The U.S. economy grew at a 2.2% annualized rate from April through June, exceeding economists’ expectations by 0.7 percentage point in the Commerce Department’s final estimate of second-quarter economic activity.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The U.S. economy expanded more rapidly than economists expected during the second quarter, with the government’s final estimate showing stronger growth during the spring than forecasters had anticipated.
Real gross domestic product increased at an annualized rate of 2.2% during the April-through-June quarter, according to data released Wednesday by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Economists surveyed by LSEG had expected GDP growth of 1.5%, meaning the final figure exceeded the consensus forecast by 0.7 percentage point.
The stronger reading provides a broad measure of economic activity during a three-month period in which households and businesses continued navigating elevated borrowing costs, changing consumer demand and uncertainty across several parts of the economy.
GDP measures the value of goods and services produced across the United States and is one of the government’s principal indicators for assessing the overall direction of the economy. Real GDP adjusts for inflation, allowing economists to distinguish changes in actual economic output from increases that result solely from higher prices.
The 2.2% figure is expressed at a seasonally adjusted annual rate. That does not mean the economy actually grew 2.2% during the three months from April through June. Rather, the calculation shows how much the economy would grow over an entire year if the quarter’s pace continued for four consecutive quarters.
Wednesday’s release represents the government’s final scheduled estimate for second-quarter GDP. The Bureau of Economic Analysis typically publishes several estimates for each quarter as more complete information becomes available from businesses, households and government agencies.
Initial GDP figures are therefore subject to revision as additional data are collected and incorporated into the government’s calculations.
The latest estimate is closely watched because economic growth influences decisions by businesses, investors and policymakers while providing a broad indication of whether economic activity is accelerating, slowing or contracting.
A positive GDP reading means the economy produced more inflation-adjusted goods and services than during the preceding period. Consecutive declines can raise concerns about broader economic weakness, although GDP alone does not determine whether the economy has entered a recession.
The stronger-than-anticipated second-quarter figure also illustrates the difference between forecasts and the economic data ultimately collected by federal statistical agencies.
Economists use employment figures, consumer spending, business investment, trade, manufacturing, housing and other indicators when attempting to forecast GDP. Those projections can change substantially as new information becomes available.
The Commerce Department’s 2.2% estimate shows that economic output during the second quarter ultimately proved stronger than the 1.5% pace expected by the economists surveyed by LSEG.
The difference is significant because relatively small changes in GDP growth can represent large changes in economic activity when measured across the entire U.S. economy.
GDP figures, however, provide a broad national snapshot rather than a direct measure of the financial circumstances experienced by individual households. Economic output can expand even while particular industries, regions or consumers face financial pressure.
Likewise, GDP growth does not by itself measure inflation, wage growth, household purchasing power or the health of the labor market. Those conditions are tracked through separate economic reports and collectively provide a more complete picture of the economy.
Wednesday’s final second-quarter estimate nevertheless establishes that the U.S. economy continued expanding from April through June and did so at a substantially faster annualized pace than economists had expected.
Original article
Comments