by smiley » Mon 10 Nov 2008, 16:16:22
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t's not a statistical trick. Trickery would be only publishing the advance report and then ignoring the new information that counter-acts the previous reports.
No that would be fraud. And I have no problem with the number being revised. I do have a problem with one way revisions. In my field we call that a bias, and I think in this case that is an appropriate term.
And yes this will not fool the market analysts, but it does fool the general public. Revised numbers are rarely reported in mainstream media, and they certainly don't stick as much as the new ones.
That leaves the trickery part. In order to make that claim stick I have to believe that the bias is applied intentionally instead of the result of a model which for some reason is somehat off-target.
Over the past years I have seen countless examples of these kind of revisions. I have seen them in housing prices, jobjess claims inflation numbers, crime numbers etc.
To give an example: I wrote an tread about the IEA oil production numbers a while back. In this case it is actually worse because the revisions are not reported.
How to achieve everlasting growth
IMO there are only two reasons why this happens.
1) They want to sketch a rosier picture to the public as not to scare anyone.
2) The numbers are composed by a group of eternal optimists, who unfaded by the harsh reality of the last set of revisions attack the next report with the same level of optimism.