Q3 2013 GDP Third Estimate At 4.1%, But Inventories Constitute 41% Of That

The BEA reports here:

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 4.1 percent in the third quarter of 2013 (that is, from the second quarter to the third quarter), according to the "third" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.  In the second quarter, real GDP increased 2.5 percent. The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for the "second" estimate issued on December 5, 2103.  In the second estimate, the increase in real GDP was 3.6 percent (see "Revisions" on page 3).  With this third estimate for the third quarter, increases in personal consumption expenditures (PCE) and in nonresidential fixed investment were larger than previously estimated. ...  The change in real private inventories added 1.67 percentage points to the third-quarter change in real GDP, after adding 0.41 percentage point to the second-quarter change. Private businesses increased inventories $115.7 billion in the third quarter, following increases of $56.6 billion in the second quarter and $42.2 billion in the first.

---------------------------------------------------

That's a huge inventory number compared to the recent past.

Personal consumption expenditures, which in the second estimate came in at a paltry 1.4%, suddenly are revised up 0.6 to 2.0% in the third estimate, also contributing significantly to the up revision of GDP. In the second estimate it looked like the consumer was pulling back by over 20% from the second quarter. In the third estimate it now appears the consumer ramped it up by over 10% in Q3 compared to Q2, quite the reversal.

Someone wanted to go home early: Both reports in html and pdf say "December 5, 2103".

Hey. They're just numbers. Time for a beer. 

The Consumer Has Been Wiped Out By Food And Energy Inflation Since 2007

energy inflation up 7.75%

food inflation up 15%

average hourly earnings up 14.1%

Average hourly earnings for all employees are up 14.1% from November 2007 to November 2013, but energy inflation is up 7.75% and food inflation is up 15% over the same period.

You can't eat a cheaper iPhone.

Second Estimate Of Q3 2013 GDP Rises To 3.6% From 2.8% In The Initial

The report from the Bureau of Economic Analysis is here, showing Q3 2013 real GDP growing at a 3.6% clip. 

1.68 points of the 3.6, however, represents building of massive inventories, meaning the underlying rate is 1.9%, down from last month's 2.0% after stripping out inventories. The first estimate of inventories had been off by 100%.

Falling demand from consumers in the third quarter was indicated as personal consumption expenditures (PCE) grew at a rate 0.4 lower, at 1.4% vs. 1.8% in the second quarter, a drop of 22%. In the first estimate PCE had been estimated at 1.5% in the third quarter. The decline confirms the ongoing weakness of the consumer economy.

By Not Tapering, Fed Devalues Your $ In One Day By Almost What It Takes A Year To Do

The dollar fell 1.2% today because the Fed decided not to taper bond purchases, while year over year the dollar is down 1.5% to 1.8% because of inflation, as reported yesterday by the Bureau of Lies and Statistics, here:

The all items [Consumer Price] index increased 1.5 percent over the last 12 months. The [core] index [Personal Consumption Expenditures] for all items less food and energy has risen 1.8 percent over the last year; the 12-month change has remained in the range of 1.6 percent to 2.3 percent since June of 2011.

-----------------------------------------

By all means the Fed should have tapered, and increased interest rates to boot.

The war on the citizenry continues.

End the Fed.

(As far as broken clocks go, Ron Paul is correct twice every 24 hours).

Is The Cost Of College Really Up 538% Since 1985? Or 53%?

Gold averaged $317/ounce in 1985. Today it's knocking on the door of $1,430, up 351%. But the cost of a college education is up 538% since then, according to this story from Bloomberg:

"[T]uition expenses have increased 538 percent in the 28-year period, compared with a 286 percent jump in medical costs and a 121 percent gain in the consumer price index. The ballooning charges have generated swelling demand for educational loans while threatening to make college unaffordable for domestic and international students."

------------------------------------------------

I won't quibble about the inflation measure. I show the "all items" CPI July 1985/July 2013 up about 115%, but that just raises the question about what is the correct way to measure inflation.

Arguably the price of gold is the correct measure of inflation in the economy, not the CPI. And by that standard the cost of a college education has risen just 53% more than gold measured inflation has risen in 28 years, not 345% more, while medical costs have actually failed to keep up with inflation as measured by gold over the same period. Some maintain that most of the actual increased cost of college has to do with the increased costs of room and board, not with tuition. That seems entirely plausible. Tuition and fees where I went to school in 1985 are up 300% vs. 350% for gold.

People are finding college to be unaffordable in the same way that they are finding gold to be unaffordable. It's not that the prices are up. It's that the dollar has shrunk, the cruellest tax of all because it takes you 30 years to realize you've been robbed somewhere along the line, but just where you cannot tell.

Heresy.

Truth.

We report, you decide.

First Report Of Q2 2013 GDP At 1.7%, Q1 Revised Down To 1.1% From 1.8%, Q4 2012 Down To 0.1% From 0.4%

The press release, excerpted below, from the BEA is here, the full pdf with the 14th revision of the comprehensive GDP data is here. The revisions lower in the prior two quarters combined with the low 1.7% first report in Q2 2013 should be extremely troubling to everyone. The economy is crawling.

"Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 1.7 percent in the second quarter of 2013 (that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.  In the first quarter, real GDP increased 1.1 percent (revised). The Bureau emphasized that the second-quarter advance estimate released today is based on source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see the box on page 3 and "Comparisons of Revisions to GDP" on page 18).  The "second" estimate for the second quarter, based on more complete data, will be released on August 29, 2013. The increase in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, nonresidential fixed investment, private inventory investment, and residential investment that were partly offset by a negative contribution from federal government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased. The acceleration in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected upturns in nonresidential fixed investment and in exports, a smaller decrease in federal government spending, and an upturn in state and local government spending that were partly offset by an acceleration in imports and decelerations in private inventory investment and in PCE."

How A Good Central Banker Is Supposed To Behave

not like this under Greenspan and Bernanke

David Merkel, here:

A good central bank fights the politics of the nation of which it is a part and tries to preserve purchasing power, ignoring labor unemployment. It tries to be a paper "gold standard." That has not been the Fed for 25+ years.

Sleeper Story Of The Day: Q1 GDP Revised DOWN To 1.8% From 2.4%

While everyone was fixated on Supreme Court rulings involving homosexuality, the third and final report of GDP for Q1 2013 got buried in the avalanche. A good place for it, too, seeing how bad it was.

The BEA reported here:

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 1.8 percent in the first quarter of 2013 (that is, from the fourth quarter to the first quarter), according to the "third" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.  In the fourth quarter, real GDP increased 0.4 percent.

The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for the "second" estimate issued last month.  In the second estimate, real GDP increased 2.4 percent.  With the third estimate for the first quarter, the increase in personal consumption expenditures (PCE) was less than previously estimated, and exports and imports are now estimated to have declined (for more information, see "Revisions" on page 3).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Poor growth is entirely apropos to the situation. Preoccupied by our own narcissism, we aren't PRODUCING.

Robert Samuelson: Obama Is Timid, Lazy, Phony, Tiny and Small

"Timid, lazy, phony, tiny and small" doesn't quite have the same ring as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short", but you never know, it might catch on.

Here:

There is something profoundly timid about President Obama's proposed $3.778 trillion budget for 2014. ... [T]he budget is a status-quo document. It lets existing trends and policies run their course, meaning that Obama would allow higher spending on the elderly to overwhelm most other government programs. This is not "liberal" or "conservative" so much as politically expedient and lazy. ...

Obama remains unwilling to grapple with basic questions posed by an aging population, high health costs and persistent deficits. Why shouldn't programs for the elderly be overhauled to reflect longer life expectancy and growing wealth among retirees? Shouldn't we have a debate on the size and role of government, eliminating low-value programs and raising taxes to cover the rest? The "spin" given by the White House -- and accepted by much of the media -- is that the president is doing precisely this by putting coveted "entitlement" spending on the bargaining table.

It's phony. Compared with the size of the problem, Obama's proposals are tiny. The much-discussed shift in the inflation adjustment for Social Security benefits to the "chained" consumer price index would save $130 billion over a decade; that's about 1 percent of projected Social Security spending of $11.23 trillion over the same period. ...

The work of politics is persuasion. It is orchestrating desirable, though unpopular, changes. (Popular changes don't require much work.) . . . Already, his small proposed cuts in Social Security benefits have outraged much of the liberal base.

So Obama has taken a pass. He has chosen the lazy way out. He's evading basic choices while claiming he's bold and brave. ...

Forbes: The Fed Is The Most Hypocritical, Thieving, Incompetent Bank In The Country

Richard Salsman for Forbes here savages the thieving, incompetent US Federal Reserve for its utter hypocrisy in keeping comparatively well-capitalized big banks from paying out dividends when its own balance sheet is the most under-capitalized of all and pays out 100% of what it makes.

Not news, but it bears repeating as often as possible, especially when it's stated so well:

'[I]n the century prior to the Fed’s founding in 1913, U.S. commercial banks were far more liquid and far better capitalized; in the century since 1913, however, and especially since the FDIC was established in 1934, the banks’ liquidity and capital adequacy measures have steadily deteriorated. This artificial, policy-induced financial precariousness has been used routinely as a pretext to justify onerous regulations – which, it’s easy to notice, have never quite adequately curbed all the excessive risk-taking and hence periodic banking crises. Bank executives often oppose the onerous regulations, but not the government subsidies which invite them. ...

'What about the Fed? It’s now got the biggest balance sheet of all the major banks in the U.S. – $3.1 trillion in total assets (versus $2.2 trillion at Bank of America, the largest private-sector bank in the U.S.) – and yet the Fed also has only $55.1 billion in capital (versus $160.3 billion at Bank of America). That means the Fed’s capital/assets ratio is a mere 1.8%, less than a quarter of the average capital ratio for the top eighteen banks subject to CCAR (8.0%) and of the three banks recently deemed inadequate (8.2%). The Fed’s capital ratio is only 15% of the ratio of BB&T (11.5%), the most-capitalized of the top private banks. Moreover, the Fed’s dividend payout ratio is hardly conservative or capital-preserving (like 10-33%); it is a 100% payout, since the Fed pays all its income (mainly from Treasury bonds, notes and bills), none of which is taxed, straight to the Treasury. Whereas the Fed is leveraged 56:1 (liabilities/capital), the top eighteen banks are leveraged by just 12:1 (average), while the three censured banks are leveraged by only 10:1 (average). ...

'This is the same Fed which, over the past century, has debased the dollar to such a degree that it’s now worth only 5% of its initial real purchasing power in 1913 (whereas the dollar in 1913 was approximately as valuable as it was in 1813, because it was anchored by the gold standard, not by a flimsy Fed standard). This is the same Fed that Alan Greenspan touted in a 1996 speech as “the ultimate guardian of the purchasing power of our money.” Is it truly a “guardian” – or instead an incompetent, or perhaps a thief – who presides over a loss of 95%? This is the same Fed which now censures private banks for having capital levels many times greater than the Fed’s own capital level. Isn’t it high time we ended the hypocrisy whereby the politically-financially reckless among us rule the day?'

The big banks' off-balance-sheet assets make their capital ratios much worse than stated above, but that just makes them more like the Fed in that respect. Salsman points out that before 1913 when we still had true, private banking, capital ratios averaged 20%+, whereas today 8% is about as good as it gets. 

How About A National Minimum Wage Of $4.34 As In Obama's American Samoa?

"The first attempt at establishing a national minimum wage came in 1933, when a $0.25 per hour standard was set as part of the National Industrial Recovery Act. However, in the 1935 court case Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (295 U.S. 495), the United States Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional, and the minimum wage was abolished."

So says the Wikipedia article on the minimum wage, here.

Adjusted for inflation according to the Consumer Price Index since 1933, the minimum wage in 2011 should have been just $4.34, not $7.25.

So if we should do anything, we should lower the minimum wage, not raise it to $9.00 as President Obama hypocritically calls for. I say hypocritically because President Obama already thinks the lower level around $4.00 is just fine for the residents of American Samoa, who by law make between just $2.68 and $4.69, which is where even now he aims to keep them:

On September 30, 2010, President Obama signed legislation that delays scheduled wage increases for 2010 and 2011. On July 26, 2012, President Obama signed S. 2009 into law, postponing the minimum wage increase for 2012, 2013, and 2014. Annual wage increases of $0.50 will recommence on September 30, 2015 and continue every three years until all rates have reached the federal minimum.

This is thought to be a favor to Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the former Democrat Speaker of the House, which keeps her business pals there (tuna canners) more profitable than they otherwise would be if they had to comply with the federal minimum wage legislation.

Claiming the mantle of the working poor is so much easier than actually vetoing a bill which keeps workers impoverished indefinitely. He didn't veto it but signed it, and the residents of American Samoa remain second class citizens as a result, under the first black president. There's a new massa in town, but it's the same old shit.

The 1932 Dollar Adjusted For CPI Through 2011

The 1932 dollar (when gold was last fixed at $20.67 the ounce) adjusted for CPI through 2011 comes to $16.50 ($1 x 1650%). If you had $20.67 to start in 1932, you'd need $341.06 today to have the identical amount in terms of CPI.

An ounce of gold held since 1932 is worth $1660 right now in 2013, an increase of 8031% since 1932 ($20.67 x 8031%).

Tough choice, right?