Data Fudging 101. The History Of US Government

Madconomist.com ^ | 6/14/2008 | Dmitri Davydov

[Tallguy]

In recent years, it has become increasingly clear to those who follow US economic statistics that there is something dubious about the numbers released by official government agencies and used to guide many aspects of social and public policy.

The details and chronology of the corruption of economic data are presented in a new book by Kevin Phillips, the political commentator and former Republican Party adviser who has become something of a muckraking critic of the “excesses” that he helped set in motion. The book is entitled, Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism Phillips summarizes some of his main conclusions in an article in the current issue of Harper’s Magazine.

The article focuses primarily on three measures: the monthly Consumer Price Index (CPI), the quarterly Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and the monthly figure for the unemployment rate. Phillips convincingly demonstrates that the real unemployment rate in the United States is between 9 and 12 percent, not the 5 percent or less that is officially claimed. The real rate of inflation is not 2 or 3 percent, but instead, between 7 and 10 percent. And real economic growth has been about 1 percent, not the 3-4 percent officially claimed during the most recent Wall Street and housing bubble that has burst.

Click on above link for rest of article...

[Tallguy]

I stumbled over this article from last year before the US economy really started to tank. I wonder what the REAL figures are for Unemployment, Inflation and Economic Growth are (as opposed to the 'Fudged' stats put out by Washington)?

[GOP Poet]

Thank you for the post.

[SunkenCiv]

Ping!

[In veno, veritas]

I'd say don't worry about the real numbers. There really isn't an idea of understanding the cost required to get true numbers. However, the numbers listed give us a good proxy of the real numbers. The problems occur when you start to change standards (such as changing the definition of uninsured that happened a few years ago), then numbers can be invented to make the government look better or worse. Just stick to a standard.

Also, the article doesn't talk about people who are unemployed but aren't really looking for a job. The "discouraged worker" can mean any number of things (especially in a Republican administration). Theoretically, discouraged workers can include workers who can find jobs, but just not at the pay they feel entitled to get.