Thursday, May 24, 2012

New Unemployment Claims Rise Slightly, as Media Lies Continue: No Improvement This Year (Do Economists Read This Blog?)

As usual, let us dispose of last week's media LIES exposed (, this means YOIU, as wellas the regular media liears). Look at last week's REPORTING of the newemployment claims data released every Thursday.  First, look at ths blog's CORRECT reporting, as compared to whtat th eLIARS in the media reported.  The media reported that the number of new uenmplyment calims was UNCHANGED, at 3570,000, even though that number wsa 3,000 MORE than the ORIGINAL number reported the week before.  This is the usual media LIE,, although it is hardly the ony lie in the way the media reports these numbers. This number of new unemplyment claims released every Thursday is REVISED the next Thursday . Last week, the number was REVISED (for the previous week) from 367,000 to 370,000.  This alowed the LIARS of teh media to say that the number ws "unchanged, even thugh it was UP from the initial number reported the previuos week . As this blgo told you, the number is almsot ALWAYS revised UPWARD, usually by at least 3,000.  Thus, there are only tow ways to even try a "comparison" of this week's number with last week's number.  You can either compare last week's reVISED NUMBER with this week's PROJECTED REVISED NUMBER (to be announced next week),based on the CONSISTENT history of these prevision,s, or yu can compare the UNREVISED number for last week with the inital UNREVISED number announced this week.  Thus, this blog PROJECTED--based on this consistent history--a REVISION of last week's number to 373,000 meaning that new unemplyment claims ROSE last week--instead of the media LIE lthat the number was ttoally unchanged.

This blog ws "wrong', by 1,000.  The actual, REVISED number for last week was 372,000 new unemplyment claims, instead of the 373,000 PROJECTED by this blog.  In other words, as this blog told you, the nmber of calims ROSE last week by 2,000.  Notice that the LIARS of teh media were wrong by 2,000, and this blog was only "wrong' by 1,000 (whith this blog being far more HONEST in teling yu exactly how the PROJECTIN was made, instead of LYING to by that this weekly number is some sort of exact number).

The media lies, and the media liears, just never end.  They keep telling the SAME LIES week after week after week after week.  Here is this week's headline, based on this week's UNREVISED number:

"Jobless claims drop slightly, to 370,000" 

That is the Market watch headline . The people of Marketwatch are LIARS, along with the rest of the mainstream media.  These people (Wall Street people, iincluding financial "journalists") truly are The Stupidest People on Earth, and some of the most DISHONEST.

Notice the LIE in the Marketwatch headline.  Last week's UNREVISED number was  370,000, which is this week's UNREVISED number : that SAME 370000 (no change. That "dropped slightly" is a LIE.  But it is worse than that.  My headline is correct, in all likelihood, based on the BEST PROJECTION.  The usual UPWARD REVISION is 3,00. That makes the PROIJECTED number for this week 373,000, or a RISE of 1,000.  Sure, the UPWARD revision for this week was "only" 2,000--although it has infrequently been as high as 16,000).  But the previus tow weeks this blog predicted the number EXACTLY (an upward revision of 3,00).  Thus, the REAL number for this week can be PROJECTED as 373,000, and SJOULD be projeted as 373,000 (in headlines AND the body of stories). In fact, the Big Lie here--the Orwellian media Big Lie--is that these numbers are "exactg"--a mere matter of "counting"-EVEN AS REVISED. That is BUNK.  These numbers are "seasonally adjusted", and very SUBJECTIVE.  The "margin of error" in any individual week is AT LEAST 50,0900.  There is at least that much possilbe error based on chlitches/possible surpirise factors in the seasonal adjustment.  This is also ture of the MONTHLY emplyment data, in additin to the many other porblems with that data. This weekly nummber shuld be REPORTED as an ESTIMATE, and this idea of "reporting'  a single week as if it means much is a LIE.  This supposed "rise' , or fall, of--say--10,000 in a single week is MEANINGLESS.  It does not mean a dman thing, but that is not how the media reports these "changs" from week to week.  It is only OVER TIME that that these weeekly numbers mean anything. 

