Cheney and eBay (stupid but funny)

[VarlosZ]

@lissener

Actually, we don’t even know whether that was Cheney’s point. The tiny AP snippet, quoted by the OP, gives exactly zero context. Where is the rest of the speech?

What an idiot. The point of that sentence is pretty crystal clear. Are you suggesting he was using it as a metphor for something? Or perhaps he was making fun of a rightwing point of view? Please suggest an alternate theory–make up some context, as an experiment–to show how any context could possibly alter the meaning of that statement. One rule: it has to sound like something Cheney would say.

No, Lib was correct. The OP says: “Cheney says the economy’s not as bad as the numbers say, because economic indicators miss everybody who makes money selling on eBay.”

We do not know whether Cheney’s point was that Ebay alone has a very large positive (but unmeasured) effect on the economy.

An alternative that seems to me at least as likely is something like: “Economic indicators don’t tell the whole story. The marketplace is constantly changing and expanding in ways that these indicators don’t measure. Take, for example, Ebay. That’s a source [of income] that didn’t even exist 10 years ago. . .”

This would be a fair point, by the way. I think that ebay is a large, very efficient market, and we’re all better off for it. Besides, it’s a pleasantly progressive market, as well, as money is for the most part being transferred from those who have the ability to pay to those who could use the money a little bit more. Compare it to, say, McDonald’s, at which the money is transferred directly to a behemoth money-making organiztion. buttonjockey’s post above is, at best, gross hyperbole in the overwhelming majority of cases.

[samclem]

Well, it looks more and more like a coverup.

There is no transcript available on http://www.georgewbush.com/News/NewsList.aspx?ID=6, although there are transcripts of later Wisconsin speeches.

Cheney stepped on his Dick, and the pubbies don’t need any further stupid statements to defend.

[capacitor]

Oh Cheney, many physical stores are selling items on eBay as well, such as electronic stores. Why they can’t afford their own commercial websites? Hmm??

[dropzone]

Cheney better be careful or Pierre Omidyar, eBay founder, rich dude, and pinko-hippy, might take a distaste to him. Wait, I think he has already.

[Desmostylus]

@VarlosZ

No, Lib was correct. The OP says: “Cheney says the economy’s not as bad as the numbers say, because economic indicators miss everybody who makes money selling on eBay.”

We do not know whether Cheney’s point was that Ebay alone has a very large positive (but unmeasured) effect on the economy.

An alternative that seems to me at least as likely is something like: “Economic indicators don’t tell the whole story. The marketplace is constantly changing and expanding in ways that these indicators don’t measure. Take, for example, Ebay. That’s a source [of income] that didn’t even exist 10 years ago. . .”

This would be a fair point, by the way.

It might be a fair point, if it was true. But it isn’t true.

Cheney needs a staff who will tell him that the $2.0 billion or so in eBay’s domestic revenues are already included in the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis’s estimates of GDP.

Shouldn’t come as any surprise, Cheney is a habitual liar.

[Quartz]

Never mind the context of the original comment; Edwards riposte was top class!

[VarlosZ]

@Desmostylus

It might be a fair point, if it was true. But it isn’t true.

Cheney needs a staff who will tell him that the $2.0 billion or so in eBay’s domestic revenues are already included in the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis’s estimates of GDP.

Cheney wasn’t talking about Ebay.com’s revenues. He was talking about the people who make money by auctioning things online. Whoever wrote the quoted portion of your link misinterpreted Cheney’s statement.

[Desmostylus]

@VarlosZ

Cheney wasn’t talking about Ebay.com’s revenues. He was talking about the people who make money by auctioning things online. Whoever wrote the quoted portion of your link misinterpreted Cheney’s statement.

Who knows what the fuck Cheney was talking about. You chose to interpret his statements as being reasonable ones about economic indicators.

The “whoever” I quoted was Brad DeLong, Professor of Economics at UC Berkeley. In an argument over economic indicators, there’s no way I’d take Cheney’s word over DeLong’s, and certainly no way I’d take any notice of you.

[manhattan]

@Desmostylus

Who knows what the fuck Cheney was talking about.

Ooh, ooh, Mister Kotter! Ooh, ooh! I know!

He was talking about the difference between the Household and Establishment Surveys for measuring employment. Specifically he was opining that the Establishment Survey tends to undercount employment during recoveries because it has a more rigid definition of “employment” and fails to account for self-employed persons and because it fails to take full account of changes in the economy. He went on to cite ebay as an example of such a change, careful to opine that one couldn’t measure it reliably because some make a good living and some only sell a little stuff. Finally, he stated that BLS updates their statistics from time to time to account for these changes and that they eventually catch up.

