Trump didn't get his 3%-plus economic growth for 2017, after all (The Los Angeles Times Gloats)

Los Angeles Times ^ | 01/26/2018 | By MICHAEL HILTZIK

[SeekAndFind]

Here's a prediction: You won't be hearing Donald Trump crowing about U.S. economic growth under his administration, at least not for a while.

Since the presidential campaign, Trump and his minions have been predicting that his policies would bring an increase in annual growth of better than 3% a year. They broke out the Champagne after the figures for the second and third quarter of 2017 showed annualized growth in excess of 3%.

Turns out that was premature. The first reading of real growth domestic product for the fourth quarter of 2017 was published Friday by the government's Bureau of Economic Analysis, and it shows an increase of only 2.6%. For the whole year, the increase in real GDP is 2.3%. That's better than the 1.5% growth rate in 2016, the last year of Barack Obama's second term, but only a tiny hair better than the average over Obama's full second term.

What's going to be most interesting about the latest figures is how Trump and his clique will react. I reported in May that Trump was "dreaming" if he expected sustained growth of more than 3% and explained why that was unlikely, though not impossible. After the figures came in for the second and third quarters, my email in-box and Twitter feed filled up with nyah-nyah messages from his fans, who didn't seem to understand that three months, even six months, of annualized growth of 3%-plus wasn't the same as 12 months.

This isn't surprising, coming from the average Twitter tweeter. But the triumphalism also was expressed by some more serious sources. Stephen Moore, for example. Moore is an economic fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, a former Wall Street Journal editorial writer, and a familiar face on TV as an economic commentator.

[Vigilanteman]

I lost my job of 14 years for bogus reasons in September 2016, probably mostly because I had accumulated too much paid vacation time which was attractive thing to steal by making up a phony reason to fire me.

Finally got my first interview about a month after Trump was elected, got another, then another, and another. By mid February of this year, scored a contract job from one of them which turned into a full time job a few months later.

It not only pays better than the old job, but I have a private office and no longer work for crooks.

[zipper]

Fact is, the economy is growing gangbusters, but consumers are being forced to spend on imports because Obama destroyed domestic manufacturing. It will take some time to bring back manufacturing factories and jobs. Meanwhile the increased consumer spending drove up the trade deficit, and that trade directly worked against the GDP numbers.

So the growth number is low because of an increased trade deficit.

[Paladin2]

The Deep State could easily be cooking the books.

That’s the way it goes these days.

My investment in goods and services was certainly up by way more than 3% over a year ago.

Maybe illegal immigration held the country back?

[SeekAndFind]

RE: You know the reasonably reliable sources used here on FR. Use them or use yourself as the source

OK, I did a Google Search, every single news source tell them same GDP 2.6% for 2017 story.

See the search result:

https://news.google.com/news/search/section/q/USA%20GDP%202017/USA%20GDP%202017?hl=en&gl=US&ned=us

BTW, how can I use myself as the source when I am not a news network? The only resource I have are the news networks and they all tell them same story.

You seem to be skeptical, that’s well within your rights, but at least tell me which source you trust and maybe I can look at it. So, back to my original question — which trusted sources ( by you ) tells us that the official GDP is 3% and above at this time?

[buckalfa]

There are lies, damned lies, then there are statistics. The roaring market means little if the newly created wealth is transformed into stable decent jobs in backwater America.

[oincobx]

Or to avoid bias on either side, go to the primary source.

https://bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

[hal ogen]

Typical LIB-loser “news”paper. Even if what they say is true, why are they gloating? I guess it is because they hate Free America and hate American Citizens. Losers. Cretins. Distorters. Serial Liars. My pet bird wouldn’t take a cr** on their paper.

[Jim W N]

My point is USE one of those sources that is reasonably reliable as the source for your post. That way people generally know it’s true. The Lying Leftist media are presumptive liars. Also the analysis of Right-leaning media will be different and closer to the truth than the Lying Leftists.

[jimfree]

Congratulations on your improved situation.

[Nifster]

He got three percent in consumer spending. I’ll take it

[oincobx]

FRED is also a good source for economic data.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A191RL1Q225SBEA?utm_source=series_page&utm_medium=related_content&utm_term=other_formats&utm_campaign=other_format

[llevrok]

I keep hearing the MSM saying mullah Obama is responsible for the soaring Dow.
By the associative law of algebra, he therefore takes responsibility for the low GDP.

[Bookshelf]

The fall below 3% was due to a large increase in imports of foreign goods, most of which were purchased for 2017 tax reasons. Consumer purchases were up, and there were other good signs.

[aimhigh]

What is important to know is that Trump didn’t get his 3
% BECAUSE of California.

[DoughtyOne]

For the DJIA 30 stock grouping...

...they added $88,282,278,900.00 in market capitalization today. That’s $88.282 billion in one day.

That’s just those 30 stocks.

[NutsOnYew]

That's better than the 1.5% growth rate in 2016, the last year of Barack Obama's second term, but only a tiny hair better than the average over Obama's full second term.

Here is the complete list of average annual real GDP growth by postwar president (in descending order):

Johnson (1964-68), 5.3%

Kennedy (1961-63), 4.3%

Clinton (1993-2000), 3.9%

Reagan (1981-88), 3.5%

Carter (1977-80), 3.3%

Eisenhower (1953-60), 3.0%

(Post-WWII average: 2.9%)

Nixon (1969-74), 2.8%

Ford (1975-76), 2.6%

G. H. W. Bush (1989-92), 2.3%

G. W. Bush (2001-08), 2.1%

Truman (1946-52), 1.7%

Obama (2009-15), 1.5%

[SeekAndFind]

RE: My point is USE one of those sources that is reasonably reliable as the source for your post.

And here’s my point — the 2.6% figure CANNOT BE A LIE. The numbers are from official government source and no news outlet (liberal or conservative, pro-Trump or anti-Trump) can lie about it. The numbers are what they are regardless of whether we like them or not.

They might be revised upwards later as more data come in but for now, the reports are UNANIMOUS.

[Jim W N]

“Numbers don’t lie” but people do.

Get that 2.6% figure from a reasonably reliable source that EVALUATES the figure correctly. The Lying Leftist source MAY give you the right figure but will LIE in its evaluation of the figure, its causes and its effects.

[SeekAndFind]

That so called “Leftist Lying Source” is the government’s own Bureau of Economic Research, the same source both Republicans and Democrats rely on.

If you don’t trust this source, maybe you can tell us which source you trust...

[Jim W N]

Try to follow me here -

The source of the article is the lying LA Times who you can’t trust. They MAY have correctly cited the correct government number (there are LOTS of government reports and numbers). So they MAY have correctly applied a referenced fact.

BUT, even if they referenced a fact correctly, their HEADLINE, ANALYSIS and EVALUATION of that fact will be Leftist and if not a lie, very questionable. That’s called a half truth (Satan’s MO). A half-truth is a lie.

My Point: Why not get the true fact AND the RELIABLE analysis and evaluation from a source we know to be at least reasonably reliable?