April 28, 2006

TINY BUBBLES AND BIG WHINING:

U.S. Economy Still Expanding at Rapid Pace (DAVID LEONHARDT and VIKAS BAJAJ, 4/28/06, NY Times)

Gas prices are rising, as are mortgage rates. House prices in many once-hot markets have started slipping. The American automobile industry shows no sign of recovery. And the paychecks of most workers have not even kept up with inflation over the last four years.

Yet the national economy continues to speed ahead, with families and businesses spending money at an impressive pace. Forecasters expect the Commerce Department to report this morning that the economy grew at a rate of around 5 percent in the first quarter, the biggest increase since 2003.

The industries leading the way are ones that have been receiving far less attention than cars or real estate, though they have been adding thousands of new workers each month. In the last year, hospitals, doctors' offices and other health care employers have created almost 300,000 jobs; restaurants have added 230,000; and local governments — including schools — have added 170,000.

"The good news for the U.S. is that growth has diversified," said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at Global Insight, an economic research firm. "We aren't just relying on the consumer and housing."


U.S. Economy Grew 4.8% in 1st Qtr, Most in Two Years (Bloomberg, 4/28/06)
The U.S. economy expanded in the first quarter at an annual pace of 4.8 percent, the fastest in more than two years, led by resurgent consumer spending and the biggest jump in business investment since 2000.

The rise in gross domestic product, the value of all goods and services produced in the U.S., followed a 1.7 percent annual rate of increase in the previous three months, the Commerce Department reported today in Washington. Consumer spending on durable goods such as appliances rose the most since 2001.

Growth in jobs and wages and unseasonably warm weather spurred shopping at retailers and auto dealers, while businesses invested in equipment and software at the fastest pace in six years. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke yesterday said growth may moderate as the year progresses and allow the Fed to pause in its series of interest-rate increases.

MORE:
Market fuel prices drop (Patrice Hill, April 28, 2006, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)

Oil and gasoline prices took another tumble in New York trading yesterday on signs of increasing supplies and slackening demand in the United States and China, adding to an 18-cent drop in wholesale gas prices that likely will produce relief at the pump in the days ahead. [...]

The biggest factors causing price drops have been signs that demand for gas is running about 1 percentage point behind last year's level -- most likely in response to the rapid run-up in pump prices since last month -- even as refineries are racing to take advantage of high prices and increase scarce supplies of summer fuels.

"At the end of the day, the best cure for high prices is high prices," said David Hackett, president of Stillwater Associates LLC, an energy-consulting company, noting that consumers are angry about high prices and apparently are beginning to balk at paying them.

If the Fed treats such price hikes as unsustainable they are.

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 28, 2006 8:09 AM
Comments

Official number is 4.8%.

Posted by: mc at April 28, 2006 9:11 AM

"If the Fed treats such price hikes as unsustainable they are."

Could you please elucidate with a sentence or two?

Posted by: Pepe at April 28, 2006 10:15 AM

Which makes it all the more ridiculous for the President to go around indulging alarmists and talking about America's "addiction to oil" without having some reasonable alternative in mind.

Posted by: Chris K at April 28, 2006 10:17 AM

Chris:

Quite wrong. It would be a terrible mistake for the central government to pick an alternative. Use CAFE and gas taxes to force the market to create alternatives.

Posted by: oj at April 28, 2006 10:45 AM

Pepe:

The Fed is feeding the psychology of the gas bubble by pretending there's an inflation threat. Start cutting rates and you puncture the bubble.

Posted by: oj at April 28, 2006 10:46 AM

I agree with that, for the most part, and I'm not saying the gov't should pick it.

I'm saying the Pres. is implying there is an alternative to the fuel this country was built around when currently there is not. So spare me the addiction talk. Is a "malaise" next?

Posted by: Chris K at April 28, 2006 10:58 AM

Chris:

There are plenty of alternatives. One key is to make gasoline far more expensive than it is.

Posted by: oj at April 28, 2006 11:04 AM

The Fed is much less influential than you think.

Posted by: pj at April 28, 2006 11:45 AM

Yes, its only effect is psychological. But markets are just psychological.

Posted by: oj at April 28, 2006 11:50 AM

Chris: It's purely political posturing and Bush certainly knows better, but given the circumstances it's hard to blame him. In the end, the stupid people get the stupid government they stupidly want.

Posted by: David Cohen at April 28, 2006 12:04 PM

"unseasonably warm weather spurred shopping at retailers and auto dealers" Global warming is good.

Posted by: ic at April 28, 2006 1:45 PM

Spoken like a Democrat David.

Posted by: Genecis at April 28, 2006 2:07 PM

Genecis: How so?

It's purely political posturing

How can the Dems accuse Bush of pure political posturing when he's doing what they've called for?

and Bush certainly knows better,

What Dem thinks that Bush knows anything, let alone the economics of the oil market?

but given the circumstances it's hard to blame him.

All I'm saying is that a president with persistently low approval numbers, particularly when the polls are so tied to tightly to the price of gasoline, is going to try to be seen lowering the price of gasoline. Bush knows this is a charade, but if it will help with the mid-terms, then it's a lot better than CFR.

In the end, the stupid people get the stupid government they stupidly want.

I am a member of the stupid party.

Posted by: David Cohen at April 28, 2006 4:29 PM

Thanks David, your explanation makes sense. I'm not a member of the stupid party but am stupid enough to vote for it regularly because it seems a case of dumb and dumber. In any case, I obviously qualify for either.

Posted by: Genecis at April 28, 2006 5:30 PM

I think taxpayers should definitely subsidize everyone silly enough to drive a vehicle geting less than 25 mpg.

Posted by: ghostcat at April 28, 2006 8:23 PM
« RES IPSA: | Main | SO THOSE AL QAEDA THREATS WERE PRETTY EFFECTIVE, HUH?: »