Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

No racist intent.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Total government spending, government spending as a percentage of GDP etc etc. There are several ways to read 'government spending' without even beginning to look at the criteria as to how it is

Entirely wrong, and not just because Wikipedia says so; everyone else says so too.

Reading comprehension fail on your part, which is strange as you provided the link.

You posted a link to 'government spending' which of course is a statistical subject as I already correctly pointed out.

However the statistical data the thread was referring to was, to repeat: 'percentage growth in government spending', a significant difference.
Furthermore as already stated if you want useful statistical data on 'government spending' you use data like 'government spending as a proportion of GDP', which is a relational percentage.
Your wiki link reinforces this by using 'International government spending as a percentage of GDP' as the covered example to compare national government spending.
This is echoed by almost all government spending data, including the CIA world handbook.
I am yet to find any (other) survey that used percentage growth in government spending unrelated to GDP or tax income, for obvious reasons. The unrelated percentage is of limited use and potentially misleading without the related data.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
You should read what you link to. Marketwatch spins the figures it doesn't describe, quantify or elaborate (however you want to say it) how the figures are calculated.

Do you really think that "spin" is distinct from description?

In this case, no; as the accompanying text on the link doesn't provide any qualifying data, it just embellishes on the graph provided. It doesn't give specific sources, not does it define what accounts for spending, which is relevant and noteworthy because the data is an unrelational percentage.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
It doesn't even properly source them except to say 'official government figures'. Which figures?

Yeah, it does source them properly, it links them. That's proper sourcing. If you can't do 2 minutes of research, you have no place commenting.

Then I suggest you go to the link and look for yourself.
There is no specific data 'percentage growth in government spending' to recite directly. So its processed data taken from the source material. That would be fine as an independent economic study so long as the methodology for processing the source material into the data set is given. However it doesn't provide any information as to which source data was used, or which criteria were used to qualify the data set.

All I see so far is in keeping with statistical propaganda data manipulation techniques.

So I metaphorically ask again, which figures?
You need not try to answer, we are not provided with a methodology with which to recreate the research with the source material we have been given.

dogma wrote:
Of course they can, that doesn't mean that they aren't "meaningful" which was the whole origin of this dispute.

Of course the data is 'meaningful', it has a propaganda value at a minimum. If its honest, it has direct statistical value, however it is inadequately supported to be credible.
The point remains that the data set can be manipulated to the point that misleading assumptions can be drawn from it.

dogma wrote:
No, that isn't deferred debt. Deferred debt is the promise of payment on a given debt in the future. Debt is itself a deference of financial loss due to spending.

I defer a debt if I owe 10 USD on my car, don't have the money, and promise to pay 12 USD next month.

Sorry, you have misread this. Most debt is deferred, if payment wasn't deferred it would be paid and there would be no debt.
A 'deferred debt' refers specifically to a debt for which the start of repayment is delayed.
In government terms part of the advantage of deferred debt is that as the debt is not currently due a dishonest government (which means the majority of them) may be able to omit the debt from the tally of debt owed.

So to use your example.
If you take on a debt and borrow $10, then you have spent $10. You cant avoid that as you have a current debt of $12 including interest.
If you defer the debt you can be tempted to omit the $10 spent from spending figures as the $12 debt is not currently owed, it is owed later. While pointless to an individual governments use this method to manipulate budget figures, because as the debt is not being serviced it can be 'accidently' overlooked for purpose of making government statistics look better than they are.
Greece did something similar to this throughout the last decade.

dogma wrote:
Not at all. I'm saying that the statistic indicates exactly what it indicates.

And if it indicates deliberately misleading data?

This should be no surprise to you. political bodies and their apologists try to read the statistics to their own advantage all the time, and very heavily at election time. Its such excellent propaganda because its not actual lying if done well, it just skews the source data to read what the politicised statistician wants it to read.
You can tell various signs to see that a data set is perhaps not kosher. Vague sourcing pointing to a large body of information that has been cherry picked to provide a slender data set. Lack of specific sourcing or criteria used to provide the data set. Use of unrelational percentages. It doesn't help that the data set is accompanied not by a dry study but a descriptive conclusion that is clearly party politicised.

