The US economy may not grow at all in the 4th quarter

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Denizen, Nov 16, 2019.

  1. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    On this we agree. I give data and other support for my claims - and address your arguments. You avoid my arguments and give little or no support for your claims.
     
  2. Socratica

    Socratica Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2019
    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    382
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    I don't know what you're talking about. I provided TWO Federal Economic Research Database Graphs, THREE economic primers from a former Fed Chairman, and a lecture series from dozens of seasoned professional economist.

    The only thing you've provided in the way of evidence was some ridiculous opinion piece. You've also said a bunch of nonsense, but nothing you're saying supports your claims, which is why I'm assuming you've given up discussing these claims.

    Aside from that, I don't know why you are claiming that I've avoided your arguments and I don't know why you're so content on lying to yourself. Seems like an interesting trait for people who enjoy discussing politics, but I personally do not see the appeal.
     
  3. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agreed with both your graphs and did not disagree with comments from the former Fed Chair. The problem was that neither the graphs nor the comments from the Fed supported your claims that

    1) Interest rates on our national debt are related only to the Fed and

    2) the contraction in 2011 was due only to the Fed actions - and had nothing to do with other external economic forces.
     
  4. Socratica

    Socratica Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2019
    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    382
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    This is wrong; in more ways than one. However, I'll just provide the simplest explanation.

    1) Treasury yields are impacted by economic performance and inflation and market expectations of future economic performance and inflation. This is the entire premise of what makes the yield curve what it is.

    2) The Fed only affects yields through open market operations. By purchasing/selling Treasuries, they affect the supply, which also affects the yields because Price and Yields have an inverse relationship.

    For example, the Fed purchasing Treasuries means that there are less Treasuries in the market. Less Treasuries makes them more valuable; if they're more valuable then price goes up; price goes up and yields go down.

    yield-returns.gif

    This is something really basic that you'll probably learn in any introductory Finance class, which I never took. So if you don't know this, then this can only mean that you should catch up on a few things before discussing this further.

    The economy contracted in Q1 2011/12. You may want to look up why; for your own good.
     
  5. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have never stated that the Fed did not have an effect - so why you continue to post stuff showing that the Fed has an effect ... I do not know.

    I have never stated that the economy did not contract in 2011 - so why you restate this over and over - like some broken record .. I do not know.

    What I do know - is that your claim that it was "ONLY" the Fed - and had nothing to do with external forces (be it interest rates on our debt or the contraction) is not supported by showing that it was partly the Fed - a point on which I have agreed.
     
  6. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then you tell me to "look up" factors for the economic contraction in 2011 - when I have already given you some external factors that were in play .. and you had no coherent response other than to twirl around going (wrong wrong) followed by posting gibberish like the above - which does not support your "Only the Fed" claims.

    You still have not figured out the difference between the interest rate on Treasury bills - and the Fed overnight lending rate.
     
  7. Socratica

    Socratica Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2019
    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    382
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    There appears to be something wrong with your computer because I never stated anything related to the quote above. I was only responding to the claim, "Interest rates on our national debt are related only to the Fed," and I responded that you are wrong.

    You are wrong, you don't appear to understand what you're talking about.

    You've been on this website for ~10 years and you seem to have difficultly following conversations. Why?

    I'M the one who stated that the economy contracted in 2011. You responded that "There are many things that accounted for the economic contraction in 2011/12." Afterwards, I basically said, 'Cool. Show me,' and this is what you've managed to come up with:

    1) You've stated some nonsense that occurred in in 2009 and 2010; not even remotely related to what happened in Q1 2011 or Q1 2012.

    2) You also previously claimed that it was "economic factors" that resulted in the contraction; now moments ago, you're claiming that it was the Fed that caused the contraction and it had nothing to do with external economic forces... Which is it?

    Again, I don't know what you're talking about. You're going to have to use words in a manner that doesn't confuse people who are mental incapacitated.
     
  8. Socratica

    Socratica Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2019
    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    382
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    Who are you talking to???
     
  9. nopartisanbull

    nopartisanbull Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2018
    Messages:
    7,029
    Likes Received:
    3,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Correction, you are fooling yourself!

    First, your graph, NO LINK! shows Federal, States and Local combined, and to refresh your memory, you and I have been debating FEDERAL Consumption Expenditures, thus, nice try ZORO!

    Second, in an effort to prove your point, you are elasticizing, thus, what's next, CGCE relative to Real GDP, and relative to Real GDP per capita, and relative to population growth?......nice try AFM!

    Third, as a percent of Real GDP, our current "FEDERAL" Consumption Expenditures and Gross Investment IS NOT at its lowest level.....here's a "current to real calculator", and related figures/links;

    2019 Q3 FGCE; $1.43 trillion
    2016 Q3 FGCE; $1.23 trillion

    https://stats.areppim.com/calc/calc_usdlrxdeflator.php
    https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543
    https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_federal_government_consumption_expenditures_and_gross_investment
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FGCE

    Last, are you smarter than a 5th grader?
     
  10. Socratica

    Socratica Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2019
    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    382
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    It's from FRED, it doesn't need a link.

    Okay, fine. However, I'm not sure what you think this changes.

    fredgraph(4).png

    I don't understand this sentence at all...

    This is an aggregate figure, not as a percentage. I find it difficult to believe that you do not understand the difference.

    Why? Do you require someone who is able to construct sentences at your reading level?
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2019
  11. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Now you are projecting your issues on to me - you are the one who can't seem to follow the conversation nor back up your claim.

    As per the point above - It is not "one or the other" it is both - and I have been said this in numerous posts .. why is it that you have such difficulty following the conversation ? (notice I gave an example of you not having a clue - you just make naked claims)

    What was nonsense ? Don't blame me that you can't figure out that reduced Gov't spending reduces economic activity .. or that folks having their net worth cut in half will have an impact on their spending ... or that losing their job will have an impact on their spending.

    Rather than address the points I brought up - all you have done is twirled around in a circle crying "Nonsense - its all Nonsense". This is not a coherent response to anything - followed by spewing the falsehood that I did not back up my claim.

    I am glad you recognize your deficiencies - but, I doubt I can help you.
     
    ronv likes this.
  12. nopartisanbull

    nopartisanbull Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2018
    Messages:
    7,029
    Likes Received:
    3,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male


    Once again, in reference to your FRED Graphs;

    1. Where are your links?

    2. Are you hiding 2018-2019 figures, important info/footnotes?

    psst: As a percent of Real GDP, I do know that our current FGCE is lower than a long term average, however, NOT THE LOWEST as you claimed.
     
  13. Socratica

    Socratica Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2019
    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    382
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    I have 10 different citations for my post and you don't have any. I don't understand why you need to lie to yourself.

    So it's both economic factors that caused the contraction, and non economic factors? Is that really what you're saying?

    You haven't supported any of this with evidence...

    You didn't back up any claims. That's not a falsehood.

    I said doesn't confuse people without mental incapacitated. You're reading comprehension is very bad.
     
  14. Socratica

    Socratica Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2019
    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    382
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=pxym

    These are annual figures. 2018 isn't hidden; 2019 obviously hasn't concluded yet...

    Correct. It's about as low as it was during 2000, prior to the NASDAQ bubble and 2001 recession. What is your point? It still doesn't show any "significant" increases in government expenditures.

    You get brownie-points for pointing out factual error (finally), but none for stating something false.
     
  15. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,710
    Likes Received:
    13,466
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem is that none of your citations support your claim. Post 100 citations that don't support your claim if you wish to continue lying to yourself.
     
  16. Socratica

    Socratica Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2019
    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    382
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    I don't know what you're reading but everything I've cited supported my claims and I think it's obvious that you cannot respond to anything that is being said. This topic really isn't for you.
     
  17. nopartisanbull

    nopartisanbull Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2018
    Messages:
    7,029
    Likes Received:
    3,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    For your info, your chart shows FGCE/GDP X 100, from 1947 to 2018

    YOU claimed; "Relative to Real GDP"

    Your chart clearly shows; 2018; 6.6582......rounded off; 6.66%
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=pxym

    FACTS:

    2018 Nominal GDP; $20.580 trillion
    2018 Real GDP; $18.638 trillion
    Dec 30th 2018 FGCE Level; $1.372 trillion

    https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543
    https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_federal_government_consumption_expenditures_and_gross_investment

    AND THE MATH;

    $1.372 trillion DIVIDED by NOMINAL, NOMINAL, NOMINAL $20,580 trillion X 100 = 6.66%

    Thus, where are your REAL figures?

    psst; No one can fool me with numbers and logic
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2019
    ronv likes this.
  18. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Thank you Republican Congress and taken to new grounds under his policies. But we are hitting that ceiling where we don't not have the labor force to expand much more and hitting productivity walls too.

    The question is now is what to do and who will do it to keep us in a position of growth and unemployment at these record lows. Is that most likely under a second term for Trump or a Warren or a Sanders. Is that more likely under Democrat policies or Republican policies?
     
  19. Socratica

    Socratica Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2019
    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    382
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    They're both nominal figures. Fred doesn't have Real FGCE annual figures. Instead, I used nominal. Basic math should be able to explain why the figures aren't any better when adjusted for inflation.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2019
  20. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,163
    Likes Received:
    30,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The trends have continued on about the same pace since the recovery started, regardless of party control. If Trump's mercantilist attacks on capitalism haven't stopped the trends, I'm not even sure if Warren or Sanders could.

    Besides, you've already said that the makeup of Congress matters more than the President, so why are you asking about Warren and Sanders?
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2019
  21. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,338
    Likes Received:
    39,002
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well let's not forget the Republicans began their slow take back in 2012. A Warren and Sanders may have a Democrat House which will give them majority control. So the question remains what to do and who will do it to keep us in a position of growth and unemployment at these record lows. Is that most likely under a second term for Trump or a Warren or a Sanders. Is that more likely under Democrat policies or Republican policies?
     
  22. nopartisanbull

    nopartisanbull Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2018
    Messages:
    7,029
    Likes Received:
    3,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Real Federal Consumption Expenditures and Gross Investment (FGCEC1)

    Q3 2019; $1,284.533
    Q3 2018; $1.238.714
    Q3 2017; $1.196.118
    Q3 2016; $1.188.210

    Units; Billions of Chained 2012 Dollars,
    Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate

    Frequency; Quarterly

    upload_2019-11-18_18-4-5.png


    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FGCEC1
     
  23. Socratica

    Socratica Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2019
    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    382
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    Like I said before, this is Quarterly intervals and I used Annuals intervals. Also, the Quarterly Time Series for Real FGCE only goes back as far as 2002, so it is difficult to make meaningful comparisons historically.

    No matter, I'm sure I'll make it work.

    fredgraph(5).png

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=pxKr

    Wow. What do you know... It's not much better than the Nominal time series.

    fredgraph(4).png
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2019
  24. nopartisanbull

    nopartisanbull Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2018
    Messages:
    7,029
    Likes Received:
    3,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    2019 figures/uptrend.....still Missing In Action!

    And for your info, historically, we just had the largest budget deficit with a strong economy, and both transfer payments and consumption expenditures significantly increased.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2019
  25. Socratica

    Socratica Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2019
    Messages:
    1,075
    Likes Received:
    382
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    There is no uptrend relative to GDP. FGCE is a significantly smaller portion of GDP and 2019 isn't missing; 2019 hasn't concluded. You will get 2019 figures next year around March.

    That's great, but you'll only look at this in absolute terms. In relative terms (which is how it should be analyze), they're a smaller portion of overall aggregate demand. If we're judging it in terms "significant fiscal accommodation," the Government spent significantly more during 2008 financial crisis as a portion of overall GDP, and again during the NASDAQ bubble, and previous recessions as well.

    Trump isn't providing any fiscal accommodation. If anything a case can be made that we are in an austerity period.
     

Share This Page