Thursday, September 13, 2012

Obama Loses 384,000 Jobs Last Week, Causing Bailout Ben Bernanke to Imitate Weimar Republic

First, read last night's article about last Thursday's Labor Dept. reort on new unemplyment claims (for previus week), and the DISHOENST media coverage.  Then read the article posted two weeks ago on the report that Thursday.  You wil notice that I was EXACTLLY rightg, as usual, and our DISHOENST Labor Dept. and DISHOENST media wrong once again.  The Huffington Post (really just regurgitating mainstream media DISHOENSTY) headline I quoted last night was especially laughable:  "Hiring outlook improves, as jobless claims drop."  In actual fact, of course, as the body of that article said, and my article said, the sour-week average of new unemplylment claims ROSE last week, as it did again this week.  That headline ws so obvius a LIE that its only real value wsa to show just how DISHOENST and STUPID modern "journalists" are.

Note that my PREDICITN (foresight--not hindsight) last night that last Thursday's number of new unemplyment claims would be REVISED upward to either 367,000 or 368,000 was EXACTLY right. The number ws revised today up to 367,000, meaning that last week's number only reallly "dropped" by 10,000 (not the headline 12,000), and that the number was right at the 4-week average of close to 372,000.  Note that, since the previus week ws REVISED upward 5,000 last Thursday, the report last Thursday was overll BAD, rather than the "god" interpretatin of ALL of the media (including the unfair and unbalan ced network, I think).  Just how absurd l last week's media overreatin to a rather fictional "improvement" in the weekly number of new unemplyment claims was became crystal clear today, when the LYING media said that claims rose by 15,00 last week, to 382,000.  I, of course, have given you the CORRECT numbers (likely, although they could be higher).  The UNREVISED numbr reported today, of 382,000, cannot be compared with the REVISED number from last week.  Comparing apples to apples, the number of claims rose 17,000 and NOT 15,000.  If you ESTIMATE the correct number--the REVISED number--to be releaseed next Thursday as to this week's initial 382,000, you must estimate at least 384,000 (my headline number), since the number is almost ALWAYS upped by at least 2,000.  Last week, the revisino was that 5,000, showing that the 2,000 is a MINIMUM.  Thus, the most accurate descritpino of the LIKELY numbers that SHOULD have been reported today is that new unemplyment claims were 384,000 plus last week, up 17,000 plus from the previus week.

Note how the media jsut continues to LIE, and both comapare aplles to oranges and ignore the CERTAIN revision to come next week: ALWEAYS in the same diretino.    How do "journalists", including financial "journalists", get to be such PATHOLOGICAL LIARS?  Are they now TAUGHT that in "journalism" school? 

Now the dishonest media brought in a diifferent kind of LIE today. The subheadline on I heard it lkjsjfrom other media sources today, as they echoed what the dishonest Labor Dept. said--was:  "Labor Department says Tropical Storm Isaac responsible for more than half of increase." Test for you: Why is this a DISHOENST statement?  Isn't it possibly true?

Yes, it is possibly true that Tropical Storm Isaac was responsible for a good part of the increase, but to specailly reort that is part of a lpattern of DISHONESTY by both the Labor Dept. and our media.  That is because--as the media ignored last week, and every week-one week may include LOTS of "special factors", inclcluding a possible GLITCH in the "seasonal adjustment'.  We will not KNOW whehter this week's number was really off in one diretin until the next several weeks, if then.  We will probably never really know, unless there is a BIG DROP next week.  But what if there IS a BIG DROP next week. Read the subheadline again.  The "big drop" will be no more REAL than the rise.  But wil thedishonest Labro Dept. and our dishonest media report it that way?  Not likely, although the Labor Dept. is more likely to note it than our DISHONEST "journalists", becaue the Labor Dept. rightly feels that if the weekly number too obviusly bounces around, peole will realize lthat this weekly number is NOT any kind of concrete number, but only a fallible ESTIMATE.  Anyway, YOU know that any "drop" next week likely is NOT an 'improvement' in hiring outlook, but only statistical noise caused by this "special factor".  Then there is the Chicago teacher's strike. Will that be ANOTHER "special factor" next week.  Maybe so.  All this shows is that this weekly number means little in any one week, or over any limited amount of time. However, the weekly jobless claims number does become significant OVER TIME.

The number has NOT IMPROVED over this ENTIRE YEAR.  We havve been in a range between 350,000 to 390,000 this ENTIRE YEAR.  The "job market" ("hiring outlook") is STUCK, and has been STUCK this entire year.  In fact, from mid-January to mid-March, we were in a range of 350,000 to 365,000.  The 4-week average is now ABOVE tghe TOP of that range earlier in the year.  But that may be explained by seasonal adjustment glitches, rather than any significant deterioration in the job market since March.  The most certaqin staqtement we can make is that we are STUCK, in a FRAGILE, bad place. Fragile?  Yep.  Look at oil prices, at about $99 a barrel tonight.  That is WAY TOO HIGH for this pont in September, and only PARTLY because of the Arab world tensions.  You can BLAME Bailut Ben Bernanke for a large part of high gasoline prices, AND otgher high prices (like FOOD).  Bailut Ben has DOUBLED DOWN on PRINTING MONEY: even having he Fed "buy" up mortgages!!!!! with money that DOES NOT EXIST (except as an accounting, "balance sheet", entry on the books of the Fed).  The Fed has now replaced China as probably the primary holder of our debt: at least as far as buyhing new debt.  This makes a REAL "recovery" IMPOSSIBLE. 

