Economy grows at slowest pace in 3 years

Quoth BusinessWeek:
The economy slowed to a near crawl in the final quarter of 2005, a listless showing that was the worst in three years. However, growth was respectable for the year and is expected to perk up again soon.

Gross domestic product clocked in at an annual rate of just 1.1 percent from October through December. That marked a loss of speed compared with the third's quarter's brisk 4.1 percent pace, the Commerce Department reported Friday.

Belt tightening by consumers, businesses and the government figured into the fourth-quarter's slowdown.

Well, you heard it here first:
Uh, oh! Look at that drop in growth rate from 2004 to 2005. There's never been a year in the past 35 years when that big a drop in the red line was not followed by a big drop in the blue line the same or the following year. This is particularly so when the blue line is as high above the red line as it is in 2004. Look at 1984-1985 for the closest precedent. So that suggests that the chances we'll drop to GDP growth at or around zero in the near future are excellent.
Where's Freddy Hutter? At the time (in late October) he said:
Sorry Stuart, but while your analysis would indicate zero growth, the usa is indeed in the middle of its business cycle and the critical mass is such that growth avg'g greater than 2% is guaranteed til 2006Q4
and later declared premature victory over the Q3 results. Q3 was already over at the time I made my prediction about "the near future":
Hey Stuart, Real GDP was announced at 4.1% this morning. I have been a proponent of sustainable grwoth thru 2006/2007. With respect to our disagreement on potential USA growth wrt Miles Data on Oct 25th when u said:

"We'll see who's right :-) Maybe driving and economic activity have become uncoupled recently, but I doubt it. (I'm not saying zero growth btw - I have no way to be that precise. I just think the growth rate is bound to drop pretty significantly for a while.)"

Are u ready to say "uncle"?!!

The New York Times adds:
The intensity of the economic slowdown, which reduced yearly growth to 3.5 percent from 4.2 percent in 2004, surprised many forecasters, who had expected a sharp pickup in business investment in the final months of the year to take up some of the slack in consumer spending. They had predicted an overall growth rate of 2.5 percent to 3 percent in the nation's gross domestic product, the broadest measure of goods and services produced in the United States.

"It is not so much surprising as baffling," said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist for the United States at High Frequency Economics in Valhalla, N.Y.

He should have been looking at this:

1.1%. Oh, I feel a terrible attack of Schadenfreude coming on....

Ok, all kidding aside, if the oil supply plateau continues flat and prices go up some more, this could well be the start of the peak oil economic ugliness.

Probably like you, when I first saw GDP +1.1% pop up on my screen I said: What? Error?

Remember, I'm the chap who said +2% H1 2006, flat H2 2006, recession thereafter, a month back.

Looking closer at the data there were some special factors in both directions but mainly skewing it down. It may well be revised up to +2% approx in a month's time, we will see.

The most important thing I took from the data was consumer slowdown - the evidence for that riddled the data, and I don't think that is likely to recover much soon, I'm feeling comfortable with my overall 1% official GDP growth over 2006. I would be feeling very uncomfortable with the mainstream 3.5% 2006 estimate.

It is interesting comparing these comments immediately prior to the release:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7BFDE7B999%2D1142%2D43B0%2D824C%2DD560F56E50E2%7D&am p;siteid=mktw&dist
with those after it:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B5869FC75%2D4B54%2D4C08%2D900A%2D5DF170530E18%7D&am p;siteid=mktw&dist

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B465AC54A%2DED6D%2D486B%2DBDF2%2D06C065C9B1BD%7D&am p;siteid=mktw&dist=

Now, I am a sceptic on certain US economic stats, and GDP is an important one of those. My personal take is that GDP is overstated by between 1.5% and 2.5% compared with how it was reported in US 10+ years ago and how it's reported in Europe. Some others I respect think it is overstated by 3 to 4%!

