A International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) worker gestures at the General Motors Assembly Plant in Arlington, Texas June 9, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)
The general business activity index in the Texas Manufacturing Survey surged from an already strong 25.4 to 33.4 in December, the highest reading in more than 12 years. The Dallas Federal Reserve said the production index, a key measure of state manufacturing conditions, remained elevated but declined to 16.8.
The anticipated retreat comes after surging to an 11-year high in December. The company outlook index remained elevated but edged down to 27.8.
The new orders index fell from 30.1 to 25.5 and the growth rate of orders index declined 6 points to 15.5. The capacity utilization index also stayed positive but declined, dropping 12 points to 14.5. Meanwhile, the shipments index rose six points to 27.1, indicating a pickup in growth.
Meanwhile, upward pressure on prices and wages remained high in January. The wages and benefits index ticked down to 23.3, but that’s still well above its average reading.
The raw materials prices index ticked up 1 point to 33.5, and the finished goods prices index rose 4 points to 22.3.
Former Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Fla., a longtime ally to Hillary Clinton, is scheduled to begin her prison sentence on Monday after being found guilty on 18 federal fraud and corruption charges. The disgraced former congresswoman represented Florida’s 5th Congressional District for nearly 25 years before she and her chief of staff were caught in a conspiracy to defraud an education charity.
The defunct charity was supposed to give scholarships to poor children in the First Coast Community, but instead the money filled the pockets of Mrs. Brown and her associates. Brown claimed to be a victim of her chief of staff Ronnie Simmons, but on most counts the jury didn’t buy it.
Brown and Simmons solicited donations from individuals and corporate entities that she knew by virtue of her position in the U.S. House of Representatives. The defendants led many of these donors to believe that the defunct charity known as One Door was a properly-registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, when, in fact, it was not.
Simmons and Carla Wiley, the president of One Door, used the vast majority of the so-called charity’s donations for their personal and professional benefit, including tens of thousands of dollars in cash deposits Simmons made to Brown’s personal bank accounts.
From 1993 to 2016, Simmons controlled Brown’s finances for Friends of Corrine Brown and Florida Delivers Leadership PAC.
The now-disgraced congresswoman appeared on materials, such as brochures, for the group, including a golf tournament at which money was raised.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Corrigan ordered her to to report to the Federal Correctional Complex before noon. It’s the same location where notorious Boston gangster James Whitey Bulger is currently serving time, as is a known Mexican drug cartel boss and an attempted suicide bomber.
However, Brown will serve out her sentence at the minimum-security women’s camp adjacent to Coleman Medium Federal Correctional Institution in Sumter County.
People count money at Macy’s Herald Square store during the early opening of the Black Friday sales in the Manhattan borough of New York, November 26, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) estimates personal income increased by $58.7 billion (0.4%) in December, fueled by a solid 0.5% gain in wages and salaries. Disposable personal income (DPI) increased 0.3%, or $48.0 billion, and personal consumption expenditures (PCE) increased by 0.4%, or $54.2 billion.
Real DPI increased 0.2% in December and Real PCE increased 0.3%. The PCE price index increased 0.1%. Excluding food and energy, the PCE price index increased 0.2%.
The one potential negative in an otherwise strong and positive report comes from a 0.1% decline in the savings rate to a 13-year low — 2.4%. That follows a significant downward revised 2.5% rate in November (2.9% initially reported). It could indicate that consumers are using their savings to spend.
The data in this report was included in the less-than-expected 2.6% annual rate of growth in gross domestic product (GDP) for the fourth quarter (4Q). However, given it was the initial estimate and incomplete, most analysts believe it is “ripe for upward revisions.”
BEA Definitions
Personal income is the income received by, or on behalf of, all persons from all sources: from participation as laborers in production, from owning a home or business, from the ownership of financial assets, and from government and business in the form of transfers. It includes income from domestic sources as well as the rest of world. It does not include realized or unrealized capital gains or losses.
Disposable personal income is the income available to persons for spending or saving. It is equal to personal income less personal current taxes.
Personal consumption expenditures (PCE) is the value of the goods and services purchased by, or on the behalf of, “persons” who reside in the United States.
Personal outlays is the sum of PCE, personal interest payments, and personal current transfer payments. Personal saving is personal income less personal outlays and personal current taxes.
The personal saving rate is personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income.
Current-dollar estimates are valued in the prices of the period when the transactions occurred—that is, at “market value.” Also referred to as “nominal estimates” or as “current-price estimates.”
Real values are inflation-adjusted estimates—that is, estimates that exclude the effects of price changes.
President Donald Trump walks past Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2017, following the president’s address to a joint session of Congress. (Photo: AP)
Senator Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., defended President Donald Trump in the wake of a New York Times report claiming he ordered the firing of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. He dismissed special counsel Robert Mueller was “New York talk,” which should not to be taken literally.
“I look at it strictly as the New York language that they have which is different than most other people,” Manchin, who in the past has bucked his party to back the president on certain issues, told NBC’s “Meet The Press.”
As People’s Pundit Daily (PPD) first reported, the New York Times put forward a version of events that was deeply misleading. The not-so veiled insinuation by the report was that the proposed firing of Mr. Mueller was intended to obstruct or end the investigation.
It also claimed White House Counsel Don McGahn threatened to resign instead of carrying out the “order.”
In reality, there was no order and Mr. McGahn did not threaten to resign, though he did convince President Trump it was not a good idea. The goal was never to end the investigation and the debate was over whether Mr. Mueller was the correct, or even legal choice.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Mr. Mueller to be special counsel after his protégé James Comey, who was fired for his unethical handling of the Clinton email investigation, leaked government memos for that explicit purpose.
This version of events was later mirrored in a subsequent report by Fox News.
Iowa Senate Majority Leader Bill Dix, left, talks with Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, right, and acting Lt. Gov. Adam Gregg, center, during a legislative forum sponsored by The Associated Press, Thursday, Jan. 4, 2018, at the Statehouse in Des Moines, Iowa. (Photo: AP)
Iowa could become the 13th state to call for a convention of states to restrict the power and authority of the federal government and return it to the states. Last Wednesday, the Senate subcommittee taking up the measure approved it by a 2 to 1 vote.
Article V of the U.S. Constitution grants “two thirds of the several States” the power to “call a Convention for proposing Amendments” if they deem necessary. That means the movement would need 34 states to invoke Article V for a convention of states to convene. Once they adopt and ratify the amendments, they become part of the U.S. Constitution.
Primary sources from the founding fathers make it clear that they saw the need for states to have a backup plan in the event the federal government grew too powerful.
Joint Resolution 8, which already passed the lower chamber in the Hawkeye State, calls for a convention of states to impose fiscal restraints, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and to call on the U.S. Congress to propose similar amendments. It could be considered by the Senate State Government Committee as early as next week and supporters are pushing for a full vote in the upper chamber this session.
GOP Senate leadership did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding the timeline of the vote.
“The reason for this is because our federal government is out of control,” Sen. Jason Schultz, R-Schleswig, who chaired the subcommittee said. “They are not going to reduce their own power or reach and it is up to the states, according to the convention, to pull the federal government back into the reins of the Constitution.”
State Senator Charles Schneider, R-West Des Moines, joined with Chairman Schultz in supporting the resolution. He said that he believes protections are in place to protect Americans from a “runaway convention.”
Not all Republicans are on board. The lines have not necessarily been drawn based on party. In truth, it’s more of an extension of the outsider versus insider dynamic that dominated the 2016 elections. Many Republican lawmakers who could accurately be characterized as Establishment also oppose the measure alongside Democrats, the latter obviously favoring a strong centralized government.
For instance, Tamara Scott of the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition and Concerned Women for America of Iowa, strongly opposed the resolution. She’s also a committeewomen at the Republican National Committee.
“If you can’t get people to come together and support the Constitution that you have now, what makes you think that they are going to come together later for a revised edition?” she said in an interview with the Des Moines Register. “This is going to cause unrest, it is going to unsettle what we have. The Constitution is not outdated. It is simply ignored. We need to uphold it; the power is already in place.”
