tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3580247703206240142.post6295171878215570734..comments2023-05-16T02:08:42.858-07:00Comments on Degringolade: Been Pondering On This One For A BitDegringoladehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11893964959960977677noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3580247703206240142.post-16218018325824266052010-10-26T18:57:49.750-07:002010-10-26T18:57:49.750-07:00A lot of the information is sketchy. The governme...A lot of the information is sketchy. The government compilers don't nearly have the information at hand to derive such exact figures. If you look at how the census compiles a lot of their figures it is rather obvious.<br /><br />However, over time, you can generally see the trend line. But you often need 4 years of data. And everyone spouts off on a month-to-month basis. Look at the plus or minus data on census housing data, and tell me the data has any use in the near term.<br /><br />And here is where they cheat. They do change how they compile the numbers. They don't lie. They tell you they are doing it. But our lazy press cannot be bothered to distinguish between the different time series: even when the old series is being kept up through other sources.<br /><br />Mish makes some good points but he has a real mean streak. If I am interested in numbers, I go with Calculated Risk.russell1200https://www.blogger.com/profile/16258915475311426433noreply@blogger.com