[bluecat6]

So 1Q was revised from 1.8 to 1.1.

And we are supposed to have any confidence in the 2Q number?

Or is this like the weekly unemployment - the revised is always worse than initial and then that makes new announcement that much ‘better’ even though is purely an apples and oranges headline?

So 1.7 is greatly improved and has momentum? Is that the headline? Um, no. It should not be it. It should be 1.7 as compared to 1.8 (both initial reports). The ‘revised’ will likely be around 1.0 with the track record. Of course then a 1.5 in 3Q will still read as a positive.

The manipulation of headlines is getting so, so tiresome.

[Wyatt's Torch]

The entire GDP model/calculation was revised back to 1929. The comparison between the 1.8% and 1.1% is apples and oranges.

[Hardastarboard]

The elephant in the room here is that 1.1 or 1.7 or 1.8 percent used to be enough to threaten a President's re-election chances, or at least his political capital if he wasn't up for re-election. The desired growth rate was over 3%.

Now ANY growth is hailed as proof that the Messiah's economic prowess is greater than any President in history, and that the "recovery" is in full swing.

[Wyatt's Torch]

From the BEA release:

Comprehensive Revision of the National Income and Product Accounts

The estimates released today reflect the results of the 14th comprehensive (or benchmark) revision of the national income and product accounts (NIPAs) in conjunction with the second quarter 2013 “advance” estimate. More information on the revision is available on BEA’s Web site at www.bea.gov/gdp-revisions.