Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

"U.S. Has Record 10th Straight Year Without 3% Growth in GDP

(CNSNews.com) - The United States has now gone a record 10 straight years without 3 percent growth in real Gross Domestic Product, according to data released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The BEA has calculated GDP for each year going back to 1929 and it has calculated the inflation-adjusted annual change in GDP (in constant 2009 dollars) from 1930 forward.

In the 85 years for which BEA has calculated the annual change in real GDP there is only one ten-year stretch—2006 through 2015—when the annual growth in real GDP never hit 3 percent. During the last ten years, real annual growth in GDP peaked in 2006 at 2.7 percent. It has never been that high again, according to the BEA.

The last recession ended in June 2009, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. In the six full calendar years since then (2010-2015), real annual GDP growth has never exceeded the 2.5 percent it hit in 2010.

“The average growth rate for economic recoveries since the 1960s is 3.9 percent ranking the Obama recovery, with an average GDP growth rate of just 2.1 percent, among the slowest in history,” said Sen. Dan Coats (R.-Ind,), who chairs the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress.

Before this period, the longest stretch of years when real GDP did not grow by at least 3.0 percent, as calculatd by the BEA, was the four-year stretch from 1930 to 1933—during the Great Depression.

In addition to that four-stretch from 1930-1933, there have also been four three-year stretches where the real annual growth in GDP did not go as high as 3.0 percent. Those periods were 1945-1947 (in the immediate aftermath of World War II); 1956-1958; 1980-1982; and 2001-2003.

The longest consecutive stretch of years in which the United State saw real GDP grow by 3.0 percent or better was the seven year period from 1983-1989, during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.

The second longest stretch of years in which the U.S. saw real GDP grow by 3.0 percent or better was the six-year period from 1939 through 1944. (World War II started in Europe in 1939 and the U.S. entered the war in December 1941 when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.)

In the last two years, annual growth in real GDP hit a plateau of 2.4 percent.

“Real GDP increase by 2.4 percent in 2015 (that is, from the 2014 annual level to the 2015 annual level), the same rate as in 2014,” the BEA said in the press release it put out today when it published its revised estimate for GDP growth in the fourth quarter of 2015.

In that quarter, according to today’s revised estimate, GDP increased at an annual rate of 1.0 percent.

In the Annual Report of the Council of Economic Advisers that President Obama sent to Congress this week, the administration noted that it is projecting real GDP to grow by only 2.7 percent this year and by less than that in the following two years.

“Real GDP is projected to grow 2.7, 2.5, and 2.4 percent during the four quarters of 2016, 2017, and 2018, respectively,” said the report......."
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ter ... growth-gdp

Way to go Bush and Obama..

Newsflash: We will never see 4% growth again. The new normal average is 2%. And that's no matter who is in the White House. The trends have been coming down for over 40 years.

2009: -2.8%
2010: 2.5%
2011: 1.6%
2012: 2.3%
2013: 2.2%
2014: 2.4%
2015: 2.4%
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG

So 7 years under Obama we have avg an abysmal 1.50% avg annual growth and are on pace to nearly double our national debt (has gone from 10.6 trillion to over 19 trillion) But the market is up!

AZGrizFan wrote:Newsflash: We will never see 4% growth again. The new normal average is 2%. And that's no matter who is in the White House. The trends have been coming down for over 40 years.

But under this buffoon we're not even going to see 3%..

AZGrizFan wrote:Newsflash: We will never see 4% growth again. The new normal average is 2%. And that's no matter who is in the White House. The trends have been coming down for over 40 years.

Hey, Debbie Downer. Give tax reform a chance.

Here's another newsflash: In every subsequent "recovery" since about 1980, fewer jobs have been created in the recovery than were lost during the recession.

AZGrizFan wrote:Here's another newsflash: In every subsequent "recovery" since about 1980, fewer jobs have been created in the recovery than were lost during the recession.

That's because EVERY administration since 80 has followed some version of reaganomics.

Congrats!

AZGrizFan wrote:Here's another newsflash: In every subsequent "recovery" since about 1980, fewer jobs have been created in the recovery than were lost during the recession.

This. Advancing technology can be rough on people/towns if they refuse to learn new skills and adapt.

Seriously, if you're in any industry and around my age, might be worth it to invest in becoming a certified robot technician. I have no qualms that I could lose my job to better technology in the future.

Except government workers...I don't think they'll ever lose their jobs.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Here's another newsflash: In every subsequent "recovery" since about 1980, fewer jobs have been created in the recovery than were lost during the recession.

That's because EVERY administration since 80 has followed some version of reaganomics.

Congrats!

Here's another newsflash: The administration (and their "economic policies") has VERY LITTLE to do with the recoveries or recessions. They're called the business cycle.

BDKJMU wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Newsflash: We will never see 4% growth again. The new normal average is 2%. And that's no matter who is in the White House. The trends have been coming down for over 40 years.

But under this buffoon we're not even going to see 3%..

Here's another newsflash for you: We won't see 3% under the next buffoon either.

AZ is wrecking this thread

I mean what is the surprise here? 4% annual growth is nice and all but doesn't the law of diminishing returns have to apply at some point?

Short of another world war devastating the world's economy and leaves America largely unaffected (ala WW2), where is the driving force that would accelerate GDP growth?

DSUrocks07 wrote:AZ is wrecking this thread

I mean what is the surprise here? 4% annual growth is nice and all but doesn't the law of diminishing returns have to apply at some point?

Short of another world war devastating the world's economy and leaves America largely unaffected (ala WW2), where is the driving force that would accelerate GDP growth?

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
That's because EVERY administration since 80 has followed some version of reaganomics.

Congrats!

Here's another newsflash: The administration (and their "economic policies") has VERY LITTLE to do with the current recoveries or recessions. They're called the business cycle.

1) Fixed it for you

2) They certainly can accelerate or slow down the cycle. Example: Volker in the early 80's. Example 2: FDR and the SLOW recovery in the 30's.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Here's another newsflash: In every subsequent "recovery" since about 1980, fewer jobs have been created in the recovery than were lost during the recession.

That's because EVERY administration since 80 has followed some version of reaganomics.

Congrats!

Interesting. According to the graph, in the 33 years since the Reagan Recovery, we've had two severe economic crunches...1991 and 2008. In the 33 years prior to the Reagan Recovery, there were no less than 6 economic boom and bust cycles.

The Obama Error notwithstanding, why do you hate economic stability and growth?

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
That's because EVERY administration since 80 has followed some version of reaganomics.

Congrats!

Interesting. According to the graph, in the 33 years since the Reagan Recovery, we've had two severe economic crunches...1991 and 2008. In the 33 years prior to the Reagan Recovery, there were no less than 6 economic boom and bust cycles.

The Obama Error notwithstanding, why do you hate economic stability and growth?

Stats are like polls.

∞∞∞ wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Here's another newsflash: In every subsequent "recovery" since about 1980, fewer jobs have been created in the recovery than were lost during the recession.

This. Advancing technology can be rough on people/towns if they refuse to learn new skills and adapt.

Seriously, if you're in any industry and around my age, might be worth it to invest in becoming a certified robot technician. I have no qualms that I could lose my job to better technology in the future.

Except government workers...I don't think they'll ever lose their jobs.

Don't hate the player.

Well duh.

We don't make anything anymore.

The policy realities as well as the policy practices of both the left and the right encourage industries to go offshore.

And public ownership of heavy industry (that Bernie would espouse) is not the answer either

CID1990 wrote:Well duh.

We don't make anything anymore.

The policy realities as well as the policy practices of both the left and the right encourage industries to go offshore.

And public ownership of heavy industry (that Bernie would espouse) is not the answer either

When has he espoused that?

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:Well duh.

We don't make anything anymore.

The policy realities as well as the policy practices of both the left and the right encourage industries to go offshore.

And public ownership of heavy industry (that Bernie would espouse) is not the answer either

When has he espoused that?

"I believe that, in the long run, major industries in this state and nation should be publicly owned and controlled by the workers themselves."

Bernie Sanders- 2015

Need more?

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet."

Abraham Lincoln - 1864

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:
When has he espoused that?

"I believe that, in the long run, major industries in this state and nation should be publicly owned and controlled by the workers themselves."

Bernie Sanders- 2015

Need more?

So like Rosauers Grocery Store chain in the Northwest. Employee owned, publicly traded?

Cool.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: Interesting. According to the graph, in the 33 years since the Reagan Recovery, we've had two severe economic crunches...1991 and 2008. In the 33 years prior to the Reagan Recovery, there were no less than 6 economic boom and bust cycles.

The Obama Error notwithstanding, why do you hate economic stability and growth?

Stats are like polls.

Yeah, no.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
"I believe that, in the long run, major industries in this state and nation should be publicly owned and controlled by the workers themselves."

Bernie Sanders- 2015

Need more?

So like Rosauers Grocery Store chain in the Northwest. Employee owned, publicly traded?

Cool.

MAJOR INDUSTRIES <> Rosauers

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
So like Rosauers Grocery Store chain in the Northwest. Employee owned, publicly traded?

Cool.

MAJOR INDUSTRIES <> Rosauers

So if a "major" industry was for-profit, publicly traded, and controlled by its employees, that would be bad how?