>Forgive me for not looking all of this up for you.
>I responded originally because I strongly suspect
>there was no peak near the beginning of the Thirties.
>The crash was in '29, after all. This means the
>decade would begin at or near a low point, and
>the average growth rate for the '30's would exaggerate
>the rate for the relevant cycle.
>
>The concept is not all that squishy. Business cycle
>peaks are relatively distinct in the data (troughs
>are less so). The National Bureau of Economic Research
>issues 'official' designations of when cycles began
>and ended. Don't ask me who gave them the franchise.
>Dating the cycles does not appear to have been all
>that controversial.
>
>The NBER has a web site so the curious might find
>the dates there. Or Prof. DeLong could enlighten
>us if he has a spare minute.
The peak was August 1929 (before the stock market crash), and the trough March 1933. Here are the numbers sliced several ways:
US REAL GDP, 1929-40
GDP yearly
1992$ growth 1929 790.9 +6.3% 1930 719.7 -9.0% 1931 674.0 -6.3% 1932 584.3 -13.3% 1933 577.3 -1.2% 1934 641.1 +11.1% 1935 698.4 +8.9% 1936 790.0 +13.1% 1937 831.5 +5.3% 1938 801.2 -3.6% 1939 866.5 +8.2% 1940 941.2 +8.6%
annual averages 1929-39 0.9% 1930-40 2.7%
1929-33 -7.6% 1933-37 9.6% 1937-40 4.2%
And here are the decade figures, which will no doubt scandalize the non-bohemian Cde Sawicky:
US REAL GDP GROWTH annual average by decade
1890-1900 3.85% 1900-10 4.56% 1910-20 1.41% 1920-30 2.86% 1930-40 2.72% 1940-50 5.52% 1950-60 3.45% 1960-70 4.15% 1970-80 3.11% 1980-90 2.89% 1990-1997 2.47%
The IMF and OECD report growth rates by decade; they too must be succumbing to Bohemian tendencies.
By the way, Max, if you think there's anything Bohemian about the Upper West Side in 1998, you obviously haven't been here lately. Godiva chocolates is right around the corner, as is Lucianne Goldberg and a Coach store.
Doug