2009-05-16

Link Of Interest: Economic Statistics

A friend in the financial know pointed me to this website. If you want real figures Shadow Government Statistics is the place.

Here's an excerpt on how measuring inflation was redesigned. Not pretty:

"Inflation, as reported by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is understated by roughly 7% per year. This is due to recent redefinitions of the series as well as to flawed methodologies, particularly adjustments to price measures for quality changes. The concentration of this installment on the quality of government economic reports will be first on CPI series redefinition and the damages done to those dependent on accurate cost-of-living estimates, and on pending further redefinition and economic damage.

The CPI was designed to help businesses, individuals and the government adjust their financial planning and considerations for the impact of inflation. The CPI worked reasonably well for those purposes into the early-1980s. In recent decades, however, the reporting system increasingly succumbed to pressures from miscreant politicians, who were and are intent upon stealing income from social security recipients, without ever taking the issue of reduced entitlement payments before the public or Congress for approval.

In particular, changes made in CPI methodology during the Clinton Administration understated inflation significantly, and, through a cumulative effect with earlier changes that began in the late-Carter and early Reagan Administrations have reduced current social security payments by roughly half from where they would have been otherwise. That means Social Security checks today would be about double had the various changes not been made. In like manner, anyone involved in commerce, who relies on receiving payments adjusted for the CPI, has been similarly damaged. On the other side, if you are making payments based on the CPI (i.e., the federal government), you are making out like a bandit."

"...Up until the Boskin/Greenspan agendum surfaced, the CPI was measured using the costs of a fixed basket of goods, a fairly simple and straightforward concept. The identical basket of goods would be priced at prevailing market costs for each period, and the period-to-period change in the cost of that market basket represented the rate of inflation in terms of maintaining a constant standard of living.

The Boskin/Greenspan argument was that when steak got too expensive, the consumer would substitute hamburger for the steak, and that the inflation measure should reflect the costs tied to buying hamburger versus steak, instead of steak versus steak. Of course, replacing hamburger for steak in the calculations would reduce the inflation rate, but it represented the rate of inflation in terms of maintaining a declining standard of living. Cost of living was being replaced by the cost of survival. The old system told you how much you had to increase your income in order to keep buying steak. The new system promised you hamburger, and then dog food, perhaps, after that.

The Boskin/Greenspan concept violated the intent and common usage of the inflation index. The CPI was considered sacrosanct within the Department of Labor, given the number of contractual relationships that were anchored to it. The CPI was one number that never was to be revised, given its widespread usage.

Shortly after Clinton took control of the White House, however, attitudes changed. The BLS initially did not institute a new CPI measurement using a variable-basket of goods that allowed substitution of hamburger for steak, but rather tried to approximate the effect by changing the weighting of goods in the CPI fixed basket. Over a period of several years, straight arithmetic weighting of the CPI components was shifted to a geometric weighting. The Boskin/Greenspan benefit of a geometric weighting was that it automatically gave a lower weighting to CPI components that were rising in price, and a higher weighting to those items dropping in price."

"...The Pollyannas on Wall Street like to play games with the CPI, too. The concept of looking at the "core" rate of inflation-net of food and energy-was developed as a way of removing short-term (as in a month or two) volatility from inflation when energy and/or food prices turned volatile. Since food and energy account for about 23% of consumer spending (as weighted in the CPI), however, related inflation cannot be ignored for long. Nonetheless, it is common to hear financial pundits cite annual "core" inflation as a way of showing how contained inflation is. Such comments are moronic and such commentators are due the appropriate respect.


Too-Low Inflation Reporting Yields Too-High GDP Growth

As is discussed in the final installment on GDP, part of the problem with GDP reporting is the way inflation is handled. Although the CPI is not used in the GDP calculation, there are relationships with the price deflators used in converting GDP data and growth to inflation-adjusted numbers. The more inflation is understated, the higher the inflation-adjusted rate of GDP growth that gets reported."

It's all smoke and mirrors.

I hope Obama is not basing his GDP growth in this manner to justify his spending.

Someone asked me why am I so concerned about government intervention. I'm concerned because my instincts tell me it's gone beyond what should be accepted. Sometimes I wonder if there's even a "Republic" in the United States anymore. What's the difference between the U.S., Canada and the EU? Aren't we all moving towards the same kind of "central planning"?

Popular thought has determined that "runaway capitalism" is the problem. There's no such thing as a "free market". We lost that privilege a long time ago. The unseen hand of the government is what directs it. Therefore I submit it's quite the contrary: it's government fiscal irresponsibility and intervention.

Terms like "capitalism" and "free-markets" are all relative. Just like brokers rationalize their returns for clients by measuring them relative to indices, the "degree" of capitalism is all relative from administration to administration. Of course, going "relative" is a nice way of dancing around the facts.

Always remember: the money used to bail out is taken from the productive and given to the clowns and their cronies who created the mess. That leaves true, healthy businesses in a tight spot.

3 comments:

  1. Anonymous5/16/2009

    dabs says:

    John Williams of Shadowstats.com is the BEST in the biz! Exposes the "real" data from guv'ment sources for the bullshit which they are. CPI is massively understated as is the unemployment rate and real GDP is overstated. But hey...we are from the guv'ment and we are here to help.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I will repeat a question I asked on my own blog: where is the North? Got no answer yet!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not sure I follow the question!

    ReplyDelete

Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.