This is where you are being led astray dogma. You are trying to look at the data mathematically rather than as an act of political propaganda. A scientific statistical data set has a methodology and specified source material accompanying it so that the conclusions can be checked, and avoids unrelational percentages or provides the relational data in a second statistical set for comparison. A politicised statistical often omits these things because the partisan conclusion is the key goal not the efficient dissemination of knowledge.

Reporting data that way is Marketwatch's privilege, but the results should be seen as party political data not as an 'independent' study based on economic science.

I haven't even begun to look at the possibility as to whether the source data itself has been tampered with, it must be tempting for an incumbent president to do so. Failing provision of alternate sources we have no choice but to use that data given. Itas a common problem the annual UN and World Bank publications heavily rely on data provided by member governments this data has all too often been massaged.

Orlanth wrote:
However the statistical data the thread was referring to was, to repeat: 'percentage growth in government spending', a significant difference.

And "percentage growth" (percent change) is an elementary statistical formula (X-Y/Y).

So you have an accepted statistic put through an elementary formula. This isn't a massive difference.

Orlanth wrote:
I am yet to find any (other) survey that used percentage growth in government spending unrelated to GDP or tax income, for obvious reasons. The unrelated percentage is of limited use and potentially misleading without the related data.

"Misleading" does not mean "not meaningful", pretending that it does is itself misleading.

Orlanth wrote:
In this case, no; as the accompanying text on the link doesn't provide any qualifying data, it just embellishes on the graph provided. It doesn't give specific sources, not does it define what accounts for spending, which is relevant and noteworthy because the data is an unrelational percentage.

It directly links the CBA. If you can't be bothered to click through their data tables, then the fault is yours.

Orlanth wrote:
There is no specific data 'percentage growth in government spending' to recite directly. So its processed data taken from the source material.

And the process is X-Y/Y.

Orlanth wrote:
However it doesn't provide any information as to which source data was used, or which criteria were used to qualify the data set.

Yes it does, there's only one possible definition of "government spending", because its the CBA. "Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits." Its right there.

Orlanth wrote:
So I metaphorically ask again, which figures?

That's not what "metaphorically" means. You mean "rhetorically".

Orlanth wrote:
Of course the data is 'meaningful', it has a propaganda value at a minimum. If its honest, it has direct statistical value, however it is inadequately supported to be credible.

It doesn't need to be honest in order to have statistical value. And yeah, its sourced well enough. Its a derivation of CBA data, no more no less.

Orlanth wrote:
Sorry, you have misread this. Most debt is deferred, if payment wasn't deferred it would be paid and there would be no debt.

I didn't misread anything, you misspoke. And now you're trying to correct yourself by saying exactly what I did.

Orlanth wrote:
A 'deferred debt' refers specifically to a debt for which the start of repayment is delayed.

That's deferred repayment, not deferred debt.

Orlanth wrote:
So to use your example.
If you take on a debt and borrow $10, then you have spent $10. You cant avoid that as you have a current debt of $12 including interest.

No, I have not spent 10 dollars. I have taken on that debt, there is a difference. Spending my own money, and spending money I am liable for are distinct.

Orlanth wrote:
While pointless to an individual governments use this method to manipulate budget figures, because as the debt is not being serviced it can be 'accidently' overlooked for purpose of making government statistics look better than they are.

It isn't accidental, or dishonest.

Again, statistics exhibit nothing more, and nothing less, than they exhibit.

Orlanth wrote:
And if it indicates deliberately misleading data?

It doesn't. It exhibits what it exhibits. That's all.

Wait, someone called dogma a troll? Oh dear.
This thread needs a mod sharpish...

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
However the statistical data the thread was referring to was, to repeat: 'percentage growth in government spending', a significant difference.

And "percentage growth" (percent change) is an elementary statistical formula (X-Y/Y).

So you have an accepted statistic put through an elementary formula. This isn't a massive difference.

The difference is quite significant if you edit the criteria by which the data is handled. Its a standard propaganda technique.

dogma wrote:
"Misleading" does not mean "not meaningful", pretending that it does is itself misleading.

You should read what you quote.
Of course the data is 'meaningful' it has at the very least a propaganda value. I explained that in the previous post.
I am pretending nothing.

