3 ms·

Is the difference between "Will the US economy hit 5.0%+ GDP growth by year-end 2020?" and "Will the US economy hit 5.0%+ annualized GDP growth in any quarter i

Is the difference between "Will the US economy hit 5.0%+ GDP growth by year-end 2020?" and "Will the US economy hit 5.0%+ annualized GDP growth in any quarter in 2020?" really that hard to understand? Any sane person will tell you "Will the US economy hit 5.0%+ GDP growth by year-end 2020?" means GDP at the end of 2020 will be at least 5% higher than it was at beginning of 2020 (unless there's an explicit starting point mentioned). Aside from the question of the data source, it's pretty crystal clear what it means, and that it lacks any notion of quarters or annualization. And it's very obviously different from "Will the US economy hit 5.0%+ annualized GDP growth in any quarter in 2020?", which is what the fine print is measuring.

baobabKoodaa 3y ago
If it was really as clear and obvious as you claim, then please explain while the exchange felt the need to add a very visible disclaimer explaining the terms?
- dataflow 3y ago
  "It" as in the actual title they used? It was damn clear, it didn't need any clarification aside from the data source and the starting point of the measurement. "It" as in their intended title? It obviously didn't match what they wrote, hence the "clarification". Not particularly different from how politicians frequently "clarify" that by X they actually mean not-X... Riddle me this: imagine your convince your spouse to pour all your joint savings into a $1M home because its value will hit 5%+ growth by the year's end. And then at the end of the year it turns out your home is now worth $500k, after briefly dipping down to $400k in Q3. On a scale of 1 to 10, exactly how amused do you think your spouse would be to find out you actually meant "annualized quarterly growth rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent"?
  - baobabKoodaa 3y ago
    I think I misread your comment as meaning the literal opposite of what you meant.

baobabKoodaa 3y ago

If it was really as clear and obvious as you claim, then please explain while the exchange felt the need to add a very visible disclaimer explaining the terms?

dataflow 3y ago
"It" as in the actual title they used? It was damn clear, it didn't need any clarification aside from the data source and the starting point of the measurement. "It" as in their intended title? It obviously didn't match what they wrote, hence the "clarification". Not particularly different from how politicians frequently "clarify" that by X they actually mean not-X... Riddle me this: imagine your convince your spouse to pour all your joint savings into a $1M home because its value will hit 5%+ growth by the year's end. And then at the end of the year it turns out your home is now worth $500k, after briefly dipping down to $400k in Q3. On a scale of 1 to 10, exactly how amused do you think your spouse would be to find out you actually meant "annualized quarterly growth rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent"?
- baobabKoodaa 3y ago
  I think I misread your comment as meaning the literal opposite of what you meant.