Welcome back to 1970s (stagflation) . . . World Bank projects US GDP to grow only 0.5% in 2023


Any economy enters a brief period ( a few months) of stagflation as boom turns into bust.
We generally don’t call that unless it lasts for a serious length (presumably> 2 quarters, but there is no official definition)

But, according to the World Bank US GDP growth is expected to be only 0.5% in 2023. With a growth rate so close to zero (and below zero in real terms) I think there is a real possibility of 2 consecutive quarters of stagflation.

From the report

"In the United States, growth is forecast to fall to 0.5% in 2023—1.9 percentage points below previous forecasts and the weakest performance outside of official recessions since 1970. "

The Federal Reserve board is indicating a “terminal rate” of 5% or so will be sufficient to fix the problem.
How did we handle this last time?

World Bank Press release:

One of several articles here:


No big (D)eal. :wink:


late to the party?


We handled it in the 70s by voting out the incompetent Jimmy Carter. Unfortunately, Americans today have become too stupified and apathetic to even recognize the cause of the problem, let alone fix it. We’re not anywhere near the bottom of destruction that the Democrats under the treasonous piece of garbage in the White House is going to cause.


Inflation is not going to go away soon so,
if GDP growth is only 0.5% for a full year, the chances of two consecutive quarters of negative GDP are high.

A + B = stagflation.
The probability of stagflation is high.

1 Like

a growth rate of .5% is not negative in real terms. GDP growth s inflation adjusted so if inflation is 4% and growth is .5% the actual growth is 4.5%

also inflation in 2023 is expected to be close to 3%

So when someone rights “real GDP” they have adjusted twice?

More importantly

  • when GDP is 0.5% for a 12-month average, there is a pretty good chance two of those for quarters will be net negative
  • never in the history of modern banking as a FFR ~5% been sufficient to contain ~7% inflation. (Ever. the Fed has literally never been successful at that.)

1 Like

all im saying in a growth rate of .5% is inflation adjusted

1 Like

my bad

Keep in mind, you’re now debating the Great Screamer of Recessions That Never Happened during the entire Trump administration. Now there’s no big (D)eal. :wink:



Inflation has reached these levels three times in Post WW2 history.
Each time, bringing it down required a Fed Funds Rate >10%

In fact E-V-E-R-Y time inflation was 5% or higher
it came down only after the FFR>inflation.

Economics is supposed to be data-drive like science. When a pebble fails to sink a battleship many times in a row we declare “After all that data, we conclude that a pebble cannot sink a battleship”

Yeah, but, it’s all under control now that an actual recession is happening. The sky was sure to fall during the 4 years of peace and plenty, but notta now. :wink:

This isn’t even all of them, either. Some people like to keep their profiles hidden to minimize the sheer embarrassment of being wrong all the time. :rofl:


Thank you.

(Kind of Orwellian to keep one’s profile hidden don’t you think?)

1 Like

The dems just use vote harvesting to get votes from apathetic voters who would stay home. It’s no longer on person one vote. It’s dem machine voting. And then if it’s close they just fix the machines to lie…

1 Like

I think we will do much better than expected. Unless we get another bioweapon attack from China like covid.

We might do better than that.

There is still a lot of helicopter money in the system and at the going rate it will take until roughly approximately Jan 2024 to get back to (non-inflationary) equilibrium.

1 Like

Just in time for an election year, eh? :wink:


This time I don’t think that’s how the decision was made.
(But you are right to think that way. It usually is that way.)

What was GDP growth % in 2020?

1 Like