4 ms·
[this is terribly wrong: “It did contract by 32.9% in the second quarter (not in the four quarters ending in June 2020)”] Edit: I assumed it was compared to th
by kgwgk 6y ago
[this is terribly wrong: “It did contract by 32.9% in the second quarter (not in the four quarters ending in June 2020)”]
Edit: I assumed it was compared to the second quarter 2019, not sequentially to the first quarter 2020, I didn’t stop to think that 33% was just too much. 9% is bad enough: from $21.34 trillion to $19.41 trillion (Q2 2019 to Q2 2020).
- rayiner 6y agoNo. “The U.S. economy contracted at a record 32.9% annual rate last quarter.”
- MrPowers 6y agoThe title of the article says "U.S. Economy Contracts at Record 32.9% Annual Rate". A HN mod should change the title here on this site cause it's misleading.
- FabHK 6y agoNo. Goes to show how misleading the headline is (particularly the HN headline - was there no space for the important clarification "annual rate"?) @Dang? add "annualised" or "annual rate"?
- nickles 6y agoThe article headline changed since this was posted. I've updated it to reflect the new title.
- function_seven 6y agoNo it didn’t. Here’s NYT’s headline: U.S. economic output fell 9.5 percent in the second quarter, the biggest drop on record. That translates to a 32.9 percent annual rate of decline.