US GDP numbers to be revised

[charrison]

.S. economic growth figures for the fourth quarter may be revised because of a miscalculation by Canada's statistics agency, a spokesman for the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis said on Monday.

While the error by Statistics Canada is expected to boost U.S. gross domestic product in the October-to-December quarter, a spokesman for the BEA said it was not yet clear how the correction to Canada's trade figures would affect U.S. data.

"We don't know yet; all I can tell you is we're aware of the situation and expect to have a statement out this afternoon," said a spokesman for the BEA, which compiles the GDP report for the Commerce Department.

Canada slashed November's trade surplus -- a near-record figure that had raised eyebrows at the time -- by nearly C$2 billion ($1.6 billion) after discovering a computer problem underestimated imports in a report two weeks ago, Statistics Canada said on Monday.

Canada's trade surplus widened only slightly to C$5.4 billion in November from October's C$5.2 billion instead of by the whopping C$7.3 billion that Statscan had reported on Jan. 12 based on erroneous Canada Border Services Agency data.

The BEA said on Friday the U.S. economy grew at an annual rate of just 3.1 percent in the fourth quarter, the slowest pace since the first quarter of 2003 and well below Wall Street expectations for a 3.5 percent spurt.

linkage

 

[yllus]

Ha! Ha! Bow your heads before the mighty beaver!

 

[Stunt]

So blame Canada for the "slowest pace since the first quarter of 2003" ?

Hahaha...just if you didnt realize, if we calculated it correctly to bigin with...you still would have "slowest pace since the first quarter of 2003".

I'm ashamed with this miscalculation, not typical of stats-can, they are typically very reliable.

 

[Stunt]

Who would have thought Canada would have helped the Bush propoganda wagon...

When is the economy supposed to turn the corner again Bush?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Who would have thought Canada would have helped the Bush propoganda wagon...

When is the economy supposed to turn the corner again Bush?

There was very good growth this year and most of last year of well.....


It wont offically turn the corner until the democrat is in office however..or at least according the media.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt
Who would have thought Canada would have helped the Bush propoganda wagon...

When is the economy supposed to turn the corner again Bush?

There was very good growth this year and most of last year of well.....


It wont offically turn the corner until the democrat is in office however..or at least according the media.

What?
What does party power have to do with anything economic?
Growth is barely keeping up with inflation and is indicative of increased population which is a questionable plus at best. With healthcare, education costs and SS, the growth MAY be tangible...of course it is a grey region, just busting out GDP numbers doesn't prove anything for long term sustainability.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt
Who would have thought Canada would have helped the Bush propoganda wagon...

When is the economy supposed to turn the corner again Bush?

There was very good growth this year and most of last year of well.....

It wont offically turn the corner ever thanks to the great job of permanently wrecking the U.S. Economy by the Bush Regime

Fixed for you

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt
Who would have thought Canada would have helped the Bush propoganda wagon...

When is the economy supposed to turn the corner again Bush?

There was very good growth this year and most of last year of well.....


It wont offically turn the corner until the democrat is in office however..or at least according the media.

What?
What does party power have to do with anything economic?
The press. When clinton took office with 5.5% unemployment , it was a booming economy. Bush takes starts his second term with similar employment and we hear it as the worst economy since hoover. Obvious bias. That is the big obvious example.





Growth is barely keeping up with inflation and is indicative of increased population which is a questionable plus at best. With healthcare, education costs and SS, the growth MAY be tangible...of course it is a grey region, just busting out GDP numbers doesn't prove anything for long term sustainability.

Most of the economic indicators are good and have been for some time. THe only indicator that is missing for the democrats, is the democrats being in power.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt
Who would have thought Canada would have helped the Bush propoganda wagon...

When is the economy supposed to turn the corner again Bush?

There was very good growth this year and most of last year of well.....

It wont offically turn the corner ever thanks to the great job of permanently wrecking the U.S. Economy by the Bush Regime

Fixed for you

 

[Stunt]

And when clinton left office the rate was 4%.
unemployment
Unemployment was steadily going down...i'll give you the bust and the 9/11 thing...you've made that point before. But look at the graph from 2002 and on...it has hovered around 5.5 to 6.5. Is this improvement?...you tell me and why.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Who would have thought Canada would have helped the Bush propoganda wagon...

When is the economy supposed to turn the corner again Bush?

It already did turn the corner. 3-4% growth for a year is very good, almost ideal.

Edit: Oh, and 5.5% unemployment is very good. Countries like France and Germany are up around 9%. Canada is at 7%. So we're doing better than you.

 

[Stunt]

also note the number of hours worked a week...people are working less...one can then assume that more people are doing the same amount of work. So the umemployment numbers are even better than they should be.
hours in a week

You want the numbers, so lets do it.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Stunt
also note the number of hours worked a week...people are working less...one can then assume that more people are doing the same amount of work. So the umemployment numbers are even better than they should be.
hours in a week

You want the numbers, so lets do it.

Less hours worked per week are indicative of better productivity. The US has had unprecidented productivity increases in the last 3-4 years, especially after 9/11.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Stunt
Who would have thought Canada would have helped the Bush propoganda wagon...

When is the economy supposed to turn the corner again Bush?

It already did turn the corner. 3-4% growth for a year is very good, almost ideal.

Edit: Oh, and 5.5% unemployment is very good. Countries like France and Germany are up around 9%. Canada is at 7%. So we're doing better than you.

Yes, 5.5% is good. But that is not a good indication of the economy.

I take percent above poverty line and balanced budget as the most important indicators.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Stunt
also note the number of hours worked a week...people are working less...one can then assume that more people are doing the same amount of work. So the umemployment numbers are even better than they should be.
hours in a week

You want the numbers, so lets do it.

Less hours worked per week are indicative of better productivity. The US has had unprecidented productivity increases in the last 3-4 years, especially after 9/11.

Or more service jobs

unit labour costs

middle graph...they are constant since 9/11
I agree that manufacturing has become more efficient, but overall...no, they are constant.
you have facts?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Stunt
And when clinton left office the rate was 4%.
unemployment
Unemployment was steadily going down...i'll give you the bust and the 9/11 thing...you've made that point before. But look at the graph from 2002 and on...it has hovered around 5.5 to 6.5. Is this improvement?...you tell me and why.

it peaked at 6.5 and has been steadily dropping to its current rate. I would not exactly call a downward trend hovering.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Stunt
Who would have thought Canada would have helped the Bush propoganda wagon...

When is the economy supposed to turn the corner again Bush?

It already did turn the corner. 3-4% growth for a year is very good, almost ideal.

Edit: Oh, and 5.5% unemployment is very good. Countries like France and Germany are up around 9%. Canada is at 7%. So we're doing better than you.

Yes, 5.5% is good. But that is not a good indication of the economy.

I take percent above poverty line and balanced budget as the most important indicators.

get beat, move the goal posts.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Stunt
also note the number of hours worked a week...people are working less...one can then assume that more people are doing the same amount of work. So the umemployment numbers are even better than they should be.
hours in a week

You want the numbers, so lets do it.

Less hours worked per week are indicative of better productivity. The US has had unprecidented productivity increases in the last 3-4 years, especially after 9/11.

Or more service jobs

unit labour costs

middle graph...they are constant since 9/11
I agree that manufacturing has become more efficient, but overall...no, they are constant.
you have facts?

jobs in manufacturing have been in decline for the last couple of decades and will continue to do so. Techonoloy is destroying these jobs.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Stunt
Who would have thought Canada would have helped the Bush propoganda wagon...

When is the economy supposed to turn the corner again Bush?

It already did turn the corner. 3-4% growth for a year is very good, almost ideal.

Edit: Oh, and 5.5% unemployment is very good. Countries like France and Germany are up around 9%. Canada is at 7%. So we're doing better than you.

Yes, 5.5% is good. But that is not a good indication of the economy.

I take percent above poverty line and balanced budget as the most important indicators.

get beat, move the goal posts.

too true. It seems to be the most common tactic besides the catch-22 setups...

CsG

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Stunt
also note the number of hours worked a week...people are working less...one can then assume that more people are doing the same amount of work. So the umemployment numbers are even better than they should be.
hours in a week

You want the numbers, so lets do it.

Less hours worked per week are indicative of better productivity. The US has had unprecidented productivity increases in the last 3-4 years, especially after 9/11.

Or more service jobs

unit labour costs

middle graph...they are constant since 9/11
I agree that manufacturing has become more efficient, but overall...no, they are constant.
you have facts?

jobs in manufacturing have been in decline for the last couple of decades and will continue to do so. Techonoloy is destroying these jobs.

I wasn't talking manufacturing, i was taking note of his "unprecidented productivity increases" which just so happen to be non-existant.
I don't care about outsourcing and decline of manufacturing jobs, i support the practice.
But replace those jobs with shorter work weeks and more employees is not helping your case for a "good economic indicator"

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Stunt
Who would have thought Canada would have helped the Bush propoganda wagon...

When is the economy supposed to turn the corner again Bush?

It already did turn the corner. 3-4% growth for a year is very good, almost ideal.

Edit: Oh, and 5.5% unemployment is very good. Countries like France and Germany are up around 9%. Canada is at 7%. So we're doing better than you.

Yes, 5.5% is good. But that is not a good indication of the economy.

I take percent above poverty line and balanced budget as the most important indicators.

get beat, move the goal posts.

too true. It seems to be the most common tactic besides the catch-22 setups...

CsG

Whoa...how did i change the goal posts...
Good economic indicators are open to interpretation.

I take them as percent above poverty and balanced budget, he takes as unemployment and gdp.

I will respect your idea of good economic indicators too.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Stunt
also note the number of hours worked a week...people are working less...one can then assume that more people are doing the same amount of work. So the umemployment numbers are even better than they should be.
hours in a week

You want the numbers, so lets do it.

Less hours worked per week are indicative of better productivity. The US has had unprecidented productivity increases in the last 3-4 years, especially after 9/11.

Or more service jobs

unit labour costs

middle graph...they are constant since 9/11
I agree that manufacturing has become more efficient, but overall...no, they are constant.
you have facts?

jobs in manufacturing have been in decline for the last couple of decades and will continue to do so. Techonoloy is destroying these jobs.

I wasn't talking manufacturing, i was taking note of his "unprecidented productivity increases" which just so happen to be non-existant.
I don't care about outsourcing and decline of manufacturing jobs, i support the practice.
But replace those jobs with shorter work weeks and more employees is not helping your case for a "good economic indicator"

uh, there has been very strong productivy increases over the past decade. Greenspan even talked about how rapidly increasing productivy rates slowed hiring.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Stunt
Who would have thought Canada would have helped the Bush propoganda wagon...

When is the economy supposed to turn the corner again Bush?

It already did turn the corner. 3-4% growth for a year is very good, almost ideal.

Edit: Oh, and 5.5% unemployment is very good. Countries like France and Germany are up around 9%. Canada is at 7%. So we're doing better than you.

Yes, 5.5% is good. But that is not a good indication of the economy.

I take percent above poverty line and balanced budget as the most important indicators.

get beat, move the goal posts.

too true. It seems to be the most common tactic besides the catch-22 setups...

CsG

Whoa...how did i change the goal posts...
Good economic indicators are open to interpretation.

I take them as percent above poverty and balanced budget, he takes as unemployment and gdp.

I will respect your idea of good economic indicators too.

but apprently unemployment is no longer a factor...

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Stunt
And when clinton left office the rate was 4%.
unemployment
Unemployment was steadily going down...i'll give you the bust and the 9/11 thing...you've made that point before. But look at the graph from 2002 and on...it has hovered around 5.5 to 6.5. Is this improvement?...you tell me and why.

it peaked at 6.5 and has been steadily dropping to its current rate. I would not exactly call a downward trend hovering.

Don't get me wrong, i like to see the unemployment rate decline, it is a good thing for the economy. The rate is now at the same levels as the spike after 9/11 and the tech bubble burst.

Lets hope the unemployment rate continues to drop from the highest rates in over 10 years!...hardy something to brag about the economy with

But i will give you the trend looks semi positive.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: charrison
uh, there has been very strong productivy increases over the past decade. Greenspan even talked about how rapidly increasing productivy rates slowed hiring.

I just posted a link with stagnant productivity increases accross all sectors.
Maybe you'd like to post some graphs relating to your claim?
Or you can go off the top of your head, whatever.