The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Don't Have the Numbers You Want?

  1. #1
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,584

    Default Don't Have the Numbers You Want?

    Then just make some up!!!

    http://www.zerohedge.com/article/nin...estimates-data


    Then claim they are better than you expected:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...last-week.html

    Shameful...........


    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

  2. #2
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    Then just make some up!!!

    http://www.zerohedge.com/article/nin...estimates-data


    Then claim they are better than you expected:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...last-week.html

    Shameful...........



    RK
    Really? One of the nice things about studying economics in the US or working as an economist is that the quality of the data is generally very high and clear distinctions are made about the status of the data. All early data are estimated....every single week. A four week rolling average is provided to adjust for week to week fluctuations which are routinely volatile. As more accurate data become available the data are updated so that the historical data becomes more accurate. The methodologies used have changed relatively infrequently to preserve comparability over time. When methodological changes are made, comparable data are collected for a period of time to ease the transition. However, all such changes are inherently controversial because the changes result in distortions of working econometric models. The reporter was reporting what was readily disclosed -- no conspiracy there. Similar situations arise regularly. Your interpretation of this as a shameful manipulation evidences nothing but your own ignorance.

  3. #3
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    Really? One of the nice things about studying economics in the US or working as an economist is that the quality of the data is generally very high and clear distinctions are made about the status of the data. All early data are estimated....every single week. A four week rolling average is provided to adjust for week to week fluctuations which are routinely volatile. As more accurate data become available the data are updated so that the historical data becomes more accurate. The methodologies used have changed relatively infrequently to preserve comparability over time. When methodological changes are made, comparable data are collected for a period of time to ease the transition. However, all such changes are inherently controversial because the changes result in distortions of working econometric models. The reporter was reporting what was readily disclosed -- no conspiracy there. Similar situations arise regularly. Your interpretation of this as a shameful manipulation evidences nothing but your own ignorance.
    that's nice and all, but if you read the first article you will find the error in you biased excuses.

    The data has been real, but due to the recent holiday weekend, 9 states didn't report.
    So we just made the numbers up.

    Of course, you being the self professed genius on this subject, as well as any other subject known to man, must express your usual elitest drivel, as though YOU have the inside skinny, even though those in charge admit to fudging the numbers.

    Very sad.

    RK
    Stan b & Elvis

  4. #4
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by road kill View Post
    that's nice and all, but if you read the first article you will find the error in you biased excuses.

    The data has been real, but due to the recent holiday weekend, 9 states didn't report.
    So we just made the numbers up.

    Of course, you being the self professed genius on this subject, as well as any other subject known to man, must express your usual elitest drivel, as though YOU have the inside skinny, even though those in charge admit to fudging the numbers.

    Very sad.

    RK
    If you read the article and read the release by the BLS and the extensive information on the BLS web site concerning the preparation of data, you will discover that similar articles could be written almost every week. Estimating is not the same as "fudging". The numbers are always estimates for the first several months after they are published. There is simply no instant system for compiling and auditing all the data. What is very sad is the pride you seem to take in reading everything to fit your own ideological priorities. You truly fit UB's repeated definitions of "sheeple".

    By the way, in most weeks when statistics increase or decrease more than expected in one week, the numbers usually reverse themselves in the following week. That's why the 4-week rolling average is considered better and why any such numbers must be interpreted in light of other related changes in data.

    I can guarantee that over the next two months, any negative data will be trumpeted by Republicans and any positive data will be dismissed as irrelevant or distorted. In the same period, Democrats will trumpet anything positive and dismiss or rationalize anything negative. Neither has any interest in the "quality" of the data, only the message being supported. Fortunately, the civil service has been pretty good at rolling out the numbers without regard to the interests of the white house for a long period of time.

  5. #5
    Senior Member road kill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    New Berlin, WI
    Posts
    10,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YardleyLabs View Post
    If you read the article and read the release by the BLS and the extensive information on the BLS web site concerning the preparation of data, you will discover that similar articles could be written almost every week. Estimating is not the same as "fudging". The numbers are always estimates for the first several months after they are published. There is simply no instant system for compiling and auditing all the data. What is very sad is the pride you seem to take in reading everything to fit your own ideological priorities. You truly fit UB's repeated definitions of "sheeple".
    (Liberals always resort to name calling when failing to make a cogent argument)

    By the way, in most weeks when statistics increase or decrease more than expected in one week, the numbers usually reverse themselves in the following week. That's why the 4-week rolling average is considered better and why any such numbers must be interpreted in light of other related changes in data.

    I can guarantee that over the next two months, any negative data will be trumpeted by Republicans and any positive data will be dismissed as irrelevant or distorted. In the same period, Democrats will trumpet anything positive and dismiss or rationalize anything negative. Neither has any interest in the "quality" of the data, only the message being supported. Fortunately, the civil service has been pretty good at rolling out the numbers without regard to the interests of the white house for a long period of time.
    You are a lot like these guys, don't have an answer, just start typing and hope that eventually you'll actually cover the topic.


    "Blah, blah, blah....name calling....blah, blah, blah!!!"

    RK
    Last edited by road kill; 09-10-2010 at 06:17 AM.
    Stan b & Elvis

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •