Cooking the books - Election style.

[Attic]

Come on Eskimo.

The burden of proof is the tool government defenders will always fall back on. This is damning stuff.

At what point does the government need to be held to a higher standard and what are the risks if it is left to it's manipulating ways while kiting the burden of proof? To me it's a status quo of devastation to the masses to enrich the few that is upheld by constantly defending the government rather than challenging them at every oppurtunity.

Government works best when it fear it's people.

The jobs report that dropped UE from 8.1 to 7.8 prior to the 2012 election was clearly circumspect. Now we see very legitimate reasons why and it speaks to how little the government regards it's people.

 

[fskimospy]

All I can say is you are guilty of exactly what you blame other's for, seeing something you want to believe based on something you've read.

Can you provide an example? There might be one, but generally with things that are this thinly sourced I go out of my way to mention that and reserve judgment.

We aren't talking about viewing news or analyzing things through an ideological lens, we're talking about seeing a blog post from someone who says "I swear I know a guy" and taking it as the truth.

 

[Attic]

Sure, I'll go on the record right now saying that even if this turns out to be true it will have little to no effect on the overall jobs picture presented during that time. Not only is the sourcing on this incredibly thin, but as with inflation and other measures the government's numbers are broadly independently corroborated by other sources.

Real skepticism involves skepticism towards things even if it tells you things you want to be true.

Yea, i'll respect your stance here. Though from my POV it is objectively clear that the overall jobs picture was clearly dramatically changed by this jobs report that is again being called into question.

 

[fskimospy]

Come on Eskimo.

The burden of proof is the tool government defenders will always fall back on. This is damning stuff.

Your standard for 'damning stuff' is apparently an unsourced blog post. Pardon me if I find that to be absolutely ridiculous.

At what point does the government need to be held to a higher standard and what are the risks if it is left to it's manipulating ways while kiting the burden of proof? To me it's a status quo of devastation to the masses to enrich the few that is upheld by constantly defending the government rather than challenging them at every oppurtunity.

All sources should be viewed skeptically. That's why it's so important to have independent verification of data, which by the way the BLS numbers have. The government is already held to a vastly higher standard than what you are requiring to believe a blogger and you know that's because the blogger is telling you something you want to believe.

Government works best when it fear it's people.

The jobs report that dropped UE from 8.1 to 7.8 prior to the 2012 election was clearly circumspect. Now we see very legitimate reasons why and it speaks to how little the government regards it's people.

You have absolutely no idea if those reasons are legitimate based on this source. None.

 

[xBiffx]

Can you provide an example? There might be one, but generally with things that are this thinly sourced I go out of my way to mention that and reserve judgment.

We aren't talking about viewing news or analyzing things through an ideological lens, we're talking about seeing a blog post from someone who says "I swear I know a guy" and taking it as the truth.

Can I give an example of what? The fact that you've read some posts on the internet and confirmed what you believe based on those posts? Sorry, I can't cite that one.

You've criticized others for reading something and using it to confirm what they believe. You've done nothing different.

 

[fskimospy]

Can I give an example of what? The fact that you've read some posts on the internet and confirmed what you believe based on those posts? Sorry, I can't cite that one.

You've criticized other's for reading something and using it to confirm what they believe. You've done nothing different.

No, I'm criticizing people for reading something that relies on basically zero verifiable evidence and using it as evidence to confirm what they believe.

 

[Attic]

Useful sheeple, people who actually think they're in the know but aren't, people who are in the know but are removed from the actual data collection (done by many) so don't really know if the data is good but just have to trust it, people who have something to gain from numbers they somehow know are cooked, etc. Example: I'm in an Org of a few thousand. I could cook the numbers that Leadership (all the way up to the CIO, and up from there if the CIO chooses to use them for something) uses, and for the numbers that I report on, no one would really know...or, know to catch it. Leadership is removed from collecting the numbers (they don't even know how to do it), and all they need are plausible explainable reasons - especially so when it's positive numbers (and doubly so when it's positive numbers Leadership actually wants), which are under far less scrutiny than negative numbers. The other lemmings here have their own sh1t to do, they're not paying attention to what I generate, nor do they care.

Now apply this to the largess that is the Gov.



Oh, I know. Never said otherwise. I don't care if it's a Rep or Dem in charge, I just take for granted the numbers are whatever they're choosing to put out for whatever reason they're putting them out. They're the actually accurate numbers today? Super. Tomorrow when they're not? Super. What they want to be will be, we're just along for the ride. Thinking otherwise is profoundly naive.

Yea interesting, this is something I hear quite regularly on this debate from people I know to be wiser than myself.

 

[ivwshane]

Come on now eskimospy! It's not like any of these posters have posted damning news stories before that later turned out to be total crap!

I'd say we should look at their track record...which is what? 95-98% accurate?




/s

 

[Attic]

Your standard for 'damning stuff' is apparently an unsourced blog post. Pardon me if I find that to be absolutely ridiculous.



All sources should be viewed skeptically. That's why it's so important to have independent verification of data, which by the way the BLS numbers have. The government is already held to a vastly higher standard than what you are requiring to believe a blogger and you know that's because the blogger is telling you something you want to believe.



You have absolutely no idea if those reasons are legitimate based on this source. None.

We both know the numbers are flawed. This is the impetus for the evolution we see government numbers take after bureaucrats have had their way.

Clear we have misunderstandings about the reasons for the flaws and what directions are taken to "correct" them.

It's not outrageous to believe that government fudged the numbers for it's own benefit, it's outrageous to think they wouldn't. Attacking the source here is expected, we can certainly wait to see how it plays.

I'll look forward to conflation of the issue first (jobs picture wouldn't have changed anyways=no big deal vs importance of the manipulation used being answered by the degree it affected the jobs picture) and obfuscation (independently verifiable, la la la ) second.

Whether the numbers were manipulated or not is all that matters, as you are i'm content here to see if the reliable source is reliable.

 

[fskimospy]

We both know the numbers are flawed. This is the impetus for the evolution we see government numbers take after bureaucrats have had their way.

Clear we have misunderstandings about the reasons for the flaws and what directions are taken to "correct" them.

Unless you're using some wildly expansive definition of 'flawed' we most certainly do not both know that. The government's numbers have the distinct advantage of being independently verified by objective sources in quite a few different areas.

It's not outrageous to believe that government fudged the numbers for it's own benefit, it's outrageous to think they wouldn't. Attacking the source here is expected, we can certainly wait to see how it plays.

I'll look forward to conflation of the issue first (jobs picture wouldn't have changed anyways=no big deal vs importance of the manipulation used being answered by the degree it affected the jobs picture) and obfuscation (independently verifiable, la la la ) second.

Whether the numbers were manipulated or not is all that matters, as you are i'm content here to see if the reliable source is reliable.

Of course that's not all that matters, what matters is if the government's numbers accurately depict the activity they are attempting to measure. The evidence presented so far shows that they do this. (inflation is confirmed by independent estimates, there are numerous labor surveys that broadly track with BLS, etc).

If someone has screwed with the numbers here and we can get a credible source to show this I'm all for hearing about it. Needless to say this blog post doesn't remotely approach such a standard.