It seems very odd still.

Since if it's meaning is projected then on what basis- just times 4 of the previous quarter. If projecting figures they should be based on something- like projected GDP from numerous economic indicators modelling etc. to Just multiply one quarter like this shouldn't be an acceptable way to report anything as there are often single quarters that dip. I don't remember this reporting any time previously. Like the many dips UK economy has had for example.

So it was a negative then after all?

Isn't the annualised the total of last 4 quarters?

When GDP is annualised it is a projection that extrapolates the current quarter GDP one year into the future. Example. Current qtr GDP is 1%, annualised GDP is projected to be 4%.

If saying "projected annualised" then yes it is obvious- because of the future context with the word "projected".

But when saying something like "last quarters GDP came in at minus 1.7%, and an annualised GDP of -6.8%" this sounds like it should be the sum of the past 4 quarters results to me.

Claiming the future as the present if

no context. I'm not an economist; but do read a fair bit of news, but it still completely threw me as these posts show- pretty crazy way to be reporting when probably 90-99% of the readers of those pieces would see it how I did I think. Almost as if the press were trying to sow fear in the retail investors level/ general public.

the expression "annualised" contains embedded the meaning "projected" not withstanding the fact that the average man on the road is not aware of it.

moreover, your assumption "as if the press..." is correct.

In the news today

UK house prices continue declines.

London experiencing "panic selling"

Gross (not growth) Domestic Product

No growth in that intrinsically.

It will be either positive or negative.

If saying "projected annualised" then yes it is obvious- because of the future context with the word "projected".

But when saying something like "last quarters GDP came in at minus 1.7%, and an annualised GDP of -6.8%" this sounds like it should be the sum of the past 4 quarters results to me.

Claiming the future as the present if

no context. I'm not an economist; but do read a fair bit of news, but it still completely threw me as these posts show- pretty crazy way to be reporting when probably 90-99% of the readers of those pieces would see it how I did I think. Almost as if the press were trying to sow fear in the retail investors level/ general public.

the expression "annualised" contains embedded the meaning "projected" not withstanding the fact that the average man on the road is not aware of it.

moreover, your assumption "as if the press..." is correct.

Gross

Just as the word "growth" is embedded in the term "GDP", at least for headline purposes..

GDP is always a positive number, except for maybe Somalia. It is the growth in GDP that is tracked closely. Growth can be either positive or negative and when it is negative the economy is said to be in recession.

I don't mean to be anal about this. But GDP is a measure.

It will be either positive or negative and written as such.

"It will always be positive except maybe for Somalia" sorry , but no sense in that statement; it turns negative often; at crises, and recessions but can turn negative when there is no recession. As, sorry again, your last sentence is also wrong- because GDP going down does not equal a recession; a recession is technically only called when there are two consecutive quarters of negative GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product

Gross (not growth) Domestic Product

No growth in that intrinsically.

It will be either positive or negative.

If saying "projected annualised" then yes it is obvious- because of the future context with the word "projected".

But when saying something like "last quarters GDP came in at minus 1.7%, and an annualised GDP of -6.8%" this sounds like it should be the sum of the past 4 quarters results to me.

Claiming the future as the present if

no context. I'm not an economist; but do read a fair bit of news, but it still completely threw me as these posts show- pretty crazy way to be reporting when probably 90-99% of the readers of those pieces would see it how I did I think. Almost as if the press were trying to sow fear in the retail investors level/ general public.

the expression "annualised" contains embedded the meaning "projected" not withstanding the fact that the average man on the road is not aware of it.

moreover, your assumption "as if the press..." is correct.

Gross

Just as the word "growth" is embedded in the term "GDP", at least for headline purposes..

GDP is always a positive number, except for maybe Somalia. It is the growth in GDP that is tracked closely. Growth can be either positive or negative and when it is negative the economy is said to be in recession.

Recession = "6 months" / 2 quarters

http://businessdictionary.com/definition/recession.html

Recession = "6 months" / 2 quarters

http://businessdictionary.com/definition/recession.html

That's correct. 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth signifies a recession. As for the other part of our discussion, hopefully these links will clarify:

http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/

http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year

French president dissolves government amid dispute over economy

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/08/25/french-president-dissolves-government-amid-dispute-over-economy/

there's a difference between dissolving and collapsing.

Recession = "6 months" / 2 quarters

http://businessdictionary.com/definition/recession.html

That's correct. 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth signifies a recession. As for the other part of our discussion, hopefully these links will clarify:

http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/

http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year

Lots of points where GDP turns negative on that chart. Thanks for proving my point.

Recession = "6 months" / 2 quarters

http://businessdictionary.com/definition/recession.html

That's correct. 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth signifies a recession. As for the other part of our discussion, hopefully these links will clarify:

http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/

http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year

Lots of points where GDP turns negative on that chart. Thanks for proving my point.

plus why should anyone believe the rubbery figures from a government that is more worried about its political image than in telling the truth (regarding anything) ?

Edited August 26, 201411 yr by midas

Recession = "6 months" / 2 quarters

http://businessdictionary.com/definition/recession.html

That's correct. 2 consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth signifies a recession. As for the other part of our discussion, hopefully these links will clarify:

http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/

http://www.multpl.com/us-real-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year

Lots of points where GDP turns negative on that chart. Thanks for proving my point.

Oh yeah? You know negative means less than zero, right?

The chart I posted shows positive GDP for every year of the graph, with a few years lower than the previous year. That is not negative GDP. That is negative GDP growth, which was my original point. It seems silly to argue the point and I won't anymore.

"Negative growth" equals what exactly?

Contraction?

As in not positive ; rather it is negative.

Funny.

"Negative growth" equals what exactly?

Contraction?

As in not positive ; rather it is negative.

Funny.

Here's an example of negative growth. Let's say GDP was 4 trillion dollars in each of the past 4 qtrs. The next four it is only 3.9 trillion per quarter. That's a hugely positive GDP that displays negative growth(-2.5%).

Edited August 26, 201411 yr by lannarebirth

The next four would be measured from that starting point and the total past total giving a positive %

Say 1 year at 4 T = 10% GDP growth

Next year 3.9 T (on top last years obviously = 9.7% GDP growth say.

I don't think it would ever be reported that the second years GDP growth was minus 2.5 % in the above scenario.

The next four would be measured from that starting point and the total past total giving a positive %

Say 1 year at 4 T = 10% GDP growth

Next year 3.9 T (on top last years obviously = 9.7% GDP growth say.

I don't think it would ever be reported that the second years GDP growth was minus 2.5 % in the above scenario.

*Sigh*. OK, maybe if someone besides me explained it to you:

http://www.marketcalls.in/uncategorized/fundamental-analysis-what-is-the-difference-between-gdp-and-growth-rate.html

Have any of these bankers been prosecuted for causing the financial crisis ? Like James Dimon, of JP Morgan.

A report on the very progressive and alternative television news station, RT,

Sophon cable channel # 66 reported that this Dimon basically stole 13 billion during the crisis.

Edited August 27, 201411 yr by morrobay

The next four would be measured from that starting point and the total past total giving a positive %

Say 1 year at 4 T = 10% GDP growth

Next year 3.9 T (on top last years obviously = 9.7% GDP growth say.

I don't think it would ever be reported that the second years GDP growth was minus 2.5 % in the above scenario.

*Sigh*. OK, maybe if someone besides me explained it to you:

http://www.marketcalls.in/uncategorized/fundamental-analysis-what-is-the-difference-between-gdp-and-growth-rate.html

But now you are talking about a different measure.

Original point was you saying GDP has intrinsic growth as part of the meaning. Which I said is not the case due to GDP being measure ie Gross Domestic Product either positive or negative numbers. Now you are talking about a different measure of "GDP growth rate" , which is totally different and even has the words "growth rate" in the name giving it the clear meaning; while "GDP" on it's own has no such "growth" intrinsically.

The next four would be measured from that starting point and the total past total giving a positive %

Say 1 year at 4 T = 10% GDP growth

Next year 3.9 T (on top last years obviously = 9.7% GDP growth say.

I don't think it would ever be reported that the second years GDP growth was minus 2.5 % in the above scenario.

*Sigh*. OK, maybe if someone besides me explained it to you:

http://www.marketcalls.in/uncategorized/fundamental-analysis-what-is-the-difference-between-gdp-and-growth-rate.html

But now you are talking about a different measure.

Original point was you saying GDP has intrinsic growth as part of the meaning. Which I said is not the case due to GDP being measure ie Gross Domestic Product either positive or negative numbers. Now you are talking about a different measure of "GDP growth rate" , which is totally different and even has the words "growth rate" in the name giving it the clear meaning; while "GDP" on it's own has no such "growth" intrinsically.

Nice try, see ya. BTW, this is what I said:

Just as the word "growth" is embedded in the term "GDP", at least for headline purposes..

Ya know, there's no shame in admitting you don't know something.

The next four would be measured from that starting point and the total past total giving a positive %

Say 1 year at 4 T = 10% GDP growth

Next year 3.9 T (on top last years obviously = 9.7% GDP growth say.

I don't think it would ever be reported that the second years GDP growth was minus 2.5 % in the above scenario.

*Sigh*. OK, maybe if someone besides me explained it to you:

http://www.marketcalls.in/uncategorized/fundamental-analysis-what-is-the-difference-between-gdp-and-growth-rate.html

But now you are talking about a different measure.

Original point was you saying GDP has intrinsic growth as part of the meaning. Which I said is not the case due to GDP being measure ie Gross Domestic Product either positive or negative numbers. Now you are talking about a different measure of "GDP growth rate" , which is totally different and even has the words "growth rate" in the name giving it the clear meaning; while "GDP" on it's own has no such "growth" intrinsically.

Nice try, see ya. BTW, this is what I said:

Just as the word "growth" is embedded in the term "GDP", at least for headline purposes..

Ya know, there's no shame in admitting you don't know something.

"Growth" is not embedded in GDP.

It is only embedded in "GDP growth rate". Two completely different measures.

Get over it.

No shame being wrong at all old bean.

I feely admit when I am wrong, don't know something or mistaken.

On this occasion however I am not wrong.

IMF's Lagarde put under investigation in French fraud case

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/27/us-imf-lagarde-idUSKBN0GR0SP20140827

Charming

'Twas u naam who proclaimed BS on me stating a minus GDP

Which now transpires was correct.

Now your trying to wiggle around to be condescending another way to make up for your first mistake.

No shame in being wrong naam. I readily admitted I / media could have been wrong at the outset. Now it's a mixed picture and I just trying to get to the bottom of it.

The initial sky article spoke as if this 6.8% was the total contraction across the whole year up to that point.

See, here you are with this minus GDP crap. If you can't bring yourself to admit you got that wrong, to me, you ought to at least apologize to Herr Naam. Oh, what's the use?

Different chat old chap; you must be going a little senile I'm afraid? You seem to be having terrible trouble separating different measures and even conversations now. Best just leave it here old boy.

there... there... old boys

Markets could be heading for 'scary' 60pc crash, warns analyst

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/11059951/Markets-could-be-heading-for-scary-60pc-crash-warns-analyst.html

Markets could be heading for 'scary' 60pc crash, warns analyst

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/11059951/Markets-could-be-heading-for-scary-60pc-crash-warns-analyst.html

Federal Reserve's failure to raise interest rates could see a stock market slump to rival 2007, says analyst

is it the anal or the telegraph journàrselist who got it wrong by mentioning 2007?

Markets could be heading for 'scary' 60pc crash, warns analyst

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/11059951/Markets-could-be-heading-for-scary-60pc-crash-warns-analyst.html

Federal Reserve's failure to raise interest rates could see a stock market slump to rival 2007, says analyst

is it the anal or the telegraph journàrselist who got it wrong by mentioning 2007?

Trees don't grow to the sky.

Markets could be heading for 'scary' 60pc crash, warns analyst

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/11059951/Markets-could-be-heading-for-scary-60pc-crash-warns-analyst.html

Federal Reserve's failure to raise interest rates could see a stock market slump to rival 2007, says analyst

is it the anal or the telegraph journàrselist who got it wrong by mentioning 2007?

Trees don't grow to the sky.

that's the excuse of pussy footers who missed the huge profits of the last 5 years. an opportunity like this happens only once in a life time.

is it the anal or the telegraph journàrselist who got it wrong by mentioning 2007?

Federal Reserve's failure to raise interest rates could see a stock market slump to rival 2007, says analyst

Trees don't grow to the sky.

that's the excuse of pussy footers who missed the huge profits of the last 5 years. an opportunity like this happens only once in a life time.

If readers were entitled to 50 baht for every time you have reminded people in this thread about this fact they wouldn't need any other investment.

What is it about you that makes you want to continually castigate people who were merely more risk averse than you because they believed everything regarding the financial system had changed for the worse? Is a person who chooses not to gamble in a casino because he or she suspected cheating by " the house " less intelligent or less prudent than a person who still gambles compulsively whatever the conditions?

And incidentally when a financial system is riddled with fraud and corruption I see absolutely no difference between horse race betting, casinos and so-called stock and bond " markets ".

Markets could be heading for 'scary' 60pc crash, warns analyst

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/11059951/Markets-could-be-heading-for-scary-60pc-crash-warns-analyst.html

MJP the part that baffles me the most is how so many people following the 2008 crisis were willing cheerleaders of the policies introduced by governments immediately afterwards?

We are supposed to be sane adults and yet people must have known that their politicians simply laid the ground for the same conditions that existed before the last crisis to re-emerge again. It's like people have lost all perspective of reality in that you can't rely on a financial system where there is less and less genuine production (I mean solid, hard work by someone) as opposed to people solely dealing in mountains of credit and paper shuffling. And a huge number of people who see nothing wrong with sponging off the system like the 45 million on foodstamps in America and seem totally oblivious to the fact that the numbers of real income earners that are actually doing something constructive and paying for all this are carrying a continually increasing burden. and this is simply unsustainable.

Take property prices in my country Australia where a recent poll shows a whopping 90% of people consider Australian property prices are overvalued, causing a reasearcher to remark “ It's eerily similar to Miami [in 2005 before the sub-prime crisis]. It feels like Groundhog Day," he said.

We are not changing our behaviour. It's just wash rinse and repeat.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/australias-housing-bubble-is-real-and-banks-are-to-blame-says-author-20140828-109ahx.html#poll

Edited August 28, 201411 yr by midas

is it the anal or the telegraph journàrselist who got it wrong by mentioning 2007?

Federal Reserve's failure to raise interest rates could see a stock market slump to rival 2007, says analyst

Trees don't grow to the sky.

that's the excuse of pussy footers who missed the huge profits of the last 5 years. an opportunity like this happens only once in a life time.

If readers were entitled to 50 baht for every time you have reminded people in this thread about this fact they wouldn't need any other investment.

What is it about you that makes you want to continually castigate people who were merely more risk averse than you because they believed everything regarding the financial system had changed for the worse? Is a person who chooses not to gamble in a casino because he or she suspected cheating by " the house " less intelligent or less prudent than a person who still gambles compulsively whatever the conditions?

And incidentally when a financial system is riddled with fraud and corruption I see absolutely no difference between horse race betting, casinos and so-called stock and bond " markets ".

investing is not gambling. what you see is irrelevant for hundreds of millions investors.

when i point out that there was no stock market crash in 2007 and i get an *(&^*^%$ irrelevant answer about the growth of trees then i react with irony and facts.

my so-called "castigation" is nothing but a counter reaction to 5½ years whinging, whining, apocalyptic forecasts and last not least the promotion of rice fields and the purchase of gold in this thread.

Thai arable land in some areas has risen more in percentage terms these last 5 years than any of the worlds stock markets did.