Credit where it is due

[strandinthewind]

Economy Grows at Brisk 3.8 Percent in Third Quarter

Friday, October 28, 2005



WASHINGTON — Economic activity expanded at an energetic 3.8 percent annual rate in the third quarter, providing vivid evidence of the economy's stamina even as it coped with the destructive forces of hurricanes Katrina (search) and Rita.

The latest snapshot of the country's economic performance, released by the Commerce Department (search) on Friday, even marked an improvement from the solid 3.3 percent pace of growth registered in the second quarter.

Growth in the third quarter was broad-based, reflecting brisk spending by consumers, businesses and government.

The expansion in gross domestic product in the July-to-September quarter, the strongest since the beginning of the year, also exceeded many analysts' expectations. Before the report was released, they were forecasting the economy to clock in at a 3.6 percent annual rate.

GDP measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States and is the best barometer of the nation's economic fitness.

Katrina, the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history, struck in late August; Rita hit in late September. Both hurricanes destroyed businesses and homes and choked the flow of trade. They also hobbled essential oil and gas facilities, catapulting energy prices higher and fanning inflation fears.

An inflation gauge tied to the GDP report showed overall inflation picking up in the third quarter. But excluding food and energy prices, "core" inflation — something the Federal Reserve (search) pays close attention to — actually moderated. Core inflation rose at a rate of 1.3 percent in the third quarter, down from a 1.7 percent pace in the second quarter.

Despite the sting of high energy bills, consumers continued to spend, doing their part to keep the economy rolling in the third quarter.

Consumers' boosted spending at a brisk 3.9 percent rate, the strongest pace since the end of last year. That spending reflected a big appetite for big-ticket "durable" goods, such as cars, which had been discounted and promoted to lure buyers. Some analysts believe consumer spending probably will moderate, but still remain healthy, in the months ahead.

Businesses increased spending on equipment and software at an 8.9 percent pace in the third quarter, on top of a 10.9 percent growth rate in the prior quarter.

Spending by the federal government, which analysts believe included some outlays due to the hurricanes, rose at a 7.7 percent rate in the third quarter, the fastest pace since the first quarter of 2004.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173789,00.html

The cause is up to interpretation, but that number is good, despite W's insane spending on the credit card like me in Vegas - those there will know what I am talking about

[irishgrl]

its funny, you keep posting these types of articles and I keep telling you Joe Schmoe on the street aint feelin the love.........housing starts went down and now with this new Fed Chairman going to put the breaks on interest rates (Im not sure if thats good or not but since he's an unknown, I think the markets are going to be wacky for awhile)

I just read an article that said the Bush team is trying like crazy to convince the average American that the economy is improving, but they arent seeming to get the message across?? I'll try to find it...

[strandinthewind]

This recovery has been widely touted as a jobless one. While enough jobs have not been created ,and that is an understatement, it is an economic theory quandry for most. In other words, where are the jobs that usually follow such numbers? In the past, and certainly in the Clinton and even the Reagan years - corp. spending = creation of jobs, which is not exactly the case here. Perhaps it is a mix of farming out jobs overseas and part time labor.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

This recovery has been widely touted as a jobless one. While enough jobs have not been created ,and that is an understatement, it is an economic theory quandry for most. In other words, where are the jobs that usually follow such numbers? In the past, and certainly in the Clinton and even the Reagan years - corp. spending = creation of jobs, which is not exactly the case here. Perhaps it is a mix of farming out jobs overseas and part time labor.

so the reality is that this "boom" is really only being felt by big business or investor types? That would explain Exxon's huge profits and Im sure they arent alone.....anyway, this is what gripes me about "economic recovery" it really isnt a true recovery only a boom for the corporatocracy. Yech.

[strandinthewind]

On the same topic:




The $25 trillion land grab
Ten megapolitans are poised for a boom that, by 2030, will dwarf America's post WWII buildout.
October 28, 2005: 1:00 PM EDT
By Paul Kaihla and Krysten Crawford, Business 2.0

NEW YORK (Business 2.0) - There has been an impressive amount of construction in the United States over the last three centuries: All told, we've built more than 300 billion square feet of homes, offices, factories and other structures.

But according to new studies from the Brookings Institution and Virginia Tech urban planning professor Robert Lang, we're about to pick up the pace -- it will take just 25 years to erect the next 200 billion square feet, which we'll need to accommodate 70 million more people and to replace homes and offices erased by everything from disasters like Hurricane Katrina to plain old obsolescence.

If you think the real estate boom of the past decade was bounteous, peek a little further over the horizon: Researchers estimate that the massive buildout will constitute a $25 trillion development market by 2030, more than twice the size of the U.S. economy today. According to Lang, the bulk of that money will flow into 10 major metro regions that he has christened "megapolitans."

