Is a 4.1% quarterly increase in GNP good?

Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
While the Trump fluffers are looking the other way, ole tiny hands shoves his junk in their mouths. However since they're looking away they don't realize they're no longer just fluffers. They're now full suck offs.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Private fixed investment in structures - Nonresidential.
Q2 2018 +$16.8 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 +$27.9 billion vs. Q2 2017

Of which:
Petroleum and Natural Gas :
Q2 2018 +$19.9 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 +$33.2 billion vs. Q2 2017

Therefore:
Private fixed investment in structures - Nonresidential excluding Petroleum and Natural Gas:
Q2 2018 -$3.1 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 -$5.3 billion vs. Q2 2017

Data from the table below, though I already did the math and wrote it up above. The results are not very different if you include Residential.
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=underlying&1903=2031#reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=underlying&1903=2031
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

wifeisafurd said:




somehow corporations were spending all their tax cuts that had not yet received on distributions, even on distributions often declared before the tax legislation came into existence (which I learned was a non-sequitur),
The non-sequitur is the fact that companies can only pay out dividends out of retained earnings. There are numerous reports of buybacks and dividends reported after the effective date of the tax legislation. Instead of acknowledging that, you are positing some notion that those were already baked.

If you are going to stick to your guns about retained earnings, than I guess you should credit Obama's economy for creating the earnings that funded the hundreds of billions in 2018 stock buybacks. But that would force you to acknowledge that corporations find it in their best interests to return capital rather than invest it.

Here's one such article.

Quote:

Flooded with cash from the Republican tax cut, US public companies announced a whopping $436.6 billion worth of stock buybacks, according to research firm TrimTabs.
Not only is that most ever, it nearly doubles the previous record of $242.1 billion, which was set during the first three months of the year.
Apple alone announced plans for $100 billion in buybacks. Big banks such as Wells Fargo (WFC), JPMorgan Chase (JPM) and Bank of America (BAC) each said they would buy back at least $20 billion of their own stock after the Federal Reserve gave them a clean bill of health late last month.




There is a repetitive disconnect. You keep saying buy backs and dividends paid, and I keep saying distributions declared. There is a difference, especially with respect to timing. For example, in late July 2017, well before anyone knew what the tax plan was going to say, E-Bay's Board declared a $7.6 Billion Buy Back, and which it's board issued an additional authorization of $459 Million in December 2017. E-Bay actually bought back $1 billion in stock in the first quarter of 2018, which is in the amount of 2018 corporate buy-backs mentioned in the repetitive articles you post about PAYMENT (as opposed to declaration) OF BUY-BACKS. NEVERTHELESS, EVERY ARTICAL YOU KEEP LINKING (INCLUDING THIS LAST ONE) TALKS ABOUT PAYMENTS IN THE FIRST QUARTER, NOT DECLARED IN THE FIRST QUARTER. If you can't see why in this case your comment about non-sequitor makes no sense, then I give-up. Most, but not all (e.g., Cisco), of the buy-backs in the first quarter 2018 were declared before the tax bill became law.

Dividend declaration and payment dates also reflect timing differences. Most dividends for fiscal years are declared by Boards sometime in the fourth quarter of the prior year and paid in 1stquarter of the succeeding year. The boards of these companies would make the decision on what dividends to pay based on when the Board pays the dividend, not when it is paid. Moreover, dividend policy could be set well before the dividend for the 1stquarter of 2018 is paid. For example, E-Bay's Board upped its dividend payment rates in July 2018, and has carried that through subsequently declared dividends. Again, if you can't appreciate why this timing difference renders your non-sequitor comment irrational, I got nothing left.

The other aspect is that there is an inference that all companies are using all there repatriated income for buy-backs and dividends, which is far from the truth. Even Cisco, with its notorious buy-back plan still kept the lion's share of its repatriated income. And many companies invested all their repatriated income. For example -
videApple, Capitalizing on New Tax Law, Plans to Bring Billions in Cash Back to U.S. https://nyti.ms/2EPQet6

Edit post: There may be another misconception that once you have a buy back in place, you can redeem stock. You can if stock is callable, such as often is the case of preferred stock buy back. Most common stock is not redeemable, so you must actually have willing sellers, which means buying back stock over time on the ope market at the stock price aphorized by the board. Thus, buy backs must occur over time. Using E-Bay as an example, E-Bay still has $5 billion left tp purchase. This shows the delay between the decision by a corporate board to buy-back shares and when the shares are purchased.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Private fixed investment in structures - Nonresidential.
Q2 2018 +$16.8 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 +$27.9 billion vs. Q2 2017

Of which:
Petroleum and Natural Gas :
Q2 2018 +$19.9 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 +$33.2 billion vs. Q2 2017

Therefore:
Private fixed investment in structures - Nonresidential excluding Petroleum and Natural Gas:
Q2 2018 -$3.1 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 -$5.3 billion vs. Q2 2017

Data from the table below, though I already did the math and wrote it up above. The results are not very different if you include Residential.
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=underlying&1903=2031#reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=underlying&1903=2031
YOU FAILED MATH AND ONLY CONSIDERED ONE OF THE THREE COMPONENTS OF INVESTMENT. WITH MISLEADING INFORMATION LIKE THIS YOU MUST HELP TRUMP COMPOSE HIS TWEETS.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

Private fixed investment in structures - Nonresidential.
Q2 2018 +$16.8 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 +$27.9 billion vs. Q2 2017

Of which:
Petroleum and Natural Gas :
Q2 2018 +$19.9 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 +$33.2 billion vs. Q2 2017

Therefore:
Private fixed investment in structures - Nonresidential excluding Petroleum and Natural Gas:
Q2 2018 -$3.1 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 -$5.3 billion vs. Q2 2017

Data from the table below, though I already did the math and wrote it up above. The results are not very different if you include Residential.
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=underlying&1903=2031#reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=underlying&1903=2031
YOU FAILED MATH AND ONLY CONSIDERED ONE OF THE THREE COMPONENTS OF INVESTMENT. WITH MISLEADING INFORMATION LIKE THIS YOU MUST HELP TRUMP COMPOSE HIS TWEETS.
I've made my point 6 ways from Sunday. You've done nothing but obfuscate. Show us your data, as you'd like it. Actually prove your point, like I have. The residential is right there on the link, and as I note it doesn't change the results. Inventory was down in Q2 2018. So bring us the numbers as you'd like them. Do your own work - I'm not your Associate. However you bring them, it's not going to change the results.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Unit2Sucks said:

wifeisafurd said:




somehow corporations were spending all their tax cuts that had not yet received on distributions, even on distributions often declared before the tax legislation came into existence (which I learned was a non-sequitur),
The non-sequitur is the fact that companies can only pay out dividends out of retained earnings. There are numerous reports of buybacks and dividends reported after the effective date of the tax legislation. Instead of acknowledging that, you are positing some notion that those were already baked.

If you are going to stick to your guns about retained earnings, than I guess you should credit Obama's economy for creating the earnings that funded the hundreds of billions in 2018 stock buybacks. But that would force you to acknowledge that corporations find it in their best interests to return capital rather than invest it.

Here's one such article.

Quote:

Flooded with cash from the Republican tax cut, US public companies announced a whopping $436.6 billion worth of stock buybacks, according to research firm TrimTabs.
Not only is that most ever, it nearly doubles the previous record of $242.1 billion, which was set during the first three months of the year.
Apple alone announced plans for $100 billion in buybacks. Big banks such as Wells Fargo (WFC), JPMorgan Chase (JPM) and Bank of America (BAC) each said they would buy back at least $20 billion of their own stock after the Federal Reserve gave them a clean bill of health late last month.




There is a repetitive disconnect. You keep saying buy backs and dividends paid, and I keep saying distributions declared. There is a difference, especially with respect to timing. For example, in late July 2017, well before anyone knew what the tax plan was going to say, E-Bay's Board declared a $7.6 Billion Buy Back, and which it's board issued an additional authorization of $459 Million in December 2017. E-Bay actually bought back $1 billion in stock in the first quarter of 2018, which is in the amount of 2018 corporate buy-backs mentioned in the repetitive articles you post about PAYMENT (as opposed to declaration) OF BUY-BACKS. NEVERTHELESS, EVERY ARTICAL YOU KEEP LINKING (INCLUDING THIS LAST ONE) TALKS ABOUT PAYMENTS IN THE FIRST QUARTER, NOT DECLARED IN THE FIRST QUARTER. If you can't see why in this case your comment about non-sequitor makes no sense, then I give-up. Most, but not all (e.g., Cisco), of the buy-backs in the first quarter 2018 were declared before the tax bill became law.

Dividend declaration and payment dates also reflect timing differences. Most dividends for fiscal years are declared by Boards sometime in the fourth quarter of the prior year and paid in 1stquarter of the succeeding year. The boards of these companies would make the decision on what dividends to pay based on when the Board pays the dividend, not when it is paid. Moreover, dividend policy could be set well before the dividend for the 1stquarter of 2018 is paid. For example, E-Bay's Board upped its dividend payment rates in July 2018, and has carried that through subsequently declared dividends. Again, if you can't appreciate why this timing difference renders your non-sequitor comment irrational, I got nothing left.