If you are unaware of how statistics can be misleading then fair enough, that is what propaganda is for.

dogma wrote:

It directly links the CBA. If you can't be bothered to click through their data tables, then the fault is yours.

The data set is not quantified, it simply links to an entire website. This gives ample room to tweak the figures.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
There is no specific data 'percentage growth in government spending' to recite directly. So its processed data taken from the source material.

And the process is X-Y/Y.

Such data not provided, its an unrelated percentage, which is heavily used for a conclusion. Normally to make the data worthwhile it is linked to tax income or GNP. Which is also what the OMB dis, for example: Table 15.3—Total Government Expenditures as Percentages of GDP:

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
However it doesn't provide any information as to which source data was used, or which criteria were used to qualify the data set.

Yes it does, there's only one possible definition of "government spending", because its the CBA. "Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits." Its right there.

Is it?

You sure its not taken from Table 15.2—Total Government Expenditures.

We arent told how the data was addressed.

Orlanth wrote:
Of course the data is 'meaningful', it has a propaganda value at a minimum. If its honest, it has direct statistical value, however it is inadequately supported to be credible.

It doesn't need to be honest in order to have statistical value. And yeah, its sourced well enough. Its a derivation of CBA data, no more no less.

Orlanth wrote:
The difference is quite significant if you edit the criteria by which the data is handled. Its a standard propaganda technique.

Which I can do even without changing the actual terms used to refer to the data. In fact, that would be the easiest way of doing it.

So, essentially, you're arguing that someone, somewhere could have changed the data at some point, which is much like arguing that some guy may lied. Both are true, of course, but both also shut down all debate if overemphasized because both are always true. In this case you're overemphasizing the possibility, because the methodology used to produce the statistic is spelled out in the name of the statistic, which makes it expressly easy to reverse engineer and thereby determine its veracity.

Orlanth wrote:
You should read what you quote.
Of course the data is 'meaningful' it has at the very least a propaganda value. I explained that in the previous post.
I am pretending nothing.

In a previous post you also said the data isn't meaningful, which proposition am I to believe you're arguing from if you don't recant one of the two?

Orlanth wrote:
If you are unaware of how statistics can be misleading then fair enough, that is what propaganda is for.

They're generally misleading because people allow them to be. As in, they attempt to read more into them than is actually there.

There are two exceptions to this. The first is direct data manipulation (such as artificially creating values), and the second is failing to identify methodology. Neither of these was done in the relevant case.

Orlanth wrote:
The data set is not quantified, it simply links to an entire website. This gives ample room to tweak the figures.

First, you can't have a data set that isn't quantified, that's what "quantify" means. You mean "qualified".

Second, there are only two historical tables that could be of use on that website: 1.1 and 1.2. Since the graph we're discussing isn't expressed in percentages it has to be 1.1. There is no room to "tweak" figures there, no more than there would be in any other case, because the only "tweaking" that can go on here is outright distortion in the sense of artificially inflating or deflating individual noted categories (ie: remove certain spending from Obama's years). Keep in mind, this is not the same as putting the entire data set through some form of analytic equation, which is what was done.

Orlanth wrote:
Such data not provided, its an unrelated percentage, which is heavily used for a conclusion.

It isn't unrelated, its related precisely in the way its described as being related. That is, "percentage growth in government spending".

Orlanth wrote:
Normally to make the data worthwhile it is linked to tax income or GNP. Which is also what the OMB dis, for example: Table 15.3—Total Government Expenditures as Percentages of GDP:

Yes, and that would be a different statistic, and it would describe something different.

Orlanth wrote:
Is it?

You sure its not taken from Table 15.2—Total Government Expenditures.

We arent told how the data was addressed.

The relevant numbers (federal outlays) are the same.

Orlanth wrote:
I gave examples of how government data is adjusted to appear to be something it is not.

No, you gave examples of how statistics will be interpreted by people that don't understand statistics.

Orlanth wrote:
My explanation needed no 'correction'. You are trying to pick holes in the wording because you havent addressed the previous posts properly:
The data set corresponds to a propaganda technique using an unrelated percentage, no clear sourcing

No, I'm picking holes in your wording because I honestly don't know if we're talking about the same things because you can't seem to use correct terminology.

Orlanth wrote:
Government borrows money, defers the debt, so that not only is the repayment deferred but the debt is not officially tallied until a later date.
Deferred debt.

That's illegal in most Western nations. Now, that doesn't mean governments don't do illegal things, but at this point we're running head first into your standard nonsense whereby you make an unfalsifiable claim in order to prop up a weak argument.

You may as well start claiming that governments stockpile teacups, and that this action was the real cause for the financial crisis.

Orlanth wrote:
Ok, so you don't understand propaganda use of statistics, why not admit such and move on.

No, I understand how statistics are used to take in people that don't do their research, or don't understand statistics. You put a chart on a page, or use a number, and suddenly it becomes more official. The problem is that anyone who knows anything about math, at all, can see through this in any instance where the base data is not a complete fabrication. This is the point I've been making the entire time. The data is only misleading if the people looking at it are ignorant, in which case any data would be misleading. They're not looking at what is being indicated, they're looking at the colored bars.

So, does anyone have the actual numbers?

Table 1.1, government outlays.

dogma wrote:Table 1.1, government outlays.

2 seconds in a spreadsheet tells me the 2010, 2011 and 2012 are below inflation. There's a big bump in '09, but I suppose the fact that there's been a stimulus shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

Testify wrote:

dogma wrote:Table 1.1, government outlays.

2 seconds in a spreadsheet tells me the 2010, 2011 and 2012 are below inflation. There's a big bump in '09, but I suppose the fact that there's been a stimulus shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

Wo look at thos deficit numbers. The deficit is higher than all on budget government spending in 2001.

Frazzled wrote:

Testify wrote:

dogma wrote:Table 1.1, government outlays.

2 seconds in a spreadsheet tells me the 2010, 2011 and 2012 are below inflation. There's a big bump in '09, but I suppose the fact that there's been a stimulus shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

Wo look at thos deficit numbers. The deficit is higher than all on budget government spending in 2001.

Did you not notice the recession or something?
You can't just go "WOW THAT'S A BIG NUMBER" and take your political opinions, and your vote, from that.
The tories do that a lot, they say things like "we pay x million pounds an hour on interest payments", conveniently missing out a)the size in relation to the overall economy, and b)Inflation is well above interest rates, which means debt is actually going down or would if it weren't for the deficit.

Testify wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Testify wrote:

dogma wrote:Table 1.1, government outlays.

2 seconds in a spreadsheet tells me the 2010, 2011 and 2012 are below inflation. There's a big bump in '09, but I suppose the fact that there's been a stimulus shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

Wo look at thos deficit numbers. The deficit is higher than all on budget government spending in 2001.

Did you not notice the recession or something?
You can't just go "WOW THAT'S A BIG NUMBER" and take your political opinions, and your vote, from that.
The tories do that a lot, they say things like "we pay x million pounds an hour on interest payments", conveniently missing out a)the size in relation to the overall economy, and b)Inflation is well above interest rates, which means debt is actually going down or would if it weren't for the deficit.

Sure you can. In the real world, if my income goes down I have to cut spending. Same for states. Eventually its the same for governments too.

Frazzled wrote:

Testify wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Testify wrote:

dogma wrote:Table 1.1, government outlays.

2 seconds in a spreadsheet tells me the 2010, 2011 and 2012 are below inflation. There's a big bump in '09, but I suppose the fact that there's been a stimulus shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

Wo look at thos deficit numbers. The deficit is higher than all on budget government spending in 2001.

Did you not notice the recession or something?
You can't just go "WOW THAT'S A BIG NUMBER" and take your political opinions, and your vote, from that.
The tories do that a lot, they say things like "we pay x million pounds an hour on interest payments", conveniently missing out a)the size in relation to the overall economy, and b)Inflation is well above interest rates, which means debt is actually going down or would if it weren't for the deficit.

Sure you can. In the real world, if my income goes down I have to cut spending. Same for states. Eventually its the same for governments too.

So if you got into debt, the first thing you'd do would be to sell your car so you couldn't get to work?

Testify wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Testify wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Testify wrote:

dogma wrote:Table 1.1, government outlays.

