It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GDP growth numbers collapse

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Aka they lied all the way to the bank.

And Scene: Q2 GDP 1.3%, Gold Surging On Imminent QE3 Resumption

A simply unprecedented miss in Q2 GDP well below the consensus range, with the official number printing at 1.3%, giving it upside room for revisions in case QE3 does not pass, although at this point it is more than obvious that this number is goalseeked to give Bernanke the carte blanche to start more easing any second. This number follows an epic revision to prior data, with Q1 plunging from 1.9% to 0.4%. The GDP internals were simply appalling: Personal Consumption tumbled from 2.1% to 0.1%, on expectations of 0.8%!


Q1 : From 1.9% to 0.4%
Q2 : 1.3%... will be probably revised below 0% into negative territory.

We are ``officially`` entering a new ``recession``... so much for recovery... Now I expect more of the same from the nuts in Washington... stimulus package... QE3... Got gold?

Also... it's funny how the numbers ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS get revised down... ALWAYS... in the last 3 years, I've never seen a number actually being revised up... not in unemployment, not in GDP growth... only in INFLATION numbers...

If they were honest, it would be 50-50 or so on the revisions, not 110% of the time being revised down... they are obviously lying constantly about the real numbers.
edit on 29-7-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
"Unexepctely" .... to be sure.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by SirMike
"Unexepctely" .... to be sure.

Unexpectedly... for the sheeple who believe the politicians and the hacks who call themselves economists...

A lot of people have a hard time even balancing their checkbook... so I have no big hope they'll understand even basic economics to figure out by themselves how the ``nobel prize winning economist`` Krugman or any of the comparable shills on TV are full of it.

Hell Kramer is still doing his BS show on TV after all he did...
edit on 29-7-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Some may refer to Krugman as a “Nobel prize winner” I like to refer to him as “former Enron advisor”




top topics
 
3

log in

join