Re: Democrats destroying America ...

George Cook wrote:
In article <66SdnaJxH-gGA7XbnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bill Todd <billtodd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
George Cook wrote:

...

I am very interested in exactly where you got these figures.
No problem: they're from the reports generated at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/01/data/weoselgr.aspx

I generated reports for GDP, current prices, U.S. dollars, then divided the 2007 values by the 2001 values (to 3 or 4 significant figures) to derive the percentages. I chose this particular measure because it best matched the 38% U.S. GDP increase over 6 years that you cited and also approximately matched the U.S. GDP figures from the OMB tables I had used; it also seemed appropriate to use a common currency (the dollar) to try to factor out differences based on varying exchange rates and arrive at an apples-to-apples comparison.

Other report choices do indeed generate different figures, often considerably less dramatic. I'll have to look more carefully to understand why (e.g., whether the declining relative value of the dollar over this period contributed to the higher differences when the dollar was used as the basis, or whether differing relative inflation played an undue part) and whether that would or would not make a different set of reports more appropriate to use.

Bill, I honestly expected better from you. Perhaps my "waving the red
flag in front of the bull" stuff (e.g. "Pelosi and comrades" and "leftist
media") stimulated you more than I expected it would, so I will stop it.

While finding information on the Web late at night can make one less than thorough in examining all alternatives, I don't yet see anything that I need apologize for.


Only a complete fool would believe for a minute that the numbers you
gave have any meaning economically.

Since I feel the same way about much of the drivel that you have posted, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I knew they were crap the minute I
spotted them.

As I've already proved (using the OMB figures that you don't appear to dispute) that many of yours were.

Computing a country's GDP growth in any currency other
than it's own is virtually meaningless.

While it is *possible* that your statement is correct, I'm afraid that you'll really have to do considerably more than simply assert it.

I explained why I normalized the numbers to the U.S. dollar: to factor out differences in exchange-rate and relative inflation and attempt to achieve an apples-to-apples comparison. Now you need to explain in adequate detail why this is *not* an appropriate measure of relative *real* comparative growth.

Whether or not to use current
or constant prices is debatable,

Indeed, but since the figure that you presented for comparison used current prices, so did mine.

- bill
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Democrats destroying America ...
    ... I generated reports for GDP, current prices, U.S. dollars, then divided ... Russia 238% market economy can do wonders) ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Democrats destroying America ...
    ... I chose this particular measure because it best matched the 38% U.S. GDP increase over 6 years that you cited and also approximately matched the U.S. GDP figures from the OMB tables I had used; it also seemed appropriate to use a common currency to try to factor out differences based on varying exchange rates and arrive at an apples-to-apples comparison. ... I'll have to look more carefully to understand why (e.g., whether the declining relative value of the dollar over this period contributed to the higher differences when the dollar was used as the basis, or whether differing relative inflation played an undue part) and whether that would or would not make a different set of reports more appropriate to use. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Let me simplify it for you...
    ... mark wrote: ... "Better than expected US GDP numbers also sparked a mini rally in the ... Beg pardon, but the "jobless claims came in lower", if you read any other ... reports, meant, "weren't quite as bad this week as the week before". ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)