Thursday, February 28, 2013 Some of the Most Dishonest People Who Have Ever Lived

See the previus two articles.  Then realize that 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.

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). 

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 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 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 (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, 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)/.