raghu wrote: [Reply to ravi follows] .
Leigh seems to think that anything out of the Fed is unreliable.
. Not always... I think my uncertainty about the validity of the numbers presented is due to the fact that the dollar, to a great extent, IS based on the "full faith and credit" blah blah, and right now, the U.S and it's government are international pariahs. How does that affect the dollar, and if you CAN come up with an indicator, it would be lagging anyway. But it doesn't matter because there is no way of measuring it like one might measure "consumer confidence" at a worldwide scale focused specifically on one country. What is saving our asses is the back side of the globalization blade. No one can geo-economically screw us, without screwing themselves. A tenuous position at best with the way the U.S. is making friends and influencing folks worldwide. ...at some point, someone's government might get mad as hell and not take it any more. Like Iran, and what would happen if the flow of black blood stopped. Kiss a lot of everything you know relating to your (or my) current lifestyle goodbye. .
It is a very un-nuanced
. I admit that readily. I paint with a broad brush... others with more knowledge can do the detail work .
and extreme point of view
No No No, the people who are running the "show" are the 'real extremists. I'm just extremely trying to point to the fact that the emperor is naked, and is surrounded by people (as represented by corporate America) who are furiously trying to create circumstances that it won't be noticed, or at least, so no one get a glimpse of his privates. A while back, the WaPo noticed that a spreadsheet sent to them by the Pentagon did not contain certain columns that had been there previously. The columns related to certain Iraqi infrastructure rebuilding funds. When the WaPo confronted the Pentagon on this, the Pentagon simply said the numbers *were* availabe, they just... simply... decided... not to publish them. Apply that to the whole chain of numbers continually trickled down to the public and economists for crunching and you can see my concern. Not every number.... Not every time. Just when it suits. Is the GAO gonna intervene? I'm kidding. See my response to ravi for the surgical details. An astute economist might be able to do the detective work neccesary to figure out if something is missing, but I've seen massive revaluations happen in American markets without much comment. What qualifies as "basket items" in the GDP get changed... other issues like old indexes (was it m1 recently? It just passed me by...) are found to be useless. The validity of it all impresses me about as much as the upward revaluations of available oil reserves that the OPEC countries used when the rules were change so the more your reserves, the more you could sell. Iraq's stated reserves went up 40% overnight, while under embargo, with no actual finds, no changes in production capacity, no nothing. Did any economist anywhere SAY anything about this? Probably not. Tt was up to the "peak oil" crowd to point it out. The mainstream energy economists had their numbers from official sources, and they used them. .
, but not wholly without justification.
. Thank you. .
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.
. The quote was always tempting, but for best effect, requires extrapolation which I was not going to do. ravi wrote:
Do you think that akin to the data on climate change that was doctored/falsified/suppressed at higher levels, the Fed info too might be tainted or partial?
. Ravi, I think you understand my criticism, as a matter of fact, you pretty much nailed it right there. Partial would be a good way to phrase it, not falsified. Spun in the centrifuge of vested interest, and run through a pressure cooker (market speculation on what the fed will do) before the numbers are reported from financial institutions and corps TO the fed, and then those numbers get spun not so much the interest of keeping a healthy econmy going, but the interest of maintaining the appearance of a healthy economy (prosperity is right around the corner....) Example: The real financial crunch from the Iraq war spending has, to a major extent, been economically delayed... It benefits Halliburton now, and the debt the taxpayer will pay for Halliburton's profits now, are for the following generations to deal with. That might make the GDP look rosy now, but what about 15 years from now? Maybe more pertinently to our economic long term survival, do the people who spin and pressure cook the numbers even care what will happen 15 years down the road due to their decisions and policies. They're gonna be taken up in the "Rapture" anyway... even sinners like Jack Abramoff. No future for kids. That may not be the way the government budget planning people might like it, but if there's pressure on from, let's say "Halliburton's best buddy", Dick Cheney, and all those government budget planning people pledged allegiance to the Bush administration and correctness of those corporate reported numbers, it would never be questioned. I believe it's supposed to be the GAO's function, double checking the numbers, but they've been de-balled. Leigh
