Let me break it down since you didn't address my question. If you are projecting GDP into the future, just saying 2% growth doesn't give us an answer. If you were going to try to project GDP 1, 5,10 or 25 years into the future: 1) What number would start with? Why would you use that number?
My question was simple; what will be the impetus to suddenly increase GDP by $1 trillion per year for the next decade or more? If it's so easy why isn't it happening now? You seem to believe 'math' is a solution? Just increase revenue, decrease expenses, and balance the budget...so simple yet why does Obama, and Congress and Americans refuse to do this? You think it's a cakewalk to extract an extra $1 trillion in taxation and/or government spending reductions and in parallel grow the GDP by $1 trillion each year...Iriemon...you're spending too much time at Disney's FantasyLand! Don't know what metric you believe is wrong? Currently we have about 145 million workers and about $15.7 trillion in GDP which comes to about $108,275 per job. The rest of the data is simple math. Speaking of goofy metrics, GDP has little to do with national debt so why continue to ratio them? When you have $24 trillion in debt and are paying $700 billion in annual interest, it makes zero difference what the GDP might be...the only thing that matters is how much tax revenue the government can extract from Americans. News flash; $700 billion in interest payment is $700 billion for absolutely nothing in return...nothing...
Since you didn't explain your question as I requested I'll assume you mean why doesn't GDP grow by $1 trillion per year now? They answer is, 1) it is not projected to grow $1 trillion per year initially but by a lower amount, and then generally increasing each year. For 2013, the projected growth is $485 billion. The answer is, there are many reasons GDP grows, including population growth, productivity, more employed, more trade, and inflation. Your second question, why isn't it happening now, is largely based on a false premise. GDP grew by $587 billion last year, more than projected. Where did I say that? Where did I say it was simple? It is simple in theory. But as far as being in fantasyland, I was simply using the numbers from *your* post. You are accusing yourself. LOL, and you were just berating me for math? GDP is very relevant to the implications of the national debt. If you have a debt of $5 trillion but a GDP of $500 billion, you have a very big problem. If you have a debt of $5 trillion and a GDP of $20 trillion, you don't have a problem at all. GDP is also largely determinative of ability to generate tax revenue. So write your tea party rep and tell them to compromise with a tax increase to get a budget deal done.
We are, that was exactly what I asked you. First you falsely said you answered it, now you're saying you aren't discussing it. And now you've failed to answer a second time. So once again I will give you the correct answer. GDP in 2011 was $15,075.7 billion. and GDP in 2012 was $15,684.8 billion. BEA.gov No, you are wrong. What the GDP will be in a given year in the future in fact is exactly what we are talking about. Go back and read post #12 and the one it responds to. Maybe you didn't bother to read the issue before you butted in and that is why you are so confused. LOL, how do you think percentage changes in GDP calculated? But comparing the GDP figure from one year to the next. So here is Question 3: GDP in 2011 was $15,075.7 billion. GDP in 2012 was $15,684.8 billion. What is the percentage growth between 2012 and 2011? That paper is talking about inflation and productivity which determine SS increases. I didn't even see a GDP projection in it. No, Lil Mike. You still don't understand it. I have not attempted to use "actual GDP instead of current dollar GDP." They are the same thing. Did you mean to say that I use actual or current dollar GDP instead of real, inflation adjusted numbers? If so, why would you use real numbers if you were forecasting actual GDP? You'd be ignoring the effects of inflation. I've cited the CBO GDP projections twice. I can't force you to read it. I wonder what percentage the CBO is using in their projections? http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43907 In their budget and economic forecast, they use actual or current dollar figures, just like I do. Table 1-1 from your link: Year - GDP - % chng 2012 15,549 2013 16,034 3.1% 2014 16,646 3.8% 2015 17,632 5.9% 2016 18,792 6.6% 2017 19,959 6.2% 2018 20,943 4.9% 2019 21,890 4.5% 2020 22,854 4.4% 2021 23,842 4.3% 2022 24,858 4.3% 2023 25,910 4.2% Average: 4.8% CBO projects that GDP will grow an average of 4.8% over the next 10 years. That's pretty darn close to the 5% figure I used. I'm doing the exact same thing CBO does. If you can't understand why it would be wrong to use real numbers and don't trust my explanation, write a letter to the CBO and ask them why they do it like Iriemon does. Maybe someone will explain it to you. I just pointed out to OMOF that he was comparing apples and oranges by comparing a projection of the actual size of the debt, based on current dollars and not adjusting for inflation, with a GDP forecast that was based on the average real increase in inflation adjusted dollars. As I pointed out, you cannot compare a series of actual or current dollars with inflation adjusted dollars and vice versa because you are including a set of numbers and has inflation built in with a set that does not. OMOF seems to have accepted my criticism. You are the one who wants to fight about it. As for looking foolish, I'm not the one who doesn't understand the basic economic concepts here.
What happens when they are wrong again? Like when they said the 2006 budget would balance in a few years because of expected growth which was way higher then actual? It is not like Reagan is coming back, how are you going to get growth up to Reagan levels? Get Newt back in charge?
Economic projections are notoriously inaccurate. But they can be (and have been) wrong both ways. I think you'd rather see growth levels up like they were under Clinton after his tax increase. It was several tenths of a point better than Reagan's term.
Is this after or before the dot com revolution and the Newt Gingrich takeover? Because I have heard a lot of people give him credit for building Apple and Microsoft, but I have never heard an explanation of why he should get the credit. Please enlighten me.
I didn't say anything about who should get credit. I just pointed out that if you want the highest economic growth, you'd go with Clinton over Reagan. I do remember many conservatives, including Newt, claiming that the 1993 Clinton tax increase would wreck the economy and kill jobs. Instead it was followed by the longest boom in post War history, with the greatest number of jobs created, the lowest level of poverty, the lowest unemployment rate in decades, booming stock markets, and a record deficit going to a surplus thanks mostly to the flood of additional revenues that came after the tax increase. So maybe you shouldn't turn to them for enlightenment.
The balance budget was towards the end of his term. Clinton inherited a (then) record deficit and it came down every year and then became a surplus. Clinton never cut total spending. Welfare reform was passed in 1997. The nation had enjoyed several years of continuous, strong economic growth up to then.
[/QUOTE] What I gather from this mess of an answer is that your answer to my question, what was the percentage increase for GDP was in 2011? Is "LOL, how are percentage changes in GDP calculated " Although not exactly the what I was expecting in terms of an answer, it is about as informative as I was expecting.
I used to give Republicans some credit for holding down spending when Clinton was president. But when Bush was elected, we saw their true colors as spending exploded, growing twice as fast as it had when Clinton was president.
Wrong again. The percentage increase of GDP from 2011 to 2012 is 4.04%. You get it from subtracting the prior number from the newer, and dividing the difference by the prior. Thus, we can now see that in fact, GDP increased 4.04% in 2012 from 2011. Just as I stated several posts ago. The figures we've derived and I used to project the level of GDP in the future, is the same ones used by CBO in the table from your link. CBO projects GDP using the same basic methodology I used, just a bit more sophisticated. If you still don't understand it, the only thing I can suggest is to take a class in economics.
PS - that post you quoted was a partial post I didn't have time to finish before editing time expired. The completed response is post #54.
Just as you cannot explain how GDP can grow by $1 trillion per year you also cannot explain how to balance the federal budget...except to say 'it can be done'. Math is not a solution. The solution lies within a society who will agree or not to greatly increased taxes and lower government spending...and good luck with this! The only relevance when talking about national debt and deficit spending is how much tax revenue the government 'is' extracting and if they can extract more...there is zero relationship to GDP. Government revenue is driven by tax policy and enforcement...not by GDP. If there was a national sales tax in place in lieu of current federal taxation, then there would be 'some' relationship to GDP. There are two reasons why a meaningful budget deal won't be accomplished in the next ten years; Americans refuse tax increases and government/people refuse to reduce government spending. What is pathetic about today's society is that we have no problem passing our excesses onto many generations to come...
I can and have explained both. Never said it was. The solutions is simple. The problem is a society that will *not* agree to increase taxes or lower government spending. That is completely wrong. You cannot get $3 trillion in tax revenues from a country with a $1 trillion GDP. But you can achieve it with a country that has a $20 trillion GDP. Could be. I never claimed that a meaningful budget would be accomplished.
You've only relied on math for your explanation? How do you obtain what you state and get consensus from Americans and Congress to achieve what you believe? Once again, GDP and tax revenues have zero relationship. All that truly matters is the tax policy which provides the tax revenue...no matter what GDP might be. What matters is what People are willing to fund...no matter what GDP might be. IMO we should have two benchmarks and then proceed from them. Benchmark #1 is a per capita spending limit for government. Benchmark #2 is that #1 determines how much tax revenues are required. For whatever myriad reasons, governments at all levels are failing to be fiscally responsible. They spend too much, refuse to collect enough taxes, and are reluctant or refuse to cut government spending...obviously this is not sustainable! Yet most Americans go along with this nonsense because we've become too self-serving and refuse to do better and/or make sensible sacrifices. And we continually have presidents and Congress who are incapable of communicating our positions and creating change when we've lost our compass. ALL of the above is not sustainable...so why do we continue down an unsustainable path...
Good question. Completely false, as demonstrated above. The exact same tax policy returns completely different revenues depending upon the size of GDP. No problem with that as a general rule. Don't disagree. We have too few representatives willing to compromise for the good of the country. We continue down the path because we the people don't want higher taxes and don't want to cut spending on Govt programs and we elect reps to do our will.
Today's news is more proof that nothing will ever change; the government now is backtracking the closure of airport control towers and the employee furloughs as if the money is suddenly available. Too much pressure from the public and the effects of the $600 million sequester are simply ignored. Americans won't sacrifice and politicians are chicken-(*)(*)(*)(*) so will anything ever change...I doubt it. What does this say about the collective we who refuse to live within our means and are passing all of our fiscal liabilities to the next several generations to solve?
So much for the hard line on cutting government spending across the board as the way to reduce the deficit.
Why dont we go back to ground zero shall we? http://www.politicalforum.com/elections-campaigns/248558-gop-trying-sabotage-economy-hurt-obama-read-more-http-www-newstimes-com-8.html#post1061268094 This was the post that started this entire mess. You made a ridiculously outrageous claim that we had no problem with any future debt because our economy would grow at 5% over the next 75 years (so yes, this discussion was always about the percentage of GDP). So, when I pointed out your error Your response was to post the BEA link that showed the current dollar and real GDP, but the numbers you posted were only from the column of non inflation adjusted figures. Since inflation averaged about 3% for most of that time period, that gave a 3% bump to your 30 year average. Now, there are two ways to view that. You were either ignorant of the correct figures to view, or you were trying to perpetrate a fraud in order to support your original argument. Originally I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and just assumed ignorance on your part. But you double downed on those figures and continued to insist that when representing the US economy, you should include the inflation. This makes the economic growth much larger than it actually is. An economy that had flat or zero economic growth, 0%, would show a GDP increase of 3% (assuming a 3% inflation for that year). So if you are trying to pass of 3% increase in GDP for a year in which there was no economic growth (assuming a 3% inflation increase for said year), than yes, you are trying to commit a fraud. Thats not what the CBO uses when they report GDP. They use inflation adjusted figures: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43907-BudgetOutlook.pdf When Reuters and CNBC report GDP they use inflation adjusted figures: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100678290 Its telling that on a web forum filled with leftie wackos, none have jumped in to support your position. Clearly they understand economics better than you do. Obviously you are so committed to this lie that at this point there isnt going to be a moment when you say oops, I made a mistake. You are riding this atom bomb all the way down to detonation. Actually for me though, I have to admit, its better if you dont. You can continue to make yourself look foolish, and I can continue to point it out.
You are absolutely 100% wrong. The CBO's projected budget is not real using inflation adjusted numbers but actual current dollar figures. Their projections have an average GDP growth of almost 5%, the same figure I used. See table 1-1 in your own source! So you're accusing the Congressional Budget Office of fraud too, right? I've proved this to you several times already, and yet you keep making the same ignorant claim. Why? Of course. That is because they are not talking about GDP projections but GDP performance, for which real numbers give an indication that is not affected by inflation. I use the same real numbers when comparing performance over different time periods. You don't use real, numbers to project future actual (or current dollar GDPP). If you did you would be excluding the effect of inflation in the future projection and thus have inaccurate results. You can substitute insults and ad homs all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you simply don't understand basic economics. Hell, you didn't even know what real numbers were! So if you are trying to project what GDP (or incomes) in 75 years will be, you don't use real numbers, because that would exclude the effects of inflation. If you take out inflation in your projection, you won't get an realistic forecast of GDP in the future which will include inflation.
Nope. Wrong answer again. You don't know how to calaculate percentage changes? Maybe that is your problem. With: GDP in 2011 was $15,075.7 billion. GDP in 2012 was $15,684.8 billion. You have a percentage change of 4.04%. You calculate a percent change by subtracting the original number from the new number, and dividing the difference by the original number. Try it! So now we have proved that actual GDP grew 4.04% from 2011 to 2012. If you had started in 2011 and increased it by a percentage based on inflation adjusted GDP, say 2%, you'd have miscalculated GDP for 2012, because you would not have included the effects of inflation.
