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).
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Obama Fails on Jobs Entire Year: New Unemplyment Claims (Dishonest Los Angeles Times)
I am simply never wrong. I told you a little more than 2 weeks ago tht the "drop in new unemplyment claims to 343,000 was TOTAL FICTION: created by the seasonal distortin of superstorm Sandy.
Last Thursday, I was shown to be right again, as the number nof new unemplyment claims "rose" at least 17,0000 (maybe 20,0000--when REVISED figure released tomorrow), to a "seaonsally adjusted" 361,000 9again, likely 364,000, after being REVISED tomorrow). For one of the few times in the last 3 YEARS, my own (pre-announced) "revisin of the 343,000 announced 2 Thursdays ago was less accurate than the media/Labor Dept. headline number of 343,0000. Last Thursday, the previus week's intitial 343,000 was revised upward only 1,0000: less thaan the most common 3,000 UPWARD revisin that usually occurs. It has been FOREVER since the uncrevised number of new unemplyment claims (to be announced tomorrow) has been revised DOWNWARD, revealing just how dishoenst our media and Labor Dept. are to accept the consistent ERROR in the headline number every week, year after year. Until a new patttern is firmly estalbishmed,as it has not been in more than 3 eyars, I will continue to REVISE the Labor Dept .number myself, IMMEDIATELY, by the same 3,0000. That means that last week's initial number of 361,0000 will likely be revised tomorrow to 364,000 or more.
It does not realy matter. The number of new unemplyment claims is significant ONLY OVER TIME, and shows the "labor market" has NOT IMROVEDE the entire year of 2012. The range from geginning to end was 351,0000-392,0000: ignoring the "temorary" distortions of Sandy and the FICTIONAL 342,0000 ne week, when the dishoenst Labor Dept LEFT OUT CALIFORNIA (or much of it), wihtout ever correcting the error (although acknowledging it). 364,0000, or even 361,0000, is essentially in the MIDDLE of the yearly range of 351,0000-392,0000. Nor has that "range' shown some sort of steady "improvement" at the end of the eyar. From mid-January to about mid-March, the range of new unemplyment claims was about 351,0000-365,0000. Last Thursday's initial number was at the TOP of that range early this year: again indicating NO "improvement" this entire year.
Dishonest Los Angeles Times? Their headline last headline last Thursday was: "New unemplyment claims rise 17,0000, but still relatively low." As I have shown you, that is a LIE. Yep I jsut called the Lost Angeless Times LIARS, and I =stand 100% behind that statement. In fact, I PREDICTED exactly this LIE. How can LA Times say number is "relatively low", when it iswell within the yearly range and would have been at the tOP of the February range? Easy. LA Tiemes, which DISCOUNTED Sandy-induced spikes to 451,0000, 416,0000 and 395,0000, is suggesting that 364,0000 (or 361,000) is "relatively low" when compared with those SPIKE numbers that the media said WERE NOT REAL. You jsut can't get any more dishoenst than that, and can't get any more dishoenst than the "journalists" of the disgraceful Los Angeles Times.
Year is "in the boks" now., and the whole YEAR was a FAIURE for Obama: NO IMPROVEMENT. No. It does not matter what happens tomorrow, or the following week. We still hae possible seasonal distrotins from Sandy (distortions which can go both ways), and HOLIDAY numbers are impossibly unreliable. So next two weeks don't even mean much (whether numbers go up or down). The YEAR is already in the books, and it was a FAILURE for the labor market and Obama. Any fluctuations in these last two weeks merely represent statistical "noise".
We really are not going to get much of a handle on 2013 until looking at the numbers over the weeks from mid-January to the beginning of April. Sure, we might get some idea of where we are gonig, starting in mid-January (away from holidays), but lat THREE eyars have shown sAE new "seasonal pattern": Misleading, APPARENT "improvement" in February, followed by apparent DETERIORATIN as we go into sprin and summer. 2012 was especailly notable in that regard, as there was NO real "improvement" even as we head into the end of this year. And we will not have any, since there is no way to know whether any suposed "improvement' these last two weeks is 'real'. or a result of distortins from both Sandy and the holiday season.
How did we end up with NO "improvement' in new unemlyment claims, and this supposed "improvement" int he unemplyment ate? Inconsistent numbers. I prefer the number of new unemplyment claims as a better indicator, even though it is hardly free frm manipulatin. There are simply more data pints, and somewhat less subjectivity in the weekly new unemplyment claims numbers.
Again, I have prepared you to look thorough the media LIES tomorrow. Tomorrow's number of new unemlyment claims is pretty meaningless, because of possible distortins. But expect the media to SAY that ONLY if the number is BAD. A "good" number will be "evidence" that the "labor market" is turning around--NOT.
We continue to be STUCK in a bad place, as far as JOBS are concerned.
P.S. No proofreaidng or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Last Thursday, I was shown to be right again, as the number nof new unemplyment claims "rose" at least 17,0000 (maybe 20,0000--when REVISED figure released tomorrow), to a "seaonsally adjusted" 361,000 9again, likely 364,000, after being REVISED tomorrow). For one of the few times in the last 3 YEARS, my own (pre-announced) "revisin of the 343,000 announced 2 Thursdays ago was less accurate than the media/Labor Dept. headline number of 343,0000. Last Thursday, the previus week's intitial 343,000 was revised upward only 1,0000: less thaan the most common 3,000 UPWARD revisin that usually occurs. It has been FOREVER since the uncrevised number of new unemplyment claims (to be announced tomorrow) has been revised DOWNWARD, revealing just how dishoenst our media and Labor Dept. are to accept the consistent ERROR in the headline number every week, year after year. Until a new patttern is firmly estalbishmed,as it has not been in more than 3 eyars, I will continue to REVISE the Labor Dept .number myself, IMMEDIATELY, by the same 3,0000. That means that last week's initial number of 361,0000 will likely be revised tomorrow to 364,000 or more.
It does not realy matter. The number of new unemplyment claims is significant ONLY OVER TIME, and shows the "labor market" has NOT IMROVEDE the entire year of 2012. The range from geginning to end was 351,0000-392,0000: ignoring the "temorary" distortions of Sandy and the FICTIONAL 342,0000 ne week, when the dishoenst Labor Dept LEFT OUT CALIFORNIA (or much of it), wihtout ever correcting the error (although acknowledging it). 364,0000, or even 361,0000, is essentially in the MIDDLE of the yearly range of 351,0000-392,0000. Nor has that "range' shown some sort of steady "improvement" at the end of the eyar. From mid-January to about mid-March, the range of new unemplyment claims was about 351,0000-365,0000. Last Thursday's initial number was at the TOP of that range early this year: again indicating NO "improvement" this entire year.
Dishonest Los Angeles Times? Their headline last headline last Thursday was: "New unemplyment claims rise 17,0000, but still relatively low." As I have shown you, that is a LIE. Yep I jsut called the Lost Angeless Times LIARS, and I =stand 100% behind that statement. In fact, I PREDICTED exactly this LIE. How can LA Times say number is "relatively low", when it iswell within the yearly range and would have been at the tOP of the February range? Easy. LA Tiemes, which DISCOUNTED Sandy-induced spikes to 451,0000, 416,0000 and 395,0000, is suggesting that 364,0000 (or 361,000) is "relatively low" when compared with those SPIKE numbers that the media said WERE NOT REAL. You jsut can't get any more dishoenst than that, and can't get any more dishoenst than the "journalists" of the disgraceful Los Angeles Times.
Year is "in the boks" now., and the whole YEAR was a FAIURE for Obama: NO IMPROVEMENT. No. It does not matter what happens tomorrow, or the following week. We still hae possible seasonal distrotins from Sandy (distortions which can go both ways), and HOLIDAY numbers are impossibly unreliable. So next two weeks don't even mean much (whether numbers go up or down). The YEAR is already in the books, and it was a FAILURE for the labor market and Obama. Any fluctuations in these last two weeks merely represent statistical "noise".
We really are not going to get much of a handle on 2013 until looking at the numbers over the weeks from mid-January to the beginning of April. Sure, we might get some idea of where we are gonig, starting in mid-January (away from holidays), but lat THREE eyars have shown sAE new "seasonal pattern": Misleading, APPARENT "improvement" in February, followed by apparent DETERIORATIN as we go into sprin and summer. 2012 was especailly notable in that regard, as there was NO real "improvement" even as we head into the end of this year. And we will not have any, since there is no way to know whether any suposed "improvement' these last two weeks is 'real'. or a result of distortins from both Sandy and the holiday season.
How did we end up with NO "improvement' in new unemlyment claims, and this supposed "improvement" int he unemplyment ate? Inconsistent numbers. I prefer the number of new unemplyment claims as a better indicator, even though it is hardly free frm manipulatin. There are simply more data pints, and somewhat less subjectivity in the weekly new unemplyment claims numbers.
Again, I have prepared you to look thorough the media LIES tomorrow. Tomorrow's number of new unemlyment claims is pretty meaningless, because of possible distortins. But expect the media to SAY that ONLY if the number is BAD. A "good" number will be "evidence" that the "labor market" is turning around--NOT.
We continue to be STUCK in a bad place, as far as JOBS are concerned.
P.S. No proofreaidng or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Unemployment Claims and Labor Dept./Media Dishonesty
Read last night's article. Then consider: Is The Maverick Conservative ever wrong? Hardly ever.
The minor point, of course, is the CONSTANT Labor Dept./media dishoensty as to the "revision" ALWAYS made in only one direction-makng a mockery of the absurd clam that the revised data is merely a matter of more "complete" data. If there is a CONSISTENT error not included in the original "eadline" numbers, then the PROCEDURE shuld be changed to include an "adjustment' for the constant error. Not to do that is DISHOENST, as I have been telling yu. Thus, last wek's reported number of new unemplyment claims was REVISED upward from 370,0000 to 372,0000 (median is a upward revison of 3,000, but--as almost always--my "prediction" of 373,000 was CLOSER than the Labor Dept./media figure).
But where I have really been right over the paset weeks, since Sandy, is my prediction that the media, and Labor Dept. would emPHASIZE the distortins of Sandy for UNFAVORABLE numbers, but ignore the distortins of Sandy for favorable numbers. As I told you, the weeky number of new unemplyment claims is going to mean NOTHING until probably mid-Janutary, and we will not realy get a pcutre of where 2013 is headed until posssibly April. (as to the labor market).
"But, Skip, once the effet of Sandy has dissapted, the number surely means as much as it ever does, even though it is true that the number bounces around such that one week never means much. We get your pint that the seasonal adjustment alne, especially around holidays, is so unreliable that the weekly numbers only mean anything OVER TIME. And the media is dishonest for ignoring this, and acting like each weekly number is some sort of concrete, accurate descritpn of the weekly status of the labor market. However, surely the number does not mean less than usual once the dramatic, initial effects of Sansy have passed."
Wrong. Yep. The media, as usual, LIED when they tired to place actual significance on today's "dramatic" (too dramatic, meaning it is likely PURE FICTIN) "drop" in new unemplyment claims to 346,000. Ok. Annnounced number was 343,000, but I always take into account that CONSISTENT ERROR (that Labor Dept./media dishoensty). There was a purported "drop" of 29,000. Even without Sandy, that kind of a drop would be suspicious, as I previously told you when the Labor Dept. "reported" 339,000 (revised to 342,000), only to find out that the Labor Detpt. had LEFT OUT CALIFORNIA (or a significant portion of California claims). With Sandy, as I told you last night, and previusly, today's number is not even surprising. Why is that. It is because Sandy did NTO just DISTORT the numbers one way. Yes, Sandy caused an immeidate jump in jobless claims because of Sandy shutting down business. But Sandy also DISTORTED the seasonal pattern/seasonal adjustment. That means that this week's number cannot really be regarded as any more reliable than that 451,000 number right after Sandy. Once the 'bounce back" from Sandy in the weekly number got beynd Sandy causing any more layoffs, it was to be expected that the disruptin in the seasonal pattern would cause the weekly number to go TOO LOW to be representatvive of the real status of the labor markt. Sure, yuy could AVERAGE the numbers over the past 4 weeks. But the better way to look at this is that these numbers since Sandy, INCLUDING THIS WEEK'S SUPPOSEDLY "GOOD" NUMBER, just don't mean anything about the "normalized" satus of the labor market, exculsive of the SHORT-TERM effect of Sandy.
But you won't hear from either the Labor Dept. or (espiecally) our dishoenst/incompetent media that the "good' number today was likelyl DISTORTED by Sandy just as much as the bad numbers right after Sandy. So where are we? No way to know. That is the point. Until we see how this goes, OVER TIME (and outside of holiday influence), we really are not going to have any god idea of where we stand. Oh, you can say that at least the effects of Sandy on layoffs are proving mainy TEmPORARY, rather than some sort of major body blow to business in the northeast that is causing a downward spiral. As I have stated, it is just absurd to say that Sandy was GOOD for the economy. But if the effects of Sandy are, indeed, temporary, then that can be regarded as somewhat "good" news in a negative sort of way (not as bad as might have been). But you, and the media CANNOT now conclude that this weekly number on new unemplylment claims is now a "true' picture of whre the labor market is. You canot even do that as to ANY one week, but yu especially cannot do it when it is absurd not to at least SUSPECT that Sandy is still DISTORTING the number--just in the oppposite directin because the "formula" does not take into account the changes in the seasonal pattern caused by Sandy.
Over the past three eyars, in any event, the WINTER has lproven an espeically misleading time forthese weekly jobless claims numbers. Why? Well, the Labor Dept. "formula' for "seasonal adjustment" may be FLAEWED (surelyl is flawed, by the way, as it can NEVER be regarded as any more than a fallible ESTIMATE, especially for any one week). Secondly: WEATHER. The WEATHER in WINTER has much more effect on things like construction than weather variations at other times of the year. Sandy showed the effect weather can have. A winter BLIZZARD can paralyze business over a good part of the country (that is, heavily populated NYC, Boston, D.C., Philadelphia, Chicago areas). What the dishoenst media dos NOT tell you is that the LACK of blizzards and BAD weather can distort the seaonsal adjustment just as much as bad weather--more, in fact, if the "seasonal adjustment" is based on the expectatin of a certain amount of bad weahter in areas subject to cold, bad winter eather). ope. These weekly numbers are FALLIBLE ESTIMATES, whose ONLY meaning is OVER TIME.
What if the number KEPT going down? Obviuisly, at some point that would be significant. But the point is that there is NO reason to believe that this week's number emans ANY more than the obvisly distorted 451,000 number of abut 4 weeks ago. This number is likely to have been DISTORTED by Sandy, just like the 451,000--just in th eopposite directin. Time will tell. But it will probably not tell until at least mid-January, because of the distortions of the holiday season, as well as lingering distortions of Sandy.
I expect a SHAM "deal" on the "fiscal cliff", whre the GOP cements my conclustin that it is a party that now deserves to DIE (and be replaced by something else). But I don't think it matters. The real chalenge as 2013 progresses, aside from Bernanke/Obama making a real "recovery" impossible, is ObamaCare. ObamaCare is gong to loom over the 2013 labor market, and our economy, like the asteroid in "Armageddon". Even without ObamaCare, I would be pessimistic about the new religion of Wall St. economic fascists that all we need ot do to "save' us is to PRINT MONEY. With ObamaCare, I see no hope at all. GOP--coward to a man and woman, as far as ai can see--has already shown in 2010 that NO vicotry in 2014 is gong to be enugh to change course. No courage. Thus, we are going to be on this path until at least 2016 (when I wonder whether the GOP will be headling toward that 1,000th and final death that cowards suffer, while a brave man dies but once). Can we make it TO 206, even if there is someone to vote for then who will actually change course? I doubt it.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). As I have said on Twitter, by the way, I believe that the bst of the POSSIBLE results to the present "crisis" is to go over this "fiscal cliff", and at least require our politicians to LIVE WITH their previus choices. Disaster. But LEAST of the disasters we face, which is a sad comnetary on where we are. IF we go over the "fiscal cliff", and STAY THERE, we will at least make a stab at BOTH "cuttnig" spending (not enough, even, and partiallly in the wrong places) AND reducing the deficit (even if with the disastrous tax increases that wil occur). Note that "goning over the fiscal cliff" merely (subjet to certain distortions caused by failure to properly adjust things like th eAMT) would merely return us to the tax rates of the CLINTON YEARS: the very tax rates that our media and opther leftist Democrats say led to PROSPERITY. It MAY be possible to survive those tax rates, as we did under Clinton. What I know we cannot survive, and yet the argument the GOP is not even makng, is the idea that 2% of the country shuld SUPPORT the other 98%. This CLASS WARFARE iddea destoryed the Roman Republic, and it will DESTROY US. It is absurd for GOP to say that they can "give" on this PRINCIPLE of class warfare, and "concentrate"on SPENDING. Dems/media will make SPENDING the SAME ISSUE. Medicaer? Raise Medicare taes on the "rich", AND reduce the benefits/raise the cost ("means tet") Medicare for the "ricxh". Social Secuirty? Ditto. Same thing. If GOP concedes CLASS WARFARE arguemtn, as they--and too many conservaitves already have--then they have LOST the WAR. There is no recovering from it, because the sAME leftist argument can be made on EVERY tax and SPENDING issue we ever face. Ayn Rand will prove to have been a prophet ahead of her time ("Atlas Shrugged"). Will the "rich" (Alex Rodriguez? Albert Pujols? Tom Brady?) be content to be SLAVES using their tlaent/money to support the REST OF US? Not in the end. My big beef with the GOP, and to omany conservatives, is that they are not even ARGUING against this ultimate diaster. Not acceptable to me. I will not accept it. that is why I do NOT expect to support the GOP nominee for President in 2016, OR to support GOP incumbents (ANY of them) in Congress in 2014.
The minor point, of course, is the CONSTANT Labor Dept./media dishoensty as to the "revision" ALWAYS made in only one direction-makng a mockery of the absurd clam that the revised data is merely a matter of more "complete" data. If there is a CONSISTENT error not included in the original "eadline" numbers, then the PROCEDURE shuld be changed to include an "adjustment' for the constant error. Not to do that is DISHOENST, as I have been telling yu. Thus, last wek's reported number of new unemplyment claims was REVISED upward from 370,0000 to 372,0000 (median is a upward revison of 3,000, but--as almost always--my "prediction" of 373,000 was CLOSER than the Labor Dept./media figure).
But where I have really been right over the paset weeks, since Sandy, is my prediction that the media, and Labor Dept. would emPHASIZE the distortins of Sandy for UNFAVORABLE numbers, but ignore the distortins of Sandy for favorable numbers. As I told you, the weeky number of new unemplyment claims is going to mean NOTHING until probably mid-Janutary, and we will not realy get a pcutre of where 2013 is headed until posssibly April. (as to the labor market).
"But, Skip, once the effet of Sandy has dissapted, the number surely means as much as it ever does, even though it is true that the number bounces around such that one week never means much. We get your pint that the seasonal adjustment alne, especially around holidays, is so unreliable that the weekly numbers only mean anything OVER TIME. And the media is dishonest for ignoring this, and acting like each weekly number is some sort of concrete, accurate descritpn of the weekly status of the labor market. However, surely the number does not mean less than usual once the dramatic, initial effects of Sansy have passed."
Wrong. Yep. The media, as usual, LIED when they tired to place actual significance on today's "dramatic" (too dramatic, meaning it is likely PURE FICTIN) "drop" in new unemplyment claims to 346,000. Ok. Annnounced number was 343,000, but I always take into account that CONSISTENT ERROR (that Labor Dept./media dishoensty). There was a purported "drop" of 29,000. Even without Sandy, that kind of a drop would be suspicious, as I previously told you when the Labor Dept. "reported" 339,000 (revised to 342,000), only to find out that the Labor Detpt. had LEFT OUT CALIFORNIA (or a significant portion of California claims). With Sandy, as I told you last night, and previusly, today's number is not even surprising. Why is that. It is because Sandy did NTO just DISTORT the numbers one way. Yes, Sandy caused an immeidate jump in jobless claims because of Sandy shutting down business. But Sandy also DISTORTED the seasonal pattern/seasonal adjustment. That means that this week's number cannot really be regarded as any more reliable than that 451,000 number right after Sandy. Once the 'bounce back" from Sandy in the weekly number got beynd Sandy causing any more layoffs, it was to be expected that the disruptin in the seasonal pattern would cause the weekly number to go TOO LOW to be representatvive of the real status of the labor markt. Sure, yuy could AVERAGE the numbers over the past 4 weeks. But the better way to look at this is that these numbers since Sandy, INCLUDING THIS WEEK'S SUPPOSEDLY "GOOD" NUMBER, just don't mean anything about the "normalized" satus of the labor market, exculsive of the SHORT-TERM effect of Sandy.
But you won't hear from either the Labor Dept. or (espiecally) our dishoenst/incompetent media that the "good' number today was likelyl DISTORTED by Sandy just as much as the bad numbers right after Sandy. So where are we? No way to know. That is the point. Until we see how this goes, OVER TIME (and outside of holiday influence), we really are not going to have any god idea of where we stand. Oh, you can say that at least the effects of Sandy on layoffs are proving mainy TEmPORARY, rather than some sort of major body blow to business in the northeast that is causing a downward spiral. As I have stated, it is just absurd to say that Sandy was GOOD for the economy. But if the effects of Sandy are, indeed, temporary, then that can be regarded as somewhat "good" news in a negative sort of way (not as bad as might have been). But you, and the media CANNOT now conclude that this weekly number on new unemplylment claims is now a "true' picture of whre the labor market is. You canot even do that as to ANY one week, but yu especially cannot do it when it is absurd not to at least SUSPECT that Sandy is still DISTORTING the number--just in the oppposite directin because the "formula" does not take into account the changes in the seasonal pattern caused by Sandy.
Over the past three eyars, in any event, the WINTER has lproven an espeically misleading time forthese weekly jobless claims numbers. Why? Well, the Labor Dept. "formula' for "seasonal adjustment" may be FLAEWED (surelyl is flawed, by the way, as it can NEVER be regarded as any more than a fallible ESTIMATE, especially for any one week). Secondly: WEATHER. The WEATHER in WINTER has much more effect on things like construction than weather variations at other times of the year. Sandy showed the effect weather can have. A winter BLIZZARD can paralyze business over a good part of the country (that is, heavily populated NYC, Boston, D.C., Philadelphia, Chicago areas). What the dishoenst media dos NOT tell you is that the LACK of blizzards and BAD weather can distort the seaonsal adjustment just as much as bad weather--more, in fact, if the "seasonal adjustment" is based on the expectatin of a certain amount of bad weahter in areas subject to cold, bad winter eather). ope. These weekly numbers are FALLIBLE ESTIMATES, whose ONLY meaning is OVER TIME.
What if the number KEPT going down? Obviuisly, at some point that would be significant. But the point is that there is NO reason to believe that this week's number emans ANY more than the obvisly distorted 451,000 number of abut 4 weeks ago. This number is likely to have been DISTORTED by Sandy, just like the 451,000--just in th eopposite directin. Time will tell. But it will probably not tell until at least mid-January, because of the distortions of the holiday season, as well as lingering distortions of Sandy.
I expect a SHAM "deal" on the "fiscal cliff", whre the GOP cements my conclustin that it is a party that now deserves to DIE (and be replaced by something else). But I don't think it matters. The real chalenge as 2013 progresses, aside from Bernanke/Obama making a real "recovery" impossible, is ObamaCare. ObamaCare is gong to loom over the 2013 labor market, and our economy, like the asteroid in "Armageddon". Even without ObamaCare, I would be pessimistic about the new religion of Wall St. economic fascists that all we need ot do to "save' us is to PRINT MONEY. With ObamaCare, I see no hope at all. GOP--coward to a man and woman, as far as ai can see--has already shown in 2010 that NO vicotry in 2014 is gong to be enugh to change course. No courage. Thus, we are going to be on this path until at least 2016 (when I wonder whether the GOP will be headling toward that 1,000th and final death that cowards suffer, while a brave man dies but once). Can we make it TO 206, even if there is someone to vote for then who will actually change course? I doubt it.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). As I have said on Twitter, by the way, I believe that the bst of the POSSIBLE results to the present "crisis" is to go over this "fiscal cliff", and at least require our politicians to LIVE WITH their previus choices. Disaster. But LEAST of the disasters we face, which is a sad comnetary on where we are. IF we go over the "fiscal cliff", and STAY THERE, we will at least make a stab at BOTH "cuttnig" spending (not enough, even, and partiallly in the wrong places) AND reducing the deficit (even if with the disastrous tax increases that wil occur). Note that "goning over the fiscal cliff" merely (subjet to certain distortions caused by failure to properly adjust things like th eAMT) would merely return us to the tax rates of the CLINTON YEARS: the very tax rates that our media and opther leftist Democrats say led to PROSPERITY. It MAY be possible to survive those tax rates, as we did under Clinton. What I know we cannot survive, and yet the argument the GOP is not even makng, is the idea that 2% of the country shuld SUPPORT the other 98%. This CLASS WARFARE iddea destoryed the Roman Republic, and it will DESTROY US. It is absurd for GOP to say that they can "give" on this PRINCIPLE of class warfare, and "concentrate"on SPENDING. Dems/media will make SPENDING the SAME ISSUE. Medicaer? Raise Medicare taes on the "rich", AND reduce the benefits/raise the cost ("means tet") Medicare for the "ricxh". Social Secuirty? Ditto. Same thing. If GOP concedes CLASS WARFARE arguemtn, as they--and too many conservaitves already have--then they have LOST the WAR. There is no recovering from it, because the sAME leftist argument can be made on EVERY tax and SPENDING issue we ever face. Ayn Rand will prove to have been a prophet ahead of her time ("Atlas Shrugged"). Will the "rich" (Alex Rodriguez? Albert Pujols? Tom Brady?) be content to be SLAVES using their tlaent/money to support the REST OF US? Not in the end. My big beef with the GOP, and to omany conservatives, is that they are not even ARGUING against this ultimate diaster. Not acceptable to me. I will not accept it. that is why I do NOT expect to support the GOP nominee for President in 2016, OR to support GOP incumbents (ANY of them) in Congress in 2014.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Jobs and Dishonest Labor Dept./Media
Last Friday, the Labor Dept. issued monthly employment numbers that have to be regarded as total FICTIN: purporting to show a DROP (although slight) in unemplyment and 146,000 "added" jobs (not good, but strange with Sandy)--despite Supestorm Sandy.
