One of the economists I've been paying attention to these days is Peter Schiff, and from the picture he paints, GDP is a juked stat: how it's figured is a little screwy, and when something like Hurricane Katrina hits, it doesn't subtract from GDP - even adds to it!
None of this is surprising. If the government issues and compiles the GDP stats (or any stat), and it's in the government's interest to paint a rosy picture with those stats, why would anyone trust them not to "finesse" the stats or at least define the stat in a beneficial way? Anyone who watches The Wire, is familiar with the idea of police juking the stats to try and make the crime rate look better. And I'm sure in real life, the crime stats are cooked all the time.
I guess the point is, just because some data and stats look scientific and authoritative, doesn't mean they're not the farthest thing from it. You've gotta ask: where do those numbers come from, and is it in that person's interest to make 'em lean one way or the other?
0 Comments