Thursday, October 4, 2012

Obama Loses 370,000 Jobs Last Week: No Improvement Thie Year--As Media Lies Continue

Look at the article two weeks ago, when I was again EXACTLY right on the weekly number of new unemplyment claims released every Thursday, as I was last week (on Twitte--mavconservative--rather than on this blog, where you have seen these articles many times before)  For about 102 out of the last 104 weeks (two full years), and more, I have been right and the DISHOENST Labro Deaprtment and media WRONG.

Two weeks ago, I told lyou that it was an obvius media LIE that the number of new unempyment claims "slightly dropoped", when the intial number (to be revised the next week) was the very SAME 382,0000 as the Labor Department reported iniitially the previous week.  That previous week's number had been REVISED to 385,000, and I told you two weeks ago that the new 382,000 wwsa likely to be REVISED to the same 385,000. It was, last week.  This blog was EXACTlY right yet again.  The media LIES were again confirmed, including the LIES by

Three weeks ago,k the Labor Deptarment "explained" the "jump" in new unemployment claims, to 385,000 (initially reported as that 382,000) as the result of Hurricane Isaac. I correctly told y the problem with this, and the essence of media (including financial "reporters", specifically includng the unfair and unbalanced network) LIIES. I have tolld you for YEARS that "specail factors" can influence the weeky report on new unemplyment claims, including the "seasonal adjustment' simply not taking into account new seasonal patters, and sepcial events making the "seasonal adjustment' simply wrong. Thus, for 3 years (2010, 2011, and 2012), there has appear3ed to be a NEW "seasonal pattern", whre the labor market APPEARS to get better in the first part of the eyar, alnog wtih the eocnmy in general (usualy a "carryonver" from an APPARENT "improvement" at the end of the previuis year):; but then the labor market APPEARS to agan DETERORATE in the spring and summer.  This leaads to the conclustion that the labor market, and econmy in general, has been STUCK /STALLED since the end of 2009: the only "normal" "snap back" recovery occurring in the second half of 2009, BEFORE Obama policies had any chance to have any real effect.  All Obama/Bernanke policies have done is make any real "recovery": IMPOSSIBLE   That editorial comment aside, the FACT is that the same pattern has prevailded in 2010,2011 and 2012:  a FALSE "recvery", whre media peole have ORGASMS talking about how the ecomy and labor market havefinaly "turned the corner", only to have the APPARENT "recovery" STALL in the spring and summer.  The most obvius explanatin is that there is a NEW seasonal pattern NOT adequately reflected in the "seasonal adjustmetn", nad that there has not been a continuous cycle of "improvement" and "deterioration".  Rather, there has simply been no REAL IMPROVMENT any time during the time since January of 2010. 

The problem with the Labor Department, and the media, is that they will "cite' special factors to "explan" a RISE in new unemplylment claims (as 3 weeks ago), but then will LIE about what an equallly FICTIONAL "drop" in uenmplyment cllaims--for a short time--means. Thus, the media went into those ORGASMS  again from mid-January to mid-March of this year, when the APPARTENT range of new unemplyment claims settled in between 350,000 and 365,000  This blob, of course, told yu CORRECTLY that ths seemed to jut REPEAT the pattern from 2010 and 2011, without the knid of stady improvement from week to week that would indicate a real recovery.  Sure, any ONE week, or even a few weeks, can result rfrom an aberratin. But we are not really IMPROVING if lthe weekly number merely jumps around in a new range, without any apparent "improvement'.  Thus, there was NO IMPROVEMENT from mid-January to mid-March, even though the new range was lower than the highter numbers in the middle of last year.  Then, of course, the same PATATERN repeated, and new unempllyment claims shot Up to about 390,000.  Then they dropped back toward the top of that previus 350,000 to 365,000 range, ohnly to AVERAGE almost 390,000 in the first four weeks of June.  Did the economy 'jump around' like this? NO. This seemed to be merely statistical NOISE as we remain STALLED/STUCK.  WE have been in a range of 350,000 to 390,000 this ENTIRE YEAR, with NO IMPROVING TREND.  Right now, we hapen to be EXACTLY in the meiddle of that range.  The number of new unemplyment calaims was reported TODAY at 367,000, but that will (most likely) be REVISED next week to 370,000.  This was too much even for the LIARS at, and their headline today correctly said that "job availability" is NOT IMPROVING.  If they were really honest, they would have said it has NOT IMPROVED this entire year.

But that is NOT how it was reported LAST WEEK, as we had another one of those FICTIONAL drops in new unemplyhment claims.  The initially reported number was 359,000.  As I stated on Twitter, that number was bnd to be REVISED upward to 462,000 or more.  It WAS  REVISED todya, ggain exactly as I predicted, although the revisino was to 363,000 rather than to 362,000.  Last wek, the media trumpeted that "drop" of 26,0000 (actually 22,000, after I had predicted 23,000) as a major "drop in new claims.  That was ABSURD on its face: the report of DISHOENST people being as DISHOINEST as a persn can be.  Can REAL ecoomic changes "explain" how new unemplyment claims first JUMP to 385,000 for two weeks in a row, and then suddentlyl fall back to 363,000.  Nope.  ABSURD.  As the Labor Department said 3 weeks ago, and as I said MIGHT be correct (as I correctly said would only be determined OVER TIME), the media still acted like this sudden "drop" was REAL.  This Thrusday proved it was NOT REAL, as the number of claims went right back to the MIDDLE of that 350,000-390,000 yearly range, where it was BEFORE lthat somewhat ficitnal "jump" to 385,000.  How DISHOENST are you when you are willng ot talk about 'special factors" ONLY ONE WAY, and not look at al of this OVER TIME?  You have to be abut the most dishoenst peole who ever lived.  That describes our present media.  The Lbar Deparmetn is bad enough, but our media peole are pathetic examples of incompetency and dishonesty. 

