Tom Walker wrote:
>Doug Henwood wrote,
>
>> remember, the U.S. economy has expanded for about 75% of
>> the time since the end of WW II
>
>That sounds like an underestimate to me. All I've got handy is annual GDP
>figures for Canada, 1962-99. They show 3 years out of 38 contracting.
>Assuming those 3 minus years contracted for 4 consecutive quarters and
>throwing in another 12 quarters of contraction for good measure, leaves
>about 85% expansion. This crude reckoning corroborates the guess I made
>before cranking up my spreadsheet. I wouldn't expect the U.S. record for the
>entire post wwII period to be worse.
I hadn't checked my numbers in a while, but you're right - it's close
to 85% (using the NBER monthly dating). From 1854-1919, it was just
55% of the months in expansion.
>But I should point out that if you walk out in the rain, you are probably
>not getting hit by raindrops on more than 15% of your body surface at any
>one time. That 15% can get you awful wet. Numbers that are least accurate at
>turning points are like brakes that work most of the time except for sudden
>stops or on steep hills.
So let me see if I've got this right - the BLS shouldn't use a more
accurate technique because there's a one in ten chance it will be
briefly inaccurate? Turning points, after all, are even briefer than
recessions themselves - we're talking about a few months out of many
years. And they produce plenty of other numbers - e.g. the household
survey and the unemployment claims figures - which do give an
accurate and almost-real time picture of what's going on.
Doug
