[null, {"document_url": "http://www.fedupusa.org/2010/01/dont-like-the-numbers-change-em/", "unformatted_src": "http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-FG457_boskin_D_20100113155911.jpg", "src": "http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-FG457_boskin_D_20100113155911.jpg", "formatted_filename": "OB FG boskin D", "alt_text": "boskin", "rendered_width": 262, "rendered_height": 174}, null, null, null, {"document_url": "http://www.fedupusa.org/2010/01/dont-like-the-numbers-change-em/", "unformatted_src": "http://www.fedupusa.org/images/DefConImg/5-off.png", "src": "http://www.fedupusa.org/images/DefConImg/5-off.png", "formatted_filename": "off", "rendered_width": 30, "rendered_height": 30}, {"document_url": "http://www.fedupusa.org/2010/01/dont-like-the-numbers-change-em/", "unformatted_src": "http://www.fedupusa.org/images/DefConImg/4-off.png", "src": "http://www.fedupusa.org/images/DefConImg/4-off.png", "formatted_filename": "off", "rendered_width": 30, "rendered_height": 30}, {"document_url": "http://www.fedupusa.org/2010/01/dont-like-the-numbers-change-em/", "unformatted_src": "http://www.fedupusa.org/images/DefConImg/3-off.png", "src": "http://www.fedupusa.org/images/DefConImg/3-off.png", "formatted_filename": "off", "rendered_width": 30, "rendered_height": 30}, {"document_url": "http://www.fedupusa.org/2010/01/dont-like-the-numbers-change-em/", "unformatted_src": "http://www.fedupusa.org/images/DefConImg/2-on.png", "src": "http://www.fedupusa.org/images/DefConImg/2-on.png", "formatted_filename": "on", "rendered_width": 30, "rendered_height": 30}, {"document_url": "http://www.fedupusa.org/2010/01/dont-like-the-numbers-change-em/", "unformatted_src": "http://www.fedupusa.org/images/DefConImg/1-off.png", "src": "http://www.fedupusa.org/images/DefConImg/1-off.png", "formatted_filename": "off", "rendered_width": 30, "rendered_height": 30}, {"document_url": "http://www.fedupusa.org/2010/01/dont-like-the-numbers-change-em/", "unformatted_src": "http://www.fedupusa.org/images/DefConImg/bang-off.png", "src": "http://www.fedupusa.org/images/DefConImg/bang-off.png", "formatted_filename": "bang off", "rendered_width": 30, "rendered_height": 30}, null, null, null, {"document_url": "http://www.fedupusa.org/2010/01/dont-like-the-numbers-change-em/", "unformatted_src": "http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51frW3gFdaL._SL500_AA300_.jpg", "src": "http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51frW3gFdaL._SL500_AA300_.jpg", "formatted_filename": "frW gFdaL", "alt_text": "No More National Debt", "rendered_width": 150, "rendered_height": 170}, null, {"document_url": "http://www.fedupusa.org/2010/01/dont-like-the-numbers-change-em/", "unformatted_src": "http://fedupusa.org/images/Jekyll%20Island%20SM.jpg", "src": "http://fedupusa.org/images/Jekyll%20Island%20SM.jpg", "formatted_filename": "Jekyll Island SM", "rendered_width": 150, "rendered_height": 207}, null]
Don’t Like the Numbers? Change ‘Em

If a CEO issued the kind of distorted figures put out by politicians and scientists, he’d wind up in prison.

The late economist Paul Samuelson called the national income accounts that measure real GDP and inflation “one of the greatest achievements of the twentieth century.” Yet politicians from Europe to South America are now clamoring for alternatives that make them look better.

A commission appointed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy suggests heavily weighting “stability” indicators such as “security” and “equality” when calculating GDP. And voilà!—France outperforms the U.S., despite the fact that its per capita income is 30% lower. Nobel laureate Ed Prescott called this disparity the difference between “prosperity and depression” in a 2002 paper—and attributed it entirely to France’s higher taxes. Chad Crowe
There is historical precedent for a “socialist GDP.” When President George H.W. Bush sent me to help Mikhail Gorbachev with economic reform, I found out that the Soviet statistics office kept two sets of books: those they published, and those they actually believed (plus another for Stalin when he was alive).

In Argentina, President Néstor Kirchner didn’t like the political and budget hits from high inflation. After a politicized personnel purge in 2002, he changed the inflation measures. Conveniently, the new numbers showed lower inflation and therefore lower interest payments on the government’s inflation-linked bonds. Investor and public confidence in the objectivity of the inflation statistics evaporated. His wife and successor Cristina Kirchner is now trying to grab the central bank’s reserves to pay for the country’s debt.

America has not been immune from this dangerous numbers game. Every president is guilty of spinning unpleasant statistics. President Richard Nixon even thought there was a conspiracy against him at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But President Barack Obama has taken it to a new level. His laudable attempt at transparency in counting the number of jobs “created or saved” by the stimulus bill has degenerated into farce and was just junked this week.

The administration has introduced the new notion of “jobs saved” to take credit where none was ever taken before. It seems continually to confuse gross and net numbers. For example, it misses the jobs lost or diverted by the fiscal stimulus. And along with the congressional leadership it hypes the number of “green jobs” likely to be created from the explosion of spending, subsidies, loans and mandates, while ignoring the job losses caused by its taxes, debt, regulations and diktats.

The president and his advisers—their credibility already reeling from exaggeration (the stimulus bill will limit unemployment to 8%) and reneged campaign promises (we’ll go through the budget “line-by-line”)—consistently imply that their new proposed regulation is a free lunch. When the radical attempt to regulate energy and the environment with the deeply flawed cap-and-trade bill is confronted with economic reality, instead of honestly debating the trade-offs they confidently pronounce that it boosts the economy. They refuse to admit that it simply boosts favored sectors and firms at the expense of everyone else.

Rabid environmentalists have descended into a separate reality where only green counts. It’s gotten so bad that the head of the California Air Resources Board, Mary Nichols, announced this past fall that costly new carbon regulations would boost the economy shortly after she was told by eight of the state’s most respected economists that they were certain these new rules would damage the economy. The next day, her own economic consultant, Harvard’s Robert Stavis, denounced her statement as a blatant distortion.

Even more blatant is the numbers game being used to justify health-insurance reform legislation, which claims to greatly expand coverage, decrease health-insurance costs, and reduce the deficit. That magic flows easily from counting 10 years of dubious Medicare “savings” and tax hikes, but only six years of spending; assuming large cuts in doctor reimbursements that later will be cancelled; and making the states (other than Sen. Ben Nelson’s Nebraska) pay a big share of the cost by expanding Medicaid eligibility. The Medicare “savings” and payroll tax hikes are counted twice—first to help pay for expanded coverage, and then to claim to extend the life of Medicare. By FedUpUSA Editor | January 13, 2010 | Economics |


