2 ms·

I don't feel that makes a difference to what I just wrote. But I can do some very rough arithmetic along those lines to see what the decline would have to be.

I don't feel that makes a difference to what I just wrote. But I can do some very rough arithmetic along those lines to see what the decline would have to be. The GDP figure just reported is -4.8%. Based on what I recall, the inflection point was about halfway through March. Friday the 13th is when the state government in NY finally said anyone who can, work from home. That's 0.5/3 months or ~17% of the quarter I'd assign to "shutdown". 0.83 * 1 + .17 * x = .952 ...I don't trust myself to do high school algebra, so I asked Wolfram Alpha and it said x = 72%. Ok, so the reported figure of nearly -5% probably equates to a little over a quarter of the economy missing. I don't think I need to concede my point about a 100% stoppage not happening.

Retric 7y ago
The larger point stands it’s just ‘but people are talking about single digit GDP percentage point declines‘ that I was correcting. That said, Pennsylvania and several other states waited until April to order a shutdown, but the observed GDP decline was annualizing a ~1% though there was growth in the ready of Q1. Long story short, that 4.8% is absolutely worthless.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  The bit you quote from me seems strictly accurate; by single digit I mean < 10%. That is what the news is reporting. It is factual, and my inference that the economy is not shut down hasn't been questioned. Saying that the difference is larger when you consider only part of the quarter is correct too, but 4.8% is not "absolutely worthless", it just needs to be interpreted properly. As in my previous comment, you can approximately derive the actual amount of decline, which is a fraction of a complete shutdown.
  - Retric 7y ago
    By absolutely worthless I mean it’s a meaningless calculation. They take the actual change averaged out over a quarter, and then assume 4 more quarters will have exactly the same thing happen. It’s a common calculation used to make quarterly numbers seem more important, but it’s at best misleading if not actively deceptive.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      Wait, wait, wait. Nothing is "meaningless" if it contains information. And "misleading" depends entirely on context. It sounds as though you are suggesting I made an error that increases the apparent size of the shutdown, meaning it is actually smaller and my claim is stronger than I thought. If the figures are annualized (I checked* and I think you're right) then it improves my original point - the 4.8% decline becomes 1.2% un-annualized, and the normal trend of +2% becomes +0.5%. The equation should then be something like .167 * x + .833 * 1.005 = .988, "x" being the percentage of the economy active in the last half month, or about 90%. I'm confident that there is information in the reported figure and that no reasonable calculation can show the economy was shut down completely. *https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product
      - Retric 7y ago
        You’re ignoring information that you disagree with. Yep, of the multiple errors in your calculation, one of them lowers the estimate. But, I never said anything about a 100% shutdown just that single digit comment. Going in the other direction, picking the earliest possible starting date underestimates the impact as does ignoring panic buying. Layoffs where also not instantaneous, and people’s final paychecks are delayed etc. All of this is going to show up in Q2 numbers even if many states are scaling back their shutdowns. As to being a meaningless calculation, you’re describing a reversible calculation not a useful one. I can type a message in ROT13 and the result contains the same content, that does not make me doing the ROT13 useful.
        perl4ever 7y ago
        "You’re ignoring information that you disagree with" You're the one saying information is "meaningless", and at the same time I don't see any alternative data that you've provided. You're just making general statements that sound to me like the fallacy that imprecision means no information. In your first reponse to me, you wrote: "It requires a very large decline to average out to ‘just’ 1%" So, "very large" is subjective, but I don't think 10% is "very large" in the context of people talking about 100% of the economy being down.

Retric 7y ago

The larger point stands it’s just ‘but people are talking about single digit GDP percentage point declines‘ that I was correcting. That said, Pennsylvania and several other states waited until April to order a shutdown, but the observed GDP decline was annualizing a ~1% though there was growth in the ready of Q1. Long story short, that 4.8% is absolutely worthless.

perl4ever 7y ago
The bit you quote from me seems strictly accurate; by single digit I mean < 10%. That is what the news is reporting. It is factual, and my inference that the economy is not shut down hasn't been questioned. Saying that the difference is larger when you consider only part of the quarter is correct too, but 4.8% is not "absolutely worthless", it just needs to be interpreted properly. As in my previous comment, you can approximately derive the actual amount of decline, which is a fraction of a complete shutdown.
- Retric 7y ago
  By absolutely worthless I mean it’s a meaningless calculation. They take the actual change averaged out over a quarter, and then assume 4 more quarters will have exactly the same thing happen. It’s a common calculation used to make quarterly numbers seem more important, but it’s at best misleading if not actively deceptive.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    Wait, wait, wait. Nothing is "meaningless" if it contains information. And "misleading" depends entirely on context. It sounds as though you are suggesting I made an error that increases the apparent size of the shutdown, meaning it is actually smaller and my claim is stronger than I thought. If the figures are annualized (I checked* and I think you're right) then it improves my original point - the 4.8% decline becomes 1.2% un-annualized, and the normal trend of +2% becomes +0.5%. The equation should then be something like .167 * x + .833 * 1.005 = .988, "x" being the percentage of the economy active in the last half month, or about 90%. I'm confident that there is information in the reported figure and that no reasonable calculation can show the economy was shut down completely. *https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product
    - Retric 7y ago
      You’re ignoring information that you disagree with. Yep, of the multiple errors in your calculation, one of them lowers the estimate. But, I never said anything about a 100% shutdown just that single digit comment. Going in the other direction, picking the earliest possible starting date underestimates the impact as does ignoring panic buying. Layoffs where also not instantaneous, and people’s final paychecks are delayed etc. All of this is going to show up in Q2 numbers even if many states are scaling back their shutdowns. As to being a meaningless calculation, you’re describing a reversible calculation not a useful one. I can type a message in ROT13 and the result contains the same content, that does not make me doing the ROT13 useful.
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        "You’re ignoring information that you disagree with" You're the one saying information is "meaningless", and at the same time I don't see any alternative data that you've provided. You're just making general statements that sound to me like the fallacy that imprecision means no information. In your first reponse to me, you wrote: "It requires a very large decline to average out to ‘just’ 1%" So, "very large" is subjective, but I don't think 10% is "very large" in the context of people talking about 100% of the economy being down.