Okay.  Let us look at these weekly new unemplyment claims since the beginning of the year.  The number droppe d BELOW 400,000 at the end of last year.  There may have been a week or two right at 400,000 at the very beginning of the year, but the number promptly drooped well below stuck there as we headed into February.  The LOW in February was 351,000, and the LIARS of the media tired to HYPE two separate weeks where the INITIAL number dropped to 348,0000 (only to be REVISED upward the next week BOTH TIMES). The hsyterical, LYING media headline on that drop below 350,000 (which wasn't):  "Jobless claims drop to 4-year low". . That was, of course, a LIE.  The jobless claims then "stabilized" into a RAaNGE (which held for the first few months of this year) from 351,000 to 365,000 (or so).   Notice that we are now ABOVE the TOP{ of that previous range, as we have "settled" right around 370,000 for the past FOUR WEEKS.  In fact, the LIARS at Marketwatch did have the SHAME to at least note--in the subheadline--that the number has now STAYED right around 370,000 for a number of weeks.  Before that, the number SPIKED upward, FOR THREE WEEKS, to basically 390,000  Nothe that THIS THREE WEEK SPIKE matched the HIGHEST level of the year.  The three week spike was surely FICTIONAL (based on a glitch in the seasonal adjustment), just as the "drop" to around 350,000 was FICTIONAL.  The few "highe" numbers at the begining of the year mean little, as well, coming out of the Christmas holidays and the new year (with who knows what ADJUSTMENTS in the "seasonal adjustment" formula, where we KNOW that the calculations for the MONTHLY emplyment numbers have been SUBSTANTIALLY changed (, to the point that the Labor Department actually said that you could not compare January's numbers with December.

Okay.  It is time for this blog to REPORT where we are.  This weekly number of new unemplylment claims is a measure of layoffs, and the "health" of the laor market.  It has NOT IMPROVED this entire year.  If yoi look at February, and then the last seven weeks or so, you  could say the labor market has DETERIORATED.  However, I hope yoiu realize that you ccan't really come to that conclusion.  The "seanal adjustments" are just too "iffy".  The number close to 350,000 were jsut TOO LOW (not "real"), and the numbers around 390,000 wwere just TOO HIGH (not "real').  Nope. The "labor market" does not realy "shift" back and forth on this kind of SHORT-TERM basis. 

The most we can now say about the labor market, and the number of new unemplyment claims,s, is that the situatin has NOT IMPROVED thisis whole year.  Let me put it another way:  President Obama has NOT IMPROVED the job market this entire year.  Contrary to his assertins, and to the media assertions, there has been NO TREND.  Things are NOT "gonig in the right directin".  And they have NOT beeen "gong in the right directin" this entire year.  The monthly emplyment numbers confirm this.  We are STUCK (in a BAD place).  Sure, we are not getting  (substantially) WORSE.  But neither are we getting BETTER.  We are STALLED.  Th emedia people who have "onted" to a "steady" improvement in the labor situatini arfe LIARS.  This includes the people on the unfair and unbalanced network (including the business network).

You ca can take it to the bank, from a person who has SHOWHN yu that he can report these numbers CORRECTLy--while lthe media shows you the opposite. We are NOT IMPROVING.  Nor are we getting worse.  We are STUCK, and the jury is out on WHICH WAY the "trend" will turn (there now being NO TRNED).

Oh.  Do "economicsts surveyed by READ THIS BLOG?  There is circumstantial evidence to that effect. If not, they at least finaly seem to be "understanding" (vast progress for "economicsts", who are hopeless).  The Marketwatch "survey of economists" had "predicted" 373,000 as the number of weekly new unemplyment claims for this week.  That is possibly--even probably--EXACTLY RIGHT (once you figure in in the PROJECTED 3,000 REVISION next week).  However, note that this blog PREDICTED last week that the "real" number for LAST WEEK was 373,000. You shuld know the WAY economists "predict" this number as well as I do.  They look at the PAST (not having any idea of the future, or any way of predicting it other than by looking at the past).  Jobless claims have been pretty much UNCHANGED ovver the past 4 weeks.  lBut have economists FINALLY learned that they MSUT look at the PROJECTED number, and not the MEDIA LIES, when making their "prediction"?  Maybe so.  Or maybe they just read this blog (or hear about what I say).  Is it an ACCIDENT that economists "predicted" exactly the same number (373,000) PROJECTED by this blog as the "real" number last week?  Were nto "economists" really just trying to "predict" that the number of jobless claims would be UNCHANGED?  I think so.  Note that if economists BELLIEVED the  LIARS of the media, "unchanged" would have been 370,000.  If economists BELIEVED the more accurate PROJECTIN of this blog, the "unchanged" number would have been 373,0000 (the number "economists" actually "predicted").

Q.E.D  that is the case for saying that "economists' now pay attentin to this blog!!!!!!!

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


No comments: