|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 31 2020 16:15 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2020 15:54 mahrgell wrote:On July 31 2020 15:43 Simberto wrote:On July 31 2020 15:38 mahrgell wrote:On July 31 2020 15:30 LegalLord wrote:On July 31 2020 14:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2020 12:58 LegalLord wrote:
Question for someone more attentive to the report than I am: that >30% drop in GDP in the US, does that lowered GDP include the money spent by the government as stimulus on checks, unemployment, etc? Fed loan money? I know "government spending" is generally considered to be a portion of GDP but in practice the calculation has been really tricky for me to parse. That would be really bad if it was counted and still that bad right? I mean it's really unfathomably bad already but worse? Indeed. And I admit that my understanding of GDP is a little bit fuzzy since it's fairly complex to calculate and not something I've looked at in a while, but my expectation would be that we'd see GDP include: 1. The stimulus check 2. Unemployment, including the boosted one 3. Salaries bankrolled by the paycheck protection programs 4. Probably NOT the giant stack of loans handed out by Congress and the Fed, but maybe some portion of this is a contributor? The numbers basically say, this quarter we only had $4 trillion of economy instead of $6 trillion. Maybe the reality is that we have a trillion less than that, but we just borrowed the difference. And yeah, right there is at least one data point to suggest GDP as an imperfect measure of "the economy." But it's far more real than other measures, such as the stock market, that have often been used to claim economic health. The 32.9% is an annualized value. It was 9.5% less in the quarter! I assume that was sarcasm? What makes you think so? The numbers basically say, this quarter we only had $4 trillion of economy instead of $6 trillion. This should be 5.4 ... And that was all I'm saying. Then the numbers do something else then i would expect them to do.
Well, this weirdness of the US numbers is why they are widely criticized. But hey, they are reporting them like that since the 30s... And it makes your growth numbers look bigger, so this was welcome all the time.
They just take their change from the last quarter and extrapolate this over the entire year. If we grow/shrink at the same pace in the next 3 quarter like we did in this one, we would have an annual GDP change of x%. Now this kind of extrapolation works kinda okay when the GDP changes change slowly (so the 2nd derivative is near 0) but it absolutely horrible when your economy suddenly drops off a cliff and you extrapolate this cliff even further.
But don't worry, after having marked this historical low value, the next quarter GDP numbers will tell you a new historic high! At least relative to this quarter. And those numbers will release right before the election. And Trump will boast about having "grown the US economy by 25%, more bigly than any president ever has before.".
Numbers are a wonderful thing...
When you bring the GDP numbers of the US into the same format as the European ones, it looks like this:
US -9.5%
Germany -10.1%
France -13.8%
Spain -18.5%
Italy releases its number in about half an hour from now.
And that it looks like the US is "doing better" is mostly due to the fact, that while everything collapsed, the tech giants boomed, which heavily compensated for the overall disaster making it look much smaller. But well, how much Average Joe profits from Facebook or Amazon making record earnings...
|
On July 31 2020 16:15 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2020 15:54 mahrgell wrote:On July 31 2020 15:43 Simberto wrote:On July 31 2020 15:38 mahrgell wrote:On July 31 2020 15:30 LegalLord wrote:On July 31 2020 14:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2020 12:58 LegalLord wrote:
Question for someone more attentive to the report than I am: that >30% drop in GDP in the US, does that lowered GDP include the money spent by the government as stimulus on checks, unemployment, etc? Fed loan money? I know "government spending" is generally considered to be a portion of GDP but in practice the calculation has been really tricky for me to parse. That would be really bad if it was counted and still that bad right? I mean it's really unfathomably bad already but worse? Indeed. And I admit that my understanding of GDP is a little bit fuzzy since it's fairly complex to calculate and not something I've looked at in a while, but my expectation would be that we'd see GDP include: 1. The stimulus check 2. Unemployment, including the boosted one 3. Salaries bankrolled by the paycheck protection programs 4. Probably NOT the giant stack of loans handed out by Congress and the Fed, but maybe some portion of this is a contributor? The numbers basically say, this quarter we only had $4 trillion of economy instead of $6 trillion. Maybe the reality is that we have a trillion less than that, but we just borrowed the difference. And yeah, right there is at least one data point to suggest GDP as an imperfect measure of "the economy." But it's far more real than other measures, such as the stock market, that have often been used to claim economic health. The 32.9% is an annualized value. It was 9.5% less in the quarter! I assume that was sarcasm? What makes you think so? The numbers basically say, this quarter we only had $4 trillion of economy instead of $6 trillion. This should be 5.4 ... And that was all I'm saying. Then the numbers do something else then i would expect them to do.
