Are USA Economic Numbers Cooked?

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Ran across this article by the Financial Times:

US economy gets a Hollywood makeover

The US economy will look different from July.

That is not because of a shift in its underlying prospects, but because of a comprehensive update to the national accounts by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, producing the most dramatic change to the way gross domestic product is measured in more than a decade, with preliminary estimates adding about 3 per cent to US GDP.

1. Research & Development

The single biggest revision to the national accounts will be the inclusion of R&D as capital investment instead of just a cost of producing other goods.

“The world economy is changing and there’s greater and greater recognition that things like intangible assets are very important in the modern economy and play a role similar to tangible capital that was captured in the past,” said Brent Moulton, head of national accounts at the BEA.

Initial estimates show that R&D will add a little more than 2 per cent, $300bn in 2007 (the base year of the new methodology), to GDP. About two-thirds will come from the private sector and around one-third from government. Amounts spent on R&D will be the measure.

The changes will have a ripple effect. The new methodology will make corporate profits look larger, as companies will no longer be counting net R&D after depreciation as a cost, the savings rate for individuals and government will rise to reflect the increase in capital investment.

Steve Landefeld, the BEA director, said that the inclusion of R&D was just the beginning to help get a more accurate picture of growth. “You need to go further in this exploration of investment in intangibles. R&D – the scientific and engineering stuff – is just a piece of the puzzle.”

2. Artistic Originals

The Internet Movie Database may not seem like a natural source of data for the national accounts, but it was one of many combed by BEA researcher Rachel Soloveichik, who went through film studio records as far back as the 1920s to build a series on investment in movies.

The result is not only an estimate of the capital value of all America’s books, movies, records, TV programmes, plays and greeting card designs but also a fascinating picture of how their importance to the economy has changed over time.

A film or book is produced in one year but enjoyed for many – the Financial Times recently reported that the sitcom Seinfeld has generated $3.1bn in revenue since it went off air in 1998 – and the accounting change is meant to capture that capital value.

Preliminary research by the BEA puts investment in artistic originals at $70bn for 2007 so that figure will go into GDP. The figures may ignite some controversy because they will amount to the first official estimate of the value captured from the laws of copyright.

Investment in movies peaked during the Great Depression at nearly 0.3 per cent of the economy but has fallen below 0.1 per cent today. TV is now the biggest category.

3. Pension Accounting

The change with the most counterintuitive results is pension accounting. At the moment, the BEA counts what companies pay into a defined benefit pension as wages, and ignores whether the plan is in deficit or surplus. After the change it will measure what companies have actually promised to pay.

One odd effect will be an increase in GDP, estimated at about $30bn in 2007, because employers promised bigger pensions than they funded. Measured federal government spending will fall, because it has funded its plans better, while state and local government spending will rise because they have promised more than they paid.

“Where we’ll see large effects is in the area of deficit numbers, saving, corporate profits and other measure that are related to those,” said Mr Moulton. “The imputed interest costs that are associated with the unfunded liabilities are really large.”

Having a BEA estimate of the size of pension deficits and their cost could prompt an important shift in the political debate over the future of defined benefit plans.

4. Other changes

Some other changes are technical but important. For example, the BEA plans to alter how it measures the cost of running a bank account, which should make the price of banking services less volatile. That will affect the volatility of the PCE index – the Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of inflation.

“It won’t be huge but big enough that people who really care about and follow our numbers will notice,” said Mr Landefeld.

Another update will be to treat all of the costs of buying a house – such as stamp duty and attorney fees – as investment rather than spending. That is expected to add about $60bn to GDP for 2007. At present, only estate agent commissions are capitalised.

But the BEA will also speed up the depreciation of those commissions, writing them off over the average 12 years that people stay in a house, instead of the 80-year life of a structure. As a result, the change will lower net savings and corporate profits.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/63bbbd22-aa95-11e2-bc0d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2tQBcpXOY

So, last Summer the Bureau of Economic Analysis, a US govt agency that official determines the GDP etc., changed the way GDP is calculated.

I really hate to see this sort of thing done. Most of us use their numbers as a tool for comparison. E.g., looking at our current GDP how far off are we from good periods of growth before the recession? Well, that's been destroyed. We're no longer comparing apples-to-apples, once they changed the system we're now at apples-to-oranges.

It's kind of interesting how these 'refinements' to the system seem to always make the numbers look better.

Edit: Might not be as bad as I first thought.

Adding up the estimates above for 2007 it's definitely an additional 3% (15T x 3% = 450 bn)

But if they go back and increase the prior yr's baseline gdp it shouldn't have much effect. If they don't it would have an effect for only one year.


Fern
 
Last edited:

rudeguy

Lifer
Dec 27, 2001
47,371
14
61
All of those kinds of numbers are. Unemployment is the best one but I don't trust any of these numbers.

Its all spin.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,247
48,436
136
Ran across this article by the Financial Times:


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/63bbbd22-aa95-11e2-bc0d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2tQBcpXOY

So, last Summer the Bureau of Economic Analysis, a US govt agency that official determines the GDP etc., changed the way GDP is calculated.

I really hate to see this sort of thing done. Most of us use their numbers as a tool for comparison. E.g., looking at our current GDP how far off are we from good periods of growth before the recession? Well, that's been destroyed. We're no longer comparing apples-to-apples, once they changed the system we're now at apples-to-oranges.

It's kind of interesting how these 'refinements' to the system seem to always make the numbers look better.

Fern

So wait, you think they are cooking the books by making public and transparent changes to how things are calculated?


They must be the worst book cookers ever.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
the number for GDP has always been cooked because it includes public expenditures. even worse is we dont really know how much the real debt owed by U.S.G. is... i am guessing it has spent about $4.1Tn over the past 12 months so that would leave only about $8.9tn of private product remaining.
 
Last edited:

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
So wait, you think they are cooking the books by making public and transparent changes to how things are calculated?


They must be the worst book cookers ever.

Ask 100 people on the street and I bet more than 99 never heard of it.

Going forward let's see how many of those who run here to post GDP news make mention of the fact that the system was just changed.

Let's see how often the major news channels mention it when they report on GDP.

The point is that is has changed and we've lost comparability.

Fern
 
Jan 25, 2011
16,607
8,734
146
It really depends. The last few years the books have only been cooked if there was any sort of positive economic indicator. They were bang on if there was anything negative.

It's actually quite fascinating.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
642
126
Fern, that link in your OP doesn't work for me. Looks like a subscription may be needed.
 

schmuckley

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2011
2,335
1
0
They're spinning it all;USA is in worse shape than ever.
No manufacturing
No oil production
No steel making
Not much garment manufacturing
Hey, Nobody said we could all be executives running operations in China;That's just not gonna cut it.
This country needs manufacturing and workers.
Oh! We used to be able to produce our own automobiles.WTF?
BTW:A car does not need a computer at all to run,drive,turn,start,and stop.
 
Last edited:

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
I assume they recalculate past years with the new method. No?

I haven't be able confirm/deny that.

I don't think it matters much anyway. The average person on the street knows that 1% is bad and 3% is good etc. And according to the Financial Times report, if I'm understanding it correctly (I don't have a subscription so my access is limited), the changes result is an additional 3% of GDP.

I'm understanding that to mean if the GDP calculated under the old method was 1%, now it be calculated as 4%. If instead it moves to 1.3%, while not optimal for purposes of comparison it certainly isn't as substantial.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Fern, that link in your OP doesn't work for me. Looks like a subscription may be needed.

I see what you mean.

If I click my own link I have the problem too.

However, if I put this in google search bar "The Financial Times U.S. Economy's Hollywood Makeover" the article is the first listing and I get to it without the subscription nonsense.

Screw it. I just edited my post to show the entire article.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
http://bea.gov/national/an1.htm#2013comprehensive

Can be found quite easily on the BEA's website if you look in the right section.

So this is the 14th revision. They occur about every 5 years. Revisions can cover the entire period, back to 1929. In other words, this is just another pile of nothing. Weee.

Keep trying though.

I'm aware of that. But if the FT article is correct it's the biggest revision in 10 yrs.

Fern
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,109
5,643
126
It's probably necessary to change the method from time to time. New Industries and other changes that don't adhere with the methods being used. Other reasons are probably linked to how the Data has been collected, not too long ago much of the Data could take months to receive. Yet another reason is that Economics is not a long established or fully understood science.

Then again, it could be an attempt to cook the books. :D It just isn't the only reason to change the calculation methods though.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,247
48,436
136
Ask 100 people on the street and I bet more than 99 never heard of it.

Going forward let's see how many of those who run here to post GDP news make mention of the fact that the system was just changed.

Let's see how often the major news channels mention it when they report on GDP.

The point is that is has changed and we've lost comparability.

Fern

How GDP growth, inflation, etc is calculated changes relatively frequently with changes to the economy. This is nothing new, and it is far from the first time it has been done.

I can understand how this might feel strange to people unfamiliar with economics, but this is nothing particularly special. Just so you know this has happened with GDP in the past too. What would really be strange would be to measure vastly different economies using identical measures of productivity.
 

