Writing about economics
I don't do it much.
I know enough about economics to follow along when the big words get tossed around, but i also know i don't have anything really useful to add to the conversation.
But i also know bad economics writing when i see it:
So, given that there was only one month of data between the baseline (December) and the one under discussion (February), that's like having a huge meal and saying, "i haven't been this full since lunch."
I know enough about economics to follow along when the big words get tossed around, but i also know i don't have anything really useful to add to the conversation.
But i also know bad economics writing when i see it:
The Federal Reserve reported Monday that consumer borrowing rose at an annual rate of 2.4 percent in February, just half of the 4.9 percent increase in January.(emphasis added)
The slowdown reflected much weaker demand for auto loans and other type of non-revolving credit, which rose at a rate of 0.4 percent in February, much lower than the 3.6 percent growth rate in January. Credit card debt rose at a 5.9 percent rate.
. . .
The 2.4 percent overall rate of increase was the slowest since debt growth had slowed to a 1 percent rate in December.
So, given that there was only one month of data between the baseline (December) and the one under discussion (February), that's like having a huge meal and saying, "i haven't been this full since lunch."
Labels: media
Since 1949, Durhamites have slept soundly, secure in the knowledge that, in our town, erection can be depended upon. Now, thanks to the power of the internets, we can spread that security all over the world.
2 Comments:
Almost all economics reporting in the MSM is this bad. The articles routinely compare quarters to months, years to decades, percentage to gross, apples to oranges.
It doesn't bode well for what's going down, does it?
With enough foreclosures and other failures, the opportunity for capital to evaporate from the middle classes is better than ever.
By
Tony, at 8:15 PM
I think there must be some editorial directive to include superlatives in a report as often as possible.
The other example that leaps immediately to my mind is the reporting of casualties from Iraq, which often include comparisons that strike me as completely arbitrary ("this week was the most violent since April 2004" or "the lowest number of US troop deaths since last Tuesday", etc.)
Kind of like arcane baseball statistics.
I don't know...I guess the idea is that superlatives are supposed to make a story seem more important. Of course, if every story is important, then none of them are.
At any rate, I am becoming more convinced that paying too much attention to news--at least via mainstream outlets--might actually make one stupider.
By
Brian, at 9:12 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home