Bush revises GDP History - puts 0.6% more growth in Daddy's years

Here are the revised figures for the gross domestic product, the country's total output of goods and services, for the years 1990 through 2002, based on a comprehensive revision of the GDP released Wednesday by the Commerce Department. The first figure is the new GDP estimate and the second is the previous estimate.

1990: 1.8 percent; 1.8 percent

1991: -0.2 percent; -0.5 percent

1992: 3.3 percent; 3.0 percent

1993: 2.7 percent; 2.7 percent

1994: 4.0 percent; 4.0 percent

1995: 2.5 percent; 2.7 percent

1996: 3.7 percent; 3.6 percent

1997: 4.5 percent; 4.4 percent

1998: 4.2 percent; 4.3 percent

1999: 4.5 percent; 4.1 percent

2000: 3.7 percent; 3.8 percent

2001: 0.5 percent; 0.3 percent

2002: 2.2 percent; 2.4 percent

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3487846,00.html

http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrel/2003cr_newsrelease.htm

I find it amusing that a cadre of civil servants (who have a vested interest in Democrats being in power) across government departments (BLS, BEA, Census...) are all conspiring to make the current administration look better.

or DOJ - there are a lot of scared folks.

Besides the math types know the result of the project before it is assigned - and they are political appointees -

The kids that run the numbers ("a cadre of civil servants (who have a vested interest in Democrats being in power)") are doing what seems like a reasonable adjustment.

The math is not new - a simple cross check for reasonableness in two series that do not closely tie - but should tie approximately -do you recall this type of adjustment being done for the last "14 years" before? (to refresh you memory - this type of adjustment was needed for the post 98 numbers because two econ series no longer jibed - going back 14 years is indeed your political GOP appointee doing his thing for Bush)

http://www.access.gpo.gov/plumbook/2000/pdf/p31-43.pdf
Feel free to point out which math types at the BEA are on there.

Here's the list for the Department of Labor: http://www.access.gpo.gov/plumbook/2000/pdf/p154-159.pdf Tell me how one person is changing all the data that comes out of there without anybody knowing about it.

are not always in the gov.

The political types that order it up, indeed are in the gov.

The kids that run the numbers are good kids who got fed a reasonable explanation for what they were doing.

My point was that there are other ways to make too not tightly tied - but closely tied -- series of mumbers look reasonable to each other.

And that the way chosen by gov is indeed the way that makes Bush look the best - and that there were other ways - and I believe the other ways were rejected for political reasons.

By the way, the "plum book" is a bit BS as it shows ES and their help - but does not show the 15's and above brought in through the political process (I was once screwed over on a 15 by a political "re-open" for 1 hour, 2 months after selection, Reagan era move - they offerred my a hearing, but said even if I could prove the facts - and I could - easily - I would not get the job. So please - political appointment as a bias to numbers does indeed happen

Indeed As Fox is now telling it "the longest economic expansion in U.S. history faltered so much in the summer of 2000 that business output actually contracted for one quarter, the government said Wednesday in releasing a comprehensive revision of the gross domestic product.



Based on new data, the Commerce Department (search) said that the Gross Domestic Product (search) -- the country's total output of goods and services -- shrank by 0.5 percent at an annual rate in the July-September quarter of 2000. Previously, the government had said GDP was rising at a weak annual rate of 0.6 percent during that quarter.

The GDP returned to positive territory in the October-December quarter of 2000, rising at an annual rate of 2.1 percent, before slipping back into negative territory in the first quarter of 2001. The first, second and third quarters of 2001 all experienced falling GDP as the country slogged through its first recession since 1990-91. <snip>

I do love corrections that do not have a political bias!

As an aside - why Fisher - why not Whiterker- Henderson with a wieght for smoothing? Or one of a hundred other methods.

Why chain with numbers that do not chain - that have "residuals"

The outside data that needed adjusting was corporate reports and the national data - then we found that the SEC accounting was being screwed with - but no big deal - they made no adjustments - nor should they - but Casualty insurance is my world - and the adjustments to BS numbers remain BS numbers - and indeed give one one hell of a lot of flexibility! -- And that is my point!

:-)

to 1929 - other than to cover ones footsteps. Indeed making the change and moving forward was the method that was going to be done - but has now been put aside as we get numbers for the 04 election.

"There is no major rewriting of economic history," said Steven Landefeld, head of the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis. "There are no significant changes to trend growth and the last recession is still mild relative to past recessions."

ProfessorGAC (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-10-03 04:15 PM
Response to Original message

15. Fudged Numbers


There is no possible way it would take this long to revise the numbers. The commerce department and treasury databases are closed for new data entry 33 days after the month end. So, no new information is in there on which to revise these data.

My data tracking shows Q300 to be 1.17% nominal growth at 0.34% inflation, or real growth of 0.83%. At a natural population growth average over the last 10 years of 0.41% per quarter, this means the economy was still expanding by 0.42% per quarter or 1.708% annually.

So, someone just made these numbers up. There is NO other explanation.
The Professor

This kind of thing is done every 4 to 5 years and is done by career civil servants not political appointees. There is no conspiracy here. What I find amusing is that people here see this as proof that the BEA is doing this to make Bush look good while Robert Novak looked at revisions to some of Clinton's data (by the same bureaucrats) as proof that they were trying to pump up Clinton's economic track record.

Besides the math types know the result of the project before it is assigned - and they are political appointees -

Funny I don't see Dennis Fixler and Brent Moulton on the list of political appointees. Brent Moulton is the head of BEA's GDP section and Dennis Fixler is the Cheif Statistician. I know both of them and they are not political appointees.

There is no possible way it would take this long to revise the numbers. The commerce department and treasury databases are closed for new data entry 33 days after the month end. So, no new information is in there on which to revise these data.

Why the hell haven't Fixler and Milton been replaced with reliable party members is my question? (That's a joke. Well sort of)

Not to worry. Civil service is now on its last legs. Soon everyone will be a loyal party member. (this is not a joke at all)

I'm a bit ignorant of the BEA. It is part of the commerce department? Ask those guys about the political culture there, if you would. Maybe the statistician laboring in the backwater of the department are immune, but I doubt it.

I'd love to hear something about this. Debunk my assumptions if you will. I don't care. My assumpion of course is that every nook and cranny of the Federal Government is being politicized to an unprecedented degree. Well unprcedented for the last 100 years.

selling private accounts and the destruction of SS, and Steve Goss now has management of a very fine - and mis-used - staff of real FSA actuaries.

In only 3 years - the destruction of a 100 years of good because the media "likes" Bush more than Gore -

and the media can never admit to error.

by the way - BEA is indeed in the DOC.