Thursday, September 20, 2012

Obama Loses 385,000 Jobs Last Week: NO Improvement from Previous Week; NO Improvement for Entire Year

Yu will note that I CORRECTED the dishonest Labor Dept. and our dishonest media in the headline.  The Labor Detp., as usual, reported today (Thursday) that the UNREVISED number of new unemplyment claims last week was 382,0000 (essentially the same weeky number with which we started the YEAR, and well above the range of 350,000 to 365,000 that we were supposedly in from mid-January to Mid-March (when our dishoenst media were saying taht we had "turned the corner"--exactly the same hhing they said in Febru;ary of 2010 and February of 2011. The 382,000 number is, of curse, a LIE, as the number will be REVISED next eek. And th eREVISION is ALWAYS UP by at laeast 2,000, and more often 3,000 (over past two years, although the revision wsa 2,000 more often for a brief number of weeks reccently, but I am back to predicting 3,000 as more likley).  Dubt me?  Present score since January of 2010 is The Maverick CVonservative 4,131  Labor Dept./Media 2. Or you can reverse it as to number of lIES over same period:  Labor Dept./Media 4,131, The Maverick Conservative 0 (mabye abut 2 INACCCURACIES, but which wre good faith estimates and analysis based on a corret view of previous data) 

All you have to do is go back to LAST WEEK, and the articles posted on this blog on Wednesday night, and Thursday.  Strangely ,last week the Labor Dept. reported the SAME number of new unemplyment calims for the previous week as was reported today for last week: 382,0000.  However, this blog told yo that number was a LIE, and woululd be REVISED this Thrusday to 384,000 or more. Right again.  The number was REVISED today to 385,0000.  That means that our DIISHONEST media (I read it on said this:  "Slightlyl fewer Americans filed for unemplyment benefits last week...."   .......................................Sorry........................................Sorty..................................Sorry....................Sorry, on my back in that too comomon fetal positon laughing/crying...........

Is it POSSIBLE to be MORE DISHONEST than to have the Labor Dept. report the SAME NUMBER two consecutuve weeks, and actuallyl SAY that "slightly feewer Americans....".  My head hurts.  The full story even SAYS that the 382,0000 for last week ws REVISED this week to 385,00000.  It boggles my mind.  How can ANYONE be this DISHOENST.  And yet our media does it EVERYU WEEk, in hedlines NEVER CORRECTED, as if the prvius REVISINO neger really happened, and as if we are talking about "concrrete numbers" here arrived at by  "bunting' on fingers and toes in a reliable count.  As this blog has told you for more than TW YEARS, our media LIES every single week by COMPARING the UNREVISED number of new unemplyment claims released on each Thrusday with the REVISED number for the new unemplyment claims for the previus week.  This is a CONSISTENT LIE:  a LIE that jsut never stops.  And I have quit pussyfooting aoround.  The Labor Dept. is DISHOENST for not doing what this blog does:  ESTIMATE the REVISIN that ALWAYS occurss the next Thursday.  It is not like this weekly number is EVER a "counting" number. It is always an ESTIMATE, "seasonally adjusted" based on a SUBEJCTIVE formula, and there is no reason that an adjustment should not be made for the EXPECTEdD refision in the "count".  Thus, this blog was RIGHT again when last Thrusday's posted article told you that new unemloyment clajmims jumped 17,0000 OR MORE last week, rather than the 150000 reported by the medai (wrongly comparting the UNNREVISED number with the REVISED number for the previous week).  The REVISIN today means that the number of unemplyment claims rose 18,000 last week, and NOT the 15,000 reported in the media LIES. And this week--the number of UNREVISED new unemplyment claims released today for last week--the number of new unemplyment calims was UNCHANGED , in all likelihood (not "slightly" fewer, as reported byt he LYING media, although there is some possibility that the REVISIN next week, if it is 2,0000 instead of 3,000 or more, will leave a sight 1,000 meaningless drop.

It gets WORSE (for our media and Labor Dept.), hard as that is to believe. Last week, the Labor Dept. "explained" the rise in new unemployment claims this way:   HURRICANE ISAAC. This blog told you that was a LIE, even though it was entirely ture that it ws POSSIBLE that Hurricane Isaac had affected the reported number.  This blog told you that this "balme" on Hurricane Isaac was a LIE because there are ALWAYS "special factors"  invvolvend in this weekly number of new unemployment claims, which is why it is only OVER TIME that the number means antything (actuallly having quite significant meaning over the entire TIME since January, but subject to DISTORTIN in any individual week).    I told you last week that you could not really say that Hurricane Isaac caused a "glitch" in last week's number, because the numbe was subject to SO MANY factors, until yu ctually SAW this week's number (and beyond). 

