There is a great deal that is wrong with mainstream economic commentary, starting with its unwavering devotion to orthodox economics and unshakable faith in their “stimulus”. No matter how little is actually stimulated there is never any doubt that the media will simultaneously forget the last one while lavishing praise on the next one. It is, however, the actual economic commentary itself that may be the most damaging. Because nothing works, every news story is printed from the shallowest, narrowest perspective. It is a grave disservice to the public and journalism.

As an example, on July 15, 2015, the Wall Street Journal published an article on Industrial Production that wasn’t unique or atypical. If you read these kinds of stories you find them utterly devoid of differences, so this effort was entirely symptomatic. At the time, industrial production for June 2015 was estimated to have risen 0.3% month-over-month, ending a string of six consecutive M/M declines. That fact more than the degree of the rise was cheerfully reported as if meaningful.

U.S. industrial production rose in June, a sign that the improving economy is helping the sector break out of a slump.

Industrial production, a measure of output in the manufacturing, utilities and mining sectors, rose a seasonally adjusted 0.3% from May, the Federal Reserve said Wednesday.

Even though the article noted that one month was no where near enough to overcome those prior declines, it didn’t matter because it was finally a plus sign conforming to the mainstream “narrative.”

The pickup comes as other measures show improvement in the economy this spring, with employment continuing to climb and wages creeping up as the labor market tightens…

“Weakness in manufacturing appears to be past its peak,” wrote Jim O’Sullivan, chief U.S. economist for High Frequency Economics in a note to clients.

If you happen to peruse similar stories on Industrial Production today, you will find no notice of those prior assurances; no stories discussing how June 2015’s single month was not, in fact, significant at all. There aren’t even any mentions that June 2015 was subsequently revised to now show a decline. This is particularly relevant to the April 2016 estimate released this morning also providing a similar and likely premature huge sigh of relief.

All that is bad enough but that isn’t even my main point of contention. It is as I indicated earlier today, that revisions in IP were not limited to monthly variations but rather to rewrite the whole idea of the recovery. At that time, the Fed estimated IP had recovered to about 5% above the prior peak in 2007. Two benchmark revisions later now claim that IP in June 2015 was instead 1% below that prior peak. Economists were basing their claims for “transitory” weakness on not just the shakiness of monthly variation but more so on a recovery that increasingly figures never to have existed. That dramatic change seems worth noting somewhere, especially as it drastically alters all economic implications going forward in this same direction.