Completely agree that seasonally adjusted numbers are "gas
lighting". That said, this is not a "Biden thing" as the Zero
Hedge author would have the reader believe. The fiddling has
been going on for decades, during both Democrat and Republican
administrations. I'm not excusing it - the concept is a farce
and highly manipulative - just pointing out it's
bipartisan.
That said, in my opinion the Zero Hedge author has his own
agenda and that's what weakens his overall point and disappoints.
He too manipulates the reader by his characterizations of
the numbers. For example, why is it that a .1% miss on the
CPI to the upside makes for a "hotter " than expected number (the
implication being that it's a disaster), but a .1% miss to the
downside on the PPI (which we know is inaccurate but putting that
aside) is characterized as the "smallest possible miss"? The
answer is obvious.
Posted by DigiNomad on 12th of Apr 2024 at 09:15 am
Yep, I had to "unfollow" zero hedge for this reason...about the
same time I stopped watching CNBC. I find that being able to
criticize data reports is critically important to this line of
work...in other words, come up with your own ideas. Political
bias is just as unhelpful as analyst bias typically is (analysts
are selling products). Neither one is the objective type of
journalism that really helps you see landmines before hitting them.
I do think sometimes bears are more thoughtful than perma
bulls - perma bulls are the cheerleader types of the stock market.
It's fun and they look good doing it...but it doesn't take a lot of
thought.
Newsletter
Subscribe to our email list for regular free market updates
as well as a chance to get coupons!
Completely agree that seasonally adjusted
"Literally Gas Lighting": The Hilarious Reason For Today's PPI Miss: Seasonally Adjusted Gas Prices
Posted by RichieD on 12th of Apr 2024 at 07:18 am
Completely agree that seasonally adjusted numbers are "gas lighting". That said, this is not a "Biden thing" as the Zero Hedge author would have the reader believe. The fiddling has been going on for decades, during both Democrat and Republican administrations. I'm not excusing it - the concept is a farce and highly manipulative - just pointing out it's bipartisan.
That said, in my opinion the Zero Hedge author has his own agenda and that's what weakens his overall point and disappoints. He too manipulates the reader by his characterizations of the numbers. For example, why is it that a .1% miss on the CPI to the upside makes for a "hotter " than expected number (the implication being that it's a disaster), but a .1% miss to the downside on the PPI (which we know is inaccurate but putting that aside) is characterized as the "smallest possible miss"? The answer is obvious.
Yep, I had to "unfollow"
Posted by DigiNomad on 12th of Apr 2024 at 09:15 am
Yep, I had to "unfollow" zero hedge for this reason...about the same time I stopped watching CNBC. I find that being able to criticize data reports is critically important to this line of work...in other words, come up with your own ideas. Political bias is just as unhelpful as analyst bias typically is (analysts are selling products). Neither one is the objective type of journalism that really helps you see landmines before hitting them. I do think sometimes bears are more thoughtful than perma bulls - perma bulls are the cheerleader types of the stock market. It's fun and they look good doing it...but it doesn't take a lot of thought.