Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Economists and Statisticians chime in
none | 5-19-2006 | Republican Extremist

Posted on 05/19/2006 4:26:47 PM PDT by Republican Extremist

Economists and Statisticians, I have a problem for you to tackle.

Of late, it has been obvious that our nation's revenues have been risng rapidly, and have resulted in a two year reduction in the deficit.

In fact total revenues look like this:

2000 2,025.5
2001 1,991.4
2002 1,853.4
2003 1,782.5
2004 1,880.3
2005 2,153.9

Now there has been a counter argument based on Democrat talking points that the revenues when adjusted to 2000 chained dollars is actually lower than in 2000.

Observe:

2000 2025.2
2001 1944.6
2002 1778.7
2003 1676.6
2004 1723.3
2005 1920.6

These are CBO numbers, in 2000 chained dollars.

Now we all know about lies, damn lies, and statistics.

It's obvious that the market, economy, and thus revenues peaked in 2000, just as the Dot Coms began their free-fall, so 2000 is an arbitrary year to begin with, but it is the year in question.

What I want is an explaination as to how they could be manipulating the numbers using specifically the 2000 chained dollars, instead of chained dollars from a different year. If the chained dollars argument is a fallacy to begin with, then tell me why.

Thanks ahead of time.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: economics; gdp

1 posted on 05/19/2006 4:26:48 PM PDT by Republican Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Republican Extremist
if i want to measure in 'thumb lengths', i can :). they pick their most convenient slanted baseline and try to 'compensate for the depreciation of the dollar(which all things being equal would raise revenue from foreign currencies).
2 posted on 05/19/2006 4:32:22 PM PDT by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republican Extremist

1) Cut the taxes.
2) Cut the spending.
3) Repeat often.


3 posted on 05/19/2006 4:33:37 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Jim, I agree.

I just need some ammo to use. I tooks statistics back when Abacuses were cutting edge technology, so I need a refresher from our deep knowledge base.


4 posted on 05/19/2006 4:36:34 PM PDT by Republican Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Republican Extremist; All
Perhaps a lot of it is explained by the recession after 9/11. The recovery, in large measure, was driven by the Bush tax reforms which helped pull us back from the post-9/11 recession. At the same time, however, inflation has increased recently to rates that are greater than those experienced during the early years, as reflected in the higher interest rates. Recent inflation plus using 2000 as a base year does yield the results you present.

Clearly, we can guess where the Dims are going with this. My question, however, has always been: What amount of hubris is it that lets the politicians think they can spend my money better than I can?
5 posted on 05/19/2006 4:37:39 PM PDT by econjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack
" . . . inflation has increased recently to rates that are greater than those experienced during the early years, as reflected in the higher interest rates."

I thought inflation was the result of more money to spend. Doesn't higher interest rates tighten the money supply?

6 posted on 05/19/2006 4:55:10 PM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound

currency depreciation can also affect inflation. especially in a country that imports as much as the US.


7 posted on 05/19/2006 4:58:25 PM PDT by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Republican Extremist

I would take issue with your first statement that revenues have been rising rapidly. In your six-year table, the first four actually show a year-over-year decline in revenue.


8 posted on 05/19/2006 4:58:54 PM PDT by Buck W. (If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republican Extremist

It's the theory of relativity. If you are going to describe revenues in 2000 dollars then you must describe the deficit that way. Also the total budget, the total expenditures, the total tax receipts, the total cost of the war, etc.


9 posted on 05/19/2006 4:59:32 PM PDT by groanup (Shred For Ian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack
By the broadest measure of measuring, there hasn't been a recession since 1991.
Line      2000   
I
   2000   
II
   2000   
III
   2000   
IV
   2001   
I
   2001   
II
   2001   
III
        Gross domestic product 1.0 6.4 -0.5 2.1 -0.5 1.2 -1.4

 

During the economic downturn around the turn of the century there were not two or more consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.  We've had continuous growth since Q3 2001.

10 posted on 05/19/2006 5:04:47 PM PDT by RWR8189 (George Allen for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Republican Extremist

If the numbers represent fiscal years, as I believe they do (all federal budget figures are in fiscal, not actual years) then the revenue decline started when Slick Willie was president, not Bush. Given that Bush didn't take office until 2001, and any economic program takes a while to effect the economy, it appears clear that once the Bush tax cuts "took hold", then federal revenues started to rise--whether measured by 2000 dollars or by actual dollars.


11 posted on 05/19/2006 5:10:40 PM PDT by CivilWarguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republican Extremist
The fallacy in their argument is called start-point bias (or end-point bias, depending on the context).

Intentionally processing an algorithim on a data set that has no context relevant to a question, that cannot be supported by the same mathematical application used with data sets starting or ending at different time points is, by its very nature, biased.

The chained-dollars argument is thus fallacious.

12 posted on 05/19/2006 5:21:21 PM PDT by 1stMarylandRegiment (Conserve Liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
That's exactly what I'm saying. The Fed's been raising interest rates for the past two years in an effort to cool things down.

The two basic theories of inflation are cost push and demand pull. I think what we're seeing now is more a cost-push type of inflation and I believe that energy costs play a part in it. Relatively low unemployment rates yet fairly robust growth is also raising wage rates (e.g., another cost) a tad, too.
13 posted on 05/19/2006 5:33:20 PM PDT by econjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
Agreed. Still, the trend was broken by 9/11 and it was a pretty significant dip. Also, I thought Q4 of 2001 was lower than pre-9/11, but I'm not sure.
14 posted on 05/19/2006 5:36:10 PM PDT by econjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Buck W.

Revenues since 2003 have been rising rapidly, which is why the deficit has been lower than expected.

I did not mean to imply that revenues rose each year, as we were in a recession, and a poor economy from 9-11.


15 posted on 05/19/2006 5:37:15 PM PDT by Republican Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: econjack

That seems clear. Thanks for your reply!


16 posted on 05/19/2006 6:08:20 PM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: econjack
 By Q4 2001 GDP had expanded past pre-contraction levels:

 

Quarterly
  (Seasonally adjusted annual rates)
     
  GDP in billions of current dollars GDP in billions of chained 2000 dollars
1999q4 9,519.5 9,671.1
2000q1 9,629.4 9,695.6
2000q2 9,822.8 9,847.9
2000q3 9,862.1 9,836.6
2000q4 9,953.6 9,887.7
2001q1 10,021.5 9,875.6
2001q2 10,128.9 9,905.9
2001q3 10,135.1 9,871.1
2001q4 10,226.3 9,910.0

 

17 posted on 05/19/2006 6:16:59 PM PDT by RWR8189 (George Allen for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

That's for the update!


18 posted on 05/19/2006 6:23:56 PM PDT by econjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi

What causes currency depreciation? I thought that was the automatic result of inflation, two bucks for a loaf of bread instead of one buck. I also thought that importing goods for resale at a lower price than domestic goods, quality for quality, would increase the purchasing power of currency, at least in the short term if no one over-bought. Wrong?


19 posted on 05/19/2006 6:33:35 PM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
the open market. political climate, terrorist acts, and 'activist' foreign governments can contribute as well. currency is backed by the issuer. if the issuing country sends most of it's reserves out of the country what happens? the currency devalues. this helps local business to compete and is not necessarily bad. the latest string of currency depreciation happened near mid 2002 and wouldn't be calculated until '03 . look at the graph above and tell me if you think it's a coincidence.
20 posted on 05/19/2006 6:47:10 PM PDT by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson