Economy heats up in Q2 after harsh winter, up 4%

[fskimospy]

And was the US economy outperforming or underperforming other advanced economies before the recession?

In the years directly preceding the recession through the recession, from 2006 until early 2009 it underperformed the UK and the Eurozone. After early 2009 it outperformed them.

Hope that clears things up.

 

[Genx87]

Great news!

 

[dphantom]

In the years directly preceding the recession through the recession, from 2006 until early 2009 it underperformed the UK and the Eurozone. After early 2009 it outperformed them.

Hope that clears things up.

kinda hard to read the chart but it looks like 2007 was the only year US underperformed both. Would like to see actual numbers instead of a badly formatted chart.

 

[fskimospy]

kinda hard to read the chart but it looks like 2007 was the only year US underperformed both. Would like to see actual numbers instead of a badly formatted chart.

The average real GDP growth of those three years is clearly lower in the US than in either the UK or the Eurozone.

In case you would like to compile the stats yourself please visit the IMF's database here: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/01/weodata/download.aspx

I did some quick back of the envelope calculations, broken up by pre-crisis, crisis, and post-crisis. Yes it would be more accurate doing it by quarters, but such is life. (for example the US drop was very steep in the beginning of 2009 but we made up a lot of ground later in the year.)

Pre-crisis (2006-2008) average real GDP growth:
UK: 1.8%
US: 1.4%
Euro area: 2.2%

Crisis: (2009) average real GDP growth:
UK: -5.2%
US: -2.8%
Euro area: -4.4%

Post-crisis (2010-2013) average real GDP growth:
UK: 1.0%
US: 2.2%
Euro area: 0.1%

One other thing to note is that the numbers for the post-crisis will be a bit different than the chart as the chart shows projected values for 2013 while my data has real values. The US hit its projected target for that year while the UK underperformed slightly and the Eurozone underperformed drastically.

 

[cabri]

Bush deserves credit too. If he didn't crash the economy, there would be nothing to recover from.

I shudder when I think where our economy would be under a Republican. It is nice to have Democratic presidents and their economic boons to offset the shredding that occurs under Republican administrations.

Remember, Clinton crashed the economy for Bush, then 9/11 hit.

Double whammy

 

[glenn1]

Well to be fair, stimulus is not an Obama original idea. Many presidents have tried it. In fact Bush even did some before he left too. I don't think its fair to say its an Obama policy when far more have done it as well. Even Solyndra was started by Bush, it just ended under Obama.

Bush had plenty of bad policies too, like his steel tariffs, botching putting increased oversight on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and completely bundling partial privatization of Social Security. Not that Obama is doing anything at all to help on the last point. Heaven forbid people actually have some ownership or suvivorship rights in a retirement account, it's so much better to leave those things to the whims of Congress.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Aw, we aren't out right bashing the President with contradictory/hypocritical false "issues",..

Ok, Ok, let me give you some legit beef I have the Barry:
- no universal healthcare,.. fuck ACA, I want free healthcare like the rest of the 1st world countries.
- Syria. No fucking way. Not secret help. Not official help. NO help. At all. Any. Ever. Let them figure it out.
- Not slinging executive orders much earlier,.. and a lot more frankly.
- Ukraine, fuck them. Don't utter a word. We don't have any interests in that shit hole, let it fester to it's rotten heart's content.

See, even one of his mindless drones (that would be me) doesn't like every single thing he does!

The insurance lobby is way too powerful and would never let that happen and that is a major part of what is wrong with this country.

 

[First]

Yep, economy starting to expand now that we're no longer pursuing Obama policies like "stimulus," wasteful consumer spending giveaways like Cash for Clunkers, losing money in speculative investment schemes like Solyndra, and letting people take 99 weeks of unemployment. Might almost make you wonder if the economic performance was related to that.

It wouldn't make you wonder at all, actually, if you knew shit about economics. But I digress.

 

[realibrad]

Bush had plenty of bad policies too, like his steel tariffs, botching putting increased oversight on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and completely bundling partial privatization of Social Security. Not that Obama is doing anything at all to help on the last point. Heaven forbid people actually have some ownership or suvivorship rights in a retirement account, it's so much better to leave those things to the whims of Congress.

While all of that is true, to say that stimulus is an Obama policy with the implication that it was not done by every president before him is unfair. Stimulus is a non partisan issue.

 

[dphantom]

The average real GDP growth of those three years is clearly lower in the US than in either the UK or the Eurozone.

