Skip to comments.Revised Q2 GDP Prints 1.8%, Higher Than Expected, But Prior Revised Lower
Posted on 07/31/2013 5:33:56 AM PDT by Perdogg
The Q2 GDP printed at 1.7% compared to expectations of 1.0%, however this was entirely offset with the Q1 revision from 1.8% to 1.1%. Since the series is being entirely revised, it is safe to say that these are Apples to Oranges numbers.
I’m not entirely sure what this sentence means, but don’t they do this every quarter?
I guess the GPP numbers could be called: bring me the new numbers??
Reminds me of the old joke: CEO is hiring a new CFO and has 3 candidates. He asks the first what is 2+2. Guy laughs and says 4 of course. “not you, leave” and he asks candidate 2 the same question. 2nd candidate says, well, perhaps you are asking a trick question? What base are you using? “not you, leave” so he asks the third candidate the same question. The third one answers “it is whatever you want it to be”. HIRED.
Futures are all completely flat
Eh, 40% off, yeah these are honest numbers. Might as well give us three decimal places with it instead of just one to make it look even more legitimate too.
So, basically, they dropped Q1 by .8 and shifted it to Q2 to show ‘Growth’. In reality, they reported 2.4% for Q1, revised it down to 1.8%. Now it is revised down to 1.0%, so Q2 looks like progress.
We need to start a trend map showing the first 5 years of each president. The left is getting away with their spin because our side refuses to draw comparisons to the past. Gingrich had it right in the primaries when he constantly benchmarked Reagan’e economic turn-around to Obama’s lack of progress.
Yes there are revisions but in this case they revised to complete GDP model and revised all data back to 1929. This has been known to be coming.
To what purpose?
I seem to remember that the government is now including items of hypothetical valure into the GDP, such as a child’s finger painting that may someday be worth $50k, after they become the first translucent-transexual POTUS.
This is not terribly uncommon. Models and measurements can always be made more accurate. The new data is all the same model and therefore comparative to each other. What you can’t do is compare a previous version of the data to this version. Thus the “apples” and “oranges” comment from ZH.
Self-preservation as usual by our government masters.
The constant over estimated amount is a thinly veiled attempt to give a false impression.
By the time the real number is determined, no body is noticing.
This is a low information society.
GDP grew at 1.8% during the last quarter.
But, even according to the Department of Commerce’s last re-computation of GDP growth going back to 1929 the average 1929 - 2007 was 3.2%.
So, we are roughly half of an eighty year average. And, we are happy with it. Why?
Oh yes. To be otherwise would be racist. At least according to the LMSM.
I’ll bet that if you looked inside the numbers for both quarters, you’d see that most of the growth came from the oil patch and related industries.
not sure I understand the graph. do you have the link?
You can’t really tell what industries are pulling the wagon from this chart.
This is how BEA sums up. You get a little more detail in the full report. Oil and Gas would be in non-res and likely export.
saw exports in the chart you provided but no non-res.
Non-res is a component of Fixed Investment.