Growth Rate of GDP per capita

Historically, you need 2-2.25% just to maintain the unemployment rate and 2.3%+ to increase employment.

Because like I said, a lot more goes into GDP than employment, and a lot more goes into employment than GDP.

Perhaps historically 2-2.25% growth is needed to maintain employment, I'm not sure about this. But a single quarter is not an example.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Not true. There are more factors that go into GDP growth than employment (or vice versa), e.g. technology shocks (obviously more complicates since a technology shock will affect both GDP and employment, however it is plausible for a technology shock to increase GDP and reduce employment). Which is why I said basing off one quarter isn't a good idea.

chessmaster1989

Growth Rate of GDP = Growth Rate of Population * Growth Rate of GDP per capita

Historically, you need 2-2.25% just to maintain the unemployment rate and 2.3%+ to increase employment.

Because like I said, a lot more goes into GDP than employment, and a lot more goes into employment than GDP.

Perhaps historically 2-2.25% growth is needed to maintain employment, I'm not sure about this. But a single quarter is not an example.

And just to maintain the current employment rate it's been shown you need 2-2.25% GDP growth.

It's not that complicated.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]How is it not true?

Growth Rate of GDP = Growth Rate of Population * Growth Rate of GDP per capita

Historically, you need 2-2.25% just to maintain the unemployment rate and 2.3%+ to increase employment.

KC_Hokie

Because like I said, a lot more goes into GDP than employment, and a lot more goes into employment than GDP.

Perhaps historically 2-2.25% growth is needed to maintain employment, I'm not sure about this. But a single quarter is not an example.

And just to maintain the current employment rate it's been shown you need 2-2.25% GDP growth.

It's not that complicated.

Goddamit Hokie

You're talking long-run

I'm talking short-run

THEY'RE DIFFERENT

You don't use a single quarter of data to illustrate a long-term trend

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Because like I said, a lot more goes into GDP than employment, and a lot more goes into employment than GDP.

Perhaps historically 2-2.25% growth is needed to maintain employment, I'm not sure about this. But a single quarter is not an example.

chessmaster1989

And just to maintain the current employment rate it's been shown you need 2-2.25% GDP growth.

It's not that complicated.

Goddamit Hokie

You're talking long-run

I'm talking short-run

THEY'RE DIFFERENT