Obama Loses 1,249,000 Jobs in Three Weeks: Economy and Job Market STALL

The headline is absolutely accurate--given the slight hyperbole of taking Obama and his defenders at their workd that Obama deserves the "credit" for GROOS jobs "saved/created" (in which case he must take the blame for gross jobs lost), and given the inherit uncertainty and margin of error in the employment data (see last week's article--another prescient one, especailly if you read between the lines and correctly guessed that I was expecting fairly bad employment data last week).


Every Thursday, the Labor Department releases its (seasonally adjusted, although the raw data is also released--just ignored by an incompetent media) number of NEW unemployment claims for the previous week. These are the discouraging numbers for the past three weeks of released data: 416,000 (revised from 412,000 initially reported), 404,000 (revised from 403,000 initially reported) and 429,000 (to be revised tomorrow). As stated in last Wednesday's article, it was impossible for last Thursday's number to be "good " news. The number of new unemployment claims is a measure of gross jobs LOST, and that number has STALLED during this entire year (after improving some in the fall of 2010, which also happened in the fall of 2009, only to have the number STALL in the first 8 months of 2010). Yes, so far the number of new unemployment claims has stalled in 2011 at a slightly loweer level than the range over the firt 8 months of 2010, but at a still HIGH level for a 'recovering" economy (the 400,000 level being HIGH, when we really need a consistent 300,000 level, and the level in a truly GOOD economy may approach 200,000--never really going below that because there are always some job losses).


Now if you paid attention to last week's article, you know that this weekly number of new unemployment claims is NOT a "hard" number, and that one week's number is therefore of little meaning in itself. Last Thursday's reported 429,000 was for EASTER week, and might be even a little more unreliable. Economists , of course, were surprised at the "unexpecdted" number, but econoists are perpetually "surprised" (te significance of which is that these are the same people who claim to be able to PLAN our economy, if only we let them run everything in a centrally planned economy--an absurdity which is PROVEN wrong daily, which does not stop Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and our President from assuing that economists know what they are doing). You would expect tomorrow's reported number to go down, just because last week's number rose to such a high level: threatening to trturn us t the same range as the first 8 months of 2010--a range which is only about 11,000 to 21,000 away from last week's reported number of 42;9,0000, although we would have to average above 440,000 for about a month to say we have really returned basicaly to the old range).


You can see how it is IMPOSSIBLE for tomorrow's reported number of new unemployment claims to be "good" news. Again, like last week, there can only be bad news that is better or worse than it could have been Say, for exxample, that tomorrow's reported number of new unemployment claims for the previous week fell by 60,000--all of the way down to 370,000. The media might tell you that such an "improvement" showed that our economy is "improving". That is because our media is INCOMPETENT. It is almost unheard of for the new unemployment claims to drop 60,000 in one week---especailly after being at a consist3ently high level in the previous three weeks. If it did happen, it would merely make the numbers for the past TWO weeks SUSPECT (on a weekly basis). AVERAGE the 429,000 reported last Thursday and 370,000, and what do you get? Yep. You get 400,000--a BAD number. You would not expectg the number to drop 60,000 (and economists will not be "expecting" it), but you would expectd the number to DROP. What if it either does not drop, or stays above 400,000? That is the WORSE bad news, instead of the merely bad news already cooked into the numbers. Remember, the only numbers that matter here are the numbers OVER TIME. The longer the new unemployment claim number stays above 400,000, the worse this number is OVER TIME--where one week's "good number" means NOTHING.


It gets worse. The unemployment RATE (also not a "hard" number) has STALLED right at 9%. Last three months: 9%, 8.9%, 8.8%--well within any "margin of error" as far as NO IMPROVEMENT. The STALLED new unemployment claims number is sending the same message: the job market has again STALLED (despite desperate media attempts to say otherwise). The other number released last week (Friday) was that the economy "grew" only 1.8% last quarter (January through March). That is NOT enough to "improve" the job market, and is basically NO GROWTH.


Why do I saly that reported "growth" of 1.8% is basically no growth? That is because it INCLUDES higher food and commodity (including GAS and energy) prices, which RAISE the reported GDP. Remember that the RECESSION in 2008 began with a first half of reported GROWTH (two quarters in a row), partly the result of government "stimulus" (the Bush/Democrat "stimulus") that FAILED, before the Obama "stimulus"--Obama being part of that earlier "stimulus" as well--that FAILED. Here we have Ben Bernanke and the FED providing the massive government "stimulus" that is FAILING, except to create a lower dollar and an inflatiionary effectg that ARTIFICIALLY simulates GDP "growth". With all of this "stimulus", 1.8% "growth" is PATHETIC, and a FAILURE of policy. Bernanke has, of course, succeeded in helping Wall Street and the stock market, which seems to be the main goal of the Obama Administration and the economic fascists on Wall Street who regard thiesmelves as PARTNERS with Obama and Bernanke: that "partnership" between Big Business and Big Government jointly runnning a planned economy being the very definitioin of economic fasicsm.


Once again, I have prepared you for the numbers to be realeased tomorrow, and on Friday. The number of new unemployment claims reported tomorrow cannot be "good news". That is because the four week average will be BAD--as to any conceivable number which does not make the whole system suspect. Any number above 400,000 (even if it represents a drop of 10 or 20 thousand) is represents "worse" bad news, showing that the economy is perhaps getting WORSE (as the 1.8% "growth" would appear to indicate). A number above 420,000 would be TERRIBLE, and an indication we may be in trouble. A number above 440,000 would be a CATASTROPHE--giving a strong indication we already are in more trouble than we thought. Again, that is NOT because the weekly number means much, but because the average over the past 4 weeks would be so BAD, and because this would confirm the message from other data (especailly the GDP data).


Friday, of course, you get the MONTHLY "jobs created" (net--not gorss) data, and the unemployment RATE data. Again, it is IMPOSSIBLE for this data to really be "good". What does it mean, for example, if we supposedly "crated" 300,000 net jobs in Apriul. It means that at least one set of data is FALSE. The new unemployment claim data over the past month shows we have STALLED. If the data reported on Friday purports to show something else, that data is SUPSECT and INCONSISTENT with the new unemployment claims data. It would also be inconsistent with the GDOP data. No, you would not expect Friday's data to show massive deteroriation, but there is no way for Friday's datat to show IMPROVEMENT in the economy and be consistent with the data we already have. Whaty such inconsistency would do is cast doubt on ALL of the data (again, none of which really represent "hard" numbers that cannot be wrong/manipulated). The more the data is all consistent, the more you may feel (perhaps a little naively) that it represents something real.


P.S. You, too, want to be an "economist" and "predict" the economic data in advance, and have the thrill of being constantly "surprised"? Easy. I will tell you how. Take the new unemployment claims number. AVERAGE the previous 4 weeks. That is your starting number. But you can FUDGE that number. IF the previous 4 to 8 weeks have shown a CONSISTENT "trend" (meaning essentially EVERY week up or down), make sure your "predicted" number follows the trend (in other words, is higher or lowever than the previous number, whichever the previous direction is). Suince we have no CONSISTNET trend right now, you can disregard this "fudge" factor. IF the previous week's number was either up or down and unusally large number (as last week's was UP 25,000), then you probably need to "predict" that this week's reported number will go the other way (assuming lthere is no massive trend). Often, of course, the AVERAGE of the previous 4 weeks will take care of this. Then be RELUCTANT to "predictd" a move of 20,000 or more--generally keeping your "predicted" move from the previous week no more than 10-15 thousand. This means you will NEVER get a BIG move right, and will always be "surprised" by the "unexpected" move, but it also means you will not look like such an IDIOT by missing the number dramatically. Yes, I know that these "economists" "surveyed" as to their "predictions" probably have "sophisticated" computer programs, but I guarantee you that you can do just as well, or bettter, applying the simple rules I have just given you. If you are really brave, of course, you can try to do BETTER, and make a real prediction (instead of just a projection based on past performance and fear of being thought an idiot). If you try that, however, you are not a true economist--not a true, representative member of the practitioners of the "dismal science'.


P.P..S. Nope. No proofreading or spell checking of the above (eyesight). Also, you may have noticed a "slip of the mind" in my prvious article last week. I gave you two different figures as to the length of time the new unemployment claims STALLED from the end of 2009 to the fall of 2010. The actual number was 10 months (from the end of November of 2009 to September of 2010). At one point last week, I think I referred to 18 months. That was really the unemployment RATE. Sometimes it is hard to keep these numbers straight in your mind. The unemployment RATE first "stabilized" in about July of 2009, when it DROPPED from 9.5% to 9.4%. It then rose to 10% briefly, but was listed at 9.7% in January of 1010. Essentailly, that rate did not improve for ALL of 2010, and is STILL little improved (still down less than 1% from January of 2010, and down only .6% from that 9.4% rate in the summer of 2009 (BEFORE Obama's "stimulus" even had a chance to take effectd). Gallup, of course, has been consistentlly reporting a rate of 10%, even in recent months, and this reported rate is a POLL--hardly exact. You can see how there has been little improvement over an extended period of time, and the other data rerenced in this article indicates that will continue with the datata to be reported on Friday--if that data is to be consistent with the other data. This does not even take into account discouraged workers or the "underemployed"--or other reasons the reported unemployment rate may be deceiving. Merely looking at the REPORTED numbers indicates just jow little improvement there has been--how little we have gottne for the TRILLIONS of dollars of government "stimulus" we have poured into the economy, including TRILLIONS of dollars of "stimulus" and subsidies by the FED. Ben Bernanke considers himself a succes. Objectively, he is one of the WORST FAIILURES in the history of world finance. Remember, he was appointed in early 2006, meaning he presided over the COLLAPSE of the economy, and has FAILED to help a REAL RECOVERY. Printing money has NEVER been the answer, but you can at least say that Bernanke is CONSISTENTLY wrong and idiotic. No Pujols hot streaks and cold streaks for him. Just one, conisitent COLD STREAK.