Retail Sales: AP Reporter Describes A Probable Real Improvement as 'Slowdown'

Photo of Tom Blumer.

Associated Press reporter Martin Crutsinger reported this morning that retail sales in December came in better than expected:

Retail sales rose in December at the strongest pace in five months, indicating that the all-important holiday shopping season turned out better than original reports indicated.

The Commerce Department said Friday that retail sales increased 0.9 percent last month, the strongest showing since a 1.4 percent increase in July.

The increase was better than the 0.7 percent advance that economists had forecast and provided evidence that consumer spending was ending the year on a firmer footing than initially thought.

The government report presented a firmer tone to spending than initial reports from the nation's big chain retail stores. They complained that holiday sales had fallen below expectations as mild winter weather depressed sales of winter clothing.

Crutsinger then downplayed the year's strong retail results, and used it as an opportunity to get in a few licks about how supposedly tough the economy of 2006 was:

For all of 2006, retail sales rose by 6 percent, a solid showing but down from a 6.9 percent increase in 2005.

That slowdown reflected the fact that consumer spending, after a sizzling start to the year, slowed in the spring and remained at lower levels for the rest of the year as Americans were battered by soaring gasoline prices, rising interest rates and a cooling housing market.

Mr. Crutsinger portrayal of the full-year result as a "slowdown," which formed the linchpin of the rest of that sentence's negativity, overlooked one "minor" detail: Reported retail sales figures include inflation.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Final Consumer Price Index (CPI) figures for December aren't available, but that's really no excuse, as you will see from this chart (to replicate, go to this link and select the very first report for display):

CPIU1106

2005's CPI-U inflation was 3.5% (196.8 divided by 190.3). The real (after inflation) increase in retail sales was 3.4% (6.9% less 3.5%).

Through 11 months of 2006, inflation was 2.4% (201.5 divided by 196.8). Unless December's reported inflation is greater than 0.2%, which would cause full-year inflation to be greater than 2.6%, 2006's real increase in retail sales will be 3.4% or greater (6.0% less 2.6%) -- i.e., equal to or better than 2005's. Even if CPI comes in slightly higher, the difference will be very small, and nowhere near the 0.9% decline Crutsinger reported to his readers (6.0% in 2005 less 6.9% in 2006) by ignoring inflation.

"Slowing," schmowing. "Battered," schmattered.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Americans also battered by:

Americans also battered by: solid stock market returns, rising personal income, a falling federal deficit, fewer hurricanes, falling poverty, falling unemployment, lower inflation, improving manufactoring sector, and pathetic news converage by the media.

I guess "low" inf

I guess "low" inflation depends on the definition, which the people with the printing presses get to define & change at will. I'll keep with my dictum that inflation is a tax on the poor, hidden by evil, big spending politicians of both parties but exposed by the facts. Just try taking a whole ten bucks worth of nickels or zinc-not-copper pennies out of the country the next time you're flying to see but one of those inconvenient little facts about inflation....Your other arguments may be strong, but it's a mistake to mention inflation these days around NB if sarcasmo happens to be singlehandedly-truthsquadding, and I am at the moment....
JMR

sarc..

Sarc.. come on now. I'm not expressing an opinion of economic stats in my comment - it's a straight stab at biased media coverage. Inflation, I belive came in at 2.2% for 2006. That follows 3.3% and 3.4% in 2004 and 2005 respectively. I said "lower inflation." We all know that the media's overall consistent coverage plays the political bias lines when it comes to reporting on the economic news (and stats).  And don't forget, it was Bush who caused the CA energy crisis of 2000 and, the stock market crash (and all of the fallout from it) of 2000, and of course the immediate return to federal deficits - I kid you, you know.

You said "lower inflat

You said "lower inflation," I say this makes inflation too tough to honestly-measure, and I refuse to trust government-issued figures because it's more fun to question the living hell out of 'em, as I'm doing right now. Needless to say, I stand by all my words, as usual...
JMR

sarc .. msm

sarc .. msm.. I understand your argument on the issue of government reported numbers - I would suppose that the msm would argue that they are less true (representative) during Republican administrations. Sarc... I attempted to be clear - my jab was at the media for it's bias.

Understood, the problem is

Understood, the problem is likely less with your post than with my own proclivities. Think about it this way: If you alternately substituted the terms "money/inflation/spending" for the words "legal drugs" in all of "Unsane's" hysterical rants about me being suppsedly-obsessed with something, you'd be hitting pretty close to a dead-center bullseye on sarcasmo-reality...
JMR