Moderator
Administrator
Senior Forum Expert
Regist.: 11/17/2010
Topics: 296
Posts: 1121
 OFFLINE |
The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis issued revised figures for the first quarter of 2011. It had earlier reported an annual rate of anemic GDP growth of 1.9 percent for Q1. Even if that number had been accurate, it was insufficient to reverse the catastrophic rate of unemployment and underemployment in the United States. The revised numbers are now in; the Bureau of Economic Analysis now says that actual GDP growth in the first quarter of 2011 was a virtually non-existent 0.4 percent. It also issued preliminary growth figures for Q2 of 1.3 percent, worse than expected. As with the Q1 data, it is likely that future revisions will show that Q2 did even worse. This was the weakest six months period since the recovery began in the second quarter of 2009.
Economic growth slowed during Q2 as acknowledged by the Fed and indicated by regional Fed surveys, ISM, durable goods, etc so how could Q2 GDP be higher than Q1 GDP? That would imply the economy accelerated and clearly that has not happened.
"These numbers are extremely bad," said Nigel Gault, an economist at IHS Global Insight. "The momentum in the economy is clearly very weak." The sharp slowdown means the economy will likely grow this year at a weaker pace than last year. Economists don't expect growth to pick up enough in the second half of the year to lower the unemployment rate, which rose to 9.2 percent last month.
Democrats blame the sputtering economy on President Bush, who hasn't occupied the Oval Office for the better part of three years. To put that in perspective, Senate Democrats have even offered a budget -- 821 days ago -- more recently than Bush's final day as president. The Left believes government can spur economic growth with more stimulus spending and tax increases. Conservatives vehemently disagree. This fundamental ideological clash will feature prominently in Battle: 2012.
you know, this is becoming a little too much of a trend. i've noticed this consistently for literally years now, since the "recovery" began. every time a government economic report comes out, the media picks up on the numbers, and puts them out. but then every stinking time, a revision comes out later that is much much lower than the original numbers, and this is barely reported. i mean we're being freaking lied to basically. and of course not too many people care about this sort of thing because it's numbers and a bit boring. but if Q1 numbers were at .04%, and we experienced even more of a slowdown in Q2, then we have to technically be in the midst of a double dip. |
guess we're back in a recession
OFFLINE
Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
, they're not willing to hire people and train them in. Plus I remember 1999, and I remember the dot-com crash that came straight after it in 2000/2001 as well (this is technically my 3rd recession). Problem is that computers/IT is a lot more cyclical than most, with the cycle being that in the boom times everyone goes to college to do computers 'cos that's where the money is, then 4 years later there's a glut of grads so unemployment in IT goes up. Then in the next crash no-one bothers doing computers in college and 4 years later there's a shortage of grads so is a job-seeker's paradise again for a while.