Fed Desperate To Rise Above the Near Zero Fed Funds Rate Target Range — Need Three Months Of 300,000 Plus Per Month Job Creation, Wage Growth and 3% First Quarter 2015 Real Gross Domestic Product Growth Numbers To Jump to .5 – 1.0% Range Fed Funds Rate Target — June 2015 Launch Date Expected — Fly Me To The Moon — Summertime — Launch — Abort On Recession — Videos

Posted on March 22, 2015. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Constitution, Crisis, Culture, Demographics, Documentary, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Entertainment, Family, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, Government Land Ownership, government spending, Health Care, history, Illegal, Immigration, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Music, Music, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Non-Fiction, Obamacare, Oil, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Reviews, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, War, Water, Wealth, Weather, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 430: March 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 429: March 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 428: March 17, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 427: March 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 426: March 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 425: March 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 424: March 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 423: February 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 422: February 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 421: February 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 420: February 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 419: February 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 418: February 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 417: February 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 416: February 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 415: February 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 414: February 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 413: February 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 412: February 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 411: February 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 410: February 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 409: February 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 408: February 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 407: January 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 406: January 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 405: January 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 404: January 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 403: January 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 402: January 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 401: January 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 400: January 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 399: January 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 398: January 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 397: January 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 396: January 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 395: January 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 394: January 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 393: January 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 392: December 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 391: December 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 390: December 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 389: December 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 388: December 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 387: December 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 386: December 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 385: December 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 384: December 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 383: December 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 382: December 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 381: December 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 380: December 1, 2014

Story 1: Fed Desperate To Rise Above the Near Zero Fed Funds Rate Target Range — Need Three Months Of 300,000 Plus Per Month Job Creation, Wage Growth and 3% First Quarter 2015 Real Gross Domestic Product Growth Numbers To Jump to .5 – 1.0% Range Fed Funds Rate Target — June 2015 Launch Date Expected —  Fly Me To The Moon — Summertime — Launch — Abort On Recession — Videos

moonspace

moon earthstarsApollo_17_The_Last_Moon_Shot_Edit1launch_abort_buttons

Amazing seven year old sings Fly Me To The Moon (Angelina Jordan) on Senkveld “The Late Show”

Forrest Gump JFK “I Gotta Pee” Scene

Fed Decision: The Three Most Important Things Janet Yellen Said

Press Conference with Chair of the FOMC, Janet L. Yellen

Monetary Policy Based on the Taylor Rule

Many economists believe that rules-based monetary policy provides better economic outcomes than a purely discretionary framework delivers. But there is disagreement about the advantages of rules-based policy and even disagreement about which rule works. One possible policy rule would be for the central bank to follow a Taylor Rule, named after our featured speaker, John B. Taylor. What would some of the advantages of a Taylor Rule be versus, for instance, a money growth rule, or a rule which only specifies the inflation target? How could a policy rule be implemented? Should policy rule legislation be considered? Join us as Professor Taylor addresses these important policy questions.

Murray N. Rothbard on Milton Friedman pre1971

On Milton Friedman | by Murray N. Rothbard

Who Was the Better Monetary Economist? Rothbard and Friedman Compared | Joseph T. Salerno

Joseph Salerno “Unmasking the Federal Reserve”

Rothbard on Alan Greenspan

Milton Friedman – Money and Inflation

Milton Friedman – Abolish The Fed

Milton Friedman On John Maynard Keynes

Hayek on Keynes’s Ignorance of Economics

Friedrich Hayek explains to Leo Rosten that while brilliant Keynes had a parochial understanding of economics.

On John Maynard Keynes | by Murray N. Rothbard

Hayek on Milton Friedman and Monetary Policy

Friedrich Hayek: Why Intellectuals Drift Towards Socialism

Capitalism, Socialism, and the Jews

The Normal State of Man: Misery & Tyranny

Peter Schiff Interviews Keynesian Economist Laurence Kotlikoff 01-18-12

Larry Kotlikoff on the Clash of Generations

Extended interview with Boston University Economics Professor Larry Kotlikoff on his publications about a six-decade long Ponzi scheme in the US which he says will lead to a clash of generations.

Kotlikoff also touches on what his projections mean for the New Zealand economy and why Prime Minister John Key should take more attention of New Zealand’s ‘fiscal gap’ – the gap between all future government spending commitments and its future revenue track.

Thomas Sowell on Intellectuals and Society

Angelina Jordan – summertime

Angelina Jordan synger Sinatra i semifinalen i Norske Talenter 2014

Release Date: March 18, 2015

For immediate release

Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in January suggests that economic growth has moderated somewhat. Labor market conditions have improved further, with strong job gains and a lower unemployment rate. A range of labor market indicators suggests that underutilization of labor resources continues to diminish. Household spending is rising moderately; declines in energy prices have boosted household purchasing power. Business fixed investment is advancing, while the recovery in the housing sector remains slow and export growth has weakened. Inflation has declined further below the Committee’s longer-run objective, largely reflecting declines in energy prices. Market-based measures of inflation compensation remain low; survey-based measures of longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable.

Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability. The Committee expects that, with appropriate policy accommodation, economic activity will expand at a moderate pace, with labor market indicators continuing to move toward levels the Committee judges consistent with its dual mandate. The Committee continues to see the risks to the outlook for economic activity and the labor market as nearly balanced. Inflation is anticipated to remain near its recent low level in the near term, but the Committee expects inflation to rise gradually toward 2 percent over the medium term as the labor market improves further and the transitory effects of energy price declines and other factors dissipate. The Committee continues to monitor inflation developments closely.

To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee today reaffirmed its view that the current 0 to 1/4 percent target range for the federal funds rate remains appropriate. In determining how long to maintain this target range, the Committee will assess progress–both realized and expected–toward its objectives of maximum employment and 2 percent inflation. This assessment will take into account a wide range of information, including measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial and international developments. Consistent with its previous statement, the Committee judges that an increase in the target range for the federal funds rate remains unlikely at the April FOMC meeting. The Committee anticipates that it will be appropriate to raise the target range for the federal funds rate when it has seen further improvement in the labor market and is reasonably confident that inflation will move back to its 2 percent objective over the medium term. This change in the forward guidance does not indicate that the Committee has decided on the timing of the initial increase in the target range.

The Committee is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities and of rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction. This policy, by keeping the Committee’s holdings of longer-term securities at sizable levels, should help maintain accommodative financial conditions.

When the Committee decides to begin to remove policy accommodation, it will take a balanced approach consistent with its longer-run goals of maximum employment and inflation of 2 percent. The Committee currently anticipates that, even after employment and inflation are near mandate-consistent levels, economic conditions may, for some time, warrant keeping the target federal funds rate below levels the Committee views as normal in the longer run.

Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Janet L. Yellen, Chair; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; Lael Brainard; Charles L. Evans; Stanley Fischer; Jeffrey M. Lacker; Dennis P. Lockhart; Jerome H. Powell; Daniel K. Tarullo; and John C. Williams.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20150318a.htm

Advance release of table 1 of the Summary of Economic Projections to be released with the FOMC minutes

Percent

Variable Central tendency1 Range2
2015 2016 2017 Longer run 2015 2016 2017 Longer run
Change in real GDP 2.3 to 2.7 2.3 to 2.7 2.0 to 2.4 2.0 to 2.3 2.1 to 3.1 2.2 to 3.0 1.8 to 2.5 1.8 to 2.5
December projection 2.6 to 3.0 2.5 to 3.0 2.3 to 2.5 2.0 to 2.3 2.1 to 3.2 2.1 to 3.0 2.0 to 2.7 1.8 to 2.7
Unemployment rate 5.0 to 5.2 4.9 to 5.1 4.8 to 5.1 5.0 to 5.2 4.8 to 5.3 4.5 to 5.2 4.8 to 5.5 4.9 to 5.8
December projection 5.2 to 5.3 5.0 to 5.2 4.9 to 5.3 5.2 to 5.5 5.0 to 5.5 4.9 to 5.4 4.7 to 5.7 5.0 to 5.8
PCE inflation 0.6 to 0.8 1.7 to 1.9 1.9 to 2.0 2.0 0.6 to 1.5 1.6 to 2.4 1.7 to 2.2 2.0
December projection 1.0 to 1.6 1.7 to 2.0 1.8 to 2.0 2.0 1.0 to 2.2 1.6 to 2.1 1.8 to 2.2 2.0
Core PCE inflation3 1.3 to 1.4 1.5 to 1.9 1.8 to 2.0 1.2 to 1.6 1.5 to 2.4 1.7 to 2.2
December projection 1.5 to 1.8 1.7 to 2.0 1.8 to 2.0 1.5 to 2.2 1.6 to 2.1 1.8 to 2.2

Note: Projections of change in real gross domestic product (GDP) and projections for both measures of inflation are percent changes from the fourth quarter of the previous year to the fourth quarter of the year indicated. PCE inflation and core PCE inflation are the percentage rates of change in, respectively, the price index for personal consumption expenditures (PCE) and the price index for PCE excluding food and energy. Projections for the unemployment rate are for the average civilian unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of the year indicated. Each participant’s projections are based on his or her assessment of appropriate monetary policy. Longer-run projections represent each participant’s assessment of the rate to which each variable would be expected to converge under appropriate monetary policy and in the absence of further shocks to the economy. The December projections were made in conjunction with the meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee on December 16-17, 2014.

1. The central tendency excludes the three highest and three lowest projections for each variable in each year.  Return to table

2. The range for a variable in a given year includes all participants’ projections, from lowest to highest, for that variable in that year.  Return to table

3. Longer-run projections for core PCE inflation are not collected.  Return to table

Figure 1. Central tendencies and ranges of economic projections, 2015-17 and over the longer run

Central tendencies and ranges of economic projections for years 2015 through 2017 and over the longer run. Actual values for years 2010 through 2014.

