Maven: More GDP Follies

Dude, the only ones who couldn't figure out that the economy wasn't quite that hot were those who swallowed too much reporting. The article does, in fairness, have something all articles on the topic should (few do): a relative statistic, in this case, that the average revision since the early 1980s has been 0.5 percentage point.

The inclusion of that statistic is progress. But if you are aware of the statistic, how can the "apparent resilience" be such a mystery?

As far as Morrison goes, same dreary stuff. She mentioned in her lead that the economy was "much weaker than first thought," which raises the question "By whom?" Never mind. She is then off and running with conclusions about what will happen under this "dreary picture" with the economy "tepid."

Wasn't this thing just coming close to overheating?

As I see it, Aversa tries to address her miss in the first paragraph. Again, we get the "much slower than originally estimated," but we also get, right in the lead, that it was "the sort of unusually large revision that has happened only seven times in the last 30 years." Never mind that seven times over the past 30 years is once every roughly four years, certainly no mathematical fluke. And even at the 0.5 percentage-point average, we are changing the scope of economic growth, so conclusions are useless.

Eleanor Roosevelt also said, "You gain strength, courage and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face."

On this one, Eleanor, I was able to follow through. I looked fear in the face, and it looks a heck of a lot like coverage of GDP growth. And Eleanor? Come save me. I haven't slept since.

>To order reprints of this article, click here: Reprints