Thursday, January 16, 2014

Warning on GDP

Yah, well.  Remember last quarter's GDP announcement?

It's going to be revised.  Down.  By up to a full point.

Inventory selloff, folks.  See today's Chicago PMI release, and expect more of the same.

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Got any links to back this up?

Dad29 said...

Today's Dismal Scientist email. Try this: https://www.economy.com/home/login/ds_proLogin_4.asp?script_name=/dismal/pro/release.asp&r=usa_cpmi&src=ds_dailyfree_todays&tid=67a46a08-d8ac-46dd-9937-2ab567e9e585&tkr=1401162241

Anonymous said...

Your website has been reported for slander against The President.

Anonymous said...

"The Chicago Business Barometer was revised up 1.7 points to 60.8 in December2013 from the previously reported figure of 59.1, as a result of the annual seasonal adjustment recalculation.
The Barometer was revised lower during the first quarter of 2013, but was revised up in both the third and fourth quarters, pointing to an even stronger second half of the year than initially estimated."

That doesn't sound dismal at all?

Anonymous said...

Funny--the item I read said that GDP would be down-revised by up to a full point based on inventory selloff.

No surprise, b/c earlier reports remarked on the large inventory component of GDP.

Who said "dismal?|"?

Anonymous said...

I'm still waiting for Dad's prophecies of hyperinflation to be fulfilled:)

And here's the PMI data.

http://www.ism.ws/ismreport/mfgrob.cfm

Anonymous said...

...and spiking interest rates, anon. We've all been waiting for the imaginary bond vigilantes to show up.

J. Strupp said...

Again, Dad29 needs to stop talking about economics.

He's way out of his league here.

Dad29 said...

10-yr rates are up. And they'll go up a lot further when the Fed chokes off the cocaine-train.

Strupp, your "econ" cred is for shit; we're waiting, waiting, waiting for the Glorious Keynesian Recovery.

How long? Another 30 years?

J. Strupp said...

I have a degree in Economics. You have nothing.

Please let the adults in the room talk about economic matters. You are severely out of your league here, pally.

Dad29 said...

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooohhhhhhh!!!!


Credentials!!!!

Bet that makes the girls all hot and wet.

Economics = monetized social studies. But like social workers, economists are most often useless appendages.

Need proof?

"Economists" told us that spreading the housing wealth around would be the greatest thing since peanut butter and jelly.

How'd that work out for you?

Anonymous said...

"Bet that makes the girls all hot and wet."

Projection can be a nasty habit and unwittingly revealing Daddette:)

""Economists" told us that spreading the housing wealth around would be the greatest thing since peanut butter and jelly."

Have you been asleep for the last 7-8 years?

If ignorance is bliss, you should be a lot happier than it seems:)

Anonymous said...

"Economics = monetized social studies. But like social workers, economists are most often useless appendages."

Well, then, if economists are so "useless", why does Dad29 repeatedly cite their studies and trends?

J. Strupp said...

Sneer all you want, Daddio. Maybe we can play the W-2 game some time. That's where I whip out my 2013 W-2 (bigger than 2008...thank you Mr. President), and you whip out your W-2, and then we see whose number is larger.

Anonymous said...

Hey Keynesian Boy,

Is this the 6th annual Recovery Summer coming up?

Don't change the subject.

Dad29 said...

Strupp, Anony 7:26 has it right.

Stay with the discussion. Moody's simply recites the facts, unlike monetized-social-studies folk who propound theories based on flawed behavior models.

Show us the results of Keynesian "stimulus," Strupp. By all means, include the explanation of the disappearing labor force.

Show your work.

Anonymous said...

93 million people left the labor force Under the fraud POTUS, and the best you (With your tin can degree.) can say in defense of this is, "That's where I whip out my 2013 W-2 (bigger than 2008...thank you Mr. President)".

Now that's liberal compassion in a fu%&ing nutshell.

The fraud POTUS's economic policies have been very good for people who HAVE assets and very bad for people who want to WORK to attain a better standard of living.

You disagree? You are a tool of a failure. Pissant!

Anonymous said...

Here's what I found at Moody's:)

https://www.economy.com/home/login/ds_proLogin_8.asp?script_name=/dismal/pro/article.asp&cid=245253&tkr=1401191222

U.S. Chartbook: False Alarm
January 13, 2014

The December jobs number will probably be revised.
Economic data point to strong fourth quarter GDP.
Manufacturing lays the groundwork for 2014 momentum."

And this.

https://www.economy.com/dismal/article_free.asp?cid=245266&src=mark-zandi

"The U.S. economy is set to experience much stronger growth as the middle of the decade approaches. Underpinning this optimism are the private economy’s much-improved fundamentals: Businesses are highly profitable and very competitive, households have reduced debt and are saving more, and the banking system is well-capitalized and liquid."

Seems like Dad, 726 & 557 don't have the tools or resources to keep up.

What a surprise:)



Dad29 said...

Umnnhhhh....the post, which is clear, said that Dismal/Moody's expects a downward revision of 4Q GDP due to inventory shrink.

That was the scope of the post. Not Struppster's (temporary) good fortune of being in mining equipment when demand skyrocketed. Not about whether '14 will be better, although most monetized-social-studies folks DO expect that.

So your cite is--as is most of your commentary--off point and not particularly interesting.

Perhaps Strupp can produce evidence that Obozo's policies directly improved his paycheck. Not likely.

Anonymous said...

And that link was old news from 1212013, not 01162014 as you claimed above.

"Updated: 12/31/2013 10:01 AM
Actual: 59.1
Analyst: Jack Kitchen in West Chester

First Take
The ISM-Chicago index fell by 3.9 points to 59.1 in December. This combined with the decline in November cuts the October 10.2-point surge roughly in half. The underlying details were weaker than November's, but the production and new orders indices remained above their neutral threshold of 50. The inventory index dropped in November. This suggests the drawdown in inventories was more aggressive toward the end of the fourth quarter. We expect inventories to shave a full percentage point off fourth quarter GDP."

Notice that "First Take" on your 12312013 link?

I am gonna guess that is why Kitchen labelled his updated 01132014 post "False Alarm".

Seems as though he had the intellectual honesty to man up to his mistaken assumptions.

You of course double down and become an even more willful dunce.

Nicely done:)

Reading comprehension is one of those tools that seems to be missing from your skill set.

Sharpen that pencil:)

J. Strupp said...

This is actually comical, Dadster.

I haven't posted a comment on your blog for probably 6 months. I have no idea who you're arguing with, but I'm glad I've acquired an economics degree in the process.

When I get more evidence that youhave your combox under control, I might throw my two cents in, but not until then.

Dad29 said...

In the very same "revision" headlines, he mentions that employment fell WAYYYYY short of "expectations."

And I did not see the basis for your claim that 4QGDP would NOT be revised downward.

Are you dyslexic or merely jackass-stupid?

Strupp, it's up to you to keep control of your signature. Not up to me.

Anonymous said...

"In the very same "revision" headlines, he mentions that employment fell WAYYYYY short of "expectations."

I have made no reference to employment and neither have you till now.

Besides:)

Umnnhhhh....the post, which is clear, said that Dismal/Moody's expects a downward revision of 4Q GDP due to inventory shrink.

That was the scope of the post. Not Struppster's (temporary) good fortune of being in mining equipment when demand skyrocketed. Not about whether '14 will be better, although most monetized-social-studies folks DO expect that.

So your cite is--as is most of your commentary--off point and not particularly interesting."

I had no idea you were so maleable. Bravo!

"And I did not see the basis for your claim that 4QGDP would NOT be revised downward."

That might be because I made no such claim?

Please indicate where you believe it is stated or implied?

J. Strupp said...

Well, you are still an unethical jackass, Daddio. I'm done here.