The usual Thursday report on the number of new unemployment claims made last week (a reflection of layoffs/lot jobs) came out today As usual, it ws bad news, although it had basically nothing to do with the fall in the stock market (computer gaming casion that it is--as financial analysts make fools of themselves by giving "resons" for these market drops that are absurd, and the sutupid people know they are absurd as they say it). More about today's number below. First, however, let us review this blo'g article earlier this week on last Thrusday's report on the number of unemployment calims filed the previous week.
You will remember, or you can refer back to the aricle two days ago in this blog, that the number of new unemployment claims was rEPORTERD lat week as 408,0000--up a supposedl 9,0000 rom the previous week, This blog told you that was a LIE--caomparing apples and orages That was because the 408,000 number was an UNREVISED number--to be revised nexte Thursday, wiich happens to be today--while it was being compared to a REVISED number of 399,000 (revised upward from the previously reported 395,000--as to which the media went inot an orgasm of LIES about how "good" that nuumbr was). What I told yoou eariler this week, in that previous blog article, was that the REVISED number, to be reported Thursday (i.e. today), was likely 411,000 or 412,0000, because the number was almost always revised upward 3 or 4 thousand. Well, the revised number for last week was reported today. Guess what? Right This blog was dead on again. Last week's reported number of 408,000 was revised UPWARD to 412,000, meaning that the number of new unemployment claims actually rose 13,000 (for the week previous to last week), instead of the headline LIE of a rise of 9,000. This headline LIE is repeated every single week, and I correctly call the media LARS every single week. You cannot compare apples and oranges, AND report each week's number as it wre a deinit, concrete number that will no change, wihout being a LIAR. that is a word that applies to every financial "journalist' out there reporting on these weekynew unemploymnet claim numbers--at least every financial "journalis" I have ever seen. The despicable AP,of course, has never gotten it right, as befits a group of 'journlists" that is the subject of my futile, Sodom and Gomorrah search for an honest, competent AP reporter.
The UNREVISED number of new unemployomnent claims reported today was 417,000. You should realize by now that the most likely REVISED number (to be reported next Thursday) will be 420,000 or 421,000, if past history is a guide. Now about 15% of the time, the expected 3 or 4 thousand upward revision does not occur. A time or two, over the past year, the revision has been as much as 6,000 or more. A few times the revision has been 0 or 1,000. But by far the most common revision has been 3 or 4 thousand, with a samttering of 2,000 upward movew. I can't even remember the last time the revision wsa DOWN. That just does not seem to happen. As usual, the 417,000 number was reported as a "concrete" number, instead of the unrevised ESTIMATE that it is. Liears (today's "journaliss") just do not learn, or do not care (it beig too hard to try to correctly explain the facts) You get the truth here, even if it may require a dull exposition of numbers that confuses you, or gets me caught up in convoluted sentences easy to garble (not to mention numbers easy to mistype).
EXCEPT. This time MarketWatch (and probably the rest of the mainstream media, who will automatically repeat Obama Administration propaganda) reported that the weekly number (the 417,000) was UNRELIABLE because it was inflated by the Verizon strike. Now the cluelss "journalists" of today's media do not seem to realize thata they are CONDEMNING themselves when they say something like this. Oh, the Verizon strike may well have had some distorting effect on today's report of new unemployment claims (lathough I often wondered what happpened to those 70,000 people supposedly thrown on unemployment by that shutdown of the FAA--who NEVER appeared in the weekly number of new unemplyment claims). However, that is just an EXAMPLE of the kind of event--some not so obvious-that makes EVERY single weekly report UNRELIABLE (in itself). Mere glitches/errors in the "seasonal adjustment" (as seasonal lpatterns change) can distort the weekly number 10,000, 20,000 or more. It is only OVER TIME that these weekly numbers mean anything. That is one reason that it is absurd to suggest that the weekly unemployment claims number is responsible for big stock market moves. Even Wall Street--The Stupidest People on Earth--people are not THAT dumb. Do you see why it is a LIE for the media to report each weekly number as it it is a solid, concrete number--as if it is just like counting your dailyu cash register receipts? Each weekly number is not only subject to revision, but it is UNRELIABEL (each single number being unreliable, altthough the pattern over time can be meaningful). Here, after the four week average had fallen to 400,000 (still a BAD number, and NO improvement from the beginning of this year), ut us begubbubg ti kiij significant that the number is back above 410,000 for two weeks in a row (depending on the magnitude of the Verizon effect). Time will tell, but surveys of planned layoff indicate that the economy may be IN TROUBLE (along with other bad economic data).
