The ultimate vindication of Republican supply-side economics

[itfitzme]

The Heritage Foundation's failure of prediction So what? Yeah, that single paper was terrible.

"Besides, it wasn't important anyways."

What's your point?

"English is a second language"

the objective is ..to keep money in the hands of those who earned and can invest it wisely and sustainabley to boost the economy. Yes, not all income tax cuts are supply side income tax cuts . Bush's 2003 supply side tax are, for example, the ones that worked. Cap gains works, etc.

Wilson, D.; William Beach (2001-04-27). "The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan". - The Heritage Foundation.

The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan.

"The analysis in this CDA Report is often called a dynamic or behavioral analysis. Dynamic tax analysis attempts to capture the many ways that taxpayer behavior changes following a significant tax policy change. For example, dramatic decreases in the taxes on labor or capital will cause more labor or capital to be employed in productive activities. A business owner who knows that his or her own labor will be taxed less may work more; a non-employed spouse may seek work outside the home once the taxes on labor fall. Overall, additional labor or capital can spur the economy to higher levels of output, which causes a growth in tax revenues as a result of the expansion of the tax base."

"Under President Bush's plan, an average family of four's inflation-adjusted disposable income would increase by $4,544 in fiscal year (FY) 2011, and the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010."

They raised GDP and brought us out of recession. Using Obamabot logic, Bush's tax cuts saved us from another Great Depression.
United States GDP Growth Rate

Your "graph" is a meaningless jumble of crap. Lying through diagrams is still lying.

"the GDP data is a lie."

Back when the discussion was about the 2001 & 2003 Bush Tax cuts, it was discovered that their seminal work, on the effects of the 2001 tax cuts, was completely wrong. In this thread they because a useless source. .

Would someone translate this statement into English for me? I don't speak Moron.

"English is a second language"

Heritage was not wrong.

"Under President Bush's plan, an average family of four's inflation-adjusted disposable income would increase by $4,544 in fiscal year (FY) 2011, and the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010."

Gee, I guess I don't have a point. Not one written in English, anyways.

Companies don't take tax rates into consideration when they open factories. Excess regulations never hurt businesses. That's why California's high rates have helped the state. That's why the recent increase in Illinois business taxes has caused businesses to rush into the state to create new jobs. And they paid off the Illinois budget deficit too.

"A business owner who knows that his or her own labor will be taxed less may work more; a non-employed spouse may seek work outside the home once the taxes on labor fall." - Heritage Foundation

What's your point?

Good comeback.

Did you not read any of the comments in the thread, or are you unable to remember? Is that it?

Still stoned? Cuz man, that photo.....

 

[editec]

You supply sider economic pilicies crashed the economy.

You can spin this till you're dizzy but the fact remains that your Randian economic theories sucked great big wankers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Heritage Foundation's failure of prediction So what? Yeah, that single paper was terrible.

"Besides, it wasn't important anyways."

Wilson, D.; William Beach (2001-04-27). "The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan". - The Heritage Foundation.

The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan.

"The analysis in this CDA Report is often called a dynamic or behavioral analysis. Dynamic tax analysis attempts to capture the many ways that taxpayer behavior changes following a significant tax policy change. For example, dramatic decreases in the taxes on labor or capital will cause more labor or capital to be employed in productive activities. A business owner who knows that his or her own labor will be taxed less may work more; a non-employed spouse may seek work outside the home once the taxes on labor fall. Overall, additional labor or capital can spur the economy to higher levels of output, which causes a growth in tax revenues as a result of the expansion of the tax base."

"Under President Bush's plan, an average family of four's inflation-adjusted disposable income would increase by $4,544 in fiscal year (FY) 2011, and the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010."



















Gee, I guess I don't have a point. Not one written in English, anyways.

Companies don't take tax rates into consideration when they open factories. Excess regulations never hurt businesses. That's why California's high rates have helped the state. That's why the recent increase in Illinois business taxes has caused businesses to rush into the state to create new jobs. And they paid off the Illinois budget deficit too.

"A business owner who knows that his or her own labor will be taxed less may work more; a non-employed spouse may seek work outside the home once the taxes on labor fall." - Heritage Foundation

What's your point?

Good comeback.

Did you not read any of the comments in the thread, or are you unable to remember? Is that it?

Still stoned? Cuz man, that photo.....

I think lower taxes stimulate the economy.

Do you think higher taxes stimulate the economy?

Bush spent way too much, Obama spends more.

I think we need to reduce government spending.

That photo isn't me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Heritage Foundation's failure of prediction So what? Yeah, that single paper was terrible.

"Besides, it wasn't important anyways."

Wilson, D.; William Beach (2001-04-27). "The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan". - The Heritage Foundation.

The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan.

"The analysis in this CDA Report is often called a dynamic or behavioral analysis. Dynamic tax analysis attempts to capture the many ways that taxpayer behavior changes following a significant tax policy change. For example, dramatic decreases in the taxes on labor or capital will cause more labor or capital to be employed in productive activities. A business owner who knows that his or her own labor will be taxed less may work more; a non-employed spouse may seek work outside the home once the taxes on labor fall. Overall, additional labor or capital can spur the economy to higher levels of output, which causes a growth in tax revenues as a result of the expansion of the tax base."

"Under President Bush's plan, an average family of four's inflation-adjusted disposable income would increase by $4,544 in fiscal year (FY) 2011, and the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010."



















Gee, I guess I don't have a point. Not one written in English, anyways.

Companies don't take tax rates into consideration when they open factories. Excess regulations never hurt businesses. That's why California's high rates have helped the state. That's why the recent increase in Illinois business taxes has caused businesses to rush into the state to create new jobs. And they paid off the Illinois budget deficit too.

"A business owner who knows that his or her own labor will be taxed less may work more; a non-employed spouse may seek work outside the home once the taxes on labor fall." - Heritage Foundation

What's your point?

Good comeback.

Did you not read any of the comments in the thread, or are you unable to remember? Is that it?

Still stoned? Cuz man, that photo.....

I don't know where you got the data for your chart, but it doesn't look very accurate.
real GDP grew 6.7% in 2003 Q3.

 

[DSGE]

The Heritage Foundation's failure of prediction So what? Yeah, that single paper was terrible.

Wilson, D.; William Beach (2001-04-27). "The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan". - The Heritage Foundation.

The Economic Impact of President Bush's Tax Relief Plan.

"The analysis in this CDA Report is often called a dynamic or behavioral analysis. Dynamic tax analysis attempts to capture the many ways that taxpayer behavior changes following a significant tax policy change. For example, dramatic decreases in the taxes on labor or capital will cause more labor or capital to be employed in productive activities. A business owner who knows that his or her own labor will be taxed less may work more; a non-employed spouse may seek work outside the home once the taxes on labor fall. Overall, additional labor or capital can spur the economy to higher levels of output, which causes a growth in tax revenues as a result of the expansion of the tax base."

"Under President Bush's plan, an average family of four's inflation-adjusted disposable income would increase by $4,544 in fiscal year (FY) 2011, and the national debt would effectively be paid off by FY 2010."



















Gee, I guess I don't have a point. Not one written in English, anyways.



"A business owner who knows that his or her own labor will be taxed less may work more; a non-employed spouse may seek work outside the home once the taxes on labor fall." - Heritage Foundation

What's your point?

Good comeback.

Did you not read any of the comments in the thread, or are you unable to remember? Is that it?

Still stoned? Cuz man, that photo.....

I think lower taxes stimulate the economy.

Do you think higher taxes stimulate the economy?

Bush spent way too much, Obama spends more.

I think we need to reduce government spending.

That photo isn't me.

Yeah I always thought it was like a super young Chevy Chase or something. Who is it?

 

[itfitzme]

I don't know where you got the data for your chart, but it doesn't look very accurate.
real GDP grew 6.7% in 2003 Q3.

Well, there you go then, that's the answer, the data is wrong...

Do you recognize this file name "gdplev.xls"?

Where do you suppose GDP data comes from? The GDP fairy?

Obviously you don't know where I got it. If you did, you would know that the GDP doesn't change by 6% in a quarter.

What is the difference between non-seasonally adjusted quarterly growth and seasonally adjusted annual rate?

What does "IN 2003 Q3" mean?
If it was 6% IN a quarter, how much would that be IN a year?

How about these numbers?

Quarter___GDP Cur___GDP Chained 2005
2002q1___ 10,498.7___11,467.1
2002q2___ 10,601.9___11,528.1
2002q3___ 10,701.7___11,586.6
2002q4___ 10,766.9___11,590.6
2003q1___ 10,887.4___11,638.9
2003q2___ 11,011.6___11,737.5
2003q3___ 11,255.1___11,930.7
2003q4___ 11,414.8___12,038.6
2004q1___ 11,589.9___12,117.9
2004q2___ 11,762.9___12,195.9
2004q3___ 11,936.3___12,286.7
2004q4___ 12,123.9___12,387.2

How would you use these to get 6% for 2003q3?
What is the quarterly change, from 2003Q2 to 2003Q3?

And lastly, so? What difference would it make?

but it doesn't look very accurate.

Well, there you go. Like I said, "the data lies". That's the answer. If you don't like the answer, then it must be a lie or the person is a moron. That's the answer.

What is the difference between "believe", "think" and "know"?

The question is, do you know or do you believe?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't know where you got the data for your chart, but it doesn't look very accurate.
real GDP grew 6.7% in 2003 Q3.

Well, there you go then, that's the answer, the data is wrong...

Do you recognize this file name "gdplev.xls"?

Where do you suppose GDP data comes from? The GDP fairy?

Obviously you don't know where I got it. If you did, you would know that the GDP doesn't change by 6% in a quarter.

What is the difference between non-seasonally adjusted quarterly growth and seasonally adjusted annual rate?

What does "IN 2003 Q3" mean?
If it was 6% IN a quarter, how much would that be IN a year?

How about these numbers?

Quarter___GDP Cur___GDP Chained 2005
2002q1___ 10,498.7___11,467.1
2002q2___ 10,601.9___11,528.1
2002q3___ 10,701.7___11,586.6
2002q4___ 10,766.9___11,590.6
2003q1___ 10,887.4___11,638.9
2003q2___ 11,011.6___11,737.5
2003q3___ 11,255.1___11,930.7
2003q4___ 11,414.8___12,038.6
2004q1___ 11,589.9___12,117.9
2004q2___ 11,762.9___12,195.9
2004q3___ 11,936.3___12,286.7
2004q4___ 12,123.9___12,387.2

How would you use these to get 6% for 2003q3?
What is the quarterly change, from 2003Q2 to 2003Q3?

And lastly, so? What difference would it make?

but it doesn't look very accurate.

Well, there you go. Like I said, "the data lies". That's the answer. If you don't like the answer, then it must be a lie or the person is a moron. That's the answer.

What is the difference between "believe", "think" and "know"?

The question is, do you know or do you believe?

Obviously you don't know where I got it.