2 seconds in a spreadsheet tells me the 2010, 2011 and 2012 are below inflation. There's a big bump in '09, but I suppose the fact that there's been a stimulus shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

Wo look at thos deficit numbers. The deficit is higher than all on budget government spending in 2001.

Did you not notice the recession or something?
You can't just go "WOW THAT'S A BIG NUMBER" and take your political opinions, and your vote, from that.
The tories do that a lot, they say things like "we pay x million pounds an hour on interest payments", conveniently missing out a)the size in relation to the overall economy, and b)Inflation is well above interest rates, which means debt is actually going down or would if it weren't for the deficit.

Sure you can. In the real world, if my income goes down I have to cut spending. Same for states. Eventually its the same for governments too.

So if you got into debt, the first thing you'd do would be to sell your car so you couldn't get to work?

NO, because I am not an idiot. I would sell some of the children, then quit spending so much. DUh. Tghats why you have you like spares. Duh.

Frazzled wrote:

Testify wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Testify wrote:

dogma wrote:Table 1.1, government outlays.

2 seconds in a spreadsheet tells me the 2010, 2011 and 2012 are below inflation. There's a big bump in '09, but I suppose the fact that there's been a stimulus shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

Wo look at thos deficit numbers. The deficit is higher than all on budget government spending in 2001.

Did you not notice the recession or something?
You can't just go "WOW THAT'S A BIG NUMBER" and take your political opinions, and your vote, from that.
The tories do that a lot, they say things like "we pay x million pounds an hour on interest payments", conveniently missing out a)the size in relation to the overall economy, and b)Inflation is well above interest rates, which means debt is actually going down or would if it weren't for the deficit.

Sure you can. In the real world, if my income goes down I have to cut spending. Same for states. Eventually its the same for governments too.

Except a state is not a family nor a business and can continue to operate on debt until it is no longer trusted, wont happen for a long, long time for the US

youbedead wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Testify wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Testify wrote:

dogma wrote:Table 1.1, government outlays.

2 seconds in a spreadsheet tells me the 2010, 2011 and 2012 are below inflation. There's a big bump in '09, but I suppose the fact that there's been a stimulus shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

Wo look at thos deficit numbers. The deficit is higher than all on budget government spending in 2001.

Did you not notice the recession or something?
You can't just go "WOW THAT'S A BIG NUMBER" and take your political opinions, and your vote, from that.
The tories do that a lot, they say things like "we pay x million pounds an hour on interest payments", conveniently missing out a)the size in relation to the overall economy, and b)Inflation is well above interest rates, which means debt is actually going down or would if it weren't for the deficit.

Sure you can. In the real world, if my income goes down I have to cut spending. Same for states. Eventually its the same for governments too.

Except a state is not a family nor a business and can continue to operate on debt until it is no longer trusted, wont happen for a long, long time for the US

Whats the difference? I can get credit until I can no longer be trusted then whammo its bankruptcy time. You want to see what happens when the US government defaults or even starts creeping towards that? Do yourself a favor and look up the Argentinian fiscal crisis.
Also many states are required to have a budget.

Further, you do know you have to actually pay all that gak back right? This should be a concern for you. I'll be laughing in my grave and you'll get to deal with it hahahah
An TBone will still be old and uncaring.

Because despite the economic failure the US government is still the safest investment in the world, no one would currently ever say the US cant be trusted, or that it could fail.

Always a first time

The USA could fail.

Testify wrote:So, does anyone have the actual numbers?

The actual numbers are misleading as well. Use the numbers adjusted for inflation to a set year to get the best idea on spending increases.

Melissia wrote:

Testify wrote:So, does anyone have the actual numbers?

The actual numbers are misleading as well. Use the numbers adjusted for inflation to a set year to get the best idea on spending increases.

That's...what I was doing.
I was demonstrating that inflation is greater than the spending increases, using the data.

Frazzled wrote:
Further, you do know you have to actually pay all that gak back right?

Not if you're a government, and not even necessarily if you're a person. I can borrow a few hundred grand for school, work at McDonald's for the rest of my life, and they can't recoup beyond a 25% garnish over whatever I can demonstrate as hardship (likely more than my income).