I am simply never wrong. Look at Sunday's article on new unemployment claims, whre I told you not only that last week's number was FICTION, but that Sandy was gong to make weekly numbers VERY volatile, and virtually useless as far as analyzing where the economy is going to be once the tempoarary AND permanent effects of Sandy have been determined. I was even right in doubting whether the dishoenst Labor Dept. had done something about its consistent weekly LIE on new unemplyment claims, where the REVISION for the following week is ALWAYS is in one directioin, averaging about a 3,000 UNDERSTATEMENT of new unemplyment claims eery Thursday. Okay, my prediction of a Romney victory, based solely on the economy (rather than some sort of stupid analysis of polls) was wrong, but not nearly so wrong as Dick Moorris, Rush ALimbuagh, Ann Coulter, Karl Rove and all of the rest. I, at least, recognized that Mitt Romney was a BAD candidate, even though I overestimated the practical coommon sense of the American peole (especialy women) .I thought, ultimately, that women would vote on the eCONMY , and not on irrelevant things like abortion and rape (not to mentin Romney "failing to relate") Well, I ws wrong abut that, although totally wrong about Romney and his campaign. But Thursday's data on new unemployment claims came out today. READ Sunday's blog article, and recognize again that I NAILED IT, IN FORESIGHT.
First, last week's UNREVISED annunced number of 355,000 new unemplyment claims was REVISED UPWARD by 6,000 today, meanig that the two week average of that UPWARD revisoin returned to that consistent 3,,000 number. Last Thursday had been unusual in that the previus week's number had remained UNCHANGED, for the first time in a nmber of months. I can't even remember the last time the rEVISION was DOWN (the deseriable directin, since these are new UNEMPLYMENT claims) . Thus, the Labor Dept. is back to its usual DISHOENSTY. As I told you on Sunday, the 355,000 originally announced number last week was probably FICTION, since Sandy was already affecting the "result" (such as by closing unemployment claims offices). Well, I was right, in spades, as I was right on Sandy likely having a massive effect on the weekly number. Yes, last week's unrevised number was "revised" to 362,000, "down" a mere 2,000, but that was only the tip of the iceberg.
The Labor Department's UNREVISED number of new unemplyment claims, released today for last week, "soared" 78,000, to 439,000--by ar the HIGHEST number this year, and the highest numbre in 18 months. The REVISED number, to be announced next week, was likely at least 3,000 wrose, or around 442,000 (an increase of 81,000, rahter than 78,000).
Sure, this number was fiction, because Sandy distorted the number. The questin is how much Sandy is merely a temporary, short-term problem, and how much it is a longer term problem for the econmy. "Longer-term" is correct, not "ong-term'. In the long term, we are all DEAD. New factors iwill arise, includng the WEATHER this winter. Sandy itself was WEATHRE, and this last year was previously distinguished by extremely GOOD weather, which had a positive effect on the numbers. Sandy may be only the beginning of a stretch of bad weather, or at least a "normal" winter of relatively bad weather for things like construction.
No. I doh't feel any guilt at all over the hedline. Obama took 'crfedit", and the media took credit for him, for Obama "waving a magic wand" and "solving" the problems created by Sandy with a "bear hug" with Governor Christie. Obama had no "magic wand", and had no way of "solving" the problems of Sandy. But his ASSERTION that he had waved his wand and made everything all right may have helped get him elected again. If he is gong to take credit tha way, then he MUST take the BLAME as well. But it is worse than that.
Last winter, new unempllymnent claims fell to a four-year low, largely because of the good weather. Not only did Obama take credit for that, but our DISHOENST media acted like these early "better" numbers were a "turning point' fro the ecomy. This blog told lyou different, saing that yu could not say that until more TIME showed lyou whether it was merely the good weather and a recurrence to the new SEASONAL PATTERN apparent in 2010 and 2011. It turned out that the mid-February low of 351,000 was the LOW for this year, as there was NO IMPROVEMENT in the number of new unempllyment claims this ENTIRE YEAR--even with the good weather and lack of any real disrupting weather events. We have been in a RANGE of 351,000 to 390,000 this entire eyar, with NO IMPROVEMENT as the year went on. indeed, the range from mid-January to mid-March was the bEST of the eyar: 351,000-365,0000. We deteriorated after that, although the weekly numbers bounced around and the deterioration may have been mainly the new seasonal pattern repeating from 2010 and 2011. This blog told lyo al of this. But it gets still worse.