Sen. Pam Jochum, D-Dubuque, joined Ms. Scott in opposing the resolution, calling it an agenda promoted by the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, philanthropists and businessmen who fund numerous conservative and libertarian organizations.
“First and foremost, I just think our Constitution is a living, breathing, document that has served our nation well and has protected our liberties and our freedoms,” she said. “I have some deep concerns about what the outcome of a convention would actually do. Rewriting the Constitution is not a good idea.”
But proponents of the convention of states point to rampant judicial activism that creates new rights and destroys old ones enshrined in the already written U.S. Constitution. There is no recourse after a 100 years of ever-expanding federal power.
In Notes on the State of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson supported states having the power to invoke Article V when a “convention is necessary for altering the Constitution, or correcting breaches of it.”
While he’s often misquoted by opponents, the U.S. Constitution himself — James Madison — supported Jefferson’s conclusion even though he believed such a need should be rare. In a letter to Edward Everett on August 28, 1830, Madison speaks directly to Article V:
Should the provisions of the Constitution as here reviewed be found not to secure the Govt. & rights of the States agst. usurpations & abuses on the part of the U. S. the final resort within the purview of the Constn. lies in an amendment of the Constn. according to a process applicable by the States.
The effort for a convention of states got a big boost from conservative author and talk show host Mark Levin, who proposed doing so in the best-selling book The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic.
U.S. President Donald Trump addresses the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, January 26, 2018. (Photo: REUTERS)
The good news is that President Trump wants to boost economic growth, which is a laudable goal after the economy’s sub-par performance during the Obama years.
The bad news is that he may sabotage his good reforms of tax policy and regulation with protectionism.
In a column earlier this month for the Wall Street Journal, Robert Zoellick warns about the likely consequences.
The Trump administration has stacked up a pile of trade cases that will come tumbling down early in 2018. More important than any specific case is the signal of a strategy of economic defeatism. …Mr. Trump’s tactic will likely trigger retaliation from other countries. …“safeguards” to block imports of solar panels and washing machines…doesn’t even require a claim of unfairness. …these amount to an overture to the big show: likely withdrawal from the North American Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement or both. …The president…relies on the support of economic isolationists who find it easier to blame others than to make America more competitive. Killing Nafta would fit the bill.
Charles Hughes addresses the same topic for Economics 21 and specifically explains that the net effect of trade barriers on solar panels will be to destroy jobs.
President Trump approved new tariffs on solar imports… Manufacturing of solar panels is only one component of the solar industry, which employs between 260,000 and 374,000 workers. Out of this group, only 38,000 work in manufacturing. Even this oversells the number of people whose work would be insulated from competition from imports, as Solar Energy Industries Association estimates that only 2,000 of these solar manufacturing workers make the products covered by the tariffs. Significantly more people work in installation. Their jobs would be at risk from higher solar panel prices that would reduce demand for installations, with one estimate that the tariffs would cost 23,000 U.S. jobs in the first year.
These numbers are not a surprise. There have been many studies looking at the impact of protectionism and lost jobs are the usual result, both because trade barriers create inefficiencies, reduce consumer buying power, and increase input prices.
But don’t take my word for it. Here’s President Reagan talking about trade shortly before he left office (h/t: Cafe Hayek).
By the way, some people try to justify Trump’s protectionism by citing some protectionist policies during the Reagan years.
As explained by Colin Grabow and Scott Lincicome in National Review, that is historical revisionism.
Trumpist efforts to save U.S. jobs through higher tariffs, bilateral trade deals, and lower trade deficits can find no “conservative” justification in Reagan-era trade actions. In fact, it’s just the opposite. The Reagan administration did indeed pursue unilateral import restrictions and foreign-trade “enforcement” actions, but history shows that — unlike protectionist policies proposed by Trump — such moves were intended to liberalize trade… Reagan also often sought to educate his fellow Americans on the U.S. trade balance, even extemporaneously (and correctly) explaining at a 1985 press conference that trade deficits often correlate with job growth and economic vitality. …Reagan negotiated and concluded the 1988 Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement — the basis for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). …Reagan administration negotiators also helped launch the Uruguay Round under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which would in 1994 strike the single biggest blow for free trade in the last 70 years by establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO).
