GDP rose by +7.4% in Q3 (pretty much exactly as expected), after falling by -9.0% in Q2 and -1.3% in Q1. All told, the economy is -3.5% smaller than it was at the end of 2019.

For context, the economy is roughly as far below its peak as in the darkest days of the last recession
When the economy rises by +7.4%, some will report this as being at an "annualized rate" of 33.1%.

Lemme be crystal clear: This does not mean that the economy is now one-third bigger. (Lemme explain...)
Reporting *quarterly* GDP growth at an *annualized* rate answers the question: If the economy also grew at this rate for the next 3 quarters, how much larger would the economy be?

But there's no chance that will happen, so the annualized rate answers a question no-one is asking.
There will be lots of political chatter about today's GDP number. It's true, Q3 is a record rate of growth. But note Q2 was a record contraction, the likes of which we've never seen before.

Big jump down, big bounce back. What really matters is that we're not all the way back.
So where are we?

The economy is -3.5% smaller than it was in late 2019. Is that a big hole? Well, that's roughly as large as the hole the economy fell into during the financial crisis, and at the time we thought that a damn big hole.
Was this an unexpectedly large rebound?

Not really. Go back to the start of the year, and look at the forecasts from then, and most forecasters were expecting the economy to basically stop in Q2, and then largely rebound in Q3.
How informative are today's GDP data?

Not very. The growth from Q3 to Q2 reflects the depth of the Q2 hole as much as it reflects the size of the Q3 recovery.

We already knew Q2 was horrible, and we all know Q3 was better. Tons of indicators have told us this.
Watch the market (non-)response to today's GDP numbers, and you'll see what I mean. For all the political chatter, markets haven't responded at all. That's because there's not really much relevant news about the state of the economy in these numbers.
Lemme clarify what I mean here: Today's GDP numbers tell us about the average of July, August and September, relative to the average of April, May and June.

But we already had data through to October on tons of other informative indicators.
If you want an up-to-date assessment of the state of the economy, economists rarely look to GDP. That's because the numbers are released with a long lag -- the mid-point of Q3 was back in mid-August -- and quarterly averages aren't much help in detecting month-to-month movements.
I think what most of us care about is whether the economy has continued to recover after the mechanical bounceback in Q3.

To judge that, you'll need to look at more recent and high-frequency numbers, like those here: tracktherecovery.org
If you wanna focus on the latest numbers, the Labor Department just released initial unemployment claims data for *last week*.

More Americans applied for unemployment benefits last week than in any week in the Great Recession (or any prior recession).
And if you really want to see where the economy is going, the indicator that Wall Street economists are tracking most closely is the progress of the virus.

It's impossible to have a healthy economy without a healthy population. The economy won't re-open if people don't feel safe
If you have a cranky uncle who insists that you focus on annualized rates, point out that the number of new covid cases in Q3 rose to be +87% higher than in Q2, which is an annualized rate of +1,123%.
Ugh, I broke my own thread. Rest of the GDP thread continues below...
My students are doing their midterm today (good luck, folks!). Thinking of grading them at an annualized rate. The big numbers (I scored 360%!) might change the headlines, but they won't change the reality.
A true story and a GDP analogy: The most rapid improvement in my lung capacity did not occur during my most intense marathon training, but rather a year later when I was recovering from pneumonia. Even so, I still felt like crap, and wish I had done more to avoid getting sick.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Justin Wolfers

Justin Wolfers Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JustinWolfers

2 Oct
Payrolls rose +661k in September and unemployment fell half a point to 7.9%.

We are still 11 million jobs below the February level -- a larger gap than at the low point of the financial crisis.

The economy is a deep hole, and the rate at which we're digging out is slowing.
While unemployment fell sharply (down by -970k), it's mainly because participation plunged, and the labor force fell by -695k.
The easy work of ending furloughs is slowing (temporary layoffs were down by 1.5 million), but the harder work of repairing the more lasting damage is only growing, and permanent layoffs were up by 345,000.
Read 13 tweets
11 Sep
Hey look, my favorite economist is testifying at the @WaysMeansCmte in Washington-ish in the next few minutes (around 12:15pm). She's got a lot to say about our way out of our current mess.

You can watch here on twitter (link below), or on youtube here:
SHE'S ON. More can't miss TV from C-SPAN filled with meaty econo-goodness.
twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1…
Betsey urges Congress to focus not on the changes but on the levels. The economy's in a funk, and it needs help.

TELL 'EM BETSEY.
Read 6 tweets
27 Aug
The Fed's announces tweaks to its monetary policy strategy.
federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pre…
I suspect Fed watchers will see this as big. It seems more like a gradual evolution to me.

There are three big changes, which I'll take in turn.
First, the Fed promises to focus on "shortfalls of employment", rather than "deviations" is just clarifying what it always meant.

Shortfalls matter for the employment part of the dual mandate.
But deviations matter for inflation.

So it retains the right to respond to deviations
Read 11 tweets
26 Aug
Every econ instructor I know has been flat out all summer preparing for the new semester. With all that’s happened in the world, we’ve got a lot of work to do to update our classes to reflect our new covid reality.

So I thought I would see what I could do to help… #teachecon
So over the summer I’ve been working furiously to put together a slide deck that folks can use to their classes with covid examples, recent economic data and studies, and discussion questions.

Now, it's time to share it. You can download it all here: users.nber.org/~jwolfers/teac…
The covid crisis is the biggest thing that’s happened in our students’ lives, and if we want to make the case that economics is relevant, we need to show them that the frameworks we’re teaching speak directly to these issues.

Hopefully these slides will give you a head start.
Read 7 tweets
19 Aug
BIG NEWS. @BetseyStevenson & I are launching our own podcast: Think Like An Economist.

Before I tell you all about it, lemme urge you to subscribe, listen, and tell your friends.

iTunes: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/thi…
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4sOVMPFJm…
Himalaya: himalaya.com/econ
All of economics comes down to mastering a few basic principles and then applying them over and over. So how hard is it to learn economics? Not that hard.

In fact, we’re betting that we can teach economics in a series of snack-sized podcasts. @himalaya_app
We’re calling it Think Like an Economist because we want to teach you to, well... Think like an economist.

Look, we’re making a bold claim: You'll make better decisions and have fewer regrets if you learn to Think Like An Economist.
Read 9 tweets
10 Aug
Hey econ students, can you spot the Sunk Cost Fallacy here? #teachecon
Here's how @BetseyStevenson and I explain the problem of sunk costs in our Principles of Economics textbook: Image
By the way, there's a rich history of politicians committing the sunk cost fallacy as they argue for their preferred outcomes. #teachecon

Here's Bush v. Obama on Iraq: Image
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!