The Daily Economic Rag (for Ricter)

Quote from Gabfly1:

You are essentially referring to the Glass-Steagall Act? As I recall, it was Obama who wants regulatory reform, whereas his political opponents, described as Republicans, want little or no regulation. And I didn't think Bernanke and the Fed participated in such legislation.
More...

Obama may claim he wants it, but his Treasury Secretary did an awfully good job at stopping it. As for the Fed, I remember Bernanke testifying that he did not believe that pulling the speculative desks from the banks was the best idea.

Lastly, in regards to regulation, I firmly believe that regulation is necessary for the financial sector. The problem is that the regulation we have currently is worthless - and more so - complicit. SEC? Worthless. FINRA? Hah.
 
Quote from Scataphagos:

Ditto. Should have been Ron Paul in 2010.

Dumbass, greedy American tit-sucking parasites don't care about our future... only care about "getting a check in exchange for their vote"
More...

Uh, did you mean 2008?
 
Quote from achilles28:

Wtf, i could have sworn I saw Bearices name as the original poster?! These all night forex benders are wearing on me. Seriously.
More...

Bearice is very powerful... pretty soon we will all be thinking that he is the OP of all the threads, that way he doesn't have to type so much... Bearice is very smart and powerful.. Bearice can break out of ignore, try it and see, put him on ignore and you will still see his threads
 
Quote from Eight:

Bearice is very powerful... pretty soon we will all be thinking that he is the OP of all the threads, that way he doesn't have to type so much... Bearice is very smart and powerful.. Bearice can break out of ignore, try it and see, put him on ignore and you will still see his threads
More...

lol ahh
 
It's a disaster!!!1!

Or not...

<img src="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2011/06/03/news/economy/may_jobs_report_unemployment/chart-jobs-060311.top.gif">

I'm not saying the news is good, but those guys at zerohedge are handwringers.
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:

Non Farm Payroll Disaster, 54k jobs created WITH the BLS bogus Birth/Death model adding 206,000!

Without the completely fabricated Birth/Death adjustment, the country lost 150,000 jobs.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/birthdeath-adjustment-206000
More...

From what I can tell, the b/d model *estimates* gains and ignores actual losses. During the '08 recession peak, b/d added close to a million jobs when the economy was in free-fall. If I interpret the model correctly, historical b/d 'trends' are applied to current conditions. There's a million reasons why this is counter-factual and ridiculous, but during a steep recession (which was not included in the historical database), the model continues on it's cheery way racking up fictitious job 'gains' while the real economy hemorrhages jobs. Which is what these numbers are doing. Obviously, it's a ploy from the crooks in DC to keep the sheeple happy and calm the market. Honestly, I haven't done enough research on it, but the entire thing is suspect. What's the point of estimating new jobs created using a 10+ year lookback period when you can just wait until the next month for those same jobs to get picked up by the NFP survey? Whats the point in massaging the numbers? Why not just report the actual numbers? If one months business 'deaths' are the next months business 'births' (according to the models assumption), when the numbers are reported raw, the data smooths out itself, except with a 1 month delay in the report of new businesses/jobs created. Sure, it's a delay. But it's far superior to their alternative. The BLS alternative is to look back for 10+ years (a data set that didn't include a severe recession, and even if it did, the averaging of all those years would distort the actual job losses happening in real-time) apply the historical average b/d on the current month and then REVISE that interpolation at year-end (February of each year), which is usually revised downward. Wtf is that? It's total nonsense. Just report the fucking numbers, raw. That solves every concern about crappy modeling and accurate statistics. Maybe somebody wiser than myself can make more sense out of it. Without the *estimated* b/d jobs, we lost ~150K jobs this month. Again.

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesbdhst.htm
http://www.bloomberg.com/insight/birth-death-model.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top