@KreuzerJoe @medinajm99 @0liviajulianna Q2 is positive after revisions.
You simply wishing it wasn't doesn't change that.
English
It's Just Numbers
274.4K posts
@NumbersMean @medinajm99 @0liviajulianna GDP isn’t a percentage — but Table 1.1.1 isn’t showing GDP. It shows the percent change in real GDP. Those percent‑change numbers for Q1 (–1.6%) and Q2 (–0.6%) 2022 are still negative in the final BEA revision.
English
@KreuzerJoe @medinajm99 @0liviajulianna Why are you pretending that Table 1.1.1 shows those figures when it clearly doesn't?
English
@NumbersMean @medinajm99 @0liviajulianna What Table 1.1.1 actually shows (confirmed by BEA)
From the BEA’s own release:
- Q1 2022 real GDP decreased 1.6%
- Q2 2022 real GDP decreased 0.6%
These are the final revised numbers.
Nothing flipped positive.
English
@KreuzerJoe @medinajm99 @0liviajulianna Yet that's not what Table 1.1.1 shows.
It shows -1.0% for Q1 2022 and +0.6% for Q2 2022.
English
@NumbersMean @medinajm99 @0liviajulianna So when Table 1.1.1 shows:
Q1 2022: –1.6%
Q2 2022: –0.6%
…it is not showing GDP.
It is showing GDP growth, which can be neg
GDP (level) → dollars
GDP growth (Table 1.1.1) → percent change
Your treating “GDP growth rate” and “GDP level” as the same thing they aren’t
English
@KreuzerJoe @medinajm99 @0liviajulianna Q2 was positive after revisions as shown.
How are you this bad at this?
English
@NumbersMean @medinajm99 @0liviajulianna Yes — even in the correct BEA table (1.1.1), Q1 2022 and Q2 2022 are negative. Your confusion comes from your misunderstanding: GDP itself is not a percentage, but the table shows the percent change in GDP and those percent‑change values for Q1 and Q2 2022 are still negative.
English
@NumbersMean @medinajm99 @0liviajulianna I did look at the link the BEA has multiple tables. You’re reading one of the level or contribution tables. The actual growth rate table is 1.1.1, and it still shows Q1 2022 at –1.6% and Q2 2022 at –0.6% even after revisions.”
English
@KreuzerJoe @medinajm99 @0liviajulianna You realize it would helped if you had actually looked at the link, right?
English
English
English
@KreuzerJoe @medinajm99 @0liviajulianna I am looking at the GDP growth rate.
Obviously I'm not looking at the level, which is not a percentage.
English
English
@KreuzerJoe @medinajm99 @0liviajulianna That link shows Q2 2022 was revised to a positive number.
Thanks for confirming.
English
@KreuzerJoe @medinajm99 @0liviajulianna Not after revisions.
But I do appreciate that you are again citing inflation numbers including gas, even though you denied it.
English
@NumbersMean @medinajm99 @0liviajulianna Because poopy pants Biden did have 2 consecutive neg GDP quarters
English
English
English
English
English
@NumbersMean @medinajm99 @0liviajulianna That's exactly what happened
The historic lesbian black bitch lied every day about how there was no inflation and then the lesbo came up with the transitory line.
English
English
@KreuzerJoe @medinajm99 @0liviajulianna Did you just not know what "numbers" you were talking about?
English
@KreuzerJoe @medinajm99 @0liviajulianna LMAO this has everything to do with reporting inflation
x.com/i/status/20358…
Absolute Reality@KreuzerJoe
@NumbersMean @medinajm99 @0liviajulianna Trump had a recession caused by a global pandemic that shut down the entire world. Biden’s downturn came from policy choices, not COVID, and when the numbers pointed to a recession, suddenly the definition was ‘up for debate.’ Changing the terms doesn’t change what people felt.
English
English
@NumbersMean @medinajm99 @0liviajulianna Yes but not from his administration
Remember the inflation is transitory bullshit after they said there was a slight bump after very low inflation bs
His economy was crap
English