The other aspect is that there is an inference that all companies are using all there repatriated income for buy-backs and dividends, which is far from the truth. Even Cisco, with its notorious buy-back plan still kept the lion's share of its repatriated income. And many companies invested all their repatriated income. For example -
videApple, Capitalizing on New Tax Law, Plans to Bring Billions in Cash Back to U.S. https://nyti.ms/2EPQet6
Shorter wiaf and Trump:

"Don't believe what you're reading or seeing"
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
WIAF, the last article I posted and the quote in my post clearly said record buybacks announced in 2018. Do you dispute that this is the case? To the extent there is a disconnect it seems to be from you misinterpreting words.

Here it is again:

"Flooded with cash from the Republican tax cut, US public companies announced a whopping $436.6 billion worth of stock buybacks, according to research firm TrimTabs."

By the way, it's particularly funny you mentioned eBay because they added $6B to their buyback program in 2018 which dwarfs what they announced in 2017. They also recently laid off a few hundred employees in the Bay Area.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

Private fixed investment in structures - Nonresidential.
Q2 2018 +$16.8 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 +$27.9 billion vs. Q2 2017

Of which:
Petroleum and Natural Gas :
Q2 2018 +$19.9 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 +$33.2 billion vs. Q2 2017

Therefore:
Private fixed investment in structures - Nonresidential excluding Petroleum and Natural Gas:
Q2 2018 -$3.1 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 -$5.3 billion vs. Q2 2017

Data from the table below, though I already did the math and wrote it up above. The results are not very different if you include Residential.
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=underlying&1903=2031#reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=underlying&1903=2031
YOU FAILED MATH AND ONLY CONSIDERED ONE OF THE THREE COMPONENTS OF INVESTMENT. WITH MISLEADING INFORMATION LIKE THIS YOU MUST HELP TRUMP COMPOSE HIS TWEETS.
I've made my point 6 ways from Sunday. You've done nothing but obfuscate. Show us your data, as you'd like it. Actually prove your point, like I have. The residential is right there on the link, and as I note it doesn't change the results. Inventory was down in Q2 2018. So bring us the numbers as you'd like them. Do your own work - I'm not your Associate. However you bring them, it's not going to change the results.
Trump took office on November 2016. Yet the 6 way guy who finally decided to throw some numbers around didn't even use the period Trump was in office, and instead, as usual, used selective data. I expected to see the first two years of Obama's second term since that explains all economic issues.

Then the 6 way guy used only the numbers from fixed investment, ignoring the other two types of investment. Its like the guy that tells you Sonny Dykes' teams had the best statistics because the offensive numbers were at the top in the Pac 12 and let's just ignore the defensive and special teams statistics.

But going with those selective time periods the 6 way guy mentions domestic investment went up $45 billion (BLT number) in Q1 2018 to Q2 2018, while he says oil and gas numbers up 19.9 billion the same period.

Gross Domestic Investment went up $ 268 Billion from Q1 2017 to Q2 2018 (BLT number), and the the 6 way guy indicates oil and gain investment went up $33.2 Billion (the number is wrong, but I'm not your associate to add for you) during the same period. So since $33.2 Billion is equal to $268 Billion to the 6 way guy, oil and gas therefore accounted for the increase in investment. There is a reason I put in the article on the increase in consumer spending causing investment (you know the other components of investment the 6 ways guy ignored), but Dajo Trump wanted to talk about medium income family wages, the true indicator economic growth (sarcasm intended). Well you certainly proved that point 6 way guy. $33.2 Billion accounted for the $268 Billion increase.

The 6 ways guy has a problem with fabricating facts to fit his agenda. I'm a retired attorney. Rudy is a practicing attorney. He was a full time partner at a large law firm until he recently left to work full time for Trump (there was a conflict that his law firm refused to waive). The 6 way guy said the run-up in recent oil and gas production was due to the recent price increases, when oil prices have been fairly stable during the Trump administration. The 6 way guy said the same thing happened in 2014, but oil prices went down from prior year levels.

I appreciate that the 6 way gay want to define Obama's legacy by selecting one or two years in second term and ignoring all the other years, particularly the last couple stinkers, but I will once again reference this CNN quote: The average of the annual real growth rates of the past two administrations was 1.9%. That included several years that covered the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. It is true that many economists and the FED are projecting the economy will grow by 3% in 2018. That would be the highest since 2005, when the economy grew by 3.5%. By that measure, the economy is doing well.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

WIAF, the last article I posted and the quote in my post clearly said record buybacks announced in 2018. Do you dispute that this is the case? To the extent there is a disconnect it seems to be from you misinterpreting words.

Here it is again:

"Flooded with cash from the Republican tax cut, US public companies announced a whopping $436.6 billion worth of stock buybacks, according to research firm TrimTabs."

By the way, it's particularly funny you mentioned eBay because they added $6B to their buyback program in 2018 which dwarfs what they announced in 2017. They also recently laid off a few hundred employees in the Bay Area.
Your right the article says announced, which means declared. My mistake. I didn't see the EBay addition either, but I will assume it's true. Clearly some portion of the repatriated money is being given to shareholders. The next question is how significant is that: Not So Much Ado About Stock BuybacksQ1 2018 Repurchases Comparable to Past Years https://taxfoundation.org/not-much-ado-stock-buybacks-q1-2018-repurchases-comparable-past-years/. Still, the announcements are not a good trend.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No surprise that the Tax Foundation hasn't thrown up an article on second quarter buybacks announce but I posted that too. Over $400B.

So now that we've established that, how do you really feel?
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

Private fixed investment in structures - Nonresidential.
Q2 2018 +$16.8 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 +$27.9 billion vs. Q2 2017

Of which:
Petroleum and Natural Gas :
Q2 2018 +$19.9 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 +$33.2 billion vs. Q2 2017

Therefore:
Private fixed investment in structures - Nonresidential excluding Petroleum and Natural Gas:
Q2 2018 -$3.1 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 -$5.3 billion vs. Q2 2017

Data from the table below, though I already did the math and wrote it up above. The results are not very different if you include Residential.
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=underlying&1903=2031#reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=underlying&1903=2031
YOU FAILED MATH AND ONLY CONSIDERED ONE OF THE THREE COMPONENTS OF INVESTMENT. WITH MISLEADING INFORMATION LIKE THIS YOU MUST HELP TRUMP COMPOSE HIS TWEETS.
I've made my point 6 ways from Sunday. You've done nothing but obfuscate. Show us your data, as you'd like it. Actually prove your point, like I have. The residential is right there on the link, and as I note it doesn't change the results. Inventory was down in Q2 2018. So bring us the numbers as you'd like them. Do your own work - I'm not your Associate. However you bring them, it's not going to change the results.
Trump took office on November 2016. Yet the 6 way guy who finally decided to throw some numbers around didn't even use the period Trump was in office, and instead, as usual, used selective data. I expected to see the first two years of Obama's second term since that explains all economic issues.

Then the 6 way guy used only the numbers from fixed investment, ignoring the other two types of investment. Its like the guy that tells you Sonny Dykes' teams had the best statistics because the offensive numbers were at the top in the Pac 12 and let's just ignore the defensive and special teams statistics.

But going with those selective time periods the 6 way guy mentions domestic investment went up $45 billion (BLT number) in Q1 2018 to Q2 2018, while he says oil and gas numbers up 19.9 billion the same period.

Gross Domestic Investment went up $ 268 Billion from Q1 2017 to Q2 2018 (BLT number), and the the 6 way guy indicates oil and gain investment went up $33.2 Billion (the number is wrong, but I'm not your associate to add for you) during the same period. So since $33.2 Billion is equal to $268 Billion to the 6 way guy, oil and gas therefore accounted for the increase in investment. There is a reason I put in the article on the increase in consumer spending causing investment (you know the other components of investment the 6 ways guy ignored), but Dajo Trump wanted to talk about medium income family wages, the true indicator economic growth (sarcasm intended). Well you certainly proved that point 6 way guy. $33.2 Billion accounted for the $268 Billion increase.

The 6 ways guy has a problem with fabricating facts to fit his agenda. I'm a retired attorney. Rudy is a practicing attorney. He was a full time partner at a large law firm until he recently left to work full time for Trump (there was a conflict that his law firm refused to waive). The 6 way guy said the run-up in recent oil and gas production was due to the recent price increases, when oil prices have been fairly stable during the Trump administration. The 6 way guy said the same thing happened in 2014, but oil prices went down from prior year levels.

I appreciate that the 6 way gay want to define Obama's legacy by selecting one or two years in second term and ignoring all the other years, particularly the last couple stinkers, but I will once again reference this CNN quote: The average of the annual real growth rates of the past two administrations was 1.9%. That included several years that covered the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. It is true that many economists and the FED are projecting the economy will grow by 3% in 2018. That would be the highest since 2005, when the economy grew by 3.5%. By that measure, the economy is doing well.
Now you are comparing my real numbers (adjusted for inflation) against your gross numbers (not adjusted for inflation). I used YoY and QoQ numbers because that's what GDP measures (i.e. 4.1% quarterly GDP annualized - not since the beginning of the year Trump became President).

I challenge you to stop sniping at the numbers I have provided (and done the correct math on) and instead to put up or shut up. Show me a chain of numbers. Show me your business investment measure. Show me the comparable oil and gas measure.

