Did you notice that yesterday's (Thursday's) Labor Dearment release of the ESTIMATE of new unemployment claims filed the previous week yet again made a prophet of this blog, and LIARS out of the media? In fact, it is amazing. For three weeks in a row, The Maverick Conservative has gotten the REVISION of the previous week's "headline number" on new unemplooymnet claims EXACTLY right. Almost forever, this blog has PREDICTED the REVISION better than the liars of the mainsteam media "report" the announced number. Here, again is the CORRECT h headline for yesterday:
"New unemployment claims RISE slightly, to 390,000--assuming usual revision
Here is the INCORRECT headline from the LIARS of our media, based on the INITIAL ESTIMATE of the Labor Department:
"Jobless claims FALL slightly, to 387,000"
Look at last week. The media "headline" was that new unemployment claims were at a concrete number of 386,000. The Maverick Conservative headline ws that new unemployment claims were at 389,000. The Maverick Conservative was EXACTLY right. The media liars were wrong, as usual. Why am I right? "Talent" is one answer. But this is not really rocket science, which is why the media LIES are so obvious. The number of new unemplyment claims, announced each Thursday is almost ALWAYS revised UPWARD, and the revision is almost ALWAYS at least 3,000 (by far the most common revision---sso common that it makes a MOCKERY of the estimate announced each Thursday, as the ADJUSTMENT shulduld be made for the expected revision, so that the "revision" is not simply a correctino of an obviusly, consistentlyl incorrect number).
Thus, this week's announced number of 387,000 will most likellly be revised net week to 390,000 (or higher). I can't even remember the last time there wass a revision DOWNWARD. I can remember ONE week, in about the last six months, where the number was unchanged. When the "revision" i this consistent, it is a LIE to even release what is laready an ADJUSTED number (seasonal adjustment formula with its own accuracy problems), withuot adjusting for this obvius weekly error. It is especaillyl a LIE for our incompetent media liars to keep reporting this "annnounced" weekly number as it i a real, concrete number which is not ALWAYS rvised upward the next week.
Here are the number of new unemplyment claims for the past three weeeks, starting with the most remote week: 389,000, 3830,000 and 390,00 (MOST LIKELY, after revision of 387,000 number released yesterday.
Now these numbeers indicate Obama has FAILED on jobs yet again, and is losing close to 390,000 jobs (gross--as are the Obama/Obama supporter figures on jobs "created/saved" by the Obama "stimulus") A WEEK. This is a BAD number. But I have spent so much time and space analyzing the actual numbers, and how the media fails to report them correctly, taht I don't want tto start the analysis of the significance of the numbers this far down the article. Therefor, see part II (to follow quickly) of this artile for the analysis of the significance of these numbers (over time, which is the only way each week has AnY significance).
Oh, maybe I have been "exazctly" right "only" 3 out of the last 4 weeks. or 5 out of the last 7, although more right than the media reporting 7 out of 7. "Economists", however, should eat their hearts out, including the "economists" of the Labor Department who keep releasing an obviusly INCORRECT number each week But if I could not do better than "economiss", I would do the honorable thing and end it all. "Skip, did yu just say that ll economists shuld commit suicide?" Pretty much. Or at least stop suggesting that they, includng Ben Bernanke, "know" so much that they can both PREDICT and CONTROLL our massive economy . This absurdity iss accepted both on Wall Street and in Washington, and it is OBVIUSLY untrue. It is, in fact, the basis for ALL "central planning" advocated by Big Government pepple who believe that the Federal Government (or Bernanke or whomever) can simply wave a magic wand and "solve" any and every problem we have.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).