Most of his points are things that reasonable people might debate (some, like the fact that the Establishment Survey does not count the self-employed, are hard facts and not subject to debate). I happen to agree that the Establishment Survey tends to undercount employment during periods of growth, but I think that the difference is tiny and works itself out over periods of months as opposed to being chronic, for example. But none of his points was unreasonable.

But then, none of this would be a surprise to anyone who did a scintilla of research.

[Liberal]

Thanks for doing that research and reporting it, Manny. Your SDSAB title is well earned.

[pantom]

Well, manhattan, to that small subset of people who care, it has become a political football, since the Republican side is now fond of citing the Household Survey on the basis that Cheney gave.
It should be noted that Greenspan uses the establishment survey, (“Additionally, Greenspan said that he thinks the establishment survey produced by the Bureau of Labor provides a better gauge of the employment situation than the household survey.”), the CBO agrees with caveats that somewhat tally with the point Cheney was making, (“Although CBO considers the establishment survey’s data to be more reliable than the household survey’s through early 2003, it is less clear which survey provides a more accurate picture of labor-market conditions in the second half of 2003. Over the past six months, startups of new businesses and expansion among small firms that are not directly measured in the establishment survey may have occurred more frequently than the official data assume. Moreover, recent data on tax withholding, though by no means definitive, are consistent with the view that employment growth may have been somewhat stronger during the second half of 2003 than is reflected in the current establishment survey data.”), and, going to the source, the Council of Economic Advisers notes that the BLS, which actually puts out these statistics, considers the establishment survey more reliable (“As discussed in Box 1-2, however, the BLS views the establishment survey as a more accurate indicator of labor market conditions.”).

In the less reliable category, we have this guy, co-director of something called the Center for Economic and Policy Research, who makes this interesting note:

It is worth noting that the Social Security Administration’s data on the growth in the number of covered workers is closer to the establishment survey’s figures, showing an increase of 18.1 million covered workers from 1990 to 1999, the most recent year for which data is available. This compares to 19.4 million new jobs reported in the establishment survey over this period and 16.1 million additional workers shown in the
household survey.

I don’t know who this guy is or what his bias is, and I haven’t been able to independently verify the SSA numbers, so it’s both last and least.

Anyway, point being that Cheney and the rest have to come up with some pretty strong reasons why the BLS, Greenspan, and even the CBO consider the establishment survey more reliable. And if he states that this expansion is different, he has to come up with something more than ebay, which for most people is only a more convenient way of selling either a) what they would previously have sold through a storefront, or b) what they would have sold out of a garage sale before. Is ebay and self-employment in general making this expansion so much different that it makes a survey with a greater margin of error more reliable than a more comprehensive one with a smaller margin of error? That’s a pretty difficult case to make, to anyone not at a political rally.

[manhattan]

Everything you say has merit, pantom. (well, except the coding ) And every bit can also be rebutted with some merit, too (though, as I say, I tend to agree with most followers of the data that the houshold survey is inferior to the establishment one, Cheney’s apparent belief notwithstanding).

But that doesn’t make this thread and the various “gotcha” articles in the press any less stupid. They failed entirely to capture what Cheney was saying, leading to poor Brad DeLong looking like an idiot or an asshole all because he made the minor error of actually trusting an Associated Press dispatch. And, of course, it (charitably) resulted in Senator Edwards making the same idiotic or assholeish mistake.

Compare:

‘Of course the Republicans are now basing their numbers on a less reliable survey, because their ruinous tax cut program failed to create the jobs…’ (I made this one up)

“If we only included bake sales and how much money kids make at lemonade stands, this economy would really be cooking.”

One addresses the issues and can be debated, the other is just stupid snark.

Compare further:

‘Whilst the recent divergence between the household and establishment surveys is troubling, most mainstream economists believe it is explained by… Cheney’s belief that it is a superior measure is not supported by the long-term data, even as his point about the changing economy has merit.’ (I made this one up, too)

“Cheney needs a staff who will tell him that the $2.0 billion or so in eBay’s domestic revenues are already included in the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis’s estimates of GDP.”

