US Economic Recovery

[downzy]

Retiring in droves?

They are retiring, however, baby boomers began to enter the 55+ age bracket starting in 1998-1999, which is roughly fifty-five years after the baby boom started. And even though most will retire at 65, since the baby boom was so long and so pronounced, it will take several decades to return to historical averages. The graph you site is simply a gross accumulation of people, hence it downplays the increase of 70 million Americans from 1993 to 2014. That's going to have an effect on the total number of Americans aged 55 and up as it wasn't just the United States that experienced a baby boom.

[Ace Nova]

We're good.

carry on.

[magisme]

You do know that deficit and debt are not the same thing, right?

Yeah, sorry, I meant to say the rate of federal debt expansion is slowing down. And considering the GDP is clipping along between 4 and 5 percent, the overall effect has been a decrease in federal public debt as a percentage of the overall economy.

We'll see about that 4-5%.

Let's see how it's working out so far:

The world’s largest economy hit a bigger ditch in the first quarter than initially estimated, held back by harsh winter weather, a strong dollar and delays at ports.

Gross domestic product in the U.S. shrank at a 0.7 percent annualized rate, revised from a previously reported 0.2 percent gain, according to Commerce Department figures issued Friday in Washington. The median forecast of 84 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a 0.9 percent drop. By contrast, the report also showed incomes climbed, fueling the debate on whether GDP is being underestimated.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-29/economy-in-u-s-shrank-0-7-in-first-quarter-as-trade-gap-jumped

Oh well. Guess we'll need a new narrative.

[downzy]

You do know that deficit and debt are not the same thing, right?

Yeah, sorry, I meant to say the rate of federal debt expansion is slowing down. And considering the GDP is clipping along between 4 and 5 percent, the overall effect has been a decrease in federal public debt as a percentage of the overall economy.

We'll see about that 4-5%.

Let's see how it's working out so far:

The world’s largest economy hit a bigger ditch in the first quarter than initially estimated, held back by harsh winter weather, a strong dollar and delays at ports.

Gross domestic product in the U.S. shrank at a 0.7 percent annualized rate, revised from a previously reported 0.2 percent gain, according to Commerce Department figures issued Friday in Washington. The median forecast of 84 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a 0.9 percent drop. By contrast, the report also showed incomes climbed, fueling the debate on whether GDP is being underestimated.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-29/economy-in-u-s-shrank-0-7-in-first-quarter-as-trade-gap-jumped

Oh well. Guess we'll need a new narrative.

it dropped in Q1 of 2014 as well, largely as a result of the same conditions. But it roared back later in the year. Let's see where things stand in September and December.

(also, your article does point out that the drop was lower than expected and that some argue that GDP is being underestimated as incomes have seen increases).

[magisme]

Yes, I know the excuses they're throwing out.

Even if the economy "roars back", which it didn't and it won't, 2014 GDP growth was 2.4%, about half of what you were predicting.

[downzy]

Yes, I know the excuses they're throwing out.

Even if the economy "roars back", which it didn't and it won't, 2014 GDP growth was 2.4%, about half of what you were predicting.

Take out the first quarter of 2014 (which isn't an excuse, there's nothing policy makers can do in the face of severe weather), and it's fairly decent (in and around 4 percent). We're experiencing the same problem this year. One bad quarter followed by three good to great quarters is still progress.

[magisme]

Isn't it awful when winter is winter-y? I wish the world looked more like an Excel spreadsheet.

Carry on. I'll be back in a couple months with true facts. But there will probably be a storm during storm season, so, no worries, there's always next year. Who could have seen it coming?

Edited May 29, 2015 by magisme

[downzy]

Isn't it awful when winter is winter-y? I wish the world looked more like an Excel spreadsheet.

Carry on. I'll be back in a couple months with true facts. But there will probably be a storm during storm season, so, no worries, there's always next year. Who could have seen it coming?

Ah, the predictable Mags response that forgoes context. Forget about the fact that every macro economists blamed poor Q1 performances (2014 and 2015) on winters that were well outside the norm. Those are true facts, but apparently not the ones you're willing to accept.

Lots of things can happen that can disrupt growth. We're seeing headwinds in US exports as a result of surge in the value of the U.S. dollar. So things can change. But the overall trajectory still anticipates stronger growth for the remainder of the year as incomes are up and energy costs are down.

[magisme]

Forget about the fact that every macro economists blamed poor Q1 performances (2014 and 2015) on winters that were well outside the norm.

Not even close to true. You just make it up as you go along, don't you?

I look forward to your future excuses.

[magisme]

As if we're having a reasonable discussion, I should also point out that the -0.7% Q1 print is a "seasonally adjusted" number, which means that they factor bad weather into the statistics, which is to say, of course, that the statistics are fudged but that if things look OK in some fictional seasonally adjusted world, then, well, they must be OK.

[Dazey]

Basically the gist of this thread from Mags and Downzy.

[arnold layne]

I know how we could stimulate the economy.

Everyone send me ten dollars and I'll invest it back as I see fit.