Q3 GDP revised sharply downward — again

posted at 9:30 am on December 22, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Almost two months ago, the Commerce Department cheered the announcement that the third quarter GDP had grown at an annualized rate of 3.5%.  The Obama administration hailed it as a sign that their economic policies had spurred real growth.  Even when Commerce sharply revised the number downward a month later to 2.8%, the White House continued to argue that the lower number still meant that the US had turned the corner, even after a number of critics asked how Commerce could have missed the number so widely.

Today, Commerce backtracked even further.  The annualized growth number for Q3 turns out to have been 2.2%, a revision of over a third from its original estimate two months ago:

The U.S. economy grew at a much slower pace than initially thought in the third quarter, restrained by weak business investment and a slightly more aggressive liquidation of inventories, according to data on Tuesday.

The Commerce Department’s final estimate showed gross domestic product grew at a 2.2 percent annual rate instead of the 2.8 percent pace it reported last month. Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast the report to show GDP, which measures total goods and services output within U.S. borders, unrevised at a 2.8 percent growth rate in the third quarter. …

Growth was boosted by government stimulus programs, including the popular cash for clunkers and tax credit for first-time home buyers, and debate continues to rage over the sustainability of the recovery once government support wanes.

No kidding.  The Cash for Clunkers program and the first-time homebuyer tax credit was estimated to have contributed as much as half of the original Commerce estimate of 3.5%.  Assuming that to still have contributed at least 1.5% of the final GDP, that leaves a rather pathetic 0.7% growth in Q3 without it.  It’s barely a recovery at that level.

What changed?  Commerce revised some other base numbers.  Business investment, a key indicator of recovery, fell 5.9% instead of the previously reported 4.1%.  Nonresidential construction was worse than first thought, which shows how much that tax credit impacted the residential construction market.  Even the good news wasn’t quite as good as first thought.  Consumer spending rose 2.8% instead of 2.9%, much of that from the Clunkers program and the tax credit.

The third-quarter growth looks a lot more anemic than advertised by the Obama administration, especially when one considers the gimmicks that temporarily boosted its performance.  Most troubling is Commerce’s poor performance in analyzing economic conditions.  If they’re so incompetent as to miss this figure by 37% (1.3 from 3.5 is slightly over 37%), then clearly they need some fresh talent.  If they got pressured into stating overly cheerful numbers, it’s something else entirely.  That would be something Congress should investigate … if we had an independent Congress at all.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

It’s good though that we’re getting these numbers now, two months after they would have been helpful.
catmman on December 22, 2009 at 10:23 AM

I don’t think that’s a coincidence. Two months is right around the maximum time the MSM can delay releasing major economic figures.

This is the new news cycle: They trumpet the Hell out of whatever bogus number the Administration feeds them for two months, and then they suddenly fall silent about the old numbers and start spouting some hand-picked “expert predictions” at the top of their lungs for a few weeks.

…Then it’s time for a whole ‘nother set of bogus numbers, and the circle-jerk starts all over again. All the while, the experts are constantly “surprised” every time reality rears its ugly head.

logis on December 22, 2009 at 10:56 AM

Just using GDP is a horrible way to measure an Economy.

Romeo13 on December 22, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Amen brother, but with the One in charge, we have to come up with a whole new way to measure things. He’s a B+ after all.

NEW MATH!

donh525 on December 22, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Stimulus package failure? Check.

Enoxo on December 22, 2009 at 9:54 AM

That depends on what the stimulus package was designed to stimulate. The only thing I can figure is that the stimulus package was written to stimulate the growth of government. So …

Stimulus package: Success!!

PackerBronco on December 22, 2009 at 11:05 AM

You are looking at their miss the wrong way. When comparing estimates you use the correct number as the base, should be 2.2% versus 3.5%. They overestimated by (3.5-2.2)/2.2=60%. A mere cock up of 60%. If incompetent is missing the mark by 37% missing the mark by 60% is just plain old propaganda (ie they did it on purpose or should all be fired).

P.S. Can’t wait to see how bad Obama HellCare will miss the mark. 60% overestimation will look like spot on accuracy.

jukin on December 22, 2009 at 11:05 AM

Assuming that to still have contributed at least 1.5% of the final GDP, that leaves a rather pathetic 0.7% growth in Q3 without it. It’s barely a recovery at that level.

I believe the first downward revision came when C4C was found to only contribute .7% not 1.5%

The rest of it came from the home loan deal.

What’s sad is that 2.2% is simply broken windows being purchased.

lorien1973 on December 22, 2009 at 11:07 AM

An alternate explanation of why commerce is coming clean is the political bosses don’t want to show a loss in the fourth quarter.

burt on December 22, 2009 at 11:10 AM

restrained by weak business investment

Tax increases will solve that problem!

/s

mankai on December 22, 2009 at 11:12 AM

I’m sure the AP will be surprised at this news.

rollthedice on December 22, 2009 at 11:16 AM

It’s all about numbers and this filthy lying admin is decieving the decievable.

royzer on December 22, 2009 at 11:28 AM

Great job, Dems!!!!!!

*** eyeroll ***

That photo of Obama might as well show him flicking the bird to the American people. When he gives us his “thumbs up” he’s really telling us, F*** You.”

UltimateBob on December 22, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Green Shoots?

GunRunner on December 22, 2009 at 11:39 AM

that leaves a rather pathetic 0.7% growth in Q3 without it. It’s barely a recovery at that level

Ed, your math is correct, but I am willing to bet that the 0.7% is fudged as well. They are willing to perform whatever creative gymnastic math they must to give Bozo something positive to say. Its all propaganda.

The unemployment numbers are fudged as well. They just keep shifting people into categories they choose not to count, but that is a LIE.

Swelling numbers in “Obamavilles” are an inconvenient FACT that cannot be hidden.

I was at the unemployment office yesterday at 0630 to get in line. Its a good thing I did the place was mobbed and the folks were talking about another nearby office where they had to have ARMED GUARDS because of the fights that kept breaking out.

The workers inside the office said “Somebody’s got to do something! This is ridiculous!” To which some of those waiting in line provided angry and colorful retorts.

Wish I had tape like Breitbart.

dogsoldier on December 22, 2009 at 11:52 AM

Hope and change – working overtime.

Fuquay Steve on December 22, 2009 at 11:58 AM

As predicted a month ago, when the first revision was posted. Now pushing the 3Q #s up to make the 4Q #s look better.

This has been going on all year. The Commerce Department’s #s are completely untrustworthy.

james23 on December 22, 2009 at 12:17 PM

Blleds Blue is just a garden tool. Once the manure is spread around, he is easily discarded.

jbh45 on December 22, 2009 at 10:02 AM

“How do you like this new manure spreader?”

“I don’t know yet-you’re the first load I’ve hauled in it”

Del Dolemonte on December 22, 2009 at 12:27 PM

GIRD YOUR LOINS!!!!!

RealMc on December 22, 2009 at 12:36 PM

I think they are looking to next year.

Democrats will be running on the economy. If they have a year prior goal post of 3.5% and they come in at 3.0% they are in decline. Lower the goal to 2.2%, a 3.0% GDP growth is a substatial gain. Everything is politicized with these crooks. Take a look at the jobs creation numbers they tried to foist on us.

Corky Boyd on December 22, 2009 at 1:43 PM

The new “Obama Math”. First report what you “hope” are the numbers, then “change” them later to the actual numbers. Of course, hoping no one will notice the changed numbers because of the delay.

Hobbes on December 22, 2009 at 2:02 PM

I didn’t buy the number when it was first announced. A rate of 3.6% is anemic in a quarter that is supposed to be the lead report of a recovery. Typically we have seen 8% or 9% at the start of a typical recovery period. Even that 3.6% number looked fishy though, given the slow rate of expansion that one can observe just by following the news.

Fed-zilla is destroying this country and it just gets hungrier the more it consumes of our wealth. We’re living on borrowed time and borrowed money. This may continue for a few more quarters in to 2010, but the bills are going to be coming due and I fear for all of our fates in a year from now.

MJBrutus on December 22, 2009 at 2:03 PM

I thought I was paying attention during the Bush years and I remember the Bush Admin. always underestimating the initial economic numbers and then revising the numbers up on the 1st and 2nd revision. Does anyone know where this can be verified?

CoffeeBreak on December 22, 2009 at 2:21 PM

Off-topic, but I’m watching Casblanca. When Rick is asked hsi nationality by a NAZI Major, he responds, “I’m a drunkard.” Louis renault chimes in, and that makes him a citizen of the world. Sounds appropriate in light of some others who have declared themselves “citizens of the world” lately even if their vices are narcissism, for example, rather than drunkenness.

MJBrutus on December 22, 2009 at 2:40 PM

I thought I was paying attention during the Bush years and I remember the Bush Admin. always underestimating the initial economic numbers and then revising the numbers up on the 1st and 2nd revision. Does anyone know where this can be verified?
CoffeeBreak on December 22, 2009 at 2:21 PM

I don’t remember any of that. I distinctly recall the MEDIA wildly depressing economic figures – particularly before Presidential elections when Bush Jr. and Bush Sr. were running as incumbents.

That’s where I got the two-month figure from. When Bush Sr. ran against Clinton, they started running stories the week after the election about how the economy had “unexpectedly” stopped its “decline” and turned sharply upward — back in mid-September.

logis on December 22, 2009 at 2:53 PM

Your math is wrong. It’s not 1.3% from the 3.5%. It’s 1.3% off from 2.2% (the real number). That’s makes them lying by 59%

TomJW on December 22, 2009 at 3:57 PM

Another lie, you loser POSPOTUS. If anyone knew what they were doing it would be a breath of fresh air. This administration is un-freakin’-believable. I don’t know why I’m surprised. I listened to all of the lies prior to the election, read up on all of the shady underpinnings, and knew these people were thugs. So here’s the thing. WE CANNOT FORGET! WE CANNOT GIVE UP! They’ve opened up a new can of whup axx on themselves, we need to deliver what they ordered. I know everyone is with me on this, excluding trolls of course. I just needed a…um, not a fist bump (ick!), high five maybe? Thumbs up? Slap on the back? ARGH!!!

Yellowdog12 on December 22, 2009 at 8:46 PM

This is the new news cycle: They trumpet the Hell out of whatever bogus number the Administration feeds them for two months, and then they suddenly fall silent about the old numbers and start spouting some hand-picked “expert predictions” at the top of their lungs for a few weeks.

…Then it’s time for a whole ‘nother set of bogus numbers, and the circle-jerk starts all over again. All the while, the experts are constantly “surprised” every time reality rears its ugly head.

logis on December 22, 2009 at 10:56 AM

Agreed. They’re throwing junk out there to rattle around the echo chamber…stocks go up, people regain confidence, and so on. People don’t notice the revisions buried in the Style Section on page 5.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 23, 2009 at 2:37 AM

That’s where I got the two-month figure from. When Bush Sr. ran against Clinton, they started running stories the week after the election about how the economy had “unexpectedly” stopped its “decline” and turned sharply upward — back in mid-September.
logis on December 22, 2009 at 2:53 PM

I can’t confirm this directly, but as I recall good ol’ Billy Jeff Clinton lept in almost immediately to claim that the turnaround showed that his policies were working despite the fact that they hadn’t been in place long enough to have done anything yet — and ignorant voters who couldn’t grasp the concept of lag time bought into his lie.

ya2daup on December 23, 2009 at 7:18 AM

Comment pages: 1 2