Final report on Q4 GDP

[tommyjo]

I guess Fox, Rush, The Blaze and Breitbart didn't report this since it was better news (not good...not by a long shot...but better) and does not fit the propaganda aims of those outfits.

I guess Larry Gude didn't post this because it proves my original point that his claims about recession with the first print of Q4 GDP were nothing more than the histrionics of someone who had no idea what they were talking about.

I guess no one else bothered to post the news because it doesn't fit the general aim of this site to denigrate, whine and complain about this country at every opportunity.

The final report on Q4 2012 GDP was released yesterday.

News Release: Gross Domestic Product

The first report had it at -0.1. The second was +0.1. The third and final report is +0.4. This may be revised once or twice more in the coming years, but we are done with revisions for now. This is why you wait for revisions and don't have kneejerk reactions to the initial reports...especially on something as large as GDP.

 

[Baja28]

How about because it isn't news? The economy still sucks donkey dick, people are facing a 20% pay cut with furloughs, the Kenyan is taking vacations and giving $500M to terrorist countries and you're upset because no one reported something that's irrelevant.

Yep, you are still a moron and a special kind of stupid.

 

[abcxyz]

Just imagine how much higher it would have been if Obama didn't win!! We'd be on our way to a REAL recovery right now!

 

[Dontel58]

If +.04 growth in the GDP a cause to celebrate then we're in trouble. What is that unemployment figure again.

 

[Larry Gude]

I guess Fox, Rush, The Blaze and Breitbart didn't report this since it was better news (not good...not by a long shot...but better) and does not fit the propaganda aims of those outfits.

I guess Larry Gude didn't post this because it proves my original point that his claims about recession with the first print of Q4 GDP were nothing more than the histrionics of someone who had no idea what they were talking about.

I guess no one else bothered to post the news because it doesn't fit the general aim of this site to denigrate, whine and complain about this country at every opportunity.

The final report on Q4 2012 GDP was released yesterday.

News Release: Gross Domestic Product

The first report had it at -0.1. The second was +0.1. The third and final report is +0.4. This may be revised once or twice more in the coming years, but we are done with revisions for now. This is why you wait for revisions and don't have kneejerk reactions to the initial reports...especially on something as large as GDP.

Here, Tojo; I HOPE the economy is getting better. I WANT it to get better. I NEED it to get better.

 

[Lurk]

I guess Fox, Rush, The Blaze and Breitbart didn't report this since it was better news (not good...not by a long shot...but better) and does not fit the propaganda aims of those outfits.

Guess you were too stupid-drunk to turn on FNC yesterday afternoon and watch Neil Cavuto spend much of his show talking about this and how piss poor the economy remains this far beyond Bush's powers to have caused the problem.

 

[PsyOps]

Here's some 'better' news:

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Debt = $16.75 trillion

GDP = $15.66 trillion

ToJo... that is BTW.

"We don't have an immediate problem in terms of debt." - President Obama

"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic." - Candidate Obama

"We don't have an immediate problem in terms of debt." - President Obama

 

[SamSpade]

I guess Fox, Rush, The Blaze and Breitbart didn't report this since it was better news (not good...not by a long shot...but better) and does not fit the propaganda aims of those outfits.

Yeah, saw it. All this means is, we're not going backwards. Sorry, but 0.4% is pitiful.

Now, the first quarter of THIS year looks promising, but you're polishing a turd.

 

[Tilted]

How about because it isn't news? The economy still sucks donkey dick, people are facing a 20% pay cut with furloughs, the Kenyan is taking vacations and giving $500M to terrorist countries and you're upset because no one reported something that's irrelevant.

Yep, you are still a moron and a special kind of stupid.

Since when are new GDP numbers not news, at least in the context of the economy? GDP numbers are irrelevant? Tell that to anyone that pays more than superficial attention to the state of the economy and tries to sort out what is and isn't going on with it (i.e. people that do it with sincere interest in understanding what's going on, not just in furtherance of their ideological / political punditry). The GDP numbers are among the most important big picture, over-time, indications of the general health of the economy and, e.g., the prospects for employment going forward. GDP numbers are probably the most standard and widely-accepted measures for comparing economic growth and prosperity as between different nations / areas and different times. They don't tell us everything about everything, just as an NBA player's points-per-game numbers don't, but they are far from irrelevant. And they don't seem to be irrelevant when people think they help to make whatever point they happen to want to make - for instance, plenty of people took note when the original Q4 number was negative (even though, sadly, many didn't take note of why it was negative).

It's the same story. When equity markets do poorly, it's the fault of [insert political enemy here]. When they do well, it doesn't have anything to do with [ipeh] or it's not important. When improvement in employment is bad, it's the fault of [ipeh]. When it's better, it doesn't have anything to do with [ipeh] or it's not real. Some of all of that is true, but it isn't a simple dichotomy that happens to align at all times with whichever option would support the version of reality that we want, for ideological reasons of otherwise, to believe in.

A half-percent greater GDP for a given quarter may not be relevant to some, but the 100,000 or 200,000 or 300,000 additional jobs / job-equivalent-workloads that it represents is surely relevant - at least to the people doing, or who will be doing, that additional work. Why does 'I still think things are bad' have to mean 'so I'll just ignore or deny any improvement'?

 

[Tilted]

If +.04 growth in the GDP a cause to celebrate then we're in trouble. What is that unemployment figure again.

It's not celebrating that the 4Q GDP was +0.4% (at least not for me, I can't speak for specific others), it's noting that it was +0.4% instead of +0.1% or -0.1% - and, yes, perhaps being happy that it was better than had previously been estimated. I would note though that the GDP numbers were expected to be revised upward, and +0.4% is still below the +0.5% consensus revisions expectation.

But while we're on the subject, shouldn't we fiscal conservatives be celebrating this, at least on some level? I thought we wanted a smaller government, reduced government spending? The reason the GDP for the fourth quarter was so low is because we got just that. The government spending / investment component of GDP change was -1.4%. If it had been flat (let alone up a little bit as is more the norm), the 4Q GDP would have been close to 2% even with all of the concerns about increased taxes in the new year. The private component of GDP wasn't too bad, it was government spending (i.e. reduction there of) that was the drag on economic growth (as measured by GDP change).

And that general theme has been true over the last few years, though not as intense as last quarter. If you X-out the government spending component of GDP, the annual GDP change for the past 3 years has been as good as or better than the average over the last 25 years - 2010 was right about at the average, 2011 and 2012 were better than it. It's government spending that has been a drag on economic growth over the last few years. I, for one, am happy about that; but we can't have it both ways. We either want smaller government (at all levels), or at least slower growth in government, or we don't. We shouldn't complain about sluggish economic growth overall to the extent that it's the result of what we generally want regarding government spending (I'm not suggesting that's the only issue when it comes to less-than-some-would-like economic growth, but it certainly is an issue).

American business is resilient. It's dynamic. It's faired fairly well even in the face of various government headwinds (to include bad policy, not just sluggish spending). That has helped the employment situation a fair bit and, going forward, it will help the employment situation even more.

That's what we should take away from the positive economic news that we've been getting (which, it seems, has been greater than many would like to believe - though we've also had our share of bad economic news). It isn't that sound government policy is leading us out of the depths of recession. It's that American business finds a way, even in the face of imprudent Washington policy. It would be easier and the progress would be faster if Washington behaved a little more rationally, a little more prudently - or just got the hell out of the way, for that matter. But American business, given a little bit of time, finds a way regardless. And, eventually, that's to the benefit of us all.

 

[Tilted]

Yeah, saw it. All this means is, we're not going backwards. Sorry, but 0.4% is pitiful.

Now, the first quarter of THIS year looks promising, but you're polishing a turd.

It should be noted (as I did in the post above, but you may not read all of that) that the government spending / investment component of Q4 GDP change was -1.4%. So if that had been flat - not even positive - the GDP change would have been +1.8%. That's still not knocking the cover off the ball, but it isn't horrible either considering the headwinds and potential headwinds that our economy was facing during the fourth quarter.

 

[bcp]

Yeah, saw it. All this means is, we're not going backwards. Sorry, but 0.4% is pitiful.

Now, the first quarter of THIS year looks promising, but you're polishing a turd.

its actually .04

and for me personally, it would be an incredible 74.00 a year raise for our household income. (roughly 54.00 after tax.)

honestly not that impressive at all.
Bet he is burning up more than that just on his vacations alone.

 

[Tilted]

its actually .04

and for me personally, it would be an incredible 74.00 a year raise for our household income. (roughly 54.00 after tax.)

honestly not that impressive at all.
Bet he is burning up more than that just on his vacations alone.

No, it's 0.4% or, expressed as the numerical equivalent of the ratio (where 1.00 is equivalent to 100%), it's 0.004.

 

[Baja28]

Since when are new GDP numbers not news, at least in the context of the economy? GDP numbers are irrelevant? Tell that to anyone that pays more than superficial attention to the state of the economy and tries to sort out what is and isn't going on with it (i.e. people that do it with sincere interest in understanding what's going on, not just in furtherance of their ideological / political punditry). The GDP numbers are among the most important big picture, over-time, indications of the general health of the economy and, e.g., the prospects for employment going forward. GDP numbers are probably the most standard and widely-accepted measures for comparing economic growth and prosperity as between different nations / areas and different times. They don't tell us everything about everything, just as an NBA player's points-per-game numbers don't, but they are far from irrelevant. And they don't seem to be irrelevant when people think they help to make whatever point they happen to want to make - for instance, plenty of people took note when the original Q4 number was negative (even though, sadly, many didn't take note of why it was negative).

It's the same story. When equity markets do poorly, it's the fault of [insert political enemy here]. When they do well, it doesn't have anything to do with [ipeh] or it's not important. When improvement in employment is bad, it's the fault of [ipeh]. When it's better, it doesn't have anything to do with [ipeh] or it's not real. Some of all of that is true, but it isn't a simple dichotomy that happens to align at all times with whichever option would support the version of reality that we want, for ideological reasons of otherwise, to believe in.

A half-percent greater GDP for a given quarter may not be relevant to some, but the 100,000 or 200,000 or 300,000 additional jobs / job-equivalent-workloads that it represents is surely relevant - at least to the people doing, or who will be doing, that additional work. Why does 'I still think things are bad' have to mean 'so I'll just ignore or deny any improvement'?

Because there is no significant change but I admire your optimism.

Now if there were a significant change, THAT would be news. And if it were news, the MSM would have it on every front page, every leading story and plastered all over the TV screens and radio stations.

Maybe those people you mentioned who found work are happy but in the big picture, .4% is nothing. Lets ask folks who are furloughed or still unemployed how they like this "good" news.

Yes I ignore the improvement but I didn't deny it. It's comparable to adding a gallon jug of water to the swimming pool. I would love to see our economy take off but it isn't going to happen at this rate.

Lets see the numbers next quarter while the sequester is in place.

 

[bcp]

No, it's 0.4% or, expressed as the numerical equivalent of the ratio (where 1.00 is equivalent to 100%), it's 0.004.

Well then, it would be a 7.40 increase in our yearly pre tax income.
Woo Hoo,,, I would send out cards and have a party if I ever came across that much money all at once.

 

[Lurk]

Well then, it would be a 7.40 increase in our yearly pre tax income.
Woo Hoo,,, I would send out cards and have a party if I ever came across that much money all at once.

Rounding error?

 

[Larry Gude]

Be

Lets see the numbers next quarter while the sequester is in place.

Sequester is meaningless. It's chump change except to the people it directly affects.

My problem is quantitative easing. Who cares HOW the patient is doing if they're still hooked up to life support with the doctor hovering over the switch, ready to turn it back on at the slightest hint of trouble? That is a stunningly distort-ive influence. It's like roulette where it doesn't matter where you put your money; when the ball stops in a bad place, if you are on the approved list, you get to move your bet.

 

[Tilted]

Well then, it would be a 7.40 increase in our yearly pre tax income.
Woo Hoo,,, I would send out cards and have a party if I ever came across that much money all at once.

Your (household) yearly pre-tax income is 1,850 (dollars I assume)?

 

[SamSpade]

It should be noted (as I did in the post above, but you may not read all of that) that the government spending / investment component of Q4 GDP change was -1.4%. So if that had been flat - not even positive - the GDP change would have been +1.8%. That's still not knocking the cover off the ball, but it isn't horrible either considering the headwinds and potential headwinds that our economy was facing during the fourth quarter.

I'm looking over the quarterly growth of the past four years, and this puts it just about near the bottom, not counting the first two quarters of Obama's administration and the first quarter in 2011.

I'm saying what you're saying - nothing to write home about. The original poster was indicating that Rush and company were silent, because 0.4% was somehow a kind of vindication for Obama.

 

[Baja28]

I'm looking over the quarterly growth of the past four years, and this puts it just about near the bottom, not counting the first two quarters of Obama's administration and the first quarter in 2011.

I'm saying what you're saying - nothing to write home about. The original poster was indicating that Rush and company were silent, because 0.4% was somehow a kind of vindication for Obama.

The tone of the OP's post immediately pissed off everyone. Now if this would have been GREAT news, he could throw it in our face but it really is suck ass news when you'd like to (and should) see much better growth.

For the record, I respect Tilted and would bet that he's forgotten more about this stuff than I'll ever know. But even a dummy like me knows that this is nothing to crow about and tommyjo just needed something to with.

And as usual, it has been turned on him.