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)/.

No comments: