> I apologize to Doug and SA for the other night's outbrust.
No worries, Chuck, there's no harm done.
> Even so, after thinking it over it still seems to me the SF Fed
> numbers are off. I've been going over them in my mind and can't figure
> out how they could be so low. I suspect the figure does not count all
> the components that go into finished durable goods.
>
> So in my mind when I looked at that Chinese percent I was expecting to
> see something that resembled a figure in my mind that represented the
> whole pacific rim and South Asia.
>
> Something like a total asian durable goods figure would probably
> correspond much better to my reality.
>
> Sayan's crack about anecdote is not a synonym for data made me laugh
> in a good way. I use my experience because I don't usually study data.
> About the only sources I use are BLS and the US Census stats which do
> usually correspond to what I see around me.
First off, the data I posted on domestic goods production doesn't have the problem of accounting for components (at least, in principle). It just counts total domestic *purchases* of goods, then subtracts total imports (including components). Assuming those two numbers are measured accurately, the problem of components is resolved.
But more to the point, I don't understand why you think it's possible for you (or me, or anyone) to judge the percentage of domestic-made goods better than statisticians who spend their lives painstakingly gathering comprehensive data and thinking through the measurement issues involved.
What do you do, count the "Made in China" labels at the store? How do you know how much of *those* goods are made up of *U.S.* components? And also, we're talking about value - how do you know how each component was sold for? If a good has 100 components, but one of them makes up 80% of the cost, how would you know that from looking at the good in the store?
And as for the Port of Long Beach, you know that it doesn't just load in imports, it also loads out exports.
SA