In case you would like to compile the stats yourself please visit the IMF's database here: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/01/weodata/download.aspx

I did some quick back of the envelope calculations, broken up by pre-crisis, crisis, and post-crisis. Yes it would be more accurate doing it by quarters, but such is life. (for example the US drop was very steep in the beginning of 2009 but we made up a lot of ground later in the year.)

Pre-crisis (2006-2008) average real GDP growth:
UK: 1.8%
US: 1.4%
Euro area: 2.2%

Crisis: (2009) average real GDP growth:
UK: -5.2%
US: -2.8%
Euro area: -4.4%

Post-crisis (2010-2013) average real GDP growth:
UK: 1.0%
US: 2.2%
Euro area: 0.1%

One other thing to note is that the numbers for the post-crisis will be a bit different than the chart as the chart shows projected values for 2013 while my data has real values. The US hit its projected target for that year while the UK underperformed slightly and the Eurozone underperformed drastically.

yep, actual numbers are much better. You calcs are close enough.

 

[werepossum]

Who is we? I get the sense you don't understand what you're talking about but please, go ahead.

Ahh, the usual werepossum 1-2 punch. A straw man combined with an ignorant statement.

The US has outperformed other advanced economies in this recession. As to why this may differ from others, I would suggest some reading:https://www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/2012/fincrises/pdf/ch8.pdf

Then again, you just declared economists part of the ever-expanding conspiracy, so this is probably all just an elaborate trick to help the Democrats.

"We" in that was the economists - was that really difficult to understand?

And no, not a conspiracy, just good old fashioned enlightened self interest and excuse-making. Any science that is not directly testable tends to make excuses for its failings.

Odd how no post-war recession was as big as the one Bush got us into without Big O, after telling us how his tax cuts were going to stimulate the economy. Nothing odd about taking longer to recover from a bigger recession.

True, although the one Reagan inherited was in some ways worse. Remember the misery index? Remember stagflation? Remember unemployment? Average unemployment in 1982 was 9.7%. Our worst for this one was 9.6% for 2010, although arguably changes in calculation may well mean that 2010 was actually worse.

 

[fskimospy]

"We" in that was the economists - was that really difficult to understand?

Can you list the predictions of the economists surveyed? I'm having trouble finding them myself, so I'm wondering where you're getting your information from.

And no, not a conspiracy, just good old fashioned enlightened self interest and excuse-making. Any science that is not directly testable tends to make excuses for its failings.

What failing? Many, many economists predicted that stimulus would be a net gain for the economy, and the evidence has supported that. Did you mean successes instead of failings?

 

[nehalem256]

The average real GDP growth of those three years is clearly lower in the US than in either the UK or the Eurozone.

In case you would like to compile the stats yourself please visit the IMF's database here: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/01/weodata/download.aspx

I did some quick back of the envelope calculations, broken up by pre-crisis, crisis, and post-crisis. Yes it would be more accurate doing it by quarters, but such is life. (for example the US drop was very steep in the beginning of 2009 but we made up a lot of ground later in the year.)

Pre-crisis (2006-2008) average real GDP growth:
UK: 1.8%
US: 1.4%
Euro area: 2.2%

Crisis: (2009) average real GDP growth:
UK: -5.2%
US: -2.8%
Euro area: -4.4%

Post-crisis (2010-2013) average real GDP growth:
UK: 1.0%
US: 2.2%
Euro area: 0.1%

One other thing to note is that the numbers for the post-crisis will be a bit different than the chart as the chart shows projected values for 2013 while my data has real values. The US hit its projected target for that year while the UK underperformed slightly and the Eurozone underperformed drastically.

And your choice of dates is clearly a joke. Since when is 2008 "pre-crisis". More like depths of the Great Recession.

 

[werepossum]

Can you list the predictions of the economists surveyed? I'm having trouble finding them myself, so I'm wondering where you're getting your information from.

What failing? Many, many economists predicted that stimulus would be a net gain for the economy, and the evidence has supported that. Did you mean successes instead of failings?

At least Obama's pet economists not only predicted the stimulus would be a net gain for the economy but made specific predictions about unemployment and growth, none of which panned out. But sorry, I do not have a remedial Google link handy.

As far as being a net gain for the economy, that is true of any borrow-and-spend program as long as you don't count the part where we have to pay it back.

 

[fskimospy]

And your choice of dates is clearly a joke. Since when is 2008 "pre-crisis". More like depths of the Great Recession.

Your attempts to wriggle out of yet another stupid comment are a joke. Don't you ever get tired of looking dumb?

As I said, a quarter by quarter analysis would be best, as our post-crisis numbers exclude a number of quarters of growth for the US that should make our post-crisis performance even better. That being said:

- Even if you exclude 2008 from pre-crisis numbers the US was still growing more slowly than the UK or the Eurozone before the crisis.

- Even if you exclude 2008 and add in 2005 to maintain a three year average the US was still growing more slowly than the UK or the Eurozone before the crisis.

- So, yet again, the US was growing more slowly than the other mentioned areas before the crisis and grew more quickly after the crisis.

I hope this has been educational for you.

 

[fskimospy]

At least Obama's pet economists not only predicted the stimulus would be a net gain for the economy but made specific predictions about unemployment and growth, none of which panned out. But sorry, I do not have a remedial Google link handy.

What do economists working for Obama have to do with this? You said 'economists predicted x and that didn't happen'. That has nothing to do with Obama, nor does it have anything to do with the survey being referenced.

If you have any evidence for there being a consensus opinion by economists that stimulus would do something that didn't pan out, please link it. If you don't, please simply say as much.

As far as being a net gain for the economy, that is true of any borrow-and-spend program as long as you don't count the part where we have to pay it back.

Except of course that they are counting the part where you have to pay it back. Looks like it's back to econ 101 for you, huh. Want me to check for remedial links?

 

[werepossum]

What do economists working for Obama have to do with this? You said 'economists predicted x and that didn't happen'. That has nothing to do with Obama, nor does it have anything to do with the survey being referenced.

If you have any evidence for there being a consensus opinion by economists that stimulus would do something that didn't pan out, please link it. If you don't, please simply say as much.

Except of course that they are counting the part where you have to pay it back. Looks like it's back to econ 101 for you, huh. Want me to check for remedial links?

Um, no. We haven't yet paid it back. In fact, we're borrowing our payments plus some more, in affect spending a new stimulus bill every year.

 

[fskimospy]

Um, no. We haven't yet paid it back. In fact, we're borrowing our payments plus some more, in affect spending a new stimulus bill every year.

That's a pretty faulty understanding of the US's fiscal situation, but that's neither here nor there. If you had bothered to read the link you would have seen that the economists were asked if the benefit of stimulus outweighed the costs, even when accounting for future costs associated with deficit spending. (ie: higher taxes, effects on future spending, etc)

 

[ElFenix]

obviously just another lie from the bureau of economic statistics. this will be revised and revised, you can't trust any figures that get revised so much.

 

[Spungo]

obviously just another lie from the bureau of economic statistics. this will be revised and revised, you can't trust any figures that get revised so much.

I really wonder how they get their numbers. Q1 2014 started as +0.1% and was eventually revised down to -2.9%. That's a gigantic revision. How did they get that original number? Did they just make it up? Do they change the calculation every couple weeks? At the very least, we're not Italy. Italy's economy is so horrible that they've started including estimates for illegal drugs in their GDP numbers. lol Italy.

I really hope the economy is growing right now. I'm not sure how much more "recovery" average Americans can tolerate.
1/3 of Americans have debt in collections

The copper price is implying that we've been in global recession since 2011, but this is a very rough estimate of the global economy.

High yield credit is once again starting to break away from stocks. It doesn't necessarily mean anything, but typically the bond market leads the stock market. When there's disagreemen between the bond market and the stock market, the bond market is usually correct.

I think Obama unfairly gets blamed for the bad economy. He does a lot of dumb things, but he's not in charge of monetary policy. It's not Obama's fault we're in the largest junk bond bubble in the history of the world. That blame goes to Ben Bernanke. For whatever reason, Ben thought it would stimulate the economy if retired people had no interest income and were forced to live with their children just to survive. He proudly states that the stock market is at all time highs due to money printing. This is great for America since 35-40% of all stocks are owned by the top 1%. Those 1/3 of Americans who are near bankruptcy are so silly; why don't they just sell their million dollar stock portfolios to pay their debts? They don't have stocks? Most people don't have stocks? Oh. Well then we should probably throw Bernanke in jail. Thankfully Obama signed the NDAA which allows us to arrest Bernanke without due process.

 

[rudder]

I shudder when I think where our economy would be under a Republican. It is nice to have Democratic presidents and their economic boons to offset the shredding that occurs under Republican administrations.

Two questions.... did the new White House spokesperson just quit? and are you applying for that job?