June 25, 2009

Revised POR Economy Damage Report: 1Q09 GDP ‘Only’ Down an Annualized 5.5%

Filed under: Economy,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 9:14 am

I’m gone for the rest of the day and most of the evening, possibly checking comments a couple times in the interim.

If anyone sees a press report calling a revised 5.5% drop in annualized GDP a positive or encouraging sign for the third full quarter of the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy, otherwise known as the POR Recession As Normal People Define It, I’d like to know about it.

Even given the press’s Obamalove, that doesn’t seem likely. That’s because, in a barometer I generally don’t look at much, weekly unemployment claims rose to 627,000. That only seems significant because I thought there had been a slight downward trend in previous weeks. The apparently Obama kool-aid-free Reuters link says that the news “deflate(s) labor rebound hopes.”



  1. Notice also, once again that the previous weeks figure was revised up again, to 612,000. The implication here if we assume 350,000 per week is the rock bottom number showing a sliver of job growth means another 260,000 people net are unemployed that week. That figure plus the previous 3 weeks of similar figures means another million people are on the unemployment line. This means my estimate of 11% for June is going to be close.

    Comment by dscott — June 25, 2009 @ 12:50 pm

  2. Bahahaha, ok Tom, from your favorite AP reporter…


    Economy dips at slightly lower pace in 1Q

    By JEANNINE AVERSA – 3 hours ago

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The economy tumbled at a 5.5 percent pace in the first quarter, but appears to be doing better now, even though heavy layoffs persist.

    The revised reading on gross domestic product, released Thursday by the Commerce Department, showed the economy from January through March didn’t fall as deeply as the 5.7 percent annualized decline reported a month ago. Economists expected the government would stick with its previous estimate…

    …Meanwhile, the rebound in consumer spending was a little less energetic.

    Consumers boosted their spending at a 1.4 percent, down from a 1.5 percent growth rate estimated last month. Still, it marked the strongest showing in nearly two years and a huge improvement from the fourth quarter when skittish consumers slashed spending by the most in nearly three decades…

    …Many analysts believe the economy isn’t sinking nearly as much now as the recession eases it grip on the country.

    For the current April-June quarter, economists predict GDP is sinking at a pace of between 1 and 3 percent. But that’s not nearly as much as it had in the prior six months, the worst performance in 50 years. The government will release second-quarter results at the end of next month.

    GDP measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States and is the best barometer of the country’s economic health…

    Her last statement is interesting since I thought she said previously that the NBER was more to be believed in defining a recession… hahaha

    Another helper: imports fell at an annualized pace of 36.4 percent, deeper than the 34.1 percent rate of decline previously estimated. That translated into a bigger boost to first-quarter GDP from trade. U.S. exports fell sharply but not as much as imports.

    Someone needs to tell Jeannine that falling imports are not a helper or a boost as this is lost GDP…another liberal myth, imports lower GDP, what a dolt!

    Comment by dscott — June 25, 2009 @ 1:02 pm

  3. From the watch out department:


    Stock futures slip before GDP, jobless claims data

    By MADLEN READ – 5 hours ago

    NEW YORK (AP) — Investors are looking for more evidence of a recovery after the Federal Reserve’s vote of confidence in the economy.

    Stock futures were narrowly mixed early Thursday, indicating a flat open on Wall Street, ahead of the government’s final reading on first-quarter gross domestic product and data on last week’s unemployment claims.

    On Wednesday, the Fed said “sustainable economic growth” should gradually resume, and inflation will “remain subdued for some time.” The statement did little to reassure investors, though, causing stocks to give up gains and finish mixed. Some were hoping the central bank would indicate how it will curb inflation.

    For you kiddies who weren’t around to remember when liberal chanted of sustainable economic growth, that means 1% annualized GDP. This was to rationalize higher taxes and bigger government social programs, all rejected by the public at that time. Now, the libs apparently feel emboldened to trot out that chant again. I’ll let liberals explain it to you – http://www.worldinbalance.net/agreements/1987-brundtland.php After a little reading you will probably recognize how AGW so nicely dovetails with the theme of sustainable development or economic growth. Chilling, makes me shutter…

    Comment by dscott — June 25, 2009 @ 1:15 pm


    Better orders have yet to translate into increased production or shipments.


    Businesses are still hunkering down, the whole inventory stocking paradigm has changed. No one is maintaining inventory levels at the standard 6 times per year rollover. It looks as though retail has adopted just in time stocking like the manufacturers did years ago. The manufacturers have basically adopted a no inventory stock as well on the output end as well. We should see back orders rise with the inevitable misreading of that data as a recovery instead of manufacturers adopting a non stock business model. The implication will be lower tax collections of State inventory taxes.

    Comment by dscott — June 25, 2009 @ 3:52 pm

  5. The Perils of the Second Derivative


    Comment by dscott — June 26, 2009 @ 10:18 am

  6. An Ahha moment.


    …Noel, 60, was among more than 60,000 Americans hired in April to help with the 2010 Census. But he’s out of work once more and moving back on the unemployment rolls because his temporary gig is finished…

    …For the past month, Noel and more than 140,000 Census workers fanned out to create a map of every housing unit in the country, part of what will be the largest peacetime mobilization of civilian workers…

    …Because of the surge of Census hiring, April unemployment only rose to 8.9 percent — a much slower increase than had been feared. But the latest unemployment figures aren’t likely to get similar help. Thousands like Noel who were among one of the largest segments of the work force — people who have taken part-time jobs because they can’t find full-time work — have returned simply to being unemployed…

    …–The official rate also doesn’t include “involuntary part-time workers,” or the 2 million people like Noel who took a part-time job because that’s all they could get, plus those whose work hours dropped below the full-time level. Once those 9 million workers are added to the unemployment mix, the rate would be 15.8 percent…

    Connecting the dots and answering some questions I posted a while ago… Part time employees are considered “employed” and thus are not counted in the “unemployed” stats. Even more importantly, the derivation of the 150,000 jobs created figure is now evident, the creation of part time government jobs mostly for the Census. So it appears Obama and Biden were being deceitful to the country. They refused to tell the public where they got the 150,000 figure under the guise of expectations because they knew such a rationalization using part time jobs would be shot down by everyone including their fellow liberals.

    If you remember I posted a link to the chart (love charts) that showed the part time employment ramping up tremendously from 2007 to current. The implication is unemployment is about to explode and under employment will similarly increase as young people new to the workforce fill those part time jobs. The nature of part time jobs is, they end in short order…thus deceptively mask the unemployment rate until it blows up in our faces.

    Comment by dscott — June 26, 2009 @ 10:37 am

  7. #6, I’m not ready to join in the part-time criticism bandwagon until I see what those numbers look like compared to 2005-2006 when things were going well and 2001-2002 when they weren’t.

    But to the extent that the Census people did their job artificially early (why aren’t these summer jobs for kids out of school?), you may have a point.

    Comment by TBlumer — June 26, 2009 @ 11:30 am

  8. #7, ask and you shall receive:

    http://www.news-to-use.com/2009/06/us-consumer-beware.html an exerpt of a Gluskin Sheff report

    Go to the chart labeled:

    Employed: Part-Time/Economic Reasons: All Industries

    Now if you really want to high light what’s going on with loss of permanent jobs, check out this link http://www.scribd.com/doc/16218482/Breakfast-With-Dave-June-8
    and then look at charts 3 to 9

    charts are good, a picture is worth a thousand words.

    Comment by dscott — June 26, 2009 @ 2:15 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.