And our Obama "recovery" continues ..........

Not to mention, RLM...I'll repeat what I wrote in the first post, I wasn't disagreeing with the article you linked to. I was merely demonstrating GDP is not a reliable barometer of how well the economy is functioning. It can paint a picture of inflation/deflation, but the parameters used are narrow at best. For instance, the stock market is surging, and has been for that same quarter.

 

OOPS! Both investments and government spending are in BOTH.
GDP = consumption + investment + (government spending) + (exports − imports).
GNP = GDP + NR (Net income inflow from assets abroad or Net Income Receipts) - NP (Net payment outflow to foreign assets).
http://www.diffen.com/difference/GDP_vs_GNP

BTW, that means that the price of milk in reflected in both also.

 

Personal investment is not included in GDP. Perhaps corporate and/or government investments are, but the personal incomes and market investments are not. So your simplified formula is misleading a bit.

 

They are not "MY" formulas. I did not invent them at all. I use facts rather than trying to invent stuff to fit my/your need. Just like your locomotives that defy physics (and the design specifications).

 

Defying physics? So according to you then, a truck gets the same gas mileage whether or not it's pulling a 40 foot boat. Brilliant logic. But let me tell you something, RLM, I've spent the last 21 years of my life working with that knowledge, seven days a week, weekdays, weekends, holidays, kids' birthdays, graduations, wedding anniversaries, births, deaths..everything. It is my job and my life. I don't need a crotchety old man telling me I haven't known what I eat sleep and breathe on a daily basis. It's this exact bs that kept me from here for so long in the past. Apparently I wasn't gone long enough. Because you cannot possibly ever, in what possibly remains of your bitter old life, ever understand what I do and what I know. I dream schematics and TPDB and TOB and buff and draft and a thousand other terms that would fly over your simple understanding. You stick to your bigoted hatred and I'll stick to what I do.

 

Not pulling a boat, but if one semi gets 6 mpg, hooking a second semi on does not mean that both will get 24 MPG so the two together will make 12 MPG. Similarly, if one locomotive (rated at 400 miles per ton) can haul 4000 tons at 0.1 mpg, two engines will each get, at best, 0.2 MPG. In other words, when the two engines are combined, they are still only getting 0.1 MPG. If you put 4 engines there, they will each get 0.4 MPG or all 4 together still only get 0.1 MPG.

BTW, absolutely nothing I have said implies anything bigoted nor hatred. Oh, and my grandfather worked your job for many years, my father worked in the rail industry for 30+ years and I only worked 4 years.

 

Locomotives don't work like trucks. That was an analogy. A diesel engine turns a turbine which runs dynamos, like a hydro dam, which supply traction motors with amperage. The pounds per inch of drive determines the rpm rating needed, which is based on tonnage and grade, wind, rail conditions and so forth. So, if two locomotives ascending a 2.5% grade in the snow need 800 amps to pull a 2.5 horse power per ton train at 24 mph, it'll burn about 230 gallons per 300 mile run because it has to maintain a higher rpm to power the traction motors. If you added another locomotive, increasing the HPT to say 4.0, the RPM's decrease dramatically because now the power needed to ascend the same grade is reduced by 1/3 and at a higher speed to boot. Therefore the fuel consumption is reduced as the amperage needed is only 500 amps. Diesel electric engines do not operate under the same parameters as a car. The RPM's are solely based on amperage needed, not torque or acceleration or so on. More motors means less amperage and less fuel consumption. That one added motor means instead of burning through 230 gallons on a 300 mile run, they are only burning about 150 gallons per motor. If youre wondering why don't we use 100 motors and not burn any fuel...well, thats lame logic, as I'm sure you know there is a limit, and that limit is about 5.0 HPT. You cannot save more fuel beyond that point. Now, of course by now you've done the math and are thinking thats only a ten gallon savings in my example. But when you consider it is one of about 600 trains running at any given time on our system over routes that are usually 2000 miles or more, that one extra motor represents a substantial savings in fuel. This stuff is constantly drilled into our heads every day. Fuel is the second largest expense just below track maintenance. If I sounded hostile it's because this job has literally consumed every aspect of my life, and I still have 20 years to go.

 

So this comes down to three straight years of quarter after quarter of growth and then one quarter after a severe winter we end up with a 1% decrease. If that is what is defined as "Obama's economy", I'll take it. At least until Obama becomes omnipotent and is able to control the weather, then he has some splainin' to do.

 

Average wages are down under BO's reign...more people are on food stamps...

 

You are saying what I am saying. I do not see what you are missing. One engine uses 800 amps, but two use 500 amps EACH. "That one added motor means instead of burning through 230 gallons on a 300 mile run, they are only burning about 150 gallons per motor." Exactly what I have been saying.

 

As our labor participation rate continues to drop and drop and drop.
Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey


Series Id: LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

 

Just keep changing the subject to tangential topics and I'm sure you'll settle on something.

 

Topic - Obama's false recovery!