Also, sorry you seem so hung up on Real Household Median Income, which is a measure I like a lot. I guess you shouldn't have brought it up. I would assert it is more meaningful to the average American household than the rest of what we are debating.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

Private fixed investment in structures - Nonresidential.
Q2 2018 +$16.8 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 +$27.9 billion vs. Q2 2017

Of which:
Petroleum and Natural Gas :
Q2 2018 +$19.9 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 +$33.2 billion vs. Q2 2017

Therefore:
Private fixed investment in structures - Nonresidential excluding Petroleum and Natural Gas:
Q2 2018 -$3.1 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 -$5.3 billion vs. Q2 2017

Data from the table below, though I already did the math and wrote it up above. The results are not very different if you include Residential.
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=underlying&1903=2031#reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=underlying&1903=2031
YOU FAILED MATH AND ONLY CONSIDERED ONE OF THE THREE COMPONENTS OF INVESTMENT. WITH MISLEADING INFORMATION LIKE THIS YOU MUST HELP TRUMP COMPOSE HIS TWEETS.
I've made my point 6 ways from Sunday. You've done nothing but obfuscate. Show us your data, as you'd like it. Actually prove your point, like I have. The residential is right there on the link, and as I note it doesn't change the results. Inventory was down in Q2 2018. So bring us the numbers as you'd like them. Do your own work - I'm not your Associate. However you bring them, it's not going to change the results.
Trump took office on November 2016. Yet the 6 way guy who finally decided to throw some numbers around didn't even use the period Trump was in office, and instead, as usual, used selective data. I expected to see the first two years of Obama's second term since that explains all economic issues.

Then the 6 way guy used only the numbers from fixed investment, ignoring the other two types of investment. Its like the guy that tells you Sonny Dykes' teams had the best statistics because the offensive numbers were at the top in the Pac 12 and let's just ignore the defensive and special teams statistics.

But going with those selective time periods the 6 way guy mentions domestic investment went up $45 billion (BLT number) in Q1 2018 to Q2 2018, while he says oil and gas numbers up 19.9 billion the same period.

Gross Domestic Investment went up $ 268 Billion from Q1 2017 to Q2 2018 (BLT number), and the the 6 way guy indicates oil and gain investment went up $33.2 Billion (the number is wrong, but I'm not your associate to add for you) during the same period. So since $33.2 Billion is equal to $268 Billion to the 6 way guy, oil and gas therefore accounted for the increase in investment. There is a reason I put in the article on the increase in consumer spending causing investment (you know the other components of investment the 6 ways guy ignored), but Dajo Trump wanted to talk about medium income family wages, the true indicator economic growth (sarcasm intended). Well you certainly proved that point 6 way guy. $33.2 Billion accounted for the $268 Billion increase.

The 6 ways guy has a problem with fabricating facts to fit his agenda. I'm a retired attorney. Rudy is a practicing attorney. He was a full time partner at a large law firm until he recently left to work full time for Trump (there was a conflict that his law firm refused to waive). The 6 way guy said the run-up in recent oil and gas production was due to the recent price increases, when oil prices have been fairly stable during the Trump administration. The 6 way guy said the same thing happened in 2014, but oil prices went down from prior year levels.

I appreciate that the 6 way gay want to define Obama's legacy by selecting one or two years in second term and ignoring all the other years, particularly the last couple stinkers, but I will once again reference this CNN quote: The average of the annual real growth rates of the past two administrations was 1.9%. That included several years that covered the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. It is true that many economists and the FED are projecting the economy will grow by 3% in 2018. That would be the highest since 2005, when the economy grew by 3.5%. By that measure, the economy is doing well.
Now you are comparing my real numbers (adjusted for inflation) against your gross numbers (not adjusted for inflation). I used YoY and QoQ numbers because that's what GDP measures (i.e. 4.1% quarterly GDP annualized - not since the beginning of the year Trump became President).

I challenge you to stop sniping at the numbers I have provided (and done the correct math on) and instead to put up or shut up. Show me a chain of numbers. Show me your business investment measure. Show me the comparable oil and gas measure.

Also, sorry you seem so hung up on Real Household Median Income, which is a measure I like a lot. I guess you shouldn't have brought it up. I would assert it is more meaningful to the average American household than the rest of what we are debating.
In the time period you used, Gross Domestic Investment went up $268 Billion, and using your number, $33.2 Billion was related to oil and gas. Discussion over. The increase wasn''t due to oil and gas.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

No surprise that the Tax Foundation hasn't thrown up an article on second quarter buybacks announce but I posted that too. Over $400B.

So now that we've established that, how do you really feel?
Some of the repatriated money is going to shareholders, who will presumably spend the money and spur investment. The money doesn't go away. Business is keeping a substantial portion, but I would prefer more investment by business, rather than buy backs, and then to continue relying on increases in household spending rates. There also is a negative income distribution impact as individual stockholders tend to be wealthier. There also are many employee pension funds who hold stocks, so you won't see capital improvements in that case, just more retirement investment. Again, very little of the tax savings and additional spending have occurred yet, and my concern is that we still are facing inflationary pressures, and most investment firms have upped their estimate of future interest rates and GDP. But it's early.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I would also note, as I have previously, that something like 38% of US stocks are held by foreign nationals. So I guess we are making their countries great too.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

Private fixed investment in structures - Nonresidential.
Q2 2018 +$16.8 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 +$27.9 billion vs. Q2 2017

Of which:
Petroleum and Natural Gas :
Q2 2018 +$19.9 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 +$33.2 billion vs. Q2 2017

Therefore:
Private fixed investment in structures - Nonresidential excluding Petroleum and Natural Gas:
Q2 2018 -$3.1 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 -$5.3 billion vs. Q2 2017

Data from the table below, though I already did the math and wrote it up above. The results are not very different if you include Residential.
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=underlying&1903=2031#reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=underlying&1903=2031
YOU FAILED MATH AND ONLY CONSIDERED ONE OF THE THREE COMPONENTS OF INVESTMENT. WITH MISLEADING INFORMATION LIKE THIS YOU MUST HELP TRUMP COMPOSE HIS TWEETS.
I've made my point 6 ways from Sunday. You've done nothing but obfuscate. Show us your data, as you'd like it. Actually prove your point, like I have. The residential is right there on the link, and as I note it doesn't change the results. Inventory was down in Q2 2018. So bring us the numbers as you'd like them. Do your own work - I'm not your Associate. However you bring them, it's not going to change the results.
Trump took office on November 2016. Yet the 6 way guy who finally decided to throw some numbers around didn't even use the period Trump was in office, and instead, as usual, used selective data. I expected to see the first two years of Obama's second term since that explains all economic issues.

Then the 6 way guy used only the numbers from fixed investment, ignoring the other two types of investment. Its like the guy that tells you Sonny Dykes' teams had the best statistics because the offensive numbers were at the top in the Pac 12 and let's just ignore the defensive and special teams statistics.

But going with those selective time periods the 6 way guy mentions domestic investment went up $45 billion (BLT number) in Q1 2018 to Q2 2018, while he says oil and gas numbers up 19.9 billion the same period.

Gross Domestic Investment went up $ 268 Billion from Q1 2017 to Q2 2018 (BLT number), and the the 6 way guy indicates oil and gain investment went up $33.2 Billion (the number is wrong, but I'm not your associate to add for you) during the same period. So since $33.2 Billion is equal to $268 Billion to the 6 way guy, oil and gas therefore accounted for the increase in investment. There is a reason I put in the article on the increase in consumer spending causing investment (you know the other components of investment the 6 ways guy ignored), but Dajo Trump wanted to talk about medium income family wages, the true indicator economic growth (sarcasm intended). Well you certainly proved that point 6 way guy. $33.2 Billion accounted for the $268 Billion increase.

The 6 ways guy has a problem with fabricating facts to fit his agenda. I'm a retired attorney. Rudy is a practicing attorney. He was a full time partner at a large law firm until he recently left to work full time for Trump (there was a conflict that his law firm refused to waive). The 6 way guy said the run-up in recent oil and gas production was due to the recent price increases, when oil prices have been fairly stable during the Trump administration. The 6 way guy said the same thing happened in 2014, but oil prices went down from prior year levels.

I appreciate that the 6 way gay want to define Obama's legacy by selecting one or two years in second term and ignoring all the other years, particularly the last couple stinkers, but I will once again reference this CNN quote: The average of the annual real growth rates of the past two administrations was 1.9%. That included several years that covered the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. It is true that many economists and the FED are projecting the economy will grow by 3% in 2018. That would be the highest since 2005, when the economy grew by 3.5%. By that measure, the economy is doing well.
Now you are comparing my real numbers (adjusted for inflation) against your gross numbers (not adjusted for inflation). I used YoY and QoQ numbers because that's what GDP measures (i.e. 4.1% quarterly GDP annualized - not since the beginning of the year Trump became President).

I challenge you to stop sniping at the numbers I have provided (and done the correct math on) and instead to put up or shut up. Show me a chain of numbers. Show me your business investment measure. Show me the comparable oil and gas measure.