Shallok

Member
Jul 12, 2005
38
0
0
I'm aware of that. But if the FT article is correct it's the biggest revision in 10 yrs.

Fern

I guess I misunderstood the source of your complaint then, as it certainly seemed to be related to changes being made at all, not the extent of the changes being made. Sorry, I was under the impression you were unaware that this is nothing unusual.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,247
48,436
136
I guess I misunderstood the source of your complaint then, as it certainly seemed to be related to changes being made at all, not the extent of the changes being made. Sorry, I was under the impression you were unaware that this is nothing unusual.

That was his complaint.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
The algorithms change from time to time but the raw data is still raw. So the numbers are not "made up".
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
I guess I misunderstood the source of your complaint then, as it certainly seemed to be related to changes being made at all, not the extent of the changes being made. Sorry, I was under the impression you were unaware that this is nothing unusual.

It was a bit of both actually.

I don't like changes in general because of comparability.

Of course, that's exacerbated if the changes result in substantial numbers. And I find 3% a very substantial number.

However, if you'll notice my edits to my OP I've resolved to myself that it's not likely a problem.

Fern
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
It was a bit of both actually.

I don't like changes in general because of comparability.

Of course, that's exacerbated if the changes result in substantial numbers. And I find 3% a very substantial number.

However, if you'll notice my edits to my OP I've resolved to myself that it's not likely a problem.

Fern

Unless the data is new/different, you can always apply the changes to older data.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
They're spinning it all;USA is in worse shape than ever.
No manufacturing
No oil production
No steel making
Not much garment manufacturing
Hey, Nobody said we could all be executives running operations in China;That's just not gonna cut it.
This country needs manufacturing and workers.
Oh! We used to be able to produce our own automobiles.WTF?
BTW:A car does not need a computer at all to run,drive,turn,start,and stop.

Wrong on the oil production.

They are pumping so much out with that fracking we don't need foreign oil anymore.

Also the number one export product of the U.S. is gasoline.
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
They're spinning it all;USA is in worse shape than ever.
No manufacturing
No oil production
No steel making
Not much garment manufacturing
Hey, Nobody said we could all be executives running operations in China;That's just not gonna cut it.
This country needs manufacturing and workers.
Oh! We used to be able to produce our own automobiles.WTF?
BTW:A car does not need a computer at all to run,drive,turn,start,and stop.

A welcome rise in manufacturing jobs in the U.S.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...bs-in-the-us/2012/01/12/gIQAxLPcuP_story.html

Rising orders boost U.S. manufacturers
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ism-report-signals-continued-manufacturing-resurgence-2014-01-02
The Institute for Supply Management’s manufacturing index registered 57.0% in December, down slightly from a 2 1/2-year high of 57.3% in November. Any number over 50% signals that the manufacturing economy is expanding instead of contracting.
...
Inside the report

Thirteen of the 18 sectors tracked by the ISM said that business expanded in the final month of 2013, led by furniture makers, plastic and rubber producers and textile mills.
The goods produced by those industries usually rise as the broader economy strengthens. Furniture sales, for example, surge when home sales increase and buyers need to purchase beds, couches and dining tables.
The increase in demand was evident in the new-orders index. The gauge climbed to 64.2% from 63.6% to mark the highest level since April 2010.
If demand continues to rise, companies will eventually have to add more workers. The employment gauge, a measure of hiring intentions, rose to 56.9% from 56.5%. That’s the highest level since June 2011.
The production index fell slightly to 62.2% but remained strong overall.


3 reasons why U.S. manufacturing is on the rise

http://theweek.com/article/index/249045/3-reasons-why-us-manufacturing-is-on-the-rise


I know "there's no manufacturing anymore" is a meme that people just take as truth, but it's actually just false. American manufacturing is growing and has been for a while. It's not Detroit's heyday yet, but it's not all gone and never coming back either.
 

shady28

Platinum Member
Apr 11, 2004
2,520
397
126
Ask 100 people on the street and I bet more than 99 never heard of it.

Going forward let's see how many of those who run here to post GDP news make mention of the fact that the system was just changed.

Let's see how often the major news channels mention it when they report on GDP.

The point is that is has changed and we've lost comparability.

Fern

I agree, but perhaps more than that..

GDP is supposed to be the sum total of the sale of goods and services. R&D can and often does materialize as a product to be sold, or even a patent to be sold. But until it produces something to be sold, then it simply should not be part of GDP.

The money spent on R&D already does go into GDP, like through payroll and purchases of equipment. But counting the cost of R&D again in addition to those purchases, it is basically counting those expenditures twice, and possibly three times if / when it produces something that does get sold (like, a patent, or a product).