2nd Quarter GDP Numbers
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:33:27 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Economics (Moderator: Torie)
  2nd Quarter GDP Numbers
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: 2nd Quarter GDP Numbers  (Read 6777 times)
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 29, 2009, 03:59:50 PM »

These are due out later this week. What are the expectations for them and what do you think they will be?
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2009, 04:04:54 PM »

they come out this friday, market is expecting -1.5%
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 31, 2009, 09:26:39 AM »

Only a 1% contraction. I'm ready to call it now: The official recession is over when the Q3 numbers come out.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2009, 09:40:09 AM »

Compared with the same quarter 1 year ago (Table Cool:

Q2 2009: -3.9%
Q1 2009: -3.3%

Q4 2008: -1.9%
Q3 2008: +0.0%
Q2 2008: +1.6%
Q1 2008: +2.0%

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 31, 2009, 10:02:08 AM »

Compared with the same quarter 1 year ago (Table Cool:

Q2 2009: -3.9%
Q1 2009: -3.3%

Q4 2008: -1.9%
Q3 2008: +0.0%
Q2 2008: +1.6%
Q1 2008: +2.0%

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

yeah, the economy declined at around a 6% annual rate in Q42008 and Q12009....we already knew that...what's your point?

Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 31, 2009, 10:14:00 AM »

Read the internals and revisions, folks.  They say "bad".

But, then again, you folks never read the internals and revisions, so what's the point.  I may help you out later, if I really care about doing so.  Smiley

Btw, if federal government spending increases as much as I think it might, you may see a positive GDP 3rd quarter.  Be careful and don't believe it. 

One internal that I will provide says that the federal government's increase in spending by 13% over last quarter supposedly, according the calculation method the feds use, bumped up GDP by 1.13%.  Remember, all this is possible until it isn't.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 31, 2009, 10:39:06 AM »

Read the internals and revisions, folks.  They say "bad".

of course they were bad, we were in recession.  but they also piont to a good recovery - production has been cut way below the level of demand, meaning production will have to ramp up very soon.

---

But, then again, you folks never read the internals and revisions, so what's the point.  I may help you out later, if I really care about doing so.  Smiley

yeah, I know, you're the only one that reads

---

Btw, if federal government spending increases as much as I think it might, you may see a positive GDP 3rd quarter.  Be careful and don't believe it. 

One internal that I will provide says that the federal government's increase in spending by 13% over last quarter supposedly, according the calculation method the feds use, bumped up GDP by 1.13%.  Remember, all this is possible until it isn't.

1) that's the exact idea of the stimulus - increase demand until the private sector gets back on its feet.  The very thing Hoover failed to do in 1930, when he was still trying to balance the budget.

2) and if you would take the time to read into the leading indicators, instead of focusing on the view in the rearview mirroe, you'll see the private sector is doing all the things it typically does immediately prior to a recovery. 

The truth of the matter, that will be undeniable in the months to come (though, I'm sure you'll still be discounting it, instead of admitting that you're wrong), is:  the private sector is ALREADY in recovery and the government stimulus will only add to its momentum.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 31, 2009, 01:56:53 PM »

Only a 1% contraction. I'm ready to call it now: The official recession is over when the Q3 numbers come out.

Was that your prediction, Verily, or did it come after the fact?
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 31, 2009, 02:32:39 PM »

Only a 1% contraction. I'm ready to call it now: The official recession is over when the Q3 numbers come out.

Was that your prediction, Verily, or did it come after the fact?

The 1% contraction was already reported at the time I posted that. It was not a prediction. (Although, had I been called upon to make a prediction, I would have said an 0.9% to 1.1% contraction for the quarter; you need not believe me.)
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 31, 2009, 02:39:10 PM »

Only a 1% contraction. I'm ready to call it now: The official recession is over when the Q3 numbers come out.

Was that your prediction, Verily, or did it come after the fact?

The 1% contraction was already reported at the time I posted that. It was not a prediction. (Although, had I been called upon to make a prediction, I would have said an 0.9% to 1.1% contraction for the quarter; you need not believe me.)

I believe ya Smiley. Mind you I dreamt that I posted a 1% contraction, only for it to be met by derision
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 31, 2009, 03:45:00 PM »

To be fair, Hoover wasn't trying to balance the budget until 1932. The internals do say bad-- PCE, which increased in the first quarter, sharply declined in the second quarter. If this trend continues, there is no way the recession is over. Just keep that in mind. In order for there to be a real recovery PCE must start going up.

What I'm getting from the most recent month's numbers is that corporations and Wall street are doing fine-- but Main street is not doing fine, and we know who supports who...
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 31, 2009, 04:53:12 PM »

To be fair, Hoover wasn't trying to balance the budget until 1932.

actually, he was preaching a balanced budget the whole time.

