Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
★ The most important economic overview that I have read in many years ★
@BaluBalu- I have no idea why you are accusing Mark of "abuse".
First of all, he does not "have two threads to discuss the same thing". Mark chose to post his thread in the Off-Topic section, and because I felt that it was of legitimate financial interest I posted this thread to channel readers to it.
You are welcome to your opinion regarding Mark's thread, but to accuse the report's author of intellectual dishonesty is unsubstantiated and abusive. Just because someone has a differing financial perspective certainly does not equal "dishonesty". Personally, I feel that the author of the report in question is correct, and that the statistics used by the government fail to accurately represent the existing financial conditions for the average American.
I fail to see where Mark has attempted to "force other people"to do anything at all, and I also fail to understand your evident animus towards his postings.
One final point regarding governmental statistical reporting: such reporting is presumably of value to reflect the real financial environment of the citizens and voters of the United States.
From the recent election results is is evident that those citizens and voters are in strong disagreement with the financial picture presented by those reports. That disagreement is a major factor in the present national disaster of the current administration.
@davidrmoran: thanks for your views. Have you already consulted the books I cited?
I read Campbell summaries when their work came out, with reviews pointing out that along with wise advice it is cherry-picked, half-baked, lacking protein, to coin a phrase:
msf: His point, as I take it, is that the numbers, though accurate are misunderstood. So things are worse than people get from the numbers reading them simplistically. True enough. But then he goes and does the same thing by simplistically presenting some reasons why the numbers don't say what people think they say. *************** Actually, I understood him to say that the tools and metrics do measure what they are supposed to measure, but it's the wrong stuff. It offers a cloudy picture of what it is we want to know: unemployment, inflation. I did not take away a message that the monthly numbers are misunderstood; rather, the wrong tools are being employed.
In a single magazine (online or not) article, not necessarily aimed at the number-crunching wonks, I'd be willing to say that a very particular and in depth presentation would have been out of place. He made his case. He asserted that the tools he and his team created offer a more accurately focused picture of true life. Too early for me to disagree. If he would make available a follow-up which exposes his new statistical method to the light of day, then we could agree or disagree about that. For a million years, I have known that the current metrics are screwy: just simply not presenting a real-life snapshot that corresponds to Reality very well.
He's illuminating and expressing a thing that we all take for granted. Every month, people and the Markets react to the published numbers, but the numbers --- every time--- deliver a "head-fake." As I said above, I'll bet he and his team prefer to keep their method proprietary. We'll see. I'm with OJ: this business needs to be examined and acknowledged, rather than assumed, again and again.
Actually, I understood him to say that the tools and metrics do measure what they are supposed to measure, but it's the wrong stuff.
What he wrote was:
Our research revealed that the data collected by the various agencies is largely accurate. Moreover, the people staffing those agencies are talented and well-intentioned. But the filters used to compute the headline statistics are flawed.
Which is what I wrote: "Bottom line: I agree with his broad thesis that headline numbers don't present an accurate picture."
That's not the same thing as saying that the reports measure the wrong stuff. They measure everything. It's all there for everyone to see. All he's doing is taking that data and "filtering" (presenting) it differently to produce different headlines.
He's complaining about how the report data is used (presented), not about the wrong stuff being measured.
We can quibble about interpretation all that we want to, but it does nothing to change the fact that the government was telling the voters that all was OK, but the voters weren't buying it.
For many months prior to the elections Judy Woodruff of the PBS Newshour conducted focus groups across the United States. Some groups agreed with certain aspects and issues of the coming election, others disagreed.
However: every group felt that the financial condition of the United States that they saw bore little resemblance to any information being produced by the government.
that the government was telling the voters that all was OK
The government (read Bureau of Labor Statistics) produced accurate data, though with misleading headlines. It was politicians and some reporters (who knew better or were ignorant) who told voters that the numbers meant "that all was OK".
In a similar vein, was it the government or Democratic politicians saying that Biden was in great shape?
1. Understanding data: If one doesn't understand what data represents (definitions, methodology) then one can be led astray or be confused. Hence questions about how Morningstar analysts could possibly praise 1 star funds (e.g. gold-rated OAKIX).
2. Accuracy of government data: Traditionally the data produced by government departments has been accurate and apolitical. Tradition is being upset as we speak. My realtor told me this afternoon that when she looked up flood maps on FEMA, the first thing she saw was:
FEMA.gov is being updated to comply with President Trump's Executive Orders. Thank you for your patience and understanding.
@msf: I agree with your observations, but it seems to me to be a quibble about labels.
OK: Here in the United States major political and information systems, or at least significant portions of them, were telling the voters that all was OK, but the voters weren't buying it.
And they knew that SOMEBODY at the controls was not dealing with their reality.
And Donald Trump and his cohort of propagandists took great advantage of that.
(Aside:) Comm'on msf... you know what I'm trying to say here.
My concern is that painting with broad brushstrokes, conflating the messengers with the messages, inculcates distrust in government research and analysis. And in doing so, enables "Donald Trump and his cohort of propagandists".
Here's a recent NPR report on the 'crumbling infrastructure' of federal data.
The statistical agencies are also faced with a crisis facing the broader survey and polling industry — a shrinking rate of people willing to answer questions.
