From: elwin@ai.mit.edu (Lee Campbell)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Using misinformation
Date: 31 Aug 92 22:25:50 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

In article <16850D48C.MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu>, MEDELMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Michael Edelman) writes:
- In article <guido.714937170@sparc-3>
- guido@blink.att.com (Guido Bertocci) writes:
-  
- >
- >I wouldn't normally bother posting, however, there seems to be an
- >insistence on using statistical data about inflation and unemployment
- >to make political points that is simply not true.
- >
- [...]
- >
- >         (% increase)  (% of workforce)
- >year     CPI    energy  Unemployment
- >70       5.7     2.8    4.8     Nixon
- >71       4.4     3.9    Not available
- >72       3.2     2.6    Not available
- >73       6.2     8.1    Not available
- >74      11.0    29.6    Not available
- >75       9.1    10.5    8.3     Ford
- >76       5.8     7.1    7.6
- >77       6.5     9.5    6.9     Carter
- >78       7.6     6.3    6.0
- >79      11.3    25.1    5.8
- >80      13.5    30.9    7.0
- >81      10.3    13.6    7.5     Reagan
- >82       6.2     1.5    9.5
- >83       3.2      .7    9.5
- >84       4.3     1.0    7.4
- >85       3.6      .7    7.1
- >86       1.9   -13.2    6.9
- >87       3.6      .5    6.1
- >88       4.1      .8    5.4
- >
- >The data clearly shows that unemployment was higher under Ford
- >and Reagan than under Carter.  (One is certainly free to argue
- >how long a particular administrations responsibilities carry over into the
- >next).
- >
- That last bit sounds counterintuitive, doesn't it? It also sounds far from
- what we remember reading in the news. That's beacuse it's very misleading
- in the way it is reported. Using yearly averages grossly distorts the real
- trends, eliminating the peaks and dips. In fact, in the fall of 1980
- inflation was over 17.5% one month. Unemployment peaked around then as
- well, leading to the famous "misery index" (unemployment + inflation)
- of something near 24. Carter's staff had come up with the misery index
- during the 76 election campaign to run down Ford (whose index was around
- 10, I think)

Well, I don't think the yearly average "grossly distorts the real trends,"
any high peak will increase the yearly average. The average is a sort of
low pass filter, which IMHO filters out noise and emphasizes trends. But
have it your way. In any case, the Reagan unemployment had monthly peaks
over 10%, so they benefit from the same distortion. This is not the meat
of your argument, so let's forget it.

- The choice of years in the above table is misleading to the point of
- outright misrepresentation. Reagan took office in 1981, and the 1981 budget
- was primarily a product of the Carter administration. You can make a
- reasonable argument that his policies didn't really kick in until 1982.

Actually, Mr. Bartocci mentioned this when he said "One is certainly
free to argue how long a particular administrations responsibilities
carry over into the next." (see above).

- So what we really see is Carter inheriting a mean CPI of under 8% and
- driving it to an averaged 13+% and a monthly peak of over 17%.
-  
- Similary we have the implication that energy prices drove Carter policy
- rather than the converse, which is actually the case. The famous energy
- crisis occurred under Ford, not Carter! But even given the instability of

WRONGO!! There were *two* oil price shocks, not just one. Look at the
energy prices in the data given! The first was in '74; the second was
in '78. I remember it well; I was a senior in high school and my mother
used to get me up early so I could drive her car down and wait in the
gas line before breakfast. Don't tell me there was only one embargo;
I was there for the second one. Your whole argument is based on only
one oil price shock; it holds no water because there were *two* price
shocks. 

- OPEC, US energy prices stayed high! If we look at the "energy policy" of
- Carter, we see a number of reasons prices stayed high. Those of you old enough
- to have been reading the newspaper back then may recall the various classes
- of oil and the different tariffs- at first there was "old oil", which was
- taxed heavily, and "new oil" which wasn't. Then Congress came up with ways
- to increase taxes, including "new old oil" and "old old oil". It was
- policy, not any embargo, that kept energy prices high.
- >
- >For those of you who want to argue about how awful Carter's administration
- >was and what horrible economic policies he had, at least have the courtesy
- >to use valid data.  (If you have different numbers feel free to post them
- >along with their source).
- >
- And before you post a silly argument like the above, make sure you
- understand the data!

Talk about silly arguments! You just tried to blame the 2nd oil embargo
on Congress!!!!
				- Lee Campbell

- >My own interpretation of the data is that inflation was drastically
- >reduced in the 80s due to falling oil prices and was on its way down
- >before Carter left office.  If you think that Carter or Reagan were
- >primarily responsible for driving oil prices up or down feel free to
- >argue that as well, but try to be specific on why or how they did it.
- >Don't forget to consider the big jump in energy prices in 74 and 75.
- >
- And you might be advised to beware of spurious correlations.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
-  Michael Joseph Edelman           Wayne State University
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc