Sentences with phrase «gdp growth does»

The first thought that comes to my mind is GDP growth does not necessarily correleate with share price growth.

«All else equal, the continued unexciting pace of GDP growth does present a modest challenge to our June Fed call.»

Second, because consumption creates a more labor - intensive demand than investment, much lower GDP growth does not necessarily equate to much higher unemployment.

It is immediately visible to anyone that a similar and «healthy» +6 % GDP growth doesn't have the same quality if Total Debt has grown +6 % or +15 % during the same period.

Even with updated information, growth of the US economy slowed from second and third quarter of 2017 readings that exceeded three percent, but fourth quarter GDP growth did outperform its potential for the third consecutive quarter and deeper analysis suggests that the fourth quarter reading was solid.

Not exact matches

GDP growth is slowing, oil prices haven't recovered, and the housing market is no longer providing the lift it once did.

At least part of the reason is that GDP growth has less to do with corporate profits than you might expect.

Rajiv Biswas, Asia - Pacific chief economist at research house IHS Global Insight, said the expected uptick in Japan's GDP growth this quarter will be mostly on the back of «Abenomics,» which doesn't guarantee a strong rebound.

When all was said and done, the 10 years ending 2010 saw an average of less than 2 % GDP growth per year.

As time passes, the consequences of excessive GDP optimism grow more significant, especially as the CBO now projects lower growth than it did in 2001.

We don't know the real figures for GDP growth, for example.

We don't see those red flags on the horizon as we enter the new year, so we continue to believe that 2018 will witness strong U.S. and global GDP growth.

China's GDP growth hovered between 9.5 percent and 10.5 percent between 2008 and 2011, but it's become clear that the spending was done at a cost.

KERNEN: But the one thing most are bringing up — and then I want to tell you about — if you didn't see the Jamie Dimon and the Lloyd Blankfein interview, I want to just tell you what they said about the potential for GDP growth...

«It doesn't only matter how big GDP is in the future, but also how it gets there, such as by slow steady growth, or by periods of rapid growth mixed with recession,» he said.

Even fans of unbridled capitalism have begun to question whether the post-2008 plague of stubbornly low economic growth may have something to do with the way GDP accounts, or fails to account, for a growing number of Internet firms like Facebook and Google who offer their services largely for free.

«The argument is the types of things we're doing now with information technology just don't show up in GDP because a lot of what we do on the Internet is free,» or very nearly so, says Philip Cross, a former chief of economic analysis at Statistics Canada who wrote a paper on the slow - growth economy for the Fraser Institute think tank last year.

The only call to action was for governments to do more to encourage economic growth, as finance ministers acknowledged they had fallen behind on their 2014 promise to increase GDP by 2 %.

Hoguet, who is not a millennial, went on to note that Macy's internal economists accurately predicted a number of metrics last year when crafting the company's three - year plan — such as GDP growth, inflation, employment and wages — but missed the mark on GAAP growth, and fell short on sales of general merchandise, apparel and furniture, partially because they didn't predict how much off - price retail and consumer electronics would weigh on sales.

Given the certainty that revisions will always be made, it might even be worth questioning the wisdom in Statistics Canada publishing marginal declines in GDP unless it is absolutely certain the data is flawless: a 0.1 per cent drop in GDP receives a 100 times the attention that zero growth does (and 1,000 times more during election campaign), so the agency needs to be several times more certain that the economy really did shrink.

Growth in the Chinese economy has collapsed, but growth in economic activity has not collapsed (let us assume, with Grenville, that somehow the reduction in GDP growth from over 10 percent to 6.5 percent does not represent a slowdown in economic actiGrowth in the Chinese economy has collapsed, but growth in economic activity has not collapsed (let us assume, with Grenville, that somehow the reduction in GDP growth from over 10 percent to 6.5 percent does not represent a slowdown in economic actigrowth in economic activity has not collapsed (let us assume, with Grenville, that somehow the reduction in GDP growth from over 10 percent to 6.5 percent does not represent a slowdown in economic actigrowth from over 10 percent to 6.5 percent does not represent a slowdown in economic activity).

If this is true, it should cause GDP growth to pick up, and so should widen the growth differential between China and the United States, but unfortunately this does not mean that there should be a corresponding drop in the rate at which we discount Chinese growth.

Should monetary policy drop its inflation target and instead do whatever it takes to maintain a stable growth path for nominal GDP, no matter what that requires it do, no matter what fiscal policy is?

The fact that first quarter GDP growth was slightly positive does not alter this.

Finally, simply looking at GDP does not take into account the growth of other sectors of the economy relative to manufacturing.

Because I think China's nominal GDP growth has been overstated by a substantial amount because of its systematic failure to write down bad loans, I usually have subtracted 2 - 4 percentage points from the nominal GDP growth rate before I did my very rough calculation.

While he said he does not see this as a cause for robust improvement across the board, corporate profits and the GDP will see marginal growth.

The only countries for whom membership — with its attendant demand squeeze of 2.0 — 2.5 percent of GDP — does not entail lower growth are undeveloped economies that urgently need capital to fund domestic investment.

This new growth model requires that household income comprises a much greater share of GDP than it currently does, and one way or another this new model will be imposed upon the Chinese economy.

The costs associated with insufficient roads, bridges, tunnels and more don't end there: The ASCE also found that by 2020, this deteriorating infrastructure will cost the economy nearly 1 million jobs and hurt GDP growth by $ 1 trillion.

What I like about the model I have described above is that it doesn't allow analysts to hide their implicit assumptions about credit growth, GDP growth, and the relationship between the two.

We need to watch what Beijing does to rein in the growth in debt, and of course this is closely related to overall GDP growth.

China has only completed the first part of the rebalancing — interest rates, wages and the currency have all moved sharply closer to healthy levels, levels at which the imbalances are no longer getting worse, in other words, but Beijing has still not got its arms around credit growth because to do so would cause GDP growth to drop much more sharply than Beijing is willing to tolerate.

I based my growth expectations on what I think were conservative estimates of consumption growth and the growth in productive investment (with which the reported data is currently consistent, although do not prove my assumptions one way or the other), but I always pointed out that as long as credit growth accelerated, the growth in non-productive investment would remain high, in which case reported GDP would also remain high for much longer.

It does not just mean slower growth in GDP, it also means a reduction in the economy's potential, although to a lesser extent.

This is the next great challenge for Beijing, and when the regulators finally do start to repair overextended balance sheet, with a much higher debt - to - GDP ratio than any other country at China's stage of economic development, according to a presentation Monday night by my very smart former student, Chen Long, I expect annual GDP growth rates will continue dropping steadily, by 1 - 2 percentage points a year through the rest of this decade (and there has been increasing talk in the past month or two that GDP growth rates are already 1 - 2 points below the printed rates).

There is no way Beijing can address its debt problem without a sharp drop in GDP growth, but as unwilling as Beijing may be to see much lower growth, it doesn't have any other option.

The typical economic reports such as the consumer price index, GDP growth, Tankan index, and so on, are also considered potent drivers of the EUR / JPY cross, but they don't reach the degree of consideration accredited to stock market changes and the Bank of Japan decisions.

The ultimate result is that it dramatically affects the ability to do long term transformation, dramatically effects GDP growth and economic competitiveness for society.»

To prefer 5 % to the current 4 % nominal GDP growth going forward, and a fortiori to ask for a burst of money creation to get us back to the previous 5 % bubble path, is to ask for chronically higher monetary expansion and inflation that will do more harm than good.

OTTAWA (MNI)- Canada goods trade deficit reached a record high C$ 4.1 billion in March, widening from C$ 2.9 billion in February, which was slightly revised from C$ 2.7 billion, leading to a deterioration of the balance in the first quarter that does not bode well for net export contribution to GDP growth, according to data from Statistics Canada.

We started the year with 4 % GDP growth estimates as far as the eye could see (not from me, but Wall St did).

However, Asian markets do not appear to be out of the woods just yet: Export - dependent Taiwan reported a 1 % year - on - year GDP decrease in the third quarter, and the BOJ made a late - October announcement of reduced growth and inflation forecasts for Japan.

Despite the fact that all the central banks have been woefully wrong about nearly every single forecast they have made on GDP growth, inflation and labor markets for decades, they enjoy an aura of infallibility which would be the envy of any medieval Pope because they succeeded in doing what governments by themselves were unable to do in 2008 - 9, namely stop and reverse the financial crisis.

First, historically, and internationally, it's not the rate of money growth per se, but the growth of government spending as a share of GDP (particularly spending that doesn't add to the productive capacity of a nation), that drives inflation pressures.

While Budget 2018 - 19 does forecast a decline in the debt - to - GDP ratio over the next five years, the decline is entirely the result of economic growth, as government debt will continue to grow for the next five years due to deficit spending though at least 2022 - 23.

Consequently, even if the GDP growth figures reported by China's government bore some resemblance to reality (they don't), the reported growth wouldn't be a reason to be optimistic because so much of it is associated with wasteful spending.

«The nice thing about my business and my universe is I can carve out some great ideas, where you have great earnings growth, strong GDP growth, and not have to worry so much about what the Fed lift - off is going to do»..

As inflation creeps up, prices rise, and GDP growth slows, so too does the stock market decline in value.

All the ghost cities, spectacular - but - mostly - vacant shopping malls, barely - used airports and bridges to nowhere have boosted the Keynesian measures of growth — such as GDP — that don't distinguish between productive and unproductive spending.