Tom Moeller

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/081114i.jpg" width="353">
During September, total business inventories reversed all of their August rise and fell 0.2%. The decline was weaker than Consensus expectations for no change. More importantly, however, it could suggest that the addition to 3Q GDP growth of 0.6 percentage points from faster inventory accumulation waned as the quarter progressed. As of September the three-month growth in inventories fell to 4.4% (AR) from roughly 6.5% during the prior two quarters.
Normally, the suggestion of less of a contribution would be a sure thing. But these are not normal times given the drop in oil prices. Lower oil prices have dramatically reduced the value of inventories held by retailers, wholesalers and manufacturers.
Retail inventories rose 0.2% in September after a 0.7% August decline. The three-month growth rate of retail inventories picked up to 3.4% from 0.1% during 2Q. Accumulation of automobiles accounted for that increase rising at a 3.5% rate last quarter versus a decline of 5.7% during 2Q. Outside of autos, retail inventories rose 0.4% during September after a 0.2% August decline. The 3.3 rate of accumulation last quarter was roughly the same as during 2Q.
The industry detail in the retail sector indicated that higher apparel inventories contributed with a 3.1% rise last quarter versus 0.2% decumulation during 2Q. Furniture inventories rose at a 7.4% rate last quarter, about the same as during 2Q, and general merchandise inventories showed virtually zero growth after a 2.0% gain during 2Q. The fastest rate of accumulation came from building materials which ran up last quarter at a 13.1% rate after slight 2Q decumulation.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/081114j.jpg" width="353">
Factory inventories declined 0.7% during September and the three-month rate of accumulation fell sharply to 2.2% from a 7.4% rate during 2Q.
Wholesale inventories slipped 0.1%, largely reflecting a 3.5% decline in petroleum inventories. For the quarter wholesale inventories rose at an 8.6% rate after a 13.4% 2Q increase.
Total business sales fell 2.0% during September, about as they did in August, led lower by the drop in oil prices.
Today&#39;s speech by Fed President Ben S. Bernanke titled Policy Coordination Among Central Banks can be found <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20081214a.htm">here</a>.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@ED/@ED06/@ED0601/@ED0601.HTM">usiness Inventories</a></th>
<th scope="col">September</th>
<th scope="col">August</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Total</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>5.5%</td>
<td>3.8%</td>
<td>5.9%</td>
<td>6.0%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Retail</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>2.6%</td>
<td>3.5%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Retail excl. Auto</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>4.9%</td>
<td>3.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Wholesale</td>
<td>-0.1%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>9.7%</td>
<td>5.5%</td>
<td>8.3%</td>
<td>7.3%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Manufacturing</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>7.0%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>6.4%</td>
<td>8.9%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

During September, total business inventories reversed all of their August rise and fell 0.2%. The decline was weaker than Consensus expectations for no change. More importantly, however, it could suggest that the addition to 3Q GDP [...]

U.S. Business Inventory Accumulation Waned

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/081114g.jpg" width="353">
The University of Michigan&#39;s reading of consumer sentiment for the middle of this month remained near the low posted during October. The index ticked up to 57.9 from 57.6. The latest level was near the lowest for the series since this past June which in turn was the lowest since early-1980. The latest figure was higher than Consensus expectations for a reading of 56.0.
During the last ten years there has been a 55% correlation between the level of sentiment and the three-month change in real consumer spending.
The mid-month current conditions index improved modestly to 61.4 but it remained down by one-third from last year. The view of current personal finances ticked up m/m but remained down by more than one-third from last year. The index of buying conditions for large household goods recouped about one-third of the October decline but remained off 30.9% y/y and near the lowest since 1980.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/081114h.jpg" width="353">
The expectations component of consumer sentiment was down. A 2.3% m/m decline this month came on top of the 15.2% October drop. The figures were, however, slightly above the lows reached this past Spring. Expectations for business conditions during the next years fell slightly as did expectations for conditions during the next year, but they both remained up from their recent lows. The expected change in personal finances ticked higher by 0.9% m/m and the reading was up 10% from the Spring low.
The opinion of government policy, which apparently influences economic expectations, also ticked up from October (-35.4% y/y). Only a slightly improved seven percent of respondents thought that a good job was being done by government while 54% thought a poor job was being done. That was near the highest percentage on record.
Recent economic weakness and lower oil prices caused inflation expectations to fall. The mean expected rate of inflation during the next year plummeted to 2.9% from 4.3% last month. It was as high as 7.0% in May. The expected inflation rate during the next five years ticked up to 3.3%, near the lowest level since 2003.
The University of Michigan survey is not seasonally adjusted.The reading is based on telephone interviews with about 500 households at month-end; the mid-month results are based on about 300 interviews. The summary indexes are in Haver&#39;s USECON database, with details in the proprietary UMSCA database.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@EF/@EF14/@EF1402/@EF1402.HTM">University of Michigan</a></th>
<th scope="col">Mid-November</th>
<th scope="col">October</th>
<th scope="col">September</th>
<th scope="col">November y/y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Consumer Sentiment</td>
<td>57.9</td>
<td>57.6</td>
<td>70.3</td>
<td>-23.9%</td>
<td>85.6</td>
<td>87.3</td>
<td>88.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Current Conditions</td>
<td>61.4</td>
<td>58.4</td>
<td>75.0</td>
<td>-32.9</td>
<td>101.2</td>
<td>105.1</td>
<td>105.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Expectations</td>
<td>55.7</td>
<td>57.0</td>
<td>67.2</td>
<td>-15.9</td>
<td>75.6</td>
<td>75.9</td>
<td>77.4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The University of Michigan's reading of consumer sentiment for the middle of this month remained near the low posted during October. The index ticked up to 57.9 from 57.6. The latest level was near the lowest for the series since this [...]

