Or if you think that, given the housing market situation, people will stop having negative savings rate and will start tightening their belts a bit to build back the cushion no longer provided by their houses.

You don't mean that they might actually cut back on consumption.....?

That's not going to do a whole lot for shareholder value....

Robert Mundell:

The recent government report that US gross domestic product increased 0.6 per cent in the first quarter was very misleading. It implied that economic activity was rising in January, February and March. But the increase actually refers to the rise from the average level in the fourth quarter of 2007 to the average level in the first quarter. Monthly data since January indicate that economic activity and GDP have been declining since the start of this year.

Private sector payroll employment peaked last November and has fallen five months in a row, shedding more than 300,000 jobs. Industrial production was lower in March than in December and January. Real personal income net of taxes and transfers is also lower than in January. Real retail sales have fallen since the start of the year. Private housing starts are down 13 per cent in just the two months since January and 36 per cent from a year ago.

Hard numbers: The economy is worse than you know - St. Petersburg Times

Ever since the 1960s, Washington has gulled its citizens and creditors by debasing official statistics, the vital instruments with which the vigor and muscle of the American economy are measured.

The effect has been to create a false sense of economic achievement and rectitude, allowing us to maintain artificially low interest rates, massive government borrowing, and a dangerous reliance on mortgage and financial debt even as real economic growth has been slower than claimed.

Under John Kennedy, out-of-work Americans who had stopped looking for jobs -- even if this was because none could be found -- were labeled "discouraged workers" and then excluded from the ranks of the unemployed.

Lyndon Johnson orchestrated a "unified budget" that combined Social Security with the rest of the federal outlays. This innovation allowed the surplus receipts in Social Security to mask the emerging federal deficit.

Richard Nixon created a division between "core" inflation and headline inflation. If the Consumer Price Index was calculated by tracking a bundle of prices, so-called core inflation would simply exclude, because of "volatility," categories that happened to be troublesome (and thus in the "headlines"). At that time, it was food and energy (as it is now).

Under Ronald Reagan, the Bureau of Labor Statistics decided that housing was overstating the Consumer Price Index and substituted an entirely different "Owner Equivalent Rent" measurement, based on what a homeowner might get for renting his house. This methodology, controversial at the time but still used, sidestepped what was happening in the real world of homeowner costs. Some say that led to the mortgage crisis today.

Under the first President Bush, officials moved to reorient U.S. economic statistical measure away from old industrial-era methodologies toward the emerging services economy and the expanding retail and financial sectors. Skeptics said the underlying goal was to reduce the inflation rate in order to reduce federal payments -- from interest on the national debt to cost-of-living outlays for government employees, retirees and Social Security recipients.

Under President Clinton, the convoluted CPI changes proposed under Bush were implemented. And the Clintonites tinkered with the unemployment number, in part, by changing its housing economic sampling, disproportionately eliminating inner city households. That is believed to have reduced black unemployment estimates and eased worsening poverty figures.

Yet anothe article on creative government statistics:

Kevin Phillips: Washington's Great "No Inflation" Hoax - Business on The Huffington Post

Or if you think that, given the housing market situation, people will stop having negative savings rate and will start tightening their belts a bit to build back the cushion no longer provided by their houses.

Well, it looks like, for the moment, instead of starting to save, US consumers have switched to credit card borrowing...

Bloomberg.com - U.S. Consumer Debt Rises More Than Forecast in March

Consumers are turning to credit cards after banks tightened standards for home-equity loans and other borrowing. The March figures brought U.S. consumer borrowing in the first quarter to $34 billion, the most since the first three months of 2001, when the economy entered its last official recession.

``Consumers are strapped as incomes are not keeping up with inflation and this is leading them to rely increasingly on credit to see them through the worst housing downturn since the Great Depression,'' said Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi in New York. ``The days of extracting cash from one's home to spend on goods and services are long gone.''

Bloomberg.com: Citigroup Leads Wall Street Drive to Hurt Taxpayers (May 9 2008)

Taxpayers from Massachusetts to California are paying Wall Street banks to end derivative contracts gone bad as they exit the collapsing auction-rate bond market, with penalties in some cases topping $10 million and compounding the pain of rising borrowing costs.

Sacramento County, California, paid Morgan Stanley $5 million to cancel an interest-rate swap agreement when it refinanced $79.5 million in auction-rate securities last month. The fee added to the cost of the bonds after the rate on the securities more than doubled to 9.8 percent in March as dealers stopped supporting the market.

...

States, cities, hospitals and colleges face penalties exceeding $10 million to terminate swaps that failed to protect them against higher rates, according to interviews with borrowers and advisers. That's on top of the $1 billion in fees they're paying to dealers to help sell bonds that would replace auction- rate securities they sold, based on industry averages.

Reuters: "I love you Mom but can't afford to send flowers" (May 6, 2008)

Love for Mom is a given, but buying flowers on her big day may not be.

A slump in flower sales since late last year will likely continue through Mother's Day, another example of Americans cutting back on spending due to recession fears and escalating food and gasoline prices.

"If you look at what's happened on Valentine's Day and Christmas, the market for flowers has cooled," said Eric Beder, an analyst at Brean Murray. "Growth has slowed in the past two quarters. Mother's Day will probably be a slow quarter, too."