2Q GDP revised down to 1.3% from 1.7%

Just recently they told us of a 1.7% GDP growth for the 2nd Quarter (April thru June) ....

Now it's revised down to 1.3% !!!!

Half of the revision came from reduced farm inventories.

The original report was absolutely horrible. This is devastating.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. economy grew at an even more sluggish pace in the April-June quarter than previously believed as farm production in the Midwest was reduced by a severe drought.

The overall economy grew at an annual rate of 1.3 percent in the spring, down from its previous estimate of 1.7 percent growth, the Commerce Department said Thursday. The big revision reflected that the government slashed its estimate of crop production by $12 billion.

About half of the downward revision to growth came from the decline in farm inventories. But other areas were weaker as well including slower consumer spending and less growth in exports......

US economy grew 1.3 percent in second quarter

What Will they do now ?

reply to post by xuenchen


Are you seriously trying to blame the drought on Obama?

Originally posted by BritofTexas
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Are you seriously trying to blame the drought on Obama?

Obama is the blame for everything to some people. At least he's using someplace besides that joke Breitbart for change. Looks like he has a problem understanding the word estimate.

This is just the start of things to come if we cannot get a handle on that which we have left to use and salvage.

Expect even higher food prices coming this winter....and fuel costs....

this winter will surely be the big suck mark my words.

Originally posted by xuenchen
Just recently they told us of a 1.7% GDP growth for the 2nd Quarter (April thru June) ....

The overall economy grew at an annual rate of 1.3 percent in the spring, down from its previous estimate of 1.7 percent growth, the Commerce Department said Thursday.

The big revision reflected that the government slashed its estimate of crop production by $12 billion.

You seemed to have missed the word "estimate"? Doesn't that by it's very defintion afford for uncertaintity?

And the cause of the descrepencey between the estimate and actual numbers?

Maybe it's time that the Majority party in congress acknowledge that Envirornmental uncertaintity directly correlates to economic uncertaintity?

The GOP's denial of science is now having real world economic impact on farmers and food prices.

Are American farmers leeching off government when they ask for subsidies to survive the erratic weather and droughts? Are the working poor eager to depend on government to feed thier families as food prices skyrocket?

Or are they just suffering the consequences of a Majority Congress that continues to deny climate change despite overwhelming science to the contrary?

I think those questions are more important than whether an estimate was fractions different from actual numbers.

Another way to look at it is that the GOP is looking to assign blame for problems that they have created to their opposition.

Deny climate change...blame the consequences of that denial on the Democrats, blame the people for not being able to afford food...blame the farmers for not being able to survive the fires, heatwaves and droughts.

The last congress (111th) the GOP filibustered more than any of the 100 congresses that preceeded them.
When they took the majority (112th) they passed less legislation than any congress in recent history...Then they accuse the President of not getting things done...And of being a tyrant when he looks for ways to bypass them.

It is a theme...And it is killing this country..

This is funny.

Ahem... for those of you who know me and are expecting this.... "I told you so!"

I took quite a bit of heat for maintaining that these books are cooked. That the idea is to try and effect a "confidence" shift by nudging the numbers towards a more favorable "image". That the entire point of such a lie is to get the damn speculators to stop hoarding money... (although that's not the real problem of course.)

After all, it's only an estimate. a 30% variance is "reasonable" I suppose.

There is a set of books for the show (the audit) and another we may never see (trade secrets, market confidence, plans which only the 'select few' can see and benefit from.)

Do you realize that pension funds, money markets, cities, towns, counties, and more have already reinvested their money based upon the "outlook" 1.7 gave them right..... "oops!" More evaporating funds... go figure

Still think the unemployment numbers are legit?
Still think when "economists" decide not include things like transportation costs, or food prices in the indexes it's all as it should be?

The solution to our economic woes begins when we have access to all the data.... and the obscene gamblers in the world can go suck an egg... or move to Vegas. For those who "tell us" how the economy is performing to to be a class of cloistered priest of special arcane mathematics is an insult to every thinking citizen.

Which is why there may be an inclination in the halls of government to appreciate it when we can't think.... because we remain ignorant.

We have posters seriously wondering why the final version of Romney's tax return took so long to be released, and brushing off issues of national and global importance. I was hoping for better. Anyway, the numbers show a weaker recovery than that which had already been called a weak recovery.

How does the Obama recovery compare to other recoveries from similar downturns across the decades?

On that basis, the Obama recovery can only be graded as a tremendous failure — as it has produced the worst rate of economic growth of any recovery in the past 65 years.

Over that span, we've had 10 previous recessions and 10 previous recoveries. According to the federal government's own Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), average real (inflation-adjusted) GDP growth in the first three years after those recessions was 4.6%.

During the Obama recovery (which began three years ago, in July 2009), average real GDP growth has been just 2.2% — less than half the historical norm. Of the past 11 recoveries, the Obama recovery has been the worst.

Some might suppose that this is because the 2008-09 recession was a particularly long and debilitating one. But the historical record shows that the pattern is generally as follows: the worse the recession, the stronger the recovery.

Indeed, if we limit our comparison to the five longest recessions in the past 65 years (each of which lasted at least 11 months), we find the following: During the four pre-Obama recoveries from such recessions, average real GDP growth in the first three years was a whopping 5.9% — dwarfing the 2.2% figure under Obama.

According to the BLS, the employment-population ratio — the percentage of Americans who are employed — was 59.4% during the last month of the recession (June 2009). That figure has now actually dropped to 58.4%. Three years into the "recovery," a lower percentage of Americans are employed than during the recession. (Emphasis added)

news.investors.com...

What policies have been put in place, or even proposed, that would turn this around?