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.