Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: US Commerce Dep't 'official' sales number contradicts virtually all real data

  1. #1
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default US Commerce Dep't 'official' sales number contradicts virtually all real data

    (snip)"Tuesday, September 15, 2009
    Is The Commerce Department Fabricating Its August Sales Numbers?

    The headlines for the Government-reported retail sales number loudly announced that "retail sales jumped 2.7% in August." Remember that this is a month to month number, so the August sales number is being compared to the July sales reading. NOT in the headline everyone sees: sales for August 2009 were down 5.3% compared to August 2008. So much for the green shoots of sales growth.

    At first blush, this number for August is not very good when you consider that the Government spent close to $3 billion of your money in August trying to stimulate automobile sales. This worked to some degree, as auto sales for August rose 10.6%. That's compared to July. The other large component of the 2.7% sales increase was the price of gasoline. In the second half of July, the price of gasoline jumped over 8%. The Government number does not strip out this inflation effect from its headline-reported number.

    But the biggest question I have about the Government's number, and its ubiquitious - if not nefarious - "seasonal adjustment," is that the reported number for August in NO WAY is consistent with the sales numbers reported by big retailers for August OR the rapidly declining trend in consumer credit, which was down over 10% in July (not yet tabulated for August). The news release I read reported "busy shopping malls in August." Here are big mall retailer numbers for August - you decide:

    Abercrombie and Fitch -23%, GAP -2%, Hot Topic -7%, JC Penney -5.6%, Limited -4.6%,
    Macy's -8.5%, Neiman Marcus -15.3%, Nordstrom -3%, Saks -18.2%

    Get the picture? And we don't have the consumer credit number for August, but consumer credit outstanding has been dropping like a rock since the beginning of 2009. Here's chart that shows consumer credit vs. consumer spending




    I know several people who told me they actually had their credit card lines cut last month.

    Is there any reason to believe that consumers miraculously decided to take on more revolving debt in August, other than to buy a taxpayer-subsidized car? We sure didn't see that, if it really happened, in the big retailer numbers in August. This just in: Mastercard announces that their processed volumn was down 8% in July and August - more proof the Government sales number is b.s.: "(snip)

    from

  2. #2
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: US Commerce Dep't 'official' sales number contradicts virtually all real data

    ^^^ The increased August sales numbers were almost entirely the result of "Cash for Clunkers".

  3. #3
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: US Commerce Dep't 'official' sales number contradicts virtually all real data

    Regarding the chart title. Absolutely not. We got into this mess so deely because of too much consumer credit. We really need to be searching for the optimum about of consumer and business credit -- and there are are optimum values of each. Just as there is an optimum percentage of employed (regionally weighted of course).
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  4. #4
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: US Commerce Dep't 'official' sales number contradicts virtually all real data

    We got into this mess so deely because of too much consumer credit
    True, but overly generalized. We got into this mess so deeply because consumer credit was extended to too many people who lacked the ability to pay back the money they were loaned ! And official gov't policy played a significant part in the origination of such loans.

    From a 'down and dirty' viewpoint, this new round of gov't subsidy programs i.e. cash for clunkers, the homebuyer tax credit etc. has taken another step in the evolution. Now, instead of pressuring lenders into providing borrowed cash for purchases that are not likely to be paid back on time and in full, the gov't is directly providing de-facto 'down payment' cash which does not have to be paid back at all ! Of course, this counts towards the total retail sales number, as well as counting toward the 'equity' versus loan balance equation when lenders must book future defaults on these latest loans.

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 09-18-2009 at 03:32 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-23-2011, 10:27 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-27-2010, 03:30 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-17-2009, 10:15 AM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-05-2009, 04:02 PM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-28-2008, 04:28 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •