A Quote by L'Wren Scott

Today's market action is driven by the slower GDP growth rate. Despite oil being higher, I think the GDP kind of overruled everything and just makes the market feel better about what the Fed is going to do, or rather not do.
It is argued by our GDP obsessed policy planners that eventually the money being made by the stock market operators or the IT industry would trickle down to the poor farmers in terms of ancillary jobs that would be created. But the fact is, that this has not happened, despite the boom in the stock market and the IT industry.
People think that this concept of GDP is scientific economics, partly because it has a precise number and can be quantified. But the underlying concept of "the market" makes it appear as if today's poverty is natural. It makes it appear that Goldman Sachs and Donald Trump are job creators instead of job destroyers. That is illogical, when you think about it.
It is this obsession with GDP and FDI growth and a facile belief that this growth in the GDP would trickle down to the poor as well, that has led to the neglect of the genuine concerns of the poor in the country.
In macroeconomic theory, there is this argument that what the Fed does has no effect on unemployment, no effect on investment, no effect on the rate of GDP growth.
It's an earnings-driven market. The big question is whether the flow of earnings can rescue the market from the twin dreadnoughts of higher oil and interest rates.
You don't actually find a strong correlation between- top-line GDP growth and making money in the market. It- it seems like you should. The fastest-growing countries should give you the highest return. They simply don't. But, there's only four of us- that- that believe that story. Everyone else in the world believes that if you grow fast like China, you'll outperform in the stock market.
If you are moving the informal economy into the formal economy, and if the transactions which for years were never reported as part of GDP are now transacted through banking channels, it will only add to the GDP, not reduce the GDP.
For any economy, there are two basic factors determining how many jobs are available at any given time. The first is the overall level of activity - with GDP as a rough, if inadequate measure of overall activity - and the second is what share of GDP goes to hiring people into jobs. In terms of our current situation, after the Great Recession hit in full in 2008, US GDP has grown at an anemic average rate of 1.3 percent per year, as opposed to the historic average rate from 1950 until 2007 of 3.3 percent.
I live in a working-class community that is struggling at the poverty line, where people who work full-time jobs still at my corner bodega use food stamps. Do you think they care what the stock market's doing today or what the GDP number is? No.
If there is one number to which the rights of millions will be happily sacrificed, it is the national GDP growth rate.
If I can save 25 billion dollars in terms of reduction of import, I will be adding one percent to the GDP. By conserving the oil energy by the people, the GDP will become 5.5 percent, and this will change the economy of the country.
Our GDP growth rates are creating - our high GDP growth rates, the success of our economy means we're creating lots of disposable income.
My belief is India's banking industry will continue to grow at two and a half times the GDP growth rate.
Whatever it is, in a 1% GDP world, I think people feel like there are other things they have to do other than just organic growth.
Most investors are obsessed with the market size today and they don't think about how the market is going to evolve.
Since environmental and health damage is not factored into reducing GDP - and in fact the resulting health costs and the costs of cleaning up the environment would also inflate GDP, a GDP obsessed government would try and dismantle environmental and health regulations.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!