Obama Loses 1,725,000 Jobs in Four Weeks: Job Catastrophe (Bernanke, Failure)

Thursday's report of new unemployment claims for last week came out this morning, and it was a catastrophe (see last night's article). The number of layoffs (by this measure) rose 43,000 to 474,000--the worst one week number since August of last year. More importantly, here are the numbers for the past 4 weeks: 416,000 (revised from initial report of 412,000), 404,0000 (revised from 403,000), 431,000 (revised from 429,000), and 474,000 (just reported, to be revised next week). This is a gross four week total of 1,725,000, or a 4 week average above 431,000. Further, unless the number next week drops a LOT (possible, but not to likely), next week's four week average will return us back to the range we were in for ALL of 2010. This would mean NO IMPROVEMENT in well over a year, despite ups and downs over that period.


Meanwhile, Marketwatch.com is reporting "mutterings" over a "plot" between Washington and Wall Street to MANIPULATE the market (as Ben Bernanke has virtually admitted doing--citing a rise in the stock market as evidence of his "success", as he FAILS everywhere else). Now I don't believe in "plots", but I have consistently told you that Wall Street believes that it is now in a PARTNERSHIP with the Obama Administration: economic fascists all. Remember, economic fascism predates Hitler, and has really nothing to do with Hitler, referring to a partnership between Wall Stret/Big Business and Big Government to run the economy. It has been described as: "socialism with a capitalist veneer". You could also describe it as "state capitalism", or "crony state capitalism". GE, for example, is openly "partners" with Obama, and that is really true of almost all of Wall Street and Big Business at the present time, even while Obama trashes Wall Street with WORDS.


Now the Labor Department "attributes" much of the rise in unemployment claims to "temporary" layoffs in the auto industry, and (not-so-temporary) layoffs in the state of New York because of budget cuts in education and elsewhere.


Think how INCOMPETENT the mainstram media has been to be talking about how the economy and the job market have finally "turned the corner", because of this "improvement" in job numbers (weak as it has been, even on the reported numbers). What is the Labor Department telling you? Right. They are telling you what I have been telling you--just not as consistently and accurately. They are telling you that the weekly number of new unemployuoment claims is NOT a reliable number on a short term basis. They are further telling you that there may be a NEW "seasonal pattern" in the way the economy is working, where numbers appear to improve in the fall, but then seem to RELAPSE in the late spring and early summer. Meanwhile, the economy remains pretty much STUCK in a "recovery" that is not really recovering.


Yes, if today's number is (partially) fictioin, then so were the supposedly "good" numbers at the end of last year, which continued (but did not improve) in the first months of this year. You can't cast doubt on the "bad" numbers, and still act like the "good" (only relativelly) numbers are concrete examples of how the economy is "improving"--includnig the job market. That is, you can't do that unless you are DISHONEST HP(OCRITES. That description applies to the Obama Administration AND the mainstream media (especailly to them, since you EXPECT it of politicians, which is alll the mainstream media is now composed of: political operatives).


Again, you would expect next week's number of new unemployment claims to drop. If it does not, and substantially, then we have truly reached (short-term, anyway) Armageddon. But there is NO "good" number for next week. See yesterday's article, which applies even more strongly to next week's number. There are only bad numbers, and catastrophic numbers.


Further, what about tomorrow's MONTHLY employment numbers for April? Right. It is IMPOSSIBLE for those numbers to be "good", since any "good" numbers (appearing to show an "improving" job market) would only cast doubt on the validity of all the numbers.


P.S. Nope. No proofreading or spell checking of the above, which still makes the article MORE reliable than that of any economist (much less mainstream media "journalist") out there.