The Maverick Conservative is PROVEEN right again, as we try to dispose of LAS WEEK'S MEDIA LIES, --before going on to this week's. The number of new unemploymnet claims filed in the previous week was released today, as it is every Thursday, along with the REVISION of the number for the previous week. It is ONLY this blog that informs you that revision is almost ALWAYS an UPWARD (up being bad) revision of 3,000 or more. Read last week's (Thursday's) article in The Maverick Conservative, which again got it EXACTLY right. Remember how the media, including hte LIARS at Marketwatch.com, told you that claims "dropped" slightly last week, from 372,000 to 370,000? Well, this blog put the CORRECT informatin in the HEADLINE (next week's news today: a specialty of The Maverick Conservative). As The Maverick Conservative told you it would be, the 370,000 number iniitially reported lasst week was REVISED upward to 373,000: the EXACT number PREDICTED by The Maverick Conservative. This was a slight RISE from the previous week's 372,000, instead of a slight "drop". The same thing thad happened the previous week, as the number had originally been reported at 370,000, unchanged, when it actually had RISEN 2,000 (to that revised number 9f 372,000). If I have confused you, here is how the numbers have gone for the past month, starting with the earlier number: (showing revisions): 370,000 (REVISED from 367,000); 372,000 (REVISED from 370,000); 373,0000 (REVISED from 370,000); and 383,000 (the number released today, likely to be REVISED next week to 386,0000, as all we have now is the UNREVISED number).
Note that The Maverick Conservative has got the REVISIONS almost exactly right every single week. The ony "error" in The Maverick Conservative PREDICTIN was last week, where the REVISED number ws 372,000, innstead of the 373,000 "predicted" by The Maverick Conservative. Meanwhile, the LIEARS of the media (including those LIARS at marketwatch.ocm) report each week's number as if it is not CONSISTENTLY revised IN ONE DIRECTION. This means that the media CONSISTENTLY reports the situation to be abut 3,000 better than it should be reported. This means, as for the last two weeks, reporting either that the number stayed "unchanged", or dropped sightly, when the number actually ROSE for both weeks. As this blog has consistenty tod you, the way the media reports this initial EXTIMATE each week is always a LIE. The media compares apples and oranges: comparing this week's UNREVISED number with last week's REVISED nnumber. This is especailly bad because the number is almost always revised upward (about 95% of the time, or more). The upward revision is usually 3,000 or more.
Media LIE this week: "Jobless claims jump 10,000, to 383,000."
Correct headline: "Jobless Claims Likely Rise to 386,,000, a Jump of 13,0000 (Initial Estimate 383,0000, up 13,000 from Previos Week's Initial Estimate)"
Even the LIARS at marketwatch.com are gtting embarrassed at being EXPOSED by The Maverick Conservative every week. So these LIARS said thiis (approximately, AFTER the lying headline and lead): "Last week's number was revised to 373,000, from 360,,000, as MORE COMPLETE DATA BECAM E AVAILABLE." (emphasis added to emphasize the LIE)
Message to you people at marketwatch.com: You peeople are such LIARS that I don't evven know if you recognize dECIET when you see it: whether, in other words, you are DELIBERATELY telling a whopper like this, or are jsut too STUPID to point out the obvius lie.
"More complete data"? This weekly number of new jobless claims, released ever Thursday, is an ADJUSTED number n the first place. In other words, it is an SUBJECTIVE number, based on an "adjustment formula" to try t give you a "better" idea of the real number than you would get just trying to"report" the "raw" number. What the LIARS at marketwatch.cmom FAILED to tell you is that "complete data" almost ALWAYS results in the SAME REVISION. That, of course, is not a mere matter of "complete data". That is a CONSISTENT BIAS in the number being reported. The ONLY way this "excuse" makes nay sense is if the revisions bounced all over the place: down 3,000 one week and up 4,000 the next week. As it is, the Labor Department should just ADD 3,000 to its weekly ESTIMATE of jobless claims. This would actually be MORE ACCURATTE than the much more problematic "seasonal adjustment" that the Labor Department makes. Yep. Reporting this weekly number as if it is an exact number is an Orwellian Big Lie that the media tells EVERYU WEEK. But failing to not the OBVIUS, CONSISTENT upward revision in even the "raw" number is CRIMINAL DECEIT. Media people, includng especially financial media people, are incapable of telling the truth, or trying to give real information. They are the very definition of PSYCHOPATHIC LIARS. ,. or maybe SOCIOPATHIC LIARS (depending on whether you think they are capable of even knwoing what the truth might be, or caring)..
