|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 24, 2007 17:04:30 GMT -6
Once again, the government and their Corporate supporters are trying to produce economic growth through statistical manipulation and revision. Once again, they've downwardly revised previously published numbers that were exaggerated in the first place. They also prevented a Recession Alert from being published in September by falsifying June's report, overstating it by +0.3. (Discussed at end of post.) On Tuesday (1/23/07), following 2 separate delays, the Leading Indicators report was finally released. The report had initially been scheduled for release on Thursday, 1/18/07, but was postponed until Monday, 1/22/07. However, it was again postponed on Monday until the following day, 1/23/07. The usual false reasons for delay were given -- technical difficulties, etc. With Monday's delay, however, conflicting reasons were given by different sources. One source, as per the Yahoo News article "Conference Board Delays Releasing Index of Leading Economic Indicators Due to Technical Issues", claimed it was due to " database and technical issues" and further stated " technical problems with its computing system were resolved late Sunday, but the release has been delayed "to have sufficient time for our normal production and quality-check procedures." Another source, in an article titled "Conference Board To Release Dec Leading Indicators Tuesday", gave a somewhat different story. This article stated: " The index had been scheduled to be released on Monday, but is delayed an extra day to incorporate annual benchmark revisions." Incorporate annual benchmark revisions? Sounds more like revising previously falsified statistics after deliberately overstating them in the 1st place. In fact, that's exactly what was done. Many numbers were revised from the previous 2 months. The end result was a downward revision of the total for both November and October. November was downwardly revised from +0.1 to 0.0, for a change of -0.1. October was downwardly revised from +0.1 to -0.1, for a change of -0.2. These changes can be seen from the combined charts from Briefing.com below. The top chart is the current chart from 1/23/07, showing the previously published numbers in parenthesis and italics (taken from the lower chart published on 1/22/07.) The bottom chart is the previous chart that was available up until 1/22/07. Again, it shows the originally posted numbers. These were not the only changes, however. There was a much more insidious change to the June total. What made this so insidious is that this change was never shown in any table. Since the current table only goes back through July, any changes in the last month cannot be seen on previously saved tables. However, comparison of current and previous bar graphs do reveal the change. All tables published after June showed a +0.2 increase in the total for Leading Indicators for June. So did all of the bar graphs. In fact, the Leading Indicator bar graph available up until 1/21/07 also showed +0.2 increase for June. However, the currently published bar graph now shows a decline. The new -0.1 change results in a total revision of -0.3 for June. Below are the combined charts showing the downward June revision, which took place between 1/21/07 and 1/23/07. A red " x" denotes the June numbers. The sum total of these downward revisions is a -0.6 for the previous 6 months. Thus the sum total for the 6 months ending in November was -0.3, not +0.3 as originally published. The falsification of June's Leading Indicators obscured something even bigger: 3 straight months of negative Leading Indicators, and a 6-month decline of 1.0. This is the Conference Board's own definition of a recession alert. But no recession alert was given, because the falsification of June's number as a + left only 2 straight months of decline, and the total 6-month decline did not reach the threshold of -1.0. Thus a "recession alert" was thwarted by publication of false numbers. In retrospect, there should have been a recession alert issued in August, since current numbers for the March thru August period are enough for a Recession Alert. Some may claim these changes are isolated examples. They are not, however. This type of downward revision of previous statistics occurs with every statistical publication by the government, and its quasi-government allies such as the Conference Board and the Federal Reserve. It's no accident that 99% of the revisions are downward. By overstating the numbers initially, it gives Right-Wingers and Corporate propagandists better talking points when the barf up their lies about how strong the economy is, and how it's getting stronger. Then after the initial falsely stated statistics, they downwardly revise them, knowing that most analysts won't notice those downward revisions. Furthermore, they can deny their attempts to overstate the numbers in the past, since most previous numbers are not readily available to the public. In this case, the falsification of June numbers prevented the issuance of a Recession Alert. Was this just an accident or honest mistake? Or was it a conenient un-truth? The latter seems more likely.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 24, 2007 18:48:39 GMT -6
Once again, the government and their Corporate supporters are trying to produce economic growth through statistical manipulation and revision. Once again, they've downwardly revised previously published numbers that were exaggerated in the first place. They also prevented a Recession Alert from being published in September by falsifying June's report, overstating it by +0.3. (Discussed at end of post.) Doc, how long have you been following economics because it sure seems like you only started last month. I have been following since my first econ class in 1993. When the gov't releases economic data there are ALWAYS revisions and more often than not they are UPWARD revisions. Usually the first # is released shortly after the reporting period, then revised when the next months release and a second time following the month after that. And I believe there is a final revision many months, perhaps a year later. These revisions are due to more data coming in that gives a better clearer picture of what is actually happening. As for your suspicion of this gov'ts #'s, you should know that they are put out by the SAME set of 100's/1000's of CAREER statisticians and economists who were working during the clinton admin. As full-time employees of the gov't they are next to IMPOSSIBLE to fire. Your suspicion would have us believe that all those scientists were telling the truth under clinton, and are now lying. Or are too afraid to say that Bush is lying. Do you realize just how ridiculous this sounds? It is from the mind of a conspiracy nutcase.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 24, 2007 21:03:39 GMT -6
I couldn't care less about how it makes me look to point out deliberate deception by the government, or any of its allies in the Corporate world.
