From the WJS;
By DONNA KARDOS YESALAVICH

U.S. stock futures fell after data showed weekly jobless claims unexpectedly rose, hitting the highest level in nearly four months and adding to the concerns surrounding Friday's government's monthly jobs report.
_________________________________________________________________________________

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The number of Americans filing for initial unemployment insurance jumped last week to the highest level in 3 months, the government said Thursday.

There were 479,000 initial jobless claims filed in the week ended July 31, up 19,000 from a upwardly revised 460,000 the previous week, the Labor Department said. The weekly figure is the highest since the week ended April 10, when 480,000 initial claims were filed.

The number of claims was higher than the 455,000 claims expected in a consensus estimate of economists surveyed by Briefing.com.
________________________________________________________________________________
MSNBC BUSINESS;

Claims for jobless aid
post surprise increase
Claims hit their highest level since April, showing that the economy continues to struggle to create jobs. Full story
________________________________________________________________________________

BLOOMBERG
Related News:
U.S. · Economy
Jobless Claims in U.S. Unexpectedly Climb to Three-Month High
By Bob Willis - Aug 5, 2010 7:46 AM CDT
________________________________________________________________________________

ABC NEWS;
Surprise Rise in Jobless Claims Casts Pall on Economy
August 5, 2010
________________________________________________________________________________

Financial Times;
New claims for US jobless benefits jump
By Alan Rappeport in New York
Published: August 5 2010 14:01 | Last updated: August 5 2010 14:01
New claims for jobless benefits jumped more than expected last week, adding to the uncertainty surrounding the labour market ahead of Friday’s closely watched government unemployment report.
________________________________________________________________________________

International Business Times;
Jobless claims an unpleasant surprise ahead of BLS report
________________________________________________________________________________

Barrons;
Stock Futures Drop as Jobless Claims Rise
By Tiernan Ray

This is not what equity markets wanted to see.

Stocks futures have swung negative from positive just a short while ago as the U.S. Department of Labor reports first-time claims for unemployment last week rose by 19,000 to 479,000, which was well above the 455,000 that economists had been projecting.
________________________________________________________________________________

The operative words here are "Unexpected" and "Surprised"

Jesus God, Fuck Me!! I feel like I've been taking Crazy Pills!

At what freeking point does the "unexpected" become the expected. I'm dead serious about this. I swear to fucking God we live in a country where mediocrity, especially in the press, rules supreme .We have gone no less than 18 months now where every God Damn week it is always UN FUCKING EXPECTED!! Well I say Fuck the Labor Department! And Fuck all the "expert fucking economists" and parrots in the media that follow their story line time after time after time. I like how Bloomberg keeps posting in their reports that it is the "estimate of economists surveyed by Bloomberg News" that keep forecasting lower expectations on unemployment figures. I got news for YOU Bloomberg.... Your "economists surveyed" aren't experts or anything fucking close to being "experts". May be after two fucking years of this every goddamn week has it ever dawned on them to replace their "experts"? Fuck No!

This is an insult to our intelligence and indicative to how fucking stupid they think the info. consuming public is as a whole.I could write their stupid ass Thursday AM storyline on unemployment for the next 6 months right now and save them a shit load of money. You would think these services would be embarrassed but hell no! What a bunch of lazy, overpaid and completely worthless morons.

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> What a bunch of lazy, overpaid and completely
> worthless morons.


With the exception of the Anderson Coopers of the world, the overwhelming majority of reporters wouldn't be considered "overpaid." But, I agree, they are all pretty much lazy and worthless morons.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

I agree. I can't stand these 'experts' that couldn't figure out the time that the sun will rise tomorrow. Clearly, economics isn't an exact science, but the problem (in my opinion) is that the economy is in the shitter and if they come right out and admit it, the market is going to have a heart attack. So they paint rosy pictures to make everyone feel good and then when the bad news comes it's all like "WOw...we're totally surprised by that"...

Those talking heads on CNBC or whatever say one thing on Monday and completely do a 180 by Wednesday. I'm surprised everyone isn't in traction from all of the self imposed whiplash.

Just say whatever is convienient for the moment because most people don't pay attention anyway.

__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.

The markets are forward-looking and as such have analysts that try to predict what "forward" looks like. The average of the estimates becomes the expectation, which reality will either beat, meet, or miss. The market adjusts to what the new expectations are. If the jobless claims had gone to zero and the market gained two hundred points on that unexpected news no one would be complaining.

It does take experience to weed through idiots on TV. CNBC is full of permabulls, which is why your news sources for business news should be as diversified as your portfolio.

If you REALLY think they are full of crap, then take the other side of the trade and quit bitching about it, money can be made either way.

McSmack you nailed it - the news parrots what the government says, experts just puff up and toot their horns, it's all a load of total bollocks. I get my news from FFX Underground!

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> McSmack you nailed it - the news parrots what the
> government says, experts just puff up and toot
> their horns, it's all a load of total bollocks. I
> get my news from FFX Underground!


Next weeks job numbers will come in as expected.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Thank you WTL - as always the wise sage on these forums!

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you WTL - as always the wise sage on these
> forums!


You are welcome.

And that's the way it is....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

justsayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The markets are forward-looking and as such have
> analysts that try to predict what "forward" looks
> like. The average of the estimates becomes the
> expectation, which reality will either beat, meet,
> or miss. The market adjusts to what the new
> expectations are.


Just for the record here was there expectations;

"Initial unemployment claims climbed by 19,000 to 479,000 in the week ended July 31, the Labor Department said in its weekly report Thursday. The last time claims were this high was the week of April 10.

The increase defied the expectations of economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires, who had predicted filings would dip by 2,000 to 455,000. The four-week moving average, which aims to smooth volatility in the data, rose by 5,250 to 458,500. New claims for the previous week, ending July 24, were revised up, to 460,000 from the originally reported 457,000."

I understand projection analysis. However my point is "they" are missing, without exaggeration, well over 90 percent of the time. Then they are even more wrong later when the Labor Dept. without fail revises their statistics. They can't even jive their bullshit with a "moving average" in the right direction. Seriously they could flip a fucking coin and be more accurate.
_________________________________________________________________________________

If the jobless claims had gone
> to zero and the market gained two hundred points
> on that unexpected news no one would be
> complaining.

Alright let's say you were senior editor at Bloomberg News and you were paying big bucks to your "experts" and the number comes in at 0 when you just paid them to give you 470K in their expert opinion. You wouldn't have problems publishing that? And if it happened consistently enough at any ratio would you pay money for the publication? If you say yes your're an idiot.
_________________________________________________________________________________

> It does take experience to weed through idiots on
> TV. CNBC is full of permabulls, which is why your
> news sources for business news should be as
> diversified as your portfolio.

I believe that goes without saying but thank you.
______________________________________________________________________________
> If you REALLY think they are full of crap, then
> take the other side of the trade and quit bitching
> about it, money can be made either way.

I know for a fact most of them (as cited above) are full of crap. The Labor department is especially full of crap the way they gather, quantify and post their stupid, fucking meaningless statistics.

As far as taking the other side of the trade? I'm not interested in short selling stock in news agencies and their parent companies ran by retards but thanks anyway. I really don't care. My point is most of these sources are completely useless and for some fucking reason they are the ones that consistently get thrown in our face by what is sold to us as our most prestigious news organizations.

Don't mean to beat a dead horse here but look at the last paragraph concerning data for June;

"The June data was revised down significantly. Payrolls fell 221,000 that month, more than the 125,000 drop previously reported, as only 31,000 jobs were added in the private sector."


Hey look at that! Only 47% off on their forecast ! I will spare everyone the usual profanity laced tirade I would normally go on at this point. I'm in too good of a mood. And what's the use anyway? You would think in the age we live in, what with all our technological wizardry and such, that some dumb bastard could develop a system of acceptable data gathering and formulation which could work just a little better than one with a freeking 50% margin for error.

One more thing before I head for the boat. Another quote from the article;

"The jobless rate, which is calculated using a separate household survey, held steady at 9.5% in July. Economists were expecting it to edge higher to 9.6%."

The way they quantify people that have given up looking for work is very subjective. These "household survey" numbers are no more reliable than any of their other crap. And what a load of crap it is. Lets emphasize one damn tick! 9.5/9.6 .Jesus God please help me! I'll guarantee this will be trumpeted as a possible silver lining by most of the media. Not that it matters but this stat will change within in 30 days being revised up. If they called me this morning I'd tell them that not only have I given up, I'm loading up the SS Minnow and leaving the country!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703309704575412990024153682.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

By LUCA DI LEO and JEFF BATER WSJ

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. economy shed more jobs than expected in July while the unemployment rate held steady at 9.5%, a further sign the economic recovery may be losing momentum.

Nonfarm payrolls fell by 131,000 last month as the rise in private-sector employment was not enough to make up for the government jobs lost, the U.S. Labor Department said Friday. Only 71,000 private-sector jobs were added last month while 143,000 temporary workers on the 2010 census were let go.


Economists polled by Dow Jones Newswires were expecting total nonfarm payrolls to drop by a smaller 60,000 in July.

The June data was revised down significantly. Payrolls fell 221,000 that month, more than the 125,000 drop previously reported, as only 31,000 jobs were added in the private sector.

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't mean to beat a dead horse here but look at
> the last paragraph concerning data for June;
>
> "The June data was revised down significantly.
> Payrolls fell 221,000 that month, more than the
> 125,000 drop previously reported, as only 31,000
> jobs were added in the private sector."
>
>
> Hey look at that! Only 47% off on their forecast
> ! I will spare everyone the usual profanity laced
> tirade I would normally go on at this point. I'm
> in too good of a mood. And what's the use anyway?
> You would think in the age we live in, what with
> all our technological wizardry and such, that some
> dumb bastard could develop a system of acceptable
> data gathering and formulation which could work
> just a little better than one with a freeking 50%
> margin for error.
>


Wonder if this is why Christina Romer resigned late yesterday. Whether or not her resignation was actually tied to the jobs data, the timing seems suspicious.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

to sound off on the obvious,they are cooking their books all across the board,if it were the private sector someone would loose their cpa and or go to jail,it makes one wonder just how bad it really is instead of shoring up confidence.

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As far as taking the other side of the trade? I'm
> not interested in short selling stock in news
> agencies and their parent companies ran by retards
> but thanks anyway. I really don't care. My point
> is most of these sources are completely useless
> and for some fucking reason they are the ones that
> consistently get thrown in our face by what is
> sold to us as our most prestigious news
> organizations.

Not other side of trade in news orgs dummy the other side of the trade of whatever they are arguing for or against. If talking heads say job numbers are going to be up, and you think they are always full of shit, trade based on what benefits when they are wrong. If you think they are wrong all of the time and you are correct, you can make a mint. Otherwise you are as useless as they are, complaining but not putting your money where your beliefs are.

like it is Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> to sound off on the obvious,they are cooking their
> books all across the board,if it were the private
> sector someone would loose their cpa and or go to
> jail,it makes one wonder just how bad it really is
> instead of shoring up confidence.


There have been sufficient instances (like Enron) to put into question how well private CPAs do other then to make the client look good.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

It's the decline of the American empire. China and India are connecting to the wider global economy, we won't disappear but as living standards and everything level off, we'll be hurting since we're currently on top.

So the parties will just take turns until everything settles.

In 1900, it was Russia and America that had the most natural resources and largest populations within their borders. Germany, France, and the UK were able to punch above their weight for several generations due to their colonial empires, but by 1950 it was America and Russia squaring off for world dominance.

So in 2050, it'll be China and India squaring off. I'd rather be India's (the world's largest democracy) poodle than China's.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/06/2010 02:01PM by formerhick76.

I'm going to post this crap every Thursday as these media morons warrant. What a crock of shit. Anyone could do these idiot's jobs. Even Vince.
Not only did the "Analyst's" miss again, they failed to forsee the number rising to a five month high.

WSJ;
The number of U.S. workers making new claims for jobless benefits unexpectedly climbed by 2,000 to 484,000 last week to the highest level in six months.


Bloomberg;
U.S. Jobless Claims Unexpectedly Climb to Five-Month High

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The number of first-time filers for unemployment insurance rose to the highest level since late February last week, according to a weekly government report released Thursday.Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had expected new claims to fall to 465,000.



By CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER
The Associated Press
Thursday, August 12, 2010; 8:48 AM;
First-time claims for jobless benefits edged up by 2,000 to a seasonally adjusted 484,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. Analysts had expected a drop. That's the highest total since February.

By Donna Kardos
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- U.S. stock futures fell Thursday morning as an unexpected rise in U.S. weekly jobless claims and disappointing industrial production in the euro zone added to investors' concerns about the global economy.

(RTTNews) - Adding to recent concerns about the job market, the Labor Department released a report on Thursday showing that first-time claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly saw a modest increase in the week ended August 7th.

By JOYCE M. ROSENBERG (AP) – 56 minutes ago
NEW YORK — Stocks are expected to extend their losses as more disappointing earnings and economic news flows in.
The Labor Department has reported Thursday that the number of people applying for unemployment benefits for the first time rose last week. The gain was small at 2,000, but economists had expected the number to drop.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of U.S. workers filing new claims for unemployment insurance unexpectedly rose to its highest level in close to six months, a fresh signal of a weak jobs market.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2010 09:58AM by mcsmack.

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyone could do these idiot's jobs. Even Vince.
> Not only did the "Analyst's" miss again,

The analyst's what missed? Did you leave a word out? I'm trying to follow your posts because you are so much smarter than those analysts but I want to make sure I'm reading all the words.

Oh and if you are going to post criticisms of analysts on Thursday mornings, please post YOUR predictions (a number please, not something subjective) each Wednesday morning. So each Wednesday morning we should see a post from you giving the change in first-time claims in this thread. Or can you not do that and you are dumber than Vince, as you say?

If these guys can never guess correctly, why are they even employed? Seriously, what's the point of analysts?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

justsayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mcsmack Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Anyone could do these idiot's jobs. Even Vince.
>
> > Not only did the "Analyst's" miss again,
>
> The analyst's what missed? Did you leave a word
> out? I'm trying to follow your posts because you
> are so much smarter than those analysts but I want
> to make sure I'm reading all the words.
>
> Oh and if you are going to post criticisms of
> analysts on Thursday mornings, please post YOUR
> predictions (a number please, not something
> subjective) each Wednesday morning. So each
> Wednesday morning we should see a post from you
> giving the change in first-time claims in this
> thread. Or can you not do that and you are dumber
> than Vince, as you say?

They missed there estimate dumb fuck. And I'll take your challenge. I say next weeks number will be app. 484 thousand. The "surprised experts" missed by 21,000 this week . Lets see if I can beat 'em. Maybe we should start a pool.

Oh and I am smarter than "those analysts" as you say. And I am also smarter than you fuck stick.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2010 11:09AM by mcsmack.

The analysts are smart because they get paid a lot of money for being consistently wrong. That takes some talent to pull that off.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The analysts are smart because they get paid a lot
> of money for being consistently wrong. That takes
> some talent to pull that off.

I know their using an average figure taken from a survey of several of these so called experts but to be 21,000 off? The labor Dept of course revised the numbers for the week before up too. Are they now also more surprised about that?

Why are they even employed?... Exactly!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2010 11:21AM by mcsmack.

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Why are they even employed?... Exactly!


Because if they were unemployed, the jobless rate would unexpectedly rise.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

I read Alan Greenspan's book. You get the impression that economics involves a lot of really smart people coming up with scientific validation for what is essentially reading tea leaves.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

I'm still not sure why they are surprised all the time. Kind of stupid to keep saying it.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They missed there estimate dumb fuck. And I'll
> take your challenge. I say next weeks number will
> be app. 484 thousand. The "surprised experts"
> missed by 21,000 this week . Lets see if I can
> beat 'em. Maybe we should start a pool.
>
> Oh and I am smarter than "those analysts" as you
> say. And I am also smarter than you fuck stick.

Ok, next week first-time jobless claims are unchanged from this week, 484,000. We'll see how you do, good luck.

500,000, looks like you are as much of a dumbfuck as the rest. You got it wrong, "fuckstick." Not so easy is it, "there" estimates?

I took a lot of economics in university and you guys are right - it's treated as a hard science when in reality it's impossible to gauge people. Everything was taught more or less in a vacuum so theory/equations are plausible. But one cannot really create an equation to the behaviour of man with their money (though they do try).

I agree these analysts are consistently wrong and it is interesting to see how McSmack has demonstrated again and again that they continue to use the word "unexpected" and "surprised". How is it that we on the street and everyone else seems to know what's going on except the media hacks and the economic wonks working and spouting this crap of 'unexpected rise in unemployment numbers'...tis strange.

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I took a lot of economics in university and you
> guys are right - it's treated as a hard science
> when in reality it's impossible to gauge people.
> Everything was taught more or less in a vacuum so
> theory/equations are plausible. But one cannot
> really create an equation to the behaviour of man
> with their money (though they do try).
>
> I agree these analysts are consistently wrong and
> it is interesting to see how McSmack has
> demonstrated again and again that they continue to
> use the word "unexpected" and "surprised". How is
> it that we on the street and everyone else seems
> to know what's going on except the media hacks and
> the economic wonks working and spouting this crap
> of 'unexpected rise in unemployment numbers'...tis
> strange.

Here's what the headline should read...


"Unemployment numbers unexpectedly came in as expected by experts."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Britdrnva~ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> it is interesting to see how McSmack has
> demonstrated again and again that they continue to
> use the word "unexpected" and "surprised".

no he said he could do better than them but got pwn3d, the fact that estimates are wrong isn't news or isn't a brilliant observation, that is why it is called an "estimate"

justsayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 500,000, looks like you are as much of a dumbfuck
> as the rest. You got it wrong, "fuckstick." Not
> so easy is it, "there" estimates?


Fuck all you brain dead morons. Pull your fucking calculator out of your ass and lets do some math. The fuck stools I,m talking to are 1)justsayin 2) lolcatz especially lolcatz because of him/ her or himher being terminally mentally retarded'


Experts; 20,000 jobs off ME; 16,000 jobs off a full 20 points better than "the experts"

Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had predicted filings would decline by 4,000.
Initial unemployment claims rose by 12,000 to 500,000 in the week ended Aug. 14, the Labor Department said in its weekly report Thursday. It was the highest level since Nov. 14, when claims stood at 509,000.


I don't know whats more embarrassing, you guy's blatant ignorance on display here, (You all are too brain fucked to be embarrassed so the rest of us are embarrassed for you) or little ol' McSmack here showing up the "experts."


No! I'm sure it's you two guys 1)justsayin 2) lolcatz especially lolcatz who are the tards of the week.

Next weeks number? 486 K According to McSmack your new FFXU ECONOMIC EXPERT



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/19/2010 10:20AM by mcsmack.

The fuck stools I,m talking to are 1)justsayin 2) lolcatz especially lolcatz;



I know being taught in special education classes your entire life they didn't grade you like the normal children but if you had 10% of my brain power you would understand that my unemployment number prediction was 97% correct. That is an A+ ..

So HA!

Lots of posting, lots of words, but still wrong. I challenged you to get the number right, you said you would, you didn't. You said unchanged, but first-time claims went up. The "experts" usually get within a few percent, sitting there and calling them idiots while excusing your own pathetic WRONGness shows you are a first class pussy. Just admit you failed the challenge and move on.

Looks like a tough November for the Dems...
--
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A government report Thursday brought bad news for workers and the economy: The number of unemployed Americans seeking a financial lifeline has reached its highest level in nine months.

Last week, the number of first-time filers for unemployment insurance rose for the third time in a row, to 500,000, according to a Labor Department report released Thursday.
--

A double dip recession is almost inevitable.

justsayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lots of posting, lots of words, but still wrong.
> I challenged you to get the number right, you said
> you would, you didn't. You said unchanged, but
> first-time claims went up. The "experts" usually
> get within a few percent, sitting there and
> calling them idiots while excusing your own
> pathetic WRONGness shows you are a first class
> pussy. Just admit you failed the challenge and
> move on.


Listen you weasley little fucker. Here is what I posted last thursday located on this same page.

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They missed there estimate dumb fuck.[1] And I'll
> take your challenge. I say next weeks number will
> be app. 484 thousand. The "surprised experts"
> missed by 21,000 this week . Lets see if I can
> beat 'em. Maybe we should start a pool.

[1] dumb fuck= justsayin

You're not fooling anyone here . You're too stupid and are at risk of being put on the ignore setting that we of higher intellect are getting ready to set up on this forum. If you want to be taken seriously by the FFXU elites on this forum you had better quit fucking around. You have been duly put on notice.

Now I shall celebrate my well deserved and new found status of being an FFXU economic expert with my 97 percent accuracy rating by heading down to the docks and embarking to ports unknown. Oh and justsayin! ,, Tomorrow I'm picking up my youngest son who's a junior at and his girlfriend......And about six other of their friends....... Two of which are on the U's dance team......Female members of the dance team justsayin! Whats You got planned this weekend justsayin?................ Have a good weekend and talk atcha Monday!

You were wrong, called experts dumbshits, said you would get it right, and you didn't. I laugh at you and your backpedaling!!! LOL!!!1!1!!!!!!!!!!11!!

'justsayin',

why would you ask mcsmack to 'get it right' when the experts DO NOT and are NOT EXPECTED to 'get it right'.

But sadly enough for you, mcsmack DID BEAT the EXPERTS with his GUESStimation, AND THAT SAYS ALOT, which was exactly HIS POINT!

Pay homage to 'mcsmack', our new FU Financial Adviser/Economic Analyst.

.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/19/2010 04:47PM by Troll@AOL.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why would you, 'justsayin', ask mcsmack to 'get it
> right' when the experts DO NOT and are NOT
> EXPECTED to 'get it right'.

Because he said they were dumb and he was smart. He didn't give a nuanced plus or minus number when giving a prediction, that came after the fact. He accepted the challenge I proposed, that's all. Read back through the thread.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/19/2010 04:50PM by justsayin.

But a nuanced + or - number was not requested in advance by YOU!

'justsayin' = + or - FAIL!

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But a nuanced + or - number was not requested in
> advance by YOU!

I know, that's why I didn't expect or accept it, thanks for making the entire point!!





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2010 07:28AM by justsayin.

justsayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Troll@AOL Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why would you, 'justsayin', ask mcsmack to 'get
> it
> > right' when the experts DO NOT and are NOT
> > EXPECTED to 'get it right'.
>
> Because he said they were dumb and he was smart.
> He didn't give a nuanced plus or minus number when
> giving a prediction, that came after the fact. He
> accepted the challenge I proposed, that's all.
> Read back through the thread.
>
> http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/30/vader-f
> ail.jpg


Hope you had a good weekend with your Star Wars action figures and cats ya little booger eater. Again I said;

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They missed there estimate dumb fuck.[1] And I'll
> take your challenge. I say next weeks number will
> be app. 484 thousand. The "surprised experts"
> missed by 21,000 this week . Lets see if I can
> beat 'em. Maybe we should start a pool.

[1] dumb fuck= justsayin

Talk to you Thursday when I beat the experts and will not be surprised again.

Easier to be an "expert" 1) if you change the goalposts after being called out for being wrong, and 2) if you are a childish retard.

justsayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Easier to be an "expert" 1) if you change the
> goalposts after being called out for being wrong,
> and 2) if you are a childish retard.
>

Again.

The fuck stool I,m talking to is 1)justsayin

I know being taught in special education classes your entire life they didn't grade you like the normal children but if you had 10% of my brain power you would understand that my unemployment number prediction was 97% correct. That is an A+ ..

So HA!

At least Locatz was smart enough to stop yammering nonsense unlike you. Try laying off the man gravy for a while stoop! Put down your Star Wars toys, get outside and catch some rays on that pasty white emoish bod of yours. You're gross dude!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/23/2010 11:08AM by mcsmack.

Introducing a 3% margin of error is moving the goalpost. You were WRONG



fuckSmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------
> The fuck stool I,m talking to

You can't even type correctly, or you don't know the difference between a comma and an apostrophe. Only total babies try to change the terms of a bet.

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I say next weeks number will
> be app. 484 thousand.

Wrong again, 473,000. Low-end estimates by the experts was 475,000. You didn't get closer.

Like it or not these numbers are worse than what is ideal. "W" shaped recessions were not all that uncommon between 1969 and 1982. We gorged ourselves on a diet of war and social spending. Add to this, starting off at debt levels that made Keynesian stimulus less possible (and Japan in the 1990s indicates the limits of effectiveness such stimulus can have.)

AHHhhh Thursday morning and it's time for our weekly showdown between the Wall Street economic experts and McSmack.

Last weeks recap;

Re: "Unexpected" Unemployment Numbers Bullshit
Posted by: mcsmack ()
Date: August 19, 2010 10:18AM

Experts; 20,000 jobs off ME; 16,000 jobs off a full 20 points better than "the experts"

Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had predicted filings would decline by 4,000.
Initial unemployment claims rose by 12,000 to 500,000 in the week ended Aug. 14, the Labor Department said in its weekly report Thursday. It was the highest level since Nov. 14, when claims stood at 509,000.
Next weeks number? 486 K According to McSmack your new FFXU ECONOMIC EXPERT
_________________________________________________________________________________

Last week I beat the "Experts by being 96 % accurate with my 484K number against their 94% correct 476K number .

Here is this week;
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703959704575453262066267690.html?mod=WSJ_Markets_LEFTTopNews

Initial unemployment claims declined by 31,000 to 473,000 in the week ended Aug. 21, the Labor Department said in its weekly report Thursday. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had predicted filings would decline by 10,000.
New claims for the previous week, ending August 14, were revised upward to 504,000 from 500,000.

