Say Anything Blog

According to analysis performed by some of the nation’s largest credit card companies, retail sales were up 3.6% this holiday shopping season.  Or 2.4% if you don’t include gasoline purchases (though it seems to me that those should be included; the economic health of our gas stations is every bit as important as the economic health of our retail stores).

Those growth rates are positive.  They’re not mind-blowing, but growth is growth.  Regardless, the media is already busy bad-mouthing the economy because these growth numbers weren’t as high as anticipated:

Spurred by heavy discounting, U.S. shoppers spent furiously in the days just before Christmas. But holiday retail sales appeared to still fall short of industry expectations, setting the stage for bigger markdowns in the increasingly important post-Christmas period.

The 11th-hour rush helped strengthen a weak holiday season. From the day after Thanksgiving to midnight Monday, total retail sales, excluding automobiles, rose 3.6% over the previous year, according to MasterCard SpendingPulse, a unit of MasterCard Advisors. But factoring out spending on gasoline—which soared thanks to a 27% average price increase since this time last year—retail sales increased a lackluster 2.4%. Industry forecasts had predicted gains of 3.5% to as high as 4.5%.

Notice, again, that the reporters had to exclude gasoline sales in order to make it sound as though the sales growth numbers didn’t match expectations.  They make it seem like the numbers are all bad news.

But what I’m seeing is economic resiliency.  Despite the mentioned 27% increase in fuel prices, retail sales still managed 2.4% growth.  That’s actually pretty amazing.  Obviously, the fuel price situation isn’t great, but that we can take those high prices in stride and still enjoy economic growth is a testament to the health of our economy.

Update: The New York Times is calling these retail numbers “bleak,” but I’d be willing to wager that the folks at the Times would be dancing in the streets if their stock prices had seen 3.6% growth instead of the negative growth their stock has seen for most of the year.