-----Original Message----- From: Charles Jannuzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 October 2002 12:08 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:31141] Re: employment
>I know some people are probably sick of the >topic, but reading through all those posts, I >can't help but think at least two individuals >mucked it up more than added to it (not Daniel's >recent post, which did add considerably). Thanks, but hang on a minute. If by "two individuals" you mean Jim and Doug, then it is important that we be absolutely clear that on the purely factual aspects of the argument, they are *right* and their interlocutors are wrong. I have never, ever, in any series at all, been aware of a single area of macroeconomic statistics in which the USA is not head and shoulders above the rest of the world in terms of timeliness, comprehensiveness and accuracy. This is really quite important to understand; the BLS has a much bigger budget than any other statistics agency anywhere in the world, spends it well, and is admirable in its independence of mind. Doug was absolutely right to praise the staff of the BLS. The UK's statistics used to be as good (they're still not bad), but the guts were ripped out of them in the Thatcher years. Therefore, any debate on the statistics has to take place from the starting point that the USA's stats are best, and other countries' are worst. In particular, I've never had to deal directly with Japanese employment numbers, but I've found all the Japanese statistics I've had to deal with in other areas (mainly money supply) to be of abominable quality, out of date and subject to massive revisions. It is really quite difficult to take seriously any position which relies on the USA not having the best-collected statistics. Furthermore, I'd go out on a limb and argue that it is very likely that, on any question of definitions of labour force participation and similar matters, the BLS will have devoted more time and effort to the question of which definition most accurately reflects slack and tightness in the labour market, and will be right. This should certainly be the presumption. Second, playing around with international comparison numbers in an attempt to find something interesting to say which makes it look as if the USA's unemployment record is much worse than it looks is probably a waste of time. The GDP per capita numbers and the employment rate all, until very recently, were telling exactly the same story; the USA in the 1990s did very well at putting people into jobs, including good jobs, and for much of that time, most other economies which followed policies different from the USA did not (not necessarily for that reason, and solely against that specific performance criterion). Up until about the beginning of last year, this statement would not have been remotely controversial; the whole interesting point in my view is that since that point, the picture painted by the unemployment numbers has been sharply at variance with anecdotal evidence, and (in my view), we should not necessarily jump from this to the conclusion that the anecdotal evidence is wrong. I'm probably shaped in this view by my own background at the Bank of England; the BoE famously missed the early 1990s recession by putting too much reliance on official statistics and not enough on the reports from its Agents. Then we have the more metaphysical debate, which should not be confused with either of the other two, except to say that it is highly unlikely that anyone will be able to make a case that the statistical agency of any country other than the USA has a really good handle on the misery of unemployment ... In unrelated news, and hopefully more heartening to PEN-L members, whoever forwarded that article about the longshoremen's strike three months ago when it was just about the expiry of the contract, played an absolute blinder. Huge amounts of thanks for this one; I found it incredibly useful, and PEN-L was way ahead of the mass media. dd ___________________________________________________ Email Disclaimer This communication may contain confidential or privileged information and is for the attention of the named recipient only. It should not be passed on to any other person. Information relating to any company or security, is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. The information on which this communication is based has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. (c) 2002 Cazenove Service Company or affiliates. Cazenove & Co. Ltd and Cazenove Fund Management Limited provide independent advice and are regulated by the Financial Services Authority and members of the London Stock Exchange. Cazenove Fund Management Jersey is a branch of Cazenove Fund Management Limited and is regulated by the Jersey Financial Services Commission. Cazenove Investment Fund Management Limited, regulated by the Financial Services Authority and a member of IMA, promotes only its own products and services. ___________________________________________________
