For the mainstream media, economic is ALL ABOUT OBAMA. Yep. I know exactly what I am saying. The media does NOT really care about teh economyy Media people do NOT care about PEOPLE. What they are about is AGENDA, and their prime gaenda item now is to get Obama re-elected. Doubt me? Look at theis featured Yahoo "News"/mainstream media headline from Friday (EARLY in the day, and kept as a "top story" for a large part of the day):
"Does March jobs data dooom Obama re-election?
That is totally the prism through which the media looks at this economimic data (anmd how, I am sad to say about our President) how Obama looks at the economic data. And the reaction to one month is absurd, as the PROPAGANDA campaign to tell us that the economy was "fine' prior to March was absurd. These people (media) live and die by SHORT TERM numbers that they don't even understand. No, the Wall Streett people "understand" them even LESS--being The Stupidest People on Earth (as CNBC and Jim Cramer prove every single day) Oh, and then there is Rush Limbaugh, who has NO CLUE on the stockk market. Limbaugh was qaoin=ting the stock market almost hour by hour today, and he turly has NO CLUE. Sure, the market was down 130 Dow pints to day, but is UP some 10% (Standard and poors 500) for the eyar. Is Rush Limbaugh really saying that Obama has done that WELL this year? Of course not. He is a PARTISAN jut throwing out PARTISAN comments on something (the stock market) he does not understand. This blog has told you that stock prices are in a BUBBLE--too HIGH. They are moving almost entirely on MOMENTUM, and what they think is their SAVIOR: Bailout Ben Bernanke. Economic fascists almost all, thinkng they have this "lpartnershp" with government which THEY contorl. Poor, deluded sods. That is why the stock market (Dow and S & P 500) is near an all-tiime HIGH, even as the economy is not nearly that good.
What about those March emplyment numbers? The number of new jobs (net) "created came in at 120,000, which was less than HALF the average number for January and February. Problem: This monthly ESTIMATE of jobs "gained' is total FICITON. You can even SEE it is fiction.. Or , at least you can see that the numbers are INCONSISTENT. The unemplyhment rate supposedly went DOWN .1% (still at 8.2%--a very bad number for this late in a "recovery"--UNPRECEDENTED, in fact, to use Obama's favorite LIE). Are we to beieve that the unemplyment rate stayed the SAME in February, when TWICE as many jobs were addwed, and then went DOWN in March, when HALF as many jobs were added? Noepe. Not possible. Except that the numbers are based on SEPARATE surveys (unrelated to one another), and the "jobs added" number is a very FALLIBLE estiamte. Thus, this "jobs added" number is not only SEASONALLY ADJUSTED (very sujecctive and "iffy"), but is usually REVISED as much as 100,000 in the following two months, and even revised for the YEAR after the year is over. This number is so UNRELIABLE, that I don't even think it meanss anything any longer. Too many GAMES being played.
Thus, you gad the dishonest, economic fascists at CNBC suddenly getting "religion" today, and saying that this was only one month. CNBC kept insisting, every time I surfed for 30 seconds all day, that the AVERAGE for the three mons ending in March (the "first quarter") was the best (suposedly 212,000) for more than three years (since the recession began). Problem: that is simply NOT TRUE, in any real sense. But you already knew that CNBC was DISHOENST, and Wall Street people bone-deep STUPID (except in makng money turning the stoc k market into a momentum-driven, computer gaming casino). No, I am not even talking about the fact tahat there have been quarters CLOSE to this as early as 2010. I am not even talking abut the FACT taht it makes no sense to talk about a "good quarter", when the LAST MONTH of the quarter is supposedly this bad. The TREND is BAD. No, the deception is WORSE than that: MUCH WORSE.
What has this blog told you, in another CORRECT PREDICTION (tomorrow's news today, or last week, or last month)? The Labor Department itself said that you couuld NOT "comppare" January numbers with December, because the Labor department REVISED the way the numbers are calculated, beginning with the month of January. Thus, it is FALSE to talk about "jobs added" between December and January. hen there was all of thhat GOOD WEATHER in January and February--distorting the seasonal adjustment. Waht this blog told you was that the Obama Administration (perhaps not as a matter of POLICY, but because of the natural GAMES that have develooped with regard to the BUREAUCRATIC calculationi of these numbers) has really set itself up on these emplyment numbers. January, because of the REVISION of the way the numbers are calculated, was set up to be the BEST MONTH of the year.--January and February, beccause of the good weather and what seems to be a new pattern in the way the economy is operating. This blog has PREDICTED that these numbers would likely gert worse as SUMMER APPORACHES. That is because the "trend" begins with JANUARY, and January represents a REVISED method of calculation. You add in the good weather, and it becomes very difficult for the "trend" to look good until at least lthe fall (TOO LATE for Obama and the media). That is why the peope of CNN are so DISOHONEST. This quarter was not "real". It was a total FICTION-not new, I am afraid, for these monthly employment numbers. Do you remember thow the CENSUS distorted these monthly numbers?By the way, to you realize it is a LIE to look only at a recognized QUARTER. Taht is not a STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT period of time: no better than any other three month period. Is this the best THREE MONTH PERIOD oin the past 4 years--even as a FICTION? I don't hink so. Not if you pick your months right, and don't "start" with the MEANINGLESS first month of a quarter (January, April, July, or September). It tells you how bad CNBC is that this is only a MINOR lie, in the context of the major lies here.
