October 29, 2004
ECRI's Weekly Leading Index
Right in line with the so-so GDP numbers for the third quarter is ECRI's continued slow decline in the weekly leading index.
The index is suggesting that there is little danger of a recession, nor is there little hope of a re-acceleration in economic activity.
Posted by Steve at October 29, 2004 11:13 AMOdd, I don't find 3.7% GDP growth "so-so".
Posted by: Robin Roberts on October 29, 2004 04:33 PMTo get a handle on whether 3.7% GNP growth is "so-so" or not you would need at a minimum:
1) Population Change during same period - i.e. up or down
2) Inflation deflator measure
3) Inventory and Export changes
The above would indicate whether GNP per capita was up or down, real GNP per captia (after inflation) and whether inventories grew or shrunk (indicating future) and whether exports helped or hindered
Thanks for posting the indicator
Cheers
Posted by: Jason Koulouras on October 30, 2004 02:55 AMIt's just about the level of the 40 year average gdp growth (~3.5%), but that includes both recoveries and recessions. Typically, recoveries show markedly stronger growth than the 40 year average figure, to average up the negative growth rates of recessionary periods to this average. Especially in the early years of a recovery, as idled plant and labor put on the sidelines in a recession are put back on line.
By comparison to this 3.7% figure fairly early in this recovery, Clinton had, what, 5 years in a row over 4% growth, and couple of years above 5%, FAR into a recovery, and moreover, although the economy was burdened by his 10% increase of top marginal rates on top of a similar 10% increase by his predecessor, Bush.
Posted by: sofla on October 31, 2004 04:04 PM
Actually, the BEA revised 2003 GDP to 4.4% (4th Q to 4thQ - 4.9% for the year on year comparision to 2002 ) and revised first quarter growth 2004 was 4.5%. Given the near doubling of oil prices, 3.7% est. is pretty good performance.
Amusing that sofla wants to refer to average GDP until he describes the Clinton admin, and then just pulls anecdotes from his nether regions about quarters. More interesting is what the BEA shows Clinton administration's GDP growth year on year:
1993 2.7
1994 4.0
1995 2.5
1996 3.7
1997 4.5
1998 4.2
1999 4.5
2000 3.7
Once again, we see that sofla's rhetoric just falls short of reality.
Posted by: Robin Roberts on October 31, 2004 06:06 PMJason, "real" GDP is inflation adjusted (I checked to make sure, the other choice is "current dollar" GDP) and takes import/exports into account. Population growth isn't 3.7% so there's net gain in per capita GDP.