Change in real GDP
Percent

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Longer Run
Actual 2.7 1.7 1.6 3.1 2.4
Upper End of Range 3.1 3.0 2.5 2.5
Upper End of Central Tendency 2.7 2.7 2.4 2.3
Lower End of Central Tendency 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.0
Lower End of Range 2.1 2.2 1.8 1.8

Unemployment rate
Percent

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Longer Run
Actual 9.5 8.7 7.8 7.0 5.7
Upper End of Range 5.3 5.2 5.5 5.8
Upper End of Central Tendency 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.2
Lower End of Central Tendency 5.0 4.9 4.8 5.0
Lower End of Range 4.8 4.5 4.8 4.9

PCE inflation
Percent

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Longer Run
Actual 1.3 2.7 1.6 1.0 1.1
Upper End of Range 1.5 2.4 2.2 2.0
Upper End of Central Tendency 0.8 1.9 2.0 2.0
Lower End of Central Tendency 0.6 1.7 1.9 2.0
Lower End of Range 0.6 1.6 1.7 2.0

Note: Definitions of variables are in the general note to the projections table. The data for the actual values of the variables are annual.

Figure 2. Overview of FOMC participants’ assessments of appropriate monetary policy

Appropriate timing of policy firming

2015 2016
Number of participants 15 2

Note: In the upper panel, the height of each bar denotes the number of FOMC participants who judge that, under appropriate monetary policy, the first increase in the target range for the federal funds rate from its current range of 0 to 1/4 percent will occur in the specified calendar year. In December 2014, the numbers of FOMC participants who judged that the first increase in the target federal funds rate would occur in 2015, and 2016 were, respectively, 15, and 2.

Appropriate pace of policy firming: Midpoint of target range or target level for the federal funds rate
Number of participants with projected midpoint of target range or target level

Midpoint of target range
or target level (Percent)
2015 2016 2017 Longer Run
0.125 2
0.250
0.375 1 1
0.500
0.625 7
0.750
0.875 3
1.000
1.125 1 1
1.250
1.375 2
1.500
1.625 1 6
1.750
1.875 3
2.000 1
2.125 1
2.250 1
2.375
2.500
2.625 1 3
2.750
2.875 2
3.000 1
3.125 4
3.250
3.375 2 1
3.500 7
3.625 2
3.750 1 2 6
3.875 1
4.000 1 2
4.125
4.250 1

Note: In the lower panel, each shaded circle indicates the value (rounded to the nearest 1/8 percentage point) of an individual participant’s judgment of the midpoint of the appropriate target range for the federal funds rate or the appropriate target level for the federal funds rate at the end of the specified calendar year or over the longer run.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomcprojtabl20150318.htm

Janet Yellen Isn’t Going to Raise Interest Rates Until She’s Good and Ready

The key words in Janet L. Yellen’s news conference Wednesday were rather pithy, at least by central bank standards. “Just because we removed the word ‘patient’ from the statement doesn’t mean we are going to be impatient,” Ms. Yellen, the Federal Reserve chairwoman, said.

With this framing, Ms. Yellen was putting her firm stamp on the policy of an institution she has led for just over a year — and making clear that she will not be boxed in. Her words and accompanying announcements conveyed the message that the Yellen Fed has no intention of taking the support struts of low interest rates away until she is absolutely confident that economic growth will hold up without them.

Photo

Janet Yellen held a news conference after a meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee in Washington on Wednesday. CreditChip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Ms. Yellen’s comments about patience versus impatience were part of that dance. But the dual message was even more powerful when combined with other elements of the central bank’s newly released information, which sent the signal that members of the committee intend to move cautiously on rate increases.

By eliminating the reference to “patience,” Paul Edelstein, an economist at IHS Global Insight, said in a research note, “The Fed did what it was expected to do.”

“But beyond that,” he added, “the committee appeared much more dovish and in not much of a hurry to actually pull the trigger.”

Fed officials’ forecasts of how high rates will be at year’s end for 2015, 2016 and 2017 all fell compared to where they were in December. They marked down their forecast for economic growth and inflation for all three years, implying that the nation’s economic challenge is tougher and inflation risks more distant than they had seemed a few months ago.

Particularly interesting was that Fed officials lowered their estimate of the longer-run unemployment rate, to 5 to 5.2 percent, from 5.2 to 5.5 percent. With joblessness hitting 5.5 percent in February, that implied that policy makers are convinced the job market has more room to tighten before it becomes too tight. Fed leaders now forecast unemployment rates in 2016 and 2017 that are a bit below what many view as the long-term sustainable level, which one would expect to translate into rising wages.

In other words, they want to run the economy a little hot for the next couple of years to help spur the kinds of wage gains that might return inflation to the 2 percent level they aim for, but which they have persistently undershot in recent years.

Apart from the details of the dovish monetary policy signals Ms. Yellen and her colleagues sent, it is clear she wanted to jolt markets out of any feeling that policy is on a preordained path.

At times over the last couple of years, the Fed had seemed to set a policy course and then go on a forced march until it got there, regardless of whether the jobs numbers were good or bad, or whether inflation was rising or falling. That is certainly how it felt when the Fed decided in December 2013 to wind down its quantitative easing policies by $10 billion per meeting, which it did through the first nine months of 2014 with few signs of re-evaluation as conditions evolved.

In her first news conference as chairwoman a year ago, Ms. Yellen had suggested that rate increases might be on a similar preordained path by saying that she could imagine rate increases “around six months” after the conclusion of quantitative easing. (That comment increasingly looks to have been a rookie mistake, and she later backed away from it.)

There are likely to be plenty of twists and turns in the coming months. After this week’s meeting, Ms. Yellen reinforced the message she has been trying to convey that the committee really will adapt its policy to incoming information rather than simply carry on with the path it set a year ago.

If the strengthening dollar and falling oil prices start to translate into still-lower expectations for future inflation, the Fed will hold off from rate rises — and the same if wage gains and other job market indicators show a lack of progress.

Conversely, if the job market recovery keeps going gangbusters and it becomes clear that inflation is going to rise back toward 2 percent, Ms. Yellen does not want to be constrained by language about “patience.”

“This change does not necessarily mean that an increase will occur in June,” Ms. Yellen said, “though we cannot rule that out.”

She has now bought herself some latitude to decide when and how the Fed ushers in an era of tighter money. Now the question is just how patient or impatient American economic conditions will allow her to be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/19/upshot/janet-yellen-isnt-going-to-raise-interest-rates-until-shes-good-and-ready.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

Taylor rule

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John B. Taylor

Not to be confused with Taylor Law or Taylor’s law.

In economics, a Taylor rule is a monetary-policy rule that stipulates how much the central bank should change the nominal interest rate in response to changes in inflation, output, or other economic conditions. In particular, the rule stipulates that for each one-percent increase in inflation, the central bank should raise the nominal interest rate by more than one percentage point. This aspect of the rule is often called the Taylor principle.

The rule of was first proposed by John B. Taylor,[1] and simultaneously by Dale W. Henderson and Warwick McKibbin in 1993.[2] It is intended to foster price stability and full employment by systematically reducing uncertainty and increasing the credibility of future actions by the central bank. It may also avoid the inefficiencies of time inconsistency from the exercise ofdiscretionary policy.[3][4] The Taylor rule synthesized, and provided a compromise between, competing schools of economics thought in a language devoid of rhetorical passion.[5] Although many issues remain unresolved and views still differ about how the Taylor rule can best be applied in practice, research shows that the rule has advanced the practice of central banking.[6]

As an equation

According to Taylor’s original version of the rule, the nominal interest rate should respond to divergences of actual inflation rates from target inflation rates and of actual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from potential GDP:

i_t = \pi_t + r_t^* + a_\pi  ( \pi_t - \pi_t^* )  + a_y ( y_t - \bar y_t ).

In this equation, \,i_t\, is the target short-term nominal interest rate (e.g. the federal funds rate in the US, the Bank of England base rate in the UK), \,\pi_t\, is the rate ofinflation as measured by the GDP deflator, \pi^*_t is the desired rate of inflation, r_t^* is the assumed equilibrium real interest rate, \,y_t\, is the logarithm of real GDP, and \bar y_tis the logarithm of potential output, as determined by a linear trend.

In this equation, both a_{\pi} and a_y should be positive (as a rough rule of thumb, Taylor’s 1993 paper proposed setting a_{\pi}=a_y=0.5).[7] That is, the rule “recommends” a relatively high interest rate (a “tight” monetary policy) when inflation is above its target or when output is above its full-employment level, in order to reduce inflationary pressure. It recommends a relatively low interest rate (“easy” monetary policy) in the opposite situation, to stimulate output. Sometimes monetary policy goals may conflict, as in the case of stagflation, when inflation is above its target while output is below full employment. In such a situation, a Taylor rule specifies the relative weights given to reducing inflation versus increasing output.

The Taylor principle

By specifying a_{\pi}>0, the Taylor rule says that an increase in inflation by one percentage point should prompt the central bank to raise the nominal interest rate by more than one percentage point (specifically, by 1+a_{\pi}, the sum of the two coefficients on \pi_t in the equation above). Since the real interest rate is (approximately) the nominal interest rate minus inflation, stipulating a_{\pi}>0 implies that when inflation rises, the real interest rate should be increased. The idea that the real interest rate should be raised to cool the economy when inflation increases (requiring the nominal interest rate to increase more than inflation does) has sometimes been called the Taylor principle.[8]

During an EconTalk podcast Taylor explained the rule in simple terms using three variables: inflation rate, GDP growth, and the interest rate. If inflation were to rise by 1%, the proper response would be to raise the interest rate by 1.5% (Taylor explains that it doesn’t always need to be exactly 1.5%, but being larger than 1% is essential). If GDP falls by 1% relative to its growth path, then the proper response is to cut the interest rate by .5%.[9]

Alternative versions of the rule

While the Taylor principle has proved very influential, there is more debate about the other terms that should enter into the rule. According to some simple New Keynesian macroeconomic models, insofar as the central bank keeps inflation stable, the degree of fluctuation in output will be optimized (Blanchard and Gali call this property the ‘divine coincidence‘). In this case, the central bank need not take fluctuations in the output gap into account when setting interest rates (that is, it may optimally set a_y=0.) On the other hand, other economists have proposed including additional terms in the Taylor rule to take into account money gap[10] or financial conditions: for example, the interest rate might be raised when stock prices, housing prices, or interest rate spreads increase.

