The weekly number of new unemplyment calims (for the previus week) was announced again today, and again it was TERRIBLE news. You would not know that, of course, from the MEDIA LIES (incudng the LIARS at CNBC and in the financial press)--which lies realy have gone beynd belief. Here is the headline, wuich is an outright LIE:
"Lobless claims fall by 12,000, to 377,000" (Lyinig headline from Marketwatch.com)
Jere are twp CPRRECT jead;omes"
"Revised new unemployment claims balloon from initial estimate released last week, again approaching 400,000 (389,000)--up 17,0000 instead of the initially estimated 10,0000"
"New Unemployment claims at 380,000, as four-week average agani goes up and previous week is revised upward"
"Initial estimate for new unemplouyment claims released today falls 6,000 from last week's initial estimate, as last week's initial estimate was revised upward by 6,000"
Let us again examine the media LIES from last week. REmember what this blog told ou last week: something like the 100th week in a row this blog got it right and the media LIED. The INITIAL ESTIMATE of new unemployment claims released last week was 383,0000. This blog told yu that this was only an estimate, (as, by the way, is the revised number), which CONSISTENTLY is revised upward the next week. That UPWARD REVISION is almost ALWAYS at least 3,000. Therefore, this blog told you last week that the 383,0000 intitial number was really likely to be 386,0000 (or more). Well, this blog was overly "optimistic", although more correct than the LIARS of the media. The actual revision was an upward revision of 6,000, which is the ONLY reason the headline today can LIE about this being "good nmews". It is, of course, TERRIBLE news.
Back in mid-February the media was proclaiming how we had 'turned the corner" on jobs, and that the TREND was all in the "right direction". At that time, new unemployment claims (a total fiction, based on invalid seasonal adjustments) droppped to 351,000 two separate weeks, and fell into a range of 350,000-365,0000 (after falling below 400,000 BEFORE the end of the previous year). Note where the "trend" is NOW!!!!!!!! Our "new range" is 370,000-390,0000. For three weeks, we spiked upward (again, basically fictional) to an average of 390,000, and now we have settled in aournd 380,000. IF we have the same 6,000 upward revision next week, this weeek's announced estimate will be revised to 383,0000 (the same initial estimate announced last week). IF we have the usual minimum upward revision of 3,000, then this week's number will be revised upward to exactly 380,000. In all events, yu can see that these numbers are NOT "exact", concrete numbers, but FALLIBLE ESTIMATES (the Bil Lie of media coverage being to report these numbers as some sort of exact number--the same Big Lie that permeates MEDIA LIARS "reporting" ofn the FRAUD of opinioni polls). These weekly numbers only mean ANYTHING over TIME. The real 'margin of error" each week is abut 50,0000, and it is simply a LIE to say that new unemplyment claims FELL by 12,000, when the four-week average INCREASED--not to mention that you are comparing an UNREVISED number with a rEVISED number (apples and oranges).
No. Our media is composecd of LIARS, and of peole incapable of reporting the actual, factual situation--if it is at all complex. This is not that compex, really, but yu simply CANNOT (unless you are a sociopathic liar--unless, in other words, you are a modern "journalist") report these announced numbers asif they are EXACT and concrete. That is simply not ture.
What will be the MEDIA LIES next Thursday? What will be the REVISION of today's announced number of new unemplyment claims released next Thursday? ; Stay tuned. The Maverick Conserv avative will give yu the CORRECT information, and expoise the LIES yet again.
In the meantime, Obama and Bernanke have again FAILED on jobs, as the number of new unemplyment claims has NOT IMROVED basically this entire year. There is either NO TREND (probably the corret view), or the t"rend" is BAD. In atll events, we are not h"headed in the right direction".
P.S. No proofreading or sepll lchecking (bad eyesight).