Every time a "recovery" starts, it is SHORT CIRCUITED by the domination of the Federal Government--including the Fed--of our entire econmy (incluidng lending and credit, as well as psychology).  Look at the economic fascists of the stock market, looking solely to Bailuit Ben to BAIL THEM OUT of all problems, rather than to a free market economy.  Wore, every time a "recovery" starts, PRICES RISE.  We alreayd have a "stealth inflation" in energy, food and commodities.  Everyone knows that the Fed has to UNWIND this money printing heroin addictin at SOME PONIT.  Bailut Ben haS "promised" to keep interst rates low until 2015, EVN if a "recovery" takes hold (which Bailut Ben and Obama habve jointly made IMPOSSIBLE).  How can Bailut Ben ratinally make sch a "promoise"?  Is he a LIAR (YES, as he has actualy denied "printing money," when EVERyONE agrees that is what he is doing).  YUes, Bailout Ben, I jsut correclty called you a LIAR. Respond if you dazre.  OR, Bailut Ben, with his promise, is saying that the Fed will stand by and watch us become the German Weimar Republi--the collapse of which led to Hitler--if INFLATION TAKEWS OFF.  Does Bernanke live in a fantasy world that insane, or is he telling us that he KNOWS that we have maDe a real "ercovery" IMPOSSILBE.  Bailut Ben Bernanke:  The Worst Failure in the History of World Finance already, and digging the hole deeper. 

What caused Bailut Ben to AGAIN print money, and to even DOUBLE DOWN on the FED taking CONTROL of the econmy (an econmy of  FALLIBLE MEN, rather than free market principles operating based on the free decisions of many, many peole)?  Obvioiusly, Bailout Ben and the Fed believe we are IN TROUBLE, and that only they (despite past experience of FAILURE) can 'save" us.  Problem with FALLIBLE MEN having this knd of CONTORL:  Most actihns may even lok right, but ONE big mistake is FATAL.  That is the problem with central planning  The problem is not that a dictator may not make good decisins:  better at times than a democratic republic or free markets.  The problem is that there is NO automatic adjustment to misallocation and wrong decisonis. The wrong decisions of central planners are FATAL, because by the time central planners realize they were WRONG, it is way too late.  Each individual decisin mkight have as much chance of being "right' as in a free market or democratic repubic, but the inevitable WRONG decisions are FATAL.  No.  Bailut Ben is NOT God, or Jesus Christ.  That means he will FAIL in his attmept to CONTROlL our entire economy (along with Obama), as he has already failed.  The result will NOT be pretty. I am, of curse, a pessimist by nature, but you are living in a fantasy world populated by peole like Bailut Ben if you can be "optimistic" about the future, given the disastorus directin we are going. 

Agan, WHY did Baiut Ben "doublte down" on these "unprecedented" actions?  Obviusly, Baiut Ben thinks the econy is in BAD SHAPE, and likely to remain so for a LONG time.  And yo thought I was pessimistic!!!!!.  Bailut Ben obviusly looked at the latest monthly empyment reports (BAD, incudng the last one) and the weeky jobless calims, alnog wht essentially flat GDP, and came to a conclusin that Prfesident Obama and our DISHOENST media are not telling us:  that we are NOT "gong in the right directin", and NOT IMPROVING.  Then there are things liek Europe, China, AND Bailout Ben's high gasoline prices and food prices, that threaten to ut us in a DEATh SPIRAL at any moment.  Again, the problem is that Bailut Ben's "soultin" is to PREVENT any possible "recovery" by making certain it will be short circuited (as has alreadyhappened over the pat 4 years).

Have Bailut Ben and the Fed gone "all in" for OBAMA, not caring about the future in an attempt to "jump start" the eocnmy (at least a blip) before the November electin?  I dont' know.  Maybe.  Maybe not.  But it is clear that Bailut Ben is a megalomaniac, and The Worst Failure i n the History of World Finance. 

P.S.  No proofreading or spell chekcing (bad eyesight).  Yep.  This gets expecailly bad in these long articles as I get tired.  But I have no sy;mpathy for you.  I used up all sympathy I was born with by age ten. Besides, what I say is worth the aggravatin of the bnus word puzzles.  I do make a special effort to get the nUMBERS right, although I don't promise no typo at all (which I cna't proo9fread).  That is why--partly,along with my natural verbosity--that I REPEAT numbers, usually several times, to give you a good shot at figurring out what the correct nubmers are.  Yes, the numbers I ATTEMPT to type are ALWAYS correct. 

No comments: