|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 28, 2007 13:59:35 GMT -6
2nd quarter 2007 GDP was actually less than originally posted GDP for the 1st quarter of 2007. (i.e., 2nd quarter GDP growth was negative). Once again, however, the BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis) manipulated the numbers enough to arrive at a positive 2nd quarter GDP growth. The originally published 1st quarter GDP was downwardly revised by a whopping $137 billion, from the original $11,549 billion down to $11,412 billion. Again, real GDP growth would have declined for the 2nd quarter, had 1st quarter GDP not been downwardly revised. On the 4/27/07 1st quarter GDP report, the annualized GDP was published as $11,549 billion (in chained 2000 dollars). On 7/27/07, the GDP report put 2nd quarter annualized GDP $41 billion less than the 1st quarter, at only $11,507.9 billion. This would have made 2nd quarter GDP growth -0.355%. Below is a composite chart from the BEA showing the GDP comparisons. The top 2 charts are from the latest report on 7/27/07. The bottom chart is from 4/27/07. The real GDPs for the 1st quarter are underlined in blue (chained 2000 dollars). The current dollar GDPs for the 1st quarter are underlined in red. Once again, an after-the-fact revision in previously published numbers has been used to falsely 'create' economic growth. In this case, it seems pretty clear that 2nd quarter GDP growth should have been negative, and that we are now experiencing recessionary GDP declines.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jul 28, 2007 15:53:57 GMT -6
The personal consumption numbers don't look like anything to be too excited about either, nor do the durable goods
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jul 28, 2007 16:40:21 GMT -6
The personal consumption numbers don't look like anything to be too excited about... They certainly aren't. And considering that real personal income actually declined in the 2nd quarter, they look even worse, as the entire increase (and more) was financed by consumer deficit spending. either, nor do the durable goods.... In terms of "current dollar" value of Durable Goods, there was an approximately 0% increase in the 2nd quarter of 2007. ($1,074.0 billion in the 1st quarter, vs. $1,074.6 billion in the 2nd quarter.) However, even the Durable Goods "stagnation" is a product of downward revision of previously published numbers. Real Durable Goods expenditures were previously published as $1,243.5 billion for the 1st quarter, which is -$15 billion less than the currently published real Durable Goods of $1,228.2 billion. Needless to say, the BEA couldn't let this decline stand. So they downwardly revised the previous 1st Q number by a whopping $20.3 billion, from $1,243.5 billion down to $1,223.2 billion, to give a manipulated increase of $5 billion. What's also interesting about the Durable Goods numbers is that, despite the current dollar difference between the 1st and 2nd quarters being almost 0, the BEA still concocted a $5 billion "increase" in "chained 2000 dollar" Durable Orders expenditures. This "increase" perfectly illustrates the hedonics con-job practiced by the BEA. Despite no measured increase in Durable Goods sales, they claim that the true value of those sales increased, because the actual quality of those goods increased. In other words, even though sales did not increase, the concocted value of those sales increased. Therefore, "real" Durable Goods sales increased. This is complete and utter nonsense. It's another of the many confabulations the government tries to put over on the American people. Once again, the government has succeeded in creating economic growth through statistical manipulation.
|
|