total amount). A similar critique of the Fed numbers would be
informative. You have suggested that not the people who do the
calculations, but the people who present and use them are the one's
putting a spin on it. But Doug's point seems to be that what you have
available to you is (or so it seems) the direct results of the
calculations, not the spun version.
I think this is only partially true. The Fed seems secure enough in its institutional idealogical beliefs to publish a great deal of data that can be independently interpreted by skillful analysts. On the other hand they do not hesitate to hide the numbers (M3 money supply) or even outright cook the books (hedonic factors in CPI) when it suits their purpose. My guess is Prof. Bernanke
justifies it in his own mind, by telling himself that he is doing what he has to do to control inflation and maximize employment. He and the Fed are probably honest enough. But they are fools.
Leigh seems to think that anything out of the Fed is unreliable. It is a very un-nuanced and extreme point of view, but not wholly without justification. Any statistical number by its nature is misleading - what is a statistic afterall? It is only a capsule or summary of a much larger data set. How can it ever provide anywhere close to a complete picture? As Mark Twain said there are "lies, damn lies and statistics". Just don't say it to a
statistician without expecting an angry response :).
-raghu.