As we appraoched the electin, the DISHONEST Labor Dept. and DISHONEST media were willing to accept PURE FICTION as FACT. Thus, a few weeks before the election the media headlines screamed: "Labor Dept. reports new fur-year low in new unemployment claims.". The Labor Department reported a sudden "drop in new unemployment claims to 335,000, even though it had been MONTHS since the number had been under 360,000. This blog told lyou, at the time and inFORESIGHT, that this 339,000 number was FICTGION--FALSE. That obvius factg did not stop our DISHOENST (some of the most dishoenst peole who have ever lieved, and I stand literally by that statemetn) media from screaming out the "news" of this "four-year lowe" in new unemplyment calims. This was actually at least the 4th time this year that our DSIHEST meida had screamed out the same FALSE headlines, based on "eating" the SAME previuos mid-February low of 351,000. yes, the 339,000 was REVISED, as usual, the next week by the usual LIE of 3,000: to 342,0000 (which still, FALSELY, stands as the lwo for the year). But that ws the least of the LIES here. The hwole nubmer was FALSE, and the failure to CORRECT the number massively was another LIE--shoeing that we have a totally DISHOENST Labor Dept. If anyone wants to defend the indefensible, be my guest, It will merely show you are a FOOL. Our Labor Dept. has shown itslef to be composed of the most incompetent and dishoenst peole around, with the exceptin of our "journalists". "Contempt" is nto a good enough word to use for our mordern "journalists'. We need a new one. Take the contempt they have for peole like me. Multiple it by 100. And you may come witin shuting distance of the contempt I have for THEM. You heard me, ou "journalists' out there. That is what I think of you.
Dubt me? Look at what happened the next week, after that FICTIONAL 4-year low of 339,000. First, of course, the number was REVISED by the usual 3,000, to that 342,000. Taht that was a LIE. The number should have been CORRECTAED much morfe massively, but the Labor Dept. chose to continue the LIE of the 342,0000 being a ral number, obviusly for POLITICAL reaons. Dont't believe me? The Labor Dept. itself said taht the 342,000 number was FALSE, but did not correct it. neither did the media RETRACT its headlines of the week before, and ATACK the falser numbers from the Labor Dept. What had hapened was that CALIFORNIA nubmers, in whole or major part, had been LEFT OUT of the 342,000 (what the media--most dishoenst peole to ever live--called a "technical glitch"). The 342,000 was an ERROR. But the Labor Dept. was too DISHONES T to own up to the ERROR (whether from incompetence or dishonesty). Waht the Labor Dept. did was 'explain" the next week's match of the HIGH for the year (390,0000), after the previous week's "low" for the year, by describing thes "technical glitch". Leaving out California is NOT a "technical glitch". It is an ERROR, which only DISHOENST peope (Labor Dept. and our media) wuld fail to CORRECT. Waht the Labor Dpet. did was SHIFT the left out California numbers from one week to the next, knowing that our DISHEONST "journalists" would COVER for them (as they did borBenghazi, ObamaCare, and so many other things). Sure the Labor Dept. "admitted" the problem. But looke what hey had managed, a few weeks before the electin. They had goooten FALSE HEADLINES about a 4-year low in new unemplyment claims, and then "explained" the next week hwo that week's bad number was the result of a "echnical glitch". Meanthile, our DISHOENST media fialed to rETRACT their headlines from the preiuvs week, or un SCRAMIGN stories abut the DISHOENSTY and INCOM POETENCE of the Labor Dept. Srue, SOME peolle (liek me) screamed. But msot peole acted like this did not P:ROVE the disohesty of both our media and the Labor Dept.
No. That was not all. This blog expalined to you how the Labor Dept. got the unemlyment rate under 8% by using a FALSE, ridiculous "increase" in MONTHLY "jobs created" in the "hsousehold survey", even though the "official" number of "jobs created" (from the employoer survey--a different survey) was only 114,000 (as distingyished from FALSE husehold survey no. of 873,0000, an impossilbe no.) Again, it was the HEADLINES the Labor Dept. wanted, and what they got. Again, some peole dubted, but they still "reported" the FALSE nubmer as "real". These are DISHOENST peole (our Labor Dept. and our media) .
