Pet peeve

"But look at what Clinton did."

I don't usually post comments on blogs, but once in a while I am compelled. Today is an example.

Following is a blog post on MaxSpeak and comments, mine at the end.

ALL THE PRESIDENT'S JOBS: DUBYA DOUBLES DOWN

We've blogged here ad nauseum about the President's unbelievable claims that his tax cuts would generate over 300,000 jobs a month. We are two million short of that pace thus far.

The Bushists' solution: make even more outlandish claims -- that we will now see over 400,000 jobs a month. Press release/summary is here, and report done jointly by EPI and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is here.

Below is a chart from the report showing the devolution of Administration soothsaying over the past three years. Although they have downgraded their prediction of overall employment, the short time before November compresses the period over which progress they need to claim for political reasons can transpire. The upshot is ever more implausible predictions. Given this pattern, by September they will be claiming a million new jobs in October.



Posted by max at February 12, 2004 12:00 PM | TrackBack

Comments

Where this unbridled optimism starts to be come problematic is when our creditors, i.e., the rest of the world, stop lending us money.

If we are going to continue to rely on foreign nations to lend us cash, we best start considering the impact of any decrease in our economic credibility . . . .
Posted by: Barry Ritholtz at February 12, 2004 10:16 PM

Why do the 2002 projections start diverging from reality in 2001?
Posted by: Josh Yelon at February 13, 2004 03:26 AM

Projections for year X are compiled before year X-1 is over. So the 2002 predictions include a prediction for the remainder of 2001, which is the divergence you see.
Posted by: Tzoq at February 13, 2004 10:16 AM

Correct-o-mundo.

DeLong has pointed out that the job forecast in the Economic Report of the President (ERP), released every February, is based on incomplete numbers for the preceding year, and this particular there is a huge difference. The report goes to print before the 4th quarter numbers are available (see p. 83, ERP).
Posted by: Max B. Sawicky at February 13, 2004 10:43 AM

Shouldn't that be "year *for* which predictions were made"?
Posted by: goethean at February 13, 2004 12:04 PM

goth -- no. "in" is correct. In feb of year T, the CEA releases a report predicting GDP for year t-1. The report is based on data through the third quarter of year t-1.
Posted by: Max B. Sawicky at February 13, 2004 02:39 PM

If you had a comparable chart for (at least) the Clinton era, this could be a compelling case. Without knowing if such overestimations are routine. I don't know whether it has much meaning.
Posted by: Luisa at February 16, 2004 03:11 PM

luisa,

you almost have a point. the point would be that without some comparison to past years the chart is somewhat meaningless (at least if you do not follow these numbers and recognize any meaning in them). the point would be, as you say, whether this overestimation spread is routine.

what has no meaning is whether clinton made such overestimations. clinton is not running for president. it no longer matters whether he can do the job or not.

every time someone complains about bush's policies, someone chimes in, "well, clinton was worse", or "clinton didn't do any better", or some such absolutely meaningless comparison.

what's the point? how does whether clinton did better or worse have any meaning for me when i am trying to decide whether bush should remain in office?

compare democracts to republicans - i can understand the value in that. compare current to typical, i can understand that. but, since clinton isn't running, knowing whether he made similar overestimations, without looking further back than clinton's (mis)calculations is truly meaningless.
Posted by: m at February 17, 2004 03:34 PM

I realize Luisa put "at least" in parenthesis in her remarks. But that won't cut it. Any comparison between Clinton and Bush is still worthless in anything other than a comparison of Clinton and Bush.

Please, everybody, do me a favor. When you hear someone making that Clinton complaint, please ask them to help you understand how that is of any value to you in the upcoming election. If they say that Clinton is a good example of what a Democrat candidate can be expected to do, then ask them why we didn't stop voting for Republicans after Dick Nixon resigned in disgrace to keep from getting kicked out.

If your Clinton-fixated communicant is the type unable to respond to questions and debate, you might simply start (and end) with, "Clinton's name will not be on the ballot this year. Please, step this way into the 21st century."

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.