Economy surges more than expected

[itfitzme]

One of these, GDP = C + I + G + NX.

Here we go,

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&903=2

For third quarter of 2013,

Consumption rate of change......................................................1.36
Investment rate of change.........................................................2.56
Net exports..............................................................................0.14
Government consumption expenditures and gross investment.......0.08

So that would be gains in investment followed by consumption with net exports and government barely making a dent.

Somewhat anemic growth in consumption - but still a positive sign.

Relatively large increase in investment gains - thanks to the Fed printing money and propping up the markets.

The major contributor to the investments was private inventories of 1.67

You know, gdp investment is equipment, inventories, buildings, the like. It's not investments in the sense of the stock market. Right?

The biggest contributor to investment was structures at 0.35. Residential, which would be housing, was second at 0.31.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Where is the alleged growth coming from? Neither I nor anyone I know is seeing any kind of growth in the economy.

Where do you live. In the SF Bay Area, cranes are working, contractors are working, real estate agents are working, tech is hiring, UE is shrinking, restaurants are full, malls are full and UPS is going full time, all the time.

 

[itfitzme]

Where is the alleged growth coming from? Neither I nor anyone I know is seeing any kind of growth in the economy.

Where do you live. In the SF Bay Area, cranes are working, contractors are working, real estate agents are working, tech is hiring, UE is shrinking, restaurants are full, malls are full and UPS is going full time, all the time.

That's actually a good question. The BEA does do state and region GSP but delayed to it's only through 2012.

The growth is literally all over the map.





The southwest looks like it was consistently higher from 2010 to 2012, even 2009. The pacific coast accelerated steadily and rapidly from 2009 through 2012. Other regions have either been flat since recovering in 2010 or recovered a bit more in 2010 then decellerated.

 

[asterism]

Here we go,

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&903=2

For third quarter of 2013,

Consumption rate of change......................................................1.36
Investment rate of change.........................................................2.56
Net exports..............................................................................0.14
Government consumption expenditures and gross investment.......0.08

So that would be gains in investment followed by consumption with net exports and government barely making a dent.

Somewhat anemic growth in consumption - but still a positive sign.

Relatively large increase in investment gains - thanks to the Fed printing money and propping up the markets.

The major contributor to the investments was private inventories of 1.67

You know, gdp investment is equipment, inventories, buildings, the like. It's not investments in the sense of the stock market. Right?

The biggest contributor to investment was structures at 0.35. Residential, which would be housing, was second at 0.31.

All made possible by very very low interest because of what?

 

[oldfart]

Where is the alleged growth coming from? Neither I nor anyone I know is seeing any kind of growth in the economy.

According to SOI data 95%+ of growth goes to the top 1% for the last decade. Quarter by quarter growth varies wildly and without a clear source of demand, but has been averaging 1.5-2% lately, which is population growth plus a little boost from the level of destimulus slowing down (i.e. the "Three Stooges effect"; it feels so good when we stop hurting ourselves).

 

[itfitzme]

Somewhat anemic growth in consumption - but still a positive sign.

Relatively large increase in investment gains - thanks to the Fed printing money and propping up the markets.

The major contributor to the investments was private inventories of 1.67

You know, gdp investment is equipment, inventories, buildings, the like. It's not investments in the sense of the stock market. Right?

The biggest contributor to investment was structures at 0.35. Residential, which would be housing, was second at 0.31.

All made possible by very very low interest because of what?

Yes.

I know you are trying to make a point here. What is it?

 

[itfitzme]

Where is the alleged growth coming from? Neither I nor anyone I know is seeing any kind of growth in the economy.

According to SOI data 95%+ of growth goes to the top 1% for the last decade. Quarter by quarter growth varies wildly and without a clear source of demand, but has been averaging 1.5-2% lately, which is population growth plus a little boost from the level of destimulus slowing down (i.e. the "Three Stooges effect"; it feels so good when we stop hurting ourselves).

That, the "which is population growth plus a little boost" part makes sense as the empration has remained pretty flat, just keeping up with population growth as well. Perhaps that little boost is efficiency.

 

[itfitzme]

Interestingly, since the recession mid 09, PCE has been consistently positive from quater to quarter. Investment, including inventories, have considerable variability in their quarterly contribution to the RGDP change, going negative as often as not.. In fact, it seems that Gov and NetEx also have similar variability.


And, yeah, for no apparent reason.

 

[ConquestCortez]

Hmmm.....methinks the honey is seeping from the jar.

Check it out. Inventory investment implies that either people are restocking or corporate is buying back all their retail store's inventory

In other words either people are consuming the inventory and so corporate had to order a shit ton of inventory to meet consumer hunger for more worms or, corporate was like "shit guys the fish aren't biting we need to buy back all of the retail shelf stock and salvage it by scrapping it for parts or something cuz we're looking at huge losses here."

Either scenario, either Consumer spending went up, or Investment spending went down.

When compared with previous quarter spending reports we find that consistency of consumption spending is stronger than consistency on investment spending.

In other words, consumption is growing faster and steadier than investment spending by 200 billions dollars total over the past 4 years.

As a result, I think it can safely be concluded that because Consumption spending far exceeds investment spending in terms of economic growth (200 billion), that consumption spending is what is causing the increasing in economic growth, not investment, especially seeing as consumption heavily outmatches investment as a portion of the American Economy.

Therefore, we can conclude that corporations are NOT buying back goods from their respective retail outlets/franchises etc and that the economy is, in fact, growing.

This concludes that, based on the above charts from the bureau of economic analysis, the democrats did in fact follow through on their promise to help end the recession and spur economic growth.

As far as economics is concerned, the Democrats are definitely in the winning corner.

 

[asterism]

The major contributor to the investments was private inventories of 1.67

You know, gdp investment is equipment, inventories, buildings, the like. It's not investments in the sense of the stock market. Right?

The biggest contributor to investment was structures at 0.35. Residential, which would be housing, was second at 0.31.

All made possible by very very low interest because of what?

Yes.

I know you are trying to make a point here. What is it?

I already made it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The main drivers of the Obama economy: Unemployment checks, food stamps and unsold inventory

Woo fucking hoo!!!

 

[itfitzme]

All made possible by very very low interest because of what?

Yes.

I know you are trying to make a point here. What is it?

I already made it.

Fraid you haven't. You must believe it is implied. I'd a caught it if it was part of our convo.

 

[itfitzme]

Hmmm.....methinks the honey is seeping from the jar.

Check it out. Inventory investment implies that either people are restocking or corporate is buying back all their retail store's inventory

In other words either people are consuming the inventory and so corporate had to order a shit ton of inventory to meet consumer hunger for more worms or, corporate was like "shit guys the fish aren't biting we need to buy back all of the retail shelf stock and salvage it by scrapping it for parts or something cuz we're looking at huge losses here."

Either scenario, either Consumer spending went up, or Investment spending went down.

When compared with previous quarter spending reports we find that consistency of consumption spending is stronger than consistency on investment spending.

In other words, consumption is growing faster and steadier than investment spending by 200 billions dollars total over the past 4 years.

As a result, I think it can safely be concluded that because Consumption spending far exceeds investment spending in terms of economic growth (200 billion), that consumption spending is what is causing the increasing in economic growth, not investment, especially seeing as consumption heavily outmatches investment as a portion of the American Economy.

Therefore, we can conclude that corporations are NOT buying back goods from their respective retail outlets/franchises etc and that the economy is, in fact, growing.

This concludes that, based on the above charts from the bureau of economic analysis, the democrats did in fact follow through on their promise to help end the recession and spur economic growth.

As far as economics is concerned, the Democrats are definitely in the winning corner.

That seems to match the detailed GDP tables back to 2009. Consumption always positive and everything else is up and down. Yearly average and all the variability goes away

 

[oldfart]

For third quarter of 2013,

Consumption rate of change......................................................1.36
Investment rate of change.........................................................2.56
Net exports..............................................................................0.14
Government consumption expenditures and gross investment.......0.08

So that would be gains in investment followed by consumption with net exports and government barely making a dent.

First, quarterly growth rates are wildly variable; I'd rather see a four quarter moving average (but I admit to being too lazy to look it up right now). You are spot on about net exports and government spending. The consumption growth figure is mostly demographic and disappears in a per capita statistic. The investment I suspect is temporary; I've seen estimates that the expiration of bonus depreciation and 15 year cost recovery for certain restaurant, leasehold improvement, and retail property will accelerate investment into 2003 of up to 1.5% of GDP. That would be a major correction in early 2014.