I don't care where you got it. It says Quarterly GDP change. I know for a fact that GDP grew 6.7% in Q3 2003, after the second round of the Bush tax cuts.

If you did, you would know that the GDP doesn't change by 6% in a quarter.

Let me help you out.
2002 Q1 3.5%, Q2 2.1%, Q3 2.0%, Q4 0.1%
2003 Q1 1.7%, Q2 3.4%, Q3 6.7%, Q4 3.7%
2004 Q1 3.4$, Q2 0.0%, Q3 3.2%, Q4 4.4%
2005 Q1 4.6%, Q2 2.0%, Q3 1.6%, Q4 4.4%
2006 Q1 2.2%, Q2 2.0%, Q3 2.0%, Q4 5.3%

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1

Those numbers are from the BEA.


How would you use these to get 6% for 2003q3?

It involves math. I guess it's over your head.

What is the quarterly change, from 2003Q2 to 2003Q3?

Using the numbers you posted, about 6.56%

And lastly, so? What difference would it make?

6.7% is a lot more than the numbers shown on your chart.
It means your chart is wrong.

That's the answer. If you don't like the answer, then it must be a lie or the person is a moron. That's the answer.

Yeah, you're pretty much a moron. That's the answer.

 

[itfitzme]

Well, there you go then, that's the answer, the data is wrong...

Do you recognize this file name "gdplev.xls"?

Where do you suppose GDP data comes from? The GDP fairy?

Obviously you don't know where I got it. If you did, you would know that the GDP doesn't change by 6% in a quarter.

What is the difference between non-seasonally adjusted quarterly growth and seasonally adjusted annual rate?

What does "IN 2003 Q3" mean?
If it was 6% IN a quarter, how much would that be IN a year?

How about these numbers?

Quarter___GDP Cur___GDP Chained 2005
2002q1___ 10,498.7___11,467.1
2002q2___ 10,601.9___11,528.1
2002q3___ 10,701.7___11,586.6
2002q4___ 10,766.9___11,590.6
2003q1___ 10,887.4___11,638.9
2003q2___ 11,011.6___11,737.5
2003q3___ 11,255.1___11,930.7
2003q4___ 11,414.8___12,038.6
2004q1___ 11,589.9___12,117.9
2004q2___ 11,762.9___12,195.9
2004q3___ 11,936.3___12,286.7
2004q4___ 12,123.9___12,387.2

How would you use these to get 6% for 2003q3?
What is the quarterly change, from 2003Q2 to 2003Q3?

And lastly, so? What difference would it make?

but it doesn't look very accurate.

Well, there you go. Like I said, "the data lies". That's the answer. If you don't like the answer, then it must be a lie or the person is a moron. That's the answer.

What is the difference between "believe", "think" and "know"?

The question is, do you know or do you believe?

Obviously you don't know where I got it.

I don't care where you got it. It says Quarterly GDP change. I know for a fact that GDP grew 6.7% in Q3 2003, after the second round of the Bush tax cuts.

If you did, you would know that the GDP doesn't change by 6% in a quarter.

Let me help you out.
2002 Q1 3.5%, Q2 2.1%, Q3 2.0%, Q4 0.1%
2003 Q1 1.7%, Q2 3.4%, Q3 6.7%, Q4 3.7%
2004 Q1 3.4$, Q2 0.0%, Q3 3.2%, Q4 4.4%
2005 Q1 4.6%, Q2 2.0%, Q3 1.6%, Q4 4.4%
2006 Q1 2.2%, Q2 2.0%, Q3 2.0%, Q4 5.3%

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1

Those numbers are from the BEA.


How would you use these to get 6% for 2003q3?

It involves math. I guess it's over your head.

What is the quarterly change, from 2003Q2 to 2003Q3?

Using the numbers you posted, about 6.56%

And lastly, so? What difference would it make?

6.7% is a lot more than the numbers shown on your chart.
It means your chart is wrong.

That's the answer. If you don't like the answer, then it must be a lie or the person is a moron. That's the answer.

Yeah, you're pretty much a moron. That's the answer.

=====================

I don't care where you got it. It says Quarterly GDP change. I know for a fact that GDP grew 6.7% in Q3 2003, after the second round of the Bush tax cuts.

Perfect, that's the whole point. You don't care that it is from the BEA because you don't like it. You don't care that the GDP has never grown 6.7% in one quarter. It grew 6.7% IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. It grew 2.21% in that quarter. That is not bad growth. But it's not 6.7%.

IF IT WAS 6.7% THEN IT WOULD BE LIKE A YEARLY GROWTH OF 29%. THAT WOULD BE THE GDP GOING UP BY A WHOLE THIRD IN ONE YEAR.

My numbers are also from the BEA. They are the same numbers that your table comes from. I included the raw data, the quarterly GDP. Anyone that wants to can just calculate the number from it.

Your link doesn't link to a table.

But I can guarantee it doesn't say simply "Quarterly GDP change." I know because I know that the BEA is more precise than that. The BEA isn't stupid. And I know how they work. As well, I looked the annual seasonally adjusted change for each quarter before I even posted. I already looked at the graph of Annual Seasonally Adjusted Changes By Quarter.


Rather, what you do is change the words. Your not quoting the BEA. Your changing them because you don't like what it says.

It may say, "Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product (A) (Q)" That is a quote from the BEA list of tables. And that (A) and (Q) is a big difference. One means annual and the other means quarterly. And the "preceding period" is important too.

Perhaps you mean this table.

