U.S. economy grew at 6.4 percent annual rate in first quarter as consumer spending drives robust recovery

[ZiprHead]

It's the best quarterly reading since 2003.

The reopening economy surged in President Joe Biden's first 100 days, with U.S. gross domestic product hitting 6.4 percent, the best quarterly reading since 2003.

U.S gross domestic product, or GDP, a measure of the total amount of goods and services produced, hit 6.4 percent in the first quarter of 2021, according to advance estimates released Thursday from the Commerce Department.

Widespread vaccinations, warmer temperatures and stimulus checks powered the economy to grow by 1.6 percent in the first three months of 2021.

Consumer spending, which accounts for two-thirds of economic growth, increased by 10.7 percent in the first quarter. Spending on services saw a small recovery, expanding by 4.6 percent. In April, consumer confidence hit a 14-month high.

Amazing what can happen when the little people have money to spend.

 

[Gospel]

I default to thinking I'm the ignorant and dumb one when it comes to the economy. Because I just don't get why "job creators" can't understand that paying people more and paying themselves less does not = socialism and a destroyed economy. The monetary system works best the more accurately money flows. The more money laying dormant in the hands of the few the more money printed by the government for the many under the name of social programs. If they are so worried about their money they should really consider letting more of it get around without the government doing stuff that negatively impacts its value. It's not like your yearly earnings or going to somehow vanish entirely and you'll no longer be rich, you'll just be giving up a fucking zero. So instead of making monthly payments to that stupid republican service subscription you have; try paying the people directly, cause ya know, maybe giving the government fewer reasons to get involved might help.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's the best quarterly reading since 2003.

The reopening economy surged in President Joe Biden's first 100 days, with U.S. gross domestic product hitting 6.4 percent, the best quarterly reading since 2003.

U.S gross domestic product, or GDP, a measure of the total amount of goods and services produced, hit 6.4 percent in the first quarter of 2021, according to advance estimates released Thursday from the Commerce Department.

Widespread vaccinations, warmer temperatures and stimulus checks powered the economy to grow by 1.6 percent in the first three months of 2021.

Consumer spending, which accounts for two-thirds of economic growth, increased by 10.7 percent in the first quarter. Spending on services saw a small recovery, expanding by 4.6 percent. In April, consumer confidence hit a 14-month high.

Amazing what can happen when the little people have money to spend.

Things opening up more have a bit more to do with it than the stimulus. Yes, the stimulus helps, but things opening up more gives people more places to spend.

 

[SimpleDon]

It's the best quarterly reading since 2003.

The reopening economy surged in President Joe Biden's first 100 days, with U.S. gross domestic product hitting 6.4 percent, the best quarterly reading since 2003.

U.S gross domestic product, or GDP, a measure of the total amount of goods and services produced, hit 6.4 percent in the first quarter of 2021, according to advance estimates released Thursday from the Commerce Department.

Widespread vaccinations, warmer temperatures and stimulus checks powered the economy to grow by 1.6 percent in the first three months of 2021.

Consumer spending, which accounts for two-thirds of economic growth, increased by 10.7 percent in the first quarter. Spending on services saw a small recovery, expanding by 4.6 percent. In April, consumer confidence hit a 14-month high.

Amazing what can happen when little people have money to spend.

Especially compared to when the rich are provided with additional money to spend. The money is then taken out of the economy and put into the stock markets where doesn't impact the economy. Or even worse for the rich to buy real estate, driving up housing costs for everyone.

 

[SimpleDon]

I default to thinking I'm the ignorant and dumb one when it comes to the economy. Because I just don't get why "job creators" can't understand that paying people more and paying themselves less does not = socialism and a destroyed economy. The monetary system works best the more accurately money flows. The more money laying dormant in the hands of the few the more money printed by the government for the many under the name of social programs. If they are so worried about their money they should really consider letting more of it get around without the government doing stuff that negatively impacts its value. It's not like your yearly earnings or going to somehow vanish entirely and you'll no longer be rich, you'll just be giving up a fucking zero. So instead of making monthly payments to that stupid republican service subscription you have; try paying the people directly, cause ya know, maybe giving the government fewer reasons to get involved might help.

I have been amused with the businesses who say that they can't hire anyone because of the extended unemployment benefits. I say to them that what they mean is that they can't hire people at the often reduced wages that they want to pay. Pay people more than the extended benefits and see if you can then hire people. I suspect that most people are reluctant to go back to work because they don't want to get COVID-19.

