MFOHome About Commentary Discussions Funds The Best Resources Support Us!

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Categories

In this Discussion

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

Removal of Reliable Economic Data

sma3
in Other Investing
I would highly recommend Kotok. HE runs an investment advisory firm but writes regular thoughtful pieces on investing and economics.

This is his latest on the attack on economic data and advisory boards

The effects of a recent executive order purging advisory boards working with federal agencies include dismantling the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Technical Advisory Council, and Data Users Advisory Committee. Boards advising Census and the Bureau of Economic Analysis were also dismissed.

https://kotokreport.com/lost-pages-eroding-our-confidence-in-public-data/

Comments

  • Old_JoeOld_Joe
    One might almost wonder if there's more to this than meets the eye. Would it be possible that by removing advisory boards it might be easier to cook (even maybe overcook) the government books?
  • rforno
    Old_Joe said:

    One might almost wonder if there's more to this than meets the eye. Would it be possible that by removing advisory boards it might be easier to cook (even maybe overcook) the government books?

    That would never happen. It's absolutely unpossible! How could you even suggest such a thing?
  • habsui
    Access to Reliable Data is not the American dream..
  • Old_JoeOld_Joe
    Well, I'll concede that I haven't dreamed all that much about Reliable Data. Actually that would be quite an improvement on some of my dreams.:)
  • msf
    Would it be possible that by removing advisory boards it might be easier to cook (even maybe overcook) the government books?

    You mean like redefining words to mean what the government wants them to mean (thank you Humpty Dumpty)?

    Reuters: US Commerce Secretary wants to remove government spending from GDP
    ECONOMISTS ARE WARY
    Economists cautioned against changes to the current national accounts structure as it would make GDP very volatile and difficult to get a clear view of the economy's health, creating more uncertainty.

    "I don't think the stock market, the financial markets would like that," said Sung Won Sohn, Finance and Economics professor at Loyola Marymount University.

    It would also be impossible to compare the U.S. economy's performance against its global peers.

    Looking at the private sector alone would not give the full picture on growth, Sohn said.

    "Economic growth over time would become a lot more volatile. The reason is, when the economy slows or, when we are in a recession, for example, the government spends a lot of money," he said.

    Removing government spending from GDP would distort the figure as government productivity is assumed to be zero whatever the production is in the computation of GDP.

    "It's imperative that we keep the current system because, we need to make comparisons, and it's important to know how well we are doing compared to a year ago, five years ago, 10 years ago, and we can learn from our mistakes," Sohn said.
  • Old_JoeOld_Joe
    Well, I'm certain that will make Trump think twice¹.

    ¹   ("think twice"): He will double his efforts to remove any independent oversight.
  • rforno

    When a person barely thinks ONCE, it's really hard to get them to think twice....
  • MarkMark
    @rforno - you took the words right out of my mouth only I would have substituted 'never' for 'barely'.
Sign In or Register to comment.