Revised up yet again.

Quote:The U.S. economy grew faster than initially thought in the second quarter on solid domestic demand, showing fairly strong momentum that could still allow the Federal Reserve to hike interest rates this year.

Gross domestic product expanded at a 3.7 percent annual pace instead of the 2.3 percent rate reported last month, the Commerce Department said on Thursday in its second GDP estimate.

Second reading on Q2 US GDP at 3.7% vs 3.2% expected

(08-27-2015 04:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Revised up yet again.

Quote:The U.S. economy grew faster than initially thought in the second quarter on solid domestic demand, showing fairly strong momentum that could still allow the Federal Reserve to hike interest rates this year.

Gross domestic product expanded at a 3.7 percent annual pace instead of the 2.3 percent rate reported last month, the Commerce Department said on Thursday in its second GDP estimate.

Second reading on Q2 US GDP at 3.7% vs 3.2% expected

Good news but I figure the stock market drama will overshadow.

It's an astounding number, no doubt it will probably be revised down a bit, but it will still be heads and tails above recent qtrs.

nice number

Particularly in a recovery, it ought to be over 4%. The weakness of this "recovery" remains its most remarkable attribute. Economies generally bounce back strongly after recessions, and the harder and deeper the recession, the stronger and faster the bounce back.

As for giving Obama's economic policies credit, the primary driver is cheap energy from fracking, and both cheap energy and fracking are counter to Obama's stated positions for dealing with climate change and the environment.

The two weakest recoveries in our history were the 1930s and now. Those are the two times that Keynesian "stimulus" have been tried on a massive scale. Draw your own conclusion.

(08-28-2015 08:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Particularly in a recovery, it ought to be over 4%. The weakness of this "recovery" remains its most remarkable attribute. Economies generally bounce back strongly after recessions, and the harder and deeper the recession, the stronger and faster the bounce back.

As for giving Obama's economic policies credit, the primary driver is cheap energy from fracking, and both cheap energy and fracking are counter to Obama's stated positions for dealing with climate change and the environment.

The two weakest recoveries in our history were the 1930s and now. Those are the two times that Keynesian "stimulus" have been tried on a massive scale. Draw your own conclusion.

I think back to the Texas recession of the mid 80s.
It was primarily a real estate crash like this one and everything was back to normal in 3 years. No trillion dollar stimulus.

Houston's unemployment rate in 1986 got over 13%. They estimate that 1 in 4 Houstonians lost their job in that year. A townhome in my complex that had sold for 79,000 at the peak in 1982 sold for 12,000 in 1986. All of the top 10 banks but #10, the smallest, failed or were acquired not long before they would have failed. Virtually every S&L in the state failed.

Yet by 1989, everything was humming along and back to normal.

(08-28-2015 08:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Particularly in a recovery, it ought to be over 4%. The weakness of this "recovery" remains its most remarkable attribute. Economies generally bounce back strongly after recessions, and the harder and deeper the recession, the stronger and faster the bounce back.

As for giving Obama's economic policies credit, the primary driver is cheap energy from fracking, and both cheap energy and fracking are counter to Obama's stated positions for dealing with climate change and the environment.

The two weakest recoveries in our history were the 1930s and now. Those are the two times that Keynesian "stimulus" have been tried on a massive scale. Draw your own conclusion.

They were also the two most comprehensive collapses. Both of which happened after an era of intense deregulation.

(08-28-2015 08:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Particularly in a recovery, it ought to be over 4%. The weakness of this "recovery" remains its most remarkable attribute. Economies generally bounce back strongly after recessions, and the harder and deeper the recession, the stronger and faster the bounce back.

As for giving Obama's economic policies credit, the primary driver is cheap energy from fracking, and both cheap energy and fracking are counter to Obama's stated positions for dealing with climate change and the environment.

The two weakest recoveries in our history were the 1930s and now. Those are the two times that Keynesian "stimulus" have been tried on a massive scale. Draw your own conclusion.

It should be 10-20%. WTF is wrong with Obama?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/...aphic.html

Interest rates are zero. We're giving money away to banks for free who lend it out at 5% or higher. Adults under 35 have a negative savings rate. The highway fund is bankrupt. Scores of muni, state, and federal pension funds are bankrupt. Social security is bankrupt. Medicare and medicaid will soon be bankrupt. The labor force participation rate is the lowest in two full generations. We have over $1 trillion in student loan debt that hasn't seen a payment in over a year. And we're cheering over over 3% and change growth?

WHAT PLANET ARE YOU PEOPLE ON?

(08-28-2015 11:39 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Interest rates are zero. We're giving money away to banks for free who lend it out at 5% or higher. Adults under 35 have a negative savings rate. The highway fund is bankrupt. Scores of muni, state, and federal pension funds are bankrupt. Social security is bankrupt. Medicare and medicaid will soon be bankrupt. The labor force participation rate is the lowest in two full generations. We have over $1 trillion in student loan debt that hasn't seen a payment in over a year. And we're cheering over over 3% and change growth?

WHAT PLANET ARE YOU PEOPLE ON?

^This, plus all these GDP numbers are pretty much made up at this point. We're to the point they've started "doubly-seasonally adjusting." They might as well pull a China and say we're growing at 11%. It's complete bull.