Indeed they do, and it's frustrating how bad most everything is at reporting this. Takes a really close reading of the raw GDP report (Appendix Table B) to see that that is in fact how it works.
So then, to revise, but with actual numbers rather than a $24T basis for US annual GDP:
1. A year ago, this same quarter of the year had $5.3T of output.
2. Same time this year is $4.8T of output
3. This is the worst drop on record exactly as it stands right now.
4. A big part of that $4.8T we have remaining is propped up by at least hundreds of billions of stimulus payments already made, but how much?
|
On July 31 2020 16:34 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2020 16:15 Simberto wrote:On July 31 2020 15:54 mahrgell wrote:On July 31 2020 15:43 Simberto wrote:On July 31 2020 15:38 mahrgell wrote:On July 31 2020 15:30 LegalLord wrote:On July 31 2020 14:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2020 12:58 LegalLord wrote:
Question for someone more attentive to the report than I am: that >30% drop in GDP in the US, does that lowered GDP include the money spent by the government as stimulus on checks, unemployment, etc? Fed loan money? I know "government spending" is generally considered to be a portion of GDP but in practice the calculation has been really tricky for me to parse. That would be really bad if it was counted and still that bad right? I mean it's really unfathomably bad already but worse? Indeed. And I admit that my understanding of GDP is a little bit fuzzy since it's fairly complex to calculate and not something I've looked at in a while, but my expectation would be that we'd see GDP include: 1. The stimulus check 2. Unemployment, including the boosted one 3. Salaries bankrolled by the paycheck protection programs 4. Probably NOT the giant stack of loans handed out by Congress and the Fed, but maybe some portion of this is a contributor? The numbers basically say, this quarter we only had $4 trillion of economy instead of $6 trillion. Maybe the reality is that we have a trillion less than that, but we just borrowed the difference. And yeah, right there is at least one data point to suggest GDP as an imperfect measure of "the economy." But it's far more real than other measures, such as the stock market, that have often been used to claim economic health. The 32.9% is an annualized value. It was 9.5% less in the quarter! I assume that was sarcasm? What makes you think so? The numbers basically say, this quarter we only had $4 trillion of economy instead of $6 trillion. This should be 5.4 ... And that was all I'm saying. Then the numbers do something else then i would expect them to do. Well, this weirdness of the US numbers is why they are widely criticized. But hey, they are reporting them like that since the 30s... And it makes your growth numbers look bigger, so this was welcome all the time. They just take their change from the last quarter and extrapolate this over the entire year. If we grow/shrink at the same pace in the next 3 quarter like we did in this one, we would have an annual GDP change of x%. Now this kind of extrapolation works kinda okay when the GDP changes change slowly (so the 2nd derivative is near 0) but it absolutely horrible when your economy suddenly drops off a cliff and you extrapolate this cliff even further. But don't worry, after having marked this historical low value, the next quarter GDP numbers will tell you a new historic high! At least relative to this quarter. And those numbers will release right before the election. And Trump will boast about having "grown the US economy by 25%, more bigly than any president ever has before.". Numbers are a wonderful thing... When you bring the GDP numbers of the US into the same format as the European ones, it looks like this: US -9.5% Germany -10.1% France -13.8% Spain -18.5% Italy releases its number in about half an hour from now. And that it looks like the US is "doing better" is mostly due to the fact, that while everything collapsed, the tech giants boomed, which heavily compensated for the overall disaster making it look much smaller. But well, how much Average Joe profits from Facebook or Amazon making record earnings...
Make no mistake - As much as it's in dire straits, the US economy IS superior to those of the European countries you listed. There are various reasons but one of them is the fact that the USD better retains purchasing power thanks largely in part to its status as the world reserve currency.
Tech giants doing well, DOES indirectly help the Average Joe to some extent. First of all, Walmart (not a tech giant but did very well during the COVID 19 pandemic) and Amazon are the two largest employers in the U.S. Second of all, the strength of American mega corps like big tech companies does incentivize keeping the USD as the world reserve currency - that is, preventing foreign countries from having a decreased demand for USD and sending it back to the US to cause inflation and recession which would hurt the Average Joe in the US.
This can easily change though (and has been changing in fact). The more the Fed prints money, the lower the purchasing power of the USD, meaning the less demand for it globally.
One thing the US has going for it is that other countries also take part in the damning process of inflating their own currencies. The EU does it. Japan does it.
|
On July 31 2020 12:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2020 12:11 Erasme wrote:On July 31 2020 11:55 Danglars wrote:On July 31 2020 10:40 Erasme wrote:
Always nice to have danglars defending another stupid tweet. I don't see a "he's senile" or "deranged", just calling out the mass "hysteria". Cool.
Any thoughts on the tulsa rally killings ? Our "hysteria" that time was met with your criticism wasn't it ? It's nice to hear people confusing apocalyptic predictions in light of his tweet with a defense of his tweet. Yes yes, criticizing the Hitler comparisons means you're defending the act. Much wisdom, great understanding. Nice of you to cherry pick that one but not unusual xd No comments on the second part tho ? Wish I could call them tulsa rally murders, but they signed a death waiver much wisdom I don't hear a defense of ignoring the apocalyptic part to call it "defending." If you won't stop lying, I have little reason to even recognize your post. I have little time, and some posts of mine have literally 7 people quote replying to them. So let's move beyond whatever motivates pretending Trump has the power to suspend or delay elections. It's like someone needs to throw a class on recognizing there are bad things in this world that aren't overthrowing the existing nation-state transition of power, and knowing the system will endure is not endorsement of the bad things.
Yeah, maybe they could add a small lesson on how to recognize power hungry morons. If you could bolden the part with the lie btw ? I haven't seen you attack him the way you do with Biden's bad tweets. You have your head so far up your ass, i'll enjoy thoroughly the day Trump get disawoved by the GOP to read how you always knew he was a dumbo.
|
On July 31 2020 17:14 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2020 16:34 mahrgell wrote:On July 31 2020 16:15 Simberto wrote:On July 31 2020 15:54 mahrgell wrote:On July 31 2020 15:43 Simberto wrote:On July 31 2020 15:38 mahrgell wrote:On July 31 2020 15:30 LegalLord wrote:On July 31 2020 14:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2020 12:58 LegalLord wrote:
Question for someone more attentive to the report than I am: that >30% drop in GDP in the US, does that lowered GDP include the money spent by the government as stimulus on checks, unemployment, etc? Fed loan money? I know "government spending" is generally considered to be a portion of GDP but in practice the calculation has been really tricky for me to parse. That would be really bad if it was counted and still that bad right? I mean it's really unfathomably bad already but worse? Indeed. And I admit that my understanding of GDP is a little bit fuzzy since it's fairly complex to calculate and not something I've looked at in a while, but my expectation would be that we'd see GDP include: 1. The stimulus check 2. Unemployment, including the boosted one 3. Salaries bankrolled by the paycheck protection programs 4. Probably NOT the giant stack of loans handed out by Congress and the Fed, but maybe some portion of this is a contributor? The numbers basically say, this quarter we only had $4 trillion of economy instead of $6 trillion. Maybe the reality is that we have a trillion less than that, but we just borrowed the difference. And yeah, right there is at least one data point to suggest GDP as an imperfect measure of "the economy." But it's far more real than other measures, such as the stock market, that have often been used to claim economic health. The 32.9% is an annualized value. It was 9.5% less in the quarter! I assume that was sarcasm? What makes you think so? The numbers basically say, this quarter we only had $4 trillion of economy instead of $6 trillion. This should be 5.4 ... And that was all I'm saying. Then the numbers do something else then i would expect them to do. Well, this weirdness of the US numbers is why they are widely criticized. But hey, they are reporting them like that since the 30s... And it makes your growth numbers look bigger, so this was welcome all the time. They just take their change from the last quarter and extrapolate this over the entire year. If we grow/shrink at the same pace in the next 3 quarter like we did in this one, we would have an annual GDP change of x%. Now this kind of extrapolation works kinda okay when the GDP changes change slowly (so the 2nd derivative is near 0) but it absolutely horrible when your economy suddenly drops off a cliff and you extrapolate this cliff even further. But don't worry, after having marked this historical low value, the next quarter GDP numbers will tell you a new historic high! At least relative to this quarter. And those numbers will release right before the election. And Trump will boast about having "grown the US economy by 25%, more bigly than any president ever has before.". Numbers are a wonderful thing... When you bring the GDP numbers of the US into the same format as the European ones, it looks like this: US -9.5% Germany -10.1% France -13.8% Spain -18.5% Italy releases its number in about half an hour from now. And that it looks like the US is "doing better" is mostly due to the fact, that while everything collapsed, the tech giants boomed, which heavily compensated for the overall disaster making it look much smaller. But well, how much Average Joe profits from Facebook or Amazon making record earnings... Make no mistake - As much as it's in dire straits, the US economy IS superior to those of the European countries you listed. There are various reasons but one of them is the fact that the USD better retains purchasing power thanks largely in part to its status as the world reserve currency. Tech giants doing well, DOES indirectly help the Average Joe to some extent. First of all, Walmart (not a tech giant but did very well during the COVID 19 pandemic) and Amazon are the two largest employers in the U.S. Second of all, the strength of American mega corps like big tech companies does incentivize keeping the USD as the world reserve currency - that is, preventing foreign countries from having a decreased demand for USD and sending it back to the US to cause inflation and recession which would hurt the Average Joe in the US. This can easily change though (and has been changing in fact). The more the Fed prints money, the lower the purchasing power of the USD, meaning the less demand for it globally. One thing the US has going for it is that other countries also take part in the damning process of inflating their own currencies. The EU does it. Japan does it. Does Walmart and Amazon doing well benefit their employees or are they still on food stamps?
|
Northern Ireland26092 Posts
On July 31 2020 18:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2020 17:14 BerserkSword wrote:On July 31 2020 16:34 mahrgell wrote:On July 31 2020 16:15 Simberto wrote:On July 31 2020 15:54 mahrgell wrote:On July 31 2020 15:43 Simberto wrote:On July 31 2020 15:38 mahrgell wrote:On July 31 2020 15:30 LegalLord wrote:On July 31 2020 14:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2020 12:58 LegalLord wrote:
Question for someone more attentive to the report than I am: that >30% drop in GDP in the US, does that lowered GDP include the money spent by the government as stimulus on checks, unemployment, etc? Fed loan money? I know "government spending" is generally considered to be a portion of GDP but in practice the calculation has been really tricky for me to parse. That would be really bad if it was counted and still that bad right? I mean it's really unfathomably bad already but worse? Indeed. And I admit that my understanding of GDP is a little bit fuzzy since it's fairly complex to calculate and not something I've looked at in a while, but my expectation would be that we'd see GDP include: 1. The stimulus check 2. Unemployment, including the boosted one 3. Salaries bankrolled by the paycheck protection programs 4. Probably NOT the giant stack of loans handed out by Congress and the Fed, but maybe some portion of this is a contributor? The numbers basically say, this quarter we only had $4 trillion of economy instead of $6 trillion. Maybe the reality is that we have a trillion less than that, but we just borrowed the difference. And yeah, right there is at least one data point to suggest GDP as an imperfect measure of "the economy." But it's far more real than other measures, such as the stock market, that have often been used to claim economic health. The 32.9% is an annualized value. It was 9.5% less in the quarter! I assume that was sarcasm? What makes you think so? The numbers basically say, this quarter we only had $4 trillion of economy instead of $6 trillion. This should be 5.4 ... And that was all I'm saying. Then the numbers do something else then i would expect them to do. Well, this weirdness of the US numbers is why they are widely criticized. But hey, they are reporting them like that since the 30s... And it makes your growth numbers look bigger, so this was welcome all the time. They just take their change from the last quarter and extrapolate this over the entire year. If we grow/shrink at the same pace in the next 3 quarter like we did in this one, we would have an annual GDP change of x%. Now this kind of extrapolation works kinda okay when the GDP changes change slowly (so the 2nd derivative is near 0) but it absolutely horrible when your economy suddenly drops off a cliff and you extrapolate this cliff even further. But don't worry, after having marked this historical low value, the next quarter GDP numbers will tell you a new historic high! At least relative to this quarter. And those numbers will release right before the election. And Trump will boast about having "grown the US economy by 25%, more bigly than any president ever has before.". Numbers are a wonderful thing... When you bring the GDP numbers of the US into the same format as the European ones, it looks like this: US -9.5% Germany -10.1% France -13.8% Spain -18.5% Italy releases its number in about half an hour from now. And that it looks like the US is "doing better" is mostly due to the fact, that while everything collapsed, the tech giants boomed, which heavily compensated for the overall disaster making it look much smaller. But well, how much Average Joe profits from Facebook or Amazon making record earnings... Make no mistake - As much as it's in dire straits, the US economy IS superior to those of the European countries you listed. There are various reasons but one of them is the fact that the USD better retains purchasing power thanks largely in part to its status as the world reserve currency. Tech giants doing well, DOES indirectly help the Average Joe to some extent. First of all, Walmart (not a tech giant but did very well during the COVID 19 pandemic) and Amazon are the two largest employers in the U.S. Second of all, the strength of American mega corps like big tech companies does incentivize keeping the USD as the world reserve currency - that is, preventing foreign countries from having a decreased demand for USD and sending it back to the US to cause inflation and recession which would hurt the Average Joe in the US. This can easily change though (and has been changing in fact). The more the Fed prints money, the lower the purchasing power of the USD, meaning the less demand for it globally. One thing the US has going for it is that other countries also take part in the damning process of inflating their own currencies. The EU does it. Japan does it. Does Walmart and Amazon doing well benefit their employees or are they still on food stamps?
I’d assume they’re better off than being unemployed, which shouldn’t really be the bar.
I’d also assume there’s also quite the negative impact on all sorts of other businesses in the retail sector who’ve been crushed by that combo, probably never to reopen.
Plus other negative impacts on other existing workers too. I’m not sure how Walmart do it, least where I work (in our Walmart equivalent) they have phased full time contracts out over years.
My 10 hour contract where I live off overtime suited me with my plans to go back to school in September so I can keep it on without clashing. Absolutely does not suit when we took on tons of temporary workers who were out of work and I had to work merely 10 hours a week for 6/7 weeks.
It’s a pretty bad state of affairs, never mind Amazon’s rather interestingly low level of taxes paid in places it operates either. Covid has given via necessity a whole new customer base to it and I can’t see those who hadn’t shopped much on the internet switching back when normality resumes, if there’s much to switch back to.
|
I’d assume they’re better off than being unemployed, which shouldn’t really be the bar.
Well they might be next week anyway. That's the rub for many with the unemployment benefit relief. Walmart intentionally employs its workers to keep them right at a margin where the $600 boost puts them over what they made for working.
Employers without the leverage Walmart has (only major employer in town/local political sway/ best wages with lowered hours to avoid paying benefits/etc) can't lure workers to work during the pandemic without the economic pressure of potential eviction and not being able to pay living expenses. At least as long as the unemployment boost/eviction protections are in effect (until Friday [evictions vary more locally] without renewal/replacement).
Basically even if they roll something out it'll be too little, too late, and a LOT of small/smallish business are going to go belly up. Some will have been teetering already for various reasons, others will have been relatively strong businesses that have been caught in the storm without a pot to piss in. Same goes for renters and homeowners.
It's my feeling 2021 is going to be a year like we've never seen. I wouldn't have been thrilled with Bernie being the hope to lead us through it but Biden and Trump are terrifying by comparison. Trump in himself, Biden less so but the complacency he may bring concerns me greatly.
|
Hot take: the awful margins we force the working poor to straddle as they juggle multiple jobs and income sources subsidize the average joe's ability to start a dumb, doomed from the start business. Something has got to give, and I shan't shed any tears that Mr. "I retired so I could start this sub-par BBQ joint that lives or dies on drink sales, poverty wages, and tax cuts" is gonna have to look elsewhere to occupy his idle retirement.
There's only one kind of entity that flatly benefits from our unrequited love for small business owners, and it ain't the owners and it ain't the workers they employ.
|
I like dumb small businesses a lot of the time, I’d shop at them more if I had any real discretionary income that makes it financially feasible to do ever.
Like there’s this shop that seems to exclusively sell olive oils, maybe if it didn’t cost so much relative to what I make I’d get a bottle of weird artisan olive oil to cook with.
Also Magic cards at my local game store...
|
Northern Ireland26092 Posts
On July 31 2020 20:21 farvacola wrote:
Hot take: the awful margins we force the working poor to straddle as they juggle multiple jobs and income sources subsidize the average joe's ability to start a dumb, doomed from the start business. Something has got to give, and I shan't shed any tears that Mr. "I retired so I could start this sub-par BBQ joint that lives or dies on drink sales, poverty wages, and tax cuts" is gonna have to look elsewhere to occupy his idle retirement.
There's only one kind of entity that flatly benefits from our unrequited love for small business owners, and it ain't the owners and it ain't the workers they employ.
Quite the sizzling take there.
Not one I particularly disagree with either mind. Rather confused at my difficulties getting any kind of personal loan lately but if one wants to open the 15th identikit coffee shop on the same street that’s a totally viable business model and here’s a loan.
|
Some secret docs from the Maxwell/Epstein cases have been unsealed. They're quite something. Very damning for Dershowitz (ally of the president) and Prince Andrew. Claims that Dersh was the one to arrange for the crazy agreement, in order to protect himself. There's also some references to Epstein (jokingly? Witness wasn't sure) saying that Bill Clinton owed him a favor and that was why he was on the plane. So plenty for both sides to dig into.
Link to larger story with link to the docs :
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/secret-jeffrey-epstein-documents-have-been-released-by-court-order-read-them-all-here/
|
|
|
It's disgusting how much easier it is for the powerful to evade the law. To this day, I wonder how no big deal was made when "Acosta later said he offered a lenient plea deal because he was told that Epstein 'belonged to intelligence,' was 'above his pay grade,' and to 'leave it alone'" (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Acosta ).
And this is coming from someone who believes Epstein probably did commit suicide.
|
On July 31 2020 23:21 Anc13nt wrote:It's disgusting how much easier it is for the powerful to evade the law. To this day, I wonder how no big deal was made when "Acosta later said he offered a lenient plea deal because he was told that Epstein 'belonged to intelligence,' was 'above his pay grade,' and to 'leave it alone'" (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Acosta ). And this is coming from someone who believes Epstein probably did commit suicide.
Have you looked into Les Wexner at all in connection with this?
His role seems to have been to provide Epstein with the illusion of being super wealthy by giving him properties etc.
|
On July 31 2020 17:14 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2020 16:34 mahrgell wrote:On July 31 2020 16:15 Simberto wrote:On July 31 2020 15:54 mahrgell wrote:On July 31 2020 15:43 Simberto wrote:On July 31 2020 15:38 mahrgell wrote:On July 31 2020 15:30 LegalLord wrote:On July 31 2020 14:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2020 12:58 LegalLord wrote:
Question for someone more attentive to the report than I am: that >30% drop in GDP in the US, does that lowered GDP include the money spent by the government as stimulus on checks, unemployment, etc? Fed loan money? I know "government spending" is generally considered to be a portion of GDP but in practice the calculation has been really tricky for me to parse. That would be really bad if it was counted and still that bad right? I mean it's really unfathomably bad already but worse? Indeed. And I admit that my understanding of GDP is a little bit fuzzy since it's fairly complex to calculate and not something I've looked at in a while, but my expectation would be that we'd see GDP include: 1. The stimulus check 2. Unemployment, including the boosted one 3. Salaries bankrolled by the paycheck protection programs 4. Probably NOT the giant stack of loans handed out by Congress and the Fed, but maybe some portion of this is a contributor? The numbers basically say, this quarter we only had $4 trillion of economy instead of $6 trillion. Maybe the reality is that we have a trillion less than that, but we just borrowed the difference. And yeah, right there is at least one data point to suggest GDP as an imperfect measure of "the economy." But it's far more real than other measures, such as the stock market, that have often been used to claim economic health. The 32.9% is an annualized value. It was 9.5% less in the quarter! I assume that was sarcasm? What makes you think so? The numbers basically say, this quarter we only had $4 trillion of economy instead of $6 trillion. This should be 5.4 ... And that was all I'm saying. Then the numbers do something else then i would expect them to do. Well, this weirdness of the US numbers is why they are widely criticized. But hey, they are reporting them like that since the 30s... And it makes your growth numbers look bigger, so this was welcome all the time. They just take their change from the last quarter and extrapolate this over the entire year. If we grow/shrink at the same pace in the next 3 quarter like we did in this one, we would have an annual GDP change of x%. Now this kind of extrapolation works kinda okay when the GDP changes change slowly (so the 2nd derivative is near 0) but it absolutely horrible when your economy suddenly drops off a cliff and you extrapolate this cliff even further. But don't worry, after having marked this historical low value, the next quarter GDP numbers will tell you a new historic high! At least relative to this quarter. And those numbers will release right before the election. And Trump will boast about having "grown the US economy by 25%, more bigly than any president ever has before.". Numbers are a wonderful thing... When you bring the GDP numbers of the US into the same format as the European ones, it looks like this: US -9.5% Germany -10.1% France -13.8% Spain -18.5% Italy releases its number in about half an hour from now. And that it looks like the US is "doing better" is mostly due to the fact, that while everything collapsed, the tech giants boomed, which heavily compensated for the overall disaster making it look much smaller. But well, how much Average Joe profits from Facebook or Amazon making record earnings... Make no mistake - As much as it's in dire straits, the US economy IS superior to those of the European countries you listed. There are various reasons but one of them is the fact that the USD better retains purchasing power thanks largely in part to its status as the world reserve currency. Tech giants doing well, DOES indirectly help the Average Joe to some extent. First of all, Walmart (not a tech giant but did very well during the COVID 19 pandemic) and Amazon are the two largest employers in the U.S. Second of all, the strength of American mega corps like big tech companies does incentivize keeping the USD as the world reserve currency - that is, preventing foreign countries from having a decreased demand for USD and sending it back to the US to cause inflation and recession which would hurt the Average Joe in the US. This can easily change though (and has been changing in fact). The more the Fed prints money, the lower the purchasing power of the USD, meaning the less demand for it globally. One thing the US has going for it is that other countries also take part in the damning process of inflating their own currencies. The EU does it. Japan does it.
The dollar is certainly a massive advantage the US has over the "sick man" currencies that are the JPY and the Euro. The interest-in-theory that investors have for currencies like those are tempered by the fact that the currencies themselves have negative interest rates so you hold them at a loss. It seems like the theory is that if every major currency is a disaster, the relative value of each isn't going to change in comparison. Works in the moment but in the long run they're probably all going to be dropped in favor of some other store of value.
There's not much that's special about the US economy beyond the dollar, though. With the exception of several of the big caps, tech is just a playground for investors with little value or profit being produced. The big caps like Google and Microsoft, and especially Amazon, have real value but are also stupidly overpriced relative to that value. And as far as the rest of the economy goes, you really have to look quite hard to find industries that are actually meaningfully productive. Healthcare/insurance is primarily a large graft, shale is a zombie propped up by investor/government money, so is auto, and Boeing probably just killed the last of the non-zombie aerospace industry.
Big companies such as the Walmart and Amazons of the country always keep the economy hostage as "job creators" to justify being propped up; that's not really news. Provide a couple of very lucrative jobs and a massive number of minimum wage ones, and now they can market themselves as the "good guys" keeping the economy afloat while playing a big part in being the reason why wealth inequality is growing.
It doesn't end well, though. For an economy as dependent on consumption as the US one, rising wealth inequality leaves only consumer debt as a driver for said consumption. We had some serious bubble trouble back in '08, buried by gigantic cash infusions for at least a little while, and 12 years later it looks like we're in the same place as we were back then. Guess we'll see if it can be buried 'til 2032 or if we've finally reached the end of the decade-long QE road.
Whether or not the US' significantly worse ability to contain the corvid disease will put it in a worse position than most of the rest of the world will also be interesting to see. The coronavirus struck an unhealthy economy, and that's part of why this is as deeply bad as it is.
|
On July 31 2020 15:30 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2020 14:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2020 12:58 LegalLord wrote:
Question for someone more attentive to the report than I am: that >30% drop in GDP in the US, does that lowered GDP include the money spent by the government as stimulus on checks, unemployment, etc? Fed loan money? I know "government spending" is generally considered to be a portion of GDP but in practice the calculation has been really tricky for me to parse. That would be really bad if it was counted and still that bad right? I mean it's really unfathomably bad already but worse? Indeed. And I admit that my understanding of GDP is a little bit fuzzy since it's fairly complex to calculate and not something I've looked at in a while, but my expectation would be that we'd see GDP include: 1. The stimulus check 2. Unemployment, including the boosted one 3. Salaries bankrolled by the paycheck protection programs 4. Probably NOT the giant stack of loans handed out by Congress and the Fed, but maybe some portion of this is a contributor? The numbers basically say, this quarter we only had $4 trillion of economy instead of $6 trillion. Maybe the reality is that we have a trillion less than that, but we just borrowed the difference. And yeah, right there is at least one data point to suggest GDP as an imperfect measure of "the economy." But it's far more real than other measures, such as the stock market, that have often been used to claim economic health.