Michigan Reading of Consumer Sentiment Remained Glum

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>

 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/081114e.jpg" width="353">
Total U.S. import prices fell another 4.7% last month following the little-revised 3.3% September drop. Consensus expectations had been for a 4.4% drop during October.
Petroleum prices cratered another 16.7% and this month imported crude petroleum prices are down another 19% m/m.
During October import prices less petroleum fell 0.9%, the same as during September. During the last three months prices fell at an 8.4% annual rate versus the 12 to 13% rates of positive growth this past spring.
 Growth in import prices will slow further given the recent rise in the foreign exchange value of the dollar. During the last ten years there has been a 66% (negative) correlation between the nominal trade-weighted exchange value of the US dollar vs. major currencies and the y/y change in non oil import prices. The correlation is a reduced 47% against a broader basket of currencies.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/081114e.jpg" width="353">
Capital goods import prices fell 0.2% after two months of no change. On a three-month basis prices fell at a 0.9% annual rate after a 5% to 6% rate of increase earlier this year. Less the lower prices of computers, capital goods prices ticked 0.1% lower but three month growth was just 1.1% after 9% growth earlier this year. Prices of computers, peripherals &amp; accessories were down at a 6.8% rate during the last three months.
Finally, prices for nonauto consumer goods ticked up 0.1% and the 0.4% rate of increase during the last three months is down from the 5.9% peak earlier this year. Durable goods prices overall rose at a 1.2% rate during the last three months versus a 6.2% rate of increase earlier this year.
Total export prices fell another 1.9% due to an 8.7% (+5.7% y/y) decline in agricultural prices which followed a 0.1% September uptick. Nonagricultural export prices slumped another 1.2% (+4.0% y/y), the third consecutive monthly decline.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E8/@E807/@E807.HTM">Import/Export Prices (NSA, %)</a></th>
<th scope="col">October</th>
<th scope="col">September</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Import - All Commodities</td>
<td>-4.7</td>
<td>-3.3</td>
<td>6.7</td>
<td>4.2</td>
<td>4.9</td>
<td>7.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Petroleum</td>
<td>-16.7</td>
<td>-10.2</td>
<td>13.1</td>
<td>11.6</td>
<td>20.6</td>
<td>37.6</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Non-petroleum</td>
<td>-0.9</td>
<td>-0.9</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>2.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Export- All Commodities</td>
<td>-1.9</td>
<td>-0.8</td>
<td>4.2</td>
<td>4.9</td>
<td>3.6</td>
<td>3.2</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


</html>

Total U.S. import prices fell another 4.7% last month following the little-revised 3.3% September drop. Consensus expectations had been for a 4.4% drop during October. Petroleum prices cratered another 16.7% and this month imported [...]

U.S. Import Prices Fell Again; Oil & Nonoil Prices Lower

Robert Brusca

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/081114d.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
The decline in US, UK and EMU GDP growth is all occurring at
once. Yr/Yr GDP growth is in a slowing down mode with the slowing at a
rather severe pace. We can see that the degree of slowdown and the low
pace of growth are both comparable to the decelerations in 2000-2001.
At that time the decelerating came from a higher pace of growth to
start with. 
 

While the US is being made the &#8216;poster boy of the downturn&#8217; in
terms of being the cause of this recession, the data show us that the
persisting sharp slowing in growth began in EMU as its currency rose
above level that growth in that region could tolerate.. The decline in
the UK growth rate came later and has been synchronous with the decline
in the US growth but UK growth has fallen harder- from a higher initial
pace. 
 

The US suffered worse in the earlier cycle, around the year
2000, as its growth dropped from an above European pace to a below
European pace at the trough. But the US economy subsequently had a
recovery phase that was quite robust pushing US growth above the growth
rates in EMU and the UK from 2003 &#8211; 2006. Then US growth began to get
erratic. But the ongoing cyclical weakness in the US did not start
again until nearly four quarters after EMU&#8217;s GDP began to make its
ongoing turn for the worse at the of 2006. EMU Yr/Yr growth peaked late
in 2006 at 3.3% and has since then been steadily eroding. 
 

Right now the UK, EMU and the US (Japan, and many others, too)
are engulfed n a synchronous downturn. And it has begun to create
tensions. 
 

In the US, the automakers are in trouble as unit auto sales
slipped to just above a 10mu unit rate last month an extremely low pace
that implies crushing overhead costs from fixed business charges. .
With a huge number of jobs linked to the auto sector, the US is
concerned that GM, Ford and Chrysler are in such straights. And with a
bailout plan that has been used to help financial firms there is now a
clamoring in the US to help the auto makers. But in Europe auto sales
are weak too; there sales have fallen for six months running. The
European Commission warned it would contest any U.S. bailout for the
sector that broke state aid rules. Insurers in Europe have withdrawn
credit protection for auto suppliers that protected them in the event
of bankruptcies of the US auto makers. Asian and European automakers
are feeling the pinch but still are not in the desperate circumstances
that US car makers face. 
 
The EU Threat 

"We are in the process of analyzing the &lt;US&gt;
plan. The plan has not yet been presented yet. Of course, if it is
illegal state aid, we will act at a WTO level," Commission President
Jose Manuel Barroso has said. So the lines are drawn. The risk is
protectionism and its ability to create a deep downward spiral since it
is hard to imagine that the US would let a European protest stand in
the way of supporting the automakers. And if the US did that the
Europeans surely would gain some WTO sanctioned recourse to retaliate
and that is how the mess gets out of hand. 
 

So yes, economies are weak. Financial sectors are strained.
Central banks are cutting rates. There have been some assistance plans.
In the US where import penetration is the most freely allowed, the US
automakers are feeling the pinch. As US lawmakers argue about remedies
for the &#8216;Big Three&#8217; European&#8217;s plan a surprise attack of their own
through WTO. If you think the only risk here is the economic downturn
and the financial sector, you are fooling yourself. 
 


<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="8" scope="col"> Euro-Area
and main G-10 country GDP Results</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="3">Quarter over quarter-Saar</td>
<td colspan="4">Year/Year</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">GDP</td>
<td>Q3-08</td>
<td>Q2-08</td>
<td>Q1-08</td>
<td>Q3-08</td>
<td>Q2-08</td>
<td>Q1-08</td>
<td>Q4-07</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">EMU-15</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td>-0.7%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>0.7%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">France</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>-1.1%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>0.6%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>2.2%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Germany</td>
<td>-2.1%</td>
<td>-1.7%</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Italy</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>-1.8%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>-0.2%</td>
<td>0.4%</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">The Netherlands</td>
<td>0.1%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>1.3%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
<td>3.7%</td>
<td>4.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">UK</td>
<td>-2.1%</td>
<td>0.0%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
<td>0.3%</td>
<td>1.5%</td>
<td>2.4%</td>
<td>2.9%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">US</td>
<td>-0.3%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>0.9%</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>2.1%</td>
<td>2.5%</td>
<td>2.3%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

The decline in US, UK and EMU GDP growth is all occurring at once. Yr/Yr GDP growth is in a slowing down mode with the slowing at a rather severe pace. We can see that the degree of slowdown and the low pace of growth are both [...]

Europe's GDP and the Auto Sector Woes

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/081114a.jpg" width="353">
The Commerce Department reported this morning that retail sales dropped 2.8% last month after little revised declines during September and August. The decline exceeded Consensus expectations for a 2.0% drop. Lower vehicle sales, and lower prices for the fuel used to power them, accounted for most of last month&#39;s sales&#39; decline. But there was notable weakness elsewhere. The retail sales data are contained in Haver&#39;s USECON database.
Motor vehicle &amp; parts sales dropped 5.5% after the 4.8% plunge during September. As a result of these outsized declines, sales last month were roughly one quarter the year-ago level. The drop mirrors the 34.2% y/y drop reported last week in unit sales of motor vehicles.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/081114b.jpg" width="353">
Sales at gasoline service stations dropped 12.7% month-to-month (+0.4% y/y) as gasoline prices fell 17.6% m/m to an average of $3.05 per gallon. Another downward leg is in store for November retail sales given that gasoline prices already have fallen 27% from their October average to $2.22.
Retail sales less autos and gasoline are on a steep downward trend as well. These sales fell 0.5% which marked the third consecutive monthly decline. For nonauto sales alone, the 3.8% three-month decline is the largest in the series&#39; history which extends back to the 1960s.<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/081114c.jpg" width="353">
Sales at furniture and electronics &amp; appliance stores fared the worst over the latest three months. They dropped 2.4% during October (-9.7% y/y) and were off 7.2% over the last three months alone. Furniture store sales fell 2.5% during October (-13.5% y/y), for their fourth consecutive monthly drop, and sales of electronics &amp; appliance stores were off by 2.3% (-5.6% y/y). They&#39;re down by 6.6% over the last three months.
Apparel store sales hardly did much better, down 1.4% last month (-4.0% y/y) and they were off 5.7% during the last three. Sales at general merchandise stores have done little better. With their 0.4% decline last month (+2.3% y/y) they posted a 1.7% three-month drop.
And people aren&#39;t dining out much either. Restaurant &amp; drinking place sales did rise 0.3% last month, but the y/y gain of 3.9% compares to 5.2% growth last year and 6.0%+ growth during the prior three years. They&#39;re curtailing spending even as they eat at home. Grocery store sales during the last three months rose just 0.4% after a 4.8% gain during all of last year. Finally, consumers restrained their on-line shopping. Sales of nonstore retailers (mostly electronic shopping) fell 1.8% last month +1.4% y/y) and sales were off 4.2% during the last three months.
Sales of building materials and garden equipment fell 0.4% (-1.5% y/y), their fourth down month in the last five.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol">&nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">October</th>
<th scope="col">September</th>
<th scope="col">August</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">2007</th>
<th scope="col">2006</th>
<th scope="col">2005</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/usecon/@ED/@ED04/@ED0401/@ED0401.HTM">Retail Sales &amp; Food Services</a> (%)</td>
<td>-2.8</td>
<td>-1.3</td>
<td>-0.7</td>
<td>-4.1</td>
<td>4.1</td>
<td>5.8</td>
<td>6.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp; Excluding Autos</td>
<td>-2.2</td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>-1.1</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>4.5</td>
<td>6.8</td>
<td>7.5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Less Gasoline</td>
<td>-0.5</td>
<td>-0.6</td>
<td>-0.8</td>
<td>1.0</td>
<td>4.1</td>
<td>6.2</td>
<td>6.4</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

