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.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
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)