BBC
The US economy last expanded in the second quarter of 2008, when it grew 2.4%.
“It’s good to have the economy growing again,” said Brian Bethune, economist at IHS Global Insight.
“But we don’t think that rate of growth is sustainable because it is distorted by all the government stimulus.
“The challenge here is to get organic growth – growth that isn’t helped by fiscal steroids.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. 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
This would be the “jobless” recovery we’ve been hearing about?
Wethal on October 29, 2009 at 8:40 AM
“The challenge here is to get organic growth – growth that isn’t helped by fiscal steroids.”
D.u.h.
the_nile on October 29, 2009 at 8:40 AM
If we spend a few trillion more taxpayer dollars, we might have a growth rate which equals that of Liberia.
Bishop on October 29, 2009 at 8:40 AM
Where
are
the
jobs?
artist on October 29, 2009 at 8:44 AM
That’s too big a change from one quarter to the next. No way is it real.
MarkTheGreat on October 29, 2009 at 8:45 AM
whew! glad that’s over. Now can we stop spending the money for the ’stimulus’? How about a tax cut since we are doing so well?
ThackerAgency on October 29, 2009 at 8:46 AM
This is the part where Hotair distinguishes between the actualizing of good numbers and the government not actualizing bad numbers, like home sales.
Theworldisnotenough on October 29, 2009 at 8:46 AM
That’s the key there. Too much ‘home buyer tax credit’ and ‘cash for clunker’ and not enough actual economic growth.
Good news if it continues into the 4th quarter, but I’m skeptical.
BadgerHawk on October 29, 2009 at 8:46 AM
So no job and funemployment benefits ran out. Well it looks like I can kiss any extension the feds would be doing good bye. Extending benefits would be an admission the economy sucks and here is proof positive it is growing.
RagTag on October 29, 2009 at 8:47 AM
That should be annualizing.
Theworldisnotenough on October 29, 2009 at 8:47 AM
Our recovery is a bunch of weeds. Can we suspend the Congress and Obama for using a banned substance?
Beaglemom on October 29, 2009 at 8:47 AM
No jobs, no growth.
cubachi on October 29, 2009 at 8:48 AM
It’s not growth, it’s debt.
“Organic growth”. I love that term!
Tuning Spork on October 29, 2009 at 8:48 AM
This stat will hold down the price of metals and commodities while keeping the stock market inflated a little longer…
Theworldisnotenough on October 29, 2009 at 8:48 AM
This is not a recession. This is the new baseline economy. A recession is when things get worse than this. And it will. But it will get worse for a generation, not two months, or two years.
Remember, the baby boomers start their 65 year retirement phase in 2010-2011. Not only is there no money to pay their government pension checks and corporate pensions, but they will no longer be spending or buying houses or cars. But they will be going to need lots and lots of medical care – all paid for by taxpayers who don’t exist.
Fundamentally, the prosperity of the last 40 years is coming to an end. And in its wake is financial liability so great it can not be met.
keep the change on October 29, 2009 at 8:49 AM
First paragraph in the story:
I thought most of the money was coming next year. If that’s the case this BBC article doesn’t really know what’s it’s talking about.
BadgerHawk on October 29, 2009 at 8:49 AM
I’m cool with that. The other option is inflation.
BadgerHawk on October 29, 2009 at 8:50 AM
In short, the “sale of all goods” adds up to measure GDP. If more goods are sold, but they are sold at a “loss” because of tax payer subsidies, is that still growth?
It is not. If it were a tree falling, people watching it fall would not hear a thing.
singlemalt_18 on October 29, 2009 at 8:52 AM
This is nonsense!
Having put almost $1-TRILLION$ into the system, and made available will skew all the stats.
It’s like building a good fire…. you need tinder and hard wood. The tinder burns hot enough to start the logs on fire.
This is just a heap of TINDER! It will burn hot and fast, seem to give off warmth, but will not last……
rabidamerican on October 29, 2009 at 8:52 AM
But the average number of new unemployment claims is a leading indicator and it went up last month…
Caper29 on October 29, 2009 at 8:52 AM
Trust me, I would LOVE for this to be a sign of a turnaround because then my wife could find a job easily. However, like everyone else said, this quarter was propped up big time by all of the government tax credits and “free” money.
I honestly believe they are doing everything in there power to make it so people stop trusting their own eyes. guts, and wallets. And with this administration, I wouldn’t be surprised if they are hoping they can fool a few major retailers.
By the first of the year, the real results of how deep we are will start showing their ugly faces.
MobileVideoEngineer on October 29, 2009 at 8:59 AM
So the two main factors for this growth were increases in car and home sales — both of which have fallen again in the past few weeks. People aren’t buying cars again and house sales have fallen unexpectedly.
Basically we filled our wallets by taking out a high-interest mortgage from the bank. One we can’t afford to pay off and will run through by next month. Financial success!
amerpundit on October 29, 2009 at 9:01 AM
That growth wasn’t cheap. Fox News Is reporting the Cash For Clunkers cost taxpayers $24,000 PER CLUNKER! What a bargain.
Monica on October 29, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Phantom recovery – all that government taxpayer money fudging the numbers.
albill on October 29, 2009 at 9:03 AM
A. The BBC declared the recession over back in June.
B…
I can borrow $100,000 from my credit card and neighbors to hire a maid and a butler… but that is not real “growth” as both will lose their jobs when the money runs out… and I’ll be left with a debt which grows with time.
mankai on October 29, 2009 at 9:03 AM
There was substantial growth in the mid-30s too… but it was all smoke and mirrors… until the collapse of the fake economy… the double-dip Depression would have possibly cost FDR the 1940 election if not for the war in Europe.
mankai on October 29, 2009 at 9:05 AM
I take that GDP is a measurement in the growth of government.
Dasher on October 29, 2009 at 9:07 AM
Agreed. Anyone remember how, just before the 1992 election the BEA announced negative growth in the 3rd quarter? It became a huge a factor in Clinton beating Bush 41? What you don’t remember is that shortly after Clinton was inaugurated the BEA revised their estimate and and quietly announced there had been positive growth after all. You don’t remember because the media didn’t make anything of the revision. Likewise revised numbers show the US was in recession at the end of Clinton’s second term. You know, Bush’s recession. You’d have never known that going into the election, though.
I think I’ll wait for the revised number before celebrating this time. I’ve learned you can’t be too sure about those things.
Strick on October 29, 2009 at 9:09 AM
I’ll only accept the economy as recovering when my mom gets a job.
Emily M. on October 29, 2009 at 9:10 AM
Oh, wait, you want, like, jobs in this “recovery”, too? Not just increases in sales because the federal government borrowed trillions of dollars to fuel industries whose sales proceeded to plummet again shortly thereafter?
Damn. You conservatives are really demanding of our Messiah. Next you’re gonna want to determine what health insurance you want to buy and what car you want to drive. Then it’s just a slippery slope to demanding he actually protects the country.
amerpundit on October 29, 2009 at 9:17 AM
I agree.
CP on October 29, 2009 at 9:21 AM
Soon to be revised.
True_King on October 29, 2009 at 9:21 AM
Whoa! Big news! Just a headline, though. Hmmmm…what a curious decision.
Proud Rino on October 29, 2009 at 9:23 AM
Government spending is a key component of GDP. Couple that with the Cash for Clunkers and First Time Home Buyer programs which pull forward demand and the numbers are really skewed. How are car sales doing since the CFC program ended?
We all know housing numbers are disingenuous. Smell the fear that FTHB program won’t be extended/expanded?
Besides, retail is doing exceptionally well! /S
singer on October 29, 2009 at 9:23 AM
No it didn’t
Devrbd on October 29, 2009 at 9:23 AM
As a secondary observation, I’d like to point out that the histogram shows solid growth in the 2005-2006 quarters displayed and only begins to show signs of no growth (recession) when the Democrat Congress took over in 2007. Call Democrats the party of “mine shafts” and Republicans the party of “smoke stacks.”
.
Awaiting revisions like Strick (October 29, 2009 at 9:09 AM) and MarkTheGreat (October 29, 2009 at 8:45 AM).
ExpressoBold on October 29, 2009 at 9:24 AM
I bet when the revised numbers are released later, as they always are, the picture won’t be so rosy.
There is no recovery anywhere on the horizon, and there isn’t likely to be as long as Obama & Co. are still dismantling the American private sector.
Dave R. on October 29, 2009 at 9:30 AM
Boy, how bad everyone feels about good news. Yes, of course growth was pumped up by the stimulus — that’s what a stimulus is supposed to do. Stops the downslide, stabilizes things and sets the stage for the “organic growth” to follow. And that’s why the stimulus was spread out over next year, as well.
