The weekly report on new unemployment claims (for last week) came out again Thursday. It shows that President Obama lost 464,000 (gross, but that is the way he counts "created/saved" jobs) last week--representing more than 30,000 more jobs A WEEK being lost. In other words, the number was up more than 30,000 from last week's reported number. You will remember that the mainstream media (lol--as if these comic geniuses/corrupt liars are anything but stupid political hacks) HYPED last week's report (falsely) as the "lowest number in two years". In fact, the corrupt liars at the Associated Press, and equally corrupt Yahoo "news", had this headline this morning: "New jobless claims jump from two year low.". The story itself proves the headline a LIE. What really happened here. I told you last week--in foresight rather than hindsight. Last week's reported weekly number of new unemployment claims was 429,000 In isolation, that was a GOOD "news" kind of number--if confirmed to be real. As I told you last week, there were reasons to believe the number was NOT REAL, but a result of a statistical glitch in the "seasonal adjustment caused--at least in part--by a decision by "Government Motors" (GM) not to do the usual July layoffs for retooling. My brother---former co-woner of a trucking company who had to know these things for business reasons--confirmed that GM ALWAYS shut down the first two week's of July. However, now that it is owned by the government, GM chose not to do so this year. That messed up the "seasonal adjustment" all to Hell--along with probably other glitches in the seasonal adjustment made, by formula, every week to get to the reported number. In other words, last week's 429,000 reported number was FICTION--not real at all, but the result of a statistical fluke/glitch. I told you last week that this was very possibly true, but that we would have to wait for this week's number to know for sure. Well, we now know, and it is conclusively proven that last week's reported number was FICTION. The corrupt liars at the AP even say so, in the body of the AP story, while the headline still lies by referring to last week as a "two year low". As I stated last week, even the fictional 429,000 was not statistically a "two year low", because the number had reached that level in the November-December (of 2009) time period. If anything hs proven by the past two weeks, it is that a variation of several thousand in this weekly jobless claims number is MEANINGLESS, from ANY statistical point of view. As I correctly told you last week, the four week average is a better gauge of where we really are on layoffs (every new unemployment claim representing a laid off worker). The four week average for all of December (7 months ago) was 455,000. What is the four week average right now? Right. Essentially that same 455,00000. Obama has FAILED. We have NOT IMPROVED in more than seven months. President Obama said he was "focusing like a laser beam" on "jobs, jobs, jobs", and he has FAILED. Layoffs are the same now as they were in December--not just this last week but the four week average week after week. Does this week's reported number of new jobless claims "erase" last week's number, as the corrupt liars at the AP asserted when the weekly numbers went from 459,000 to 475,000 and back to 458,0000 (the three weeks prior to last week's fictional number of 429,000)? Well, I am not a liar like the people of the AP. This week's number does not QUITE "erase" last week's "improvement". At least, we cannot show that to be tre from these numbers alone. To "erase" the previous drop, the two week average would have to be about 458,000. The two week average (this week and last week's reported numbers) is slightly under 450,000. That has happened a number of times since December, and does not represent any kind of "trend". It does not change that there has been NO IMPROVEMENT in the weekly jobless claims number since December. But we can't quite say that the effect oft eh 429,000, fictional number of last week has been "erased", since the two week average has not returned to the previous week's 458,0000. Can we say that the last two week's represent any "improvement" at all. Nope. That is not true. First, as stated, there have been a number of occasions since December where the two week average--even the four week average--has been below 450,000. That average has always returned above 450,000--above 450,000 being where it is today. Further, the past two weeks have obviously been BAD weeks for the statistical formula used to "adjusts" the weekly reported number--unusual weeks. There is no way we can say that the average of the past two weeks represents a "real" number. It is entirely possible--even likely--that there are still statistical glitches affecting the two week totals (as well as the one week numbers). Thus, again, we have to wait for numbers in future weeks to show us where we really are. However, SEVEN MONTHS of numbers have shown us we have NO IMPROVEMENT over those seven months--whatever the situation over a few weeks here or a few weeks there. (Note that the four week average is not perfect; that 475,0000 number will drop off next week, leaving the 429,00000 fictional number to perhaps distort the four week average--but note that the four week average will still give you a better idea of what is going on than the individual weeks). As I have repeatedly told you, the message here is that these weekly "new unemployment claim" numbers ONLY mean something OVER TIME. Each weekly number means very little, in itself. Last week's 429,000 number would have meant something if it were confirmed by this week's number. As it is, the two weeks together merely confirm that we are at the same position of NO IMPROVEMENT in which we have been for 7 months. The "good news" is that we have not gotten substantially worse. The bad news is that we have had NO IMPROVEMENT--a total FAILURE of Obama's "laser-beam" focus on jobs. Yes, this weekly number (for the week we are in) will again come out next Thursday, as it does every Thursday (holidays excluded--rather postponed). Thus, we woill always have new numbers. The question is: Will the CORRUPT LIARS at the AP--and tose at Yahoo "News" that feature these AP stories and misleading headlines--ever learn to look at these numbers in context, and even report them in context? Well, lyou know my positioin there. "Corrupt liars" is what I said, and "corrupt liars" is what I meant. I don't think this is just stupidity--although stupidity is there. For the AP, it is all about agenda, and you can't believe a word they say. If you want to know what these numbers really mean, in context, you need to read my articles. What this week's new unemployment claims number (for last week) means is: NO IMPROVEMENT for 7 months, although no evidence we have gotten substantially worse (the problem being that we are in a BAD place, and not getting worse is not good enough).


