–3 votes
asked ago by (2.5k points)
closed ago by
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.
closed with the note: Right and wrong. I'm sorry for the issue.
commented ago by (2.5k 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 (2.5k 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 (2.5k points)
edited ago by
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 (2.5k points)
edited ago by
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.

1 Answer

0 votes
answered ago by (2.5k points)
edited ago by
 
Best answer
It's tricky. That's the problem if data is manipulated. The only way to get the anwser is doing in the second quarter: 21.4/4+1 trillion × 17.5/100. This is tricky because you cannot decrease even more GDP if you add a trillion. See?                 1Q.21. 7/4= 5.425×5/100=0.27.   5.425-0.27=5.15          2Q.21.7/4=5.425+1=6.425×17.5/100=1.12.     6.425-1.12= 5.3          3Q&4Q=21.7/4=5.425×1.10=5.967.            Total.=22.4.       22.4×1.075=24T.  It should be 22.7.  I think we lost a trillion profits before the pandemic. Is it clear?
...