Um, doesn't 1.5% growth in 3 months work out to 6% annually? (Assuming no compounding, of course.)

6% could be reasonably described as "blazing", I think.

Amiable raises a good question. The sentence is poorly constructed and it's unclear if that 1.5% is an annual or quarterly rate.

Which is a shame because it undermines my joke that you have to consider that these terms are relative. In a European socialist economy, 1.5% IS blazing; whereas for America, 2.75% IS sluggish.

Article updated to correct my misunderstanding.

It looks like the German's got all the growth they are getting this year in 3 months.

I was wondering why the dollar rose yesterday.

Well, the media can say what it says, but money moving doesn't usually lie. I think this is why I generally prefer the financial mags; for all their gaping holes in reporting, they tend to report good news as good, and bad news as bad. That, plus there's an implicit assumption that things are "problems" which implies a workable solution exists, as opposed to catastrophes, which tend to make situations feel hopeless.

It's the same with unemployment.
5% is "high unemployment" in the US, but "almost full employment" in Sweden, even if those 5% cant be reached even by removing +10% of the workforce into different workprograms, early retirements, sickleave, etc..

Isn't growth usually expressed at the annual rate? Ie "In the first quarter, the economy grew at a 1.5% annual rate." The phrasing here is really vague on this point - if it was 1.5% actual growth in the first quarter, that would be good, but if that's it for the year, not so cool. And remember, the German economy has to carry the failing economies of Spain, Italy, Greece etc.

Um, people who start anything with "um" ought to be made to go to grow-up school.

US growth is almost always referred to in annualized terms, whereas growth in most other countries is referred to in absolute terms. Thus the 1.5% growth of Germany's economy in the first quarter works out to a 6+% annualized growth rate, which would indeed be considered to be "blazing."

This reminds me of Elementary School, when I thought it would be nice to get Bs or Cs for a while, so when I did well people would get really excited. In the end, constant silent success seems to work, I guess, in school and the economy.

This reminds me of Elementary School, when I thought it would be nice to get Bs or Cs for a while, so when I did well people would get really excited. In the end, constant silent success seems to work, I guess, in school and the economy.

Amiable brings up exactly the point I had in mind. A German growth rate of 1.5%, FOR A QUARTER OF A YEAR, is indeed blazing.

"The sentence is poorly constructed and it's unclear if that 1.5% is an annual or quarterly rate."

Wrong. There's actually no doubt that WAS a quarterly rate being referred to. The statement begins by looking at Italy's quarter, and goes on to refer specifically to the "first three months" (i.e., a quarter) for Germany. That's as clear as it gets.

In the other quote cited, the time frame for the "sluggish" 2.75% US growth rate is not stated. But since it is not, one can only assume it is an annual rate. It is hardly likely - and it is certainly NOT fair to ASSUME, as Mr. Simon apparently does - that the writer was referring to anything BUT an annual rate. What, exactly, are the odds the writer meant a daily/weekly. monthly or quarterly rate? Not too good.

UPDATE: I went to the link. There, it is made clear the writer is referring to a 2.5% ANNUAL rate. Which - guess what - IS considered SLUGGISH for the US, according to most economists.

"It looks like the German's [sic] got all the growth they are getting this year in 3 months."

Yes, but WHEN the piece was written, the economy WAS "blazing", and so the writer was quite accurate. Mr. Simon's point was that the writing was "biased", when clearly it was not. Sorry, but the change in the German economy AFTER the piece you want to criticize does NOT make your post accurate, and you know it.

I've said some complimentary things about posts on this site in the past. Trust me, then, when I tell you that THIS one is truly an Epic Fail.

Too often, blogs like this one are working so hard to prove a point, they'll sacrifice accuracy. (And I guess PJ Media bloggers are assured an Instalink now and then, regardless of the quality of their info.) More than once, I've seen PJ Media bloggers just as sloppy as the MSM they love to criticize. And wasn't the whole point of this post to point out the BIAS of "mainstream" media? Well - pot, meet kettle.

Very, very poor work here. You'd do well to admit it, or scrap the post.

blazing?
hold onto your hat...

I clicked on Drudge this am, and noticed that the dollar rose v. the euro, oil is down, and people who made their money with oil are about to start buying houses.

In a period of 2 months we are staring at a potential record drop in inflation, hitting the bottom of housing, and the dollar.

All our worries are fading, and they are starting to manifest themselves in the EU.

The paranoia that was lurking in the background-

our better days are over, our currency has lost its luster, our econmy is heading for the crapper-

are now the EU's worries. No one can panic like socialist democrats.

Buy stocks now, enjoy your bull run thru the 1st week in oct, pull out, and buy anew in Jan, with the knowledge of where the money wil be spent by the presidential victor.

Happy days are here again...

Economy is not so much about where you have been, as much as where you are going-

"Aug. 6 (Bloomberg) -- German factory orders unexpectedly fell for a seventh month in June, increasing the likelihood Europe's largest economy contracted in the second quarter."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aSvJvCDqNYCs&refer=germany

so much for blazing growth.

I know this may be difficult for some but I corrected my error well before most of you got here. Did you note my update?

Simon

If Obama's elected, we'll adopt the Euro definition, and *presto*, we'll have blazing growth. If McCain's elected, OTOH, we'll have definitional recession (or in Phil Gramm's words, "mental recession") for his entire term.

On second thought, if Obama's elected, we'll probably end up with blazing saddles...

[The president is nearer!!!]

Not exactly rocket science - look at GDP growth v. national debt. America's debt is growing faster than its GDP. Germany, on the other hand, has budget surpluses.

Excuse me? Germany's deficit is 2.7% of GDP- the same as the US but with vastly higher taxes.

The German total public debt is a whopping 2/3 of GDP.

Quarterly and Annual Rates are somewhat the same thing. The fact is regardless, if the economy continues to grow at a steady rate of a certain percentage, it's going to be the same annually when compared to quarterly. It's still going to be divided by 4. Look at it this way. What if Q1 0 2.5%, Q2 - 1.5%, Q3 - -0.5%, Q4 - 1.5%, you'd have an average of 1.25% for the entire year.

The Q1 for the 2008 year of the US Economy was 1.9% so does that mean it's going to be 7.6% for the entire year if it keeps at that rate? No, of course not, it's still going to be 1.9% for the annual year.

benintn, that's inaccurate. The US Deficits for the FY07 went down to 1.2% of the US GDP. Now compared that to the 2.7% of the German GDP for the same year. And as solicitr said, they have a higher tax rate than we do and we manage our deficit much better than their country.

This is expressed as an annual rate, as these reports are in every country. Sorry to waste your diatribe Mr. Snitch.

GDP rates are reported in annualized rates.

That doesn't mean that 1.5% should be multiplied by 4. Rather, it means that if it grew at the same rate all year round, it would be 1.5%.

US growth rates are also reported in annualized rates.

Now if you look at consumer spending in the US, corrected for inflation, the US consumer spending grew at 3.8%, which is truly blazing. What is the difference? US sellers lowered their inventory levels, making room on their shelves for new products. There was no recession, and the US hasn't had one in a very long time. GHWBush with help from Greenspan managed the "soft landing". Clinton years were about to go down the tubes, but a new Republican majority saved him by cutting taxes. This is using the definition of recession: "Two consecutive quarters of negative growth".

In the last 6 years, the US has GROWN by the size of the Communist China economy.

US population growth is 0.883% while German population growth is -0.044% (according to the CIA factbook).

The US economy would need to grow at more than 0.9% to maintain the same per-capita income growth as a German economy that is flat. So I think it's perfectly valid to call US growth of less than 1% a recession while not doing the same for Germany.

The German growth rates were quarter over quarter growth rates. That means that there was X% growth in relation to the same quarter the previous year. The annual growth rate is year over year. If the quarter over quarter growth rate is X% for all four quarters, the annual growth rate is also X% and not 4 * X%.

Thank you for providing corrected information that the 1.5 percent growth was per quarter. Perhaps you should add something about the reflexive assumptions about the New York Times made by Instapundit and Classical Values.

David,

I corrected this long before Instapundit linked. I have no idea why it interested him.

My misreading was due to the way the numbers are usually reported in the USA. And it is still obvious that what would be considered weak growth in the USA is considered normal in Europe.

BTW the NYTs (reporting for an American audience) was not entirely clear about the numbers. In the American context they should have reported a 6% yearly growth rate for one quarter. Of course the decline in the following quarter would then be reported as 2.4%.

However, the average growth for the first two quarters of the German economy would be about 2.2% on a yearly basis. Given the .4% quarterly contraction.

And then you have the mortgage melt down in Europe. Something the USA has mostly digested.

The post is also illustrative of a rebound in the US economy and difficulties ahead for Europe.

Any way we try to keep it honest here and fix our mistakes when pointed out. The NYTs? Not so much.

Very nice.