More economic good news! GDP rebounds 4%

[Dad2three]

When these charts reverse I'll believe the economy is better.

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....

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.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/business/the-typical-household-now-worth-a-third-less.html

June marks 52 straight months of private sector job growth, the longest ever on record, beating out Bill Clinton's record of 51 continuous months of private sector job growth from February 1996 to April 2000. The economy has added more than 200,000 jobs for five months in a row now, the longest such streak since 1999. In the first half of this year alone the economy has added 1.4 million jobs, another accomplishment not seen since 1999.

Barack Obama bests Bill Clinton's private sector job creation record ? The People's View


BUSH LOST 1.2+ MILLION PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS IN 8 YEARS, OBAMA HAS 10+ MILLION private sector jobs since hitting the Bush bottom March 2010b

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Here is your problem Zander

Rightwing celebration of a negative GDP has been negated by a 4% second quarter growth. There is one more quarter before the November elections. It is all or nothing for Republicans. Another strong quarter and your ....Obama has trashed the economy card is worthless

Maybe you should try....Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi

Is it not grand how -2% means nothing to you but a guess of +4% proves all of history wrong? Is it not wonderful that you can take this single number of 4% that you yourself know will be revised down and claim how it spells doom for Republicans?

Well, what are Republicans going to run on?
GDP has rebounded and unemployment should be below 6%
Obamacare did not cause the collapse of our healthcare system as predicted by Republicans

I guess you still got Benghazi and the IRS

Obamacare is not fully implemented.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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

Janet Yellen hasn't officially announced anything yet but the feeling is they'll stop it in October, and their excuse for tuning it so long was unemployment, not GDP.

I don't quite understand the right wings opposition to quantitative easing.

Instead of a tax cut for the ultra wealthy plutocrat, they got to take advantage of the cheapest cost of capital maybe ever.

And they made even more money from QE than they would have from a tax cut.

I thought Republicans were all for the ultra wealthy getting more ultra wealthy?

We are sold tax cuts for the ultra wealthy because they will trickle down and "create jobs".

We were sold QE because it would stimulate the economy and "create jobs"

Now what's the difference to hate one and not the other repubs? Neither worked.

The ultra wealthy are still making shit tons of money. And you all love that. Right? Money's good. More moneys more better? In the hands of the richest is best of all. Right wingers say so all the time.

You know nothing of Republicans and what we think.

 

[rdean]

Republicans won't be happy until they can beat this horse:

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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."

There I disagree, there would be no point to Forbes mentioning 100 million NOT WORKING except to DECEIVE born suckers like ScreamingEagle who read it "UNEMPLOYED," since it is totally irrelevant to the condition of the economy.

criminy.....you twits will squawk on forever about word useage but completely ignore the point......employment is at a sluggish 59.0% of the working age population and barely creeping upwards compared to Reagan's recovery....millions remain unemployed....GDP and employment are related to one another....so where is the growth really....?

what exactly caused this wild upswing to 4% from a negative -2.1%...?

car sales.....? just about anybody can buy a car today because of low rates and easy credit....that means lots of subprime buyers......if people are buying cars they can't really afford that 4% doesn't look so hot anymore....

larger inventories....? that could be good if they are due to stocking up for fall sales but it could also be bad if businesses aren't selling enough and things are just piling up in the warehouses....

it'd be great if we are really seeing an improvement but the political class pretty much owns the economists and the media....so if i were you i'd take this news with a BIG FAT grain of salt.....

 

[1776]

Uh, the average GDP over the last quarters is around 2%....all Obama's fault.

 

[Zander]

Has anyone ever accused you of saying one thing.....and secretly hoping for another?



I'm fairly observant. I don't believe that you want the economy to take off. You see....you said "will" in that comment above. Will be revised down. When...it could be revised up just as easily. Tsk tsk.



I know that the POTUS doesn't control the economy. ButbI also know that you know that a shitload of voting people think he does. So....you want it to tank. Period.



Why lie?

You're projecting again.



So what if I expect the 4% "Estimate" to be adjusted downward? Downward revisions of the 1st estimate are more common than upward revisions. That doesn't mean I want the "economy" to tank.



I own a business that employs people. I want a healthy economy. Period.

We'll then, you sure fooled me! You are a colossal Debbie Downer, bro. As a business owner...I trumpet good news. I want good news to go viral. I want people out there opening their wallets. You? If so.....it ain't coming through.

I'm a realist.

 

[Dad2three]

Janet Yellen hasn't officially announced anything yet but the feeling is they'll stop it in October, and their excuse for tuning it so long was unemployment, not GDP.

I don't quite understand the right wings opposition to quantitative easing.

Instead of a tax cut for the ultra wealthy plutocrat, they got to take advantage of the cheapest cost of capital maybe ever.

And they made even more money from QE than they would have from a tax cut.

I thought Republicans were all for the ultra wealthy getting more ultra wealthy?

We are sold tax cuts for the ultra wealthy because they will trickle down and "create jobs".

We were sold QE because it would stimulate the economy and "create jobs"

Now what's the difference to hate one and not the other repubs? Neither worked.

The ultra wealthy are still making shit tons of money. And you all love that. Right? Money's good. More moneys more better? In the hands of the richest is best of all. Right wingers say so all the time.

You know nothing of Republicans and what we think.

NYcarbineer:

CONSERVATIVE Republicans were still giving Bush a 72% job approval rating as of December 2008.

lol

 

[boedicca]

The 4% figure is bogus government manipulation of statistics.

Shadowstats has a more accurate calculation of the change in GDP...and one that is consistent with what the majority of Americans are experiencing in their economic lives.

Alternate Gross Domestic Product Chart

The SGS-Alternate GDP reflects the inflation-adjusted, or real, year-to-year GDP change, adjusted for distortions in government inflation usage and methodological changes that have resulted in a built-in upside bias to official reporting.

Annual Growth (Year-to-Year Percent Change) in GDP is shown in the chart on the right. This is not the annualized quarterly rate of change that serves as the headline number for the series.

Note: The GDP headline number refers to the most-recent quarter’s annualized quarter-to-quarter rate of change (what that quarter’s percent quarter-to-quarter change would translate into if compounded for four consecutive quarters).
This can mean that the latest quarter can be reported with a positive annualized growth rate, while the actual annual rate of change is negative. Such was the case for the 3rd quarter of 2009.

 

[edthecynic]

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

Baby Boomers entered the workforce in 1964. They should have remained there until 2011. Bush & the Republican Congress destroyed over 18 million jobs. The president with the absolute best jobs record in the history of the US was Bill Clinton. Clinton had 74% of the working age population employed. The second best was the first Bush just before he caused a jobs destroying recession at a distant 69%. A full 6% below Clinton. The second Bush caused 2 recessions & lost jobs his entire presidency. Clinton & Obama have never caused a recession. Regan, Bush 1&2 all caused job destroying recessions.

Employment of working age population is rising big time under Obama

How did BushII cause a recession a month and a half into his Presidency? What policies did he put in place so fast it caused a recession that fast?

Probably the same way Obama was "controlling political authority on the economy" before he was even elected!!!

March 2, 2009
RUSH: To say that Obama has been in office only one month is not accurate from an effect on the world and an effect on the country standpoint. Barack Obama has been the controlling political authority on the economy for six months.

 

[pinqy]

criminy.....you twits will squawk on forever about word useage but completely ignore the point

Because words have meaning and misleading language needs to be corrected.

employment is at a sluggish 59.0% of the working age population and barely creeping upwards compared to Reagan's recovery.

So, if the employment/population rate were, say, below 57% for a few years, that would be disastrous?

 

[edthecynic]

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."

There I disagree, there would be no point to Forbes mentioning 100 million NOT WORKING except to DECEIVE born suckers like ScreamingEagle who read it "UNEMPLOYED," since it is totally irrelevant to the condition of the economy.

criminy.....you twits will squawk on forever about word useage but completely ignore the point......employment is at a sluggish 59.0% of the working age population and barely creeping upwards compared to Reagan's recovery....millions remain unemployed....GDP and employment are related to one another....so where is the growth really....?

A larger number of the working age population are retired than in St Ronnie's day, and there a lot less unemployed now, 9,474,000, than when Bush slinked out of office, 12,058,000.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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

Janet Yellen hasn't officially announced anything yet but the feeling is they'll stop it in October, and their excuse for tuning it so long was unemployment, not GDP.

I don't quite understand the right wings opposition to quantitative easing.

Instead of a tax cut for the ultra wealthy plutocrat, they got to take advantage of the cheapest cost of capital maybe ever.

And they made even more money from QE than they would have from a tax cut.

I thought Republicans were all for the ultra wealthy getting more ultra wealthy?

We are sold tax cuts for the ultra wealthy because they will trickle down and "create jobs".

We were sold QE because it would stimulate the economy and "create jobs"

Now what's the difference to hate one and not the other repubs? Neither worked.

The ultra wealthy are still making shit tons of money. And you all love that. Right? Money's good. More moneys more better? In the hands of the richest is best of all. Right wingers say so all the time.

QE isn't real money, it's not earned, it's not really held by anyone. It's just a made up number printed up and sent out to the people they deem most worthy to receive.

I'm good with people making more money, if it's really earned. False money in a fake market is a far bigger problem than your income gap complaints.

 

[rdean]

Janet Yellen hasn't officially announced anything yet but the feeling is they'll stop it in October, and their excuse for tuning it so long was unemployment, not GDP.

I don't quite understand the right wings opposition to quantitative easing.

Instead of a tax cut for the ultra wealthy plutocrat, they got to take advantage of the cheapest cost of capital maybe ever.

And they made even more money from QE than they would have from a tax cut.

I thought Republicans were all for the ultra wealthy getting more ultra wealthy?