So what would it mean if Trump’s protectionist push led to similar statist policies by other nations?
A World Bank study gives us an idea of the potential implications.
This paper quantifies the wide-ranging costs of potential increases in worldwide barriers to trade…a coordinated global withdrawal…from all existing bilateral/regional trade agreements, as well as from unilateral preferential schemes coupled with an increase in the cost of traded services, is estimated to result in annual worldwide real income losses of 0.3 percent or US$211 billion relative to the baseline after three years. …Highlighting the importance of preferences, the impact on global trade is estimated to be more pronounced, with an annual decline of 2.1 percent or more than US$606 billion relative to the baseline if these barriers stay in place for three years. Second, a worldwide increase in tariffs up to legally allowed bound rates coupled with an increase in the cost of traded services would translate into annual global real income losses of 0.8 percent or more than US$634 billion relative to the baseline after three years. The distortion to the global trading system would be significant and result in an annual decline of global trade of 9 percent or more than US$2.6 trillion relative to the baseline in 2020.
I wonder if those numbers underestimate the threat given how tit-for-tax protectionism caused much greater levels of damage during the 1930s.
Anyhow, let’s conclude with a very effective (and concise) video from Matt Ridley on the principle of comparative advantage. It’s about trade between two people, but the same principle applies to trade between nations. Simply stated, trade allows for specialization, which enables higher productivity (and therefore higher wages and living standards).
I eagerly combed through that report, which (predictably) had Hong Kong and Singapore as the top two jurisdictions. I was glad to see that the United States (US) climbed to #11.
The good news is that America had dropped as low as #18, so we’ve been improving the past few years. The bad news is that the U.S. used to be a top-5 country in the 1980s and 1990s.
But let’s set aside America’s economic ranking and deal with a different question. I’m frequently asked why European nations with big welfare states still seem like nice places.
My answer is that they are nice places. Yes, they get terrible scores on fiscal policy, but they tend to be very pro-market in areas like trade, monetary policy, regulation, and rule of law. So they almost always rank in the top-third for economic freedom.
To be sure, many European nations face demographic challenges and that may mean Greek-style crisis at some point. But that’s true of many developing nations as well.
Moreover, there’s more to life than economics. Most European nations also are nice places because they are civilized and tolerant. For instance, check out the newly released Human Freedom Index, which measures both economic liberty and personal liberty. As you can see, Switzerland is ranked #1 and Europe is home to 12 of the top 16 nations.
And when you check out nations at the bottom, you won’t find a single European country.
Instead, you find nations like Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Indeed, the lowest-ranked Western European country is Greece, which is ranked #60 and just missed being in the top-third of countries.
Having now engaged in the unusual experience of defending Europe, let’s take a quick look at the score for the United States.
As you can see, America’s #17 ranking is a function of our position for economic freedom (#11) and our position for personal freedom (#24).
For what it’s worth, America’s worst score is for “civil justice,” which basically measures rule of law. It’s embarrassing that we’re weak in that category, but not overly surprising.
Anyhow, here’s how the U.S. score has changed over time.
Let’s close with a few random observations.
Other nations also improved, not just the United States. Among advanced nations, Singapore jumped 16 spots and is now tied for #18. There were also double-digit increases for Suriname (up 14 spots, to #56), Cambodia (up 16 spots, to #58), and Botswana (up 22 spots, to #63). The biggest increase was Swaziland, which jumped 25 spots to #91, though it’s worth pointing out that it’s easier to make big jumps for nations with lower initial rankings.
Now let’s look at nations moving in the wrong direction. Among developed nations, Canada dropped 7 spots to #11. Still a very good score, but a very bad trend. It’s also unfortunate to see Poland drop 10 spots, to #32. Looking at developing nations, Brunei Darussalam plummeted an astounding 52 spots, down to #115, followed by Tajikistan, which fell 46 spots to #118. Brazil is also worth highlighting, since it plunged 23 spots to #120.
