OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Since your having such a problem figuring this out-

(In millions)
Source-US Federal Government

1997
GDP 8,185,200
Debt 5,369,694

Gross debt to GDP 65.6%

2002
GDP 10,336,600
Debt 6,137,074

Gross debt to GDP 59.3%

Class dismissed.

Try using the actual GDP figure for 2002.
Not something you got hell knows where to make your example work


9485.6


Nice try though. You had a couple of right wingers hootin' and hollerin'
and
rootin you on. Guess they'll believe anything they see in print that
verifies a
preconception.


Billions of chained (1996) dollars
Seasonally adjusted at annual rates
2002 2002:Q3 2002:Q4 2003:Q1
2003:Q2
2003:Q3
Gross domestic product (GDP)... 9439.9 9485.6 9518.2 9552.0 9629.4
9797.2


Cite:

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/tables/ebr1.htm

And your 3 hour search resulted in what? Perhaps disputing another poster
to this forum. Even if I believed your figures, BFD.

Get a life man.

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

And your 3 hour search resulted in what? Perhaps disputing another poster
to this forum. Even if I believed your figures, BFD.

Get a life man.

What? Ticked off when the example used to prove the right wing fallacy was
shown to be based on an erroneous number?

My 3-hour search took 30 seconds.

Nobody suggets you believe "my" number.
I didn't offer a number. The GDP figure is
computed by the FEDGOV. Follow the cite.

The party attempting to prove the right wing point simply stated his numbers
came from "The US Government." Okay.
I on the other hand showed my actual, official specific government source, and
you find it less than credible?

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
And your 3 hour search resulted in what? Perhaps disputing another
poster
to this forum. Even if I believed your figures, BFD.

Get a life man.

What? Ticked off when the example used to prove the right wing fallacy was
shown to be based on an erroneous number?

My 3-hour search took 30 seconds.

Nobody suggets you believe "my" number.
I didn't offer a number. The GDP figure is
computed by the FEDGOV. Follow the cite.

The party attempting to prove the right wing point simply stated his
numbers
came from "The US Government." Okay.
I on the other hand showed my actual, official specific government source,
and
you find it less than credible?

A tip: Take the boat out for a cruise. Take your wife out to dinner. Have
some friends over for some food and drinks. But quite spending your waking
hours in this forum Chuck. It is not healthy. It is not productive. ;-)

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

Nice try though. You had a couple of right wingers hootin' and hollerin'
and
rootin you on. Guess they'll believe anything they see in print that
verifies a
preconception.

Nice try yourself.
I used actual dollars, you used the CPI (Chained price index).
When comparing the percent of national debt to GDP the CPI is not used. To
compute the GDP/Debt ratio you must use actual dollars

Funny how you want to use a CPI number to lower the GDP, but still use the
actual debt dollars.
If you reduced the dollar value of the outstanding debt using the same CPI,
you would still arrive at my numbers, not yours.

BTW using your skewed numbers the 1997 debt is only 0.19% less than 2002.

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

The knockout blow is a sucker punch. And he seems to have suckered you big
time.
If you'd like to see what the *real* GDP was in 2002, follow this link:

As stated, your numbers are not actual dollars, they are a guesstimate of
the buying power as compared to another year (1996).
If you MUST use the CPI, apply it to debt value also.

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

My 3-hour search took 30 seconds.

Search a little longer and read for content next time.

Nobody suggets you believe "my" number.
I didn't offer a number. The GDP figure is
computed by the FEDGOV. Follow the cite.

There are"actual" GDP dollars, and than CPI "adjusted" numbers.
As stated, you have tried to skew the results by applying a CPI number to
one side of the equation and not the other.

The party attempting to prove the right wing point simply stated his
numbers
came from "The US Government." Okay.

Here's the link to all of my data-
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbud...2004/hist.html


I on the other hand showed my actual, official specific government source,
and
you find it less than credible?

Again, you are incorrectly applying a modifier not applicable to our
original comparison which is GDP to Debt ratio.

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

BTW using your skewed numbers the 1997 debt is only 0.19% less than 2002.

The numbers aren't skewed. And yes, I know the difference is very slight and
acknowledged the same in my earlier post on this same issue.

Nice try yourself.
I used actual dollars, you used the CPI (Chained price index).
When comparing the percent of national debt to GDP the CPI is not used. To
compute the GDP/Debt ratio you must use actual dollars

According to whom?