Also, sorry you seem so hung up on Real Household Median Income, which is a measure I like a lot. I guess you shouldn't have brought it up. I would assert it is more meaningful to the average American household than the rest of what we are debating.
In the time period you used, Gross Domestic Investment went up $268 Billion, and using your number, $33.2 Billion was related to oil and gas. Discussion over. The increase wasn''t due to oil and gas.
You are conflating real and gross numbers. I asked you to provide a full set of data, as I have done. You can't or won't do it. You are trying to end the conversation and claim victory based on your willful misinterpretation of the numbers. Shady. I'm glad you were never my lawyer.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

I would also note, as I have previously, that something like 38% of US stocks are held by foreign nationals. So I guess we are making their countries great too.
Looks like some of that repatriated cash is returning outside the US. OTOH, I don't begrudge foreign investors a return.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

Private fixed investment in structures - Nonresidential.
Q2 2018 +$16.8 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 +$27.9 billion vs. Q2 2017

Of which:
Petroleum and Natural Gas :
Q2 2018 +$19.9 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 +$33.2 billion vs. Q2 2017

Therefore:
Private fixed investment in structures - Nonresidential excluding Petroleum and Natural Gas:
Q2 2018 -$3.1 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 -$5.3 billion vs. Q2 2017

Data from the table below, though I already did the math and wrote it up above. The results are not very different if you include Residential.
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=underlying&1903=2031#reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=underlying&1903=2031
YOU FAILED MATH AND ONLY CONSIDERED ONE OF THE THREE COMPONENTS OF INVESTMENT. WITH MISLEADING INFORMATION LIKE THIS YOU MUST HELP TRUMP COMPOSE HIS TWEETS.
I've made my point 6 ways from Sunday. You've done nothing but obfuscate. Show us your data, as you'd like it. Actually prove your point, like I have. The residential is right there on the link, and as I note it doesn't change the results. Inventory was down in Q2 2018. So bring us the numbers as you'd like them. Do your own work - I'm not your Associate. However you bring them, it's not going to change the results.
Trump took office on November 2016. Yet the 6 way guy who finally decided to throw some numbers around didn't even use the period Trump was in office, and instead, as usual, used selective data. I expected to see the first two years of Obama's second term since that explains all economic issues.

Then the 6 way guy used only the numbers from fixed investment, ignoring the other two types of investment. Its like the guy that tells you Sonny Dykes' teams had the best statistics because the offensive numbers were at the top in the Pac 12 and let's just ignore the defensive and special teams statistics.

But going with those selective time periods the 6 way guy mentions domestic investment went up $45 billion (BLT number) in Q1 2018 to Q2 2018, while he says oil and gas numbers up 19.9 billion the same period.

Gross Domestic Investment went up $ 268 Billion from Q1 2017 to Q2 2018 (BLT number), and the the 6 way guy indicates oil and gain investment went up $33.2 Billion (the number is wrong, but I'm not your associate to add for you) during the same period. So since $33.2 Billion is equal to $268 Billion to the 6 way guy, oil and gas therefore accounted for the increase in investment. There is a reason I put in the article on the increase in consumer spending causing investment (you know the other components of investment the 6 ways guy ignored), but Dajo Trump wanted to talk about medium income family wages, the true indicator economic growth (sarcasm intended). Well you certainly proved that point 6 way guy. $33.2 Billion accounted for the $268 Billion increase.

The 6 ways guy has a problem with fabricating facts to fit his agenda. I'm a retired attorney. Rudy is a practicing attorney. He was a full time partner at a large law firm until he recently left to work full time for Trump (there was a conflict that his law firm refused to waive). The 6 way guy said the run-up in recent oil and gas production was due to the recent price increases, when oil prices have been fairly stable during the Trump administration. The 6 way guy said the same thing happened in 2014, but oil prices went down from prior year levels.

I appreciate that the 6 way gay want to define Obama's legacy by selecting one or two years in second term and ignoring all the other years, particularly the last couple stinkers, but I will once again reference this CNN quote: The average of the annual real growth rates of the past two administrations was 1.9%. That included several years that covered the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. It is true that many economists and the FED are projecting the economy will grow by 3% in 2018. That would be the highest since 2005, when the economy grew by 3.5%. By that measure, the economy is doing well.
Now you are comparing my real numbers (adjusted for inflation) against your gross numbers (not adjusted for inflation). I used YoY and QoQ numbers because that's what GDP measures (i.e. 4.1% quarterly GDP annualized - not since the beginning of the year Trump became President).

I challenge you to stop sniping at the numbers I have provided (and done the correct math on) and instead to put up or shut up. Show me a chain of numbers. Show me your business investment measure. Show me the comparable oil and gas measure.

Also, sorry you seem so hung up on Real Household Median Income, which is a measure I like a lot. I guess you shouldn't have brought it up. I would assert it is more meaningful to the average American household than the rest of what we are debating.
In the time period you used, Gross Domestic Investment went up $268 Billion, and using your number, $33.2 Billion was related to oil and gas. Discussion over. The increase wasn''t due to oil and gas.
You are conflating real and gross numbers. I asked you to provide a full set of data, as I have done. You can't or won't do it. You are trying to end the conversation and claim victory based on your willful misinterpretation of the numbers. Shady. I'm glad you were never my lawyer.
Maybe the problem is your looking at the wrong schedule. You quoted a schedule that is just one component of investment, that is investment in private fixed investment in structures. My numbers came from taking the difference between the numbers on beginning and ending quarters for the schedule of total gross domestic spending. The problem is that index contains two other components of overall investment that you ignored by only focusing on private fixed investment. At this point it might be time to time give everyone else a break from this back and forth. I had a bond and real estate practice which consisted of primarily large government agencies and developers. Strangely, I was on the other side of a transaction involving Trump. In any event, I don't think you would be a fit for that practice. In my CPA's day I was in a Big 8 and then the tax director and then CFO on a NYSE company, so I doubt our paths crossed.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

Private fixed investment in structures - Nonresidential.
Q2 2018 +$16.8 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 +$27.9 billion vs. Q2 2017

Of which:
Petroleum and Natural Gas :
Q2 2018 +$19.9 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 +$33.2 billion vs. Q2 2017

Therefore:
Private fixed investment in structures - Nonresidential excluding Petroleum and Natural Gas:
Q2 2018 -$3.1 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 -$5.3 billion vs. Q2 2017

Data from the table below, though I already did the math and wrote it up above. The results are not very different if you include Residential.
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=underlying&1903=2031#reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=underlying&1903=2031
YOU FAILED MATH AND ONLY CONSIDERED ONE OF THE THREE COMPONENTS OF INVESTMENT. WITH MISLEADING INFORMATION LIKE THIS YOU MUST HELP TRUMP COMPOSE HIS TWEETS.
I've made my point 6 ways from Sunday. You've done nothing but obfuscate. Show us your data, as you'd like it. Actually prove your point, like I have. The residential is right there on the link, and as I note it doesn't change the results. Inventory was down in Q2 2018. So bring us the numbers as you'd like them. Do your own work - I'm not your Associate. However you bring them, it's not going to change the results.
Trump took office on November 2016. Yet the 6 way guy who finally decided to throw some numbers around didn't even use the period Trump was in office, and instead, as usual, used selective data. I expected to see the first two years of Obama's second term since that explains all economic issues.

Then the 6 way guy used only the numbers from fixed investment, ignoring the other two types of investment. Its like the guy that tells you Sonny Dykes' teams had the best statistics because the offensive numbers were at the top in the Pac 12 and let's just ignore the defensive and special teams statistics.

But going with those selective time periods the 6 way guy mentions domestic investment went up $45 billion (BLT number) in Q1 2018 to Q2 2018, while he says oil and gas numbers up 19.9 billion the same period.

Gross Domestic Investment went up $ 268 Billion from Q1 2017 to Q2 2018 (BLT number), and the the 6 way guy indicates oil and gain investment went up $33.2 Billion (the number is wrong, but I'm not your associate to add for you) during the same period. So since $33.2 Billion is equal to $268 Billion to the 6 way guy, oil and gas therefore accounted for the increase in investment. There is a reason I put in the article on the increase in consumer spending causing investment (you know the other components of investment the 6 ways guy ignored), but Dajo Trump wanted to talk about medium income family wages, the true indicator economic growth (sarcasm intended). Well you certainly proved that point 6 way guy. $33.2 Billion accounted for the $268 Billion increase.

The 6 ways guy has a problem with fabricating facts to fit his agenda. I'm a retired attorney. Rudy is a practicing attorney. He was a full time partner at a large law firm until he recently left to work full time for Trump (there was a conflict that his law firm refused to waive). The 6 way guy said the run-up in recent oil and gas production was due to the recent price increases, when oil prices have been fairly stable during the Trump administration. The 6 way guy said the same thing happened in 2014, but oil prices went down from prior year levels.

I appreciate that the 6 way gay want to define Obama's legacy by selecting one or two years in second term and ignoring all the other years, particularly the last couple stinkers, but I will once again reference this CNN quote: The average of the annual real growth rates of the past two administrations was 1.9%. That included several years that covered the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. It is true that many economists and the FED are projecting the economy will grow by 3% in 2018. That would be the highest since 2005, when the economy grew by 3.5%. By that measure, the economy is doing well.
Now you are comparing my real numbers (adjusted for inflation) against your gross numbers (not adjusted for inflation). I used YoY and QoQ numbers because that's what GDP measures (i.e. 4.1% quarterly GDP annualized - not since the beginning of the year Trump became President).

I challenge you to stop sniping at the numbers I have provided (and done the correct math on) and instead to put up or shut up. Show me a chain of numbers. Show me your business investment measure. Show me the comparable oil and gas measure.

Also, sorry you seem so hung up on Real Household Median Income, which is a measure I like a lot. I guess you shouldn't have brought it up. I would assert it is more meaningful to the average American household than the rest of what we are debating.
In the time period you used, Gross Domestic Investment went up $268 Billion, and using your number, $33.2 Billion was related to oil and gas. Discussion over. The increase wasn''t due to oil and gas.
You are conflating real and gross numbers. I asked you to provide a full set of data, as I have done. You can't or won't do it. You are trying to end the conversation and claim victory based on your willful misinterpretation of the numbers. Shady. I'm glad you were never my lawyer.
Maybe the problem is your looking at the wrong schedule. You quoted a schedule that is just one component of investment, that is investment in private fixed investment in structures. My numbers came from taking the difference between the numbers on beginning and ending quarters for the schedule of total gross domestic spending. The problem is that index contains two other components of overall investment that you ignored by only focusing on private fixed investment. At this point it might be time to time give everyone else a break from this back and forth. I had a bond and real estate practice which consisted of primarily large government agencies and developers. Strangely, I was on the other side of a transaction involving Trump. In any event, I don't think you would be a fit for that practice. In my CPA's day I was in a Big 8 and then the tax director and then CFO on a NYSE company, so I doubt our paths crossed.


Maybe the problem is you got caught making a boneheaded mistake (again), still refuse to provide numbers to back up your argument, and so you are now falling back on your resume.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

Private fixed investment in structures - Nonresidential.
Q2 2018 +$16.8 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 +$27.9 billion vs. Q2 2017

Of which:
Petroleum and Natural Gas :
Q2 2018 +$19.9 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 +$33.2 billion vs. Q2 2017

Therefore:
Private fixed investment in structures - Nonresidential excluding Petroleum and Natural Gas:
Q2 2018 -$3.1 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 -$5.3 billion vs. Q2 2017

Data from the table below, though I already did the math and wrote it up above. The results are not very different if you include Residential.
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=underlying&1903=2031#reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=underlying&1903=2031
YOU FAILED MATH AND ONLY CONSIDERED ONE OF THE THREE COMPONENTS OF INVESTMENT. WITH MISLEADING INFORMATION LIKE THIS YOU MUST HELP TRUMP COMPOSE HIS TWEETS.
I've made my point 6 ways from Sunday. You've done nothing but obfuscate. Show us your data, as you'd like it. Actually prove your point, like I have. The residential is right there on the link, and as I note it doesn't change the results. Inventory was down in Q2 2018. So bring us the numbers as you'd like them. Do your own work - I'm not your Associate. However you bring them, it's not going to change the results.
Trump took office on November 2016. Yet the 6 way guy who finally decided to throw some numbers around didn't even use the period Trump was in office, and instead, as usual, used selective data. I expected to see the first two years of Obama's second term since that explains all economic issues.

Then the 6 way guy used only the numbers from fixed investment, ignoring the other two types of investment. Its like the guy that tells you Sonny Dykes' teams had the best statistics because the offensive numbers were at the top in the Pac 12 and let's just ignore the defensive and special teams statistics.

But going with those selective time periods the 6 way guy mentions domestic investment went up $45 billion (BLT number) in Q1 2018 to Q2 2018, while he says oil and gas numbers up 19.9 billion the same period.

Gross Domestic Investment went up $ 268 Billion from Q1 2017 to Q2 2018 (BLT number), and the the 6 way guy indicates oil and gain investment went up $33.2 Billion (the number is wrong, but I'm not your associate to add for you) during the same period. So since $33.2 Billion is equal to $268 Billion to the 6 way guy, oil and gas therefore accounted for the increase in investment. There is a reason I put in the article on the increase in consumer spending causing investment (you know the other components of investment the 6 ways guy ignored), but Dajo Trump wanted to talk about medium income family wages, the true indicator economic growth (sarcasm intended). Well you certainly proved that point 6 way guy. $33.2 Billion accounted for the $268 Billion increase.

The 6 ways guy has a problem with fabricating facts to fit his agenda. I'm a retired attorney. Rudy is a practicing attorney. He was a full time partner at a large law firm until he recently left to work full time for Trump (there was a conflict that his law firm refused to waive). The 6 way guy said the run-up in recent oil and gas production was due to the recent price increases, when oil prices have been fairly stable during the Trump administration. The 6 way guy said the same thing happened in 2014, but oil prices went down from prior year levels.

I appreciate that the 6 way gay want to define Obama's legacy by selecting one or two years in second term and ignoring all the other years, particularly the last couple stinkers, but I will once again reference this CNN quote: The average of the annual real growth rates of the past two administrations was 1.9%. That included several years that covered the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. It is true that many economists and the FED are projecting the economy will grow by 3% in 2018. That would be the highest since 2005, when the economy grew by 3.5%. By that measure, the economy is doing well.
Now you are comparing my real numbers (adjusted for inflation) against your gross numbers (not adjusted for inflation). I used YoY and QoQ numbers because that's what GDP measures (i.e. 4.1% quarterly GDP annualized - not since the beginning of the year Trump became President).

I challenge you to stop sniping at the numbers I have provided (and done the correct math on) and instead to put up or shut up. Show me a chain of numbers. Show me your business investment measure. Show me the comparable oil and gas measure.

Also, sorry you seem so hung up on Real Household Median Income, which is a measure I like a lot. I guess you shouldn't have brought it up. I would assert it is more meaningful to the average American household than the rest of what we are debating.
In the time period you used, Gross Domestic Investment went up $268 Billion, and using your number, $33.2 Billion was related to oil and gas. Discussion over. The increase wasn''t due to oil and gas.
You are conflating real and gross numbers. I asked you to provide a full set of data, as I have done. You can't or won't do it. You are trying to end the conversation and claim victory based on your willful misinterpretation of the numbers. Shady. I'm glad you were never my lawyer.
Maybe the problem is your looking at the wrong schedule. You quoted a schedule that is just one component of investment, that is investment in private fixed investment in structures. My numbers came from taking the difference between the numbers on beginning and ending quarters for the schedule of total gross domestic spending. The problem is that index contains two other components of overall investment that you ignored by only focusing on private fixed investment. At this point it might be time to time give everyone else a break from this back and forth. I had a bond and real estate practice which consisted of primarily large government agencies and developers. Strangely, I was on the other side of a transaction involving Trump. In any event, I don't think you would be a fit for that practice. In my CPA's day I was in a Big 8 and then the tax director and then CFO on a NYSE company, so I doubt our paths crossed.


Maybe the problem is you got caught making a boneheaded mistake (again), still refuse to provide numbers to back up your argument, and so you are now falling back on your resume.
This may now be the sixth way to Sunday, but I gave you the federal government numbers from the same source, but correct table, actually using the actual number for Domestic Investment. To wit: in the time period you used, Gross Domestic Investment went up $268 Billion, and using your number, $33.2 Billion was related to oil and gas. Discussion over. The increase wasn''t due to oil and gas. The numbers clearly back-up the argument, resume or not, all without snarky remarks about you not wanting to be a client. At this point, I doubt anyone cares anymore.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

Private fixed investment in structures - Nonresidential.
Q2 2018 +$16.8 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 +$27.9 billion vs. Q2 2017

Of which:
Petroleum and Natural Gas :
Q2 2018 +$19.9 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 +$33.2 billion vs. Q2 2017

Therefore:
Private fixed investment in structures - Nonresidential excluding Petroleum and Natural Gas:
Q2 2018 -$3.1 billion vs. Q1 2018
Q2 2018 -$5.3 billion vs. Q2 2017

Data from the table below, though I already did the math and wrote it up above. The results are not very different if you include Residential.
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=underlying&1903=2031#reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=underlying&1903=2031
YOU FAILED MATH AND ONLY CONSIDERED ONE OF THE THREE COMPONENTS OF INVESTMENT. WITH MISLEADING INFORMATION LIKE THIS YOU MUST HELP TRUMP COMPOSE HIS TWEETS.
I've made my point 6 ways from Sunday. You've done nothing but obfuscate. Show us your data, as you'd like it. Actually prove your point, like I have. The residential is right there on the link, and as I note it doesn't change the results. Inventory was down in Q2 2018. So bring us the numbers as you'd like them. Do your own work - I'm not your Associate. However you bring them, it's not going to change the results.
Trump took office on November 2016. Yet the 6 way guy who finally decided to throw some numbers around didn't even use the period Trump was in office, and instead, as usual, used selective data. I expected to see the first two years of Obama's second term since that explains all economic issues.

Then the 6 way guy used only the numbers from fixed investment, ignoring the other two types of investment. Its like the guy that tells you Sonny Dykes' teams had the best statistics because the offensive numbers were at the top in the Pac 12 and let's just ignore the defensive and special teams statistics.

But going with those selective time periods the 6 way guy mentions domestic investment went up $45 billion (BLT number) in Q1 2018 to Q2 2018, while he says oil and gas numbers up 19.9 billion the same period.

Gross Domestic Investment went up $ 268 Billion from Q1 2017 to Q2 2018 (BLT number), and the the 6 way guy indicates oil and gain investment went up $33.2 Billion (the number is wrong, but I'm not your associate to add for you) during the same period. So since $33.2 Billion is equal to $268 Billion to the 6 way guy, oil and gas therefore accounted for the increase in investment. There is a reason I put in the article on the increase in consumer spending causing investment (you know the other components of investment the 6 ways guy ignored), but Dajo Trump wanted to talk about medium income family wages, the true indicator economic growth (sarcasm intended). Well you certainly proved that point 6 way guy. $33.2 Billion accounted for the $268 Billion increase.

The 6 ways guy has a problem with fabricating facts to fit his agenda. I'm a retired attorney. Rudy is a practicing attorney. He was a full time partner at a large law firm until he recently left to work full time for Trump (there was a conflict that his law firm refused to waive). The 6 way guy said the run-up in recent oil and gas production was due to the recent price increases, when oil prices have been fairly stable during the Trump administration. The 6 way guy said the same thing happened in 2014, but oil prices went down from prior year levels.

