Anyone familiar with - http://www.shadowstats.com/
?
I was wondering if anyone here had an opinion as to the validity of these alternate stats ?
Here are some of their charts.
Unemployment - U3 is the quoted headline number, U6 is the government’s own broadest number which includes short term discouraged workers, the SGS alternate includes long-term discouraged workers.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts
CPI - the blue line apparently representing the 1990 methodology.
And if true, the understatement of inflation would lead to the overstatement of GDP as seen here.
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/gross-domestic-product-charts
Could there really have been negative GDP growth over the last decade??
I’m not at all familiar with the CPI and GDP calculations so can’t comment on those. In terms of unemployment I think the concept is sound and it would be better indicator of true unemployment rates than U-3, but would really need more information on how they estimate long-term discouraged workers to know how accurate the results are.
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
Could there really have been negative GDP growth over the last decade?? [/quote]
Yes, because it is year over year. So if in 2010 growth was 3% and in 2011 growth was 2%, then it would show -1%.
It just shows the slowing of our economic growth, not really it shrinking, if I’m reading this link right
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
Could there really have been negative GDP growth over the last decade?? [/quote]
Yes, because it is year over year. So if in 2010 growth was 3% and in 2011 growth was 2%, then it would show -1%.
It just shows the slowing of our economic growth, not really it shrinking, if I’m reading this link right[/quote]
Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn’t read that closely enough.
On second thought: wouldn’t what you’re talking about be " % change of % growth " ? or " year over year change in growth rate" ?
In the link it reads " year-to-year percentage change in GDP " . So to me this means that even if the rate of growth is slowing, as long as it’s above 0%, the chart should remain above 0.
But maybe I’m reading it wrong. We need someone who knows their macro econ to clarify…
I am resenting this thread.
I was dragging Shadowstats into this here forum years ago, claiming that a lot of measurements where unadulterated bullshit, not the least being that the CPI was excluding GAS, FOOD and LODGING.
But noooo, I mean government officials might lie to you, but government employed statisticians never, ever would.
Fuck you guys, I am buying gold.