The Bureau of Economic Analysis report doesn't seem to furnish us with sets of
figures from which to pick and choose. I simply used the figure the government
reported. Where did you get your figure?

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

Your number came off the "White House" web site. Aha. I didn't check to see
how the Bush administration was choosing to report the numbers.


Here's the link to all of my data-
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbud...2004/hist.html

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
BTW using your skewed numbers the 1997 debt is only 0.19% less than 2002.

The numbers aren't skewed. And yes, I know the difference is very slight
and
acknowledged the same in my earlier post on this same issue.

The numbers are skewed, they are not the actual dollars, the are adjusted
using the CPI.
If you wanted to compare the buying power of different year GDP's you would
use this number.

Nice try yourself.
I used actual dollars, you used the CPI (Chained price index).
When comparing the percent of national debt to GDP the CPI is not used.
To
compute the GDP/Debt ratio you must use actual dollars

According to whom?

The Federal Government-

This spreadsheet shows the actual dollars in GDP for each year
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...s/hist01z2.xls

This spreadsheet shows the actual debt in dollars for each year.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...s/hist07z1.xls

Pay particular attention to columns G,H, and I. These are the percentages of
GDP to debt sorted in Gross, Held by Government, and Held by Public.
These percentages are calculated using actual dollars, run the numbers
yourself.

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Your number came off the "White House" web site. Aha. I didn't check to
see
how the Bush administration was choosing to report the numbers.


Here's the link to all of my data-
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbud...2004/hist.html


These are historical tables compiled by the Federal Government.

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

This debate will go round in circles.

I used numbers directly from the US Treasury. You used numbers supplied by the
Bush Administration.

We should both be concerned that the numbers aren't reported using a common
standard. Why doesn't the BEA site use the more favorable (to the
administration) numbers shown on the WH site? Or at least mention them?

Strange.

So we have each demonstrated that our numbers came from official govt sources.
Your number proves your point. My number proves my point. Ergo, round in
circles.

Using you number or mine- how many think the economy is robust and healthy?

(predicting the sound of silence here) .

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

This debate will go round in circles.

I used numbers directly from the US Treasury. You used numbers supplied by
the
Bush Administration.


No, I used actual numbers, you used a modified number from the US Treasury.
A number modified to reflect 1996 buying power.
If you wanted to compare your personal assets to debt ratio of different
years, would you apply the consumer price index in your calculations?

We should both be concerned that the numbers aren't reported using a
common
standard. Why doesn't the BEA site use the more favorable (to the
administration) numbers shown on the WH site? Or at least mention them?


The numbers aren't more favorable, you're comparing apples to oranges. If
you wanted to compare the buying power of different year GDP's you would use
your chart.

If you are looking for a PERCENTAGE of two different dollar figures from 2
different years you must use the actual dollars of both, OR apply your
modifier to each number (GDP and Debt).
Either way the percentages will be the same.

So we have each demonstrated that our numbers came from official govt
sources.
Your number proves your point. My number proves my point. Ergo, round in
circles.

Can you give me one good reason why the CPI should be towards the GDP when
computing the percentage of debt between different years?

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

"Joe" wrote in message
...

This debate will go round in circles.

I used numbers directly from the US Treasury. You used numbers supplied
by
the
Bush Administration.


No, I used actual numbers, you used a modified number from the US
Treasury.
A number modified to reflect 1996 buying power.
If you wanted to compare your personal assets to debt ratio of different
years, would you apply the consumer price index in your calculations?

We should both be concerned that the numbers aren't reported using a
common
standard. Why doesn't the BEA site use the more favorable (to the
administration) numbers shown on the WH site? Or at least mention them?


The numbers aren't more favorable, you're comparing apples to oranges. If
you wanted to compare the buying power of different year GDP's you would
use
your chart.

If you are looking for a PERCENTAGE of two different dollar figures from 2
different years you must use the actual dollars of both, OR apply your
modifier to each number (GDP and Debt).
Either way the percentages will be the same.

So we have each demonstrated that our numbers came from official govt
sources.
Your number proves your point. My number proves my point. Ergo, round in
circles.

Can you give me one good reason why the CPI should be towards the GDP when
computing the percentage of debt between different years?




Who friggin cares??????????

You will not change a damn thing by arguing about who's numbers are right or
wrong or by what means you came about your numbers.

You will not change Chuck's mind...he will not change yours. Accept that
and move on.

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

How convenient, Gould. You pick the numbers that best suit your
argument...but fail to index the debt to 1996 also.

Apples to apples...remember, Chuck?


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Careful, Joe. You need to just swat the liberals around a little. If
you
hit 'em too hard with your knockout blow right in the beginning, they
disappear and just start a new thread. Now, what fun is that?

The knockout blow is a sucker punch. And he seems to have suckered you big
time.
If you'd like to see what the *real* GDP was in 2002, follow this link:

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/tables/ebr1.htm

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Be careful Joe, you don't want to go confusing them with facts. ;-)

You've been had. The GDP number he used for 2002 was incorrect.

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/tables/ebr1.htm

Then you better adjust the debt numbers, also, when you're indexing the GDP
to 1996.

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

Using "chained (1996) dollars" for GDP means you have to use "chained (1996)
dollars for the debt, too. That's pretty dishonest of you Chuck.



"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Since your having such a problem figuring this out-

(In millions)
Source-US Federal Government

1997
GDP 8,185,200
Debt 5,369,694

Gross debt to GDP 65.6%

2002
GDP 10,336,600
Debt 6,137,074

Gross debt to GDP 59.3%

Class dismissed.

Try using the actual GDP figure for 2002.
Not something you got hell knows where to make your example work


9485.6


Nice try though. You had a couple of right wingers hootin' and hollerin'
and
rootin you on. Guess they'll believe anything they see in print that
verifies a
preconception.


Billions of chained (1996) dollars
Seasonally adjusted at annual rates
2002 2002:Q3 2002:Q4 2003:Q1
2003:Q2
2003:Q3
Gross domestic product (GDP)... 9439.9 9485.6 9518.2 9552.0 9629.4
9797.2


Cite:

http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/tables/ebr1.htm

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

You used "actual" numbers for debt and "indexed" or "adjusted" numbers for
GDP. That's sneaky at best...

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
This debate will go round in circles.

I used numbers directly from the US Treasury. You used numbers supplied by
the
Bush Administration.

We should both be concerned that the numbers aren't reported using a
common
standard. Why doesn't the BEA site use the more favorable (to the
administration) numbers shown on the WH site? Or at least mention them?

Strange.

So we have each demonstrated that our numbers came from official govt
sources.
Your number proves your point. My number proves my point. Ergo, round in
circles.

Using you number or mine- how many think the economy is robust and
healthy?

(predicting the sound of silence here) .

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

It's not a matter of changing Chuck's mind. His mind is clamped shut. The
economy is improving and it kills Chuck to admit that the tax cut is the
reason. He's even gone so far as to purposely manipulate data to prove his
case.




"Jim--" wrote in message
...

"Joe" wrote in message
...

This debate will go round in circles.

I used numbers directly from the US Treasury. You used numbers
supplied
by
the
Bush Administration.


No, I used actual numbers, you used a modified number from the US
Treasury.
A number modified to reflect 1996 buying power.
If you wanted to compare your personal assets to debt ratio of different
years, would you apply the consumer price index in your calculations?

We should both be concerned that the numbers aren't reported using a
common
standard. Why doesn't the BEA site use the more favorable (to the
administration) numbers shown on the WH site? Or at least mention
them?


The numbers aren't more favorable, you're comparing apples to oranges.
If
you wanted to compare the buying power of different year GDP's you would
use
your chart.

If you are looking for a PERCENTAGE of two different dollar figures from
2
different years you must use the actual dollars of both, OR apply your
modifier to each number (GDP and Debt).
Either way the percentages will be the same.

So we have each demonstrated that our numbers came from official govt
sources.
Your number proves your point. My number proves my point. Ergo, round
in
circles.

Can you give me one good reason why the CPI should be towards the GDP
when
computing the percentage of debt between different years?




Who friggin cares??????????

You will not change a damn thing by arguing about who's numbers are right
or
wrong or by what means you came about your numbers.

You will not change Chuck's mind...he will not change yours. Accept that
and move on.

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

Frank,
The Nasdaq is up over 70% from 12 months ago...and the Dow is up 30%.
That's great if you got in the market in October 2002. Of course, when a
stock falls 50%, then it has to go up 100% just to be even.


"Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message
link.net...
I just wish my stock prices would recover. I took a hit when the tech
stocks crashed.

Perhaps if we dumped NAFTA, the economy would take a big jump in
manufacturing!

Capt. Frank

NOYB wrote:

Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
By JEANNINE AVERSA, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The economy grew at a blistering 7.2 percent annual rate in
the
third quarter in the strongest pace in nearly two decades. Consumers
spent
with abandon and businesses ramped up investment, compelling new
evidence of
an economic resurgence.



The increase in gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the
economy's performance, in the July-September quarter was more than
double
the 3.3 percent rate registered in the second quarter, the Commerce
Department reported Thursday.


The 7.2 percent pace marked the best showing since the first quarter of
1984. It exceeded analysts' forecasts for a 6 percent growth rate for
third-quarter GDP, which measures the value of all goods and services
produced within the United States.


"This is a gangbuster number. Everything came together for the economy
in
the third quarter," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com.


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



I guess we can take "bagging on the economy" off the '04 Democratic
election
strategy...

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

You used "actual" numbers for debt and "indexed" or "adjusted" numbers for
GDP. That's sneaky at best...


The treasury supplies indexed numbers for GDP and current dollar values for
debt.
Give them a call if you think that's "sneaky". I think the gov can be pretty
sneaky at times, too.

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

He's even gone so far as to purposely manipulate data to prove his
case.

Bologna.

Did you click on the sites I provided?
What did you see that was different from what I said was there? Since the sites
have the same data that I used in my calculation, how do you justify a charge
that I manipulated the data?

Your precious tax cut is reflected in the rapidly escalating pace at which the
National Debt is growing. Got a family of 5? Your $115k is probably just a few
weeks' work for you and no big deal.....but for most folks their pro-rata
portion of the national debt likely rivals the equity in their home.

I think there might be a good reason for the BEA to use adjusted numbers for
GDP. It backs out inflation. IOW, if inflation takes everything up 5% in a year
is that real growth, or just the same old actual amount expressed in a figure
that's 5% higher?

When the Bush Administration converts the treasury data to "real" numbers on
the White House web site, it is trying to take whatever credit it can get for
the effects of inflation creating a larger number.

Debt, on the other hand, remains a current
total number. "Inflation" isn't a reason to go deeper in debt, just as it isn't
a substitute for genuine domestic production. Inflation doesn't "produce"
anything, last time I looked.

I don't need to manipulate a darn thing to illustrate that the R congress and
the R president are spending us into the dumper.
You guys are supposed to be fiscally conservative. What a joke that is.

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

Using "chained (1996) dollars" for GDP means you have to use "chained (1996)
dollars for the debt, too. That's pretty dishonest of you Chuck.

Don't be so deliberately dense.
The BEA site that calculates the GDP does so in chained dollars. That's how
it's expressed. Consistently. The White House site adds "real" dollars to try
to take credit for inflation.

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

Then you better adjust the debt numbers, also, when you're indexing the GDP
to 1996.



Debt is not production. It is a real, accumulated total. The treasury does not
report the debt in adjusted numbers.

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

How convenient, Gould. You pick the numbers that best suit your
argument...but fail to index the debt to 1996 also.

Apples to apples...remember, Chuck?

Already handled. The treasury does not index the debt. It does index the GDP.
Your party's in charge. If you don't like it, fix it.

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

But you're comparing indexed numbers to non-indexed numbers! The treasury
publishes *both* current dollars for GDP, and chained dollars. Why don't
you use "current" dollars for GDP since you're comparing it to "current"
dollars for debt? That'd be more fair...and you'd get the results that Joe
published. Of course, you wouldn't like the results, now, would you? ;-)



"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
How convenient, Gould. You pick the numbers that best suit your
argument...but fail to index the debt to 1996 also.

Apples to apples...remember, Chuck?

Already handled. The treasury does not index the debt. It does index the
GDP.
Your party's in charge. If you don't like it, fix it.

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

But you're comparing indexed numbers to non-indexed numbers! The treasury
publishes *both* current dollars for GDP, and chained dollars.

On the site I found and used for the calculation, there are no non-indexed
numbers for the GDP. I am not saying they don't exist somewhere, in fact you
would have to start with a non-indexed number and apply a factor to create an
indexed number in the first place. However, if the BEA is reporting the GDP
only in indexed numbers there must be some logical justification for that. I
believe it's to try to
develop a valid year-to-year comparison of actual wealth produced- not just the
effect of inflation.

With a non-indexed number, actual production could go *down* 5 percent, but if
inflation ran 7 percent the same year, the non-indexed number would encourage
people to believe that the economy grew by 2%. No, the economy shrank by 5% (in
this hypothetical example) and prices increased by 7.

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...

On the site I found and used for the calculation, there are no non-indexed
numbers for the GDP.

Sorry Chuck, but they do have all of the historical (1929-2003) non-indexed
GDP data on their site.

http://tinyurl.com/t3ww

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

perhaps we should try buy products made in the US
"Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message
link.net...
I just wish my stock prices would recover. I took a hit when the tech
stocks crashed.

Perhaps if we dumped NAFTA, the economy would take a big jump in
manufacturing!

Capt. Frank

NOYB wrote:

Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
By JEANNINE AVERSA, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The economy grew at a blistering 7.2 percent annual rate in
the
third quarter in the strongest pace in nearly two decades. Consumers
spent
with abandon and businesses ramped up investment, compelling new
evidence of
an economic resurgence.



The increase in gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the
economy's performance, in the July-September quarter was more than
double
the 3.3 percent rate registered in the second quarter, the Commerce
Department reported Thursday.


The 7.2 percent pace marked the best showing since the first quarter of
1984. It exceeded analysts' forecasts for a 6 percent growth rate for
third-quarter GDP, which measures the value of all goods and services
produced within the United States.


"This is a gangbuster number. Everything came together for the economy
in
the third quarter," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com.


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



I guess we can take "bagging on the economy" off the '04 Democratic
election
strategy...

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

Sorry Chuck, but they do have all of the historical (1929-2003) non-indexed
GDP data on their site.

http://tinyurl.com/t3ww


Click on the link I provided. None of this information is on the page I
referenced.

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

Did Chuck all of a sudden become impartial? No and no.
He just doesn't seem to like America.



Actually, I love America. I hate to see the country damaged by selfish people
with a greedy agenda.

I love America.

I dislike Bush.

I distrust the PNAC gang, based on their *own* admitted and published agenda.

I have no time at all for ignorant, flaming, assholes. If you happen to run
into one, would you pass that along for me? Thanks.

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Sorry Chuck, but they do have all of the historical (1929-2003)
non-indexed
GDP data on their site.

http://tinyurl.com/t3ww


Click on the link I provided. None of this information is on the page I
referenced.

Not from the same page of course, but from the same BEA website. You said
there weren't any non indexed numbers on the BEA website, which there are.

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

Not from the same page of course, but from the same BEA website. You said
there weren't any non indexed numbers on the BEA website, which there are.

In which case I have no choice but to admit that I was in error. Once I found
the page with the GDP numbers, it did not occur to me to look for additional
pages where different versions of the statistic might be reported.

I hope the phrase, "I admit that I was in error" doesn't cause a complete short
circuit throughout usenet. It's not often seen on the screen. :-)

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

On 31 Oct 2003 16:42:56 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Not from the same page of course, but from the same BEA website. You said
there weren't any non indexed numbers on the BEA website, which there are.

In which case I have no choice but to admit that I was in error. Once I found
the page with the GDP numbers, it did not occur to me to look for additional
pages where different versions of the statistic might be reported.

I hope the phrase, "I admit that I was in error" doesn't cause a complete short
circuit throughout usenet. It's not often seen on the screen. :-)

Chuck, many of us admit you were in error, often several times daily! : )


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 31 Oct 2003 16:42:56 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Not from the same page of course, but from the same BEA website. You
said
there weren't any non indexed numbers on the BEA website, which there
are.

In which case I have no choice but to admit that I was in error. Once I
found
the page with the GDP numbers, it did not occur to me to look for
additional
pages where different versions of the statistic might be reported.

I hope the phrase, "I admit that I was in error" doesn't cause a complete
short
circuit throughout usenet. It's not often seen on the screen. :-)

Chuck, many of us admit you were in error, often several times daily! : )

And thank your lucky stars you're provided with the same friendly service.

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

Not to mention the lost dividends!

Capt Frank

NOYB wrote:
Frank,
The Nasdaq is up over 70% from 12 months ago...and the Dow is up 30%.
That's great if you got in the market in October 2002. Of course, when a
stock falls 50%, then it has to go up 100% just to be even.


"Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message
link.net...

I just wish my stock prices would recover. I took a hit when the tech
stocks crashed.

Perhaps if we dumped NAFTA, the economy would take a big jump in
manufacturing!

Capt. Frank

NOYB wrote:


Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
By JEANNINE AVERSA, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The economy grew at a blistering 7.2 percent annual rate in

the

third quarter in the strongest pace in nearly two decades. Consumers

spent

with abandon and businesses ramped up investment, compelling new

evidence of

an economic resurgence.



The increase in gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the
economy's performance, in the July-September quarter was more than

double

the 3.3 percent rate registered in the second quarter, the Commerce
Department reported Thursday.


The 7.2 percent pace marked the best showing since the first quarter of
1984. It exceeded analysts' forecasts for a 6 percent growth rate for
third-quarter GDP, which measures the value of all goods and services
produced within the United States.


"This is a gangbuster number. Everything came together for the economy

in

the third quarter," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com.


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

--

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



I guess we can take "bagging on the economy" off the '04 Democratic

election

strategy...

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

Buy US is great except for we don't make much anymore. Our cars are made
in Mex and Can. Our electronics in Korea or Japan along with cameras,
clothing in Taiwan or hong kong, and other items such as household goods
also in asia. What we are "making" now is interest on loans to these
countries, a lot of wheat and grain. Some beef, and veggies, and a few
small factories putting out specialty goods. Boats and stuff. Hey! Try
to buy a boat built will all-american parts! once you get out of the
"open fishing boat" class you add lights (korea) and horns (mex) radios
(japan) and engines, (some parts from here) and upholesrty (europe). At
least my flare kit is made in the USA!

Capt. Frank

Wildest Dream wrote:

perhaps we should try buy products made in the US
"Capt. Frank Hopkins" wrote in message
link.net...

I just wish my stock prices would recover. I took a hit when the tech
stocks crashed.

Perhaps if we dumped NAFTA, the economy would take a big jump in
manufacturing!

Capt. Frank

NOYB wrote:


Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
By JEANNINE AVERSA, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The economy grew at a blistering 7.2 percent annual rate in

the

third quarter in the strongest pace in nearly two decades. Consumers

spent

with abandon and businesses ramped up investment, compelling new

evidence of

an economic resurgence.



The increase in gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the
economy's performance, in the July-September quarter was more than

double

the 3.3 percent rate registered in the second quarter, the Commerce
Department reported Thursday.


The 7.2 percent pace marked the best showing since the first quarter of
1984. It exceeded analysts' forecasts for a 6 percent growth rate for
third-quarter GDP, which measures the value of all goods and services
produced within the United States.


"This is a gangbuster number. Everything came together for the economy

in

the third quarter," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com.


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

--

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



I guess we can take "bagging on the economy" off the '04 Democratic

election

strategy...

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

I guess that's why I said you were manipulating the data and being
deceitful. The non-indexed numbers are obviously there, and I accused you
of deliberately ignoring them. I guess "I was in error" too. The thought
never occurred to me that you just didn't see 'em.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Not from the same page of course, but from the same BEA website. You said
there weren't any non indexed numbers on the BEA website, which there
are.

In which case I have no choice but to admit that I was in error. Once I
found
the page with the GDP numbers, it did not occur to me to look for
additional
pages where different versions of the statistic might be reported.

I hope the phrase, "I admit that I was in error" doesn't cause a complete
short
circuit throughout usenet. It's not often seen on the screen. :-)

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
I guess that's why I said you were manipulating the data and being
deceitful. The non-indexed numbers are obviously there, and I accused you
of deliberately ignoring them. I guess "I was in error" too. The thought
never occurred to me that you just didn't see 'em.


Ya know what's interesting? Gould, in his first post on this thread used the
following GDP numbers-

1997 GDP: 8,318.4
2002 GDP: 10446.2

After which he stated "Compare that to the national debt for the same years.
It's close, so use a
calculator."

Well, if *he* had used a calculator, he would have come up with a 64.5%
ratio for 1997, and a 58.75% ratio for 2002, both within 1% of my original
numbers which he originally labeled "Bow-gus!".

Then again, it's possible he did use a calculator, but only after he posted,
and then scrambled to find more friendly numbers.

OT--Economy Grows at Fastest Pace Since 1984
 

"Joe" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
om...
I guess that's why I said you were manipulating the data and being
deceitful. The non-indexed numbers are obviously there, and I accused
you
of deliberately ignoring them. I guess "I was in error" too. The
thought
never occurred to me that you just didn't see 'em.


Ya know what's interesting? Gould, in his first post on this thread used
the
following GDP numbers-

1997 GDP: 8,318.4
2002 GDP: 10446.2


The other funny thing about those numbers is that they don't appear anywhere
on the link that he kept citing as his "source". Look:
http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/tables/ebr1.htm
(That's the source he kept referencing in his argument)

In fact, those numbers are the "actual" GDP numbers...the same numbers he
now claims that he never saw on the bea.gov website in the first place.
Then where did he get them?

I believe this is the point where he can no longer claim an "honest
mistake"...and has lost any and all credibility in this debate.