You see why I have no guilt at all in "reorting" the 439,0000 jobs OBAMA LOST last week as REAL. The number is at least as "real" as the 342,0000, or th esuposed increase of 873,000jobs in the month of September, and the restuling "drop" of the unemplymetn rate to 7.8%. It is at least as "ral" as reporting a "turn" in the econmy and labor market becaue GOOD weather had DISTORTED the numbers, already distorted by a new seasonal pattern. This lbog has told you the correct way to "reprot" these weekly numbers week after week, for YEARS. The wekly numbers ONLY mean anything OVER TIME. To palce reliance on short-term variations inta he nubmers is a LIE. No, his is not too harsh. It is the absolute truth. You "journalists", and peole in the Labor Dept. are LIARS in th eway you report these numbers as "concreete" numbers, and THEN "explain" bad numbers by special factors. The LIE, ofr course, is that you do NOT "explain" the GOOD numbers with "sepcial factor" even though it clearly works both ways.
Look at where we are. We have an artificially high number of new unemllyment claims of 442,0000, although some of job losses form Sandy are REAL (and not jsut for a few weeks). The number will obviusly "bounce around' in the next weeks. Sandy's effects wil linger, but it is going to be hard to anticiipate the TEMORARY effets of Sandy, as distinguished from the lnoger-term effects. We will probably, as I said on Sunday have no chance of even making a good guess as to where the econmy is until at least mid-January. And what if we have BAD WINTER STORMS (unlike last year). And every January, the Labor Dept. CHNGES the numbers it uses to CALCULATE the weekly and monthly numbers. It is going to be really hard to interpet were the ecomy is. But look how our DISHONEST MEDIA will report any "drops" in new unemplyment claims. Unless we are in REAL TROUBALE (always possible), these weekly new unemployment claims numbers are going to drop back to at least near the top of the range in which they have been in this entire year. Will those "drops' be REORTED as ARTIFICIAL, merely the result of the TEMPORARY effect of Sandy? Not a chance. The numbers wil be reorted as some sort of "improvemetn', as if the "improvemetn" is real and shows a "turn" (gain, for about the 4th year) int he labor market. The media will have ORGASMS over a "new" drop of the number below 400,0000. Oh. It is turue that IF the number does NOT get back to somewhere close to where it was in 2012, lup to this ont, that will be truly BAD news. But merely gong back under 400,000 will NOT be "GOOD" news, no mattter what our DISHOENST "journalists" say. That wuld merely mean we remain STALLED. Note that when I say new unemplyment claims did NOT IMROVE in all of 2012, I ws referring to BEFORE SANDY. Returning to this same situaion will continue this NO IMROVEMENT for another year. I did not see the usual "lead" references to the "predictioh" of "economists" as to this "soraring" to 439,000. I guarntte you that this was because they did NOT come cloe to predictin the number. Now is it possilbe that econmists correctly said that Sandy made it IMOSSIBLE to precit the number? Possible, but I questi whether "economists" are that bright. Yet, these are still the peole--never right--upn whom we are REYING to "wave that magic wand' to have central planning government "save us'.
Bottom line, and I repeat: Obama lsot 442,000 jhobs last week, and has FAILED to improve the labor market this entire year (even before Sandy). We will have to wait for TIME to show us longer term effect of Sandy.
Oh. Did you notice confirmatin of my long-stated conclusion that Wll St. and financial peole are The Stupidest People on Earth. The truly stupid peole on Wall St. CELEBRATED Sandy with a stock market RALLY. The theory is that REBUILDING is a positive ofr the econmy. Wrong, you STGUP:ID PEOLE. Sandy is a NEGATIVE for the ecomy. It is jsut a questin of how much of a negative.
John Stossel (libertarina) has this one right. He says that if all we need to do to get "economcic growth" is to DESTORY things, then that is what we should d" DESTORY our cars, houses, businesses, etc., and REBUILD. All we need to do is BULLDOZE entire communites, and start over, every year (constant 'urban renewal"), and we will have ENDLESS PROSPERITY. Insanity. But that is what passes for "thinking" on Wall St., and in our establishments. I know. I am giving leftists ideas. Am I nto ashamed of myself? These crazy peole will dO these things that Stossel and I regard as ABSURD. I actually don't worty about givng these insane peole ideas that they have not alreayd had. "Urban renewal" is an OLD idea that FAILED> And Obama's--really the left in generaal--constant use of the term "infrastructure" as a "magic word" comes close to this idea that all we have to do is REBUILD constantly, and prosperity will result. How far is this from the idea of BULLDOOZING entire communites, making insurance compnies PAY for destoryed property, and then BUILDING NEW, BETTER STUFF? Not far at all.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).