Look at last week's article about media LIES on the new unemplyment claims that come out every Friday. This blog was right, again (parsent score: The Maverick Conservative 10,372 Media 0). Does Rick Santelli (on CNBC, but a MOLE in an organization in which he does not fit) read this blog? You would thnk so, snce this morning he said the very sAME things that this blog has been tellng you about new unemplyment claims daims data released by the government every Thursday, and about government empllyhment data in general. As Santelli said this morning, the data has become so DISTROTED that it is almost USELESS.
What did this blog tell yu last week? The media--all of them, except me and Santelli--told yu last week taht new unemplyment claims DROPPED 6,00, to 357,000 (from a REVISED number for the previous week--see last week's article). What this blog, and Santelli, are telling yoyu--this blog in advaqnce--is that the headines last week were a LIE. This Thursday's weekly reort came out today, and REVISEDlast week's number from 357,000 to 357,000. That's right. Instead of DROPPING last week 'suposed" "good" news), the number ROSE last week (bad news). You just can't LIE any worese thqan that, but our media does it EVERY WEEK on these numbers (as Santelli told yo this morning).
thus, what was the LIE this morning? The LIE was that new unempyment claims rose by 13,000, to 380,000. Now that is a truly BAD number--another indication that we may be REPEATING the pattern of the past two years; a pattern of supposed "good" news in the winer, replaced by "bad" news as we proceed into spring and summer. But this media statement that new calims (measure of layoffs) rose 13,000 is the usual LIE. Rick Santelli said it this way (correctly): "The way I look at it, claims rose 23,000. That is the difference between the 380,00000 initially reported this week and the 357,000 initially reported last week". That is exactly right, and what this blog has been telling you for YEARS> This week's number will be REVISED next week. We don't know what the final number will be. But n an APPLES-toAPPLES basis, the number ROSE 23,000 from last week (comparing UNREVISED number with UNREVISED number). No matter how you look at it, we are 23,000 jobs WORSE OFF tghan we were in last week's report. As this blog has shown, the usual pattern is for that to be REPEATED next week--teh lie to be repeated--as the number (the 380,000 this week) is almsot ALWAYS revised UPWARD. That upward revisin is becoming WORSE. It used to be consistently around 3,000. Two weeks ago, the reviison was 16,000. This week the UPWARD revision was 10,000. The weekly number appears to be getting MORE UNRELIABLE (and it was never very reliable).
Now others on CNBC were telling yu that EASTERdistorted the "seasonabl adjustment", so that 380,000 may be too high (unreliable). That is actualy correct. But it merely PROVES what Santelli and I have been telling you: The "seasonal adjustment" has been obviously UNRELIABLE for a LONG TIMME. Santelli even told you what this blog has been telling you: that the apparetn "improvement" in new unemplyment calims this winter might be ENTIRELY due to the WATHER (distorting the seasonal adjutment) . What Santelli and I are tellig you EVERY WEEK is that--despite the media LIES in reporting these as concrete numbers--is that this reorted number of new unemplyment claims iss NOT a matter of accounting. It is an ADJUSTED number, and the adjustment often is WRONG. Santelli even mentioned the same apparent new SEASONAL PATTERN in new unemplymemnet claims, not adequately "figured" in the current ADJUSTMENT formulas. As this blog has told yu, it is even WORSE as far as the MONTHLY emplyment numbers are concerned. Santelli told lyou that he is beginning to believe thqat ALL of tese numbers have become pretty much USELESS. Yet, the ENTIRE case for an "improving" economy has rested on these FALLIBLE numbers. I still think that the weekly number of new unemplyment claims has some significance, OVER TIME. I agree with Santelli that the MONTHLY numbers are USELESS. Too many games; too many "adjustments". Too little attentin to CHANGES in seasonal patterns.
For three months, essentially since the beginning of this year, there as been NO IMPROVEMENT in new unemplyment claims. In fact, we are now at the TOP of the recent range. For FOUR STRAIGHT WEEKS, as I told you probably WOULD happen (next wekek;s news today) last week, the number of new unemplyment caims has been above 360,0000. The 380,000 SHATTERED the recent range of 350,000 to 365,000, and would be REALLY BAD news, if confirmed as the new trend. However, it is Easter, and you have to wait and see if that number is "real". The TREND is now BAD, and has NOAT been "good" ever since the number first went below 360,000. The most that you can say is that "improvement" STALLED for most of the first three months, and is now giving indications of REVERSAL. Yet, the media has continued to cite these numbers as "evidence" of "improvement" int he economy, when they have been showing NO IMPROVING TREND. Look at how the media may LIE next week. Say that Easter skewed the numbers, and that nextg week's number is 365,000. The media is going to say that shows the "improving trend" is intact, and reportt it as "great" news, when that will be another LIE. You would EXPECT the number to go down toward the top of the recent range next week--that is, down toward 365,000. If that does NOT happen, then we are well on our way to REPEATING the pattern of the past two years. In fact, next week's number needs to go to 350,000, just to show a two-week average of 365,000 (the ATOP of the recent range).
Do you tink "economists" figured in Easter in their calculaitons, or had ANY CLUE? Nope. Economists regularly put themselves into that class of people--Wall Street economists and Wall Street people in general-who are The Stupidest Peole on Earth . "Economists" had "predicted" that this week's number would be 355,000. Hey, they only missed it by 25,0000. Stick with this bog. Predictions in The Maverick Conservative actually tend to COMEA TRUE. As statedm, I would EXPECTA the number to be below 380,000 next week. If it is not, then I think we can come pretty close to saiying that the APPARENT improvement in the labor market has NOT BEEN REAL. That is the problem with saying that this apparent DETERIORATION has not been "real". That means that the prior "improvement"--except there has been none since almsot the beginning of the year--has nto been real either.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).