unemployment drops to 7.8%

[rwh11385]

Case in point - cuz I back up my points with evidence:

January 21, 2012:

i'll tell you right now our economy is starting to enter a new recession, so you're right that its not a double dip, its a new one on its own

And your view was based upon Hussman's, here:

here's a link if you have an interest to a manager we use

http://hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc120116.htm

this guy is really smart, is apolitical, and just grinds the data

January 16, 2012
We'll respond to new data as it changes, but I expect that the primary window of interest here is about 6-8 weeks. In the event that economic data can produce fairly upbeat readings over that horizon, and the S&P 500 can remain at or about present levels, our estimate of oncoming recession risk would back off fairly quickly. Presently, that outcome would be outside of the norm based on the leading economic measures we track, as well as the overvalued, overbought, overbullish condition of the stock market.

Well, S&P 500 is up 7% over the 12 weeks since this article, so does that mean you doubt double dip now??

And yet, he moved the goalposts and didn't change his tune even if his self-imposed bar was met. Hence, a reason time to stop listening to him.

[rwh11385]

i will answer only for anyone else that happens to be reading and has an interest in the economy and opinions other than yours.

you haven't proved anything, that is the point that hussman is making if you could read.
current economic data is so heavily revised down the road to make any conclusion about the economy and jobs growth based on today's/tommorrow's news meaningless. you really have no idea if there is any job growth at all, or economic growth at all, and won't for many more months.
if you would read the article, which i know you won't, you see that. but you knew that already didn't you? how come you never brought it up in your arguments before? this is econ 101.

What about nando's point or Brave's? You are willing to answer anyone who already agrees with you but not defend your bullshit to the rest of the world? Why do you avoid my questions, besides a clear inability to answer them?


Wait, so let me get this straight. You were stating as a fact that the economy was entering a recession at the beginning of this year based on the current economic data at the time, and followed data like a hawk and focusing (cherry picking) on any data that was marginally less than positive, yet not when data is positive - you are dismissing that economic data is meaningless? You sir are full of it. Why were to so bold to claim you knew for certain the economy outlay previously and now are claiming that all economic data is meaningless? Why do people even pay attention to it, since it is pointless?

I read Hussman's article but the only thing that shone through was that he is progressively choosing to deny data as it goes more against his case. He's moved the goal posts before, saying that if X occurred, his view would change - but alas, he would keep re-affirming his prior conclusion. Just like ECRI. There's a difference between not being certain of the future based on data that can be revised to completely choosing to ignore data as it no longer backs your conclusions. Ironic that you, Hussman, and Achuthan are doing exactly what you and Fusion claim of climate scientists.

[gwb72tii]

i will answer only for anyone else that happens to be reading and has an interest in the economy and opinions other than yours.

you haven't proved anything, that is the point that hussman is making if you could read.
current economic data is so heavily revised down the road to make any conclusion about the economy and jobs growth based on today's/tommorrow's news meaningless. you really have no idea if there is any job growth at all, or economic growth at all, and won't for many more months.
if you would read the article, which i know you won't, you see that. but you knew that already didn't you? how come you never brought it up in your arguments before? this is econ 101.

[rwh11385]

i'm not getting into a tit for tat exchange with you, you're still an arogant pinhead
for anyone else, husmann is a phd economist from stanford. he's a quant, meaning relevant data, not opinion, is what drives his decisions. he's a good read.
he, unlike our in-house economist rwh, knows he can be wrong.

So wait? Your point was proved invalid and you change subjects? Logical points made in response to your post and you return with ad hominem? Typical.

Didn't you say that economics is a black science? What makes Hussman different? The fact that you agree with his conclusion, confirmation bias much?

His decisions are driven by relevant data, even though he is currently dismissing it, as you are - "don't really mean a thing". If data points don't really mean a thing, then what is your or his opinion based upon?

[gwb72tii]

i'm not getting into a tit for tat exchange with you, you're still an arogant pinhead
for anyone else, husmann is a phd economist from stanford. he's a quant, meaning relevant data, not opinion, is what drives his decisions. he's a good read.
he, unlike our in-house economist rwh, knows he can be wrong.

[tjts1]

no, but i expected this response from you. hussman points out what has happened historically, something you know, or should know, also.
this post wasn't for you anyways. it was for anyone who is open enough to consider opinions from other economists, wicked smart people.
and dissing hussman for making money from his opinions is dissing yourself too. too funny. you both get paid for having an opinon. he just makes a lot more than you.

Do you ever go back and read your own shit before hitting the submit button? You really should.

[rwh11385]

no, but i expected this response from you. hussman points out what has happened historically, something you know, or should know, also.
and dissing hussman for making money from his opinions is dissing yourself too. you both get paid for having an opinon. he just makes a lot more than you.

Appeal to Wealth, much?

And no refuting that he is now completely ignoring the data like Achuthan?

Some people are paid for facts and information, not just some subjective opinion. Maybe if you were more familiar with what facts were, you wouldn't have such a hard time using them.

this post wasn't for you anyways. it was for anyone who is open enough to consider opinions from other economists, wicked smart people.

Irony much? You are not open-minded enough to consider data even though you were obsessed with it when it was negative briefly by a tiny amount (ISM's), and then made allegations that a credible agency was in cahoots to falsify jobs data! You have no proof yet want to completely disregard information. Of everyone on R3V, you and jossh are the most closed-minded, biased posters ever. The only sources you consider are those which promote the viewpoint you have assumed yourself.

I considered what Hussman had to say, but he has proven to be much more inclined to promote his view than provide any real analysis. You never answered why you thought a logit regression was a valid indicator of the future economy.

[gwb72tii]

no, but i expected this response from you. hussman points out what has happened historically, something you know, or should know, also.
this post wasn't for you anyways. it was for anyone who is open enough to consider opinions from other economists, wicked smart people.
and dissing hussman for making money from his opinions is dissing yourself too. too funny. you both get paid for having an opinon. he just makes a lot more than you.

[rwh11385]

here's analysis on the economy, and why current data such as ADP job numbers, GDP estimates don't really mean a thing because they get revised so heavily months down the road. pretty good read.

"
In summary, analysts who interpret economic data as a stream of unconnected anecdotes are likely to find recent data encouraging, and will easily dismiss any concern about a U.S. recession on that basis. For our part, the internals of the economic picture – new orders, backlogs, real income growth, and even the employment components of prominent economic surveys – continue to deteriorate. Based on dozens of economic variables and methods that account for leading/lagging relationships (e.g. unobserved components estimates) our view remains that the U.S. economy has already entered a recession. We are certainly open to changing that view in the event that we observe a broad and sustained firming in leading economic measures, particularly those that are broadly based on orders, production, sales and income. But at present, those measures remain generally weak, and their direction remains flat to down (though the bright spot is that they are not collapsing as they did in 2008 ), while the employment-related measures have deteriorated significantly."

http://hussman.com/wmc/wmc121105.htm

Wow, Hussman still calling for a recession... shocker. Regardless of data. Kinda like how his buddy Achuthan at ECRI is still calling for a recession, even if his own metric is heading the other direction. Achuthan has lost his credibility a while ago, holding strong to his position even when the data wasn't there to support it. That's not analysis or using a leading indicator, but pure biased opinion and blind faith. Kinda like your statement of fact that the US was entering a recession Q1 of this year.


Hussman is playing the game of "even if all the numbers aren't in my favor, please keep believing in me". No model or data trend is 100% certain, but the pure ignorance of the data while it is against your view but complete adhesion while it is inline with what you want is purely confirmation bias. And a sign of corrupted logic.

As Brave pointed out like I have before with Hussman, both sources seek to reap profits from those who believe them, so they are not pursuing truth or describing reality as much as wanting to remain relevant and sell some more funds or subscriptions. I mean, what do you think the author of Aftershock wants us all to believe?

[BraveUlysses]

www.hussman.com

you have a wide diversity of sources, I see.

Sources that want to sell you shit are the bestest sources

[nando]

https://www.hussman.com

you have a wide diversity of sources, I see.

[gwb72tii]

for anyone that's interested

here's analysis on the economy, and why current data such as ADP job numbers, GDP estimates don't really mean a thing because they get revised so heavily months down the road. pretty good read.

"
In summary, analysts who interpret economic data as a stream of unconnected anecdotes are likely to find recent data encouraging, and will easily dismiss any concern about a U.S. recession on that basis. For our part, the internals of the economic picture – new orders, backlogs, real income growth, and even the employment components of prominent economic surveys – continue to deteriorate. Based on dozens of economic variables and methods that account for leading/lagging relationships (e.g. unobserved components estimates) our view remains that the U.S. economy has already entered a recession. We are certainly open to changing that view in the event that we observe a broad and sustained firming in leading economic measures, particularly those that are broadly based on orders, production, sales and income. But at present, those measures remain generally weak, and their direction remains flat to down (though the bright spot is that they are not collapsing as they did in 2008 ), while the employment-related measures have deteriorated significantly."

http://hussman.com/wmc/wmc121105.htm

[rwh11385]

I explained September's jobs report and now you want me to explain October's jobs report. Which ticked up to 7.9 unemployment. September's jobs report which has not seen such a huge variance of the two surveys in 29 years. It wasn't just Jack Welch that had a problem with it by the way (as much as you'd like to believe that). Considering we're in a shitty economy it's mathematically impossible. And that's why many people were questioning the numbers from the BLS.
You're welcome to post up all the positive sides of the economy you like. And yes this has everything to do with the economy.
157,000 jobs have been added per month on average this year. Real jobs, full time jobs. That is a very small number compared to what we need to make this economy get out of the hole. In one month 800,000+ part time jobs were created (in September). You don't have to be an economist to see the conflict there as many people other than Jack pointed out.

Where's the source?

You should take October's job report into consideration since there was an employment increase of 410,000, and part time workers fell by 269,000. People are getting real, full-time jobs. This kinda goes against your argument that the numbers were all juiced and bullshit.

But what numbers are bullshit are the ones you are claiming that aren't correct.

Total employment rose by 873,000 in September

Part-time workers were only increased by 582K, not the 800K figure you incorrectly included.

The tick up to 7.9% was "essentially unchanged" and much more a result of more people looking for work this month. The labor force and participation rate increased and not all those new seekers got jobs (even if 71% of them did - 410K employment increase and 578K labor force growth).

Although estimates vary, the economy needs to produce 90,000 to 125,000 jobs per month to match the number of people entering the labor force.

The average could be higher than 157,000 a month, but it still is in the right direction. The BLS didn't create the hole that we are in, the financial crisis did. And that isn't a reason or good rationale why the numbers are bullshit.

Arguing that you don't have to be an economist to make ignorant criticisms of the BLS report is like saying you don't have to be be doctor to know that drinking Acai Berries will cure all what ails you. And basing your opinion on the ignorant opinion of the general public = Argumentum ad populum.

You can keep arguing all you like and claiming I haven't made my point. But as much as you might hate it, I have.

Where did you make your point again? And what even was it?

[joshh]

What were you even trying to type while avoiding the questions? Sorry I hold people to a standard that they ought to back up the bullshit that they claim.

You are the one who started a thread claiming mathematical impossibility and making claims of political magic at hand. Where is your support or proof? Your complaint about the definition of part-time employment doesn't explain the purpose of this thread. It also doesn't determine the nonfarm payrolls you quoted in the first post.

You also have never cared to explain how your claim of inaccurate numbers works in with the October jobs report. Only instead of dealing with that, you changed the subject. And avoided the question multiple times.

I know you want to make claims and ignore reality, then change your arguments in the middle of a thread... but really - you might want to stick to the facts. Then maybe people wouldn't just consider you a tin-foil fool who wants to assume victory when really he's just avoided logic and used circular reasoning to make himself feel better.

This thread isn't about the economy but rather on your claims that the survey was rigged and mathematically impossible.

I explained September's jobs report and now you want me to explain October's jobs report. Which ticked up to 7.9 unemployment. September's jobs report which has not seen such a huge variance of the two surveys in 29 years. It wasn't just Jack Welch that had a problem with it by the way (as much as you'd like to believe that). Considering we're in a shitty economy it's mathematically impossible. And that's why many people were questioning the numbers from the BLS.
You're welcome to post up all the positive sides of the economy you like. And yes this has everything to do with the economy.
157,000 jobs have been added per month on average this year. Real jobs, full time jobs. That is a very small number compared to what we need to make this economy get out of the hole. In one month 800,000+ part time jobs were created (in September). You don't have to be an economist to see the conflict there as many people other than Jack pointed out.

You can keep arguing all you like and claiming I haven't made my point. But as much as you might hate it, I have.

[rwh11385]

So needy.
So again you want to to continue to ram rod the issue while you know I'm correct about the inaccuracy of the numbers.

I see you're still upset that I was correct that the economy is growing at a very slow pace. It's tough man, deal with it. You might want to sit down before you have a heart attack about my obvious spelling error.

What were you even trying to type while avoiding the questions? Sorry I hold people to a standard that they ought to back up the bullshit that they claim.

You are the one who started a thread claiming mathematical impossibility and making claims of political magic at hand. Where is your support or proof? Your complaint about the definition of part-time employment doesn't explain the purpose of this thread. It also doesn't determine the nonfarm payrolls you quoted in the first post.

You also have never cared to explain how your claim of inaccurate numbers works in with the October jobs report. Only instead of dealing with that, you changed the subject. And avoided the question multiple times.

I know you want to make claims and ignore reality, then change your arguments in the middle of a thread... but really - you might want to stick to the facts. Then maybe people wouldn't just consider you a tin-foil fool who wants to assume victory when really he's just avoided logic and used circular reasoning to make himself feel better.

This thread isn't about the economy but rather on your claims that the survey was rigged and mathematically impossible.