The previously published information has clearly been changed, and changed in a less favorable direction than originally posted. Which means the previous reports were actually worse than reported at the time. But such changes go unnoticed by most people.
And this statistical manipulation takes place every month in every area of government economic statistics. The fact that the statistical revisions are almost always downward, with no mention ever made of such revisions, is highly suspicious. In contrast, whenever the rare upward revision of previous statistics occurs (such as employment numbers), it is very widely publicized by the media and the Bush Corporatocracy.
It's impossible not to notice how positive revisions are ALWAYS widely publicized. It's just as impossible to remember any reporting of the numerous downward revisions. That looks like deliberate deception to me.
I've been watching the statistics, and copying them down for my own personal use, for a little over 2 years. And I've noticed the large number of downward revisions that are never mentioned, and the small number of upward revisions that are always mentioned, as well as being widely disseminated by the Bush administration and it's shills in the Right-Wing Corporate media.
It wasn't until the last 12 months that I started saving these previous publications to my computer. Now I can republish them and demonstrate the tremendous number of un-reported downward revisions of previous data.
Again, I see no justification for making all of these downward revisions, and never uttering a peep about them. That's especially true in this case, since the revised Leading Indicators index would have set off a recession alert had they been accurately reported in the first place. It makes the misreporting look like a deliberate attempt to overstate the economy, and a deliberate (and successful) attempt to avoid publishing a recession alert.
About 2 years ago, I reported on a "recession alert" based on numbers that were published at the time, only to have them almost immediately revised by the Conference Board to remove the "recession alert."
And just for the record, I don't doubt that the same type of misreporting occurred under Clinton. Whether it did or didn't occur under Clinton is immaterial. It's still dishonest and deceptive, regardless of whether it occurred in the past.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 24, 2007 21:08:41 GMT -6
During those "terrible" Clinton years, it was pretty obvious to Joe Citizen on the street that the economy was doing OK, there was no need to cover up unfavorable numbers. Joe Worker was getting decent wages and noticeable raises, and there were plenty of job opportunties. Almost everyone had a stake in and felt some benefit from the Clinton economy. Not so today. And its precisely because of the disconnect that most people do not believe nor will give credit to the current administration for the "positive" economic numbers - because we sure arent seeing it in our pocketbooks.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 25, 2007 9:36:44 GMT -6
I couldn't care less about how it makes me look to point out deliberate deception by the government, or any of its allies in the Corporate world. There isn't any statistical manipulation, there is only your ignorance of standard gov't practices that have been in place for decades.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 25, 2007 9:38:42 GMT -6
During those "terrible" Clinton years, it was pretty obvious to Joe Citizen on the street that the economy was doing OK, More economic ignroance, it was NOT doing OK. Joe Citizen on the street can barely spell economics let alone understand that what went on in the 90's was an unhealthy economy.
|
|
|
Post by ig on Jan 25, 2007 11:29:31 GMT -6
There isn't any statistical manipulation, there is only your ignorance of standard gov't practices that have been in place for decades.
employment data has become more and more difficult to track due to the growth in contingency employment.
"Wage data is even more difficult to get as benefit contributions are in the gross numbers."
what is puzzling is that the productivity numbers have fallen while inflation is still in check.
"More economic ignroance, it was NOT doing OK. Joe Citizen on the street can barely spell economics let alone understand that what went on in the 90's was an unhealthy economy."
Maybe the speculation of the late 90's was unhealthy but it was unhealthy in 86-87
what are u referring to as unhealthy?
