GDP Fraud

by PIM of SPAIN | November 4, 2009 at 07:47 am
235 views | 41 Recommendations | 23 comments

Photos

GDP Fraud | Photo 02

GDP Fraud | Photo 02

see larger image

uploaded by PIM of SPAIN

The government released GDP figures showing rosy 3.5% growth in the third quarter. But don’t be fooled: the books were cooked. This time by the cash for clunkers boondoggle, the first time homebuyers tax credit, and other forms of useless stimuli.

According to The Wall Street Journal, “fully 2.2 percentage points of the third quarter's 3.5% growth figure related to vehicle purchases and residential construction, both juiced by government support. Federal spending added 0.6%.”

The Bureau of Economic Analysis says, “car sales shot up 157.6% quarter on quarter.” That means cash for clunkers accounted for 1.66% of total GDP.

So subtract fake demand (1.66%) from the official GDP figure (3.5%), and you’re left with 1.84% GDP growth. Not so great after all…

And if you take away other forms of stimulus, the GDP picture appears even darker. According to David Rosenberg, GDP would have been flat or negative without stimulus.

"Don't believe the GDP hype," Dan Denning cautions. "The big problems in the economy - too much debt, too much leverage, too much government - are still there. They didn't go anywhere overnight. We'd suggest that getting sucked back into stocks now because of the US GDP figure is a very bad idea.”

"Of course, we could be wrong," Dan, continues. "Maybe stocks will go up another 20% from here, or 30%, or 50%. But it's not likely. It's more likely that the recession is over, but that the Depression has just begun.”

"It's begun because what the US GDP numbers actually show is a private sector in full retreat as its income shrinks, its assets fall in value and the cost of servicing debt rises. Into that terrible breach the public sector has stepped armed with an arsenal of inefficient and stupid programs that give the illusion of economic activity, but actually prevent the economy from liquidating excess capacity and bad debt (the two conditions required for a real recovery)."
 
“Never before did a gap between a 3.2% consensus GDP forecast and an actual print of 3.5% manage to elicit so much excitement in the equity market. It just goes to show how speculative the stock market has become.” The question is why the economy couldn’t do even better?

“Historically, the auto sector adds 0.1-percentage point or 0.2-percentage point to any given GDP report. In the third quarter, courtesy of cash-for-clunkers, the sector added 1.7 percentage points to the headline figure, which is less than 1-in-10 event in terms of probabilities. Tack on the rebound in housing and government spending and the areas of GDP that received the most medication from public sector stimulus contributed almost all of the growth in the economy. You read this right. If not for the entire government incursion into the economy in Q3, real GDP basically would have stagnated.”

Rosenberg puts the US “recovery” into perspective by comparing it to the eerily similar “recovery” experienced by the Japanese in the 1990s.

“While it seems very flashy, 3.5% growth is far from a trend-setter. Let’s go back to Japan. Since 1990, it has enjoyed no fewer than 19 of these 3.5%-or-better GDP growth quarters. That is almost 25% of the time, by the way. And we know with hindsight that this was noise around the fundamental downtrend because the Japanese economy has experienced four recessions and the equity market is down more than 70% from the peak. What is important for the future is whether the U.S. economy can manage to sustain that 3.5% growth performance in the absence of ongoing massive government stimulus.” In other words, it may be a little early to uncork the champagne.

The big risk going into Q4 is a renewed contraction in real final sales. That is not priced into the various asset classes right now. When good news starts generating the same volume as bad, then one can start with the champagne nibbling. Until then, be very careful with the interpretation of presented results. Don’t think easily that official GDP figures can be trusted like China does; most figures are cooked in the US too.

Look at the data from railroad traffic. Just like electricity demand, this indicator can’t be doctored. Statisticians eager to please the boss can’t massage those ones. Published last week, the Association of American Railroads reported a steep decline in rail traffic:

“Rail traffic remains down year over year for the week ended Oct. 24, 2009. U.S railroads reported originating 276,357 carloads, down 14.8 percent compared with the same week in 2008 and 17.3 percent from 2007.”

A 14.8% decline should cause concern to any bulls out there. One need to look beyond the government sponsored green shoots to see weeds sprouting up everywhere.

And this to think about:
“ If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. ” (Joseph Goebbels) 


Truth is the mortal enemy of the lie. This is a profound observation from such an evil man. The definition of truth is being in accordance with fact or reality. The Nazis were masters of using propaganda to manipulate facts and produce the reality that suited their wicked purposes. Other states have attempted to repress dissent and rule by using the Big Lie. The Soviet Union and Communist China come to mind.

recommend Add a comment
2
Roy C

Great article.

The rail traffic is the most telling. Do you have access to the data on truck freight and its decline?

I was teaching economics (!) as the sub for a teacher who had to leave in '99 at a high school. I remember truck freight went down before the market crashed. 

I thought: "How convenient! An index that is right on the pulse of what is happening.

2
Edmund Jenks

This Government is bent on taking money from our collective pockets and use it to manufacture a functioning economy. Problem is, all the while they fake short term gains, they continue to dismantle the basically sound free market engine that could actually provide jobs and a strong middle-class life.

America, welcome to the political embrace of a looser mentality and a third world posture.


1
PIM of SPAIN

Edmund very well phrased your spot-on conclusion thanks, hope that many will read it.



Roy thanks for the compliment. At this moment I've no access, but will investigate, indeed truck freight is a good indicator like the Baltic Dry Index sea freight indicator I used yesterday.


2
QueensHart

Yep, massaging the Boss is what it boils down to in all kinds of places!  In our little home town there was a butcher.  His meat was fabulous.  No where have I tasted better ground chuck. If you looked in his kitchen area you would never eat there again.  One day I was in there and the inspector was there.  It looked like he had just gotten a lot of free meat.  Massaging. Bottom of the line.  This is not supposed to be vulgar guys.

1
PIM of SPAIN

No, you are right QueensHart, I have a friend in the Netherlands and he is butcher too. One day I paid him a visit and read his promotion 5 super stakes for €5. I said are you kidding that's impossible. He took me in his back kitchen, proper and clean, and showed me his

massage machine. He told and showed me that even the toughest piece of meat could be massaged and look & eat like a super steak. So easily one can be faked!


1
Hugh Askew

"....it may be a little early to uncork the champagne."

Funny thing, isn't it?  The ONLY people saying the "recession" is over, are the Chinese, the Obama administration, and the people with something to gain if the Stock Market goes up.

Excellent article, PIM. My compliments!

0
PIM of SPAIN

Thanks Hugh tell that to Babel Fish because he thinks I'm a doomsayer, while I only analise the facts to be translated in written and simple understandable language.

0
Hugh Askew

Ha!  I would, but he knows way more than me. 

Most goldfish know more than i do, that is why i read your writings.


0
Rory Cripps

PIM: Right on! Thanks for this! Many just don't seem to get the fact that about 70% of the American GDP is consumer driven. Consumers are not going to go on spending sprees anytime soon. When consumer's "wealth effect" is diminished to the extent that it has been diminished in this current recession it will be awhile before happy days are here again! In previous recessions, consumers still had credit and equity in their homes. And their investments didn't take as much of a hit. They were much better equipped to ride out the storm. Also, the dollar was in a better position than it is today. The price of gas, nowadays, is one indication of what American consumers will be faced with if the dollar falls. Also they'll notice, if they haven't already, that many of the goods and food products (of which there's much) from overseas will go up in price. Consumers are getting hit from all angles nowadays as opposed to just a few angles in previous recessions.

Wealth = Cash balances + Treasury Bonds + Real Estate equity + Stocks + Other assets - Debt


The [wealth] effect would cause changes in the amounts and composition of consumer consumption caused by changes in consumer wealth. People should spend more when one of two things is true: when people actually are richer (by objective measurement, for example, a bonus or a pay raise at work, which would be an income effect), or when people perceive themselves to be "richer" (for example, the assessed value of their home increases, or a stock they own has gone up in price recently).


1
rng

It is a misleading statistic really:

"First, the category of “personal consumption expenditures” includes pretty much all of the $2.5 trillion healthcare spending, including the roughly half which comes via government. When Medicare writes a check for your mom’s knee replacement, that gets counted as consumer spending in the GDP stats...it’s misleading to say that “consumer spending is 70% of GDP”, when what we really mean is that “consumer spending plus government health care spending is 70% of GDP.”