This week's 464,000 number (for new unemployment claims last week) proves that last week's 429,000 number was FALSE--not correct in any meaningful way. Despite the implication in the AP article on the subject, and even in my references to "averaging" the last two weeks above, the converses is not true. In other words, it is pretty likely that tthis week's 464,000 number is CORRECT--not distorted by a problem with the seasonal adjustment. That is often not true. And it will take a week or two or three to be sure, but there is n0ot much reason to suspect the seasonal adjustment for this week, while the lack of GM layoffs because of GM's decision not to do its customary shut down the first two weeks of Jilly is an obvious "explanation" for the problem last week. That "problem" is NOT "reversed" this week, as it may be when weather or other factors are involved, sice GM did NOT choose to do its layoffs one week later. GM just failed to shut down at alll. And it is difficult to evaluate the matter from "news" reports, because you are not getting "news" (just propaganda and "interpretation" from idiots). If the AP--for example, were interested in "news", it would EXPLAIN the "seasonal adjustment" formula, and why last week was distorted (and any reason this week was distorted the other way). The likelihood is that this week was not distorted, although the raw number (another thing NOT reported by the propagandists at the AP) did go down last week--indicating that the correct number might be below 460,0000 for last week (but still 450,0000 or above).


How should the mainstream media report these numbers, if they were not corrupt liars (not to mentin incompetent)? Easy. NEVER "report" a single week, or a single month (for monthly numbers, like the unemployment rate) without putting the number in context. This means putting the number both in context of pssible distortions AND in context of the numbers over time. A number inconsistent with numbers over time, such as last week's 429,000 number, is a candidate to be WRONG. That should be reported, and the importance of looking at all of theses numbers over time should be emphasized. That means REPORTING the numbers over time. For example, the media should--every week--not only emphasize the four week average, but REPORT (say) the monthly averages for six months, or even a year. Similarly, each month's unemployment RATE, and jobs supposedly added (payroll report) should be reported ONLY in context of 6 or 12 month figures. As stated, possible distortions should be reported, including possible red flags raised in the "raw numbers" and seasonal adjustment formula. None of this is ordinarily done, which is why the AP can get away with CORRUPT LIES week after week. Yes, so can President Obama and other politicians, counting on the media not to correctly do their reporting. I am talking about reporting the relevant FACTS here, and not presenting an "interpretation" of those facts as if it is the "news". For example, the "lead" AP paragraph NEVER simply presents the numbers, including the numbers over time, but ALWAYS present the AP "spin" on the numbers. You don't learn--usually--ANY of the numbers until you get down in the article, and then very little "in context" information (unless it happens to fit the AP agenda).


Again, next week's new unemployment claim number will clarify if the 429,000 number reported last week should simply be DISCARDED (for averaging purposes), or whether it represented a "real" fluctuation in the weekly number. However, we can already say that this weekly number--OVER THE LAST 7 MONTHS--shows NO IMPROVEMENT over at least that amount of time. That means Obama HAS FAILED over that period of time--just when his policies should have been showing results.