Empirical relevance

Although the Federal Reserve does not explicitly follow the Taylor rule, many analysts have argued that the rule provides a fairly accurate summary of US monetary policy under Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan.[11][12] Similar observations have been made about central banks in other developed economies, both in countries like Canada and New Zealand that have officially adopted inflation targeting rules, and in others like Germany where the Bundesbank‘s policy did not officially target the inflation rate.[13][14] This observation has been cited by Clarida, Galí, and Gertler as a reason why inflation had remained under control and the economy had been relatively stable (the so-called ‘Great Moderation‘) in most developed countries from the 1980s through the 2000s.[11] However, according to Taylor, the rule was not followed in part of the 2000s, possibly leading to the housing bubble.[15][16] Certain research has determined that some households form their expectations about the future path of interest rates, inflation, and unemployment in a way that is consistent with Taylor-type rules.[17]

Criticisms

Athanasios Orphanides (2003) claims that the Taylor rule can misguide policy makers since they face real-time data. He shows that the Taylor rule matches the US funds rate less perfectly when accounting for these informational limitations and that an activist policy following the Taylor rule would have resulted in an inferior macroeconomic performance during the Great Inflation of the seventies.[18]

See also

References

  1. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (1993). “Discretion versus Policy Rules in Practice”. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 39: 195–214. (The rule is introduced on page 202.)
  2. Jump up^ Henderson, D. W.; McKibbin, W. (1993). “A Comparison of Some Basic Monetary Policy Regimes for Open Economies: Implications of Different Degrees of Instrument Adjustment and Wage Persistence”. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 39: 221–318. doi:10.1016/0167-2231(93)90011-K.
  3. Jump up^ Athanasios Orphanides (2008). “Taylor rules,” The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. v. 8, pp. 2000-2004.Abstract.
  4. Jump up^ Paul Klein (2009). “time consistency of monetary and fiscal policy,” The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. 2nd Edition. Abstract.
  5. Jump up^ Kahn, George A.; Asso, Pier Francesco; Leeson, Robert (2007). “The Taylor Rule and the Transformation of Monetary Policy”. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Working Paper 07-11. SSRN 1088466.
  6. Jump up^ Asso, Pier Francesco; Kahn, George A.; Leeson, Robert (2010). “The Taylor Rule and the Practice of Central Banking”. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Working Paper 10-05. SSRN 1553978.
  7. Jump up^ Athanasios Orphanides (2008). “Taylor rules,” The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. v. 8, pp. 2000-2004, equation (7).Abstract.
  8. Jump up^ Davig, Troy; Leeper, Eric M. (2007). “Generalizing the Taylor Principle”. American Economic Review 97 (3): 607–635. doi:10.1257/aer.97.3.607.JSTOR 30035014.
  9. Jump up^ Econtalk podcast, Aug. 18, 2008, interview conducted by Russell Roberts, sponsored by the Library of Economics and Liberty.
  10. Jump up^ Benchimol, Jonathan; Fourçans, André (2012). “Money and risk in a DSGE framework : A Bayesian application to the Eurozone”. Journal of Macroeconomics34 (1): 95–111, Abstract.
  11. ^ Jump up to:a b Clarida, Richard; Galí, Jordi; Gertler, Mark (2000). “Monetary Policy Rules and Macroeconomic Stability: Theory and Some Evidence”. Quarterly Journal of Economics 115 (1): 147–180. doi:10.1162/003355300554692.JSTOR 2586937.
  12. Jump up^ Lowenstein, Roger (2008-01-20). “The Education of Ben Bernanke”. The New York Times.
  13. Jump up^ Bernanke, Ben; Mihov, Ilian (1997). “What Does the Bundesbank Target?”.European Economic Review 41 (6): 1025–1053. doi:10.1016/S0014-2921(96)00056-6.
  14. Jump up^ Clarida, Richard; Gertler, Mark; Galí, Jordi (1998). “Monetary Policy Rules in Practice: Some International Evidence”. European Economic Review 42 (6): 1033–1067. doi:10.1016/S0014-2921(98)00016-6.
  15. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (2008). “The Financial Crisis and the Policy Responses: An Empirical Analysis of What Went Wrong”.
  16. Jump up^ Taylor, John B. (2009). Getting Off Track: How Government Actions and Interventions Caused, Prolonged, and Worsened the Financial Crisis. Hoover Institution Press. ISBN 0-8179-4971-2.
  17. Jump up^ Carvalho, Carlos; Nechio, Fernanda (2013). “Do People Understand Monetary Policy?”. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Working Paper 2012-01.SSRN 1984321.
  18. Jump up^ Orphanides, A. (2003). “The Quest for Prosperity without Inflation”. Journal of Monetary Economics 50 (3): 633–663. doi:10.1016/S0304-3932(03)00028-X.

External links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_rule

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Glenn Hubbard and Tim Kane — The Economics of Great Powers Balance From Ancient Rome To Modern America — Videos

Posted on January 2, 2015. Filed under: Agriculture, American History, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Computers, Data, Demographics, Diet, Disease, Documentary, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Faith, Family, Farming, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Genocide, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, IRS, Language, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, Math, media, Microeconomics, Money, Non-Fiction, People, Photos, Politics, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Science, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Terrorism, Transportation, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Weather, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Glenn Hubbard, “Balance” | Authors at Google

Q&A with R. Hubbard on “Balance: The Economics of Great Powers from Ancient Rome to Modern America”

Book TV: Glenn Hubbard and Tim Kane, “Balance”

Dr. Tim Kane: “America and the Ghost of Great Powers Past”

Romney’s top economist talks taxes, Ben Bernanke, and bailouts – Freeland File

 

Glenn Hubbard (economist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Glenn Hubbard
Glenn Hubbard portrait.jpg
Dean of Columbia Business School
Incumbent
Assumed office
July 1, 2004
Preceded by Meyer Feldberg
20th Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
In office
May 11, 2001 – February 28, 2003
President George W. Bush
Preceded by Martin Neil Baily
Succeeded by N. Gregory Mankiw
Deputy Assistant Secretary at the United States Department of the Treasury
In office
1991–1993
President George H. W. Bush
Personal details
Born September 4, 1958 (age 56)
Orlando, Florida
Political party Republican
Alma mater University of Central Florida(B.A., B.S.)
Harvard University (A.M., Ph.D.)
Profession Economist, professor
Religion Presbyterian
Signature
Website www.GlennHubbard.net

Robert Glenn Hubbard (born September 4, 1958) is an American economist and academic professor. He is currently the Dean of the Columbia University Graduate School of Business, where he is also Russell L. Carson Professor of Finance and Economics.[1] Hubbard previously served as Deputy Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Department of the Treasury from 1991 to 1993, and as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisorsfrom 2001 to 2003.

Hubbard is a Visiting Scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, where he studies tax policy and health care.[2]

Early Life

Born September 4, 1958, Hubbard was raised in Apopka, Florida, a suburb of Orlando, Florida. His father taught at a local community college and his mother taught at a high school. Hubbard’s younger brother, Gregg, is a member of the country-pop band Sawyer Brown.[3]

Hubbard is an Eagle Scout. A member of the chess team, he was a stellar student who graduated at the top of his class. He scored well enough on his College Level Examination Program to enter the University of Central Florida with enough credits to graduate with two degrees in three years. He obtained his B.A. and B.S. degrees summa cum laude from the University of Central Florida in 1979, and his masters and Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University in 1983.[3]

Career

Academic

Hubbard has been at Columbia University since 1988, being Russell L. Carson Professor of Finance and Economics since 1994.[4]

He was named dean of Columbia Business School on July 1, 2004.

Government

Hubbard was Deputy Assistant Secretary at the U.S. Department of the Treasury from 1991 to 1993.[2]

From February 2001 until March 2003, Hubbard was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President George W. Bush. A supply-side economist, he was instrumental in the design of the 2003 Bush Tax cuts[5]—an issue which split the economics profession on ideological lines, with those leaning left opposed and those leaning right supportive. See Economists’ statement opposing the Bush tax cuts.

He was tipped by some media outlets to be a candidate for the position of Chairman of the Federal Reserve when Alan Greenspan retired, although he was not nominated for the position.[5]

Political advisor

Hubbard served as economic advisor to the 2012 presidential campaign of Mitt Romney, a position he also held during Romney’s 2008 presidential campaign.[6] In August 2012, Politicoidentified Hubbard as “a likely Romney appointee as Federal Reserve chairman or Treasury secretary“.[7]

Other

Hubbard serves as Co-Chair of the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation.

“Hubbard is a member of the Board of Directors of Automatic Data Processing, Inc., BlackRock Closed-End Funds, Capmark Financial Corporation, Duke Realty Corporation,KKR Financial Corporation and Ripplewood Holdings. He is also a Director or Trustee of the Economic Club of New York, Tax Foundation, Resources for the Future, Manhattan Council and Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, New York, and a member of the Advisory Board of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse… Director of MetLife and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company since February 2007.”[4]

Hubbard is currently a board member of:

Inside Job interview and aftermath

Hubbard was interviewed in Charles Ferguson’s Oscar-winning documentary film, Inside Job (2010), discussing his advocacy, as chief economic advisor to the Bush Administration, of deregulation. Ferguson argues that deregulation led to the 2008 international banking crisis sparked by the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the sale of Merrill Lynch. In the interview, Ferguson asks Hubbard to enumerate the firms from whom he receives outside income as an advisory board member in the context of possible conflict of interest. Hubbard, hitherto cooperative, declines to answer and threatens to end the interview with the remark, “You have three more minutes; give it your best shot.”[11] After the release of the film, Columbia ramped up ongoing efforts to strengthen and clarify their conflict of interest disclosure requirements.[12] (Columbia Business School professor Michael Feiner, a member of the faculty committee of Columbia’s Sanford C. Bernstein and Co. Center for Leadership and Ethics, has recommended that the film be shown to all business school students.[12]) One of Hubbard’s consulting contracts was examined in a deposition in 2012. His work for Countrywide Financial for $1200/hr, attesting that the lender’s loans were no worse than a control group of mortgages and not fraudulent, was examined by an attorney for MBIA. MBIA was suing Countrywide over its mortgage practices.[13]

Columbia Business School (CBS) Follies

Hubbard is also frequently featured in skits by Columbia Business School’s “Follies” group, ranging from videos of him monitoring students on classroom video cameras[14] to songs about his relationship with Presidential candidate Mitt Romney.[15]

