Posted on 01/31/2014 7:14:17 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The government said GDP rose 3.2% in the last three months of 2013 -- one of the fastest rates since the end of the recession, though slower than the third quarter's 4.1%. Still, that sounds good, until you remember this: Employers only added 74,000 jobs in December -- one of the worst months in nearly three years. Stronger economic growth is supposed to equal more jobs. So what gives?
It does appear that the normal relationship between jobs and GDP has broken down. In the first half of 2013, for instance, GDP growth was at 1.9% and employers added an average of 195,000 jobs a month. In the second half of the year, GDP picked up to 3.6%, but the rate of job growth slowed to 170,000.
Over the past decade, on average, a one percentage point change in GDP has translated to about 115,000 more, or fewer, jobs. But the number jumps around a lot. And there are some things that do tend to disrupt the relationship.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.fortune.cnn.com ...
...well, there you have it.
I don`t think you get it.
It`s irrelevant if past GDP is revised up since we know what the old standard was as in core GDP.
In Obamanomics 101 we now include Imputations,redirections, R&D,etc. R&D counted before as simply final product sales, now it`s double counted. Imputation/redirections are pure works of fiction.
http://www.bea.gov/faq/?faq_id=488
No. You don’t get it. These types of changes have been done for decades. It’s not exclusive to Obama.
How many COMPREHENSIVE revisions to NIPA and the SNA has BEA instituted since 1947.
Never mind, I trust Peter Schiff, FT, The Economist a little more than you,
“ It’s going to look like the economy is getting bigger even though it isn’t. Our GDP is one big lie.”
Not only a lie but it serves the purpose of making debt to GDP ratios look smaller so Statist can spend and borrow more.
PS:
IF comprehensive changes to the NIPA and the SNA “been done for decades” then there would have been absolutely no need to revise the data back to 1929 now would there ?
You`re excused. Run along sport.
One of the real human tragedies is the marketing by the Left of the false notion that capital and labor are at odds. Labor cannot function without capital. Capital is the lifeblood of endeavor.
Can you imagine a carpenter without a hammer? Where would he work without money to pay for the work? Both the hammer and the money are capital. You cannot work without it.
How’s the velocity of money, lately?
That down pointing tail is the key to the economic future. I’d like to see it at a monthly scale for the last 12 months. When that turns up...
When they added government spending to the GDP, any net increase in that spending is a rise in GDP.
The fact that that money they are spending is a net drain on real growth in GDP never crosses their minds. Or if it does, they bury it deep and smile big...
That’s what I’m talking about! Thanks. Ping me when it turns upward.
Did you get a chance to listen to Fisher’s recent Econtalk?
Here’s a counterpoint. http://thefaintofheart.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/fomcer-richard-inspector-clouseau-fisher-and-his-excellent-rare-book-price-clue-to-proper-monetary-policy/
Where do you fall?
It's an awfully short timescale and hard to get perspective.
I have not. Sorry my company just released earnings yesterday and I have been swamped with that process. I will take a listen. Thanks for the link.
How about this..... (for part of the growth)
If we assume the economy has plateaued and companies have adapted and learned to operate at the new level, It is not unreasonable to assume that managers can tinker with what they have and develop operating efficiencies.
That tinkering results in positive change at the plateaued level. More output at the current or slightly reduced employment level is growth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.