 

[Bomb#20]

Especially compared to when the rich are provided with additional money to spend. The money is then taken out of the economy and put into the stock markets where doesn't impact the economy.

Yes, exactly. When you put money into the stock market, that means some company owner is trading a fraction of the company's long term future revenue stream to you, in exchange for getting his hands on your money right now. The reason he chooses to make this trade is not because he intends to spend the money you give him, but because:

 

[Politesse]

I default to thinking I'm the ignorant and dumb one when it comes to the economy. Because I just don't get why "job creators" can't understand that paying people more and paying themselves less does not = socialism and a destroyed economy. The monetary system works best the more accurately money flows. The more money laying dormant in the hands of the few the more money printed by the government for the many under the name of social programs. If they are so worried about their money they should really consider letting more of it get around without the government doing stuff that negatively impacts its value. It's not like your yearly earnings or going to somehow vanish entirely and you'll no longer be rich, you'll just be giving up a fucking zero. So instead of making monthly payments to that stupid republican service subscription you have; try paying the people directly, cause ya know, maybe giving the government fewer reasons to get involved might help.

When trying to understand the shit economists and CEOs say when they're trying to explain why something can't be done, it always helps to voice aloud the unspoken "without cutting into immediate profits" that is at the end of every sentence. Helping the overall economy is not their goal; ultimately, the consequences of their actions are not something they are planning to personally bear. They're making their money now, not later when their selfish actions have broken the system.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I default to thinking I'm the ignorant and dumb one when it comes to the economy. Because I just don't get why "job creators" can't understand that paying people more and paying themselves less does not = socialism and a destroyed economy. The monetary system works best the more accurately money flows. The more money laying dormant in the hands of the few the more money printed by the government for the many under the name of social programs. If they are so worried about their money they should really consider letting more of it get around without the government doing stuff that negatively impacts its value. It's not like your yearly earnings or going to somehow vanish entirely and you'll no longer be rich, you'll just be giving up a fucking zero. So instead of making monthly payments to that stupid republican service subscription you have; try paying the people directly, cause ya know, maybe giving the government fewer reasons to get involved might help.

I have been amused with the businesses who say that they can't hire anyone because of the extended unemployment benefits. I say to them that what they mean is that they can't hire people at the often reduced wages that they want to pay. Pay people more than the extended benefits and see if you can then hire people. I suspect that most people are reluctant to go back to work because they don't want to get COVID-19.

There are lots of people who don't want to return to their jobs because their benefits and savings pay enough, and they don't want to risk getting COVID.

 

[Politesse]

There are lots of people who don't want to return to their jobs because their benefits and savings pay enough, and they don't want to risk getting COVID.

Sounds like financially sound planning to me. COVID ain't free.

 

[ZiprHead]

Especially compared to when the rich are provided with additional money to spend. The money is then taken out of the economy and put into the stock markets where doesn't impact the economy.

Yes, exactly. When you put money into the stock market, that means some company owner is trading a fraction of the company's long term future revenue stream to you, in exchange for getting his hands on your money right now. The reason he chooses to make this trade is not because he intends to spend the money you give him, but because:

What percentage of the money going into the stock market is in IPOs?

 

[Harry Bosch]

There are lots of people who don't want to return to their jobs because their benefits and savings pay enough, and they don't want to risk getting COVID.

Sounds like financially sound planning to me. COVID ain't free.

Very much agree.

 

[Trausti]

It's the best quarterly reading since 2003.

The reopening economy surged in President Joe Biden's first 100 days, with U.S. gross domestic product hitting 6.4 percent, the best quarterly reading since 2003.

U.S gross domestic product, or GDP, a measure of the total amount of goods and services produced, hit 6.4 percent in the first quarter of 2021, according to advance estimates released Thursday from the Commerce Department.

Widespread vaccinations, warmer temperatures and stimulus checks powered the economy to grow by 1.6 percent in the first three months of 2021.

Consumer spending, which accounts for two-thirds of economic growth, increased by 10.7 percent in the first quarter. Spending on services saw a small recovery, expanding by 4.6 percent. In April, consumer confidence hit a 14-month high.

Amazing what can happen when the little people have money to spend.

Things opening up more have a bit more to do with it than the stimulus. Yes, the stimulus helps, but things opening up more gives people more places to spend.

This makes more sense. Allowing people to go out will obviously allow those people to spend more. For the stimulus of ‘08, most or a lot of people put it in savings. When we got the 2020 stimulus, we put it into our children’s accounts as it looked like the government was mortgaging their future.