It is even worse.  Last week, as the media was talking about how "great" the weekly unemplyment claims number wsa, the GDP "growth" for the second quarter waws REVISED DOWNWARD from 2.7% to 1.3%.  This REVISIN in "growth" was a DROP of almost 25% from the the previus estimate, indicating the media LIE in reporting these numbers as "concret" when the  initial ESTIMATES are put out.  Both the GDP numbers AND the empllyment numbers (weekly and monthly) are WRITTEN ON WATER.  To show how BAD this 1.3% GDP "growth was, the GDP (at least as initially reported, as I dont even know what the final numbers were) "growth" for the first TWO quarters of 2008 was about 1% each quarter.  Whaqt is significant about that?  wel, first, both Democrats and the media were asserting taht we might well be in a RECESSION ANYWAY, despitte the GROWTH in GDP reported for the first 2 quarters.  More importantly, it was later "determined' that the Great Recession DID "start" on January 1,2008. 

Are we BACK in recessin NOW?  We MIGHT be.  What have I jsut shown you?  I have shown yu that the "call" on "recession" is a HINDSIGTHT CALL. IF the ecomy DETERIORATED from here, it is entirely possible that a HINDSIGHT analysis woulld indicate we are laready back in recessin.  Remember, the THIRD QUARTER has already ended, but the SECOND QUARTER GDP "growth' was just REVISED downward to only 1.3%.  That means that if the THRID QUARTER is anywhere CLOSE to ZERO "growth", it is entirely possible for that to be LATERR revised to a NEGATIVE "growth" quarter.  Q.E.D.  It is entirely possible that we are NOW in a rECESSION, although that "call' can ONLY be made after the fact.  It is more likely--and it hardly makes a difference whether we are officially back in a recessin or not, as I said back int he summer of 2008 as well--that we have STALLED in a BAD PLACE:  right around no growth at all.

Monthly "jobs report" comes out Friday.  But you alreadyKNOW the report, IN ADVANCE.  The monthly "jobs created" CANNOT be "good".  That would be totally inconsistent with the weekly numbers on new unemplyment claims AND the REVISED GDP "growth" for the second quarter of a minuscule 1.3%.  Any "good" number would simplly be a LIE (well, a staqtistical glitch).  What would be a Big Lie:  Orwellian, "1984", size?  IF the unemplyment RATE were to slupposedly go 'down" tomorrrow to 7.9%, the media would again have ORGAMSS, and Obama people would calim "victory".  ABSURD.  I expect that the unemplyment rate will stay at 8% or above, after NOT IMRVONG this entire year (started at 8.3% for January, and was 8.1% last month).  But there is a lot of STATISTICAL NOISE in that unemplyment RATE number.  It is a SURVEY (a PLL). And "benchmarks" keep changing, as well. Plus, peole keep DROPPING OUT of the labor force,  The labor force "participatin" has fallen to the LOWEST level in modern times (some 63%).  Thus, IF the unemplyment rate wre to fall BARELY under 8%, it would be a LIE to make much of tahat--especailly with all of the other numbers. 

No. Whatever the "official" numbers tomorrow, the situatin is BAD.  It is only a matter of how much the media and Obama Administraitn are willng to LIE about it.  We are NOT IMPROVING, and have not rimpofed for this ENTIRE YEAR.  These numbers oNLY mean somehting OVER TIME, and over the TIME of this entire year they are BAD:  not "going in the right direction".  We are STALLED,at best.  Did I mentin that the new "seasonal pattern" would also indicate that any supposed "iimprovement" will be FICTION.  Again, for 2010, 2011, and 2012 (up until now), the econmy, and "jobs', have DETERIORATED from "encouraging" early signs as we have gone itno and through summer.  That has pahppened again in 2012, but in 2010 and 2011 the dta began to look BETTER as we went into September-October, and the RAMP UP to Christmas (getting earier and earlier every year). IF that new seasonal pattern repeats, we would expect some APPARENT improvement to start as we reach the end of September.  There are a number of reasons I thimk we are alctually in WORSE shape (for the future) than we were at the endo of the summers of 2011 and 2010, maknig me doubtful that even the apparent numbers can "improve' much.  Th enew jobless claims numbers would not seem to indicati any such "improvement".  The newly revised GDP number certainly does not.  But ou never know  There are MANY reasons one month could "show' 'unexpectedly" "strong' numbers on "jobs created" and unempolyment RATE.  Again, a 7.9% unempoyment rate would NOT show any"progress", but you NOW how the media would persent it.  Am I "predicting" a 7.9% rate?  No, but I AM saying it is entirely possible with NO "improvemetn" in the econmy at all.  What I expect is right around 8% on the rate, wit "jobs created" between 100,000 and 150,000 (another number which will later be REVISED, as the previus two months were REVISED DOWNWARD a total of more than 40,0000 at the end of August).

I have given you the facts, plus how to "intrepret" the numbers tomorrow (including the fact that one month means nothing to an econmy which has NOT IMPROVED this entire year).  Watch out for the lies, and the "spn". 

PS.  No proofreading or spelll checkng (bad eyesight).

No comments: