2nd quarter GDP +4%

[djAdvocate]

first quarter adjusted -2.1% -vs- -3.9%

so, why, after all of the hysterical ravings about the first quarter, did this not generate ONE POST before now?

12 month growth +2.4%, general trend is good, UE about 6%......comments?

[marvholly]

I'll believe it after we get the next 2 or 3 'adjustments.' There are ALWAYS adjustments several months down the road - some good (+), some bad (-).

[Virgil Showlion]

i) the first quarter adjustment (and prior adjustments) were because they changed the GDP calculations again
ii) the initial Q1 print was 0.5%, and the consensus for Q2 was 3.0%; I'll believe the number if and when it isn't revised lower 6 times sequentially over the next few quarters
iii) 55% of the nominal growth in Q2 2014 was due to inventory growth
iv) the current number was expected; the Fed is tapering buying another $10 billion/mo. and they like a big number to goose the markets and instill confidence; behavioural economics in action. Apparently it's enough to fool some people.

The question is: why your "hysterical ravings" over the initial Q2 print?

[jkapp]

Even if the 4% stays true, I don't get excited about a single quarter (besides the fact that much of the growth was still due to Fed bond-buying and businesses refilling low inventories).   Growth has not been happening even close to what it needs to be, and the economy I see around me certainly doesn't match anything I would call "good" or even "growing."  I have been hearing more about layoffs than hirings around the nation lately.  The Fed's UE number is meaningless as has been shown in past postings...if people give up looking for work, I still count them as unemployed

[djAdvocate]

Jul 31, 2014 4:59:05 GMT -5 marvholly said:

I'll believe it after we get the next 2 or 3 'adjustments.' There are ALWAYS adjustments several months down the road - some good (+), some bad (-).

generally the first adjustment is the biggest.  the first quarter adjustment was +1.8%

[djAdvocate]

Jul 31, 2014 8:43:52 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Even if the 4% stays true, I don't get excited about a single quarter

me neither.  but my question stands: why did nobody even bring this up?  are we all rooting for a downturn or something?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 31, 2014 8:43:52 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Even if the 4% stays true, I don't get excited about a single quarter (besides the fact that much of the growth was still due to Fed bond-buying and businesses refilling low inventories).   Growth has not been happening even close to what it needs to be, and the economy I see around me certainly doesn't match anything I would call "good" or even "growing."  I have been hearing more about layoffs than hirings around the nation lately.  The Fed's UE number is meaningless as has been shown in past postings...if people give up looking for work, I still count them as unemployed

the economy is on fire here.  seriously.  everything is booming. 

to be a sourpuss for a second: i liked it better in 2010 when i could drive to work without getting stuck in traffic. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Nobody brought it up because nobody believes it. That's what marv said, what I said, what jkapp said. You're the only hold out thus far.

Consider it the equivalent of a Rasmussen poll. Will you make a huge fuss when they put Jeb Bush a full 5 points ahead of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election?

[djAdvocate]

yet you FULLY believe in the -3.9% in the first quarter?

for the record, what you three believe is immaterial (as is what i believe).  only what is happening, and what can be shown matters.

you really didn't answer the question, btw.  but i get it: you believe the bad news more than the good.  got it. 

[pappyjohn99]

humanevents.com/2014/07/31/wayne-allyn-root-new-gdp-numbers-pure-fraud-and-scam/


Not that even a growth rate of 4% a month would solve our problems if it were real. Any consumer in America will tell you that inflation is running wild. Meat prices are at all-time highs. So are grocery prices. So are cable TV bills. Health insurance premiums are up dramatically— more than in the six years before Obamacare combined. The price of the gas we put into our cars has doubled since Obama became president. The cost of electricity is at an all-time high.

But there’s very good reason to believe that the supposed 4% GDP spike is not real. Like the October 2012 jobs report based on pure fraud, this new GDP report has holes the size of Texas.

In the government’s own words, this statistic is based on incomplete data and estimates.

Like most everything put out by this administration; lies, more lies, and Damn lies.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 31, 2014 14:05:01 GMT -5 pappyjohn99 said:

humanevents.com/2014/07/31/wayne-allyn-root-new-gdp-numbers-pure-fraud-and-scam/


Not that even a growth rate of 4% a month would solve our problems if it were real. Any consumer in America will tell you that inflation is running wild. Meat prices are at all-time highs. So are grocery prices. So are cable TV bills. Health insurance premiums are up dramatically— more than in the six years before Obamacare combined. The price of the gas we put into our cars has doubled since Obama became president. The cost of electricity is at an all-time high.

But there’s very good reason to believe that the supposed 4% GDP spike is not real. Like the October 2012 jobs report based on pure fraud, this new GDP report has holes the size of Texas.

In the government’s own words, this statistic is based on incomplete data and estimates.

Like most everything put out by this administration; lies, more lies, and Damn lies.

well, at least you said most.

note: all preliminary quarterly GDP data is incomplete.  there is nothing UNUSUAL about this batch.

[djAdvocate]

incidentally, this is a good illustration of market imperfection.  beef prices are at record highs, but look at this:

[djAdvocate]

oh, and by the way, i am pretty sure that statement about health insurance premiums is, in fact, a lie.

edit: i just noticed this statement was made by Wayne Allen Root.  that explains everything. 

[djAdvocate]

Jul 31, 2014 15:43:20 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

I'll chime in on the good news front.  Yes the first figures released are preliminary, that is nothing new. Very good news though.

My state is always a lagging member of New England, and yet our unemployment is under 6%. The days when I could just expect to hire experienced people are gone; they are all working. The state ran a healthy surplus from last year it was just announced. I believe it, I gave them enough money out of the record profits that we made last year. Housing is even looking up.

Let's hope it keeps on chugging!

we sold more stuff this week then we did in THE ENTIRE FIRST QUARTER LAST YEAR.

we are talking about hiring another helper.  that would nearly double our staff from a year ago.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 31, 2014 19:42:45 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Whew, that is great! Congratulations dj.

yeah.  first quarter last year was not good.  but it wasn't TERRIBLE.  this quarter is....amazingcakes.

[Virgil Showlion]

DJ, you're missing the point that the estimates are consistently revised down several times after the initial print, especially when the Fed or the White House need to pull a rabbit out of a hat to instill confidence in the public.

I trust the -3.9% figure more because i) it has already been subject to multiple revisions as new data comes in, ii) TPTB aren't as interested in fudging data retroactively as they are in fudging initial prints; the initial figures are what the newspapers print, the talking heads sell, and the markets buy, and iii) the positive subsequent revision to Q1 growth is virtually all attributable to changes to the GDP calcs, not because of the additional data coming in to refine the estimate.

If you're asking me whether I trust changes to the GDP calcs, the answer is "No". I value consistency. Although the Treasury tries to sell such revisions as making the calculations "more accurate", the simple fact is that they're changing the definition of GDP so that relative comparisons between today and yesterday are heavily distorted. Besides that, they have every reason (and the total lack of scruples) to deliberately fudge the new calculations in ways that make the economy appear healthier than it actually is. Hence no, when the GDP calculation is changed I don't trust the new components, weightings, etc. to be "more accurate" than the existing ones.

[djAdvocate]

not in a position to argue with you.  going on vacation in 15 hours.  but thanks for the explanation.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Good lord. If you guys are going to argue about it, at least get the number right. Considering how much you talk economics like you know what is going on, Virg..

U.S. GDP Dropped 2.9% In The First Quarter 2014, Down Sharply From Second Estimate

On Wednesday, the Bureau of Economic Analysis released its third and final estimate of real gross domestic product for the first three months of 2014. The release showed output in the U.S. declining at an annual rate of 2.9%.

[Virgil Showlion]

All the cool kids were using -3.9%.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

I know. No offence, but this is why I don't take what you, or places like Zero Hedge, say seriously on economics. It just seems like there is a complete lack of research and a whole lot of regurgitation.