Why fiction? Look at how those numbers CONFLICTED with the weekly numbers on new unemplyment claims. Here are the numbers on new unemplyent claims released the pat four weeks (released every Thursday, as they will be tomorrow): 451,0000 (18 month high), 416,000, 395,0000, 370,0000 (to be REVISED upward tomorrow by the disheonst Labor Dept, as this was the UNREVISED number released last Thursday). Note that EVERY one of these numbers would have been new HIGHS for the YEAR, before the 451,0000, until we got to last week's annnounced 370,000. But even that nuber was in the MIDDLE of the YEARLY range for the weekly number of new unemplyment claims (351,0000-392,000, before Sandy and disregarding 342,0000 when dishoenst Labor Dept. neglected to COUNT most or all of new claims from California, and never corrected the admittedly erroneous number).
How can Superstorm Sandy cause a HUGE jump in new unemplyment claims, and the unemplyument rate DROP? It can't. These numbers are INCONSISTENT, and REQUIRE exlanatin. But our dishoenst Labor Dept. and media simplyl refuse to look into the obvius discrepancy here, althogh they WILL do so to explain the UNFAVORABLE results of Sandy (such as that huge jump in new unemplyment claims).
What happened? I don't know, for sure. These monthy numbers are getting less and less reliable, to the pint of being entirely useless. The weekly number of new unempllment claims--despite being itself subject to errors and manipulatino--seems to be giving a better picture, OVER TIME, of wha is going on in te labor markte. Notice that the weekly number of new unemplyment claims seems to have given the EXPECTED results from Sandy, while the monthly numbers appar to be FICTIN. Yes, the weekly number of new unemplyment claims was DISTORTED by Sandy, but those high numbers still represented REAL lsot jobs: just not necessarily the ongoing picture of the labor market as Sandy's immediate impact dissipated. No. You jsut can't reconcile the weekly numbers and the monthly numbers, as the monthy numbers seem to indicate NO impact from Sandy at all. That is not possilbe, and the economy did NOT "improve" that muc (as the weeklly number of new unemplyment claims indicated), such that Sandy's losses were matched by big gains elsewhere.
Again, what happened. Problem MAY be in Labor Dept., and unreliability of monthly numbers. There is at least ONE other POSSIBLE way to envision that the monthly numbers might be misleading (besides the way the numbers are collected and calculated, including the timing of when the info was obtained during the onth). As I have previusly stated, Sandy did INCREASE emplyment in some ways, although the net effect was surely negative. Waht aobut all of those TEMPORARY and PART-TIME DISASTER RELIEF peole? It is possible that Sandy actually distorted the monthly numbers in a "positive" directin, even though Sandy's effect on the economy and labor market was really negative. As this blog has told you, the problem with Sandy is that it is hard to PREDICT exactly how Sandy will afect the numbers for individual months and individual weeks. For example, if tomorrow's weekly numbe of new unemplyment claims wer "really good", would that mean real "progress" in the labor market? Almsot surely NOT. It wouud merely mean that the DISTORTINS from Sandy, includng distortins of seasonal patterns, had gone the other directin. ObamaCare, by the way, remains the REAL "fiscal cliff", as it starts to realy affect employers in 2013. As I have stated on Twitter (where my material has been appearing more requently lately @mavconservative, despite the obvius fact that I am not really a Twitter person), my positin is that we would be MUCH better off going over the "fiscal cliff" (as usually described, not including the really terrible effects likely from ObamaCare) than we are likely to be with any "deal" "negotiated" by tghe COWARDLY GOP.
Oh. I made an ERROR in my aricle of almost two weeks ago, when I acutally gave the DISHOENST Labor Dept. too much credit. I said that the Labor Dept., for the first time in livng memory, had actually revised the number of new unmplylument claims DOWN, rahter than the ALWAYS upward revison over many previus months, and even years. Not so. Somehow, because of a mistake by my media source (entirely possible), or because of my own eyesight, I got the idea that the number of new unemloyment claims was reported as 383,0000, down 23,0000 from the previous week. That would have made the previus week 406,000,m nstead of the initially reported 410,000. Actually, the number of new unemloyument claims was reported as 393,000, down 23,000 from a REVISED 416,000. I was off 10,000, and the dishoenst Labor Dpet. had REVISED the prvius week UPWRD from 410,000 to 416,000: a continuance of the DISHONESTY of the usual, consistent upward revsion week after week. Thus, last Thursday, the Labor Dept. again REVISED the preius week's 393,000 to 395,000, which is te number I included in my recakkp of the past 4 weeks above. as stated, the number of new unempllyment claims initially reorted last week was 370,000. Youi can EXPECT that number to be REVISED tomorrow (or "today", since this is being typed right at midnight El Paso taime) to 373,0000 or so (using most common weekly revision of UP 3,000). Everything else I said in that article two weeks ago was accurate, and even my error did not cuase me to give any credence to the Labor Dept. suddenly beocmign more honest. I was right in my expressed skepticism, as the revisin turned out to be the same directin in which it always is made: UPWARD (as the dishonest media keeps reporting the initial, UNREVISED number as if it is not gong to be REVISED the next week in only one directin).