By those measures the US could be entering recession now. I don't think that is true, even though it is what I predicted a year ago. I expect Q4 2005 GDP to be revised up to a little over 2% and Q1 2006 to come in (after revisions) at about 2.7%. Recession will be with the US economy within a year but I don't think it is here yet.

Why am I sooooo UNsurprised by a lacklustre economy? Afrter all, people are giving their money to Bush's friends just to stay warm and get to work. Also, the economy goes bad any time a GOP regime is in power, like since 1/20/2001 with or without an oil peak. The nearing oil peak only worsens matters or gives the Bush v.2.0 regime an excuse.

With or without cooking the books, a GOP regime always means the economy sucks for those who are not gazillionaires. It sucked under Reagan just as well as now. The oil peak only helps Republicans impoverish the middle class, which is their goal. Why anyone votes for these arseholes puzzles me to no end - and the Dems aren't much better. Why Bush won't talk about the oil peak is simply becuse he can't ever tell the truth about anything. I guess democracy itself wan't Y2K-compliant.

Or the early 1980's.
Or the early 1990's.
Yep, GOP presidents always reign over craptacular economic situations.
The report of the CBO analysing the effects of the hurricanes on GDP and unemployment that i posted on Oct 25th did forecast a 2005H2 slump and a rebound in 2006H1.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/66xx/doc6669/09-29-EffectsOfHurricanes.pdf

1.2% of the forecast growth was cutback due to the extreme trade deficit.  A trade deficit that defines "too healthy" an economy as americans continue to buy cheaper foreign goods (and oil & gasoline). Only a downward correction in the dollar will help that situation.

No credible economists are suggesting that this gdp report is a precursor to Recession.  Only the many defeatists at TOD are gloating today.  Many here must mature and learn that stats go up and down on a weekly, monthly, qtr'ly and even annual basis and it is important to watch the trendline ... not be consumed in absolute numbers.  Otherwise confusion reigns.

Unemployment will continue to drop thru 2006.  GDP, which until Q4 had a string of 10 qtr's at 3% or above, will resume its path in Q1 as the GOM rebuild of inftastructure, homes and contents continues.

Plan for a Recession at your own peril...

But even discounting oil prices, aren't we about due for a recession?  The expansion has been going on for what, four years now?  Wouldn't we be expecting a downturn about now?
We would have to analyze the occurence of recessions. 1990-1. 2000-2001. Currently you couldn't really say we were "due" for one until 2010. This is an economic subject of its own.

Personally, I have been expecting one for two years based purely on the price of oil. The fact that we haven't had one would lead one to re-appraise our analytical tools.

"What is different this time?"

We are in new territory.

The Clinton boom was an oddity.  Ordinarily, expansions don't last anywhere near that long.  That's probably why so many people thought it really was a "new economy."  Typically, cycles are much shorter than that.

As for why the economy has held up so well...I've heard two theories, both of which seem reasonable.  One is that the rise in price was gradual, not sudden like it was the last time we were in this territory.  So the economy had time to adjust.  

The other is that there's a difference between a supply shock and a demand shock.  According to this theory, what causes recessions are supply shocks - when suddenly, there's less oil than the economy is accustomed to.  What we've had until recently has been a demand shock - the world economy growing so fast that supply can't keep up with demand.  Since this is a result of healthy growth, it doesn't cause recession.  

According to the latter theory, Katrina could be trouble, because that actually reduced supply.

Roger that. Good points.
I've noticed that the Fed has for the last twenty five years cut interest rates when a Republican president is going for reelection and afterwards, and raised them just before a Democrat is going for reelection and afterwards.
Despite this, or perhaps because of this, the economy does better under Democrats.
Is the Fed trying to get Republicans in the White House and it is actually aiding Democrats as a policy? Because it doesn't know what it's doing, or because it does?
We'll check back with you next quarter Freddy :-)
Ah, Freddy, your rose tinted spectacles are a wondrous item. I would wish to perceive the world as you do, please give me the contact details for your optician, he is truly magical.