I agree with you about a global conflict. I know it's going to be China's war with our support because we don't have the means to take on the global Jihad. I agree about a coming economic collapse, China's though, that's where we differ. The fact is that somewhere has to make it through and lead, and my historical economic model is coming full circle as I have been predicting for my adult life it would. Believe what you want, our arguing makes no difference at this point because as you know the basis of my theory is; God Blessed America, thanks to JC.

[djAdvocate]

Aham- i think it was just revised to -2.1%.  please correct me if that TOO is wrong.

[marvholly]

Jul 31, 2014 14:20:24 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

incidentally, this is a good illustration of market imperfection.  beef prices are at record highs, but look at this:

Could this decline be because people just CANNOT afford to buy beef anymore?  I KNOW I used to eat beef steak at least 1x/week.  Now it is 1x/month-maybe.  I now eat chicken 3x/week, fish 2x/week and veggie 2x/week.  I almost never used to eat veggie more that a couple times per month.

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 1, 2014 0:47:35 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

I know. No offence, but this is why I don't take what you, or places like Zero Hedge, say seriously on economics. It just seems like there is a complete lack of research and a whole lot of regurgitation.

I agree with you about a global conflict. I know it's going to be China's war with our support because we don't have the means to take on the global Jihad. I agree about a coming economic collapse, China's though, that's where we differ. The fact is that somewhere has to make it through and lead, and my historical economic model is coming full circle as I have been predicting for my adult life it would. Believe what you want, our arguing makes no difference at this point because as you know the basis of my theory is; God Blessed America, thanks to JC.

I should point out first that ZH published the correct number. And although there is a good deal of regurgitation and a definite bias to the site, there's definitely no lack of research.

Secondly, I agree with you that God blessed America tremendously. I also believe that increasingly He'll curse America and the nations of the British Commonwealth as we become increasingly Godless nations. But I certainly don't need to hold that belief to conclude that the US is in rapid decline. For example, ZH is a strictly secular site.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Aug 1, 2014 6:42:54 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Aug 1, 2014 0:47:35 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

I know. No offence, but this is why I don't take what you, or places like Zero Hedge, say seriously on economics. It just seems like there is a complete lack of research and a whole lot of regurgitation.

I agree with you about a global conflict. I know it's going to be China's war with our support because we don't have the means to take on the global Jihad. I agree about a coming economic collapse, China's though, that's where we differ. The fact is that somewhere has to make it through and lead, and my historical economic model is coming full circle as I have been predicting for my adult life it would. Believe what you want, our arguing makes no difference at this point because as you know the basis of my theory is; God Blessed America, thanks to JC.

I should point out first that ZH published the correct number. And although there is a good deal of regurgitation and a definite bias to the site, there's definitely no lack of research.

Secondly, I agree with you that God blessed America tremendously. I also believe that increasingly He'll curse America and the nations of the British Commonwealth as we become increasingly Godless nations. But I certainly don't need to hold that belief to conclude that the US is in rapid decline. For example, ZH is a strictly secular site.

Believe what you want. Fact is if the US was in rapid decline, as you have been saying now for like five years, you wouldn't have to argue so hard that positive GDP figures are lies while negative ones are true. They would all be negative and the social unrest you guys were talking about in 2010 and 2011 would be rampant across the US.

Bottom line, a war changes everything so don't be so sure that this is becoming a Godless world.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 1, 2014 5:05:41 GMT -5 marvholly said:

Jul 31, 2014 14:20:24 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

incidentally, this is a good illustration of market imperfection.  beef prices are at record highs, but look at this:

Could this decline be because people just CANNOT afford to buy beef anymore?  I KNOW I used to eat beef steak at least 1x/week.  Now it is 1x/month-maybe.  I now eat chicken 3x/week, fish 2x/week and veggie 2x/week.  I almost never used to eat veggie more that a couple times per month.

sure.  and it could also be because diets are changing.

my point was that this is an interesting study in demand -vs- price.  according to the overly simplistic model everyone loves to talk about, if demand drops, price should drop.  it hasn't gone that way.

