tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post1503169725343334101..comments2024-03-19T02:45:37.685-07:00Comments on Calafia Beach Pundit: Jobs growth steady but slowScott Grannishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14028519647946868684noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-67943222138075201022012-12-10T09:05:44.782-08:002012-12-10T09:05:44.782-08:00@marmico: the FRED graph measures potential GDP as...<br /><i>@marmico: the FRED graph measures potential GDP as estimated by the CBO. That is a different calculation than Scott's application of the 45 year average annual growth rate of real GDP.</i><br /><br />Thanks for the tip, Rick. ROTFLMAO<br />marmicohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08277071086056574486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-81968602674246940982012-12-10T08:24:33.628-08:002012-12-10T08:24:33.628-08:00@Gloeschi: Scott's calculation is obvious. H...@Gloeschi: Scott's calculation is obvious. He takes the average annual growth rate in real GDP from 1966 to present and plots it as a constant YoY benchmark against which to measure the actual annualized growth rate of real GDP as reported by BEA. If US real GDP has risen each year at an annual rate of 3.1%, it would be 13% higher than the $13.638 trillion number that was the second Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07767085539237536998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-56914402136488476412012-12-10T06:28:08.814-08:002012-12-10T06:28:08.814-08:00@marmico: thanks, very helpful.@marmico: thanks, very helpful.Gloeschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10705125909506053628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-34255354415531569682012-12-10T05:12:49.939-08:002012-12-10T05:12:49.939-08:00FRED graph of real GDP and CBO potential real GDP....<a href="http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=dFi" rel="nofollow">FRED graph</a> of real GDP and CBO potential real GDP. The gap is 6-7%.<br /><br /><a href="http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/11/the-collapse-of-long-run-potential-gdp-estimates-continues.html" rel="nofollow">DeLong</a> on the collapse of potential GDP. marmicohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08277071086056574486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-22241207574168334412012-12-09T16:40:47.012-08:002012-12-09T16:40:47.012-08:00re: output GAP
Paul Krugman put the output gap in...re: output GAP<br /><br />Paul Krugman put the output gap in a recent article ("The Forgotten Millions", IHT/NYT Dec 6) at $900bn.<br /><br />The CBO put the output gap around $800bn ("The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022, page 28, Figure 2-1, January 2012).<br /><br />I am simply interested what the source of your 13% is. Thank you.<br /><br />Gloeschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10705125909506053628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-68213290374627098572012-12-09T12:21:12.170-08:002012-12-09T12:21:12.170-08:00The decline in equity P/E ratios during the past y...The decline in equity P/E ratios during the past year or so may be the rational behavior of investors to the realization that the future value of capital gains and dividends to them will decrease with an increase in their tax rates. Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04418491109912775561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-74481593221102234132012-12-09T11:03:36.656-08:002012-12-09T11:03:36.656-08:00The "gap" is the difference between wher...The "gap" is the difference between where real GDP is today and where it could have been if the economy had followed its 40-yr growth trend. Real GDP today would have to be 13% larger than it is today. What we have today is a "shortfall" of roughly $2 trillion. Assuming, of course, that the long-term trend growth path of 3.1% per year is still valid. Getting there would Scott Grannishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14028519647946868684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-71621531983757235032012-12-09T10:45:22.886-08:002012-12-09T10:45:22.886-08:00"Is it not obvious from the chart?"
I a..."Is it not obvious from the chart?"<br /><br />I assume that is your answer to my question (see above).<br /><br />So it is 13% because there is a green 13 and an arrow in your chart? Any chance you could substantiate your claim in any other way?<br /><br />Thank you.Gloeschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10705125909506053628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-7742022332433770242012-12-09T07:12:59.074-08:002012-12-09T07:12:59.074-08:00The market is expecting near zero inflation and ne...The market is expecting near zero inflation and near zero growth (i.e., 0 +/- 2%) for at least the next 30-50 years -- significant real growth will not to be found in the US in the near to mid-term -- if economic growth does spurt above about 2%, the Fed will immediately deflate the economy -- if inflation touches 2%, the Fed will discretely inflate the economy -- the number one goal of both US McKibbinUSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10545798495680527622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-19058161275547448052012-12-08T22:09:38.176-08:002012-12-08T22:09:38.176-08:00"The chart above is a more sensitive measure ..."The chart above is a more sensitive measure of inflation expectations. The blue line shows that the bond market expects inflation to average a little over 3% during the period 2018-2023."--Scott Grannis<br /><br />Is this supposed to read 2013-2023? Typo?<br /><br />Also, the Cleveland Fed has an index of inflationary expectations, now trending into all-time record low territory.<br />Benjamin Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14001038338873263877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-72578798360719674092012-12-08T00:21:34.434-08:002012-12-08T00:21:34.434-08:00There are 3 leading indicators inside
the payroll ...There are 3 leading indicators inside<br />the payroll survey...all positive..there are 3 leading indicators inside the household survey...also all positive...broderohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17510948491117506660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-39105793873406422132012-12-07T20:42:37.796-08:002012-12-07T20:42:37.796-08:00Is it not obvious from the chart?Is it not obvious from the chart?Scott Grannishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14028519647946868684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-21690815292561291992012-12-07T18:31:22.264-08:002012-12-07T18:31:22.264-08:00The full US jobs "recovery" is nowhere i...The full US jobs "recovery" is nowhere in site -- said another way, economic recovery in the US is unlikely to materialize in the coming 20-30 years -- what investors should be focusing on instead is how to build and protect their estates in an economic environment of long-term stagnation or decline -- I refuse to wait for a recovery to make more money, and frankly, I simply do not McKibbinUSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10545798495680527622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6616959642391988608.post-6386579773309106992012-12-07T18:31:12.367-08:002012-12-07T18:31:12.367-08:00Scott, even Keynesian poster child Krugman ("...Scott, even Keynesian poster child Krugman ("The Forgotten Millions", IHT/NYT 12/6/2012) claims the output gap is "only" $900bn (or roughly 5.5% of GDP). Would you be so kind and elaborate where you get your 13% from? Thank you.Gloeschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10705125909506053628noreply@blogger.com