"But, Skip, why get so complicated here. You are 'in the weeds'. And it is unnecessary. Rush Limbaugh is right. Why worry about consistency. Everyone agrees this was a BAD MONTH. You, yourelf, are saying that Obama has been SET UP for bad "news" until the end of sumemer. We KONW you don'tlike Obama. Why not just accept this GIFT. Are you not HAPPY that the DEPRESSED media (not over people suffering but over Obama electin prospects) may think Obama is DOOMED. Again, you, say taht no one pays any attentino to CNBC. And you are right . CNBC can 'whistle in the graveyard' all it wants. There is a real monster out there, ready to eat Obama. It is called the ECONOMY ("stupid"). Why talk about how the first two months of this year were not as good as they were advertised to be, and that this month is likely not as bad as advertised. March puts Obama in TROUBLE. Be happy."
I don't operate that way. Sorry. The first two months of this year, as this blog said, were NOT as good as advertised, and this month is probably NOT as bad as it would appear. If you took this month's DECELEARTION seriiously (without knowing abut the revisions and new seasonal pattern not adequately figured int he "seasonal adjustment"), you would think the economy was FALLING OFF OF A CLIFF. That was exactly how it appeared LAST SPRING AND SUMMER. It was not quite true. The stock market, by the way, generally is et up for a FALL somewhere in the period between late July and early October. That has little to do with Obama, bad a Obama has been, but has a lot to do with the PATTERN (built into Wall Street computers) of what has happened almost every year since 1994 (and often before tha). This is more BAD news for Obama, as are the usual rise in GASLOINE prices (already above where they reached LAST SPRING AND SUMMER, when they helpled the economy at least LOOK+K BAD).
Where are we? We are in the WORST RECOVERY since the Great Depression (presided over by "savior" Bernanke, as he presided over the WORST RECSSION since the end of the Great Depression). We have made a real recovery virutually impossilbe. No, we are not yet faling off of a cliff. But we are not realy improving very much, either. There probably was not that much difference between and among January, February and March. Gasoline prices alone, and the problems in Europe (not to mentin a slowdown in China) will PREVNET pepple from feeling good this summer. The government even ADDS to the gasolilne prices in summer with those "blend" requirements for ETHANOL. Bailout Ben Bernanke is making SURE that there is STEALTH INFLATION out there: makng it imossible for FOOD and ENERGY prices--or other commodity prices) to go down very much. Obama will do everything he can, including a POLITICAL release of oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve, to get re-elected, and FALSELY give the impression that the economy is in good shape. I, frankly, do not see how he is going to do it, wihtout being totally obvious about it. The economy may not fall into the recession again, but the BEST we are likely to do is "muddle alnong'. And there do not APPER to be any more GIMMICKS (such as "sdjusting" the calculation based on the Census) that will help Obama.
Again, do you understand why this month's emplyoment data--especially on "jobs added"--wa FICTIN? The calculation was changed in January. That would actually seem to make it WORSE for Obama, since the "baseline" comparionson here is not with previous years, but with EARLY THIS YEAR> Again,, February can largely be excplained with WEATHER. Thus, the TREND appears to be BAD. But, really, that ignores that this number is UNRELIABLE. Who knows what the "revisions" will be , insubseqquent months. It is absurd to beleive that things got that bAD in March. They were just never that good in January and February. But Obam is STUCK with these early comparion numbers: early, inflatred numbers on "jobs added" thaqt will HURT him. None of this exucses the DISHONEST people of CNBC,, and Wall Street, who are incapble of telling the truth (maybe too stupid to know that the truth is). It is simply ridiculous to ahve the Labor Department tell us that you CAN'T "compare" January with December, because the baseline calculations have been CHANGED, and then try to say (as CNBC did) taht the "average" for the first hree months has any significance. The unemplyment RATE is probably the most accuratge here; We are NOT IMPROVING, even thugh we are not fallingoff of a cliff.
Tis is another case of this blog being PROVEN totally correct. This blog has told you that these monthly numbers on "jobs added" have become so FICTIONAL as to become almost useless. Here, you could argue that the January CHANGE in the way the numbers are calculated makes the March number REALLY BAD. But--not becaue I think Obama is dong an acceptable job or the economy is "goood"--Idon't think the job market DETERIORATED that RAPIDLY in March. I jsut don't think it was ever that good. Plus, as this blog has told lyou, we are in a NEW "seasonal pattern"--exacerbated this year by unusually good weather. You jstu can't take this March number too seriously, but NOT for the FALSE reasons advanced by CNBC. The jury is still not entirely in on whether the PATTERN of the pst two years will be REPEATED, where the job markket looks WORSE in the spring and summer (along with the economy). asoline prices may have something to do with that, and look to be WORSE this spring and summer. Btu this new pattern does nto seem to be reflected in the ADJUSTMENTS that make these emplyment numbers so unreliable. And the overall numbers, including the unemplyment RATE, suggest that we are really STALLED. REmember, the unemplyment RATE was also the result of CHNGED calculations, and cannot really be compared with the previous year. It has NOT MOOVED in 2012.
Whatever you think about "all" of the above, I at least TRY to explain what is gong on here (when the numbers themselves tell you that tthey are not reliable, concrete numbers). CNBC , and the medai, do not even TRY. They smply take whatever "interpretation" fits their agenda, such as the three-month "average", adn act like you can RELY on these nubmers. You can't do that and consider ourself an honest person. This is actually similar to the way the media "reports" similarly unreliable POLL numbaers. They just ignore the discrepancies, as if you can retain credibility by placing so much importance on numbers that are being discredited with there very unreliability (wihout even any attempted "explanation").
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).