Have youi noticed that "data" AND headlines have REPEATED in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 (now) EVERY one of those years the weekly AND monthly employment data "improved" in January-March, and our media headlines proclaimed a 'steady", IMPROVING "turnarund" in "hiring" (the labor market). In 2010, 2011 and 2012, the headlines turned out to be FALSE, as the data DETERIORATED into spring and summer.
What is happening here? First, the Labor Dept. is DISHOENST. Read my articles over all of these years, and ou can't come to any other conclusion. Notice that the Labor Dept. CHANGES the basis for the weekly and monthly calculatins ata the beginning of each year. These are not "concrfete" numbers, despite LYUING "journalists" who report them that way, but "seasonally adjusted" numbers. There is no dbout that the "seasonal adjustment" has been SKEWED in January and February of EVERY year since 2010. Then there remains the CONSISTENT Labor Dept. 'reporting' of about a 3,0000 ERROR in new unemplyment claims every Thursday: NEVER "down" (except once, proving the rule of dishonesty), but always up. Recently, the dishonest peole of the Labor Dept. had managed to have little or no error when the number of new unemplyment claims was "favorable", but the usual ERROR when claims were not so favorable (making thme look slightly better). This new pattern changed last Thursday, when new unemplyment claims were reported at a "favorable" 340,0000, but the previus week was REVISED up the usual 3,0000, to 347,0000.
See my previous articles in this blog this year. Notice that the major "pattern" continues. There have now been FVE Thursdays in the past 12 where claims were reported near 340,0000, and SEVEN (in the past 12 weeks) where clakms were reorted arund 365,0000. IMOSSIBLE. This kind of "pattern" of INCONSISTENT numbers cannot be REAL. It is false.
"But, Gordon, you are turning into a conspiracy nut." Not so. No "conspiracy" is necessary. All that is necessary is for INDIVIDUAL Labor Dept. peole to "slant" SUBJECATIVE formulas and numbers. Evidence is that is what they have done. Doubt me? Look at the "sequester"!!! Look at all of those SEPARATE agencies which have LIED about the effect of the sequester. Labor, for one, about those "teachers" being given "pink slips". Homeland Security. The White House itself. Agriculture had a MEMO telling employees to make sure that "cuts" HURT in ways obvius to the public. White Houe tours (lol). Did this REQUIRE some sort of giant "conspiracy"? Of course not. There did not have to be any kind of big "meeting' to coordinate a sonspiracy of lies. Now I don't doubt lthere are a number of "small" conspiracies gong on involving the sequester. But are you really naive enough to believe that Federal government officials, and even "ordinary" higher level eployees, can't figure out that their BUDGET may depend on people feeling PAIN from the "seqauester", so that it doesn't continue? And you can't possbily be naive enough--stupid enough--to belive that EVERYONE in the Obama Administratin did not get the message to highlight maximum PAIN from the sequester--even if yo need to be dishoenst. Nope. These sequester "games" PROVE that the Labor Dept, and all of the rest of the Federal Government, are DISHOENST. Why shuld you belive they are honest on these "job" statistics". Again, the evidence is otherwise.
Look at the monthly job numbers. Supposedly, job "gtains" have ACCELEARTED over the past 4 months, even as GDP was FLAT ("up" .1%, or effectively ZERO) in the 4th quarter. Again, these numbers are IMPOSSIBLE. They cannot all be correct.
Then take another look at those monthly job numbers. 89,304,0000 Americans are no longer in the labor force--not even looknig for work: A RECORD. The number of Americans in the labor force FELL 296,0000 since January, despite the supposed "gains" in jobs. These numbers do not compute with the supposed "improving" numbers. Even FOOD STAMP numbers are inconsistent, as the number of people on food stamps keep gong up (now over 50 milin). Again, 89 MILLIN peole are no longer even part of the "labor force" in America. yes, this includes retirees, but it also includes many other people who have obviusly figured out how NOT TO WORK, and be dependent on the government. Nope. There are NOt enough "younger peole" to keep suporting this overhang of peole not in the labor force. Now IF this was because WOMEN had suddenly--smartly--decided that they SHOULD be housewives, this MIGHT not be so bad. Dream on. Remember DISABILITY claims are SKYROCKETING, and my "explanatin" is the correct one: too many people are figuring out how NOT to work (at least "on the books"), and how to be dependent on the Federal Government.
Tomorrow, we will agian get the Thursday release of the number of new unemplyment claims for the previus week, as well as the revision of the 340,000 number released last Thursday. See if you can anticipate me, and see how the number makes no sense (as it almsot cannot, given the past 12 weeks).
Note, by the way, just how BADLY media headlines LIE. Notice that the weekly number of new unemplyment claims STARTED off the year at 335,0000 and 330,000 (numbers for the first two FULL weeks of January). Waht do you observe from these numbers (as I channel my inner Sherlock Holmes)? The number has NOT IMPROVEED since lthose first two weeks. In fact, you could say that the number of new unemplyment claims has DETERIORATED since the beginning of the year. This is the SAME thing that happned in 2010, 2011 and 2012, when FEBRUARY (generally January-March) was ALWAYS a "good" month--usually lower than the previus year, although hat is hardly true for 2013, as to Feb. AVERAGE--only to see the number DETERIORATE later in the year. Remember, it is numbers WITHIN the year that can best be "compared", becasue of possible changes in "adjustment" formulas. 2010, 2011 and 2012: ALL of those years showed a DETERIORATIN as the year went on, and NO IMPROVEMENT over the course of the year (even if some SMALL "improvement" from the previus year).
Federal Government is becoming so dishonest generally that these numbers are really becoming almost worthless. But I will continue to point out the inconsistencies and dishonesty as we go into the year. Note that private payroll processor ADP HAS shown SOME "improvement" in monthly emplylment numbers. But ADP numbers are ONLY cited when they FIT the AGENDA of the media. I hae not followed the ADP numbers enough to analyze how inconsistent they may be. They, too, are not "concrete" numbers. I thik I will start paying a little more attentin, as I now KNOW that the Labor Dept. is DISHONEST (PROVEN in the "sequester" matter, and in my previus articles).
P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). New unemplyment claim numbers for last 12 weeks (that impossible series): 362,000; 362,000; 367,000; 372,000; 335,0000 (lol); 330,0000 (lol); 371,000; 366,0000; 342,000; 364,0000; 347,0000; 340,0000 You can look back at previus articles to see if I have gotten any of these SLIGHTLY wrong fro memory, but I promise yu that this is an accurate repreentatin of the IMPOSSIBLE series of numbers: imossible because the REAL "labor market does nto fluctuate like this, or is not SUPPOSED to so fluctuate with the "seasonal adjustment". Woiuld we be better off with NO "seasonal adjustment", and just reporting of RAW number? I think so I KNOW it is DISHONEST not to report BOTH the "raw" number and the "adjusted" number, because it really is not ture that one is more 'news" than the other. "Raw" number, in fact, represents a CHECK on the adjusted number, and ANY real "journalist" would report it PROMINENTLY. "Real" "journalists" no longer exist, if they ever did.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Marketwatch.com Some of the Most Dishonest People Who Have Ever Lived
See the previus two articles. Then realize that Marketwatch.com announced that today's announced "drop" in new unemplyment claims "suggests" "continued gains" in the labor market. This is after Marketwatch DISMISSED lasst week's RISE in new unempllyment claims as "suggesting" "slow, stady" "improvement" in the labor market. Message to Marketwatch: You peole are as DISHOENST as they come. Yu could LEARN something by reading my previus tw article: that is, you could if you were not some of the most dishoenst people hwo have ever lived. These "drops" are ure FICTION, and the wole series of numbers since the beginning of this eyar makes that obvius. IF yoiu did "believe" these nubmers, then the labor market has gotten WORSE since the two first full weeks of this year, when the number of new unemplyhment lcaims was reported as 335,0000 and 330,0000 respectively
But you LIARS at Marketwatch don't care that this is all absurd. You are that dishoenst.
But you LIARS at Marketwatch don't care that this is all absurd. You are that dishoenst.
Labor Dept. Dishonesty/Incompetence on New Unemployment Claims Continues
See previus article, and see how prescient--foresight, not hindsight--I have been again. I continue to note that the REVISON of new unemplyment claims the following week proves lthe DISHONESTY of the Labor Department as conclusively as such a thing can be proved. Look at what I said in the previus article about the CURIUS pattern in Labor Dept. REVISIONS. Not only is the revisin almost never DOWN, but recently the revision has consistently been LARGER the higher the initial number was (when the INCENTIVE to be DISHOENST is greatest, because neer-corrected headlines are least unfavorable).
Thus, I essentailly PREDICTED in the previus article that last week's reported number of new unemplyment clams (362,0000) would be likely REVISED UPWARD by moe than has been common with lower numbers. The thre "lowest" numbers this year (335,0000, 330,0000, and 342,0000) were hardly revised at all (the 342,0000 being revised only 1,0000 from initial 341,0000, and other two not being revised at all) . Today, last week's 362,0000 was revised UPWARD 4,0000, to 366,0000, meaning the DISHOIENST media headlines said there was a "drop" of 22,0000, when the previus week's headlines LIED about a rise of "only" 20,00000, when the rise was reallly 24,0000 (if any of these numbers can be believed, which they can't).
Last 4 weeks: 368,0000, 342,0000, 366,0000, 3444,0000. Those 4 numbers alone are IMPOSSIBLE (as far as representing any kind of reality) . Look at the previus article, and realize that the last ELEVEN weeks have SEVEN numbers clustered around 365,0000 (not even in connected weeks), and FOUR weeks with the number of new unemplyment claims clustered around 340,0000. Impossible. It is like the Labor Dept. is looking at two different counties on some weeks. No way these numbers can be reconciled. They are simply WRONG: at least for the 4 weeks out of step with the others.
No. I have quit pussyfooting around. To me, this is about DISHONESTY, and our Labor Dept. is dishoenst.
By the way, I was confirmed RIGHT on GDP. Number was "revised" to "growth" of .1% from DECLNE of .1%. But wht did I TELL you was the CORRAECT headline? This one: "GDP flatlines in 4th quarter." That is what I told you: that there would be a "revisoin" of that 4th quarter GDP number, but that it did not matter, because these numbers are not nearly exct enough for there to be any difference between a SMALL decline and a SMALL "growth" number. Indeed, even if numbers were EXACT, there is NO real difference between a "decline" of .1% and "growth" of .1%. If you se ANYONE implying there is any SUBSTANTIVE difference in significance, then yoiu know that person is DISHONEST.
P.S No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).
Thus, I essentailly PREDICTED in the previus article that last week's reported number of new unemplyment clams (362,0000) would be likely REVISED UPWARD by moe than has been common with lower numbers. The thre "lowest" numbers this year (335,0000, 330,0000, and 342,0000) were hardly revised at all (the 342,0000 being revised only 1,0000 from initial 341,0000, and other two not being revised at all) . Today, last week's 362,0000 was revised UPWARD 4,0000, to 366,0000, meaning the DISHOIENST media headlines said there was a "drop" of 22,0000, when the previus week's headlines LIED about a rise of "only" 20,00000, when the rise was reallly 24,0000 (if any of these numbers can be believed, which they can't).
Last 4 weeks: 368,0000, 342,0000, 366,0000, 3444,0000. Those 4 numbers alone are IMPOSSIBLE (as far as representing any kind of reality) . Look at the previus article, and realize that the last ELEVEN weeks have SEVEN numbers clustered around 365,0000 (not even in connected weeks), and FOUR weeks with the number of new unemplyment claims clustered around 340,0000. Impossible. It is like the Labor Dept. is looking at two different counties on some weeks. No way these numbers can be reconciled. They are simply WRONG: at least for the 4 weeks out of step with the others.
No. I have quit pussyfooting around. To me, this is about DISHONESTY, and our Labor Dept. is dishoenst.
By the way, I was confirmed RIGHT on GDP. Number was "revised" to "growth" of .1% from DECLNE of .1%. But wht did I TELL you was the CORRAECT headline? This one: "GDP flatlines in 4th quarter." That is what I told you: that there would be a "revisoin" of that 4th quarter GDP number, but that it did not matter, because these numbers are not nearly exct enough for there to be any difference between a SMALL decline and a SMALL "growth" number. Indeed, even if numbers were EXACT, there is NO real difference between a "decline" of .1% and "growth" of .1%. If you se ANYONE implying there is any SUBSTANTIVE difference in significance, then yoiu know that person is DISHONEST.
