Yes, the weekly report of new unemployment claims for the previous week) came out today, and again the news was BAD. New unemployment claims rose 5,000 from the number initially reported for the previous week. You may notice that the truly despicable AP, and mainstream media in general, reported that the number "ticked up" 1,000, but that was on an apples to oranest basis. In other words, week after week the sociopahtic liars of the media, who are incapable of even knowing what the truth is, LIE to you about this weekly number. Last week's REPORTED number of new unemployment claims for the previous week) was 422,000. The HEADLINE (a lie) was that this was a "drop" of 6,000 from the previous week. Not ture, as this blog TOLD you at the time (foresight being the specialty of this blog). As usual, last week's number was REVISED UPWARD to 4256,000, a "tick down" of 2,000 from the previous week's REVISED number. of 428,000. Thus, the LIARS of the mainstream media compared the UNREVIASED (to be revised next week) number of 427,000 new unemployment claims reported this week with the REVISED number for last week of 426,000. If you understand anything about logic and statistics, you know that the media should be comparing this week's UNREVISED 427,000 with last week's UNREVISED 42,000-- a rise of 5,000 (not 1,000). You can expect that next wweek we will see the 427,000 REVISED to about 431,000. Sure, the revision number is not guaranteed, but a revision UPWARD of 3,000-5,0000 has been CONSISTENT--with few exceptions--over many months
Yes, I have told you that it is a media LIE to report each one week number of reported new unemplyment claims as a "hard" number, when it is actually a very "soft", subjective number subject to rvision and adjustment error. Each week's number ONLY means anything in terms of putting the number in context, OVER TIE. Even the mainstream media, because it is so obvius, is now forced to report that the number is STUCK. We actually have NOT IMPROVED in seven months, as we did not improve the first tEN months of 2010 (more about that later). Here are the actual numbers for the past 4 weeks, from this week's reportednumber backwards: 427,000 (unrevised, to be revised next week); 426,000 (revised upward from 422,000); 428,000 (revised upward from 424,000); and 414,000 (revised upward from 409,000). You will note how STUCK we turly are. Yes, the four-week average did "tick down", becuase the number we are dropping off that average was 438,000 (revised upward from 434,000)--the number reported five weeks ago during a dramatic three week spike up in the number of new unemployment claims. Here is how the LIARS (sociopatic kind) of the AP (as featured on the equally despicable Yahoo) reported the situation (beyond the consistnet lie in the way these weekly numbers are reported):
"This represented the ninth week in a row that the number has been above 400,000, representing a setback from the improvement in the weekly numbers ALL WINTER." (emphasis added, and I slightly paraphrased as my attempt at copy and paste failed, like Obama has failed on jobs)
Yes, you guessed it. The above The above is a LILE, as you can follow by looking at the alm most weekly articles n this blog since the beginning of the year (and before). It is simply not true that the number of weekly unemployment cliams improved "all winter". What really happened is that the number of new unemployment claims did NOT IMPROVE for ten months starting in late November of 2009. Just like now, they weer STUCK. In fact, there was a SPIKE lupward (probably part fictioin) in the summer of 2010. It was November of 2009 that reported new unemployment cliams--dating from the beginning of the recession--first improved to under 500,000 (still a BAD number, since we need to get to 300,000, or at least in a range between 300,000 and 350,000, to get ANY real "improvement" in employment). Well, in the summer of 2010, the reported claims were back near 500,000. Then we (apparently) IMPROVED all of the way down to 400,.000. This happened in the FALL of 2010, NOT in the WINTER. We began the year right around that 400,000 level. Yes, it is true that we did have individual weeks since the end of last year where the number improved--even reaching a new recession low for an individual week and even for a four-week average. However, the number STOPPED the "steady improvement" that had occurred in the FALL of 2010 (from the terrible summer). In the "winter", the actual fact was (as reported in this blog) that we had become STUCK again around 400,000. Yes, we would bounce slightly below that level, only to bounce back UP above that level. There may have been a slight bias toward improvement, but it was very slight. Then, nine weeks ago, the reported weekly number of new unmployment claims SPIKED UPWARD, and STAYED above 400,000. In other wwords, we were actually STUCK all this year, including most of the winter, but (like last summer) we have now DETERIORATED to levels not seen since the FALL of 2010. It would not take much upward movement for us to be back at the same range wer were in for the first nine months of 2010, before we moved down to the 400,000 level. As it is, we have NOT IMPROVED in seven months or more.
As stated, the mainstream media are such sociopathic liars that they probably do not even know "the truth". All they know is AGENDA. Note that the number that will be dropped off of the four-week average next week is that 414,000 number, which means that the four-week average will go UP next wekk unles the reported number (as revised) goes down to at least 414,000. The fact remains that ANY number above 4000,000 means that any supposed "improvement' in jobs numbers at the end of June would be FICTION. No, we are not yet in another recession. We are STAGNATING, while inflation is lurking (already evident in gas prices and many other areas). It should remind you of the disastrous Carter years, because Obama and Bernanke (Fed chairman) have made it IMPOSSIBE for a real recovery to take place. The private economy has simply been eviscerated, and any apparent recovery is quckly short circuited by INFLATION of costs (including costs imposed by government, such as ObamaCare, new regulation, new taxes, etc.). We have 62 TRILLION dollars in unfunded liabilities, and a yearly deficit out of control. And the Fed is PRINTING MONEY, while only the Federal Government keeps getting bigger and more expensive. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to have a long-term recovery in that situation. That is what the new unemployment claims numbers are telling you, OVER TIME, and these continued attempts by the mainstream media to find a "stady improvement", and a storyline that we are "headed in the right direction", merely proves what sociopathic liars they are.
Yes, the headline IS ACCURATE (so long as you accept the slight hyperbole of "blaming" Obama for every job lost, which you can hardly say is unfair when Obama has previously tried to take "credit" for every GROOS job "saved/crfeated"). Yes, the headline--while absolutely accurate--is somewhat misleading, since new unemployment claims are a measure of GROSS JOBS LOST. Yes, Obama's claims for the "stimulus" jobs "saved/created" was also an attempt to use GROSS JOBS. This was really a lie, because gross jobs are somewhat irrelevant. The only number that matters is NET jobs. However--unlike the attempt to use fictiionial "groos jobs saved/created" to praise the Obama "stimulus"--new unemployment claims DO have significance, even though we are talking about gross jobs rather than net jobs. We KNOW that during a healthy econom, new unemployment claims should be between 250,000 and 300,000. That is certainly what should happen in a strongly RECOVERING economy. MAYBE, if the economy were back to health, 300,000-350,000 would be okay. But we are now 3 and one half YEARS post-recession, and we have not yet gotten back to even 350,000. And we have followed DEMOCRAT pollicies all of that time. They have FAILED.
How can I say it is DEMOCRAT policies? George W. Bush was President in 2008 Yes, he was. But Obama was in the Senate, and DEMOCRATS controlled Congress. More importantly, the Bush policies (bailouts, "stimulus", spending) were basically the same domestic policies that Obama has followed, only Obama has been WORSE. I should say the Bush/Democrat policies, becaus Democrats took contorl of Congress in January of 2007. From a strictly TIMING point of view, you can BLAME DEMOCRATS for the recession of 2008. The DFFRERENCE between the prosperous Bush years and the disastrous last two years was a DEMOCRAT Congress. But everyone agrees, or should, that Repubicans were following Democrat spending policies even before that, along with Big Government policies, and you can rightly blame this central planning delusion for our entire economic collapse.--plus our failure to be able to recover from that collapse. Remember the Bush/Democrat "stimulus" of 2008--that $600 check? It DID NOT WORK, did it? It just added to our deficit and our debt. But it is crazy to say that was "conservative/Tea Party" policy, just because Bush was President. It was Obama/Democrat policy, and Obama was part f the Congress who votged for it. As a member of Congress, Obama did NOTHING to head off the recession. He PROPOSED NOTHING. Obama entered the Senate in 2004. This economic collapse has ALL happened on Obama's watch, and ACCELERATED when Democrats took control of Congress. It boggle my mind that Repubicans do not make this point. Or it would, if I did not understand the FAILURE of establishment Repubicans. Establishment Republicans don't want to suggest that Bushwas a Big Government guy, and that too many Repubilcans went along with these OBAMA-type policies. You want any more proof that the mainstream media is composed of sociopathic LIARS? Consider the mainstream media assertion--indeed, the OBAMA assertion, but we know our President is also a sociopathic liar--that Obama FOUND a "mess" in Washington. Obama has been PART of tht Mess" in Washington since 2004, and part of the MAJORITY since January of 2007 (the exact time period when our economy collapsed).
In short, I do not apologize for the headline. It is basically a satiric criticism of the way the mainstream media lies about these numbers, and how the Obama Administration--with media help--deliberately confuses GORSS and NET jobs--depending on the propaganda they are trying to put out at the time.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking--bad eyesight.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment