The Oil Drum | EIA insisting on plateau

240 comments on EIA insisting on plateau

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Freddy Hutter on August 3, 2006 - 8:16pm

It's been said here before that the Labour Dept has seven measures for UR, just as it does for inflation and other measures. Your allegations are just plain crap and your by your rheotoric it is plain that u are in the nihilist camp and nothing said will satisfy you. You are just waiting for the apocalypse like many others here.

The problem is clinical not factual.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

WebHubbleTelescope on August 3, 2006 - 9:47pm

You mean that people that observe the dynamics of Ponzi schemes from afar are nihilists?

I always considered them smart.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

liferaft on August 3, 2006 - 10:54pm

It wasn't us who started the planet down the apocalyptic path. While watching is not my cup of tea it sure beats blindly rushing into oblivion.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

tate423 on August 4, 2006 - 2:21pm

I don't tend to follow the herd at blasting peopel since many times we are misunderstood. However Freddy I can plainly see what people here routinely blast you for your complete lack of indepedent thought.

Try "shadow government statistics" in google and see what pops us. You need to quit drinking the kool aid mate.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Agric on August 4, 2006 - 7:06pm

Have you ever seriously researched this Freddy? It is beyond reasonable dispute that the calculations and consequent results for the 'preferred' US government statistics for unemployment, inflation, GDP are materially different from those of 20 years ago. The change is always in the 'preferable' direction.

The monthly NFP stats are hugely skewed by the CES Net Birth/Death Model:
http://www.bls.gov/web/cesbd.htm
While I think that such a model is probably reasonable and necessary it is based on GDP estimates...

Which are probably overstated by about 3% since these are based on the 'GDP deflator' - a measure of inflation - which seriously understates 'real' inflation and inflation as measured 20 years ago.

Had you noticed that the US GDP estimates for the last few years have been revised downwards by a pretty uniform 0.5% because some basic assumptions have been somewhat incorrect? The news was about a week ago, I don't have a link but might be able to find some.

Have you properly read John Williams 'shadow government statistics' stuff? the arguments are quite compelling, here are links:
http://www.shadowstats.com/cgi-bin/sgs
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/williams_j/main.html

If there are any aspects in the above you find questionable and want substantiating data and links ask and I will see what I can do.

(I have an extant response to you on climate change in the works but incomplete, might manage to finish tonight but Sunday is more likely)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Freddy Hutter on August 4, 2006 - 10:09pm

Sorry Agric but i no longer take the time to defend the stat sector from ridiculous paranoia and conspiracy theorists. I collaborate with statisticians often and hold them in high regard. The assertion that big brother is manipulating data is for the most part bunk. Most dept's allow drilling into their figures and many subsets. The usa has no more revisions or higer magnitude thereof or in any certain direction than any other country. Look at how the 2001 recession figures (real gdp) have changed biannually as an empirical example.

I sincerely regret not continuing this debate with you but after 20 yrs of listening to too many nuts i just have run out of patience. Absolutely no reflection on yourself. Take care.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Agric on August 7, 2006 - 9:39pm

I don't mind. Life is sometimes too short for trivial debate: the reality IS, the somewhat arbitrary picture of official statistics is just a distorted reflection.

I'm no novice at statistics, though no expert at the esoteric mathematical nuances of statistical theory. That the BLS and other govt / official stats producers have changed the basis of calculating several important economic measures over the last 20 years is very evident - and they admit it.

There are some valid logical arguments for the changes made but they seem to be more dictated by govt 'self interest' to me. The currently 'preferred' US measures of unemployment, inflation, GDP are significantly different from the way they were calculated 20 years ago and the way European countries calculate them. On the 'old US' or 'European' basis the numbers would probably be about: 8% unemployment, +1% GDP for Q1+Q2 2006 together annualised (+0.0% Q2 alone), +5.5% CPI.

Replied on rapid climate change:
http://www.theoildrum.com/comments/2006/7/28/19350/1306/169#169

Comments can no longer be added to this story.