Here are exclusive growth forecasts for each of these regions and -- based on interviews with dozens of regional planners, developers and investors -- identified the savviest angles to play in the near and long term.

Find this article at:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/26/pf/m...ex.htm?cnn=yes

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Hey if the economy is doing better, it's doing better..just because I want the Republicans to go DOWN, I don't want it to happen at the sake of the country. I would much rather the economy be great, the troops not dead, etc...than have something else to pin on Bush, ya know what I'm saying?

Chris

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

so the reality is that this "boom" is really only being felt by big business or investor types?

Bingo. And I think strandinthewind is right about the possible causes of the seeming paradox: outsourcing of jobs overseas coupled with the free-for-all illegal immigrant situation that's going on in the Mexican border states. I think those two factors are definitely contributing to the no-job-creation problem, but I also feel like there must be something else at work... I just don't know what, and I'm no economic theorist by any means.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

Bingo. And I think strandinthewind is right about the possible causes of the seeming paradox: outsourcing of jobs overseas coupled with the free-for-all illegal immigrant situation that's going on in the Mexican border states. I think those two factors are definitely contributing to the no-job-creation problem, but I also feel like there must be something else at work... I just don't know what, and I'm no economic theorist by any means.

All of which I pointed out to him in past conversations on this same topic. Interesting that he is repeating that info now....who'd a thunk it?

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

This recovery has been widely touted as a jobless one. While enough jobs have not been created ,and that is an understatement, it is an economic theory quandry for most. In other words, where are the jobs that usually follow such numbers? In the past, and certainly in the Clinton and even the Reagan years - corp. spending = creation of jobs, which is not exactly the case here. Perhaps it is a mix of farming out jobs overseas and part time labor.

most definitely. and I see from reading an article about the infamous "Wal Mart memo" that its the policy of the higher ups to cut the costs of having to provide insurance by cutting back on full time workers and concentrating instead on hiring part timers (among other things) Wal Mart truly makes me ill.

I'd love to see them go under.

[sparky]

I wonder if the these jobs are counted if they are outsourced ? I know 2 people in the past month who have been informed that their jobs are going overseas in the next 6 months. They are qualified for a great job training package, thank god. And I have been looking at buying a massive apartment building just outside of dallas. But is this a good thing in the big picture ?

[sparky]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

most definitely. and I see from reading an article about the infamous "Wal Mart memo" that its the policy of the higher ups to cut the costs of having to provide insurance by cutting back on full time workers and concentrating instead on hiring part timers (among other things) Wal Mart truly makes me ill.

I'd love to see them go under.

Disney, or as we call them in LA, Mauschwitz, has been doing this for over a decade.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by sparky

I wonder if the these jobs are counted if they are outsourced ? I know 2 people in the past month who have been informed that their jobs are going overseas in the next 6 months. They are qualified for a great job training package, thank god. And I have been looking at buying a massive apartment building just outside of dallas. But is this a good thing in the big picture ?

The only thing that counts is the bottom line, the almighty dollar. it doesnt matter where its made because the companies are American.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by sparky

Disney, or as we call them in LA, Mauschwitz, has been doing this for over a decade.

Lots of companies do this, but its my understanding that a law was passed requiring more employers to provide healthcare insurance to their employees, and the way many of them are getting around it is by only hiring part-timers.
Jerks.

I like the Mauschwitz moniker, very clever

[sparky]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

Lots of companies do this, but its my understanding that a law was passed requiring more employers to provide healthcare insurance to their employees, and the way many of them are getting around it is by only hiring part-timers.
Jerks.

I like the Mauschwitz moniker, very clever

Totally ! When I first moved to LA 13 years ago I roomed with this adorable grip who worked for Mauschwitz. They hired him every Monday and laid him off every Thursday to avoid paying his healthcare benefits. When I saw that I was convinced the entire country was going down the ****ter.

Thankfully, our unions bypassed this in a landmark renegotiation about 6 years ago. Nonetheless, they are trying to still do it with under the table deals in town and out of the country.

BTW - our other name for Disney in the LA film industry ?

Duchau.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by sparky

Totally ! When I first moved to LA 13 years ago I roomed with this adorable grip who worked for Mauschwitz. They hired him every Monday and laid him off every Thursday to avoid paying his healthcare benefits. When I saw that I was convinced the entire country was going down the ****ter.

Thankfully, our unions bypassed this in a landmark renegotiation about 6 years ago. Nonetheless, they are trying to still do it with under the table deals in town and out of the country.

BTW - our other name for Disney in the LA film industry ?

Duchau.

dont you mean Dachau?