Andrew Bartels shows that the 2013 Comprehensive Revision didn't have much effect on RGDP:
 |
| Source: Andrew Bartels |
I look at it this way:
 |
| Graph #2: Real GDP (red) and Potential GDP (blue) A Tale of 2009 Dollars versus 2005 Dollars |
How much inflation did it take to push real GDP above potential like that?
 |
| Graph #3: 2009-Based Deflator Converted Back to 2005=100 Shows Prices Almost 9% Higher by 2009 |
Maybe tomorrow they'll revise Potential GDP to the 2009 base.
5 comments:
Looks like FRED is up to date with the revisions.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=lx1
You have an apple and a blueberry in graph two. Comparing inflation with two different base years seems to always give weird results. I don't know what.
I don't understand what you are doing in graph 3. Can you explain?
Cheers!
JzB
Meant to say "I don't know WHY."
Brain fart ==>typo.
JzB
The other thing I intended to say is that the RGDP trend over the last 2 years is really disturbing.
JzB
Impressionist economics. The red apple in Graph #2 is *higher* than the blue berry -- output gap and all. My point being that the base-year change is certainly more significant than Graph #1 suggests.
The base-year change is a correction for the inflation shown on Graph #3, which (between 2005 and 2009) came to a little less than 9%.
I'm not doing Richard Feynman here. I'm doing Degas.
I've always liked the triangulation in this one.
http://www.edgar-degas.org/The-Blue-Dancers.html
Cheers!
JzB
Post a Comment