You say I can't prove the Labor Department lies? Of course I can, and have been doing so for several YEARS now. The monthly "jobs"/unemployment report comes out tomorrow, and the only questin it will match that Orwellian Big Lie for September: an alleged 7.8% unemplyment rate based on a FICTIONAL 873,000 additonal jobs "added" (from "household survey", while official employer survey pegged number at 114,000; 873,0000 would have be been aout 4 times MAXIMUM monthly number in Obama years, and the kind of number you only get in BOOM times, inconsistent with every other number on the economy). But, today, the diishonest Labor Dept. announced the numbeder of new unempllyment claims for the previus week, as well as the revison for the previous week.
Again, this blog got the REVISION of the number of new unemplyhment claims EXACTLY right. As predicted--yu can look at this blog's article last week--the number of UNREVISED new unemplyment claims relesed last Thursday was REVISED upward 3,000: to 372,0000 from 369,0000. As this blog has shown for about 2 YEARS< the weekly number of new unemplylment claims released each Thursday is essentially ALWAYS a LIE, which does not keep our media from COMPOUNDING the LIE every Thursday: by COMPARING the UNREVISED number released each week with the REVISED number from the previus week This would not be so dishoenst (yep, Labor Dept. dishoenst) if the REVISON were not ALWAYS in the same directin, by a pretty CONSISTENT number (usually 3,0000). That is how I am able to PREDICT (always better than the Labor Dept . or media purports to be able to do) the REVISED number the next week. That is how I bascially KNEW that last week's 369,0000 number of new unemplyment claims wuld be REVISED to 372,0000 this Thrusday. When this happens almost every week, the number is DISHOENST (Labor Dept. is dishoenst). The number of new unemplment claims released today (UNREVISED) was 363,000, but that number is surely a LIE. The actual number is (most ikely) 366,000. Our disheonst media--among the most dishoenst people who have ever lived--then "compare" teh FALSE 3643,0000 with the REVISED 372,0000, to present a LIE that claims "dropped" 9,0000. They mot likely "dropped' no more than 6,0000 ("comapring' apples to apples: unrevised number to unrevised number).
"But, Skip, I agree that is is annoying that the Labor Dept. presents each week's number as if there is not a consistetn error of 3,0000 or so, and even more annoying that the media keeps comparing the unrevised number with the revised number for the previous week. But that is a rather minor dishoensty, even if I might agree that it shows a disregard for the truth. Surely, you are not saig that the Labor Dept. would prsent an OBVIUSLY FALSE numbers as real--some sort of grand conspiracy". To Hell I can't say that. That is exactly what I am sayng--although no "grand conspiracy" is necessary. The Laobr Dept. DID exactly that--presented obviusly false numbers as real--a matter of a fw WEEKS ago. How do I kno? The Labor Dept. ADMITTED it, although they did not have the GRACE, or the HONESTY, to CORRECT the false numbers in that REVISON they do every Thursday.
A few weeks ago, the Labor Dept. released the weeekly number of new unemplyment claims on a Thursday, as usual. This blog told you, IN ADVANCE, that the number as FICTIN (as I have correctly told you on the 7,8% unemplyment rate for September). The initial, unrevised number of new unemplyment claims released was 339,0000. This was accompanied by the Pavolov's dog (no dog is this disheonst) reacion of the dishoenst media: "Jobless claims reach a new 4-year low." I never saw any APIOLOGY, or CORRECTGIN, for these LIES either. Look at how LAZy your modern "journalist" is, as well as how dishoenst .This ws the FOURTH time, since mid-February, that the media used this FALSE headline, based on the sAME previus mid-Febrary low of 351,0000. The previous 3 times the REVISIN the nextg Thursday brought the number to 351,0000, or above, making the previus week's headlines FALSE (and making the sAME headline available to use again on the SAME numbers (to be proven false the next Thursday, but then available yet AGAIN to "recycle" on same 351,000 low). Actually, the same thing SHOULD have happened with the 339,0000 number. That number "jumped" from a supposed 4-year low that week to a YEARLY HIGH the next week (392,0000) . This was all obviusly absurd, as this blog's article TOLD you (in advance). Big "glitch", but not even in the "seasonal adjustment" (as these gllitches often are). Note that if you AVERAGE the 392,0000 and the 342,0000, yu get right around the 365,0000-375,000 level that this number has been at for WEEKS (including this week) . The problem was in the COUNT, and itg should have been REVISED (by more than 25,000), the next week (again making the same headline available for a FIFTH time this year to the media). .The Labor Dept. obviusly did not REVISE the 342,000 number becaue the Labor Dept. is DISHONEST, realized that this made it clearr that the Labor Dept. COULD, and DID, put out FALSE numbers from time to time (calling into questin that 7,8%, and whatever lie may occur tomorrow).
What happened, as the Labor Dept. admitted (but without the massive scandal and corrections that should have resulted)? CALIFORNIA. What happened was that the number of claims filed in California--in whole or in part--was NOT included in the 339,0000 nu8mber. They were NOT COUNTED. That meant the 339,000 number, AND the revised 342,000 number, were obviusly FALSE. Was there some sort of "grand conspiracy"? Probably not, although maybe somebody in the media shuld lOOK into WHY there are no "checks and balances" to keep this frm hapening, and at least figure uot that the media Big Lie of reporting the Labor Dept. numbers as always "real" is indefensible on their part. How could a whole STATE, or a major part of it, NOT BE CUNTED? These numbers MOVE MARKETS (allthough they should NOT, except OVER TIME, but Wall Street peoople are The Stupidest People on Earth). Nevertheless, this was an error in the COUNT, and it shuld have caused a REVISOIN in the FALSE 342,000 number (lack of such a revisoin meaning that a new weekly nummber has to fall below 342,000 to enable our dishoenst media to recycle this same headline yet again). What this makes clear, as the Labor Dept. has implicitly ADMITTED, is that DISTORTING a FEW NUMBERS (or one or two sources) can have a MAJOR effet on the overal lnumber. What if Califonia VOTE was simply NOT COUNTED, and even left out of the electoral college?. Yet, our dishoenst media keeps reporting these Labor Dept. numbers as if they can't be challenged. WRONG. nothing is more obvius that that it is EASY to DISTORT these weekly AND monthly numbers from the Labor Dept. One individual, or a few individuals, can do it. Really, how did the Labor Dept. LOSE CALIFORNIA, withut anyone NOTICING?