P.S No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
New Unemployment Claims: Labor Dept./Media Dishonesty and Incompetence Continue
Read the previus article, and realize again that I am simply never wrong. The IMPOSSIBLE series of weekly numbers on new unemplyment claims continues. Here is the incredible, absurd record of the last 10 weeks: 362,000, 362,000, 367,000, 372,000, 335,000 (lol), 330,000 (lol), 371,000, 368,000, 342,000 (lol), and 362,000 (to be REVISED tomorrow). Thus, we have SEVEN weeks (not even together) with an AVERAGE of 365,000, and the weekly numbers not varying much from the "average". But we have THREE weeks (total FICTION--again not even together) with an average of about 335,000, with the 3 weekly numbers very close to the "average". To call this "impossible" is to be KIND. It is absurd, and I am wiling to flatly cal lit DISHOENST. Media reporting of these absurd "bounces" (based on a subjective, very fallible "seasonal adjustment") is beyond dishoenst. Labor Dept. gets great headlines on those weeks that we have a FICTIONAL large drop, and then dismissive headlines when the number jumps back up. Nope. There is no way the labor market is actually "fluctuating" like this. If you beleive that, apply at the nenearest "news" media location. You will fit right in: stupid and dishoenst.
Doubt me? You shuld know better. Here is Marketwatch.com/mainstream media "lead" about 20,000 plus (remember revision tomorrow) jump in new unemplyment claims reorted last Thursday (342,000 to 362,0000, after supposed "drop" of 26,000 (lol) the previus Thursday.--gain, this yo-yo bounce up and down is absurd, and indicates either ALL of the numbers are totally unreliable/dishonest or that SOME (those three aberrational weeks) are hopelessly absurd.): "New unemplyment claims reversed drop of previus week, but still suggest slow, BUT STEADY, improvment in the labor market". I kid you not. That was the LEAD as to last weeks's number: "The number of new unemplyment claims reversed the drop of the previuos week, but still suggested a slow, STEADY improvement in the labor market." Review those ten weeks of numbers I quote above. STEADY? Today's "journalists" have to be among the biggest LIARS who have ever lived.
Any statistician wuld tell you that you have to THROW OUT those namalous 3 weeks. That leaves you with new unemplylment claims averaging 365,000. How does that comopare with LAST February? Ah. Last February, new unemplyment claims were CONSISTENLTY between 351,0000 and 355,000 (or so), and the range of new unemplyment claims from about mid-January of 2012 to mid-March of 2012 was 351,0000-365,0000. This blog has told you how these numbers must be interpreted: NO IMPROVEMENT in more than a year. Not only is there no STEADY "improvement", but there has been NO "improvement' in more than a YEAR.
Tomorrow, Thursday, we will get the weekly number of new unemplyment claims again (for last week), as well as a REVISIN of the 363,0000 reported last Thursday (for the previus week, as always). Note a curius thing: The REVISION of the LOWER numbers has been almost nothing, whikle the REVISON of the higher numbers has been generally the conistent UPWARD revison of usually 3,0000 or more. Thus, the 330,0000 and 335,0000 were not "revised" at all, while lat week's 342,0000 REVISED number was only an upward revison of 1,0000. There has only ONCE been a DOWNWARD revisoin of the weekly number in living memory. This CONSISTENT "revision" of the number in only one directin has always indicated DISHONESTY. And having a consistent larger "revision" upward for HIGHER (more unfavorable headline) numbers indicates BLATANT DISHONESTY. We will see tomorrow whether that trend continues, and whether last week's 362,0000 wil be revised upward more substantially than the 330,00, 335,0000 and 341,0000 were revised.
The "suspense" is killing me What LIES will the Labor Dept, and our "jurnalists", tell tomorrow? Will the number of new unemplyment claims again "drop" 20,0000 or more, in another "reversal"? Will we again get a nuber EITHER above 360,0000 or below 345,0000, with no "middle' ground (indicating GROSS error in the "seasonal adjustment" calculatin)? We will see.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight) Yes, I know That one sentence above was awfully convoluted, which is why I repeated the dishonest "lead" from last week's media dishonsty about "slow, steady improvement' (lol). But my eyesight is just not good enoubh to correct the sentence with all of those asides and parentheses. So I left it. Let it be a challegning puzzle for you, for which I am not even charging you.
Doubt me? You shuld know better. Here is Marketwatch.com/mainstream media "lead" about 20,000 plus (remember revision tomorrow) jump in new unemplyment claims reorted last Thursday (342,000 to 362,0000, after supposed "drop" of 26,000 (lol) the previus Thursday.--gain, this yo-yo bounce up and down is absurd, and indicates either ALL of the numbers are totally unreliable/dishonest or that SOME (those three aberrational weeks) are hopelessly absurd.): "New unemplyment claims reversed drop of previus week, but still suggest slow, BUT STEADY, improvment in the labor market". I kid you not. That was the LEAD as to last weeks's number: "The number of new unemplyment claims reversed the drop of the previuos week, but still suggested a slow, STEADY improvement in the labor market." Review those ten weeks of numbers I quote above. STEADY? Today's "journalists" have to be among the biggest LIARS who have ever lived.
Any statistician wuld tell you that you have to THROW OUT those namalous 3 weeks. That leaves you with new unemplylment claims averaging 365,000. How does that comopare with LAST February? Ah. Last February, new unemplyment claims were CONSISTENLTY between 351,0000 and 355,000 (or so), and the range of new unemplyment claims from about mid-January of 2012 to mid-March of 2012 was 351,0000-365,0000. This blog has told you how these numbers must be interpreted: NO IMPROVEMENT in more than a year. Not only is there no STEADY "improvement", but there has been NO "improvement' in more than a YEAR.
Tomorrow, Thursday, we will get the weekly number of new unemplyment claims again (for last week), as well as a REVISIN of the 363,0000 reported last Thursday (for the previus week, as always). Note a curius thing: The REVISION of the LOWER numbers has been almost nothing, whikle the REVISON of the higher numbers has been generally the conistent UPWARD revison of usually 3,0000 or more. Thus, the 330,0000 and 335,0000 were not "revised" at all, while lat week's 342,0000 REVISED number was only an upward revison of 1,0000. There has only ONCE been a DOWNWARD revisoin of the weekly number in living memory. This CONSISTENT "revision" of the number in only one directin has always indicated DISHONESTY. And having a consistent larger "revision" upward for HIGHER (more unfavorable headline) numbers indicates BLATANT DISHONESTY. We will see tomorrow whether that trend continues, and whether last week's 362,0000 wil be revised upward more substantially than the 330,00, 335,0000 and 341,0000 were revised.
The "suspense" is killing me What LIES will the Labor Dept, and our "jurnalists", tell tomorrow? Will the number of new unemplyment claims again "drop" 20,0000 or more, in another "reversal"? Will we again get a nuber EITHER above 360,0000 or below 345,0000, with no "middle' ground (indicating GROSS error in the "seasonal adjustment" calculatin)? We will see.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight) Yes, I know That one sentence above was awfully convoluted, which is why I repeated the dishonest "lead" from last week's media dishonsty about "slow, steady improvement' (lol). But my eyesight is just not good enoubh to correct the sentence with all of those asides and parentheses. So I left it. Let it be a challegning puzzle for you, for which I am not even charging you.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Jobs and New Unemployment Claims: Labor Dept./Media Dishonesty/Incompetence Continue
See previus articles on this subject over past several weeks. Dead on, as usual. Here are the reported new unemplyment claims for the past NINE weeks: 362,000, 362,000, 367,000, 372,000, 335,000 (lol), 330,000, 371,000, 368,000 and 341,0000 (to be revised tomorrow). Labor Dept. is back to CONSISTENT "revision", where the "revision" the week after the previous week's number is reported is ALWAYS in one directin: UP. Thus, last Thursday, the previus week's reported 366,0000 was revised upward 2,0000, to 368,000. But look at the NINE numbers, and you can see the main problem here. This "series" is IMPOSSIBLE (as far as representing real events).
For SIX of the past NINE reported weeks, the number of new unemplylment claims has averaged above 365,0000, with not much variation from that average. For THREE of the past NINE reported weeks, the number of new unemlyment claims has averaged 335,000, again with little variatin from the average in the three individual weeks. But the six weeks and the three weeks are not even CONNECTED. Thus, you can't even hypothesize that some "major" event, or major change in calculatin, happened to cause either the job market or the calculatin to shift suddenly. In mathematics/physics, this kind of anamalous dta points are called "discontinuities". In other words, there is NO "rend" curve that can really fitin these "breaks" in the data. It actaully seems that the Labor Dept. is doing somethign DIFFERENT in the six weeks than it is in the three weeks. In all events, these numbers--especailly the "breaks" toward 335,0000--must be regarded as FICTION. Needless to say, our DISHOENST mediais not quite reporting it this way, even though Marketwatch.com called the 335,000 and 330,0000 numbers "seasonal quirks". Trnaslatin: Labor Dept. ERRORS in the "seasonal adjustment" made to the "raw" number of new unemplylent claims reported each weeek. This "seasonal adjustment"is why each week's number is a FALLIBLE, SUBJECTIVE ESTIMATE, rather than a "concrete", "counting" number. Failure of media to make this clear EVERY WWK is an Orwellian Big Lie. At best, weekly numbers have real significance only OVRE TIME. But are they becoming so UNRELIABLE, due to incompetence/dishonesty, as to be now USELESS. The longer these obvius discontinuities continue, the more that is the only sensible conclusion. At the very least, someone needs to EXPLAIN exaclty WHY we have one grouop of weekly numbers clustered around one number, and another group of weekly numbers (lesser number, to be sure, so far) clustered arund a far diferent number. Sure, the "seasonal adjustment" is obviusly ERRONEUS, and out of whack, but WHY--and why in exactly this peculiar pattern.
Tomorrow, the Labor Dept. again reports the number of weekly new unemplyment claims (for last week), as well as the revision to the 341,0000 reported last week. We are at a pont where NO number will realy make sense, in terms of the numbers for the past nine weeks. But a number EITHER above 360,000 or below 345,0000 would continue this year's STRANGE, impossible sequence of numbers. No. I don't think a number of, say, 350,0000 would make the last nine weeks make sense. NOTHING can do that. It would just make the SERIES look less ABSURD. Al the Labor Dept. can really do now is have the FUTURE series of numbers seem to fit some kind of trend. Last nine weeks are hopeless, and discredit Labor Dept. Media has long been discredited.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight), other than I try to recheck NUMBERS as carefully as I can, and ut in enough redundancy that you can spot obvius typing error.
For SIX of the past NINE reported weeks, the number of new unemplylment claims has averaged above 365,0000, with not much variation from that average. For THREE of the past NINE reported weeks, the number of new unemlyment claims has averaged 335,000, again with little variatin from the average in the three individual weeks. But the six weeks and the three weeks are not even CONNECTED. Thus, you can't even hypothesize that some "major" event, or major change in calculatin, happened to cause either the job market or the calculatin to shift suddenly. In mathematics/physics, this kind of anamalous dta points are called "discontinuities". In other words, there is NO "rend" curve that can really fitin these "breaks" in the data. It actaully seems that the Labor Dept. is doing somethign DIFFERENT in the six weeks than it is in the three weeks. In all events, these numbers--especailly the "breaks" toward 335,0000--must be regarded as FICTION. Needless to say, our DISHOENST mediais not quite reporting it this way, even though Marketwatch.com called the 335,000 and 330,0000 numbers "seasonal quirks". Trnaslatin: Labor Dept. ERRORS in the "seasonal adjustment" made to the "raw" number of new unemplylent claims reported each weeek. This "seasonal adjustment"is why each week's number is a FALLIBLE, SUBJECTIVE ESTIMATE, rather than a "concrete", "counting" number. Failure of media to make this clear EVERY WWK is an Orwellian Big Lie. At best, weekly numbers have real significance only OVRE TIME. But are they becoming so UNRELIABLE, due to incompetence/dishonesty, as to be now USELESS. The longer these obvius discontinuities continue, the more that is the only sensible conclusion. At the very least, someone needs to EXPLAIN exaclty WHY we have one grouop of weekly numbers clustered around one number, and another group of weekly numbers (lesser number, to be sure, so far) clustered arund a far diferent number. Sure, the "seasonal adjustment" is obviusly ERRONEUS, and out of whack, but WHY--and why in exactly this peculiar pattern.
Tomorrow, the Labor Dept. again reports the number of weekly new unemplyment claims (for last week), as well as the revision to the 341,0000 reported last week. We are at a pont where NO number will realy make sense, in terms of the numbers for the past nine weeks. But a number EITHER above 360,000 or below 345,0000 would continue this year's STRANGE, impossible sequence of numbers. No. I don't think a number of, say, 350,0000 would make the last nine weeks make sense. NOTHING can do that. It would just make the SERIES look less ABSURD. Al the Labor Dept. can really do now is have the FUTURE series of numbers seem to fit some kind of trend. Last nine weeks are hopeless, and discredit Labor Dept. Media has long been discredited.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight), other than I try to recheck NUMBERS as carefully as I can, and ut in enough redundancy that you can spot obvius typing error.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Obama Fails on Jobs: Labor Dept./Media Dishonesty/Incompetence Continues
Last 8 weeks of REPRTED (as adjusted) new unemplylment claims from Labor Dept., going from older to most recent week: 362,000; 362,000; 367,000; 372,000; 335,000 (lol); 330,000 (lol); 371,000; and 366,000 (to be REVISED tomorrow). Read my previus article, or my articles over the previus tow YEARS (at least), and see how accurate I have been, IN FORESIGHT.
The above sequence of numbers is, of course, IMPOSSIBLE (as far as reflecting reality). And it is the 335,0000 and 330,0000 that are ou of step with the othe numbers. Note, hoever, that what hoses FICTITIOUIS numbers created were HEADLINES of a "5-year low" in new unemplyment claims, which was an UNCORRECTED LIE, since the numbers were NOT REAL.
Even mainstream media business sites like Marketwatch.com (whose people I have correctly called liars) recognize that the 335,0000 and 330,0000 were FANTASY numbers. Thre is no way that the "labor market" "dipped" for just those two weeks, and no way new unemplyment claims "dropped" 37,0000 one week, and then ROSE 41,000 2 weeks later. Statistically impossible, absent some major event (like Sandy) that did not occur. As stated, even Marketwatch said this had to be a "seasonal qurik". What is a "seasonal quirk"/ It is an ERROR in the Labor Dept. "seasonal adjustment, either because of a disruption/change in the usual seasonal pattern or because Labor Dept. simply MISCALCULATED (incompetence or dishonesty). There is no doubt about the media, which refuses to report these weekly new unemplyument numbers for the FALLIBLE, SUBJECTIVE ESTIMATES they are, meaningful ONLY OVER TIME. What is clear--throwing out the obvious FICTIONS of those two aberrational weeks--is that we have returned to the SAME range of new unemplyment claims that occurred for ALL of 2012 (abesnt Sandy related aberratins and that one week where Labor Dept. simply neglected to COUNT California): 351,0000-392,0000. You will again note that we are almost EXACTLY in the MIDDLE of this range, meaning NO "improvement' in the labor market for at least a YEAR. Indeed, from mid-January to about mid-March of 2f012, the range of new unemplyment claims was about 350,0000-365,0000. We are now ABOVE the TOP of thqat range.
Notice that I was also right that there is something CURIOUS (suspicious to the point of obvious dishonesty) in the 335,000 and 330,0000 numbers for those two weeks. As I informed you in the previus article, and over the past YEAR, the Labor Department's INITIAL report of the weekly number of new unemplyment claims is almost ALWAYS REVISED UP, usually by 3,0000. Until ONE time more than a month ago, the number had ot been "revised" DOWN in FOREVER. It has been SLIGHTLY more common for there to be NO CHANGE, but that has been UNUSUAL. Taht is what is more than crious. BOTH the 335,0000 and the 330,0000 were UNCHANGED when the "revision" was announced the next week. I have trouble imagining how that happened without some kind of dishonesty. Then came the "jump" from 3330,0000 to 368,0000, a supposed rise by 38,0000. EXCEPT, suddenly the REVISON went ack to the former 3,0000, and the REVISED number (second to last number in quoted series) was 371,0000, or a rise of 41,00000. That made the series lok even WORSE, and the Labor Dept. had an obvius incentive to keep the HEADLINES as tame as possible. Note that such incentive did NOT exisxt as to the 335,0000 and 330,0000, because those numbers were SUSPICIOUISLY LOW (in fact, erroneous, although no correction will ever be made).
So what about last week's reported 366,0000? Will the REVISED number to be released tomorrow AGAIN revert to the same DISHONESTY of a CONSISTENT "revision" in only one directin, and by a remarkably consistent amount? We wil see. Note, also, that the number of new unemplyment claims to be initially reported tomorrow is a prolbem for the Labo Dept. No, It is NOT a problem for our DISHOENST MEDIA, because hey have NO SHAME. They just ignore problems and inconsistencies with these nubmers, to extent they can. But what if number released tomorrow is again 335,0000 or less? Aain, that would be an IMPOSSIBLE number, merely highlighting the ABSURDITY of this series of numbers. In contrast, if the number of new unemplment claims initially reorted tomorrow (to be revised, remember, the followng week) goes UP, it merely highights how ABSURD the 335,0000 and 330,0000 weeks were. It is almsot impossible for the Labor Dept. to avoid looking BAD: at best, incompetent; and, at worst, dishonest and incompetent. "Best" for the Labor Dept. would probably be a "drop to 350,0000 or so, which wuld at least make a further "drop" in future weeks more plausible. NOTHING can save the media here. Over the past YEARS, I have DOCUMENTED media DISHONESTY and INCOMPETENCE so obvius and extreme that media relporting on these numbers has to be regarded as a JOKE. NOTHING can save the 'reputatin" (lol) of "journalists" on these weekly new unemplyment claim numbers. Note, again, that this blog REPORTED the OBVIUS when the number of new unemplyment claims "dropped" to that 50year low of 335,00000 so abruptly: number was OBVIUS FICTIN, and to treat it as "news" to be taken at face value was ABSURD Yet, that is exacltyl what most of the media did, and ALL of them did in those LYING HEADLINES.
Is there ANY number of new unemplyment claims that could be released tomorrow that wuld have much meaning? This is a TRICK QUESTIN. The Big Lie in reporting these weekly numbers is that they are CONCRETE, COUNTING numbers where ONE WEEK means much. The ONLY significance of tomorrow's released number is how it FITS in the SERIES of weekly numbers OVER TIME. Thus, it means more an more the longer we STAY in that same RANGE we have been in for over a YER. But if we have some sort of MAJOR move (up or down), that will be very SUSPECT (unless and until future weeks show new trend, and even then a supposed "drop" OR "rise' of 35,0000 or 40,0000 tomorrow has to be regarded as FICTIN (basent some very coonvincing "explanatin" of why such a sudden CHANGE is REAL).
I say again that we already KNOW that the supposed ACCELEARTIN of "job growth" over the past 3 monts is FICTIN/FALSE. (or at least is INCONSISTENT with other data) . GDP DECLINED in the 4th quarter, and yet "job growth" in November and December supposedly ACCELEARTED. Nope. This is NOT POSSIBLE. Something is WRONG with the numbers.
P.S. Still no proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). I do try t check the typig of the numbers as closely as I can, and I repeat the numbers enough to try to make any typing error rather obvius as to any one number.
The above sequence of numbers is, of course, IMPOSSIBLE (as far as reflecting reality). And it is the 335,0000 and 330,0000 that are ou of step with the othe numbers. Note, hoever, that what hoses FICTITIOUIS numbers created were HEADLINES of a "5-year low" in new unemplyment claims, which was an UNCORRECTED LIE, since the numbers were NOT REAL.
Even mainstream media business sites like Marketwatch.com (whose people I have correctly called liars) recognize that the 335,0000 and 330,0000 were FANTASY numbers. Thre is no way that the "labor market" "dipped" for just those two weeks, and no way new unemplyment claims "dropped" 37,0000 one week, and then ROSE 41,000 2 weeks later. Statistically impossible, absent some major event (like Sandy) that did not occur. As stated, even Marketwatch said this had to be a "seasonal qurik". What is a "seasonal quirk"/ It is an ERROR in the Labor Dept. "seasonal adjustment, either because of a disruption/change in the usual seasonal pattern or because Labor Dept. simply MISCALCULATED (incompetence or dishonesty). There is no doubt about the media, which refuses to report these weekly new unemplyument numbers for the FALLIBLE, SUBJECTIVE ESTIMATES they are, meaningful ONLY OVER TIME. What is clear--throwing out the obvious FICTIONS of those two aberrational weeks--is that we have returned to the SAME range of new unemplyment claims that occurred for ALL of 2012 (abesnt Sandy related aberratins and that one week where Labor Dept. simply neglected to COUNT California): 351,0000-392,0000. You will again note that we are almost EXACTLY in the MIDDLE of this range, meaning NO "improvement' in the labor market for at least a YEAR. Indeed, from mid-January to about mid-March of 2f012, the range of new unemplyment claims was about 350,0000-365,0000. We are now ABOVE the TOP of thqat range.
Notice that I was also right that there is something CURIOUS (suspicious to the point of obvious dishonesty) in the 335,000 and 330,0000 numbers for those two weeks. As I informed you in the previus article, and over the past YEAR, the Labor Department's INITIAL report of the weekly number of new unemplyment claims is almost ALWAYS REVISED UP, usually by 3,0000. Until ONE time more than a month ago, the number had ot been "revised" DOWN in FOREVER. It has been SLIGHTLY more common for there to be NO CHANGE, but that has been UNUSUAL. Taht is what is more than crious. BOTH the 335,0000 and the 330,0000 were UNCHANGED when the "revision" was announced the next week. I have trouble imagining how that happened without some kind of dishonesty. Then came the "jump" from 3330,0000 to 368,0000, a supposed rise by 38,0000. EXCEPT, suddenly the REVISON went ack to the former 3,0000, and the REVISED number (second to last number in quoted series) was 371,0000, or a rise of 41,00000. That made the series lok even WORSE, and the Labor Dept. had an obvius incentive to keep the HEADLINES as tame as possible. Note that such incentive did NOT exisxt as to the 335,0000 and 330,0000, because those numbers were SUSPICIOUISLY LOW (in fact, erroneous, although no correction will ever be made).
So what about last week's reported 366,0000? Will the REVISED number to be released tomorrow AGAIN revert to the same DISHONESTY of a CONSISTENT "revision" in only one directin, and by a remarkably consistent amount? We wil see. Note, also, that the number of new unemplyment claims to be initially reported tomorrow is a prolbem for the Labo Dept. No, It is NOT a problem for our DISHOENST MEDIA, because hey have NO SHAME. They just ignore problems and inconsistencies with these nubmers, to extent they can. But what if number released tomorrow is again 335,0000 or less? Aain, that would be an IMPOSSIBLE number, merely highlighting the ABSURDITY of this series of numbers. In contrast, if the number of new unemplment claims initially reorted tomorrow (to be revised, remember, the followng week) goes UP, it merely highights how ABSURD the 335,0000 and 330,0000 weeks were. It is almsot impossible for the Labor Dept. to avoid looking BAD: at best, incompetent; and, at worst, dishonest and incompetent. "Best" for the Labor Dept. would probably be a "drop to 350,0000 or so, which wuld at least make a further "drop" in future weeks more plausible. NOTHING can save the media here. Over the past YEARS, I have DOCUMENTED media DISHONESTY and INCOMPETENCE so obvius and extreme that media relporting on these numbers has to be regarded as a JOKE. NOTHING can save the 'reputatin" (lol) of "journalists" on these weekly new unemplyment claim numbers. Note, again, that this blog REPORTED the OBVIUS when the number of new unemplyment claims "dropped" to that 50year low of 335,00000 so abruptly: number was OBVIUS FICTIN, and to treat it as "news" to be taken at face value was ABSURD Yet, that is exacltyl what most of the media did, and ALL of them did in those LYING HEADLINES.
Is there ANY number of new unemplyment claims that could be released tomorrow that wuld have much meaning? This is a TRICK QUESTIN. The Big Lie in reporting these weekly numbers is that they are CONCRETE, COUNTING numbers where ONE WEEK means much. The ONLY significance of tomorrow's released number is how it FITS in the SERIES of weekly numbers OVER TIME. Thus, it means more an more the longer we STAY in that same RANGE we have been in for over a YER. But if we have some sort of MAJOR move (up or down), that will be very SUSPECT (unless and until future weeks show new trend, and even then a supposed "drop" OR "rise' of 35,0000 or 40,0000 tomorrow has to be regarded as FICTIN (basent some very coonvincing "explanatin" of why such a sudden CHANGE is REAL).
I say again that we already KNOW that the supposed ACCELEARTIN of "job growth" over the past 3 monts is FICTIN/FALSE. (or at least is INCONSISTENT with other data) . GDP DECLINED in the 4th quarter, and yet "job growth" in November and December supposedly ACCELEARTED. Nope. This is NOT POSSIBLE. Something is WRONG with the numbers.
P.S. Still no proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). I do try t check the typig of the numbers as closely as I can, and I repeat the numbers enough to try to make any typing error rather obvius as to any one number.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Jobs, Obama Failure and Labor Dept./Media Dishonesty
Hee is the IMPOSSIBLE (see previous articles over past two weeks--foresight, as usual, rather than hindsight) series of numbres supposedly representing new unemplyment claims reported over the past 7 weeks: 362,0000; 362,0000; 367,0000; 372,0000; 335,000; 330,0000; and 368,000 (released last Thursday, to be REVISED in numbers released tomorrow, althugh--amazingly--number has NOT been changed the last two weeks). You do not need to be a physics major, with some training in statistics (as I was) to know that the 335,0000 and 330,0000 DO NOT FIT in this series of numbers. Even Marketwatch.com, a mainstream media buiness site where I have correctly called the people liars, was unable to accept the 330,0000, as if something MAJOR had happened in the economy that no one noticed. Only "major" deveopment is that there was NO economic growth in the 4th quarter, as the first "reading" showed GDP ws DOWN by .1% (first time in 3.5 eyrs, if later revisions confirm atual shrinkage (revisoins that only emphasize how QUESTIONABLE these numbers written on water are?). Marketwaqtch had this qukestion mark on the hedline for the 330,0000 number: "Seasonal quirk?" What is a "qurik/" It is an ERROR in the seasonal adustment by the Labor Dept., either through incompetence/dishonesty or an impossible t predict CHANGE in the usual seasonal pattern. As I have told you for YEARS, and the LIARS of the mainstgeream media (all media, really) have ignored, these weekly numbers on new unemplyment claims, as is true of ALL emplylment numbers, are SUBJECTIVE numbers MANIPULATED by various "adjustments". They are NOT "counting" numbers. They are merely FALLIBVLE ESTIMATES that really are beginning to appear totally unreliable in theis age of comuters (where too many lpeople can "massage" the numbers with a good idea of how it will affect the final numberrs, without need of any giant "conspiracy"). All of this was CONFIRMED by last Thursday's announced 368,0000 new unemplyment claims (filed in previus week), which was almost exaclty in the MIDDLE of the range of not obviuosly aberrational (as from sandy) weekly claims numbers for ALL of 2012 (range: 351,0000-392,0000). Indeed, from mid-January to about mid-March of 2012 the range was bascially 351,0000-365,00000, with 368,0000 being at TOP of that range nearly a YEAR ago in 2012, indicating NO IMPROVEMENT for an entire year). Again, the 368,0000 does not show what the "correct" numbger should be, but it is conclusive that this SERIES of numbers is FICTIN. It is more than obvius that the "job market" did NOT jump up and down the way the weekly numbers would APPER to indicate. Nope. Numbers are ERRONEOUS, and the 335,0000 and 330,0000 are especailly FICTGION resulting from Labor Dept. ERRRONEUS 'adjustments" for the first two "full" weeks of the new year.
Note that theere is ONE area (perhaps because of ME) where Labor Dept. DISHOENSTY "appears" tgo have improved. For YEARS, I have informed you taht the Labor Dept. has CONSISTENTLY REVISED the number of new unemplyment claims in ONLY one directin: UPWAORD. This meant that media HEALINES were CONSISTENTLY LIES, as they did their headlines based on the ERRONEOUS initial report, and NEVER CORRECTED the headlines. Labor Dept. had incentive to keep this LIE going, and they did. Week after weeek, month after month, the weekly number of new unmplyment claims released on one Thursday would be REVISED UPWARD (usually by 3,0000) the next Thursday. I guarantee you that this STEADY EARROR wa DISHOENST. It was not "random" "correctinos" of the data. But several weeks ago the number was actually revised DOWNWARD. That had not happened in FOREVER. Now, for the last two weeks, the number (the 335,0000 and the 330,0000) has been UNCHANGED. Will this "reform" continue, or will the old pattern reassert itself if the Labor Dept. feels the need to recrfeate this steady "edge" in the headlines on the favorable side? We will see. The 368,0000 initially reported last week might be a test, since it was such a BAD number (in terms of that fictional increase of 38,0000: fictional because the 330,0000 comparison number is fictional).
Then came the STRAGE monty emlyment numbers on Friday, greeted by Wall St. (The Stupidest People on Earth, and totally dishoenst) and most of the media as "great". Sure, they all said that "great" was a relative ting, and the "job growth" still "sluggish", but the headlines were that the last three months had seent he STRONGEST job growth in the pat two eyars: over 200,000 per month. Oh. There was that RISE in the unempllymetn rate, to the SAME rate (7.9%) it was at when Obama toook office. But that was IGNORED. Saly what? How could there be an ACCELERATIN of "job growth" wahen GDP DECLINED? There can't. These numbers are INCONSISTENT, and inconsistent with the weekly numbers on new unemplment claims, which showed NO "improvement' for ALL of 2012. You say yoiu don't remember then "job growth" numbers being that good over the past 3 onths, and that the reported 157,0000 for January was really not that good? You are right, and that was what was most STRANGE: to the pont of conclusively PROVING DISHONESTY somewhere in the system (maybe many places). The number of "jobs added" for November and December was REVISED UPWARD by more than 120,00000 jobs. Taht is PATHETIC FICATION. How do I know that? Reread the first part of this article. November and December were part of the 4th quarter, when GDP DECLINED. It is flatly not possible for "job growth" to ACCELEARATE under those conditins, and to suggest otherwise (as almost everybody did on Friday) is DISHOENST. Did the way Sandy fit into Labor Dept. figures have something to do with this, or are there jsut DISHONEST Lpeole in the Labor Dept? I don't know. I only know that it is IMPOSSIBLE for "job growth" to have accelearted in November and December. And it is definitely INCONSISTENT with other numbers. Sure, theGDP figure MIGHT be wrong, but that far wrong?
Notice how such a huge 120,0000 REVISION in "job growth" for November and December, on top of previous revisions, calls into QUESTIN the reliability of ANY of these numbers. When you add in that the resultant numbers are flatly INCONSISTENT with other numbers, yoiu have to presume DISHONESTY (or absolute incompetence, or both). Unemplyment rate went up. new unemplyment claims (for November and December) stayed at about the same level as ALL of 2012, although SANDY actually cost jobs). GDP declined. Yet, the monty job figures purported to shoow that "job growth" accelearated in November and December, even as the Federal Reserve said that economic "growth" had PAUSED. Nope. This picutre does not comute. It CANNOT compute. Now did Sandy, somehow, cause "job growth" figures to be FICATIONAL, even as Sandy caused weekly new unemplment claims to breifly spike upward to 451,00000? I doubt it. I think there is a more systemic DISHOENSTY going on here, but I hae already explained to you how Sandy culd TEMPORARILY make things look better than they should, as the area returned to "normal" after Sandy (wit, in fact, some "stimulus" created by the rebound from Sandy, even though the net effect of Sandy was surely NEGATIVE, as GDP figure seems to show).
No. The numbers themselves are bad enough. The INTERPRETATIN of these impossible numbers by Wall St. and the media merely illustrates that these are some of the most DISHONEST, STUPIDEST peole who have ever llived. I am willing to flatly state: "Job growth" did NOT "accelearate" during November and December. At best, no HONEST person could accept thqat conclusion based on ALL of the data avilable, unless later numbers were to somehow confirm that GDP, unemplyment rate, and jobless claims numbers were ALL misleading and/or erroneous. Until the discrepancies were EXPLKAINED, or clarified by later numbers, the purported "accelearted" "job growth" for November and December has to be regarded as FICTION. Notcie that Wall St. and the media did not even ATTEMPT to try to "explain" the discrfepancies. That is because those people are DISHONEST.
Despicable AP, by the way, dismiessed last week's announced 368,0000 new unemplyment claims as "consistent" with "moderate hiring", despite that supposed 38,0000 INCREASE in new claims. Message to you people of the AP: How do you sleep at night, being this DISHOENST? This may be evidence that my agnosticism is misplaced, because the only "explanatin" I can see as to how AP employees live with themselves is that they are DAMEND (deal with the devil, you know). Against this is my futile Sodom and Gomorrah search (which I still regard as His punishment for my being an agnostic) for an honest, competent AP reporter, extending over more than a decade boefre concluding no such creature exists. Yet, I turned in my report on my Sodom and Gomorrah search some time ago, and still NO THRUNDERBOLTS raining down on AP facilities. I would still avoid such places, if I were you, but it is evidence thkat maybe God does not exist after all. Oh. That AP "conclusion"? Here is mine: "368,0000 new unemplyument claims back to lewvel of all of 2012, and consistent with 8% unemplyument." As usual, my conclusion correct, while AP conclusion is questionable, at best, unless you consider 8% unemplyument "moderate hiring". Even Marketwatch did essentially MY headline, saying that 368,0000 was RETURN to levels at end of 2012 (actually ALL of 2012, but Marketwatch is a maqinstream media nest of liars itself, jsut not as bad as AP). Marketwatch correctly seemed to dismiss the 335,0000 and 330,0000 as aberratins ("seasonal quirks').
What will tomorrow's number of new unemplyment claims be, as reported by the Labor Detp. in its usual Thursday release? I have no idea. As I have told you, the ONE WEEK number means essentially NOTHING. That is especially true when the Laobr Dept. numbers over the past few months have been so obviusly OUT OF WHACK. Tomorrow could be 380,000, or it could be 340,0000 again. Either way, as I said at the end of last year (foresight again), we will probably not have any kind of real idea of the TREND for 2013 until about the SPRING. Again, as the media LIEARS keep ignoring, these numbers only have meaning OVER TIME. That is esepcially true lwhen the past FOUR years have shown that Labor Dept. "seaonal adjustments' (and other adjustments) are especialy unreliable at the beginning of each eyar. In 2010, 2011, AND 2012, the "optimism" of February (media proclaiming labor market had "turned") FADED into spring and summer, as "job market' APPEARED to DETERIORATE. 2013 is already strting out as if the Labor Dept. does not know what it is doing as to calculating these figures at the beginning of the eyar. Or, the Labor Dept, or some peole in the Labor Dept, DO know what they are dong, and are DISHOENST.
P.S. No proofreadng or spell chedking (bad eyesight)/.
Note that theere is ONE area (perhaps because of ME) where Labor Dept. DISHOENSTY "appears" tgo have improved. For YEARS, I have informed you taht the Labor Dept. has CONSISTENTLY REVISED the number of new unemplyment claims in ONLY one directin: UPWAORD. This meant that media HEALINES were CONSISTENTLY LIES, as they did their headlines based on the ERRONEOUS initial report, and NEVER CORRECTED the headlines. Labor Dept. had incentive to keep this LIE going, and they did. Week after weeek, month after month, the weekly number of new unmplyment claims released on one Thursday would be REVISED UPWARD (usually by 3,0000) the next Thursday. I guarantee you that this STEADY EARROR wa DISHOENST. It was not "random" "correctinos" of the data. But several weeks ago the number was actually revised DOWNWARD. That had not happened in FOREVER. Now, for the last two weeks, the number (the 335,0000 and the 330,0000) has been UNCHANGED. Will this "reform" continue, or will the old pattern reassert itself if the Labor Dept. feels the need to recrfeate this steady "edge" in the headlines on the favorable side? We will see. The 368,0000 initially reported last week might be a test, since it was such a BAD number (in terms of that fictional increase of 38,0000: fictional because the 330,0000 comparison number is fictional).
Then came the STRAGE monty emlyment numbers on Friday, greeted by Wall St. (The Stupidest People on Earth, and totally dishoenst) and most of the media as "great". Sure, they all said that "great" was a relative ting, and the "job growth" still "sluggish", but the headlines were that the last three months had seent he STRONGEST job growth in the pat two eyars: over 200,000 per month. Oh. There was that RISE in the unempllymetn rate, to the SAME rate (7.9%) it was at when Obama toook office. But that was IGNORED. Saly what? How could there be an ACCELERATIN of "job growth" wahen GDP DECLINED? There can't. These numbers are INCONSISTENT, and inconsistent with the weekly numbers on new unemplment claims, which showed NO "improvement' for ALL of 2012. You say yoiu don't remember then "job growth" numbers being that good over the past 3 onths, and that the reported 157,0000 for January was really not that good? You are right, and that was what was most STRANGE: to the pont of conclusively PROVING DISHONESTY somewhere in the system (maybe many places). The number of "jobs added" for November and December was REVISED UPWARD by more than 120,00000 jobs. Taht is PATHETIC FICATION. How do I know that? Reread the first part of this article. November and December were part of the 4th quarter, when GDP DECLINED. It is flatly not possible for "job growth" to ACCELEARATE under those conditins, and to suggest otherwise (as almost everybody did on Friday) is DISHOENST. Did the way Sandy fit into Labor Dept. figures have something to do with this, or are there jsut DISHONEST Lpeole in the Labor Dept? I don't know. I only know that it is IMPOSSIBLE for "job growth" to have accelearted in November and December. And it is definitely INCONSISTENT with other numbers. Sure, theGDP figure MIGHT be wrong, but that far wrong?
Notice how such a huge 120,0000 REVISION in "job growth" for November and December, on top of previous revisions, calls into QUESTIN the reliability of ANY of these numbers. When you add in that the resultant numbers are flatly INCONSISTENT with other numbers, yoiu have to presume DISHONESTY (or absolute incompetence, or both). Unemplyment rate went up. new unemplyment claims (for November and December) stayed at about the same level as ALL of 2012, although SANDY actually cost jobs). GDP declined. Yet, the monty job figures purported to shoow that "job growth" accelearated in November and December, even as the Federal Reserve said that economic "growth" had PAUSED. Nope. This picutre does not comute. It CANNOT compute. Now did Sandy, somehow, cause "job growth" figures to be FICATIONAL, even as Sandy caused weekly new unemplment claims to breifly spike upward to 451,00000? I doubt it. I think there is a more systemic DISHOENSTY going on here, but I hae already explained to you how Sandy culd TEMPORARILY make things look better than they should, as the area returned to "normal" after Sandy (wit, in fact, some "stimulus" created by the rebound from Sandy, even though the net effect of Sandy was surely NEGATIVE, as GDP figure seems to show).
No. The numbers themselves are bad enough. The INTERPRETATIN of these impossible numbers by Wall St. and the media merely illustrates that these are some of the most DISHONEST, STUPIDEST peole who have ever llived. I am willing to flatly state: "Job growth" did NOT "accelearate" during November and December. At best, no HONEST person could accept thqat conclusion based on ALL of the data avilable, unless later numbers were to somehow confirm that GDP, unemplyment rate, and jobless claims numbers were ALL misleading and/or erroneous. Until the discrepancies were EXPLKAINED, or clarified by later numbers, the purported "accelearted" "job growth" for November and December has to be regarded as FICTION. Notcie that Wall St. and the media did not even ATTEMPT to try to "explain" the discrfepancies. That is because those people are DISHONEST.
Despicable AP, by the way, dismiessed last week's announced 368,0000 new unemplyment claims as "consistent" with "moderate hiring", despite that supposed 38,0000 INCREASE in new claims. Message to you people of the AP: How do you sleep at night, being this DISHOENST? This may be evidence that my agnosticism is misplaced, because the only "explanatin" I can see as to how AP employees live with themselves is that they are DAMEND (deal with the devil, you know). Against this is my futile Sodom and Gomorrah search (which I still regard as His punishment for my being an agnostic) for an honest, competent AP reporter, extending over more than a decade boefre concluding no such creature exists. Yet, I turned in my report on my Sodom and Gomorrah search some time ago, and still NO THRUNDERBOLTS raining down on AP facilities. I would still avoid such places, if I were you, but it is evidence thkat maybe God does not exist after all. Oh. That AP "conclusion"? Here is mine: "368,0000 new unemplyument claims back to lewvel of all of 2012, and consistent with 8% unemplyument." As usual, my conclusion correct, while AP conclusion is questionable, at best, unless you consider 8% unemplyument "moderate hiring". Even Marketwatch did essentially MY headline, saying that 368,0000 was RETURN to levels at end of 2012 (actually ALL of 2012, but Marketwatch is a maqinstream media nest of liars itself, jsut not as bad as AP). Marketwatch correctly seemed to dismiss the 335,0000 and 330,0000 as aberratins ("seasonal quirks').
What will tomorrow's number of new unemplyment claims be, as reported by the Labor Detp. in its usual Thursday release? I have no idea. As I have told you, the ONE WEEK number means essentially NOTHING. That is especially true when the Laobr Dept. numbers over the past few months have been so obviusly OUT OF WHACK. Tomorrow could be 380,000, or it could be 340,0000 again. Either way, as I said at the end of last year (foresight again), we will probably not have any kind of real idea of the TREND for 2013 until about the SPRING. Again, as the media LIEARS keep ignoring, these numbers only have meaning OVER TIME. That is esepcially true lwhen the past FOUR years have shown that Labor Dept. "seaonal adjustments' (and other adjustments) are especialy unreliable at the beginning of each eyar. In 2010, 2011, AND 2012, the "optimism" of February (media proclaiming labor market had "turned") FADED into spring and summer, as "job market' APPEARED to DETERIORATE. 2013 is already strting out as if the Labor Dept. does not know what it is doing as to calculating these figures at the beginning of the eyar. Or, the Labor Dept, or some peole in the Labor Dept, DO know what they are dong, and are DISHOENST.
P.S. No proofreadng or spell chedking (bad eyesight)/.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Obama Fails on Econmy, as Labor Dept. Lies on Jobs (Along with Media)
Do you remember all of those media stories abut how the economy was "improvnig", despite Sandy, as we headed into the end of last year? Lies. All lies. Today, we got the report that the econoy (as measured by GDP) SHRNK by .1% in the fourth quarter: the worst performance in 3.5 YEARS.
Now, "shrank" is really not the right word, since this is only an innitial report, subject to multipe revisions. And .1% is really FLAT LINE. But Federal Reerve is right that "growth" in the economy has "paused". That is, Fed is "right" unless you take "paused" to mean that "growth" is guaranteed to resume. Problem is that "growth" really STALLED for ALL of 2012. We are simply NOT GROWING: certianly not when you consider the ARTIFICIAL "stimulus" of the Federal Reserve (Baiout Ben Bernanke) and Federal spending (which make a real "recovery" IMPOISSIBLE).
Now look at my article last Wednesday on weekly new unemplyment claims, and consider the FICTIN put out by the Labor Dept. (and our media) ove the past 6 weeks: 362,0000; 362,0000; 367,0000; 372,0000; 335,0000 (lol); 330,0000 (lol). As I told you last Wednesday, before the 330,0000 number was "reported" last Thursday, this series of numbers is IMPIOSSIBLE. The series cannot possibly represent reality.
What happendto cause a SUDDEN "five-year low") in new unemplyment claims the past 2 weeks? No. I don't know EXACTLY what happened, but I do know that the Labor Dept. CHANGED somehing in the way the "seasonal adjustment" worked thewse past few weeks. And, as usual, the DISHOENST Labor Dept. seems unconcerned that it is obviusly putting out FICTIN.
Not ony are the last 2 weeks (335,0000 and 330,0000) of reported new unemplyment claims INCONSISTENT with the previus 4 weeks, but they are inconistent with the GDP number for the fourth quarter. Look at what the dishoenst LaborDept./media are asking us to believe: That the "labor market" SUDDENLY IMPROVED SUBSTANTIALLY at a time when the eocnomy STALLED. "Impossible" is a kind word for this FANTASY. We are being asked to believe that the economy "growth" is in the WORST SHAPE in almost 4 years, while new unemplyment claims are suddenly in the BEST shape in 5 years. Nope. Absurd.
We will get our next installment of fantasy tomorrow. As I have told you year after year, the Labor Dept has a habit of doing something to "imprve" new unemplyment claims near beginning of year, ony to have numbers NOT IMPROVE the whole rest of the year (as happened in 2010,2011 and 2012). Labor Dept. has done SOMETHING to make "new normal" for new unemplyument claims to be around 330,0000, even though the number is obviusly wrong. We will see tomorrow if they keep up this particular FICTIN.
Meanwhile, ObamaCare is suspended over the econmy like the Sword of Damocles. No way for economy to handle it. Note that Obama wants to make it even wore by adding 11/12/20 (whatever) illegal immigrants as citizens to receive subsidized ObamaCare. We cannot surviev ObamaCare, even apart from Bailut Ben and the rest, and we ill not survive it--at least our econmy won't.
See more commetns @mavconservative on Twitter. No. I am not a Twitter person. What I do is divide things I formerly put on this blog into serial tweets. I have been using Twitter more than this blog because it APPEARS to reach more people, although this blog probably represents a better permanent record and a better vehicle for my kind of article. I had originallly inteneded to duplicate things on Twitter and this blog, or just refer peole on Twitter to this blog But TIME (for me,anyway, not knowing how to do it easily), and the apparent greater audience on Twitter, led me to do more on Twitter than I am doing on this blog.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Now this surely true on Twitter as well, but I think (hope?) people expect more garbled stff in "tweets", and are less put off. As I say, maybe wishful thinking.
Now, "shrank" is really not the right word, since this is only an innitial report, subject to multipe revisions. And .1% is really FLAT LINE. But Federal Reerve is right that "growth" in the economy has "paused". That is, Fed is "right" unless you take "paused" to mean that "growth" is guaranteed to resume. Problem is that "growth" really STALLED for ALL of 2012. We are simply NOT GROWING: certianly not when you consider the ARTIFICIAL "stimulus" of the Federal Reserve (Baiout Ben Bernanke) and Federal spending (which make a real "recovery" IMPOISSIBLE).
Now look at my article last Wednesday on weekly new unemplyment claims, and consider the FICTIN put out by the Labor Dept. (and our media) ove the past 6 weeks: 362,0000; 362,0000; 367,0000; 372,0000; 335,0000 (lol); 330,0000 (lol). As I told you last Wednesday, before the 330,0000 number was "reported" last Thursday, this series of numbers is IMPIOSSIBLE. The series cannot possibly represent reality.
What happendto cause a SUDDEN "five-year low") in new unemplyment claims the past 2 weeks? No. I don't know EXACTLY what happened, but I do know that the Labor Dept. CHANGED somehing in the way the "seasonal adjustment" worked thewse past few weeks. And, as usual, the DISHOENST Labor Dept. seems unconcerned that it is obviusly putting out FICTIN.
Not ony are the last 2 weeks (335,0000 and 330,0000) of reported new unemplyment claims INCONSISTENT with the previus 4 weeks, but they are inconistent with the GDP number for the fourth quarter. Look at what the dishoenst LaborDept./media are asking us to believe: That the "labor market" SUDDENLY IMPROVED SUBSTANTIALLY at a time when the eocnomy STALLED. "Impossible" is a kind word for this FANTASY. We are being asked to believe that the economy "growth" is in the WORST SHAPE in almost 4 years, while new unemplyment claims are suddenly in the BEST shape in 5 years. Nope. Absurd.
We will get our next installment of fantasy tomorrow. As I have told you year after year, the Labor Dept has a habit of doing something to "imprve" new unemplyment claims near beginning of year, ony to have numbers NOT IMPROVE the whole rest of the year (as happened in 2010,2011 and 2012). Labor Dept. has done SOMETHING to make "new normal" for new unemplyument claims to be around 330,0000, even though the number is obviusly wrong. We will see tomorrow if they keep up this particular FICTIN.
Meanwhile, ObamaCare is suspended over the econmy like the Sword of Damocles. No way for economy to handle it. Note that Obama wants to make it even wore by adding 11/12/20 (whatever) illegal immigrants as citizens to receive subsidized ObamaCare. We cannot surviev ObamaCare, even apart from Bailut Ben and the rest, and we ill not survive it--at least our econmy won't.
See more commetns @mavconservative on Twitter. No. I am not a Twitter person. What I do is divide things I formerly put on this blog into serial tweets. I have been using Twitter more than this blog because it APPEARS to reach more people, although this blog probably represents a better permanent record and a better vehicle for my kind of article. I had originallly inteneded to duplicate things on Twitter and this blog, or just refer peole on Twitter to this blog But TIME (for me,anyway, not knowing how to do it easily), and the apparent greater audience on Twitter, led me to do more on Twitter than I am doing on this blog.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Now this surely true on Twitter as well, but I think (hope?) people expect more garbled stff in "tweets", and are less put off. As I say, maybe wishful thinking.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Unemployment Claims: Dishonest Media and Dishonest Labor Department
362,0000; 362,0000; 367,0000; 372,0000; 335,000?: What is wrong with this sequence of numbers, in that order? The numbers represent the nummber of new unemplyment claims the dishoenst Labor Dept. reported over the past 5 weeks. I majored n physics at New Mexico State University, with a minor in mathematics. But you don't have to have any "mathematical" background to see what is WRONG with this sries of numbers. The 335,0000 reported last Thursday DOES NOT FIT. It is an IMPOSSIBLE number. Or at least the SERIES of numbers is total FICTION. You cannot seriusly take the 335,0000 at face value, but that did not stop our DISHOENST (some of the most dishonet people wo have ever lived) media from takng the number at face value, and procaliming the "lowest number in 5 years": a LIE if you know AnYTINING about numbers. Oh. That questin mark after the 335,0000. Firt, the number is obvius FICTION. Second, the number will be REVISED tomorrow. Now the 372,0000 revised number reported last week (revision of the week before, as always is done) was a return to the CONSISTENT UPWARD REVISIN, after the previus week had seen the first DOWNWARD revison by the dishoenst Labor Dept. in FOREVER. 372,000 represented only a 1,0000 revisin, whcih is less than usual. However, tkhese revisions can be LARGE, on occasion (being as much as 12,0000 in that string of 5 numbers set forth above
"OK, Skip, we accept that there is probably something wrong with that string of 5 numbers, and that the media should not accept them at face value. But what is YOUR explanatin of the obvius impossibility of the numbers accurately representing the real number of new unemplyment claims eackh week."
Well, the number of claims supposedly "dropped" 37,0000, which at least matches the HGHEST "drop" in the weeky number in more than a YEAR. dAnd what aboutttheother times there was supposedly such a large "drop"? There was always an obvius GLITCH. For example, one week the KLabor Dept. failed to report all of the claims from California. Then there was that 35,0000 drop AFTER the 451,0000 SPIKE UPWARD caued by Sandy (FICTIN, in other words, caused by the temporary distortin of Sandy). In other words, this kind of SUDDEN "dropo" has ALWAYS been FICTIN I don't need to know the exact "explanatin" to KNOW that, and netiher would an HONEST media. Our media is DISHOENST to their very core. Just AVERAGE the last TWO weeks (before tomoor's new weekly number), and you get an average of more than 353,0000-BEFORE any "revision" announced tomorrow. In February, we had several times where the 2 week average was 353,0000 or less, and a number of weeks whre teh 4-week average was LESS than tkhe 4-week average over the past 4 weeks.
NOtice how DISHOENST our 'journalists" (yes, prectically ALL of them) realy are. Look at my posted blog articles, and Twitter tweets, when our DISHBOENST "journalists" announced a new "4-year low" in new unemplyment claims about a month ago. THTA was based on the FOUR-WEEK average, even though the individual week was NTO a "4-yar low". What did I tel yu then? I told you that our DISONEST "journalists" ONLY look at the 4-week averagve when it fits their AGENDA, and otherwise ignore it--as they did last Thursday. No. I do NOT give you "journalists" out there a "pass' You are BAD people. You will ermember that those breathless stories about a "4-year low", using the 4-week average, turned out to be FALSE, because the last week in that string was REVISED upward that 12,0000, meaning that there was NO "4-year low", even using the 4-week average. There was also NO CORRECTIN/RETRACTTIN from our DISHOENST "journalists".
Now the obvius "explanatin" of why the Labor Dept./media ut out a FICTINAL number is that the "seasonal adjustment" was WRONG. Notice that it is possible that the 372,0000 was TOO HIGH, perhaps because the Labor Dept got the seasonal pattern wrong, while the 335,000 was TOO LOW. The individual weeky number, especially when it is obviously FICTIONAL, means NOTHING. Yet, the medai story I saw went out of its way to state that there was no obvius glitch in the umbers. YOU LIAR. You don't think it is an obvius glitch when you have an UNEXMPLAINED, IMPSSIBLE "drop" of 37,0000 out of the blue. The LACK of an obvius problem proves that something was WRONG. The "economy" and "job market" did NOT "suddently" "improve' like this. Absurd. yet, the media REPORTED IT THAT WAY. YOU LIARS. No. YOu do NOT have to "reort" these numbers at face value, expecially using such absurdities as "5-year low". These weekly numbers on new unemlyment claims, as this blog has told you for YEARS< only mean something OVER TIME. It is a LIE to "report" otherwise, as if the weely number is eXACT and CONCRETE. It is a FALIBLE ESTIMATE., based on a SUBJECTGIVE "seasonal adjustment" (adjustment to the actual, "counting" number based on a SUBJECTIVE formula).
A glitch in the seaonsal adjustment is NOT the only possible explanatin for the FICTINAL 335,0000 reported last week. Remember, again, the week that the Labor Dept. FAILED O INCLUDE all or part of claims filed in California. It is possible for the Labor Dept. to simply make an ERROR in its count.
Then there is the fact lthat we are now in 2013. "But, Skip, that can't poossibly mean anything. What difference does it make that we are in a new year?" Ah. Do you not think the Labor Dept. CHANGES the "seasonal adjustment" formula, and even the way it calculates the reported number, on a periodic basis? Sure it does. How else could you even TRY to keep up wiht CHANGES in seasonal pattterns? DID thke Labor Dept. CHANGE its formual for the "seasonal adjustment' last week? Id on't know, but it is certainly possible. And the Labor Dept. HAD to "adjust" for the way New Year's Day fell this year. Was there something in the way the Labor Dept. did its adjustment for the first full week of January that created a glitch? Entirely poossible.
IF the number to be reported tomorrow is still at the 335,0000 level, or below, thin I think that it is obvius that the Labor Dept. CHANGED SOMETHING from one year to the next. I would expect the number to go substantially UP tomorrow, because the 335,0000 is usch an obvius GLITCH (fictin). If that does not happen, then I think it is more than probable that the Labor Dept. has CREATED the sudden "drop" in the number by some change in the way it is doing its calculatin. In other words, the "new normal" will become 335,00000, and we will likely see a repeat of the previus THREE years, when each year seemed to start off with a "drop' in new unemplyment claims, only to have the situation apparently DETERIORATE as we head into spring and summer. As this blog has shown, there was NO IMPROVEMENT in new unemplyment claims for ALL of 2-12/
What youy can absolutely count on is the media LYING about these numbers: the Orwellian Big Lie being that the weekly number is some sort of definite, "counting" number that actually means something for any individual week Now, again, IF the "4-week average" should happen to fit the media AGENDA, then the media may pay attentin . And IF the number should RISE by 37,0000, or some large number, yu will see the media "explain" it. Probably the dishoenst Labor Dept. will give them a convenient explanatin that does NOT involve a deteroriatin in the labor market. It will, of courfse, be correct that ONE WEEK will not mean a "deteroioratin" in the labor market, but that is the kind of thing NOT "reported" when the number is "good" (in any one week).
I have already told you, given the consistent pattern over the past 3 years, that we w will probably not have a decent picture of how 2013 is realy gong on new unemplyment claims until APRIL. It is only then when we will probably have enough data to show whether 2013 is REPEATNG the same pattern of 2010, 2011 and 2012. We will see.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight). .
"OK, Skip, we accept that there is probably something wrong with that string of 5 numbers, and that the media should not accept them at face value. But what is YOUR explanatin of the obvius impossibility of the numbers accurately representing the real number of new unemplyment claims eackh week."
Well, the number of claims supposedly "dropped" 37,0000, which at least matches the HGHEST "drop" in the weeky number in more than a YEAR. dAnd what aboutttheother times there was supposedly such a large "drop"? There was always an obvius GLITCH. For example, one week the KLabor Dept. failed to report all of the claims from California. Then there was that 35,0000 drop AFTER the 451,0000 SPIKE UPWARD caued by Sandy (FICTIN, in other words, caused by the temporary distortin of Sandy). In other words, this kind of SUDDEN "dropo" has ALWAYS been FICTIN I don't need to know the exact "explanatin" to KNOW that, and netiher would an HONEST media. Our media is DISHOENST to their very core. Just AVERAGE the last TWO weeks (before tomoor's new weekly number), and you get an average of more than 353,0000-BEFORE any "revision" announced tomorrow. In February, we had several times where the 2 week average was 353,0000 or less, and a number of weeks whre teh 4-week average was LESS than tkhe 4-week average over the past 4 weeks.
NOtice how DISHOENST our 'journalists" (yes, prectically ALL of them) realy are. Look at my posted blog articles, and Twitter tweets, when our DISHBOENST "journalists" announced a new "4-year low" in new unemplyment claims about a month ago. THTA was based on the FOUR-WEEK average, even though the individual week was NTO a "4-yar low". What did I tel yu then? I told you that our DISONEST "journalists" ONLY look at the 4-week averagve when it fits their AGENDA, and otherwise ignore it--as they did last Thursday. No. I do NOT give you "journalists" out there a "pass' You are BAD people. You will ermember that those breathless stories about a "4-year low", using the 4-week average, turned out to be FALSE, because the last week in that string was REVISED upward that 12,0000, meaning that there was NO "4-year low", even using the 4-week average. There was also NO CORRECTIN/RETRACTTIN from our DISHOENST "journalists".
Now the obvius "explanatin" of why the Labor Dept./media ut out a FICTINAL number is that the "seasonal adjustment" was WRONG. Notice that it is possible that the 372,0000 was TOO HIGH, perhaps because the Labor Dept got the seasonal pattern wrong, while the 335,000 was TOO LOW. The individual weeky number, especially when it is obviously FICTIONAL, means NOTHING. Yet, the medai story I saw went out of its way to state that there was no obvius glitch in the umbers. YOU LIAR. You don't think it is an obvius glitch when you have an UNEXMPLAINED, IMPSSIBLE "drop" of 37,0000 out of the blue. The LACK of an obvius problem proves that something was WRONG. The "economy" and "job market" did NOT "suddently" "improve' like this. Absurd. yet, the media REPORTED IT THAT WAY. YOU LIARS. No. YOu do NOT have to "reort" these numbers at face value, expecially using such absurdities as "5-year low". These weekly numbers on new unemlyment claims, as this blog has told you for YEARS< only mean something OVER TIME. It is a LIE to "report" otherwise, as if the weely number is eXACT and CONCRETE. It is a FALIBLE ESTIMATE., based on a SUBJECTGIVE "seasonal adjustment" (adjustment to the actual, "counting" number based on a SUBJECTIVE formula).
A glitch in the seaonsal adjustment is NOT the only possible explanatin for the FICTINAL 335,0000 reported last week. Remember, again, the week that the Labor Dept. FAILED O INCLUDE all or part of claims filed in California. It is possible for the Labor Dept. to simply make an ERROR in its count.
Then there is the fact lthat we are now in 2013. "But, Skip, that can't poossibly mean anything. What difference does it make that we are in a new year?" Ah. Do you not think the Labor Dept. CHANGES the "seasonal adjustment" formula, and even the way it calculates the reported number, on a periodic basis? Sure it does. How else could you even TRY to keep up wiht CHANGES in seasonal pattterns? DID thke Labor Dept. CHANGE its formual for the "seasonal adjustment' last week? Id on't know, but it is certainly possible. And the Labor Dept. HAD to "adjust" for the way New Year's Day fell this year. Was there something in the way the Labor Dept. did its adjustment for the first full week of January that created a glitch? Entirely poossible.
IF the number to be reported tomorrow is still at the 335,0000 level, or below, thin I think that it is obvius that the Labor Dept. CHANGED SOMETHING from one year to the next. I would expect the number to go substantially UP tomorrow, because the 335,0000 is usch an obvius GLITCH (fictin). If that does not happen, then I think it is more than probable that the Labor Dept. has CREATED the sudden "drop" in the number by some change in the way it is doing its calculatin. In other words, the "new normal" will become 335,00000, and we will likely see a repeat of the previus THREE years, when each year seemed to start off with a "drop' in new unemplyment claims, only to have the situation apparently DETERIORATE as we head into spring and summer. As this blog has shown, there was NO IMPROVEMENT in new unemplyment claims for ALL of 2-12/
What youy can absolutely count on is the media LYING about these numbers: the Orwellian Big Lie being that the weekly number is some sort of definite, "counting" number that actually means something for any individual week Now, again, IF the "4-week average" should happen to fit the media AGENDA, then the media may pay attentin . And IF the number should RISE by 37,0000, or some large number, yu will see the media "explain" it. Probably the dishoenst Labor Dept. will give them a convenient explanatin that does NOT involve a deteroriatin in the labor market. It will, of courfse, be correct that ONE WEEK will not mean a "deteroioratin" in the labor market, but that is the kind of thing NOT "reported" when the number is "good" (in any one week).
I have already told you, given the consistent pattern over the past 3 years, that we w will probably not have a decent picture of how 2013 is realy gong on new unemplyment claims until APRIL. It is only then when we will probably have enough data to show whether 2013 is REPEATNG the same pattern of 2010, 2011 and 2012. We will see.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight). .
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Obama Fails on Jobs for All of 2012: NO Improvementin New Unemployment Clains (Marketwatch.com LIARS)
Later this mornin, the weeklly report on new unemplyment claims filed last week ("seasonaly adjusted") comes out. The media ALWAYS LIES about this report: the Big Lie being that it is merely a matter of "counting" concrete numbers, instead of a FALLIBLE ESTIMATE meaningful only OVER TIME.
Last Thursday, the LIARS at Marketwatch.com put out the most obvius FALSEHOODS I saw, but they were probably parroting the general mainstream media "ositon". First, the number of new unemplyment claims for the past 4 weeks have been (dating from most reccent): 371,0000 (to be REVISED this morning), 367,0000, 362,0000, 362,000. The RANGE for all of 2012 was between 351,0000 and 392,000m excludng the aberratins caused by Sandy and the Labor Dept. not counting California one week. Sandy caused a FCITINAL (or at least obviuslyu temporary) SPIKE upward in new claims to a high of 451,000:; fully 60,0000 ABOVE the next highest number, ECEPT for the 2 OTHER high Sandy numbers. Sandy also DISTORTED the "seasonal adjustment", so that the 344,0000 (when claims were returnig to "normal" from the Sandy high of 451,000) has to be regarded as just as FICTINAlL as the Sandy spikes UP. Then there was the 343,0000 resulting from the Labor Dept. just NOT COUNATING all or part of the claims from California (California not reporting them). No. The "real" range for 2012 was the TIGHT 3551,0000 to 392,0000 maintained all year. And that range was nOT "high" in the beginning of the year, and lower late. The range from about mid-January to about mid-March was 351,000 to 365,000, about the lOWEST range of the year. We ended the year near the MIDDLE of the yearly range, and at the HIGH end of the range near the beginning of the year. NO IMPROVEMENT for the entire year. None at all. We bounced around all year, with NO "trend", as the ups and downs appeared mainly related to failure of the Labor Dept. 'seasonal adjustment' to fully getg right the 'seasonal adjustment' that makes the weeekly number realy SUBJECTIVE (not "counting"): an ESTIMATE.
Marketwatch LIARS? Here is wht they "reported" last week: "Jobless claims rise 4,000, to 371,0000." Then the sub-headline:/lead: 'Claims basically unchanged overf the last few months, but consistent with modestly improving labor market.'
Can you get any more DISHONEST than Marketwatch.com (a mainstream media financil "news" site)? I don't think so. Look at what they did., in their OWN WORDS!!!!! They said that UNCHANGED number of new unemplyment claims was "consistent" with "modestly improving' labor market. Exactly what is it about the word "UNCHANGED" that the LIARS at Marketwatch.com don't understand? We are STUCK on the number of new unemployment clams, and havebeen STUCK (stalled) all year in Obama FAILURE. on jobs. Is not "UNCHANGFEED" much more "consistent" with being STALLED, and NOT IMPROVING, than it is with "modestly improving"? Of course,. But LIARS are interested only in AGENDA,m and not in facts. Worse, of course, is taht Marketwatch failed to mentin that it is NOT just the last "few months" that are UNCHANGED as to new unemplyment claims, but the entire YEAR of 2012. Notice I include last Thursday's 371,0000 in my wrap up of 2012, although it technically, mainlyl, was the first week of 2013. It still ut a "wrap" on the year, and included the last day of 2012.
What is really going on here? I told you this IN FORESIGHT (nto hindsight). Sandy SPIKED new unemplyment claims way uyp. I told YYOU that the meida would PROPERLY pretty much ignore the temporty effect of Sandy as not giving a real picture of the "permanet" status of the labor market. But what I CORRECTLY told you was that the LIARS of the media would ignore Sandy numbers as to sowing a TERRIBVLE labor market, but would still try tao say there was an "improvemetn" late in the year over those same Sandy numbers that the meida INGORED as basicaly "fictinal". And I told you the media would definitely ignore the effect of Sandy in DISTORTING the seasonal pattern, such that we were likely to have some week where there was a FICTINAL "drop" in calims, as there had been a fictional RISE in claims. That happened, as we had that one week of 344,0000, which was FICTIN.
Thus, as I PREDICTED, the media has tried to USE Sandy to suggest "improvement" in new unemplyment claims, when the LYING HYPOCRITES treated the Sandy numbers as irrelevant as to the true state of the labor market because of th3e temporary effect of Sandy. You simply cannot have it both wasy, unless you are DISHONEST. Marketwatch peole, and our media in general, are DISHOENST. (to extent they are not totally incompetent). No. Thewse last 4 weeks show that we ENDED 2012 the SAME way that he year went ALL YEAR; NO "improvement' in new unemplyment claims.
There was an interesting little item last week. I actually had a HUNCH about this item, which you can see if you read MY article from last week. I told lyou, as usual, that the weekly REVISION of the reported new unemplyment claims is ALWAYS UP, shwoing media and Labor Dept. dishoensty. Ture. But, if our read last week's article very carefully, you can see that I thought last Thursday might be an aberratin from this FOREVER pattern of the weekly number ALWAYS being revised UPWARD. That is what happened, for the first time in FOREVER. I got this "feeling" partly because the previus week saw a "revison" of fullyl 12,0000: shwoing that the Labor Dept. seemed to have lsot control of the nubmers.. The usual revison upward is 3,0000 or so. I thought this evident uncertainty int he weely number might be a time the Labor Dept. would depart from its usual pattern. Two Thursdays ago the number of new claims was reported initially as 372,0000. Well, that number wsa revised DOWN last Thursday, to 367,0000, meaning that the number "rose' 4,0000, instad of "falling" 1,0000. Strange, but changed nothing FOR THE YEAR.
Will we go back to the established pattern of revising the previus Thursday's number UPWARD--generaly by 3,0000 or so? We may bet a clue tomorrow in the REVISN of the 371,0000 initially reported new claims last Thursday. What you can count on is for the media to LIE. Expect it tomorrow. Somewhere in here there may even be an "adjustment" in how the "seasonal adjustment' is calculated. Waht you can count on is that any "improvement" in the weekly number will be "reported" as real, while any RISE in the weekly number will be EXPLAINED AWAY in some way or other.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checknig (bad eyesight). As I have told you since Sadndy, we may well not get any clear picure of how 2013 is going until the spring. That is acualy what happened in 2010, 2011 AND 2012, when an apparent "improving" "trend' in new unemplyulment claims was REVERSED as we headed into spring and summer. Again, tomorrow is only an ESTIMATE: one DATA PONT to be evaluated OVER TIME. The last time there was a STEADY imraovemetn in new unemplyment claims was the second half of 2009.
Last Thursday, the LIARS at Marketwatch.com put out the most obvius FALSEHOODS I saw, but they were probably parroting the general mainstream media "ositon". First, the number of new unemplyment claims for the past 4 weeks have been (dating from most reccent): 371,0000 (to be REVISED this morning), 367,0000, 362,0000, 362,000. The RANGE for all of 2012 was between 351,0000 and 392,000m excludng the aberratins caused by Sandy and the Labor Dept. not counting California one week. Sandy caused a FCITINAL (or at least obviuslyu temporary) SPIKE upward in new claims to a high of 451,000:; fully 60,0000 ABOVE the next highest number, ECEPT for the 2 OTHER high Sandy numbers. Sandy also DISTORTED the "seasonal adjustment", so that the 344,0000 (when claims were returnig to "normal" from the Sandy high of 451,000) has to be regarded as just as FICTINAlL as the Sandy spikes UP. Then there was the 343,0000 resulting from the Labor Dept. just NOT COUNATING all or part of the claims from California (California not reporting them). No. The "real" range for 2012 was the TIGHT 3551,0000 to 392,0000 maintained all year. And that range was nOT "high" in the beginning of the year, and lower late. The range from about mid-January to about mid-March was 351,000 to 365,000, about the lOWEST range of the year. We ended the year near the MIDDLE of the yearly range, and at the HIGH end of the range near the beginning of the year. NO IMPROVEMENT for the entire year. None at all. We bounced around all year, with NO "trend", as the ups and downs appeared mainly related to failure of the Labor Dept. 'seasonal adjustment' to fully getg right the 'seasonal adjustment' that makes the weeekly number realy SUBJECTIVE (not "counting"): an ESTIMATE.
Marketwatch LIARS? Here is wht they "reported" last week: "Jobless claims rise 4,000, to 371,0000." Then the sub-headline:/lead: 'Claims basically unchanged overf the last few months, but consistent with modestly improving labor market.'
Can you get any more DISHONEST than Marketwatch.com (a mainstream media financil "news" site)? I don't think so. Look at what they did., in their OWN WORDS!!!!! They said that UNCHANGED number of new unemplyment claims was "consistent" with "modestly improving' labor market. Exactly what is it about the word "UNCHANGED" that the LIARS at Marketwatch.com don't understand? We are STUCK on the number of new unemployment clams, and havebeen STUCK (stalled) all year in Obama FAILURE. on jobs. Is not "UNCHANGFEED" much more "consistent" with being STALLED, and NOT IMPROVING, than it is with "modestly improving"? Of course,. But LIARS are interested only in AGENDA,m and not in facts. Worse, of course, is taht Marketwatch failed to mentin that it is NOT just the last "few months" that are UNCHANGED as to new unemplyment claims, but the entire YEAR of 2012. Notice I include last Thursday's 371,0000 in my wrap up of 2012, although it technically, mainlyl, was the first week of 2013. It still ut a "wrap" on the year, and included the last day of 2012.
What is really going on here? I told you this IN FORESIGHT (nto hindsight). Sandy SPIKED new unemplyment claims way uyp. I told YYOU that the meida would PROPERLY pretty much ignore the temporty effect of Sandy as not giving a real picture of the "permanet" status of the labor market. But what I CORRECTLY told you was that the LIARS of the media would ignore Sandy numbers as to sowing a TERRIBVLE labor market, but would still try tao say there was an "improvemetn" late in the year over those same Sandy numbers that the meida INGORED as basicaly "fictinal". And I told you the media would definitely ignore the effect of Sandy in DISTORTING the seasonal pattern, such that we were likely to have some week where there was a FICTINAL "drop" in calims, as there had been a fictional RISE in claims. That happened, as we had that one week of 344,0000, which was FICTIN.
Thus, as I PREDICTED, the media has tried to USE Sandy to suggest "improvement" in new unemplyment claims, when the LYING HYPOCRITES treated the Sandy numbers as irrelevant as to the true state of the labor market because of th3e temporary effect of Sandy. You simply cannot have it both wasy, unless you are DISHONEST. Marketwatch peole, and our media in general, are DISHOENST. (to extent they are not totally incompetent). No. Thewse last 4 weeks show that we ENDED 2012 the SAME way that he year went ALL YEAR; NO "improvement' in new unemplyment claims.
There was an interesting little item last week. I actually had a HUNCH about this item, which you can see if you read MY article from last week. I told lyou, as usual, that the weekly REVISION of the reported new unemplyment claims is ALWAYS UP, shwoing media and Labor Dept. dishoensty. Ture. But, if our read last week's article very carefully, you can see that I thought last Thursday might be an aberratin from this FOREVER pattern of the weekly number ALWAYS being revised UPWARD. That is what happened, for the first time in FOREVER. I got this "feeling" partly because the previus week saw a "revison" of fullyl 12,0000: shwoing that the Labor Dept. seemed to have lsot control of the nubmers.. The usual revison upward is 3,0000 or so. I thought this evident uncertainty int he weely number might be a time the Labor Dept. would depart from its usual pattern. Two Thursdays ago the number of new claims was reported initially as 372,0000. Well, that number wsa revised DOWN last Thursday, to 367,0000, meaning that the number "rose' 4,0000, instad of "falling" 1,0000. Strange, but changed nothing FOR THE YEAR.
