3.7 GDP Growth

[sparky]

Don't we have to consider GND as a component of GDP?

National Debt vs GDP | Visual.ly

~S~

 

[Norman]

Not only was the economy stagnant under Hussein but he was the only president in history not to see 3% GDP growth. Why do lefties still hate Trump?

Obama saw more quarters of 4% GDP growth than Tramp has 3% quarters.

He NEVER had a 4%+ quarter. Top was 3.8. Graph confirms it.

LOL

Your graph is annualized, not quarterly, how can you lucidly claim it doesn’t show a quarter over 4% when it’s showing annual data, not quarterly data?

You lose again because you are a loser.

The moron who thinks he is schooling someone while not knowing the basics strikes again.

Hey moron, annualized data IS quarterly data, which is why the data is changing multiple (four) times on any given year. Instead of comparing the growth to the same quarter of last year, it compares the growth with that of the last quarter.

This guy is the kind of moron that thankfully I don't have to deal with in my real life. The reason for his leftisim is squarely his loserdom. Attempting to teach others while being squarel clueless, I bet he is one of those smug liberal teachers.

It's ONLY you who doesn't understand what annualized or annual means, or can read (your own) graphs for that matter. Classic leftist projection of the day.

 

[Faun]

The Obama economy was shit, not a single year of 3% growth... a disaster.

Trump will have a difficult time dealing with all the damage that was done. Not only of Obama's of course, but the damage that has been caused by the leftist control over the past 100 years.

Unfortunately I don't believe even Trump can pull this off. With 150 trillion of liabilities arranged by the crazed short term thinking leftists who simply do not care about tomorrow... when the tomorrow comes there is not much that can be done.

Liar.

Obama did have a year over 3%...

And which year would that be?

Oh none of the calendar years, which is why you are giving me a line chart instead of actual yearly figures.

What a moron.

Nah, the moron is the one who can't read, "US GDP ANNUAL GROWTH RATE" at the top of that chart...

You do know what "annual" means, don'tcha?

Yes, it means how much the GDP grew from the same period last year.

And as you can see from your own graph, at no point does it exceed 3 % year on year on any given calendar year. How about printing out the actual yearly figures? Oh you won't because you are still thinking I am talking about quarters. Again, which year of Obama's exceeded 3% growth? You can't answer because you are a complete moron.

By the way, when talking about quarters it should be the default to talk about the annualized rate to make the comparison only dependent on the given quarter. You are self owning yourself pretty hard here, no matter who you are talking to.

What an idiot you are, eh? Here's what you said (before changing what you said)....

"The Obama economy was shit, not a single year of 3% growth... a disaster."​

4 consecutive quarters equals a single year. It need not be a calendar year to be a year. You obviously realized what a moron you were for idiotically claiming there was "not a single year of 3% growth" under Obama since you quickly changed your claim from there was not a single year of 3% growth to there was not a single calendar year of 3% growth.

And as you were shown, there indeed was a year exceeding 3% growth...

 

[Norman]

The Obama economy was shit, not a single year of 3% growth... a disaster.

Trump will have a difficult time dealing with all the damage that was done. Not only of Obama's of course, but the damage that has been caused by the leftist control over the past 100 years.

Unfortunately I don't believe even Trump can pull this off. With 150 trillion of liabilities arranged by the crazed short term thinking leftists who simply do not care about tomorrow... when the tomorrow comes there is not much that can be done.

Liar.

Obama did have a year over 3%...

And which year would that be?

Oh none of the calendar years, which is why you are giving me a line chart instead of actual yearly figures.

What a moron.

Nah, the moron is the one who can't read, "US GDP ANNUAL GROWTH RATE" at the top of that chart...

You do know what "annual" means, don'tcha?

Yes, it means how much the GDP grew from the same period last year.

And as you can see from your own graph, at no point does it exceed 3 % year on year on any given calendar year. How about printing out the actual yearly figures? Oh you won't because you are still thinking I am talking about quarters. Again, which year of Obama's exceeded 3% growth? You can't answer because you are a complete moron.

By the way, when talking about quarters it should be the default to talk about the annualized rate to make the comparison only dependent on the given quarter. You are self owning yourself pretty hard here, no matter who you are talking to.

What an idiot you are, eh? Here's what you said (before changing what you said)....

"The Obama economy was shit, not a single year of 3% growth... a disaster."​

4 consecutive quarters equals a single year. It need not be a calendar year to be a year. You obviously realized what a moron you were for idiotically claiming there was "not a single year of 3% growth" under Obama since you quickly changed your claim from there was not a single year of 3% growth to there was not a single calendar year of 3% growth.

And as you were shown, there indeed was a year exceeding 3% growth...

Except I was obviously talking about calendar years. And when I explained that to you you didn't give this response, which is just more evidence that you are pulling everything out of your ass. Indeed I didn't lie anywhere as I obviously was talking about calendar years, even an idiot would have successfully put that together.

An idiot would have also figured out that annualized data is quarterly data when looking at a chart with data for different quarters in it. He would have also admitted that the Obama growth rate was shit when looking at such graph, and contrasting it with the times when America was great and without extreme leftism. Sadly you are far below an idiot's level of intellect.

 

[Faun]

Liar.

Obama did have a year over 3%...

And which year would that be?

Oh none of the calendar years, which is why you are giving me a line chart instead of actual yearly figures.

What a moron.

Nah, the moron is the one who can't read, "US GDP ANNUAL GROWTH RATE" at the top of that chart...

You do know what "annual" means, don'tcha?

Yes, it means how much the GDP grew from the same period last year.

And as you can see from your own graph, at no point does it exceed 3 % year on year on any given calendar year. How about printing out the actual yearly figures? Oh you won't because you are still thinking I am talking about quarters. Again, which year of Obama's exceeded 3% growth? You can't answer because you are a complete moron.

By the way, when talking about quarters it should be the default to talk about the annualized rate to make the comparison only dependent on the given quarter. You are self owning yourself pretty hard here, no matter who you are talking to.

What an idiot you are, eh? Here's what you said (before changing what you said)....

"The Obama economy was shit, not a single year of 3% growth... a disaster."​

4 consecutive quarters equals a single year. It need not be a calendar year to be a year. You obviously realized what a moron you were for idiotically claiming there was "not a single year of 3% growth" under Obama since you quickly changed your claim from there was not a single year of 3% growth to there was not a single calendar year of 3% growth.

And as you were shown, there indeed was a year exceeding 3% growth...

Except I was obviously talking about calendar years. And when I explained that to you you didn't give this response, which is just more evidence that you are pulling everything out of your ass. Indeed I didn't lie anywhere as I obviously was talking about calendar years, even an idiot would have successfully put that together.

An idiot would have also figured out that annualized data is quarterly data when looking at a chart with data for different quarters in it. He would have also admitted that the Obama growth rate was shit when looking at such graph, and contrasting it with the times when America was great and without extreme leftism. Sadly you are far below an idiot's level of intellect.

Again, 4 consecutive quarters equals a single year.

And you're lying when you say I didn't explain this to you as I showed you the chart which clearly shows there actually was a year with GDP over 3%, despite your bullshit that there wasn't.

And the chart protectionist posted was annual data. It says so right on the chart.

 

[Norman]

And which year would that be?

Oh none of the calendar years, which is why you are giving me a line chart instead of actual yearly figures.

What a moron.

Nah, the moron is the one who can't read, "US GDP ANNUAL GROWTH RATE" at the top of that chart...

You do know what "annual" means, don'tcha?

Yes, it means how much the GDP grew from the same period last year.

And as you can see from your own graph, at no point does it exceed 3 % year on year on any given calendar year. How about printing out the actual yearly figures? Oh you won't because you are still thinking I am talking about quarters. Again, which year of Obama's exceeded 3% growth? You can't answer because you are a complete moron.

By the way, when talking about quarters it should be the default to talk about the annualized rate to make the comparison only dependent on the given quarter. You are self owning yourself pretty hard here, no matter who you are talking to.

What an idiot you are, eh? Here's what you said (before changing what you said)....

"The Obama economy was shit, not a single year of 3% growth... a disaster."​

4 consecutive quarters equals a single year. It need not be a calendar year to be a year. You obviously realized what a moron you were for idiotically claiming there was "not a single year of 3% growth" under Obama since you quickly changed your claim from there was not a single year of 3% growth to there was not a single calendar year of 3% growth.

And as you were shown, there indeed was a year exceeding 3% growth...

Except I was obviously talking about calendar years. And when I explained that to you you didn't give this response, which is just more evidence that you are pulling everything out of your ass. Indeed I didn't lie anywhere as I obviously was talking about calendar years, even an idiot would have successfully put that together.

An idiot would have also figured out that annualized data is quarterly data when looking at a chart with data for different quarters in it. He would have also admitted that the Obama growth rate was shit when looking at such graph, and contrasting it with the times when America was great and without extreme leftism. Sadly you are far below an idiot's level of intellect.

Again, 4 consecutive quarters equals a single year.

And you're lying when you say I didn't explain this to you as I showed you the chart which clearly shows there actually was a year with GDP over 3%, despite your bullshit that there wasn't.

And the chart protectionist posted was annual data. It says so right on the chart.

I was talking about calendar years, as is everyone who works in economics and uses the term "year". In fact, you would need to specify if you weren't taking about calendar years, it is implied. The year could otherwise refer to anything, including interpolated year from the graph.

It's only your problem if you can't understand the far more effective syntax of others. For morons such as yourself we would of course need to define every term rigorously as if writing a formal math proof, and even then they would not understand. However, in that specific quote I was not talking to you but the readers who still have an IQ of above 70 (given that America has not been transformed into a 3rd world nation yet).

 

[Faun]

Nah, the moron is the one who can't read, "US GDP ANNUAL GROWTH RATE" at the top of that chart...

You do know what "annual" means, don'tcha?

Yes, it means how much the GDP grew from the same period last year.

And as you can see from your own graph, at no point does it exceed 3 % year on year on any given calendar year. How about printing out the actual yearly figures? Oh you won't because you are still thinking I am talking about quarters. Again, which year of Obama's exceeded 3% growth? You can't answer because you are a complete moron.

By the way, when talking about quarters it should be the default to talk about the annualized rate to make the comparison only dependent on the given quarter. You are self owning yourself pretty hard here, no matter who you are talking to.

What an idiot you are, eh? Here's what you said (before changing what you said)....

"The Obama economy was shit, not a single year of 3% growth... a disaster."​

4 consecutive quarters equals a single year. It need not be a calendar year to be a year. You obviously realized what a moron you were for idiotically claiming there was "not a single year of 3% growth" under Obama since you quickly changed your claim from there was not a single year of 3% growth to there was not a single calendar year of 3% growth.

And as you were shown, there indeed was a year exceeding 3% growth...

Except I was obviously talking about calendar years. And when I explained that to you you didn't give this response, which is just more evidence that you are pulling everything out of your ass. Indeed I didn't lie anywhere as I obviously was talking about calendar years, even an idiot would have successfully put that together.

An idiot would have also figured out that annualized data is quarterly data when looking at a chart with data for different quarters in it. He would have also admitted that the Obama growth rate was shit when looking at such graph, and contrasting it with the times when America was great and without extreme leftism. Sadly you are far below an idiot's level of intellect.

Again, 4 consecutive quarters equals a single year.

And you're lying when you say I didn't explain this to you as I showed you the chart which clearly shows there actually was a year with GDP over 3%, despite your bullshit that there wasn't.

And the chart protectionist posted was annual data. It says so right on the chart.

I was talking about calendar year, as is everyone who works in economics and uses the term "year". In fact, you would need to specify if you weren't taking about calendar years, it is implied.

It's only your problem if you can't understand the far more effective syntax of others. For morons such as yourself we would of course need to define every term rigorously as if writing a formal math proof, and even then they would not understand. However, in that specific quote I was not talking to you but the readers who still have an IQ of above 70 (given that America has not been transformed into a 3rd world nation yet).

Moron.... there is no such restriction on GDP to constrain it to a calendar year.

It's a lie to claim there was not a single year where GDP didn't grow more than 3%, as evidenced by this chart...

 

[Norman]

Yes, it means how much the GDP grew from the same period last year.

And as you can see from your own graph, at no point does it exceed 3 % year on year on any given calendar year. How about printing out the actual yearly figures? Oh you won't because you are still thinking I am talking about quarters. Again, which year of Obama's exceeded 3% growth? You can't answer because you are a complete moron.

By the way, when talking about quarters it should be the default to talk about the annualized rate to make the comparison only dependent on the given quarter. You are self owning yourself pretty hard here, no matter who you are talking to.

What an idiot you are, eh? Here's what you said (before changing what you said)....