[djAdvocate]

Virgil: i don't think that God blessed any nation IN PARTICULAR.  we are not the chosen people any more than Canadians are.  we are all God's children.  we are all given great gifts.  and will will all be damned for not managing them.

[Virgil Showlion]

Aug 1, 2014 9:34:28 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Aug 1, 2014 6:42:54 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I should point out first that ZH published the correct number. And although there is a good deal of regurgitation and a definite bias to the site, there's definitely no lack of research.

Secondly, I agree with you that God blessed America tremendously. I also believe that increasingly He'll curse America and the nations of the British Commonwealth as we become increasingly Godless nations. But I certainly don't need to hold that belief to conclude that the US is in rapid decline. For example, ZH is a strictly secular site.

Believe what you want. Fact is if the US was in rapid decline, as you have been saying now for like five years, you wouldn't have to argue so hard that positive GDP figures are lies while negative ones are true. They would all be negative and the social unrest you guys were talking about in 2010 and 2011 would be rampant across the US.

Bottom line, a war changes everything so don't be so sure that this is becoming a Godless world.

Read what I've said and nowhere will you find I believe "positive GDP figures are lies while negative ones are true".

As it so happens, I trust the negative numbers in this case more than I trust the positive ones. I've given three clear reasons as to why that is, and it's not because of the sign in front of the number.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Aug 1, 2014 13:56:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Aug 1, 2014 9:34:28 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

Believe what you want. Fact is if the US was in rapid decline, as you have been saying now for like five years, you wouldn't have to argue so hard that positive GDP figures are lies while negative ones are true. They would all be negative and the social unrest you guys were talking about in 2010 and 2011 would be rampant across the US.

Bottom line, a war changes everything so don't be so sure that this is becoming a Godless world.

Read what I've said and nowhere will you find I believe "positive GDP figures are lies while negative ones are true".

As it so happens, I trust the negative numbers in this case more than I trust the positive ones. I've given three clear reasons as to why that is, and it's not because of the sign in front of the number.

Right, fact is in general you trust the negative numbers. You have said -numerous times- during the 1/6th of your life that you have been arguing the US's rapid decline that "TBTF" is essentially creating a smoke screen through false numbers(all the positive).

One example is the post you are referring to in this thread. Funny thing is that in that same response you are claiming that GDP recalculations are all about fudging past numbers to make the economy look healthier than it is(more ZH regurgitation). With a bit of digging...

The Recovery Doesn't Look As Good After A Revision Buried In Today's GDP Report

The current economic recovery is still just so-so.

As part of Wednesday's initial GDP report from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the BEA also revised GDP for 2011 to 2013 down to 2.0% from 2.2%.

For the period spanning the fourth quarter of 2010 through the first quarter of this year, real GDP growth remained 1.8%, the same rate as previously published.

[Virgil Showlion]

The GDP recalculations are all about fudging current number to make the economy look healthier than it is.

TPTB are perfectly happy to screw with GDP calcs in ways that yield negative revisions as long as those revisions are for ancient history (a.k.a. not the current fiscal year).

Markets buy the current numbers, not whatever happened in 2013.

As for your equating my opinion with that of ZH, I'll point out that ZH not only didn't make the claim "GDP recalculations are all about fudging past numbers" (that I also didn't make), they posted the complete chart of GDP revisions for the past 14 quarters.

If you want to criticize them, do so based on what they say, not what you think I think they actually said.

Pleasant weekend to you.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

No, they are based on estimations. I am basing my criticism on what you and others have said. For instance the third point you made about GDP revisions, which is why I posted the article above.

Or how about last year when the Q2 revision came in higher than initially reported?. Oh and look here, the 2013 Q3 revision came in higher than initially estimated as well. So both yours and your "sources" reporting on fudged numbers is totally bogus. Fact is that Q1 GDP was so far off because of reduced spending on healthcare.

Oh, and if I'm not mistaken, the market has lost all of the gains for the year because of this latest GDP report. Why? It confirms the recovery is intact, that tapering will be done this year -which you and your sources claimed would never happen- and that we are on the way to a benchmark rate increase.

You enjoy your weekend as well, Shabbat Shalom.