Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Obama Fails on Jobs Entire Year: New Unemplyment Claims (Dishonest Los Angeles Times)

I am simply never wrong.  I told you a little more than 2 weeks ago tht the "drop in new unemplyment claims to 343,000 was TOTAL FICTION:  created by the seasonal distortin of superstorm Sandy. 

Last Thursday, I was shown to be right again, as the number nof new unemplyment claims "rose" at least 17,0000 (maybe 20,0000--when REVISED figure released tomorrow), to a "seaonsally adjusted" 361,000 9again, likely 364,000, after being REVISED tomorrow). For one of the few times in the last 3 YEARS, my own (pre-announced) "revisin of the 343,000 announced 2 Thursdays ago was less accurate than the media/Labor Dept. headline number of 343,0000.  Last Thursday, the previus week's intitial 343,000 was revised upward only 1,0000: less thaan the most common 3,000 UPWARD revisin that usually occurs. It has been FOREVER since the uncrevised number of new unemplyment claims (to be announced tomorrow) has been revised DOWNWARD, revealing just how dishoenst our media and Labor Dept. are to accept the consistent ERROR in the headline number every week, year after year.  Until a new patttern is firmly estalbishmed,as it has not been in more than 3 eyars, I will continue to REVISE the Labor Dept .number myself, IMMEDIATELY, by the same 3,0000.  That means that last week's initial number of 361,0000 will likely be revised tomorrow to 364,000 or more.

It does not realy matter.  The number of new unemplyment claims is significant ONLY OVER TIME, and shows the "labor market" has NOT IMROVEDE the entire year of 2012.  The range from geginning to end was 351,0000-392,0000:  ignoring the "temorary" distortions of Sandy and the FICTIONAL 342,0000 ne week, when the dishoenst Labor Dept LEFT OUT CALIFORNIA (or much of it), wihtout ever correcting the error (although acknowledging it). 364,0000, or even 361,0000, is essentially in the MIDDLE of the yearly range of 351,0000-392,0000.  Nor has that "range' shown some sort of steady "improvement" at the end of the eyar.  From mid-January to about mid-March, the range of new unemplyment claims was about 351,0000-365,0000.  Last Thursday's initial number was at the TOP of that range early this year: again indicating NO "improvement" this entire year. 

Dishonest Los Angeles Times?  Their headline last headline last Thursday was: "New unemplyment claims rise 17,0000, but still  relatively low."  As I have shown you, that is a LIE.  Yep  I jsut called the Lost Angeless Times LIARS, and I =stand 100% behind that statement.  In fact, I PREDICTED exactly this LIE.  How can LA Times say number is "relatively low", when it iswell within the yearly range and would have been at the tOP of the February range?  Easy.  LA Tiemes, which DISCOUNTED Sandy-induced spikes to 451,0000, 416,0000 and 395,0000, is suggesting that 364,0000 (or 361,000) is "relatively low" when compared with those SPIKE numbers that the media said WERE NOT REAL.  You jsut can't get any more dishoenst than that, and can't get any more dishoenst than the "journalists" of the disgraceful Los Angeles Times. 

Year is "in the boks" now., and the whole YEAR was a FAIURE for Obama:  NO IMPROVEMENT. No. It does not matter what happens tomorrow, or the following week. We still hae possible seasonal distrotins from Sandy (distortions which can go both ways), and HOLIDAY numbers are impossibly unreliable.  So next two weeks don't even mean much (whether numbers go up or down).   The YEAR is already in the books, and it was a FAILURE for the labor market and Obama. Any fluctuations in these last two weeks merely represent statistical "noise". 

We really are not going to get much of a handle on 2013 until looking at the numbers over the weeks from mid-January to the beginning of April.  Sure, we might get some idea of where we are gonig, starting in mid-January (away from holidays), but lat THREE eyars have shown sAE new "seasonal pattern":  Misleading, APPARENT "improvement" in February, followed by apparent DETERIORATIN as we go into sprin and summer.  2012 was especailly notable in that regard, as there was NO real "improvement" even as we head into the end of this year. And we will not have any, since there is no way to know whether any suposed "improvement' these last two weeks is 'real'. or a result of distortins from both Sandy and the holiday season.

How did we end up with NO "improvement' in new unemlyment claims, and this supposed "improvement" int he unemplyment ate?  Inconsistent numbers.  I prefer the number of new unemplyment claims as a better indicator, even though it is hardly free frm manipulatin.  There are simply more data pints, and somewhat less subjectivity in the weekly new unemplyment claims numbers.

Again, I have prepared you to look thorough the media LIES tomorrow.  Tomorrow's number of new unemlyment claims is pretty meaningless, because of possible distortins. But expect the media to SAY that ONLY if the number is BAD.  A "good" number will be "evidence" that the "labor market" is turning around--NOT.

We continue to be STUCK in a bad place, as far as JOBS are concerned.

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

Thursday, December 13, 2012

Unemployment Claims and Labor Dept./Media Dishonesty

Read last night's article.  Then consider: Is The Maverick Conservative ever wrong?  Hardly ever.

The minor point, of course, is the CONSTANT Labor Dept./media dishoensty as to the "revision" ALWAYS made in only one direction-makng a mockery of the absurd clam that the revised data is merely a matter of more "complete" data.  If there is a CONSISTENT error not included in the original "eadline" numbers, then the PROCEDURE shuld be changed to include an "adjustment' for the constant error. Not to do that is DISHOENST, as I have been telling yu. Thus, last wek's reported number of new unemplyment claims was REVISED upward from 370,0000 to 372,0000 (median is a upward revison of 3,000, but--as almost always--my "prediction" of 373,000 was CLOSER than the Labor Dept./media figure).

But where I have really been right over the paset weeks, since Sandy, is my prediction that the media, and Labor Dept. would emPHASIZE the distortins of Sandy for UNFAVORABLE numbers, but ignore the distortins of Sandy for favorable numbers.  As I told you, the weeky number of new unemplyment claims is going to mean NOTHING until probably mid-Janutary, and we will not realy get a pcutre of where 2013 is headed until posssibly April. (as to the labor market).

"But, Skip, once the effet of Sandy has dissapted, the number surely means as much as it ever does, even though it is true that the number bounces around such that one week never means much. We get your pint that the seasonal adjustment alne, especially around holidays, is so unreliable that the weekly numbers only mean anything OVER TIME.  And the media is dishonest for ignoring this, and acting like each weekly number is some sort of concrete, accurate descritpn of the weekly status of the labor market. However, surely the number does not mean less than usual once the dramatic, initial effects of Sansy have passed."

Wrong.  Yep. The media, as usual, LIED when they tired to place actual significance on today's "dramatic" (too dramatic, meaning it is likely PURE FICTIN) "drop" in new unemplyment claims to 346,000. Ok.  Annnounced number was 343,000, but I always take into account that CONSISTENT ERROR (that Labor Dept./media dishoensty).  There was a purported "drop" of 29,000.  Even without Sandy, that kind of a drop would be suspicious, as I previously told you when the Labor Dept. "reported" 339,000 (revised to 342,000), only to find out that the Labor Detpt. had LEFT OUT CALIFORNIA (or a significant portion of California claims). With Sandy, as I told you last night, and previusly, today's number is not even surprising.  Why is that.  It is because Sandy did NTO just DISTORT the numbers one way.  Yes, Sandy caused an immeidate jump in jobless claims because of Sandy shutting down business. But Sandy also DISTORTED the seasonal pattern/seasonal adjustment.  That means that this week's number cannot really be regarded as any more reliable than that 451,000 number right after Sandy. Once the 'bounce back" from Sandy in the weekly number got beynd Sandy causing any more layoffs, it was to be expected that the disruptin in the seasonal pattern would cause the weekly number to go TOO LOW to be representatvive of the real status of the labor markt.  Sure, yuy could AVERAGE the numbers over the past 4 weeks.  But the better way to look at this is that these numbers since Sandy, INCLUDING THIS WEEK'S SUPPOSEDLY "GOOD" NUMBER, just don't mean anything about the "normalized" satus of the labor market, exculsive of the SHORT-TERM effect of Sandy. 

But you won't hear from either the Labor Dept. or (espiecally) our dishoenst/incompetent media that the "good' number today was likelyl DISTORTED by Sandy just as much as the bad numbers right after Sandy. So where are we?  No way to know.  That is the point.  Until we see how this goes, OVER TIME (and outside of holiday influence), we really are not going to have any god idea of where we stand.  Oh, you can say that at least the effects of Sandy on layoffs are proving mainy TEmPORARY, rather than some sort of major body blow to business in the northeast that is causing a downward spiral. As I have stated, it is just absurd to say that Sandy was GOOD for the economy. But if the effects of Sandy are, indeed, temporary, then that can be regarded as somewhat "good" news in a negative sort of way (not as bad as might have been). But you, and the media CANNOT now conclude that this weekly number on new unemplylment claims is now a "true' picture of whre the labor market is.  You canot even do that as to ANY one week, but yu especially cannot do it when it is absurd not to at least SUSPECT that Sandy is still DISTORTING the number--just in the oppposite directin because the "formula" does not take into account the changes in the seasonal pattern caused by Sandy. 

Over the past three eyars, in any event, the WINTER has lproven an espeically misleading time forthese weekly jobless claims numbers. Why?  Well, the Labor Dept. "formula' for "seasonal adjustment" may be FLAEWED (surelyl is flawed, by the way, as it can NEVER be regarded as any more than a fallible ESTIMATE, especially for any one week).  Secondly: WEATHER.  The WEATHER in WINTER has much more effect on things like construction than weather variations at other times of the year.  Sandy showed the effect weather can have.  A winter BLIZZARD can paralyze business over a good part of the country (that is, heavily populated NYC, Boston, D.C., Philadelphia, Chicago areas).  What the dishoenst media dos NOT tell you is that the LACK of blizzards and BAD weather can distort the seaonsal adjustment just as much as bad weather--more, in fact, if the "seasonal adjustment" is based on the expectatin of a certain amount of bad weahter in areas subject to cold, bad winter eather). ope. These weekly numbers are FALLIBLE ESTIMATES, whose ONLY meaning is OVER TIME. 

What if the number KEPT going down?  Obviuisly, at some point that would be significant. But the point is that there is NO reason to believe that this week's number emans ANY more than the obvisly distorted 451,000 number of abut 4 weeks ago.  This number is likely to have been DISTORTED by Sandy, just like the 451,000--just in th eopposite directin.  Time will tell. But it will probably not tell until at least mid-January, because of the distortions of the holiday season, as well as lingering distortions of Sandy. 

I expect a SHAM "deal" on the "fiscal cliff", whre the GOP cements my conclustin that it is a party that now deserves to DIE (and be replaced by something else). But I don't think it matters. The real chalenge as 2013 progresses, aside from Bernanke/Obama making a real "recovery" impossible, is ObamaCare.  ObamaCare is gong to loom over the 2013 labor market, and our economy, like the asteroid in "Armageddon".  Even without ObamaCare, I would be pessimistic about the new religion of Wall St. economic fascists that all we need ot do to "save' us is to PRINT MONEY.  With ObamaCare, I see no hope at all. GOP--coward to a man and woman, as far as ai can see--has already shown in 2010 that NO vicotry in 2014 is gong to be enugh to change course.  No courage.  Thus, we are going to be on this path until at least 2016 (when I wonder whether the GOP will be headling toward that 1,000th and final death that cowards suffer, while a brave man dies but once).  Can we make it TO 206, even if there is someone to vote for then who will actually change course?  I doubt it.

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).  As I have said on Twitter, by the way, I believe that the bst of the POSSIBLE results to the present "crisis" is to go over this "fiscal cliff", and at least require our politicians to LIVE WITH their previus choices.  Disaster.  But LEAST of the disasters we face, which is a sad comnetary on where we are.  IF we go over the "fiscal cliff", and STAY THERE, we will at least make a stab at BOTH "cuttnig" spending (not enough, even, and partiallly in the wrong places) AND reducing the deficit (even if with the disastrous tax increases that wil occur).  Note that "goning over the fiscal cliff" merely (subjet to certain distortions caused by failure to properly adjust things like th eAMT) would merely return us to the tax rates of the CLINTON YEARS: the very tax rates that our media and opther leftist Democrats say led to PROSPERITY.  It MAY be possible to survive those tax rates, as we did under Clinton.  What I know we cannot survive, and yet the argument the GOP is not even makng, is the idea that 2% of the country shuld SUPPORT the other 98%.  This CLASS WARFARE iddea destoryed the Roman Republic, and it will DESTROY US.  It is absurd for GOP to say that they can "give" on this PRINCIPLE of class warfare, and "concentrate"on SPENDING.  Dems/media will make SPENDING the SAME ISSUE.  Medicaer? Raise Medicare taes on the "rich", AND reduce the benefits/raise the cost ("means tet") Medicare for the "ricxh". Social Secuirty?  Ditto.  Same thing.  If GOP concedes CLASS WARFARE arguemtn, as they--and too many conservaitves already have--then they have LOST the WAR.  There is no recovering from it, because the sAME leftist argument can be made on EVERY tax and SPENDING issue we ever face. Ayn Rand will prove to have been a prophet ahead of her time ("Atlas Shrugged").  Will the "rich" (Alex Rodriguez?  Albert Pujols? Tom Brady?) be content to be SLAVES using their tlaent/money to support the REST OF US?  Not in the end.  My big beef with the GOP, and to omany conservatives, is that they are not even ARGUING against this ultimate diaster. Not acceptable to me.  I will not accept it.  that is why I do NOT expect to support the GOP nominee for President in 2016, OR to support GOP incumbents (ANY of them) in Congress in 2014. 

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Jobs and Dishonest Labor Dept./Media

Last Friday, the Labor Dept. issued monthly employment numbers that have to be regarded as total FICTIN: purporting to show a DROP (although slight) in unemplyment and 146,000 "added" jobs (not good, but strange with Sandy)--despite Supestorm Sandy.

Why fiction? Look at how those numbers CONFLICTED with the weekly numbers on new unemplyment claims. Here are the numbers on new unemplyent claims released the pat four weeks (released every Thursday, as they will be tomorrow): 451,0000 (18 month high), 416,000, 395,0000, 370,0000 (to be REVISED upward tomorrow by the disheonst Labor Dept, as this was the UNREVISED number released last Thursday).  Note that EVERY one of these numbers would have been new HIGHS for the YEAR, before the 451,0000, until we got to last week's annnounced 370,000.  But even that nuber was in the MIDDLE of the YEARLY range for the weekly number of new unemplyment claims (351,0000-392,000, before Sandy and disregarding 342,0000 when dishoenst Labor Dept. neglected to COUNT most or all of new claims from California, and never corrected the admittedly erroneous number).

How can Superstorm Sandy cause a HUGE jump in new unemplyment claims, and the unemplyument rate DROP? It can't. These numbers are INCONSISTENT, and REQUIRE exlanatin.  But our dishoenst Labor Dept. and media simplyl refuse to look into the obvius discrepancy here, althogh they WILL do so to explain the UNFAVORABLE results of Sandy (such as that huge jump in new unemplyment claims).

What happened?  I don't know, for sure.  These monthy numbers are getting less and less reliable, to the pint of being entirely useless. The weekly number of new unempllment claims--despite being itself subject to errors and manipulatino--seems to be giving a better picture, OVER TIME, of wha is going on in te labor markte. Notice that the weekly number of new unemplyment claims seems to have given the EXPECTED results from Sandy, while the monthly numbers appar to be FICTIN. Yes, the weekly number of new unemplyment claims was DISTORTED by Sandy, but those high numbers still represented REAL lsot jobs:  just not necessarily the ongoing picture of the labor market as Sandy's immediate impact dissipated.  No. You jsut can't reconcile the weekly numbers and the monthly numbers, as the monthy numbers seem to indicate NO impact from Sandy at all.  That is not possilbe, and the economy did NOT "improve" that muc (as the weeklly number of new unemplyment claims indicated), such that Sandy's losses were matched by big gains elsewhere.

Again, what happened.  Problem MAY be in Labor Dept., and unreliability of monthly numbers. There is at least ONE other POSSIBLE way to envision that the monthly numbers might be misleading (besides the way the numbers are collected and calculated, including the timing of when the info was obtained during the onth). As I have previusly stated, Sandy did INCREASE emplyment in some ways, although the net effect was surely negative.  Waht aobut all of those TEMPORARY and PART-TIME DISASTER RELIEF peole? It is possible that Sandy actually distorted the monthly numbers in a "positive" directin, even though Sandy's effect on the economy and labor market was really negative.  As this blog has told you, the problem with Sandy is that it is hard to PREDICT exactly how Sandy will afect the numbers for individual months and individual weeks.  For example, if tomorrow's weekly numbe of new unemplyment claims wer "really good", would that mean real "progress" in the labor market?  Almsot surely NOT.  It wouud merely mean that the DISTORTINS from Sandy, includng distortins of seasonal patterns, had gone the other directin.  ObamaCare, by the way, remains the REAL "fiscal cliff", as it starts to realy affect employers in 2013.  As I have stated on Twitter (where my material has been appearing more requently lately @mavconservative, despite the obvius fact that I am not really a Twitter person), my positin is that we would be MUCH better off going over the "fiscal cliff" (as usually described, not including the really terrible effects likely from ObamaCare) than we are likely to be with any "deal" "negotiated" by tghe COWARDLY GOP.

Oh. I made an ERROR in my aricle of almost two weeks ago, when I acutally gave the DISHOENST Labor Dept. too much credit.  I said that the Labor Dept., for the first time in livng memory, had actually revised the number of new unmplylument claims DOWN, rahter than the ALWAYS upward revison over many previus months, and even years. Not so.  Somehow, because of a mistake by my media source (entirely possible), or because of my own eyesight, I got the idea that the number of new unemloyment claims was reported as 383,0000, down 23,0000 from the previous week.  That would have made the previus week 406,000,m nstead of the initially reported 410,000.  Actually, the number of new unemloyument claims was reported as 393,000, down 23,000 from a REVISED 416,000. I was off 10,000, and the dishoenst Labor Dpet. had REVISED the prvius week UPWRD from 410,000 to 416,000: a continuance of the DISHONESTY of the usual, consistent upward revsion week after week.  Thus, last Thursday, the Labor Dept. again REVISED the preius week's 393,000 to 395,000, which is te number I included in my recakkp of the past 4 weeks above.  as stated, the number of new unempllyment claims initially reorted last week was 370,000.  Youi can EXPECT that number to be REVISED tomorrow (or "today", since this is being typed right at midnight El Paso taime) to 373,0000 or so (using most common weekly revision of UP 3,000).   Everything else I said in that article two weeks ago was accurate, and even my error did not cuase me to give any credence to the Labor Dept. suddenly beocmign more honest.  I was right in my expressed skepticism, as the revisin turned out to be the same directin in which it always is made: UPWARD (as the dishonest media keeps reporting the initial, UNREVISED number as if it is not gong to be REVISED the next week in only one directin).

Again, it is difficult to "predict" what tomorrow's number of initiallly reported new unemplyment claims will be.  The distortins of Sandy, including the subtle one on the "seaosnal adjustment', may still be operating.  Further, we are in the CHRISTMAS season, and the Labor Dept. numbers around holidays are esopecially unreliable.  Even without Sandy, the Laor Dept. often gets the "seasonal adjustment" WRONG as seasonal patterns change from year to year.  As this blog has correctly told you, I don't think these numbers are gong to mean much--or at least we won't know what they may mean--until at least mid-January.  And since 2010 there has been a consistent FICTINAL "improvement at the end of one year and the beginning of the next (through February), that has turned out to be FALSE as we go into spring and summer.  These numbers will ONLY have any significance OVER TIME, and we may be all of the way into April before we can arrive at any reasonably confident evaluatin of how the labor market is doing in 2013.  The usual SEASONAL "improvement" ni new weeekly unemloyment claims has NOT yet occurred this year.  It remanis to be seen if it will maek a belated appearance as we head toward the end of the year, and beginnng of next year.  Then there is the fact that the BASE  numbers and formulas used to CALCULATE both the weekly and monthly numbers usually CHANGES in January. 

The media may have orgasms, as usual, if the numbers APPEAR to be good", as they have FALSELY appeeared for the past 3 years.  We will have to wiat and see for the real situation to become established. Or, rather, YOU will have to wiat and see for my DEFINITIVE evaluatin of the situatin.  I can give you better analysis than anyone else, but even I cannot accurately tell you the real status of the labor market until there is enough reasonably reliable data to see whether the PATTERN of the last three years is repeating itself or not.  And I really am afaid that these numbers--weekly and monthly--are becoming more subject to possible manipulatin with every passing week and month.  Tha tis why you have to TRY to RECONCILE the  vaiurs numbers (includnig GDP growth and other non-emplyment data) with EACH OTHER.  Yu cannot reconcile the last four weeks of new unemplyment claims with the supposed MONTHLY emplment numbers for November.  We will see what time adn more data, bring to us in the way of clues. 

No.  Whehter the economic data starts to really look better or not, ObamaCare (along with so many other things, including the Fed makng real recovery impossible because printing money will cause immeidate SPIKES in inflatin as any "recovery" starts) is a SWORD OF DAMOCLES hangng over the American economy.  I don't see how we survive it. 

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

Saturday, December 1, 2012

Islam and Global Warming/Climate Change (lol): Clinically Insane Leftists (Boycott Yahoo)

Here aer two of the "featured (most important, for the point of view of far leftists at Yahoo?) "news" stories on Yahoo "News" early Saturday morning:

1.  15-yearold Afghan girl beheaded for rejectiong marriage proposal". 

2. " Some (translation:  AP, Yahooand other lefitsts) wish Islam woud inform on climate change."

Test for the reader: before i tell yu, do you see what is wrong with these two headlines, especailly the second one?

Right.  The second headline is CLINICALLY INSANE, especially in conjunctin with the first. This is using the correct definition of schizophrenia, and psychosis, as referring to conditons where a person is disassociated froom reality.  Doubt me? It gets far, far worse. Is the left so ISANE as to realy believe "climate change" (I use "global warming", because "climate change" is a LYING term made up for political reasons, on the idea that eVERYONE sees the climate/weather "changing", as it has done for all of the history of the Earth. but I will use "climate change" in this article, because that is what the lefdtists of the AP did).  is one of the top 100 problems facing Islam at all, or a RELIGIOUS "issue" in any e event?  It is absolutely amazing how the left (Bill Maher, CNN, et. al.) has total CONTEMPT for religion--includng Obama--except when THEY want to USE religion for POITICAL purposes.  Here is the (only slightly paraphrased) firs paragraph of the ridiculous/desicable AP/Yahoo story:

"people gathered at a mosque on Friday to say prayers.  The imam discussed the civil war in Syria, the unrest in Egypt, and the U.N. vote on Palestinian recognition." 

Okay.  Nothing about beheading 15-year-old girls, the disgraceful attitude of so much of Islam toward women, or the rather extreme attitude of much of Ilsam toward homosexuals (ahmadinejad: "Hang 'em"). But this may be a problem with the REORTING of the despicable AP, rather than the imam.  This imam strikes me as SANE (at least in wht he perceived as important), in contrast to the AP/Yahoo wanting to "insprire' a "jihad" in the name of "climate change".  Here is how the second paragraph began, word for word (exact quote):

"Not one word about climate change.".......

Say what?  The Middle East and northern Africa are in flames.  Too much of Islam is being perverted toward terrorism and intolerance, and our media/left thinks that imams shuld be "discussing" "climate change" (three guesses on HOW, and the first 2 don't count).!!!! 

What is really going on here?  The complete, official name of the Associated Press will give you a clue:  "Despicable, Anti-American Associated Press".   Yes, this is all about LEFTIST IDEOLOGY (the religion of the leeft, including Obama), and not abuot the real challegnes facing "Islam" as a religion.  For the anti-American left, "climate change" IS a RELIGION, and therefore one of the things that GOD/ALLAH should be ASSUMED to include in any other religon being practiced on this Earth.  I wonder how many rabbis "discuss" "climate change" in their synagogue on their sabbath. I knwo. I am sure there are SOME leftist priests who do discuss it, but you are delulded if you think those priests believe in their religion even as much as I (an agnostic) do..  For leftist clerics, as well as other leftists, the RELITION is LEFITST IDEOLOGY.  But I am not kidding.  This particular insanity is specifically ANTI-AMERICAN. 

You know the assertion:  that we are energy/resource HOGS using 25% of the world's energy, creating a world where the SAHARA desert is gong to take over alost the entire Arab world, and a good part of the rest of tghe world (as sea levesl rise and "thrid world" humanity dies like flies.  No. I am not going to discuss the FRAUD of "gblobal warming" in this article.  The point here is that this has noting to do with "Islam", but has everythign to do with anti-American, leftist ideology and POLITICS.  In fact, the invented "theory" of "global warming" has always bewen about leftist ideolgy (rather than science). 

What are the despicable peole of the AP, Yahoo and the left realy telling radical Islamists?  They arre almost directly telling them this:  "You should not be distracted by things like Americans on the "holy" soil of Saudi Arabia and elsewhre--unccludng American troops.  You shuld realize that America is trying to DESTORY you with climate change, which will make your countries unlivable.  THIS is the reason wyou should realy be joining US in a LEFTIST JIHAD against any America that does nto conform to our ideology."

You know the underlying idea here. The idea is that Muslims, especially Saudi Arabia, are being USED by the Great Satan/Wet, as we are using up their resources to make it impossible for Islamic countries to ever have any ind of real economyu.  When the oil is gone, or even before that, all that will be left will be the Sahara, while the "rich" USA adds to our weath and exploitation of teh world's resources to destory the rest of the world (while our wealth makes it possilbe for us to aovid the immeidate consequences of our folly).

No. In today's ecnomy, our leftist media is talking to the wind.  You notice that Obama did NOT make "climate change" an issue in the recent electin.  In fact, he asserted that he is in FAVOR of the economic benefits from driling and the developometn of America's own fossil fuel resources.   But this AP/Yahoo article shows you that the INSANE ideology is still there, and that leftists (including Obama) have not given up on the idea of pretty much crucifying our economy on the cross of "clf "climate change" (to paraphrase, and misquote, William Hennings Bryan and his famous "Cross of Gold" speech). 

"Skip, did you just say the the President of the United States" is ANTI-AMERICAN? "  Yep. I did, and he is. Oh, I understand that he is not "anti" the America that HE wants us to be, and thinks we can be.  But the America that became the greatest nation in the world:  really the most successful nation the world has ever known?  No, Obama does NOT believe in that America.  He believes that America is an evil influence in the world, and has been for many, many years (mabye since our founding). 

Oh.  Do you feel GUILTY about living in a SUCCESSFUL, tolerantnation, where freedom hs not yet been extinguished?  Do you feel GUILTY abouta living in a country that uses 25% of the world's energy?  Neither do I.  But that is what that disgraceful article from the AP/Yahoo was all about.  And the despoicable peeople of our media are actually TRHING to give "Islam" yet another insane reason to HATE US.  My CONTEMPT for tghe truly despicable peole of our media grows every single HOUR. 

P.S.  No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).  Okay, I COULD use audio, although my present comuter (Windows xp") does nto have it (even though there maybe a "free dowload").  But I have not grown up blind (lathough extremely near sighted  since high school).  If I had grown up blind, or were now totally blind (instead of my "good eye" BEST corrected vision being 20-170), I am sure I would be using audio.  As it is, it is out of my 'comfort level"--to quote Obama from a different context.  I will surely go to more audio, as I now do with READING (since I can't read text, but only audio books).   Whehter I will ever find it easy enough to PROO(FREAD, and READ BACK, audio articles, rather than just frustrate you with typos, remains to be seen.  yes, for a person who is blind, I can still see pretty well.  For somene who can see, my eyesight is the pits.  Oh.  And it is not just the 20-170.  Due to my scarred retina, I cannot FOCUS in such a way as to read words and paragraphs, even when I should be able to see them.  Macular degeneration of an untreatable type.  I try not to bore you with the detaisl of this, but I like to somewhat satisfy your curiosity every several months or so. And I know some of yu tech savvy people scream at the screen from time to time because you wuld be able to do much better.  So you probably could. 

Thursday, November 29, 2012

Obama Loses 383,000 Jobs Last Week: NO Improvement Entire Year

The weekly number of new unemplyment claims (filed last week) came out Thursday, but the distortins created by Sandy make the number fairly meaningless. What is meaningful, again, is the DISHONESTY of our media, which still gives false hadlines (including not referring to the number as the mere ESTIMATE it is), and talks aoubt "improvement" when everynoe knows that Sandy has distorted the nu unpredictable ways. Note that there has been generally GOOD weather in recent weeks, which is NOT mentioned by the DISHOENST people in our media and the dishoenst Labor Dept.

The actual, unrevised number reported today was 383,0000:  at the very top of the YEARLY rannge of 351,000-392,0000 (ignoring last two FICTIONAL weeks above 4000,0000, and previus FICTIONAL 342,0000 caused by disheonst Labor Dept. leaving out all, or part, of California data, and not correcting that week's resulting fictional number).

However, for the first time in living memory, the REVISED number from last week was DOWN. Did the dishoenst Labor Dept. "arrange" this because everyone is ignoring the weekly number anyway (because of Sandy)?  Possibly,. Or it is possible that this just shows that Sandy has so confused the numbers that the dishoenst Labor Dept. can't even manage its CONSISTENT 3,0000 understatement of new unemplyment claims, which has gone into UNCORRECTED media headlines for YEARS.  Has dishoenst Labor Dept. "reformed", based on my conclusive reporting that this weeklly "error", in one directin ONLY (almost always), is indefensible?  Don't count on it.  I have confidence in the dishonesty and incompetence of our Laobr Dept. (and, of course, our media). 

Now we are being set up here for more DISHOENSTY in th eway future weeks are reported.  Note that we don't yet know when the initial, temporary distortions of Sandy wil be gone.  How much temporary distortin from Sandy is still in that HIGH 383,0000 numbe?  We don't know.  But Sandy did more than simply cause "temporary" layoffs.  As I have stated, despite Wall St. (The Stupidest People on Earth), Sandy ws a NET DETRIMENT to the economy and to jobs.  As John Stossel has pointed out, if DESTROYING things is a way to economic prosperity, then we need to get out the bulldozers and start destroying (something like what the Dems actually propose with regard to "infrastructure"). Just not so.

However, Sandy distorts the SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT.  Look at what ordinarily happens.  Jobs are ADDED for the Christmas season./Black Friday.  Then, as Christmas actually approaches and many peole have done their shopping, some of the temporary employees often get LAID OFF (starting BEFORFE Christmas).  Further, the number of new unemplylment claims is a measure of LAYOFFS--not people HIRED.  Look at the effect of Sandy.  Labor Dept. reported that 451,0000 people lost their jobs in one week right after Sandy.  The next week was reported as 410,0000, revised DOWN to 406,0000. These businesses in the Northeast, which were shut down, "laid off" their employees BEFORE Black Friday.  This means that those of them that have, or will, REOPEN do not have "extra" peole to LAY OFF. They will only hire the peole that they now need.  They may end up with fewer evmployees than before Sandy, but those previus layoffs were already COUNTED.  This means that many businesses may not be laing off people jsut when the "seasonal adjustment" might suggest that some would be laying off people.  In other words Sandy may have MOVED some of the seasonal factors, in additin to causing layoffs.  Thus, say that the SEASONALLY ADJUSTED number for the first week in December is something like 340,000. The "seasonal adjustment" is always suspect around Christmas anyway, as special factors affect the TIMING of hiring and layoffs in the Christmas season (and irght afterward).  That is why I have told you that this weekly number of unemplment claims will really not have any meaning until id-January, and it NEVER has any meaning except OVE TIME.    A sudden "drop" to something like 340,0000 would have to be assumed to be FICTGION--a distortin created by Sandy fully as much as "temporary" layoffs were created by Sandy. 

This is what the DISHOENST media and Labor Dept. never seem to report.  A distgortoin in one directin, because of special events and factors, may create a balancing distortion in the other directin in following week(s). Sandy can distort the weekly number in BOTH directins (up and down), and yet the media is going to ignore that if the weekly number suddently "improves" dramatically.  As stated, the holiday season alone can distort the numbers. In fact, as this blog has reported, thaere has been a CONSISTENT pattern since the beginning of 2010, where the weekly number of new unemplyment claims APPEARS to "improve" rather substantialy toward the end of the yearm and at the beginning of the new year, only to APPEAR to DETERIORATE as we had into spring and sumemr.  This pattern has occurred in 2010, 2011 AND 2012, although the substantial seasonal "improvement" in the fall has NOT really occurred in 2012--at least not yet.  Did Sandy delay that usual apparent "improvement" in the fall? Maybe. Or maybe we are just not getting it. (bad news, really).  In all events, any APPARENT big "drop" in new unemployment claims in the weeks up to the end of the year will likely be FICTIN (unless confirmed over teh succeeding months).