I appreciate that the 6 way gay want to define Obama's legacy by selecting one or two years in second term and ignoring all the other years, particularly the last couple stinkers, but I will once again reference this CNN quote: The average of the annual real growth rates of the past two administrations was 1.9%. That included several years that covered the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. It is true that many economists and the FED are projecting the economy will grow by 3% in 2018. That would be the highest since 2005, when the economy grew by 3.5%. By that measure, the economy is doing well.
Now you are comparing my real numbers (adjusted for inflation) against your gross numbers (not adjusted for inflation). I used YoY and QoQ numbers because that's what GDP measures (i.e. 4.1% quarterly GDP annualized - not since the beginning of the year Trump became President).

I challenge you to stop sniping at the numbers I have provided (and done the correct math on) and instead to put up or shut up. Show me a chain of numbers. Show me your business investment measure. Show me the comparable oil and gas measure.

Also, sorry you seem so hung up on Real Household Median Income, which is a measure I like a lot. I guess you shouldn't have brought it up. I would assert it is more meaningful to the average American household than the rest of what we are debating.
In the time period you used, Gross Domestic Investment went up $268 Billion, and using your number, $33.2 Billion was related to oil and gas. Discussion over. The increase wasn''t due to oil and gas.
You are conflating real and gross numbers. I asked you to provide a full set of data, as I have done. You can't or won't do it. You are trying to end the conversation and claim victory based on your willful misinterpretation of the numbers. Shady. I'm glad you were never my lawyer.
Maybe the problem is your looking at the wrong schedule. You quoted a schedule that is just one component of investment, that is investment in private fixed investment in structures. My numbers came from taking the difference between the numbers on beginning and ending quarters for the schedule of total gross domestic spending. The problem is that index contains two other components of overall investment that you ignored by only focusing on private fixed investment. At this point it might be time to time give everyone else a break from this back and forth. I had a bond and real estate practice which consisted of primarily large government agencies and developers. Strangely, I was on the other side of a transaction involving Trump. In any event, I don't think you would be a fit for that practice. In my CPA's day I was in a Big 8 and then the tax director and then CFO on a NYSE company, so I doubt our paths crossed.


Maybe the problem is you got caught making a boneheaded mistake (again), still refuse to provide numbers to back up your argument, and so you are now falling back on your resume.
This may now be the sixth way to Sunday, but I gave you the federal government numbers from the same source, but correct table, actually using the actual number for Domestic Investment. To wit: in the time period you used, Gross Domestic Investment went up $268 Billion, and using your number, $33.2 Billion was related to oil and gas. Discussion over. The increase wasn''t due to oil and gas. The numbers clearly back-up the argument, resume or not, all without snarky remarks about you not wanting to be a client. At this point, I doubt anyone cares anymore.
You have not provided a complete set of comparable data. You insist on trying to compare an inflated number against a non-inflated number.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:





Do you actually have any data you can point to showing that increased oil and gas investment was responsible for the incase in investment? BTW, private domestic investment includes 3 types of investment, only one category of which oil and gas investment would impact:

  • Non-residential investment: Expenditures by firms on capital such as tools, machinery, and factories.
  • Residential Investment: Expenditures on residential structures and residential equipment that is owned by landlords and rented to tenants.
  • Change in inventories: The change of firm inventories in a given period.
I'm still waiting.
I want to thank you wiaf. As a mere hobbyist, I've never spent so much time dissecting the numbers on BEA. But I like to have a firm grasp on the subject matter and so I have learned a good amount. I pieced together business investment for the Q2 GDP report as you have it accurately defined here.

In chained 2012 dollars it appears Gross Private Domestic investment (is Business Investment an appropriate pseudonym for that?) is -$4 billion (linked below), while oil and gas exploration is +$20 billion (also linked below). That means in Q2 GDP, Business Investment excluding oil and gas exploration is -$35 billion. Hence the articles I came across buzzing about oil and gas.

I can understand why your most recent post addresses Gross Domestic Investment, which includes households and governments rather than just Business Investment. Still waiting for you to post a real chain of numbers.

Thanks for the education. If I have anything incorrect, please let me know - I'm sure you will.

https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=2#reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=6

https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=2#reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=146
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:





Do you actually have any data you can point to showing that increased oil and gas investment was responsible for the incase in investment? BTW, private domestic investment includes 3 types of investment, only one category of which oil and gas investment would impact:

  • Non-residential investment: Expenditures by firms on capital such as tools, machinery, and factories.
  • Residential Investment: Expenditures on residential structures and residential equipment that is owned by landlords and rented to tenants.
  • Change in inventories: The change of firm inventories in a given period.
I'm still waiting.
I want to thank you wiaf. As a mere hobbyist, I've never spent so much time dissecting the numbers on BEA. But I like to have a firm grasp on the subject matter and so I have learned a good amount. I pieced together business investment for the Q2 GDP report as you have it accurately defined here.

In chained 2012 dollars it appears Gross Private Domestic investment (is Business Investment an appropriate pseudonym for that?) is -$4 billion (linked below), while oil and gas exploration is +$20 billion (also linked below). That means in Q2 GDP, Business Investment excluding oil and gas exploration is -$35 billion. Hence the articles I came across buzzing about oil and gas.

I can understand why your most recent post addresses Gross Domestic Investment, which includes households and governments rather than just Business Investment. Still waiting for you to post a real chain of numbers.

Thanks for the education. If I have anything incorrect, please let me know - I'm sure you will.

https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=2#reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=6

https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=2#reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=146
I say all this without any derision intended.

The links unfortunately lead to the BEA index, so I don't know which tables you were referencing.

Its not like a tried to hide the investment index used by the government. Rather the opposite. I indicated numerous times there were more components of investment you were not considering. I might add there the St. Louis FED puts out the same index without the government investment, but I think you will find the results are similar. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=kKes. My methodology as I explained before was to take the Q2 2018 number and subtract the Q1 2017 number since that was the period you were using, and then compare the difference to your number for oil/gas capital investment. I did not adjust for inflation given the small amount of time involved. I think you dig into the detail you will find that the increases are primarily due to inventories spurred on by the increased rate in household consumption as I noted in response to a post by another poster.

You now want to focus on the Q2 2018, possibly because the other time period really doesn't support your thesis regarding capital oil investment expelling the increase. First, capital oil investment is up due to the view long term oil prices will be higher. Projects started today won't be on line typically for more than a decade. The oil industry has some good studies on investment and price and investment projections, if your interested (I don't mean this sarcastically), and i can link for you I hope) or get you the name.

Moving on, I don't understand the comment that investment fell $4 billion in Q2 2018. Using either the BEA investment index which includes government investment or just the St. Louis Fed index w/o government investment, investment went up considerably. You can useing the chart I linked to the FED index, investment went up $33 billion. Then you make this comparison using something called the GDP Business Investment Index, and I can't find that index, know what it is, or what the numbers you quote mean. Maybe this all made sense when the links worked (again, not intending to be sarcastic).

From a bigger picture, I'm not seeing the wisdom of focusing on just one component of an overall index or one sector of one component of that index, especially when specific sectors may be going up of down and negating the impact of other sectors or components. If the focus is now the last quarter, I didn't see that much movement in fixed capital investment sectors other than in oil, so I would agree oil probably explains the increase for that particular component of the index in that quarter, but not for the five quarter change you originally discussed. But going back to where you were looking at Q1 2017 to Q2 2018, you would see a big gains in inventories, but inventories were down last quarter as orders rose in certain sectors and not others. But what if there was a large drop in one inventory level or certain types of residential investment that mask other sectors going the other direction? Does that mean that in reality the increase in overall investment is the gain in those other inventories or residential expenditures, rather than the gain in oil capital improvement, or do we give both credit? I think your analysis of looking at just one sector or component and comparing it to an overall number would often lead to misleading conclusions. You need to analyze what is happening in each sector and each index component to get a clear picture of the overall index change.
mikecohen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I love this dialog, and will be thrilled if the opposing side can reach agreement
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:





Do you actually have any data you can point to showing that increased oil and gas investment was responsible for the incase in investment? BTW, private domestic investment includes 3 types of investment, only one category of which oil and gas investment would impact:

  • Non-residential investment: Expenditures by firms on capital such as tools, machinery, and factories.
  • Residential Investment: Expenditures on residential structures and residential equipment that is owned by landlords and rented to tenants.
  • Change in inventories: The change of firm inventories in a given period.
I'm still waiting.
I want to thank you wiaf. As a mere hobbyist, I've never spent so much time dissecting the numbers on BEA. But I like to have a firm grasp on the subject matter and so I have learned a good amount. I pieced together business investment for the Q2 GDP report as you have it accurately defined here.

In chained 2012 dollars it appears Gross Private Domestic investment (is Business Investment an appropriate pseudonym for that?) is -$4 billion (linked below), while oil and gas exploration is +$20 billion (also linked below). That means in Q2 GDP, Business Investment excluding oil and gas exploration is -$35 billion. Hence the articles I came across buzzing about oil and gas.

I can understand why your most recent post addresses Gross Domestic Investment, which includes households and governments rather than just Business Investment. Still waiting for you to post a real chain of numbers.

Thanks for the education. If I have anything incorrect, please let me know - I'm sure you will.

https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=2#reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=6

https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=2#reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=146
I say all this without any derision intended.

The links unfortunately lead to the BEA index, so I don't know which tables you were referencing.

Its not like a tried to hide the investment index used by the government. Rather the opposite. I indicated numerous times there were more components of investment you were not considering. I might add there the St. Louis FED puts out the same index without the government investment, but I think you will find the results are similar. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=kKes. My methodology as I explained before was to take the Q2 2018 number and subtract the Q1 2017 number since that was the period you were using, and then compare the difference to your number for oil/gas capital investment. I did not adjust for inflation given the small amount of time involved. I think you dig into the detail you will find that the increases are primarily due to inventories spurred on by the increased rate in household consumption as I noted in response to a post by another poster.

You now want to focus on the Q2 2018, possibly because the other time period really doesn't support your thesis regarding capital oil investment expelling the increase. First, capital oil investment is up due to the view long term oil prices will be higher. Projects started today won't be on line typically for more than a decade. The oil industry has some good studies on investment and price and investment projections, if your interested (I don't mean this sarcastically), and i can link for you I hope) or get you the name.

Moving on, I don't understand the comment that investment fell $4 billion in Q2 2018. Using either the BEA investment index which includes government investment or just the St. Louis Fed index w/o government investment, investment went up considerably. You can useing the chart I linked to the FED index, investment went up $33 billion. Then you make this comparison using something called the GDP Business Investment Index, and I can't find that index, know what it is, or what the numbers you quote mean. Maybe this all made sense when the links worked (again, not intending to be sarcastic).

From a bigger picture, I'm not seeing the wisdom of focusing on just one component of an overall index or one sector of one component of that index, especially when specific sectors may be going up of down and negating the impact of other sectors or components. If the focus is now the last quarter, I didn't see that much movement in fixed capital investment sectors other than in oil, so I would agree oil probably explains the increase for that particular component of the index in that quarter, but not for the five quarter change you originally discussed. But going back to where you were looking at Q1 2017 to Q2 2018, you would see a big gains in inventories, but inventories were down last quarter as orders rose in certain sectors and not others. But what if there was a large drop in one inventory level or certain types of residential investment that mask other sectors going the other direction? Does that mean that in reality the increase in overall investment is the gain in those other inventories or residential expenditures, rather than the gain in oil capital improvement, or do we give both credit? I think your analysis of looking at just one sector or component and comparing it to an overall number would often lead to misleading conclusions. You need to analyze what is happening in each sector and each index component to get a clear picture of the overall index change.
Links fixed below:

Gross Private Domestic Investment -$4B
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=6

Oil and Gas +$20B
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=146

If you want to talk about another period, I'd be happy to, right after you post the data you want to discuss. In the meantime, as I dug into these numbers more, I was shocked to find that Gross Private Domestic Investment (one of the 4 main components of GDP) was negative in that gangbuster Q2 2018 GDP report. Even I didn't imagine that to be the case when I began this discussion. Why is Gross Private Domestic Investment collapsing under Trump?
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:





Do you actually have any data you can point to showing that increased oil and gas investment was responsible for the incase in investment? BTW, private domestic investment includes 3 types of investment, only one category of which oil and gas investment would impact:

  • Non-residential investment: Expenditures by firms on capital such as tools, machinery, and factories.
  • Residential Investment: Expenditures on residential structures and residential equipment that is owned by landlords and rented to tenants.
  • Change in inventories: The change of firm inventories in a given period.
I'm still waiting.
I want to thank you wiaf. As a mere hobbyist, I've never spent so much time dissecting the numbers on BEA. But I like to have a firm grasp on the subject matter and so I have learned a good amount. I pieced together business investment for the Q2 GDP report as you have it accurately defined here.

In chained 2012 dollars it appears Gross Private Domestic investment (is Business Investment an appropriate pseudonym for that?) is -$4 billion (linked below), while oil and gas exploration is +$20 billion (also linked below). That means in Q2 GDP, Business Investment excluding oil and gas exploration is -$35 billion. Hence the articles I came across buzzing about oil and gas.

I can understand why your most recent post addresses Gross Domestic Investment, which includes households and governments rather than just Business Investment. Still waiting for you to post a real chain of numbers.

Thanks for the education. If I have anything incorrect, please let me know - I'm sure you will.

https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=2#reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=6

https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=2#reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=146
I say all this without any derision intended.

The links unfortunately lead to the BEA index, so I don't know which tables you were referencing.

Its not like a tried to hide the investment index used by the government. Rather the opposite. I indicated numerous times there were more components of investment you were not considering. I might add there the St. Louis FED puts out the same index without the government investment, but I think you will find the results are similar. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=kKes. My methodology as I explained before was to take the Q2 2018 number and subtract the Q1 2017 number since that was the period you were using, and then compare the difference to your number for oil/gas capital investment. I did not adjust for inflation given the small amount of time involved. I think you dig into the detail you will find that the increases are primarily due to inventories spurred on by the increased rate in household consumption as I noted in response to a post by another poster.

You now want to focus on the Q2 2018, possibly because the other time period really doesn't support your thesis regarding capital oil investment expelling the increase. First, capital oil investment is up due to the view long term oil prices will be higher. Projects started today won't be on line typically for more than a decade. The oil industry has some good studies on investment and price and investment projections, if your interested (I don't mean this sarcastically), and i can link for you I hope) or get you the name.

Moving on, I don't understand the comment that investment fell $4 billion in Q2 2018. Using either the BEA investment index which includes government investment or just the St. Louis Fed index w/o government investment, investment went up considerably. You can useing the chart I linked to the FED index, investment went up $33 billion. Then you make this comparison using something called the GDP Business Investment Index, and I can't find that index, know what it is, or what the numbers you quote mean. Maybe this all made sense when the links worked (again, not intending to be sarcastic).

From a bigger picture, I'm not seeing the wisdom of focusing on just one component of an overall index or one sector of one component of that index, especially when specific sectors may be going up of down and negating the impact of other sectors or components. If the focus is now the last quarter, I didn't see that much movement in fixed capital investment sectors other than in oil, so I would agree oil probably explains the increase for that particular component of the index in that quarter, but not for the five quarter change you originally discussed. But going back to where you were looking at Q1 2017 to Q2 2018, you would see a big gains in inventories, but inventories were down last quarter as orders rose in certain sectors and not others. But what if there was a large drop in one inventory level or certain types of residential investment that mask other sectors going the other direction? Does that mean that in reality the increase in overall investment is the gain in those other inventories or residential expenditures, rather than the gain in oil capital improvement, or do we give both credit? I think your analysis of looking at just one sector or component and comparing it to an overall number would often lead to misleading conclusions. You need to analyze what is happening in each sector and each index component to get a clear picture of the overall index change.
Links fixed below:

Gross Private Domestic Investment -$4B
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=6

Oil and Gas +$20B
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=146

If you want to talk about another period, I'd be happy to, right after you post the data you want to discuss. In the meantime, as I dug into these numbers more, I was shocked to find that Gross Private Domestic Investment (one of the 4 main components of GDP) was negative in that gangbuster Q2 2018 GDP report. Even I didn't imagine that to be the case when I began this discussion. Why is Gross Private Domestic Investment collapsing under Trump?

So when I go to the went to the BEA GDP table I got this:

NI Release http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=5#.W2TmyO2Gbp0.twitter

It says Gross Private Domestic went from 3,543.8 to 3.575,9, an increase in $32.1 billion. I don't deny you have linked to a table that says something different (to be discussed below). I might add that the numbers in the table in my post tie to FED numbers which I linked in my prior e mail. What is also apparent is the change in your table is an almost 60 billion negative change in inventories purportedly caused a drop in investment. The problem is those numbers in your table are not the actual numbers. You used a table which makes adjustments for things like inflation, seasonality, and other factors, and often uses estimates to arrive at adjusted numbers. So the reality is investment went up $32.1 billion, and inventories didn't go down that much unless you want to adjustment for seasonality. And the real world uses the GDP numbers on the table I used.

Since the world uses actual figures, you should too in your analysis. At a minimum, if you use the same numbers again, some warning that you are not using actual numbers, but numbers adjusted for various reasons would be ethical. Moreover, when you click on the warning in your table, there are warnings about the adjustments being unreliable and that it is not advisable to compare numbers from different periods, exactly what you did. Your table should also demonstrate the folly of just looking at one particular sector in one component. Here we had adjusted inventories changing in a negative amount that was twice the size of the oil and gas capital improvement you previously had claimed was the sole reason investment went up. Indeed most people looking at that table, not realizing the adjustments that were made, would have argued incorrectly that the change in inventory levels was to blame. I could be a lot harsher and start mocking your comments about Trump and investment going down, but I think you did this innocently, this being your first foray into the wonderful world of BEA stats.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:





Do you actually have any data you can point to showing that increased oil and gas investment was responsible for the incase in investment? BTW, private domestic investment includes 3 types of investment, only one category of which oil and gas investment would impact:

  • Non-residential investment: Expenditures by firms on capital such as tools, machinery, and factories.
  • Residential Investment: Expenditures on residential structures and residential equipment that is owned by landlords and rented to tenants.
  • Change in inventories: The change of firm inventories in a given period.
I'm still waiting.
I want to thank you wiaf. As a mere hobbyist, I've never spent so much time dissecting the numbers on BEA. But I like to have a firm grasp on the subject matter and so I have learned a good amount. I pieced together business investment for the Q2 GDP report as you have it accurately defined here.

In chained 2012 dollars it appears Gross Private Domestic investment (is Business Investment an appropriate pseudonym for that?) is -$4 billion (linked below), while oil and gas exploration is +$20 billion (also linked below). That means in Q2 GDP, Business Investment excluding oil and gas exploration is -$35 billion. Hence the articles I came across buzzing about oil and gas.

