Where do you take your statistics from?

A topic for discussion: where do you people prefer to take your statistics from? Which resources do you consider more reliable and thorough (not only for the US but worldwide)? Even considering their often dubious nature, statistics can be pretty useful… if one knows how to read them.

So lastly - which statistics you consider of value? Even the notoriously unreliable GDP can be used for comparision, and to recalculate many data pieces, which are too often quoted in percents of GDP. There’s got to be more useful stats!

“statistics can be pretty useful…”

The only group they are useful for, is the state.

Though I guess you could clarify that - they are only considered useful, because it exists. i.e real monetary statistics as to how much the FED is printing money etc are useful for those who want to try avoid the inevitable bust.

“The only group they are useful for, is the state.”

I wouldn’t go as far, though you do have a point. Let me throw out an example - the debt to GDP ratio that is so often used. Larger seems to be worse, and countries with too big a ration are likely to get into trouble quickly - that is as much as you can deduce from it, seeing the GDP is so deficient.

However, if it comes to debt, there is a more interesting estimate - the debt to revenue ratio. Take a look at say, Italy and Greece - both have an (official) debt to GDP ratio of ~115%. However, dividing their gross debt by their revenue per year, you’ll get for Italy 2.48 and for Greece 3.12 years (Euro Zone area is at 1.77). Now there’s a difference.

To interpret this funny number, imagine if the numbers would stay about the same, and the countries in question would stop producing new debts (a big IF), and then used all of their income to repay their load - it would take Greece over 3 years to do so. This is of course all of their income - so no paying of their employees, no army, police, welfare state, nothing - like not eating or having any expenses for a few years. Imagine that they would use 5% of their income while not making new debts, which is still a herculean task - then it would take way over 60 years.

True, it is all playing with estimates and the numbers do change over time - but it is an interesting way to compare countries. (The USA, by the way, is at 5.96 years.)

I hope it shows that stats are not completely useless - especially for arguing with those, that are easily impressed by them. :wink:

This site is pretty good, and shows how statitistics are often manipulated by the government:

Shadowstats are a pretty cool, though they concentrate on the US.

One good page for worldwide information is the CIA Factbook (oh, the delicious irony). Another is NationMaster.

In the pleasant but illusory world of “national product statistics,” government expenditures on goods and services constitute an addition to the nation’s product. Actually, since government’s revenue, in contrast to all other institutions, is coerced from the taxpayers rather than paid voluntarily, it is far more realistic to regard all government expenditures as a depredation upon, rather than an addition to, the national product.

In fact, either government expenditures or receipts, whichever is the higher, may be regarded as the burden on private national product, and subtraction of the former figure from Gross Private Product (GPP) will yield an estimate of the private product left in private hands. The ratio of government depredation (government expenditures or receipts, whichever is the higher) over Gross Private Product yields the approximate percentage of government depredation of the private product of the economy. [21] - MNR, AGdepression pg. 291

[21]Generally, government expenditures are compared with Gross National Product (GNP) in weighing the fiscal extent of government activity in the economy. But since government expenditure is more depredation than production, it is first necessary to deduct “product originating in government and in government enterprises” from GNP to arrive at Gross Private Product. It might be thought that total government expenditures should not be deducted from GPP, because this involves double counting of government expenditures on bureaucrats’ salaries (“product originating in government”).

But this is not double counting, for the great bulk of money spent on bureaucratic salaries is gathered by means of taxation of the private sector, and, therefore, it too involves depredation upon the private economy. Our method involves a slight amount of overcounting of depredation, however, insofar as funds for government spending come from taxation of the bureaucrats themselves, and are therefore not deducted from private product. This amount, particularly in the 1929-1932 period, may safely be ignored, however, as there is no accurate way of estimating it and no better way of estimating government depredation on the private sector.

If government expenditures and receipts are just balanced, then obviously each is a measure of depredation, as funds are acquired by taxation and channelled into expenditures. If expenditures are larger, then the deficit is either financed by issuing new money or by borrowing private savings. In either case, the deficit constitutes a drain of resources from the private sector. If there is a surplus of receipts over expenditures then the surplus taxes are drains on the private sector. For a more extended discussion, and a tabulation of estimates of these figures for the 1929-1932 period, see the Appendix.

"Suffice it then to say that a leading cause of the proliferation of governmental statistics is the need for statistical data in government economic planning. But the relationship works also in reverse: the growth of statistics, often developed originally for its own sake, ends by multiplying the avenues of government intervention and planning. In short, statistics do not have to be developed originally for politicoeconomic ends; their own autonomous development, directly or indirectly, opens up new fields for interventionists to exploit.

Each new statistical technique, whether it be flow of funds, interindustry economics, or activity analysis, soon acquires its own subdivision and application in government. A particular example is input-output analysis, which began as a purely theoretical attempt to lend empirical content to the Walrasian system of general equilibrium."

Read more: The Politics of Political Economists - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Institute http://mises.org/daily/4302

“[S]tatistics are, in a crucial sense, critical to all interventionist and socialistic activities of government… Statistics are the eyes and ears of the bureaucrat, the politician, the socialistic reformer. Only by statistics can they know, or at least have any idea about, what is going on in the economy… Cut off those eyes and ears, destroy those crucial guidelines to knowledge, and the whole threat of government intervention is almost completely eliminated” (II, pp. 182-83)."

Read more: The Mises Review: Logic of Action, The by Murray Rothbard and and http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=100#ixzz0oq1jBkhF

Thank you, excellent quotes! The late Sir James Cowperthwaite comes to mind, the man who made Hong Kong into what it is. When asked about the one reform that he was most proud of, he said: “I abolished the collection of statistics”. Sir John believed that statistics are dangerous, because they enable social engineers of all stripes to justify state intervention in the economy.{*}