The revision process is transparent so you can actually see how everything is calculated if you want.
1) No it is not fully transparent, IMO.
The final numbers they use for the calculations are transparent.
But - like the employment numbers - the exact numbers and exact calculation procedures they use to come up with those numbers at every level are often not available to the public. They are secret.
I mean think...if these numbers were available to the public, then the public could figure them out. Yet, the 'experts' - even those from major banks with gigantic resources - are always guessing. Even after the numbers are released, it is impossible for people to find the exact calculation process for every number...which is essential to confirm the validity of each and every number and the weight that each and very number carries.
The exact tabulations of the GDP - down to the absolute smallest detail - are NOT transparent. Yet, they should be.
2)They make assumptions...hardly scientific.
'
When BEA calculates the advance estimate, we don’t yet have complete source data, with the largest gaps in data for the third month of the quarter. In particular, the advance estimate lacks complete source data on inventories, trade, and consumer spending on services. Therefore, we must make assumptions for these missing pieces based in part on past trends. As part of this process, we publish a detailed technical note that lays out the assumptions we made for a particular estimate. We also publish detailed materials on the standardized procedures and methods used in the various vintages of the GDP estimates.'
http://blog.bea.gov/tag/gdp-revisions/
Don't make assumptions you ding dongs...just provide what you know and say you don't know the rest.
But no, they have to play the stats god and guess anyway.
3) what is the point of releasing a number that you know is not accurate because all of the required data inputs are not available?
Everyone with an unbiased brain in their head knew the BEA would have to revise the Q1 number WAY down fom it's first report of +0.1%.
Yet these ding dongs at the BEA post them as 'the' numbers (pending revision).
Why not just not post the number until the final revision?
Because of politics.
IMO, the BEA is (like the BLS) little more then a bunch of bureaucrats who do what they are told from above.
And if 'above' tells them to legally make the numbers seem good...they do just that.
They don't flat out lie, but they use 'creative' math and tabulation techniques to fudge the numbers in the direction their bosses request.
You believe otherwise...I really don't much care...your bias is already well documented (no offense).
Whereas my bias is for facts...no matter what they are.
We are done here, for now.
Good day.
Threads merged.