The Bush recession is over. The Obama recovery has begin.
Bleeds Blue on October 29, 2009 at 9:32 AM
Yeah man, tell me about it. You should go out and put all of your money in the stock market and start spending money like you’re a millionaire. Man this is huge, go out and get that Bentley you’ve always wanted. Live it up, this is just the beginning.
MobileVideoEngineer on October 29, 2009 at 9:32 AM
Broken down nicely:
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1550-GDP-Is…..-Better-Than-Expected.html
singer on October 29, 2009 at 9:37 AM
You know the growth this quarter almost ensures a double dip recession.
BadgerHawk on October 29, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Uh, read on, please. That growth is due to cash for clunkers and other temporary government spending. Its all BS.
dogsoldier on October 29, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Yay!
I honestly hope you’re right, but I’m saving your comment because, I suspect, I’ll get to rub it in your face in about 3 months.
BadgerHawk on October 29, 2009 at 9:41 AM
Obama couldn’t recover a seat cushion.
singer on October 29, 2009 at 9:42 AM
This sets up the 4Q numbers to be fairly bad. No housing credit, no cash for clunkers and bad holiday sales. Prepare for double dip.
reddevil on October 29, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Only if you’re a moron.
Ed and Allah actually take time to write posts. However, linking in the headlines takes very little time. Kind of the same reason CNN puts something in the “Breaking” bar before an actual story gets written. Wild concepts, I know. Tell me if I’m going too fast.
By the way, I know you’re excited for your Messiah, but don’t get too happy. As the Associated Press notes, the growth was based on factors that won’t be present in the next quarter. It’s artificial and baseless.
The WH says unemployment will continue to rise through next year, the housing market is down again, and auto sales have dropped. Meanwhile, our deficit is about $1.6 trillion and our debt is about $12 trillion.
The recession is over. Except it’s not.
amerpundit on October 29, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Terry_Dyne on October 29, 2009 at 9:44 AM
This will be hailed as the greatest Economic News of all time
jp on October 29, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Funny thing about liberals. They decide whether something is true or not based on whether or not it advances the agenda.
MarkTheGreat on October 29, 2009 at 9:46 AM
For all of us, yes. But the Administration’s spin will be that they simply misread the information when they announced the recession was over and the recovery had started. Then they’ll go right back to saying they inherited Bush’s mess and they underestimated how really, really, really bad it was as they watch the economy circle down the drain.
singer on October 29, 2009 at 9:47 AM
The fact that this growth is nothing more than economic activity that was stolen from the future, and will have to be repaid in future quarters is irrelevant. As long as today’s numbers can be made to look good, it is good???
What happens when taxes and interest rates start skyrocketing in order to pay for all of this so called stimulus???
There never was a Bush recession.
This isn’t a recovery.
MarkTheGreat on October 29, 2009 at 9:49 AM
My e-mail in box tell me that holiday sales are going to be decent this year (last year at this time sales were already under way). For better or for worse, the homebuyer credit will be extended and the lingering effect of cash for clunkers will show up not in boosted car sales but in autoworkers employed because the c for c program drew inventories down so sharply. Plus, after a year of bad news and worry, headlines like this will release a little pent up demand from people who have been employed but were hesitant to spend.
I’m not predicting miracles, mind you, but steady (even if slower) growth in 4Q as well.
Bleeds Blue on October 29, 2009 at 9:49 AM
You left out two g’s.
LibTired on October 29, 2009 at 9:50 AM
What do you call all that economic contraction under Bush, then, growth?
Oh yeah, you probably think he was winning in Afghanistan, too.
Talk about Orwellian.
Bleeds Blue on October 29, 2009 at 9:51 AM
They’ve only been in office 9-months, and I’ve already lost track of the number of seperate times they have declared this recession over.
MarkTheGreat on October 29, 2009 at 9:51 AM
you really do believe the propaganda, don’t you.
MarkTheGreat on October 29, 2009 at 9:52 AM
I’d call you a hack but I’d hate to insult hacks.
The recovery, if there is one, is jobless. The two main factors for growth in Q3 won’t, by the admission of the Associated Press, be there in Q4. Unemployment will continue to rise, by the projection of the White House, through 2010.
As for this Bush recession, who controlled Congress since January 2007?
And which party was it that wanted additional regulation of the subprime mortgage industry, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? According to the New York Times and even the dunderheads at SNL, it was Republicans. Dems opposed regulating the subprime market.
This wasn’t a Bush recession. The groundwork was laid by the CRA back in the 70s. Bush, according to the NYT, tried to regulate the subprime industry. John McCain warned of financial disaster. Democrats stopped the necessary reigning in.
As Bill Clinton said, Democrats resisted efforts by himself and Republicans to reign in Fannie and Freddie. The media may cover for them now, but they’ll have to answer to history.
amerpundit on October 29, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Just to play along, if he is to receive credit then surely you know what it was that he did to deserve it. What was it?
anuts on October 29, 2009 at 9:53 AM
This is the outward appearance of the Obama “Zombie Economy”!
It moves, makes noise, people get frantic about it, but it’s dead…..
rabidamerican on October 29, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Nicely done.
BadgerHawk on October 29, 2009 at 9:56 AM
You really think that many fliers in your mail box is proof that Christmas sales will be good?
If the auto draw down was going to cause automakers to start hiring, they would have done so by now. The automakers knew that sales would collapse after the C4C fiasco was finished, so they aren’t going to replace those cars.
We have pretty much run out of first time buyers who are close enough to buying a house, that an $8K bribe will cause them to buy now, rather than next year. Even if the program is extended, it’s effects are going to drop rapidly.
Only an idiot would use the preliminary numbers for a single abnormal quarter, to so drastically modify his economic behavior. Which no doubt, is why you advocate it.
MarkTheGreat on October 29, 2009 at 9:56 AM
I can’t believe the Federal Reserve and Congressional Budget Office have been neglecting to take into account what your inbox tells you when they put out projections. To think such a reliable indicator has been left out.
Pretty good, considering even economists and financial analysts interviewed by the AP don’t even know what to expect.
amerpundit on October 29, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Drunkard.
ExpressoBold on October 29, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Aside from cognitive dissonance, there’s no reason to insist that’s the case.
ernesto on October 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Bad news guys. If the economy keeps growing, people will credit Obama instead of Bush, the teabag patriots, or the incoming expectations for Sarah Palin’s presidency.
Hopefully, the economy will start to shrink again so everyone can see what a failure Obama is.
Shrink, economy, shrink!
e-pirate on October 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM
He, like many liberal activists, believes whatever MoveOn.org sends him. If it’s an email from MoveOn or a posting on Daily Kos, it must be the truth. They could say the sky is green and he’d come here to tell us how we’re all morons for thinking it’s blue.
Kind of like the Rather memo scandal. It doesn’t matter if the documents were real or fact checked, they just wanted them to be. So Rather and others accepted it as fact.
amerpundit on October 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Not just liberals, apparently.
Proud Rino on October 29, 2009 at 10:02 AM
LOL
Proud Rino on October 29, 2009 at 10:03 AM
The subprime crisis started in 2006, before the Democrats controlled anything. Oversight of the banking system was the responsibility of the executive branch, about oversight to get the Republican Majority in both houses to do anything about it. The biggest Democratic contribution to the problem was supporting legislation written by a Republican angling for the bank-lobbyist position he got after he finished their bidding. If the CRA was the culprit (rather than greed and stupidity) then why didn’t the bubble burst in any of the earlier cycles?
Have some more Kool-Aid
I don’t start drinking until noon. Except on Saturdays.
Bleeds Blue on October 29, 2009 at 10:03 AM
One of these days, I will find a liberal capable of doing basic logic. It won’t by RINO.
You just declared the number true.
I gave a reason why the number probably wasn’t true.
When you can figure out the difference, you will stop being a liberal.
MarkTheGreat on October 29, 2009 at 10:04 AM
More BS propaganda from our very own nutcase Bozo.
As reported here in another thread banks have what is being defined as a “shadow inventory” of over 100,000 failed mortgages beyond what they have “officially” put on the books. The “Shadow inventory” is not on the books yet.
Unemployment is over 17%
And real GDP is still negative. This 3.5% increase didn’t put it into positive territory, according to the chart displayed here on HA a week or so ago.
Bozo is trying to put lipstick on a pig.
dogsoldier on October 29, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Obama is still a failure. We spent trillions of dollars and what did we get? One quarter of growth based on two contributing factors that even the liberal media has to note won’t be present in the next quarter.
