Sluggish! The U.S. economy "has water?" .(I).

<P> Feature of contemporary economic development as the U.S. productivity "miracle", and now no longer looks as fantastic as 1 month. .</ P> <P> in the recent historical data through a series of amendments, economists began to think, the need for reduction of the world's largest economy in the case of non-inflationary growth rate beyond the expected to achieve. .Many people have already done so, they reduced the U.S. assessment of the potential growth rate of about 0.25%. .This may not sound much, but add up year after year, reducing the total will be very substantial. .</ P> <P> to 3.25% growth rate, the size of an economy will double every 21.5 years; the rate of 3%, this process is the need to increase 2 years. .In other words, growth rate less 0.25 percentage points, meaning that after 25 years will reduce the annual output of about 1.7 trillion U.S. dollars. .This improvement of living standards for the future and the present value of the U.S. stock market will have significant consequences, because in the long run, domestic corporate profits can not exceed the growth rate of output. .In addition, trends in productivity and potential output growth rate of the uncertainty, the Fed (Federal Reserve) are more difficult to determine what efforts need to slow the U.S. economy to reduce inflation. .</ P> <P> U.S. consumption boom to help global poverty </ P> <P> Globally, important changes in U.S. productivity trends impact is difficult to assess. .Accelerated by technology-driven productivity growth began in the mid-90s, it changed the economists and policy makers of the mature industrial economies to how fast growing physical awareness and promote the U.S. consumer boom. .The consumption boom to help export-oriented economies around the world countless people out of poverty, especially in Asia. .</ P> <P> In many ways, remarkable productivity, the real part of the miracle started in 2001 when the Internet bubble burst. .At that time, U.S. productivity growth has not, as a downturn as in the past to slow down, but to achieve accelerated growth, as companies from the investment bubble squeeze more output - and after the recovery in economic growth continue to do so. .</ P> <P> "compared to our original understanding, investment boom in the late 90's some more ingredients, and productivity, fewer components," University of Groningen (Groningen University), Professor Bart Van • A • .g (Bart van Ark) said. ."Since 2001, the story is no longer an investment, but a productivity story." Fan • Ake or the United States Conference Board (Conference Board) in charge of international economic research. .</ P> <P> However, there are re-examining, it is this second phase of the productivity miracle. .In summary, the recent data of the amendment, reducing the annual output from 2003 to 2005 and productivity growth, while inflation increased during this period and the increase in unit labor costs. .</ P> <P> these amendments did not change the early 21st century the United States in productivity growth this basic conclusion. .Northwestern University, Illinois (Northwestern University), Professor of Economics Robert • Gordon (Robert Gordon), said; "even removed the top of the bubble, this is still very impressive." </ P> <P> However, the new .Figures from the important aspects of productivity, were clarified and limited the story. .The latest data showed the U.S. economy in 2003 grew by 2.5% in 2004 up 3.9% in 2005 to 3.2% - compared with previous estimates, the average annual increase is about 0.25 percentage points lower, while the average increase in inflation .0.2 percentage points. .</ P> <P> non-agricultural areas are the driving force of the U.S. productivity growth in this area annual growth rate of output per hour, the average per quarter, down nearly 0.4 percentage points. .</ P> <P> to distinguish between cyclical trends in productivity growth and structural trends, has always been very difficult. .However, most financial market economists to conclude that: If productivity growth in recent years than they expected, then future growth may also be lower. .</ P> <P> Goldman Sachs chief U.S. economist Jane • Hatzius (Jan Hatzius) said: "I now said that the U.S. non-farm productivity growth trends in the field of 2.5% may also be slightly lower." He .said that this is equivalent to the overall economic productivity increase of about 2%. .Plus about 1% of the labor supply growth, the U.S. potential growth rate of 3% or slightly lower level. .He said: "In the amendment, I will tell you that the U.S. economy trend growth rate of 3.25 %。"</ P> <P> Deutsche Bank Securities (Deutsche Bank Securities) • Hooper, chief economist Peter (Peter Hooper) .basically agree with this view. .He said: "Earlier this year, 3.3% in my ears is a reasonable estimate of potential growth. At present I think it might be reduced by 10% or 20 %。"</ P> <P> he believed that the U.S. business sector .productivity growth than most people may be slightly stronger than estimated. .But he added that, as the baby boomers entering old age, female labor force participation rates stop rising, the slowdown in labor supply may be faster than some estimates. .Hooper said that, in general, "I will cut the U.S. potential growth rate near 3%." </ P> <P> economists have lowered the expected U.S. economic growth potential, including a simple and powerful .reason, the new data show that the U.S. economic growth and the relationship between the unemployment rate. .Since mid-2003 peak, the U.S. unemployment rate has dropped 1.5 percentage points. .New data show that average economic growth rate over the same period the U.S. was 3.75%. .</ P> <P> the same trend growth and the unemployment rate is usually (but not sharp decline in the unemployment rate) associated with this method showed that the trend growth rate in the United States certainly much lower than 3.75%. .</ P> <P> (continued) the U.S. economy "has water?" .(The) </ P>.