Don’t get too worked up about today’s GDP numbers
The initial GDP estimates are out for the first quarter of 2012. And the results are… disappointing. According to the Commerce Department, the economy grew at a mere 2.2 percent pace from January to March. Analysts were expecting 2.5 percent.

(Ty Wright - BLOOMBERG)
Yet some economists are already cautioning us not to read too much into these numbers. The GDP figures are, after all, just a first-pass estimate — and they’ll be revised later on. “Given the noise in the advance GDP estimate,” says Justin Wolfers, “a number 0.3% below consensus isn’t really at odds with either bullish or bearish sentiment.”
Some people might read this statements as an attempt to spin away bad news for President Obama’s re-election bid. But it’s not. (After all, the revisions could be even worse.) It’s more an acknowledgment that first-pass GDP estimates have usually been way off in recent years.
A recent study from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis put this in helpful chart form:
Advance estimates of GDP growth are very frequently incorrect. Over the last eleven years, the study found, the GDP numbers have gotten revised by about 0.54 percent by the third pass. And when all of the numbers since 2007 were redone in July 2011, the corrections got even bigger. Here’s the St. Louis Fed’s explanation for why the revisions are often so drastic:
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) computes GDP by collecting data from thousands of government and private sources on factors such as business fixed investment, trade, individual consumption, and government spending. Four weeks after a quarter ends, the BEA announces its first release of GDP, known as the advance estimate. Because only 45 to 75 percent of the data are available at this time, the BEA makes its best estimate for the missing components in order to provide a timely release.
The tricky part is that there’s no consistent pattern as to whether the GDP numbers subsequently get revised up or down. So the U.S. economy might be chugging along at a faster pace than today’s numbers suggest. Or it might be doing much worse. A big downward revision from today’s 2.2 percent — something that happened in 2011 — would mean the economy is in an extremely weak spot.
Of course, just because the data’s noisy doesn’t mean we can’t still speculate about what this all means for the upcoming presidential election. “I wouldn’t wanna engage in election punditry based on the advance estimate of GDP for Q1,” adds Wolfers. “But apparently that isn’t stopping anyone.”
- Spam
- Obscene
- Duplicate
Blog Contributors
Ezra Klein

Ezra Klein is the editor of Wonkblog and a columnist at the Washington Post, as well as a contributor to MSNBC and Bloomberg. His work focuses on domestic and economic policymaking, as well as the political system that’s constantly screwing it up. He really likes graphs, and is on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook. E-mail him here.
Neil Irwin

Neil Irwin is a Washington Post columnist and the economics editor of Wonkblog. Each weekday morning his Econ Agenda column reports and explains the latest trends in economics, finance, and the policies that shape both. He is the author of “The Alchemists: Three Central Bankers and a World on Fire.” Follow him on Twitter here. Email him here.
Sarah Kliff

Sarah Kliff covers health policy, focusing on Medicare, Medicaid and the health reform law. She tries to fit in some reproductive health and education policy coverage, too, alongside an occasional hockey reference. Her work has appeared in Newsweek, Politico, and the BBC. She is on Twitter and Facebook.
Brad Plumer

Brad Plumer is a reporter focusing on energy and environmental issues. He was previously an associate editor at The New Republic. Follow him on Twitter. Email him here.
Dylan Matthews

Dylan Matthews covers taxes, poverty, campaign finance, higher education, and all things data. He has also written for The New Republic, Salon, Slate, and The American Prospect. Follow him on Twitter here. Email him here.












Loading...
Comments