If you don't think it is a partisan lie, then why wouldn't they give accurate numbers if they had them? If they don't care one way or another who they help or hurt, they could just release accurate numbers.
But they don't have them, they are estimates. Obviously
> If they don't care one way or another who they help or hurt
Genuine question: do you assume that partisan issues are the only possible ones to determine who they privilege or transfer from or in what direction they might bias figures or scientific pronouncements? The government is more than just red squares and blue squares.
Not all, no. But in general, yes, I do.
What other possible reason could there be in this case? They look like morons to everyone, and it just got the top lady fired.
Nah, the real answer is you cannot anymore use old survey methods to measure the employment and jobs of 160 million workers, in a $27 trillion economy without full mass intervention and forced responses.
They're measuring and quoting the wrong empirical data in the first place, for a variety of reasons. Largely to keep the narrative going that the fed is needed to stabilize the economy. Unemployment figures is a grossly misleading term for what that figure actually measures, for example. They don't look like idiots to everyone, only to those people who do economics right.
And they're not idiots. It's very carefully constructed to avoid most people ever questioning the system, while keeping the system self sustaining within a gullible populace.
They're after their own wealth and prestige. Not that of a political party.
True, but in this case that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about survey data estimates and actual data post timeframe comparisons/revisions.