We are sold tax cuts for the ultra wealthy because they will trickle down and "create jobs".

We were sold QE because it would stimulate the economy and "create jobs"

Now what's the difference to hate one and not the other repubs? Neither worked.

The ultra wealthy are still making shit tons of money. And you all love that. Right? Money's good. More moneys more better? In the hands of the richest is best of all. Right wingers say so all the time.

You know nothing of Republicans and what we think.

We know the direction of that party. How? Simple, they tell us.

 

[pinqy]

The 4% figure is bogus government manipulation of statistics.

No, it's not. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it wrong.

Shadowstats has a more accurate calculation of the change in GDP...and one that is consistent with what the majority of Americans are experiencing in their economic lives.

On what basis do you claim shadowstats is more accurate? All he does is take the published numbers and arbitrarily makes them bigger or smaller depending on which is worse. And nobody really experiences the GDP in their lives...that's individual vs aggregate.

The SGS-Alternate GDP reflects the inflation-adjusted, or real, year-to-year GDP change, adjusted for distortions in government inflation usage and methodological changes that have resulted in a built-in upside bias to official reporting.

Over the last 10 years, BLS shows an increase in average prices of about 27%. Shadowstats shows an increase of over 85% Do you really think it has been that high? He just adds on around 5% to the official number, but that adds up over time. Let's say he's just adding 4%/year (and I'm sure the average is higher) that would put BLS inflation at 88% since 1990 and shadowstats inflation at 270%. Which seems more accurate to you?

And to show Williams is a liar, I can run through the math on his unemployment numbers to show just how far off he is. But somehow I don't think even that blatant demonstration would convince you.

 

[KissMy]

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

Baby Boomers entered the workforce in 1964. They should have remained there until 2011. Bush & the Republican Congress destroyed over 18 million jobs. The president with the absolute best jobs record in the history of the US was Bill Clinton. Clinton had 74% of the working age population employed. The second best was the first Bush just before he caused a jobs destroying recession at a distant 69%. A full 6% below Clinton. The second Bush caused 2 recessions & lost jobs his entire presidency. Clinton & Obama have never caused a recession. Regan, Bush 1&2 all caused job destroying recessions.

Employment of working age population is rising big time under Obama

How did BushII cause a recession a month and a half into his Presidency? What policies did he put in place so fast it caused a recession that fast?

Bush's stolen election, cabinet members & policy tanked the economy from the start. Wages stagnated, job losses & outsourcing mounted as corporate profits soared during his entire presidency. Bush destruction started on day one when the people rioted his inauguration.

[youtube]1FKZKvdJbIk[/youtube]

 

[francoHFW]

Amazing how well things go without phony Pub crises....now if they'd allow an actual jobs bill.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Amazing how well things go without phony Pub crises....now if they'd allow an actual jobs bill.

The last six years are your jobs bill. You created this mess and own it.

 

[francoHFW]

Sure, hater dupe. We will. Slow solid growth, now growing after years of unpatriotic Pub bs, is better than a giant,corrupt Pub bubble and a world depression every time.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It's amazing how little Obama-bots grasp the dangers of spending 20-30 years worth of debt to float the economy today will impact the country. We will prolly not even balance the budget and defiantly not start paying down that debt before we hit another recession... Meaning we will have to borrow more and add to the future bills even more.

Again, we all recognize how stimulus does stimulate the economy, but it seems like the Obama-bots fail to realize that it's all done on debt, and that debt is a bill. We are paying something like 11% of all revenues collect to debt. We don;t even count the FED-R as debt despite counting the taxes collected on that stimulus as revenues, meaning when the FED stops dumping money into the system, revenues drop hundreds of billions a year... Pushing that annual debt back up.

What is the response to the FED's trillion dollar stimulus and what will happen when it stops from the left? The FED has wanted to slow it's involvement for a couple years now, but every time it even mentions a tapper the markets drop, and they didn't even cut anything.

A perfect example of why the Right is called the "No Information Voter"

Fed Cuts Monthly Asset Purchases To $45 Billion At April Meeting - Forbes

On Wednesday, the FOMC announced a fourth $10 billion reduction to its quantitative easing program, reducing its monthly bond purchases to $45 billion and keeping pace with earlier guidance. The Fed will cut monthly mortgage bond purchases to $20 billion from $25 billion. Treasury purchases will drop to $25 billion a month from $30 billion.

The stock market didn’t make any big moves following the release coming off of mixed signals leading up to the 2 p.m. release. Following the release The Dow Jones Industrial Average was up by about 0.09% and the S&P 500 was up close to 0.2%.

So the Fed/Treasury giving away $45 billion per month to Wall Street banks is OK by you? And I guess you don't blink an eye at the past $85 billion a month that they were giving away?

Obama is doing exactly what the Wall Street banks elected him for; pulling their fat out of the fire using the value of the US dollar to do it. It has seriously strained the credibility of claims to a strong USD policy and is in large part why so many countries are looking to jettison the USD as the world's reserve currency.