A widening gap between data and reality is distorting the government’s picture of the country’s economic health, overstating growth and productivity in ways that could affect the political debate on issues like trade, wages and job creation.The shortcomings of the data-gathering system came through loud and clear here Friday and Saturday at a first-of-its-kind gathering of economists from academia and government determined to come up with a more accurate statistical picture.
This is proof -- IMHO -- of how rigged the data is.
Except for one point -- also contained in the article and usually not quoted:
The statistical distortions can be significant. At worst, the gross domestic product would have risen at only a 3.3 percent annual rate in the third quarter instead of the 3.5 percent actually reported, according to some experts at the conference. The same gap applies to productivity. And the spread is growing as imports do.
The very worst that would happen with the data is a .2% alteration in the GDP number -- and that is assuming the worst possible outcome.
This is the Ann Coulter school of footnotes -- the article sort of says what I want it to say, so I'll cite it as a source and hope no one notices.
People notice. This argument is an epic fail. Try again.
4 comments:
Amen....
Do you also think Cleveland Fed President Sandra Pianalto can’t read?
She writes:
“Some of you may think I am being too pessimistic. After all, we saw a strong GDP growth estimate for the fourth quarter of last year--nearly 6 percent at an annual rate. But I think that figure overstates the underlying strength of our economy right now.
This is a case where paying attention to the small stuff--the details beneath that impressive number--reveals a more complicated story of what is shaping up to be a gradual recovery.”
Extend quote and link on Calculated Risk
I take your meaning, but I think it's overstated. There is an abundance of evidence suggesting that the 'traditonal' post WW II macro measures are not capturing the micro reality of the 'struggling class'
Tom
Pianalto's still using the "R" word -- recovery. A lot of the doomers think there is no such thing.
Bonddad, the point to focus on is that if there are systematic errors in the data, over time it can add up. If they are random, it makes no difference-- there's always some noise in data. I've independently discounted the Shadowstats kind of fear mongering. But to have a systematic error could lead to bad policymaking, especially given the fact that the decision-makers of the society have very little contact with the people they're making decisions for.
-_Charles
Post a Comment