June 29, 2005

I Blame Those Crafty Jews: Economic Growth Much Better Than First Estimated
— Ace

As usual. It's usually better than first estimated; it's been much better than first estimated most of the past twenty quarters (or something; I'm not big on "math").

And yet the MSM keeps fretting over the lower initial figures and never really gives prominent mention to the higher official figures.

The economy logged a solid 3.8 percent growth rate in the first quarter of 2005, a performance that was better than previously thought and a fresh sign the expansion is on firm footing.

The new reading on gross domestic product, released by the Commerce Department on Wednesday, marked an improvement from the 3.5 percent annual rate estimated for the quarter just a month ago and matched the showing registered in the final quarter of 2004.

GDP, the broadest gauge of the economy's health, measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States.

Stronger spending on housing projects, more investment by business in equipment and software, and a trade deficit that was less of a drag on economic growth all played a role in the higher first quarter GDP estimate.

The first-quarter's showing was slightly better than the 3.7 percent growth rate that economists were forecasting before the report was released.

"It was a solid quarter, particularly in the face of high and rising energy prices," said Mark Zandi, chief analyst at Economy.com. "It illustrates the resilience of the economy and the durability of the current economic expansion."

Oh, and job-creation numbers are always initially low-ball, too. Doesn't stop the MSM from seizing on those first numbers, though, while always studiously avoiding the upward revisions that come later:

Although economic activity is solid, job creation is choppy. Employers boosted payrolls by just 78,000 after a hiring spurt of 274,000 in April. May's job gain was the weakest in almost two years. Economists offered various reasons for May's slower job growth, including the toll of high energy prices.

They'll be adjusted up to 150,000+. But then we'll have no economists offering reasons for the "brisker than originally reported job growth." It will be buried, as usual.

Thanks to the FatKid.

Because You Demanded It... Kim Richards cheesecake-cowbell after the jump.

For the Ladies Update: Just added some beefcake to the post, for those who want a pic of a sexy man to go along with Kim Richards. pic-KimRichards-kim3.jpg
Ace, tell me more about GDP.

-- There, there, darling. Later. Right now you have to dance, dance for my pleasure.

And, For The Women, I Give You:


Charles Nelson Reilly.

Mmmmm... if only I could telepathically move that ascot aside... Beneath that sunflower yellow ascot I detect ripped pecs of Khan-like definition and bulk...

Khaaaaaan... Take me, Khaaaaan....!

Posted by: Ace at 08:50 AM | Comments (24)
Post contains 472 words, total size 3 kb.

1 You're all gonna be wearing gold plated diapers, babies!
No cowbell?

Posted by: lauraw at June 29, 2005 08:52 AM (rZE27)

2 Bastid!


Posted by: lauraw at June 29, 2005 08:57 AM (rZE27)

3 Ace, I thought you promised to upgrade the standard Kim Richards cheesecake-cowbell to the Justine Bateman model...not that I'm complaining or anything.

Posted by: Rocketeer at June 29, 2005 08:59 AM (F6QHz)

4 Hmmmm... yeah, I say a lot of things when I'm drunk.

I'll google for some good Mallory-era pics of Justine.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2005 09:02 AM (sYxc4)

5 And what would it take for a little Hugh Jackman? What, do I have to go to the Cotillion for that?


Posted by: bbeck at June 29, 2005 09:05 AM (qF8q3)

6 O wow.
bbeck, I knew I'd agree with you about something someday.
Hugh Jackman is yummy.

Posted by: lauraw at June 29, 2005 09:07 AM (rZE27)

7 Well, don't hold yer breath, Laura, I don't think Ace'll give his chick posters what they want.


Posted by: bbeck at June 29, 2005 09:11 AM (qF8q3)

8 Charles Nelson Reilly???

Well, it's not hugh Jackman, but it IS more than I expected, Ace. It's nice to know where your Comfort Zone limits are in terms of posting beefcake.

But it's a start, it's a start...how about Rowan Atkinson next?


Posted by: bbeck at June 29, 2005 09:15 AM (qF8q3)

9 How about Roger Ebert?

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2005 09:18 AM (sYxc4)

10 Is that all your loyal female readers get?!? Sondra K wouldn't treat us this way ...

Posted by: carin at June 29, 2005 09:18 AM (ZpqCm)

11 I think that's more of a neckerchief than an ascot. Just saying.

Posted by: brak at June 29, 2005 09:20 AM (OuLOj)

12 I'll give you the kid who played the older brother on The Wonder Years, but that's as far as I'm willing to go.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2005 09:20 AM (sYxc4)

13 How about a baby picture of you, ace? Anything nude will do.

Posted by: at June 29, 2005 09:41 AM (GTEGk)

14 How about Roger Ebert?

What, are you kidding me? He's a freakin' LIBERAL. I actually got into an email fight with one of his editors over his review of "Team America" fer cryin' out loud. Hugh or Rowan may be liberals, too, but they're not Americans so who cares?


Posted by: bbeck at June 29, 2005 09:48 AM (qF8q3)

15 Ace, very un-pc of you. You need to blame it on the neo-cons.

Posted by: Gerry at June 29, 2005 09:51 AM (rXl7J)

16 Charles Nelson Reilly. I like that guy. Don't know why, just makes me laugh a little everytime. I know he's a punchline and all, but still, something about him cracks me up. Hollywood, give him a role. The annoying neighbor. Something.

Posted by: Ray Midge at June 29, 2005 09:54 AM (kUNrb)

17 Hugh Jackman's a liberal?

I'm guessing he's not.

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2005 09:54 AM (sYxc4)

18 MMMMmmmm

Cuddling with Charles Nelson Reilly...

What's not to like?
The sexy laugh, the way he spits in your face when he talks...

Posted by: lauraw at June 29, 2005 09:56 AM (rZE27)

19 Hugh Jackman's a liberal?

I'm guessing he's not.

I have NO clue. And I'd rather he not say so he can frolic through my daydreams unimpeded. And naked.


Posted by: bbeck at June 29, 2005 10:00 AM (qF8q3)


Dave at Garfield Ridge

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at June 29, 2005 10:45 AM (y1hCN)

21 LOL, Dave, how do you find these sites?

Shatner would be some very nice beefcake, too, but it's got to be from the series before he lost it...or from the (sucky) first movie where he was lookin' RIGHT.


Posted by: bbeck at June 29, 2005 10:57 AM (qF8q3)

22 Ace you bastard!! You lured me in.."ah finally he's going to give us girls a little something" (Note I didn't say "throw us a bone")

And then, ugh! I am tramatized. This is just horrible.

Where do you get your vodka again?

Posted by: Lipstick at June 29, 2005 05:00 PM (pkFBQ)

23 In the words of Charles Nelson Garrison:
You go to hell, Ace! You go to hell and you die!

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at June 29, 2005 05:04 PM (tnsUn)

24 I love it...

Employers boosted payrolls by just 78,000 after a hiring spurt of 274,000 in April. May's job gain was the weakest in almost two years.

Aren't these the same people(the media) who only 7 months ago were talking about how many jobs we have lost... now they are dissing the job numbers by pointing out that almost 80,000 is the lowest monthly growth in 2 years!

They must at least have a hunch that very few people pay attention to them or they wouldn't so blatantly contradict themselves.

Posted by: Dave at June 29, 2005 05:22 PM (hQnpx)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
82kb generated in CPU 0.06, elapsed 1.0465 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.0106 seconds, 260 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.