Leading Indicators Fall, Economy Slows

[maddezmom]

WASHINGTON - A closely watched gauge of future economic activity declined last month for the first time in more than a year, falling short of analysts' expectations.



The Conference Board (news - web sites) said Thursday its Composite Index of Leading Economic Indicators (news - web sites) dropped 0.2 percent in June to 116.2 following rises of 0.4 percent in May, 0.1 percent in April and 0.8 percent in March. Analysts had been expecting the index to remain flat in June.


Ken Goldstein, economist for the Conference Board, said the data showed slowing momentum for the economy in June as the real estate market cooled off and retail and vehicle sales slowed.


"Strong economic performance in May gave way to a weaker June," Goldstein said. "Although the leading index declined in June it is still about 3.4 percent higher in the second quarter than in the first."
~snip~
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=716&e=5&u=/ap/20040722/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy

[Frodo]

1. Not that bad actually

First month this year (?) where real M2 growth was a negative figure (not pumping cash in a record rates to prop things up).

And first month of at least the last five where consumer sentiment was substantially positive.

[Trajan]

4. Ever the cheerleader for the Asshole-in-chief ...

yeah: things are 'not that bad' actually ....

I suppose we arent all starving in prison camps yet .... hence: things arent >THAT< bad ...

They're a GOOD kinda bad ! ...

[The_Casual_Observer]

7. This is a laugh

We can always depend on a thumbs up "upbeat" assessment from this one. It's called: standing up singing as the ship goes down.

[Frodo]

11. lol.

Leading indicators go down a tiny amount for the first time in 15 months and it's "the ship going down".

Don't drink the cool aid folks.


I was just saying that the two factors I've been most concerned about in the POSITIVE months were 1) a big contribution factor was the rapid rise in money supply - that's wasn't a problem this month, and 2) Despite improving numbers, the consumer expectations number has been a drag for the last few months - again that was not a problem.

I considered that positive. Just as I saw them as a negative in the preceeding "positive" reports that were not "so good".


Note: "The recession alarms go off when the cumulative 6 month decline exceeds -1% amid a string of three or more consecutive monthly declines." I really don't think ONE month going down a fration counts as a problem.

[Cocoa]

14. it's not just the number

it's the number, and people's personal experience of the economy.

Get it?

[Frodo]

17. Nope. But I appreciate the clarification.

People's "experience" of the economy is largely tainted by their political views.

The example I give is two opposing fans watching their teams play football. You see "holding" when I don't. You say "his knee was down" when it's clear to me that the ball came out long before that point. I say "his arm was moving forward, it's an incomplete pass" and you say it's a fumble. Reality is different from perception.

You just see things differently when you have a vested interest in the outcome.


I go out of my way to take any of that "home team fan" out of how I look at economics - of course I WANT things to improve (I'm invested expecting it), but they either are or they are not - completely apart from what I wish for.

Things have gotten considerably better here (in NC) over the last year or two. I prefer to credit Gov Easley while the guy down the street (and my in-laws) say it's because of Bush. For economic analysis purposes - it doesn't matter who gets credit.

I do agree that how things are viewed makes a big difference - and this helps us in the coming election because most of the battleground states have improved slower as we've come out of the recession.

But none of that matters with this particular report. I was just saying that with the past few months POSITIVE "leading indicators" numbers, I had a couple concerns about parts of the report I didn't like. Despite the actually decline overall, I was encouraged by the change in those two components.


BTW - if you're going to say it's "people's experience"... THAT was one of the numbers that improved for the first time in awhile. So again, the report is "not so bad". :-)

[arlib]

13. I guess...

...it's the Power To Believe, eh?}(

[snippy]

8. LOL. n/t

[JohnyCanuck]

2. I know what caused this.

It's because all you traitorous Dems are keeping your money in the bank and not shopping enough. Now haul your ass to Wal-Mart immediately and spend, spend, spend, and when you're done at Wal-Mart head on over to the dealer and pick yourself out a new hummer. :spank:

[Catfight]

3. I'll get the hummer first so I can pack it full of Wal-Mart crap!

"In Corporations I trust." "Corporations bless America!" Our Corporation, which art in heaven, hollow be thy name."

[Wednesdays]

5. What caused this was...

all those drive-aways at the gas pumps. :eyes:

[truthisfreedom]

10. i've been riding my 100 mpg scooter all summer.

haa-haa!

[Frodo]

12. Buy a hybrid

A couple get up over 70mpg AND you still have AC!

[Ravy]

16. Yeah, "Wal-mart's" 100 million went to Kerry instead! (n/t)

[xchrom]

6. i work retail in norcali

i gotta tell ya -- it ain't busy.
so i'm not surprised by this report.

[MsUSA]

9. It's the economy stupid!!!

[Doosh]

15. clearly this is all clinton's fault