Read my article last night on the expected jobs/unemployment data for today You might think I had advance knowledge of the numbers. What I have, of course, is an understanding of what the numbers HAVE to be to be consistent with the other numbers on the economy.
Yes, I even essentailly predicted that the "jobs created" number would be about 1000,000--the actual number being 117,000 (statistially insignificant from 100,000). That was supposedly a "good number", because it was "better than expected". Hogwash. I explained to you last night that the REALLY BAD number for the previous month has a definite tendency to lead to a "better than expected" number the next month. Notice it is still a BAD number--not good enough to lower the unemployment rate (9.2% and 9.1% being no different--well within the margin of error).
You have heard the expression: "It is all about the Benjamins". Well, in the case of these employment numbers: "It is all about the seasonal adjustment." Nope. If there is ONE thing yoiu get from this blog, it should be an appreciation that these economic numbers are NOT "concrete" numbers, obtained by counting on toes and fingers (or even by mere counting on computers). These are numbers that are ADJUSTED, meaning the reported number is an ESTIMATE based on a formula, trying to take out known seasonal factors. As I have told you, it is journalistic INCOMPETENCE not to prominently report the "raw" number, as well as the adjusted number, and not to analyze to see if there are any changes in seasonal patterns.
Yep. Seasonal patterns can CHANGE. Further, special factors (weather, a change in government and privatge seasonal layoff dates, etc.) can be different one year from the previious years. This explains why it is fairly likely that a REALLY BAD month will be followed by a "better than expected" month--IF the economy has not fallen off of a cliff. We have STALLED, but we have not YET fallen off of a cliff again. That is all today's employment numbers really say, as they have said ever since the summmer of 2009 (when the "recovery" supposedly began). Remember, the unemployment rate DROPPED from 9.5% to 9.4% at about this time in the summer of 2009--not really different from the rate it is now at.
What happens is that whatever special factors may have made June a REALLY BAD month get partially REVERSED in July. In other words, June may well not have been quite as bad as the numbers would indicate (not to mentioin an ordinary margin of error that probably approaches 100,000). And July was probably not as "good" as the numbers would appear to indicate (the actual numbers been "less bad" than they could have been, rather than "good"). Combined, the two months are pretty bad, and leave an unemployment rate of 9.1% (NO improvement in 2 years, after the recovery had supposedly started). As I have shown yo, these numbers are written in sand, or even water, and you can't live or die by the accuracy of one month's numers, or even two month's numbers And you have to look at ALL of the numbres on the economy, and fit them all together. See my article last night. These numbers have to be viewed OVER TIME, and in context. And they will be. There remains more than a year before the election, and Obama has esssentially that time to produce CONSISTENT improvement. No, I would ot vote for him even if the economy does suddently rebound, as I would remain convinced he is ruining the country (the Soviet Union OCCASIONALLY looking good before the final collapse). But Obama has no chance if things continue as they have been--today's numbers not changing that at all.
In the context of all of the numbers on the economy, for the first half of this year and extending into July, you can concude that the economy has STALLED OUT. As this blog has shown, what has happpened is that Obama (plus Bernanke and the rest) has made it IMPORSSIBLE for a real recovery to take place. You may get the appearance of one for short periods of time (which Obama has to hope coincide with the election--at least on of those short periods of apparent "progress"). But the deficits and government interference/dominance of the economy have reached the point that we simply cannot have a sustained recovery.
The main point of this article, however, is to pat myself on the back. I honestly think I told you last night wht to expect today, and that I was right. I am willing to be immodest. Read the article last night and see if you agree (there being enough ambiguity that people who want to diagree can probaly come up with plausible reasons to do so).
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
T
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment