6 Comments
User's avatar
Nikhil Mehta's avatar

Also with GDP growth projected at 5+%, that aligns with my point 2 above.

Expand full comment
Peter Nayland Kust's avatar

I tend to focus less on GDP percentages and more on jobs. GDP is a problematic figure on a good day, made even more so by the fact that roughly 20% of GDP is government spending (me personally, no government spending should be included in GDP).

Given that China routinely posts 4.5-5.5% GDP growth and somehow still manages to grapple with deflation is, in my view, reason enough to not put much faith if any in GDP numbers.

An economy is doing well if people are being put to work. If we're not putting people to work how is the economy doing well? GDP growth without job growth sounds an awful lot like mismatched priorities and perverse incentives to me.

Expand full comment
Nikhil Mehta's avatar

Couple of thoughts

1. I hear that the household survey showed 200,000 jobs created.

2. Also, labor productivity up to 4.9% may imply business growth without hiring

What do you think?

Expand full comment
Peter Nayland Kust's avatar

My deep dive on the Employment Situation Summary for December will be out on Monday.

I will have thoughts on these points, but until I write that up I won't know what they are!

Expand full comment
Gbill7's avatar

The Trump administration has a theory of what needs to be done to make America a manufacturing superpower again. So far, not a success. Peter, is there enough data now for any analyst to make a call on the plan’s ultimate success? Is it a case of, “not successful theory” or “not successful yet”?

Or maybe there has not been enough data or time for anyone to make this call, and those who do are fools?

Expand full comment
Peter Nayland Kust's avatar

Economic plans are never successful until they are.

Is a course correction warranted? I'm inclined to think so. Scott Bessent presumably disagrees.

Time will tell which assessment is correct.

Expand full comment