Ah, econoists. Thee are part of that group of financial "analysts", and Wall Street/government people/ who I call The Stupidest People on Earth (a title they share with the "journalists" of the mainstream media). What did economists "predict" for the number of new unemployment claims to be reported today? 410,000 (according to the MarketWatch survery of "expert" economists). Note that these "expert" economists were most likely at least 10,000 WRONG, if the revision next week follows historical norms. Terrible performance, right? Except it is a normal performance. Economists are NEVER right. Their real mistake is to make any prediction at all, when they KNOW that they have no clue. By the way, should not economists KNOW about the Verizon strike, and take it into account? Sure, they should, and maybe they did take it into account (making it even more obvious that they are clueless as to the real factors influencing the number). These "expert" economists did predict what they may have thought was a 2,000 rise in claims, since they may have been operating off of the REPORTED number of 408,0000 (instead of the actual previous number of 412,0000). Hold on, though. If I have been aware of, and reported for YEARS, this constant revision that goes in only one directin, am I saying that economists are really that DUMB? Actually, I am. saying that they are that dumb, altthough I obviusly cannot be sure whether they are figuring in the probable revision of the previois week's number or not. Still, look at what happened this week. Economists should have EXPECTED both the 4,000 revisioin of last week's number, AND the inflation of the number caused by the Verizon strike, and they STILL "predicted" that the number of new unemployment claims would FALL 2,000 this week (instead of rise between 5,000 and 9,000, after the revision is reported next week). This is actually the most important point of this article, and has MAJOR pubic policy implilcations.
WHO do Obama, Bernanke, Geitner, and the rest rely upon to tell them how to PLAN the economy (to the extent some of those people are not economists themselves)? They rely upon ECONMISTS. They rely upon these people who cannot even COPME CLOSE (most of the time) to predicting a WEEK ahead as to a number that usually lmoves no more than 10,000 to 20,000 at a time (economists absolutely NEVER get bigger moves right). Think of what this means as to the discredited idea of CENTRAL PLANNING (discredited, but a philosophy that seems to still be firmly in control in Washington). How can anyone believe that these same economiss know enough about our entire economy to CONTROL our economy based on their predictins of how a "jobs program" (to use just on e example) will affect overall jobs in the economy? These people have FAILED over the past 4 years (dating back to the last 2 years of the Bush Administration)--really for the past 5 years (since Bernanke and Paulson took over as Fed Chariman and Treasury Secretary respectively). Obama was PART of that earlier failure, as he SUPPORTED the Paulson policies that failed. Now Obama is gong to propose more of the same in about a week.
Yep. As far as I am concerned, I have just PROVED that Repubicans should reject ALL of the Obama "jobs program", as just more of the same FAILED central lplanning stupidity. Do Republicans have that much courage? We shall see. As you know, if you read this blog, I doubt it, and fully expect to walk away from the Repubican Party FOREVER before this year ends. School building renovations (lol)? More pork and a union payoff. Aid for teacher hiring? A teacher's union payoff. Aid for the housing industry? more central planning, like the FAILED 8,000 housing tax credit that HURT the housing industry by distroting the market without long-term positive effect. Tax credit for businesses who hire people? A BRIBE for business; a WELFARE payment for busineesses who will--unless they are totally stupidd--merely hire who they need to hire, and TAKE THE MONEY. Am extension of that "worker payroll tax cut"? Another BIRBE and welfare payment which was part of that SHAM betrayal in the lame duck Congress in 2010--Repubican betrayal "deal--and which FAILED to help jobs this year. Where did I get the above list? From the Reuters PROPOAGANDA article featured on AT&T/Yahoo this evening (BOYCOTT AT&T and Yahoo), setting forth the possible "jobs program" items Obama will propose that he believes will pass the Repubican House (only if the Repubican Party wants me to declare it DEAD as a doornail--a dead party walking that will at least be dead to me forever after).
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment