GDP Grows Less Than Expected at 3.7 Percent

Fox News ^ | October 29, 2004

[Pfesser]

WASHINGTON — The U.S. economy grew at a healthy 3.7 percent annual rate in the third quarter this year, bolstered by strong consumer spending and accompanied by the lowest inflation in decades...

The third-quarter expansion in gross domestic product (search) — the measure of total output within the nation's borders — came in below Wall Street economists' forecasts for a 4.2 percent pace of growth but still was up from 3.3 percent in the second quarter.

It was one of the final pieces of economic data before Tuesday's U.S. presidential election in which the economy's condition has been a focal point, and indicated generally that a solid expansion remains in place.

Consumer spending, which accounts for about two-thirds of economic activity, increased at the fastest rate in a year while a price gauge that is favored by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan (search) — the index of personal consumption expenditures minus food and energy — barely increased at a 0.7 percent rate. That was the smallest gain in this price measure in nearly 42 years, since a 0.5 percent rise in the fourth quarter of 1962, department officials said.

[Pfesser]

Despite the title, this sounds like more good news.

[ruiner]

Yea, well I EXPECTED to win the lottery, but I didn't.

I'm tired of the negative spin. I have never taken a journalism class but imagine the article headline should be:

"GPD Grows at 3.7%"

If you want to put a paragraph in the body of the article about expectations and projections, then fine.

[Always Right]

3.7% growth is very good. Stupid headline.

[snooker]

Have the prediction experts ever been right?

Easy to decipher how this works.
Last report before the election.
Crank the estimate up as high as possible.
OOps didn't make it.
ergo -- bad economy -- blame Bush.

France's GDP is 0.8% and holding steady. Anyone want to trade ours for France's?

[bmwcyle]

I think the liberals need to jump over this bad news.

[Constitution Day]

Check the breaking news sidebar:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1261216/posts

ALREADY POSTED!

[hawkaw]

The story and Headline are by Reuters on the Foxnews web site.

Need I say anything else about how they spun the headline.

[conservative in nyc]

It's good news but watch the spin. This headline will appear somewhere in most articles. The biased reporters will build their article around that premise, throwing in irrelevant "bad" data like the overall Bush job creation numbers and gasoline prices. The AP's acting up already.

[DesertDreamer]

Looks like a decent rate of growth to me. I guess the real news here is that the Wall Street economists' estimates were off. [/sarcasm]

[aimhigh]

The Federal Reserfve raised interest rates twice. This is what is slowing down the economy.

[branch1]

First of all, the idiot clinton had a 1st term 4 year GDP average of 2.45%, and unemployment was at 5.7% (that was with the very diminutive robert b reich fudging the numbers). The average GDP for the last 40 years was around 3.2%. So if the morons who voted for clinton in '96 and cited the economic numbers as the reason and are not voting for Pres. Bush because of the current economic numbers, I believe it is fair to say they will vote for any dummycrap as long as it is a dummycrap and only a dummycrap.

[RockinRight]

I agree. I say leave rates alone for a while.

[Question Liberal Authority]

At 3.7% growth, real GDP would grow more than 1,500% in the average person's lifetime. AFTER adjusting for inflation.

[Red Dog #1]

I could see the headline if it were 4.5%. “ Bush leads US into inflationary/speculative death spiral.”

[Cubs Fan]

I hate to see FOX parroting the lib spin.

3.7 may have been less than expected, but its still pretty darned good.

And if the dems and the media weren't so busy talking down a good economy, consumer confidence would probably pick up and it would get even better.

[driftless]

Although I feel both parties take too much credit for the economy, Bush's tax cut did exactly what it was supposed to do...stimulate the economy. What exactly would Democrats do different to produce better results? They are never asked probably because they have no answer. Even if there were more job lost than created under Bush (there aren't, the Household survey shows we have a net gain of about two million jobs), what would the Dems do? Does any sane person really believe that government grows private sector jobs? I guess many liberal Dems do, but I'm talking about sane people.

[ruiner]

John Kerry's plan is to increase the rate of growth.

My plan is to be filthy rich and like on Lake Norman someday.

My wife's plan is to have four children, work full time in a professional profession, and not send our kids to daycare.

We all have plans! What matters are results. The result is that our economy grew larger. Period. That about sums it up for me!

[Law is not justice but process]

"At 3.7% growth, real GDP would grow more than 1,500% in the average person's lifetime. AFTER adjusting for inflation. "

I think 3.7% GDP growth is very good, but not great. If every quarter for three years was 3.7% growth, that would be great (as it is we have to average out some slower quarters). I am very happy with this number. However, I find that 1500% lifetime GDP number to be unconvincing. After you correct for population growth (probably about 1%) and inflation (less than 2% these days, except for energy), that leaves only a net increase in per capita income adjusted for inflation of .7% to 1%. I don't think you could get that kind of return if you lived 100 years (by my calculation, if you lived 100 years at a net 1% yearly increase in real, per capita GDP, the increase would be 270% -still, that aint bad!).

[Preachin']

This is actually a Reuters hit piece. It's just placed at the Fox News site.

[Preachin']

This is actually a Reuters hit piece. It's just placed at the Fox News site.