3 ms·

It shrunk at an annualized rate of 32.9%, which means it actually shrunk about 8%. If it actually shrunk 32.9% in one quarter, we'd not only be way beyond Grea

• detaro 6y ago
  * about 9.5%
• radford-neal 6y ago
  Right. This mis-statement is endemic in financial journalism. In ordinary circumstances quoting the change in terms of the annual rate of change is useful - provided it's correctly described as that! - but in the present circumstance it makes no sense. Nobody is expecting a new pandemic every quarter, so that the 9.5% drop this quarter will be followed by another 9.5% drop next quarter, and so on indefinitely...
  • thephyber 6y ago
    It's only a mis-statement in the headline because headlines are always edited for brevity. The first paragraph makes the specific unit of the number clear.
    • Fjolsvith 6y ago
      I'd still classify it as click bait.
• randyrand 6y ago
  That’s an odd way of looking at it. GDP does not require a annual timescale. You are free to use your own. Quarters are also common and the headline makes that clear. Plus, they can’t report on the annual GDP until the year ends, so even that 8% figure might not be accurate!
  • maxerickson 6y ago
    No, it's a response to the poor phrasing of the headline, which says GDP shrunk 33%. It didn't shrink 33%. The headline could try to state that it shrunk at a rate of 33% per year, but people aren't numerate enough for that. It should use the correct, absolute, contraction and state the period that it happened over.
• jkoudys 6y ago
  Great to know you'd only hit 1/3 the level needed to cause the apocalypse.