Will we go back to the established pattern of revising the previus Thursday's number UPWARD--generaly by 3,0000 or so? We may bet a clue tomorrow in the REVISN of the 371,0000 initially reported new claims last Thursday. What you can count on is for the media to LIE. Expect it tomorrow. Somewhere in here there may even be an "adjustment" in how the "seasonal adjustment' is calculated. Waht you can count on is that any "improvement" in the weekly number will be "reported" as real, while any RISE in the weekly number will be EXPLAINED AWAY in some way or other.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checknig (bad eyesight). As I have told you since Sadndy, we may well not get any clear picure of how 2013 is going until the spring. That is acualy what happened in 2010, 2011 AND 2012, when an apparent "improving" "trend' in new unemplyulment claims was REVERSED as we headed into spring and summer. Again, tomorrow is only an ESTIMATE: one DATA PONT to be evaluated OVER TIME. The last time there was a STEADY imraovemetn in new unemplyment claims was the second half of 2009.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Obama and Jobs: Failure for ALL of 2012 (Dishonest Labor Dept. and Media)
Tomorrow morning, Thursday, we will have essentailly the first report on new unemplyment claims for the new year, although it will include they very endof the old year and not mean much (because of the New Year's holiday and volatile end of Christmas season--not to metnion WEATHER--makng the "seasonal adjustment" even more iffy that usual). Then there are whatever yearly CHANGES may go into effect as to calculating the weekly data (especailly the seasonal adjustment). The media is uninterested in informing us of those things, and it is not worth my time to figure out. I would assume any calculatin changes will not really go into effect until the new year is really underway, but the positioning of New year's Day alone makes it very difficulut to do the seasonal adjustment (as was also true of Christmas). Before starting to analyze the NEW eyar, howeve,r, which will not have much meaning until we get substantially into the year (as the weekly number of new unemplyment claims only has meaning OVER TIME), I do want to wrap up 2012.
As to new unemplyment claims, 2012 was a year of TOTAL FAILURE for Obama. NO "improvement" the ENTIRE eyar. STUCK, in a bad place. That describes ALL of 2012, as to the weekly number of new unemplooyment claims.
Ignroing FICTIONAL weekly numbers created by Sandy and Labor Dept. incompetence/dishonesty, the RANGE of weekly new unemplyment claims was 351,0000-392,0000, and we ended the year right in the MIDDLE of that range (372,0000 to be REVISED upward tomorrow). Yes, Sandy distorted the "seasonal adjustment", and created "temporary" spikes to 451,0000 on the upside, and 344,0000 on the downside. Yes. As I told lyou, Sandy COULD, and did, DISTORT numbers AFTER the intial upward spike, just as it distorted numbers during that upward spike. Still, the number of new wekly unemplyment claims filed was REMARKABLE for its CONSISTENCY (consistently BAD) for the entire year. The range fell to 35`,0000-365,0000 from about mid-January to mid-March, probably because of new seasonal patterns and good weather, only to--repeating the pattern of 2010 and 2011--RISE in the spring and summber, before bouncing around to the end of the year (including after Sandy). As stated: NO "improvement" the entire year.
Two Thursdays ago had the "honor' of being one of the WORST (saying a LOT) performances by our DISHOENST Labor Dept., and even MORE DISHONEST MEDIA, ever. The initial number of new unempllyment claims reported was 350,000, but you should have known somethign was WRONG when at least one story I saw mentined "seasonal factors" from the Christmas holiday as a factor. The previus weekly number had been a Sandy DISTORTED (because of seasonal "bounce back) number of 344,0000. The FICTIONAL 350,0000 number ws promptly "reported" by our DISHONEST (most dishonest peole who have ever lived) media as "best" number in more than 4 YEARS. How can I say FICTINAL? Because of the REVISION reported last Thursday. The initially reported 350,0000 number was REVISED upward a full 12,0000, WITHOTU apparent interest by the media, to 362,0000. Now even 350,000 was NOT the "best number in mo43 5hqan 4 eyars. The initial number had been reported at 348,0000-350,000 (before revisions) at least THREE TIMES in February alone (or in that mid-January to mid-March low period). However, our DISHONET media, who ignore the "four-week average" when it does not fit their AGENDA, chose to look at the supposed "4-week average" and say that the number of new unemplyment claims was suddenly the BEST in more than 4 years (combining a Sandy DISTORTED number wiht a FALSE Christmas distorted number). Note that the actual 362,000 number made even this a LIE: meaning that the SAME headlnie is now available again if we have the same tyope of UNREVISED numbers (as happened some 4 times with regard to that "low" of 351,0000, which kept being "beaten", only to NOT be "beten" when the following week's REVISED number came out).
Look at the LIES here:
1. 350,0000 new unemplyment claims announced 2 weeks ago. A LIE. Actaul number--assuming "seasonal adjustment" ws correct, which you cannot assume--was 362,0000: the REVISED no. announced last Thursday.
2. Media announced that 350,0000 was 12,0000 DOWN from previus week's 362,0000 (344,0000 being week before that, if I have confused you). A LIE. Number, as REVISED, was actually UNCHANGED.
3. You can expect last Thursday's intially reported 372,0000--up a full 22,0000 from the INITIALLY reported 350,0000--to be a LIE after tomorrow's revision. Now we have not had an UPWRD revison in FOREVER. That shows fundamental DISHOENSTY of the Labor Dept. If you have HONEST numbers, you CANNOT consistently have "revisions" ONLY in one directin. Will tomorrow be different.? If so, as stated, it will be the first time in FOREVER. Now 12,0000 revison last week was unusually LARGE, but that NEVER happens on the downsied: ALWAYS on the upside (like every three months or so).
4. Nope. Media gave idea that three was "improvement" over the eyar. NOT TRUE. A LIE. Numbers went from 451,0000 to 416,0000 to 396,0000 near end of year, due to Sandy, and then were distorted the other way: ENDING the year exaclty in the middle of tthat 351,0000-392,000 range for the year (disregarding fictional numbers). Of course, these holidy numbers were ALL supsect anyway. Overall, as stated, 2012 was a FAILURE as to the weekly new unemplyment claims, staying STUCK the entire eyar.
Yes, I will continue to analyze these weekly numbers for you, n 2013, because I am virtually the ONLY person telling you the TRUTH on these nubmers. No. The weekly numbers did NOT show that we got WORSE in 2012. But they did not show that we got BETTER either. We remained STUCK, in a bad place. We need numbers under 3000,0000, CONSISTENTLY. We certainly need numbers well under 350,0000, CONSISTENTLY, and we got no such thing--NO "improvement" at all---for the entire year of 2012.
Note, further, that the media is yet AGAIN saying that the economy has 'turned the corner" at the end of 2012. Oure DISHOENST media said the VERY same things at the end of 2010 and 2011. There is a TREND here: a TREND of the economy APPERING to be "better" at the end of each eyar, only to have that exosed as FALSE as the next year proceeds. Now, at some pont this pattern might change. But there is NO reason, right now, to assume that we are not gonig to see the same pattern again.
As I have stated, ObamaCare alone (more than taxes--although ObamaCare taxes are gong into effect in additin to other tax incrases) is a SWORD OF DAMOCLES over the U.S. economy, wihout even considering the "spending/debt ceiling" "fight" that the COWARDS of the GOP are promising. I see no present reason to believe 2013, will be a BETTER year for the economy . There are a numbe of reasons for believing it will be a WORSE year, as we head for the full "implementatin" of ObamaCare in 2014.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyessight).
As to new unemplyment claims, 2012 was a year of TOTAL FAILURE for Obama. NO "improvement" the ENTIRE eyar. STUCK, in a bad place. That describes ALL of 2012, as to the weekly number of new unemplooyment claims.
Ignroing FICTIONAL weekly numbers created by Sandy and Labor Dept. incompetence/dishonesty, the RANGE of weekly new unemplyment claims was 351,0000-392,0000, and we ended the year right in the MIDDLE of that range (372,0000 to be REVISED upward tomorrow). Yes, Sandy distorted the "seasonal adjustment", and created "temporary" spikes to 451,0000 on the upside, and 344,0000 on the downside. Yes. As I told lyou, Sandy COULD, and did, DISTORT numbers AFTER the intial upward spike, just as it distorted numbers during that upward spike. Still, the number of new wekly unemplyment claims filed was REMARKABLE for its CONSISTENCY (consistently BAD) for the entire year. The range fell to 35`,0000-365,0000 from about mid-January to mid-March, probably because of new seasonal patterns and good weather, only to--repeating the pattern of 2010 and 2011--RISE in the spring and summber, before bouncing around to the end of the year (including after Sandy). As stated: NO "improvement" the entire year.
Two Thursdays ago had the "honor' of being one of the WORST (saying a LOT) performances by our DISHOENST Labor Dept., and even MORE DISHONEST MEDIA, ever. The initial number of new unempllyment claims reported was 350,000, but you should have known somethign was WRONG when at least one story I saw mentined "seasonal factors" from the Christmas holiday as a factor. The previus weekly number had been a Sandy DISTORTED (because of seasonal "bounce back) number of 344,0000. The FICTIONAL 350,0000 number ws promptly "reported" by our DISHONEST (most dishonest peole who have ever lived) media as "best" number in more than 4 YEARS. How can I say FICTINAL? Because of the REVISION reported last Thursday. The initially reported 350,0000 number was REVISED upward a full 12,0000, WITHOTU apparent interest by the media, to 362,0000. Now even 350,000 was NOT the "best number in mo43 5hqan 4 eyars. The initial number had been reported at 348,0000-350,000 (before revisions) at least THREE TIMES in February alone (or in that mid-January to mid-March low period). However, our DISHONET media, who ignore the "four-week average" when it does not fit their AGENDA, chose to look at the supposed "4-week average" and say that the number of new unemplyment claims was suddenly the BEST in more than 4 years (combining a Sandy DISTORTED number wiht a FALSE Christmas distorted number). Note that the actual 362,000 number made even this a LIE: meaning that the SAME headlnie is now available again if we have the same tyope of UNREVISED numbers (as happened some 4 times with regard to that "low" of 351,0000, which kept being "beaten", only to NOT be "beten" when the following week's REVISED number came out).
Look at the LIES here:
1. 350,0000 new unemplyment claims announced 2 weeks ago. A LIE. Actaul number--assuming "seasonal adjustment" ws correct, which you cannot assume--was 362,0000: the REVISED no. announced last Thursday.
2. Media announced that 350,0000 was 12,0000 DOWN from previus week's 362,0000 (344,0000 being week before that, if I have confused you). A LIE. Number, as REVISED, was actually UNCHANGED.
3. You can expect last Thursday's intially reported 372,0000--up a full 22,0000 from the INITIALLY reported 350,0000--to be a LIE after tomorrow's revision. Now we have not had an UPWRD revison in FOREVER. That shows fundamental DISHOENSTY of the Labor Dept. If you have HONEST numbers, you CANNOT consistently have "revisions" ONLY in one directin. Will tomorrow be different.? If so, as stated, it will be the first time in FOREVER. Now 12,0000 revison last week was unusually LARGE, but that NEVER happens on the downsied: ALWAYS on the upside (like every three months or so).
4. Nope. Media gave idea that three was "improvement" over the eyar. NOT TRUE. A LIE. Numbers went from 451,0000 to 416,0000 to 396,0000 near end of year, due to Sandy, and then were distorted the other way: ENDING the year exaclty in the middle of tthat 351,0000-392,000 range for the year (disregarding fictional numbers). Of course, these holidy numbers were ALL supsect anyway. Overall, as stated, 2012 was a FAILURE as to the weekly new unemplyment claims, staying STUCK the entire eyar.
Yes, I will continue to analyze these weekly numbers for you, n 2013, because I am virtually the ONLY person telling you the TRUTH on these nubmers. No. The weekly numbers did NOT show that we got WORSE in 2012. But they did not show that we got BETTER either. We remained STUCK, in a bad place. We need numbers under 3000,0000, CONSISTENTLY. We certainly need numbers well under 350,0000, CONSISTENTLY, and we got no such thing--NO "improvement" at all---for the entire year of 2012.
Note, further, that the media is yet AGAIN saying that the economy has 'turned the corner" at the end of 2012. Oure DISHOENST media said the VERY same things at the end of 2010 and 2011. There is a TREND here: a TREND of the economy APPERING to be "better" at the end of each eyar, only to have that exosed as FALSE as the next year proceeds. Now, at some pont this pattern might change. But there is NO reason, right now, to assume that we are not gonig to see the same pattern again.
As I have stated, ObamaCare alone (more than taxes--although ObamaCare taxes are gong into effect in additin to other tax incrases) is a SWORD OF DAMOCLES over the U.S. economy, wihout even considering the "spending/debt ceiling" "fight" that the COWARDS of the GOP are promising. I see no present reason to believe 2013, will be a BETTER year for the economy . There are a numbe of reasons for believing it will be a WORSE year, as we head for the full "implementatin" of ObamaCare in 2014.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyessight).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)