|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 11, 2006 17:04:20 GMT -6
This month's Retail Sales figures are another tribute to the Bush dictatorship and Corporate propagandists' ability to create reality. Retail Sales actually declined 3.2% from March to April. However, using the "seasonal adjustment" connivary, they claim there was an actual increase. However, total March retail sales were $366.6 billion. April's retail sales DECLINED $11.4 billion to $355.2 billion. This is a DECLINE of 3.2%, not an increase. These are the actual raw numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau. However, through the magic of "seasonal adjustment," they've lied to the public and falsely stated there was an increase. (In the world of actual reality, $355.2 billion is less than $366.6 billion.) Below is a partial copy of the actual raw numbers. ![](http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c190/unlawflcombatnt/5-11-06artRSlsCenGrph.gif) These numbers can also be found at the U.S. Census bureau site at: U.S. Census Bureau(Note that the 1st table, Table IA, does NOT give the actual numbers. It gives the seasonally-adjusted (seasonally-manipulated) numbers. The ACTUAL numbers are given in Table IB. The government hopes you'll only read the 1st table using the manipulated numbers, rather than the 2nd table, which has the real numbers.) This is typical reporting by the Bush dictatorship, and the Corporate shills that support it. This is how they justify their statements such as the economy is "strong, and getting stronger." If the numbers don't support their contention, they simply manipulate the numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Huck on May 12, 2006 1:39:50 GMT -6
However, through the magic of "seasonal adjustment," they've lied to the public and falsely stated there was an increase. ... The government hopes you'll only read the 1st table using the manipulated numbers, rather than the 2nd table, which has the real numbers.) This is typical reporting by the Bush dictatorship, and the Corporate shills that support it. This is how they justify their statements such as the economy is "strong, and getting stronger." If the numbers don't support their contention, they simply manipulate the numbers. Ok, I bite. While i understand the need to use special programs to deal with cyclic data, i have also read the likes of How to Lie With Statistics. What they are doing could be quite proper and "truthful" but it is all based on the model used to provide "seasonal adjustment". This is what is missing from these discussions in general, the way its been adjusted. It is kind of hard for them to keep saying "but sales historically go down from march to april, and these didn't go down as much as normal", so instead they used the "seasonal adjustment" buzzword. I understand the buzzword, but agree many do not, yet the most important part is always missing, the "seasonal adjustment" formula, how do we know they are not just jerking it around at will. Properly implemented "seasonal adjustment" is not a problem, it smooths out the cyclic pattern to give you a flat baseline that allows comparison between different phase angles of the cycle, but how do you decide if the "seasonal adjustment" is proper? In this case how does it deal witht he position of easter in the year, which while cyclical has a different and varying period than the months. I didn't look in this case, but have come to realize that much of this raw data is available to us, and processing it myself exposes places of significant bias. Don't ever trust a statistic that you didn't run yourself, and that includes all the weights. In this kind of case it is hard to describe it as a lie, it is more like cheating and barely that at this stage, its nowhere near any fat lady singing, as the numbers most probably will be revised twice. At this point its still in the baffle them with bu-el-sheet stage, since the revised numbers don't get the same headline font-size. I like this chat, it seemed someone else to talk with could help. Ill try to speak up more for a while. I have a strange background as a computer whore at an agecon dept of a co-op-extension U which gives me strange view angle to economics and sometimes even stranger opinions. (and wurse spelting)
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 12, 2006 2:26:22 GMT -6
Huck,
Thanks for your post and your input. My issue with today's pronouncements by the Bush-controlled Census Bureau and the Corporate media was that they stated an "increase" in retail sales. It's not an increase if the number goes down. I had already read about this "increase" in 2 places before I checked the numbers at the U.S. Census Bureau. It was then I realized the actual numbers showed an $11.4 billion decline, from $366 billion down to $355 billion. Regardless of any other factors, that's not an "increase."
Furthermore, when comparing this April's one-month increase to April 2005's one-month increase, there's no way to attribute most of the difference between March and April to "seasonal adjustment." And if they're going to even try to use "seasonal adjustment," they should try to use an inflation-adjustment as well. Since we don't have an April 2006 CPI number yet, we can only guess at it by using the March-to-March CPI change of 3.36%. Given an April-to-April current-dollar increase in Retail Sales of 5.2%, and subtracting the 3.36% CPI from this, it leaves an inflation-adjusted annual increase in Retail Sales of only 1.84%. Of course, they didn't post any "inflation-adjusted" numbers, because that would have reduced the calculation, instead of raising it like their seasonally-adjusted (seasonally-manipulate) number does.
I think they should just post the raw numbers, and maybe the inflation-adjusted numbers. Seasonally-adjusted numbers are a concoction designed to avoid scaring or worrying the public about a sudden decline in an economic statistic. I'd rather they just published the raw "facts," rather than their manipulated interpretation of those facts.
|
|
|
Post by lc on May 12, 2006 9:17:53 GMT -6
it is more like cheating and barely that at this stage, its nowhere near any fat lady singing, as the numbers most probably will be revised twice. At this point its still in the baffle them with bu-el-sheet stage, since the revised numbers don't get the same headline font-size.
That's my take too. But many folks quote the seasonally adjusted numbers out of context like the 4.7% unemployment rate taht was actually 5.1 according to the metrics of the survey and was actually 11% if you compared the Governments own workforce numbers to their own employment numbers. With a 60% rate of actual employment among the working age group (again the governments numbers).
Then there is the chicanery of having two indexes like a core inflation index and CPI. Either can be used in the headlines depending on the current vector in fuel prices.
It isn't about whether you lie. It is about whether you convince your target audience of a false, by design.
BTW, good to see you Huck, you been quiet a spell.
|
|
|
Post by lc on May 12, 2006 9:19:50 GMT -6
I think they should just post the raw numbers, and maybe the inflation-adjusted numbers.
Unlawful, be careful what you ask for. I liked this statement until it reached "maybe".
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 12, 2006 20:02:31 GMT -6
LC,
I just put "maybe" in there because of concerns about it clouding the issue of a 1-month current dollar decline being called an increase. The more factors included, the more someone will argue those additional factors, and not the original assertion. In this case, my assertion is that multiple news sources reported an April Retail Sales increase of 0.5%, without further qualification. In fact, the actual April 2006 number was $11.4 billion less than the March 2006 number, or a decline of 3.2%, not an increase of 0.5%.
The other problem with using the government stats on inflation is that April numbers aren't available yet. I have no doubt this is by design. It allows them to tout all of the stats with nominal dollar increases, before they can be reduced by inclusion of the CPI.
For example, we are left with an April nominal hourly wage increase of 0.5%, which was published on May 5th. Conveniently, the April CPI won't be out until May 17th, giving the NeoCon-Artists 12 days to blabber about the nominal wage increase. Also of interest is that the current estimate of April's CPI is 0.5%, which completely nullifies the nominal wage increase. But again, Right-Wingers are all over the internet espousing the "wage" increase at present, before the CPI increase comes out.
|
|
|
Post by lc on May 12, 2006 20:42:11 GMT -6
LOL,
I was actually just saying that you prob wouldn't accept the Fed Gummits inflation figures anyway. Who would? But that was funny. I will say it again: It isn't about whether you lie. It is about whether you convince your target audience of a false, by design.
This admin knows how to get a false circulated without actually lying. Something I was hip to by age 6.
|
|
huck
Contributor
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
Posts: 81
|
Post by huck on May 12, 2006 21:35:52 GMT -6
I'd rather they just published the raw "facts," rather than their manipulated interpretation of those facts. Thats because you care to think for yourself, but that makes you one of the very few. Most people want their data pre-digested, even if that means that all the "good stuff" has already been taken out. I agree that the MSM in general does not qualify what they say, much like our current leaders. They both are looking for the 10 second sound bite that people will get a warm fuzzy feeling about. I fight this battle monthly as people try to get me to take the N or StdDev statistics off reports, but then scream when a un-representative N causes their averages to fall apart. It is very easy to deceive when you don't present all the relevant information. Sometimes i wonder why people don't care to think for themselves, I HAVE TO UNDERSTAND how or why something works like it does, but here in MISERY I find myself in a small minority, most others willing to let their church leaders tell them what to think, or some other authority figure. They don't want to know why or how, they just want to be told what to think, maybe it is because they find thinking very difficult to do. Economics to them is like slight of hand, they know something is going on, but they dont know what, and just want to ooo and ahhh over the result, but some of us want to figure out the "misdirection" used to reach the desired result.
|
|
huck
Contributor
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
Posts: 81
|
Post by huck on May 12, 2006 21:55:35 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by lc on May 12, 2006 22:13:20 GMT -6
Hey Huck, the second link (MIT page ) did not work.
And the difference between a "false" and a technically tho highly distorted semi truth is weak. Even if it is a simplistic sound bite fit for general consumption.
Lies, damned lies, statistics!
|
|
huck
Contributor
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
Posts: 81
|
Post by huck on May 12, 2006 22:24:27 GMT -6
Hey Huck, the second link (MIT page ) did not work. I got it fixed now, Tinyurl'd it, it kept trying to put a %20, an escape code for a space, right in the middle of the url... I kept trying and trying to paste the real url in, and it kept putting it back.
|
|
huck
Contributor
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_blue.png)
Posts: 81
|
Post by huck on May 12, 2006 23:50:01 GMT -6
And the difference between a "false" and a technically tho highly distorted semi truth is weak. highly distorted semi truth is not the issue, stat-heads are using tools that help them see thru the fog, and they know what they mean, and the limitations of those tools. to them it has been highly distorted to get at the truth, not to hide it. It is in translation out of stat/econ-speak for the peons consumption that the problems arise as specifics get lost and only gross scalar singular numbers emerge to the public instead of the n-space vectors that the data started as. I don't think powerpoint makes you dumb, I think dumb people pick powerpoint and prefer powerpoint style presentations because it means they don't have to think. This is less an ability to create reality than it is an attempt to control the viewpoint of reality by hiding the underLIEing assumptions used to put only 6 points on the screen at a time as you dumb down the science for the audience grade level. Im just saying the same "misdirection" is used even when the soundbytes are true. Most people cant handle the raw truth, they cant digest the information in it. The press make these mistakes on purpose in a way, they leave stuff out because they think it is too complicated for the audience, if the press cant understand it why should the audience. The data even tho cooked and misquoted was not false, its not that it has been manipulated that is the problem, it is the false impression they try to establish with selective soundbyte level data-points rather than a broad picture. But they can do it, because the peons "buy it", they prefer single page, single point, "believe-this" no-brain-needed presentations.
|
|
|
Post by lc on May 13, 2006 9:19:15 GMT -6
I agree, I also agree that there is a message that those numbers are designed to present.
In this case at least two distinct messages. One: inflation is lower than it really is. And more currently that the economy is blazing away.
Some of the presentations appear to hugely veil reality, like the unemployment and inflation numbers. In fact I believe both are off by more than 100%. Estimates that I have done based on commodities increases demonstrate inflation since the 80's in the 7% per annum range. And the governments own employment data suggest that real unemployment is actually 11%.
It took a lot of reinterpreting the results to arrive at the figures that are bandided about in todays press, that are so far removed from what the raw data suggests.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 14, 2006 12:44:04 GMT -6
...uniquely suited to our modern age of obfuscation -- where manipulating facts is as important as presenting them clearly. LOL. That's excellent. Even the field of professional economics is this way. They've found it necessary to concoct theories to justify seemingly illogical policy. Keynes first alluded to this in his General Theory. More recently, Paul Craig Roberts, a former Reagan appointee, has commented on how modern economists have deceived us in their misuse of the "comparative advantage" doctrine to justify free trade. In fact, Ricardo stated that free flow of "production factors" (capital) across national boundaries invalidated the comparative advantage doctrine. (See Free Trader's Blindspot )
|
|