• Markets
• Economy
• Federal Reserve
• Housing
• Energy
• Digital Media

GDP Shocker?

What will today's GDP data look like? (and yet another call to take "the under?")

The consensus is for 3.6% growth, according to Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires and CNBC. That would be quite robust, despite the inflation working  its way through the economy. 

Its tough enough to come up with accurate estimates under the best of circumstances; given all the incomplete data and forced assumptions, this GDP number may be even trickier. The WSJ's Justin Lahart notes that "the Commerce Department lacks September business inventories and trade figures, it will be making assumptions of its own. And inventories and trade both got roiled in September." (I called it the Fog of Katrina)

Economist and CNBC host Lawrence Kudlow, a perennial optimist if ever there was one, thinks the energy spike post-Katrina may clock GDP: He's looking for a real downside surprise.

I think his logic on this one is compelling. Barring any special BLS adjustments, 3.6% looks mighty aggressive. 2-3% might be a more accurate read, with Larry on the low end of the scale.

I'll wildly guess 2.75% -- but its only a guess -- I don't model GDP . . .

<spacer>

UPDATE: October 28, 2005 9:46am
Surprise!  GDP came in at 3.8% -- I havent torn apart GDP data yet, but at first read it looks like  the increase was driven by consumer spending (Automobiles in particular), inventory changes, and a big increase in Federal government spending.

Dow Jones noted "For its first and second estimates of a particular quarter's GDP, Commerce must make assumptions for some components of economic activity, for which data are unavailable."

So how did we end up with such a strong number, despite the big inflation spike and apparent weakening? Here's the money quote:

"The Commerce Department said it adjusted its methods in some cases to take the hurricane into account."

Let's see if we can't figure out what these adjustments were . . .

<spacer>

Source:
AHEAD OF THE TAPE: One to Grow On
JUSTIN LAHART   
October 28, 2005; Page C1
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113045154267081762.html

Friday, October 28, 2005 | 07:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack (1)
add to de.li.cious | digg this! | add to technorati | email this post

Comments

I agree with your emphasis on a policy failure over an Intel failure. But I think you are glossing over one major point. The Administration misled the American people, including me. We trusted (and the Congress as well) the representations made by the President, the Vice President and other members of the Administration about mushroom clouds, uranium tubes and the Niger uranium purchase and supported the President's decision. No rational analytical reasonable person in the Administration's shoes would have accepted the shaky intelligence as a basis for war. The British effectively said so in the Downing Street Memo. Wilson's report was 1 of 3 stating that the Niger uranium sale claims were false. The CIA refused to let the President put the claim in a speech in October 2002 and only permitted its includion in the SOTU address based on verbal pyrotechnics. We were purposely mislead in a manner not seen since the Gulf of Tonkin. In my book, with tens of thousands dead and maimed, and our treasury depleated, crimes were committed.

Posted by: Simon | Oct 28, 2005 8:12:59 AM