The LACK of 'improvement" n the weekly number of new unemplylment claims this year has been dramatic.  It is not only that the BEST time of the year, as usual, was from mid-January to mid-March. The yearly RANGE of 351,000 to 392,0000 (ignoring obvius distorted weeks) is SMALL.  A 40,000 RANGE for the entire year really does mean that we have been STALLED: STUCK in the smae BAD place all lyear.  Remember, this weekly number can BOUNCE up and down by 40,0000 in a single WEEK, even without the major move from something as big as Sandy.  Rather ordinary WEATHER, like BLIZZARDS, can move the weekly number by BIG amounts. I am not sure, by the way, that Sandy is that much of an extgraordinary weather event.  GOOD weather definitely had an effect on the APPARENT "improvement" early this year, and weather is something of an "ordinary" variable, even if Sandy was a mroe obvius and extreme facotr than most. 

You have been warned.  Ignore media headlines suggesting "improvement' n weekly new claims for unemplyument over the next 6 weeks or so. Yes, that also may be true for BAD numbers over that period, but the Labor Dept. and media REORT that (usually).  The DISHOENSTY is in the consistent SKEWING of the way the numbers are reported, so that lyou don't report the ossible distrotng factors in major moves EITHER DIRECTIN.  As stated, a major move in one directin is often part of the SAME reason for a move in the other directin. (as faulty "seasonal adjustments" and glitches "even out") This blog tells you HOW tro properly evaluate these numbers, which the media does NOT do. 

By the way, the formula and "baseline" used to calculate the weekly ESTIMATE are CHANGED at the beginning of the year (ordinarily) which also distorts the MONTHLY empllyment numbers.  REaly, we are gong t have little idea where we are untl at least id-January, and THEN you have the effect of this new seasonal pattern where the number APPEARS to improve n February, only to slide back in the spring/summer.  We may well not get a very good picture of whre we are until April and May of 203.  Obviusly dramatic, consistent imrovement over months would be significant. But a quck "drop", and then a STALL, as happened in 201, 2011 AND 2012, would indicate we are merely rpeating the same seaonsal pattern agan (where "seaonsal adjustment" is flawed).

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

Monday, November 26, 2012

Obama Loses 410,000 Jobs a Week Ago: NO Improvement This Entire Year

Catching up on what happened as I was with my faminly Thanksgiving week and away from any computer.  The weekly number of new unemployment claims was issued last week for the week ending Nobember 17, 2012, and some of the HEADLINES (MarketWatch, for example) screamed that the number was "down" ("droop") 41,0000 from the number for the week ended Nov. 10.  We are still, of course, dealing with FICTION, because of Sandy, even though the jobs are really lost.  However, the post-Sandy status of the job market will not be clear until, really, we get beyond Christmas and January 1.  Yes, the effect of Sandy is fading, as illustrated by the "drop" of 41,000, but the holiday numbers are suspect anyway.  Add Sandy, and I don't think the weeklyl number of new unempllyment claims is going to mean much until mid-January, if then.  "Drops" are certainly going to mean NOTHING.  IF the number shuld STAY elevated above 400,0000, that MIGHT mean trouble.  410,000 is a TERRILBE number:  the highest number this year, except for th eprevius week's really distorted number of 451,000 . But the "exact" numbers each week, and the "drop" (or increase) mean ven less than usual, and the "exact" numbers NEVER mean anything.  That is the main significance of the numbers announced last week:  that our media and our Labor Dept. are LIARS, and incapable of giving either correct numbers or teling the truth. 

Look at the week of Noveber 10.  The UNREVISED number of new unemplyment claims was annunced as 439,0000. The REVISED number was announced late last week as 451,000, meaning an UPWARD revison of 12,0000 (meaning the Nov. 10 number actually INCREASED 90,000 from the preivus week, instead of the HEADLINE 78,0000). Notice the LIE in the HEADLINES thi last week, where the nuber supposedly went "down" 41,0000.  It is not jsut that using "drop" or "down" in the HEADLINE is ridiculous (LIARS at did this), but that the ONLY "apples-to-apples" comparison is between the UNREVISED 439,0000 and the UNREVISED 410,0000 (to be REVISED this Thursday).  Thus, IF you are gong to put this in  a headline at all, you should say that the number was "down" 29,0000--NOT 41,000 . This is NOT a "matter of opinion". It is a matter of statistical HONESTY.  But yoiu know by now that JOURNALISTS ARE NOT HONEST (essentialy al lof them, although I admit that--as Arthur C. Clarke said with regard to magic and sufficiently advanced science--it is pretty much impossilbe to tell the difference between sufficiently "advanced" dishonesty and sufficiently advanced sufficiently advanced STUPIDITY in "journalists") . Notice that the DISHOENST Labor Dept. has departed from its usual, CONSISTENT, "error" of 3,0000 or so to a substantially larger 12,000.  "But, Skip, Sandy must make it harder.'  Give me a break.  The problem is NOT the "exact" number. The problem is that the REVISIN is ALWAYS distgorting the weekly number (and weekly headlines) in ONE DIRECTOIN . This is NOT a matter of randum "errors" in data, where "more complete data' changes the nuber in a RANDOM manner.  The "orfe complete data" ALWAYS revises the previus week UPWARD, in the directin that means MORE UNEMPLYED.  Thios means that the HEADLINES every Thursday are always BETTER than they should be: usually by that 3,0000 consistent, dishoenst error, but sometimes by a much larger number like the 12,0000 revisoni for the week ended Nov. 10.  An HONEST (not to mention competent) Labor Dept. would ADJUST for the OBVIUS, CONSISTENT error in ONE DIRFECTION.  I routinely adjust--doihing the job of Labor Dept. "economists" for them--by the consistent 3,000 error.  I did not bother to do that in this article, because it is obviuos that the Labor Dept. unrevised numbers are even more unreliable than usual.  Note how my consistent caution to you that it is a LIE to consider each week's number anything more than a fallible estimate has again been PROVEN correct.  The media has LIED, week after week, in "reporting" these weekly numbers on new unemlyment claims as if they are some knd of concrete, "counting" numbers. An aboslute, indefensible, total LIE. 

These weekly numbers ONLY mean anyting OVER TIME. Sandy is merely an example of the kind of "seasonal adjustment' problems, and "special factors", that occur MOST WEEKS.  Again, Sandy has PORVEN me right on tis.  Can you doubt that there are OTHER EVENTS that distort the numbers in any individual week?  Of course you can't.  Again, you MUST "report" these weekly numbers OVER TIME, or you are a LIAR (disheonst and stupid). Each week, except in context, means NOTHING.  It is significant that, OVER TIME, this weekly number of new unemplyment claims has NOT IMPROVED over this ENTIRE YEAR.  No.  I am NOT talking abut the 451,0000 or the 410,000. You can throw those numbers out, and the equally FICTONAL 342,0000 of several weeks ago, and the weekly number this year has STUCK in the range of 351,0000-392,000. Nor has this "rangve" been distorted by "late" "improvement". The "range" was 351,0000-365,000 from mid-January to mid-March. There has been NO TREND this entire year, as we have bounced around--depending on the "season"--within this 351,000-392,000 range this entire year.  Sandy will certainy cause the loss of SOME permanent jobs (although it may atually ADD some as well).  But Sandy's TEmPORARY effects will make it hard to see what the longer term effects are, especially i the Christmas holiday season.  Thus, we will have to see what hapens after we settle down (again, OVER TIME, and not in any one week).  What yu can't do is what our DISHOENST media is waiting to do: procalim an 'improvement" as the numbers drp back below 4000,000 (assuming they do). Again, the job losses from Sandy are REAL job losses, as distinguished from the ERROR by the DISHONEST Labor Dept. when it failed to count thousands of claims in California one week (resulting in that FICTIONAL HEADLINE of a "4-year low" of 342,0000).  The job losses from Sandy are REAL.  They just MAY be mostly TEMPORARY.  But our DISHOENST media refuses to look at "special factors" unless the distortion is BOTH obvius, AND in the "wrong" direction (as with Sandy).

Progress?  Not much, but this blog MAY be having some effect with my (correct) RIDICULE of our media and our Labor Dept. One CNN article (although probably not the truly DISHOENST peole on TV) actually erferenced the number of new unemplyment claims for the week ending Nov. 17 as "about 410,000", while the headline emphasized the effect of Sandy . Even Marketwatch,.com, with the truly disgraceful headline of LIARS, used the word "estimate" in its description of the annunced weekly numbe of new unemplyment clamis. That should be IN THE HEADLINE of EVERY story on the weeky number of new unemplyment claims: that it is an ESTIMATE.  And the body of EVERY article should make clear that the weeky numbers mean NOTHING except OVER TIME.  No. If you "media peole" think peole in general are TOO STUPID to handle actual attempts to give the "fuzzy" facts, rather than "black and white" LIES, then you are DISHONEST as Hell.  What am I saying? You ARE as dishonest as Hell.

Oh. Then there are "economists"--supposedly "surveyed" by Marketwatch each week to PREDICT the weeky number. Now, the "predictions" are NEVER right, UNLESS the number hardly changes.  But do you really want to know how DUMB our "economists" really are? Those "economists" surveyed by Marketwatch actually MADE A PREDICTION for the week ended Nov. 17, 2012. Now any HONEST "economist" would have to rEFUSE to make a "predictin" for that week.  Ridiculous. Sandy obviusly is having UNPREDICTABLE (except perhaps in DIRECTION) effects on the weeky numbe of new unemplyment claims.  What kind of IDIOT would make a PREDICTION in this situatin? Right.  A DISHOENST IDIOT.  Yep.  I jsut said that Marketwatch exposed its "economists" "surveyed" as both DISHOENST and STUPID.  But they had already done that week after week .So it is not really anything new, and something I have told you YARS ago.

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

Sunday, November 18, 2012

ObamaCare and Armageddon: Asteroid Aimed Right at U.S. Economy

Remember the movie, Armageddon", where Brue Willis saves us from an asteroid on a direct path to destroy life on Earth?  Well, we are facing a real life asteroid aimed right at the U.S. ecomy, and there is no Bruce Willis there to save us.  Mitt Romney proved himself to be no Bruce Willis, much less Ronald Reagan.  (I know.  Even Clint Eastwood coud not save Romney, and has Bruce Willis ever really been there when we needed him?)

Ober the past week, you had all kinds of business "leaders" suddenly saying that they were looking at ObamaCarew, now that Obama has been re-elected, and that it will FORCE hiring freezes and layoffs.  That is on top of the fact that ObamaCare is yet another "entitlement"--really the biggest of them all--that is going to cause the deficit to explode.  Then there are employers like WalMart, whihc FAVORED ObamaCare becaues WalMart hopes to save money by having the Federal Government handle health care insurance for its employees--as WalMart pyas a llesser "fine" than its rising health insurance costs.  WalMatrt, by the way, announced that it was RAISING the EMPLOYEE cost for health insurance by 13% next year.  And ObamaCare has any number of provisons as to which no one even knows the conseqauence, because no one realy rEAD the 27000 page bill--much less understood it. 

Doubt me? Enter Sylvia, a "configuaroin analyst" for ADP (Automatic Data Processing), which provides payroll and benefit processing services for employers.  Sylvia is a female friend of mine, despite the belief of most women that I could not ppossibly have a female friend (especailly platanoic, which Sylvia is).  Anyway, Sylvia mentioned to me one of the annoying little problems beng raised by ObamaCare (which Sylvia strongly supports, as she basciallyi supports Obama).  Sylvia did not raise this probleem to criticize ObamaCare, but to describe one of the issues she is facing in here work (which she regularly discusses with me, just to have something to say during these 4-mile walks we sometimes take together).

It turns out that ObamaCare requires employers to provide a REASON why any employee REJECTS health insurance coverage.  Why?  Sylvia does nto exactly know, but obviusly it has something to do with the MANDATE that every individual have health insurance.  Sylvia also does not know--yet, anyway--whether there are "unacceptable" reasons for rejecting emp;lyer health insrance.  This is just a SMALL part of the BURDENS ObamaCare is gong to place on employers.  Why is it a problem ffor Sylvia?  ADOP sets up software for employers to process their empployoee benefits.  And the idea is to have employees simply CHECK BOXES on what kind of electins they want to make on employee benefits (not just health insurance, but disability, life insurance, etc.).  Look at the PROBLEM created by ObamaCare FORCING employees to give a REASON for rejecting health insurance.  Obvisly, it confiicts iwth the idea of ADP setting up a "self-exectuing' system/computer program for emplouyees to come lup with--say--1000 different reasons to "reject" emplyer health insurance.  If ObamaCare only ALLOWS certain reasons, that may actually make it a little easier, since you can simply lIST the ACCEPTABLE reasons in the "ooptions' available to the empployee in the computer program. . But does the emplyer have to CHECK whether the reasons are "honest"?  Just how easly is it to determine what "reasons" are acceptable, and to include only those reasons in a computer program to be "responded to" by the employee?   And this is just one of the SMALL nightmares that employers are going to fgace.  As stated:  an asteroid aimed right at the U.S. economy.

Note that this is all part of possibly the worst LIE ever told by an American Preisdent: Obama's LIE that "if  you like your present insurance coverage, yhou can keep it under ObamaCare" That was always  a LIE.  What if you "present" coverage does NOT haeve "ree contraception"?  No.  You cannot "keep" yhour present helalth insurance policy because that policy is nOT GONG TO EXIST.  Government regulations, such sa the ones on what kind of electin to REJECT health insurance can be made, are going to DEFNE what kind of health insurance policy you HAVE to have. Employers cannot keept their current policy, and the imposed csts of ObamaCare are going to CRIPPLE many emplooyers (especially smaller employrs and labor intensive ones). When they CAN, emloyers are gong to OPT OUT (deludng themselves that the FINE will stay low enough).  And the RATIONAL thing for INDIVIDUALS to do IS NO HEALTH INSURANCE.  Why?  Because of that requirment that health insurance NOT exclude "pre-existing conditions". It is unclear whether the government is really going to be able to ENFORCE this "fine" if you don't have health insurance.  But, right now, the "fine" (for indivials)--which the Supreme Curt as called a "tax"--will be LESS than the cost of health insurance.  Thus, individuals can WAIT to be sick, and rely on the emergency room (as so many do now).  Then, when individuals do get sick, they can GET OBAmACARE INSUARANCE.  Waht is the downsie?  Obviusly, you hve to take some risk of some really huge coss occurring before you can get the insurance.  However, that would usually be the kind of CATASTROPHIC kind of event that emergency rooms are REQUIRED to handle. 

The whole thing is a nightmare, as individuals and employers have to try to figure out how to hndle THOUSANDS of pages of NEW REGULATINOS.  And the whole idea is to have ObamaCare FAIL, so that we end up with a NATINAL HEALTH SERVICE (single-payer, government health care system) . Problem: it is not ony that we can't afford this, but this asteroid is going to DESTROY our ecomy before we even get to the pont of "fixing' ObamaCare.

What caN we do? That is the sad thing.  You and I my doubt that Rmney and the GOP were really going to repeal ObamaCare.  However, we KNOW that Obama is not going to let that happen.  If ObamaCare FAILS, as it will, can we even get back to a private health care system?  Again, not without pretty much destorying our economy.  The boat may have sailed.  In fact, it almost certaily has.  The asteroid striking is probably now INEVITABLE.  Obama will be President 4 more eyars.  ObamaCare will have been in full effect for at lest 3 years of those 4.  What could possibly stop it? Right:  CMPLETE DISASTER. The only thing that can stop ObamaCare now is disster so obiuvs that even Democrats agree to relpeal it and start over.  But a disster that bad--almost inconceivable, in terms of being enugh to have Democrats abandon ObamaCare wituhout replacing it with a totally government system--will mean that the ASTEROID HAS ALREADY HIT.  All that will be left will be to pick up the pieces.

"Skip, you pessimist.  ou are sahying that there is no hope."  That is exclty right.  ObamaCare is an asteorid aimed directly at our economy, and there is no stopping it now. Neither Clint Eastwood nor Bruce Willis caN stop it now Even Ronal Reagan could not do it . Once the Supreme Court failed to realy kill it, and once Romney lost, the asteroid ilmpact on our economy becaMe certain.  I don't see any way out at all.  Even a GOP ssweep in 2014 will be too little, too late. 

"Skip, you can't jsut give up.  Waht would 'Armageddon' have been like, as a movie, if Bruce Willis had just given up."  Unfortunately, life is not a movvie.  I have not "given up", n the sense of firmly intending to support any FIGHT againt ObamaCare that AnYONE is making.  I jsut don't see any possible way to stop the asteroid, at this poihnt.  There is a famous science fictin story called "The Cold Equations".  The pont of the story was that a girl had to be ejected into space becauwe the "cold equations" made that the only decision that cuold be made (the girl being a stowaway on a mission to save millioins of peole).  The sotry was a little "controversial" because of its pont that SOMETIMES (as with an asteorid on a conclusion course with Earth, and no means of stopping i) there is just NOTHING to be done except face the reality of what is happening.  If a gir stowaway has to face the deatlh penalty because that is what has to be done to save millins of peole, then that is what you have to ddo.  The problem is, of course, that "The Cold Equations" sometimes tell you NOTHING caN be done: no girl stowaway to be killed to sve us.  That would be true if an asteroid turly wre going to hit the Earth, and we had no means available to stop it (as we probably don't).  I am afriad that is where we are on ObamaCare:  "The cold equations" tell us that we have an asteroid aimeded at our economy, and there is now noting we caN do to stop it.  I will be glad if somoe more optimistic person out three can show me to be wrong.  I jsut can't make myself believe it.

You can see, of coures the problem with the plot of "The Cold Equations".  Would the extra mass of one girl ever be such a problem that thre would be NOTHING you could do?  Unlikely.  But that, obviusly, is not the point. Th epoint of the story was that the UNIVERSE DOES NOT CARE.  There are some realities you have to fce, no matter how unpleasant.  ObamaCare is a reality we apparently have to face, but that most likely means that the destructin of our economy is a reality we also have to face.  Are there any leaders out there even suggesting how we are going to face "the Cold Equations" of ObamaCare?  I am afraid not.  All of the facts are three.  What is missing is a way out, or even someone with a VISION of what to do when ObamaCare fails.  Do you see ANYONE in the GOP gong out there an really pushing the idea of just HOW BAD ObamaCare is going to be?  I know.  You don't win electins with pessimism. But neither do you win electins with FANTASY, especially when your oppoents are better at fantasy than your are (as with Obama and Romney).

P.S. No proofreading or spell checing (bad eyesight) . "Bu, Skip, yu can't possibly be as pessimistic as this article suggests We have to have HOPE."  Sorry.  I can give you none.  You should hear the conversaitns between myself and my CPA brother living in Nashville (executive in trucking company).  Our conversatins are mainly abut what FORM the collapse will take when it occurs: Hitler/Stalin?  Anarchy? Third world contry? Greece?  Spain?  Start over, getting rid of veven SS and Medicare?  Some sort of slow decline, like the Roman Empire before it finally fell to the barbarians for a THOSAND YERS?  That is, "civilizaiton" did not reach the same levvel in the west for at least a thousand years after the fall of the Romna Empire.  I think we are that bad off:  not jsut because of where we are but because of where we are gonig (with no Bruce Willis to stop the asteroid).  Can't happehn here, wth Bailout Ben Bernanke (lol), theFederal Reserve, our President and our Congress.?  Read that sentence and weep.  Of course it can happen here, and I go so far as to suggest it is now inevitable.  You might remember that the Roman REPUBLIC "fell" long before the Roman Empire:  to Julius Caesar.  Is that the most likley way to "save" America:  a new Julius Caesar?  Maybe so.  But it wont' be America anymore, will it?

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Obama Loses 442,000 Jobs Last Week: Most in 18 Months and No Improvement for Entire Year

I am simply never wrong.  Look at Sunday's article on new unemployment claims, whre I told you not only that last week's number was FICTION, but that Sandy was gong to make weekly numbers VERY volatile, and virtually useless as far as analyzing where the economy is going to be once the tempoarary AND permanent effects of Sandy have been determined. I was even right in doubting whether the dishoenst Labor Dept. had done something about its consistent weekly LIE on new unemplyment claims, where the REVISION for the following week is ALWAYS is in one directioin, averaging about a 3,000 UNDERSTATEMENT of new unemplyment claims eery Thursday. Okay, my prediction of a Romney victory, based solely on the economy (rather than some sort of stupid analysis of polls) was wrong, but not nearly so wrong as Dick Moorris, Rush ALimbuagh, Ann Coulter, Karl Rove and all of the rest. I, at least, recognized that Mitt Romney was a BAD candidate, even though I overestimated the practical coommon sense of the American peole (especialy women) .I thought, ultimately, that women would vote on the eCONMY , and not on irrelevant things like abortion and rape (not to mentin Romney "failing to relate") Well, I ws wrong abut that, although totally wrong about Romney and his campaign.  But Thursday's data on new unemployment claims came out today.  READ Sunday's blog article, and recognize again that I NAILED IT, IN FORESIGHT. 

First, last week's UNREVISED annunced number of 355,000 new unemplyment claims was REVISED UPWARD by 6,000 today, meanig that the two week average of that UPWARD revisoin returned to that consistent 3,,000 number.  Last Thursday had been unusual in that the previus week's number had remained UNCHANGED, for the first time in a nmber of months. I can't even remember the last time the rEVISION was DOWN (the deseriable directin, since these are new UNEMPLYMENT claims) . Thus, the Labor Dept. is back to its usual DISHOENSTY.  As I told you on Sunday, the 355,000 originally announced number last week was probably FICTION, since Sandy was already affecting the "result" (such as by closing unemployment claims offices).  Well, I was right, in spades, as I was right on Sandy likely having a massive effect on the weekly number.  Yes, last week's unrevised number was "revised" to 362,000, "down" a mere 2,000, but that was only the tip of the iceberg.

The Labor Department's UNREVISED number of new unemplyment claims, released today for last week, "soared" 78,000, to 439,000--by ar the HIGHEST number this year, and the highest numbre in 18 months.  The REVISED number, to be announced next week, was likely at least 3,000 wrose, or around 442,000 (an increase of 81,000, rahter than 78,000).

Sure, this number was fiction, because Sandy distorted the number. The questin is how much Sandy is merely a temporary, short-term problem, and how much it is a longer term problem for the econmy.  "Longer-term" is correct, not "ong-term'. In the long term, we are all DEAD. New factors iwill arise, includng the WEATHER this winter.  Sandy itself was WEATHRE, and this last year was previously distinguished by extremely GOOD weather, which had a positive effect on the numbers. Sandy may be only the beginning of a stretch of bad weather, or at least a "normal" winter of relatively bad weather for things like construction. 

