2nd quarter GDP +4%

[marvholly]

Aug 1, 2014 9:42:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

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

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.

I a not sure BUT I believe supplyes have been going down & the cost to feed cattle to market weight has gone up.  Look at how much ceral prices have gone up oer the past 5-10 years.  It is NOT all an increase in labor cost.

[Virgil Showlion]

Fact is that Q1 GDP was so far off because of reduced spending on healthcare.

The Fed blames it on the weather.

Or how about last year when the Q2 revision came in higher than initially reported?

It can happen a significant percentage of the time. I'm not saying it can't or doesn't. GDP revisions are a process with a very large stochastic component.

I will still be surprised if revisions to the Q2 2014 number are not negative.

Mark that word: surprised. Not "blown away". Not "the revisions cannot possibly be positive". Not "I'd stake my life and a ham sandwich on it". Unfortunately in three months you'll accuse me of claiming that the Q2 GDP would absolutely, positively be revised down, but at least I'll have this thread bookmarked to debunk the lie.

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.

The last thing I said in regards to tapering was on March 9, in response to (yet another) one of your falsehoods about what fantasy Virgil (and his fantasy sources) said and believed.

My response was this, wherein you will note the relevant passage:

For the record, I think the Fed banks are getting scared out of their pants. World governments (not just the US government) are demanding they keep up their asset purchases, and I'll wager the Fed banks are getting mighty fed up with taking crap onto their balance sheets. If we see any further tapering in 2014, it's because the Fed is scared. If we don't, it means they've acquiesced to the impassioned demands of everyone from Brazil to India to (of course) the US Treasury Department.

Was that not clear enough? Despite all my efforts, when your eyes read that (and I'm having an increasingly difficult time that you actually read anything I write), did you interpret the meaning as "tapering will never happen"?

I explained to you in March that my eye rolling at the Fed's lack of tapering last October was because of my (correct) skepticism of their claim that they'd taper after 3 consecutive postponements, and you argued that no, what I really meant was the Fed will never taper for all eternity, even though I'd never said anything of the kind. And so, humouring you, I made a definitive statement at that time to make absolutely sure you knew what my position was.

But that was evidently just as much a waste of my time. Over and over again with you, I just can't compete with fantasy Virgil and his fantasy sources.

So you know what: you're right. Me and my sources, whatever those are, did say that the Fed would never taper. We also said that Egypt would collapse, the Dow would crash, pink elephants would invade South Africa and impose a brutal pachydermist dictatorship, Warren Buffet would fly a giant rocket ship made out of watermelons to the moon, and against all odds a blind narwhal nicknamed "Big Stanley" would win the 2014 Fedex cup and make the cover of Time magazine.

Because for all you know or care, that's what me and my sources might as well have said.

I look forward to reading the next installment and finding out what I'll say next.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

What's next? Simple, you've admitted that your "fudging" regurgitation is bogus.(GDP revisions are a process with a very large stochastic component.)

You went off on a sarcastic rant instead of addressing the fact that the market tanked after the latest "fudged" numbers.

You're glossing over the fact that you started a thread about the TPTB's "wealth pump" and have referred to QE infinity numerous times -because in March you changed your position, once again.. The funny thing about that position is the repo market, big banks, and other large financial institutions around the world need the FED to get out of the way due to lack of funding; and China has bought up record amounts of Treasures!! So, WRONG again.

The fact that you didn't even catch the -3.9% mistake tells me all I need to know. Ignorance is bliss my friend. Keep holding that candle for that "rapid decline" of America, another 5 years and you'll be up to 1/4 of your life.

If that wasn't clear enough, I don't care what you think is going to happen. The only reason I even posted anything on this thread was because it was bothering the piss out of me that you guys were arguing over a "fudged" number. Honestly, this is the last time I will be responding to any of your economic predictions/theories and most likely anything you say in general. Good day to you sir, I'm done.

[Virgil Showlion]

1. Just because numbers have a large stochastic component doesn't mean they're not fudged. Or perhaps a better term would be "coerced at appropriate times".
2. Debt is a wealth pump from the debtors (the public) to the creditors (TPTP), and that fact has no bearing on our current discussion. The more credit banks can get the consumer to take on, the richer the bank owners become.
   
3. The term "Q.E. Infinity" came about because Ben Bernanke (who first instituted it) stated that it would go on as long as needed, in as many iterations as needed. So rather than calling all subsequent rounds "QE 3", "QE 21", ... up to whatever, ZH jokingly called the program as a whole "Q.E. Infinity", which is an apt term. "Q.E. Indefinite" might be a more accurate term, but it doesn't have the same ring to it.
   
4. Regarding the market tanking when the Fed pulls out of it, my last post addressing that was from late June, where I state

   At what point the Fed flow will have tapered enough to spur the next massive correction (read "freefall"), nobody is quite sure. As it stands, market volatility is making record lows by the week because anybody who isn't asleep knows the Fed will buy at any price. Stocks will continue to be a good investment until they aren't. And at that point: will the last one out please turn off the lights.

   I realize this isn't terribly specific, but it isn't meant to be. And for the sake of this discussion the only relevant fact is that I expect a dramatic market correction (as much as 30%) sometime between now and shortly after the Fed ends the taper, assuming they don't institute some other large-scale cash-for-trash bailout policy in the interim. Mark the emphasis here because I very much suspect they'll try this. If they do, I will point it out. When I do, please do not claim that I am "revising my opinion".
   
   As for the markets in the red over this past week: yes, I do believe it has a great deal to do with the Fed's tapering by another $10 billion a month. It's exactly what happened after they cut off their Twist II program.
   
   
5. You're confusing my position with Decoy's on the Chinese. My view of China has long been that they're in a quid pro quo relationship with the US. The US keeps them happy, they keep buying US debt.
   
   Years ago I pointed out a particularly large bond sell-off and claimed it was because the Chinese were losing faith in the dollar. You've got me there. They are losing faith in the dollar. Despite that, there are many economic and political factors at play, and I've stated countless times that the complete divestiture in US bonds will come very unexpectedly and quickly--statements you've repeatedly ignored for sake of your theories about what I think.
   
   One of the things the Chinese oligarchs love to do with their US cash is buy up US real estate and US businesses--tangible assets with real value. As long as the US continues to borrow from them and give them the means to buy up America, I think they'll overlook Uncle Sam's lack of creditworthiness.
   
   
6. As DJ has already pointed out, the -2.9% figure was irrelevant at the time of our discussion. It had already been revised to -2.1%. Both of us knew this, which was neither of us bothered to clarify the initial print. If it means that much to you, I'll be certain to double-check outdated figures when debating DJ in future.
7. The opinions/figures/analysis expressed by Virgil on this website are his own and do not necessarily represent the opinions of ZH, its management, or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries. Besides that, my sources disagree wildly about economic issues great and small. There is no such thing as "Virgil and his sources think..." or "Virgil and his sources say...".
8. We'll both keep holding our respective candles and see whose viewpoint proves correct, no? As you say, ignorance is bliss in the interim.

I disagree with you, Ham, but I respect your arguments.

I can take your criticism.

What I wish with all my heart you'd do more is actually quote me--in entire sentences, and providing a link to the context in which they were spoken--as well as ZH, etc. when you're criticizing. You take extraordinary license with what I say, your interpretations are often incomplete, distorted, or even outright fabrications, and I believe that easily 80% of the static between us could be cleared up if you took the time to quote me.

The same is true for sites like ZH. I think you'd be surprised at what they do and don't say.

[tallguy]

So you know what: you're right. Me and my sources, whatever those are, did say that the Fed would never taper. We also said that Egypt would collapse, the Dow would crash, pink elephants would invade South Africa and impose a brutal pachydermist dictatorship, Warren Buffet would fly a giant rocket ship made out of watermelons to the moon, and against all odds a blind narwhal nicknamed "Big Stanley" would win the 2014 Fedex cup and make the cover of Time magazine.

Because for all you know or care, that's what me and my sources might as well have said.

I look forward to reading the next installment and finding out what I'll say next. 

I don't wish to intrude on your discussion here, but I do feel the need to point out that much of what is stated is either more likely or contains more truth than Paul's contentions about liberals and the left....

(Note:  I really question the blind narwhal and maybe even the watermelons.)

[djAdvocate]

Virgil:

i never said that -2.9% was irrelevant.  i said that it doesn't mean much in isolation.  another -1% drop in the second quarter would be HIGHLY indicative of a recession, for example.  but what happened was just the opposite.  not only was the first quarter revised positively, but the second quarter gain exceeded the first quarter loss, showing net growth for the year.

i never say that data is irrelevant.  it is always telling us something.  how meaningful it is, particularly single point data, is a matter for debate.