This week is somewhat interesting.

New claims for the previous week, ending August 14, were revised upward to 504,000 from 500,000. This week my 486K gives me a 97 percent accuracy rate for this week. The experts predicted 494K making them 96% correct.

They missed by 21 thousand jobs (appears to be a pretty consistent number) while I only missed by 13K beating them by 8,000 jobs.
A full 35 points over them.

It was closer this week but a Wins a Win. I'll post next weeks number soon.

justsayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mcsmack Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I say next weeks number will
> > be app. 484 thousand.
>
> Wrong again, 473,000. Low-end estimates by the
> experts was 475,000. You didn't get closer.

I'm not interested in making this any more complicated than necessary. However, if you want me to start posting my high end and low end estimates I guess I could. In the interest of full disclosure I minored in economics and too statistics in the 15th grade.. Hated them both.

Their high end this week must have been off quite a bit effecting their average because I still beat them over all and widened the margin on the actual job count.

I'm beginning to wonder if you aren't one of these so called "economic experts" the way you seem to be taking it kind of personal. I'm sure you're having fun like me with this dealio but just in case you're serious here's a clip for ya.

I hope you enjoy it as much as I do;






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/2010 02:54PM by mcsmack.

Okay with ADP's report coming out this morning I'd better get my FFXU expert number in before tomorrow. Here's ADP's if anyones interested.

http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/PDF/FINAL_Release_August_10.pdf

Wow that's some exciting stuff huh?

I'm going to say 478 K with the week before number being revised up

Bloomberg:

Jobless Claims in U.S. Decreased to 472,000 Last Week

Jobless benefits applications were projected to rise to 475,000 from 473,000 initially reported for the prior week, according to the median forecast of 40 economists in a Bloomberg survey. Estimates ranged from 460,000 to 485,000. The Labor Department revised the prior week’s figure up to 478,000.

Initially it looks like they may have beat me this week but not so fast. It is so close we will have to wait until next weeks final revised figure to find out who was closest.

They predicted 475K my number was 478K the BLS # is 472K. If the revised number comes in 5000 higher or better like last week I will have nailed it dead on. We'll see.

Their revision for last weeks number made my accuracy rate jump from 97% to 98%.

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They predicted 475K my number was 478K the BLS #
> is 472K. If the revised number comes in 5000
> higher or better like last week I will have nailed
> it dead on. We'll see.

We "saw" and the number is 472k. Again you have not beaten the "experts". They were 3k off and you were 6k off. You doubled their error this week, congratulations. Will you finally admit their job is an estimation action that is by definition inexact, and that despite your beating them up and claiming you can do better that you in fact cannot? Or will you just move the goalposts again?


> What a crock of shit. Anyone could do these idiot's jobs. Even Vince.

> Oh and I am smarter than "those analysts" as you say.

> Talk to you Thursday when I beat the experts and will not be surprised again.

----------------------------------------

"She looks pretty good for 12, admit it." - WingNut, 04/24/2012

"I'm racist too. So what?" - Ellipsis 9/16/2011

"If you only knew who I was, and what I was working to do you would...have the decency to tell me I hated my nation and the way of life. I may not agree with...the government...I hate the "government"......" - Firrat 9/1/10

"there seems to be a queer...why? To try and further demean a defeated... dumb Tea party... I think we need more... far left folks on a regular basis - Louis Farakhan, Jesse Jackson...Al Sharpton" - Registered Voter, 8/19/2011

"If your computer is running slow, or you have any other problems, email me at with the problem and i am willing to fix it, for a price of course" - Taylor, spamming FFU on 04/12/2006. "N****rs as slaves again? I think so..." - Taylor, 09/20/2009

justsayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mcsmack Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They predicted 475K my number was 478K the BLS
> #
> > is 472K. If the revised number comes in 5000
> > higher or better like last week I will have
> nailed
> > it dead on. We'll see.
>
> We "saw" and the number is 472k. Again you have
> not beaten the "experts". They were 3k off and
> you were 6k off. You doubled their error this
> week, congratulations. Will you finally admit
> their job is an estimation action that is by
> definition inexact, and that despite your beating
> them up and claiming you can do better that you in
> fact cannot? Or will you just move the goalposts
> again?
>
>
> > What a crock of shit. Anyone could do these
> idiot's jobs. Even Vince.
>
> > Oh and I am smarter than "those analysts" as you
> say.
>
> > Talk to you Thursday when I beat the experts and
> will not be surprised again.

What will you say next week when the BLS number for this week is revised up 6000 jobs (correcting their mistake) giving me a statistical bulls eye my friend?

And I have beaten "the experts" and not lost yet. Factoring BLS revisions is precision work as 6,000 jobs out of 472,000 jobs is a 1 percent margin. It counts because it is their correction, not mine. The thing is it just makes my number more accurate like happened the week before. I know that you know that I'm right. I am so smart it will take you a week to figure out just how smart I am. But it will happen. I can't help it that I know now what you and "the experts"won't know until next week.

I also know you're smart enough to understand all this and most likely you are just trying to trigger one of my famous beat downs on you. Not happening partner.

Happy Labor Day, McSmack

This weeks unemployment expectations (for last week) 465K with last weeks number for the week before being revised up 6000 to 478K giving me a direct strike.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2010 08:52AM by mcsmack.

"Initial jobless claims dropped by 27,000 to 451,000 in the week ended Sept. 4, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington."

You are trending the wrong way! Oops! Just sayin!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-09/jobless-claims-in-u-s-decreased-27-000-to-451-000-last-week.html

Jobless benefits applications were projected to fall to 470,000 from a previously reported 472,000 for the prior week, according to the median forecast of 46 economists in a Bloomberg News survey. Estimates ranged from 460,000 to 482,000. The Labor Department revised the prior week’s figure to 478,000.

I am a freeking genius! nailed it last week with the BLS number being adjusted to exactly the level I predicted. How bout that Justsayin'? The last several posts on this thread are priceless.

Now this week is really interesting. I still beat them at 465K but appear to be 14,000 jobs off the BLS figure of 451,000...... Not so fast

For the latest reporting week, nine states didn’t file claims data to the Labor Department in Washington because of the federal holiday earlier this week, a Labor Department official told reporters. As a result, California and Virginia estimated their figures and the U.S. government estimated the other seven, the official said.

Because of these nine states non-reporting next weeks revision will be in the double figure range or should be giving me a real good chance on hitting it close again.

But again justsayin'.......What were you sayin'? McSmacks clair freeking voyant?!! No justsayin it's not magic. It is the fact that I'm soooo much more intelligent than average folk like you it's ridiculous.

justsayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Initial jobless claims dropped by 27,000 to
> 451,000 in the week ended Sept. 4, Labor
> Department figures showed today in Washington."
>
> You are trending the wrong way! Oops! Just
> sayin!


Still beat them and read above about the nine states not reporting for last week.

I'll guarantee you when the Labor Dept gets their shit together next week I'll be scary close to being dead on. They could save themselves a lot of money along with all these financial reporting services if they would just pick up the phone and call me.

But the big news is me nailing last weeks number dead on at 478K. Sniff my jock justsayin.........sniff my jock!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2010 09:17AM by mcsmack.

I could save the tax payer a butt load of cash too. Look at all the time they spent making sure last weeks number was correct and adjusting for that. They could have just payed me 50gr and I'd have given them the number last week and they would have been 100% right all along.

justsayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Initial jobless claims dropped by 27,000 to
> 451,000 in the week ended Sept. 4, Labor
> Department figures showed today in Washington."
>
> You are trending the wrong way! Oops! Just
> sayin!

Don't mean to rub your nose in it but I am.

Just a review from a previous couple of posts.

Re: "Unexpected" Unemployment Numbers Bullshit
Posted by: mcsmack ()
Date: September 03, 2010 10:48AM

justsayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mcsmack Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > They predicted 475K my number was 478K the BLS
> #
> > is 472K. If the revised number comes in 5000
> > higher or better like last week I will have
> nailed
> > it dead on. We'll see.
>
> We "saw" and the number is 472k. Again you have
> not beaten the "experts". They were 3k off and
> you were 6k off. You doubled their error this
> week, congratulations. Will you finally admit
> their job is an estimation action that is by
> definition inexact, and that despite your beating
> them up and claiming you can do better that you in
> fact cannot? Or will you just move the goalposts
> again?
>
>
> > What a crock of shit. Anyone could do these
> idiot's jobs. Even Vince.
>
> > Oh and I am smarter than "those analysts" as you
> say.
>
> > Talk to you Thursday when I beat the experts and
> will not be surprised again.

What will you say next week when the BLS number for this week is revised up 6000 jobs (correcting their mistake) giving me a statistical bulls eye my friend?

And I have beaten "the experts" and not lost yet. Factoring BLS revisions is precision work as 6,000 jobs out of 472,000 jobs is a 1 percent margin. It counts because it is their correction, not mine. The thing is it just makes my number more accurate like happened the week before. I know that you know that I'm right. I am so smart it will take you a week to figure out just how smart I am. But it will happen. I can't help it that I know now what you and "the experts"won't know until next week.

I also know you're smart enough to understand all this and most likely you are just trying to trigger one of my famous beat downs on you. Not happening partner.

Happy Labor Day, McSmack


Your mysteriously silent justsayin.

Nine States Did Not File Initial Claims Data Due To Labor Day, Hundreds Of Thousands Of Estimates In Data "Beat"
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/09/2010 08:16 -0500

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics Illinois Michigan Oklahoma

The BLS has announced that as a result of the Labor Day weekend, 9 states (among which the biggest one California) did not report initial claims data to the bean counters, so instead the government had to "estimate" what the data would have been: yep, estimate, what the data was in these nine states. From Bloomberg: "For the latest reporting week, nine states didn’t file claims data to the Labor Department in Washington because of the Labor Day holiday earlier this week, a department official told reporters. California and Virginia estimated their figures and the U.S. government estimated the other seven." Official data is now made up on the fly. This US economic data reporting has just entered the twilight zone. Also, when the data is officially made up, it is not that difficult to get data that is "better than expected." The full list of states is: DC, Illinois, Idaho, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Michigan, and Washington. California and Virginia estimated themselves.

5

Just barely getting the numbers in here at the last minute. This may be my last week. I've beat "the experts every week since I started posting my "expert" analysis. Two weeks ago I nailed it dead on after the initial BLS number was fixed.

This weeks number 461 K with last weeks number revised up 12,000 to 463K.

McSmack wrote:
"This may be my last week." Your last week of what?

I think you should bill yourself as an economic expert, you clearly see the "unexpected" trend and are able to extrapolate data to a fairly accurate forecast tis kind of funny.

I am "silent" because repeating myself was getting tiresome and a waste of time.

Wrong again this week by the way.

Drop to 450,000 this week, claims for last week were revised up by 2,000 to 453,000. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg had expected a slight rise to 459,000. Your numbers (461k this week, 463k revised last week) again fall outside of analyst estimates, they were closer than you. At least they had the 45 handle right, as opposed to your 46 handle.

If I have money to put down based on your estimated vs theirs, I'm going with theirs thank you. It is abundantly clear they get it closer.

'justsayin' wrote:
> "They get it closer."


Doesn't something sound wrong
about that statement to you?


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

justsayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am "silent" because repeating myself was getting
> tiresome and a waste of time.
>
> Wrong again this week by the way.
>
> Drop to 450,000 this week, claims for last week
> were revised up by 2,000 to 453,000. Economists
> surveyed by Bloomberg had expected a slight rise
> to 459,000. Your numbers (461k this week, 463k
> revised last week) again fall outside of analyst
> estimates, they were closer than you. At least
> they had the 45 handle right, as opposed to your
> 46 handle.

>
> If I have money to put down based on your
> estimated vs theirs, I'm going with theirs thank
> you. It is abundantly clear they get it closer.


It is abundantly clear you don't no Didley. 2 weeks ago my prediction came dead on the BLS number. Last week I beat them. As a matter of fact this week may be the only time out of 5 my numbers won't jive with the BLS. My accuracy rate has exponentially outpaced theirs over time as I have proven here and you know it.

The last 2 weeks have been a cluster fuck at the BOL processing unemployment stats. Nine states did not report Labor Day weekly stats because of the holiday. For that week the revision was only up 3000 jobs? Give me a break. Their four week rolling average is going to be all over the place the next few weeks. Crazier than normal as demonstrated by this weeks release;

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE WEEKLY CLAIMS REPORT
SEASONALLY ADJUSTED DATA

In the week ending Sept. 11, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 450,000, a decrease of 3,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 453,000. The 4-week moving average was 464,750, a decrease of 13,500 from the previous week's revised average of 478,250. This put my weekly est.of 465K just 250 off hitting their moving average.

Trying to guess how fucked up their numbers are going to be is an art in itself. I said a long time ago on a different thread private data processing companies like ADP are much more accurate then the BLS.ADP (Advanced Data Processing) uses a measure of employment derived from an anonymous subset of roughly 500,000 U.S. business clients. They have a much better feel for impending layoff figures then the BLS.

It seems you almost have to factor in a political bias in BLS data. They just call people up and ask them if they are discouraged enough to have given up seeking employment then quantify a number to drop from the rolls. I think it would be a good idea for the BLS to outsource its data processing on employment to ADP and lay off all their statisticians saving us all an ass load of money in the process..

Anyway the experts have appeared to have beaten me this week by 1000 jobs and at this point I would need an upward revision of 11000 or more to beat them even though I'm closer to their rolling average. It won't happen with pressure being put on the BLS by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis to skew the numbers down before the midterm election. BLS unemployment stats are unreliable and will decrease from now until Nov. The Republicans will win congress and the BLS will then start raising the rate back up and blaming Republicans as the cause. It will not make any sense to those of us who know economics but there are plenty of idiots out there that will want to believe it to be the case.

Look for these headlines in Oct., MIRACLE DROP IN UNEMPLOYMENT!!!! This will be the Oct. surprise.

MIRACLE DROP IN UNEMPLOYMENT!!!! Obama will read the teleprompter stating, "see I told you so. Thats why we need to stay the course Americans"!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2010 10:57AM by mcsmack.

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you don't no Didley

I rest my case.

justsayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mcsmack Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > you don't no Didley
>
> I rest my case.


The problem is justsayin, people here know how to read. Two things are certain.

1) You're full of crap on this topic

2) The only case you have is mental

justsayin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> mcsmack Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > you don't no Didley
>
> I rest my case.

Seriously, you have mcsmack who sits here and prognosticates with probably much less access to information than the BLS folks, and yet his numbers are significantly little different than theirs. It makes you wonder how many people work at BLS to produce these numbers, and what methods they use. This is yet another case of too many people working for the Fed that have their heads up their asses and get paid too much to produce very little in real results.

In all seriousness, you have your head up your ass if you don't think there is a problem here when the Fed does such a shitty job.

I mean, I'm just sayin...

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

I side with McSmack too, he's just some random guy looking at information as Reg Voter noted and he's quite accurate overall. I think it's actually fairly bemusing for much the same reasons as RV...there are people that spend all week pouring over information to get to a number and McSmack can do it in <5minutes.

This week I think we'll see the BLS figure decrease another 3000 jobs staying at about 453K after being adjusted up 3000 for last week.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2010 08:39AM by mcsmack.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In all seriousness, you have your head up your ass
> if you don't think there is a problem here when
> the Fed does such a shitty job.

You'll not find a post from me disagreeing with that.

I agree McSmack gets close, but we were running a challenge I proposed and he took to see if he could beat them and he doesn't. No biggie, nothing personal. My point from the beginning are these are estimates and if anyone wants to step up with the exact number go ahead. So far no successful takers. But just because I'm not posting "wrong again" every week doesn't mean anything... I have already demonstrated my point and there isn't really a need to keep repeating it.

You saying he is wrong, makes him right.
Both parties are wrong.
The 'experts' can't be anymore right than
Mcsmack because they are wrong.

So the fact that Mcsmacky can foolishly emulate
the experts, means they are full of shit.

Just like you Justsayin.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Initial jobless claims in the U.S. rose above expectations during the week ended September 18, in line with the Federal Reserve's downbeat outlook on the employment scene in the country.

According to data released by the Department of Labor on Thursday, applications for unemployment benefits rose by 12,000 to hit 465,000 during the last week, suggesting job market recovery is coming under increased pressure.


View Full Image
REUTERS
People wait in line to enter the UJA-Federation of New York's Connect to Care job fair in New York, in this March 2, 2010 file photograph.


According to analysts who took part in a Reuters survey, applications for jobless claims were to stay at 450,000, unchanged from the previous week.


A revised estimate on Thursday shows last week's initial jobless claims stood at 453,000.

The 4-week moving average of weekly jobless claims was 463,250, a decrease of 3,250 from the previous week's revised average of 466,500.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2010 11:08AM by mcsmack.

So you mean to tell me that the unemployment rate goes up, then down, then up, then down?

FUCKING MIRACLES.

EDIT: Wait, next you'll be telling me that the economy gets better, then worse, then better, then worse, on a regular basis.

Save it. I can only handle so much malarky in one day.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2010 12:53PM by MrMephisto.

Mr Mefeasfo wrote:
> "Save it. I can only handle so much malarky in one day."

We underdstand Mr. Mephisto, that's why we ask that you keep your
malarky contained to that post and ask that you please NOT contribute
any more of your mindless insanity-DIARRHEA to the thread.

SEE THE RAINBOW ABOVE?

Focus on it, and draw in it's power. Harness the energy within the
rainbow Mephisto, harness it's infinite power so that you may have
controll over your energy field and NOT ACT LIKE SUCH A FAG.

.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Pro-Obama media always shocked by bad economic news
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/05/pro-obama-media-always-shocked-bad-economic-news
Unexpectedly!

As megablogger Glenn Reynolds, aka Instapundit, has noted with amusement, the word "unexpectedly" or variants thereon keep cropping up in mainstream media stories about the economy.

"New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly climbed," reported CNBC.com May 25.

"Personal consumption fell," Business Insider reported the same day, "when it was expected to rise."

"Durable goods declined 3.6 percent last month," Reuters reported May 25, "worse than economists' expectations."

"Previously owned home sales unexpectedly fall," headlined Bloomberg News May 19.

"U.S. home construction fell unexpectedly in April," wrote the Wall Street Journal May 18.

Those examples are all from the last two weeks. Reynolds has been linking to similar items since October 2009.

Mainstream media may finally be catching up. "The latest economic numbers have not been good," David Leonhardt wrote in the May 26 New York Times. "Another report showed that economic growth at the start of the year was no faster than the Commerce Department initially reported -- 'a real surprise,' said Ian Shepherdson of High Frequency Economics."

Which raises some questions. As Instapundit reader Gordon Stewart, quoted by Reynolds on May 17, put it, "How many times in a row can something happen unexpectedly before the experts start to, you know, expect it? At some point, shouldn't they be required to state the foundation for their expectations?"

One answer is that many in the mainstream media have been cheerleading for Barack Obama. They and he both naturally hope for a strong economic recovery. After all, Obama can't keep blaming the economic doldrums on George W. Bush forever.

I'm confident that any comparison of economic coverage in the Bush years and the coverage now would show far fewer variants of the word "unexpectedly" in stories suggesting economic doldrums.