President Donald Trump addresses a joint session of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2017, as Vice President Mike Pence and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., listen and applaud. (Photo: AP)
President Donald Trump will deliver his first State of the Union address on Tuesday. In an excerpt of the speech provided to People’s Pundit Daily (PPD), President Trump will call for measures to reduce the number of illegal aliens permitted to enter the country, and tout the gains his administration has made in doing so during his first year in office.
“All Americans, not only in the States most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country,” President Trump will tell Congress and the nation. “The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.”
Worth noting, a new Harvard-Harris Poll finds Americans overwhelmingly agree with the president on border security, reducing both legal and illegal immigration, putting an end to chain migration and the so-called diversity visa lottery.
“That’s why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens.”
President Trump made cracking down on illegal immigration the centerpiece of his campaign. End-of-year statistics from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) confirm he has had historic success doing so during the first year of his administration.
For example, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in FY 2017 reported a 23.7% decline over the previous year. Illegal migration along the Southwest border declined sharply from January 21 to April, which was the lowest month of border enforcement activity on record. In FY 2017, CBP reported the lowest level of illegal cross-border migration ever on record.
The highly-anticipated address will come only days after the White House unveiled a four-pronged comprehensive immigration reform plan ahead of schedule. It would provide a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 million “dreamers” in the U.S. illegally.
While that’s less than the Democrats’ DREAM Act — which provided fast-track citizenship for up to 3.25 million illegals, plus millions of their foreign chain-migration relatives — it’s also a complete reversal from his previous position and campaign promises.
President Trump’s plan would severely limit — though not end — chain migration by restricting chains to spouses.
As PPD reported, Akayed Ullah, 27, a Bangladeshi national living in Brooklyn and the suspect behind an attempted terror attack on the Port Authority in New York City, was in the U.S. due to chain migration. PPD was first to report that Sayfullo Saipov, the 29-year-old Uzbekistan national who killed 8 and injured at least 11 others during a terror attack near the World Trade Center in November, came to the U.S. under the Diversity Immigrant Visa (DV) Program in 2010.
Still, even though President Trump’s position mirrors the one top Democrats had just a few short years ago, the party relies too heavily on chain migration for their long-term electoral strategy. Their share of the white vote is so low, they need forced demographic changes to be successful at the ballot box, as a leaked memo clearly showed.
“The 50 percent cut to legal immigration in the framework and the recent announcements to end Temporary Protected Status for Central Americans and Haitians are both part of the same cruel agenda,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, said in a statement. “They are part of the Trump Administration’s unmistakable campaign to make America white again.”
Roughly 8 in 10 Americans disagree with the minority leader and want legal immigration levels to be reduced.
“In the budget I will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace,” President Trump will also say during the address. “We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws.”
“It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.”
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services headquarters. (Photo: Reuters)
I don’t like it when voters support tax increases. Needless to say, voters rarely if ever vote to raise their own taxes. Instead, they get seduced into robbing their neighbors in exchange for the promise of new goodies from politicians.
I raise this issue because the people of Oregon just gave fairly strong support to a tax-hike referendum. Here are some of the details.
…voters approved hundreds of millions of dollars in health care taxes in a special election. Measure 101, which led 62 percent to 38 percent with returns partially tallied, was the only issue on the ballot. It will raise $210 million to $320 million in taxes on Oregon’s largest hospitals and many health insurance policies by 2019.
At first glance, this is just another example of Oregon voters voting for bigger government and more class warfare.
But as you read further in the story, you’ll find something remarkable.
…the tax deal was a victory for…the health care industry, which bankrolled the “yes” campaign. …The largest contributor to the campaign to pass the taxes was the association that represents Oregon hospitals. Other health care companies also spent heavily to pass the measure.
Huh? Why would an industry support and bankroll an initiative to give more of their money to government?!?
It turns out that the industry isn’t filled with masochists like the neurotic trust fund leftists who posture in favor of higher taxes. Instead, the special interests such as the hospital lobby viewed a couple of hundred million of taxes as an “investment” that will generate about $1 billion of taxpayer-financed loot.