(08-29-2015 07:38 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 11:39 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Interest rates are zero. We're giving money away to banks for free who lend it out at 5% or higher. Adults under 35 have a negative savings rate. The highway fund is bankrupt. Scores of muni, state, and federal pension funds are bankrupt. Social security is bankrupt. Medicare and medicaid will soon be bankrupt. The labor force participation rate is the lowest in two full generations. We have over $1 trillion in student loan debt that hasn't seen a payment in over a year. And we're cheering over over 3% and change growth?
WHAT PLANET ARE YOU PEOPLE ON?

^This, plus all these GDP numbers are pretty much made up at this point. We're to the point they've started "doubly-seasonally adjusting." They might as well pull a China and say we're growing at 11%. It's complete bull.

Keep in mind that they've been playing games with the inflation numbers for years, as discussed previously here on numerous occasions. Any increase in GDP, for example, consists of growth and inflation. The lower you make inflation, the higher you make growth, on the same GDP numbers.

(08-28-2015 02:25 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 08:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Particularly in a recovery, it ought to be over 4%. The weakness of this "recovery" remains its most remarkable attribute. Economies generally bounce back strongly after recessions, and the harder and deeper the recession, the stronger and faster the bounce back.
As for giving Obama's economic policies credit, the primary driver is cheap energy from fracking, and both cheap energy and fracking are counter to Obama's stated positions for dealing with climate change and the environment.
The two weakest recoveries in our history were the 1930s and now. Those are the two times that Keynesian "stimulus" have been tried on a massive scale. Draw your own conclusion.

It should be 10-20%. WTF is wrong with Obama?

No, what an absurd hyperbole. 10-20% growth for an economy as a whole is neither healthy nor sustainable.

But it ought to be a lot higher than 3.7% before we start spiking any footballs.

(08-28-2015 11:39 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Interest rates are zero. We're giving money away to banks for free who lend it out at 5% or higher. Adults under 35 have a negative savings rate. The highway fund is bankrupt. Scores of muni, state, and federal pension funds are bankrupt. Social security is bankrupt. Medicare and medicaid will soon be bankrupt. The labor force participation rate is the lowest in two full generations. We have over $1 trillion in student loan debt that hasn't seen a payment in over a year. And we're cheering over over 3% and change growth?

WHAT PLANET ARE YOU PEOPLE ON?

Obama created this entire mess.

Count me unimpressed. GTS point out why.

(08-28-2015 08:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Particularly in a recovery, it ought to be over 4%. The weakness of this "recovery" remains its most remarkable attribute. Economies generally bounce back strongly after recessions, and the harder and deeper the recession, the stronger and faster the bounce back.

As for giving Obama's economic policies credit, the primary driver is cheap energy from fracking, and both cheap energy and fracking are counter to Obama's stated positions for dealing with climate change and the environment.

The two weakest recoveries in our history were the 1930s and now. Those are the two times that Keynesian "stimulus" have been tried on a massive scale. Draw your own conclusion.

I'm just blown away that you acknowledged a recession AND a recovery in the same post.

My how the republicans have a long way since 2008.

(08-29-2015 09:13 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 08:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Particularly in a recovery, it ought to be over 4%. The weakness of this "recovery" remains its most remarkable attribute. Economies generally bounce back strongly after recessions, and the harder and deeper the recession, the stronger and faster the bounce back.

As for giving Obama's economic policies credit, the primary driver is cheap energy from fracking, and both cheap energy and fracking are counter to Obama's stated positions for dealing with climate change and the environment.

The two weakest recoveries in our history were the 1930s and now. Those are the two times that Keynesian "stimulus" have been tried on a massive scale. Draw your own conclusion.

I'm just blown away that you acknowledged a recession AND a recovery in the same post.

My how the republicans have a long way since 2008.

Is not a crappy recovery basically the same as a slight recession when coming off a terrible recession? I mean on paper we have been in a recession for a while, but lots of people are yet to feel that recovery.

We should be doing better and the reason why we are not can be laid right at the doorstep of the White House.

In the first two years of the President's term, he had majority control over Congress and effectively got anything through he wanted. So what did we get?

A stimulus package with arguably insignificant beneficial results.

Dodd-Frank, legislation that has made it significantly more difficult for financial institutions to loan money to companies that want to grow.

Obamacare which has resulted in businesses abandoning hiring and restructuring down their employment.

Regulations from the NLRB, EPA and FDA, that have caused businesses to give pause to expansion plans, if not outright destroyed some employers (eg. coal miners).

And we get corporations with record amounts of cash on their balance sheets. Cash that under a pro-business administration, could have been applied to growth strategies that would have fostered a healthy GDP growth cycle.

(08-29-2015 09:19 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-29-2015 09:13 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-28-2015 08:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Particularly in a recovery, it ought to be over 4%. The weakness of this "recovery" remains its most remarkable attribute. Economies generally bounce back strongly after recessions, and the harder and deeper the recession, the stronger and faster the bounce back.

As for giving Obama's economic policies credit, the primary driver is cheap energy from fracking, and both cheap energy and fracking are counter to Obama's stated positions for dealing with climate change and the environment.

The two weakest recoveries in our history were the 1930s and now. Those are the two times that Keynesian "stimulus" have been tried on a massive scale. Draw your own conclusion.

I'm just blown away that you acknowledged a recession AND a recovery in the same post.

My how the republicans have a long way since 2008.

Is not a crappy recovery basically the same as a slight recession when coming off a terrible recession? I mean on paper we have been in a recession for a while, but lots of people are yet to feel that recovery.

6 years ago, republicans couldn't bring themselves to admit we were in a recession. Now they are even acknowledging a recovery. I'm so proud of you guys.

The folks just aren't feeling it out there.