Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (495872)	7/17/2009 12:07:31 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571786

It does effect comparisons to previous contractions, if your using the actual size of the previous contractions, but adding up annualized quarters for this one. I've been comparing apples to apples using quarterly gdp data from this bea spreasheet: bea.gov OTOH your still right when you say that 2000 was much more mild. This contraction is one of the largest post war contractions up there with the contractions of 81-81, 74-75, and 1957-1958 Which brings us back to my point: How can the author of the article you posted claim GDP contraction has been about what we expected? It's been out of the ordinary, extraordinary, and that fact really calls into question his conclusions. With that much gdp contraction, you expect unemployment to go up substantially. SD