"The Obama economy was shit, not a single year of 3% growth... a disaster."​

4 consecutive quarters equals a single year. It need not be a calendar year to be a year. You obviously realized what a moron you were for idiotically claiming there was "not a single year of 3% growth" under Obama since you quickly changed your claim from there was not a single year of 3% growth to there was not a single calendar year of 3% growth.

And as you were shown, there indeed was a year exceeding 3% growth...

Except I was obviously talking about calendar years. And when I explained that to you you didn't give this response, which is just more evidence that you are pulling everything out of your ass. Indeed I didn't lie anywhere as I obviously was talking about calendar years, even an idiot would have successfully put that together.

An idiot would have also figured out that annualized data is quarterly data when looking at a chart with data for different quarters in it. He would have also admitted that the Obama growth rate was shit when looking at such graph, and contrasting it with the times when America was great and without extreme leftism. Sadly you are far below an idiot's level of intellect.

Again, 4 consecutive quarters equals a single year.

And you're lying when you say I didn't explain this to you as I showed you the chart which clearly shows there actually was a year with GDP over 3%, despite your bullshit that there wasn't.

And the chart protectionist posted was annual data. It says so right on the chart.

I was talking about calendar year, as is everyone who works in economics and uses the term "year". In fact, you would need to specify if you weren't taking about calendar years, it is implied.

It's only your problem if you can't understand the far more effective syntax of others. For morons such as yourself we would of course need to define every term rigorously as if writing a formal math proof, and even then they would not understand. However, in that specific quote I was not talking to you but the readers who still have an IQ of above 70 (given that America has not been transformed into a 3rd world nation yet).

Moron.... there is no such restriction on GDP to constrain it to a calendar year.

It's a lie to claim there was not a single year where GDP didn't grow more than 3%, as evidenced by this chart...

Again, I was talking about calendar years, which is implied when one says "year".

Do you need help from a dictionary?

year
jɪə,jəː/
noun

1. 1.
   the time taken by the earth to make one revolution around the sun.
2. 2.
   the period of 365 days (or 366 days in leap years) starting from the first of January, used for reckoning time in ordinary circumstances

There is the rigorous definition, others understood it the first time but...

I can't believe this guy's IQ each time I overestimate it, it must be very very low. If he admitted that he was talking out of his ass the whole time, perhaps there could be something to be salvaged.

 

[edthecynic]

Just like a typical conservative -- keep lying even after getting caught.

Again, there were 8 quarters of real GDP growth under Obama according to the BEA...

https://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdpchg.xlsx

2009Q4 3.9
2010Q2 3.9
2011Q4 4.6
2013Q3 3.1
2013Q4 4.0
2014Q2 4.6
2014Q3 5.2
2015Q1 3.2

Why would anyone accept your bullshit over the BEA's actual figures?

They shouldn't accept other than BEA figures (like your imposter figures). MIne are BEA, and clearly signed . You lost this thing 3 days ago, when I posted the true BEA figures. Here they are again >>

As anyone can plainly see your joke, unsigned numbers that you pulled out of your ass, don't match up with this official BEA graph. You claimed 2 quarters of 2014 having 4.6 and 5.2 rates. NOPE! The BEA says otherwise. Graph shows highest rate in 2014 was only 3.2. Other 2014 quarters were even lower (2.7 and 1.7). Your post is just as FAKE as your lying, moronic signature, that everyone knows was just another Hillary scam.

Here is your exact same ANNUAL GDP graph extended forward to Tramp's annual GDP, and as you can see Tramp has had NONE over 3%. Now to counter that truth, you will switch from the ANNUAL GDP to the QUARTERLY GDP graph, and when you do I will extend THAT graph back to Obama and it will show quarters of 4.6% and 5.2%.

For all who want to reproduce what I did, go to this link
United States GDP Annual Growth Rate | 1948-2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar
If you look under the graph the left icon is a calendar which allows you to set the beginning and end of any graph, the icon to the right of MAX allows you to set columns or a line and to the right of the graph under GDP you can change the graph from "GDP annual growth rate," the second one down, to "GDP growth rate," which is the quarterly graph and is the twelfth one down just below "GDP from utilities."

 

[Faun]

What an idiot you are, eh? Here's what you said (before changing what you said)....

"The Obama economy was shit, not a single year of 3% growth... a disaster."​

4 consecutive quarters equals a single year. It need not be a calendar year to be a year. You obviously realized what a moron you were for idiotically claiming there was "not a single year of 3% growth" under Obama since you quickly changed your claim from there was not a single year of 3% growth to there was not a single calendar year of 3% growth.

And as you were shown, there indeed was a year exceeding 3% growth...

Except I was obviously talking about calendar years. And when I explained that to you you didn't give this response, which is just more evidence that you are pulling everything out of your ass. Indeed I didn't lie anywhere as I obviously was talking about calendar years, even an idiot would have successfully put that together.

An idiot would have also figured out that annualized data is quarterly data when looking at a chart with data for different quarters in it. He would have also admitted that the Obama growth rate was shit when looking at such graph, and contrasting it with the times when America was great and without extreme leftism. Sadly you are far below an idiot's level of intellect.

Again, 4 consecutive quarters equals a single year.

And you're lying when you say I didn't explain this to you as I showed you the chart which clearly shows there actually was a year with GDP over 3%, despite your bullshit that there wasn't.

And the chart protectionist posted was annual data. It says so right on the chart.

I was talking about calendar year, as is everyone who works in economics and uses the term "year". In fact, you would need to specify if you weren't taking about calendar years, it is implied.

It's only your problem if you can't understand the far more effective syntax of others. For morons such as yourself we would of course need to define every term rigorously as if writing a formal math proof, and even then they would not understand. However, in that specific quote I was not talking to you but the readers who still have an IQ of above 70 (given that America has not been transformed into a 3rd world nation yet).

Moron.... there is no such restriction on GDP to constrain it to a calendar year.

It's a lie to claim there was not a single year where GDP didn't grow more than 3%, as evidenced by this chart...

Again, I was talking about calendar years, which is implied when one says "year".

Do you need help from a dictionary?

year
jɪə,jəː/
noun

1. 1.
   the time taken by the earth to make one revolution around the sun.
2. 2.
   the period of 365 days (or 366 days in leap years) starting from the first of January, used for reckoning time in ordinary circumstances

I can't believe this guy's IQ each time I overestimate it, it must be very very low.

LOL

Moron.... a year is 365¼ days from any date. In terms of GDP, it's calculated every quarter and any 4 consecutive quarters equals a year.

So yes, it's still a lie when you falsely claimed there was never a single year of growth under Obama -- since there was...

 

[Norman]

Except I was obviously talking about calendar years. And when I explained that to you you didn't give this response, which is just more evidence that you are pulling everything out of your ass. Indeed I didn't lie anywhere as I obviously was talking about calendar years, even an idiot would have successfully put that together.

An idiot would have also figured out that annualized data is quarterly data when looking at a chart with data for different quarters in it. He would have also admitted that the Obama growth rate was shit when looking at such graph, and contrasting it with the times when America was great and without extreme leftism. Sadly you are far below an idiot's level of intellect.

Again, 4 consecutive quarters equals a single year.

And you're lying when you say I didn't explain this to you as I showed you the chart which clearly shows there actually was a year with GDP over 3%, despite your bullshit that there wasn't.

And the chart protectionist posted was annual data. It says so right on the chart.

I was talking about calendar year, as is everyone who works in economics and uses the term "year". In fact, you would need to specify if you weren't taking about calendar years, it is implied.

It's only your problem if you can't understand the far more effective syntax of others. For morons such as yourself we would of course need to define every term rigorously as if writing a formal math proof, and even then they would not understand. However, in that specific quote I was not talking to you but the readers who still have an IQ of above 70 (given that America has not been transformed into a 3rd world nation yet).

Moron.... there is no such restriction on GDP to constrain it to a calendar year.

It's a lie to claim there was not a single year where GDP didn't grow more than 3%, as evidenced by this chart...

Again, I was talking about calendar years, which is implied when one says "year".

Do you need help from a dictionary?

year
jɪə,jəː/
noun

1. 1.
   the time taken by the earth to make one revolution around the sun.
2. 2.
   the period of 365 days (or 366 days in leap years) starting from the first of January, used for reckoning time in ordinary circumstances

I can't believe this guy's IQ each time I overestimate it, it must be very very low.

LOL

Moron.... a year is 365¼ days from any date. In terms of GDP, it's calculated every quarter and any 4 consecutive quarters equals a year.

So yes, it's still a lie when you falsely claimed there was never a single year of growth under Obama -- since there was...

You are so thick that you can't even understand the definition of a year. I think at this point you have lost the argument (in fact you lost it in our first idiotic post but whatever).

Shall we try once more? Marriam webster this time...

Definition of year
2: a cycle in the Gregorian calendar of 365 or 366 days divided into 12 months beginning with January and ending with December
Definition of YEAR

Once you start arguing with the dictionary over extremely simple concepts, you have not only lost but self identified as a complete moron.

 

[edthecynic]

The Obama economy was shit, not a single year of 3% growth... a disaster.

Trump will have a difficult time dealing with all the damage that was done. Not only of Obama's of course, but the damage that has been caused by the leftist control over the past 100 years.

Unfortunately I don't believe even Trump can pull this off. With 150 trillion of liabilities arranged by the crazed short term thinking leftists who simply do not care about tomorrow... when the tomorrow comes there is not much that can be done.

Liar.

Obama did have a year over 3%...

And which year would that be?

Oh none of the calendar years, which is why you are giving me a line chart instead of actual yearly figures.

What a moron.

OK here is the same annual graph showing columns instead of a line.

As you can clearly see the year ending in Q3 of 2010 was over 3% growth, the year ending in Q3 of 2014 was over 3% growth, the year ending in Q1 of 2015 was over 3% growth, and the year ending in Q2 of 2015 was over 3% growth.

 

[Norman]

The Obama economy was shit, not a single year of 3% growth... a disaster.

Trump will have a difficult time dealing with all the damage that was done. Not only of Obama's of course, but the damage that has been caused by the leftist control over the past 100 years.

Unfortunately I don't believe even Trump can pull this off. With 150 trillion of liabilities arranged by the crazed short term thinking leftists who simply do not care about tomorrow... when the tomorrow comes there is not much that can be done.

Liar.

Obama did have a year over 3%...

And which year would that be?

Oh none of the calendar years, which is why you are giving me a line chart instead of actual yearly figures.

What a moron.

OK here is the same annual graph showing columns instead of a line.

As you can clearly see the year ending in Q3 of 2010 was over 3% growth, the year ending in Q3 of 2014 was over 3% growth, the year ending in Q1 of 2015 was over 3% growth, and the year ending in Q2 of 2015 was over 3% growth.

Thank you.

As you can easily see, none of the calendar years top 3%. It was already obvious from the line chart once looking at it close enough. I referred to yearly growth, not quarterly growth, which is why I used the term "year".

The chart is a disaster when contrasting to times when America was great. This will continue, even if Trump is certainly a positive influence. The west is in decline.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

More fake news...here is the GDP growth for the last year..

View attachment 193010

You contradicted yourself. I posted this same chart a few times. It shows what eagle said >> economy growing under Trump (Correct)

The 1.2% is what Obama left office with in Jan 2017, after his GDP rate FELL from 2.8 to 1.8, to 1.2.

Trump got credit for the market during the time from Jan to Apr 2017, he gets credit for the GDP as well.

And then Trump dropped it to 2.3.

After that, Trump brought it up to 3.2.

And then Trump dropped it to 2.3.

 

[edthecynic]

The Obama economy was shit, not a single year of 3% growth... a disaster.

Trump will have a difficult time dealing with all the damage that was done. Not only of Obama's of course, but the damage that has been caused by the leftist control over the past 100 years.

Unfortunately I don't believe even Trump can pull this off. With 150 trillion of liabilities arranged by the crazed short term thinking leftists who simply do not care about tomorrow... when the tomorrow comes there is not much that can be done.

Liar.

Obama did have a year over 3%...

And which year would that be?

Oh none of the calendar years, which is why you are giving me a line chart instead of actual yearly figures.

What a moron.

OK here is the same annual graph showing columns instead of a line.

As you can clearly see the year ending in Q3 of 2010 was over 3% growth, the year ending in Q3 of 2014 was over 3% growth, the year ending in Q1 of 2015 was over 3% growth, and the year ending in Q2 of 2015 was over 3% growth.

Thank you.

As you can easily see, none of the calendar years top 3%. It was already obvious from the line chart once looking at it close enough. I referred to yearly growth, not annual quarterly growth, which is why I used the term "year".

The chart is a disaster when contrasting to times when America was great. This will continue, even if Trump is certainly a positive influence. The west is in decline.

Now you are just being stubborn, a "year" is 4 consecutive quarters, and my chart clearly shows 4 consecutive quarters of 3% growth.

 

[Norman]

The Obama economy was shit, not a single year of 3% growth... a disaster.

Trump will have a difficult time dealing with all the damage that was done. Not only of Obama's of course, but the damage that has been caused by the leftist control over the past 100 years.

Unfortunately I don't believe even Trump can pull this off. With 150 trillion of liabilities arranged by the crazed short term thinking leftists who simply do not care about tomorrow... when the tomorrow comes there is not much that can be done.

Liar.

Obama did have a year over 3%...

And which year would that be?

Oh none of the calendar years, which is why you are giving me a line chart instead of actual yearly figures.

What a moron.

OK here is the same annual graph showing columns instead of a line.

As you can clearly see the year ending in Q3 of 2010 was over 3% growth, the year ending in Q3 of 2014 was over 3% growth, the year ending in Q1 of 2015 was over 3% growth, and the year ending in Q2 of 2015 was over 3% growth.

Thank you.

As you can easily see, none of the calendar years top 3%. It was already obvious from the line chart once looking at it close enough. I referred to yearly growth, not annual quarterly growth, which is why I used the term "year".

The chart is a disaster when contrasting to times when America was great. This will continue, even if Trump is certainly a positive influence. The west is in decline.

Now you are just being stubborn, a "year" is 4 consecutive quarters, and my chart clearly shows 4 consecutive quarters of 3% growth.

A year is a year, and a quarter is a quarter. What you are showing is a quarter., which is why you have to specify "Q3 2015", and not "2015". Yes there were quarters with higher than 3% growth.

I am using the definition of year that is generally always used in economics, the one starting from 1st January. I already posted the definition straight from the dictionary so feel free to argue with that. There already is a word for quarter so...

In any case after pages worth of posts it should be clear what I am referring to. Even if my general point had much more to do with how bad the numbers are. The ultimate loser Faun of course has to get stuck on minor details and even own himself at that... Resembles taking a shit on the debate table.

 

[Faun]

Again, 4 consecutive quarters equals a single year.

And you're lying when you say I didn't explain this to you as I showed you the chart which clearly shows there actually was a year with GDP over 3%, despite your bullshit that there wasn't.

And the chart protectionist posted was annual data. It says so right on the chart.

I was talking about calendar year, as is everyone who works in economics and uses the term "year". In fact, you would need to specify if you weren't taking about calendar years, it is implied.

It's only your problem if you can't understand the far more effective syntax of others. For morons such as yourself we would of course need to define every term rigorously as if writing a formal math proof, and even then they would not understand. However, in that specific quote I was not talking to you but the readers who still have an IQ of above 70 (given that America has not been transformed into a 3rd world nation yet).

Moron.... there is no such restriction on GDP to constrain it to a calendar year.

It's a lie to claim there was not a single year where GDP didn't grow more than 3%, as evidenced by this chart...

Again, I was talking about calendar years, which is implied when one says "year".

Do you need help from a dictionary?

year
jɪə,jəː/
noun

1. 1.
   the time taken by the earth to make one revolution around the sun.
2. 2.
   the period of 365 days (or 366 days in leap years) starting from the first of January, used for reckoning time in ordinary circumstances

I can't believe this guy's IQ each time I overestimate it, it must be very very low.

LOL

Moron.... a year is 365¼ days from any date. In terms of GDP, it's calculated every quarter and any 4 consecutive quarters equals a year.

So yes, it's still a lie when you falsely claimed there was never a single year of growth under Obama -- since there was...

You are so thick that you can't even understand the definition of a year. I think at this point you have lost the argument (in fact you lost it in our first idiotic post but whatever).

Shall we try once more? Marriam webster this time...

Definition of year
2: a cycle in the Gregorian calendar of 365 or 366 days divided into 12 months beginning with January and ending with December
Definition of YEAR

Once you start arguing with the dictionary over extremely simple concepts, you have not only lost but self identified as a complete moron.

Holyfuckingshit!

You're actually showing the definition of the Gregorian calendar as evidence the Gregorian calendar runs from January 1st through December 31st.



Moron .... so what? Our fiscal calendar runs from October 1st through September 30th.

A single year is still any 4 consecutive quarters.

So stop lying with your bullshit that Obama never had a single year where GDP didn't grow more than 3%....

 

[edthecynic]

Liar.

Obama did have a year over 3%...

And which year would that be?

Oh none of the calendar years, which is why you are giving me a line chart instead of actual yearly figures.

What a moron.

OK here is the same annual graph showing columns instead of a line.

As you can clearly see the year ending in Q3 of 2010 was over 3% growth, the year ending in Q3 of 2014 was over 3% growth, the year ending in Q1 of 2015 was over 3% growth, and the year ending in Q2 of 2015 was over 3% growth.

Thank you.

As you can easily see, none of the calendar years top 3%. It was already obvious from the line chart once looking at it close enough. I referred to yearly growth, not annual quarterly growth, which is why I used the term "year".

The chart is a disaster when contrasting to times when America was great. This will continue, even if Trump is certainly a positive influence. The west is in decline.

Now you are just being stubborn, a "year" is 4 consecutive quarters, and my chart clearly shows 4 consecutive quarters of 3% growth.

A year is a year, and a quarter is a quarter. What you are showing is a quarter., which is why you have to specify "Q3 2015", and not "2015". Yes there were quarters with higher than 3% growth.

The Graph clearly says ANNUAL growth, and that is why I said the YEAR ending in Q3. You are using the same lying technique as protectionist.

Here is the quarterly graph for the same period and you can clearly see it is not the same as the annual graph with a quarter as high as 5.2%.

 

[Faun]

And which year would that be?

Oh none of the calendar years, which is why you are giving me a line chart instead of actual yearly figures.

What a moron.

OK here is the same annual graph showing columns instead of a line.

As you can clearly see the year ending in Q3 of 2010 was over 3% growth, the year ending in Q3 of 2014 was over 3% growth, the year ending in Q1 of 2015 was over 3% growth, and the year ending in Q2 of 2015 was over 3% growth.

Thank you.

As you can easily see, none of the calendar years top 3%. It was already obvious from the line chart once looking at it close enough. I referred to yearly growth, not annual quarterly growth, which is why I used the term "year".

The chart is a disaster when contrasting to times when America was great. This will continue, even if Trump is certainly a positive influence. The west is in decline.

Now you are just being stubborn, a "year" is 4 consecutive quarters, and my chart clearly shows 4 consecutive quarters of 3% growth.

A year is a year, and a quarter is a quarter. What you are showing is a quarter., which is why you have to specify "Q3 2015", and not "2015". Yes there were quarters with higher than 3% growth.

The Graph clearly says ANNUAL growth, and that is why I said the YEAR ending in Q3. You are using the same lying technique as protectionist.

Here is the quarterly graph for the same period and you can clearly see it is not the same as the annual graph with a quarter as high as 5.2%.

If these rightards didn't lie, they'd have nothing to post at all.

 

[Norman]

And which year would that be?

Oh none of the calendar years, which is why you are giving me a line chart instead of actual yearly figures.

What a moron.

OK here is the same annual graph showing columns instead of a line.

As you can clearly see the year ending in Q3 of 2010 was over 3% growth, the year ending in Q3 of 2014 was over 3% growth, the year ending in Q1 of 2015 was over 3% growth, and the year ending in Q2 of 2015 was over 3% growth.

Thank you.

As you can easily see, none of the calendar years top 3%. It was already obvious from the line chart once looking at it close enough. I referred to yearly growth, not annual quarterly growth, which is why I used the term "year".

The chart is a disaster when contrasting to times when America was great. This will continue, even if Trump is certainly a positive influence. The west is in decline.

Now you are just being stubborn, a "year" is 4 consecutive quarters, and my chart clearly shows 4 consecutive quarters of 3% growth.

A year is a year, and a quarter is a quarter. What you are showing is a quarter., which is why you have to specify "Q3 2015", and not "2015". Yes there were quarters with higher than 3% growth.

The Graph clearly says ANNUAL growth, and that is why I said the YEAR ending in Q3. You are using the same lying technique as protectionist.

Here is the quarterly graph for the same period and you can clearly see it is not the same as the annual graph with a quarter as high as 5.2%.

There are two types (or more) of quarterly graphs, neither of which is a yearly graph.

Yearly graph is of the form:

2010,
2011,
2012...

Again this is what I am referring to and what is generally referred to as well. Yes you could define year the way you did, but I do not use that definition as don't most people. What you are showing is quarterly growth the way economists would define it.