3 ms·

Statistics done by a statistics bureau was "revised to look bad"? There are thousands of people collecting billions of data-points all accumulated layer by laye

Statistics done by a statistics bureau was "revised to look bad"? There are thousands of people collecting billions of data-points all accumulated layer by layer into a summary, compared over different sources. But this year they just decided to make up the numbers instead? US labor and economics statistics is famously most reliable in the world, going further back in time than any other statistics source. Its not only used by the government but by banks, companies, and international organisations to predict and analyze economic trends. But surely this year when the numbers looked a bit bad, they made the numbers to intentionally look that way? Simply no. The administration firing the people collection statistics is the real concern. (and its not the first time the administration has removed historical statistics either) (manual revisions are made in statistics to compensate for anomalies. Companies stocking up on product to escape tariffs created a false peak in GDP that does not correspond to real consumption for example. But that's how statistics work, and the US is the gold standard in proper statitics)

itsoktocry 1y ago
[flagged]
- aDyslecticCrow 1y ago
  > I didn't even make a judgement. I beg to differ. First, you made a very clear judgement in your wording; > revisions that looked convenient for the last administration > Trump did (baselessly?) Yes, trumps stated reason is as you summarize. But you made no separation between trumps words and yours. A judgement-less phrasing would look something like; "Well, it's not quite true. Trump did fire the because of revisions to the data that looked favorable for the previous administration." > Then you went off the rails like left wingers tend to do when I would also like to stop you here. This sentence is more dangerous to me than the current administration. You assumed my political stance because i criticize a political leader. You use a political leaning as an insult. The US political landscape is segregated between two opposite extremes that drift further rand further into insanity. I could have seen a equally destructive administration show up on from the democrats. I believe trump is the inevitable consequence of a broken and segregated political system that is no longer able to work together. Useful political discourse stopped being viable decades ago, and the system breaking as quickly as it is (sidestepping congress and balance of power) just means it broke long so. I'm not american, and my idea of democracy looks fundamentally different to yours. To me, the currently sitting administration is the default punching bag regardless of party affiliation, because a good administration will only ever do at most 58% good. You assuming i am "leftist" because i criticize a political figure, shows how truly segregated the system has become (and how deeply rooted you are in it). And for the record; if everything trump said he wanted to do this period was actually what he was doing effectively (home-shore manufacturing, boost the power grid, become more independent from china) i would be stoked right now. But half of his politics are currently speed-running the opposite.
  - itsoktocry 1y ago
    >I beg to differ. First, you made a very clear judgement in your wording; Case in point. You "beg to differ" because you read incorrectly into everything. I said they looked convenient to the last administration, which Trump said himself. I even added "baselessy?" as in, "maybe it was baseless? I don't know". Think about what you're saying here. I TOLD you "I'm not making a judgment", and you say "Ahcktually..". You can spare me the moral lecture. >But you made no separation between trumps words and yours. Huh? How poor is your comprehension that you would require this? >This sentence is more dangerous to me than the current administration. This is an actual sanity test. If you think the sentence I wrote is more "dangerous" than anything you are, indeed, way off-kilter.

itsoktocry 1y ago

[flagged]

aDyslecticCrow 1y ago
> I didn't even make a judgement. I beg to differ. First, you made a very clear judgement in your wording; > revisions that looked convenient for the last administration > Trump did (baselessly?) Yes, trumps stated reason is as you summarize. But you made no separation between trumps words and yours. A judgement-less phrasing would look something like; "Well, it's not quite true. Trump did fire the because of revisions to the data that looked favorable for the previous administration." > Then you went off the rails like left wingers tend to do when I would also like to stop you here. This sentence is more dangerous to me than the current administration. You assumed my political stance because i criticize a political leader. You use a political leaning as an insult. The US political landscape is segregated between two opposite extremes that drift further rand further into insanity. I could have seen a equally destructive administration show up on from the democrats. I believe trump is the inevitable consequence of a broken and segregated political system that is no longer able to work together. Useful political discourse stopped being viable decades ago, and the system breaking as quickly as it is (sidestepping congress and balance of power) just means it broke long so. I'm not american, and my idea of democracy looks fundamentally different to yours. To me, the currently sitting administration is the default punching bag regardless of party affiliation, because a good administration will only ever do at most 58% good. You assuming i am "leftist" because i criticize a political figure, shows how truly segregated the system has become (and how deeply rooted you are in it). And for the record; if everything trump said he wanted to do this period was actually what he was doing effectively (home-shore manufacturing, boost the power grid, become more independent from china) i would be stoked right now. But half of his politics are currently speed-running the opposite.
- itsoktocry 1y ago
  >I beg to differ. First, you made a very clear judgement in your wording; Case in point. You "beg to differ" because you read incorrectly into everything. I said they looked convenient to the last administration, which Trump said himself. I even added "baselessy?" as in, "maybe it was baseless? I don't know". Think about what you're saying here. I TOLD you "I'm not making a judgment", and you say "Ahcktually..". You can spare me the moral lecture. >But you made no separation between trumps words and yours. Huh? How poor is your comprehension that you would require this? >This sentence is more dangerous to me than the current administration. This is an actual sanity test. If you think the sentence I wrote is more "dangerous" than anything you are, indeed, way off-kilter.