tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3399546775946309435.post4013112485517943007..comments2023-12-27T16:07:31.838-08:00Comments on The Econtrarian: Sergeant Friday Questions a Treasury Spokeswoman -- Just the Facts, Ma'amPaul Kasrielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03284214951073377347noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3399546775946309435.post-18065227491954634402017-11-21T08:09:13.634-08:002017-11-21T08:09:13.634-08:00Once again, a very informative post. Thanks for sh...Once again, a very informative post. Thanks for sharing!<br /><br />- JO from <a href="https://www.kwinsurance.com/business-insurance-medford-ma/" rel="nofollow">KW Business Insurance in Medford</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18083533462296252640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3399546775946309435.post-88390121121055249312013-11-11T17:52:07.820-08:002013-11-11T17:52:07.820-08:00According to Treasury Dept. facts, the point-to-po...According to Treasury Dept. facts, the point-to-point simple (not annualized) percent change in total federal outlays in the 10 years ended 2013 was 59.9%, not 75%. 59.9% over a 10-year period is the equivalent of 4.8% on a compound annualized basis, the manner in which I presented multi-year percentage changes. I chose to present my changes in the form of compound annualized growth rates because I had also presented some year-over-year percentage changes and I wanted all of my percentage changes on the same basis -- annualized.<br /><br />Now, let's put your 59.9% into some historical perspectives. In the 10 years ended 2003, the point-to-point simple percentage change was "only" 53.3%. Using 10-year point-to-point simple percentage changes, starting with the 10 years ended 1911 through the 10 years ended 2013, the median change was 115.1%. So yes, the 59.9% point-to-point percentage change in total federal outlays in the 10 years ended 2013 was "big", but it was only 52% of the long-run median percentage change.<br /><br />Now, I do not know why you chose to look at a 10 year period. But the reason I chose to examine a five-year period is because a certain grass-roots political movement that alleged that federal government spending was out of control emerged in 2009-2010. In the five years ended 2013, the point-to-point simple percentage change in total federal outlays was 15.8%. To put this in perspective, in the five years ended 2008, the point-to-point simple percentage change in total federal outlays was 38.1%. From the five years ended 1906 through the five years ended 2013, the median point-to-point simple percentage change in total federal outlays was 37.6%. My question to this grass-roots political movement is what took it so long to get enraged in the federal government's largesse? Where was the outrage in 2008?<br /><br />These are the facts, Mr. Bergerson. You are certainly entitled to your opinion about them.<br /><br />Paul KasrielPaul Kasrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03284214951073377347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3399546775946309435.post-35844921140476127122013-11-11T15:01:27.905-08:002013-11-11T15:01:27.905-08:00Yes, back in 1901, total federal outlays were only...Yes, back in 1901, total federal outlays were only $525 million compared with $3.0 trillion in 2008 and $3.5 trillion in 2013. So, by all means, let us not take note that in the 107 years ended 2008, total federal outlays grew at a compound annual rate of 8.4% only to slow to a compound annual rate of 3.0% in the five years ended 2013. Perhaps Mr. Gercke would recommend that total federal outlays should have been pared in the past five years to in order to get back to their 1901 level at the end of 2013.<br /><br />Paul Kasriel<br /><br />Paul Kasrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03284214951073377347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3399546775946309435.post-7934573751438494912013-11-10T07:23:09.509-08:002013-11-10T07:23:09.509-08:00yes, from 2 trillion just 10 years ago to 3.5 now...yes, from 2 trillion just 10 years ago to 3.5 now, or 75% more belies the argument. which thus also illustrates the flat uselessness of the whole "you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts" meme. Characterization of the facts is a powerful influence on the state of the facts.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02618744439096368788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3399546775946309435.post-82094574636842662752013-11-08T10:47:15.663-08:002013-11-08T10:47:15.663-08:00If you look at a chart of actual outlays, instead ...If you look at a chart of actual outlays, instead of their growth rate, this fact check seems insignificant. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYONET/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01021065931529414869noreply@blogger.com