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 25, 2007 13:51:41 GMT -6
"Maybe the speculation of the late 90's was unhealthy but it was unhealthy in 86-87 what are u referring to as unhealthy?" This book explains it well: Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Popular-Delusions-Madness-Crowds/dp/051788433X"Amazon.com Why do otherwise intelligent individuals form seething masses of idiocy when they engage in collective action? Why do financially sensible people jump lemming-like into hare-brained speculative frenzies--only to jump broker-like out of windows when their fantasies dissolve? We may think that the Great Crash of 1929, junk bonds of the '80s, and over-valued high-tech stocks of the '90s are peculiarly 20th century aberrations, but Mackay's classic--first published in 1841--shows that the madness and confusion of crowds knows no limits, and has no temporal bounds. These are extraordinarily illuminating,and, unfortunately, entertaining tales of chicanery, greed and naivete. Essential reading for any student of human nature or the transmission of ideas. In fact, cases such as Tulipomania in 1624--when Tulip bulbs traded at a higher price than gold--suggest the existence of what I would dub "Mackay's Law of Mass Action:" when it comes to the effect of social behavior on the intelligence of individuals, 1+1 is often less than 2, and sometimes considerably less than 0. "
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jan 25, 2007 20:59:32 GMT -6
Now that were on the topic of "Bubbles" why don't we ask who encouraged this new "bubble" in the housing market? If people think the economy is bad now just wait till those nice little ARMS reset very soon, say this spring time. This whole Bush economic expansion was driven by debt and debt only. If Alan Greenscam did not lower interest rates so excessively after 9/11 we would have only had a moderate recession back then and be would now be well on our way to a economic recovery. Instead we get a pseudo recovery that is on borrowed time, and once the shit hits the crapper, look out 1929!
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jan 26, 2007 3:16:50 GMT -6
Right on, Ryan. I completely agree. All the spin and alternate reality coming out of the NeoCon-Artists and the Right-Wing spin machine is not going to prevent it, either.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 26, 2007 5:23:35 GMT -6
maybe thats the way it was in neo con "opposite world"
All the spin and talking points in the world can't change the reality. Times were much better for all during the Clinton years than they are now - too much evidence to prove that.
|
|
|
Post by ig on Jan 26, 2007 6:57:18 GMT -6
Libslayer,
Great Book. irrational exuberance.
|
|
|
Post by ig on Jan 26, 2007 7:22:12 GMT -6
this sint the first bubble we have had. they happene all the time. the 87 crash lead up was an obvious bubble and the fed had no control over that one.
I suspect we have a bubble now. emerging economies flush their suplusses through the bond markets drving prices up and yields down. the poor return on these investments drives money into stocks. The same happens in the insurance industry. If the return isnt there they can raise rates. What little control the Fed had over the long end of the bond market is long since gone.
Essentially they are money transactions without underlying "real" economic activity
Supply siders believe this is capital formation and that these transactions are a sign of future economic activity.
"The stock market leads the economy" is the battle cry
we believe to heartily that we are willing to run 3/4 trillion trade deficits
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 26, 2007 8:12:23 GMT -6
"All the spin and talking points in the world can't change the reality. " And all your spin won't change the fact that the 90's was an unhealthy bubble in the US economy. No go get educated: Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Popular-Delusions-Madness-Crowds/dp/051788433X"Amazon.com Why do otherwise intelligent individuals form seething masses of idiocy when they engage in collective action? Why do financially sensible people jump lemming-like into hare-brained speculative frenzies--only to jump broker-like out of windows when their fantasies dissolve? We may think that the Great Crash of 1929, junk bonds of the '80s, and over-valued high-tech stocks of the '90s are peculiarly 20th century aberrations, but Mackay's classic--first published in 1841--shows that the madness and confusion of crowds knows no limits, and has no temporal bounds. These are extraordinarily illuminating,and, unfortunately, entertaining tales of chicanery, greed and naivete. Essential reading for any student of human nature or the transmission of ideas.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 26, 2007 11:42:26 GMT -6
I couldn't care less about how it makes me look to point out deliberate deception by the government, or any of its allies in the Corporate world. The previously published information has clearly been changed, and changed in a less favorable direction than originally posted. And this statistical manipulation takes place every month in every area of government economic statistics. The fact that the statistical revisions are almost always downward, with no mention ever made of such revisions, is highly suspicious. Yes, the departments have a standard policy, for years, that comes out with revisions as more data comes in. Here are two where the revisions are POSITIVE: January 5 2007 The report showed a net gain of 167,000 jobs on U.S. payrolls in December, up from the 154,000 increase in November, which was also revised higher. money.cnn.com/2007/01/05/news/economy/jobs_december/index.htmThe department revised November 's sales pace up to a 1.069 million pace from an originally reported 1.047 million unit rate news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070126/bs_nm/usa_economy_homes_dc_1The original #'s were not good, the monthly revisions are an improvement. This has been going on for decades. If what you claim is happening was happening there would be 1000's of economists screaming bloody murder. There aren't.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jan 26, 2007 12:20:00 GMT -6
