More economic good news! GDP rebounds 4%

[LoneLaugher]

He actually has a great point. The numbers get touted as great before they are correct, then later people hear lower numbers but still remember not so long ago "good numbers." Most people have no idea what the numbers mean or even that 4% being revised down means we never were at 4%... They simply see lets say 3% and remember a 4% and think, good!

Please......document it. Lets look at the last 16 quarters and the revisions. shall we?

Here's a chart that shows the last 12 qtrs...

The average revision since the 1970's is over 1.5% per qtr - these early "estimates" are notoriously inaccurate...

Were they all revised downward?

 

[LoneLaugher]

You know what this does, right? Since the economy is 'improving', it becomes less of an issue for Democrats to hammer Republicans over. The better the economy is, the less of an issue it becomes politically. That's another arrow out of the quiver.

Brilliant!!!!

This might be my favorite post of the month. I don't have the words for how special this post is. Thanks, TK. You've really opened my eyes here. You ******* rock!

 

[Zander]

Please......document it. Lets look at the last 16 quarters and the revisions. shall we?

Here's a chart that shows the last 12 qtrs...

The average revision since the 1970's is over 1.5% per qtr - these early "estimates" are notoriously inaccurate...

Were they all revised downward?

No. I never said they were.

There will be more revisions. They might even revise the 2nd qtr numbers upwards!

The point is these early estimates are always off....always.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Here's a chart that shows the last 12 qtrs...

The average revision since the 1970's is over 1.5% per qtr - these early "estimates" are notoriously inaccurate...

Were they all revised downward?

No. I never said they were.

There will be more revisions. They might even revise the 2nd qtr numbers upwards!

The point is these early estimates are always off....always.

The claim was that they are always revised downward and that the public doesn't pay attention to the revision. That is bullshit.

You may not have said that....but that is the claim that I was responding to.

Everyone knows that these numbers are usually off and revised. When we need Captain Obvious, we'll call you.

 

[KissMy]

over 100 million unemployed is nothing to sniff at.....alot of those boomers still need to work....

one of the best measures for well-being is net worth....the typical household is now worth one third less....when this improves we can say the economy is better....

The inflation-adjusted net worth for the typical household was $87,992 in 2003. Ten years later, it was only $56,335, or a 36 percent decline, according to a study financed by the Russell Sage Foundation.

You're an idiot. There is nowhere near 100 million unemployed!

Half the 18 million jobs Bush destroyed since the Clinton admin have been restored under Obama.

You idiots want house prices to increase. You do realize you are begging for inflation don't you?

He includes infants, handicapped, stay at home moms and 90 year olds in his 100 million "unemployed"

Maybe he thinks infants, handicapped, stay at home moms and retired people should be paid. Sounds like he want's more wealth transfer payments.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Economy rebounds to 4% growth pace in Q2
After terrible start to the year, the U.S. economy bounces back - Jul. 30, 2014

New data released Wednesday show the U.S. economy bounced back in the spring, growing at a 4% annual pace in the second quarter. That was even better than the forecast of 3% growth, according to a consensus of economists surveyed by CNNMoney.

Consumer spending, which alone accounts for about two thirds of U.S. economic activity, strengthened, as did exports to foreign countries and business investments.

American consumers spent more money on long-lasting goods like autos and furniture, and businesses invested more in technology and industrial equipment. Both can be seen as good signs that households and companies are more optimistic and investing in the future.



Great to see the first quarter numbers were not a trend

And?
BTW, that's up against a 3% contraction in Q1....A net annualized growth rate of ONE percent....
In the financial world it's referred to as a "dead cat bounce"..
Consumer spending increases when the price of energy, particularly gas and food costs rise. Which has occurred this year.
A rise in consumer spending is not a very good indicator when the parameters are not clarified

 

[thereisnospoon]

This is a rebound from the -2% contraction in Q1, which was driven by weather.

Bullshit.

No...Bullshit on you....
U.S. GDP Dropped 2.9% In The First Quarter 2014, Down Sharply From Second Estimate - Forbes

 

[LoneLaugher]

It must be a bummer to feel compelled to shit on good news.

 

[thereisnospoon]

so........can we stop QE now.....?

Are you crazy? The Obamabots will have you shot for even thinking that.

 

[LoneLaugher]

This is a rebound from the -2% contraction in Q1, which was driven by weather.

Bullshit.

No...Bullshit on you....
U.S. GDP Dropped 2.9% In The First Quarter 2014, Down Sharply From Second Estimate - Forbes

Do you know what JB was saying bullshit to? I think you don't.

BTW...the revised number for Q1 is -2.1%. Did ya know that?

 

[Erand7899]

It was an effective strategy by the Fed...It worked

And we still haven't seen the runaway inflation and stock market crash predicted by the conservatives

Keep that bag over your head...you won't feel a thing..

It did work

Post something that proves otherwise

We don't know that it has worked yet, and we do not know what the future holds as the Fed begins reducing quantitive easing. The stock market is a bubble, blown up by cheap Fed money, and could well collapse when that money dries up.

As for inflation, it is all around us, and it doesn't take a government bureaucrat to tell anyone that prices are up on just about everything.

We have heard the same song and dance for over five years now. Left wingers crow over every bit of good news, and then blame right wingers when that news turns sour.

Any economy will eventually recover, sans government interference, and this economy is finally starting to recover despite government interference. However, I have confidence that Obama, and the gang that can't think straight, will find some way to stem the recovery, in an attempt to take credit for it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It did work

Post something that proves otherwise

You're asking him to prove a negative. Prove it did work.

OK

Stock market more than doubled, $20 trillion in wealth added to the economy, unemployment dropped over 4%

All without the devalued dollar, runaway inflation and stock market collapse predicted by Conservatives

Yes, we'll just take your word for it

 

[ScreamingEagle]

All your charts reversed under Bill Clinton's administration. Then Shrub was elected & disaster ensued. Your labor participation rate chart is useless in the retiring Boomer economy.

over 100 million unemployed is nothing to sniff at.....alot of those boomers still need to work....

There's not even 10 million unemployed. You're counting 86,000 people, mostly retirees, disabled, students, and stay home spouses as unemployed. Then you're adding in people who couldn't take a job if offered, people who say they want a job but show no sign of doing anything about it. There's only about 2 million who are really likely to start looking.

read civilian employment-population ratio.....which today is only at 59.0%....

"The employment-population ratio of 57.9% in 1983 was up by the fifth year of Reagan’s recovery to 61.5%, on its way to 63.0% in 1989. That represented an increase of 17 million jobs since that recession started in July, 1981."

"But [today] the full reality is best understood by recognizing that over the past 8 years the U.S. working age population has increased by 19.3 million, but the number of jobs in America has grown by only 1.8 million during that time. That is what never recovering from the recession means in the real world."

After Five Years Of Obamanomics, A Record 100 Million Americans Not Working - Forbes

 

[edthecynic]

over 100 million unemployed is nothing to sniff at.....alot of those boomers still need to work....

There's not even 10 million unemployed. You're counting 86,000 people, mostly retirees, disabled, students, and stay home spouses as unemployed. Then you're adding in people who couldn't take a job if offered, people who say they want a job but show no sign of doing anything about it. There's only about 2 million who are really likely to start looking.

read civilian employment-population ratio.....which today is only at 59.0%....

"The employment-population ratio of 57.9% in 1983 was up by the fifth year of Reagan’s recovery to 61.5%, on its way to 63.0% in 1989. That represented an increase of 17 million jobs since that recession started in July, 1981."

"But the full reality is best understood by recognizing that over the past 8 years the U.S. working age population has increased by 19.3 million, but the number of jobs in America has grown by only 1.8 million during that time. That is what never recovering from the recession means in the real world."

After Five Years Of Obamanomics, A Record 100 Million Americans Not Working - Forbes

Yeah, make those 16 year olds drop out of school and work full time they don't need no snobby education, and make those moms suckle their children while they work the day shift at the mill, and force those disabled out of bed to dig ditches the lazy f**ks, and why should retired people get to sit on their asses you'd think they worked all their lives or something.

 

[pinqy]

over 100 million unemployed is nothing to sniff at.....alot of those boomers still need to work....

There's not even 10 million unemployed. You're counting 86,000 people, mostly retirees, disabled, students, and stay home spouses as unemployed. Then you're adding in people who couldn't take a job if offered, people who say they want a job but show no sign of doing anything about it. There's only about 2 million who are really likely to start looking.

read civilian employment-population ratio.....which today is only at 59.0%....

"The employment-population ratio of 57.9% in 1983 was up by the fifth year of Reagan’s recovery to 61.5%, on its way to 63.0% in 1989. That represented an increase of 17 million jobs since that recession started in July, 1981."

"But the full reality is best understood by recognizing that over the past 8 years the U.S. working age population has increased by 19.3 million, but the number of jobs in America has grown by only 1.8 million during that time. That is what never recovering from the recession means in the real world."

After Five Years Of Obamanomics, A Record 100 Million Americans Not Working - Forbes

And? How does that support you calling people who don't want a job, people who couldn't take a job if offered and people not trying York "unemployed?"

 

[rightwinger]

You're asking him to prove a negative. Prove it did work.

OK

Stock market more than doubled, $20 trillion in wealth added to the economy, unemployment dropped over 4%

All without the devalued dollar, runaway inflation and stock market collapse predicted by Conservatives

Yes, we'll just take your word for it

You are welcome to prove me wrong

 

[edthecynic]

There's not even 10 million unemployed. You're counting 86,000 people, mostly retirees, disabled, students, and stay home spouses as unemployed. Then you're adding in people who couldn't take a job if offered, people who say they want a job but show no sign of doing anything about it. There's only about 2 million who are really likely to start looking.

read civilian employment-population ratio.....which today is only at 59.0%....

"The employment-population ratio of 57.9% in 1983 was up by the fifth year of Reagan’s recovery to 61.5%, on its way to 63.0% in 1989. That represented an increase of 17 million jobs since that recession started in July, 1981."

"But the full reality is best understood by recognizing that over the past 8 years the U.S. working age population has increased by 19.3 million, but the number of jobs in America has grown by only 1.8 million during that time. That is what never recovering from the recession means in the real world."

After Five Years Of Obamanomics, A Record 100 Million Americans Not Working - Forbes

And? How does that support you calling people who don't want a job, people who couldn't take a job if offered and people not trying York "unemployed?"

Well, you fail to see you are dealing with wordsmiths who mislead you. They do not say "unemployed" it is implied and most people will think "unemployed" but they actually say "not working."

 

[pinqy]

read civilian employment-population ratio.....which today is only at 59.0%....

"The employment-population ratio of 57.9% in 1983 was up by the fifth year of Reagan’s recovery to 61.5%, on its way to 63.0% in 1989. That represented an increase of 17 million jobs since that recession started in July, 1981."

"But the full reality is best understood by recognizing that over the past 8 years the U.S. working age population has increased by 19.3 million, but the number of jobs in America has grown by only 1.8 million during that time. That is what never recovering from the recession means in the real world."

After Five Years Of Obamanomics, A Record 100 Million Americans Not Working - Forbes

And? How does that support you calling people who don't want a job, people who couldn't take a job if offered and people not trying York "unemployed?"

Well, you fail to see you are dealing with wordsmiths who mislead you. They do not say "unemployed" it is implied and most people will think "unemployed" but they actually say "not working."

I have no issue with Forbes, here. While a little sensationalist, there's nothing factually wrong. My complaint was with Screaming Eagle changing it from "not working" to "unemployed."

 

[Mac1958]

.

For those of us who don't view everything through a distorted, partisan prism -- the majority -- this is good and hopeful news, and we still recognize that many potential pitfalls and challenges remain.

Good news is good news, and there's no good reason to downplay it.

.

Measured on a quarter-on-quarter basis, GDP grew by 1%. That's good news? Seriously?

Sure it is. The street had 2.5% to 3.0%, we were secretly hoping for 3.2%, I posted that a couple of times here.

Given the current environment, all things considered, yeah, I'm likin' it.

In fact, had it been much higher, we may be seen a bond panic. The next two or three months will hopefully clear the fog.

.

 

[Zander]

.

For those of us who don't view everything through a distorted, partisan prism -- the majority -- this is good and hopeful news, and we still recognize that many potential pitfalls and challenges remain.

Good news is good news, and there's no good reason to downplay it.

.

Measured on a quarter-on-quarter basis, GDP grew by 1%. That's good news? Seriously?

Sure it is. The street had 2.5% to 3.0%, we were secretly hoping for 3.2%, I posted that a couple of times here.

Given the current environment, all things considered, yeah, I'm likin' it.

In fact, had it been much higher, we may be seen a bond panic. The next two or three months will hopefully clear the fog.

.

The one piece of good news was that the 1st quarter GDP was revised to negative 2.1% from negative -2.9% That means they were only off by 2.2% from their initial estimate of +0.1%...

I am not excited about an initial estimate of +4%. It's kinda like calling a horse race after 1 furlong has been run.....don't tear up your tickets!!

If they are as accurate in Q2 as they were in Q1 this number will be revised down to +1.8%....