One is a professional refutation of a contentious point. The other is a guy who is a professor of economics but who apparently can’t be arsed to check his data – in this case, the “data” being what Cheney was actually talking about. His error is particularly grievious because one of the things that has frustrated economists about this recovery is the apparent mismatch between GDP and job growth. Is it all productivity? Is something else going on? This is good, meaty economic stuff which Vice President Cheney tried to partially address and which deserves better than a snarky remark.

If fairness, a quick check indicates that Dr. DeLong is a pretty reasonable guy – again, he just didn’t check the accuracy of what the AP told him (and everyone else). I’m pretty confident that if one of his readers were to let him know the truth behind the AP story he’d modify his comment. FWIIW, the town hall meeting which contained the relevant remarks is available here, though persons wishing to see it will have to load the odious RealPlayer to do so. The remarks about the surveys and ebay begin at 37:30 of the stream.

[manhattan]

Oh, crap. I forgot the area where I disagree with your post. I don’t think the Republicans are following Cheney’s lead on the household v. establishment thing. Rather I think it’s more of an evolving political thing – I’ve seen references to it for a few months now out of various sources, “economic” and political, on the Republican side. Politics as usual, as far as I’m concerned. I will give them that the recent upward revisions to prior months’ jobs data indicates that they weren’t smoking crack entirely, but that doesn’t mean that those upward revisions mean the establishment survey is suddenly less reliable over the longer term.

[lissener]

Well, I agree with Cheney. Just think, we might never have had a Great Depression if they had taken into account the furniture and sticks and dirt the “Okies” sold on their way west in order to eat.

[VarlosZ]

@lissener

Well, I agree with Cheney. Just think, we might never have had a Great Depression if they had taken into account the furniture and sticks and dirt the “Okies” sold on their way west in order to eat.

Wow, lissener just won the argument!

[Liberal]

He would have won it on sMaRtPeOpLeSuXoRs dot com. But at Straight Dope, we do not win arguments with straw men.

[spinky]

As someone whose lack of research allowed me to think “gee, that was a dumb thing for Cheney to say” along with all these other folks, I now understand. Thanks, manhattan.

[capacitor]

If more people sell their pencils and their matchboxes through eBay, we wouldn’t have a recession.

[RTFirefly]

@manhattan

Ooh, ooh, Mister Kotter! Ooh, ooh! I know!

He was talking about the difference between the Household and Establishment Surveys for measuring employment. Specifically he was opining that the Establishment Survey tends to undercount employment during recoveries because it has a more rigid definition of “employment” and fails to account for self-employed persons and because it fails to take full account of changes in the economy. He went on to cite ebay as an example of such a change, careful to opine that one couldn’t measure it reliably because some make a good living and some only sell a little stuff. Finally, he stated that BLS updates their statistics from time to time to account for these changes and that they eventually catch up.

Unless you’ve got a link to the rest of the speech in your back pocket, Manny (and I’m kinda perturbed by its absence from www.whitehouse.gov/news, which generally records every last sneeze made by either Bush or Cheney in anything approaching a public setting), that seems like a stretch to me.

To be giving sales on eBay as an example of unmeasured economic activity, sure - but even Cheney and his speechwriters can’t possibly believe that enough people are making a living buying and selling on eBay and similar places to make a dent in the employment numbers, even if they have other reasons for regarding the household survey as more accurate. (And that’s taking into account other things that Cheney has believed, and still does.)

At any rate, the people who are selling on eBay aren’t feeling rich enough to buy new cars, as GM and Ford cut back by 7%, nor are they even feeling rich enough to buy more stuff at WallyWorld, which is up by only 0.5% in same-store sales over last year. Yeah, there’s always economic activity, and even full-time employment, that doesn’t show up in the numbers, but the bottom line is the fact that people aren’t buying stuff, eBay or no eBay, and no quantity of makeup can make that pig look anything but a pig.

FWIW, I’ve got to disagree with DeLong on this one: Cheney had to be talking about all the buying and selling that takes place on eBay, and not on what eBay’s cut is. DeLong isn’t wrong very often, but he was this time.

[rjung]

@RTFirefly

…but even Cheney and his speechwriters can’t possibly believe that enough people are making a living buying and selling on eBay and similar places to make a dent in the employment numbers

You never know – the Bush White House is so far out f touch with reality, I wouldn’t be surprised if they really do believe there are millions of Americans making a full-time income just peddling stuff on eBay.

Remember when George H. W. Bush Sr. was fascinated by the new-fangled technological leaps of the supermarket bar-code scanner? Same thing.