Seeking Alpha

GDP at 2.4%

  • GDP Q4: +2.4% vs. +2.5% consensus, +3.2% previous estimate.
Comments (20)
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (10581) | Send Message
     
    Lots more room to run in this economy....
    28 Feb 2014, 08:43 AM Reply Like
  • tunaman4u2
    , contributor
    Comments (3359) | Send Message
     
    Only took doubling of the Federal Reserve balance sheet in 2013 to achieve such wonderful numbers... maybe if we triple it to 12 trillion in 2014 we can have 3% GDP growth!
    1 Mar 2014, 10:09 AM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10472) | Send Message
     
    Yep, we got a whole 4 more cylinders to go.
    28 Feb 2014, 09:09 AM Reply Like
  • snoopy44
    , contributor
    Comments (1020) | Send Message
     
    Wishful thinking. GDP numbers coming down indicates weaker consumer demand. Median household income continues to drop as consumers are being crushed by higher commodity prices (fuel, food, etc.) while wages stagnate. The labor market is a total mess with Labor Force Participation rate at 40 year low. Even Chairwoman Yellen admitted in her testimony yesterday that the unemployment rate has become virtually meaningless as an indicator of the economy's strength. No, instead of "lots more room to run" it's lots more room to fall further as the global economy contracts, Europe enters full-blown deflation, and China faces its own credit crisis and "Lehman Moment". Hold on to your hats. It's going to get very bumpy moving forward.
    28 Feb 2014, 09:11 AM Reply Like
  • CaladesiKid2
    , contributor
    Comments (276) | Send Message
     
    Spot on. When you remove the political spin and assess the actual results (not projections), there is little more than an ongoing sputtering economy. So, now that we are apparently addicted to QE we are more enfeelbed, not an improving economic picture.
    28 Feb 2014, 09:24 AM Reply Like
  • Rope a Dope
    , contributor
    Comments (697) | Send Message
     
    Also, let’s not forget these numbers are based on the new accounting measures that went into effect last July; those new measures may add 2% onto the numbers. I saw estimates ranging from 1% to 3% so I’m using something right in the middle. If true, that would mean 0.4% growth using the old accounting measures.

     

    Anemic, at best.
    28 Feb 2014, 09:33 AM Reply Like
  • dnorm1234
    , contributor
    Comments (1075) | Send Message
     
    >those new measures may add 2% onto the numbers

     

    No, they don't simply, arbitrarily, add +2% to the old model; the new measures are meant to capture growth that was not accounted for previously. 2.4% growth is 2.4% growth.

     

    Please point to your 1% to 3% estimates.
    28 Feb 2014, 09:56 AM Reply Like
  • dnorm1234
    , contributor
    Comments (1075) | Send Message
     
    >The labor market is a total mess with Labor Force Participation rate at 40 year low.

     

    Is there any logical reason that LFP should climb, continuously? Not saying the economy is there, but in a Utopia, would a falling LFP not be an indicator of wealth?

     

    I have no idea why people make such a big deal about that figure. At best it's ambiguous.

     

    Granted, the labour market is still shoddy. But as bbro says, that's more room to run.
    28 Feb 2014, 09:58 AM Reply Like
  • Rope a Dope
    , contributor
    Comments (697) | Send Message
     
    dnorm, 2.4% growth now includes measures that were not included in the numbers prior to July 2013. The impact, whether positive or negative, may have been there, but they were not being measured.

     

    I have read roughly 50 articles trying to get a handle on how the new measures would affect the overall number. No one has been able to offer any concrete number, which was the whole point of my comment. Unless you examine several years of data prior to these new measures being added and adjust the previous GDP numbers to reflect that data, any number being released now cannot be compared to GDP numbers that were released prior to July 2013. It’s the old ‘apples to oranges’ analogy. My ‘2%’ comment was never meant to be an arbitrary number; it was simply an average I came up with after reading 50 articles. The estimates varied but most of the economists suggested the new measures could add 1% to 3% in a normal economy; the 2% is MY average. If economists can’t accurately offer a specific value, I most certainly can’t, but 2.4% now is not the same as 2.4% prior to July 2013.

     

    I think adding the new measures was a great idea as they do have value in our economy. I do, however, question the timing of adding these new measures and suspect they may be a way to cook the books to make it appear our economy is doing ‘okay’. If the new measures did in fact add even just 1% and you subtract that from the 2.4%, that still sucks when you consider all the steps the Fed and Obama administration have taken to shore up the economy.
    28 Feb 2014, 11:37 AM Reply Like
  • Rope a Dope
    , contributor
    Comments (697) | Send Message
     
    Here is a link to a Financial Times article that suggested the new BEA accounting measures would add 3% to the GDP numbers.

     

    http://on.ft.com/1kwdJaH

     

    For every article I read indicating 3%, I could find an equal number of articles saying 1%. I don’t think anyone can put a firm number on this but my guess is that 2% should be an average.
    28 Feb 2014, 12:31 PM Reply Like
  • Papaswamp
    , contributor
    Comments (2214) | Send Message
     
    Yep looks awesome...rally on...
    http://bit.ly/1hIcKmi
    28 Feb 2014, 09:35 AM Reply Like
  • quabbin
    , contributor
    Comments (125) | Send Message
     
    Papaswamp that plot is interesting in that prior to 2000 the data points tracked one another. Then it looks like something happened which caused a complete phase reversal in the data....and in fact the oscillations are growing which means the system is completely unstable.

     

    So what does the plot tell you?
    28 Feb 2014, 04:04 PM Reply Like
  • WMARKW
    , contributor
    Comments (10472) | Send Message
     
    quabbin - pretty soon, you will be the only one left paying taxes. (Don't worry, the women will pull it out of the bag for all the rest of us) :-)
    28 Feb 2014, 05:49 PM Reply Like
  • wmateri
    , contributor
    Comments (560) | Send Message
     
    quabbin - Normally, I would have said that the change in the plotted relationship after the year 2000 was due to a dramatic increase in worker productivity arising from the beneficial effect of the internet. However, given the amount of time the average worker spends browsing Facebook and eBay, it's just as likely due to a change in the GDP numbers arising from changes in the way inflation was calculated in the 1990s. According to ShadowStats the two calculations resulted in inflation numbers that increasingly diverged throughout the 1990s until the difference stood at about 7% in 2000, where it remained to date. This divergence of true inflation from measured inflation should lead to an overcalculation in Real GDP due to an underestimate in the inflationary effect that should be backed out). So basically, this looks like another way govt is manipulating stats to its benefit. GDP growth should be linked to size of the labor force and its overall income (which has also been falling).
    1 Mar 2014, 07:38 PM Reply Like
  • bbro
    , contributor
    Comments (10581) | Send Message
     
    Recessions don't start from underexpansion...other way around...
    28 Feb 2014, 09:35 AM Reply Like
  • mobyss
    , contributor
    Comments (2228) | Send Message
     
    Imagine how much the market would be up today if the GDP number came in at 1.4%! Hopefully the real economy will continue to deteriorate so the market can keep soaring to new highs (am I saying this right permabulls?).
    28 Feb 2014, 11:11 AM Reply Like
  • StopPrintinMoney
    , contributor
    Comments (273) | Send Message
     
    nothing to look here, folks...... BTFATH
    28 Feb 2014, 12:32 PM Reply Like
  • thannagan
    , contributor
    Comments (259) | Send Message
     
    What's the value of a statistic that can be off by 25% on "revision". The market would keel-hold a company that issued such a "miss".
    28 Feb 2014, 12:50 PM Reply Like
  • medzjohn
    , contributor
    Comments (330) | Send Message
     
    What's good for GM is good for America, no?
    28 Feb 2014, 07:20 PM Reply Like
  • Moon Kil Woong
    , contributor
    Comments (11910) | Send Message
     
    It's funny no one cares about revisions which simply help lower expectations so they can say the economy bounced the next month or quarter. This has been going on for 5 years now.
    1 Mar 2014, 01:16 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs