Statistical Prosperity

Gov't Economist:  Eureka! We can hire more government workers. Everything we pay them will add to GDP according to our accounting rules. And, they will be employed.

Assistant:  What will be hire them to do?
Economist:  That doesn't matter. The statistics will be better.

Assistant:  Why not just "adjust" the statistics?
Economist:  You should be ashamed. That would be dishonest.

Government promotes itself as a scientific manager. It sets goals with numeric precision and finds direct ways to meet those goals.

Obama's economists come into his office each week and discuss how to improve the economy. They discuss the official statistics of GDP (Gross Domestic Production) and jobs held. The government wants a statistical recovery.

They want to report hard numbers, however that is accomplished. If you argue with numbers, you are a moron. Who are you to question the non-partisan measurements of a government bureaucracy analyzing huge datasets with giant computers? You are a peasant.

Those economists offer a direct plan. When government hires more workers, their pay and benefits are counted as increasing GDP no matter what they do or accomplish. Obviously, they now have a job, so the employment statistics improve. This is a no brainer!  It's a two'fer.

Expanding government employment directly and immediately improves the two statistics which government cares about. It is the direct path to statistical prosperity.

Plus, Team Obama believes in the Keynesian Multiplier. They actually believe that they will produce more wealth for us all, if they can pay out more cash to accomplish anything or nothing. So, it is a three'fer.

If the Multiplier were true, then we could Counterfeit Our Way to Wealth. But sorry, it isn't true.

Here is how government master plans, oversight, and statistics work out in reality.

Unintended Consequences and Perverse Incentives
06/2012 by M.J. Perry

[edited]  Managers and employees of glass plants in the former Soviet Union followed master-plan production guidelines.

First, they were rewarded according to the tons of sheet glass produced. Unsurprisingly, most plants produced sheet glass so thick that one could hardly see through it.  (And, this glass did not fit prior applications such as broken windows.)

The rules were changed to reward the total area of glass produced. Then, they produced glass so thin that it broke easily.

Team Obama wants to manufacture higher statistical GDP and jobs numbers in any way it can. Thick or thin doesn't matter.

Better Through Creative Statistics

Reagan's Unemployment Numbers
10/03/09 - DonSurber's blog - Comment by John D.

[edited]

John D:  I am a little confused when I see unemployment numbers from the Reagan years compared to unemployment since 1993.

I believe that the Clinton Administration changed the formula for figuring unemployment to make the numbers smaller. They stopped counting the long term unemployed and those that had quit looking for employment.

Are the Reagan numbers being compared to numbers using the new method, or have the Reagan numbers been recalculated?

Surber:  They are not recalculated. Good point.

Don't believe government statistics and historical comparisons.

The Democratic President Clinton changed the unemployment computation to make his administration look better compared to Reagan and Bush the father. Bush the son didn't change it back; doing so would have made him look worse.

So, now we have unemployment statistics that specifically leave out the long term unemployed and those not looking regularly for work. People who are in part-time jobs are naturally left out, even if they consider this a fallback from former full-time employment.

This is fine for government, which claims that things are just as good as 20 years ago. This supposed progress is a result of manipulating the numbers.

This distortion builds over time as the definitions change to make things look better. The numbers become more unreal, leaving us ignorant about how effective our policies are.

----------
USA Healthcare is First - Infant Mortality is Low
01/08/09 - Easy Opinions by Andrew Garland

Health statistics are intentionally misrepresented to argue for socialized medicine. The major argument is that the US spends more than Europe, but lags behind in health outcomes. So, US healthcare is both expensive and inefficient. Actually, government administration hides much of the socialized cost, and the USA has better health.

----------
Consumer Price Index -
Things You've Suspected But Were Afraid to Ask
10/01/06 - Shadow Stats by Walter J. Williams (John Williams)
Via 11/05/08 - Alpha Dominance

[edited] Inflation, as reported by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is understated by roughly 7% per year, due to recent redefinitions of the numbers and flawed methods, particularly adjusting prices for changes in quality.

The CPI was designed to help everyone adjust their financial planning to the impact of inflation. Since the early 1980's, these statistics have changed to meet demands from miscreant politicians. Politicians were and are intent upon stealing income from social security recipients, without public discussion or Congressional approval.

The Clinton Administration changed the CPI to significantly understate inflation, along with changes in the late-Carter and early Reagan Administrations. This has reduced current social security payments by roughly half from where they would have been otherwise.

Anyone who receives payments adjusted by the CPI has been similarly damaged. On the other side, the government makes out like a bandit making payments adjusted by this lowered CPI.

Bad Statistics From A Government

12/14/08 - StumblingAndMumbling   --> Source

The UK released statistics on knife crime. This post neatly asks questions that everyone should apply to all statistics. And more so, if it is a government trying to justify its actions and expenditures. Do the statistics really mean anything?

Read more ...

[edited] Sir Michael Scholar of the UK Statistics Authority accuses the Home Office of releasing “premature, irregular and selective” statistics on knife crime. This actually understates the case. Even if the Home Office’s numbers were accurate, they would still verge on the meaningless. There are at least seven questions which should be asked about many statistical claims.

Does the percent change mean a lot or a little?
What would have happened without special police action?
Were the selected areas special?
What is the usual volatility of the figures?
Do the figures vary by season?
What exactly do the figures measure?
What is the cost of this policy?

The Home Office makes no effort to answer these questions. This suggests they have no interest in statistical analysis, or they thought they could present such sloppy twaddle because journalists wouldn’t ask these questions.

This suggests a problem deeper than using premature numbers. It suggests that our political culture, our politicians and journalists, have no interest in proper statistical analysis at all.

This is odd. We are supposed to be living in a technocratic era without political ideology, where evidence-based policy is applied, and “what matters is what works.”