Meanwhile, unemployment is approaching double digits and is expected to hit 10.5% by next summer. The annual deficit is about $1.6 trillion and growing. Obama can’t even pass basic liberal legislation with full control of Congress.
Afghanistan continues to go to hell in a hand basket, Iraq is slipping away again, and Kim Jong-Il is launching rockets like it’s the Fourth of July at the Daytona Speedway.
That spells success for you? Keep living in your special little world. Then you can insist the elections in Virginia and New Jersey were stolen, while Republicans rigged the midterms.
amerpundit on October 29, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Can you name any time in history, when the economy changed 1/4 this month in one quarter’s time?
The economy just doesn’t turn up that fast.
MarkTheGreat on October 29, 2009 at 10:05 AM
I’m sure it’s noon somewhere.
.
Drunkard.
ExpressoBold on October 29, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Laugh it up. None of us are hoping for anything, we just actually know how to do research and math and we actually see the truth.
MobileVideoEngineer on October 29, 2009 at 10:07 AM
In your world, the executive gets to write laws without any input from congress? I guess the fact that having 100% of Democrats oppose a change when one only has slim majorities in both houses is not an issue.
As to your not drinking before noon, on what day? I suspect that your current binge has been non-stop for several weeks.
MarkTheGreat on October 29, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Unfortunately, it doesn’t matter if anyone roots for the economy to shrink next quarter. The laws of economics make it a foregone conclusion.
CDeb on October 29, 2009 at 10:08 AM
A college football fan, I see.
BadgerHawk on October 29, 2009 at 10:09 AM
It stands to reason, that given the massive influx of federal money into the economy, that an uncharacteristic surge is possible. Surely, that is more probable than a conspiracy to lie about GDP numbers.
ernesto on October 29, 2009 at 10:09 AM
Even the administration’s economists have admitted that the benefit (if there actually was any) of the stimulus package is exhausted.
MarkTheGreat on October 29, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Really? Because I seem to remember them having the ability to filibuster and shut down Congress. Just like Republicans had the ability to stop Democratic attempts to cut-and-run from Iraq even after losing control.
Because it was a build-up of epic proportions. The media keeps labeling this the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression for a reason. It didn’t happen over night. It’s something that stirred for many years and finally burst.
It’s kind of like asking why a bridge that was built wrong to begin with didn’t
collapse for years. Because it took time to build up to reach the point of disaster.
As for Kool Aid, you’re the one that’s been to the punch bowl. As I said before, even Bill Clinton blamed Democrats for opposing regulatory attempts by himself and Republicans.
You can argue with the NYT’s reporting and Clinton if you wish. They’re on your side anyway. I just figure they let a little truth out every so often.
amerpundit on October 29, 2009 at 10:10 AM
That would only be true if money truely did appear out of thin air.
Business are quite aware what the negative affects of this deficit spending are going to be.
Additionally, given the size of the economy, the amount of money spent in the 3rd quarter, was not enough to create a jump this big, even if govt could get 100% of what it spent to actually stimulate the economy.
MarkTheGreat on October 29, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Not the best assumption to make on the day that the AP reports the Obama Administration lied about the number of jobs created under the stimulus program.
amerpundit on October 29, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Examine the GDP estimates just prior to elections over the last 30 years or so. Then compare those numbers to the later revisions. Then compare the trends to the party in control of the White House.
MarkTheGreat on October 29, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Where I am it’s time for bed (traveling), so I have to hit the sack. We can expect the media and liberals to gloat. And I’m fine with that. They’re the ones who’ll look stupid when unemployment is at 10.5% next summer and we’re back to quarters of retraction. And that’s all I have to say for now.
amerpundit on October 29, 2009 at 10:15 AM
GDP numbers are much easier to verify, and are calculated in a much more standard way, than something like stimulus jobs. The rubric for determining GDP doesn’t just change at a whim. Again, the only reason anyone would insist the GDP didn’t grow by 3.5% would be cognitive dissonance.
Where the money came from is irrelevant, this isnt a closed capital system. As for whether or not it was enough to create a jump this big, what makes you say that? Unless you’re an economist with data, i’ll assume the only reason you’re insisting these numbers aren’t real is cognitive dissonance.
ernesto on October 29, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Works great in Cuba.
Akzed on October 29, 2009 at 10:17 AM
I know the left compained – A LOT – about the imperial executive while Bush was in office, but that’s not really how it worked.
BadgerHawk on October 29, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Growth is not the agenda of the Democrat Party / Obama Administration.
.
I assure you, there is a coordinated effort to see that economic expansion is not occurring but economic distress is and will be. Democrats only thrive in crisis generation methods.
ExpressoBold on October 29, 2009 at 10:19 AM
We are not worthy.
Jaibones on October 29, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Better yet – do it for us, MTG. The Green Room awaits thee.
Jaibones on October 29, 2009 at 10:22 AM
SWING and a miss!
New York Times, September 11, 2003:
So WHO opposed tighter regulation of the entities that destroyed the housing market and lending industry?
THE DEMOCRATS.
Got any other Democrat historical revisionism you want popped before your very eyes?
Keep swinging for the bleachers.
Good Lt on October 29, 2009 at 10:22 AM
We can’t grow the economy anyway, we have to pay our “carbon debt” by reverting to the stone age while China and India catch up to us. Carol Browner at EPA even said that the cap and trade fiasco would have nill effect on “climate change.” So what’s the point? To hamstring the US economy.
So libs touting a growing economy under Obooba are even more clueless than usual.
Akzed on October 29, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Ahhhhh, the fruits of spending 24K per car to give out a 4K tax credit. Gee, I wonder what the next quarter will look like without the benefit of the artificial boosts of cash for clunkers and the home purchase credit. Surely, the subsequent crash in both markets won’t hurt growth….
Master Shake on October 29, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Where are the jobs?
Where is the SUSTAINED recovery? A jump in one quarter isn’t “sustained.”
In other words, once the Obama “stimulus” dries up, we’re back at square one.
Then what? More of the same? Of course, my darling. Of course.
Good Lt on October 29, 2009 at 10:24 AM
You keep yapping about “cognitive dissonance” like it’s a bad thing.
.
How much liberal opposition to President Bush and conservatives, in general, was and is based on “cognitive dissonance” first and “principles” later?
.
If you don’t have a certain amount of “cognitive dissonance” it indicates that you are a KoolAide drinker of the first, eager magnitude.
ExpressoBold on October 29, 2009 at 10:26 AM
If that were true, then there would never be any need to revise these numbers after they were first published. Yet for some reason, they are always revised, and sometimes significantly.
The fact that you don’t care where the money comes from, proves that you aren’t an economist.
Quick thought experiment.
Person A has $1000. Person B has $500.
I take $250 from Person A and give it to Person B. How much has the amount of money that Person A and Person B have to spend increase.
If you say $250, you are probably a Democrat.
MarkTheGreat on October 29, 2009 at 10:30 AM
My only point was that the insistence of fabricated numbers is only a result of cognitive dissonance…of not wanting the numbers to be real.
Revision still doesn’t imply that the numbers are loaded to begin with. And your little thought experiment ignores the way the government spends money. Either way, your doubting the numbers comes not from any concrete observation, but because you can’t rationalize them any other way.
ernesto on October 29, 2009 at 10:40 AM
Spend billions on CARS and billions on a housing stimulus, and you can get a temporary bump. But you can’t pour money into the economy forever.
The auto industry already is seeing the crash after the stimulus. So is the housing industry. I hope we see continued growth, but I believe we’re likely to see a post-stimulus drop.
The next shoe to drop will be reductions in unemployment benefits. Will it lead to people finding jobs? Or angry, hungry mobs in the street?
hawksruleva on October 29, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Wow. A 105MPH Fastball down the center of the plate. All the hitter saw was the vapor trail.
PappaMac on October 29, 2009 at 11:39 AM
The recession is over.
That fact isn’t debatable.
blink on October 29, 2009 at 11:56 AM
I don’t think so. This news will build momentum.
blink on October 29, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Except that Cap & Trade hasn’t been passed, and it might no. So this isn’t true….yet.
blink on October 29, 2009 at 12:00 PM
I’ll believe it when I see jobs being created rather than saved. There is no such thing as saving jobs; thats just another way of say “We may have lost 4 million jobs on my watch, but we saved the rest”. Those numbers mean nothing.
jaboba on October 29, 2009 at 12:32 PM
You’ll believe what? That the recession is over? It is.
The economy grew last quarter. That means that it didn’t recede. That means the recession is over.
(Keep in mind that this doesn’t mean that the economy is good. It simply means that it isn’t receding. Don’t misuse the word, “recession.”
blink on October 29, 2009 at 1:02 PM