Distrust extends well beyond answering surveys. Vaccinations, for example. I hear that the results aren't in yet. That's not what government and government-sponsored research data say. Rather it's how politicians (and one in particular) are presenting that data.
We are in violent agreement. I'm just trying not to throw out the baby (data) with the bathwater (misinterpretation, whether deliberate or simply the result of misunderstanding).
Comments
First of all, he does not "have two threads to discuss the same thing". Mark chose to post his thread in the Off-Topic section, and because I felt that it was of legitimate financial interest I posted this thread to channel readers to it.
You are welcome to your opinion regarding Mark's thread, but to accuse the report's author of intellectual dishonesty is unsubstantiated and abusive. Just because someone has a differing financial perspective certainly does not equal "dishonesty". Personally, I feel that the author of the report in question is correct, and that the statistics used by the government fail to accurately represent the existing financial conditions for the average American.
I fail to see where Mark has attempted to "force other people"to do anything at all, and I also fail to understand your evident animus towards his postings.
From the recent election results is is evident that those citizens and voters are in strong disagreement with the financial picture presented by those reports. That disagreement is a major factor in the present national disaster of the current administration.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/385/
(just one)
Similarly Greger (sp), who along with wise advice also just sounds simpleminded and black-white, not to say misleading:
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/how-not-to-die-review
(Kind of like someone who would flatly assert:
>> chicken eggs are terrible for human health )
***************
Actually, I understood him to say that the tools and metrics do measure what they are supposed to measure, but it's the wrong stuff. It offers a cloudy picture of what it is we want to know: unemployment, inflation. I did not take away a message that the monthly numbers are misunderstood; rather, the wrong tools are being employed.
In a single magazine (online or not) article, not necessarily aimed at the number-crunching wonks, I'd be willing to say that a very particular and in depth presentation would have been out of place. He made his case. He asserted that the tools he and his team created offer a more accurately focused picture of true life. Too early for me to disagree. If he would make available a follow-up which exposes his new statistical method to the light of day, then we could agree or disagree about that. For a million years, I have known that the current metrics are screwy: just simply not presenting a real-life snapshot that corresponds to Reality very well.
He's illuminating and expressing a thing that we all take for granted. Every month, people and the Markets react to the published numbers, but the numbers --- every time--- deliver a "head-fake." As I said above, I'll bet he and his team prefer to keep their method proprietary. We'll see. I'm with OJ: this business needs to be examined and acknowledged, rather than assumed, again and again.
What he wrote was: Which is what I wrote: "Bottom line: I agree with his broad thesis that headline numbers don't present an accurate picture."
That's not the same thing as saying that the reports measure the wrong stuff. They measure everything. It's all there for everyone to see. All he's doing is taking that data and "filtering" (presenting) it differently to produce different headlines.
He's complaining about how the report data is used (presented), not about the wrong stuff being measured.
For many months prior to the elections Judy Woodruff of the PBS Newshour conducted focus groups across the United States. Some groups agreed with certain aspects and issues of the coming election, others disagreed.
However: every group felt that the financial condition of the United States that they saw bore little resemblance to any information being produced by the government.
Bottom Line: Donald Trump.
The government (read Bureau of Labor Statistics) produced accurate data, though with misleading headlines. It was politicians and some reporters (who knew better or were ignorant) who told voters that the numbers meant "that all was OK".
In a similar vein, was it the government or Democratic politicians saying that Biden was in great shape?
Old joke: how can you tell when a politician is lying?
https://www.thecut.com/2015/11/here-is-one-way-to-tell-if-a-politician-is-lying.html
This matters for two reasons at least:
1. Understanding data: If one doesn't understand what data represents (definitions, methodology) then one can be led astray or be confused. Hence questions about how Morningstar analysts could possibly praise 1 star funds (e.g. gold-rated OAKIX).
2. Accuracy of government data: Traditionally the data produced by government departments has been accurate and apolitical. Tradition is being upset as we speak. My realtor told me this afternoon that when she looked up flood maps on FEMA, the first thing she saw was:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-top-noaa-scientist-craig-mclean-trump-sharpie-gate-warning/
OK: Here in the United States major political and information systems, or at least significant portions of them, were telling the voters that all was OK, but the voters weren't buying it.
And they knew that SOMEBODY at the controls was not dealing with their reality.
And Donald Trump and his cohort of propagandists took great advantage of that.
(Aside:)
Comm'on msf... you know what I'm trying to say here.
My concern is that painting with broad brushstrokes, conflating the messengers with the messages, inculcates distrust in government research and analysis. And in doing so, enables "Donald Trump and his cohort of propagandists".
Courts are sowing the same distrust. In overturning Chevron, the Supreme Court said that they understand complex issues better than subject experts.
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-happens-if-supreme-court-ends-chevron-deference
Here's a recent NPR report on the 'crumbling infrastructure' of federal data. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/24/nx-s1-5250264/unemployment-rate-cpi-inflation-census-bureau-labor-statistics
Distrust extends well beyond answering surveys. Vaccinations, for example. I hear that the results aren't in yet. That's not what government and government-sponsored research data say. Rather it's how politicians (and one in particular) are presenting that data.
We are in violent agreement. I'm just trying not to throw out the baby (data) with the bathwater (misinterpretation, whether deliberate or simply the result of misunderstanding).