U.S. Economy: Growth Slowed in Second Quarter to 1.1% Pace

Bloomberg ^ | Washington, July 31 | Siobhan Hughes and Carlos Torres

[Jordi]

Gross domestic product grew at a 1.1 percent annual rate in the second quarter, compared with 5 percent in January-March, the Commerce Department said. A separate survey of purchasing executives showed that manufacturing in the Chicago area expanded this month at the slowest pace since contracting in January.

[Guillermo]

Maybe the Government isn't spending enough ;)

[gov_bean_ counter]

In part, maybe too many people had to ante up more that expected to pay their 2001 tax bill, since the major part of the tax cut has yet to take place.

[Dog Gone]

A recession isn't looming, based on these numbers. What it tells me is that we had a mild recession and we haven't fully recovered yet. It's basically flat.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Bush should have an address to the nation and use these figures to show that he was made captain of the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. He should also explain the economic results of the Clintoon-era bubble. Then announce that such paltry growth is unacceptable and that we can do better-- but only if the government gives entrepreneurs the ability to create wealth and jobs for hard working Americans. Then he should lay out his economic plan and say he wants Congress to act on it, or else it would be decided by voters this fall in the midterms-- vote GOP if you approve of his plan.

[Moonman62]

I think everybody in government should be thrown in jail for fudging the numbers and misleading the american people. Who's their accountant, Arthur Anderson?

[Tauzero]

Kind of like how the Dow was flat for a while...

[Tauzero]

Bbbut -- that would ruin the "new tone" he's trying to set!

[HOYA97]

Excellent Idea!!!!!

[AmericanInTokyo]

You should be working in the White House.

[SteamshipTime]

Sheer utter nonsense. My pockets are absolutely flush with that enormous tax cut. I buy steel and lumber on the black market so I don't have to pay Bush's tariff. I work off the books so I don't pay the payroll taxes which were just increased, and I'm a net tax consumer so I can spend money before the old money declines in purchasing power thanks to increased debt and new money entering the system. I'm doing GREAT! What's all this complainin' about? < /sarcasm >

[Always Right]

Gross domestic product grew at a 1.1 percent annual rate in the second quarter, compared with 5 percent in January-March

Averages out to a little over 3.1% growth. Damn good for a 'recession'.

[Huck]

Bush should have an address to the nation and use these figures to show that he was made captain of the Titanic after it hit the iceberg.

Telling Americans we are on the Titanic would be like giving the "Malaise" speech. I would rather see him emulate Ronald Reagan, by consistently articulating a clear, simple vision for economic growth and asking Americans to "stay the course." But what is the Bush Administration's course for economic growth? And how are we doing?

[GraniteStateConservative]

He doesn't have to mention Clintoon in his speech. He doesn't even have to blame Clintoon. Just explain economics to people.

[Jordi]

I think the most astonishing news is another: I've just heard at Bloomberg radio that 2001 GDP growth was "revised" down to .3% - with a recession (now they tell us) that lasted for the first three quarters. That's a bombshell.

[Kobyashi1942]

Averages out to a little over 3.1% growth. Damn good for a 'recession'.

Actually, we are probably already in a recession, again. Factor out increases in govt. spending and and increase in inventory (not a good thing) and the 1.1% growth becomes "negative growth", a recession. They tend to leave these little "trinkets" out when they report things like "The economy grew by 1.1%".

[Dave S]

Averages out to a little over 3.1% growth. Damn good for a 'recession'.

Yes but how much of that was 9/11 inspired federal government spending? Consumer spending only grew 3% in first quarter while entire economy was up 5%. My bet is the feds accounted for most of that spike during first quarter.

[Kobyashi1942]

I think the most astonishing news is another: I've just heard at Bloomberg radio that 2001 GDP growth was "revised" down to .3% - with a recession (now they tell us) that lasted for the first three quarters. That's a bombshell.

Just wait till they revise the figure they released today. It will be down, again. The sad part is they worst is yet to come. You can't have a market meltdown like we've had and NOT see further shrinkage in the economy (appologies for the double negative).

[GraniteStateConservative]

No, because that was in the past. The economy didn't grow for three quarters-- including the first month of January when Clintoon ran the country. He should make clear that the first 9 months of his term were recessionary periods, but his tax cut brought us out in the final quarter of 2001-- and that his tax cut was designed for an economy that was growing (saying the Commerce Dept of the previous administration told him it was), but growing very slowly. Then say that he's proposing a bolder package because of the very anemic growth that we find ourselves in.

Q3 growth is almost always the slowest of the year-- that's not comforting to Republicans this fall. Oh, and Reagan lost nearly 30 seats in the House in the 1982 midterms during the midst of an average -6.7% GDP retraction the first three quarters of '82. I don't think Dubya wants to follow that advice. Bush needs to get out in front of the issue in a big way that gets coverage.

[My2Cents]

Good point (one largely missed by the media, and of course the Democrat spin mongers). Even though we are not in the midst of a roaring recovery, we are NOT in recession. This is a continuation of the Clinton-Gore blahs.