U.S. real gross domestic product increased at a 2.4% annual rate in the second quarter.
The U.S. economy continued to grow during the second quarter, the government reported Friday. But the pace slowed more than economists were expecting, raising concern about growth — or even another recession — in the months ahead.The GDP numbers given in the article are actually for real GDP, not nominal GDP. From the BEA:
Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the nation's economic activity, rose at a 2.4% annual rate during the three months ended June 30, the Commerce Department said.
The sluggish pace was down from the upwardly revised 3.7% growth rate in the first quarter, and missed economists' forecast for a 2.5% increase.
Still, the figure marked the fourth straight quarter of growth and gave credence to some economists' views that the recession that began in December 2007 likely ended at some point in mid-2009. ...
Most troubling to economists — particularly in the months ahead — was a slowdown in consumer spending, which accounts for 70% of economic activity.
Real gross domestic product — the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States — increased at an annual rate of 2.4 percent in the second quarter of 2010, (that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter, real GDP increased 3.7 percent. ...A side note: I have trouble getting from the definition of "sputter" that exists in the dictionary to the way the word is frequently used by headline writers.
The increase in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from nonresidential fixed investment, exports, personal consumption expenditures, private inventory investment, federal government spending, and residential fixed investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.
The deceleration in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected an acceleration in imports and a deceleration in private inventory investment that were partly offset by an upturn in residential fixed investment, an acceleration in nonresidential fixed investment, an upturn in state and local government spending, and an acceleration in federal government spending. ...
The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents, increased 0.1 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 2.1 percent in the first. Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for gross domestic purchases increased 0.9 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 1.6 percent in the first. ...
Real disposable personal income increased 4.4 percent, compared with an increase of 1.7 percent.
Posts
Hi,
ReplyDeleteSorry for been ignorant. I'm still confess with real GDP figure. Which GDP should we trust now
Hi,
ReplyDeleteSorry for been ignorant. I'm still confuse with real GDP figure. Which GDP should we trust now.
Then there is the really real GDP, based on non-skewed govt statistics. The released govt GDP numbers used in the article are completely meaningless...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/gross-domestic-product-charts
We have been less than zero for the last six years. We are currently at about -1% GDP.
ShadowStats is B.S. The guy's trying to sell economic snake oil to suckers for $175 per year.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply.
ReplyDeleteJames wrote "ShadowStats is B.S. The guy's trying to sell economic snake oil to suckers for $175 per year."
ReplyDeleteProve to me that what he sells is B.S. I hear that from blog posters once in awhile, but no one has any hard evidence of wrong-doing. There are a few claims, but no substance.
Provide proof please, or be silent. Reverse-engineering govt statistics is easy to do, and I see this as a highly valuable service to the community at large.
When I see random attacks on services such as this that provide such an amazing service, I have to wonder who may be paying for such attacks.
Hard facts, remember. Nothing less. An emotional plea is not hard facts.
Sorry about the lack of a reply, smoos. You should pay attention to "real GDP". Real GDP is simply GDP adjusted for inflation. If GDP grew by 5%, but inflation was 2%, then the economy grew by 3%, because 5 - 2 = 3.
ReplyDeleteYou can look up real GDP here.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"Prove to me that what he sells is B.S. ... When I see random attacks on services such as this that provide such an amazing service, I have to wonder who may be paying for such attacks."
I'm sorry, but if the guy's selling a service for $175 per year, the burden of proof is on him.
If a guy tries to claim that snake oil cures cancer, and he's got some snake oil for sale, the burden of proof isn't on the doubters, it's on him.
I don't see many (or any) of the world's top research economists — including Nobel Prize and John Bates Clark Medal winners — going around writing research papers using data from ShadowStats. Instead, these people who know much more about economics than you or me rely on economic statistics from the U.S. government.
ShadowStats wants people to believe that there was once a golden age of perfect economic statistics, but that the government has been increasingly fudging the numbers ever since. In fact, it is much more likely that the opposite is true. Economic researchers have learned more over time, and they use this learning to improve the accuracy of the data produced.
You try to suggest that some shadowy, anonymous figure is going around paying bloggers money to say bad things about ShadowStats. Who has a financial interest in doing that? I'm the guy who runs this blog. I've been doing it for over two years. Via my housing graphs site, I've been warning people on the Internet about the housing bubble for over four years. My only financial interest is in being able to buy a house for a reasonable price. You, on the other hand, are posting as anonymous. I have no idea who you are. As far as I know, you could be John Williams of ShadowStats (unlikely, but possible) with a big financial interest in criticizing the ShadowStats doubters. Whoever you are, you've certainly been drinking a lot of the "amazing" ShadowStats Cool-Aid.
You give me an emotional appeal. Yes, attack the reputation and quality of the mind of the individual supplying the data. That's the easy way to sway public opinion, is it not?
ReplyDeleteHave you ever read through how the alternate data at ShadowStats was arrived at? Not by emotional appeal or by undermining reputations. No, something called mathematics was used.
You quote Nobel Prize winners despite that even Obama can win one of these while running two wars for corporate profits at the same time. Many of the world's top economists are on the government payroll or belong to the same private thinktanks that heavily influence our govt. You did do your research around this, didn't you? It does take time to connect the dots. Unless you do, you are the one drinking Kool-Aid, friend.
Nice blog, and I agree with your intent. I, too, was warning people about the housing crisis long ago, well before it happened. The only difference between us is that I do not have a blog.
I read your sources and a lot more. I see a much wider picture. I see what is predictive and what is not, because that's what I am trained in. I also do not ignore the existence and political agendas of privately-owned thinktanks.
And finally, I do not reach for emotional appeals to support my opinions. Anyone who reads ShadowStats will know instantly that the data provided there rests upon its own merit. It does not need my defense whatsoever.
Your approach is a red flag for me. I read the training guides on how to create a provocateur for manipulating public consensus, and you are following the manual. Be aware that sound logic and data are your friends. If you are on the payroll, then continue to use what works best consensus-building, or simply delete my posts.
"I think we are living in a world of lies: lies that don't even know they are lies, because they are the children and grandchildren of lies."
ReplyDelete~ Chris Floyd, investigative journalist
Your approach is a red flag for me. I read the training guides on how to create a provocateur for manipulating public consensus, and you are following the manual. Be aware that sound logic and data are your friends. If you are on the payroll, then continue to use what works best consensus-building, or simply delete my posts.
ReplyDeleteLaRouche?
:)
oboe --
ReplyDeleteGo lick your CFR buddies where the sun don't shine.
:)
@Anon 9:06:
ReplyDeleteWell played! A perfect parody of the LaRouchian style guide. Don't forget the vague allusions to cocaine and the Queen of England.
Puzzling evidence!