I have seen more accurate direct consumption figures in the range of 42-45% of GDP. It makes a difference to how the economy is best understood and its sensitivities to demand and liquidity of consumers


0
nanute

Good point. It won't matter to the neoclassical school adherents.  Almost, everything that is done by government to try and stabilize the economy and avoid total collapse is considered a fraud or not real to this type of mindset. The problem with this type of thinking, in my opinion, is that it always makes assumptions based on full employment and rational decision making by investors. Once uncertainty enters the picture, rational choices and expectations can't be determined.  Risk can't be assessed with reasonable certainty and irrational choices are the end result. The most recent example would be derivatives trading.  

0
Rory Cripps

nanute: What is "full employment" anyway? By the way: Are you implying in your above comment that that the Stock Market and investors are rational? If you or anyone else out there can provide positive proof that  all the government meddling and tinkering with the U.S. economy, since the inception of the Federal Reserve,  has significantly improved the economy and has shortened recessions and depressions I'd love to see it . . . .

0
nanute

Full employment in classical terms means that anyone unemployed is "not working by choice". Unemployment does not get any consideration in theory. (It's not my idea.)

You obviously didn't understand my point on rationality. Classical theory is based on the assumption that financial markets behave rationally. It relies on rational actors making rational assessments. The crucial Keynesian concept of uncertainty proves that once uncertainty enters the picture, rational choices by rational actors cannot take place. The current state of affairs in the market , and the recent implosion of the derivatives market will serve as a classic case of uncertainty dictating irrational choices.  Speculative choices are most always looking into an uncertain future, "anticipating what average opinion expects average opinion to be," as Keynes would put it.

0
Rory Cripps

nanute: I asked you a simple question! What is "full employment"?

0
nanute

I gave you a simple answer as defined by the classical school. We're talking theory not real world statistical numbers. I'm sorry you don't see the distinction. If you want to confuse the two, there seems to be a disagreement among economists (surprise), on full employment. Some will tell you 0% is full employment. Some will argue it is a number a bit higher, if you want to keep inflation in check. I personally think full employment is when I'm working.

0
Rory Cripps

rng:

A comment to the  Business Week article that you quote:

So, if someone else covers my expenditures (due to insurance or some other means) it shouldn't be counted under consumer spending? Is that what you're saying? Why not? If the insurance company doesn't pay the bill then I have to, so it's still a consumer expenditure.

I believe the historical average of the consumer driven portion of our economy is 66% and each percentage point after that contributed plenty to our present economic woes.

How should we account for items not produced within the U.S. but that still contribute revenues to Americans or American companies? Just because the item was made in some offshore situation doesn't mean it does not contribute to our economy.

After writing a Mickey Mouse economic pamphlet for idiots Mandel is milking his accomplishment for maximum mileage, including using it as a foundation to support his assertion that consumer spending as 70%GDP is misleading or wrong. As other Blogers have noted, Mandel is splitting hair. Instead of trying to sound erudite, Mandel should address the fact that excessive consumer debt and spending only make the current recession worse. Leading economists like Marc Faber and Peter Schiff tackle head-on the economic problems caused by American consumers borrowing excessive amount of foreign money and spending it beyond their means. Mean while, Mandel is busy crossing T's and dotting I's over the percentage of GDP when everyone knows the American consumer has cut-back spending because over 15% of the American consumer is either broke or unemployed or in foreclosure or all of the above. Just as nutty Nero wrote poetry while fire ravages Rome, Mandel writes nonsense as the recession devastates America. Mandel is such a phony and tragic comical economist that even if BW readers take him seriously he would still be relegated to the company of Goofy and Daffy Duck.


0
nanute

It is perfectly acceptable to ridicule Mandel. It doesn't change a significant point, which is how much we spend on healthcare as a % of GDP. To wit:

National health spending is expected to reach $2.5 trillion in 2009, accounting for 17.6 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). By 2018, national health care expenditures are expected to reach $4.4 trillion—more than double 2007 spending. source: nchc.org

If you don't think that this much of our consumer spending going toward one single component is significant, and will not lead to further erosion of the balance of the consumer economy, I'm fine with that assumption on your part.

