Monday, March 17, 2008

Reality vs Intermediate Cost vs Low Cost

This table (which looks a lot nicer in edit mode-oh well) shows projected Real GDP figures for both Intermediate Cost and Low Cost from the last eleven Social Security Reports along with actual Real GDP numbers. The 1997 numbers make some sense, in the face of a 1996 2.5% number Intermediate Cost projected a repeat at 2.5% with a more optimistic Low Cost number of 3.2%. But oddly each model predicted a sharp downturn in the second year. In the event the economy returned 3.8%. Now one would think this result would tug at the model and at a minimum establish a new ceiling since obviously 3.8% was a possible outcome. Instead the 1998 Report stuck with 2.5% as a median IC number and set LC at 3.1%. That is they suggested that the very best the economy could be expected to do was a 20% slowdown in the rate of growth of GDP. Well the real economy returned 3.9%. What was the response? The Trustees stayed with their slowdown narrative. Why did the Trustees not concede that growth above 3% was the new median? Well the answer appears in the post above this one. Or will when I write it.

Report Year Prev Year IC Current Year IC Second Year LC Current LC Second Year Actual Result
1997 2.5 % 2.5% 2.0% 3.2% 2.7% 3.8%
1998 3.8% 2.5% 2.0% 3.1% 2.5% 3.9%
1999 3.9% 2.6% 2.0% 3.4% 2.5% 4.0%
2000 4.0% 3.5% 2.7% 3.9% 3.1% 5.1%
2001 5.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.5% 3.5% 1.0%
2002 1.0% .7% 3.8% 1.6% 4.6% 2.4%
2003 2.4% 2.9% 3.6% 3.8% 4.1% 3.1%
2004 3.1% 4.4% 3.6% 4.9% 3.9% 4.4%
2005 4.4% 3.6% 3.5% 3.9% 3.8% 3.6%
2006 3.6% 3.4% 3.3% 3.8% 3.5% 4.7%
2007 4.7% 2.6% 3.0% 3.4% 3.4% 2.2% (prelim BEA)

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I like your work, but formatting would do wonders for your table there. Pretty much unreadable.

Anonymous said...

is your calendar off -- The SST Report was out on 3/25 but your date header says 3/16.

Bruce.Webb@verizon. Net said...

The data was originally compiled for an outside collaborative project, I stuck it here simply to preserve it. Once (and if) I get around to learning table formatting under Blogger maybe I will update it. But my current plans are to migrate the site to another platform with a different composing suite.

As to your second comment I posted the table first and adds the headers after and it doesnt reference the 2008 Report anyway. As for my actual 2008 Post I set it up in advance using previous year file name conventions with the I tension that it became alive simultaneously with the release of the Report.