U.S. Jobs Propaganda Gets More Desperate 90 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
With another fraudulent U.S. monthly jobs-report due out today, the U.S. propaganda-machine is uttering one absurdity after another.
Thursday, it was trumpeting the news that “continuing claims” fell last month for the first time in five months. The first point to make here is that if last month's number had not been revised higher (as is happening every month) then continuing claims would have increased, not decreased.
The second point to make about this nonsense is that the tiny decline of 15,000 (from a total of nearly 7 million) is statistically insignificant. In other words, there is a statistical “margin of error” with all such reports and that margin of error is much greater than 15,000.
Finally, even if this report had shown some marginal decrease in “continuing claims” (greater than the margin of error), it does not imply an improvement in the job market. This is a neutral statistic regarding month-to-month changes in employment.
The reason? If the number of people continuing to receive unemployment decreases, there are two equally probable explanations as to what has occurred to change this number. It might mean that some of these people found jobs, or, it could simply mean that their unemployment insurance expired.
When the propagandists present a statistically insignificant number which does not imply a positive change in this market as unambiguously “good news”, then this is nothing less than a deliberate attempt to deceive.
Similarly, the propagandists have frequently reported that the weekly lay-offs statistic is “improving”. Yet every one of these “improvements" occurs only because the previous week's “final estimate” is always revised higher – since the original number is always a “low-ball” estimate of the real weekly lay-offs. Thus, despite all these “improvements" in the weekly lay-off figures, there has been no statistically significant improvement – at all.
Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is expected to pretend that the net job-losses for May will be slightly over 500,000. This doesn't even qualify as an estimate, since it is a complete fabrication. I have dealt with this issue previously (see “U.S. economy to lose 20 MILLION jobs this year”). However, with the propagandists continuing to produce these outrageous lies every month, it is sadly necessary for me to repeat my denunciation of these ridiculous lies.
In early 2008, at the beginning of the collapse of the U.S. economy, there were roughly 1.3 million lay-offs each month. The net job losses for those months was virtually flat. Thus, as a matter of simple arithmetic, last year (when the U.S. economy was much stronger), there were roughly 1.3 million new positions being created each month to offset those weekly lay-offs.
This year, the weekly lay-offs have totaled 2.5 million to 3 million every month. Obviously, the U.S. economy is producing far fewer positions than it was in early 2008. In other words, the U.S. economy is producing far fewer than 1.3 million new position each month. A reasonable estimate (if not generous) is that the U.S. economy is producing half as many new positions each month (i.e. roughly 600,000 new positions).
If we add that reasonable number of new positions (600,000) to the total monthly lay-offs of between 2.5 million and 3 million, we see that the U.S. is losing a minimum of 2 million jobs per month. This is more than three times the fictional numbers produced by the BLS. There is no possibility that a huge error of this magnitude could be an honest mistake.
Thus, the supposed monthly job-loss numbers from the BLS are deliberate, manufactured fraud – which should be painfully obvious to anyone capable of performing simple arithmetic. Anyone who defends these numbers is (implicitly) either a liar or an idiot.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 90 comments:
Labor statistics and CPI are the two most unreliable pieces of data offered by the government because they are the two (purportedly) stated goals of monetary policy. In other words, if they want to pursue a certain monetary policy, they just need to mold the stats a little (and stop publishing M3 supply) to support what they are pushing - similar to the economist above. Just like any analysis - garbage in, garbage out.
I feel that this is more of an attempt to boost consumer confidence than anything though. Jeff, thanks for continuing to call it like it is.
Any thoughts on the jobs report today? Way lower than expectations - complete fabrication? Plus why is the market ignoring 9.4% - that is way higher than the budget assumption of 8.1% for the year, which is clearly not going to happen. Also, the ludicrous stress test figures are being passed now...
Somebody wake me when we are gaining 250,000 jobs a month.
You forget, I guess. This is the government. Its likely it's "Anyone who defends these numbers is (implicitly) a liar *and* an idiot."
HardToLove
As millions of middle class workers were displaced due to off shoring or importation of cheap "high tech" labor, the unemployment numbers were downright positive.
Every month as they worked jobs at half (or less) their former salaries, the economy was touted as being "strong" and employment robust.
It was crap in 2005 and it is still crap now.
One caveat that the "experts," pundits and media is missing with today's report: GM & Chrysler (Ford too by all accounts) ramped up their suppliers in April and May. Orders flooded in and desperate businesses produced billions.
Now they won't get paid.
So their employees, who don't have pensions, Cadillac health care or 8 weeks off a year, let alone pay to make up the difference between unemployment and regular wages, will be signing up in droves.
Under the radar, as 10,000 companies laying off 25 workers will NEVER show up in the stats, or headlines.
Love to see more Americans waking up to reality, wish I didn't feel it was too little, too late.
Clinton and Greenscam have made a major "adjustments" to ways inflation rates were/are calculated. Later, when gas, food, and medical cost went shy-high, we were told about "deflation".
