[norwaypinesavage]

This is more proof that the second quarter economic growth numbers of yesterday were fudged by moving data from an already bad first quarter into the second quarter so that yesterdays numbers could look better than expected.

[alloysteel]

When the second quarter’s numbers for “growth” are revised in the future (at some time that it is hoped will escape the notice of nearly everybody), the bogus number of 4% will “unexpectedly” drop to a much smaller figure, maybe even negative.

The Current Regime did not invent the concept of “cooking the books”, but they certainly raised it to an art form.

When even the Current Regime grudgingly admits the unemployment percentage is “up”, then the situation must be much worse than they are reporting.

And now they are giving some five or six million persons who have entered the US “in an irregular manner” work permits to sort of make them “legal”, this is supposed to reduce the number of unemployed US citizens? How does that arithmetic work? NO form of “the new math” can reconcile that disparity.

The Current Regime gives liars everywhere a bad name.

[kabar]

Good news for Wall Street and the banks. They want the Fed to continue QE and to keep interest rates low. In fact, Obama wants to keep the interest rates low because a rise in interest rates increases our debt servicing costs thereby squeezing the budget even more.

I am more and more cynical about these data. We have a partisan bureaucracy that will manipulate data when it serves the Dems interests.

[xzins]

If I have it correct, the 2nd quarter growth is based on the first quarter 2014 revised DOWN to -2.9%. So, was it 4% higher than that 1st quarter 2013 hole they had dug? That means that it was only 1.1% higher than the 4th quarter 2013. And that would mean an average .5% for each of those quarters.

If they had not ‘revised down’ to -2.9% could they have shown 4% growth? Is it a math trick?

Just using hypothetical numbers, since we have roughly a 17 trillion annual GDP, if the 4th 2013 was $4.25 trillion (one fourth of 17), and the 1st 2014 was 3% lower at $4.12 trillion and the 2nd 2014 was 4% higher than the 1st at $4.28 trillion, then they’re only $.03 trillion higher than where they started from. That would be about .1% growth

BUT they can say 4% growth from that low point they had sunk to.

Without knowing where they’re measuring 4% from, then we don’t really know what’s being done with numbers to impress us.