Here’s the picture: revisions up in Q3 GDP, and GDP+. Note that GDP+ indicates no downturn in 2022H1.
Figure 1: GDP (bold black), GDO (tan), GDP+ (green), GDPNow for Q4 (red square), Goldman Sachs (12/23) (teal triangle), all in blillions Ch.2012$, SAAR. GDP+ level calculated by iterating on 2019Q4 GDP (when GDP and GDO matched). Lilac shading denotes peak-to-trough for a hypothesized 2022H1 recession. Source: BEA (Q4 3rd release), Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (12/22), Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (12/23), Goldman Sachs (12/23), and author’s calculations.
The prior comments section included an oh-so-predictable argument about what period is relevant for the discussion of inflation. It might just be worth asking what we intend to use a particular assessment of inflation for.
If we want to discuss policy, then we don’t need to know all that much about the total price rise from some arbitrary dates in the past. We want to know whether inflation is heating up or cooling off and whether the current trend will persist. If we want to do research into the post-recession period, we want to observe changes in prices relative to other factors, but probably wouldn’t find much use for total price rise from some arbitrary month till now. If we want to make up a story which assigns blame, then tracking price rise from some arbitrary month till now might do the trick.
In the case that policy is our interest, here’s a little nugget from the same source as GDP+:
https://www.philadelphiafed.org/surveys-and-data/real-time-data-research/atsix
The term structure of inflation expectations over time shows that the public has generally had faith that inflation was transitory – those curves all slope downward. There has been an increase in short-term inflation expectations over the past year, but in the past month, even short-term expectations have come down.
“The prior comments section included an oh-so-predictable argument about what period is relevant for the discussion of inflation.”
Let’s add that the same MAGA troll tried to tell us that real income fell by the rise in the price level over this past period. Funny thing – real GDP rose a lot during 2021. Could it be that nominal income increased by more than the price level? Not in Bruce Hall’s world as he gets all his “fact” from Kelly Anne Conway.
Before the Nov. elections, our RECESSION CHEERLEADERS kept chirping and chirping but since then they have gone silent. I guess they will have no comment on the latest news.
Ukrainian President Zelensky’s visit to Washington has drawn renewed calls for an audit of U.S. aid to Ukraine (in the middle of a war, exposing auditors to combat?) and complaints about Zelensky coming to the U.S. to “beg” – a whole lot of posturing over the “high cost” of defending against Russian aggression. Some commenters here have made a fuss about cost/benefit analysis, so maybe we should think of our contributions to Ukraine’s defense in those terms. Luckily, Timothy Ash, an Associate Fellow at Chatham House on their Russia and Eurasian program, has done just that. Here are some exerpts:
“Altogether, the Biden administration received Congressional approval for $40bn in aid for Ukraine for 2022 and has requested an additional $37.7bn for 2022. More than half of this aid has been earmarked for defense.
“The assistance represents 5.6% of total US defense spending…In cold, geopolitical terms, this war provides a prime opportunity for the US to erode and degrade Russia’s conventional defense capability, with no boots on the ground and little risk to US lives.
“US spending of 5.6% of its defense budget to destroy nearly half of Russia’s conventional military capability seems like an absolutely incredible investment. If we divide out the US defense budget to the threats it faces, Russia would perhaps be of the order of $100bn-150bn in spend-to-threat. So spending just $40bn a year, erodes a threat value of $100-150bn, a two-to-three time return.”
https://cepa.org/article/its-costing-peanuts-for-the-us-to-defeat-russia/
Ash offers a number of other points which, in his view, makes this spending an even better deal. Worth noting, as Ash does, is that aid to Ukraine is unlikely to run at current levels indefinitely, while the $100 to $150 billion defense expenditure devoted to the Russian threat is annual; we can eventually expect a return far higher than two or three-to-one on aid to Ukraine.
Putin’s government has worked to destabilize the U.S., supporting Trump and stirring up racial animus. Now, Putin is doing a pretty good job destabilizing Russia by launching a war that has killed or wounded a hundred thousand Russian soldiers, driven hundreds of thousands of men to leave the country, diverted resources from human welfare to military aggression, boosted inflation and reduced access to foreign capital, expertise and technology. We have to quibble over 5.6% of our military budget when it’s helping to erode Russia’s military and public support for a goon like Putin? Some folks just don’t understand math.
feed the hungry, house the homeless, clothe the….
5.6% of the war budget, is roughly taken from the rest of usa
why not pay for ukraine like Vietnam, I e out of the pentagon hide?
“5.6% of the war budget, is roughly taken from the rest of usa”
How drunk are you? WTF paid for the Vietnam War? The French?
Uh oh, pgl. Anonymous has informed us that his time in the US Air Force has led him to respect both Putin and Russian generals, even though they are badly losing the disastrous and illegal and awful war they started. Tu tut!
kagan neocon crowd don’t care about a discreet assessment of impacts when he can hide billions behind 5.6%
the 5.6% of the dod $8560B is 98% from the army’s 29%.
5,6% of the dod it is further concentrated from the armies artillery and air defense artillery ‘major force programs’.
you are doing great getting ukraine/polish/uk merc killed depleting us army contingency stores of expendables and attrition equipment (if not much more)
some army investment centers are likely being hit closer to 50%.
yeah barks there is a lot to running an army that could cause the cepa novelists to pause think.
but not with over emotional old folk like you!
google it!
i am pretty old but….
i am tired of old folk throwing around logic fallacy.
You must be old as based on the pathetic writing of yours, you are senile.