Going forward, these are the new rules for the comments section.
1.) No anonymous comments. If you aren't willing to sign your name to it don't post it. And please, no "Jim Shoos" or "Liz Onnyas" in the name section. Just type in your name. Simple.
2.) If you are going to challenge the veracity of government statistics you must provide a reference from a paper written by someone with at least a masters in a relevant discipline (statistics, mathematics, economics etc...). There has been a raging debate in the economic blogosphere about government statistics. The classic debate is about the birth/death model used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (To find out more, go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and type in birth death in the search bar in the upper right hand corner). The BLS uses this to overcome sampling errors in their employment statistics. According to some bloggers this is a bogus adjustment which makes the numbers unreliable. However, go to www.ssrn.com -- the social science research network -- and type in birth/death in the search bar. You'll find 34 hits that center around health care systems. But there is nothing about the BLS' birth/death model. In other words, among academics in the economic and financial world, there isn't a debate (at least not yet). So, the people who should be calling bullshit -- and backing it up with data and information -- are not calling bullshit. When they are, I'll be happy to consider the information.
And please -- Shadowstats is crap.
And a second reason is people have a habit of saying, "the government statistics are wrong" when the statistics disagree with their assertions. But when the statistics confirm their assertions, the government numbers are sacrosanct.
Bottom line: these are the numbers economists use. When I see an economist with a Ph.D. say, "these numbers are flawed and I can prove it" then I'll listen. But when a guy on a blog with a political ax to grind says the same thing, well, let's just say credibility is an issue at that point.
3.) Assertions require attribution. The topic of the first class I had in graduate school was plagiarism. The lesson was simple: cite everything. I am currently editing my dissertation which has over 2500 footnotes. Why? To show everyone where I get my information from. In fact, formatting the damn thing was by far the hardest part of writing it. The point is there are lots of people who make simple declarative statements about economic facts, working on the assumption that simply saying it (even when proven wrong) somehow makes it true. Here's a great example from another website:
The index of leading indicators has been rising for four months at a strong pace.
#8: This is another convoluted measurement hyped by many. It's too significantly influenced by an intensively flawed GDP, as many have noted in the past; see my--and others'--comments regarding GDP, above.
The fact that the LEIs do not have one element from GDP in them was irrelevant to this writer. Had he gone to the conference board and read the contents of LEIs he would have avoided looking like an ass. Then to make matters worse he cites himself as a source for the reason that LEIs are flawed. This is like Rush Limbaugh citing himself.
I could go on, but you get the idea. When you make assertions, please cite to a source. And an original source is really preferred.
So -- why am I instituting these rules? Here's the deal. The internet is a wonderful tool because it allows us to access vast quantities of data. I tell clients that my law office is a laptop computer, a cell phone and a fax machine. I can access legal databases, practitioner's guides, other countries tax authorities all through the internet. And that is wonderful.
But the internet is the source of a lot of bullshit. And worse, the bullshit becomes common fact even after it is debunked (like "the unemployment rate is not a lagging indicator" nonsense.) So, these rules area to prevent the use of my cite as a way to spread bullshit. And also to elevate the conversation.
