wouldnt it be more effective if it was broken down into the same amount of years?
-
-
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Yeah, because it's wildly off the mark 2 compare the last 7.5 years to long-run U.S. GDP growth. Who's the moron here?
-
Tweet unavailable
-
And all of them know how to count, do compound growth rates, & can understand implication of moribund GDP vs. L/R avg.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
fox news is the channel that knows its more profitable to celebtate its audience's ignorance than to challenge it with information
-
But this is information, even if it was off by a decimal point in each case (3.4% vs. 1.5%). Who's ignorant here?
-
fir example the date ranges a divided very badly, to align with obamas presidency. but the split gives no truth
-
Not too good with arithmetic. eh? Long-run GDP growth vs. last 7.5 years. What we're used to vs. what we have now.
-
counting from 1950...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Honest question. Any chance you could split that graph between republican and democrat controlled WH/Congress?
-
Nevermind. Did it myself. Democratic Presidents come out on top apparently. https://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/screen-shot-2014-07-29-at-11-05-52-am.png …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
what about 2000-2008 the horror years ?
-
That GDP growth rate averaged 2.1% per year vs. 1.5% per year in the last 7.5 years up to 2016 Q2. That's what.
-
Your numbers are wrong. Check data on BEA website (need to know how to calculate CAGRs):pic.twitter.com/NisgHPCE2y
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.