References

  1. Jump up^ Glater, Jonathan D. (April 1, 2004). “Former Bush Aide Will Lead Columbia Business School”.New York Times. Retrieved 2008-12-15.
  2. ^ Jump up to:a b American Enterprise Institute, R. Glenn Hubbard
  3. ^ Jump up to:a b Segal, David (October 13, 2012). “Romney’s Go-To Economist”. The New York Times. Retrieved October 13, 2012.
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b c “Director – R. Glenn Hubbard”. Metlife. Retrieved 2008-12-15. R. Glenn Hubbard, Ph.D., age 50, has been the Dean of the Graduate School of Business at Columbia University since 2004 and the Russell L. Carson Professor of Finance and Economics since 1994. Dr. Hubbard has been a professor of the Graduate School of Business at Columbia University since 1988. He is also a visiting scholar and Director of the Tax Policy Program for the American Enterprise Institute, and was a member of the Panel of Economic Advisers for the Congressional Budget Office from 2004 to 2006. From 2001 to 2003, Dr. Hubbard served as Chairman of the U.S. Council of Economic Advisers and as Chairman of the Economic Policy Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Dr. Hubbard is a member of the Board of Directors of Automatic Data Processing, Inc., BlackRock Closed-End Funds, Capmark Financial Corporation, Duke Realty Corporation, KKR Financial Corporation and Ripplewood Holdings. He is also a Director or Trustee of the Economic Club of New York, Tax Foundation, Resources for the Future, Manhattan Council and Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, New York, and a member of the Advisory Board of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse… Director of MetLife and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company since February 2007. Link.
  5. ^ Jump up to:a b Andrews, Edmund L.; David Leonhardt, Eduardo Porter, and Louis Uchitelle (October 26, 2005). “At the Fed, an Unknown Became a Safe Choice”. New York Times. Retrieved2008-12-15.
  6. Jump up^ Romney Taps Bush Hands to Shape Economic Policies, February 24, 2012
  7. Jump up^ “Who’s on the inside track for a Romney Cabinet” by MIKE ALLEN and JIM VANDEHEI,Politico, August 28, 2012, Retrieved 2012-08-28
  8. Jump up^ “Directors and Corporate Officers”. ADP : Automatic Data Processing, Inc. Retrieved2008-12-15.
  9. Jump up^ “BlackRock Corporate High Yield Fund III Inc (CYE.N) Officers”. Reuters. Retrieved2008-12-15.
  10. Jump up^ “dukerealty.com – Investor Relations – Management”. Duke Realty. Retrieved 2008-12-15.
  11. Jump up^ Transcript excerpt on “A Searing Look At Wall Street In ‘Inside Job’, Charles Ferguson interviewed by Melissa Block”, which aired October 1, 2010 on NPR‘s All Things Considered. During the program, Ferguson explained to Ms. Block, “Well, the entire interview was fairly contentious, as you can imagine. It surprised me somewhat to realize that these people were not used to being challenged, that they’d never been questioned about this issue before. They clearly expected to be deferred to by me and I think by everybody.”
  12. ^ Jump up to:a b “‘Inside Job’ prompts new look at conflict of interest policy,” published April 13, 2011, in the Columbia Spectator.
  13. Jump up^ Taibbi, Matt, “Glenn Hubbard, Leading Academic and Mitt Romney Advisor, Took $1200 an Hour to Be Countrywide’s Expert Witness”, Rolling Stone Taiblog, December 20, 2012. Retrieved 2012-12-26.
  14. Jump up^ ECHO 360. CBS Follies. December 16, 2011 – via YouTube. Those ECHO 360 cameras in every room at CBS aren’t just recording lectures so you can skip class on Jewish holidays. They’re Hubbard’s eyes and ears. He’s watching you.
  15. Jump up^ White House Dream. CBS Follies. April 16, 2012 – via YouTube. From the Columbia Business School Follies Spring 2012 Show

External links

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Advance Estimate of Real GDP Growth in Second Quarter of 2013 is 1.7% With First Quarter of 2013 Revised Down to 1.1% (Original Advance Estimate was 2.5%!)! — U.S. Economy Is Stagnating as Growth Continues To Decline — Videos

Posted on August 1, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Employment, European History, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, History of Economic Thought, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, IRS, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Resources, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

gdp_large

US economy grows more than expected in Q2 – economy

BBC News – Can Hollywood give US economy a happy ending?

News Wrap: Federal Reserve Downgrades U.S. Economic Growth

No hint of stimulus pullback in the US even as growth improves

GDP Propaganda Exposed

Peter Schiff – Janet Yellen Is Wrong! There Is A LOT Of Inflation! US Economy On Verge In Crisis!

GDP grows faster than expected

What is the origin of GDP?

US first-quarter growth was 1.8%, not 2.4% – economy

Jobs Report July 2013 Preview: What’s The Unemployment Rate Hiding?

Peter Schiff: Buy Gold and Silver Now, Money Printing Until We Have A Currency Crisis & More

Slow “growth”,GDP makeover, Keynesians demand more debt and inflation

National Income and Product Accounts
Gross Domestic Product, second quarter 2013 (advance estimate);
Comprehensive Revision: 1929 through 1st quarter 2013
      Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 1.7 percent in the second quarter of 2013
(that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to the "advance" estimate released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis.  In the first quarter, real GDP increased 1.1 percent (revised).

      The Bureau emphasized that the second-quarter advance estimate released today is based on
source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency (see the box on page 3
and "Comparisons of Revisions to GDP" on page 18).  The "second" estimate for the second quarter,
based on more complete data, will be released on August 29, 2013.

      The increase in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from
personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, nonresidential fixed investment, private inventory
investment, and residential investment that were partly offset by a negative contribution from federal
government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased.

      The acceleration in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected upturns in nonresidential
fixed investment and in exports, a smaller decrease in federal government spending, and an upturn in
state and local government spending that were partly offset by an acceleration in imports and
decelerations in private inventory investment and in PCE.

BOX._______

     Comprehensive Revision of the National Income and Product Accounts

     The estimates released today reflect the results of the 14th comprehensive (or benchmark) revision
of the national income and product accounts (NIPAs) in conjunction with the second quarter 2013
"advance" estimate.  More information on the revision is available on BEA’s Web site at
www.bea.gov/gdp-revisions.

FOOTNOTE.______

     Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted annual rates, unless otherwise specified.
Quarter-to-quarter dollar changes are differences between these published estimates.  Percent changes are
calculated from unrounded data and are annualized.  "Real" estimates are in chained (2009) dollars.  Price
indexes are chain-type measures.

This news release is available on BEA’s Web site  along with the Technical Note
and Highlights related to this release.
_______________

     The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents,
increased 0.3 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 1.2 percent in the first.
Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for gross domestic purchases increased 0.8 percent in
the second quarter compared with 1.4 percent in the first.

      Real personal consumption expenditures increased 1.8 percent in the second quarter, compared
with an increase of 2.3 percent in the first.  Durable goods increased 6.5 percent, compared with an
increase of 5.8 percent.  Nondurable goods increased 2.0 percent, compared with an increase of 2.7
percent.  Services increased 0.9 percent, compared with an increase of 1.5 percent.

      Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 4.6 percent in the second quarter, in contrast to a
decrease of 4.6 percent in the first.  Nonresidential structures increased 6.8 percent, in contrast to a
decrease of 25.7 percent.  Equipment increased 4.1 percent, compared with an increase of 1.6 percent.
Intellectual property products increased 3.8 percent, compared with an increase of 3.7 percent.  Real
residential fixed investment increased 13.4 percent, compared with an increase of 12.5 percent.

      Real exports of goods and services increased 5.4 percent in the second quarter, in contrast to a
decrease of 1.3 percent in the first.  Real imports of goods and services increased 9.5 percent, compared
with an increase of 0.6 percent.

      Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 1.5 percent
in the second quarter, compared with a decrease of 8.4 percent in the first.  National defense decreased
0.5 percent, compared with a decrease of 11.2 percent.  Nondefense decreased 3.2 percent, compared
with a decrease of 3.6 percent.  Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment increased 0.3 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 1.3 percent.

      The change in real private inventories added 0.41 percentage point to the second-quarter change
in real GDP after adding 0.93 percentage point to the first-quarter change.  Private businesses increased
inventories $56.7 billion in the second quarter, following increases of $42.2 billion in the first quarter
and $7.3 billion in the fourth.

      Real final sales of domestic product -- GDP less change in private inventories -- increased 1.3
percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 0.2 percent in the first.

Gross domestic purchases

      Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever
produced -- increased 2.4 percent in the second quarter, compared with an increase of 1.4 percent in the
first.

Disposition of personal income

      Current-dollar personal income increased $140.1 billion (4.1 percent) in the second quarter, in
contrast to a decrease of $157.1 billion (4.4 percent) in the first.  The upturn in personal income
primarily reflected sharp upturns in personal dividend income and in wages and salaries and a sharp
deceleration in contributions for government social insurance (a subtraction in the calculation of
personal income).

*	Personal dividend income increased in the second quarter, in contrast to a large decrease in the
        first. The first-quarter decline in dividend income primarily reflected the accelerated and special
        dividends that were paid by many companies in the fourth quarter of 2012.

*	Wages and salaries increased in the second quarter, in contrast to a decrease in the first. The
        first-quarter decline in wages and salaries is based on preliminary quarterly census of
        employment and wages data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

*	The sharp deceleration in contributions for government social insurance primarily reflected the
        first-quarter expiration of the "payroll tax holiday" that increased the social security contribution
        rate for employees and self-employed workers by 2.0 percentage points.

      Personal current taxes increased $36.0 billion in the second quarter, compared with an increase
of $74.3 billion in the first.

      Disposable personal income increased $104.1 billion (3.4 percent) in the second quarter, in
contrast to a decrease of $231.5 billion (7.2 percent) in the first.  Real disposable personal income
increased 3.4 percent, in contrast to a decrease of 8.2 percent.

      Personal outlays increased $44.7 billion (1.5 percent) in the second quarter, compared with an
increase of $98.7 billion (3.4 percent) in the first.  Personal saving -- disposable personal income less
personal outlays -- was $553.4 billion in the second quarter, compared with $494.0 billion in the first.

      The personal saving rate -- personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income -- was
4.5 percent in the second quarter, compared with 4.0 percent in the first.  For a comparison of personal
saving in BEA’s national income and product accounts with personal saving in the Federal Reserve
Board’s flow of funds accounts and data on changes in net worth, go to
www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/Nipa-Frb.asp.

Current-dollar GDP

      Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the nation's output of goods and services -- increased
2.4 percent, or $98.1 billion, in the second quarter to a level of $16,633.4 billion.  In the first quarter,
current-dollar GDP increased 2.8 percent, or $115.0 billion.

Box._______

      Information on the assumptions used for unavailable source data is provided in a technical note that
is posted with the news release on BEA's Web site. Within a few days after the release, a detailed "Key
Source Data and Assumptions" file is posted on the Web site.  In the middle of each month, an analysis of
the current quarterly estimate of GDP and related series is made available on the Web site; click on Survey
of Current Business, "GDP and the Economy."  For information on revisions, see "Revisions to GDP, GDI, and Their
Major Components."

____________

                          COMPREHENSIVE REVISION OF THE NATIONAL INCOME AND PRODUCT
                                ACCOUNTS: 1929 THROUGH FIRST QUARTER 2013

      Today, BEA released revised statistics of gross domestic product (GDP) and of other national
income and product accounts (NIPAs) series from 1929 through the first quarter of 2013.
Comprehensive revisions, which are carried out about every 5 years, are an important part of BEA’s
regular process for improving and modernizing its accounts to keep pace with the ever-changing U.S.
economy.

      Most of the tables in this release present revised statistics for 2002 through the first quarter of
2013.  Selected NIPA tables, with statistics from 1929 forward, are available on BEA's Web site
(www.bea.gov).  Most of the remaining NIPA tables will be released later in August.  An article
describing the statistics will be published in the September 2013 issue of BEA’s monthly journal, the
Survey of Current Business.

Summary of revisions

      The picture of the economy shown in the revised estimates is very similar in broad outline to the
picture shown in the previously published estimates.  The similarity and some of the differences can be
seen in the following:

*	For 1929–2012, the average annual growth rate of real GDP was 3.3 percent, 0.1 percentage
        point higher than in the previously published estimates.  For the more recent period, 2002–2012,
        the growth rate was 1.8 percent, 0.2 percentage point higher than in the previously published
        estimates.

*	For 2002–2012, the average rate of change in the prices paid by U.S. residents was 2.3 percent,
        0.1 percentage point lower than in the previously published estimates.

*	For 2009–2012, the average annual growth rate of real GDP was 2.4 percent, 0.3 percentage
        point higher than in the previously published estimates.  The percent change in real GDP was
        revised up 0.1 percentage point for 2010, was unrevised for 2011, and was revised up 0.6
        percentage point for 2012.

*	For the period of contraction from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the second quarter of 2009, real
        GDP decreased at an average annual rate of 2.9 percent; in the previously published estimates, it
        decreased 3.2 percent.

*	For the period of expansion from the second quarter of 2009 to the first quarter of 2013, real
        GDP increased at an average annual rate of 2.2 percent; in the previously published estimates, it
        increased 2.1 percent.

Improvements incorporated in this comprehensive revision

      Comprehensive revisions encompass three major types of improvements:

*	Changes in definitions and in classifications that update the accounts to more accurately portray
        the evolving U.S. economy,

*	Changes in presentations that make the NIPA tables more informative, and

*	Statistical changes that introduce new and improved methodologies and that bring in newly
        available and revised source data (see box on page 8).

      The improvements incorporated in the revised estimates have been previewed in a series of
articles in the Survey and are available on BEA’s Web site at www.bea.gov/gdp-revisions.

      Changes in definitions, classifications, and presentations.  The changes in definitions, in
classifications, and in presentations introduced in this comprehensive revision include the following:

*	Expenditures by business, government, and nonprofit institutions serving households (NPISH)
        for research and development (R&D) are recognized as fixed investment.  The new treatment
        improves BEA’s measures of fixed investment and allows users to better measure the effects of
        innovation and intangible assets on the economy.

*	Similarly, expenditures by private enterprises for the creation of entertainment, literary, and
        artistic originals are recognized as fixed investment, further expanding BEA’s measures of
        intangible assets.

*	In the NIPA fixed investment tables, a new category of investment, "intellectual property
        products," consists of research and development; entertainment, literary, and artistic originals;
        and software.

*	Transactions of defined benefit pension plans are recorded on an accrual accounting basis, which
        recognizes the costs of unfunded liabilities.

*	An expanded set of ownership transfer costs for residential fixed assets is recognized as fixed
        investment, and the accuracy of the associated asset values and services lives is improved.

*	The reference year for the chain-type quantity and price indexes and for the chained-dollar
        estimates is updated to 2009 from 2005.

      Statistical changes.  Important statistical changes that introduce new and improved
methodologies and that bring in newly available source data include the following:

*	BEA’s 2007 benchmark input-output (I-O) accounts, which provide the most thorough and
        detailed information on the structure of the U.S. economy, are used to benchmark the
        expenditure components of GDP and some of the income components.

*	Beginning with 1966, the estimates of employers’ contributions to state and local government-
        sponsored defined contribution pension plans are improved by incorporating new source data.

*	Beginning with 1985, the methods for computing financial services provided by commercial
        banks are improved to establish a more accurate picture of banking output.

*	Beginning with 1993, the estimates of proprietors’ income are improved by more accurately
        accounting for the capital gains and losses attributable to corporate partners.

*	Beginning with 1993, the estimates of mortgage interest paid for nonfarm permanent-site
        housing are improved by incorporating several new data sources.

A table that summarizes the major sources of revision for selected NIPA components is available on
BEA’s Web site at www.bea.gov/gdp-revisions.

      Effects of improvements on major aggregates.  The improvements and the new and revised
source data incorporated with this comprehensive revision have notable effects on current-dollar NIPA
aggregates without changing broad economic trends or the general patterns of business cycles.  In the
aggregate, changes in definitions (mainly the recognition of new forms of fixed investment) have the
largest effect on current-dollar GDP and GDI for 1929–2012, and statistical changes (improved data and
methodologies) tend to have smaller effects.  For example, for 2012, the level of current-dollar GDP was
revised up $559.8 billion; $526.0 billion of this upward revision resulted from definitional changes.
Sources of Revision to Current-Dollar GDP
      Changes in definitions (mainly accrual accounting for defined benefit pension plans, which
credits households with the value of accrued benefits from these plans) raise personal income and
personal saving; statistical changes have mixed effects on personal income and on personal saving.
Sources of Revision to Current-Dollar Personal Income
      News release tables.  This release includes the tables that will be regularly shown in future GDP
news releases; in addition, special tables have been included to highlight the effects of the
comprehensive revision.  The special tables are:

*	Tables 1A, 2A, and 4A compare revised and previously published estimates for percent changes
        in real GDP, for contributions to percent change in real GDP, and for percent changes in chain-
        type price indexes for GDP and related measures, respectively;

*	Tables 7A, 7B, and 7C show annual levels, percent changes, and revisions to percent changes for
        current-dollar GDP, for real (chained-dollar) GDP, and for chain-type price indexes for GDP,
        respectively;

*	Table 12C shows revisions to corporate profits by industry.

      Most of the tables show annual estimates beginning with 2002; quarterly estimates (if shown)
begin with the first quarter of 2007.  Three of the regular tables -- tables 3, 11, and 12 -- are split into A
and B segments in this release to accommodate this longer-than-usual time span.

      With this release, selected NIPA tables are available on BEA’s Web site.  Most of the remaining
NIPA tables will be available later in August.

Box.________

                                         New and revised data

      The revised estimates reflect the incorporation of newly available and revised source data.  The
most important source data that affect the estimates are BEA’s benchmark 2007 input-output (I-O)
accounts.  The revised estimates also incorporate data on inventories, on receipts and expenses of
business establishments and of governments, on sales by detailed commodity and by product line, on
final industry and product shipments from the 2007 Economic Census, and on trade margins from both
the 2007 Economic Census and the 2007 annual surveys of merchant wholesale and of retail trade.  In
addition, the revised estimates incorporate monthly and annual Census Bureau industry data on
manufacturing, on wholesale trade, and on retail trade for 2003 forward.  The revised estimates also
reflect data on housing from the 2010 decennial Census of Population and Housing.  Estimates that are
based on BEA’s international transactions accounts (ITAs) -- primarily net exports of goods and services
and rest-of-the-world income receipts and payments -- were revised to reflect improvements to the ITAs
that were introduced since 2009.  Estimates of underreported income were revised using Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) National Research Program data for 2006.  Other data that were incorporated
include revised data on the expenditures and receipts of state and local governments for fiscal years
2006–2009 from the Census Bureau.

      The revised estimates for 2010–2012 also reflect the incorporation of newly available and
revised source data that became available since the last annual NIPA revision in July 2012.  The most
important of these data sources are Census Bureau annual surveys of state and local governments for
fiscal year 2010 (revised) and fiscal year 2011 (preliminary), of manufactures for 2010 (revised) and
2011 (preliminary), of merchant wholesale trade and of retail trade for 2010 (revised) and 2011
(preliminary), and of services and of the value of construction spending for 2010 and 2011 (revised) and
2012 (preliminary); federal government budget data for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 (revised); Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS) quarterly census of employment and wages (QCEW) for 2010–2012 (revised);
IRS tabulations of corporate tax returns for 2010 (revised) and 2011 (preliminary) and of sole
proprietorship and partnership tax returns for 2011; and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) farm
statistics for 2010–2012 (revised).

      Data from BEA’s annual revision of the ITAs were incorporated for 2010–2012 for most
components at their "best level;" revisions for earlier years, along with data from the June 2014 revision
of the ITAs, will be incorporated in the NIPAs in the 2014 annual revision.
_______________
FOOTNOTE.______
The 2007 benchmark input-output accounts are scheduled for release in December 2013. At that time, BEA will
also release the comprehensive revision of the annual industry accounts, which will be consistent with this
comprehensive revision of the NIPAs.
_______________

The revisions

      For this comprehensive revision, many current-dollar estimates were revised back to 1929, the
earliest year for which NIPA estimates are available, as a result of changes in definitions, in
classifications, and in presentations.

      Real GDP growth.  For 1929–2012, the average annual growth rate of real GDP was 3.3
percent, 0.1 percentage point higher than in the previously published estimates.  For the more recent
period, 2002–2012, the average annual growth rate was 1.8 percent, 0.2 percentage point higher than in
the previously published estimates.  For the most recent years, 2009–2012, the average annual growth
rate of real GDP was 2.4 percent, 0.3 percentage point higher than in the previously published estimates.
For the 3 most recent years, the annual growth rate:

*	was revised up from 2.4 percent to 2.5 percent for 2010,
*	was unrevised at 1.8 percent for 2011, and
*	was revised up from 2.2 percent to 2.8 percent for 2012.

      Real GDI growth.  For 1929–2012, the average annual growth rate of real GDI was 3.3 percent,
0.1 percentage point higher than in the previously published estimates.  For the more recent period,
2002–2012, the average annual growth rate was 1.8 percent, 0.2 percentage point higher than in the
previously published estimates.  For the most recent years, 2009–2012, the average annual growth rate
of real GDI was 2.6 percent, 0.3 percentage point higher than in the previously published estimates.  For
the 3 most recent years, the annual growth rate:

*	was revised down from 3.1 percent to 2.7 percent for 2010,
*	was revised up from 1.8 percent to 2.5 percent for 2011, and
*	was revised up from 2.2 percent to 2.5 percent for 2012.

      Business cycles.  For the contraction that lasted from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the second
quarter of 2009, real GDP decreased at a 2.9 percent annual rate; in the previously published estimates,
it decreased 3.2 percent.  The cumulative decrease in real GDP (not at an annual rate) was 4.3 percent; in
the previously published estimates, the cumulative decrease was 4.7 percent.  In the revised estimates,
real GDP decreased in the first, third, and fourth quarters of 2008 and in the first and second quarters of
2009.

      For the expansion from the second quarter of 2009 to the first quarter of 2013, real GDP
increased at a 2.2 percent annual rate; in the previously published estimates, it increased 2.1 percent.
From the third quarter of 2009 to the first quarter of 2013, real GDP increased in all quarters except for
the first quarter of 2011, when real GDP decreased 1.3 percent; in the previously published estimates,
real GDP increased in all quarters during this period.  Earlier business cycles show little revision.

      Price changes.  The revisions to major price indexes are small.  For 1929–2012, the average
annual increase in the price index for gross domestic purchases was revised down from 3.0 percent to
2.9 percent; the average annual increase in the price index for GDP was unrevised at 2.9 percent.  For
2002–2012, the average annual increase in the price index for gross domestic purchases was revised
down from 2.4 percent to 2.3 percent; the average annual increase in the price index for GDP was
revised down from 2.3 percent to 2.1 percent.  For 2009–2012, the average annual increase in the price
index for gross domestic purchases was revised down from 1.9 percent to 1.8 percent; the average
annual increase in the price index for GDP was revised down from 1.8 percent to 1.6 percent.

      For 1929–2012, the average annual increase in the price index for personal consumption
expenditures (PCE) was unrevised at 2.9 percent.  For 2002–2012, the average annual increase in the
PCE price index was revised down from 2.2 percent to 2.1 percent.  For 2009–2012, the average annual
increase in the PCE price index was unrevised at 2.0 percent.

      Real disposable personal income (DPI) growth.  For 1929–2012, the average annual increase
in real DPI was 3.2 percent, 0.1 percentage point higher than in the previously published estimates.  For
2002–2012, the average annual increase was 2.0 percent, 0.2 percentage point higher than in the
previously published estimates.  For 2009–2012, the average annual increase was 1.8 percent, 0.2
percentage point higher than in the previously published estimates.

      Personal saving.  Personal saving (DPI less personal outlays) was revised up for 1929–2007,
down for 2008, and up for 2009–2012.  These revisions reflect the revisions to DPI and are mainly the
result of adopting the accrual treatment of defined benefit pension plans.  The personal saving rate
(personal saving as a percentage of DPI) was revised up for 1929–2007, down for 2008, and up for
2009–2012, reflecting the revisions to personal saving.

Revisions to current-dollar estimates

      The revisions to current-dollar GDP, to personal income and its disposition, and to national
income are shown in table 1B.  This table shows the "revisions in level," that is, the revised estimates
less the previously published estimates; table 1B also shows the revisions as a percent of the previously
published estimates for selected years.  The revised levels of annual GDP and its major components for
1965–2012, along with percent changes from the preceding year and revisions to the percent changes,
are shown in table 7A.

      GDP.  Current-dollar GDP was revised up for all years (1929–2012).  The upward revisions to
current-dollar GDP mainly reflect the recognition of additional expenditures -- for R&D; for the creation
of entertainment, literary, and artistic originals; and for an expanded set of ownership transfer costs -- as
fixed investment (see "Revision Analysis for GDP, 2012").  The new accrual treatment for government-
sponsored defined benefit pension plans results in revisions to current-dollar GDP through revisions to
supplements to wages and salaries for government employees (specifically, employer contributions for
employee pension and insurance funds); these revisions are upward for 1929–1978, downward for
1979–1991, and upward for 1992–2012.

Box._______

                                             Revision Analysis for GDP, 2012
                                              (Billions of current dollars)

Total Revision                                                                             559.8

Due to major definitional changes                                                          526.0

Capitalization of research and development                                                 396.7
Capitalization of entertainment, literary, and artistic originals                           74.3
Expanded set of ownership transfer costs for residential fixed assets                       42.3
Accrual accounting for defined benefit pension programs                                     12.6

Due to statistical changes                                                                  33.8

___________

      PCE.  Revisions to PCE are generally small before 1985; PCE was revised up for 1985 and
1986, down for 1987–2011, and up for 2012.  PCE for services accounts for most of the revisions for all
years except for 2011.

      Services.  PCE for services was revised up for 1985 and 1986, down for 1987–2010, and up for
2011 and 2012.  For most years beginning with 1985, the improved method for estimating services of
commercial banks results in downward revisions to PCE for financial services.  For 1965–2012 (and for
several prior years), the gross output of NPISH was revised down; the removal of R&D expenses of
NPISH (and their reclassification as fixed investment) more than offsets the addition to expenses of
consumption of fixed capital (CFC) for R&D capital.  The revisions also reflect the incorporation of the
2007 benchmark I-O accounts, of new and revised annual Census Bureau surveys of services, and of
other new and revised source data.

      Goods.  Revisions to PCE for goods begin with 1998 and follow a mixed pattern, with
downward revisions for 2010–2012.  The revisions to PCE for goods reflect the incorporation of the
2007 benchmark I-O accounts, of new and revised data from the Census Bureau’s retail trade surveys,
and of other new and revised source data.

      Private fixed investment.  Current-dollar private fixed investment was revised up for 1929–
2012.  The upward revisions reflect the recognition of additional expenditures -- for R&D; for the
creation of entertainment, literary, and artistic originals; and for an expanded set of ownership transfer
costs -- as fixed investment.

      Nonresidential structures.  The downward revisions for 2003–2012 primarily reflect the
incorporation of data from the 2007 benchmark I-O accounts, of revised footage drilled and expenditure
data from the Census Bureau and trade sources, and of revised Census Bureau construction spending
data.

      Equipment.   Software is now classified as part of intellectual property products rather than as
part of private equipment and software.  Private equipment (without software) was revised up for 2003–
2012, reflecting the incorporation of BEA’s 2007 benchmark I-O accounts, of new and revised Census
Bureau surveys of manufactures, and of other new and revised source data.

      Residential fixed investment.  The upward revisions to residential fixed investment for 1929–
2012 mainly reflect the recognition of an expanded set of ownership transfer costs for residential fixed
assets as fixed investment.  The revisions also reflect the incorporation of data from the 2007 benchmark
I-O accounts and of new and revised data from the Census Bureau surveys of construction spending.

      Intellectual property products.  Beginning with this comprehensive revision, the NIPA tables
include a new category of fixed investment, "intellectual property products."  The recognition of
expenditures for R&D and for the creation of entertainment, literary, and artistic originals as fixed
investment results in upward revisions to gross private domestic investment.  The downward revisions to
software investment for 2010–2012 (and small revisions for 2003–2009) reflect the incorporation of the
2007 benchmark I-O accounts and of new and revised annual Census Bureau surveys of services.
      Change in private inventories.  The revisions begin with 2002 and are mostly upward; the
revisions are dominated by revisions to nonfarm inventories for 2002–2010 and by farm inventories for
2011 and 2012.  The revisions to nonfarm inventories reflect data from a variety of sources, including
newly available and revised Census Bureau data on inventory book values, and the incorporation of new
commodity price weights from the 2007 benchmark I-O accounts.  The revisions to farm inventories
reflect revised USDA farm statistics for 2010–2012.

      Exports and imports of goods and services.  Revisions to net exports of goods and services are
generally small before 2002; the revisions are upward for 2002–2007, downward for 2008–2011, and
upward for 2012.  The revisions to net exports are mostly due to revisions to exports for 2002–2009 and
for 2012 and are mostly due to revisions to imports for 2010 and 2011.  Exports were revised up for
2002–2007, down for 2008–2010, and up for 2011and 2012.  The revisions to imports are upward for
2010 and 2011 and are small for other years.  The estimates reflect the incorporation of revised data
from BEA’s ITAs for 1999–2012.

      Government consumption expenditures and gross investment.  Government consumption
expenditures and gross investment was revised up for 1929–2012.  The revisions mainly reflect the
recognition of expenditures for R&D as fixed investment and the addition to consumption expenditures
of the CFC for R&D assets.

      Federal government.  The upward revisions to federal government consumption expenditures
and gross investment for 1929–2012 mainly reflect the recognition of expenditures for R&D as fixed
investment.  The new accrual treatment for defined benefit pension plans results in upward revisions to
contributions for employee pension and insurance funds for 1929–1979 and downward revisions for
1980–2012.  The revisions also reflect improved source data and methods, including revised federal
budget data for 2012 and 2013.

      State and local government.  State and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment was revised up for 1929–1975, down for 1976–1988, and up for 1989–2012.  These revisions
mainly reflect the new accrual approach for measuring state and local government-sponsored defined
benefit pension plans, which results in revisions to state and local government contributions for
employee pension and insurance funds that are upward for 1929–1978, downward for 1979–1986, and
upward for 1987–2012.  Revisions also result from statistical changes, including the incorporation of
improved source data on expenditures for defined contribution pension plans and the improved method
for estimating services of commercial banks.  The revisions also reflect the incorporation of the 2007
benchmark I-O accounts, of new and revised government finances data from the Census Bureau, and of
other new and revised source data.

      Personal income.   Personal income was revised up for 1929–2007, down for 2008, and up for
2009–2012.  These revisions mainly reflect the accrual approach for measuring defined benefit pension
plans, which results in upward revisions to personal income receipts on assets for 1929–2012 and in
upward revisions to supplements (specifically, employer contributions for employee pension and
insurance funds) for 1929–1975, for 1989–2002, and for 2004–2011.  A number of other definitional
and statistical changes affected the revisions to personal income.  The revisions to the components of
personal income are discussed below.
Revisions to Personal Income
      Wages and salaries.  The revisions mainly reflect revisions to private wages and salaries.  The
revisions are generally small and mixed for years prior to 2002, are downward for 2002–2011, and are
upward for 2012.  The revisions reflect revised estimates of misreporting and new and revised BLS
QCEW data.

      Supplements to wages and salaries.  The revisions to supplements reflect the revisions to
employer contributions for pension and insurance funds that result from the accrual approach for
measuring defined benefit pension plans.  Employer contributions for state and local government
defined benefit plans was revised up for 1929–1978, down for 1979–1986, and up for 1987–2012.
Employer contributions for federal government defined benefit plans was revised up for 1929–1979 and
down for 1980–2012.  Employer contributions for private defined benefit plans was revised down for
1968–1985, up for 1986–2001, down for 2002–2006, up for 2007, and down for 2008–2012.
Contributions for state and local government defined contribution pension plans was revised up for
1967–2012, reflecting the incorporation of improved source data.

      Proprietors’ income.  Proprietors’ income was revised down for 1965–2011 and up for 2012;
the revisions for years before 1965 are small.  Nonfarm proprietors’ income was revised down for 1965–
2011 and up for 2012.  The revisions to proprietors’ income primarily reflect revisions to nonfarm
proprietors’ income for most years (except for 2009 and for 2012).  Farm proprietors’ income had
relatively large upward revisions for 2011 and 2012, reflecting the incorporation of revised USDA data
for 2010–2012.

      The revisions to nonfarm proprietors’ income reflect a number of definitional and statistical
changes as well as revised source data.  Revisions due to the improved accounting for the capital gains
and losses attributable to corporate partners are downward for 2002–2008, upward for 2009, and
downward for 2010–2012.  Revisions due to the capitalization of expenditures for the creation of
entertainment, literary, and artistic originals and for an expanded set of ownership transfer costs are
downward, while the revisions due to the capitalization of R&D expenditures are upward.  The revisions
also reflect new IRS estimates for underreporting of income as well as new IRS tabulations of tax return
data for sole proprietorships and partnerships for 2011.

      Rental income of persons.  Rental income of persons was revised down for 1929–2002 and was
revised up for 2003 forward.  The improved methodology for estimating mortgage interest paid for
nonfarm permanent site housing results in downward revisions to rental income of persons for 1993–
2001 and upward revisions for 2002–2012.  The recognition of an expanded set of ownership transfer
costs for residential assets as fixed investment results in downward revisions for all years, partly
offsetting the upward revisions to rental income of persons for 2003–2012.  The revisions also reflect
revisions to owner- and tenant-occupied space rent, based on data from the 2010 Census of Housing and
the incorporation of other new and revised source data.

      Personal interest income.  Personal interest income was revised up for all years except for
2008.  The upward revisions mainly reflect the new accrual treatment of defined benefit pension plans.
Personal interest income was also affected by several other changes in methodology, including an
improved method for distributing the investment income of regulated investment companies by type of
income and the improved method for measuring interest associated with financial services of
commercial banks.  Revisions to personal interest income also reflect the incorporation of new and
revised source data from the Federal Reserve Board and other sources.

      Personal dividend income.  Personal dividend income was revised up for most years for 1991–
2009, was revised down for 2010, was revised up for 2011, and was revised down for 2012.  The
revisions to personal dividend income reflect the improved method for distributing the investment
income of regulated investment companies by type of income as well as the incorporation of new and
revised IRS tabulations of corporate tax returns and of data from BEA’s ITAs on dividends from the rest
of the world.

      Personal current transfer receipts.  Personal current transfer receipts was revised down for
2002, up for 2003–2009, and down for 2010–2012.  The revisions reflect the incorporation of new and
revised source data.

      Contributions for government social insurance.  The revisions to contributions for
government social insurance (which is deducted in the calculation of personal income) are small for
2002–2012.

      Personal current taxes.  Personal current taxes was revised up for 2011 and 2012; revisions are
generally small for prior years.  The revisions reflect the incorporation of new tax collections data from
the Treasury Department and the Social Security Administration and of new and revised Census Bureau
state and local government finances data.

      Disposable personal income.  The pattern of revisions to disposable personal income, which is
equal to personal income less personal current taxes, is similar to that of personal income.

      Personal outlays.  This series consists of PCE, personal interest payments, and personal current
transfer payments.  The revisions to personal outlays primarily reflect the revisions to PCE that were
previously described.  Personal interest payments was revised up for 1985 forward; revisions for prior
years are small.  The revisions to personal interest payments result from the improved method for
measuring the financial services of commercial banks and associated interest income from the
incorporation of new and revised source data.  Personal current transfer payments was revised down for
2007–2012.

      GDI.  Current-dollar GDI, like current-dollar GDP, was revised up for all years for 1929–2012.
The upward revisions to current-dollar GDI and GDP mainly reflect the recognition of additional
expenditures -- for R&D; for the creation of entertainment, literary, and artistic originals; and for an
expanded set of ownership transfer costs -- as fixed investment.

      National income.  National income was revised up for 1929–1978, down for 1979–2001, up for
2002–2004, down for 2005–2010, and up for 2011 and 2012.  The revisions to national income reflect
the revisions to the components of national income that were previously described; the revisions to the
remaining components of national income are discussed below.
Revision to National Income
      Corporate profits with inventory valuation and capital consumption adjustments.
Corporate profits was revised up for 1929–1986, down for 1987–2001, and up for 2002–2012.
Revisions to corporate profits due to the capitalization of expenditures for R&D and for the creation of
entertainment, literary, and artistic originals are upward for 1929–2012.  Revisions to corporate profits
due to the new accrual treatment of defined benefit pension plans are upward for 1968–1985, downward
for 1986–2002, upward for 2003–2006, downward for 2007–2009, and upward for 2010–2012.  The
improved method for distributing the investment income of regulated investment companies by type of
income results in revisions that are downward for 1992–2001, upward for 2002, and downward for
2003–2012.  The revisions to corporate profits also reflect the incorporation of new and revised IRS
tabulations of corporate tax return data and of new and revised data from BEA’s ITAs and from other
sources.

      Net interest and miscellaneous payments.  Net interest and miscellaneous payments was
revised up for most years for 1965–2001 and down for 2002–2012.  Revisions for years prior to 1965
are small.  The revisions reflect the incorporation of several definitional and statistical improvements,
including the new accrual treatment of defined benefit pension plans, the improved method for
distributing the investment income of regulated investment companies by type of income, the improved
methodology for estimating mortgage interest paid for nonfarm permanent site housing, and the
improved method for measuring the financial services of commercial banks, and the incorporation of
new and revised data from a number of sources.

      Consumption of fixed capital (CFC).  CFC was revised up substantially for 1929–2012.  The
upward revisions to CFC reflect the addition of CFC for R&D; for the creation of entertainment, literary,
and artistic originals; and for an expanded set of ownership transfer costs of residential assets.  In
addition, CFC was revised up to reflect a faster depreciation rate of brokers’ commissions on residential
structures.  The revisions to CFC also reflect statistical improvements and revisions to BEA’s estimates
of fixed investment and prices.

      Statistical discrepancy.  The statistical discrepancy, which is the difference between GDP and
GDI, was revised for 1929–2012.  The directions of the revisions are mixed for 1929–2000; the
statistical discrepancy was revised down for 2001–2003, was revised up for 2004–2008, was revised
down for 2009, was revised up for 2010, and was revised down for 2011 and 2012.  (In theory, GDP
should equal GDI; in practice, they differ because their components are estimated using largely
independent and less-than-perfect source data.)

Box._______
                    Availability of Revised Estimates and Related Information

Revised estimates for selected NIPA tables are on BEA's Web site:
www.bea.gov

The comprehensive revision was previewed in a series of articles in the Survey of Current Business;
the articles are also available on BEA's Web site:
www.bea.gov/gdp-revisions

The release schedule for revised NIPA tables is available at
www.bea.gov/national/table_schedule_20130606.htm
___________

      BEA's national, international, regional, and industry estimates; the Survey of Current Business;
and BEA news releases are available without charge on BEA's Web site at www.bea.gov.  By visiting
the site, you can also subscribe to receive free e-mail summaries of BEA releases and announcements.

                                         *          *          *

                             Next release -- August 29, 2013, at 8:30 A.M. EDT for:
                          Gross Domestic Product:  Second Quarter 2013 (Second Estimate)
                            Corporate Profits:  Second Quarter (Preliminary Estimate)

                                            Comparisons of Revisions to GDP

     Quarterly estimates of GDP are released on the following schedule:  the "advance" estimate, based on
source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency, is released near the end of the
first month after the end of the quarter; as more detailed and more comprehensive data become available,
the "second" and "third" estimates are released near the end of the second and third months, respectively.
The "latest"” estimate reflects the results of both annual and comprehensive revisions.

     Annual revisions, which generally cover the quarters of the 3 most recent calendar years, are usually carried
out each summer and incorporate newly available major annual source data.  Comprehensive (or benchmark)
revisions are carried out at about 5-year intervals and incorporate major periodic source data, as well as
improvements in concepts and methods that update the accounts to portray more accurately the evolving U.S.
economy.

The table below shows comparisons of the revisions between quarterly percent changes of current-dollar
and of real GDP for the different vintages of the estimates.  From the advance estimate to the second estimate (one
month later), the average revision to real GDP without regard to sign is 0.5 percentage point, while from the
advance estimate to the third estimate (two months later), it is 0.6 percentage point.  From the advance estimate to
the latest estimate, the average revision without regard to sign is 1.3 percentage points.  The average revision
(with regard to sign) from the advance estimate to the latest estimate is 0.2 percentage point, which is larger
than the average revisions from the advance estimate to the second or to the third estimates.  The larger average
revisions to the latest estimate reflect the fact that comprehensive revisions include major improvements, such as
the incorporation of BEA’s latest benchmark input-output accounts.  The quarterly estimates correctly indicate the
direction of change of real GDP 97 percent of the time, correctly indicate whether GDP is accelerating or
decelerating 72 percent of the time, and correctly indicate whether real GDP growth is above, near, or below trend
growth more than four-fifths of the time.