I can understand why your most recent post addresses Gross Domestic Investment, which includes households and governments rather than just Business Investment. Still waiting for you to post a real chain of numbers.

Thanks for the education. If I have anything incorrect, please let me know - I'm sure you will.

https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=2#reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=6

https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=19&step=2#reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=146
I say all this without any derision intended.

The links unfortunately lead to the BEA index, so I don't know which tables you were referencing.

Its not like a tried to hide the investment index used by the government. Rather the opposite. I indicated numerous times there were more components of investment you were not considering. I might add there the St. Louis FED puts out the same index without the government investment, but I think you will find the results are similar. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=kKes. My methodology as I explained before was to take the Q2 2018 number and subtract the Q1 2017 number since that was the period you were using, and then compare the difference to your number for oil/gas capital investment. I did not adjust for inflation given the small amount of time involved. I think you dig into the detail you will find that the increases are primarily due to inventories spurred on by the increased rate in household consumption as I noted in response to a post by another poster.

You now want to focus on the Q2 2018, possibly because the other time period really doesn't support your thesis regarding capital oil investment expelling the increase. First, capital oil investment is up due to the view long term oil prices will be higher. Projects started today won't be on line typically for more than a decade. The oil industry has some good studies on investment and price and investment projections, if your interested (I don't mean this sarcastically), and i can link for you I hope) or get you the name.

Moving on, I don't understand the comment that investment fell $4 billion in Q2 2018. Using either the BEA investment index which includes government investment or just the St. Louis Fed index w/o government investment, investment went up considerably. You can useing the chart I linked to the FED index, investment went up $33 billion. Then you make this comparison using something called the GDP Business Investment Index, and I can't find that index, know what it is, or what the numbers you quote mean. Maybe this all made sense when the links worked (again, not intending to be sarcastic).

From a bigger picture, I'm not seeing the wisdom of focusing on just one component of an overall index or one sector of one component of that index, especially when specific sectors may be going up of down and negating the impact of other sectors or components. If the focus is now the last quarter, I didn't see that much movement in fixed capital investment sectors other than in oil, so I would agree oil probably explains the increase for that particular component of the index in that quarter, but not for the five quarter change you originally discussed. But going back to where you were looking at Q1 2017 to Q2 2018, you would see a big gains in inventories, but inventories were down last quarter as orders rose in certain sectors and not others. But what if there was a large drop in one inventory level or certain types of residential investment that mask other sectors going the other direction? Does that mean that in reality the increase in overall investment is the gain in those other inventories or residential expenditures, rather than the gain in oil capital improvement, or do we give both credit? I think your analysis of looking at just one sector or component and comparing it to an overall number would often lead to misleading conclusions. You need to analyze what is happening in each sector and each index component to get a clear picture of the overall index change.
Links fixed below:

Gross Private Domestic Investment -$4B
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=6

Oil and Gas +$20B
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=146

If you want to talk about another period, I'd be happy to, right after you post the data you want to discuss. In the meantime, as I dug into these numbers more, I was shocked to find that Gross Private Domestic Investment (one of the 4 main components of GDP) was negative in that gangbuster Q2 2018 GDP report. Even I didn't imagine that to be the case when I began this discussion. Why is Gross Private Domestic Investment collapsing under Trump?

So when I go to the went to the BEA GDP table I got this:

NI Release http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=5#.W2TmyO2Gbp0.twitter

It says Gross Private Domestic went from 3,543.8 to 3.575,9, an increase in $32.1 billion. I don't deny you have linked to a table that says something different (to be discussed below). I might add that the numbers in the table in my post tie to FED numbers which I linked in my prior e mail. What is also apparent is the change in your table is an almost 60 billion negative change in inventories purportedly caused a drop in investment. The problem is those numbers in your table are not the actual numbers. You used a table which makes adjustments for things like inflation, seasonality, and other factors, and often uses estimates to arrive at adjusted numbers. So the reality is investment went up $32.1 billion, and inventories didn't go down that much unless you want to adjustment for seasonality. And the real world uses the GDP numbers on the table I used.

Since the world uses actual figures, you should too in your analysis. At a minimum, if you use the same numbers again, some warning that you are not using actual numbers, but numbers adjusted for various reasons would be ethical. Moreover, when you click on the warning in your table, there are warnings about the adjustments being unreliable and that it is not advisable to compare numbers from different periods, exactly what you did. Your table should also demonstrate the folly of just looking at one particular sector in one component. Here we had adjusted inventories changing in a negative amount that was twice the size of the oil and gas capital improvement you previously had claimed was the sole reason investment went up. Indeed most people looking at that table, not realizing the adjustments that were made, would have argued incorrectly that the change in inventory levels was to blame. I could be a lot harsher and start mocking your comments about Trump and investment going down, but I think you did this innocently, this being your first foray into the wonderful world of BEA stats.

The numbers I have linked to are adjusted (chained) for inflation and as the warning note says "Chain-type estimates provide the best available method for comparing the level of a given series at two points in time". So, basically, the $32.1 billion increase in investment you are touting is inflation. Congratulations.

For those that doubt I am using real numbers, here is another BEA Chart. This shows the 4.1% overall GDP growth we all recognize from the title of this thread and its contributing factors. In this chart Gross Private Domestic Investment is contributing -0.06%.
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=19&step=3&isuri=1&1921=survey&1903=2

You can mock all you want, but the BEA tells us that this thing called Gross Private Domestic Investment adjusted for Inflation is negative in Q2 2018. You want to blame inventory - fine, but those are the numbers as you correctly laid out in your definition above. So, now it appears you want to change your definitions. I'm happy to discuss anything you want, after you provide the data.

A couple other notes -
- Both our time series are adjusted for seasonality.
- You mention "other factors". Please enlighten us.
- The warning says it is unreliable if you compare it to other time series (not that the time series itself is unreliable). So, if you don't want to compare it to the Oil and Gas time series I shared, that is fine - but I think we both know the difference would not be material over 1 quarter.
mikecohen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Endlessly fascinating. Keep up the good work, guys.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
mikecohen said:

Endlessly fascinating. Keep up the good work, guys.

I'm completely lost at this point.
mikecohen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

mikecohen said:

Endlessly fascinating. Keep up the good work, guys.

I'm completely lost at this point.
Just follow the bouncing ball
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?

concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Has anyone yet thrown this question out in this thread?

The Chinese have been accused of throwing out doctored numbers as to their economy's growth rate. It's like, at least 7% for how many quarters straight? With no dips? A dip might be just +5% for them.

And then when Obama (sorry, when all parties involved during the years that Obama resided at 1600 Penn) turned things around thru the massive spending programs, I heard some on the right suggest that Obama had wrongly influenced officials within the dept that released stats on, say, unemployment rate and such. Those numbers weren't real, they claimed. They had changed the formula on how to calculate unemployment, not counting some folks.

Now, I do recall that there was a change, and I imagine someone will point that out to me.
But you get my angle.

With an administration that is constantly lying, how can we trust the economic #s today?
How can we trust 4.1% growth is real?
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump would do just about anything to make sure he wins in people's eyes, which means winning in his eyes.
He'd probably even shoot someone in broad daylight on 5th avenue.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

Has anyone yet thrown this question out in this thread?

The Chinese have been accused of throwing out doctored numbers as to their economy's growth rate. It's like, at least 7% for how many quarters straight? With no dips? A dip might be just +5% for them.

And then when Obama (sorry, when all parties involved during the years that Obama resided at 1600 Penn) turned things around thru the massive spending programs, I heard some on the right suggest that Obama had wrongly influenced officials within the dept that released stats on, say, unemployment rate and such. Those numbers weren't real, they claimed. They had changed the formula on how to calculate unemployment, not counting some folks.

Now, I do recall that there was a change, and I imagine someone will point that out to me.
But you get my angle.

With an administration that is constantly lying, how can we trust the economic #s today?
How can we trust 4.1% growth is real?


I think the answer to this is the same answer as when Obama was President. I remember Paul Krugman writing about this back then.

These numbers are put together by large groups of career civil servants from all walks of life. There is no way for a Presidential Administration to cook the books without a flood of career civil servants going to the media.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

concordtom said:

Has anyone yet thrown this question out in this thread?

The Chinese have been accused of throwing out doctored numbers as to their economy's growth rate. It's like, at least 7% for how many quarters straight? With no dips? A dip might be just +5% for them.

And then when Obama (sorry, when all parties involved during the years that Obama resided at 1600 Penn) turned things around thru the massive spending programs, I heard some on the right suggest that Obama had wrongly influenced officials within the dept that released stats on, say, unemployment rate and such. Those numbers weren't real, they claimed. They had changed the formula on how to calculate unemployment, not counting some folks.

Now, I do recall that there was a change, and I imagine someone will point that out to me.
But you get my angle.

With an administration that is constantly lying, how can we trust the economic #s today?
How can we trust 4.1% growth is real?


I think the answer to this is the same answer as when Obama was President. I remember Paul Krugman writing about this back then.

These numbers are put together by large groups of career civil servants from all walks of life. There is no way for a Presidential Administration to cook the books without a flood of career civil servants going to the media.
O/T really is fascinating site. i guess the lefties have their share of conspiracy theorists as well. I'm in 100% agreement with Dajo on this (someone should mark this day down).
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

Trump would do just about anything to make sure he wins in people's eyes, which means winning in his eyes.
He'd probably even shoot someone in broad daylight on 5th avenue.
Bad day?
Page 3 of 5
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.