We believe we can report the government puts out?

We believe we can report the government puts out?

Since I'm not much of a merchant basis, I tend to stay away from government statistics. For me, they have very little value. As far as I can see, they are full of errors. Let me explain.

What's wrong with traditional statistics? They fail to measure what is actually happening in the economy, because the measurements taken today are totally out of sync with reality. In fact, it has become almost impossible to measure some things which, if not measured, make different economic conclusions practically worthless. Let's see what these "immeasurables" are.

Service orientation

As some economies become service rather than production oriented, it becomes difficult to measure output. When a nation is primarily a producer of goods, it is relatively easy to measure work output in terms of tons of steel, the number of cars produced, miles of paved road, the board feet of lumber shipped, etc. But how to measure the amount of information services provided? How do you measure the output of the think-tank? How do you measure the output of the accounting firm, legal services, banking, financial adviser, or even a trader of futures, options or shares? Does the merchant have a way out? Do you measure out the merchant with the number of round turns he does? What about those where he loses?

Technological advances

New technology - which led to an improvement in the quality, quantity, or both, makes it extremely difficult to measure the productive output. Let me give you an example of what I mean. Forty years ago, the Ford Motor Company employed 600 people at its plant outside Kansas City, Missouri. Today that plant is operated by only 6 men. What happened to the 594 jobs? They are taken by robots. The use of robots created shorter but improved product cycle. A friend of mine, who is one of 6 people working in that factory, sitting around doing nothing. He was bored stiff. He takes a laptop computer to work and play games. But it must be there in case one of the robots break down. The question is, how to measure its performance?

At that time I was born, it was common for women giving birth to remain in hospital for ten days. Today they send women home after a day or two. I would consider being an advance in technology and knowledge, do not you? However, when the statistician sees figures on hospital bed occupancy, he would see a fall.

I have another friend who works package delivery service. With careful use of a computer to monitor the amount of traffic on the roads for delivery at different times of the day, his company has the opportunity to increase the number of deliveries made, and at the same time reducing the number of delivery vehicles and drivers are needed to they make deliveries. Now I happen to think that is a big improvement. Certainly that's what my friend more wealthy and successful businessman. But his company's productivity, as measured by delivery of miles driven, will show a decline, and he used fewer vehicles, this fact will appear as fewer vehicles sold, and less steel. Do you see where this is going? We're looking at the problem to which no solution. Our concept of a unit of output is all wrong and there is no way to do it right. Technological advances, especially when they are due to the rapid improvements in quality, are more difficult to measure. Because of our inability to measure real output, our statistics fail to reflect what really happens in the economy.

Another problem created by technological progress is seen in a slew of new products and services being produced. Many jobs do not exist several years ago. None of the products or services that generate these jobs.

If you are a trader, you probably have had firsthand experience with technological obsolescence. The computer you buy for your Forex Trading is almost obsolete the day you buy. Within one year of Forex Trading software you use also become obsolete. Did you know that the average life of a computer model is now less than 12 months? And this is true for most consumer electronics. Thirty percent of sales for products that do not exist one year earlier.

Several years ago I gave up the idea of ​​buying a camera. No sooner I could get one became obsolete. The manufacturer came out with a new model that had more opportunities than one I just bought. It was maddening. It caused me great frustration. Worse than that, it irritated my passion gland (gland shares a common passion channel with greed gland). I wanted to buy a new camera at least once a year. The only cure is to not own a camera at all. I wonder what it makes in gross domestic production figures. It is also today with the software. I had to learn two new operating systems in the past four years. I had to learn to use three different word processors in the same period. Is this progress?

Sure I made out Microsoft Corporation look better but cost me much valuable time to do it. I was able to write and Forex Trading Optures Futions "in just nine months, but it took me 1-1/2 years to produce. Why? Because I had to simultaneously learn a new word processor and operating system for the production and use. The operating system and word processor are now considered obsolete. Is fighting and struggling to learn quirks in software productive? My assistant and I have spent (wasted) many hours trying to get Microsoft Word to produce in a format you can live. How do you measure all the lost time and money of many conversions to be done, because the use of computers? In fact, many have questioned why all the billions of dollars invested in computers failed to increase productivity and growth the way they were supposed to.
Does anyone really know the answer?

Cyberspace

Next may be the hardest out of all when it comes to measurement. How in the world do you measure productivity in cyberspace? Countless hours are now spent by workers who used the Internet and various company intranet. Whether these people are productive or not? In fact, the closer an individual or firm to the cutting edge of technology, the more time and energy is spent trying to learn how to use that technology. Do we count this time as productive, or is it just lost time? It is here with intangible economic factors.

Economic statistics fails miserably in capturing many of the benefits of information technology and much of that information exists in cyberspace. Information technology and costing us time and effort to learn how the new terminology, the word "cyberspace" has the potential benefit of improved quality rendering, saving time, convenience, and increased consumer choice. At least tell us so. Can these improvements be measured?

When you use an ATM (automatic machine fate), saving time, the pain of standing in line, and frustration that can be caused by human destiny, is it in any way to appear in the GDP figures your people? And if you are robbed while using the ATM? Does that add to the measure of productivity of a thief?

What I'm saying here is that at least part of any global market growth or decline may be because the GDP of many nations have been badly understated (or overstated), and the official GDP figures are more in error. They put out ever-growing part of the economy, which defies measurement. But there's more.

The global economy

A steadily increasing portion of trade and investment decisions are made by multinational companies. An example would be the merger of a major telecom in a country with which the largest telecom in another country. GDP is the first country which is true in counting the output of the unification of the economy or the second country should be considered as part of its GDP? Japan's economic output is more accurately measured by counting his Toyota U.S. production as part of its economy or should, as the output is considered part of the U.S. economy?

How would you measure the productivity of firms that international mergers? There have been many of these around lately.
Conventional statistics were originally designed for taking care of production of physical goods. But more and more, the output of some societies is production of material things. U.S. is fast becoming a producer of ideas and information. Large segments of the production of richer countries in the form of services. Ideas, information and services are less visible, measurable and less equal. Statisticians are far behind in their ability to measure the reality of today's economies. They continue to turn out masses of people who measure stuff out. In fact, they produce more of such individuals than ever before. But these figures fail to take into consideration how fast-growing sectors as telecommunications, computer software, cyberspace, health care and financial services. We are flooded with a wealth of misinformation. Is it any wonder that forecasters rely on such information is terribly bad for equity markets?