3 Economic Reporting Lies Revealed

I’m not much for glossing over the true state of affairs just to make things look better, which is why I take issue with many government reports.

When it comes to providing clear information on the economy, the U.S. government is more late-night pitchman than serious news anchor. And to make matters worse, many of the numbers they peddle have been “adjusted” so that reports show better results.

Statistics in this category run the gamut from gross domestic product (GDP), to inflation, even to employment. We don’t have to look far into the numbers to find questionable changes.

When it comes to measuring the growth of the economy, no report is bigger than GDP. It sounds straightforward — add up the value of production in the U.S. over a calendar quarter, and adjust it for inflation to determine the real rate of growth.

But apparently that’s not good enough.

In the mid-1980s the Bureau of Economic Analysis started adjusting the cost of computer equipment to reflect increasing capacity in later versions of the same equipment.

Even though consumers might have been paying roughly the same amount for a new computer as they would have before, the bureau adjusted the price higher when calculating GDP.

The idea was to show how much more buyers were getting with increased capacity, even though they didn’t pay any extra.

Got that?

This type of adjustment is called “hedonic.” It now adds over 20% to the value of GDP and affects items as far flung as clothing — or back when this was established, videocassette recorders.

This chunk of money that is added to GDP never changes hands. It’s simply estimated as extra value received by the purchaser. Anything to make GDP seem better.

The same sort of thing is done with inflation… but opposite. They want GDP higher, and inflation lower, so they fudge the numbers accordingly.

For example, a television with improved components in later models will have its price adjusted lower in inflation reports, whether the actual price stayed the same or even increased. What you paid $1,000 for, they may write down as $800.

Effectively, consumers are told: “TV’s cost less, you just can’t buy one for the lower price.” If it’s not available to me, then how can it count as something I would purchase? What if I don’t want the extra features? Too bad.

The inflation rate includes another curious adjustment — Owner’s Equivalent Rent.

This piece of mathematical fantasy represents what a homeowner could rent his home for if he chose to. The number is included as the cost of shelter in the calculation of inflation.

Instead of performing all these mental gymnastics to arrive at an estimate of housing costs, the government could simply survey home prices. That’s what they used to do.

But here’s the thing. Rents don’t climb as fast as home prices. So if you’re battling inflation, you magically adjust the cost of shelter to reflect rent instead of what it takes to actually buy a house.

It’s no coincidence the adjustment showed up right after a period of strong inflation in the U.S. that was very evident in home prices in the late 1970s. Guess it was too much for the BEA to take.

Then there’s one of my favorite economic adjustments: employment.

Each month the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) estimates the number of people with jobs and those who are unemployed. They conduct a phone survey of roughly 60,000 people to ask about their work. Again, this too sounded straightforward… Do you have a job? If not, do you want a job? But as with GDP and housing costs, this proved to be too simple.

If you don’t have a job, but want to work, there are a few more questions they have to ask. How long have you been out of work? If more than four weeks, then what have you done in the last four weeks to find a job? If your answer doesn’t include filling out an application somewhere, then magically you are no longer counted as unemployed. You still don’t have a job, of course, but for the purposes of the Labor Bureau, you no longer count toward the unemployment number. Brilliant!

GDP, inflation, unemployment… these are just some of the big economic releases that move markets and sway people’s opinions about the health of the economy.

And yet, the numbers reported by the government include all sorts of fudges and fixes to make the statistics more attractive than the raw numbers would be.

This is why we have to do our own homework. It is why we have to break down each report to the raw data, and then decide for ourselves where things stand.

It takes a lot of research, but the payoff is worth it. With it, we can make more informed decisions for our businesses, our investments, and our families.

I’d say that’s worth the extra effort.
rodney_sign
Rodney

Why Winners Keep Winning (And Losers Keep Losing)

If “buy-and-hold” and the notion that you can’t beat the market have left you short of your personal and retirement goals, then you’re going to want to hear the truth about passive and active investing.

Chances are if you’re more than 25 years old, you think it’s impossible to “beat the market!” But you CAN beat the market… you just need to use the right strategy! Find out more in our new report from Adam O’Dell,, Why Winners Keep Winning (And Losers Keep Losing)!

LEARN MORE
Categories: Investing

About Author

Rodney Johnson works closely with Harry Dent to study how people spend their money as they go through predictable stages of life, how that spending drives our economy and how you can use this information to invest successfully in any market. Rodney began his career in financial services on Wall Street in the 1980s with Thomson McKinnon and then Prudential Securities. He started working on projects with Harry in the mid-1990s. He’s a regular guest on several radio programs such as America’s Wealth Management, Savvy Investor Radio, and has been featured on CNBC, Fox News and Fox Business’s “America’s Nightly Scorecard, where he discusses economic trends ranging from the price of oil to the direction of the U.S. economy. He holds degrees from Georgetown University and Southern Methodist University.