I do agree with some of your sentiment: the Q4 2005 advance stats will probably be revised up to about +2%, there are special factors. But the US economy will be in recession, even on the current optimistic measure, within a year.

Unemployment may drop but so will employment, now there's a conundrum. How do you expect house prices and consumer spend to change?

Here's what they're saying behind the pay wall at the Wall Street Journal. The consensus is most reassuring, as is the use of such comforting adjectives as "perplexing," "puzzling," and "baffling."

Economists React
January 27, 2006 11:17 a.m.
After the economy navigated a brutal hurricane season to post robust growth in the third quarter of 2005, growth cooled considerably in the fourth quarter. Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of U.S. economic output, increased at just a 1.1% seasonally adjusted annual rate as free-spending consumers became more cautious and the gaping trade deficit continued to provide a drag on the expansion. For all of 2005, GDP growth averaged a 3.5% annual rate. What does the slowdown in the fourth quarter mean for the economy in the months ahead? Economists weigh in with their reactions:

* * *

In both its overall appearance and underlying detail, the 1.1% fourth quarter growth in real GDP ranks as the most perplexing report in memory. At face value, such weakness would seem to make it more difficult for the Fed to tighten monetary policy again. But the underlying details reinforce -- if not increase -- perceptions that much faster growth lies ahead. Nonetheless, the confusing and conflicting contradictions with other data make it difficult to be confident in any inferences about the outlook.
-- David Resler and Gerald Zukowski, Nomura Securities International

Consumer spending was actually a little better than expected, rising by 1.1% in the quarter vs. our forecast of +0.3%. I think more of the decline in auto sales was apportioned to the business sector (fleet sales) and less to the retail side than we expected. Housing posted a reasonable gain of 3.5%, but this was less than half of our assumed rise. The monthly source data pointed to a bigger gain, so this is a bit puzzling.
-- Stephen Stanley, RBS Greenwich Capital

The consensus was a bit optimistic but this is a big surprise. The softness against our 2.6% forecast is explained by two components, fixed investment and government consumption. The former rose only 3.0%, with equipment and software up only 3.5%. This is baffling, given the 19.5% annualized leap in the value of capital goods production and the 14.9% rise in shipments of core nondefense capital goods. We expect big upward revisions.
-- Ian Shepherdson, High Frequency Economics

While this was a disappointing report, there are signs of a very sharp rebound in GDP growth in the current quarter. First, much of the miss in fourth-quarter inventories is likely to spill over to the first quarter. Second, at least a partial rebound in defense appears likely. Finally, the ramp for consumption spending is even more favorable in the aftermath of the fourth quarter data. The bottom line is that we now see a very good possibility of 5%+ GDP growth in Q1 -- versus our prior estimate of +4.2%.
-- David Greenlaw and Ted Wieseman, Morgan Stanley

This report is the worst case scenario for the Fed and Mr. Bernanke and the new Fed Chair will be tested right off the bat. The economy is slowing, though clearly not as rapidly as the headline number would have you think. But growth rates in the 2.5% to 3% range should be expected. At the same time, inflation is slowly accelerating. The fourth quarter rate was above the FOMC's previously projected pace. With energy costs up, the Fed has to be concerned about inflation. I cannot see the term tame being used in the next statement.
-- Joel L. Naroff, Naroff Economic Advisors

The only thing that kept GDP growth positive at all was a massive build-up in inventories -- the largest increase in inventories since early 2002. Apparently businesses were caught off guard by the slowdown in demand, and have not yet slowed their production accordingly. Presumably, they will. All in all, this is an extremely worrying report. I've been bearish about economic growth in 2006 for a little while now, and this has just confirmed my worst fears.
-- Kash Mansori, Colby College

With vehicle sales now recovering, consumer and capital spending, as well as GDP activity, will be stronger in Q1. With inventories still very low compared to sales, inventory rebuilding could significantly strengthen Q1 growth. The underlying economy remained solid at year end, despite high energy prices, rising interest rates, and slumping vehicle sales. The Federal Reserve will still tighten next week and probably again in March.
-- Steven Wood, Insight Economics

