Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : The ENRON Scandal -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Duke of URL© who wrote (2972)	2/20/2002 10:26:34 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5185

FROM THE OFFICE OF STRATEGIC STATISTICS Hey Duke, I think this one might be of some interest to you. It reminded me of Greg Walden's sophistry and disingenuousness in a way.... mwhodges.home.att.net <Snip> During the latter half of the 1990s, the criteria for measuring education quality (SAT scores) and economic data (inflation, productivity, GDP growth) have been dramatically revised, compared to the past. What is going on and why? The creditability, reliability and quality of consistent statistical measurement and reporting criteria is critical to comparing today with yesterday in a meaningful manner.- - - whether one is comparing current education trends with our past, or current economic trends with the past and to other nations. Without consistent criteria, we defeat the wise saying: "the further back you can look, the further ahead you can see." Without such we have significantly altered our 'compass' - - and therefore know less about our nation's true status and direction, compared to before. Such practices can lead the public to grossly inaccurate assessments of our nation's status - a danger for individuals and to a nation. Suppose current data trends are not so nice to see. Suppose, then, powers-to-be are not pleased with what data shows - - like declining SAT scores, or minimal productivity - - or they want to reduce how you measure inflation so they can lower cost-of-living income adjustments to senior citizens and working people and build surpluses for other uses - - or by this statistical approach make it appear that real family medium incomes are now rising instead of flat as was the case for 2 decades - - without telling them? Suppose they are afraid of our nation's deteriorating trade performance, with its accelerating negative trends, and want to give the impression that U.S.A. economic performance, when compared to other nations, can be made to look better than it is in order to influence foreigners to finance our deficits? Suppose they want to create a better 'legacy' or 'job performance appraisal'? Suppose they want to influence voters a certain way, or cause individuals to invest their life savings in risky ways to the benefit of a few? Suppose they arrange to grossly change data measurement criteria which has the effect of 'pumping-up' current data to make it appear better, painting a picture of performance quite different than it actually is. Is that good for our nation? <End Snip> The chicanery certainly didn't end at End Run.... ........................................................ Note to the Cheney watchers on Leno: Did you happen to notice that Cheney got a loud round of applause when he talk about murdering birds? What kind of a lunatic nation cheers that? Oh, never mind, Ray :)