Not to discredit the Economics profession, but there are in my opinion quite a few snake oil, cheerleader type economists who only report good news, and if the news is bad they omit it. A prime example is David Lereah, whose deceptiveness and overly optimistic view of this housing bubble have suckered many home buyers into this market. Many buyers will end up just catching a falling knife as a result. Many people voice their disdain for him at www.thehousingbubbleblog.com. It also disturbs me that the Federal Reserve keeps printing money out of thin air whenever liquidity dries up. At the same time the Fed 's goal is to "fight inflation". Yeah sure, when printing money like crazy only adds to inflation. Our currency has fallen because of this. When I first started investing in the stock market a few months after the top was reached in the NASDAQ, I ended up catching a falling knife, which was not pleasant. However the yahoos at CNBC kept talking about some B.S "soft landing" in the Economy. Well needless to say, the market continued to fall and 9/11 only exacerbated it. A recession was declared in hindsight that started right after the tech bubble burst.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 26, 2007 17:13:45 GMT -6
Exactly. And there are also plenty of them that are partisan, as well as plenty of politicians and pundits who cherry pick the data to support their positions.
|
|
|
Post by LibSlayer on Jan 26, 2007 17:19:21 GMT -6
Not to discredit the Economics profession, but there are in my opinion quite a few snake oil, cheerleader type economists who only report good news, and if the news is bad they omit it. Try following the economic news, I see bad reports as often as I see good reports.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jan 26, 2007 21:15:24 GMT -6
Well, it is true that there is negative news that gets reported. The problem occurs when economists act "suprised" by it all the time." or they always put a positive spin on it.
In all fairness though, Economists, politicians and the like only want to see positives in anything, even if it leads to a false optimism. What the people on these boards do is call a spade a spade, and when things just don't seem right, questions need to be answered.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jan 26, 2007 21:18:39 GMT -6
excellent point Ryan. Many of us here are seeing thru the neoconartistry lines and those lines do not pass the smell test.
don't claim to have the answers, but they are clearly not found in some overly optimitic talking point from the wingnuts.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 1, 2007 0:22:44 GMT -6
Well, it is true that there is negative news that gets reported. The problem occurs when economists act "suprised" by it all the time." or they always put a positive spin on it. In all fairness though, Economists, politicians and the like only want to see positives in anything, even if it leads to a false optimism. What the people on these boards do is call a spade a spade, and when things just don't seem right, questions need to be answered. You're right on the money with that. And some of the "positives" are the product of some very creative statistical manipulation. For example, today's reported real annual GDP growth of 3.5 % had a lot of help by the BEA simply reducing its inflation measure. And in some areas, such as Durable Goods purchases, they actually increase the "real" dollar value to more than the current amount. (See Durable Goods in Table 3 of today's current GDP release. ) More specifically, the Durable Goods concoction is the most unbelievable. Unlike every other GDP item, the "inflation-adjusted" number for Durable Goods is always increased over the current dollar value. The 2006 current dollar value for Durable Goods purchases was $1.071 trillion. However, the inflation-adjusted number was $1.204 trillion. Thus adjusting for inflation increased the value that Durable Goods purchases added to the annual "real" GDP by $133 billion, or $0.133 trillion. In other words, $133 billion in extra value was added to the total real GDP by simply upwardly adjusting the contribution made by Durable Goods purchases. If there had been 0 inflation-adjustment for Durable Goods purchases, it would have reduced the stated real GDP growth by $133 billion, which would have reduced the total real GDP growth in 2006 from $373.8 billion to $240.8 billion. That would have reduced 2006 real GDP growth to only 2.2%.What a great way to increase economic growth. Simply reduce your measure of inflation in an area to less than zero, and then add it back it to the total to make it larger. And they do this every single quarter, and every single year, with Durable Goods purchases. The BEA is simply telling us that computers and other Durable Goods are worth a lot more than what we paid for them. Somehow, I find that hard to believe.
|
|