No.  I doh't feel any guilt at all over the hedline.  Obama took 'crfedit", and the media took credit for him, for Obama "waving a magic wand" and "solving" the problems created by Sandy with a "bear hug" with Governor Christie.  Obama had no "magic wand", and had no way of "solving" the problems of Sandy. But his ASSERTION that he had waved his wand and made everything all right may have helped get him elected again.  If he is gong to take credit tha way, then he MUST take the BLAME as well. But it is worse than that.

Last winter, new unempllymnent claims fell to a four-year low, largely because of the good weather.  Not only did Obama take credit for that, but our DISHOENST media acted like these early "better" numbers were a "turning point' fro the ecomy.  This blog told lyou different, saing that yu could not say that until more TIME showed lyou whether it was merely the good weather and a recurrence to the new SEASONAL PATTERN apparent in 2010 and 2011.  It turned out that the mid-February low of 351,000 was the LOW for this year, as there was NO IMPROVEMENT in the number of new unempllyment claims this ENTIRE YEAR--even with the good weather and lack of any real disrupting weather events.  We have been in a RANGE of 351,000 to 390,000 this entire eyar, with NO IMPROVEMENT as the year went on.  indeed, the range from mid-January to mid-March was the bEST of the eyar: 351,000-365,0000.  We deteriorated after that, although the weekly numbers bounced around and the deterioration may have been mainly the new seasonal pattern repeating from 2010 and 2011.  This blog told lyo al of this.  But it gets still worse.

As we appraoched the electin, the DISHONEST Labor Dept. and DISHONEST media were willing to accept PURE FICTION as FACT.  Thus, a few weeks before the election the media headlines screamed: "Labor Dept. reports new fur-year low in new unemployment claims.".  The Labor Department reported a sudden "drop in new unemployment claims to 335,000, even though it had been MONTHS since the number had been under 360,000.  This blog told lyou, at the time and inFORESIGHT, that this 339,000 number was FICTGION--FALSE.  That obvius factg did not stop our DISHOENST (some of the most dishoenst peole who have ever lieved, and I stand literally by that statemetn) media from screaming out the "news" of this "four-year lowe" in new unemplyment calims. This was actually at least the 4th time this year that our DSIHEST meida had screamed out the same FALSE headlines, based on "eating" the SAME previuos mid-February low of 351,000.  yes, the 339,000 was REVISED, as usual, the next week by the usual LIE of 3,000: to 342,0000 (which still, FALSELY, stands as the lwo for the year).  But that ws the least of the LIES here.  The hwole nubmer was FALSE, and the failure to CORRECT the number massively was another LIE--shoeing that we have a totally DISHOENST Labor Dept.  If anyone wants to defend the indefensible, be my guest, It will merely show you are a FOOL.  Our Labor Dept. has shown itslef to be composed of the most incompetent and dishoenst peole around, with the exceptin of our "journalists".  "Contempt" is nto a good enough word to use for our mordern "journalists'.  We need a new one.  Take the contempt they have for peole like me. Multiple it by 100.  And you may come witin shuting distance of the contempt I have for THEM.  You heard me, ou "journalists' out there.  That is what I think of you. 

Dubt me?  Look at what happened the next week, after that FICTIONAL 4-year low of 339,000.  First, of course, the number was REVISED by the usual 3,000, to that 342,000.  Taht that was a LIE.  The number should have been CORRECTAED much morfe massively, but the Labor Dept. chose to continue the LIE of the 342,0000 being a ral number, obviusly for POLITICAL reaons. Dont't believe me?  The Labor Dept. itself said taht the 342,000 number was FALSE, but did not correct it.  neither did the media RETRACT its headlines of the week before, and ATACK the falser numbers from the Labor Dept.  What had hapened was that CALIFORNIA nubmers, in whole or major part, had been LEFT OUT of the 342,000 (what the media--most dishoenst peole to ever live--called a "technical glitch").  The 342,000 was an ERROR.  But the Labor Dept. was too DISHONES T to own up to the ERROR (whether from incompetence or dishonesty).  Waht the Labor Dept. did was 'explain" the next week's match of the HIGH for the year (390,0000), after the previous week's "low" for the year, by describing thes "technical glitch".  Leaving out California is NOT a "technical glitch". It is an ERROR, which only DISHOENST peope (Labor Dept. and our media) wuld fail to CORRECT.  Waht the Labor Dpet. did was SHIFT the left out California numbers from one week to the next, knowing that our DISHEONST "journalists" would COVER for them (as they did borBenghazi, ObamaCare, and so many other things). Sure the Labor Dept. "admitted" the problem.  But looke what hey had managed, a few weeks before the electin. They had goooten FALSE HEADLINES about a 4-year low in new unemplyment claims, and then "explained" the next week hwo that week's bad number was the result of a "echnical glitch".  Meanthile, our DISHOENST media fialed to rETRACT their headlines from the preiuvs week, or un SCRAMIGN stories abut the DISHOENSTY and INCOM POETENCE of the Labor Dept.  Srue, SOME peolle (liek me) screamed.  But msot peole acted like this did not P:ROVE the disohesty of both our media and the Labor Dept. 

No.  That was not all.  This blog expalined to you how the Labor Dept. got the unemlyment rate under 8% by using a FALSE, ridiculous "increase" in MONTHLY "jobs created" in the "hsousehold survey", even though the "official" number of "jobs created" (from the employoer survey--a different survey) was only 114,000 (as distingyished from FALSE husehold survey no. of 873,0000, an impossilbe no.)  Again, it was the HEADLINES the Labor Dept. wanted, and what they got.  Again, some peole dubted, but they still "reported" the FALSE nubmer as "real".  These are DISHOENST peole (our Labor Dept. and our media) .

You see why I have no guilt at all in "reorting" the 439,0000 jobs OBAMA LOST last week as REAL.  The number is at least as "real" as the 342,0000, or th esuposed increase of 873,000jobs in the month of September, and the restuling "drop" of the unemplymetn rate to 7.8%.  It is at least as "ral" as reporting a "turn" in the econmy and labor market becaue GOOD weather had DISTORTED the numbers, already distorted by a new seasonal pattern.  This lbog has told you the correct way to "reprot" these weekly numbers week after week, for YEARS.  The wekly numbers ONLY mean anything OVER TIME.  To palce reliance on short-term variations inta he nubmers is a LIE.  No, his is not too harsh. It is the absolute truth.  You "journalists", and peole in the Labor Dept. are LIARS in th eway you report these numbers as "concreete" numbers, and THEN "explain" bad numbers by special factors.  The LIE, ofr course, is that you do NOT "explain" the GOOD numbers with "sepcial factor" even though it clearly works both ways.

Look at where we are.  We have an artificially high number of new unemllyment claims of 442,0000, although some of job losses form Sandy are REAL (and not jsut for a few weeks).  The number will obviusly "bounce around' in the next weeks.  Sandy's effects wil linger, but it is going to be hard to anticiipate the TEMORARY effets of Sandy, as distinguished from the lnoger-term effects.  We will probably, as I said on Sunday have no chance of even making a good guess as to where the econmy is until at least mid-January.  And what if we have BAD WINTER STORMS (unlike last year).  And every January, the Labor Dept. CHNGES the numbers it uses to CALCULATE the weekly and monthly numbers.  It is going to be really hard to interpet were the ecomy is.  But look how our DISHONEST MEDIA will report any "drops" in new unemplyment claims.  Unless we are in REAL TROUBALE (always possible), these weekly new unemployment claims numbers are going to drop back to at least near the top of  the range in which they have been in this entire year.  Will those "drops' be REORTED as ARTIFICIAL, merely the result of the TEMPORARY effect of Sandy?  Not a chance.  The numbers wil be reorted as some sort of "improvemetn', as if the "improvemetn" is real and shows a "turn" (gain, for about the 4th year) int he labor market.  The media will have ORGASMS over a "new" drop of the number below 400,0000.  Oh.  It is turue that IF the number does NOT get back to somewhere close to where it was in 2012, lup to this ont, that will be truly BAD news.  But merely gong back under 400,000 will NOT be "GOOD" news, no mattter what our DISHOENST "journalists" say.  That wuld merely mean we remain STALLED.  Note that when I say new unemplyment claims did NOT IMROVE in all of 2012, I ws referring to BEFORE SANDY.  Returning to this same situaion will continue this NO IMROVEMENT for another year.  I did not see the usual "lead" references to the "predictioh" of "economists" as to this "soraring" to 439,000. I guarntte you that this was because they did NOT come cloe to predictin the number.  Now is it possilbe that econmists correctly said that Sandy made it IMOSSIBLE to precit the number?  Possible, but I questi whether "economists" are that bright.  Yet, these are still the peole--never right--upn whom we are REYING to "wave that magic wand' to have central planning government "save us'. 

Bottom line, and I repeat: Obama lsot 442,000 jhobs last week, and has FAILED to improve the labor market this entire year (even before Sandy).  We will have to wait for TIME to show us longer term effect of Sandy.

Oh.  Did you notice confirmatin of my long-stated conclusion that Wll St. and financial peole are The Stupidest People on Earth.  The truly stupid peole on Wall St. CELEBRATED Sandy with a stock market RALLY.  The theory is that REBUILDING is a positive ofr the econmy.  Wrong, you STGUP:ID PEOLE.  Sandy is a NEGATIVE for the ecomy.  It is jsut a questin of how much of a negative. 

John Stossel (libertarina) has this one right.  He says that if all we need to do to get "economcic growth" is to DESTORY things, then that is what we should d"  DESTORY our cars, houses, businesses, etc., and REBUILD.  All we need to do is BULLDOZE entire communites, and start over, every year (constant 'urban renewal"), and we will have ENDLESS PROSPERITY.  Insanity.  But that is what passes for "thinking" on Wall St., and in our establishments.  I know. I am giving leftists ideas.  Am I nto ashamed of myself? These crazy peole will dO these things that Stossel and I regard as ABSURD.  I actually don't worty about givng these insane peole ideas that they have not alreayd had. "Urban renewal" is an OLD idea that FAILED>  And Obama's--really the left in generaal--constant use of the term "infrastructure" as a "magic word" comes close to this idea that all we have to do is REBUILD constantly, and prosperity will result.  How far is this from the idea of BULLDOOZING entire communites, making insurance compnies PAY for destoryed property, and then BUILDING NEW, BETTER STUFF?  Not far at all. 

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

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

Denmark, Bloomberg and the Fat Police: Are Leftists Clinically Insane?

Albert Einsteing's definiton of insanity;  "Doing the same thing over and over again, with the expectatin that the result will be different".  That is actaully pretty much the shorthand definiton of  schizophrenia:  a disassociatioin from reality--the inability to tell what is real and what is not real  (plus the brain generating all kinds of things that are not real).

Segue to Denmark, and leftist thinking (typified by Mayor Bloomberg and New York City putting limits on size of "sugar drinks", attacking fat foods and fast foods, etc.).  A news item over the weekend is that the socialist "paradise" (government health care) of Denmark has admitted FAIURE on its FAT TAX.  Itt turns out that the tax hurt business, and  did not affect obesity. 

This happens to leftists all of the time, although Denmakr is sort of unusual in ADMITTING FAILURE.  This idea that "central planning" can CONTROL the way peole live their lives, not to mention the econmy, is not supported by ANY evidence.  There is much evidence to the contrary, including--now--Denmark.   This is especailly true of TAXES, where the main reactin of people is to try to avoid the taxes they don't like. My brother's favoirte example, as he is in the trucking business (although a CPA), is when Oklahoma raised TOLLS on its roads for trucks, with the idea of raising revenue (probably to 'maintain" the roads torn up by trucks, or that was the excuse). What ahppened? ; Revenue WENT DOWN.  Of course it did.  The tolls were doubled, or some outragoueous multiple.  All trucks did was AVOID OKLAHOMA. 

This whole idea of a "fat police" aimed at BUSINESS wh osell food Michael Bloomberg does not like is absurd.  That raises the question raised in the headline: Are leftists clinicaly insane?  they keep advocating doing the same things, no matter how many times they FAIL.  I think this is a form of clinical insanity, arising from the mental disease known as "leftism" (a word I insist is descriptive, even though a leftist once asserted to me that it is not a word at all).  Obama has tried every leftist trick in the book, and even had the "help" of Bailout Ben Bernanke going outside of the law to print money at the Federal Reserve.  Hasn't worked. Itg NEVER works. Al it has done is make a real recovery in the econmy IMPOSSIBLE.  Obama is STILL holding the economy "hostage" based on this "wealth redistribution" idea that "the rich" should support us all (what Ayn Rand called making the talented and "rich" SLAVES to be ordered around by the majority of peole:  "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged".).

There IS, by the way a "fat tax" that would "change behavior".  No.  I am not doing any harm by telling leftists, because they wAY behavior would be changed is a REVOLT agasit the tax.  Instead of treating business as EVIL, because they do not accept the "task" of ending obesity, why not go to the source: the FAT PERSON.  Yep.  You have a HUGE "per pund overwieight" tax on EVERY overweight person in this country.  Every person would be requied to go to a government "weigh in" center (like trucks in some states) every January, and will pay a FINE for every pound "overweight".  But that is not all.  If ou are overweight, you will then be rEQUIRED to lose a certain number of pounds each month, and be weighed again each month, until you reach the 'proper" weight.  This is the HONEST way to actually attack the "problem" of fat peole.  I know. Leftists are DISHOENST, and this attack on BUSINESS over obesity is a typically DISHOENST attemkpt at social engineering on their part.  Would a rEAL "fat tax" change behaviour? Damn right.  Protests. AVOIDANCE.  MOVING.  No. It  wont't really produce thin peole, but it will affect behaviouor (as Ohlahoma did with that big raise on fees trukers paid.) ."But Skip, fat peoplle are victims--they can't help it."  If so, as Denmark found out, attempts to "limit" the food available to them will FAIL.  Anti-smoking propaganda DID ultimately have some affect (although not reallly the taxes).  That was because SMOKERS suddenly became TARGETS of other peole wh obegan to treat them as SOCIAL PARIAHS excluded from normal society.  Smokers were killing us al with second hand smoke, and FREEDM went out the window.  But look how HARD it was.  IF you do a propaganda campaign for FIFTY YEARS, and endorse DISCRIMINATION gainst those disgusting FAT PEOPLE (who are, actually, probably more "bullied" than gay people ever were), you MIGHT have some effect.  EXCEPT.  Smoking was ONE PRODUCAT.  "FAT" comes from EVERYTHING we eat. No.  Smoking is the exception that proves the rule, and MAY make a comeback some day.  King James II (I think), in the time of Jamestown and the beginning of the trade in TOBACCO from Virginia and what would become the USA, wrote a PAPER on the EVILS of tobacco that could have been written by the anti-smoking Nazis of today.  Social presssure has worked on smoking (not government actin), as it once did (doing more health good) on PREMARITAL SEX. 

No.  Leftists believe in CONTROL of  people's lives, no matter hww many times it FAILS (so long as the control is not marijuana or SEX).  Indeed, leftisets usually double down.  That is what is unusual about Denmark.  Usually, what happens when Big Government fails?  Come on, yoiu know this one.  Right.  The "answer " of leftists to the FAILURE of Big Government and central planning is MORE Big Government and central planning . ObamaCare, for example, was set up to FAiL. Even leftists can't believe that such monstrosity can succeed. And, for the most part, they don't.  But they don't care.  They, includin gObama, beleive that the FAILURE of ObamaCare can only lead to MORE GOVENMENT:  a government run national health service like in Britain or Canada.  ObamaCare was always jsut a step toward this leftist goal.  Problem for mthe INSANE left;  This country cannot SURVIVE ObamaCare to even reach the point of a disastrous natinal health service.

Q.E.D.  Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.  It is sort of likke the GOP establishment continuing to try to "succeed" with "Obama light" (or "leftist light", since this is not jsut a result of Obama).  It keeps failing, and even theoretically has no way of succeeding on a long term basis, buta the GOP establishment never quits.  It is the same with leftist economics.  It fails every time, and theoretically CANNOT SUCCEED on a long-term basis, and yet leftists never qit. Insane. 

P.S.  No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight0. 

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Obama: Creating His Own Voters By Making People POOR

I am serius.  The more POOR peole there are, the more Obama-type Democrats (and GOP estalbishment politicians) assert that we need LEFTST policies to "help' the POOR peole. Thus, a RECORD number of peole get food stams under Obama, and "hunger advocates" assert that the number SHOULD be DOUBLE the 49 million or os already on food stamps.  More people are in "poverty".  Icnome continues to drop. 

The left's answer to the FAILURE of Big Government is ALWAYS MORE BIG GOVERNMENT.  And the left is not realy worried abut more and more peoople BECOMNG POOR, because that just increases the number of peole who feel dependent on THEM.  Can this vicius cycle be broke? Sure.  But NOT by candidates like Mitt Romney, who aggressively aTTACK the "magic wand theory of government": that all we need to do to "solve" any "problem' is have the Federal Government wave a magic wand and teh problem is "solved".  No. This theory did not work with Sandy, either. 

Can people on food stamps be convinced that they should not vote for a candidate like Obama, even tough he seems more interested in makng sure they KEEP their food stamps than those nasty, cold-hearted GOP peole?  Yes, you can. But you can.  But ;you can do it ONLY if yu AGGRESSIVELY go out and CONVINCE peole getting food stamps that the policies making them dependent on Big Government are COSTING them more than they could ever afford--even if they are paying no taxes at all.  It can be done.  Reagan did it. Romney did not even try.

Look at illegal imigratinn. Do Hispanics WANT to be associated with ILLEGAL imigrants?  No. But Obama told Hsipanics--pooorer, on average, than "white people" like Romney, or even those not like Romney--Hisp;anics he would TAKE CARE OF THEM.  Romney, instead of shwong Hisanics what Obama is COSTING them, merely tried to DUCK  and WEAVE ("shuck and jive"), with the idea of minimizing the damage.  See article on Friday.  Women.  Left handes. ANYBODY.  Did Romney SHOW those peole that leftist policies were MAKING THEM POOR, an dwould continue to do so if they let themselves be BRIBED into cotninuing to sypport tkheir own destruction?

Again, I am serous. Why shouyld GPOP candidates not SAY that leftists like Obama are trying to CREATE THEIR OWN VOTERS, by increasing those dependnet on the Fedderal Gopvernnment forever, and then tring to SCARE those peole into voting for their own destruction.  Obama said he woud be held accountable. Why could Romney not tell Hispanics, women, and everygocy else--not as GROUPS but as peole with an intelligent mind--that it makes no sense to keep voting for peole wh tell you that you NEED them--trying to CREATE their own voters--BECAUSE their policies have yhou in so much trouble?  Nope. Notice that this is NOT like Roney's 47% comment.  If the media sserts otherwise, all a BELIEVING GOP candidate has to d is say--correcly--that it is Obama and the media who hold them in CONTEMPT, because they think peole can be BRIBED in this way, against their own interests.  Sure, there is a paroblem that peole can get addicted to government benefits, but you have to convince them the addictin is BAD for them, not that you  have 'written them off"/

I agree with Frank Luntz (sp.?  The Fox "focus group" person), by the way, that Romney's economic campaign based on TAXES was the WRONG approach. No, I am not talking abut Rmney endorseing INCREASED taxes--a disaster, as it will be if the GOP "caves" in these latest sham "bipartisan" talks.  But Romney's "centeriece" of a 20% "tax cut" was ABSURD.  Combine that with the adovcacy of a 2 trilliion dollar increas in defense spending, and peole correctly got the idea that Romney did not CARE about the deficit, and government spenidng more money than it has.  In addition, Romney AREGUED the "tax cut" as NOT a "tax cut", but an INCRFEASE of taxes on the "wealthy", while a "tax cut" for the middle class.  How is that different from Obama's class warfare rhetoric?  It was not. No wonder Ropmney lost.  He SHOULD have campainged on EXTENDING ALL OF THE BUSH TAX CUTS, and how much Obama had HURT the eocnomy simply by extending the uncertainty year after year: the oney WORSE thing being to INCREASE TAXES on people providing jobs.  Romney had NO "message", and it kilkled him. 

P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).  "But, Skip, Romney is RICH, and could only "connect" to the "middle class" by trying to show he "cares".  Uh-huh.  Worked for him didn't it--NOT.  That is merely an argumetn for nominating someone BESIDES Romney--somone not so DEFENSIVE about being "rich".  Romney needed to be on the ATTACK, and he was only (sort of) in that mode for ONE DEBATE (one 90 minute period in teh entire electin, because Obama LET him be, for some reason). No.  I do NOT agree that Obama is some sort of campaigning "genius.  BUSH won his second term by essetnialkly the same popular vote margin.  Obama is a BAD canddiate.  Romney was jsut worse, as Kerry was worse than Bush.

Unemployment Claims: New Claims Stay in Same Range: No Improvement This Year-But Sandy May Disrupt Data

Data on new unemplylment claims for the previous week was released, as usual, on Thursday. It again stayed in the yearly range of 351,000-392,000 each week: the same range new unemplyment claims have been in all year (ignoring the week where California was LFT OUT, but the diosishonest Labor Dept. just adjusted future data rather than correctin its ERROR--see the previous articles on the subject in this blog)..

But Sandy is about to make this weekly data pretty much useless for some time, if it has not alrady done so. How many unemployment offices int the Northeast have been CLOSED? How has processing of new unemplyment claims been affected?  California really had NO excuse.  New York and New Jersey do not have a problem with excuses. Then there is teh unemployment that is CAUSED by Sandy, and its aftermath. My younger daughter, living in Manahttan, says that resturants and businesses in lower Manhattan are STILL CLOSED, although the building (right next to the "Freedom Tower" ) in which her major New York/Boston law firm has its New York offices at least got its powr back this week.  There will, of course, be csome employment CREATED by the rebuilding and clean up from Sandy However, there has been a MAJOR economic disruptiong.  This not only distorts data which may only be temporary, to some degree, but gives Wall Street peole (theStupidest People on Earth) and media people (contending for same tkitle) the cance to SPIN any unfavorable data. 

You can tell something trange was going on Thursday because the dishnoenst Labor Dept. did not even bother to repeat its consistent 3,000 person "error". As you know, if you read this blog, the Labor Dept. has been reporting, and the media liears putting in their headlines, 3,000 FEWER new unemplyment claims almost every Thursday than the REVISED number released the next Thursday.  This Thursday, hoever, for the first time in MONTHS, the REVISED number (9f the 363,0000 number released the preivous Thursday) was the SAME as the UNREVISED 363,000.  That is the first time this has happened in MONTHS. I don't even remember, and can't even estimate, the last time the REVISED number went DOWN.  It just does nto happen (proving conclusively the number is dishoenst). Oh, the UNREVISED number of new unemplyment claims released this last Thursday, was 355,0000 "down" 8,0000 from that 363,000 number (unchanged from the number originaly released, which really is unusual). Will the REVISED number for this last Thursday be 358,000, or more, or is the Labor Dept. going to deviate from its prior pattern?  We will see, but it probably does not matter. 

As stated, thease weekly numbers are just not oing to mean anything until at least the new year.  In the first place, the "sasonal adjustments" are SUSPECT approaching the holiday season, aand in the November-January period,. which includes both Thanksgiving and Christmas.  Since we are strarting to "prepare" for Christmas EARLIER every year, the seasonal effect may not be properly accounted for as early as Octobe now.  When you add Sandy on top of the fact that the Labor Dept. has a paoblem with the weekly seasonal adjustment fittting the current seasonal pattern, this weeky number of new unemplylment claims simply will not have meaning until at least mid-January.  I amy comment briefly each week, but these volatile weekly numbers are just going to be too distorted for reliable analysis (beyond the analysis that they are pretty much meaningless). 

Say we get another media headline of a new "four year low", or some such thing?  YHou wil know it is FICTION.  There is just now way that the economy can IMMEDIATELY IMPROVE with Sandy (not to mentin al of the other problems loming).  Just like any HUGE increase in the weeky number of new unemplyment claims may be fictin, and suppoed huge DECREASE has to be fictin as well.  Too many things going on.  Temporary emplyment not related to Christmas, but to Sandy.  Temporary UNEemloyment related to Sandy, and business problems arising from Sandy (some not so "temporary").  The Wall Sreet LIE is to assume Sandy will be GOOD for the economy, as Wall St. seemed to assume right after Sandy (when stocks went up).  Not true. Sandy will surely be a NET NEGATIVE, but not in ways that can really be predicted (especially in the timing of the effect on data, and the magnitude).  The questin about Sandy is whether our economyh is so FRAGILE that we can slip at any time into a dOWN SPIRAL.  We had GOOD WEATHER last fall and winter.  That HELPED the economy, although not enough to keep the economyh from beng STUCK. 

So individual data points are nto going to have much meaning, or much "predictability".  However, Sdndy is just another factor that puts our econmy in DANGER. What if we have a BAD WINTER?  We really are in a fragile place, and the Obama/Bernanke policies have made it certain we will remain in that situatin for the indefinite future--EXCEPT, of curse, if the "fragility" is fully exposed by COLLAPSE.

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

Friday, November 9, 2012

GOP and Illegal Immigration: Absurdity That Hispanics Want Identificatin With Illegal Immigrants (Limbaugh Gets It Right)

I have been criticizing Rush Limbaugh, and especilly his idea that Mitt Romney was a GOOD CANDIDATE, who lost merely because the Aemricn peole want to be BRIBED (too many of the). Limbaug is right, of course, that too many peoe want the Federal Government to take care of them, wiuout ever realizing it will COST them more than they can ever afford (even if they pay not one dime in taxes).  But, I am right and Lmibaugh is wrong: Romney was a bad candidate; Romney would have won if he were a good canddiate. Just becaue Limbaugh "liked" Romney, and Romney was the kind of successful man Limbaugh praises, did not make Romney a good candidate. But Limbaugh was rIGHT today when he said that the GOP is deluded if they think what they need to do to "win" the Hispanic vote is agree to some form of AMNESTY (some form of incentive for more illegal immigrants to come here, by giving substantial benefits to those who make it here, and/or stay here, illegally).  As Limbaugh said today, this is FALSE.  I have correcly informed you repeatedly that Hispanics (generally) vote Democrat--especially in Presidential and Fother Federal elecotns--because they are POOR (on average, poorer than the average American, mainly because so many of them, or their families, are so recently citizens of this country).  Limbaugh put it in the ay taht fit his narrative as to Romney losing the election because conservatives are now OUTNUMBERED by eeople who "want stuff".  Thus, Limbuagh said that Democrats win more of the Hispanic vote because so many of them "want stuff".  Tha is essentially correct, although Romney was a hoopeless candidate for Hispanics., with Ryan.  40% of El Paso peole are on FOOD STAMPS  Are those peole more likely to vote for Obama--the "food stamp President", or for Romney--unless Romney gives them GOOD REASONS to vote otherwise?  That is a "no brainter."  It is absurd to suggest that the prolem is that the GOP wnats to stop illegal immigration, and not reward illegal immigrants who make it here.  That is simpply media/leftist Democrat PROPAGANDA. 

However, Rush Limbuagh did cite something today that I had not known, and PROVES this ponit (assuming the numbers are accurate, as yoiu know what I think about these "polls' as to how people voted--polls that, at best, divide us). .  Yu all probably know that Ronald Reagan 49 states in 1984 (missing ONLY Mondale's home state of Minnesota, and NOT Massachusetts, a mistake I sometimes make).  You probably also know that Reagan granted AMNESTY to some 3 MILLIION illegal immigrants in 1986, based on TWO promises that turned out to be FALSE: 

1.  It would be the LAST proposed amnesty, because we would "secure the border" and not allow illeal immigrants to "build up" in this country again.

2.  That the amnesty would ONLY go to illegal immigrants who could PROVE they had been in this country for at least 5 years (if I remember correctly, although it does not matter because of the reslt) . In practive, INS was siply unable to HANDLE the required investigation" of how long people had been in this country (an impossible task, then and now)  This turned the program into a GENERAL AMNESTY for essentially everyone who applied and made any effort at all.

This is what the GOP is now FALSELY being told it should do, once again to "solve" the problem forever (but really to avoid "losing" the Hispanic vote, as if Hispanics vote mainly on ILLEGAL immigratino) . This is where Limbaugh comes in.  Reagan got some 37% of teh Hispanic vote in 1984, because he was a GOOD candidate.  AFTER this AMNESTY program, obviusly to the "credt" of VP George H. W. Bush as weel, the 1988 electin was held  Bush ws not as good a candidate as Regan, as he proved in 1992, but Bush won in what was really the third Reagan landslide.  Bush's Hispanci vote went UP, right?  Bush had just given, in conjunctin with Reagan ,this AMNESTY.  Nope.  The Bush share of the Hispanic vote went DOWN, to 30% (not much better than Romney's share, and Bush won in a LANDSLIDE in the overall vote). Q.E.D.  I agee with Limbaugh that these facts, assuming they are true, CONCUSIVELY PROVE that the GOP cannot "win over" conseravtives by jsut agreeing to some form of amnesty.  What the GOP will really do, if it takes such a course, is LOSE more votes than it gains (likely to be not manyy) . I know Hispanics are a more 'important" part of the electorate now.  Doesn't matter.  The PRINCIPLE is still the same, and so long as most Hispanics think they are DEPENDENT on the Federal Government, and need to vote Democrat to keep their benefits, they are not going to be affected by a GOP vote for amnesty . If they CHANGE this pattern, they still are not going to be affected by a GOP vote for amnesty.

Unlikje Limbuagh, I consider facts that do NOT support my thesis.  George W. Bush--I think in both of his electinss--did better among Hsipanics than other GOP candiaates have done.  I THINK this is true, although it depnds o the mainstream media getting things right (a very weak reed).  Now George W. Bush DID favor AMNESTY (the McCain.Kennedy/Obama/Bush bill, although Obama thought it was not enough amnesty).  That bill was proposed in 2006, and could hardly have affected the 2000 and 2004 Bush victories.  I don't think this affects the aove analysis, although it does suggest I am RIGHT about Romney. Romney did not do as well as McCain OR Bush among Hispanics.  Problem:  this COULD be merely because the RECESSIONI occureeed, and Hispancis were POORER (along with everyone else) in 2012 (and foolishly did not connect a lot of that to Obama, but blamed the GOP/Bush and thought they needed to keep the benefits Obama was promising he would make sure they kept).  Am I sayhing the mainstream media is STuPID to make a big point out of Romney getting a lesser percentage of the Hispanic vote than McCain?  Sure.  What else is new?  But Bush getting more of the Hispanic vote tends to prove MY pont:  Romney was a bad candiddate, while Bush  was able to "connect" more twiht Hispanics.

Doubt me.  Bush was GOVERNOR OF TEXAS, and had a long-standing reputatin of attracting Hispanic voters.  Texas has a LOT of Hispanic voters, and yet GGOP candidates win (although not usually in the El Paso Presidential vote).  Partly, I think, this is because Hispanics in Texas DO BETTER economically, because TEXAS does better.  This proves BOTH Limbaugh and me right on how Hispanics vote.  El Paso is a poor city, by Texas standards, and is thus a Democratic city.  But Bush has a HISPANIC wife, and knows how to tal the language (literally).  This ability to RELATE to Hsipanics is what realy helped Bush, and not "amnesty".  I now.  Ann Richards once said that W was "born with a silver sppon in his omouth", but Bush was still not a WALL ST. type like Romney.  He was more a "regular guy", if with a Texas swatter, who was used to relating to peple of Hispanic heritage and culture. 

No. The GOP will make a major mistake if it buys into the idea that what it needs to "cmpete" for the Hispanic vote is a form of AMNESTY.  I can't tell you how deluded that is, although I have tried.  But you know what I think of the GOP, as an institution  Death wish.  What did peole "vote for" in this elecitn?  They voted for the STATUS QUO.  This elecoithn ended up with EXACTLY (minus 2 seasts or so in te House) the same makeup of the Presidency and Congresss that existed before the eleciotn.  That means the GOP CONSOLIDATED thir EXTREME gains n the House from the 2010 election.  Really, the logical result of this is to keep the status quo (on spending, taxes, etc.) for the next two years, even if that is TERRIBLE for the DEFICIT.  Did you observe that ANY politicans really CARED about the defict in this laast electin, or that the peole were really pushing on it?  Neither did I.  Disaster in the making, but the idea that the GOP should ABANDON PRINCIPLES jsut because they lost the Presidency again (by a MUCH smaller margin) is insane.  The GOP House was ELECTED to do the SAME tings for which it was elected in 2010.  If anything, all this shows is that this GOP habit os saying:  "wait for the next electin" is STUPID.  Maybe the GOP should actualy FIGHT on SPENDING.  The House MUST vote to spend EVERY DIME that the government spends.  Regardless, it is insane to suggest that the GOP should "cave" on TAXES, IMMIGRRATIN, SPENDING, and EVERYTHING ELSE, jsut because they barely lost a Presidential electin.  Again, what were THEY elected to do?  Deadlock and status quo, is the only logical result to this elecitn, as everything remains the SAME as it was after the 2010 electins. 

P.S. On proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).