# 3Q data is wrong

reopened ago
If gdp increased a 1.64 yearly. Because 20 million workers paid at the average wage 4000 are 240 billion. And an increase from 25% (I thought it was 35%) to 17.5% in consumption is around 1.5 trillion yearly (20 trillion yearly). How an increase of 1.64 trillion what is an 8% yearly is going to be multiplied by 4 again to get a 33%. 21.1 × 100 % 19.5 = 8.2%. Yearly. Even personal savings decreased 2 trillion. How is going to increase GDP just 1.6 trillion? Is the Bureau of Economics messing with the election or what's happening? This data is not valid. We can't work properly with this kind of data.
commented ago by (2.7k points)
If personal income decreased 600 billion in the third quarter and savings in the second were 4.7 trillion and in the third 2.7 trillion. 4.7 - 0.6 - 2.7 = 1.5 trillion. 4.7 or 2.7 trillion savings can only be yearly. It seems done by a 7 year old kid.
commented ago by (2.7k points)
It's all clear. By using the quarter methodology you get around 11 2Q and around 8 3Q. You can't multiply this by 4 to make it yearly because quarterly data transformed into yearly data gets the same result. That's the mistake. For example 4-3
- 25% / 16-12 - 25%.
commented ago by (2.7k points)
edited ago
I caught them. 7.5 % quarterly is impossible because it must me around 1.5 quarterly to get a 7.5 yearly. If not if there are 17.5 % of less consumption and with those 7.5 you have again 21.1 T dollars. It means that you would increase consumption around two times easily and you would get more than 23T what it's unfeasible. True complete recovery or fascism in the US? Being clear. Make a data analisys correctly before giving negative votes. Growth is around 50-60 % following a serious study. You just have to look at unemployment.                                                        (Bad day at office)
commented ago by (2.7k points)
edited ago
Checking............. We didn't spend (or create) the trillion necessary to match supply and demand this year before the pandemic, so the economy was shrinking since January. The economy decreased a 22.5% on average (consumption) since January until the end of the 2Q (say it 12.5 and 32.5 or 1Q and 2Q). And consumption increased until a 15% of savings on 3Q. Anyone can check it. So there is a 17.5 % of 32.5 % recovery in the 3Q. More or less.

edited ago

5.15-1.3 = 3.85+0.766=4.616×4=18.464
3.85×1.075=4.138+7.66=4.904×4=19.619
4.138×1.05=4.344+0.766=5.111×4=20.4436×1.05=21.465
2.3-1.45+1. 1=0.250 21.7-0.250=21.450
I finally got the answer and growth in the third quarter was a 5% or a 50% of the decrease in the third quarter:
We start at 20.6 at the end of the first quarter, so that's 5.15 quarterly and we decrease 1.3 savings or a 25%. That's 3.85. 2.3 trillion in fiscal expenditures divided by three quarters are 0.766. So if we add it to 3.85 we have 4.616 multiplied by 4 = 18.464 or a 10% rough decrease. Then we get 3.85 without fiscal expenditure or common consumption and we multiply by 1.075 to get the 17.5% of savings. That's 4.138 plus 0.766 = 4.904 which we multiply by 4 to get 19.619 or a 5% rough of increase or recovery. Then we take 4.138 without fiscal expenditure and we multiply it by 1.05 to get the correct amount with 12.5% savings and no fiscal expenditure. We get 5.111 which multiplied by 4 makes 20.443. Then to know if this is the correct answer we subtract 1.45 trillion of savings over the previous 7. 5% level and the first 1.1 trillion of the first quarter to 2.3 trillion of fiscal expenditure. And we get a lack of GDP of around 0.25. If we take 20. 443 and we go back to the previous level of savings (7.5%) by multiplying it by 1.05 we get 21.465 and this plus 0.25 makes 21.7. Done. If you try with 35% 25% 12.5% and 2.3 + 0.5 trillion of fiscal expenditure the result is the same.