You caN see how RIGHT I was (again).  This week's number of new unemplyment claims was the SAME as last week.  And the Marketwatch article said that Hurrican Isaac had NO influence on this week's number (the concsensus opinion).  The article even disposed of one of my caveats last week that I did not know whether the Chicago teacher' strike would haeve any effect.  And you thought I do not have influenc!!!!!!!  People even answer my QUESIONS.  It turns out that Illinois does not allow STRIKERS to make unemployment claims, and so we are left with no OBVIUS "special factor" to expalin why the number of new unemplyment claIms has been so BAD the past two weeks.  Even Marketwatch was forced to say that the numbers show NO IMPROVEMENT in new unemplyment claims since "early spring".  As I have told you, it is worse than that.  There has been NO IMPORVEMENT in new unemplyment claims for the ENTIRE YEAR>  This woululd alrady indicate that th enet MONTHLY emplyment report, absent some extraordinary chaNge of directin in a matter of days or a few weeks, is NOT going to show any improvement in jobs.  Unless there is an ERROR in the data, the MONTHLY emplyment report CaNNOT be "good', if the WEEkLYH jobless calims are NOT IMPROVING. And they are not. 

The range in weekly jobless calims this year has bewen between about 350,000 and 390,0000.  We are ow back at the TOP of that range fore the ENTTIRE Y:EAR, after we had a brief "blip" lower in Juy--before claims haveve ushed steadily back to the middle and tp of teh YEARLY range.  Indeed, as stated, the range of new unemplyment claims from mid-January to about mid-March was 350,000 to 365,000.  We have APPARENTLY DETERIORATED since then.  However, that is perhaps not ture, since this SAME PATTERN has recrred since 2010 (in 2010, 2011 and 2012):  An APPARENT "improvement' in February, whichb is REVERSED  in the spring and summer.  Thus, it may be a "seasonal adjustment" GLITCH that explains the APPARENT "improvement" every February, which then reverses. And the WEATHER was good this winter.  So the APPARENT 'improvement' in February may hagve been FICTIN.--probably was, as this blog told you at the time. 

What the weekly number of new unemplyment claims tells us, and this IS significant, is that we havbve been STUCK al year.  The job market has STALLED in a BAD PLACE for the ENTIRE YEAR.  That is confirmed by DP "growth" of LESS than 25, and an unemplyment RATE that is really the SAME as in January. In additn, monthly "jobs created' numbers have NOT IMPROVED in TWO YEARS, and have NOT IMRPOVED this year.  The monthly number has DETERIRROATED since the obviusly INFLATED number for January (over 200,000). Again, we are STUCK, in a BAD PLACE.  Note that the January "jump" in "jobs created' was FICTIN, as tghe Labor Dept. CHANGED THE CALCULATIN.  Even the Labor Dept.  said that no MEANINGFUL "comparison" was possible fore the emlyment data in January, as compared to December of last year.  The last "jobs created monthly report was TERRIBLE--nt only less than 1000,000 for the month, but REVISED DOWWARD more than 40,000 for the previus two months.  We NEED to be "creating jobs" at a rate of 250,000 per month  We are doing so, at best, at a rate of 100,000 per month (especailly since the fictional number in January and the rather strange large number for February). 

There you have it:  a CORRECXT analysis our media does not give you.  Not a pretty picture, but a correct one.  No, we are not YET collapsing, but we have been STALLED all year.  Obama and Bailout Ben Bernanke, together, ahve made a REAL "recovery" IMPOSSILBE. 

But our media jkeeps using OLLS to say Rmney canoot be elected.  Forget it. My PREDICTIN stands, even as Romney TRIES to lose this elecitn:  Obama LOSES unless the econmy materially IMPROVES by electin day.  Can the MEDIA and OBAMA simply MISLEAD peole into thinking the economy is "improving"?  Not, I think, if the Romney camaign is COMPETENT.  What am I saying? Of courwe it is POOSSIBLE for such a thing to happen.  But I think peole FEEL the econmy, and that it is HARD to LIE to them about it.  OUr media, an dthe Obama Administratin, are certainly TRYING. 

P.S.  No proofereading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).

No comments: