2013 GDP Growth Rate Closer to -1.75%

Phony Government Statistics: GDP

– By: Larry Walker, II –

“There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.” ~ Proverbs 6:16-19 ~

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is one of the broader measures of economic activity and is the most widely followed business indicator reported by the U.S. government. But according to Economist Walter J. Williams of Shadow Government Statistics, “Upward growth biases built into GDP modeling since the early 1980’s have rendered this important series nearly worthless as an indicator of economic activity… With reported growth moving up and away from economic reality, the primary significance of GDP reporting now is as a political propaganda tool and as a cheerleading prop for Pollyannaish analysts on Wall Street.”

On August 29, 2013, the Federal Government reported that Real Gross Domestic Product — the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States — increased at an annual rate of 2.5 percent in the second quarter of 2013 (that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to the “second” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). In the first quarter, real GDP increased 1.1 percent. (The BEA will release its final number for the second quarter 2013 on September 26, 2013, at 8:30 A.M. EDT.)

However, this GDP headline number refers to the most-recent quarter’s annualized quarter-to-quarter rate of change (what that quarter’s percent quarter-to-quarter change would translate into if compounded for four consecutive quarters). This can mean that the latest quarter can be reported with a positive annualized growth rate, while the actual annual rate of change is negative, as was the case for the 3rd quarter of 2009. So is the economy really growing or not?

Note: The chart above, courtesy of ShadowStats.com, shows Annual Growth (Year-to-Year Percent Change). This is not the annualized quarterly rate of change that serves as the headline number for the series.

Shadow GDP

According to Shadow Government Statistics, the annual growth percentage change in GDP for the second quarter 2013, based on Official BEA data, was a mere 1.64%. However, when the aforementioned upward biases, inserted into GDP since 1984, are removed, the annual growth percentage change for the second quarter 2013 was actually more like -1.75%.

In fact, if you study the chart above, in conjunction with source data courtesy of Shadow Government Statistics, other than an anemic growth rate of less than 0.51% for the first, second, and third quarters of 2004, based on pre-1984 methodology, annual GDP growth has been negative ever since the second quarter of 2000.

Even worse, every time the BEA makes a new Pollyannaish change in its GDP reporting methodology, all prior data is restated back to the year 1929. For example, according to Shadow Government Statistics, methodological changes made in 2004 led to increases in previously reported GDP of 2.86% for 1980, and 5.25% for 1990 (see table below).

Unless this nonsense is reigned in, I suspect that in the near future, the Great Depression will be referred to as the Booming 30’s. Should you wish to study this topic further, please take a few moments to read the series authored by Walter J. “John” Williams, “Government Economic Reports: Things You’ve Suspected But Were Afraid To Ask!

The Bottom Line: Nearly every key statistic reported by the Federal Government is a lie. Virtually every word emanating from Washington, DC is a lie. Although the American people may be exceptional, the Government of the United States, as it stands today, has strayed so far from the mark that there will be none other to blame as it seals its own demise.

Related:

Black Unemployment Rate Closer to 37.9%: Phony Government Statistics, Detroit and Black Americans

Entertainment R&D Boosts Federal GDP Calculation Following Formula Changes

The new GDP methodology: What you need to know: U.S. economy over $500 billion larger due to new definitions

Blindsided | White House Fiscal Lunacy

Back in the Ditch

2016 GDP vs. National Debt

– By: Larry Walker, Jr. –

We will not be adding more to the national debt.” ~ Barack Obama ~

Say what? You must mean that you will not be adding more to your national debt, because I know that I certainly won’t be adding to the national debt, so you need to take the we out of that statement buddy. The real question is how are you going to pay back the trillions of dollars that you have already squandered? And here’s another riddle – What will the U.S.A.’s gross domestic product (GDP) need grow to by the year 2016 in order to keep pace with the present White House occupant’s irrationally exuberant spending spree? And based on the answer to that question, at what annual rate must our economy grow?

If we add the inexperienced CEO’s 2011 to 2016 projected annual budget deficits to fiscal year 2010’s ending national debt balance of $13.6 trillion, then the national debt will equal $19.0 trillion by the year 2016. And you call that “not adding more to the national debt”? So is this guy a pathological liar, or what?

At the end of 2010, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) reported that gross domestic product (GDP) for the year was $14.6 trillion. So depending on the rate of economic growth over the next 6 years, the national debt may sooner or later exceed GDP. Although even the present White House occupant once stated that the national debt is unsustainable, the question is – as juxtaposed to what? If we take a look back to the days when our debt was sustainable, when the economy was growing at roughly 5% per year with low unemployment, such as in 2003, we will discover that the debt-to-GDP ratio back then was 60.9%. So the question is what do we need to do in order to reduce our debt-to-GDP ratio from its present level of 92.8% back down to 60.9%?

In Scenario #1 (below) we will determine the rate of economic growth necessary in order for GDP to equal our projected debt by the year 2016. In Scenario #2 we will discover the rate of economic growth needed to return to a more healthy debt-to-GDP ratio of 60.9%. Finally, in Scenario #3 we reveal what the debt-to-GDP ratio will be by 2016 if GDP maintains its present growth rate of 3.2% per annum.

Scenario #1 – The budget to nowhere

Gross domestic product must grow from $14.6 to $19.0 trillion in order to equal the National Debt by 2016. In other words, GDP must maintain an average sustained growth rate of 4.5% per year, over the next 6 years, in order to achieve a debt-to-GDP ratio of 100%. This represents ‘the budget to nowhere’. Although, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that GDP grew at the rate of 3.2% in the 4th quarter of 2010, as you can deduce, this will not be sufficient to reach the current White House occupant’s pitiful goal of a 100% debt-to-GDP ratio.

Scenario #2 – Back to sanity

In order to return to the more prosperous 2003 debt-to-GDP ratio of 60.9%, GDP must grow at a sustained annual rate of 13.5% over the next 6 years. How likely is this? In order to achieve such a rate of growth, our economy would need to expand at the pace of an emerging market economy, a feat which is hardly doable. This is precisely why the Debt Commission recently stated that we will never grow our way out of this fiscal disaster.

Scenario #3 – Your new reality

Finally, if GDP maintains the present annual growth rate of 3.2%, then our debt-to-GDP ratio will have reached 107.4% by 2016. Welcome to reality, and to a future of bonded labor. This doesn’t look like winning the future to me, it looks more like a donkey in a quagmire.

Conclusion

The present White House occupant’s budget plan leads to disaster. What most of us wanted to hear was a plan for paying off the debt which he alone has run up over the last two years, not more debt evasion. Face it, there is only one way out of this mess. The first thing we need to do is to derail all of this administration’s reckless spending initiatives. Secondly, government spending must be cut, slashed, and cut again. And finally, we must get this fiscally bankrupt pathological liar out of the White House, by any means necessary. By any means necessary. And as far as who will be the next POTUS; throw a dart. While I am not certain about who it will be, I definitely know who will be packing up at the end of 2012, if not sooner.

Sources:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z1.xls

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2011/xls/gdp4q10_adv.xls

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

The Progressive Slide to 2020 | GDP vs. Debt

2020 GDP vs. National Debt

By: Larry Walker, Jr.

The question of the day is what will the USA’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) need grow to by the year 2020 in order to keep pace with the Progressive’s ruinous spending? And based on the answer to that, at what annual rate should our economy be growing?

If we add the CBO’s 2010 to 2020 projected estimate of the president’s budget deficit to the current national debt of $12,948.7 billion (as of 4/30/2010), then the National Debt will total $23,170.0 billion by the year 2020.

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

As of the end of the 1st quarter of 2010, based on the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA’s) latest preliminary estimate, GDP is averaging $14,601.4 billion annually.

click to enlarge

Depending upon the rate of growth of our economy over the next 11 years, our National Debt will exceed GDP, sooner or later. We know that even the Progressive’s say that our National Debt is unsustainable, but the question is just how unsustainable? If we take a look back to the days when our debt was sustainable and the economy was growing at roughly 5% per year with low unemployment, for example 2003, we will discover that our Debt to GDP ratio was 60.9%.

Scenario #1, below, determines the rate of growth necessary in order for GDP to match our projected debt by the year 2020. Scenario #2 determines the rate of growth needed in order to return to the 2003 debt-to-GDP ratio of 60.9%. Finally, Scenario #3 reveals what the debt-to-GDP ratio will be by 2020 if GDP maintains its current pace.

click to enlarge

Scenario #1 – The road to nowhere

GDP must grow from $14,601.4 to $23,170.0 billion in order to equal the National Debt by 2020. In other words, GDP must maintain an average sustained growth rate of 5.3% per year for the next 11 years, in order to achieve a Debt to GDP ratio of 100%. This represents ‘the road to nowhere’. Although, per the BEA, GDP grew at a rate of 3.2% in the first quarter of 2010, as you can see, this will not be enough to reach the destructive Progressive goal of a 100% debt-to-GDP ratio.

Scenario #2 – The way back to 2003

In order to return to the more prosperous 2003 Debt-to-GDP ratio of 60.9%, GDP must grow at a sustained annual rate of 14.1% for the next 11 years. In order to achieve such a rate of growth, our economy would have to grow at the pace of an emerging market, a feat which is clearly impossible for an industrialized nation. This is precisely why the president’s debt commission has stated publicly that, we will never grow our way out of this ‘man-made disaster’.

Scenario #3 – The Hellenistic toboggan slide

If GDP maintains its present annual growth rate of 3.2%, then by the year 2020 our debt-to-GDP ratio will reach 117.4%. Welcome to the Progressive Utopia. Welcome to the Republic of Greece.

Conclusion

The end of the Progressive trail leads to Greece. What you are seeing in Greece today is precisely where Progressive ideology will take us. Prepare for riots, violence, chaos, class warfare, and national bailouts. If that’s what you want, then support Barack Obama, and his Progressive entourage, and vehemently defend all of their policies. But, if this is not where you want to be in 2020, then identify and support true fiscal conservatives. Join with independents and moderates, and let’s elect responsible mainstream leaders who will lead us out of the wilderness, through sound fiscal policy, and free-enterprise solutions. It’s time to put the Progressives in their place: prison.

