Econbrowser reader sammy claims:
1) Economists have limited exposure to the real world
2) Economists extrapolate off last period statistics, which are much more imprecise than they acknowledge
3) Economists are ideological and can torture statistics to reach the desired outcome
We are still in the process of determining what’s in the Build Back Better (BBB) bill, but it approximates what is currently discussed, it in conjunction with the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) will not likely lead to much pressure in credit markets and upward pressure in prices, given it is largely paid for. Here (while we wait for the CBO) are Moody’s Analytics projections (as of 11/4).
(not in 2018, but in 2002-03):
Some messages from the market and from estimated inflation rates.
The answer depends on the deflator.
BLS documents the extent of revisions going from 1st to 2nd, 1st to 3rd, 2nd to 3rd releases of NFP, here. Using the 2019 mean absolute revisions, the range of plausible values for employment growth (not percent growth) is shown below.
The employment release for October provided lots of interesting facts. First employment growth is faster than anticipated, and second was faster in September than originally estimated.
Reader rsm responds to my citation of GDP and Human Development Index data thusly:
Why not include the standard errors?
Again, because they would be so wide, you could tell any story and back it up with data?
From the advance GDP release:
From the declassified (10/29) report (noted in this LA Times article):