Obama Fails Again on Jobs: Loses 1,705,000 Jobs in Fur Weeks

Yes, the Labor Department Reported the weekly number of new unemployment claims (a measure of layoffs) this Thursday, as it does lamost every Thursday (for the previouis week). The headline is that the number of new unemployoment claims (representing gross jobs lost) rose 9,000, to a seasonaly adjust number of 429,000. This was a terrible number, and even the despicable Associated Press could only say that it represented a "weak job market". But reaers of this blog know that the headlines numbers CONCEAL an incredicble number of journalistic CRIMES.. Every single week, the media LIES about these numbers, and shows its incredible incompetence.


Look at my article last weekend, on last Thursday's report on new unemployment claims. Who was right, and who was wrong? This blog was right, and the despicable, incompetent propaganda of the AP was wrong (as always). I told you that last week's REPORTED number of 414,000 was a LIE, as every week's reported number is a lie (when reported as a concrete number), because the number is REVISED the next week (besides being a subjective, seasonally adjusted number). Thus, the AP, and mainstream media in general, reported last week that the number of new claims had dropped 16,000.. As this blog told youi, that was a LIE, because it compared apples and oranges. It compared n unrevised number with a revised number. I told you that the revised number had CONSISTENTLY been at least 3,000 higher than the unrevised number, and that, therefore, about the BEST that could be said was that the number of new claims had dropped 13,000 (guessing at the revised number). Further, the FOUR-WEEK average did NOT IMPROVE last week, despite the incompetent propagandists of the AP implying that there had been a slow, steady "improvement" in the number of new unemployment claims. It was worse than I thought. The REVISED number for last week, released today, was 420,000--instead of the LIE reported last week at 414,000. Yes, the revision was 6,00 UP, instead of the 3,000 I had guesssed. That 42,000 number meant that the AVERAGE number of new unemployment claims went UP last week (the four-week average), and could not be said to represent any improvement at all (the weekly "drop" of 10,000--not the reported 16,000--just being statistical noise).


No look at this week's headlines/lead paragraphs. Again, they LIE. Again, they compare apples and oranges. They report that new unemployment claims rose 9,000 from the number reported last week. On an apples to apples basis--initially reported number compared with initially reported number--the number of claims rose 15,000 last week (not the headline 9,000). Plus, the number this week was probably NOT 429,0000. That number will be REVISED next week, and the history of this revision (over the last year) would indicate that the number was at least 432,000 (unlesss the 6,000 revision this week indicates, somehow, that there will be an aberration the other way next week). These numbers are written is sand, and it is necessary to compare apples to apples. The media LIES when it delibertely fails to report this. I won't even dignify the AP headline (the SECOND one cheering the BAD number last week) that "Layoffs ease....." That was not a mere LIE. That was an Orwellian Big Lie--a "journalistic" CRIME faeatured on Yahoo "News" (as usual--BOYCOTT YAHOO).


Here are the amazingly consistent numbers of new unemployment claims reported for the past four weeks, including the original and revised number (beginning with the numbr reported this Thursday): 429,000 (to be REVISED next week); 420,000 (REVISED from 41,000), 430,000 (RVISED from 427,000) and 426,000 (REVISED from 422,000). Yes, this is EXACTLY what a competent "news" organization should report at the BEGINNING of the article. No headlines about the false signfiicance of each weekly number. No implicaton that thsese numbers are SOLID (when they are weritten in sand). Report FACTS. Yes, this is partly propaganda, as the modern mainstream media is NOT INTERESTED in factgual information--only in its own narrative. But it is also partly CONTEMPT. Yes, Contempt for YOU. Modern "journalists" believe that reporteing FACTS, in context over time, is getting lost "in the weeks". They think that all YOU want to know--hicks that you are--is the "journalistic" INTERPRETATION of those indigestible facts, which merely bore you. If you have nothing but contempt for you audience, and for actual facts, then you deserve nothing but contempt yourself. That is what I have for the "journalists" of today, and I think more and more of the public (not just the small readership of this blog) are coming to agree with me. Yes, I have been a prophet ahead of my time. The accuracly rating of this blog is now 99.9%, and I can't remember when I last made a significant mistake (not counting the numberous typos and surface "mistakes" caused by my inability to proofread becasue of por eyesight--how is that for a convenient excuse?).


The AP,m of course, conttinues to assert that it is only the last two months that show a "soft patch". Howwash. If you read this blog, you realize that the improvement in new unemployment claims was almsot entirely LAST FALL. We actually have been STUCK this entire year, and there has been no overall improvement in at least seven months. . What has happened in the past two months--really amost three months-is that the number of new unemployment claims has CONSISTENTLY stayed over 400,000 (11 straight weeks). Earlier this year, the number FLUCTUATED around 400,000, and some weeks dropped below that number, as we seemed STUCK right around an average of 400,000. We had reached that level at the end of last year, and that is whre we STUCK. Now we have REGRESSED to a four-week average above 425,000, instead of holding the more significant (although hardly dramatic) improvements of last fall. We have REGRESSED to levels of last fall, although not YET to levels of last summer. This actually repreats the pattern from 2010, when there was NO IMPROVEMENT in new unemployment claims for at least 10 staright months (beginning in late November of 2009). Again, we have had NO IMPROVEMENT in new employment claims since basically November of 2010. The best that can be said is that at least we are not QUITE AS BAD this summer as last summer, when the four-week average spiked back toward 500,000


But GDP growth was only 1.8% in the first quarter. The Federal Reserve has dropped ists "growth" estimate for the year. This is despite the Fed PRINTING incredible amounts of money, and injecting that money into our syste (unprecedented). We obviusly have no REAL growth at all, and our policies are PREVENTING real growth. Meanwhile, there is a stealth inflation out there--created by the Federal Reserve and Ben Bernanke. Now it is true--as this blog suggested might happen--that oil prices show signs of improvement, which MAY lower gaoline prices. Remember what I told you about that-correctly. That means that our economy is FAILING, and that demand is dropping. What we have managed to do is make a ral "recovery" IMPOSSILBE. I a "recovery' STARTS, it is immediately SHUT DOWN by high commodity prices fears over an unehalthy economic situatin, and unhealthy economic polices creating all of this debt. In other words, since the growth is now real, but artificial, the artificial policies create DISTORTIONS making further growth impossible.


Note the headline again. It is absolutely ACCURATE, if misleading. Yes, we are talking GROSS jobs, when it is NET jos that are most relevenat. In this case (new unemployment claimss), a loss of gross jobs does MEAN SOMETHING, when it is at a level which prevents significant net jobs from being "created". But we have not lost that many NET jobs. Thus, the headline is a SATIRE onf the Obama Administration to take "credit" for GROSS jobs "created/saved" by the Obama/Democrat FAILED "simulus" bill.


Now you might wonder why ECONOMISTS (The Stupidest People on Earth) are so consistently WRONG on predicting these weekly numbers. You might also wonder how leftusts kuje Ibanam tge naubstrean nedua and Democrats in Congress can keep RELYING on "economists", and financial people like Bernanke, to MANAGE our economy What evidence is there that these people know what they are doing? They can't even come close to correctly predicting a WEEK in advance. However, I am willing to give a tip to "economists". Don't believe the Labro Department numbers, and the AP headlines, every week. This weelk, "economists surveyed" had predicted a new unemployment claims number of 415,000. Not close. But. Were they not using--fools lthat they are--a BASELINE number of 414,000 (the number reported for last week, before the REVISIONI to 420,000)? If economists had KNOWN that last week's number was really 420,000, would they still have "predicted" 415,000? I doubt it. So part of the explanation of their FAILED predictions is probably their STUPIDITY in BELIEVING the Associated Press, and mainstream media, LIES about the significance of each week's number.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).