Finally, the latest employments data must incorporate a substantial job creation due to the stimulus money flowing into constriction and state/municipal sectors. This is good. However, this is built on the monopoly-money foundation. It is not any different from keeping union jobs at GM or Chrysler.
another great article.
in a socialist regime two important targets to sieze are the media and the government conditioning, programming, brainwashing centers aka the public schools. it takes a lot of propagenda to cover the failled socialist system. each day the young americans are being programmed to vote away their soveriegn rights in the name of earth, fairness, and the needs of the collective. each night the adults sit in front of the idiot box and listen to the pundits tell them what to think. few americans think for themselves anymore. even fewer have a basic understanding of the legal constitutional government the representative republic. we are deep in the cesspool of democratic socialism which has an end-goal of socialist totalitarianism. marx/engles coined the term communist to replace socialist because at the time people realized that socialism was a total failure. whatever the label communist, fascist, or socialist with the variations it is still the rotten system of the state taking from one to give to another.
our government and the propagenda apparatus are synptoms of our sick population. it is quite a task before us to set the constitutional republic back on its' proper legal course. the contest to save liberty will be interesting. it takes a small determined group to win. our strength is that we are not bleating sheeple crying to government for security which is a course to tyranny. our weakness is that trying to get a group of individualists to co-operate is like trying to herd a bunch of cats.
We should be happy that we are reducing our big ugly carbon footprint.
You know what despair smells like? Fresh air!
If you want REAL jobs data, go to shadowstats.com .
Thanks.
If the U.S. government is telling the truth, the two sets of data should be at least somewhat close.
We already know from last year (when lay-offs were much lower) and there was less motivation/need to lie, that the two sets of numbers translated into slightly more than 1 million new positions being created each month (offsetting lay-offs).
With the U.S. economy MUCH weaker this year (by EVERY statistical measurement), we are NOW being fed jobs numbers which only make sense if the U.S. economy was producing MORE than 2 MILLION new positions per month.
Yet logic dictates the U.S. economy MUST be generating far less than 1 million jobs per month. Thus, the fictional, net job-loss numbers being announced each month have been under-stating REAL job losses by more than 1.5 million each month - and probably closer to 2 million.
To address another point, discrepancies of this magnitude are HUNDREDS of times greater than any possible statistical "margin or error".
Thus, these aren't "massaged" numbers, they are outright fiction - with the BLS simply taking the real data, throwing it away, and distributing the biggest lies it thinks it can get the sheep to believe.
On Jun 05 09:28 AM remco wrote:
> I read your article about 20M jobs lost. One thing is not clear to
> me...why would the US economy have to create 2M jobs in march? The
> 660.000 number is the gov. statistic for total lay-offs, right? (not
> net job losses) Then net job losses (lay-offs minus created jobs)
> should be less, right? Or do I mix up the numbers or miss some statistics?
>
>
> Thanks.
After putting up with people like Cheney and Rumsfeld, the present government smells like roses. Note that I didn't mention George W. and Condoleeza: for them anything that couldn't be proved a lie by people who believe in them was the truth. What bigger lie has any American government ever foisted on the voters than the WMD scam?
But we must not stop doubting there. The Treasury data is seems factious as are the forecasts offered by the Administration. Look at the claims of citizens without health insurance. For dessert review the California budget. Can 18% of the US GDP collapse with not effect on the national data? No.
Those of us who can THINK are appreciative of your works. Your fine work will certainly be lost on those who are hell-bent on ensuring a flourishing nanny state is the watch word going forward.
We only need to identify them...and we don't have the time to waste trying to herd them like a group of cats, as fireball indicates.
The russ'es of the world are entitled to their opinion, even though its without logical thought, merit, or common sensel.
Just keep buying
On Jun 05 09:39 AM Jeff Nielson wrote:
> Hi Remco. Keep in mind that there are two PARALLEL sets of numbers
> here: the WEEKLY lay-off reports, and the MONTHLY, net job-losses.
>
>
> If the U.S. government is telling the truth, the two sets of data
> should be at least somewhat close.
>
> We already know from last year (when lay-offs were much lower) and
> there was less motivation/need to lie, that the two sets of numbers
> translated into slightly more than 1 million new positions being
> created each month (offsetting lay-offs).
>
> With the U.S. economy MUCH weaker this year (by EVERY statistical
> measurement), we are NOW being fed jobs numbers which only make sense
> if the U.S. economy was producing MORE than 2 MILLION new positions
> per month.
>
> Yet logic dictates the U.S. economy MUST be generating far less than
> 1 million jobs per month. Thus, the fictional, net job-loss numbers
> being announced each month have been under-stating REAL job losses
> by more than 1.5 million each month - and probably closer to 2 million.
>
>
> To address another point, discrepancies of this magnitude are HUNDREDS
> of times greater than any possible statistical "margin or error".
>
>
> Thus, these aren't "massaged" numbers, they are outright fiction
> - with the BLS simply taking the real data, throwing it away, and
> distributing the biggest lies it thinks it can get the sheep to believe.
>
Those of us who can THINK are appreciative of your works. Your fine work will certainly be lost on those who are hell-bent on ensuring a flourishing nanny state is the watch word going forward.
We only need to identify them...and we don't have the time to waste trying to herd them like a group of cats, as fireball indicates.
The russ'es of the world are entitled to their opinion, even though its without logical thought, merit, or common sensel.
Just keep buying
I have little faith that it will be business as usual for America. We will experience some real changes in our lifestyle.
This is "news" because the MAGNITUDE of these lies greatly exceeds every other fictional, U.S. "statistic".
Cumulatively, during this year the fictional propaganda is on course to "estimate" U.S. job-losses at about 6 million for this year.
The REALITY is that at least 20 MILLION U.S. jobs will be lost in the U.S. this year. You don't think that is "news"?
On Jun 05 10:39 AM elcopone wrote:
> Is this really news? Of course the government manipulates numbers.
> Big deal.
You were beat up a lot growing up weren't you..or just picked on all the time? Can you believe that the cost of the whole Iraq war doesnt even surpass the amount that YOUR president has spent in his first six months? Pretty amazing isnt it.
Im not going to get into a war discussion with you because it is just pointless with people like you. People, who think the way to handle radicals like Saddam and the rest of the muslim world, is to go over there, bow down to them, try to bond with them by talking about muslim roots and hope that they will all of sudden change their ways. Those are the same people that will talk peace but then stab you in back just as you turn it to them. GL with your soft, liberal, naive views.
The data can be trusted, since no one would pay unemployment premiums on "phantom jobs." Even in bad times the economy generates 2 million new jobs each month. It does not offset the 2.5 million that are lost.
If you are interested, you can check out something I wrote about the last recession, where we can now see all of the job creation data: oldprof.typepad.com/a_...
I hope this is helpful.
Jeff - why don't you tone down the emotion, and write with more objectivity, it would be so much more believable. Instead it comes across like rantings as you trying to get people to go back and follow your real agenda at bullionbullscanada.com, presumably to boost your SEO rankings for that site.
I just took a look at it. The author's statement that (using these metrics) 32 MILLION NEW jobs were created in the U.S. over the last year (2.6 million each month) is simply not credible.
IF this is true, this means that last year, when the U.S. government was reporting a flat jobs market or small declines, that "actually" the U.S. economy was creating (on a "net" basis) hundreds of thousands of new jobs each month - and in some months the net job-gain would have exceeded 1 MILLION JOBS. This is the equivalent of a SPECTACULAR economic "boom" - better than at any point during the RISE of the housing "bubble".
I understand your reasoning...but what that data DEMONSTRATES is simply another fraudulent, U.S. data-stream.
On Jun 05 11:22 AM Jeff Miller wrote:
> Jeff --If you want to resolve this apparent discrepancy, you can
> look at actual historic data, not the monthly surveys. We get information
> from state employment records. It shows the actual number of jobs
> created as well as how many come from new businesses and from existing
> businesses.
>
> The data can be trusted, since no one would pay unemployment premiums
> on "phantom jobs." Even in bad times the economy generates 2 million
> new jobs each month. It does not offset the 2.5 million that are
> lost.
>
> If you are interested, you can check out something I wrote about
> the last recession, where we can now see all of the job creation
> data: oldprof.typepad.com/a_...
>
>
> I hope this is helpful.
> Is this really news? Of course the government manipulates numbers.
> Big deal.
How can you say this? It *is* a big deal that the government manipulates numbers because of what it implies.
It implies that the government thinks the government is not us (the people outside government).
It implies that the government thinks we the people are too weak or too stupid to deal with the truth.
It implies that perception is more important than reality.
It implies that the government believes it knows more about how we should behave than we do ourselves.
These all seem like assumptions that lead to the end of any representative democracy. In fact, they seem like totalitarian assumptions to me.
I guess my main response to this article is "Why?". In a very real sense, we are the government. The people who fill the positions in government went to school with us, watched the same television, went to the same movies, shopped at the same stores, cheered for the same sports teams. And still do.
So what is their incentive for lying to us? Do they really think they are acting in our interest to do so? Or are they directed to do so by their leaders? Is it implicit in the nature of leadership that a leader has to lie to his or her followers? What does it say about a leader that feels it necessary to lie to his or her followers? And about us that we accept it so blithely?
You misquoted me. I specifically said that I was going back to the last recession so that we could look at actual data. The data cited are from 2001, not this year.
We do not yet have state employment data for the last two quarters. When we finally get the data I think we will see job losses running at 30 million/year, even larger than you suggest, and new jobs created running at 24 million/year.
I am curious about why you think state unemployment records are false.
Funnier yet, is the "you're a loon" response when you bring it up. Here's a little insight on the "mother of all evils":
publiccentralbank.com
Some of your readers are going to cringe over G.Carlin's comment/suggestion! One I sympathize with, but could never endorse.
True. However, there is no difference if a significant majority of people simply ignore them.
When numbers and statistics are continuously adjusted, managed, manipulated, renamed, redefined, etc. etc.----credability is lost each time. This leads to a situation of increasingly greater and greater disparity between the statistics and reality. Eventually, the situation arrives at the point where the reality and the statistics are so glaringly in conflict, any trust and confidence in the statistics or other statements is simply dismissed. In order for propaganda to be effective, it must be trusted. When trust and audience receptiveness are lost, no amount of propaganda can bring it back. It is simply becomes a joke.
Like my Dad used to say----"Don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see."
On Jun 05 09:25 AM gringer wrote:
> I have read all the comments in this article. Please respond. Should
> I be taking some hard profits out o the stock market. I am in commodities
> (Oil, natural gas, copper, etc)?
With all that is going on in the world, some meaningless unemployment manipulation should be the least of your worries.
On Jun 05 11:48 AM mdmrjsds wrote:
> On Jun 05 10:39 AM elcopone wrote:
On Jun 05 12:34 PM Fred Linn wrote:
> ========"Elcopone, there is a BIG difference between merely "manipulating"
> numbers - as has been done to a steadily greater degree over a period
> of 30 years - and simply INVENTING numbers out of "thin air"."============
>
>
> True. However, there is no difference if a significant majority of
> people simply ignore them.
>
> When numbers and statistics are continuously adjusted, managed, manipulated,
> renamed, redefined, etc. etc.----credability is lost each time. This
> leads to a situation of increasingly greater and greater disparity
> between the statistics and reality. Eventually, the situation arrives
> at the point where the reality and the statistics are so glaringly
> in conflict, any trust and confidence in the statistics or other
> statements is simply dismissed. In order for propaganda to be effective,
> it must be trusted. When trust and audience receptiveness are lost,
> no amount of propaganda can bring it back. It is simply becomes a
> joke.
>
> Like my Dad used to say----"Don't believe anything you hear, and
> only half of what you see."
>
On Jun 05 12:34 PM Fred Linn wrote:
> ========"Elcopone, there is a BIG difference between merely "manipulating"
> numbers - as has been done to a steadily greater degree over a period
> of 30 years - and simply INVENTING numbers out of "thin air"."============
>
>
> True. However, there is no difference if a significant majority of
> people simply ignore them.
>
> When numbers and statistics are continuously adjusted, managed, manipulated,
> renamed, redefined, etc. etc.----credability is lost each time. This
> leads to a situation of increasingly greater and greater disparity
> between the statistics and reality. Eventually, the situation arrives
> at the point where the reality and the statistics are so glaringly
> in conflict, any trust and confidence in the statistics or other
> statements is simply dismissed. In order for propaganda to be effective,
> it must be trusted. When trust and audience receptiveness are lost,
> no amount of propaganda can bring it back. It is simply becomes a
> joke.
>
> Like my Dad used to say----"Don't believe anything you hear, and
> only half of what you see."
>
Suggesting that the U.S. economy was creating 2.6 million new positions PER MONTH (during the 2001 recession) is simply absurd.
Similarly, your suggestion that the U.S. economy will create 24 million new positions over the course of the year is not plausible - given that we already have data which completely contradicts such numbers: last year's weekly lay-off numbers (in the early part of the year) when they were averaging about 1.3 million per month.
The state numbers you present cannot POSSIBLY be reconciled with the national, weekly lay-off figures. And IF the weekly lay-off figures were understating lay-offs by 1 million per month (in order to fit the state data), then we must also assume they are understating lay-offs THIS year by at least an equivalent amount.
That would put current, monthly lay-offs at near 4 MILLION per month. Those are the implications of YOUR numbers.
On Jun 05 12:20 PM Jeff Miller wrote:
> Jeff -- regarding my link to this article: oldprof.typepad.com/a_...
>
>
> You misquoted me. I specifically said that I was going back to the
> last recession so that we could look at actual data. The data cited
> are from 2001, not this year.
>
> We do not yet have state employment data for the last two quarters.
> When we finally get the data I think we will see job losses running
> at 30 million/year, even larger than you suggest, and new jobs created
> running at 24 million/year.
>
> I am curious about why you think state unemployment records are false.
It is revealing when the press doesn't even try to hide their insatiable lust for this celebrity president.
I also applaud when the majority of readers have the savvy to agree.
Yet with all this being known, the markets can still be massaged upwards with TARP, IRA, 401K and other savings funds' money by dealers and managers who really ought to know better. I'm glad I manage my own money, and feel for those whose savings will take a big tumble when this house of cards collapses, as it must.
Export for trade to import all right back here to an nation of Wal-Mart shopkeepers. Import to exchange all on the slave trade what we are not longer selling except for the man day and night but trade for exchange goods for goods in eachother market place. Exchanging for trade value for value is to produce what would sell for you.
Can Hara Guru Obama compete with enough of his green cars to pay all of California bills? That is the question to be or not to be.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics."
I believe there is a fourth kind of lie: "government statistics"!
On Jun 05 08:42 AM cabaretewilliam wrote:
> The American middle class will shrink and dissapear. You cannot keep
> paying unskilled labor to make cars at $70 per hour, when the cars
> are being made in Asia at $5 per hour. Typical of King Obama, he
> will freeze exec pay but give the Autoworkers NO reduction, just
> a freeze in pay at $70 an hour. End result will be these jobs too
> will dissapear when the gov. money runs out, and it will.
I believe this is what you were asking for: "Why lying about unemployment is so important" (www.bullionbullscanada...).
It's certainly not just a U.S. phenomenon, but is a tactic of all Western industrialized nations. However, as I've pointed out, the lies in RECENT months by the U.S. government dwarf any other fabrications made by any other government - and any previous exaggerations of the U.S. government.
On Jun 05 06:15 PM TeaLeaves wrote:
> I wonder if Jeff Nielson would like to make explicit the reason the
> BLS has been lying for thirty years. Lowballing unemployment numbers
> has obviously helped both Republican and Democratic administrations
> over that period. BLS employees are career bureaucrats and cannot
> be voted out of office. If their motives are political, why are they
> helping both parties? If they are not political, how do they enhance
> their professional reputations by lying? Does our muckraking author
> endorse the George Wallace/ Noam Chomsky view that there is not a
> dime's worth of difference between the two parties? Is the BLS in
> the service of Uncle Sam-- whichever party is in power? What does
> that make Nielson's cheerleaders: anarchists? Don't replace this
> government. Replace government with . . . what? "People power"? Or
> Canadian commodities.
The only thing that may save our country from being totally destroyed by our government is the fact that at least half our citizens are still armed. Join the NRA to make sure it stays that way. Hitler disarmed the German citizens before he was able to kill millions of them without any way for them to defend themselves.
When the Russians are lecturing us on rapidly becoming a Marxist state, that had better scare the hell out of all of you!
On Jun 05 09:22 AM fireball wrote:
> jeff
> another great article.
> in a socialist regime two important targets to sieze are the media
> and the government conditioning, programming, brainwashing centers
> aka the public schools. it takes a lot of propagenda to cover the
> failled socialist system. each day the young americans are being
> programmed to vote away their soveriegn rights in the name of earth,
> fairness, and the needs of the collective. each night the adults
> sit in front of the idiot box and listen to the pundits tell them
> what to think. few americans think for themselves anymore. even fewer
> have a basic understanding of the legal constitutional government
> the representative republic. we are deep in the cesspool of democratic
> socialism which has an end-goal of socialist totalitarianism. marx/engles
> coined the term communist to replace socialist because at the time
> people realized that socialism was a total failure. whatever the
> label communist, fascist, or socialist with the variations it is
> still the rotten system of the state taking from one to give to another.
>
> our government and the propagenda apparatus are synptoms of our sick
> population. it is quite a task before us to set the constitutional
> republic back on its' proper legal course. the contest to save liberty
> will be interesting. it takes a small determined group to win. our
> strength is that we are not bleating sheeple crying to government
> for security which is a course to tyranny. our weakness is that trying
> to get a group of individualists to co-operate is like trying to
> herd a bunch of cats.
TeresaE ,NOVA ,fireball, Fred Linn , you are spot on .
Doug Casey once said several years ago ," most folks would rather die than actually have to think , + in fact most do actually do this " They go thru life + NEVER think . Hitler once said , " it is fortunate for us that the masses don't think , as this makes them easier to control".ALL info put out by paid for media is unmitigated BS ! "
And Wal-Mart just announced that they need to hire another 15,000.
So if you're unemployed now, you have a lot to look forward to.
Thanks for your response, but no, I wasn't asking why lying about unemployment is important. I understand the use of ideology in maintaining political power. Your emphasis on the lies in RECENT months now makes me think that you see BLS as supportive of the Obama agenda. Even non-partisan bureaucrats may feel political pressure from regimes they don't like and lie a bit to please the powers that be. So BLS will fudge a little for Bush but go all out for Obama. I wanted to know why you think BLS is complicit in the administration's political spinning. It's not because they serve the fuhrer whoever he is but because they share the Obama agenda, and that accounts for the recent escalation in whoppers. That's possible. The State Department under Bush seemed to follow a "diplomacy" agenda to the point of undermining their boss's policy, so "non-partisan" agencies can have political agendas. I just wanted to be clear on whose agenda we are talking about. Some of your readers took you to be anti-government-- others, anti-Obama.
When $20 mfg jobs are replaced by $12 ones, Uncle Sam can't continue to spend $30 million per to knock off Muslims. Should be closer to $0.80 (price of 2 AK-47 rounds).
BTW Obama is more like Bush than most folks on both sides are willing to admit.
In the 60's, it was rocket scientists.
In the 70's, geologists.
In the 80's, computer programmers.
In the 90's, day traders.
Quite a few of my friends followed your advice.
Most are teetering on bankruptcy.
On Jun 05 04:18 PM WAKEUP wrote:
> More and more I believe the only way out of the unemployment problem
> is for people to go the entrepreneurial route. Think about how long
> it will take (if, indeed this can EVER be accomplished) a nation
> in freefall to create enough jobs to replace all the millions of
> jobs that have already been lost, not to mention the losses to come.
> We'd do well to forget the job we had, and get busy creating our
> own job, with our wits and our personal energies.
But it goes MUCH deeper than this. Our educational institutions have been "polluted" with Keynesian "idealogues" who have been brainwashed with this nonsense, and subsequently brainwash the next generation of students.
I have learned ALMOST as much macro-economics SINCE I finished my studies as I did DURING 4 years of economics - and I've had to "un-learn" economic theory which never made sense to me, and now can be unequivocally discarded.
That said, what is DIFFERENT about the recent monthly jobs-reports (from other propaganda from the U.S. and other Western governments) is that they are NOT merely statistical exaggerations. You simply could not warp REAL numbers to this degree. What we have here is DELIBERATELY falsified data being fed into the calculations.
On Jun 06 12:12 AM TeaLeaves wrote:
> Mr. Nielson,
> Thanks for your response, but no, I wasn't asking why lying about
> unemployment is important. I understand the use of ideology in maintaining
> political power. Your emphasis on the lies in RECENT months now makes
> me think that you see BLS as supportive of the Obama agenda. Even
> non-partisan bureaucrats may feel political pressure from regimes
> they don't like and lie a bit to please the powers that be. So BLS
> will fudge a little for Bush but go all out for Obama. I wanted to
> know why you think BLS is complicit in the administration's political
> spinning. It's not because they serve the fuhrer whoever he is but
> because they share the Obama agenda, and that accounts for the recent
> escalation in whoppers. That's possible. The State Department under
> Bush seemed to follow a "diplomacy" agenda to the point of undermining
> their boss's policy, so "non-partisan" agencies can have political
> agendas. I just wanted to be clear on whose agenda we are talking
> about. Some of your readers took you to be anti-government-- others,
> anti-Obama.
On Jun 05 09:16 AM nova wrote:
> The government data became bogus a long time ago.
>
> Clinton and Greenscam have made a major "adjustments" to ways inflation
> rates were/are calculated. Later, when gas, food, and medical cost
> went shy-high, we were told about "deflation".
>
> Finally, the latest employments data must incorporate a substantial
> job creation due to the stimulus money flowing into constriction
> and state/municipal sectors. This is good. However, this is built
> on the monopoly-money foundation. It is not any different from keeping
> union jobs at GM or Chrysler.
On Jun 06 12:54 PM pockyclips 2020 wrote:
> If private industry is forced to "right size", when will the government?
>
> When $20 mfg jobs are replaced by $12 ones, Uncle Sam can't continue
> to spend $30 million per to knock off Muslims. Should be closer
> to $0.80 (price of 2 AK-47 rounds).
>
> BTW Obama is more like Bush than most folks on both sides are willing
> to admit.
" You really think Clinton or any other President understands much economics, they know how to please crowds."
Yes, they do. They are not stupid. There is a major difference between national leaders and a pleasers.
Both Bill and Hillary are quite good business people. They are capable of recognizing obvious frauds and lies.
The job-figures BS is absolutely mind-numbing.
It's food for the ignorant and famine for those who can read statistics.
You can choose to dismiss this data out of hand (calling it "absurd") because it doesn't agree with your world view. I would invite you instead to take a look at the data and challenge your own preconceptions.
On Jun 07 10:58 AM grfrank wrote:
> My brother and I have been saying this for months. Last September
> I had to close my business due to the economy, my customers closed
> and went away, so I did too. I can't get unemployment like my two
> employees did. My brother, a contractor can't get enough business
> to keep going. Another contractor friend of mine hasn't gotten any
> new work in three months. How many others are just like us? Where
> do we show up in the BLS numbers? The three of us are looking for
> work with little success. Other contractors I know are getting less
> work and are also in danger of being unemployeed soon. The numbers
> are wrong and don't tell the real story.
The 70-years old history of Soviet socialist state is quite simple:
- It was founded on lies and inhuman brutality. They proudly invented and wildly used concentration and extermination camps and gas-chambers (Nazi were poor imitators). They wildly used poison gases to kill their own peasants and farmers by millions who objected to collective farms.
- Stalin was the major driving force behind the WWII. Remember that Soviets were expelled from "League of Nation" for invading and occupying Finland well before they together with Hitler invaded Poland.
- With the time, the entire Soviet socialist society became so rotten, it stopped functioning anymore.
- As soon as the totalitarian grip was loosened, it collapsed.
Finally about China, it is a communist & socialist totalitarian state with somewhat market economy. Its leaders have Mao-Stalin mentality. This inhuman monster will dominate the 21th century. In my view, Obama and Clinton are not in a league with Chinese leaders.
Bravo for exposing "The Big Lie". Your point, above, in a reply to a commenter, that we are now faced with a new, more massive deception than has ever been foisted on the American public before, is the point that chills me the most.
The propaganda fact I've noticed, which is so obvious as to be almost invisible, is that network TV (as well as NPR) is running pro-Obama and pro-Obama's-cabinet news pieces all the time. No other president or policy agenda has gotten as much attention in a month as Obama and Obama policy gets in a single day, every single day. Somebody should just count all the news seconds devoted to the Obama government machine every day, and compare it to news seconds devoted to previous presidents. That statistic should be stunning. The extent to which there appears to be control of the media is shocking.
When I independently come to a belief that we're being lied to more blatantly than ever before I can dismiss it as my own paranoia, or just an active imagination. But when I read it announced and explained as you have done, it means we really are in for abuse by an illegitimate and tyranical government while also facing a national and global economic collapse.
Watch your 6, Jeff. If I recall Orwell's warnings correctly, Big Brother doesn't like being exposed or criticized.
When HIV/AIDS was first being explored as a public health phenomenon, there was a terrific lobbying influence that resisted identifying it as transmissible by heterosexual contact. As a consequence, when cases were reported to CDC, it was simply not possible to report transmission by heterosexual contact, and heterosexual contacts were scored as "other" or "unknown". Consequently, the government data proved for a number of years that there was no heterosexual transmission risk for HIV. Eventually the data for heterosexual transmission was permitted to be recorded, and HIV heterosexual disease transmission became a public health risk that was permitted to be demonstrated by the data, but it was a lesson to me that government data is fudged to promote political policy agendas.
Question authority, ScottB. Critically examine your assumptions.
On Jun 07 02:01 AM ScottB wrote:
> Mr. Nielson: as a state economist, I have access to the employer
> database which shows monthly employment for every employer in my
> state. I can show you the monthly, quarterly, and annual changes
> in employment at the employer level. I have analyzed this data (which
> is the same data that Mr. Miller refers to above). There are indeed
> large gross swings in employment every month and quarter, which net
> out to a much smaller number. It's surprising to many people at first,
> but then when you think about the millions of employers in this country,
> not all of them tank during a recession or go great guns during an
> expansion. The real world is much more complex.
>
> You can choose to dismiss this data out of hand (calling it "absurd")
> because it doesn't agree with your world view. I would invite you
> instead to take a look at the data and challenge your own preconceptions.
On Jun 07 02:05 AM TeresaE wrote:
> I just have to say, even though I doubt this fool will ever come
> back...
>
> I LOVE it when a Moran makes an ass out of himself.
>
> moron, you idiot, not Moran's
>
> Just who is Moran and why is he so smart that I would want to read
> his website? lol
On Jun 07 03:53 PM maxmus wrote:
> Teresae, I think you is the idoit !
On Jun 05 08:14 AM russ wrote:
> This column is trash. When you make a claim that anyone who disagrees
> is 'either a liar or an idiot', you have identfied yourself as both.
> Thsi column should be part of some loony-bin collection of far-out
> nut cases, not as any serious economic discussion.
That said I am appreciative of the several measured posts as well as the author's highly interactive style.
I know from pretty direct experience that the labor market is pretty dynamic. So when someone dismisses this dynamism out of hand as "absurd", without looking at the data, because it doesn't fit his ideology (as Mr. Nielson does), I think it fits your HIV/AIDS analogy to a T, though not quite the way you meant it.
While we're at it, let's take a look at Mr. Nielson's assertion that we will lose 20 million jobs this year, as opposed to, say, 6 million. He bases it the 600,000 initial unemployment claims filed every week, totals them up, and gets 2.4 million jobs lost every month (on a gross basis). Why aren't continued claims going up by 600,000 every week? Because many people who have been filing claims find another job. Why aren't employers reporting much bigger losses in our monthly employment survey? Maybe because Mr. Nielson's assumptions are wrong. The data simply doesn't back him up, and the only response he has is to cook up a huge conspiracy theory. That doesn't qualify as critical thinking in my book.
On Jun 07 02:17 PM Doc 224899 wrote:
> ScottB, you should be aware that the choice of data collected, and
> the methods chosen for defining and collecting the data, essentially
> determine what the data will demonstrate and can be used to satisfy
> almost any policy agenda.
>
> When HIV/AIDS was first being explored as a public health phenomenon,
> there was a terrific lobbying influence that resisted identifying
> it as transmissible by heterosexual contact. As a consequence, when
> cases were reported to CDC, it was simply not possible to report
> transmission by heterosexual contact, and heterosexual contacts were
> scored as "other" or "unknown". Consequently, the government data
> proved for a number of years that there was no heterosexual transmission
> risk for HIV. Eventually the data for heterosexual transmission was
> permitted to be recorded, and HIV heterosexual disease transmission
> became a public health risk that was permitted to be demonstrated
> by the data, but it was a lesson to me that government data is fudged
> to promote political policy agendas.
>
> Question authority, ScottB. Critically examine your assumptions.
>
So, are you saying that you are now just smelling the coffee?
As ScottB attests, I think the government numbers are sound.
If your arguments were centered on the birth/death model or something that is obviously dubious, then maybe you would deserve some credibility.
But the fact that you didn't even bring it up makes me wonder how much you even understand about the statistics you are writing about.
You may not like the conclusion but I fear it is correct.
America is insane.
How would the following job market tragedy show up in Washington State's way of capturing data?
Say you have 20,000 mid-upper income professionals in the state, and they've been working in brokerage firms and banks, and as upper and middle management in manufacturing firms and import-export companies, car dealers, computer and consumer electronics companies, and in wholesale vendor companies. They've been making, on average, $90,000 to $190,000 a year, and they've all been fired or laid off in the last year. Naturally, there is a disproportinate representation of white males in the list of people who lost their jobs, because everybody else has some sort of claim to protected employment status of one sort or another, but that's a different discussion.
Some of them move, some selling their homes at a loss just to recover some equity, some taking second mortgages to have money for bills. Some leave the state and others move within the state, but all are forced to take lesser jobs. At the same time there is a steady influx of Asian, Arab, Central Asian, and Hispanic immigrants, and they flock to jobs at the bottom of the food chain in convenience stores, fast food, agriculture, cab driving, retail sales, big box stores, etc.
There is approximately the same number of jobs at the end of the year, though the jobs have changed and incomes have dropped, and many life's savings have been obliterated, and retirement plans have be broken beyond repair.
And your Washington State jobs data shows that as what? No significant gain or loss? The data is complex? Give me a break!
You are employed by one of the most delusionally liberal state governments in the country. Is it a deliberate conspiracy? No. Is it the net effect of a thousand little politically correct decisions in the administration of every department in the state government, every day, adding up to the de facto equivalent of a Big Liberal, Neo-Marxist Lie? You bet.
On Jun 07 08:03 PM ScottB wrote:
> Doc 224899-- thanks for your reply. I do examine my assumptions.
> In this case my assumptions are based on the quarterly unemployment
> insurance reports filed by 200,000 or so employers in the state of
> Washington, in which each report states their monthly employment
> for each month in the quarter. I have that data going back to 1990.
> I have analyzed that database, breaking down employment change by
> births, deaths, expansions and contractions. I did a similar analysis
> for the state of Oregon back in the 1980's. The analysis is not complicated
> (outside of predecessor-successor relationships)--you compare employment
> in month A with employment in month B for every employer, and you
> can total up the changes. I'm a middle-class government employee,
> one of many around the country who put this data together. And you're
> telling me I'm part of a conspiracy to fudge the numbers? For what
> I get paid? :)
>
> I know from pretty direct experience that the labor market is pretty
> dynamic. So when someone dismisses this dynamism out of hand as "absurd",
> without looking at the data, because it doesn't fit his ideology
> (as Mr. Nielson does), I think it fits your HIV/AIDS analogy to a
> T, though not quite the way you meant it.
>
> While we're at it, let's take a look at Mr. Nielson's assertion that
> we will lose 20 million jobs this year, as opposed to, say, 6 million.
> He bases it the 600,000 initial unemployment claims filed every week,
> totals them up, and gets 2.4 million jobs lost every month (on a
> gross basis). Why aren't continued claims going up by 600,000 every
> week? Because many people who have been filing claims find another
> job. Why aren't employers reporting much bigger losses in our monthly
> employment survey? Maybe because Mr. Nielson's assumptions are wrong.
> The data simply doesn't back him up, and the only response he has
> is to cook up a huge conspiracy theory. That doesn't qualify as critical
> thinking in my book.
