Maven: More GDP Follies

But Jeremy, Joanne and Jeannine, guess what? I'm not done with you yet.

Lesson Learned?

When the Commerce Department revised the number this week -- a huge revision to 2.2% and perhaps only the first revision, as the final number is not due until later this month -- I decided to revisit our three guests of dishonor.

Did they take responsibility? Did they fit this into the larger lesson of these revisions? Did they --

Oh God, you probably have the same seeping sense that I do, huh?

Peters did not, as far as I can tell, report on the issue specifically, which I guess is one way of handling it. Eduardo Porter did the reporting for The New York Times in an article called "Commerce Department Says U.S. Economy Is Weaker Than Expected." Especially, I might add, weaker than someone who took original reporting of that 3.5 number at face value.

The lead is a gem: "Analysts have been stumped by the apparent resilience of the American economy, which seemed to be bounding ahead at a 3.5 percent pace in the final quarter of last year even as the housing market fell and the Federal Reserve raised interest rates."

Skip to the next paragraph: "The paradox has been solved: the economy was not bounding."

They were stumped! It is a paradox, a mystery wrapped around a riddle wrapped around a question.