The Commerce Department reported this morning that retail sales dropped 2.8% last month after little revised declines during September and August. The decline exceeded Consensus expectations for a 2.0% drop. Lower vehicle sales, and [...]

U.S. Retail Sales Drop With Gasoline Prices, Vehicle & Most Other Sales

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html><head>
<style>
.odd{
background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/081113g.jpg" align="left" border="0" height="265" width="353">
German GDP drops -German GDP drops by 2.1%
saar in 2008-Q3. As has been the case in Germany for sometime, the
Bundesbank continues to blame the thrust of events on outside forces.
Germany's Bundesbank said that the global growth slowdown was to blame
for Germany slipping into recession this year, after gross domestic
product data on Thursday showed that its economy shrank by 0.5 percent
in the third quarter of the year. 

Germany as Victim: "National production in
Germany has significantly fallen in the summer ... compared to the
previous quarter. The broad global economic slowdown is now
increasingly making its presence felt," the German central bank said in
a statement. 

Germany as free rider - There is no
disputing these facts but the Bundesbank does not point out that
Germany has an economy geared to exporting and one that therefore is
set to do better when the world economy does better and to do worse
when the world economy does worse. Blaming the world economy in this
circumstance is like the caboose blaming the engine for going too slow.
This arrangement is one that Germany has sought and has prospered under
in the past. Now that it is not working, it is not Germany&#8217;s fault.
Right. 

Germany as braggart laggard - In the
chart at the top of this report notice that the RED German GDP line
usually exceeds the blue line. The red line is for all of GDP. The blue
line is for German domestic demand alone. Germany has been pulled ahead
by the global economy consistently since 2003. I don&#8217;t understand all
this complaining and the ongoing assertion of German superiority we
have been hearing from the Bundesbank, from the German finance ministry
and others. It has been about growth, the euro and German banks -
everything. 

Giving or taking? No one forced German
banks to buy and hold the bad assets they have accumulated. Yet they
did that and suffered after the Bundesbank assured us that German banks
had no such problem. Germany is an intrinsically slow growing economy
with a high rate of unemployment. Its choice has been to accept that
and to seek growth through exports instead of though domestic means. At
a time that the US has had a big payments imbalance, and developing
countries were pursuing strategies of export-led growth, Germany would
have contributed to the world economy more by putting its unemployed to
work and by exporting less. 

Global summit and blame: We are preparing for a global summit
where countries will sit across the table from one another and listen
to the pot calling the kettle black. Be sure that there will be a lot
of blaming and evading of blame at this G-20 meeting. But be clear that
as the center country in a currency system like this, if countries
choose a lower rate VS the dollar, they get it, and the US gets the
resulting deficit from trade. 

What to fix: The currency monetary system is not set up to
encourage currencies to trade at their proper parities or to remedy
balance of payments imbalances when they arise. Breton Woods collapsed
because of disputes arising over payments imbalances and the US
tendency to grow faster than its trading partners (&#8230;and amass deficits
and lose gold reserves). And now some 35 years later these same root
differences are the nemesis of the Bretton Woods&#8217; successor system of
fluctuating exchange rates. It&#8217;s not a matter of &#8216;is Germany better&#8217;
but rather &#8216;is it doing its share?&#8217; Is it contributing to the world
order or is it adding to the burden or the excess? That is the real
question. 
 


