Tweet
The economy grew at 1.4% in the final quarter of 2002, which is twice as much as estimated earlier. Perhaps the economy isn't 'going down the tubes' after all, and we'll continue with sluggish growth instead of recession.
-
The economy grew at 1.4% in the final quarter of 2002, which is twice as much as estimated earlier. Perhaps the economy isn't 'going down the tubes' after all, and we'll continue with sluggish growth instead of recession.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV) -
It all now depends on whether there will be a Gulf War II.(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within." -
-
For the quarter. The years growth is slightly higher.Originally posted by Azazel
Did the economy grow 1.4% on an annual rate, or just the quarter?"When you ride alone, you ride with Bin Ladin"-Bill Maher
"All capital is dripping with blood."-Karl Marx
"Of course, my response to your Marx quote is 'So?'"-Imran SiddiquiComment
-
The thing that I noticed was that business spending increased, but only for new equipment. Business spending on new facilities to increase capacity continued to fall. This means there will be more lay offs as businesses try to improve productivity to cut costs. They are trying to get lean for a recession. This could be the reason the consumer confidence is so low. People are losing jobs."When you ride alone, you ride with Bin Ladin"-Bill Maher
"All capital is dripping with blood."-Karl Marx
"Of course, my response to your Marx quote is 'So?'"-Imran SiddiquiComment
-
-
The years growth is slightly higher.
2.4%. Not that great, but not that bad.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
-
I read somewhere than Chinas annual growth is up at 6-9 percent.Comment
-
That 1.4% was at an annual rate - I think that DuncanK got confused and thought you meant the growth rate over the same period the previous year (which was 2.9%).Originally posted by Azazel
Did the economy grow 1.4% on an annual rate, or just the quarter?
And please remember that, due to differences in measuring inflation (and thus growth), that the US's growth rate is overstated by around 0.5% relative to most other major economies (France and Australia excepted).19th Century Liberal, 21st Century EuropeanComment
-
(delayed simul-post)
China was 8.2% for '02 and 6.6% for '01, and is projected to run 7-8% for the next couple of years. It helps that they are starting from a very small base.
The Q4 US number of 1.4% is the seasonally adjusted growth rate for the quarter if it is annualized (and after inflation) which is a little different than saying that the economy grew 1.4% during the quarter. It can also stair-step a little because of the difficulty in doing seasonals.
Overall the 2.4% for the year (adjusted down from 3.7% by inflation) is not too bad, and definately better than the economy 'feels' which is typical for the early stages of recovery.
also edit: the inflation difference that el freako mentions are called Hedonic Deflators, and basically mean that there should be a quality adjustment for a price increase - if you buy a car that costs 10% more than a car did 5 years ago, but it gets twice the gas milage and has more do-dads, then maybe the price didn't really increase 10%, you just got more stuff. This is especially troublesome with computers, due to the dramatic changes in technology.Be the bid!Comment
-
1.4% annual: now that makes sense! because 1.4% growth in a quarter is actually a very good growth rate. I think.
That 1.4% was at an annual rate - I think that DuncanK got confused and thought you meant the growth rate over the same period the previous year (which was 2.9%).
And please remember that, due to differences in measuring inflation (and thus growth), that the US's growth rate is overstated by around 0.5% relative to most other major economies (France and Australia excepted).Comment
-
It makes you really cool to use the word SAAR, for seasonally adjusted annualized rate.
I work with a bunch of dorks!!Be the bid!Comment
-
The economy grew faster that 1.4%. It seems like 2.9% is about right for last year. The number is 'annualized' not annual. I'm not exactly sure what that means, but the economy certainly grew faster than 1.4% for the year. The annualized growth rate for the third quarter was 4%.Originally posted by el freako
That 1.4% was at an annual rate - I think that DuncanK got confused and thought you meant the growth rate over the same period the previous year (which was 2.9%).
And please remember that, due to differences in measuring inflation (and thus growth), that the US's growth rate is overstated by around 0.5% relative to most other major economies (France and Australia excepted).
edit: I just realized that Sten already stated that the annual growth rate for the year was 2.4%."When you ride alone, you ride with Bin Ladin"-Bill Maher
"All capital is dripping with blood."-Karl Marx
"Of course, my response to your Marx quote is 'So?'"-Imran SiddiquiComment
-
According to theOriginally posted by DuncanK
The number is 'annualized' not annual. I'm not exactly sure what that means
BEA GDP was $9,485.6bn in the 3rd quarter and $9,519.5bn in the 4th (seasonally adjusted at an annual rate and at constant 1996 prices) - a rise of 0.36% on the quarter.
Annualized growth is what would happen if that 0.36% happened for four quarters (i.e. a for a year) - that equates to the 1.4% you have seen quoted.
GDP in the 4th quarter of 2002 was 2.9% higher than in the 4th quarter of 2001.
GDP in 2002 (the total for the whole year) was 2.4% higher than in 2001.
I hope this enlightens you as to what is meant by the various ways of measuring the growth in GDP.
That said please remember that is is a first estimate of GDP growth for the year as a whole and in previous years the first estimate has been revised down substantially.
Year, 1st estimate of growth, estimate after 1 year, estimate after 2 years
1999: 4.4%, 4.1%, 4.1%
2000: 5.0%, 4.1%, 3.8%
2001: 1.1%, 0.3%
2002: 2.4%Last edited by el freako; February 28, 2003, 17:18.19th Century Liberal, 21st Century EuropeanComment
Comment