The fact that you unquestioningly accept these numbers - despite being TOTALLY inconsistent with other data (such as the weekly lay-offs report) probably says more about YOUR "world view".
On Jun 07 02:01 AM ScottB wrote:
> Mr. Nielson: as a state economist, I have access to the employer
> database which shows monthly employment for every employer in my
> state. I can show you the monthly, quarterly, and annual changes
> in employment at the employer level. I have analyzed this data (which
> is the same data that Mr. Miller refers to above). There are indeed
> large gross swings in employment every month and quarter, which net
> out to a much smaller number. It's surprising to many people at
> first, but then when you think about the millions of employers in
> this country, not all of them tank during a recession or go great
> guns during an expansion. The real world is much more complex.<br/>
>
> You can choose to dismiss this data out of hand (calling it "absurd")
> because it doesn't agree with your world view. I would invite you
> instead to take a look at the data and challenge your own preconceptions.
Scott, if you had THOROUGHLY read my commentary (and supporting links) you would see it is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE to reconcile government employment figures between 2008 and 2009 (when looking at BOTH weekly-layoffs AND the monthly reports).
With a huge incentive to make the lies MUCH bigger this year than last year, it is merely common sense to attach more weight to 2008 (and 2007) numbers.
This is totally unequivocal. As for those accusing me of lacing substance in this analysis: how much "proof" do you need to supply to prove an obvious, mathematical reality?
On Jun 08 02:17 PM Doc 224899 wrote:
> Nifty riposte, ScottB. I see you're painting inside the lines. Very
> obedient.
>
> How would the following job market tragedy show up in Washington
> State's way of capturing data?
>
> Say you have 20,000 mid-upper income professionals in the state,
> and they've been working in brokerage firms and banks, and as upper
> and middle management in manufacturing firms and import-export companies,
> car dealers, computer and consumer electronics companies, and in
> wholesale vendor companies. They've been making, on average, $90,000
> to $190,000 a year, and they've all been fired or laid off in the
> last year. Naturally, there is a disproportinate representation of
> white males in the list of people who lost their jobs, because everybody
> else has some sort of claim to protected employment status of one
> sort or another, but that's a different discussion.
>
> Some of them move, some selling their homes at a loss just to recover
> some equity, some taking second mortgages to have money for bills.
> Some leave the state and others move within the state, but all are
> forced to take lesser jobs. At the same time there is a steady influx
> of Asian, Arab, Central Asian, and Hispanic immigrants, and they
> flock to jobs at the bottom of the food chain in convenience stores,
> fast food, agriculture, cab driving, retail sales, big box stores,
> etc.
>
> There is approximately the same number of jobs at the end of the
> year, though the jobs have changed and incomes have dropped, and
> many life's savings have been obliterated, and retirement plans have
> be broken beyond repair.
>
> And your Washington State jobs data shows that as what? No significant
> gain or loss? The data is complex? Give me a break!
>
> You are employed by one of the most delusionally liberal state governments
> in the country. Is it a deliberate conspiracy? No. Is it the net
> effect of a thousand little politically correct decisions in the
> administration of every department in the state government, every
> day, adding up to the de facto equivalent of a Big Liberal, Neo-Marxist
> Lie? You bet.
>
> On Jun 07 08:03 PM ScottB wrote:
Apparently Jim Cramer is telling us all to "shut up." Apparently his only point of reason is that the NASDAQ is up 17% year to date, which is the 2nd best start in 10 years!
Pop the champagne - the recession is over! Jim does a superb job of defending his thesis with - well nothing except for the market is up - I suppose it must continue going up then, right?
I am going to go see if I can find some Bear Sterns stock somewhere to invest in...
www.cnbc.com/id/31171491
On Jun 05 12:33 PM Moon Kil Woong wrote:
> Oh how we all wish we could sue the government for economic fraud.
> We'd all be rich.
Yeah, be we'd be paying ourselves. Gpvernment has no revenue but that which it coerces from the people through taxation (even corporate taxes are paid by the consumers of the corporate goods).
So it might be fun, but would be a hollow victory.
HardToLove
But I think you're correct, at least within a certain community.
HTL
On Jun 05 12:34 PM Fred Linn wrote:
> ========"Elcopone, there is a BIG difference between merely "manipulating"
> numbers - as has been done to a steadily greater degree over a period
> of 30 years - and simply INVENTING numbers out of "thin air"."============
>
>
> True. However, there is no difference if a significant majority
> of people simply ignore them.
>
> When numbers and statistics are continuously adjusted, managed, manipulated,
> renamed, redefined, etc. etc.----credability is lost each time.
> This leads to a situation of increasingly greater and greater disparity
> between the statistics and reality. Eventually, the situation
> arrives at the point where the reality and the statistics are so
> glaringly in conflict, any trust and confidence in the statistics
> or other statements is simply dismissed. In order for propaganda
> to be effective, it must be trusted. When trust and audience
> receptiveness are lost, no amount of propaganda can bring it back.
> It is simply becomes a joke.
>
> Like my Dad used to say----"Don't believe anything you hear, and
> only half of what you see."
>
On Jun 05 09:16 AM nova wrote:
><snip>
> Finally, the latest employments data must incorporate a substantial
> job creation due to the stimulus money flowing into constriction
^^^^^^^^^^^
A Freudian slip? Regardless, the 80% of the bill that is non-stimulative is likely constrictive.
HardToLove
This author overstates what is wrong, and attacks anyone with an opposing view in an abusive fashion.
I am a contrarian and usually like to hear opposing views, but not as one sided as this.