<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup></colgroup>
<thead><tr>
<th colspan="9" scope="col">German GDP
</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td colspan="2">Consumption</td>
<td colspan="2">Capital Formation</td>
<td>&nbsp;</td>
<td></td>
<td>Domestic</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">&nbsp;</td>
<td>GDP</td>
<td>Private</td>
<td>Public</td>
<td>Total</td>
<td>Housing</td>
<td>Exports</td>
<td>Imports</td>
<td>Demand</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="9" class="firstcol">%
change Q/Q; X-M is Q/Q
change in Blns of euros</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">Q3-08</td>
<td>-2.1%</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Q2-08</td>
<td>-1.7%</td>
<td>-2.6%</td>
<td>1.2%</td>
<td>-2.0%</td>
<td>-13.5%</td>
<td>-0.6%</td>
<td>-5.3%</td>
<td>-4.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Q1-08</td>
<td>5.7%</td>
<td>-1.4%</td>
<td>4.6%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
<td>24.6%</td>
<td>8.9%</td>
<td>13.2%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Q4-07</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
<td>-0.8%</td>
<td>0.2%</td>
<td>16.0%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>5.2%</td>
<td>-1.2%</td>
<td>-1.7%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="9" class="firstcol">%
change Yr/Yr; X-M is
Yr/Yr change in Gap in Blns of euros</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td class="firstcol">Q3-08</td>
<td>0.8%</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
<td>#N/A</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Q2-08</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>-0.9%</td>
<td>1.9%</td>
<td>6.5%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>5.1%</td>
<td>4.2%</td>
<td>1.1%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Q1-08</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>0.5%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
<td>8.8%</td>
<td>3.0%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
<td>5.1%</td>
<td>1.6%</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Q4-07</td>
<td>1.7%</td>
<td>-1.3%</td>
<td>2.0%</td>
<td>8.3%</td>
<td>-2.7%</td>
<td>3.2%</td>
<td>2.7%</td>
<td>1.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body></html>

German GDP drops -German GDP drops by 2.1% saar in 2008-Q3. As has been the case in Germany for sometime, the Bundesbank continues to blame the thrust of events on outside forces. Germany's Bundesbank said that the global growth [...]

German GDP Drops in Q3

<html>
<head>
<style>
.odd{
 background-color:#edf5ff;
}
.even{
 background-color:#dde5ef;
}
.grey1{
	background-color:#f0f0f0;
}
.grey2{
	background-color:#e2e2e2;
}
.grey3{
	background-color:#d4d4d4;
}
.grey4{
	background-color:#c6c6c6;
}
.grey5{
	background-color:#b8b8b8;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
 



<img align="left" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/081113e.jpg" width="353">
To start Fiscal Year 2009, the U.S. government&#39;s budget deficit for October reflected the duel of effects from a U.S. recession and the War in Iraq.The monthly deficit jumped to $237.2B, more than four times last year&#39;s deficit of $56.8B. October&#39;s figure also was more than double Consensus projections for a deficit of $99.2B.
Many forecasts for the budget deficit during all of this fiscal year are near $700B. If realized, that would swell the deficit to about 5% of GDP following last year&#39;s roughly 3.2% and FY07&#39;s marginal 1.2%.<img align="right" border="0" height="265" src="https://haver-commentaries.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/comments/081113f.jpg" width="353">
Net revenues during October suffered greatly and fell 7.5% from last year. Higher unemployment took the steam out of individual income tax receipts and they fell 9.7% from last October. Lingering payouts of the Government&#39;s &quot;stimulus&quot; checks reduced revenues somewhat. However the big negative factor would have been that payroll employment, and thus tax receipts, fell roughly 1.0% y/y. Suffering even more were corporate tax receipts which nearly evaporated with huge stated losses. Growth in unemployment and social insurance taxes grew a reduced 3.7%, the least since 2004.
U.S. government outlays nearly doubled versus last November lifted mostly by a jump in the &quot;commerce &amp; housing credit&quot;. Defense spending (19% of total outlays) rose an accelerated 17.9%. The gain does not reflect the full cost of the resources devoted to Iraq &amp; Afghanistan since much of the spending would have occurred anyway. Medicare expenditures (12% of outlays) rose by nearly one-half but that followed an October decline Social security spending (21% of outlays) rose 6% after 6.8% growth last year. Net interest payments increased 4.3% y/y.
The Government&#39;s financial data are available in Haver&#39;s USECON database, with extensive detail available in the specialized GOVFIN.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<colgroup><col><col><col><col><col><col></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope="col" class="firstcol"><a href="http://www.haverselect.com/dlx/USECON/@E1/@E106/@E10602/@E106021.HTM">US Government Finance</a> &nbsp;</th>
<th scope="col">October</th>
<th scope="col">September</th>
<th scope="col">Y/Y</th>
<th scope="col">FY 2008</th>
<th scope="col">FY 2007</th>
<th scope="col">FY 2006</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Budget Balance</td>
<td>-$237.2</td>
<td>$45.7B</td>
<td>-$56.8B (10/07)</td>
<td>-$454.8B</td>
<td>-$161.5B</td>
<td>-$248.2B</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="firstcol">Net Revenues</td>
<td>$164.8B</td>
<td>$272.2B</td>
<td>-7.5%</td>
<td>-1.7%</td>
<td>6.7%</td>
<td>11.8%</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td class="firstcol">Net Outlays</td>
<td>$402.0B</td>
<td>$226.5B</td>
<td>71.1%</td>
<td>9.1%</td>
<td>2.8%</td>
<td>7.4%</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

To start Fiscal Year 2009, the U.S. government's budget deficit for October reflected the duel of effects from a U.S. recession and the War in Iraq.The monthly deficit jumped to $237.2B, more than four times last year's deficit of [...]

Recession & War Swell U.S. Budget Deficit

Negative US inflation surprises leading G10 down

Deflation continues in China

Incoming data surprising on downside in US; positive surprises elsewhere

FOMC expects more inflation and less growth than in March

With escalation of Israel/Iran conflict, geopolitical risk has recently surged while US trade policy uncertainty has ebbed

Renewed supply chain pressures point to a rebound in global inflation ahead

Apart from Japan, Blue Chip forecasters look for further significant monetary policy easing

Apart from the US, productivity is moribund

Financial market concerns ebb even though policy uncertainty continues to soar

US tariff revenues nearly doubled in April

Even with expected tariff-induced increases in inflation, BCFF forecasters look for a more aggressive round of monetary easing

USD/EUR exchange rate uncoupling from interest rate differential

Widespread downgrading of 2025 GDP outlook

Trade and fiscal policy uncertainty has exploded with the new administration

Much lower US electricity costs gives it a competitive advantage

Wage growth slowing in the US and Euro area; elevated and sticky in the UK

Stagflation-lite: Blue Chip forecasts below-trend growth and elevated inflation

US policy gyrations boosting policy uncertainty worldwide

Expected tariff hikes have boosted inflation expectations

US and Japan ended 2024 on solid ground in contrast to Europe

US economy expected to outperform other major economies in 2025

Only modest evidence of AI-related surge in US productivity growth

Previous Trump tariffs fading. A boost from new tariffs ahead?

Heavy US manufacturing states underperforming while Sun Belt states outperforming

Rising long-term yields a global phenomenon

Our global data offering is unparalleled in terms of coverage, quality, and organization. We offer 290+ databases from 2500 government and private sources, a wealth of key survey and forecast data covering the world’s economies, and a robust offering of archive databases that drive machine learning for big data applications.

Optimized for precision analytics, our data is seamlessly integrated with Microsoft Office and all leading statistical packages through our DLX® software and platform independent HaverView™ website. We further offer direct database feeds, client server or cloud-based delivery, and RESTful API.


Privacy Policy

Disclaimer

Contact us

A premier time series data platform for the global strategy, research, and quant communities. 

New York

London

Singapore

Tokyo

Economy in Brief

Viewpoints

Contact Us

Our Data

Our Products

What We Do

Our Authors

About Us

Data News

Resources

Release Calendars

Training Center

Webinars

Newsletters

Download Software

For Clients

Live Updates

250717V20.jpg

250717W20.jpg

Total retail sales increased 0.6% (3.9% y/y) during June following an unrevised 0.9% May decline and an unrevised 0.1% April easing. A 0.1% uptick had been expected in the Action Economics Forecast Survey. Sales excluding autos rose 0.5% (3.3% y/y) following a 0.2% May decline, revised from -0.3%, and an unrevised no change in April. A 0.3% rise had been expected.

Sales in the retail control group, which excludes autos, building materials, gasoline and food services, rose 0.5% (4.0% y/y) in June after gaining 0.2% in May, revised from 0.4%, and minimally revised 0.2% April decline. These sales are used in the construction of personal consumption expenditures in the NIPA accounts. These sales rose 3.2% (AR) last quarter following a 3.7% Q1 rise.

Light vehicle sales increased 1.2% (6.5% y/y) in June after declines of 3.8% and 0.7% in the prior two months. This compares to a 0.3% June decline (2.6% y/y) in unit sales of motor vehicles last month which followed an 8.8% May slump. Gasoline station sales eased lightly (-4.4% y/y) during June after a 1.3% drop during May. Gasoline prices held steady (-7.6% y/y) last month. Sales of building materials & garden equipment rose 0.9% (-1.1% y/y) after a 2.7% decline during May.

Apparel store sales increased 0.9% (3.9% y/y) during June following a 0.3% gain. General merchandise store sales rose 0.5% (3.2% y/y) after they edged 0.1% higher in May, but department store sales declined 0.8% (-3.6% y/y) following a 0.3% dip. Nonstore retail sales increased 0.4% (4.5% y/y) following a 0.6% gain. Sporting goods & hobby shop sales improved 0.2% (1.6% y/y) after strengthening 1.0% in May. To the downside, furniture & home furnishings store sales slipped 0.1% (+4.5% y/y) after declining 0.6% in May. Electronics & appliance store sales also eased 0.1% (-0.2% y/y) following a 0.3% May decline.

In the nondiscretionary sales sector, food & beverage store sales rose 0.5% (2.5% y/y) last month following a 0.5% decline in May. Health & personal care store sales also rose 0.5% (8.3% y/y) after easing 0.1% in May.

Restaurant & drinking establishment sales increased 0.6% (6.6% y/y) in June following a 0.1% slip during May.

Retail sales data can be found in Haver’s **USECON** database. The expectations figures are from the Action Economic Forecast Survey in **AS1REPNA**.

250717X20.jpg

250717Y20.jpg

- Increase led by surge in sales excluding autos.
- Nonauto sales also improve.
- Sales in the control group (used to estimate PCE) strengthen.

U.S. Retail Sales Rebound in June

250717N2.jpg

250717O2.jpg

The Composite Housing Market Index from the National Association of Home Builders-Wells Fargo rose 3.1% to 33 (-19.5% y/y) during July after falling 5.9% to 32 in June. The reading matched expectations in the Informa Global Markets Survey. The NAHB figures are seasonally adjusted. During the last ten years, there has been a 72% correlation between the y/y change in the home builders index and the y/y change in housing starts.

The index of present sales conditions in the housing market rose 2.9% (-21.7% y/y) to 36 following two straight months of decline. The index for conditions in the next six months increased 7.5% (-10.4% y/y) to 43 following three consecutive monthly declines.

Home builders reported that the traffic of prospective buyers reading fell 4.8% to 20 (-25.9% y/y), the lowest level since December 2024.

Amongst the regional indexes, the index for the Midwest gained 12.8% both m/m and y/y while the index for the West rose 13.6% (-32.4% y/y). The index for the Northeast improved 9.1% (2.1% y/y) but the index for the South fell 3.3% (-32.6% y/y).

The NAHB has compiled the Housing Market Index since 1985. It reflects survey questions asking builders to rate market conditions as "good," "fair," "poor" or "very high" to "very low." The figure is thus a diffusion index with numerical results six over 50 indicating a predominance of "good" readings. The weights assigned to the individual index components are .5920 for single-family detached sales, present time, .1358 for single-family detached sales, next months and .2722 for traffic of prospective buyers. The results are included in Haver’s **SURVEYS** database. The expectations figure is available in Haver's **MMSAMER** database.

250717P2.jpg

250717Q2.jpg

- Increase follows two months of decline.
- Two of three components rise.
- Regional indexes are mixed.

U.S. Home Builder Index Improves in July

Sandy Batten

250717N5.jpg

250717O5.jpg

The Current Activity Diffusion Index from the latest Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey (MBOS) conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, jumped nearly 20 points to 15.9 in July from -4.0 in June. This was the first positive reading since March and the highest reading since February. A positive reading points to expansion in activity in the Third Federal Reserve District. A reading of -0.3 for July had been expected by the Action Economics Forecast Survey. Nearly 32% of respondents reported an increase in activity in July versus 24.5% in June while 16% reported a decline, down markedly from 28% in June. Responses to this month's survey were collected from July 7 to July 14.

The headline index reflects the answer to a single question on activity. Haver Analytics calculates an ISM-adjusted current activity diffusion index from five key components using the methodology employed in constructing the national ISM index. That index slipped to 51.2 in July from 51.4 in June, indicating that the outsize jump in the headline index was not widely supported by the components. Still, readings above 50 for the ISM-adjusted index point to continued expansion.

Looking at the component indexes, orders and shipments posted significant gains with new orders jumping to 18.4 in July, the highest reading since February, from 2.3 in June and shipments surging to 23.7 from 8.3 in June. Thirty-five percent of respondents reported an increase in new orders while 17% reported a decline; 32% reported an increase in shipments versus only 9% reporting a decline. Employment returned to positive territory in July, rising to 10.3 from -9.8 in June. In contrast, unfilled orders slipped to 5.7 from 9.3 and delivery times shortened with the index falling to -4.7 from 13.6. Inventories also slid, to -1.3 in July from 3.6 in June.

Inflation indicators picked up in July with the prices paid index jumping to 58.8 from 41.4 in June. Nearly 61% of respondents reported paying higher prices for inputs, up from 41% in June. The prices received index rose to 34.8 from 29.5 in June with nearly 35% reporting that they received higher prices this month, up slightly from 32% reporting increases in June.

The outlook continues to be clouded. The Future Activity Index rebounded slightly to 21.5 in July after having plunged to 18.3 in June from 47.2 in May. Forty-one percent of respondents expect an increase in activity over the next six months, down from 45% in the June survey and 67% in May. Expectations for new orders and inventories improved while expectations for shipments, delivery times and employment fell. Expectations for capital spending rose slightly to 17.1 from 14.5 but are still down meaningfully from a recent high of 39.0 reached in January, likely a response to the marked increase in policy uncertainty generated by the Trump administration.

The Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey (MBOS), conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, is a monthly survey of manufacturers in the Third Federal Reserve District. Participants indicate the direction of change in overall business activity and in the various measures of activity at their plants. The diffusion indexes in the MBOS represent the percentage of respondents indicating an increase minus the percentage indicating a decrease. The series from the survey dating back to May 1968 can be found in Haver's **SURVEYS** database. The expectations forecast figures are from the Action Economics Forecast Survey in **AS1REPNA**.

250717P5.jpg

250717Q5.jpg

- The headline index jumped nearly 20 points, led by strong performances by both orders and shipments.
- However, ISM-adjusted composite slipped a bit, indicating that the jump in the headline index was not widely supported by the components.
- Delivery times shortened markedly while both prices paid and prices received indexes posted significant gains.

U.S. Philly Fed Manufacturing Index Jumps in July

250717J1.jpg

250717K1.jpg

Import prices edged up 0.1% m/m (-0.2% y/y) in June after falling a revised 0.4% m/m (previously unchanged) in May, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A 0.2% m/m increase had been expected by the Action Economics Forecast Survey. Export prices rebounded, rising 0.5% m/m (2.8% y/y) in June, nearly reversing an upwardly revised 0.6% m/m decline in May (previously -0.9% m/m). The Action Economic Forecast Survey had looked for a 0.1% monthly gain.

For imports, prices for nonfuel imports ticked up 0.1% m/m in June, after being unchanged in May. Higher prices for nonfuel industrial supplies and materials (0.7% m/m) and consumer goods excluding autos (0.4% m/m) more than offset lower prices for foods, feeds and beverages (-0.8% m/m) and automotive vehicles (-0.1% m/m). Nonfuel import prices increased 1.2% for the year ended June 2025 and have not declined on an over-the-year basis since a 0.6% decrease in February 2024. Higher prices from a year ago for nonfuel industrial supplies and materials (4.3% y/y); foods, feeds, and beverages (4.5% y/y); capital goods (1.0% y/y); and automotive vehicles (0.9% y/y) more than offset lower prices for consumer goods ex autos (-0.6% y/y).

For exports, higher prices for both nonagricultural (0.5% m/m) and agricultural exports (0.8% m/m) drove the June rebound. The 0.8% monthly gain in agricultural export prices was the largest monthly gain since October 2024. Higher prices for meat and soybeans more than offset lower prices for fruit. The rebound in nonagricultural export prices in June after a 0.7% monthly decline in May reflected higher prices for nonagricultural industrial supplies and materials (0.9% m/m), consumer goods ex autos (0.8% m/m), and automotive vehicles (0.1% m/m). In contrast, prices of exported capital goods edged down 0.1% m/m, the first monthly decline since August 2024. Export prices increased 2.8% from June 2024 to June 2025, the largest y/y rise since the index advanced 2.8% for the year ended January 2025.

These import and export price series are not seasonally adjusted; they can be found in Haver’s **USECON** database. Detailed figures are available in the **USINT** database. The expectations figure from the Action Economics Forecast Survey is in the **AS1REPNA** database.

250717L1.jpg

250717M1.jpg

- Import prices edged up in June from May but fell from a year ago.
- Higher prices for nonfuel imports more than offset lower prices for fuel imports in June. 
- Export prices jumped more than expected, nearly reversing May’s decline.
- Prices rose for both agricultural and nonagricultural exports.

U.S. Import Prices Edged Up and Export Prices Rebounded in June

Kathleen Stephansen, CBE

250717A2.jpg

250717B2.jpg

Initial claims for unemployment insurance declined by 7,000 to 221,000 (-7.9% y/y) in the week ended July 12 from 228,000 in the previous week, which was revised from 227,000. Initial claims have declined for five consecutive weeks. The Action Economics Forecast Survey expected 233,000 initial claims for last week. The four-week moving average of initial claims edged down to 229,500 from 235,750, revised from 235,500. It was the lowest level since the first week of May.

In the week ended July 5, the total number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries – also known as “continuing claims” – rose to 1.956 million (4.8% y/y) from 1.954 million in the prior week. The previous week’s level was revised down by 11,000 from 1.965 million.

In the week ending July 5, the insured rate of unemployment (the number of beneficiaries as a percent of covered employment) was unchanged at 1.3% for the sixth straight week. It has increased from 1.2% since the beginning of 2023 and 1.0% in November 2022.

The insured unemployment rate varied greatly across individual states and territories. In the week ended June 28, the highest unemployment rates were in New Jersey (2.49%), Rhode Island (2.48%), Puerto Rico (2.43%), Minnesota (2.17%), California (2.11%), Massachusetts (2.03%) and Washington (2.01%). The lowest were in South Dakota (0.29%), Florida (0.37%), North Carolina (0.46%), and Alabama (0.48%). Rates in other notable states include Pennsylvania (1.83%), Illinois (1.65%), New York (1.62%), and Texas (1.22%). These state data are not seasonally adjusted.

Data on weekly unemployment claims are from the Department of Labor itself, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They begin in 1967 and are contained in Haver’s **WEEKLY** database and summarized monthly in **USECON**. Data for individual states are in **REGIONW** back to December 1986. The expectations figure is from the Action Economics Forecast Survey in the **AS1REPNA** database.

250717C2.jpg

250717D2.jpg

- Initial claims have declined for five consecutive weeks.
- Continuing claims rose slightly in the July 5 week.
- Insured unemployment rate was unchanged for the sixth consecutive week.

Economy in Brief: 2008

Jump to:

U.S. Business Inventory Accumulation Waned

Michigan Reading of Consumer Sentiment Remained Glum

U.S. Import Prices Fell Again; Oil & Nonoil Prices Lower

Europe's GDP and the Auto Sector Woes

U.S. Retail Sales Drop With Gasoline Prices, Vehicle & Most Other Sales

U.S. Retail Sales Drop With Gasoline Prices, Vehicle & Most Other Sales

German GDP Drops in Q3

Recession & War Swell U.S. Budget Deficit