Economic Statistical Datum: Apples, Oranges and… Papaya?
If you’re living anywhere in the United States – or practically anywhere in the world – you’re aware that the current economic climate is, well – dismal. And while the United States President, President-elect, Congress and Senate make plans to aid the situation (and spend countless taxpayers’ dollars to do so), the future appears even more bleak than the present. Perhaps most depressingly notable in the growing list “recovery programs” is the fact that nobody will guarantee that anything being done will work. But these disheartening elements of the problem are not the focus of this blog entry.
Recently it was announced that we have been in a recession since 2007. But throughout 2008 I can easily recall a number of times when the use of the term “recession” was mocked and the users attacked. I can also recall several times when the highest ranking officials in the United States government assured us all that the economy was “robust” and “growing” and “solid.” Confusing, isn’t it?
Today the retail sales figures for November were released. According to the Goldman Sachs-International Council of Shopping Centers index of 37 stores, sales dropped 2.7% for November. The index was started in 1969, and the past month’s figures make it the worst month recorded since that inception. Now, what that statistic apparently fails to do is make the necessary compensations to level the playing field, per se. Here’s what I mean…
In 1969, how many fewer shoppers were there? Two million? Five million? And what of inflation? If sales fell 1% against a dollar that was worth $1, it’s a lot different than if sales fell 1% on a dollar that’s only worth 75¢. In one of the articles I read, it also cited that fewer shopping days between Thanksgiving and the end of the month accounted for misleading figures. Does this mean that all the data since 1969 is equally flawed? And how misleading, in dollars and cents, is the data. Which takes me to – why use the data, and why present the data for others to use?
Instead of the apples to oranges data presentation, why don’t they just give us some genuine, useable data – that we can comprehend and make conclusions based on.
The apples to oranges data presentation format is often the result of a flawed tracking system. All too often, however, it is meant to confuse. And most disturbingly is the fact that we, the readers of such data, don’t know the difference.
Leave a Reply