 

[SimpleDon]

It's the best quarterly reading since 2003.

The reopening economy surged in President Joe Biden's first 100 days, with U.S. gross domestic product hitting 6.4 percent, the best quarterly reading since 2003.

U.S gross domestic product, or GDP, a measure of the total amount of goods and services produced, hit 6.4 percent in the first quarter of 2021, according to advance estimates released Thursday from the Commerce Department.

Widespread vaccinations, warmer temperatures, and stimulus checks powered the economy to grow by 1.6 percent in the first three months of 2021.

Consumer spending, which accounts for two-thirds of economic growth, increased by 10.7 percent in the first quarter. Spending on services saw a small recovery, expanding by 4.6 percent. In April, consumer confidence hit a 14-month high.

Amazing what can happen when little people have money to spend.

Things opening up more have a bit more to do with it than the stimulus. Yes, the stimulus helps, but things opening up more gives people more places to spend.

Of course, many people who continued to work during the quarantine accumulated money to spend. They will spend and boost the economy as things open up.

But going into the pandemic we had a very low level of employment. Everybody looks at the rate of unemployment as the important indicator of the health of the economy, but it is the level of employment that is the best indication of the economy's wellbeing. GDP, the size of the economy, is solely dependent on the people who are employed times their wages minus the amount of savings where debt is deferred savings.

The unemployment rate is of people who are actively looking for work but it doesn't account for the long term unemployed who have given up looking for work or the people who would work if the expenses of working weren't so high, for example, the expense of child care or the costs of moving or commuting to where the jobs are.

You have to be careful here. Everybody cherry picks the data to prove that their political economics is the valid one. When in fact it is the case of blind people describing what the whole elephant looks like based on the small amount of the elephant they can touch. Most people follow the political economics that benefits themselves. Except for political conservatives.

There are some who want us to believe that stimulus doesn't boost the economy except when it is directed to the defense department or to the already rich. This is wrong and hypocritical obviously.

Stimulus payments' impact on the economy is reduced by the amount that is used to pay down debt, hence its resemblance to savings' negative impact on the economy. But this beneficial in the long term, again obviously.

 

[SimpleDon]

Things opening up more have a bit more to do with it than the stimulus. Yes, the stimulus helps, but things opening up more gives people more places to spend.

This makes more sense. Allowing people to go out will obviously allow those people to spend more. For the stimulus of ‘08, most or a lot of people put it in savings. When we got the 2020 stimulus, we put it into our children’s accounts as it looked like the government was mortgaging their future.

Yes, see my response to Jimmy above for the relationship between private debt and private savings. The public debt is also the vast majority of the private savings, this why the public debt, the national debt can't ever be paid back unless we start running a current account surplus, which is highly unlikely. The trade deficit is one of the contributing factors to our large national debt.

 

[Elixir]

We could have left the economy "open" a year ago.
Of course we might now be dealing with 3000+ per million dead, instead of merely 1775. And we'd still have the 2-3% growth that would be considered normal.
And if we had had a president worth half a shit, we could have locked down for six months instead of six weeks, worn masks and saved 4-5 hundred thousand lives. By now we'd be practically fully opened up with more than 70% of the citizenry vaccinated, and experiencing the same 2-3% "normal" growth.
But noooo.... in all our wisdom we had allowed Putin to appoint a President who elevated stupidity and his own popularity over all else, including science, medicine, American lives and even the sacred "economy".
It's no surprise that the Biden administration inherited unprecedented short term upside potential, hindered only by a lingering Trump-generated disbelief in science and medicine that is keeping the Country still partially hostage to a 50,000 new case per day infection rate.
This 6.4% rate won't maintain without inflation.

 

[ZiprHead]

We could have left the economy "open" a year ago.
Of course we might now be dealing with 3000+ per million dead, instead of merely 1775. And we'd still have the 2-3% growth that would be considered normal.
And if we had had a president worth half a shit, we could have locked down for six months instead of six weeks, worn masks and saved 4-5 hundred thousand lives. By now we'd be practically fully opened up with more than 70% of the citizenry vaccinated, and experiencing the same 2-3% "normal" growth.
But noooo.... in all our wisdom we had allowed Putin to appoint a President who elevated stupidity and his own popularity over all else, including science, medicine, American lives and even the sacred "economy".
It's no surprise that the Biden administration inherited unprecedented short term upside potential, hindered only by a lingering Trump-generated disbelief in science and medicine that is keeping the Country still partially hostage to a 50,000 new case per day infection rate.
This 6.4% rate won't maintain without inflation.

China's GDP has been over 6% for years with no signs of inflation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We could have left the economy "open" a year ago.
Of course we might now be dealing with 3000+ per million dead, instead of merely 1775. And we'd still have the 2-3% growth that would be considered normal.
And if we had had a president worth half a shit, we could have locked down for six months instead of six weeks, worn masks and saved 4-5 hundred thousand lives. By now we'd be practically fully opened up with more than 70% of the citizenry vaccinated, and experiencing the same 2-3% "normal" growth.
But noooo.... in all our wisdom we had allowed Putin to appoint a President who elevated stupidity and his own popularity over all else, including science, medicine, American lives and even the sacred "economy".
It's no surprise that the Biden administration inherited unprecedented short term upside potential, hindered only by a lingering Trump-generated disbelief in science and medicine that is keeping the Country still partially hostage to a 50,000 new case per day infection rate.
This 6.4% rate won't maintain without inflation.

China's GDP has been over 6% for years with no signs of inflation.

There are two factors there:

China is behind. Countries that are behind can develop based on the tech developed by the countries that are ahead. If you don't see a higher growth rate in the places that are behind that's a pretty good indication their government is fucked up.

Second, that "no inflation" is a fabrication by Beijing.


And also consider the ghost city issue. The government is making fake demand to keep the economy from crashing. They're going to have their own version of 2008 and it will be a lot worse than ours.

 

[Bomb#20]

Especially compared to when the rich are provided with additional money to spend. The money is then taken out of the economy and put into the stock markets where doesn't impact the economy.

Yes, exactly. When you put money into the stock market, that means some company owner is trading a fraction of the company's long term future revenue stream to you, in exchange for getting his hands on your money right now. The reason he chooses to make this trade is not because he intends to spend the money you give him, but because:

What percentage of the money going into the stock market is in IPOs?

Beats me. Why do you think it makes a difference? Some of the money is in non-initial public offerings, but they're made for the same reason as IPOs: because the company is going to spend your money. And if you're talking about the secondary market, i.e., buying stock from an existing shareholder instead of from the company, the money you put into the stock market is balanced by the money she takes out, for no net change in the amount of money in the stock market. So that can hardly count as money "taken out of the economy".

 

[barbos]

It's the best quarterly reading since 2003.

The reopening economy surged in President Joe Biden's first 100 days, with U.S. gross domestic product hitting 6.4 percent, the best quarterly reading since 2003.

U.S gross domestic product, or GDP, a measure of the total amount of goods and services produced, hit 6.4 percent in the first quarter of 2021, according to advance estimates released Thursday from the Commerce Department.

Widespread vaccinations, warmer temperatures and stimulus checks powered the economy to grow by 1.6 percent in the first three months of 2021.

Consumer spending, which accounts for two-thirds of economic growth, increased by 10.7 percent in the first quarter. Spending on services saw a small recovery, expanding by 4.6 percent. In April, consumer confidence hit a 14-month high.

Amazing what can happen when the little people have money to spend.

So new administration, printed tons of money and gave it to the ordinary folk who went to walmarts/amazon and bought tons of chinese made crap. Is that all? or some went to barbers and made a haircut?

 

[Swammerdami]

What percentage of the money going into the stock market is in IPOs?

Beats me. Why do you think it makes a difference? ... And if you're talking about the secondary market, i.e., buying stock from an existing shareholder instead of from the company, the money you put into the stock market is balanced by the money she takes out, for no net change in the amount of money in the stock market. So that can hardly count as money "taken out of the economy".

Very misleading. Focus on the incorrect phrase I've colored red. If buyers force stock prices up an average of 10%, then the total market cap ("money in the stock market") increases from $40 trillion to $44 trillion. Perhaps no new banknotes were printed, nor did banks' balance sheets necessarily change, but asset values have increased, and so has the spending power of the asset owners.

In an extreme case, the seller of high-priced stock will put the money back into a different high-priced stock; that seller buys a high-priced painting; its seller buys yet another stock; and the money can spin in circles indefinitely without entering the real economy. Or one of the sellers may build an expensive home or order a new yacht. This puts the "money" back into the real economy, but it's spent on luxuries for the rich, rather than necessities for the less fortunate.

The simple fact is that increasing wealth inequality is a big problem economically and socially; and rising asset prices directly increase that inequality.