                           Revisions Between Quarterly Percent Changes of GDP: Vintage Comparisons
                                                     [Annual rates]

       Vintages                                   Average         Average without     Standard deviation of
       compared                                                    regard to sign      revisions without
                                                                                         regard to sign

____________________________________________________Current-dollar GDP_______________________________________________

Advance to second....................               0.2                 0.6                  0.4
Advance to third.....................                .1                  .7                   .4
Second to third......................                .0                  .3                   .2

Advance to latest....................                .3                 1.2                  1.0

________________________________________________________Real GDP_____________________________________________________

Advance to second....................               0.1                 0.5                  0.4
Advance to third.....................                .1                  .6                   .5
Second to third......................                .0                  .2                   .2

Advance to latest....................                .2                 1.3                  1.0

NOTE.  These comparisons are based on the period from 1983 through 2009.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Growth Gap Widens As U.S. Heads Into Another Recession: Real Gross Domestic Product Down From 3.1% in Third Quarter to .1% in Fourth Quarter 2012! — Videos

Posted on February 28, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, history, Inflation, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Quotations, Raves, Regulations, Reviews, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, Wealth | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

us-economy-2012

GDP-10-recoveries-10-2012

gdp_large

US-GDP-dec232010013013gdp-600x445

gdp-components-since-2007 (1)

debt-and-gdp-main6

US_jobs_January_2013_Jan312013

gdpoilprice

Gerald Celente Predicts Economic Recession

Gerald Celente – Yahoo!’s The Daily Ticker – February 20, 2013

Gerald Celente: World Bank, Banksters, Coming Collapse.

Peter Schiff – Economic Collapse 2013

Peter Schiff: It’s Going To Hit The Fan During Obama’s Second Term – Fox Business

Peter Schiff: Wall Street’s rising back thanks to the taxpayers

Jim Rogers Asks Whether Obama Is ‘Delusional’ Or ‘Lying’

Chairman Kevin Brady presents his Opening Statement During JEC Hearing

Congressman Paulsen questions witnesses during Hearing on State of US Economy

Rep, Campbell during Joint Economic Committee Hearing on State of US Economy

Bill Gross Warns of Fed Easing ‘Irrational Exuberance Has Unduly Escalated Asset V

Harvey Golub on Fed Monetary Policy: We’re Creating a Series of Bubbles

Marc Faber Odds of World Heading Into Global Recession By 2013 Is 100% Certainty

JIM ROGERS – ‘If You Are Not Worried About 2013, Please – Get Worried’

Jim Rogers author of “Street Smarts” sits down w Glenn Beck on The Blaze TV re.

US to go into recession: Danielle Park

fiscal policy & automatic stabilizers

Austrian Economics versus Mainstream Economics | Mark Thornton

Econ Crisis 2 – Recessions

Old School Macro

Fiscal Policy

Deficits & The Debt

How Do Banks Work?

Central Bank & Monetary Policy

EMBARGOED UNTIL RELEASE AT 8:30 A.M. EST, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2013
BEA 13-06

* See the navigation bar at the right side of the news release text for links to data tables,
contact personnel and their telephone numbers, and supplementary materials.

Lisa S. Mataloni: (202) 606-5304 (GDP) gdpniwd@bea.gov
Recorded message: (202) 606-5306
Ralph Stewart: (202) 606-2649 (News Media)
Jeannine Aversa: (202) 606-2649 (News Media)
National Income and Product Accounts
Gross Domestic Product, 4th quarter and annual 2012 (second estimate)
      Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012
(that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to the "second" estimate released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis.  In the third quarter, real GDP increased 3.1 percent.

      The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for
the "advance" estimate issued last month.  In the advance estimate, real GDP declined 0.1 percent.  The
upward revision to the percent change in real GDP is smaller than the average revision from the advance
to second estimate of 0.5 percentage point.  While today’s release has revised the direction of change in
real GDP, the general picture of the economy for the fourth quarter remains largely the same as what
was presented last month (for more information, see "Revisions" on page 3).

      The increase in real GDP in the fourth quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from
personal consumption expenditures (PCE), nonresidential fixed investment, and residential fixed
investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from private inventory investment, federal
government spending, exports, and state and local government spending.  Imports, which are a
subtraction in the calculation of GDP, decreased.

	The deceleration in real GDP in the fourth quarter primarily reflected downturns in private
inventory investment, in federal government spending, in exports, and in state and local government
spending that were partly offset by an upturn in nonresidential fixed investment, a larger decrease in
imports, and an acceleration in PCE.

_______

FOOTNOTE.  Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted annual rates, unless otherwise
specified.  Quarter-to-quarter dollar changes are differences between these published estimates.  Percent
changes are calculated from unrounded data and are annualized.  "Real" estimates are in chained (2005)
dollars.  Price indexes are chain-type measures.

      This news release is available on BEA’s Web site along with the Technical Note and Highlights
 related to this release.  For information on revisions, see "Revisions to GDP, GDI, and Their Major
 Components".
_______

      Final sales of computers added 0.10 percentage point to the fourth-quarter change in real GDP
after adding 0.11 percentage point to the third-quarter change.  Motor vehicle output added 0.19
percentage point to the fourth-quarter change in real GDP after subtracting 0.25 percentage point from
the third-quarter change.

      The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents,
increased 1.5 percent in the fourth quarter, 0.2 percentage point more than in the advance estimate; this
index increased 1.4 percent in the third quarter.  Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for
gross domestic purchases increased 1.1 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 1.2
percent in the third.

      Real personal consumption expenditures increased 2.1 percent in the fourth quarter, compared
with an increase of 1.6 percent in the third.  Durable goods increased 13.8 percent, compared with an
increase of 8.9 percent.  Nondurable goods increased 0.1 percent, compared with an increase of 1.2
percent.  Services increased 0.9 percent, compared with an increase of 0.6 percent.

      Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 9.7 percent in the fourth quarter, in contrast to a
decrease of 1.8 percent in the third.  Nonresidential structures increased 5.8 percent; it was unchanged in
the third quarter.  Equipment and software increased 11.3 percent in the fourth quarter, in contrast to a
decrease of 2.6 percent in the third.  Real residential fixed investment increased 17.5 percent, compared
with an increase of 13.5 percent.

      Real exports of goods and services decreased 3.9 percent in the fourth quarter, in contrast to an
increase of 1.9 percent in the third.  Real imports of goods and services decreased 4.5 percent, compared
with a decrease of 0.6 percent.

      Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 14.8 percent
in the fourth quarter, in contrast to an increase of 9.5 percent in the third.  National defense decreased
22.0 percent, in contrast to an increase of 12.9 percent.  Nondefense increased 1.8 percent, compared
with an increase of 3.0 percent.  Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment decreased 1.3 percent, in contrast to an increase of 0.3 percent.

      The change in real private inventories subtracted 1.55 percentage points from the fourth-quarter
change in real GDP, after adding 0.73 percentage point to the third-quarter change.  Private businesses
increased inventories $12.0 billion in the fourth quarter, following increases of $60.3 billion in the third
and $41.4 billion in the second.

      Real final sales of domestic product -- GDP less change in private inventories -- increased 1.7
percent in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of 2.4 percent in the third.

Gross domestic purchases

      Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever
produced -- decreased 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter, in contrast to an increase of 2.6 percent in the
third.
Current-dollar GDP

      Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the nation's output of goods and services -- increased
1.0 percent, or $40.2 billion, in the fourth quarter to a level of $15,851.2 billion.  In the third quarter,
current-dollar GDP increased 5.9 percent, or $225.4 billion.

Revisions

      The "second" estimate of the fourth-quarter percent change in GDP is 0.2 percentage point, or
$9.2 billion, more than the advance estimate issued last month, primarily reflecting an upward revision
to exports, a downward revision to imports, and an upward revision to nonresidential fixed investment
that were partly offset by a downward revision to private inventory investment.

                                                                     Advance Estimate             Second Estimate
                                                                       (Percent change from preceding quarter)

Real GDP.......................................                            -0.1                         0.1
Current-dollar GDP.............................                             0.5                         1.0
Gross domestic purchases price index...........                             1.3                         1.5

2012 GDP

      Real GDP increased 2.2 percent in 2012 (that is, from the 2011 annual level to the 2012 annual
level), compared with an increase of 1.8 percent in 2011.

      The increase in real GDP in 2012 primarily reflected positive contributions from personal
consumption expenditures (PCE), nonresidential fixed investment, exports, residential fixed investment,
and private inventory investment that were partly offset by negative contributions from federal
government spending and from state and local government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in
the calculation of GDP, increased.

      The acceleration in real GDP in 2012 primarily reflected a deceleration in imports, upturns in
residential fixed investment and in private inventory investment and smaller decreases in state and local
government spending and in federal government spending that were partly offset by decelerations in
PCE, exports, and nonresidential fixed investment.

      The price index for gross domestic purchases increased 1.7 percent in 2012, compared with an
increase of 2.5 percent in 2011.

      Current-dollar GDP increased 4.0 percent, or $605.8 billion, in 2012 to a level of $15,681.5
billion, compared with an increase of 4.0 percent, or $576.8 billion, in 2011.

	During 2012 (that is, measured from the fourth quarter of 2011 to the fourth quarter of 2012),
real GDP increased 1.6 percent.  Real GDP increased 2.0 percent during 2011.  The price index for gross
domestic purchases increased 1.5 percent during 2012, compared with an increase of 2.5 percent during
2011.

                                            *          *          *

      BEA's national, international, regional, and industry estimates; the Survey of Current Business;
and BEA news releases are available without charge on BEA's Web site at www.bea.gov.  By visiting
the site, you can also subscribe to receive free e-mail summaries of BEA releases and announcements.

                                           *          *          *

                             Next release -- March 28, 2013 at 8:30 A.M. EDT for:
                Gross Domestic Product:  Fourth Quarter and Annual 2012 (Third Estimate)
                              Corporate Profits:  Fourth Quarter and Annual 2012

gdp_large

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 768 other followers