Wall Street pundits will again try to spin the GDP numbers into a positive, but I believe that this is the beginning of an inevitable recession. ... In the future, those that can afford to pay the additional amount on their higher mortgage will have to "tighten their belt" and not spend as much money in the economy. Consequently, they will hold on to their car a couple of years longer, not frequent their local restaurant as often, and cut back on their overall spending.
-- Emanuel Balarie, Wisdom Financial

Growth will rebound in the first quarter. Car sales are expected to bounce back. Most companies will see little need to liquidate inventories. Defense spending will probably grow again. Also, because the fundamentals for capital spending and export growth are strong, we predict acceleration of growth for both categories of spending in this quarter.
-- Nariman Behravesh, Global Insight

Yesterday's durable goods orders data suggested a lumpy capital spending environment, but one that has improved more than the 4Q GDP data today suggest. Unit auto sales might never eclipse their Summer 2005 level for a very long time to come. However, unit sales in early 2006 appear to be above the 4Q 2005 level, and will make a positive contribution to consumption in 1Q. Most assuredly, government outlays are unlikely to shrink in the coming quarter. While we don't expect an reacceleration in trend demand in 2006, today's GDP data really seem to undercount current growth, and a 1Q 2006 rebound in measured GDP is quite likely.
-- Steven Wieting, Citigroup

With the housing market topping off, if not actually declining, growth is likely to be substantially lower in 2006 than most economists have projected. While the economy is currently experiencing healthy job and wage growth, the falloff in borrowing against home equity will depress consumption growth. Furthermore, wage growth is likely to spur the market's fears of inflation (especially in a context of slowing productivity growth). This would push mortgage interest rates higher, further depressing housing prices and residential construction. It is still too early to say that the housing bubble is deflating, but the evidence is certainly growing that the process may have begun.
-- Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research

This retrenchment in spending was generally foreseen, though economists weren't sure on the timing and magnitude. American shoppers have been the main engine of growth for the US and the international economy the last few years. But in the process, they have been spending far more than what they earned. All told, household debt has been increasing at an annual pace of nearly 12% in the latest quarter, the fastest pace in 18 years.
-- Bernard Baumohl, The Economic Outlook Group

We view the fourth quarter slowdown as a temporary development, one that reflected (1) influences of the August-September hurricanes and (2) ahuge swing in vehicle sales between 3Q and 4Q due to incentives. Indeed,vehicle sales were a big drag not only on consumption, but also on equipment investment. We do not believe this report will have a measurable bearing on Fed policy, especially with high frequency indicators from 1Q pointing to strong growth. The expectation is for the funds rate to rise to 5.0% by the May meeting.
-- Haseeb Ahmed, J.P. Morgan Chase

It never ceases to amaze me. All these incredibly smart economists (and I do think a lot of them are incredibly smart - just stuck in a paradigm with a blind spot). But every economic activity requires energy in proportion to the amount of it you do (in the short term), and when a critical part of your energy supply does this: somebody's planned economic activity somewhere has to be cut until efficiency measures can start to take hold. It wouldn't surprise me if Q1 is a bit better as the supply has bounced back somewhat from September/October. However, the summer driving season is going to be unhappy unless supply improves more substantially (I don't totally rule that out - we could get some window where most or all of this shut-in supply comes back and we bounce a little higher). I wonder if China felt a little bit of a chill too - maybe not, as the coal-machines probably just kept roaring and they aren't as car-dependent as we are.

In response to the assorted comments from our most learned and esteemed Economist comrades, I would really like to get a hold of whatever Ganja those boys happen to be smoking. I mean, I don't want to be a buzzkill, but...I mean...are they really serious?
What do you expect, they make their livings by being optimists.  
"Confidence men", in the literal sense of the word....

No wonders that historically, the can never see the forest for the trees.

I like to keep an eye on the trend in revisions of quarterly data.  The Q4 05 number under discussion here is the "advance" estimate meaning it is based on very little hard data.  As more real data from the Fourth Quarter become available in coming months, the estimate of Q4 05 gdp growth will be revised -- upward or downward.  If the revisions trend upward, it's a positive sign.  If the estimates trend downward...well.
It is interesting to note that in its release of Dec 21, the BEA revised DOWNWARD the estimate for the 3rd quarter to 4.1 percent ("final").  The Q3 05 "preliminary" number was 4.3 percent.  See http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2005/gdp305f_fax.pdf.  The "preliminary" estimate for Q4 05 comes in February and the "final" in March.
Hmm.  Not all of them are optimistic.

I would be expecting a recession soon, regardless of peak oil and energy prices.  People have been maintaining their consumption by borrowing against their houses and running up their credit card debt.  Clearly, that cannot continue forever, especially now that interest rates are rising.  And the expansion is now four years old; we're due for a contraction.

There may be a dead-cat bounce next quarter, but I think we're headed toward recession.  

President Bush and the Republican Congress will probably do everything they can to boost the economy this year, heading into the midterm elections. (More hand-holding with Saudi princes, no doubt.)  But I'm not sure there's much they can do.  The red ink seems to be scaring even Bush these days, so I'm not expecting any more tax cuts.  

I'm too lazy right now to give you the actual data, but there is a pretty consistent trend with a lag time for a recession some number of months after large energy (oil & gas) price increases. I'll try to back this up later with some research I've looked at but don't want to bother finding right now. I'm looking for a recession this spring. Of course, once it starts, it will be September or so before the actual announcement by the Fed -- the Official Powers-That-Be-- say it actually occurred.
Dave, see previous discussion of topic.
define recession.
First, I define recession as a contraction in GDP over some period, as the Fed does. Second, Stuart's modelling based on the dreaded VMT is not the only indicator of a recession as defined above. From Econbrowser (much respected James Hamilton) Talk of recession
Nine out of the ten recessions in the United States since World War II were preceded by a spike in oil prices....
Read it all.
Sorry, bad link. Here's the right one.

Talk of recession (August 17, 2005).

Sorry.

You are right. And there's also been much discussion on the various economics blogs of the meaning of the inverted yield curve and the degree to which it might predict a slowdown.
There used to be this definition of recession: "Two consecutive quarters of negative growth in GDP as expressed by the final GDP statistic". A depression used to be defined as 6 consecutive quarters of negative growth in GDP.

However, I have seen comment that the recession definition may have been 'tweaked' so I don't know what the official US definition might be today.

There have also been major changes to the calculation of GDP happening steadily since 1984. If these changes (that is, the current method of calculation) are applied to historic GDP statistics calculations the US has not had a recession at all since the very early 1980s ;)

However, every time there has been a significant increase in the price of oil over a relatively short timescale (I think a 50% increase over 18 months or less is approximately the measure used) the US has entered recession - as defined at the time - within 2 years. Every time the US Fed has increased interest rates 7 or more times consecutively a recession has followed.

By "every" I mean on all occasions over the last 60 years, no exceptions. Since both these conditions are in current effect it would seem reasonable to expect a recession soon and somewhat irrational to believe one will not happen.

There will, almost inevitably, be significant interaction between peak oil and recession. My big fear is that there is a relatively mild global recession throughout 2007 pushing peak oil back a little then, as the world begins to grow out of recession in late 2008 or perhaps 2009, the world runs into oil supply turning down post peak.

The "2 consecutive quarters" definiton is the one I use, however when I just checked quarterly data on the 2000-2001 "thing" - that event, which is commonly referred to as recession, doesn't meet the criteria. That is why I asked for a definition in the original comment. Grey.
The probable explanation is: they have subsequently changed the GDP calculation and applied it to prior statistics. Poof! The recession is gone, the logic is impeccable, current truth is the only truth, history is revised, reality continues. I did hint that all recent recessions were the figment of the deranged minds of those times. Subsequent analysis has shown them to be in error.

The Tao knows this.
http://www.thebigview.com/tao-te-ching/

Most of these manipulated economic statistics are designed to improve consumer confidence and keep people spending.  Consumer spending, mostly driven by increasing home appraisals, is what's driving the economy.  Period.

In real terms, our incomes have been dropping for years.  Groceries, fuel for transportation and heating have been going up, while our "raises" have barely been covering the increases in benefits - that's if we have any benefits.  Now the housing market is turning down.  Consumers and worried, scared, and out of disposable income - the jig is up, and all the phony statistics in the world are not going to cover it up.  As oil rises even further it's only going to get worse.  I don't think it's bad enough yet for people to change their fundamental assumptions about how much oil they use, but spending is going to drop significantly.  We'll see how that relates to demand destruction.

I expect the massive rebates the auto manufacturers offered have indeed sucked the pipeline dry, and that effected Q4, but I don't think they're coming back.  I think the economy is toast.

Three factoids to confirm this sentiment of Twilight's: 1) during the run-up in fuel prices in September and October, consumers made fuel purchases almost exclusively by credit cards; 2) minimum credit card payments are in the process of doubling as a result of pressure from the Office of Comptroller of the Currency (Dept of Treasury) and the Federal Reserve - over time, this will suck significant consumer purchase power out of the economy; 3) Bankruptcy filings have not dropped off to the extent expected, notwithstanding the leap in 2005.  I will now try to find statistical confirmation with citations and links of these assertions.
I can confirm the first two. Not seen data on recent bankrupcy rates, did know the change in legislation on bankrupcy caused a spike up prior to it taking effect (last October?), would be interested if you spot a source but don't feel you need to spend much time on that cos I'll probably see one soon enough.
I was expecting my credit card minimum payment to go up in October (after the new bankruptcy law went into affect).  Instead, it went down.  From 2% to 1%.  

Then I thought maybe January, which was the deadline.  Nope.  Still 1%.  (Which is ridiculous, IMO.)

I love your posts, Agric.
More! More!! Encore!!! <claps hands happily>
The main point of "The Oil Factor", by Stephen Leeb, is that the economy is not disturbe by rising oil prices until the yoy increase is ~80%, which causes a fever, and the fever does not get better until the yoy increase declines to 20% or less. On this basis, the increase is not high enough to cause a problem.
Housing market looks a bit squiffy too:

From Calculated Risk. Priceds (this is of new homes) peaked in September: they dropped in October, again in November, and again in December. The average price actually has dropped 10% in three months! That rather has the look of a trend, doesn't it? If we're hitting peak oil and the tipping point at the end of the housing bubble at the same time, does that mean inflation, or deflation?

My take is a housing crash could do enough economic harm that oil prices might actually drop as demand drops faster than supply.

That last sentence was key. I can verify that your brain is working correctly.
Indeed, I think the economic response to high energy prices, house price collapse, increasing unemployment etc will reduce oil demand by a larger amount than geological depletion reduces supply.  Oversupply will result is falling oil prices.  I expect to see $40 oil before the end of the decade.
See? That proves that Julian Simon was right. Oil is just another commodity, and after Global Warming and planet destruction set in, it's "price" will plummet to $0.

Of course, if someone dies for oil in the interim, that is a high price to pay, as some accountants might admit, and then Matt Simmons wins his bet against Tierny regarding the highest "price" paid for oil between now and then.

I do not know much about economy but if you have a house price collapse, increasing unemployment and general economical mayhem would it then not be possible that you have both inflation and $200 oil giving an inflation adjusted price of $40 that you can no longer afford?

That is falling oil prices in inflation adjusted money do not necessery equal the ability to buy the same ammount of oil as you used to do.

That's what I mean.  $40 inflation adjusted, it may be $200 in the dollars of the day but from where we are today the value could easily fall by a third or more due to demand destruction exceeding geologically driven supply declines.  

$40 (2006 dollars) oil in 2009 after 10% global economic downturn is not cheap oil.