"Table 1.1.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product
[Percent]; Seasonally adjusted at annual rates
Quarterly data from 1969 To 2011
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Data published February 29, 2012
File created 2/28/2012 9:24:05 AM "


You can pick and choose all you want, but the only one your lying to is yourself.

And anyone of moderate and reasonable mind knows the difference. People aren't stupid.

6.56% would be the annual change, from 2002Q3 to 2003Q3.

If it was a quarter to quarter change, it would be 29% in a year. The GDP never has gone up by 29% in a year. We could use (1+.0656)^(4)-1 or we can just estimate it at 4*6.56% = 26%, close enough.

And, 2003Q3 for a seasonally adjusted annual change begins in 2002Q3 which is a date BEFORE the 2003 tax cut bill was effective.

And in current dollars it's

2003Q2 to 2003Q3 is 100 * (11,255.1-11,011.6)/11,011.6 = 2.21% The quarterly change

2002Q3 to 2003Q3 is 100 * (11,255.1-10,701.7)/10,701.7 = 5.17% The ANNUAL CHANGE FROM A YEAR AGO.

We can do the same thing in chained 2005 dollars.

I know we don't use that stuff much after school, but anyone reasonable gets the idea of calculating % change. It's the change divided by where you started from times 100.

Even that doesn't tell us anything. The reason is because we don't know if it was 10% or -10% before and after. A single number doesn't tell us anything. And nobody is stupid enough to think otherwise.

The chart I posted is the quarterly change, as in from 2003Q2 to 2003Q3, and the rest of the quarters. I did it for me so I could see if it was true, about the tax changes. I included the unemployment as well. You can't get them both on a graph from the BEA. And what it clearly doesn't show is the GDP getting all warm an fuzzy because of any tax cuts, not Clinton's, not Bushes. It is like it doesn't really matter.

Even if we use your numbers, for the Annual Change, it was 6.7%, then it was followed by

Q4 3.7% 2004 Q1 3.4%, Q2 0.0%, Q3 3.2%, Q4 4.4%

So big deal, it went up for the quarter of implementation then crapped out after that. My data shows exactly the same thing. Your ANNUAL RATES don't show anything different. Four quarters after, it 0.0%.

Wow, how wonderful. Implement the tax cuts, get a spike, then the economy goes flat a year later. Big deal. What does that mean, that it might have been 3.7% the next year but it was overstimulated the previous year? Why didn't it keep on going up at 6.7%? Maybe that's the thing, it just does a momentary spike.

And really, if you have to use the Seasonally Adjusted Change for the Previous Year in order to get what you want out of it...well, what can I say. It reminds me of the global cooling guys that have to wait for an unusually cold winter to say, "SEE!!!".

If you don't like the quarter to quarter changes, then post the a graph of the yearly changes. Then line it up by the date that it becomes effective. Add in the unemployment data. Then we can discuss if using the average yearly change is more of less appropriate then using the quarterly changed.

Myself, I prefer to use the most precise data possible. Then it is what it is. So I use www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls This way, I can get the unemployment numbers lined up.

You're entire argument style is to ask leading questions, looking for something to argue with. Big deal. The reason it doesn't work with me is because I DON'T CARE! I am not trying to prove anything. I'm just pulling the information and seeing what it says. If it said that tax cuts worked, great. If it doesn't, that's just fine too. I DON'T CARE. If tax cuts worked, I'd be all for it. Why not? What, you know things that work and you try to convince people they don't? What, are you crazy?

You are trying to prove something. But, in the end, it still comes down to, "I don't like the data, so it's a lie", "I look for the numbers that I like, even though I don't know what they mean", and "Your a moron."

Go ahead, post a functional link that goes to the actual title of the data chart. Or, instructions to get there. That way, everyone can see if it says just "GDP Quarterly Change".

Better yet, here is a short list from the BEA website, which table is it?

Table 1.1.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product (A) (Q)
Table 1.1.2. Contributions to Percent Change in Real Gross Domestic Product (A) (Q)
Table 1.1.3. Real Gross Domestic Product, Quantity Indexes (A) (Q)
Table 1.1.4. Price Indexes for Gross Domestic Product (A) (Q)
Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product (A) (Q)
Table 1.1.6. Real Gross Domestic Product, Chained Dollars (A) (Q)
Table 1.1.6A. Real Gross Domestic Product, Chained (1937) Dollars (A)
Table 1.1.6B. Real Gross Domestic Product, Chained (1952) Dollars (A) (Q)
Table 1.1.6C. Real Gross Domestic Product, Chained (1972) Dollars (A) (Q)
Table 1.1.6D. Real Gross Domestic Product, Chained (1987) Dollars (A) (Q)
Table 1.1.7. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Prices for Gross Domestic Product (A) (Q)
Table 1.1.8. Contributions to Percent Change in the Gross Domestic Product Price Index (A) (Q)
Table 1.1.9. Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product (A) (Q)
Table 1.1.10. Percentage Shares of Gross Domestic Product (A) (Q)
Table 1.1.11. Real Gross Domestic Product: Percent Change From Quarter One Year Ago (Q)
Table 1.2.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product by Major Type of Product (A) (Q)
Table 1.2.2. Contributions to Percent Change in Real Gross Domestic Product by Major Type of Product (A) (Q)

Or we can use

Current-dollar and "real" GDP - BEA
www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls
Current-Dollar and "Real" Gross Domestic Product, 2/29/12. 2. 3, Annual, Quarterly. 4, (Seasonally adjusted annual rates). 5. 6, GDP in ...

What the heck, here is the header from my table. The date is 12/20/2011. It is in 2005 chained dollars. Notice that the yearly is "Seasonally adjusted annual rates"? That is why I don't use yearly. It's adjusted using a formula to take out seasonal variation. Do you know what that does to the data? I don't now exactly, it kind of does a sort of regression that approximates the seasonal variation. Then they change the survey data to adjust for seasonal variations. I'll tell you this much, I'm not going to re-plot the whole thing just because you like Seasonally Adjusted Annual Data on a Quarterly basis.

Current-Dollar and "Real" Gross Domestic Product 12/20/11

Annual Quarterly
(Seasonally adjusted annual rates)

GDP in billions of current dollars GDP in billions of chained 2005 dollars GDP in billions of current dollars GDP in billions of chained 2005 dollars

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, there you go then, that's the answer, the data is wrong...

Do you recognize this file name "gdplev.xls"?

Where do you suppose GDP data comes from? The GDP fairy?

Obviously you don't know where I got it. If you did, you would know that the GDP doesn't change by 6% in a quarter.

What is the difference between non-seasonally adjusted quarterly growth and seasonally adjusted annual rate?

What does "IN 2003 Q3" mean?
If it was 6% IN a quarter, how much would that be IN a year?

How about these numbers?

Quarter___GDP Cur___GDP Chained 2005
2002q1___ 10,498.7___11,467.1
2002q2___ 10,601.9___11,528.1
2002q3___ 10,701.7___11,586.6
2002q4___ 10,766.9___11,590.6
2003q1___ 10,887.4___11,638.9
2003q2___ 11,011.6___11,737.5
2003q3___ 11,255.1___11,930.7
2003q4___ 11,414.8___12,038.6
2004q1___ 11,589.9___12,117.9
2004q2___ 11,762.9___12,195.9
2004q3___ 11,936.3___12,286.7
2004q4___ 12,123.9___12,387.2

How would you use these to get 6% for 2003q3?
What is the quarterly change, from 2003Q2 to 2003Q3?

And lastly, so? What difference would it make?



Well, there you go. Like I said, "the data lies". That's the answer. If you don't like the answer, then it must be a lie or the person is a moron. That's the answer.

What is the difference between "believe", "think" and "know"?

The question is, do you know or do you believe?

Obviously you don't know where I got it.

I don't care where you got it. It says Quarterly GDP change. I know for a fact that GDP grew 6.7% in Q3 2003, after the second round of the Bush tax cuts.

If you did, you would know that the GDP doesn't change by 6% in a quarter.

Let me help you out.
2002 Q1 3.5%, Q2 2.1%, Q3 2.0%, Q4 0.1%
2003 Q1 1.7%, Q2 3.4%, Q3 6.7%, Q4 3.7%
2004 Q1 3.4$, Q2 0.0%, Q3 3.2%, Q4 4.4%
2005 Q1 4.6%, Q2 2.0%, Q3 1.6%, Q4 4.4%
2006 Q1 2.2%, Q2 2.0%, Q3 2.0%, Q4 5.3%

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1

Those numbers are from the BEA.


How would you use these to get 6% for 2003q3?

It involves math. I guess it's over your head.

What is the quarterly change, from 2003Q2 to 2003Q3?

Using the numbers you posted, about 6.56%

And lastly, so? What difference would it make?

6.7% is a lot more than the numbers shown on your chart.
It means your chart is wrong.

That's the answer. If you don't like the answer, then it must be a lie or the person is a moron. That's the answer.

Yeah, you're pretty much a moron. That's the answer.

=====================

I don't care where you got it. It says Quarterly GDP change. I know for a fact that GDP grew 6.7% in Q3 2003, after the second round of the Bush tax cuts.

Perfect, that's the whole point. You don't care that it is from the BEA because you don't like it. You don't care that the GDP has never grown 6.7% in one quarter. It grew 6.7% IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. It grew 2.21% in that quarter. That is not bad growth. But it's not 6.7%.

IF IT WAS 6.7% THEN IT WOULD BE LIKE A YEARLY GROWTH OF 29%. THAT WOULD BE THE GDP GOING UP BY A WHOLE THIRD IN ONE YEAR.

My numbers are also from the BEA. They are the same numbers that your table comes from. I included the raw data, the quarterly GDP. Anyone that wants to can just calculate the number from it.

Your link doesn't link to a table.

But I can guarantee it doesn't say simply "Quarterly GDP change." I know because I know that the BEA is more precise than that. The BEA isn't stupid. And I know how they work. As well, I looked the annual seasonally adjusted change for each quarter before I even posted. I already looked at the graph of Annual Seasonally Adjusted Changes By Quarter.


Rather, what you do is change the words. Your not quoting the BEA. Your changing them because you don't like what it says.

It may say, "Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product (A) (Q)" That is a quote from the BEA list of tables. And that (A) and (Q) is a big difference. One means annual and the other means quarterly. And the "preceding period" is important too.

You can pick and choose all you want, but the only one your lying to is yourself.

And anyone of moderate and reasonable mind knows the difference. People aren't stupid.

6.56% would be the annual change, from 2002Q3 to 2003Q3.

If it was a quarter to quarter change, it would be 29% in a year. The GDP never has gone up by 29% in a year. We could use (1+.0656)^(4)-1 or we can just estimate it at 4*6.56% = 26%, close enough.

And, 2003Q3 for a seasonally adjusted annual change begins in 2002Q3 which is a date BEFORE the 2003 tax cut bill was effective.

And in current dollars it's

2003Q2 to 2003Q3 is 100 * (11,255.1-11,011.6)/11,011.6 = 2.21% The quarterly change

2002Q3 to 2003Q3 is 100 * (11,255.1-10,701.7)/10,701.7 = 5.17% The ANNUAL CHANGE FROM A YEAR AGO.

We can do the same thing in chained 2005 dollars.

I know we don't use that stuff much after school, but anyone reasonable gets the idea of calculating % change. It's the change divided by where you started from times 100.

Even that doesn't tell us anything. The reason is because we don't know if it was 10% or -10% before and after. A single number doesn't tell us anything. And nobody is stupid enough to think otherwise.

The chart I posted is the quarterly change, as in from 2003Q2 to 2003Q3, and the rest of the quarters. I did it for me so I could see if it was true, about the tax changes. I included the unemployment as well. You can't get them both on a graph from the BEA. And what it clearly doesn't show is the GDP getting all warm an fuzzy because of any tax cuts, not Clinton's, not Bushes. It is like it doesn't really matter.

Even if we use your numbers, for the Annual Change, it was 6.7%, then it was followed by

Q4 3.7% 2004 Q1 3.4%, Q2 0.0%, Q3 3.2%, Q4 4.4%

So big deal, it went up for the quarter of implementation then crapped out after that. My data shows exactly the same thing. Your ANNUAL RATES don't show anything different. Four quarters after, it 0.0%.

Wow, how wonderful. Implement the tax cuts, get a spike, then the economy goes flat a year later. Big deal. What does that mean, that it might have been 3.7% the next year but it was overstimulated the previous year? Why didn't it keep on going up at 6.7%? Maybe that's the thing, it just does a momentary spike.

And really, if you have to use the Seasonally Adjusted Change for the Previous Year in order to get what you want out of it...well, what can I say. It reminds me of the global cooling guys that have to wait for an unusually cold winter to say, "SEE!!!".

If you don't like the quarter to quarter changes, then post the a graph of the yearly changes. Then line it up by the date that it becomes effective. Add in the unemployment data. Then we can discuss if using the average yearly change is more of less appropriate then using the quarterly changed.

Myself, I prefer to use the most precise data possible. Then it is what it is. So I use www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls This way, I can get the unemployment numbers lined up.

You're entire argument style is to ask leading questions, looking for something to argue with. Big deal. The reason it doesn't work with me is because I DON'T CARE! I am not trying to prove anything. I'm just pulling the information and seeing what it says. If it said that tax cuts worked, great. If it doesn't, that's just fine too. I DON'T CARE. If tax cuts worked, I'd be all for it. Why not? What, you know things that work and you try to convince people they don't? What, are you crazy?

You are trying to prove something. But, in the end, it still comes down to, "I don't like the data, so it's a lie", "I look for the numbers that I like, even though I don't know what they mean", and "Your a moron."

Go ahead, post a functional link that goes to the actual title of the data chart. Or, instructions to get there. That way, everyone can see if it says just "GDP Quarterly Change".

Better yet, here is a short list from the BEA website, which table is it?

Table 1.1.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product (A) (Q)
Table 1.1.2. Contributions to Percent Change in Real Gross Domestic Product (A) (Q)
Table 1.1.3. Real Gross Domestic Product, Quantity Indexes (A) (Q)
Table 1.1.4. Price Indexes for Gross Domestic Product (A) (Q)
Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product (A) (Q)
Table 1.1.6. Real Gross Domestic Product, Chained Dollars (A) (Q)
Table 1.1.6A. Real Gross Domestic Product, Chained (1937) Dollars (A)
Table 1.1.6B. Real Gross Domestic Product, Chained (1952) Dollars (A) (Q)
Table 1.1.6C. Real Gross Domestic Product, Chained (1972) Dollars (A) (Q)
Table 1.1.6D. Real Gross Domestic Product, Chained (1987) Dollars (A) (Q)
Table 1.1.7. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Prices for Gross Domestic Product (A) (Q)
Table 1.1.8. Contributions to Percent Change in the Gross Domestic Product Price Index (A) (Q)
Table 1.1.9. Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product (A) (Q)
Table 1.1.10. Percentage Shares of Gross Domestic Product (A) (Q)
Table 1.1.11. Real Gross Domestic Product: Percent Change From Quarter One Year Ago (Q)
Table 1.2.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product by Major Type of Product (A) (Q)
Table 1.2.2. Contributions to Percent Change in Real Gross Domestic Product by Major Type of Product (A) (Q)

Or we can use

Current-dollar and "real" GDP - BEA
www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls
Current-Dollar and "Real" Gross Domestic Product, 2/29/12. 2. 3, Annual, Quarterly. 4, (Seasonally adjusted annual rates). 5. 6, GDP in ...

What the heck, here is the header from my table. The date is 12/20/2011. It is in 2005 chained dollars. Notice that the yearly is "Seasonally adjusted annual rates"? That is why I don't use yearly. It's adjusted using a formula to take out seasonal variation. Do you know what that does to the data? I don't now exactly, it kind of does a sort of regression that approximates the seasonal variation. Then they change the survey data to adjust for seasonal variations.

Current-Dollar and "Real" Gross Domestic Product 12/20/11

Annual Quarterly
(Seasonally adjusted annual rates)

GDP in billions of current dollars GDP in billions of chained 2005 dollars GDP in billions of current dollars GDP in billions of chained 2005 dollars

2003Q2 to 2003Q3 is 100 * (11,255.1-11,011.6)/11,011.6 = 2.21% The quarterly change

Hey, snapperhead, do you really think GDP in the second quarter of 2003 was $11.255 trillion? Let me know if the lightbulb ever goes off.

This one.

Table 1.1.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product (A) (Q)

And you have to pick the (Q) option. That's the quarterly number.

 

[DSGE]

2003Q2 to 2003Q3 is 100 * (11,255.1-11,011.6)/11,011.6 = 2.21% The quarterly change

Hey, snapperhead, do you really think GDP in the second quarter of 2003 was $11.255 trillion? Let me know if the lightbulb ever goes off.

This one.

Table 1.1.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product (A) (Q)

And you have to pick the (Q) option. That's the quarterly number.

Yeah GDP in 2003:Q2 was $11.7375 trillion chained 2005 dollars.

The quarterly growth is: (11.9307 - 11.7375)/11.7375 = 1.646%

Not sure what he was using. 11.255 is closer to 2000:Q3.

But for the BEA growth rates spreadsheet, instead of using quarterly growth rates they use "annualised" quarterly growth rates.

1.646% as an annualised rate is 1.01646^4 - 1 = 6.7%

 

[itfitzme]

2003Q2 to 2003Q3 is 100 * (11,255.1-11,011.6)/11,011.6 = 2.21% The quarterly change

Hey, snapperhead, do you really think GDP in the second quarter of 2003 was $11.255 trillion? Let me know if the lightbulb ever goes off.

This one.

Table 1.1.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product (A) (Q)

And you have to pick the (Q) option. That's the quarterly number.

No, I think it was $11.011 T in the second quarter. It was $11.255 T in the third.

100* (Q3-Q2)/Q2 = % change.

I was using NGDP, rather than RGDP. Doesn't matter much for the purposes.

Nuff said.

I'm doing the math on the fly, and your looking for math errors? And it tripped you up? I wrote it for you. You had all the time in the world to just sit and work it out.

Your really that much of a putz?

Your a game player. Smelled it the first time you posted.

I'm surprised you haven't brought up a spelling error.

And all this because you don't like the graph. None of it changes the graph. If I had the quarters backwards, the graph would be upside down. If I did it in annual, it would still show the same general pattern. It doesn't matter. The facts are internally consistent.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Billions of dollars]; Seasonally adjusted at annual rates
2003 2003
2 3
11,011.6 11,255.1

(Funny thing is, it took me forever to figure out what he was talking about. It just didn't occur to me that he meant (Q2-Q3/Q3) * 100 = % change. If it was backwards, I'd have gotten a negative number. I still don't believe it.)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, I think it was $11.011 T in the second quarter. It was $11.255 T in the third.

That's awesome. So for the year, our GDP was over $44 trillion?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

2003Q2 to 2003Q3 is 100 * (11,255.1-11,011.6)/11,011.6 = 2.21% The quarterly change

Hey, snapperhead, do you really think GDP in the second quarter of 2003 was $11.255 trillion? Let me know if the lightbulb ever goes off.

This one.

Table 1.1.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product (A) (Q)

And you have to pick the (Q) option. That's the quarterly number.

No, I think it was $11.011 T in the second quarter. It was $11.255 T in the third.

100* (Q3-Q2)/Q2 = % change.

I was using NGDP, rather than RGDP. Doesn't matter much for the purposes.

Nuff said.

I'm doing the math on the fly, and your looking for math errors? And it tripped you up? I wrote it for you. You had all the time in the world to just sit and work it out.

Your really that much of a putz?

Your a game player. Smelled it the first time you posted.

I'm surprised you haven't brought up a spelling error.

And all this because you don't like the graph. None of it changes the graph. If I had the quarters backwards, the graph would be upside down. If I did it in annual, it would still show the same general pattern. It doesn't matter. The facts are internally consistent.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Billions of dollars]; Seasonally adjusted at annual rates
2003 2003
2 3
11,011.6 11,255.1

(Funny thing is, it took me forever to figure out what he was talking about. It just didn't occur to me that he meant (Q2-Q3/Q3) * 100 = % change. If it was backwards, I'd have gotten a negative number. I still don't believe it.)

I'm doing the math on the fly, and your looking for math errors?

Yeah, your "math on the fly" made your chart worthless.
Glad I could help.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

2003Q2 to 2003Q3 is 100 * (11,255.1-11,011.6)/11,011.6 = 2.21% The quarterly change

Hey, snapperhead, do you really think GDP in the second quarter of 2003 was $11.255 trillion? Let me know if the lightbulb ever goes off.

This one.

Table 1.1.1. Percent Change From Preceding Period in Real Gross Domestic Product (A) (Q)

And you have to pick the (Q) option. That's the quarterly number.

Yeah GDP in 2003:Q2 was $11.7375 trillion chained 2005 dollars.

The quarterly growth is: (11.9307 - 11.7375)/11.7375 = 1.646%

Not sure what he was using. 11.255 is closer to 2000:Q3.

But for the BEA growth rates spreadsheet, instead of using quarterly growth rates they use "annualised" quarterly growth rates.

1.646% as an annualised rate is 1.01646^4 - 1 = 6.7%

Yeah, they annualize the growth rate, just as they annualize GDP.

 

[itfitzme]

No, I think it was $11.011 T in the second quarter. It was $11.255 T in the third.

That's awesome. So for the year, our GDP was over $44 trillion?

Oh, I see the problem.

Well it didn't go up from $11.100 * 1.067 to 11.748 Trillion. It only went up to $11.255.

No, I'm just reading the BEA table. It says, 2003Q3, $11225 billion. It says $11.011 T in the second quarter.

The quarterly change, per that table is 11225-11011. That is $214 billion estimated output for the third quarter.

That's all I'm using. And it doesn't bracket the May 23rd 2003 signing, going back to 2002Q3. Otherwise, we have to wait all the way till May 23rd 2004 before we have removed the quarters before the 2003 signing. That is 3% for the year, from the may 23rd signing to the time that we have an annual measure. And that is seasonally adjusted. I don't like seasonally adjusted. It just bothers me.

6.7% is for the entire year from 2002Q3 to 2003Q3. If we do that, it includes 2002Q4, 2003Q1, 2003Q2, 2003Q3. And the bill wasn't signed until May of 2003. How does that make sense?

If you want to use the annual % change from May 23rd 2003, then you have to use 2004Q3.

But I get a better understanding of the immediate change in the 3rd quarter by taking 11225-11011= $214 billion. ~214/11011 = ~1.9% for the quarter.

The quarterly indexes are really,

2003..............2003
2......................3
92.986..........94.516

or 1.6% for the quarter. 1.9% is better then 1.6%. And nominal GDP is going to appear better then RGDP. It's all just a survey, it's not like the BEA goes out and counts every single product made and sold in three months for 7 million companies.

But that's closer then 6.7% for the quarter. And if we have to wait for the entire year to pass, we only get 3%.

This is the quarterly growth per the index is as shown.

2002-4 0.03%
2003-1 0.42%
2003-2 0.85%
2003-3 1.65%
2003-4 0.90%
2004-1 0.66%
2004-2 0.64%
2004-3 0.74%
2004-4 0.82%

And, if you do that, 2.98% ending in the third quarter of 2004. That's the 3%.

But look, there is the 2003-3 higher then before, woo hoo. Right after the tax cuts. But doesn't my graph show an increase right after the tax cuts? I've got 1.9% Then it drops after that.

You graph it in annual seasonally adjusted and line it up. Or do it with the indexes. I don't care. It went up in 2003-3 then right back down. The graphs will look pretty much the same, just one is smoother then the other.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, I think it was $11.011 T in the second quarter. It was $11.255 T in the third.

That's awesome. So for the year, our GDP was over $44 trillion?

Oh, I see the problem.

Well it didn't go up from $11.100 * 1.067 to 11.748 Trillion. It only went up to $11.255.

No, I'm just reading the BEA table. It says, 2003Q3, $11225 billion. It says $11.011 T in the second quarter.

The quarterly change, per that table is 11225-11011. That is $214 billion estimated output for the third quarter.

That's all I'm using. And it doesn't bracket the May 23rd 2003 signing, going back to 2002Q3. Otherwise, we have to wait all the way till May 23rd 2004 before we have removed the quarters before the 2003 signing. That is 3% for the year, from the may 23rd signing to the time that we have an annual measure. And that is seasonally adjusted. I don't like seasonally adjusted. It just bothers me.

6.7% is for the entire year from 2002Q3 to 2003Q3. If we do that, it includes 2002Q4, 2003Q1, 2003Q2, 2003Q3. And the bill wasn't signed until May of 2003. How does that make sense?

If you want to use the annual % change from May 23rd 2003, then you have to use 2004Q3.

But I get a better understanding of the immediate change in the 3rd quarter by taking 11225-11011= $214 billion. ~214/11011 = ~1.9% for the quarter.

The quarterly indexes are really,

2003..............2003
2......................3
92.986..........94.516

or 1.6% for the quarter. 1.9% is better then 1.6%. And nominal GDP is going to appear better then RGDP. It's all just a survey, it's not like the BEA goes out and counts every single product made and sold in three months for 7 million companies.

But that's closer then 6.7% for the quarter. And if we have to wait for the entire year to pass, we only get 3%.

This is the quarterly growth per the index is as shown.

2002-4 0.03%
2003-1 0.42%
2003-2 0.85%
2003-3 1.65%
2003-4 0.90%
2004-1 0.66%
2004-2 0.64%
2004-3 0.74%
2004-4 0.82%

And, if you do that, 2.98% ending in the third quarter of 2004. That's the 3%.

But look, there is the 2003-3 higher then before, woo hoo. Right after the tax cuts. But doesn't my graph show an increase right after the tax cuts? I've got 1.9% Then it drops after that.

You graph it in annual seasonally adjusted and line it up. Or do it with the indexes. I don't care. It went up in 2003-3 then right back down. The graphs will look pretty much the same, just one is smoother then the other.

Well it didn't go up from $11.100 * 1.067 to 11.748 Trillion. It only went up to $11.255.

They annualize the GDP number, because it was about $11 trillion for the entire year, not $11 trillion for each quarter.
They annualize the quarterly increase, because how else would you suggest they do it?

No, I'm just reading the BEA table.

And I gave you the % change from the BEA table.

 

[itfitzme]

No, I'm just reading the BEA table.

And I gave you the % change from the BEA table.

Yeah, the % change for the year beginning in Q3 of 2002 to Q3 of 2003. Okay, so? What was it the next quarter?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, I'm just reading the BEA table.

And I gave you the % change from the BEA table.

Yeah, the % change for the year beginning in Q3 of 2002 to Q3 of 2003. Okay, so? What was it the next quarter?

Nope. The % change from Q2 to Q3.
6.7%.

 

[DSGE]

I don't even understand what this argument is. One of you likes the rate to be annualised and the other doesn't? Is that it? Like, what's the actual substance of this conversation?

 

[itfitzme]

And I gave you the % change from the BEA table.

Here you go, the thing with your numbers, the ones you like better.

So point to it.

Do you think that Clinton '93 is in the right place?