…the health care industry…will benefit from the resulting $1 billion-plus that will be spent on Oregonians’ health care. …
And taxpayers in other states will pick up a majority of the tab!
That tax revenue will enable Oregon to qualify for $630 million to $960 million in federal Medicaid matching funds that benefit the state’s health care industry. …state taxes would allow the state to keep federal matching funds.
This scam was exposed last year in a Wall Street Journalcolumn.
…42 states tax hospitals. Why? One answer is the perverse incentives built into the Medicaid law. When a state returns tax money to hospitals through Medicaid “supplemental payments,” it qualifies for matching funds from Washington. …Medicaid supplemental payments, as the term implies, are separate and distinct from the reimbursements that cover the actual cost of services rendered to beneficiaries. But the federal government turns a blind eye to the circular nature of the arrangement: Hospitals and other providers are both the source and the recipient of most of the funds.
Here are more details on this oleaginous ripoff.
…supplemental-payment schemes…“have the effect of shifting costs to the federal government,” according to a 2014 study by the Governmental Accountability Office. The more a state taxes its hospitals and then gives them money back, the more federal funds it can obtain. …The hospital tax is the biggest revenue-raiser, but 44 states also tax nursing homes, and 34 tax at least one other type of health-care provider. The GAO study found that these taxes had almost doubled nationally, from about $9.5 billion in 2008 to $18.5 billion in 2012.
By the way, I have written on this topic before, and even included a handy infographic that explains a version of the scam.
Let’s now return to the column. The author cites an example from Connecticut.
Connecticut hospitals will pay $900 million in taxes, but the state will offset that with $600 million in supplemental Medicaid payments—matched with $450 million of federal funds. The state keeps those matching funds, plus the $300 million from the hospital tax, meaning Hartford comes out ahead in the whole scheme by $750 million. Nice work if you can get it.
I’m not a fan of my home state, but the Nutmeg State is hardly alone is playing this game.
What’s remarkable is that there are 8 states what don’t participate in the ripoff.
Anyhow, I can’t resist making one final point. Here’s a sordid tidbit from the earlier story about what happened in Oregon.
Democrats in the Oregon House helped achieve the deal by agreeing to fund three projects in a Medford Republican’s district, in exchange for that lawmaker providing the lone Republican “yes” vote in the state House.
One more piece of evidence that Republicans often are the most despicable people.
Cargo containers sit idle at the Port of Los Angeles as a back-log of over 30 container ships sit anchored outside the Port in Los Angeles, California, February 18, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) said the initial estimate for fourth quarter (4Q) gross domestic product (GDP) in 2017 pegged U.S. economic growth at an annual rate of 2.6%. The first estimate is lower than the economic forecast models, which have underestimated real GDP growth in the last two quarters.
However, the BEA “emphasized that the fourth-quarter advance estimate released today is based on source data that are incomplete or subject to further revision by the source agency.” The “second” estimate for the fourth quarter, based on more complete data, will be released on February 28, 2018.
With the exception of the U.S. trade deficit and inventories, the fundamentals of the report laying out the initial estimate are very strong. Net exports came in at an annualized deficit of $652.6 billion.
“There is significant underlying strength in the internals of this report highlighted by consumption at +4% and CapEx spending at +11%,” TJM Investments analyst Tim Anderson said. “Combined with the growth in income, this report is ripe for upward revisions down the road.”
Americans have more money in their pockets and in 4Q they were spending it.
Current-dollar personal income increased $178.9 billion in the fourth quarter, compared with an increase of $112.3 billion in the third. The acceleration in personal income primarily reflected an upturn in personal interest income and an acceleration in nonfarm proprietors’ income.
Disposable personal income increased $139.0 billion, or 3.9%, in the 4Q juxtaposed to an increase of $73.8 billion, or 2.1% in the 3Q. Real disposable personal income increased 1.1%, up from an increase of 0.5%. Personal saving was $384.4 billion in the fourth quarter, compared with $478.3 billion in the third.
The personal saving rate — personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income — was 2.6% in the fourth quarter, compared with 3.3% in the third.
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.
By the way, I have 