Again, it is difficult to "predict" what tomorrow's number of initiallly reported new unemplyment claims will be. The distortins of Sandy, including the subtle one on the "seaosnal adjustment', may still be operating. Further, we are in the CHRISTMAS season, and the Labor Dept. numbers around holidays are esopecially unreliable. Even without Sandy, the Laor Dept. often gets the "seasonal adjustment" WRONG as seasonal patterns change from year to year. As this blog has correctly told you, I don't think these numbers are gong to mean much--or at least we won't know what they may mean--until at least mid-January. And since 2010 there has been a consistent FICTINAL "improvement at the end of one year and the beginning of the next (through February), that has turned out to be FALSE as we go into spring and summer. These numbers will ONLY have any significance OVER TIME, and we may be all of the way into April before we can arrive at any reasonably confident evaluatin of how the labor market is doing in 2013. The usual SEASONAL "improvement" ni new weeekly unemloyment claims has NOT yet occurred this year. It remanis to be seen if it will maek a belated appearance as we head toward the end of the year, and beginnng of next year. Then there is the fact that the BASE numbers and formulas used to CALCULATE both the weekly and monthly numbers usually CHANGES in January.
The media may have orgasms, as usual, if the numbers APPEAR to be good", as they have FALSELY appeeared for the past 3 years. We will have to wiat and see for the real situation to become established. Or, rather, YOU will have to wiat and see for my DEFINITIVE evaluatin of the situatin. I can give you better analysis than anyone else, but even I cannot accurately tell you the real status of the labor market until there is enough reasonably reliable data to see whether the PATTERN of the last three years is repeating itself or not. And I really am afaid that these numbers--weekly and monthly--are becoming more subject to possible manipulatin with every passing week and month. Tha tis why you have to TRY to RECONCILE the vaiurs numbers (includnig GDP growth and other non-emplyment data) with EACH OTHER. Yu cannot reconcile the last four weeks of new unemplyment claims with the supposed MONTHLY emplment numbers for November. We will see what time adn more data, bring to us in the way of clues.
No. Whehter the economic data starts to really look better or not, ObamaCare (along with so many other things, including the Fed makng real recovery impossible because printing money will cause immeidate SPIKES in inflatin as any "recovery" starts) is a SWORD OF DAMOCLES hangng over the American economy. I don't see how we survive it.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).
Why fiction? Look at how those numbers CONFLICTED with the weekly numbers on new unemplyment claims. Here are the numbers on new unemplyent claims released the pat four weeks (released every Thursday, as they will be tomorrow): 451,0000 (18 month high), 416,000, 395,0000, 370,0000 (to be REVISED upward tomorrow by the disheonst Labor Dept, as this was the UNREVISED number released last Thursday). Note that EVERY one of these numbers would have been new HIGHS for the YEAR, before the 451,0000, until we got to last week's annnounced 370,000. But even that nuber was in the MIDDLE of the YEARLY range for the weekly number of new unemplyment claims (351,0000-392,000, before Sandy and disregarding 342,0000 when dishoenst Labor Dept. neglected to COUNT most or all of new claims from California, and never corrected the admittedly erroneous number).
How can Superstorm Sandy cause a HUGE jump in new unemplyment claims, and the unemplyument rate DROP? It can't. These numbers are INCONSISTENT, and REQUIRE exlanatin. But our dishoenst Labor Dept. and media simplyl refuse to look into the obvius discrepancy here, althogh they WILL do so to explain the UNFAVORABLE results of Sandy (such as that huge jump in new unemplyment claims).
What happened? I don't know, for sure. These monthy numbers are getting less and less reliable, to the pint of being entirely useless. The weekly number of new unempllment claims--despite being itself subject to errors and manipulatino--seems to be giving a better picture, OVER TIME, of wha is going on in te labor markte. Notice that the weekly number of new unemplyment claims seems to have given the EXPECTED results from Sandy, while the monthly numbers appar to be FICTIN. Yes, the weekly number of new unemplyment claims was DISTORTED by Sandy, but those high numbers still represented REAL lsot jobs: just not necessarily the ongoing picture of the labor market as Sandy's immediate impact dissipated. No. You jsut can't reconcile the weekly numbers and the monthly numbers, as the monthy numbers seem to indicate NO impact from Sandy at all. That is not possilbe, and the economy did NOT "improve" that muc (as the weeklly number of new unemplyment claims indicated), such that Sandy's losses were matched by big gains elsewhere.
