"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.

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. :-)

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

"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.

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...

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...

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. :-)

"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.

"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.