Sources:

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2010/txt/gdp1q10_adv.txt

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11231/frontmatter.shtml

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

2009 GDP | The Bottom Line

Click to Enlarge

2009 GDP

Real GDP decreased 2.4 percent in 2009 (that is, from the 2008 annual level to the 2009 annual level), in contrast to an increase of 0.4 percent in 2008.

The decrease in real GDP in 2009 primarily reflected negative contributions from nonresidential fixed investment, exports, private inventory investment, residential fixed investment, and personal consumption expenditures (PCE) that were partly offset by a positive contribution from federal government spending.

So now it’s time for a huge tax increase, right?

Couple the worst GDP results in decades along with unemployment hovering around 10%, then add to that 4.5 million foreclosure filings expected in 2010, and mix in personal incomes falling by an average of 1.7% in 2009, and you will begin to understand Obamanomics.

Time to end this nightmare! Vote them out.

By: Larry Walker, Jr.

References:

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Mumbo Jumbo

Give me a break!

by: Larry Walker, Jr.

Worthless Government Statistics

It was just back on November 3rd when the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), a division of the U.S. Commerce Department, declared that Gross Domestic Product grew at an annual rate of 3.5% during the 3rd quarter of 2009. Then on November 23rd, the Bureau declared that the revised rate of growth for the 3rd quarter was only 2.8%. The question that came to mind, right away, was: What exactly does this mean?

Click to Enlarge

First of all what it does NOT mean is that the economy grew at the rate of 2.8% during the 3rd quarter of 2009. The rate of 2.8% is derived by taking the rate of increase from the 2nd quarter to the 3rd quarter of 0.70% and assuming that this will stay constant for the next 3 quarters (0.70% times 4). Why is this a bogus way of measuring the economy?

When I open my quarterly 401K statement and it reads that my portfolio has increased by 8.0% during the recent period, I don’t automatically assume that my annual rate of return is 32.0% (8.0% times 4). No, on the contrary, I look at the past four quarters to determine my annual return. If I lost 8.0% in the previous three quarters combined, and then gained 8.0% in the most recent quarter, then I am close to breaking even. But have I broken even? No.

To demonstrate, let’s assume my portfolio was valued at $100,000 at the end of the previous fiscal year. After declining by 8.0% in the succeeding three quarters, the value had dropped to $92,000 ($100,000 times 0.92). Now, after gaining 8.0% in the most recent quarter, the value of my portfolio has increased to $99,360 ($92,000 times 1.08). You will note that I have yet to break even. I am in fact still down by 0.64% ($640 divided by $100,000) having started with $100,000 and declined to $99,360 over the past four quarters. So much for growth. Now back to GDP.

GDP has declined by 1.42% over the past four quarters

Now when it comes to GDP, a more reasonable way to look at our present rate of growth, similar to measuring an investment portfolio, is to look at the past 4 quarters. Since the BEA only publishes figures in annual terms, I will approach this by using their figures, but keep in mind that the quarterly GDP figures are shown as annual amounts (in billions).

  • 4th Quarter 2008 – $14,347.3

  • 1st Quarter 2009 – $14,178.0

  • 2nd Quarter 2009 – $14,151.2

  • 3rd Quarter 2009 – $14,266.3

Dividing the above by four, the average GDP over the past four quarters is $14,235.7 billion. The final GDP figure for all of 2008 was $14,441.4. So GDP has dropped by $205.7 billion ($14,441.4 minus $14,235.7) over the past four quarters. That equals a percentage drop of 1.42% ($205.7 divided by $14,441.4) since 2008.

GDP has declined at the rate of 1.21% since 2008

An even more accurate way to look at this is to start with the 2008 total GDP of $14,441.4 billion and to measure the decline over the next three quarters. In this respect GDP declined by 1.82% in the 1st quarter of 2009, by another 0.19% in the 2nd quarter of 2009, and then improved by 0.80% in the 3rd quarter of 2009. Overall GDP has declined by 1.21% since 2008. This is the statistic that’s most meaningful to me.

GDP has declined at the rate of 1.21% since 2008. In dollar terms that’s $175.1 billion per year in lost production in our economy. That’s the equivalent of losing 3.5 million jobs paying $50,000 per year. That’s more meaningful to me than the BEA’s mumbo jumbo.

GDP growth averaged 4.93% per year from 2003 to 2008

While we are at it, you will note on the chart above that GDP was $11,142.1 billion in 2003 and grew to $14,441.4 billion in 2008. That’s an increase of 29.6% over the six-year period, or an average of 4.93% per year. It also represents an increase of $3,299 billion in U.S. production over the period. That’s the equivalent of an increase of around 65.9 million jobs paying $50,000 per year.

So wake me up when Obama’s economy killing policies have created 65.9 million jobs, or when GDP reaches $18,490.7 billion (an increase of 29.6% from today’s level), whichever comes first, but don’t bother me with meaningless government statistics.

Sources:

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2009/xls/gdp3q09_2nd.xls