Am I good, or am I good (in analysis, not in character).
The disheonst Labor Department releases the number of new unemployment claims, filed in the previous week every Thursday. Or, rather, as this blog has informed yhou for YEARS, the Labor Department uts out a dishoenst ESTIMATE of the number of new unemplyment claims every Thursday ,which is aLWAYS revised ONE DIRECTION (up) the next Thursday, usually by 3,000 or more. And, for YEARS, our dishoenst media (basically ALL of them) have written headlines as if the weekly number released by the Labor Department is a REAL, "concrete" number, like counting on your fingers (or a computer). First, as stated, the number is ALWAYS 3,000 or so OFF, in one directin, which shuld have long ago been corfrected (leading to conclusion Labor Deaprtment is DISHOENST.). Second, however, the SUBJECTIVE "seasonal adjustment" means that you can NEVEr accept any one week's number as a real number, when it MAYU be total fiction. But our mdiea peoole are much MOLRE DISHONIEST than our Labor Deparmtent, and KEEP wriging FALSE headlines: week after week; month after month; and year after year. Unlike others, this blog tells lyou this IN FORESIGHT, and I am almost NEVER wrong. Look at this blog's article last week, about last Thursday's numbers, where I got EVERYTHING EXACTLY RIGHT. No., not a matter of onpininoi. What I said last week was PROVEN right today, and the media (not to mentin the Labor Deaprtment) PROVEN WRONG (dishoens and incompetent).
The media last week, for the FOURTH time this year since the weekly nuimber of new unemployment claims reached a yearly low of 351,000, announced a "four-year low" in new unemplylment claims of 339,000. The reason the media could previusly RECYCLE the same headline, as to "breaking" the SAME 341,000 number, FOUR times this year is this LIE of comparing the UNREVISED number with the REVISED number to be release the next week. Three previus times, the UNREVISED number was under 351,000, only to have the REVISED number make the headines a LIE by equalling or exceeding the 351,000 REVISED low of mid-February. Thus, the 339,000 number of new unemplyment claims released last Thursday was rEVISED this Thursday to 342,0000. Previously, in support of the same LYING headline three separate times, the media had used an UNREVSIED number of 348,000-350,0000 to FALSELY PROCLAIM (3 times) that the 351,0000 "four-year-low" had been breached. Notice thqt this time the "low" was low enoguh--as I told you last week it would probably be--to actually end lup below 351,000, even AFTER the usual revisin.
However, this blog told you somethihng else OBVIUS last week: The 339,000 number of supposed new unemplhment clais was TOTAL FICTIN. Yes, the media LIED about lthe 339,000, as did the Labor Department, because the REVISED number was 342,000 ("donw" 3,000 less than claimed. However, the 342,,000 wouuld have been a pretty good number, except it was TTOTAL FICTIN (as was obvius from an aanalysis of the numbers for lpreviuos weeks,, as this blog provided last week, along with the FACT that there was NO obvius "surge" in the economy the previus week which would "explain" a "jump" in the number). I tell you again, and I jsut PROVED it: Members of our media who put out that headline abut a "four-year low last week are some of the most dishoenst people who have ever lived. The HEADLINE needed to be that the number was FICATION, even if yoiu threw in that meaningless "four-yar low" stuff in the body of the article as a statistical clitch: not realy significant.
Doubt me? If so, you areall arfe a FOOL. That is because this Thursday I was PROVEN right. Not only was the 339,,000 number REVISED to 342,000, EXACTLLY as I predicted, but the 342,000 was PROVEN to be FICTIN (just as I had also told you). How? The number of new unemplyment claim ms a for last week was announced this Thursday as 388,000 (most likely at least 391,000, for the reasons explained abovwe--and week after week--in this blog). Okay. Two weeks ago Thrusay the number of new unempllyment claims for the previous week was alost 370,0000. Then that number supposedly DROPPED by more than 25,000 the next week, as reported last Thursday. Now, today, the number of new unemployment claims last week supposedly "jumped" 46,000 (actaully, most likely, 49,000). Is this STATISTICALLY POSSIBLE? Nope. It is NOT. Id ARE you to dipute me on this. Again, you merely reveal yourself as a fool, if you do. No. This Thursday's lannounced, unrevised numbmner of 388,000 new unemplyment claims last week PROVES that the supposed l342,000 for the previus week was FICTION (a statistical glitch of some sort, if yourule out deliberatte dishoensty--the DELIBERATE DISHOENSTY coming in how these numbers are FALSELY REORTED).
No. The "labor market" does NOT "jump arou;nd" this way. Yes the weekly number may "jump around",because of seasonal factors taht are NOT propoerly accounted for in the 'seasonal adjustment'. But--in the absence of some truly HUGE and unusual event, the weekly numbers cannot be regarded as REAL if they supposedly JUMP back and forth this way. I told lyou that last week, and it is true. Unless there is some sort of estalbished "trend", as there has nOT been this entire year, LARGE weekly moves in the number of new unemplyment claims are FICTIN. The media LIES each and every time they even impy otherwise.
Don't these numbers mean anything? Sure, they CAN mean SOMETHING, but only OVER TIME. Thus, the number of new unemplyment claims has been in a RANGE of 350,000 to 390,000 this entire year (ignoring last weeek's TOTAL FICTION). That means that the labor market has NOT IMPROVED this entire year. lAs this blog has told you, week after week, we are STUCK. We remain STALLED, in a BAD PLACE. Last week's fiction did not change that. Over time, as proven this week, the number of new unemplyment clams remains UNIMPROVED this entire year. Could you simpy average last week and this week to arrive at a "real" number? It is tempting, since that number would be somewhere around 365,000, which is consistent with the numbers for previus weeks. It is ture lthat the 391,000 number MAY be just as much FICTIN as the 342,000 number. But you can only know what is really happpening OVER TIME. Yoiu can't just assume you can get the "correct" number by using a two-week average, although there is a good chance that will give yu a better picture (as would the "four-week average"). NONE of this numbers is EXACT, and it is a LIE to pretend that they are (as our dishoenst media does every week). IF the weekly number continues a TREND, then it might have some significance. But, in the absence of such an esstablished TRND, the weekly number is pretty much meaningless (except to show that there is NO TREND of 'improvement', or, yet, disaster).
Memo to CNBC, and I repeat: You are The Stupidest People on Earth, and some of the most dishoenst. But that applies to ALL of the financial "media', with a very few exceptions (Rick Santelli, on CNBC, at least TRIES, without being able to report the FACTS the way I am correctly doing it, ebcuase the rest of CNBC pretty much drowns him out).
Oh. You remember that 7.8% monthly unempllyment rate, based on a FICTIONAL "increase" of 873,000 jobs in the "Household Survey", while the official increase in jobs was 114,000 (employuer survey)? Do ANY of you doubt that unemllyment rate is sheer FICTION? If so, you are again expoising yourself as a fool. The ONLY waqy to make sense of these varous numbers is to LOOK FOR DISCREPANCIES, and view them over time. Taht 873,000 "increase" in jobs used to calculate the unemplymenbt rate was even more FICTINAL than the 342,0000 number on weekly new unemplyment claims. Is there DISHOENSTY invovled here (at least ont he part of individuals--no need for a "grand conspiracy")? I think there is. But there is NO DOUBT there is DISHOENSTY in the way these numbers are REPORTED. You MUST pay attentin to descrepancies, or otherwise yo are being DISHOENST and INCOMOPETEWNT. (CNBC, this means YOU PEOLE). If you don't see a media outlet reporting these emplyment numbers this way, then you KNOW they are DISHONEST and INCOMOPETENT.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment