Bush Economic Growth (A Picture Speaks 1000 Words)

U.S. Department of Commerce ^ | 4Q, 2005 | Bureau of Economic Analysis

[Choose Ye This Day]

Take a gander at that, you sniveling Democrats.

10 consecutive quarters of REAL GDP* growth above 3% -- something we haven't seen in 20 years.

* FYI--Definition of Real GDP:

The number reached by valuing all the productive activity within the country at a specific year's prices. When economic activity of two or more time periods is valued at the same year's prices, the resulting figure allows comparison of purchasing power over time, since the effects of inflation have been removed by maintaining constant prices.

[MNJohnnie]

Got a chart for the 1990s? The Libs will lie saying it was better in the 1990s, it actually wasn't and am looking to put a graph together I can email out.

[Andy from Beaverton]

Exactly what I was thinking.

[kpp_kpp]

please post here or freepmail me if you put one together. thanks.

[isthisnickcool]

I'd like the Democrats to just focus on the bars for 2003. Just on II,IIIamd IV. It's my personal message to them.

[Michael.SF.]

That is a great graph and I look forward to seeing the one from the 90's, should be interesting.

But of course for the libs/dems simple facts, such as this, do not matter.

[Moonman62]

How about posting a similar graph for government growth?

[Whitewasher]

That will leave a mark.

[Willie Green]

Here are the facts:

Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the measure of the USA's output of goods and services, is calculated by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis using the following items:

• Personal consumption expenditures: Personal consumption expenditures are far and away the largest and tends to be the most stable of the four expenditures, averaging about 65-70% of gross domestic product.
• Gross private domestic investment: Expenditures on capital goods to be used for productive activities in the domestic economy that are undertaken by the business sector during a given time period. Gross private domestic investment tends to be the least stable of the four expenditures, averaging between 12-18% of gross domestic product.
• NET EXPORTS OF GOODS AND SERVICES Net exports of goods and services is the smallest of the four expenditures, averaging around 2% of gross domestic product. Unlike the other expenditures, net exports of goods and services can be either positive or negative. They are positive when exports are greater than imports (Trade Surplus) and negative when exports are less than imports (Trade Deficit). In recent years, net exports of goods and services have been negative.
• Government consumption expenditures and gross investment measures government purchases undertaken by the government sector. Government consumption expenditures and gross investment averages between 15-20% of gross domestic product. This percentage tends to be ebb and flow a little with the political winds.

The BEA News Release for SECOND QUARTER 2005 provides us with the following current data for these items. (Seasonally adjusted at annual rates)

Gross domestic product (GDP)............................. $12,373.1 billion
Personal consumption expenditures.......................... 8,667.7 (70.05% of GDP)
Gross private domestic investment.......................... 2,054.2 (16.60% of GDP)
Net exports of goods and services........................... -687.0 (-5.55% of GDP)
Government consumption expenditures and gross investment... 2,338.2 (18.90% of GDP)

The current BALANCE OF TRADE is in deficit, which is considered unfavorable.
That is why it is SUBTRACTED from the other factors used to calculate GDP.

And at historic highs, it diminishes our domestic economy by over 5% - more than twice the normal variation. This is NOT insignificant.

[Willie Green]

How about posting a similar graph for government growth?

Or one for National Debt?

Afterall, Dubya's been keeping the economy afloat with unprecedented levels of deficit spending.

"I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country."

-- President Andrew Jackson - (1824)

[Choose Ye This Day]

I've been looking, but I can't find one yet.

[Choose Ye This Day]

Actually, Americans have been keeping the economy afloat through unprecedented levels of productivity and spending.

You do realize that it's you and I that make the economy grow or slow, to a much, much greater degree than anything Washington does. Don't you?

[God luvs America]

anyone know how this compares to '95-2000?

[Choose Ye This Day]

I'll answer for you: Of course you understand it's us that drive this economy. You posted it yuourself. Private citizens are responsible for 86% of GDP production and spending.

I'll agree with you--governemnt spending is way too high. But you're mistaken if you think that our economy can't get by without Washington's help.

[Choose Ye This Day]

I saw the average for 95-200 was something like 3.7%, which is high. That, of course, includes the Bubble, where we had radical spikes upward in GDP, much of which was due to unsustainable stock market prices and overinvesting in telecom, and tech industries.

I can't find a quarter-by-quarter chart or table, but from what I read elsewhere, we haven't seen this kind of consistent, consecutive growth in a long, long time.

[MNJohnnie]

And at historic highs, it diminishes our domestic economy by over 5% - more than twice the normal variation. This is NOT insignificant

Yes it is. It's lying with statistics. Basically it does NOT diminish our domestic economy at all. That trade GENERATES GDP. Any time in history, the 1930s for example, putting up trade barriers REDUCES GDP because it reduces overall economic output. The problem the Protectionists have is they have a complete inviability to grasp the fallacy of their Zero Sum arguments. There is NOT a finite amount of economic activity. If A exports more it does NOT mean B is exporting LESS. The reason we ALWAYS have a trade deficit is because we buy up so much of the worlds resources and convert it into things WE have the wealth to consume. This whole argument by the protectionists is just complete nonsense. It represents a fundamental inability to grasp simple economic realities.

[MNJohnnie]

Afterall, Dubya's been keeping the economy afloat with unprecedented levels of deficit spending.

NONSENSE. Utter NONSENSE. Fundemental lack of understanding of basic reality. What are you one of Clinton's "demand siders"?

[Choose Ye This Day]

Don't confuse liberals or protectionists with economic realities. They just don't get it.

[Choose Ye This Day]

Are you a Northern Alliance Radio fan?

[MNJohnnie]

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn1.htm

May be able to complie one from the info at this website. I do not have the technical savvy to do this.

Wille, I will try one more time to explain reality to you. Deficit Spending does NOT prop up an economy. It makes Govt a demand on the Capital Market thus reducing supply of capital. Sorry but your Keynesian world view is a failed economic philosophy that has been prov-en invalid 30 years ago.