Okay. It is obviusly more than possible that the Labor Dept. put out FALSE numbers, as this California debacle proved. But it is MORE OBVIUS that the 7.8% unemplyment rate wsa FALSE than it is that the 339,000 was false (even though that wsa so obvius I said so immediately). Since Obama has been President, there has been NO MONTH in which we have "added" 873,0000 jobs. That is FOUR to EIGHT times the usual number, and about EIGHT times the "official" number of new jobs "added" for September (114,000). Is not the 873,000 number OBVISLY FALSE, and thuse so is the 7,8% unemployment rate? Of course it is. The 339,000 was at least within "shouting" distance of the yearly low (that 351,0000). *73,000, is not within even "shouting distance" of a reasonable number on jobs added for September. This is only possible because the unemplyment RATE is based on a POLL; the "household survey", which is DIFFERENT frm the "employer survey" used to give you the offical number os "jobs added" (that 114,0000). No. It is DISHONEST to take a nubmer this obviusly false and treat it seriusly. Again, if the Labor Dept. had any "checks and balances", this kind ofnumber would not be accepted without extensive verificatin. All in all, there is just no doubt taht the Labor Dept. is dishoenst. There has never been any dubt that our media is compaosed of some of the most dishoenst people who hve ever lived (and some of the most LAZY, INCOMPETENT and COWARDLY, and I specifically include the people of the unfair and unbalanced network). It is not a matter of "grand conspiracy". It is a matter of putting out OBVIOUSLY FALSE nubmers as if tehy should be taken seriusly.
Our GDPP "growth" has been STUCK at 2% or less this WHOLE YER. That is not enough to lower the unemplyment rate. And, if yu disregard the 7.8%, as you shuld, the rate has STAYED THE SAME this entire year (8.3% to 8.1%). Jobless claims (new unemplyment claims) have been in a RANGE of 351,0000 to392,000 this ENTIRE YEAR, and they are still in about the MIDDLE of that range (STUCK). No. it is NOT like we have had recent "improvemetn", with simplly a "bounce" in the last month or two. From mid-January to mid-March, the range was basically 351,0000-365,0000. We are NOW at the very TOP of that range, or above. The weeky number has bounced around this year, with nO TREND and NO IMPROVEMENT. Conclusin: the whole EcoNOMY is STUCK. Even if the 7.8% were true, that is still so. The unempllyment rate is notoriously a number of not htat much meaning, and going "down" from 8.3% to 7.8% (maybe just discouraged workers) is not meaningful. "Jobs added" (also REVISED every month) have been UNDER 150,000 for a number of months, and the number has NOT IMPROVED since we first reached above 1000,000 (in 2010). This blog has told you that our economy is STALLED, because it is true. ALL of these numbers ONLY mean something OVER TIME, and to the extent they are consistent with one another. That is how our dishoenst media should be lookng at them, but they are dishoenst and lazy (plus ratings obsessed, meaning they stay away from numbers than cannot be put in a headline upon which THEY all agree, even though these headlines are FALSE).
Of course Obama has failed on the economy. What is worse is that there is no indicaitn at all theat he will do any better if he gets four more years. Readers of this blog know that I don't think Mitt Romney will do much better, either, becaue he is a Big Government Guy. Romney's "case" is really that he can MANAGE Big Government better. You now what? Romney is REIGHT aobut that, but I think that is the WRONG APPROACH. I would not be voting for Romney, except that Obama showed me he should not be President in his reacitn to the terror attack in Libya. Still, I have always had to agree with most of my brothers, that we KNOW Obama will be a disaster. There is a CHANCE Romney will be better. Problem: If Romney is NOT better, who will be BLAMED? Right CONNSERVATIVES. Romney is no conservative. Media and Obama waver beteen calling Romney "flip-flopper" and "consevative extremist" (lol). There really is no mystery here. Romney is a MANAGER (a good one, by al accounts), while Obama is a LEFDITS IDEOLOGUE. Obama is much more "extremist" than Romeny, even though Obama denies his own words constantly. But it is true that you shuld KNOW where Obama is coming from: the magic wand theory of government, where all you have to do is wave a government magic wand (wht Obama, saysome WORDS), and the problem is "solved". But Obama does have a "leftist philosopy". I don't think Romney has any real "philosophy" at all. Even on taxes, is romey REALLY against "taxing the rich"? If you LISTEN (even in tghe primaries), you cannot be sure. Again, Romney is a MANAGER, and he is perfectly willing to 'manage" Big Government, so long as you don't expect him to buy into lefitst ideology.
Into politics, at the end, but the electin IS upojn us. My analysis of the weekly and monthly jobs numbers is still the best you will gbet anywhere,outside of a really techniical analysis (which often will lie). Any bets on whether the dishoenst Labor Dept. will present obviusly false numbers tomorrow? You KNOW, from this blog, that the numbres will NOT be "concrete", but very subjectgive. But will that be as OBVIUSLY FALSE as last month, and that absurd 342,0000 weekly jobless claims number? Youu will see tomorrow. I will try to give you my conslusive analysis. Modest, aren't I?
P.S .No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment