Skip to comments.U.S. 1Q GDP Growth Revised Down to 1.9%
Posted on 05/31/2012 6:29:23 AM PDT by scooby321
U.S. economic growth was a bit slower than initially thought in the first quarter as businesses restocked shelves at a moderate pace and government spending declined sharply.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxbusiness.com ...
You are too fast!
I was trying to be the first to log in the obligatory “unexpected”!
Na na na na.....
Na na na na.....
Government spending declined? I’ll believe that when I see it.
and let us not forget, they played games with the GDP deflator to get the GDP number that high. With a more reasonable number to correct for inflation, the GDP is likely zero or negative (ie recession).
I see that it’s Thursday. The day the numbers are “revised down.”
Every figure has to be revised downward.
No, Bain capital!
It’s the Bush tax cuts!
Republicans in Congress refuse to act becasue they hate black presidents, black attorney generals, women, kids, hispanics and puppies!
Eat the rich!
(take your pick)
True, it should be called “Revise Down Thursday” and “Unexpectedly Friday”
And the talking heads were doing all the dancing they could to make 2.2 seem like a positive when it was announced. Lets see them spin the decrease.
Recovery Summer Part IV!
Can’t be true. I just heard on Fox News that economic indicators were looking up as consumer spend more.
I’m so confused..../s
3.0, 2,2, 1.9%, who still relies on these numbers? Is it all just for historians sake?
Does the number truly mean businesses use that as a reliable indicator for making decisions or is it purely for pundits on both sides to use for their ‘narrative’?
Never mind my ignorance. I will self-educate more on the subject.
In reality, studies are generally small, intentionally limited in scope, designed to illuminate one piece of a much larger puzzle. This is how scientific rigor is maintained. Thus, the words that are used may sound like they mean something to the general public, but the specific meanings of each word may have implications understandable only by reading the whole paper, and maybe by having several years of reading papers, in order to understand the context.
Sooo... each of these economic numbers may have a specific meaning to economists that indicate something very specific. There are leading indicators, that predict what will happen 3 or 6 months in the future. There are lagging indicators, useful for some purposes, but only in hindsight - in other words current indicators predict what lagging indicators will do. That's why U-2, or new unemployment claims, which they make such a big deal of, may be helpful to some, but are certainly no indicator of the health of the economy, and especially not unless considered with all of the unemployment stats as a whole.
I don't know why I wrote all that.
Yeah, looks like “initially thought “is the new “unexpected “? Isn’t this the place where we show the pic of the contortionist guy with his head inspecting his sphincter?