Country GDP (constant LCU) CONStotal (% of total2009) force) Unemployment, (Constant LCU labor Argentina 3.87E+11 8.

6 3E+11 Austria 2.37E+11 4.8 1.73E+11 Belgium 2.83E+11 7.9 2.11E+11 Canada 1.26E+12 8.3 1.04E+12 Chile 6.4E+13 9.7 5.31E+13 China 2.43E+13 4.3 1.22E+13 Colombia 4.02E+14 12 3.3E+14 Denmark 1.37E+12 6 1.08E+12 Egypt, Arab Rep. 3.06E+11 9.4 2.28E+11 Finland 1.54E+11 8.2 1.14E+11 France 1.6E+12 9.1 1.35E+12 Greece 1.82E+11 9.5 1.67E+11 Indonesia 2.18E+15 7.9 1.44E+15 Ireland 1.38E+11 11.7 8.64E+10 Italy 1.21E+12 7.8 9.95E+11 Japan 5.25E+14 5 4.03E+14 Korea, Rep. 9.8E+14 3.6 6.68E+14 Luxembourg 2.83E+10 5.1 1.56E+10 Malaysia 5.21E+11 3.7 3.54E+11 Mexico 8.35E+12 5.2 6.83E+12 Morocco 6.14E+11 10 4.54E+11 Netherlands 4.68E+11 3.4 3.45E+11 Norway 1.74E+12 3.2 1.22E+12 Philippines 1.43E+12 7.5 1.25E+12 Portugal 1.34E+11 9.5 1.19E+11 South Africa 1.78E+12 23.8 1.49E+12 Spain 7.75E+11 18 6.25E+11 Sweden 2.63E+12 8.3 1.95E+12 Switzerland 4.84E+11 4.1 3.4E+11 Thailand 4.26E+12 1.2 2.68E+12 United Kingdom 1.11E+12 7.7 9.7E+11 Uruguay 5.32E+11 7.3 4.27E+11 Consumption (Constant LCU 2009) is taking as dependent variable. GDP (Constant LCU 2009) and Unemployment, Total (% of total labour force 2009) are taking as independent variable. We expect the positive relationship between Consumption (Conatant LCU 2009) and GDP (Constant LCU 2009) and negative relationship between Consumption (Constant LCU 2009) and Unemployment, Total (% of total labour force 2009). Because if a person have no job than he have not income to consume it.

SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.998758 R Square 0.997517 Adjusted R Square 0.997346 Standard Error 1.47E+13 Observations 32 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total SS MS F Significance F 2 2.53E+30 1.26E+30 5825.501 1.69E-38 29 6.3E+27 2.17E+26 31 2.54E+30

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0% Intercept 1.95E+12 5.55E+12 0.350277 0.728662 -9.4E+12 1.33E+13 -9.4E+12 1.33E+13 GDP (constant LCU) 0.672827 0.006247 107.7031 2.64E-39 0.66005 0.685603 0.66005 0.685603 Unemployment, total (%6.07E+11 0.28672 0.776365 -1.1E+12 1.42E+12 -1.1E+12 1.42E+12 1.74E+11 of total labor force)
CONS(Constant LCU 2009)=1.95E+12+0.672827GDP(Constant US 2009)+1.74E+11Unemployment, Total(% of total labour force 2009)+Ei

It is clear from the above equation that Consumption (Constant LCU 2009) and GDP (Constant LCU 2009) have the positive relationship. If GDP increases by 1 unit Consumption increases 0.672827 units and positive relationship between Consumption (Constant LCU 2009) and Unemployment, Total (% of total labour force). If unemployment increases by 1 unit Consumption Increases by 1.74E+11 units.

R-Square= ESS/TSS R-Square= 0.997517 R-Square represent percentage of variation in Consumption that is explained by the regression. This tells us 99.80% of variation in the Consumption due to the GDP (Constant LCU) and Unemployment, total(% of total labour force 2009). For Beta 1 T-Stat = 107.7031 ItI>2 It shows that Ho: B=0 will be rejected. Because t is greater than 2, we cannot neglect the Beta 1. This means, GDP (Constant LCU 2009) determines Consumption (Constant LCU 2009). For Beta 2 T-Stat= 0.28672 It shows that Ho: B=0 will be accepted. Because t is less than 2, we neglect the Beta 2. This means, Unemployment, total(% of total labour force 2009) does not determines Consumption (Constant LCU 2009).

For Beta 1 P-value= 2.64E-39 It shows that Ho: B=0 will be rejected. Because P-value is less than 5%, So we cannot neglect the Beta 1. For Beta 2 P-value= 0.776365 It shows that Ho: B=0 will be accepted. Because P-value is greateer than 5%, So we can neglect the Beta 2. Regression results are not according to our expectation because we expect that unemployment and consumption have the negative relationship. But the result of GDP and Consumpion are according to our expectations.

Upper 95.0%

t the Beta 1.