U.S. economic growth up to still-modest 2 percent rate

WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. economy grew at a slightly faster 2 percent annual rate from July through September, buoyed by more spending by consumers and the federal government.
Growth accelerated from the 1.3 percent rate in the April-June quarter, the Commerce Department said Friday.
The report is the last snapshot of economic growth before Americans choose a president in 11 days. The pickup in growth could lend weight to President Barack Obama's message that the economy is improving.
Still, growth remains too weak to rapidly boost hiring. And the 1.74 percent annual growth rate for the first nine months of 2012 trails last year's 1.8 percent growth - a point that Republican nominee Mitt Romney has emphasized.
"Growth came in a little higher than we had feared, largely because of the big jump in federal spending," said Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at Capital Economics. "But the economy is still not growing rapidly enough to create sufficient jobs to reduce the unemployment rate."
The economy grew faster last quarter in part because consumer spending rose at a 2 percent annual rate, up from a 1.5 percent rate in the second quarter. Spending on homebuilding and renovations increased at an annual rate of more than 14 percent.
And federal spending surged, mainly because of the sharpest increase in defense spending in more than three years.
Growth was held back by the first drop in exports in more than three years and flat business investment in equipment and software.
The economy was also slowed by the effects of the severe drought that struck last summer in the Midwest. The drought cut agriculture stockpiles and reduced the annual growth rate by nearly a half-point. Once crop supplies return to normal, they will help boost economic growth, analysts noted.
The government's report covers gross domestic product. GDP measures the nation's total output of goods and services - from restaurant meals and haircuts to airplanes, appliances and highways.
It was the government's first of three estimates of growth for the July-September quarter. And it sketched a picture that's been familiar all year: The economy is growing at a tepid rate, slowed by high unemployment and corporate anxiety over an unresolved budget crisis and a slowing global economy.
It is unclear what effect, if any, Friday's report might have on the presidential race. Some analysts said they doubted it would sway many undecided voters in battleground states.
University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers tweeted that it was ridiculous to "judge a presidency on one mildly positive yet-to-be-revised backward-looking quarterly datapoint."
The factors supporting the economy's growth are shifting. Exports and business investment drove much of the growth after the Great Recession officially ended in June 2009. But those sectors are weakening. Consumer spending, meantime, has picked up. And housing is adding to growth after a six-year slump.
Consumer spending drives nearly 70 percent of economic activity.
Businesses have grown more cautious since spring, in part because customer demand has remained modest and exports have declined as the global economy has slowed.
Many companies worry that their overseas sales could dampen further if recession spreads throughout Europe and growth slows further in China, India and other developing countries. Businesses also fear the tax increases and government spending cuts that will kick in next year if Congress doesn't reach a budget deal.
Since the recovery began more than three years ago, the U.S. economy has grown at the slowest rate of any recovery in the post-World War II period. And economists think growth will remain sluggish at least through the first half of 2013.
Some analysts believe the economy will start to pick up in the second half of next year.
Growth accelerated from the 1.3 percent rate in the April-June quarter, the Commerce Department said Friday.
The report is the last snapshot of economic growth before Americans choose a president in 11 days. The pickup in growth could lend weight to President Barack Obama's message that the economy is improving.
Still, growth remains too weak to rapidly boost hiring. And the 1.74 percent annual growth rate for the first nine months of 2012 trails last year's 1.8 percent growth - a point that Republican nominee Mitt Romney has emphasized.
"Growth came in a little higher than we had feared, largely because of the big jump in federal spending," said Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at Capital Economics. "But the economy is still not growing rapidly enough to create sufficient jobs to reduce the unemployment rate."
The economy grew faster last quarter in part because consumer spending rose at a 2 percent annual rate, up from a 1.5 percent rate in the second quarter. Spending on homebuilding and renovations increased at an annual rate of more than 14 percent.
And federal spending surged, mainly because of the sharpest increase in defense spending in more than three years.
Growth was held back by the first drop in exports in more than three years and flat business investment in equipment and software.
The economy was also slowed by the effects of the severe drought that struck last summer in the Midwest. The drought cut agriculture stockpiles and reduced the annual growth rate by nearly a half-point. Once crop supplies return to normal, they will help boost economic growth, analysts noted.
The government's report covers gross domestic product. GDP measures the nation's total output of goods and services - from restaurant meals and haircuts to airplanes, appliances and highways.
It was the government's first of three estimates of growth for the July-September quarter. And it sketched a picture that's been familiar all year: The economy is growing at a tepid rate, slowed by high unemployment and corporate anxiety over an unresolved budget crisis and a slowing global economy.
It is unclear what effect, if any, Friday's report might have on the presidential race. Some analysts said they doubted it would sway many undecided voters in battleground states.
University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers tweeted that it was ridiculous to "judge a presidency on one mildly positive yet-to-be-revised backward-looking quarterly datapoint."
The factors supporting the economy's growth are shifting. Exports and business investment drove much of the growth after the Great Recession officially ended in June 2009. But those sectors are weakening. Consumer spending, meantime, has picked up. And housing is adding to growth after a six-year slump.
Consumer spending drives nearly 70 percent of economic activity.
Businesses have grown more cautious since spring, in part because customer demand has remained modest and exports have declined as the global economy has slowed.
Many companies worry that their overseas sales could dampen further if recession spreads throughout Europe and growth slows further in China, India and other developing countries. Businesses also fear the tax increases and government spending cuts that will kick in next year if Congress doesn't reach a budget deal.
Since the recovery began more than three years ago, the U.S. economy has grown at the slowest rate of any recovery in the post-World War II period. And economists think growth will remain sluggish at least through the first half of 2013.
Some analysts believe the economy will start to pick up in the second half of next year.
"Â buoyed by more spending by consumers and the federal government." That is the only thing keeping our ecconomy up... Since when did we stop being citizens/countrymen/people and become "consumers"... Thats a pretty f'd up way for our "leaders" to refer to the people of the USA.
@gjUhnhwwMspREt to the corporations and larger companies of this country, you've never been anything other than a consumer and $ to them.
2% growth is nothing that a little slashing of budgets and other austerity measures wouldn't be able to wipe out!
 @Max Quinn Look no further than Europe for your model.  You think it's economically rough here, compare our status to every European economy that's given austerity a shot.  We're the world's bright spot right now.
 @Festivus  @Max Quinn Another interesting chart: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/04/05/What-A-Drag-It-Is-Losing-Your-Government-Job.aspx#page1
Â
Notice how public sector hiring rose sharply under St. Reagan, while it has plummeted under the Marxist Obama. When Reagan was re-elected, the unemployment rate was 7.2% even with all those public jobs (even though that government, of course, can't create any jobs).
 @Max Quinn I've always wanted to watch one of the "government doesn't create any jobs" crowd throw down in a platoon of Marines. Â
"Growth came in a little higher than we had feared, largely because of the big jump in federal spending," said Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at Capital Economics.
Â
Well Well.
Â
"But the economy is still not growing rapidly enough to create sufficient jobs to reduce the unemployment rate."
Â
I guess that sums up federal spending by this administration and employment.
The story of the Great Recession in one graph. Â No long reading to do. Â Decide for yourself whether or not we are recovering.
Â
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EWouogKfASQ/UG7XS4tBLpI/AAAAAAAASSk/3I8Qqm8-cVs/s1600/JobLossesSept2012.jpg
Â
Here is another graph to look at.  It too doesn't require much reading but it is interactive.  It only goes back to 1960 - - but that's enough to illustrate a point. Plug in 1960, step back 10 paces and gaze at the 2 graphs.
Â
Do you notice a correlation ??  Â
Â
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/current-account
Â
 @NorthernBlackBear This (again one page) graph displays almost the same data you're presenting normalized to GDP. Â
Â
http://www.multpl.com/u-s-federal-deficit-percent/
Â
It shows the real deficit problem but normalized to the size of the economy. Â
 @NorthernBlackBear The only correlation I could see is that as the US imports more, the length of a recovery stretches outs regardless of the depth of the recession. That and the fact the current account deficits take off under St. Reagan and hit the stratosphere under W.
 @NorthernBlackBear I'm not sure what correlation you're referring to - what I see from the current account is a federal government that, with the exception of a single anomaly during the Clinton administration, only seems to know how to run a deficit, in good times and in bad, no matter who is in the White House or the Congress.  The graph is a little misleading in that the values aren't normalized to a single currency year.Â
Â
I agree that this is a huge problem. Â But I'm also not against deficit spending in principle. Â Cushioning the effect of a recession isn't a bad thing if you put your financial position back in order when the economy regains its own feet. Â That's the part the Federal government seems to have forgotten.
 @NorthernBlackBear I made a point about that in another thread last week.
Â
Our leaders don't tell us the truth because we won't let them. Â At least, we won't elect them when we do. Â We're too drunk on American Exceptionalism to admit that we need to make some significant changes or face the inevitable fate of every empire, and in short order.
Â
I'm no fan of Ron Paul, let's be clear, but he does have a penchant for telling it like it is. Â He also doesn't have a snowball's chance of ever getting elected, and one (among several) of the reasons is that the electorate doesn't want to hear what he has to say. Â Look at how much abuse Obama takes round here for his so called "apology tour". Â For god's sake, don't tell the public the truth about their democracy.
Â
I guess all I'm saying is that the problem goes much deeper than our elected officials. Â It's simultaneously one of our great strengths and one of our great weaknesses. Â Â Â
Â
Nothing to add about our upcoming economic choices. Â I am in full agreement.
 @NorthernBlackBear No offense taken. The point I was trying to make wasn't clear.
Quinn - I didn't say you mislead - you didn't - I said the point presented was not as clear as it might have been if it were 'normalixed, expanded or enhanced'.  Sorry if you thought I was saying I thought you were misleading what you saw . . .
 @NorthernBlackBear I didn't mean to mislead.
The federal deficit and current account balance are different things - I shouldn't have been so quick to assign the CAB to the president in power at the time.
Â
In 1981, it stood at +4.8 billion in current $. By 1988, it was -121 billion. In 2000, it was - 416 billion (despite budget surpluses). In 2006, it was -800 billion. But then in 2009, it improved to -376 billion. Does that mean 2009 was a model year for economic prosperity? Or that mismanagement lead to a global economic plunge that reduced both commodity prices and demand?
Â
Source: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BN.CAB.XOKA.CD?page=6
Â
Economic policy influences the CAB, as do outside economic forces.
Â
So, a pivot towards austerity (how I read going "easy on the credit card") might well improve the CAB, but for the same reasons that it improved in 2009.
Good. An added point that I see is the lenght of time to recover increases with the balance of trade deficit.  And it makes sense.   Now I'm sure you can't take that as a gold standard - but it points in a direction we need to go.  And yes, we had surplus under Clinton.  Â
Â
You make a valid point about balancing your checkbook (my coloring of your words) overnight.  However, we need to balance it to make our nation strong again and bright for our children.  We can't just 'consume', we have to produce and add value.Â
Â
The point Quinn sees is a little misleading because it isn't 'normalized' as you put it.  The imbalance really started becoming common in the Kenedy and Johnson era.  Yes,  they have gone up since then.    In earlier days, we exported. (We were the Saudi Arabia of oil, and after WWII we helped rebuild.) Â
Â
So, today, we find ourselves at a crossroad.  We still need to recover, and yet we need to go easy on the credit card.  We need to capitalize on the liquid hydrocarbon fuels on our doorstep.  And we need to pay off the credit card.  This will take time, but we have to start.
Â
In my eyes, we need to tighten our collective belts.  We need to be truthful and transparent.  Unfortunately our 'leaders' don't appear to see some of that. Â
Â
And I don't mean "D's" or "R's" - but both of them.  They have got to get down to work and quit screwing around. Â
Â
Unfortunately, I don't see the ones to really lead us.  Â
Â
Im sure our new president will fix the problem! NOT!!