Again, as this blog has accurately told you almost every week for years, this weekly number of new unemployment claims ONLY has any significance OVER TIME. One week's number has little or no significance, except as a single data point in looking at the number OVER TIME. But lok at what has happened. We ended last year, and started this yea (especially once you got beyond the holiday fluctuations) at a number of unemplyment claims below 400,000. That number quickly dropped to a low of 351,000 in February, as we settled into a range between 350,000 and about 365,000. However, this "low" of 351,000, and range between 350,000 and 365,00, was quickly shown to be FICTION (as had also been true when the same pattern showed itself in 2010 and 2011). For the last two months , and more, the number of new unemplyment claims has shown a HIGHER range: between 370,000 and 390,00. For three weeks in a row, the number AVERAGED 390,000--right at the 400,000 level that represents a rEALLY BAD number. Then the number fell back to 370,0000, only to now jump back to 386,000 (estimated REVISED number to be reported next week). This is ABVVE that previous, and obviously false, range of 350,000 to 365,000. What is the "correct" number? Wo knows? Indeeed, we CAN'T KNOW, as all we have are FALLIBLE ESTIMATES. What we CAN do is get an idea of whether there is any kind of CONSISTENT TREND, showing we are getting better or worse. Since the beginning of the year, there has been NO TREND. The labor market market has NOT IMPROVED.
Qu.E.D. The Obama FAILURE of JOBS continues. The monthy employment data for May will be released on Friday. This is even more FALLIBLE data: an ESTIMATE based on significant "adjustments". There is simply no way for such data to be "good news and be CONSISTENT with the UNIMPROVED data on unemployment claims. We are STALLED, and any data that purports to show otherwise has to be SUSPECT. Wha tthe jobless claims data is showing us, OVER TIME, is that there is NO IMPROVEMENT in the labor market. Yes, there is improvement from the DEPTHS of the recession. And we are not getting wore. We are STALLED, in pretty bad place. How long can we remain this way? Well, the "crisis" in Europe, an slowdown in China, indicates that we lmay face trouble ahead. But JAPAN muddled along, STALLED, for moree than a DECADE. Hae we put orselves in a situatin where we CANNOT realy "recover", but where Bailout Ben Bernanke, Obama and teh rest are pumping enough money into the system that we can m"muddle along" for sojme time ntil the final collapse? This would be my "best guess", although this ontinued reliance on the mere WORDS of politicians, and ever moe substantial BALIOUTS, leads me to believe that the collapse may be sooner rather than later.
This blog has already predictreed that Obama LOSES the election, unless the economic pictgure IMPROVES. (in a manner substantial enough to convince peole that we are really on an UPWARD path). There is no present indicatin that theis will happen. Obama needs to get LUCKY. He, and Baiout Ben, will move Heaven and Earth, but it is the real prolbem here that mere MEN cannot CONTROL the world economy (althogh they can certaily destory it). Is it POSSIBLE that we have a BLIP up in the eoconmy as we approach the electin? Sure, it is possible. This blog has shown you that we have made any REAL, long-term "recovery" IMPOSSIBLE. And relying on mere MEN to CONTROL our econmic destiny HAS to destory us in the end (both theory and practie tell us). But a short-term "blip" is POSSIBLE. It is really Obama's ONLY hope for reelection.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checknig (bad eyesight). As usual, I taook special care with the NMBERS, which is not to guarantee no typo. I tend to be redundant enogh that any isolated typo should be obvius. I do GUARANTEE the accuracy of the numbers that I INTEND to type. They are accurate.