U.S. first-quarter growth weakest in three years

[tommyjo]

Huh...how come no post from Ivy League Lite??? Where are ya Gilligan???? Another first quarter...another poor start to the year. Trump was President for all but 19 days in Q1. Isn't it HIS fault? Come on...beguile us with your deep and profound understanding of macro economics!!!

I've been waiting for weeks for this to come out...as all data coming out in Q1 was showing a weak Q1. Figured none of you sheep would submit this.

So what does this mean? Not much...as I've stated during every Q1 for years, Q1 data has been weak since the recession ended. There must be some issue in the seasonal adjustments due to the impact of the recession.

Helluva a start for President Short Bus...though. 0.7 annualize...no infrastructure spending...no defense spending (Christ these morons are hours from a shutdown despite having 1 party rule)...impossible to see how we get to the promised 4, no 5, no wait 6% annualized GDP our illustrious leader promised and dumbasses like Gilligan think is possible!

The U.S. economy grew at its weakest pace in three years in the first quarter as consumer spending barely increased and businesses invested less on inventories, in a potential setback to President Donald Trump's promise to boost growth.

Gross domestic product increased at a 0.7 percent annual rate also as the government cut back on defense spending, the Commerce Department said on Friday. That was the weakest performance since the first quarter of 2014

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-idUSKBN17U0EL

Here is the actual BEA report: https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

 

[Gilligan]

So what does this mean? Not much..

Cool.

Carry on.

 

[vraiblonde]

Tell that to my stock portfolio.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Tell that to my stock portfolio.

Not exactly the same thing though, is it?

 

[Gilligan]

Not exactly the same thing though, is it?

Barry would have us believe so....he and his minions constantly pointed to the stock market gains as proofs of their genius in turning the economy around.

What maroons like TJ failed to note is that everyone - Trump included - expects the 3-4% GDP growth to occur quite some time in the future...years in the future. After all the factors that will affect growth are actually in place long enough to have effect. Her lack of a high school education showing again.

 

[somdwatch]

Barry would have us believe so....he and his minions constantly pointed to the stock market gains as proofs of their genius in turning the economy around.

What maroons like TJ failed to note is that everyone - Trump included - expects the 3-4% GDP growth to occur quite some time in the future...years in the future. After all the factors that will affect growth are actually in place long enough to have effect. Her lack of a high school education showing again.

True, usually takes up to 5 years to see the results. Ask Bill Clinton. It was Bush 1 that got his economy going!

 

[vraiblonde]

Not exactly the same thing though, is it?

Isn't it?

I give zero chits about how the powers that be massage the numbers and manipulate "growth" or "unemployment". I care only about my own personal bottom line, and the bottom line of my clients who pay me for my service and keep me in business.

So far we are experiencing growth in 2017, after a very long period of decline and stagnation.

 

[GURPS]

So what does this mean? Not much...as I've stated during every Q1 for years, Q1 data has been weak since the recession ended.

when exactly did the recession end ToJAM :shrug:

outlook still looks pretty weak ... true the President has no direct input - other than setting pro business polices and reducing regulations
instead of leaving business owners standing around wondering when the next tax hike was going to hit or using the EPA to shut down coal mines, by attacking their source of revenue

oh well Green Energy Programs left American on the hook for 2.2 Billion in Loan Guarantees, so at least the bankers are making out

So far we are experiencing growth in 2017, after a very long period of decline and stagnation.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Barry would have us believe so....he and his minions constantly pointed to the stock market gains as proofs of their genius in turning the economy around.

What maroons like TJ failed to note is that everyone - Trump included - expects the 3-4% GDP growth to occur quite some time in the future...years in the future. After all the factors that will affect growth are actually in place long enough to have effect. Her lack of a high school education showing again.

And the right constantly pointed out economic growth numbers to prove their point. They're both wrong.

Not only does he expect 3-4%, but most of the growth expectations set forth by govt. are based on the expected growth numbers that (historically) have been about half that.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Isn't it?

I give zero chits about how the powers that be massage the numbers and manipulate "growth" or "unemployment". I care only about my own personal bottom line, and the bottom line of my clients who pay me for my service and keep me in business.

So far we are experiencing growth in 2017, after a very long period of decline and stagnation.

No, it's not the same.

Growth is a good thing. Assuming it outpaces inflation, but don't confuse your high returns on your 401k with BEA figures.

 

[Gilligan]

And the right constantly pointed out economic growth numbers to prove their point. .

? Examples?

 

[SamSpade]

And the right constantly pointed out economic growth numbers to prove their point. They're both wrong.

Not only does he expect 3-4%, but most of the growth expectations set forth by govt. are based on the expected growth numbers that (historically) have been about half that.

Is that unrealistic? At least three times in my lifetime, we've had a few years in a row with that kind of growth. I'm not thinking that 2% should be the new normal.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

? Examples?

I'm sure they'll be some reason for you to blow this off, but the forum has a nice search feature. Anyone who's been around for a few years (or 6) has seen it.

When growth was low to negative:
http://forums.somd.com/threads/3119...-2-in-Second-Quarter?highlight=quarter+growth
http://forums.somd.com/threads/3089...Year-of-3-GDP-Growth?highlight=quarter+growth
http://forums.somd.com/threads/3128...ble-1-1-last-quarter?highlight=quarter+growth
http://forums.somd.com/threads/3001...w-1st-quarter-growth?highlight=quarter+growth
http://forums.somd.com/threads/300332-Economy-Shrank-in-the-1st-Qtr?highlight=quarter+growth
http://forums.somd.com/threads/267440-Final-report-on-Q4-GDP?highlight=quarter+growth
http://forums.somd.com/threads/264066-Economy-shrinks?highlight=quarter+growth
http://forums.somd.com/threads/2584...better-than-expected?highlight=quarter+growth
http://forums.somd.com/threads/301096-Where-s-Gilligan?highlight=quarter+growth

When growth was above 4%:
http://forums.somd.com/threads/283706-GDP-Grows-4-1-in-Third-Quarter?highlight=quarter+growth

This is a good thread for those of us who can't differentiate GDP and the stock market:
http://forums.somd.com/threads/86407-Economy-weakest-in-3-years?highlight=quarter+growth

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Is that unrealistic? At least three times in my lifetime, we've had a few years in a row with that kind of growth. I'm not thinking that 2% should be the new normal.

Now-a-days, yes. I don't think it should be normal either, but it's not like we keep electing presidents based on their macro economics degrees.

 

[Gilligan]

I'm sure they'll be some reason for you to blow this off, but the forum has a nice search feature. Anyone who's been around for a few years (or 6) has seen it.

You being a child still, you probably didn't know this: You make an assertion, YOU back it up.

You are very welcome. ;-)

And 4% is certainly very realistic if one bases that on historical numbers.. http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-growth-rate/table/by-year