0
Rory Cripps

nanute: I don't want to have a health care debate here! I was just offering some info on the percent of GDP that consumer spending accounts for and I included a couple of comments to the award winning economist Michael Mandel's BusinessWeek story that rng quoted from. If you guys don't want to include health care expenditures in the GDP consumer percentage breakdown, that's fine! But before we go any further, let's clarify what Michael Mandel has asserted in his story:

According to Michael Mandel, " . . .  the category of “personal consumption expenditures” includes pretty much all of the $2.5 trillion healthcare spending, including the roughly half which comes via government. When Medicare writes a check for your mom’s knee replacement, that gets counted as consumer spending in the GDP stats.

In other words, Mandel (if I'm reading him correctly) says that $2.5 trillion is spent on health care, here in the USA. The $2.5 trillion figure amounts to 17.48% of the current $14.3 trillion U.S. GDP. And roughly half of the $2.5 trillion comes from the government-- which means that half of the $2.5 trillion that the government spends comes directly from the pockets of the American taxpayers who also happen to be consumers. And the other half of the $2.5 trillion also comes directly from the pockets of the American taxpayers in the form of direct payments to health care providers. What Mandel has effectively implied in his story is that the $2.5 trillion was derived from sources other than the U.S. taxpayer and therefore the U.S. consumer. Mandel's implication is not only logically inconsistent, but absurd coming from a supposed "economist".  Jeez Mandel! Where did the $2.5 trillion come from if it didn't come from the U.S. taxpayer and therefore the U.S. consumer? 

At last count, the U.S. GDP was in the neighborhood of $14 trillion and personal consumption expenditures ( i.e., consumer spending) accounted for about $10 trillion of the $14 trillion GDP. In other words, 71% of the GDP was consumer driven according to most statistical accounts from various credible economic data sources.  But for argument's sake, let's adhere to Michael Mandel's absurd implication that whatever amount of money that the American taxpayer, and therefore the consumer, spends on health care--whether it be through  taxes or direct payment to health care providers--should not be included in the GDP. Then Mandel is almost right:  The American consumer only accounts for about 52% of the U.S. GDP Good luck to anyone that actually believes that the American consumer only accounts for about half of the U.S. GDP. HA!






0
nanute

I'm not arguing that GDP is less than 70% .  I'm not defending Mandel's position. I'm merely making the obvious point that health care makes up a very large portion of GDP. So, large in fact that in less than 10 years time, it will account for almost  half of GDP. That should work wonders on the rest of the consumer spending economy.

0
albertacowpoke

I was aware of this on Friday, it appears even the Cash for Clonkers Program wasn't that successful, when you consider the car sales on the month before and after for comparison.  Cash for Clonkers was an expensive venture and blurred the GDP figures.

0
PIM of SPAIN

Good point ACP even more as you realize what the initial target has been: First question is what people would have done if there had not been a clunkers program. There's some evidence to suggest that many would have ended up buying a car eventually anyway.

But secondly the program originally was designed for the environment, to reduce American's gasoline consumption.

“For that first $1 billion, Americans will trade in roughly 250,000 cars and light trucks. The average gas mileage of those "clunkers" (vehicles such as aging Ford Explorers) was 16 miles per gallon, according to data released Aug. 5 by the Transportation Dept. The average mileage of the replacement vehicles (led by Ford's small Focus) is 25 mpg.”

With 250,000 cars sold so far the fuel saving adds up to 56 million less gallons on a total consumption per year of 138 billion gallons so the greenhouse emissions go down by 0.04%. Even from environmental perspective, it became a failure too.

0
albertacowpoke

I agree the impact on the environment was minimal.  The people that could afford Cash for Clonkers, in many cases, replaced their second vehicles anyways. 

1
PIM of SPAIN

HA you're to modest, common sense makes more logic than people who are thought to be know more. The same counts for Bernake and Greenspan who should have known better, but didn't have logic common sense.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Find out more

Crowd Power

Roy C
First Flagged at 8:12 AM, Nov 4, 2009 by Roy C
These members have powered this story:

Related Stories

Recommendations (41)

Most recently recommended by:
 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from