IMF Forecasts Continuing Global Recovery in 2010
The IMF has updated its forecast for global GDP growth in 2010 and 2011 (see chart above, click to enlarge). Compared to its April forecast, the IMF has made upward revisions to almost all of its forecasts for real output growth in 2010 (the only exceptions being downward revisions of -.01% for U.K. and France): world GDP growth for 2010 has been revised upward to 4.6%, which will be the highest annual growth rate since 2007, and far above the 3.2% average growth since 1980. The upward revision of .40% for world GDP translates into an additional $220 billion of output that will be produced this year compared to the IMF's April forecast.
China (10.5%, revised upward by .5%), India (9.4%, revised up by .6%) and Brazil (7.1%, revised up by 1.6%) are expected to lead the world in real output growth this year. Real GDP growth in the U.S. was revised up by .20% to 3.3% for 2010, and revised up by .30% to 2.9% for 2011.
13 Comments:
Excuse me Professor Mark but why should anything coming from the IMF be considered credible?
The IMF after all was interested in how to finance the global warming fraud scam...
A less weaker recovery this year and next?:
The IMF forecast the U.S. economy will expand 3.3 percent this year, more than the 3.1 percent predicted in April, and 2.9 percent next year.
With consumer inflation in the U.S. forecast at 1.6 percent this year before slowing to 1.1 percent in 2011. Unemployment would remain above 9 percent for both years.
is this the same IMF that predicted 2.2% growth in the US for 2008? (the number turned out to be 0.4%)
the same guys who repeatedly slashed 2007 numbers as well?
they seem to have a pretty spotty track record for forecasting.
The Far East is booming. The future is there.
Unless the US sheds its military and rural parastes, we will slide into second place--and the Republican Party loves rural patronage, and military lard, so those two sectors will never get cut.
The combined economies of Japan and China rival ours, and will soon pass ours.
"...and the Republican Party loves rural patronage, and military lard,..."
And since they haven't controlled Congress for the last four years and the executive branch for the last 1-1/2, where's the lard reduction?
Benjamin: The US government currently spends roughly $25 billion on direct farm subsidies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/07/02/GR2006070200024.html
Meanwhile, the US federal budget for 2010 is $3,721 billion for all outlays.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/tables.pdf
This means that about 0.6% of the federal budget goes to agricultural subsidies.
The defense portion of the federal budget is $855 billion or roughly 23% of the budget.
Meanwhile, the "mandatory programs" listed in the budget, i.e. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, TARP and a whole panoply of other social programs amount to $2,123 billion per year or 57% if the budget.
So, if just 0.6% of federal spending allocated to agriculture and 23% to national defense are making us less productive vis a vis Asia, imagine what by far the largest part (the 57% nanny state portion) of the budget is doing to us. I take it you are also in favor of large cuts to these programs as well?
Eric: Of course you will receive no response from Benjamin as his attacks on military and agriculture spending are nothing more than smokescreens to divert our attentions from the real issue: ballooning federal budgets which largely go to social programs which in turn go to Obama's parasitic voters. He is a typically dishonest socialist.
Bill-
In fact, I will respond to your post.
You failed to include in your "defense outlays" money spent on the VA, and for homeand security and civilian defense. That brings the total up to about $1 trillion. I won't even mention debt incurred from debt-financed wars, such as Iraqistan.
You also failed to note that entitlement programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, are funded by the payroll tax. They are the vast bulk of entitlement spending.
You also failed to note the vast panoply of other federal rural spending, for roads, power, water, telephones, airports, rail stops etc. Everything you see in rural America is subsidized by uran taxpayers. Check out Tax Foundation stats on flow of federal fund to states.
When you look at what eats up federal income taxes, you will find that DoD, USDA, VA, Commerce, Interior and debt get 70 percent of the revenues.
DoD and VA alone take up about 50 percent of federal income taxes.
If you want an income tax cut--and I do--then we have to whack the biggest spenders. DoD, USDA, VA.
Start whacking, jack.
Benny: Please provide links to substantiate your claims. I am sure you understand that I will not take your word for anything.
As for cuts, I am for across the board spending cuts and am not for agricultural subsidies. The ag subsidies are not significant enough to be meaningful to the big picture. And defense, while undoubtedly bloated, is constitutionally required.
Somehow though, I doubt that you would actually go along with spending cuts to defense and ag if they included cuts to your precious social programs. Leftists talk about balances budgets only when they are out of office. When they get into office they spend like drunken sailors. And no, Clinton would not have had a balanced budget but for the Republican Congress. If Reid/Pelosi had been in charge of the Congress back then, you would have seen similar shenanigans in the 1990s.
Bill-
See Tax Foundation for flows of federal money to and from states. Some states, such as Kentucky, get back $1.51 for every dollar they send to DC.
Yu will be shocked at the Red Bloc--the farm states and how much money (net) they suck out of urban America. We would not have federaldeficit except for red ink to rural America--the untold story.
For outlays by agency (and check the odd one, civilian defesne) see http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0460.pdf
Remember--only Social Security and Medicare are funded by payroll taxes. it is income taxes (and a few excise taxes) that fund federal programs.
Once you get on the Census webiste, you can bip around and look at receipts.
Believe me, I think the federal government gets about 10 cents on the dollar for socisl welfare outlays, and maybe a nickel on the dollar for federal outlays. I would cut it all.
I think your numbers are a little off. But regardless, cuts appear to be very easy to make. For example, eliminating the Departments of Education (a state matter), Energy (a concern for the free market), Labor (can be greatly reduced in scope and consolidated into the Commerce Dept), Veterans Affairs (merge into Defense Dept), and the National Science Foundation would save perhaps $220 billion. Force the remaining federal agencies to make significant across the board cuts and, viola, we have a balanced budget.
"Meanwhile the economy is in recovery and is likely to accelerate this spring.This will translate into an improving job market,easing anxieties about the economic outlook".
This is a quote from my fave economist and expresses my opinion
If the witch doctors at the IMF are predicting strong growth, we are doomed. According to the IMF,1997 was a going to be a good year for Asia. They are consistently wrong.
Post a Comment
<< Home