Again, what happened. Problem MAY be in Labor Dept., and unreliability of monthly numbers. There is at least ONE other POSSIBLE way to envision that the monthly numbers might be misleading (besides the way the numbers are collected and calculated, including the timing of when the info was obtained during the onth). As I have previusly stated, Sandy did INCREASE emplyment in some ways, although the net effect was surely negative. Waht aobut all of those TEMPORARY and PART-TIME DISASTER RELIEF peole? It is possible that Sandy actually distorted the monthly numbers in a "positive" directin, even though Sandy's effect on the economy and labor market was really negative. As this blog has told you, the problem with Sandy is that it is hard to PREDICT exactly how Sandy will afect the numbers for individual months and individual weeks. For example, if tomorrow's weekly numbe of new unemplyment claims wer "really good", would that mean real "progress" in the labor market? Almsot surely NOT. It wouud merely mean that the DISTORTINS from Sandy, includng distortins of seasonal patterns, had gone the other directin. ObamaCare, by the way, remains the REAL "fiscal cliff", as it starts to realy affect employers in 2013. As I have stated on Twitter (where my material has been appearing more requently lately @mavconservative, despite the obvius fact that I am not really a Twitter person), my positin is that we would be MUCH better off going over the "fiscal cliff" (as usually described, not including the really terrible effects likely from ObamaCare) than we are likely to be with any "deal" "negotiated" by tghe COWARDLY GOP.
Oh. I made an ERROR in my aricle of almost two weeks ago, when I acutally gave the DISHOENST Labor Dept. too much credit. I said that the Labor Dept., for the first time in livng memory, had actually revised the number of new unmplylument claims DOWN, rahter than the ALWAYS upward revison over many previus months, and even years. Not so. Somehow, because of a mistake by my media source (entirely possible), or because of my own eyesight, I got the idea that the number of new unemloyment claims was reported as 383,0000, down 23,0000 from the previous week. That would have made the previus week 406,000,m nstead of the initially reported 410,000. Actually, the number of new unemloyument claims was reported as 393,000, down 23,000 from a REVISED 416,000. I was off 10,000, and the dishoenst Labor Dpet. had REVISED the prvius week UPWRD from 410,000 to 416,000: a continuance of the DISHONESTY of the usual, consistent upward revsion week after week. Thus, last Thursday, the Labor Dept. again REVISED the preius week's 393,000 to 395,000, which is te number I included in my recakkp of the past 4 weeks above. as stated, the number of new unempllyment claims initially reorted last week was 370,000. Youi can EXPECT that number to be REVISED tomorrow (or "today", since this is being typed right at midnight El Paso taime) to 373,0000 or so (using most common weekly revision of UP 3,000). Everything else I said in that article two weeks ago was accurate, and even my error did not cuase me to give any credence to the Labor Dept. suddenly beocmign more honest. I was right in my expressed skepticism, as the revisin turned out to be the same directin in which it always is made: UPWARD (as the dishonest media keeps reporting the initial, UNREVISED number as if it is not gong to be REVISED the next week in only one directin).
Again, it is difficult to "predict" what tomorrow's number of initiallly reported new unemplyment claims will be. The distortins of Sandy, including the subtle one on the "seaosnal adjustment', may still be operating. Further, we are in the CHRISTMAS season, and the Labor Dept. numbers around holidays are esopecially unreliable. Even without Sandy, the Laor Dept. often gets the "seasonal adjustment" WRONG as seasonal patterns change from year to year. As this blog has correctly told you, I don't think these numbers are gong to mean much--or at least we won't know what they may mean--until at least mid-January. And since 2010 there has been a consistent FICTINAL "improvement at the end of one year and the beginning of the next (through February), that has turned out to be FALSE as we go into spring and summer. These numbers will ONLY have any significance OVER TIME, and we may be all of the way into April before we can arrive at any reasonably confident evaluatin of how the labor market is doing in 2013. The usual SEASONAL "improvement" ni new weeekly unemloyment claims has NOT yet occurred this year. It remanis to be seen if it will maek a belated appearance as we head toward the end of the year, and beginnng of next year. Then there is the fact that the BASE numbers and formulas used to CALCULATE both the weekly and monthly numbers usually CHANGES in January.
The media may have orgasms, as usual, if the numbers APPEAR to be good", as they have FALSELY appeeared for the past 3 years. We will have to wiat and see for the real situation to become established. Or, rather, YOU will have to wiat and see for my DEFINITIVE evaluatin of the situatin. I can give you better analysis than anyone else, but even I cannot accurately tell you the real status of the labor market until there is enough reasonably reliable data to see whether the PATTERN of the last three years is repeating itself or not. And I really am afaid that these numbers--weekly and monthly--are becoming more subject to possible manipulatin with every passing week and month. Tha tis why you have to TRY to RECONCILE the vaiurs numbers (includnig GDP growth and other non-emplyment data) with EACH OTHER. Yu cannot reconcile the last four weeks of new unemplyment claims with the supposed MONTHLY emplment numbers for November. We will see what time adn more data, bring to us in the way of clues.
No. Whehter the economic data starts to really look better or not, ObamaCare (along with so many other things, including the Fed makng real recovery impossible because printing money will cause immeidate SPIKES in inflatin as any "recovery" starts) is a SWORD OF DAMOCLES hangng over the American economy. I don't see how we survive it.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)