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).