GDP only measures market prices of all final goods and services. Transfers such as unemployment benefits aren't (directly) included into GDP. Only when the recipient spends the transfers it's included (as consumption). Loans and financial transactions aren't included as well since they don't represent production but are the way to finance said production.
|
On July 31 2020 23:49 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2020 15:30 LegalLord wrote:On July 31 2020 14:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 31 2020 12:58 LegalLord wrote:
Question for someone more attentive to the report than I am: that >30% drop in GDP in the US, does that lowered GDP include the money spent by the government as stimulus on checks, unemployment, etc? Fed loan money? I know "government spending" is generally considered to be a portion of GDP but in practice the calculation has been really tricky for me to parse. That would be really bad if it was counted and still that bad right? I mean it's really unfathomably bad already but worse? Indeed. And I admit that my understanding of GDP is a little bit fuzzy since it's fairly complex to calculate and not something I've looked at in a while, but my expectation would be that we'd see GDP include: 1. The stimulus check 2. Unemployment, including the boosted one 3. Salaries bankrolled by the paycheck protection programs 4. Probably NOT the giant stack of loans handed out by Congress and the Fed, but maybe some portion of this is a contributor? The numbers basically say, this quarter we only had $4 trillion of economy instead of $6 trillion. Maybe the reality is that we have a trillion less than that, but we just borrowed the difference. And yeah, right there is at least one data point to suggest GDP as an imperfect measure of "the economy." But it's far more real than other measures, such as the stock market, that have often been used to claim economic health. GDP only measures market prices of all final goods and services. Transfers such as unemployment benefits aren't (directly) included into GDP. Only when the recipient spends the transfers it's included (as consumption). Loans and financial transactions aren't included as well since they don't represent production but are the way to finance said production.
While not untrue, this isn't particularly helpful. Some amount of the stimulus will spill into GDP, but I'm less interested in a waffling "some parts of this will affect GDP, some won't" non-answer than a ballpark of how much it actually might do so.
Mechanically, it looks like they'd calculate it via the expenditure approach, so there would be parts of consumption, maybe investment, probably government expenditure that come from the stimulus, and pump the GDP. Those four items above, plus contracts awarded in a very "jobs program" fashion in the course of the pandemic, would have "some" impact. But I'm less interested in knowing merely that it's "some" impact and more concerned with what that impact actually is.
Probably in the hundreds of billions juicing the GDP, when all is said and done, as a result of trillions in stimulus. Looking to try to get a better sense of the story than that, though.
|
tech stock rally in the US looks increasingly divorced from reality and honestly looks more like a general weakness in other sectors plus plenty of cheap capital is just flooding to the one place where investors still expect outsized returns. Not really sure how sustainable this is. Doesn't only apply to software giants but also stock like Tesla. Tesla basically has quadrupled its evaluation up from March based on... what?
|
On August 01 2020 08:53 Nyxisto wrote:
tech stock rally in the US looks increasingly divorced from reality and honestly looks more like a general weakness in other sectors plus plenty of cheap capital is just flooding to the one place where investors still expect outsized returns. Not really sure how sustainable this is. Doesn't only apply to software giants but also stock like Tesla. Tesla basically has quadrupled its evaluation up from March based on... what?
Tangentially having the most viable plan to escape earth?
In other news the Unemployment Boost has lapsed and the Senate is celebrating with another vacation after having just returned from one for a ~week.
|
a ballpark of how much it actually might do so
You can not really say,well without stimulus/relieve it would have been 12% or 15% or 20%.
It would have been a cascade leading to the collapse of the whole financial system. All debts defaulted.
Not because of the reduced economic activity as a result from the epidemic,but reduced activity as a result of a collapse of the financial system.
If you dont take into account the effects of the cascade then the difference wouldnt be that big i think,it would mostly be the inflationary aspect of the stimulus/relieve packages which isnt all that big for the time beeing.
The packages dont really create aditional activity/investments/consumption in these circomstances,they merele prevent a further decline of activity which would be the result of big businesses going bankrupt (with all its consequences) and a cascade in the financial system because those bankrupt businesses can not pay their debts.
But you can not really look at those things in a vacuum,everything is connected.
its 10%,which is bad enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