---

The internals do say bad-- PCE, which increased in the first quarter, sharply declined in the second quarter.

a 1.2% decline is "sharply"?  and it only increased 0.6% in Q1 while decreasing by ~3.5% in Q32008 and in Q42009.

---

If this trend continues, there is no way the recession is over. Just keep that in mind. In order for there to be a real recovery PCE must start going up.

obviously, but the trend will not continue.  GDP growth for the 2nd half of the year will be in the range of 2.0% to 4.0%, with similar gains in PCE by Q4

---

What I'm getting from the most recent month's numbers is that corporations and Wall street are doing fine-- but Main street is not doing fine, and we know who supports who...

actually, they support each other, but wall street and corporations lead us out of recessions, not Main Street.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 31, 2009, 05:51:12 PM »

Beet, in regard to PCE growth and how it can start growing while unemployment continues to climb, think about it this way:  the top 10% of wage earners make up around 50% of consumer spending!

So, once the top 10% realize that the bottom really isn't going to fall out, they'll start spending more.  And since they've not been spending for about a year, there's a awful lot of pent up demand.

If Obama would just stay out of the way, this recovery is going to surprise on the upside.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 31, 2009, 08:03:25 PM »

These are due out later this week. What are the expectations for them and what do you think they will be?

I was amazed.  About three weeks ago I got my quarterly 403(b) retirement plan statement and, as usual, opened it slowly thinking that it would have less money now than it did three months before, even though I put in about 700 a month and my employer puts in 1400 each month.  After all, for each of the past six quarters the balance actually falls, even with all that input.  But, lo and behold, I saw a gain.  Jeezus H. Christ!  I actually have more money now in that plan than I did three months ago!  Not as much more as I'd have if I'd just taken that 2100 a month and tucked it under the pillow, because I'd have 6300 more in that case, but still it was actually a + sign in the "net gain/loss" row.  So this news doesn't surprise.

But welcome news it is.  I like jmfcst's technical analysis, insofar as I can understand it, but I like more the fact that my own balance sheet showing an improvement.

Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 31, 2009, 09:12:54 PM »

1) that's the exact idea of the stimulus - increase demand until the private sector gets back on its feet.  The very thing Hoover failed to do in 1930, when he was still trying to balance the budget.

2) and if you would take the time to read into the leading indicators, instead of focusing on the view in the rearview mirroe, you'll see the private sector is doing all the things it typically does immediately prior to a recovery. 

The truth of the matter, that will be undeniable in the months to come (though, I'm sure you'll still be discounting it, instead of admitting that you're wrong), is:  the private sector is ALREADY in recovery and the government stimulus will only add to its momentum.


Like, I said before.  I'm willing to take any bet with you concerning economics, and where we're headed, jmcfst.  Name the terms. 

Beet pointed out the personal consumption stat and Tender Branson correctly pointed out the inflation-adjusted GDP number, which is the correct measure to be using not the headline number.  I'll give kudos to that.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 01, 2009, 08:32:16 AM »

These are due out later this week. What are the expectations for them and what do you think they will be?

I was amazed.  About three weeks ago I got my quarterly 403(b) retirement plan statement and, as usual, opened it slowly thinking that it would have less money now than it did three months before, even though I put in about 700 a month and my employer puts in 1400 each month.  After all, for each of the past six quarters the balance actually falls, even with all that input.  But, lo and behold, I saw a gain.  Jeezus H. Christ!  I actually have more money now in that plan than I did three months ago!  Not as much more as I'd have if I'd just taken that 2100 a month and tucked it under the pillow, because I'd have 6300 more in that case, but still it was actually a + sign in the "net gain/loss" row.  So this news doesn't surprise.

But welcome news it is.  I like jmfcst's technical analysis, insofar as I can understand it, but I like more the fact that my own balance sheet showing an improvement.

Good lord man, you're a rich.  I can't imagine what is your salary if your employer is putting $1,400/month into a retirement plan.  I make less than 1400 in toto.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 01, 2009, 10:59:26 AM »

Hardly rich.  In fact, I'm "a poor" by your own definition.  (Which I assume also reassigns the part of speech of "poor" as noun.)  My employer allows put as much as I want into a retirement account, but will only double it up to something like 10 percent of my salary.  So each month, for the ten months of the year I am paid, I put in something like, I said it was 700, I think it's actually 672.50, and my employer puts in twice that.  It's not an uncommon situation.  My wife's employer matches her contribution as well, although it does not double the contribution.  My wife has done better for the past two years, though, because she invests very conservatively, whereas mine is allocated in the most aggressive way.  Additionally, she does not contribute the maximum that her employer will match.  In good times, I do very well, and she does moderately well.  In bad times, I lose my shirt, but she only loses her bra, or maybe a button.  We're hoping that by using markedly different strategies, one of us will have something, enough to live on, when we're in our mid-sixties.  Diversity, as an attempt to overcome adversity, I guess you'd call it.

I'm just saying that the latest quarterly statement I received actually showed an increase.  I was happy about that.  I am no expert on these matters, and have only anecdotal evidence to submit.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 02, 2009, 02:11:04 AM »

1) that's the exact idea of the stimulus - increase demand until the private sector gets back on its feet.  The very thing Hoover failed to do in 1930, when he was still trying to balance the budget.

2) and if you would take the time to read into the leading indicators, instead of focusing on the view in the rearview mirroe, you'll see the private sector is doing all the things it typically does immediately prior to a recovery. 

The truth of the matter, that will be undeniable in the months to come (though, I'm sure you'll still be discounting it, instead of admitting that you're wrong), is:  the private sector is ALREADY in recovery and the government stimulus will only add to its momentum.


Like, I said before.  I'm willing to take any bet with you concerning economics, and where we're headed, jmcfst.  Name the terms. 

Beet pointed out the personal consumption stat and Tender Branson correctly pointed out the inflation-adjusted GDP number, which is the correct measure to be using not the headline number.  I'll give kudos to that.

huh?!  for someone who wants to bet on economics, you seem to know very little about GDP

1)  the 2009Q2 -1.0% number is inflation adjusted, and it's a comparison to 2009Q1. 

2)  The numbers Branson posted are year over year numbers (e.g. 2009Q2 is compared with 2008Q2...2009Q1 is compared with 2008Q1)... in other words, we could have had inflation adjusted growth of around 10% in Q2 and the year over year numbers STILL would have been negative because we still would not have been back to the level of a year ago.

Get it?
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 02, 2009, 02:25:41 AM »

The reason why the contraction wasn't that large was the stimulus. But the economy is still in deep sh**t.
Logged
Alexander Hamilton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,167
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.58, S: -5.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 02, 2009, 03:20:31 AM »

The reason why the contraction wasn't that large was the stimulus. But the economy is still in deep sh**t.

LMMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 02, 2009, 05:56:05 AM »

The reason why the contraction wasn't that large was the stimulus. But the economy is still in deep sh**t.

LMMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What jfern says does make sense, AH.  Though I think it is important to understand that not just the 'stimulus' but in a larger sense all government spending is what has saved us from a worse fate.  The countercyclical effect of government spending is the only thing that stands between us and the abyss in such downturns.
Logged
Rowan
RowanBrandon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,692


Political Matrix
E: 1.94, S: 4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 02, 2009, 08:50:23 AM »

The reason why the contraction wasn't that large was the stimulus. But the economy is still in deep sh**t.

Proof?
Logged
fezzyfestoon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,204
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 02, 2009, 11:55:48 AM »

The reason why the contraction wasn't that large was the stimulus. But the economy is still in deep sh**t.

Thank you George W. Bush, right?!  No, he has an R next to his name, so he didn't help.

In reality the stimulus was a mess outside the bank bailouts.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: August 02, 2009, 01:10:43 PM »

The reason why the contraction wasn't that large was the stimulus. But the economy is still in deep sh**t.

Proof?

It's rather obvious that spending money increases the GDP.

Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2009, 09:50:44 AM »

1) that's the exact idea of the stimulus - increase demand until the private sector gets back on its feet.  The very thing Hoover failed to do in 1930, when he was still trying to balance the budget.

2) and if you would take the time to read into the leading indicators, instead of focusing on the view in the rearview mirroe, you'll see the private sector is doing all the things it typically does immediately prior to a recovery. 

The truth of the matter, that will be undeniable in the months to come (though, I'm sure you'll still be discounting it, instead of admitting that you're wrong), is:  the private sector is ALREADY in recovery and the government stimulus will only add to its momentum.


Like, I said before.  I'm willing to take any bet with you concerning economics, and where we're headed, jmcfst.  Name the terms. 

Beet pointed out the personal consumption stat and Tender Branson correctly pointed out the inflation-adjusted GDP number, which is the correct measure to be using not the headline number.  I'll give kudos to that.

huh?!  for someone who wants to bet on economics, you seem to know very little about GDP

1)  the 2009Q2 -1.0% number is inflation adjusted, and it's a comparison to 2009Q1. 

2)  The numbers Branson posted are year over year numbers (e.g. 2009Q2 is compared with 2008Q2...2009Q1 is compared with 2008Q1)... in other words, we could have had inflation adjusted growth of around 10% in Q2 and the year over year numbers STILL would have been negative because we still would not have been back to the level of a year ago.

Get it?

Sam, to prove my point, here is the title of the table Branson referred to: "Table 8. Real Gross Domestic Product: Percent Change From Quarter One Year Ago--Table Ends"....the headline -1.0% came from this table: "Table 1. Real Gross Domestic Product and Related Measures: Percent Change From Preceding Period"

The "Real" means inflation adjusted.  So BOTH numbers are inflation adjusted.  The -1.0% is comparing 2009Q2 to 2009Q1, and the -3.9% is comparing 2009Q2 to 2008Q2.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 11 queries.