PDA

View Full Version : GDP report: Economic growth revised sharply lower!



Sev
03-02-2011, 07:53 AM
Now we will see what higher petroleum priced do to the economy.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/25/news/economy/gdp_revision/index.htm
<span style="color: #000000">


NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Budget cuts by state and local governments hurt the economy more than originally thought, according to a government release Friday.

Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, was revised lower to an annual growth rate of 2.8% in the three months ending in December. The initial reading had been for a 3.2% growth rate in the period.

50

EmailPrint
That's a surprising dip, given that economists were expecting the rate to be revised upward to 3.3%.

Lower state and local government spending was the main drag, falling 2.4% during the quarter, compared to a 0.9% drop originally reported.

Consumer spending was also weaker than initially reported, and was revised down to a 4.1% growth rate, from 4.4%.

The lower GDP number isn't a reason to be alarmed, economists say.

"It's kind of ancient history, given we're now two-thirds into the first quarter," said Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist with Capital Economics. "If anything, we still expect growth to be stronger in the first quarter."

Despite its weaker points, the report still contained a robust reading on domestic demand, and that's encouraging, said David Resler, chief economist with Nomura Securities.

Real final sales of domestic product grew at a rate of 6.7% during the quarter. While that's slightly lower than the 7.1% previously estimated, it's still strong, especially given that the rate stood at a mere 0.9% in the third quarter.

"It's a sign to me that demand has turned a corner in the fourth quarter," Resler said. "The private sector seems to be on a roll here, and we're seeing evidence of that through most other economic indicators."

The government calculates GDP as a measure of goods and services produced in the United States. The number is backward looking and is often revised multiple times. This is the second reading for the fourth quarter. </span>

pooltchr
03-02-2011, 03:34 PM
Have you noticed that lately, it seems every government report issued these days, seems to get revised to reflect much worse news than the original report?

Steve

sack316
03-02-2011, 05:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have you noticed that lately, it seems every government report issued these days, seems to get revised to reflect much worse news than the original report?

Steve </div></div>

Seems to be the trend.

Sack

Soflasnapper
03-03-2011, 06:19 PM
The lower GDP number isn't a reason to be alarmed, economists say.

"It's kind of ancient history, given we're now two-thirds into the first quarter," said Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist with Capital Economics. "If anything, we still expect growth to be stronger in the first quarter."

Despite its weaker points, the report still contained a robust reading on domestic demand, and that's encouraging, said David Resler, chief economist with Nomura Securities.

Real final sales of domestic product grew at a rate of 6.7% during the quarter. While that's slightly lower than the 7.1% previously estimated, it's still strong, especially given that the rate stood at a mere 0.9% in the third quarter.

"It's a sign to me that demand has turned a corner in the fourth quarter," Resler said. "The private sector seems to be on a roll here, and we're seeing evidence of that through most other economic indicators."

Just to be clear, all the above content of your post indicates the 'sharply lower' economic growth doesn't mean what you appear to think it means.

LWW
03-04-2011, 06:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[i]The lower GDP number isn't a reason to be alarmed, economists say.</div></div>

Sure ... and neither is having the family car repoed.

In fact, to the left, being lied to by the state is a thing of beauty.

LWW

Soflasnapper
03-04-2011, 07:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[i]The lower GDP number isn't a reason to be alarmed, economists say.</div></div>

Sure ... and neither is having the family car repoed.

In fact, to the left, being lied to by the state is a thing of beauty.

LWW </div></div>

Unclear what you mean by this. That the original number was a lie? Or that the claim from 'economists' that it isn't a reason to be alarmed is the lie (although these were not said to be government economists)?

As to whether the right or left enjoys lies from the state more, I seem to remember a lot of apologetics on state lies not that long ago from the right, where the left objected in the same cases.

LWW
03-05-2011, 06:27 AM
The point is that much of what comes from any regime is a lie, and virtually 100% of what comes from this one ... yet we have people lined up to swallow whatever is put on the spoon for them.

LWW

Sev
03-05-2011, 08:20 AM
The driving season is almost upon us. Demand is going to go up. As will prices as they normally do. However with North Africa and Western Asia on fire the dynamic has changed.

Oil closed at:

WTI $104.91
Brent $115.89

All we need is Khadafi to making air strikes at his ports and oil fields.

We are already at $4.00 a gallon in certain sectors.
As the price of fuel increases as well as the price of all consumables the state of the economy will become dire.

To control food prices and help lower gas prices ethanol subsidies need to be ended.

LWW
03-05-2011, 12:47 PM
And the war on prosperity continues.

LWW

pooltchr
03-05-2011, 09:37 PM
If you can't bring the rest of the world up to our standard of living, the only option for a socialist is to take us down to theirs!

Steve

LWW
03-06-2011, 02:25 AM
The true reason for instituting a fascist economy is that in exchange for guaranteeing a profit to the "OWNERS" of protected industries, you have a guaranteed source of campaign financing so that you can maintain a mirage of democracy while maintaining single party rule.

How many elections did the Ba'athists ever lose in Iraq? Or the communists in the USSR?

LWW

Soflasnapper
03-08-2011, 05:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you can't bring the rest of the world up to our standard of living, the only option for a socialist is to take us down to theirs!

Steve </div></div>

True, that. Which is why Reagan's brainchild of NAFTA, Bush the Wiser's continuing the idea, and Clinton's bringing it to fruition, were horrible for the US. 'Harmonizing' our economy with Mexico's brings us down to their level, while sinking their level still further.

Sev
03-08-2011, 09:13 PM
Not a big fan of NAFTA either.
If you cant compete at home you outsource to be able to compete.

LWW
03-09-2011, 05:22 AM
Obama numbers always adjusted down?

Bush numbers always adjusted up?

And nary a cabalist can see the conflict?

Sev
03-09-2011, 07:59 AM
I hear Jimmy Carters numbers are rising.

LWW
03-09-2011, 11:02 AM
Jimmuh is celebrating no longer being the worst POTUS ever.

Soflasnapper
03-11-2011, 01:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama numbers always adjusted down?

Bush numbers always adjusted up?

And nary a cabalist can see the conflict?

</div></div>

Of course, the most recent two months' job numbers WERE revised UP, making your point false.

LWW
03-11-2011, 04:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you make a claim, you post a link.

Q </div></div>

Soflasnapper
03-12-2011, 05:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you make a claim, you post a link.

Q </div></div>
</div></div>

I don't bluff.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for December was revised from +121,000 to +152,000, and the change for January was revised from +36,000 to +63,000.
indicator historical data chart 2</div></div>

About half way down the page, end of first major text block (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment-Rate.aspx?Symbol=USD)