GDP Figures can't be trusted

1984ReturnsForReal_2

2 week delay in releasing the latest GDP data.

Who said the ONS data was infallible?



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10450518.stm

A "potential error" has forced the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to delay the publication of the latest GDP figures, due on Wednesday.
The very rare move was caused by concerns over the reliability of some of the figures, the ONS said.
It was due to publish the latest revision to the GDP data covering the period between January and March.
The figure is closely watched by economists as an indication of the state of the economy.
The GDP figures are part of the quarterly national accounts, which were due for publication at 0930 BST. They will now be released on 12 July.
"It is important to ensure the national accounts are right, rather than disseminate statistics that might be subject to question over their quality," said ONS director general Stephen Penneck.
"We are really sorry that we have had to do this and apologise for the inconvenience. We wil learn from this to prevent it happening again."
The first set of figures showed the economy grew by 0.2% in the first quarter. This was later revised up to 0.3%. Economists are expecting this figure to be unchanged.

michaels

Years? - more info please

Thanks for your edit - I tend to agree with your thoughts but was wondering if you had found another source with further detail.

If the numbers are wrong and GDP has been consistently mis-stated, what will that mean? Obviously if it has been an underestimate then debt and the deficit as a percent of GDP could be noticeably worse...

1984ReturnsForReal_2

michaels wrote: »

Years? - more info please

It was a joke.


But if its taking 2 weeks to produce an accurate data set it is obviously a systemic failure rather than a little IT crash....

purch

Who said the ONS data was infallible?

Err...............nobody.

The constant 'revision' of initial estimates would prove to anyone interested, that the ONS and their methods are far from exact.

GDP figures are never worth taking much notice of until the 3rd release at the earliest.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

purch wrote: »

Err...............nobody.

I distinctly remember a large number of our more senior members......

But I really can't be !!!'d to dig out names & quotes.

Degenerate

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

I distinctly remember a large number of our more senior members......

But I really can't be !!!'d to dig out names & quotes.

Saying something is not fiddled is not the same as saying it is infallible.

The fact that they are prepared to take this embarrassing step rather than release something they are not fully confident in ought to make the point rather well.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Degenerate wrote: »

Saying something is not fiddled is not the same as saying it is infallible.

The fact that they are prepared to take this embarrassing step rather than release something they are not fully confident in ought to make the point rather well.

Assuming data coming your way is correct & knowing it is coming from sources that regularly were found to be deceitful with data would be pretty much tantamount to fiddling in anybodies book.

Ah..... Interesting names appearing in this thread..

They look...... ooooooooooo........... so..... familiar........





Edit: words like beyond compromise, totally independent..... :rotfl::rotfl:

The truths out now....

mvengemvenge

"A "potential error" has forced the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to delay the publication of the latest GDP figures, due on Wednesday.
The very rare move was caused by concerns over the reliability of some of the figures, the ONS said."

Couldn't possibly be because they are 'inconvenient' for the Conservatives, could it?

Rochdale_Pioneers

mvengemvenge wrote: »

"A "potential error" has forced the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to delay the publication of the latest GDP figures, due on Wednesday.
The very rare move was caused by concerns over the reliability of some of the figures, the ONS said."

Couldn't possibly be because they are 'inconvenient' for the Conservatives, could it?

Perhaps the "independent" OBR needs to look at it - and conclude that the figures are sound just like they did for the rest of the economy....

michaels

What like the 3.5% pa growth estimates going forward in the last labour fictional budget?

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Perhaps the "independent" OBR needs to look at it - and conclude that the figures are sound just like they did for the rest of the economy....

Degenerate

mvengemvenge wrote: »

Couldn't possibly be because they are 'inconvenient' for the Conservatives, could it?

If GDP were revised up it would tally with the stronger than expected tax revenues that produced the lower than expected deficit in Q1, and would indeed be politically embarrassing - one more reminder that Cameron has been absolutely lying his @rse off since he entered office with the "worse than we thought" line.

If I were one of the ONS chaps, I'd want to be be doubly sure of my numbers if they were going to be that controversial. I'm happy for them to take their time.