May 20, 2004
Fact Checking Spinsanity
Well okay, not really fact checking them, but pointing out a glaring omission. In their current article, the guys at Spinsanity take Media Matters for America (headed up by a self-admitted liar) to task, fail to mention that there is currently some issue about back dating the start date of the last recession.
This Washington Post article points out that there is some evidence that suggests moving the start date into November or December of 2000 which would definitely put the start of the recession during the Clinton Administration. This isn't something new either. It has been around since December of 2003.
Even before the revisions, the GDP data showed that the economy hit a brick wall in the summer of 2000, after the stock market bubble burst.
Here is an article from Forbes on this as well. This idea is well known and should be in the Spinsanity article...why isn't it? Maybe a slight Leftward bias at Spinsanity?
Posted by Steve at May 20, 2004 03:53 PMPerhaps a left leaning there, but I have to admit I haven't really noticed it elsewhere in their postings.
It is quite strange to omit such a fact though, and a fact that has been around and legitamized for an extended period of time. I actually posted on this topic back in January. (The recession thing not the leftward leanings of Spinsanity, of course)
Posted by: James Doney on May 21, 2004 08:55 PMAparently I screwed up the coding there so the link jumped on me.
It should be I posted on this back in January>.
Sorry.
The revision of the 3rd Q '00 data shows the economy (slightly) contracting, but isn't it also true that the 4th Q '00 data showed it (slightly) expanding?
Is it possible, and is there any historical precedent, for the NBER to 'call' a recession going through an entire quarter's worth of positive GDP growth?
Posted by: sofla on May 23, 2004 03:30 PMCheck the data Sofla that was not the only declining data series, and the start date of the recession coincides with when the labor market turned south. Apparently I need to remind you that the employment/unemployment situation is a lagging indicator. The start date for the recession is probably a few months too late.
Posted by: Steve on May 23, 2004 05:05 PMSteve, why don't you condescend to the NBER professionals rather than to me? Do you suppose they ALSO don't know that, and, overlooking that commonplace observation, made a boneheaded call that ignored that (critical) data point? Or rather, that despite the unemployment inflection points, they had other measures on which they made that call? Isn't this latter the obvious case?
Posted by: sofla on May 24, 2004 05:54 PM