kupierczycki
21.06.04, 21:46
Forum Gospodarka za sprawa Kagana vel kamila_z_nz utonelo w morzu
niesamowitych bzdur. Kagan poszukuje mnoznikow PKB w USA uparcie twierdzac, ze
takowe istnieja. Wtoruje mu JOrl, ktory gdzies cos widzial ale zaden z nich
nie potrafi udokumentowac "informacji". Powoluja sie na artykul Richebachera w
Financial Times, ale zaden z nich go nie czytal. Jedyne co moga znalezc z
Richebachera to wzmianka na jednej z wielu stron internetowych
produkcji pana Larouche'a, znanego konspiracjonisty i samozwanczego
ekonomisty. Wytropili, ze w USA uzywa sie hedonicznej metody regresji przy
obliczaniu indeksu inflacji. Coz za znamienne odkrycie. W ich mniemaniu USA
oszukuje. Zupelnie umknelo ich uwadze, ze w statystyce uzywane sa przerozne
metody regresji do wyrazenia inflacji przy zachodzacych zmianach jakosciowych.
Metoda hedoniczna jest kompromisem pomiedzy metodami Laspayers a Paasche i
zblizona jest do metod Fishera lub Thørnquista.
Metoda hedoniczna jest stosowana nie tylko w USA ale takze we wszystkich
krajach OECD :
www.oecd.org/document/58/0,2340,en_2649_201185_1889402_1_1_1_1,00.html
Znamienne jest rowniez zupelnie niezrozumienie wskaznikow uzywanych w
statystyce. CPI (Consumer Price Index) jest rownoznaczny z GDP(Gross Domestic
Product). Otoz GDP ( po polsku PKB) jest zawsze wyrazany w biezacej walucie
danego kraju i nie uwzglednia inflacji.
Latwo mozna obliczyc o ile wzrosl PKB w stosunku do poprzedniego roku i
wskazac stope wzrostu. Jednak takie wyliczenie nie uwzglednia inflacji. Aby
zatem obliczyc "realny" wzrost PKB nalezy najpierw obliczyc wskaznik inflacji.
Stosujac metode Laspayers inflacja bedzie wyzsza, stosujac metode Paasche
inflacja bedzie nizsza. Stosujac metode hedoniczna lub metode Fischera albo
Thørnquista inflacja wypadnie gdzies posrodku.
Zadna z metod nie jest idealna, choc zdaniem statystykow metoda hedoniczna w
odniesieniu do samochodow, elektoniki i budownictawa jest najbardziej
miarodajna. W zasadzie jedynie te trzy galezie stosuja metode hedoniczna.
Dodatkowo stosuje sie ja w Finlandii i Szwecji w odniesieniu do odziezy.
W zwiazku z powyzszym wplyw stosowania metody hedonicznej na wysokosc
wskaznika inflacji nie przekracza 10%.
A zatem jesli PKB wzrosl w cenach biezacych o 5% a inflacja wyniosla 2%
(stosujac metode hedoniczna) to "realny" wzrost PKB wyniosl 3%. Jesli
przyjmiemy, ze inflacja zostala zanizona w wyniku zastosowania metody
hedonicznej o 10% to w najlepszym wypadku blad wyniosl 0.2 punktu
procentowego. A zatem inflacja "prawdziwa" wyniosla 2.2% co zmniejsza "realny"
przyrost PKB z 3% do 2.8%. Ale przeciez w oczach antyamerykanistow urzad
statystyczny USA wykazuje sie zla wola i celowo zawyza przyrosty PKB i zaniza
inflacje. Zatem dlaczego ow urzad nie zastosowal metody Paasche. Wtedy
inflacja wynioslaby 1.3% a "realny" wzrost wynioslby 3.7%.
PS.
Oto artykul Richebachera w FT
By Kurt Richebacher
FT.com site; Sep 04, 2003
American economic recovery is the world's great hope. So there was widespread
satisfaction when the US Commerce Department last week revised its estimate of
annual growth in the second quarter to 3.1 per cent, up from an earlier
estimate of 2.4 per cent. A closer look at the numbers, however, tells a
somewhat gloomier story.
Much of the growth in gross domestic product is due to a big jump in defence
spending, which provided $40.6bn of the reported GDP growth of $73.1bn. Yet
while the commerce department and some media reports noted that defence
spending had risen by 44 per cent at an annual rate, many commentators failed
to mention its role in raising GDP growth. All too often nowadays, new
economic data are examined with a single question in mind: are they better
than expected? Close analysis with a longer-term perspective is in short supply.
Still, the commerce department report seemed to contain good news on capital
investment. "Real non- residential fixed investment increased 6.9 per cent in
the second quarter, in contrast to a decrease of 4.4 per cent in the first,"
it said. "Non-residential structures increased 4.8 per cent, in contrast to a
decrease of 2.9 per cent. Equipment and software increased by 7.5 per cent, in
contrast to a decrease of 4.8 per cent. Real residential fixed investment
increased 6 per cent, compared with an increase of 10.1 per cent." These
numbers suggest a vigorous turn in capital spending. However, their strength
owes a lot to the singular US habit of annualising many figures. Quarterly
data, in other words, are about four times the reality that would be reported
in other countries.
So what exactly did happen in the private sector? Consumption increased by
$62.5bn and business fixed investment - vital for a robust, self-sustaining
recovery - by $22.4bn.
A single component of business fixed investment accounted for more than its
overall increase. Investment in computers soared by $38.4bn, or 12 per cent,
from $319.1bn to $357.5bn.
The trouble is that much of this boom-like increase in computer investment
never occurred. The apparent surge is a consequence of the hedonic deflator
that US government statisticians use when measuring computer output and
investment. The aim is to capture quality improvements by calculating how much
it would have cost in 1996 to buy a computer of equivalent power to today's
machines.
Measured in current dollars, however, this spending rose a lacklustre $6.3bn,
from $76.3bn in the previous quarter to $82.6bn - far below previous peak
levels. In other words, hedonic pricing produced $32.1bn of GDP in real terms,
about 43.9 per cent of the reported second-quarter GDP increase of $73.1bn. In
its absence, GDP would have grown a mere $41bn, implying a growth rate of 1.68
per cent. The important thing about hedonic pricing is that it measures
dollars that nobody pays and nobody receives. And it grossly distorts
international comparisons.
Recessions and times of slow growth are when businesses and consumers normally
retrench, correcting boom-time spending excesses. A full-scale recovery, in
turn, requires the economy's return to a sustainable pattern of consumption,
investment and saving.
None of these adjustments is happening in the US. Alan Greenspan, the Federal
Reserve chairman, has been fighting the consequences of excessive monetary
looseness with still more of the same. Inevitably, economic and financial
fundamentals, such as profits, national savings, debt levels, balance sheets
and the trade deficit, continue to deteriorate across the board.
Profits, as calculated in the GDP and income accounts, are down again. Total
before-tax profits were $591.5bn in the second quarter, compared with $621.6bn
in the first quarter. Non- financial profits were $359.2bn, after $391.3bn in
the first quarter. As div- idends are rising while profits fall,
credit-financed dividends have soared in the non-financial sector to $102.8bn.
The private sector's strength derived completely from bubble-driven consumer
spending. But that bubble has been pricked by the sharp rise in long-term
interest rates. Mortgage re- financing activity is falling sharply.
Mr Greenspan has turned bubble creation into a virtue. In days of yore, asset
prices were viewed as a by- product of underlying economic conditions. Now, by
contrast, the real economy is heavily dependent on asset inflation to fuel
borrowing and spending. These conditions are more favourable to recession than
to recovery.
Artykul zostal zamieszczony w Financial Times we wrzesniu 2003. Juz dzis z
cala pewnoscia mozemy stwierdzic, ze autor
pomylil sie w swoich prognozach.
Pozdrowienia
Kupierczycki