It's obviously going to be hard to achieve the unacknowledged goal of many mainstream journalists -- the president's re-election -- if the economic slump continues. So they characterize economic setbacks as unexpected, with the implication that there's still every reason to believe that, in Herbert Hoover's phrase, prosperity is just around the corner....


http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/05/unexpectedly-again
Unexpectedly! Again!

“Unexpectedly,” as I noted in my Sunday Examiner column, is a word that often appears in mainstream media accounts of negative economic developments. Or “unexpected” or even “a real surprise.” Glenn Reynolds, the eagle-eyed Instapundit, has spotted yet another example. “Consumer confidence falls unexpectedly in May,” is yahoo.com’s headline on an Associated Press story whose second paragraph reads: “The Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index fell to 60.8 from a revised 66 in April, a sign of the toll that high gas prices, a choppy job outlook and a moribund housing market are taking on people’s psyches. Economists had expected an increase to 67. It was the lowest reading since November.”

Let’s unpack that a little. “the toll that [gas prices, etc.] are taking on people’s psyches.” Only on their psyches? The way I read it, the toll is being taken on their pocketbooks, their economic position, their net worth—phrase it any way you want, but the damage from high gas prices, low hiring and housing price doldrums is concrete and economic, not airy and “psychic.” People aren’t just being spooked; their responding to realities. And who, by the way, are the “economists” who had expected consumer confidence to rise? Perhaps the Associated Press writers could do a little investigation here and tell us who the economists are who keep getting things wrong. Or will they be content to keep characterizing negative economic trends as “unexpected”?

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2011 02:30PM by Registered Voter.

Any economist that actually thinks the recession is over shouldn't be allowed to call themselves an economist,,,the stock market is not a true measure of the economic well-being of this country,,,

Every other major indicator points to a recession, jobs, wages , housing, inflation, weak dollar(resulting in higher gas prices etc),,,,

The gov't will never admit how bad things are because no one wants to take the blame. If the recession WAS over,those fuckers would be lined up around the block trying to take credit for it,,,
Attachments:

THX RV.

Just out this morning and the hits just keep coming.

May 2011 ADP National Employment Report:

http://www.adpemploymentreport.com/pdf/FINAL_Report_May_11.pdf

This is why we should shut down all operations at the Labor Department dealing with economic data processing including employment.

ADP Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (NASDAQ: ADP) is a global provider of integrated computing and business outsourcing. ADP has nearly $9 billion in revenues and approximately 570,000 clients. This private sector company consistently publishes information much more accurately than BLS does.

An example from this months report.

"A deceleration in employment, while disappointing, is not entirely surprising. In the first
quarter, GDP grew at only a 1.8% rate and only about 2¼% over the last four quarters. This is
below most economists’ estimate of the economy’s potential growth rate and normally would be
associated with very weak growth of employment."

Notice they're "Not surprised" at ADP. Of course with 570K payroll clients they have enough boots on the ground to effectively quantify accurate data. No "household surveys" here.

ISM numbers just released on manufacturing are not encouraging either.
PMI 53.5 60.4 -6.9 Growing Slower 22

As of now we can kiss 2nd quarter growth in GDP goodbye.

Currently their is no plan in place to pull the economy out of its stall. Green technology ie battery factories for the Volt and wind mills is not effective economic policy.

We need bold action right now to stimulate our economy. Otherwise we have a strong start on a lost decade.

We just need the 3rd prong of our Boom and Bust cycle.

(1) Dot com boom & bust: complete.
(2) Real estate boom & bust: complete.
(3) Where is my next boom damn it??? I'll take the bust with the boom, fine!

I have no regrets over the first 2 booms. What a great 10 years to be living in this great country! If you're smart, you'll come out ahead even after the bust.

Greenspan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We just need the 3rd prong of our Boom and Bust
> cycle.
>
> (1) Dot com boom & bust: complete.
> (2) Real estate boom & bust: complete.
> (3) Where is my next boom damn it??? I'll take
> the bust with the boom, fine!
>
> I have no regrets over the first 2 booms. What a
> great 10 years to be living in this great country!
> If you're smart, you'll come out ahead even after
> the bust.


ETFs

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Interesting data from April.....

The Employment Situation - April 2011
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of Americans filing new claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week, according to a report on Thursday that could reinforce fears the labor market recovery has stalled.

Initial claims for state jobless benefits increased 1,000 to 427,000, the Labor Department said. However, economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims dropping to 415,000 from a previously reported count of 422,000.

If McDonalds didn't hire 60,000 workers in May, you would have seen (-) in the employment numbers,,,

mcsmack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of Americans
> filing new claims for unemployment benefits
> unexpectedly rose last week, according to a report
> on Thursday that could reinforce fears the labor
> market recovery has stalled.
>
> Initial claims for state jobless benefits
> increased 1,000 to 427,000, the Labor Department
> said. However, economists polled by Reuters had
> forecast claims dropping to 415,000 from a
> previously reported count of 422,000.


Yet another look at the latest data out of Bureau of Labor Statistics... once again, WTL gets his ass handed to him. The dude would be better of just keeping his mouth shut.
Attachments:

Another 'unexpected' number: 18,000 jobs

9.2% unemploymnet

The dreadful unemployment report

Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. in New York, said he was “stunned” by today’s U.S. employment report.

He wasn’t the only one.

Not a single economist among 85 surveyed by Bloomberg News correctly forecast the 18,000 increase in payrolls in June reported by the Labor Department. Estimates ranged from a low of 60,000 to a high of 175,000. The median was 105,000 -- almost six times the actual number.

“When I’m wrong, I usually go down in flames and this time my forecast crashed and burned,” Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors Inc. in Holland, Pennsylvania, said in a note to clients. Naroff, who wasn’t among the economists surveyed by Bloomberg, declined to give his forecast.

How did economists get it so wrong?



http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2011/07/08/quick-take-on-the-dreadful-unemployment-report/

I like how CNN reported this morning that the BLS 428K number was "slightly more than anticipated by the experts". I can't remember the name of the info babe that read it off the teleprompter but how funny.

Let's see.... The "experts" were predicting a 7 thousand job drop from a revised 417K down to 410K. Instead the BLS released jobs loss at 428K.

Now factor in that on average they have been revising figures week to week up by 3500 and their more accurate number this week is closer to 431,500 jobs.

21,500 jobs lost and that is only "slightly more" than experts predicted?

Not only did it not drop to 410K from 417K, by next week they will show a rise to 431.5K!