Doug Henwood wrote, >Corporations also want to report the highest possible profits to their >shareholders, esp in these days of heightened rentier scrutiny. So I think >this off the books stuff may be exaggerated. "Off-the-books" can also refer to (non)expenses treated in such a way as to fluff the earnings reports. Corporate accounts have multiple audiences: share holders, creditors, tax officials, labour unions, the public . . . If the tax regime shifts you can bet the profit story will change, etc. etc. Fudge flows both ways. >Remember, too, that the whole >government statistical apparatus exists mainly for the benefit of the >bourgeoisie, which consumes them avidly. Another reason not to doubt them >too much. It may seem *logical* that information produced for the benefit of the bourgeoisie would be reliable, but it's just not true. All the statistical apparatus can do is ask questions and compile results. People's answers to questions frequently change depending on what they think the apparatus wants to know and what they want the apparatus to believe. It's not so much that people are "lying" (although they may be doing that) as that their interpretations can be extremely flexible. "I never had *sex* with that woman." Tom Walker http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
